HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Packet; 01-9-17
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 747-3900
www.lakeelmo.org
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday January 9, 2017 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. December 12, 2016
4. Public Hearings
a. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AND MINOR SUBDIVISION: A request by
John J. Zignego for a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property located at
3880 Laverne Ave N from GB – General Business District to VMX – Village
Mixed Use. PID #13.029.21.22.0010.
b. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: A zoning text amendment amending the City’s
Shoreland Management Overlay District Ordinance, Section 154.800 of the
Zoning Code.
c. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMANEMDNT: Consideration of a comprehensive
wastewater plan amendment to guide properties from Public/Park to a new land
use to be called Golf Course Community and amending the MUSA to allow the
area to be served by municipal services; properties bound by 20th Street N, Lake
Elmo Avenue, and 10th Street N and bordering West Lakeland Township with the
property ID’s 25.029.21.12.0001, 25.029.21.14.0001, 25.029.21.21.0001,
25.029.21.31.0001, 25.029.21.42.0001, 25.029.21.43.0001, 25.029.21.43.0002
and 25.029.21.44.0001.
d. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: A request by HC Golf Course Development,
LLC for a zoning text amendment, creating a Golf Course Community Zoning
District.
5. Business Items
a. VILLAGE PARKWAY – VMX ZONING DISCUSSION – The Planning
Commission will have a discussion about the Village Parkway VMX Zoning.
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates – December 20, 2016
i. Boulder Ponds 2nd addition Final Plat and PUD extension – passed.
ii. Village Area AUAR – passed.
iii. Diedrich Property zoning map amendment – passed.
iv. Comprehensive Plan to meet population targets and growth plans –
forwarded to Planning Commission.
2
v. Moratorium ordinance – repealed.
vi. Low impact development standards – referred to Planning Commission.
vii. Noise Ordinance – failed.
b. City Council Updateds – January 3, 2017
i. Hammes Estates 2nd Addition Final Plat – passed.
ii. Planning Commission appointments of Gary Fields and Dale Dorschner
c. Staff Updates
i. Upcoming Meetings:
January 23, 2017
February 13, 2017
d. Commission Concerns
7. Adjourn
***Note: Every effort will be made to accommodate person or persons that need special
considerations to attend this meeting due to a health condition or disability. Please contact the
Lake Elmo City Clerk if you are in need of special accommodations.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-12-16
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of December 12, 2016
Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Kreimer, Dunn, Griffin, Dodson, Williams, Larson, Fields and
Lundquist
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Haggard
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman
Approve Agenda:
Williams asked to add 5b, a discussion of the Golf Course Community. Wensman asked
to add a discussion of the Village Parkway as 5c.
M/S/P: Williams/Dunn, move to approve the agenda as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion
carried.
Approve Minutes: November 28, 2016
M/S/P: Williams/Fields, move to approve the November 28, 2016 minutes as amended,
Vote: 4-0, motion carried with kreimer, Griffin and Dunn not voting as they were not
present.
Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment – rezone the property known as Diedrich
Preliminary Plat
Wensman started his presentation by stating that this is a public hearing for a zoning
map amendment for the Diedrich property. It is guided medium density residential, but
is currently zoned as rural transitional. The preliminary plat was approved under the
MDR land use category, but the rezoning was not done with the preliminary plat.
Dodson asked if there was a proposed development. Wensman stated that there is an
approved preliminary plat and the property owners are looking for a developer to
proceed with the project. There are conditions that would need to be met before the
project can final plat, but it is important that the other half of 5 th street be built.
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-12-16
Williams asked if in the future the rezoning and preliminary plat would be done at the
same time. Wensman stated that they would either be done at the same time, or the
rezoning might be done first.
Dunn asked if the density for this development is double what it is for Hunter’s Crossing.
Wensman stated that Hunter’s Crossing is LDR, so it would be about 3 units per acre and
this development would be about 4 units per acre.
Public Hearing opened at 7:10 pm
No one spoke and there were no written comments
Public Hearing closed at 7:10 pm
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to recommend approval of the Zoning Map
Amendment to rezone the Diedrich Property Preliminary Plat, PID #36.029.21.32.0002
from Rural Development Transitional to Urban Medium Density Residential and PID
#36.029.21.32.0034 from Urban Low Density Residential to Medium Urban Density
Residential, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Business Item – Hammes II – Final Plat
Wensman started his presentation for Hammes Estates 2nd addition Final Plat. There
are 37 single family homes for this addition accessed off of Keats Ave. This is the piece
that will provide the connection to Savona which was required with the 50th lot of the
development. Wensman went through the specifics of the Final Plat and stated that it is
consistent with the preliminary plat. There are some construction plan details that need
to be updated. These will need to be updated prior to recording the plat. The
Preliminary Plat conditions have been reviewed and they are working to meet all of the
conditions. Staff is recommending 10 conditions of approval for with the Final Plat.
Wensman went through the draft findings and is recommending approval with the 10
conditions in the staff report.
Dodson asked about construction traffic. Wensman stated that it would access off of
Keats.
Dunn asked about the wetland buffers and why they are so lenient. Wensman stated
that this development was allowed to move forward with some of those wetland
buffers in the lot, which should not be. Once it is part of the lot, there is not a lot of
control as to what the owner does and the buffer is not always maintained. Moving
forward, the City will ensure that the wetland buffers are outside of private lots.
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-12-16
Griffin asked if there is currently a grading permit. Wensman stated that they are
waiting for an as-built grading plan. They will be grading with their development
agreement.
Williams asked if the phasing should be added to the subdivision ordinance. Wensman
stated that it is being addressed in the development agreement and doesn’t feel t hat it
needs to be addressed by the Planning Commission.
David Stradtman, Rachel Development, went through some of the things that they had
to deal with when they picked up the development. Stradtman stated that the second
phase will move along a lot more smoothly and the second phase is to get ahead of
things. MI Homes is going to purchase all of the home sites in second addition.
Dunn asked what the threshold would be for a traffic light on Keats Ave. Wensman
stated that this plat had County review and they did not feel it warranted a traffic light
at this time.
Williams would like to see some language of the wetland buffer protection mentioned in
the HOA agreement and possibly monument signs in the lot. This should be added to
condition number 4.
Williams would like language added to condition number 6 to state that the requested
modifications are from the Planning Director in the letter dated November 30, 2016.
Williams would like condition number 7 to state written permission from Xcel Energy.
M/S/P: Kreimer/Williams, move to recommend approval of the Hammes Estates 2nd
Addition Final Plat with the 10 conditions of approval as amended based on the findings
of fact listed in the Staff Report, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Business Item – Golf Course Community Discussion
Williams stated that at the last City Council, they voted to have staff look at an updated
Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow a golf course community. Williams looked at
it and thinks that there should be some changes in the wording. There is language
about the Village Transition area. If the golf course community option moves forward,
there is not Village Transition area so that language should be eliminated. Wensman
suggested referring to the former Tartan Park area. Williams would like to replace the
reference of “destination” with “an expanse of open space”. He would like to replace
“rather than develop the land as a standard OP rural develop” with “for at least 25
Years” because a golf course development could be done as an OP if the golf course was
put into open space. He wants to protect the City and residents that purchase a home
around the golf course for at least 25 years. That would be until 2040 which is when the
next Comprehensive Plan would be. Wensman stated that there would be a public
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-12-16
hearing for this item and they will be able to weigh in again in early January. Williams
thinks these recommendations should be passed along to the City Council.
Dunn wants people to come to this development with confidence that what they think
they are getting is what they will get. She thinks there should be some assurance that
the golf course will stay. She doesn’t see why anyone would object to having that
guarantee.
M/S/P: Williams/Dunn, move to forward the suggested changes regarding Golf Course
community to the City Council, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Rick Packer, Royal Golf Club, they first brought an application forward for Village
Transition at the staff’s suggestion. They came to the Planning Commission and the
Commission thought there should be special zoning. The staff went back and prepared
the Golf Course Community recommendation. At the public hearing, it was decided that
it really didn’t get them anywhere with the Golf Course Community, so the
recommendation that moved forward to the City Council was the Village Transition. At
the City Council, it came back around and the City Council went back to the Golf Course
Community. Last week they were told that this would have to be renoticed for Public
Hearing again on January 9th 2017. He feels that it is not appropriate that they talk
about this tonight, but should be talked about at the public hearing on January 9 th,
2017.
Dunn does not feel it is inappropriate to talk about things in advance of the public
hearing just to get ideas out there. Williams stated that they are not taking any vote
tonight on the entire proposed amendment. They are only looking at possible changes
to bring forward to the City Council in preparation for the public hearing. Williams feels
they are an informal recommendation for the City Council to look at and accept or
reject. Dodson stated that it is in their discretion to recommend to the City Council as
they see fit. He also stated that the Planning Commission meetings are open to the
public.
Business Item – Village Parkway Discussion
There are a number of pending projects that will be coming forward that will involve the
Village Parkway and there are a few issues with it. Wensman has been reviewing the
design of the Village Parkway and he has some questions and has identified some
potential issues. There are 3 potential projects coming forward, the Village Park
Preserve, Gonyea West and the Zignago Insurance Building. Wensman went through
where the Village Parkway is and that there are 3 different designs. There is a zero
setback assuming that there is an urban sidewalk such as in the Village.
There is a problem with the Village Parkway design such in Easton Village where the
trees are planted between the sidewalk and the boulevard. The trees need to be
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-12-16
planted outside of the sidewalk area to prevent tree damage and such from
snowplowing.
A summary of the design is that it is designed to Municipal State Aid Road Standards,
the design profile determines parking, access control (no residential driveways allowed),
and final design has no center medians, irrigation required and theming. The irrigation
for 5th street is quite expensive and the theming was thrown out for 5th street. Another
question is where and when should 14 foot sidewalks be required. Arbor Glen does not
have a zero lot line. Do we want consistency? The setback is between zero and 20 feet.
It would not look good if it fluctuated on a site by site basis.
Dunn asked why on 39th Street the sidewalk on one side is a concrete and the sidewalk
on the other side is asphalt. She is not happy with the result. She is not happy with the
VMX zoning and feels that it really needs to be looked at. She calculates that there
could be 5000 people in a very small area.
Wensman wants to be ahead of the setback issue for when the Zignego project comes
forward. If they are rezoned to VMX, they will probably ask for that zero lot line.
Williams thinks that with the new City Council coming onboard, the Planning
Commission should get their feedback before they do a lot of work on this.
Dodson is struggling because he sees the VMX as not being an office building, but more
of shops. Wensman stated that office building is an allowed use in VMX. Uses change
once a building is up. Dodson stated that the zero lot line to him is more of a retail use.
Wensman stated that it is a question of how far out of the core Village they want VMX
to go and how big they want the Village to be.
Fields stated that there needs to be a critical amount of housing within walking distance
to stimulate pedestrian oriented retail. Wensman stated that there needs to be a
strong vision to reassure businesses that you are working towards that vision.
Williams suggests to bring this back to the first Planning Commission meeting to look at
the Zignago building as the first opportunity to look at the VMX and the vision for the
Village, and maybe limit the discussion to 39th Street.
Fields stated that he believes that the vision for the Village was a strong desire to have
pedestrian oriented retail. He thinks that the pedestrian oriented retail in Lake Elmo
would not be able to compete with the car oriented retail in the metro area, because
Lake Elmo is a fairly low density City. It would be difficult to be competitive.
Dodson thinks the theming needs to be looked at and that there should be consistency
throughout the City.
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-12-16
City Council Updates – December 6, 2016 Meeting
i) OP4 Boulder Ponds LLC Zoning Map Amendment/PUD Amendment – passed.
ii) Wildflower 2nd Final Plat and Final PUD Plan – passed.
iii) Review of Preliminary Royal Golf EAW
iv) Royal Golf Comprehensive Plan Amendment – direction given for Golf Course
Community.
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. January 9, 2017
b. January 23, 2017
Commission Concerns
Dunn brought up some safety issues to Washington County regarding the Lake Elmo Inn
and the railroad tracks. People are parking on the bump outs and there is only one lane
to get through. The flow of traffic is not very good. There are trees under the power
lines that were not a good idea either. Wensman stated that the signage and striping
was delayed because of the weather which has been a problem.
Kreimer asked about the advertising for the Planning Commission members. He was
under the impression that they were full right now. There are 2 terms expiring at the
end of the year. Dunn and Fields.
Meeting adjourned at 9:07 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
BUSINESS ITEM 4A
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 1/9/2017
AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2016-55
ITEM: 3880 Laverne Avenue North Minor Subdivision and Zoning Map Amendment
SUBMITTED BY: Emily Becker, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a zoning map amendment and minor subdivision
request from John J. Zignego to subdivide the property located at 3880 Laverne Avenue North in to three
separate parcels, creating two new lots, and rezone the property from GB – General Business to VMX -
Village Mixed Use.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: John J. Zignego, 3880, Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, MN
Property Owners: Lake Elmo Associates, LTD., 3880 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, MN
Location: 3880 Laverne Avenue North, PART LOT 1 002 BEING N 350.18FT OF LOT 1
BLK 2 BROOKMAN ADD ACCORDING TO PLAT THEREOF SUBJ TO ANY
UTILITY EASE SHOWN ON SD PLAT SUBJ TO NON- EXCLUSIVE EASE FOR
RD PURPOSES OVER SLY 16FT THEREOF RESERVED TO GRANTOR ITS
SUCCESSORS & ASSIGNS SUBDIVISIONNAME BROOKMAN ADD LOT 1
BLOCK 2 SUBDIVISIONCD 37100, PID# 13.029.21.22.0010
Request: Application for a Minor Subdivision to split said property into three separate parcels
with two new lots.
Existing Office building.
Land Use:
Existing Zoning: GB - General Business District
Surrounding South – City Hall (PF – Public and Quasi-Public Open Space), West – Vacant Land
Use/Zoning: land (GB – General Business District), North – Vacant land (GB – General
Business District), Commercial (GB – General Business District).
Comprehensive VMX – Village Mixed Use
Plan:
History: The site has been used as an office building with parking lot accessible through an
unplatted road parallel to 39th Street North that connects to Laverne Avenue North.
2
BUSINESS ITEM 4A
Deadline Application Complete – 11/23/2016
for Action: 60 Day Deadline – 1/22/2017
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – N/A
Applicable Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Regulations: §154.051 GB – General Business
§154.500 VMX – Village Center District
REQUEST DETAILS
Zoning Map Amendment. Because the proposed subdivision does not result in the minimum lot size
requirement for the zoning district in which the parcel is located, the applicant has also applied for a
Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the parcel to VMX – Village Mixed Use, which has no minimum lot
size requirement for non-residential uses.
Minor Subdivision. The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from John A. Zignego for a Minor
Subdivision to split the 3.22 acre property located at 3880 Laverne Avenue North in to three separate
parcels. The proposed subdivision will result in one 2.06 acre lot on which the current building is located
(Brookfield building) and two newly-created 0.58 acre lots north of the building. According to the
application, the applicant’s request was prompted by the recent availability of sewer and water to the
property.
The City’s Subdivision regulations allow for certain subdivisions of land to be exempt from the City’s
requirements for platting when nor more than four lots are being created and when these lots comply with
the minimum road frontage and area requirements of the underlying zoning.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Minor Subdivision
Review of Minor Subdivision. The property meets the requirements of Section 153.09: Exceptions to
Platting, as it qualifies as a minor subdivision, as the proposed subdivision is a division of land that
results in no more than four parcels. City requires that a completed Minor Subdivision application be
submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation to City Council. There is no
public hearing requirement for a Minor Subdivision request.
Parkland Dedication. The City requires cash contribution in lieu of land dedication for commercial
development. This fee is set by Council resolution. The current fee schedule for parkland dedication for
commercial development is $4500 per acre. The City Attorney has been consulted and has given the legal
opinion that the entire amount of land being subdivided is subject to the $4500 per acre parkland
dedication fee. The Brookman Addition was platted in 1988, and no record of previous parkland
dedication fees paid have been found. Therefore, a recommended condition of approval is the payment of
$14,490 for parkland dedication.
Rezoning Required.
As outlined above in the General Information section of this report, the property is zoned GB –
General Business.
3
BUSINESS ITEM 4A
The General Business zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 1.5 acres.
o The proposed subdivision will result in one 2.06 acre lot and two 0.58 acre lots.
Therefore, the proposed new lot size of the two new parcels would not comply with the General
Business District zoning lot size requirements.
As a result, the applicant has also applied for a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the parcel to
VMX – Village Mixed Use.
The property is guided as such and would comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The next section
provides a review and analysis of the Zoning Map Amendment request.
Engineering Comments. The City Engineer has provided engineering comments in the attached
Brookman Addition Concept Plan Review dated December 8, 2016. These comments are also outlined
below, as they are pertinent points the Commission should carefully consider.
Access Management.
With the potential for many new commercial buildings along 39th Street, access management will
need to be carefully implemented to ensure that 39th Street continues to function as intended.
As parcels subdivide, the access points to 39th Street will need to be coordinated and minimized.
For this minor subdivision, it is recommended that a combined driveway access be created for
Parcel A and Parcel B.
Need for Easements.
39th Street was recently reconstructed with a section design intended to match the Village
Parkway corridor, the portion south of the UPRR.
The typical section suggest the need for a 10 foot utility easement along both the north and south
side of the street just outside of the right‐of‐way.
o This is a recommended condition of approval of this Minor Subdivision request.
In addition, the typical section includes provisions for a boulevard tree to be placed behind the
trail/sidewalk.
These design elements, from a practical perspective, do not align with a zero setback for the
placement of the building.
Therefore, the setback provisions along 39th Street should be reviewed in context with the
existing street sections which are not currently consistent with a zero lot line setback.
o Planning Staff Note: As shown in the Zoning Map Amendment section of this report,
the requirements for front yard setbacks refer to Section 155.506. This code section does
not exist, but Staff believes it was meant to refer to Section 154.506, which is the VMX
District Design and Demolition Review. This would mean that front yard setback
requirements would be reviewed during the design review process, during which the need
for easements would also be reviewed. Additionally, the foot note on the VMX Lot
Dimension and Setback Requirements table regarding Corner Yard setback requirements
indicate that the side yard 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. Therefore, the building on Parcel B
would need to maintain the same setback that the Brookfield building has off of Laverne
Avenue.
Sewer and Water.
With the recently reconstructed 39th Street project a new 8‐inch watermain stub and 8‐inch
sanitary sewer main stub were extended to the right‐of‐way for the purpose of serving both Parcel
A and Parcel B.
These stub locations should be shown accurately on the plans to verify that the building
placement does not conflict with the ability of the stubs to service both parcels.
4
BUSINESS ITEM 4A
Stormwater.
The site plan is subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD and City rules
and regulations.
No proposed storm water management is shown for the site.
o Stormwater drainage patterns must be maintained as part of any site development.
Parcel A and Parcel B currently drain to the west and south and do not runoff into the 39th Street
right‐of‐way.
o This drainage pattern will need to be maintained.
The existing downstream drainage basins for the 39th Street storm sewer system do not have
available treatment or storage capacity to accommodate new development.
o Therefore any storm sewer connections to the 39th Street system must be at existing or
reduced runoff rates and volumes.
Zoning Map Amendment
Zoning Map Amendment Review. The Planning Commission is to hold a public hearing on each
complete application for a Zoning Amendment and then consider findings and submit the same together
with its recommendation to Council. Any rezoning shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. As mentioned above, the property is guided for Village Mixed
Use in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Plan allows a density of 5 to 10 units
per acre in this district.
Proposed Zoning - VMX - Village Mixed Use District. The purpose the VMX district is to provide an
area for compact, mixed use development made mutually compatible through a combination of careful
planning and urban design and coordinated public and private investment.
Allowed Uses.
The Village Mixed Use District is intended to continue to allow retail, service, office, civic, and
public uses as well as residential units.
A listing of permitted and conditional uses allowed in the Village Mixed Use zoning district is
attached to this report for reference.
The applicant intends to use Parcel A, as shown in the attached survey, for a new office for an
insurance business. It is not yet known what Parcel A will be used for.
Lot Size and Setbacks. As stated above, the proposed two newly-created parcels will be 0.58 acres in
size. Below are the lot dimensions and setback requirements for the VMX District
Table 11-2: Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements, VMX District
Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.) a
Non-Residential Use None
Single Family Detached Dwelling 5,000
Two-Family Dwelling (per unit) b 3,000
Single-Family Attached (per unit) c 2,500
Multi-Family Dwelling (per unit) 1,800
Secondary Dwelling See 154.454.C
Live-Work Unit 3,000
Congregate Housing See 155.102
Other Structures 3,500
Maximum Lot Area (acres)
Residential Structures N/A
Other Structures 5
5
BUSINESS ITEM 4A
Minimum Lot Width (feet)
Single Family Detached Dwelling 50
Two-Family Dwelling (per unit) b 30
Single-Family Attached (per unit)c 25
Multi-Family Dwelling (per building) 75
Live-Work Unit 25
Maximum Height (feet/stories) 35/3 d
Maximum Impervious Coverage
Residential Structures 75%
Other Structures No Limit
Minimum Building Setbacks (feet)
Front Yard e See 155.506
Interior Side Yard f 10
Corner Side Yard g 0
Rear Yard 10
Conceptual Requirements.
While the Zoning Code typically requires a conceptual sewer and water utility plan, conceptual
landscape plan, and conceptual grading, erosion control, and storm water management plan for
rezoning, the Village Mixed Use District is unique in that it requires review of design for certain
development activity as specified in the Lake Elmo Design Standards Manual.
Design review for commercial activity within the Village District requires design review as part
of the approval process for a permit or certificate.
This review is the responsibility of the individual or body authorizing the permit or certificate,
though if an application is received that would require review by the Planning Commission (i.e. a
Conditional Use Permit or Variance application), the Planning Commission shall also consider
the standards set forth by the Design Standards Manual as part of its recommendation to Council.
Additionally, there are very specific general site considerations and development standards for
specific uses within this district to which a development must adhere and are reviewed during the
time of building permit application.
Due to the aforementioned, Staff recommends that the aforementioned conceptual requirements
be waived.
Parking.
Properties within the VMX District may be exempt from parking requirements (i.e. the regulation
requiring the number of spaces certain uses must have) of the Zoning Code.
o If there is parking, it is required that it be located to the side or rear of buildings per the
Design Standards and Guidelines.
The current office building provides 84 parking spaces in its parking lot.
It is recommended that it be a condition of approval that applicants for development activity that
occurring on the newly created parcels work with the Brookfield building and City staff to
analyze parking needs before the construction of a parking lot.
REU Projection. According to a document created in 2012 entitled Alternate Village Area Future Land
Use Concept, the projected number of REC Units on the 18.73 acre section of land that is made up by
3880 Laverne Avenue, 3800 Laverne Avenue, 3825 Lake Elmo Avenue, and the parcel to the north of the
aforementioned, is 75. According to a Met Council Determination spreadsheet updated as of August 16,
2016, 3880 Laverne Avenue was charged for 5.23 REUs, and the remaining parcels have not yet been
hooked up to sewer. Further subdividing the subject parcel and the subsequent development and
connection to sewer would increase the number of REUs in this section of the Village.
6
BUSINESS ITEM 4A
Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the minor subdivision
with conditions intended to address the future review issues noted above. The recommended conditions
are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval for Minor Subdivision Request:
1) The property shall be rezoned to Village Mixed Use – VMX.
2) The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication in the amount of $14,490 ($4,500 per
acre at 3.22 acres) prior to any formal City authorization to subdivide the existing parcel into
three lots.
3) The applicant must submit and receive approval of a landscape plan, grading, erosion control, and
other plans outlined herein prior to the commencement of any construction activity on the parcel.
4) The applicant must obtain all other necessary City, State and governing body permits prior to the
commencement of any construction activity on the parcel including but not limited to building
permits, conditional use permits, etc.
5) Any plans for construction on the newly created parcels must comply with the Lake Elmo Design
Standards Manual and specific general site considerations and development standards for specific
uses within the Village Mixed Use District.
6) Building setback locations are subject to City approval and must allow for planned street
improvements.
7) A 10-foot utility easement as detailed in the City Engineer Memo dated December 8, 2016 must
be provided after approval by City Engineer.
8) Combined driveway access must be created for the two 0.58 acre parcels. The future location of
any driveways providing access to the two newly created parcels shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer.
9) The applicant for development activity occurring on the newly-created parcels should work with
the City and Brookfield II Building to analyze parking needs of development activity and the
possibility of shared parking with Brookfield II Building.
10) 8-inch watermain stub and 8-inch sanitary sewer main stub shall be shown on the plans and
approved by the City Engineer prior to commencement of construction activity to ensure that the
building placement does not conflict with the ability of the stubs to service both parcels.
11) The site plan is subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, Valley Branch
Watershed District and City rules and regulations. All applicable permits must be obtained if
needed.
12) Stormwater drainage patterns must be maintained as part of any site development.
13) Storm sewer connections to the 39th Street system must be at existing or reduced runoff rates and
volumes.
7
BUSINESS ITEM 4A
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the
proposed Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property located at 3880 Laverne Avenue North to
Village Mixed Use (VMX):
1. That the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map for this area.
Minor Subdivision:
1. That the Minor Subdivision is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future
Land Use Map for this area.
2. That the Minor Subdivision complies with the minimum lot frontage and area requirements of the
City’s VMX – Village Mixed Use District.
3. That the Minor Subdivision complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance and specifically the
requirements concerning exceptions to platting.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request by John J. Zignego
for a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property to Village Mixed Use – VMX.
“Move to recommend approval of the Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property located at 3880
Laverne Avenue North to Village Mixed Use – VMX.”
Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the minor subdivision
request by John J. Zignego to split the parcel at 3880 Laverne Avenue North into three separate parcels,
thereby creating two new buildable lots of 0.58 acres each.
“Move to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision request for the property located at 3880
Laverne Avenue North, subject to the 13 outlined conditions of approval.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application Form
2. Minor Subdivision Survey
3. Conditional and Permitted Uses in VMX – Village Mixed Use
4. City Engineer Memo Dated 12/8/2016
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ............................................................................................. Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ........................................................................................ Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission .................................. Chair & Commission Members
- Public Comments .................................................................................................. Chair
- Discussion by the Commission .................................... Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ........................................... Chair & Commission Members
[Type text]
Table 11-1: Permitted and Conditional Uses, VMX Districts
VM
X
Standard
Residential Uses
Household Living
Single-family detached dwelling P* * See Restrictions in 155.504.A
Two-family dwelling P * See Restrictions in 155.504.A
Single-family attached dwelling C 154.505.B
Multifamily dwelling C 154.505.C
Secondary dwelling C 154.505.D
Live-work unit P 155.505.J
Group Living
Group Home P 155.102.C
Group Residential Facility C 155.102.D
Congregate Housing C 155.102.E
Semi-Transient Accommodations C 155.102.F
Public and Civic Uses
Community Services P 155.103.C
Day Care Center P 155.103.D
Public Assembly C 155.505.M
Religious Institutions C 155.505.N
Schools, Public and Private C 155.505.O
Services
Business Services P
Business Center P
Offices P
Communications Services P
Education Services P
Financial Institution P 155.505.P
Funeral Home C
Lodging C 155.505.Q
Medical Facility C 155.505.R
Membership Organization C 155.505.N
Nursing and Personal Care C 155.104.C
Personal Services P
Repair and Maintenance Shop C 155.505.E
Trade Shop C 155.505.F
Veterinary Services C 154.505.G
Food Services
Standard Restaurant P 155.505.S
Restaurant with Drive-through C 155.505.S
140
[Type text]
Note: Standards listed in Table 11-1 are listed by Article, Section and Subsection.
1Retail Trade in the VMX District includes all uses and activities defined as Retail Trade in §155.507.B.5 with the
exception of building supplies sales and warehouse club sales.
Drinking and Entertainment P 155.505.S
Sales of Merchandise
Retail Trade 1 P 155.505.T
Farmer’s Market C 155.505.AA
Garden Center C 155.505.U
Neighborhood Convenience Store P 155.505.V
Shopping Center C 155.505.W
Wayside Stand P
Automotive/Vehicular Uses
Automobile Maintenance Service C 155.505.X
Automobile Parts/Supply P 155.505.X
Gasoline Station C 155.505.X
Parking Facility C 155.505.X
Sales and Storage Lots C 155.505.X
Outdoor Recreation
Outdoor Recreation Facility C 155.505.Y
Parks and Open Areas P
Indoor Recreation/Entertainment
Indoor Athletic Facility C 155.505.Z
Indoor Recreation C 155.505.Z
Transportation and Communications
Broadcasting or Communications Facility C 155.110.B
Accessory Uses
Home Occupation P 155.111.A,B
Bed and Breakfast C 155.111.C
Di P P
Family Day Care P 155.111.G
Group Family Day Care C 155.111.G
Temporary Sales P 155.107.B
Parking Facility P
Solar Equipment P 155.111.I
Swimming Pools, Hot Tubs, Etc. P 155.111.J
Other Structures Typically Incidental and Clearly
Subordinate to Permitted Uses P
141
PAGE 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 8, 2016
To: Emily Becker, City Planner Re: Brookman 3rd Addition
Cc: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director Concept Plan Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
Engineering has reviewed the Concept Site Plan for the Brookman 3rd Addition. The submittal consisted of a
Concept Minor Subdivision prepared by FFE, Inc. dated November 21, 2016.
1. Access Management. With the potential for many new commercial buildings along 39th Street, access
management will need to be carefully implemented to ensure that 39th Street continues to function as
intended. As parcels subdivide, the access points to 39th Street will need to be coordinated and
minimized. For this minor subdivision it is recommended that a combined driveway access be created for
Parcel A and Parcel B.
2. 39th Street was recently reconstructed with a section design intended to match the Village Parkway
corridor, the portion south of the UPRR. The typical section su g g e s t t h e n e e d f o r a 1 0 f o o t u t i l i t y
easement along both the north and south side of the street just outside of the right‐of‐way. In addition,
the typical section includes provisions for a boulevard tree to be placed behind the trail/sidewalk. These
design elements, from a practical perspective, do not align with a zero setback for the placement of the
building. Therefore, the setback provisions along 39th St re e t sh ou l d b e re vi e we d i n c ont e x t wit h the
existing street sections which are not currently consistent with a zero lot line setback.
3. With the recently reconstructed 39th Street project a new 8‐inch watermain stub and 8‐inch sanitary
sewer main stub were extended to the right‐of‐way for the purpose of serving both Parcel A and Parcel B.
These stub locations should be shown accurately on the plans to verify that the building placement does
not conflict with the ability of the stubs to service both parcels.
4. The site plan is subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD and City rules and
regulations. No proposed storm water management is shown for the site.
5. Stormwater drainage patterns must be maintained as part of any site development. Parcel A and Parcel B
currently drain to the west and south and do not runoff into the 39th Street right‐of‐way. This drainage
pattern will need to be maintained.
6. The existing downstream drainage basins for the 39th Street storm sewer system do not have available
treatment or storage capacity to accommodate new development. Therefore any storm sewer
connections to the 39th Street system must be at existing or reduced runoff rates and volumes.
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. 651.300.4285
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b – ACTION ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 1/9/2017
AGENDA ITEM: 4B – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2016-53
ITEM: Shoreland Ordinance Amendment
SUBMITTED BY: Emily Becker, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City amended its Shoreland Ordinance in 2014 by adoption of Ordinance 08-111. These
amendments were significant and did not receive required approval from the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources (MNDNR).
The Planning Department has been working with the MNDNR to make amendments to the City’s
Shoreland Management Overlay District Ordinance to bring the ordinance in to compliance with
shoreland regulations of the state set forth in Minnesota Rules Part 6120.2800 in order to obtain
approval from the MNDNR.
The Planning Commission is respectfully requested to hold a public hearing and consider
recommending approval of the recommended amendments to Section 154.800: Shoreland
Management Overlay District of the Zoning Code.
REQUEST DETAILS:
In summary, the recommended amendments include the following:
Definitions are removed, as these definitions are already in Chapter 11 of the zoning code.
Four water bodies are removed from the Shoreland Classifications table, removing them
from the Shoreland Management Overlay District. A map of these waterbodies is attached to
this report.
o These do not have MNDNR shoreland classification and therefore are not required to
be included in the City’s Shoreland Ordinance. These four water bodies were not
included in the City’s 1993 Shoreland Ordinance but were added in during the 2014
Shoreland Ordinance amendment, as Staff at the time included all waterbodies that
were on MNDNR lakefinder and/or public waters inventory data, rather than only
including those that received MNDNR shoreland classification.
MNDNR and VBWD Responses. While working with the MNDNR to amend
its Shoreland Management Overlay District ordinance, the Shoreland
Classification Table was discussed. The MNDNR recommended adding one
waterbody and removing four. Both the MNDNR and Valley Branch Watershed
District (VBWD) were contacted regarding the removal of the four waterbodies,
and their exact responses can be viewed in the attached emails.
Summary of MNDNR Response: Recommended removing four water
bodies from the Shoreland Classification table (DNR ID#s 82041900,
2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b – ACTION ITEM
82031300, 82041700, 82041400, 82019a, and 82016a) and adding one water
body (DNR ID# 82010500).
Summary of VBWD Response: Developments still need to conform to
VBWD buffer and minimum floor elevation standards, so this in and of itself
may adequately protect these shorelands. MNDNR ID#82041700 is part of a
somewhat natural greenway connection between Horseshoe Lake and Lake
Elmo, which is part of a larger somewhat connected greenway from the St.
Croix, up Afton along Valley Creek, up Raleigh Creek and Sunfish Lake to
the Tri-Lakes and Long Lake and eventually to White Bear Lake.
Berschen’s Pond was added to the Shoreland Classifications table.
o This water body has a MNDNR shoreland classification and therefore should be
included.
Forest land conversion was added as a conditional use to Table 17-2, with standards outlined
in MN Rules Chapter 6120.3300 Subp. 8 included in Subd. (C) (8).
Changes were made to the Shoreland Standards Table 17-3 to bring standards in to
compliance with the MNDNR shoreland standards.
o Reference to riparian dedication is deleted.
This was an amendment made during the 2014 shoreland ordinance
amendment and not approved by the MNDNR.
o Setbacks from ROW and roads are outlined.
o Certain lot width and size minimum standards were amended according to MNDNR
standards.
o Standards for triplexes and quads were added.
o Minimum lot width standards for unsewered lots and non-riparian lots were added.
o Impervious surface standards were kept.
It should be noted that the MNDNR approved an increase in maximum
impervious standards within sewered shoreland areas (30% rather than 25%)
in exchange for a lower impervious standards for unsewered shoreland areas
(15% as opposed to 20%).
o Maximum structure height was added.
It should be noted that the MNDNR approved an increase in maximum
building height (35 feet as opposed to the standard of 25 feet) for a decrease
to Planned Unit Development (PUD) flexibility (20%, which is lower than
MNDNR standard but is aligned with the City’s PUD ordinance).
o Standards for lots intended as controlled access to public waters or recreation areas
for use by owners of nonriparian lots within subdivisions was added.
These standards were taken from the MNDNR Model Shoreland Ordinance.
Restrictions on roads, driveways and parking area, as well as steep slopes, were added,
pursuant to requirements set forth by Minnesota Rules Part 6120.2800.
Language was added to the Subdivision Standards subpart:
o Prohibiting lots that require the use of holding tanks.
o Added standards set forth in MN rules for duplexes, triplexes, and quads.
The Sand and Gravel Extraction Subdivision was eliminated, as extraction is not a permitted
use within the shoreland district.
PUD standards for PUDs within the shoreland were added, as requested by the MNDNR.
o The requirement that PUDs be connected to public water supply and sewer systems
was kept.
3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b – ACTION ITEM
This is more restrictive than the MNDNR language, as the required language
says that PUDs must be connected to public water supply and sewer systems,
when available.
The proposed ordinance amendment states that when sewer is not available,
individual septic systems are not allowed, and a community septic system is
required.
Language from the 2014 City-approved Shoreland ordinance was kept,
requiring the developer/owner to provide for the preservation and
maintenance in perpetuity of open space and continuation of the development
as a community.
The non-conformities section was revised to align more closely with State Statute
requirements for nonconformities.
Standards for surface water-oriented uses were added as recommended by the MNDNR.
Language from the MNDNR Model Shoreland Ordinance was used.
The administration section was updated to more closely align with Minnesota Rules.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES/REVIEW AND ANALYSIS:
The MNDNR has reviewed the ordinance and has given approval of the ordinance contingent upon
adoption of the ordinance with recommended edits. After the Planning Commission has made
recommendation and Council has approved any amendments to the Shoreland Ordinance, Staff will
send the ordinance to the MNDNR for final approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Ord. 08- , amending
Section 154.800: Shoreland Management Overlay District of the Zoning Code. The recommendation
may be made with the following motion:
“Move to recommend approval of Ord. 08- , amending Section 154.800: Shoreland Management
Overlay District of the Zoning Code.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Ord. 08- Amending Shoreland Management District Restrictions to Obtain Compliance with
Department of Natural Resources Shoreland Ordinance Requirements.
MNDNR comments
Map of Water Bodies Proposed to be Removed from Shoreland Classification Table
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
From:Sorensen, Jenifer (DNR)
To:Stephen Wensman; Emily Becker
Cc:Petrik, Daniel (DNR)
Subject:FW: Lake Elmo Shoreland Ordinance
Date:Monday, December 19, 2016 4:09:01 PM
Attachments:Proposed PUD standards.docx
DNR Comments 121216_DRP DRAFT Ord 08-111 Shoreland Ord Amendment 102116.doc
Steve and Emily –
Attached is the most recent version of the Lake Elmo draft shoreland ordinance, with DNR
comments and edits. The colors of the highlighted comments correspond with the following:
Good practice
Clarification/Discussion
Required changes
Dan Petrik has developed streamlined shoreland PUD provisions for you to insert as section 10 of
your shoreland ordinance (attached).
We have removed the language in the City’s draft ordinance related to dedicated riparian areas,
based on the phone conversation that we had.
Regarding information requirements for preliminary plats (MN rules 6120.3500 Subp. 4): 153.05 of
the current city code does not include the following information requirements: floodplain boundary,
OHW, the toe and top of bluffs, and the minimum building setbacks from the top of the bluff, lake or
stream. Emily noted that all subdivision plans submitted to the City must adhere to the City’s
engineering Design Standards, which do require that these items be shown. In addition, the City is
updating its subdivision regulations ordinance, and will add, as a submittal requirement of a
preliminary plat, the location of 100-year flood plain areas and floodway districts from existing
adopted maps or data; a line or contour representing the OHW, the toe and top of bluffs, and the
minimum building setback distances from the top of the bluff and the lake or stream. Please follow
up with DNR when the updated subdivision ordinance is adopted, so that we can see that these
requirements have been included.
Regarding flexibility to the shoreland standards: DNR could allow a 35 foot height restriction (the
shoreland standard is 25 foot height) and 30% impervious surface in sewered areas (the shoreland
standard is 25%), in return for 15% impervious on unsewered and allowing only a 20% increase in
PUD bonus density (lower than what is allowed under shoreland PUD provisions). Twenty percent
bonus density is consistent with the City’s PUD provisions. Does this work for the City?
Please make the necessary changes to your draft ordinance and provide DNR with a new revised
version. Please let me or Dan know if you have questions or if you would like to discuss the proposed
changes further.
Jen
Jenifer Sorensen, PE, PhD – East Metro Area Hydrologist (Ramsey and Washington Counties)
MN DNR, Division of Ecological and Water Resources | 1200 Warner Rd | St Paul, MN 55106
(651) 259-5754 | jenifer.sorensen@state.mn.us
Puctr -r-riL
Terri Yearwood
en al Region ager
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
CENTRAL REGION
1200 WARNER ROAD
SAINT PAUL, MN 55106
651-259-5800
MNDNR
Date: 12/29/2016
Steve Wensman
Planning Director, City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Re: MNDNR Conditional Approval of City of Elmo's Shoreland Regulations and DNR Flexibility to State
Shoreland Standards
Steve —
MNDNR has reviewed Lake Elmo's draft Article 17 —Shoreland Management Overlay District (submitted
to our Central Region Office for review on 12/28/16) for compliance with the State Shoreland
Management Regulations. Contingent on changes requested by MNDNR in the attached draft Article 17
dated 12/29/16, the attached Article 17 with additions and deletions is compliant with MN Rules, Parts
6120.2500 — 6210.3900 and is conditionally approved by MNDNR.
Under shoreland flexibility, MNDNR and the City of Lake Elmo agree to allow a 35-foot maximum
building height (standard = 25 feet) and 30% maximum impervious surface coverage of lots in sewered
areas (standard = 25%), in return for 15% impervious surface coverage on unsewered lots (standard =
25%) and a 20% bonus density increase for PUDs (standard = 200%). The 20% bonus density increase for
PUDs is consistent with the City's existing PUD provisions. It is found that these flexibility requests
involve circumstances that take into account the existing development patterns of Lake Elmo. MNDNR
provides conditional approval for your request for implementation flexibility.
If you have questions regarding the contents of this letter, please contact Jenifer Sorensen, Area
Hydrologist (651-259-5754; jenifersorensen@state.mn.us ). Thank you for Lake Elmo's efforts in
developing standards that will protect the water resources of the state.
Sincerely,
DNR, Division of Ecological & Water Resources
1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106
651-259-5766 I terri.yearwood@state.mn.us
mndnr.gov
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 10% POST-CONSUMER WASTE.
rs,7 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO – 12-29-16
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 08-___
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SHORELAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RESTRICTIONS TO OBTAIN
COMPLIANCE WITH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SHORELAND ORDINANCE
REQUIREMENTS.
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code; Section 800 to read the following:
ARTICLE 17. SHORELAND MANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
§154.800 Shoreland Management Overlay District
§154.800 Shoreland Management Overlay District
A. Purpose. The ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103F, Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500-6120.3900, and the
planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. The purpose of the
Shoreland Management Overlay District is to preserve and enhance the quality of surface
waters and conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands through the
following activities:
1. Regulate placement of sanitary and waste treatment facilities on shorelands of public
waters to prevent pollution of public waters and public health hazards resulting from the
facilities.
2. Regulate alteration of shorelands of public waters to prevent excessive sediment pollution,
increased water runoff and excessive nutrient runoff pollution.
3. Preserve and enhance the unique aesthetic appearance and ecological value of the
shoreland.
4. Regulate the construction of buildings and changes of land use in shorelands to minimize
property damage during periods of high water.
B. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, in Subd. 01: Definitions; of Chapter 11: General
Code Provisions, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:.
Bluff. A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following
characteristics. (An area with an average slope of less than 18% over a distance of 50 feet or
more shall not be considered part of the bluff.)
1. Part or all of the feature is in a Shoreland area;
2. The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the water body;
3. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the
ordinary high water level averages 30% or greater; and
4. The slope must drain toward the water body.
Bluff Impact Zone. A bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff.
Boathouse. A structure designed and used solely for the storage of boats and boating
equipment.
1
Dedicated Riparian Area. Starting at the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL), areas dedicated to
the City to be maintained in a permanent state of natural vegetation for the purposes of
protecting surface waters from the impacts of land alteration and/or development activity.
Permitted uses within dedicated riparian areas are noted in subsection (C)(7) (f).
D.N.R. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Land Alteration. The excavation or grading of land involving movement of earth and materials
in excess of 50 yards.
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.
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 shorelands 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.
Water-Oriented Accessory Structure of Facility. A small, above-ground building or other
improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls which, because of the
relationship of its use to a surface water feature, reasonably needs to be located closer to
public waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of the structures and facilities
include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, and detached decks.
C. Shoreland Management Overlay District
1. Shoreland Classifications. The public waters in Table 17-1 have been classified by the
commissioner of natural resources, consistent with the classifications assigned by the
commissioner under Minnesota Rules, part 6120.3300, as: natural environment (NE),
recreational development (RD) and tributary (T) shorelands. Where noted, riparian
dedication is required by the City.
Table 17-1: Shoreland Classifications
DNR ID # Name Location
Ordinary
High Water
Level Class
150 FTa Riparian
Dedication
Required
82011601
Armstrong (north of
CSAH 10) Sec 28, T29, R21 1020.3 NE No
82011602
Armstrong (south of
CSAH 10) Sec 28, T29, R21 1019.3 NE No
82009900 Clear Sec 2 & 11, T29, R21 - NE No
82010100 DeMontreville Sec 4, 5 & 9,T29, R21 929.3 RD No
82010500 Berschen’s Pond NE
82011000 Downs Sec 24, T29, R21 889.1 NE No
82010900 Eagle Point Sec 22 & 27, T29, R21 896.5 NE No
82010600 Elmo
Sec 13, 14, 23, 24 &
26, T29, R21 885.6 RD No
82010800 Friedrich Pond Sec 15 & 22, T29, R21 - NE No
82011300 Goose
Sec 27, 34 & 35, T29,
R21 924.4 NE Yes
82011100 H.J. Brown Pond Sec 26, T29, R21 - NE No
82007400 Horseshoe Sec 25, T29, R21 876.8 NE No
82010400 Jane Sec 9 & 10, T29, R21 924.0 RD No
Commented [EB1]: Language regarding dedicated riparian
areas has been removed. This part of the ordinance was added in
2014 and not approved by the DNR.
Commented [EB2]: This is an administrative function requiring
approval by the DNR and is included in the administrative section.
Commented [EB3]: The DNR recommended removing these
definitions according to its comments dated 12.19.2016, as they are
all already in the definitions of Chapter 11 of the City Code.
Commented [JS4]: Armstrong Lake (South) must remain within
Table 17-1. The basin itself is in Oakdale, but a portion of the lake’s
shoreland district are within the City boundary of Lake Elmo and
thus must be regulated under the City’s shoreland ordinance.
2
82011700 Kramer Sec 35, T29, R21 - NE Yes
82041900 Margaret Sec 26, T29, R21 - NE No
82010300 Olson Sec 8 & 9, T29, R21 929.3 RD No
N/A
Raleigh Creek North
(to Eagle Point Lake)
Sec 16, 21 & 22, T29,
R21 - T No
N/A
Raleigh Creek South
(Eagle Point Lake to
Lake Elmo)
Sec 22, 23 & 227, T29,
R21 - T No
82011200 Rose Sec 25 & 36, T29, R21 - NE No
82010700 Sunfish Sec 14, T29, R21 896.4 NE No
82010000 Unnamed Sec 4, T29, R21 - NE No
82031300 Unnamed Sec 12, T29, R21 - NE No
82041700 Unnamed Sec 25, T29, R21 - NE No
82048400 Unnamed Sec 11, T29, R21 - NE No
N/A
Unnamed to Wilmes
Lake Sec 33, T29, R21 - T No
N/A Unnamed Tributary Sec 25, T29, R21 - T No
Classifications
RD = Recreational Development Lake Classification
NE = Natural Environment Lake Classification
T = Tributary River Classification
Notes to Table 17-1:
a. As measured from and perpendicular to the ordinary high water level (OHWL)
2. Land Uses in Shoreland Districts. All uses of land shall be regulated by the applicable zoning
district subject to applicable conditions. Notwithstanding the underlying zoning district,
the following uses shall be regulated in shoreland districts as specified in Table 17-2:
Table 17-2: Permitted (P), and Conditional (C) and Interim (I) Uses, Shoreland
Classifications
Shoreland Classification
Land Uses
Recreational
Development
Natural
Environment
Tributary
River
Residential P P P
Commercial P C C
Public and Civic Uses P C C
Outdoor Recreationa C C C
Agricultural and Related Usesb, c P P P
Industrial and Extractive Uses - - -
Utilities, Transportation and Communications C C C
Accessory Uses P P P
Commented [EB5]: The DNR allows extractive uses as
conditional uses in these shorelands. Industrial uses are also
conditional within RD and T shoreland classificiations but are not
allowed in NE lakes. The 2014 shoreland amendment had not
allowed these uses with any shorelands, and Staff has not made any
changes to this.
3
Planned Developments (PUDs) C C C
Forest Land Conversion C C C
Notes to Table 17-2:
a. City owned parks and open space and any uses or structures accessory to such uses are
permitted within shoreland areas.
b. Vegetative clearing within shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not permitted.
c. New feedlots are not allowed in any Shoreland Management Overlay District.
3. Shoreland Standards. The following standards in Table 17-3 shall apply within shoreland
areas to principal, conditional and accessory uses and structures:
Table 17-3: Shoreland Standards
Shoreland Classification
Standards
Recreational
Development
Natural
Environment
Tributary
River
Minimum structure setback from County, State
or Federal road right-of-way 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet
Minimum setback from right-of-way line of town
road, public street, or other roads or streets not
classified 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
Minimum structure setback from an unplatted
cemetery or historical sitea 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet
Minimum structure setback from the Ordinary
High Water Level (OHWL)b, c, e
Riparian dedication required 200 feet 200 feet 200 feet
Riparian dedication not requiredd
Seweredd 75 feet 100 150 feet 5075 feet
Unseweredd 100 feet 150 feet 100 feet
Minimum structure setback from top of bluff 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet
Minimum septic system setback from OHWL 75 feet 150 feet 75 feet
Minimum low floor elevation above the 100-year
flood elevation 2 feet 2 feet 2 feet
Maximum impervious lot coverage
With riparian dedication 50% 50% 50%
Without riparian dedication
Sewerede 30% 30% 30%
Unsewered 15% or 6,000 square feet (sf), whichever is larger
Minimum lot sizef, riparian lots
Riparian dedication required Same as zoning district
Riparian dedication not required, sSewered
Single family detached 20,000 sf 40,000 sf Same as zoning
district Two-family or duplex 35,000 sf 70,000 sf
Triplex 120,000 sf 160,000 sf Same as
Commented [EB6]: This aligns with MN rules. Comment from
DNR: The reason why the structure setback from the OHW is 150
feet for both sewered and unsewered lots is that NE lakes are
especially sensitive water bodies – they are typically shallow and
more wetland in character than RD and GD classified lakes, which
are larger and deeper. Having a greater setback on NE lake allows
the width of the shoreland impact zone (SIZ) to also be greater
(since the SIZ is 1/2 the structure setback). In summary, to reduce
the impacts from human activities on NE lakes, which are more
ecologically sensitive, the OHW setback on NE lakes is greater than
for RD and GD lakes.
Commented [EB7]: MN rules only requires 50 feet for a
sewered property in a tributary SL
4
Quad 160,000 sf 200,000 sf zoning district
Riparian dedication not required, unsewered
Single family detached
40,000 sf 80,000 sf
Same as zoning
district
Minimum lot sizef, non-riparian lots
Riparian dedication required Same as zoning district
Riparian dedication not required, sSewered
Single family detached 15,000 sf 20,000 sf
Same as zoning
district
Two-family or duplex 17,500 26,000
sf
26,000 35,000
sf
Triplex 38,000 sf 52,000 sf
Quad 49,000 sf 65,000 sf
Riparian dedication not required, u Unsewered
Single family detached 40,000 sf 80,000 sf
Same as zoning
district
Two-family or duplex 80,000 sf 160,000 sf
Triplex 120,000 sf 240,000 sf
Quad 160,000 sf 320,000 sf
Minimum lot width,f, g riparian lots
Riparian dedication required Same as zoning district
Riparian dedication not required, sSewered
Single family detached 80 75 feet 125 feet 80 75 feet
Two-family or duplexe 135 feet 225 feet 115 feet
Triplexe 195 feet 325 feet 150 feet
Quade 255 feet 425 feet 190 feet
Riparian dedication not required, u Unsewered
Single family detached 150 feet 200 feet 100 feet
Two-family or duplexe 225 feet 300 feet 150 feet
Triplexe 300 feet 400 feet 300 feet
Quade 375 feet 500 feet 250 feet
Minimum lot width, nonriparian Lots
Sewered
Single family detached 75 feet 125 feet 75 feet
Two-family or duplexe 135 feet 220 feet 115 feet
Triplexe 190 feet 315 feet 150 feet
Quade 245 feet 410 feet 190 feet
Unsewered
Single family detached 150 feet 200 feet 100 feet
Two-family or duplexe 265 feet 400 feet 150 feet
Triplexe 375 feet 600 feet 200 feet
5
Quade 490 feet 800 feet 250 feet
Maximum Structure Height 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet
Notes to Table 17-3:
a. Reduction of the required setback from a historic site is permitted with the approval of the
office of the Minnesota State Archeologist.
b. Where structures exist on both sides of a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be
altered without a variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks from the Ordinary High Water
Level (OHWL), provided the proposed building is not located in a shore impact zone or bluff
impact zone.
c. With the exception of public crossings of public waters, Rroads, driveways and parking areas
shall meet the minimum structure setback. Where no alternative exists, such improvements
may be placed within the required structure setbacks provided they are designed to adapt to
the natural landscape, soil erosion is minimized and no construction shall occur in shore or bluff
impact zones. Exceptions to setback requirements must comply with the rules and regulations of
local watershed districts.
d. Commercial, and public and civic uses located on lots with public waters frontage shall be
setback double the required setback or be substantially screened from the water by vegetation
or topography, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions.
e. The maximum amount of impervious surface allowed for sewered lots zoned Rural Single Family
(RS) is 15% of lot area or 6,000 sf, whichever is larger.
e. Subdivisions of duplexes, triplexes, and quads within Natural Environment Shoreland districts
must also meet standards set forth in Section (C)(5)(d).
f. Minimum lot size and width requirements apply to residential uses only.
g. Lots Intended As Controlled Accesses to Public Waters or as Recreation Areas for Use by Owners
of Nonriparian Lots within Subdivisions. Must meet or exceed the following standards:
They must meet the width and size requirements for residential lots, and be suitable
for the intended uses of controlled access lots.
i. If docking, mooring, or over-water storage of more than six (6) watercraft
is to be allowed at a controlled access lot, then the width of the lot
(keeping the same lot depth) must be increased by the percent of the
requirements for riparian residential lots for each watercraft beyond six,
consistent with the following table:
Controlled Access Lot Frontage Requirements
Ratio of Lake Size to Shore Length
(acres/mile)
Required increase in frontage
(percent)
Less than 100 25%
100-200 20%
201-300 15%
301-400 10%
Greater than 400 5%
ii. They must be jointly owned by all purchasers of lots in the subdivision
or by all purchasers of nonriparian lots in the subdivision who are provided
riparian access rights on the access lot; and covenants or other equally
effective legal instruments must be developed that specify which lot
owners have authority to use the access lot and what activities are
allowed. The activities may include watercraft launching, loading, storage,
beaching, mooring, or docking. They must also include other outdoor
recreational activities that do not significantly conflict with general public
use of the public water or the enjoyment of normal property rights by
adjacent property owners. Examples of the non-significant conflict
activities include swimming, sunbathing, or picnicking. The covenants must
Commented [JS8]: Under (C)(5)(c)
6
limit the total number of vehicles allowed to be parked and the total
number of watercraft allowed to be continuously moored, docked, or
stored over water, and must require centralization of all common facilities
and activities in the most suitable locations on the lot to minimize
topographic and vegetation alterations. They must also require all parking
areas, storage buildings, and other facilities to be screened by vegetation
or topography as much as practical from view from the public water,
assuming summer, leaf-on conditions.
4. Design Criteria for Structures
a. Water Oriented Accessory Structures. Each lot may have one (1) water oriented
accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setbacks if the structure complies
with the following provisions:
i. Structure Height. The structure or facility must not exceed ten (10) feet in
height, exclusive of safety rails, from the average grade of the structure to
the peak of the roof. Detached decks must not exceed eight (8) feet above
grade at any point.
ii. Structure Size. Water oriented accessory structures cannot occupy an area
greater than two-hundred and fifty (250) square feet.
iii. Structure Setback. The setback of the structure or facility landward from
the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) must be at least ten (10) feet on a
recreational development lake and fifty (50) feet on a natural environment
lake.
iv. The structure or facility must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed
from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography,
increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions.
v. The roof of the structure may be used as a deck with safety rails, but must
not be enclosed or used as a storage area.
vi. The structure or facility must not be used for human habitation and must
not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities.
vii. Watercraft Storage Facilities. As an alternative for recreational
development water bodies, water oriented accessory structures used solely
for watercraft storage, and including the storage of related boating and
water oriented sporting equipment, may occupy up to four hundred (400)
square feet provided the maximum width of the structure is twenty (20)
feet as measured parallel to the configuration of the shoreline.
b. Stairways, Lifts and Landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to
major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes
to shore areas. Stairways and lifts must meet the following design requirements:
i. Stairways and lifts must not exceed four (4) feet in width. Wider stairways
may be used for public open space or recreation properties.
ii. Landings for stairways and lifts must not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet
in area. Landings larger than thirty-two (32) square feet may be used for
public open space or recreation properties.
iii. Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts or landings.
iv. Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above ground on
posts or pilings or placed into the ground, provided that they are designed
and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion.
v. Stairways, lifts and landing must be located in the most visually
inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public
water assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practical.
Commented [EB9]: This is language taken from the MNDNR
model ordinance. There had previously been an issue with the
height allowed for water-oriented accessory structures (previously
the ordinance did not mention the maximum height was 10 feet
exclusive of safety rails).
7
vi. Facilities such as public and private watercraft access ramps, lifts, access-
related parking areas, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons
are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas, provided that the
dimensional and performance standards of subsections (i) through (v) above
are satisfied. and provided the vegetative screening and erosion control
requirements are met.
c. Roads, Driveways, and Parking Areas. Public and private roads, driveways, and parking
areas must be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to
achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. Documentation must be
provided by a qualified individual that all roads and parking areas are designed and
constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the field
office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation district, or other
applicable technical materials.
d. Steep slopes. Local government officials must evaluate possible soil erosion impacts
and development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for construction
of sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on
steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions must be attached to issued
permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures,
vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming
summer, leaf-on vegetation.
5. Subdivision Standards. The following standards shall apply to subdivisions in shoreland
areas:
a. Each lot created through subdivision must be suitable in its natural state for the
proposed use with minimal alteration. In determining suitability the City will consider
susceptibility to flooding, existence of wetlands, soil and rock formations with severe
limitations for development, severe erosion potential, steep topography, inadequate
water supply or sewage treatment capabilities, near-shore aquatic conditions
unsuitable for water-based recreation, important fish and wildlife habitat, presence of
significant historic sites, or any other feature of the natural land likely to be harmful to
the health, safety, or welfare of future residents of the proposed subdivision, or of the
community at large.
b. Subdivisions must conform to all other official controls adopted by the City of Lake
Elmo. Subdivisions will not be approved that are designed so variances from one or
more standards in official controls would be needed to use the lots for their intended
purpose. Lots that would require use of holding tanks must not be approved.
c. If, in a group of two or more contiguous lots under the same ownership, any individual
lot does not meet the requirements of this section, the lot must not be considered as a
separate parcel of land for the purposes of sale or development. The lot must be
combined with the one or more contiguous lots so they equal one or more parcels of
land, each meeting the requirement of this section as much as possible. An exception
to this standardard shall be made If each lot contains a habitable dwelling at the time
they into common ownership.
c. On natural environment lakes, subdivisions of duplexes, triplexes, and quads must also
meet the following standards:
i. Each building must be set back at least 200 feet from the ordinary high water
level.
ii. Each building must have common sewage treatment and water systems that
serve all dwelling units in the building.
ii.iii. Watercraft docking facilities for each lot must be centralized in one location
and serve all dwelling units in the building.
iii.iv. No more than 25 percent of a lake’s shoreline can be in a duplex, triplex, or
quad environment.
Commented [JS10]: Added this language in, which is under
6120.3200 Subpart 2 B.
8
6. Agricultural Activities. The following standards shall apply to agricultural activities in
shoreland areas:
a. The shore impact for parcels with permitted agricultural uses is equal to a line parallel
to and 50 feet from the OHWL.
b. General cultivation farming, grazing, nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, sod
farming, and wild crop harvesting are permitted uses if steep slopes and shore impact
zones are maintained in permanent vegetation or operated under an approved
conservation plan (resource management systems) consistent with the field office
technical guides of the local soil and water conservation district or the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service.
Feedlots and manure storage are not permitted within the shoreland of watercourses or
in bluff impact zones, and must meet a minimum setback of 300 feet from the ordinary
high water level of all public water basins identified in subsection (C)(1).
c. New animal feedlots are not allowed in shoreland. Modifications or expansions to
existing feedlots or resumption of old feedlots are conditional uses and must meet the
following standards:
i. Feedlots must be designed consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7020;
ii. Feedlots must not further encroach into the existing ordinary high water level
setback or the bluff impact zone and must not expand to a capacity of 1,000
animal units or more; and,
iii. Old feedlots not currently in operation may resume operation consistent with
Minnesota Statute Section 116.0711.
d. The use of pesticides, fertilizers or animal wastes within shoreland areas shall be done
in such a way as to minimize impacts on shore impact zones by proper application or
use of earth or vegetation.
7. Shoreland Alterations. The purpose of this section is to prevent erosion into public waters,
fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent back
slumping and protect fish and wildlife habitat. Shoreland alterations shall be allowed in
accordance with the following standards:
a. No principal or accessory structure or use shall be placed within bluff or shore impact
zones other than agricultural activities as permitted by subsection (C)(5)6(b).
b. Shore impact zones shall be maintained in permanent vegetation or operated under an
approved conservation plan consistent with the field office technical guides of the local
soil and water conservation district.
c. Intensive Vegetative Clearing. Intensive vegetation clearing within shore and bluff
impact zones and/or steep slopes is not permitted. Intensive clearing within shoreland
areas outside of bluff or shore impact zones and steep slope areas is permitted subject
to standards set forth in Subp. (C) (8) of this Section. City approval of an erosion and
sedimentation control plan that is consistent with the City’s Storm Water and Erosion
and Sediment Control Ordinance (§150.270).
d. Limited Tree Clearing. Limited clearing of trees and shrubs and the cutting, pruning
and trimming of trees within bluff and shore impact zones or steep slopes to
accommodate picnic areas, trails and water access and to provide a view to the water
from a principal dwelling site shall be permitted provided the screening of structures,
as viewed from the water, is not substantially reduced and that the shading of water
surface is along rivers is preserved. These provisions do not apply to the removal of
tree limbs or branches that are dead or pose a safety hazard.
e. Grading in Shoreland Areas. All grading and filling activities must be in conformance
with the Wetland Conservation Act. Any grading or filling on steep slopes or within
shore or bluff impact zones involving the movement of ten (10) or more cubic yards of
material or involving more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material elsewhere in a
shoreland area shall require the submission of a Grading Permit. Approval shall be
granted only if the following conditions are met:
Commented [DP11]: PCA rules are now more restrictive and
supersede the shoreland rules. PCA rules prohibit new feedlots in
shoreland so 300 foot setback and bluff impact zone are no longer
relevant. PCA rules do allow modification or expansion to existing
feedlots or resumption of old feedlots. Per SL rules these would
need to be processed as a conditional use. If these situations could
apply in the City, suggest using this language.
Commented [EB12]: This has been moved to the Forest
Management Section
9
i. Any filling or grading in any Type 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 wetland shall be in
conformance with the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 and shall require
consideration of how extensively the proposed activity will affect the
following functional qualities of the wetland:
a) Sediment and pollution trapping and retention
b) Storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage
c) Fish and wildlife habitat and endangered plants and animals
d) Recreational use
e) Shoreline or bank stabilization
f) Historical significance
ii. The smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time
possible;
iii. Ground cover such as mulch is used for temporary bare soil coverage and
permanent ground cover, such as sod, is established;
iv. Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediment during construction are
employed;
v. Altered areas are stabilized to accepted erosion control standards;
vi. Fill is not placed so as to create unstable slopes;
vii. Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes are certified by
qualified professionals as to slope stability and must not create finished
slopes of 30 percent or greater;
viii. Alterations below the OHWL of public waters are authorized must first be
authorized by the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources per Minn. Stats. § 103G.245 and 103G.405;
ix. Placement of natural rock riprap, including associated grading of the
shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished
slope does not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical, the
landward extent of the riprap is within ten feet of the OHWL and the
height of the riprap above the OHWL does not exceed three feet; and
x. Alterations of topography shall only be permitted if accessory to a
permitted or conditional use.
xi. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zone.
f. Dedicated Riparian Areas. Riparian areas dedicated to the City shall be protected from
intensive development. Permitted uses include passive open space, pedestrian trails,
public parks and park-related structures, facilities for public water access, fishing
piers, parking lots for park users, and stormwater treatment ponds. Unless being used
for active park purposes, the riparian areas shall be maintained in permanent natural
vegetation.
8. Forest management standards. The harvesting of timber and associated reforestation
or conversion of forested use to a nonforested use must be conducted consistent with
the following standards:
a. Timber harvesting and associated reforestation must be conducted consistent with the
Sustaining Minnesota Forest Resources: Voluntary Site-Level Forest Management
Guidelines for Landowners, Loggers and Resource Managers
b. Forest land conversion to another use requires issuance of a conditional use permit and
adherence to the following standards:
i. Shore and bluff impact zones must not be intensively cleared of vegetation.
ii. An erosion and sediment control plan is developed and approved by the City
and local soil and water conservation district and is consistent with the City’s
Commented [EB13]: These can be removed as they duplicate
standards in MR 8420
10
Storm Water and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (150.270) before
issuance of a conditional use permit for the conversion.
8. Sand and Gravel Extraction. The following standards shall apply to sand and gravel
extraction uses:
a. Processing machinery shall be located consistent with setback standards for structures.
b. A site development and restoration plan shall be developed by the owner for approval
by the city which addresses dust, noise, possible pollutant discharges, hours and
duration of operation and anticipates vegetation and topography alterations. It shall
identify actions to be taken to mitigate adverse environmental impacts and measures
to be employed to restore the site after excavation.
9. Stormwater Management. Stormwater management shall be in accordance with the
City’s Storm Water and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (§150.270). In
addition, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Minnesota Stormwater Manual shall
be used as guidance. Within shoreland areas, the following standards also apply:
a. Existing natural drainage ways, wetlands and vegetated soil surfaces must be used to
convey, store, filter and retain storm water in a manner consistent with local
watershed district rules and regulations before discharge to public waters.
b. Development must be planned and conducted in a manner that will minimize the
extent of disturbed areas, runoff velocities, and erosion potential and reduce and delay
runoff volumes. Disturbed areas must be stabilized and protected as soon as grading is
complete and facilities or methods used to retain sediment on the site are removed.
c. Use of fertilizers, pesticides or animal wastes within shoreland areas must be done in a
way to minimize impact on the shore impact zone or public water by proper
application.
d. New constructed storm water outfalls to public waters must provide for filtering or
settling of suspended solids and skimming of surface debris before discharge.
10. Private Utilities. The following provisions shall apply in shoreland areas:
a. Private subsurface sewage treatment systems shall meet applicable City and County
requirements and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Chapter 7080 standards.
Publicly owned sewer systems shall be used where available.
b. Any private water supply to be used for domestic purposes shall meet quality
standards established by the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency.
i. Private wells must be located, constructed, maintained, and sealed in
accordance with or in a more thorough manner than the Water Well
Construction Code of the Minnesota Department of Health.
11. Planned Unit Developments. Residential pPlanned unit developments shall be
permitted in shoreland areas subject to the requirements of Article XVI of this chapter.
a. Design criteria for planned unit developments within shoreland areas:
i. At least 50 percent of the total project area shall be preserved as open
space. The open space computation shall not include road rights-of-way, or
land covered by roads, structures or parking surfaces.
ii. Open space shall include areas having physical characteristics that are
unsuitable for development in their natural state and areas containing
.significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries.
iii. Open space may contain outdoor recreational facilities for use by the
owners of residential units or the public.
iv. The appearance of open space areas, including topography, vegetation and
allowable uses, shall be preserved.
11
v. PUDs shall be connected to public water supply and sewer systems.
vi. Before final approval of a PUD is granted, the developer/owner shall
provide for the preservation and maintenance, in perpetuity, of open space
and the continuation of the development as a community.
vii. Approval from the DNR is required to ensure compliance with additional
regulations.
11. Planned Unit Developments (PUD)
a. Purpose. To protect and enhance the natural and scenic qualities of shoreland areas
during and after development and redevelopment of high density residential uses.
b. Density. Deviation from the minimum lot size standards of Table 17-3 of this ordinance
is allowed if the standards in this Section are met.
c. Processing of PUDs. Planned unit developments are processed according to the
procedures in Section 154.758 and the standards of Article XVI and Article XVII,
whichever is more restrictive. Approval cannot occur until all applicable environmental
reviews are complete.
d. Application for a PUD. The applicant for a PUD must submit the following documents
prior to final action on the application request:
i. A property owners association agreement with mandatory membership, and
consistent with 11 (h) (iv) of this ordinance.
ii. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements or other instruments that:
1. Address future vegetative and topographic alterations, construction of
additional buildings, beaching of watercraft, and construction of
commercial buildings in residential PUDs; and
2. Ensure preservation and maintenance of open space in perpetuity
accordance with the criteria and analysis specified in 11 (h) of this
ordinance.
e. Density Determination. Proposed new or expansions to existing planned unit
developments must be evaluated using the following procedures.
i. Step 1. Identify Density Analysis Tiers. Divide the project parcel into tiers by
drawing one or more lines parallel to the ordinary high water level at the
following intervals, proceeding landward:
Classification Tier Depth
No Sewer (ft) Sewer (ft)
Recreational Development Lakes 267 267
Natural Environment Lakes 400 320
Tributary Rivers 300 300
ii. Step 2. Calculate Suitable Area for Development. Calculate the suitable area
within each tier by excluding all wetlands, bluffs, or land below the ordinary
high water level of public waters.
iii. Step 3. Determine Base Density
Commented [DP14]: Proposed for Section 11 of Article 17.
Commented [EB15]: Deed restrictions and covenants may be
provided to address future vegetative and topographic alterations,
construction of additional buildings, etc., but a permanent
easement will likely be required over open space areas.
12
1. Divide the suitable area within each tier by the minimum single
residential lot area in Table 17-3 for lakes to determine the allowable
number of dwelling units, or base density, for each tier. For rivers, if a
minimum lot area is not specified, divide the tier width by the
minimum single residential lot width. Allowable densities may be
transferred from any tier to any other tier further from the waterbody,
but must not be transferred to any tier closer to the waterbody.
2. All PUDs must meet the design standards in Section 11 (f) of this
ordinance.
iii. Step 4. Determine if the Site can Accommodate Increased Density.
The PUD may provide for an increase in density of up to 20% allowed in the
base zoning district or in Table 17-3, whichever is more restrictive, if:
Structure setbacks from the ordinary high water level:
1. Are increased to at least 50 percent greater than the minimum
setback; or
2. The impact on the waterbody is reduced an equivalent amount through
vegetative management, topography, or additional acceptable means
and the setback is at least 25 percent greater than the minimum
setback.
f. Design Criteria. All PUDs must meet the following design criteria:
i. General Design Standards.
1. Dwelling units must be clustered into one or more groups and located
on suitable areas of the development.
2. Dwelling units must be designed and located to meet the dimensional
standards, other than those for lot area and width, in Table 17-3:
3. Shore recreation facilities:
1. Must be centralized and located in areas suitable for them
based on a suitability analysis by the local unit of
government, which shall consider susceptibility to flooding,
existence of wetlands, soil and rock formations with severe
limitations for development, severe erosion potential, steep
topography, inadequate water supply or sewage treatment
capabilities, near-shore aquatic conditions unsuitable for
water-based recreation, important fish and wildlife habitat,
presence of significant historic sites, or any other feature of
the natural land likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of future residents of the proposed subdivision or of
the city.
2. The number of spaces provided for continuous beaching,
mooring, or docking of watercraft must not exceed one for
each allowable dwelling unit in the first tier.
3. Launching ramp facilities, including a small dock for loading
and unloading equipment, may be provided for use by
occupants of dwelling units located in other tiers.
Commented [EB16]: Are riparian or nonriparian lot size
standards to be used? This is obvious for 2nd and 3rd tiers and so on,
but not so obvious for 1st tiers.
Commented [DP17]: Use riparian lot areas for 1st tier. If there
is no 1st tier (e.g. development is in SL but contains no riparian land
or there are no lots in the 1st tier) Otherwise, use nonriparian lot
sizes for all other tiers.
Commented [DP18]: For lot area of rivers, Table 17.3 refers to
underlying zoning. These can range widely from small to large lots,
however, lot widths next to a tributary are fixed. What are the
results of a minimum lot size of 7000 sf and a required width of,
say, 150 feet – a lot depth of 47 feet? Is this practical in Lake Elmo?
Commented [EB19R18]: I think this is something that would
need to be reviewed on a case by case basis. This example does not
make sense and will have to be clafiied by the MNDNR.
Commented [EB21]: I’m not sure I’m understanding what this
is saying correctly. Do you mean divide the underlying zoning
districts’ minimum lot area by the SL required minimum lot width.
How I’m reading it is:
Min Tier Width (Does this mean 267, 300, etc.(Tier Depth?)) / Min
Single Residential Lot Width (of zoning district?).
Can you please clarify?
Commented [DP20]: Since the city specifies lot area for river
lots as “underlying” zoning, this sentence can be removed. Table
17.3 includes the minimum lot widths, so removing sentence is
probably best to eliminate confusion.
Commented [DP22]: Unless the city envisions hotels, resorts
or campgrounds in shoreland, commercial PUD provisions and
references are not needed and have been removed.
Commented [DP23]: Consistent with existing PUD standards
Commented [DP24]: Definition for this?
Commented [EB25R24]: I included the definition from the
previous shoreland ordinance.
Commented [JS26R24]:
13
4. At least 50 percent of the total project area shall be preserved as open
space and must meet standards outlined in 11 (g) of this ordinance.
5. PUDs shall be connected to public water supply and sewer systems.
When sewer is not available, individual septic systems are not allowed;
community septic systems are required.
6. Approval from the DNR is required to ensure compliance with
additional regulations.
ii. Structures, parking areas, and other facilities must be treated to reduce
visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation,
topography, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the local
unit of government, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. Vegetative and
topographic screening must be preserved, if existing, or may be required to be
provided.
iii. Accessory structures and facilities, except water oriented accessory structures,
must meet the required structure setback and must be centralized.
g. Open Space Requirements.
i. Open space must constitute at least 50 percent of the total project area and must
include:
1. Areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in their
natural state and areas containing significant historic sites or unplatted
cemeteries;
2. Portions of the shore impact zone preserved in its natural or existing state
as follows:
i. For existing residential PUD’s, at least 50 percent of the shore
impact zone
ii. For new residential PUDs, at least 70 percent of the shore impact
zone.
ii. Open space may include:
1. Outdoor recreational facilities for use by owners of lots in the subdivision and
by the general public; and
2. Stormwater detention facilities, subsurface sewage treatment systems (if the
use of the space is restricted to avoid adverse impacts on the systems), and
other required site improvements not prohibited herein may be applied to this
requirement.
i. Open space shall not include:
1. Road rights-of-way, or land covered by roads, structures or parking surfaces.
2. Lots, unless owned in common by an owners association; road rights-of-way, or
land covered by road surfaces; parking areas, or structures, except water-
oriented accessory structures or facilities; and
3. Commercial facilities or uses.
h. Open Space Maintenance and Administration Requirements.
i. Open space preservation. The appearance of open space areas, including
topography, vegetation, and allowable uses, must be preserved.
Commented [EB27]: This is language from the 2014 ordinance
amendment.
Commented [EB28]: This was added to provide an option for
developments to which sewer is not available.
Commented [EB29]: This was added from our 2014 ordinance.
Commented [DP30]: These provisions, or similar, may be in
other parts of the code. If so, they may be acceptable. If these exist,
I couldn’t find them.
Commented [EB31R30]: It more or less says this through this
part of the PUD Ordinance.: Open space. For all PUDs, at least 20%
of the project area not within street rights-of-way shall be
preserved as protected open space. Other public or site amenities
may be approved as an alternative to this requirement. Any
required open space must be available to the residents, tenants, or
customers of the PUD for recreational purposes or similar benefit.
Land reserved for storm water detention facilities and other
required site improvements may be applied to this requirement.
Open space shall be designed to meet the needs of residents of the
PUD and the surrounding neighborhoods, to the extent practicable,
for parks, playgrounds, playing fields and other recreational
facilities.
However, because this does not explicitly restrict commercial
facilities or lots, I think it best to keep it in here. I did add some
language that allows stormwater detention facilities and other site
improvements not prohibited herein to be located in open space.
Commented [EB32]: This was added from our 2014 ordinance.
Commented [DP33]: These provisions, or similar, may be in
other parts of the code. If so, they may be acceptable. If these exist,
I couldn’t find them.
14
ii. Before final approval of a PUD is granted, the developer/owner shall provide for
the preservation and maintenance, in perpetuity, of open space and the
continuation of the development as a community.
iii. The instruments must prohibit:
1. Commercial uses ;
2. Vegetation and topographic alterations other than routine maintenance;
3. Construction of additional buildings or storage of vehicles and other materials;
and
4. Uncontrolled beaching of watercraft.
iv. Development organization and functioning. All planned unit developments must use
an owners association with the following features:
1. Membership must be mandatory for each dwelling unit owner and any
successive owner;
2. Each member must pay a pro rata share of the association’s expenses, and
unpaid assessments can become liens on units or dwelling sites;
3. Assessments must be adjustable to accommodate changing conditions; and
4. The association must be responsible for insurance, taxes, and maintenance of
all commonly owned property and facilities.
12. Nonconformities. Nonconformities, substandard lots and structures, and nonconforming on-
site sewage treatment systems within shoreland areas shall meet the requirements
specified in Article IV of this chapter.
a. All legally established nonconformities as of the date of this ordinance may continue,
but will be managed according to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357 Subd. 1e and
other regulations of this community for alterations and additions; repair after
damage; discontinuance of use; and intensification of use.
b. All additions or expansions to the outside dimensions of an existing nonconforming
structure must meet the setback, height, and other requirements of this ordinance.
Any deviation from these requirements must be authorized by a variance.
a. The expansion or enlargement of a riparian substandard structure shall meet the
shoreland development standards set forth in subsection (C)(3) except as follows:
i. The extension, enlargement or alteration of a riparian substandard
structure or sanitary facility may be permitted on the side of the structure
or facility facing away from the OHWL without following the variance
process.
ii. An improvement to a riparian substandard structure or sanitary facility may
be allowed to extend laterally by a conditional use permit (parallel to the
OHWL) when the improvement is in compliance with the other dimensional
standards of this chapter. In no case shall the improvement extend closer
to the OHWL than the existing structure.
i. Decks may be allowed without a variance where riparian dedication is not
required, provided as follows:
1. A thorough evaluation of the property and structure reveals no
reasonable location for a deck meeting or exceeding the existing OHWL
setback of the structure;
Commented [EB34]: This is the exact language provided in
regards to open space preservation in City-approved 2014
ordinance.
Commented [DP35]: These provisions, or similar, may be in
other parts of the code. If so, they may be acceptable. If these exist,
I couldn’t find them.
15
2. The deck encroachment toward the OHWL does not exceed 15 percent
of the existing shoreline setback of the structure from the OHWL or
does not encroach closer than 30 feet, whichever is more restrictive;
and
3. The deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or
screened.
ii. If a riparian substandard structure is demolished, replacement shall comply
with the dimensional standards of this section.
b. Any deviations from the standards set forth in subsection (C)(3) must be authorized by
a variance.
c. Nonconforming Sewage Treatment Systems.
iii. A sewage treatment system not meeting the requirements of subsection (C)
(10) (a) must be upgraded, at a minimum, at any time a permit or variance of
any type is required for any improvement on, or use of, the property. For the
purpose of this provision, a sewage treatment system shall not be considered
nonconforming if the only deficiency is the sewage treatment system’s
improper setback from the OHWL.
iv. Upgrading or replacement of any nonconforming system will be required within
a reasonable period of time which will not exceed 2-years. Sewage systems
installed according to all applicable local shoreland management standards
adopted under Minnesota Statutes, section 103F, in effect at the time of
installation may be considered as conforming unless they are determined to be
failing, except that systems using cesspools, leaching pits, seepage pits, or
other deep disposal methods, or systems with less soil treatment area
separation above groundwater than required by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency’s Chapter 7080 for design of on-site sewage treatment systems, shall be
considered nonconforming.
d. Construction on nonconforming lots of record.
v. Lots of record in the office of the county recorder on the date of enactment of
local shoreland controls that do not meet the requirements of Table 17-3 of
this ordinance may be allowed as building sites without variances from lot size
requirements provided the use is permitted in the zoning district, the lot size
meets the minimum restrictions of the underlying zoning district, the lot has
been in separate ownership from abutting lands at all times since it became
substandard, was created compliant with official controls in effect at the time,
and sewage treatment and setback requirements of this ordinance are met.
vi. If, in a group of two or more contiguous lots under the same ownership, any
individual lot does not meet the requirements of Table 17-3 of this ordinance
the lot must not be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purposes of
sale or development. The lot must be combined with the one or more
contiguous lots so they equal one or more parcels of land, each meeting the
requirements of Table 17-3 of this ordinance as much as possible.
13. Surface Water-Oriented Uses. Uses with needs to have access to and use of public waters
may be located on parcels or lots with frontage on public waters must meet the following
standards:
i. In addition to meeting impervious coverage limits, setbacks, and other zoning
standards, uses must be designed to incorporate topographic and vegetative
screening of parking areas and structures.
ii. Uses that require short-term watercraft mooring for patrons must centralize
these facilities and design them to avoid obstructions of navigation and to be
the minimum size necessary to meet the need.
iii. No advertising signs or supporting facilities for signs may be placed in or upon
public waters. Signs conveying information or safety messages may be placed in
16
or on public waters by a public authority or under a permit issued by the
county sheriff.
iv. Signs may be placed, when necessary, within the shore impact zone if they are
designed and sized to be the minimum necessary to convey needed
information.
v. Other outside lighting may be located within the shore impact zone or over
public waters if it is used primarily to illuminate potential safety hazards and is
shielded or otherwise directed to prevent direct illumination out across public
waters. This does not preclude use of navigational lights.
D. Administration.
1. Variances. Variances may only be granted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.357 and are subject to the following:
a. A variance may not circumvent the general purposes and intent of this ordinance;
and
b. For properties with existing sewage treatment systems, a certificate of compliance,
consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7082.0700 Subp. 3, is required for variance
approval. A sewage treatment system shall be considered compliant if the only
deficiency is the system’s improper setback from the ordinary high water level.
2. Conditional Uses. All conditional uses in the shoreland area are subject to a thorough
evaluation of the waterbody and the topographic, vegetation, and soil conditions to
ensure:
a. The prevention of soil erosion or other possible pollution of public waters, both
during and after construction;
b. The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed form public waters is
limited;
c. There is adequate water supply and on-site sewage treatment; and
d. The types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are
compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these
watercraft.
3. Mitigation.
a. In evaluating all variances, conditional uses, zoning and building permit applications,
the zoning authority shall require the property owner to address, when related to and
proportional to the impact, the following conditions to meet the purpose of this
ordinance, to protect adjacent properties, and the public interest:
1. Advanced storm water runoff management treatment;
2. Reducing impervious surfaces;
3. Increasing setbacks from the ordinary high water level;
4. Restoration of wetlands;
5. Limiting vegetation removal and/or riparian vegetation restoration;
6. Provisions for the location, design, and use of structures, sewage treatment
systems, water supply systems, watercraft launching and docking areas, and
parking areas; and
7. Other conservation-designed conditions the zoning authority deems necessary.
17
b. In evaluating plans to construct sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways,
structures, or other improvements on steep slopes, conditions to prevent erosion and
to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as
viewed from the surface of public waters assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation shall be
attached to permits.
4. Notifications to the Department of Natural Resources
a. All notices of public hearings to consider variances, ordinance amendments, or
conditional uses under shoreland management controls must be sent to the
commissioner or the commissioner’s designated representative at least ten days before
the hearings. Notices of hearings to consider proposed subdivisions/plats must include
copies of the subdivision/plat.
b. All approved ordinance amendments and subdivisions/plats, and final decisions
approving variances or conditional uses under local shoreland management controls
must be sent to the commissioner or the commissioner’s designated representative and
postmarked within ten days of final action. When a variance is approved after the
Department of Natural Resources has formally recommended denial in the hearing
record, the notification of the approved variance shall also include the summary of the
public record/testimony and the findings of facts and conclusions which supported the
issuance of the variance.
c. Any request to change the shoreland management classification of public waters
must be sent to the commissioner or the commissioner’s designated representative for
approval, and must include a resolution and supporting data as required by Minnesota
Rules, part 6120.3000, subp.4.
d. Any request to reduce the boundaries of shorelands of public waters must be sent to
the commissioner or the commissioner’s designated representative for approval. The
boundaries of shorelands may be reduced when the shoreland of water bodies with
different classifications overlap. In these cases, the topographic divide between the
water bodies shall be used for adjusting the boundaries.
1. Required Notice to the Department of Natural Resources. The zoning administrator
shall send copies of notices of any public hearings to consider variances, plats,
ordinance amendments, PUDs or conditional uses under local shoreland management
controls to the commissioner of the department of natural resources or his designee at
least ten days prior to the hearings. In addition, a copy of the approved amendments,
plats, variances and conditional uses shall be sent to the commissioner or his designee
within ten days of the final decision.
5. Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Certificate of Compliance. A certificate of
compliance, consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7082.0700 Subp. 3, is required
whenever a permit or variance of any type is required for any improvement on or use of the
property. A sewage treatment system shall be considered compliant if the only deficienct is
the system’s improper setback from the ordinary high water level.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo.
SECTION 4. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08-___ was adopted on this ______ day of ___
2016, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays.
Commented [EB36]: I added this but also added subsurface
sewage treatment system to the language, as I wanted to clarify for
the reader that may not know the MN rules that the certificate of
compliance was in regards to SSTS, not just any permit or variance.
18
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
This Ordinance 08-____ was published on the ____ day of ___________________, 2016.
19
From:John P. Hanson
To:Emily Becker
Subject:RE: Shoreland Classification Table Question
Date:Monday, August 01, 2016 5:12:05 PM
Attachments:image002.png
Hi Emily,
I so sorry for not responding sooner.
I think it’s really the City’s call on whether to include these in the Shoreline Ordinance. Whether they’re in or out, developments would still need to
conform to the Valley Branch Watershed District’s buffer and minimum floor elevations standards. Of the four in the first table:
•Margaret: It’s entirely within Lake Elmo Park Preserve and the nearest undeveloped land to the south is 0.4 miles away so I don’t think whether it’s
in or out makes a difference.
•82031300 is Goetschel Pond. I think all of the adjacent land is developed or in permanent open space. Goetschel Pond has a high flood level so
that would also require a decent setback. So, again, I don’t think it would make a significant difference if it’s in or out.
•82041700 is within Tartan Park/The Royal Golf Club at Lake Elmo. This one of the four might deserve the most discussion by the City as it could
affect the surrounding development. It’s part of a somewhat natural greenway connection between Horseshoe Lake and Lake Elmo, which is part of
a larger somewhat connected greenway from the St. Croix, up Afton along Valley Creek, up Raleigh Creek and Sunfish Lake to the Tri-Lakes and Long
Lake and eventually to White Bear Lake.
•82048400: The land to the SE is undeveloped so I think whether it’s in our out could affect development. To be consistent with the existing
developments (Hamlet at Sunfish Lake and Sunfish Pond) around the wetland, the City might want to keep it the Shoreline ordinance, but perhaps
other rules and regulations would limit development close to the wetland.
John
John P. Hanson, PE,E N VS P
Valley Branch Watershed District Engineer
Barr Engineering Co. | 4300 MarketPointe Drive | Bloomington, MN 55435
office: 952.832.2622 | cell: 612.590.1785
JHanson@barr.com |www.barr.com |www.vbwd.org
From: Emily Becker [mailto:EBecker@lakeelmo.org]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 11:35 AM
To: John P. Hanson <JHanson@barr.com>
Subject: RE: Shoreland Classification Table Question
Hi John,
Sorry to bother you about this, but we are getting inquiries again about if these bodies of water or okay to remove from the revised Shoreland Ordinance. I
don’t want to remove these if they are bodies of water that should remain in the ordinance. Please let me know when you are able.
Emily Becker
City Planner
City of Lake Elmo
651-747-3912
ebecker@lakeelmo.org
From: Emily Becker
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 11:58 AM
To: 'John P. Hanson' <JHanson@barr.com>
Subject: RE: Shoreland Classification Table Question
Hi John,
I just wanted to see if you had a chance to review this to see if there are issues with removing any of these bodies of water from our shoreland ordinance?
Please let me know. Thank you!
Emily Becker
City Planner
City of Lake Elmo
651-747-3912
ebecker@lakeelmo.org
From:Sorensen, Jenifer (DNR)
To:Emily Becker
Cc:Stephen Wensman
Subject:RE: Shoreland Classification Table Question
Date:Wednesday, June 29, 2016 1:10:09 PM
Emily –
I’ve made some notes below (in purple).
Let me know if you need additional information to answer the inquiry that you received regarding removing public waters from regulation under the City’s
shoreland ordinance. There are four public waters that are in the City’s current shoreland ordinance that are not required by DNR to be regulated under
the shoreland program. Cities can always include additional public waters in their shoreland ordinance. I’d encourage you to look for any correspondence
in your files that would explain why these four public waters were added to the ordinance.
Jen
Jenifer Sorensen, PE, PhD – East Metro Area Hydrologist (Ramsey and Washington Counties)
MN DNR, Division of Ecological and Water Resources | 1200 Warner Rd | St Paul, MN 55106
(651) 259-5754 | jenifer.sorensen@state.mn.us
From: Emily Becker [mailto:EBecker@lakeelmo.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 9:48 AM
To: Sorensen, Jenifer (DNR)
Cc: Stephen Wensman
Subject: Shoreland Classification Table Question
Hi Jen,
It appears on the DNR website that there is a discrepancy between the Lake Shoreland Classifications List By County and our Shoreland Classification
System. Namely, the following 8 lakes or rivers are included on Lake Elmo’s Shoreland Ordinance shoreland classification table that are not included on the
DNR Website’s Lake Shoreland Classifications List by County table:
DNR ID # Name Location
Ordinary
High Water
Level Class
150 FTa
Riparian
Dedication
Required
Can this
Public Water
be Removed
from City
Shoreland
Ordinance?
82041900 Margaret
Sec 26,
T29, R21 - NE No
Yes You’re correct that this waterbody does not have a DNR
shoreland classification. This waterbody is not required to
be included in the City shoreland ordinance. This
waterbody wasn’t listed in the City’s 1997 ordinance (last
version approved by DNR) and I don’t have any
correspondence with the City as to why this waterbody
was included in the shoreland ordinance. If removed,
waterbody and surrounding property will still be within
1000’ shoreland district of Eagle Point Lake (82010900) or
HJ Brown Pond (82011100). Lots around the waterbody
are within shoreland district but riparian lots wouldn’t
have to meet shoreland setback standards.
N/A
Use this
DNR ID:
82016a
Raleigh
Creek North
(to Eagle
Point Lake)
Sec 16, 21
& 22, T29,
R21 - T No
No All public watercourses have a shoreland classification
(however, there isn’t a table on DNR’s website telling the
shoreland classifications of each watercourse). This
watercourse segment is classified as tributary. All public
watercourses have a 300’ shoreland district on each side
of the watercourse. This watercourse should be in the
shoreland ordinance.
N/A
Use this
DNR ID:
82016a
Raleigh
Creek South
(Eagle Point
Lake to Lake
Elmo)
Sec 22, 23
& 227,
T29, R21 - T No
No All public watercourses have a shoreland classification
(however, there isn’t a table on DNR’s website telling the
shoreland classifications of each watercourse). This
watercourse segment is classified as tributary. All public
watercourses have a 300’ shoreland district on each side
of the watercourse. This watercourse should be in the
shoreland ordinance.
82031300 Unnamed
Sec 12,
T29, R21 - NE No
Yes You’re correct that this waterbody does not have a DNR
shoreland classification. This waterbody is not required to
be included in the City shoreland ordinance and I don’t
have any correspondence with the City as to why this
waterbody was included in the shoreland ordinance. This
waterbody wasn’t listed in the City’s 1997 ordinance (last
version approved by DNR).
82041700 Unnamed
Sec 25,
T29, R21 - NE No
Yes You’re correct that this waterbody does not have a DNR
shoreland classification. This waterbody is not required to
be included in the City shoreland ordinance and I don’t
have any correspondence with the City as to why this
waterbody was included in the shoreland ordinance. This
waterbody wasn’t listed in the City’s 1997 ordinance (last
version approved by DNR).
Yes You’re correct that this waterbody does not have a DNR
shoreland classification. This waterbody is not required to
82048400 Unnamed
Sec 11,
T29, R21 - NE No
be included in the City shoreland ordinance and I don’t
have any correspondence with the City as to why this
waterbody was included in the shoreland ordinance. This
waterbody wasn’t listed in the City’s 1997 ordinance (last
version approved by DNR).
N/A
Use this
DNR ID:
82019a
Unnamed to
Wilmes Lake
Sec 33,
T29, R21 - T No
No All public watercourses have a shoreland classification
(however, there isn’t a table on DNR’s website telling the
shoreland classifications of each watercourse). This
watercourse segment is classified as tributary. All public
watercourses have a 300’ shoreland district on each side
of the watercourse. This watercourse should be in the
shoreland ordinance.
N/A
Use this
DNR ID:
82016a
Unnamed
Tributary
Sec 25,
T29, R21 - T No
No All public watercourses have a shoreland classification
(however, there isn’t a table on DNR’s website telling the
shoreland classifications of each watercourse). This
watercourse segment is classified as tributary. All public
watercourses have a 300’ shoreland district on each side
of the watercourse. This watercourse should be in the
shoreland ordinance. Part of this watercourse is in a pipe
(on Royal Golf Course).
Also, 82011602 is not listed on the DNR’s table (listed twice is 82011601 on the DNR’s table, but this could have been a typo)
82011602
Armstrong
(south of
CSAH 10)
Sec 28,
T29, R21 1019.3 NE No
This waterbody shouldn’t be in Lake Elmo’s shoreland ordinance since it’s
outside of the City limits. Thanks for noting the correction that needs to
be made to DNR’s shoreland classification table. 82011601 should be in
the City’s shoreland ordinance (Armstrong North).
Bershen’s Pond (ID 82010500), however, IS listed on the DNR website’s list, but is not on our table.
You’re correct, 82010500 has a Natural Environment shoreland classification. This waterbody should be included in the City’s shoreland ordinance. It
was in the City’s 1997 ordinance; I don’t have any correspondence with the City on why it was removed from the shoreland ordinance. Please add this
waterbody to the City’s shoreland ordinance.
Please advise if these lakes and rivers are to remain on our classification table, or if this classification system has been updated and the above lakes or
rivers can be removed from our Ordinance’s classification table. We have had a request to have them removed, so will need a response to give.
Emily Becker
City Planner
City of Lake Elmo
651-747-3912
ebecker@lakeelmo.org
82048400 (removed)
82031300 (removed)
82041700 (removed)
82041900 (removed)
82011602 (removed - not in
Lake Elmo)
82010500 Berschen’s Pond
(added)
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 1/9/2017
AGENDA ITEM: 4C– PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #2016-45
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
To: Planning Commission
From: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
Meeting Date: January 9, 2017
Applicants:
Reviewed By:
HC Golf Course Development, LLC
Ben Gozola, City Planner
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 09/12/2016
60 Day Deadline – 11/11/2016
Extension Letter Mailed – Yes
120 Day Deadline – 01/10/2017
30 Day extension from Developer – 2/9/17
Introductory Information
Request: HC Golf Course Development, LLC is requesting the City consider a comprehensive plan
amendment to accommodate potential sewer extensions and sewered development within
the area bounded by the Old Village to the north, Lake Elmo Avenue to the west, and 10th
Street to the South.
Planning
Commission
Direction:
At their meeting on October 24, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
to discuss the comprehensive plan amendment, then tabled the item to the November
14, 2016 meeting in order for Staff to draft a “Golf Course Community” land use
designation to guide the former Tartan Park area for the Commission’s consideration.
At the November 14th meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed Golf
Course Community land use designation, but ultimately recommended approval of an
amended Village Transitional District that extended over the former Tartan Park
property and Terry Emerson’s property. Since the Commission’s recommendation, the
City Council discussed both Village Transitional Overlay District options and the Golf
Course Community option and provided guidance to follow the Golf Course
Community option, but no action was taken. Because the public notice was for Village
Transitional Overlay District, Staff was required to re-notice the newspaper for the
comprehensive plan amendment and to send out public notices to properties within 350
feet of the affected properties. The Golf Course Community option is again under
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Golf Course Community
Planning Commission Report; 1/9/17
Page 2
consideration for the Planning Commission along with updated comprehensive
wastewater plan.
Review
Proposed
Changes:
Considerations:
The attached comprehensive plan amendment consists of 4 changes to the
comprehensive land use plan and _ changes to the comprehensive wastewater
management plan:
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Changes:
1) On page III-9, a new land use category is created called “Golf Course
Community” that identifies the former Tartan Park as a local and regional
amenity the City wishes to maintain with any development proposal for the
property. The new category suggests a future new zoning district.
2) On page III-11, Table 3-B has been updated to reflect proposed density of 1.5-
2.49 and planned land use acreages.
3) Map 3-3 (not included) will be an updated planned land use map.
4) On page III-14, “Preservation of Community Amenities” was added which
further describes the need and intent of the “Golf Course Community” land use
designation.
5) Map 3-4 was updated to reflect the changes to the comprehensive wastewater
management plan MUSA changes to accommodate the Royal Golf development.
Wastewater Management Plan Changes:
1) On page VI – 1, reference was made to the Golf Course Community on the
former Tartan Park property
2) On page VI – 2, Table 6A Community Forecast for Areas Served by Regional
Sewer Service (REC Units) was updated to reflect the addition of the Royal Golf
development.
3) On page VI – 3, Table 6B was updated to reflect the increased sewer flows by
the addition of the Royal Golf Course development.
4) Maps 6-1 and 6-3 were updated to reflect changes in the MUSA to accommodate
the Royal Golf development
The Planning Commission should review the draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan
amendment and the Comprehensive Wasterwater Management Plan amendment as they
pertain to the proposed Royal Golf development. The Planning Commission should
confirm whether the amendments should include Terry Emerson’s property located
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Golf Course Community
Planning Commission Report; 1/9/17
Page 3
contiguous and southeast of the Royal Golf Course development properties. Please note
that the proposed Royal Golf Course development southern road connection to 10th
Street passes through the Emerson property, but that the Emerson property will likely
develop independently of the Royal Golf Course development and subsequent to it. The
inclusion of the Emerson property in the comprehensive plan guidance has implications
for the future golf course community zoning.
Conclusion
The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed updates to the
Comprehensive Plan, and provide guidance on changes or additions for Council to
consider. The recommended motion is:
“Move to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to
create a new land use designation called “Golf Course Community” with
updated maps and figures”
Attachments
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Wastewater Management Plan Amendments.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Option #2
Creation of a New Land Use
Category: Golf Course Community
Summary:
Option #2 follows the directive of the Planning Commission following their initial review of Option #1. While
the Commission was not opposed to Option #1, they expressed concern about whether or not the Village
Transition concept would actually control the expansion of municipal services, so they also wished to explore
the creation of a new land use category specifically drafted for this very unique and unexpected circumstance
(the closing and redevelopment of Tartan Park). The new land use district would be accompanied by a new
zoning district (not yet drafted) to govern development of the 400+ acres in and around the former Tartan
Park. The zoning would provide incentives such as increased density and access to municipal sewer in return
for maintaining and improving upon the golf course amenity.
Relation to the Proposed Royal Golf Project:
This option would involve creation of a tailored zoning district to accommodate the proposed redevelopment of
the Tartan Park Golf Course. In creating such a district, staff would establish controls (as Council may deem
necessary) to govern future requests to change the golf course into different land uses. Updating the City’s
future land use map to require a comprehensive plan amendment for any such change would add another level
of protection.
Relation to other lands in the Corridor:
This option would not provide an option to extend sewer beyond the boundaries of the Village Transition Area.
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Chapter III – Land Use Plan
III – 8
This section of the Land Use chapter establishes the City’s official land use categories and the official
Future Land Use Map. The map assigns planned land use types to all parcels within the community to
guide current and future planning and development through the year 2030, and is the official land use
designation map for the City. The assigned land use designations are intended to shape the character,
type and density of future development according to sound planning principles. Any new development,
redevelopment, change in land use or change in zoning is required to be consistent with the official land
use guidance for each parcel.
The official land use plan categories are as follows:
RURAL AREA DEVELOPMENT – This category represents the large areas of rural residential development
within the City. Common uses found in these areas include working farms, alternative agricultural uses
as defined by City Code, and rural single family detached residences. Development in these areas
requires 10+ acres, or a conditional use permit to authorize a cluster development meeting the City’s
Open Space Preservation regulations. Densities are allowed up to 0.45 dwelling units per buildable acre
when planned as part of an Open Space Preservation development. No new areas of rural area
development are being established by the official land use plan. [Corresponding Zoning District(s): A,
RR, OP]
RESIDENTIAL ESTATE – This category defines areas developed specifically for large lot single family
detached housing typically on 2+ acres of land. No new areas of residential estate are being established
by the official land use plan. [Corresponding Zoning District(s): RE]
RURAL SINGLE FAMILY – This category defines a large portion of the City that was historically platted for
conventional subdivision prior to 2005, but has been and will continue to be serviced by private on-site
well and septic systems. Limited locations within this classification are allowed to have two-family
dwellings based on zoning. [Corresponding Zoning District(s): R-1, R-2]
URBAN LOW DENSITY – The Urban Low Density land use category is intended primarily for single-family
detached housing serviced by public sewer and water. This category allows net residential densities
from two and one-half (2.5) to four (4) units per acre. Significant new areas of urban low density are
guided both within the Old Village and along I-94. [Corresponding Zoning District: LDR]
URBAN MEDIUM DENSITY – The Urban Medium Density land use category allows net residential
densities from four and one-half (4.5) to seven (7) units per acre; with greater densities only allowed if
deemed appropriate and approved through the PUD process and that meet incentives for density bonus
as allowed under the PUD ordinance . This category allows for a variety of housing types including
single-family detached, duplexes, townhomes, and small two- and three-story apartment buildings
and/or senior living centers. Significant new areas of urban medium density are guided both within the
Old Village and along I-94. [Corresponding Zoning District(s): R-3, MDR]
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Chapter III – Land Use Plan
III – 9
URBAN HIGH DENSITY – The Urban High Density land use category is intended for higher density,
compact urban residential development. This category allows for a net residential density range of
seven and one-half (7.5) to fifteen (15) units per acre; however zoning may allow a greater net density if
approved through the PUD process. The appropriate building height will vary by development and
depend upon the characteristics of the development and its surroundings. In addition to residential
development, a small proportion of supportive retail and service is also appropriate in this land use
category. Retail, service and office beyond those supporting the residential development would only be
permitted as part of a mixed-use planned unit development. Significant new areas of urban high density
are guided both within the Old Village and along I-94. [Corresponding Zoning District(s): HDR]
GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY – In recognition that a Golf Course on the land known as Tartan Park is a
local and regional amenity the City wishes to maintain, this specialized land use category has been
crafted to maximize the likelihood that a golf course can be maintained on the prope rty should a
development proposal for the land come forward. [Corresponding Zoning District(s): GCC]
LIMITED BUSINESS – This category defines areas within the City that are allowed to host commercial
land uses at a more restricted level than would typically be allowed within a commercially guided area
and in areas that are not planned for public sanitary sewer services. No new areas of limited business
are being established by the official land use plan. [Corresponding Zoning District(s): LB, LC]
COMMERCIAL – This category is intended to accommodate a wide range and scale of commercial uses
(such as retail, service, entertainment, and office) throughout the City’s planned urban centers.
Commercial uses can range from small neighborhood convenience nodes, to community retail areas
along major roadways, to large shopping centers, to auto-related commercial uses along freeways.
Residential uses are also appropriate as part of a mixed-use commercial development where allowed,
with unit densities being determined by either the identified range within the comprehensive plan or to
a level deemed appropriate by a planned unit development process. Significant new areas of
commercial land use are guided both within the Old Village and along I-94. [Corresponding Zoning
District(s): C, CC, GB]
BUSINESS PARK – The Business Park land use category is intended to encourage the creation of
significant employment centers that accommodate a diverse mix of office and light industrial uses and
jobs. Specific desired attributes of this land use include a diversity of jobs, high development densities
and jobs per acre, high quality site and building architectural design, and increased tax revenues for the
community. Office, office showroom/warehousing, research and development services, light and high-
tech electronic manufacturing and assembly, and medical laboratories are typical uses appropriate for
this land use category. Some retail and service uses may be allowed as supporting uses for the primary
office and light industrial uses of the employment center. In addition to the Eagle Point Business Park,
much of the land between Manning Ave and Keats Ave adjacent to I-94 is guided for this land use
classification. [Corresponding Zoning District(s): BP]
Commented [BGA1]: The new land use category of “Golf
Course Community” would be added to the listing of land
uses within the City. Here we acknowledge that the intent
of the new category is to facilitate the preservation and
enhancement of the City’s lone golf course.
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Chapter III – Land Use Plan
III – 10
PUBLIC/PARK – This category defines lands that include publicly owned facilities, places of worship,
public parks, and privately owned recreational facilities. The scale and types of uses allowable on
public/park lands are controlled by the city’s conditional use permit process. No new areas of
public/park space are currently designated by the new land use plan, but it is recognized that such areas
will be created during the development process, and the land use map will need to be updated
accordingly. [Corresponding Zoning District(s): P, OSP]
ROAD R.O.W.s – This category encompasses all areas dedicated specifically for use as road right-of-way.
It should be noted that not all roads in Lake Elmo are on platted right-of-way, but are rather
accommodated by easements over other land use categories. Accordingly, there is more land dedicated
to use by roads than is depicted on the existing/planned land use table. New development will be
required to dedicate right-of-way to accommodate the proposed road network.
OPEN WATER – This category includes all land area in Lake Elmo covered by open water lakes and ponds
as identified in the DNR Public Waters Inventory. No new areas of open water are by the official land
use plan.
The distribution of planned land uses on the official Future Land Use Map is shown on Map 3-3 and is
summarized in Table 3-B:
Mixed Uses
Within the Old Village and in areas south of 10th Street, specific areas are targeted for potential mixed-
use development; however, this designation means different things in both districts.
Mixed Uses within the Old Village
The mixed use designation on property within the Old Village indicates development must adhere to
the specific zoning requirements established for mixed use development within the City Code. This
type of development will typically see residential, commercial, office, and/or similar uses combined
in complimentary ways within the same building.
Mixed Uses south of 10th Street
The mixed use designation on property south of 10th Street is intended to spur development by
providing maximum flexibility on future land uses, thereby allowing a development proposal to
cater to existing market conditions. In the areas designated as possible mixed-use on the Future
Land Use Map (Map 3-3), the City’s planning process has identified that either the base land use or
the adjacent land use designation would be appropriate for the site. These mixed-use areas may be
zoned in accordance with the base land use category, or the adjacent land use category provided
that:
• Any such zoning will only be allowed if it is contiguous to property in an adjacent land use
category; and
• The Urban Low Density Residential land use category will not allowed as an alternative land
use within mixed-use areas.
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Chapter III – Land Use Plan
III – 11
Alternatively, a combination of the uses allowed within the base land use category and future land uses adjacent
to a mixed use area may be allowed through a planned unit development process.
Table 3-B
Existing and Planned Land Use Table
Land Use
Residential
Density
(units/acre)
Existing Land
Use (acres)
Planned
Land
Use
(acres)
Planned Land Use Changes
(anticipated acreages in
5 year increments)3
Change
(acres)
Min Max City wide
(Village)1
2012 to
2015
2015 to
2020
2020 to
2025
2025 to
2030
R E S I D E N T I A L
Rural Area
Development
n/a 0.1 7094.24
5249.9 6640.66 6157.06 5703.53 5249.9 ‐1844.32
Residential
Estates
0.1 0.4 771.26 793.71 776.87 782.49 788.10 793.71
22.45
Rural Single
Family
0.66 2.0 1665.92 1666.41 1666.04 1666.16 1666.28 1666.41
0.49
Urban Low
Density
2.5 4 0.00 496.39 124.10 248.20 372.29 496.39
496.39
Urban Medium
Density
4.5 7 176.08
390.49 229.68 283.29 336.89 390.49
214.41
Urban High
Density
7.5 15 0.00
157.67 39.42 78.84 118.25 157.67
157.67
Village Urban
Low Density
1.5 2.49 0.00 244.11 61.03 122.06 183.09 244.11
244.11
Village Urban
Medium
Density
2.5
4.99
0.00
119.11
29.78
59.56
89.33
119.11
119.11
Golf Course
Community
1.5 2.49 0.00 424.39 0 424.39 424.39 424.39 424.39
C O M M E R C I A L 2
Business Park 7.5 15 120.65 329.69 172.91 225.17 277.43 329.69 209.04
Commercial 4.5 7 99.86 208.33 126.98 154.10 181.22 208.33 108.47
Limited
Business
– – 111.41 66.16 100.09 88.78 77.47 66.16 ‐45.25
Village Mixed
Use
5.0 10.0 0.00 164.40 41.10 82.20 123.30 164.40 164.40
P U B L I C / S E M I P U B L I C / O P E N S P A C E 3
Public/Park – – 3298.94 2944.93 3309.04 2924.72 2934.78 2944.93 -354.01
Greenbelt
Corridor4
– – 0.00
82.67 20.66 41.34 62.01 82.67
82.67
Road ROWs – – 890.93 890.93 890.93 890.93 890.93 890.93 0.0
U N D E V E L O P E D
Open Water – – 1355.29 1355.29 1355.29 1355.29 1355.29 1355.29 0.0
TOTALS: – – 15,584.58 15,584.58 15,584.55 15,584.55 15,584.55 15,584.55 0.0 1 Residential uses within the “Business Park” and “Commercial” land use designations can only occur in areas specifically designated for mixed use on the planned land use map
2 It is recognized that both park and road ROW areas will expand as new development occurs, but such acreage is accounted for in the respective development land use types as
such land areas must contribute towards required development densities.
3 The staging plan for future development is fluid and will allow development to occur as market conditions dictate. Because of this, specific timing for development of any specific
land use category is not possible. For the purposes of this table, the anticipated acreage changes are incrementally broken down into four periods of time showing a consistent rate
of change between now and 2030.
4 The acreage of the greenbelt corridor areas, which are portions of the Village Open Space Overlay, that are adjacent to urban zoning districts were calculated to account for the
remaining acreage in the Village. The other portions of the Village Open Space Overlay are accounted for through the base land use guidance (i.e. Rural Area Development or
Rural Single Family).
Commented [BGA2]: Because we are adding a land use
category, Table 3-B must be updated accordingly. The
changes shown here reflect existing planned changes along
with a reduction in Public/Park land for the new Golf Course
Community District.
As part of this amendment,
Map 3-3 would be updated to
guide the Tartan Park Golf
Course area and the Emerson
property as “Golf Course
Community”
“Golf Course Community” added to the legend
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Chapter III – Land Use Plan
III – 13
Design Standards
Following completion of the Comprehensive Plan, the City will adopt design standards to ensure the
look and feel of future development is compatible with the community vision of a small town within a
rural setting. Standards for building materials, building articulation, design variety and other
requirements should be upheld to ensure the quality of the built environment is distinctly Lake Elmo.
Preservation of Rural Character
One of the main benefits of the official land use plan is that the long range planning objective to retain a
permanent rural identity is achieved. Under the memorandum of understanding with the Metropolitan
Council, a vast majority of the City will be allowed to maintain its rural character and existing land uses.
Furthermore, concentrating urbanization adjacent to I-94 and within the Old Village will result in clear
boundaries between the urban and rural portions of the community. Beyond that, the City’s desire to
protect its sensitive park lands is also achieved. Both Lake Elmo Regional Park and Sunfish Lake Park will
continue to be surrounded by agricultural lands and will not be impacted by encroaching urbanization.
Preservation of Community Amenities
Lake Elmo Regional Park, Sunfish Lake Park, and other public lands covered by conservation easements
will be centerpieces of the City in the decades ahead, and are accordingly guided for public/park land
uses by this comprehensive plan. One community amenity that does not share the same certainty of
continuance is the Tartan Park Golf Course formerly owned by 3M. As a 50 -year fixture both for Lake
Elmo and the eastern metro, the Tartan Park Golf Course has become a destination within the
community that is worth saving if at all possible. To that end, the City has guided nearly 430 acres of
land in and around the present golf course as “Golf Course Community.” This special land use guidance
is intended to provide incentives—such as increased residential density and access to municipal sewer—
to future landowners who are willing to maintain and improve upon the golf course amenity rather than
develop the land as a standard OP rural development. A new “Golf Course Community” zoning district
will establish the development standards for this land use classification.
Future Land Use Boundaries
The curved lines separating future land uses on Map 3-3 midway between I-94 and 10th Street indicate
one possible alignment of a future east/west collector roadway envisioned to serve the new
development in this area of the City. Future development proposals and their associated engineering
studies will ultimately determine the exact alignment of this collector roadway. The final boundary
between the proposed different land uses shall ultimately be set by the final location of the east/west
collector roadway, whether or not this roadway deviates from the approximate location shown.
Commented [BGA3]: Here we are suggesting the City
adopt “preservation of community amenities” as a new goal
which will further support the establishment of the Golf
Course Community District. We acknowledge in this section
that the City has multiple legacy destinations (areas the City
wants to maintain and has no reason to plan for changes).
Given the recent ownership change of Tartan Park, the Golf
Course Community designation was created to help
facilitate this goal.
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Chapter VI – Wastewater Facilities
VI – 1
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
Sanitary Sewer System
Background
The City of Lake Elmo's sewer plan is based on the Memorandum of Understanding approved by the City
of Lake Elmo and the Metropolitan Council dated January 27, 2005 and as subsequently amended. This
plan meets the intent of that agreement and has been drafted to comply with the housing, population,
and employment projections as incorporated into the Land Use Plan.
Existing Sanitary Sewer
The Southeast 1/4 of Section 33 is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Boundary at this
time. By agreement with the City of Oakdale this area discharges to a City of Oakdale sanitary sewer
main in Hudson Boulevard. From there it enters the WONE interceptor. Under the agreement with the
City of Oakdale, Lake Elmo is limited to the amount it can discharge.
Sanitary Sewer Plan
The MCES plans to extend a new sewer connection for the City of Lake Elmo to serve the east 1/2 of
Section 33 and all of Section 34. The connection will be near the City's existing lift station, and that lift
station will continue to be active and maintained by the City.
Additionally, the MCES will extend the Cottage Grove Ravine interceptor to serve the remainder of the
City south of 10th Street, the future golf course community surrounding the former Tartan Park, and the
Village Planning Area.
The City will install a lift station-forcemain system to covey wastewater to the MCES interceptor from
the Village Planning Area. This lift station-forcemain system will be designed to serve the planned 900
new housing units and approximately 200 existing housing units. The City plans to build this system in
2013.
Sanitary sewer service will also be initiated to serve portions of the City south of 10th Street beginning in
2013 by extending gravity sewer in two locations. In the southeast side of Lake Elmo, gravity sewer will
be connected to the MCES Cottage Grove Ravine Meter Station in Lake Elmo, and extended north to
support development in the immediate area of the sewer main. In the southwest side of Lake Elmo, a
gravity sewer and lift station-forcemain system will be constructed to support development in the
remaining east ½ of Section 33 and in Section 34.
The existing units in the Cimarron manufactured home park will be served by regional sewer between
2020 and 2030. This flow is included in the forecasts. Cimarron will need to install a lift station in order
to be served by regional sewer. The existing homes and businesses in the Village Planning Area of Lake
Elmo are assumed to be served by regional sewer between 2013 and 2030. That flow has also been
included in the forecasts.
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Chapter VI – Wastewater Facilities
VI – 2
The City has identified an area along Olson Lake Trail in the Tri-Lakes area that will be served with public
sanitary sewer via an extension from the City of Oakdale. A sanitary sewer services agreement has been
entered to facilitate this extension. The City of Lake Elmo will work with the City of Oakdale to connect
existing homes as public projects occur or as when otherwise feasible to make these connections.
Requirements for Areas Served by the Regional System
Community Forecast for Areas Served by Regional Sewer Service (REC Units)
The following table provides projections of future sewer units (REC units) that will connect to the
regional interceptors, including all new sewer units and any existing units that are projected to connect
into the system.
Table 6-A
Forecast of Lake Elmo REC Units by Sewer Interceptor
Year
NEW REC Units EXISTING REC Units
Total WONE Cottage Grove WONE Cottage Grove
2010 0 0 100 0 100
2011 0 0 100 0 100
2012 0 0 100 0 100
2013 0 0 100 0 100
2014 60 40 100 0 200
2015 375 140 100 0 615
2016 520 326 130 20 996
2017 665 812 512 160 40 1677 1377
2018 810 998 698 190 60 2058 1758
2019 955 1184 884 220 80 2439 2139
2020 1100 1370 1070 250 100 2820 2520
2021 1200 1570 1270 270 150 3190 2890
2022 1300 1770 1470 290 200 3560 3260
2023 1400 1970 1670 300 367 4037 3737
2024 1500 2170 1870 300 533 4503 4203
2025 1600 2370 2070 300 700 4970 4670
2026 1600 2756 2456 300 700 5356 5056
2027 1600 3142 2842 300 700 5742 5442
2028 1600 3528 3228 300 700 6128 5828
2029 1600 3914 3614 300 700 6514 6214
2030 1600 4300 4000 300 700 6900 6600
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Chapter VI – Wastewater Facilities
VI – 3
Sanitary Sewer Plan Map
The Sewer Staging Plan Map (Map 6-1) shows sewer service staging in three phases in accordance with
the Land Use Plan. The staging plan will be revised to reflect any future updates to the Memorandum of
Understanding between the City and the Metropolitan Council.
The Sewer Service Area – Tri Lakes Map (Map 6-2) shows the sewer service area for existing homes to
be provided with service along Lake Olson. There is no specific time frame identified for this area, but
connections are expected to begin in 2013.
Projected Flows for Each MCES Interceptor Service Area (MGD)
Table 6-B
Projected Flows by Interceptor (MGD)
Year
WONE
Cottage Grove
Totals
2010
0.03
0.00
0.03
2014 0.04 0.01 0.05
2015 0.13 0.04 0.17
2016 0.18 0.09 0.27
2017 0.23 0.15 0.23 0.38 0.46
2018 0.27 0.21 0.29 0.48 0.56
2019 0.32 0.26 0.34 0.59 0.67
2020 0.37 0.32 0.40 0.69 0.77
2025 0.52 0.76 0.84 1.28 1.36
2030 0.52 1.29 1.37 1.81 1.89
Flows are based on 1 residential equivalent unit = 274 gallons per day
1-3-17 FRegional Sewered Staging Plan
Map 6-1
1
1
2
23
Stage One Stage ThreeStage Two
#*
#*
#*
")")
1-3-17 FFuture Sewer Plan
Map 6-3
Stage One
Stage Three
Stage Two
Staging Areas
Forcemain
Gravity#*Lift Station")MCES Interceptor
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4d
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JANUARY 9, 2017
AGENDA ITEM: 4D – PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
CASE #2016-58
ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment –Golf Course Community Zoning District
REQUESTED BY: Planning Department
SUBMITTED BY: Emily Becker, Planner
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
BACKGROUND:
At their meeting on October 24, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to accommodate potential sewer extensions and sewered development
within the area formerly known as Tartan Park, North of 10th Street North and South of the Old Village.
The Commission tabled the item to the November 14, 2016 meeting in order for Staff to draft a “Golf
Course Community” land use designation for the Commission’s consideration. At this meeting, the
Planning Commission ultimately recommended the establishment of a limited Village Transition Area
only around the Tartan Park area proposed for development.
Council considered the Comprehensive Plan Amendment at its December 6, 2016 meeting, at which they
were presented with multiple options and analyses for reguiding the old Tartan Park area. The Council
expressed the wish to see a Golf Course Community Land Use Designation for the site.
PROPOSAL DETAILS
The creation of the new “Golf Course Community” land use category in the Comprehensive Plan’s
Planned Land Use Map suggests a future new zoning district, thus the proposal of a new Golf Course
Community Zoning District.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing and consider a newly proposed zoning
district entitled “Golf Course Community.”
ANALYSIS/PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES:
Need for Zoning District.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Creation of Golf Course Community Land Use Category. A land use
designation called Golf Course Community has been proposed to be created within the Comprehensive
Plan. This land use designation was crafted to maximize the likelihood that a golf course can be
maintained on a property.
Density. The proposed residential development within the area formerly known as Tartan Park will occur
at a net density of 1.7 units per acre. There is currently no urban residential zoning district that allows for
density this low. The proposed zoning district allows a density of 1.5-2.49 units per acre.
2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4d – ACTION ITEM
Buffers. Nearby residents, the Planning Commission, City Council expressed the need for a buffer
requirement to buffer the residential development from neighboring parcels within the City. The proposed
zoning district will set forth this requirement.
Location within Zoning Code.
Article XII: Urban Residential Districts. The proposed ordinance places the Golf Course Community
zoning district within in Article XII: Urban Residential Districts of the Zoning Code. This is because the
Golf Course Community Zoning District’s purpose generally matches that of the purpose of urban
residential districts:
“…to provide areas for residential development that are served by public sewer and water services in
accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan…objectives…are to preserve and enhance the quality of
living in residential neighborhoods, to regulate structures and uses which may affect the character or
desirability of residential areas, to encourage a variety of dwelling types and locations and a range of
population densities consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and to ensure adequate light, air,
privacy and open space.”
Introduced After Urban Residential Districts. While the Golf Course Community zoning district generally
fits in with other urban residential districts, it is meant to be a unique zoning district in that it only areas
that correspond with a local and regional amenity that the City would like to preserve can be zoned as
such. Therefore, the Golf Course Community zoning district will be located after the Residential Districts
Section of the zoning code.
Preservation of Amenities.
The zoning district aims to preserve the golf course and open space by requiring that at least 50% of the
gross acreage of development within the Golf Course Community zoning district be dedicated to open
space.
Open Space.
There are no standards set forth for open space requirements in this zoning district, as much of the
residential development proposed within the area formerly known as Tartan Park is within the
shoreland.
The Shoreland Overlay Management District already sets forth standards for this open space
including required, allowed, and prohibited uses; and the requirement of restrictive covenants,
easements, or deed restrictions to maintain and preserve the open space.
Allowed Uses.
The proposed permitted and conditional uses of the zoning district are outlined in the attached
ordinance.
Definitions of these uses are also attached for reference.
Permitted and conditional uses within the Golf Course Community District closely align with
those of the LDR zoning district but also allow for a golf course and its accessory uses.
Lot Size, Width, Impervious Surface Maximum and Setbacks. Notes are made next to these
requirements in the proposed ordinance. These generally are slightly larger than urban residential
districts.
The minimum lot size aligns with many of the proposed lot sizes of the residential development
with the area formerly known as Tartan Park and also with the requirements set forth by the
Shoreland Management Overlay District.
o These can be reduced through a shoreland PUD.
The minimum lot width does not meet the required standards for sewered development within
shoreland districts, but this is something that can be reduced through a shoreland PUD.
3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4d – ACTION ITEM
The impervious surface maximum for this district (30%) meets the requirements set forth by the
Shoreland Management Overlay District for sewered development.
Site Development Standards. Site development standards were included to address concerns with
proposed development.
Open Space. 50% of gross acreage being developed as Golf Course Community District must be
dedicated towards a golf course or open space.
Buffers. 100’ buffers from the property lines of surrounding parcels within the city are required
and must be part of the conserved open space of the development (i.e. lots cannot encroach on the
buffer area).
Connectivity. Trails, walkways, or paths must make planned connections to the community.
Standards for Restaurant. Standards for a regular restaurant are added, as they do not currently
exist in the Zoning Code. The Commission may wish to add these standards in order to better
regulate such activity near residential development.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Golf Course
Community District:
“Move to approve the addition of a Golf Course Community Zoning District to the Zoning
Code.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance 2008-__
2. Definitions of Uses Proposed to be Allowed within the Golf Course Community district
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ...................................................................................Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ..............................................................................Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ....................... Chair & Commission Members
- Open the Public Hearing ............................................................................. Chair
- Close the Public Hearing ............................................................................ Chair
- Discussion by the Commission ......................... Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission................................ Chair & Commission Members
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 08-____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY
CREATING A GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICT
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Article
XII; of Title XV: Land Usage; of Chapter 154: Zoning Code; of the Lake Elmo City
Code of Ordinances, is hereby amended as follows:
URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
§ 154.450 PURPOSE AND DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS.
The urban residential districts are established to provide areas for residential
development that are served by public sewer and water services in accordance with
the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The objectives of these districts are to preserve and
enhance the quality of living in residential neighborhoods, to regulate structures and
uses which may affect the character or desirability of residential areas, to encourage
a variety of dwelling types and locations and a range of population densities
consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan, and to ensure adequate light, air,
privacy and open space. The residential districts and their purposes are as follows:
(A) GCC Golf Course Community District. The GCC district is intended to
permit urban residential developments in conjunction with a golf course.
Development in this district will be enhanced by coordinated site planning; open
space and environmental resources; and provision of a safe and efficient system for
pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The GCC district is intended to provide areas for
densities lower than other Urban Residential Districts, ranging from 1.5 to 2.49
units per acre, with adequate open space buffers to provide a transition between
denser, sewered development and rural areas. Residential development within the
GCC district will consist of an environment of predominantly single-family dwellings
with lots slightly larger on average than those in most Urban Residential Districts.
(A) (B) LDR Urban Low Density Residential District. The LDR district provides
an environment of predominantly single-family dwellings on moderately sized lots,
and is designed to be the most restrictive of the urban residential districts. The LDR
district is intended to provide areas for lower density residential development within
the city’s planned sewered development areas, and may be used to provide a
transition between rural development areas and the city’s urban development and
Commented [BGA1]: Consider saying “adequate” buffers
rather than open space buffers as you may wish to use
vegetation, topography, berming or other buffering
methods when appropriate.
Commented [EB2]: Need to verify actual density numbers
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
2
districts. Densities shall range from two 2 to 4 units per acre; however, the overall
density for a specific development area must be consistent with the net densities
specified in the Comprehensive Plan. The lot size and other district standards allow
for the creation of smaller lots with the expectation that common open space will be
provided within developments that exceed the base densities (at low end of the land
use density range) within the Comprehensive Plan.
(B) (C) MDR Urban Medium Density Residential District. The MDR district is
established to provide for a diversity of housing types in those areas where such
development is consistent with the medium density residential designation of the
comprehensive plan and compatible with the development pattern of the surrounding
area. Clustering of buildings to permit more orderly development and to preserve
open space within new developments is encouraged. Development within the district
shall occur at densities in the range of 4 to 7 dwelling units per acre, with two-family
dwellings and townhouses permitted. The city will determine the allowed density for
a piece of property at the time of the development application, and this
determination will be based upon the site-specific characteristics of the property and
the requested development. Factors to be considered in increasing or decreasing the
allowed density include the existing environmental conditions such as wetlands,
floodplains, steep slopes, significant trees; the specific site plan; the amount of open
space preserved, and the type of housing units proposed, including whether greater
density is desirable because the development contains housing that is consistent with
the city’s housing goals. The burden of establishing the appropriateness of the high
end of the density range will be on the applicant.
(C) (D) HDR Urban High Density Residential District. The HDR district is
established to provide for an environment of moderate to high-density attached and
multi-family housing, designed to present an attractive appearance to neighboring
streets and adjacent uses, to include sufficient private and semi-private outdoor
space, and to be well integrated into their surroundings. Small office and service
businesses of limited size and extent may be allowed as conditional uses. The HDR
district is appropriate as a transition between commercial or industrial districts and
surrounding neighborhoods, and in already developed higher-density areas.
Development within the district may occur at densities in excess of 7 dwelling units
per acre, provided the overall densities for within a development area are consistent
with the net densities specified in the Comprehensive Plan and that a density
analysis is used consistent with the purpose statement for the MDR district.
(Ord. 2012-062, passed 9-18-2012)
§ 154.451 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES.
Table 10-1 lists all permitted and conditional uses allowed in the urban residential
districts. “P” indicates a permitted use, “C” a conditional use. Uses not so indicated
shall be considered prohibited. Cross-references listed in the table under
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
3
“Standards” indicate the location within this chapter of specific development
standards that apply to the listed use.
(A) Combinations of uses. Principal and accessory uses may be combined on a
single parcel. A principal and secondary dwelling unit may be combined
according to the standards of § 154.176 454 (C). Single-family attached or
multi-family complexes designed for rental or condominium occupancy,
typically include multiple units and buildings on a single parcel.
Table 10-1: Permitted and Conditional Uses, Residential Districts
GCC LDR MDR HDR Standard
Residential Uses
Single-family
detached dwelling
P P P P 154.174
454(B),G(E),
154.454 (O)
Two-family dwelling - - P P 154.174
454(F)
Single-family
attached dwelling
- - P P 154.174
454(G),(J)
Multifamily dwelling
(rental or
condominium)
- - C P 154.174 454
(H),(K)
Secondary dwelling C C C C 154.174
454(C)
Live-work unit - - - C 154.174 454
(L)
Manufactured home
park
- - C - 155.102.B
151.035-
151.150
Group Living
Group Home - P P P 155.102.C
154.301 (A)
Group residential
facility
- - C C 155.102.D
154.301 (B)
Halfway House - - - C 155.102.D
154.301 (B)
Congregate Housing - - C C 155.102.E
154.301 (C)
Commented [EB3]: Standard numbering was off and so
was changed to correct, corresponding standards.
Commented [EB4]: These are the standards set forth in
the Building Regulations portion of the City Code.
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
4
Semi-transient
accommodations
- - C C 155.102
154.301 (C)
Public and Civic Uses
Community services - - - C 155.103.C
Day care center - - C C 155.103.D
154.012 (2) (d)
Schools, public and
private
- C C C 155.103.E
154.303 (A)
Services
Offices - - - C 154.174(M)
154.454 (M)
Funeral home - - - C 154.174(M)
154.454 (I)
Personal services - - - C 154.174(M)
154.454 (I)
Nursing and personal
care
- - - C 155.104.C
154.303 (C)
GCC LDR MDR HDR Standard
Sales of Merchandises
Neighborhood
convenience store
- - - C 154.174(N)
154.454 (N)
Wayside stand C P P P 154.174(D)
154.454 (D)
Outdoor Recreation
Golf course P C - - 155.107.B
154.306 (A)
Outdoor recreation
facility
C - - - 155.107.E
154.306 (C)
Parks and open areas P P P P
Commented [EB5]: There are no other standards for
community services in the Zoning Code, only a definition
Commented [EB6]: There is only a definition within the
Zoning Code of a day care center
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
5
Transportation and Communications
Broadcasting or
communication
facility
- C C C 155.110.B
Accessory Uses
Home occupation P P P P 155.111.A,B
154.012 (12) (e)
Bed and breakfast - - C C 155.111.C
154.310 (A)
Domestic pets P P P P
Family day care P P P P 155.111.G
154.012 (12) (d)
Group family day
care
- C C C 155.111.G
154.012 (12) (d)
Temporary sales P P P P 155.107.B
154.458 (B)
Parking facility
- - - C
Solar equipment P P P 155.111.I
154.310 (C)
Swimming pools, hot
tubs, and the like
P P P P 155.111.J
Water-oriented
accessory structures
P P P P 154.800
Restaurant C - - - 154.454 (P)
Drinking and
Entertaining
C - - - 154.454 (P)
Indoor Athletic
Facility
C - - - 154.307
Commented [EB7]: There are no standards for this. Only
definition.
Commented [EB8]: There are no standards for these –
only definition
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
6
Other structures
typically incidental
and clearly
subordinate to
permitted uses
P P P P
§ 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
GCC LDR MDR HDR
Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.)
Single family detached
dwelling
20,000 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
154.454 (C)
Live-work unit - - - 3,600
Congregate Housing - - See 155.102
154.301 (C)
See 155.102
154.301 (C)
Manufactured Home Park - - See 155.102
151.035-
151.150
See 155.102
151.035-
151.150
Commented [BGA9]: This is a good min lot size. Many of
my subdivisions in Minnetrista had this as a minimum, and I
seem to recall we generally hit between 1.5 and 2.5 u.p.a.
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
7
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
Minimum Lot Width (feet)
Single family detached
dwelling
70 60 50 50
Two-family dwelling (per
unit) a
a
- 35 -
Single-family attached (per
unit) b
- - 25 20
Multi-family dwelling (per
building)
- - 75 60
Live-work unit - - - 25
Maximum Height (feet) 35 35 35 50
Maximum Impervious
Coverage
30% 40% 50% 75%
GCC LDR MDR HDR
Minimum Building Setbacks (feet)
Front yard 25 25 c 25 c 20 c
Interior side yard e
Principal Buildings (living
space) f,g 10 10 10 10d
Attached Garage or
Accessory Structures
f,g
5 5 5 10d
Corner side yard g,h 15 15 15 15
Rear yard 20 20 20 20
Commented [BGA10]: On the Minimum Lot Width,
setbacks, etc; we should really work this out with the
developer. Just keep in mind that 70’ wide lots will need to
be at least 285’ deep to meet a 20,000 sq ft requirement.
Also, are they going away from the villa product with
elimination of the private roads? Our initial staff report
envisioned those lots being as low as 55’ to 65’ wide.
Additionally, their initial plan for the larger lots was 15’ side
yard setbacks and 30’ rear setbacks…here we’re saying 10
on the sides and 20 from the rear.
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
8
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.
§ 154.453 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE.
(A) Averaging of Lot Area. When lots are clustered within a development to provide
common open space, the open space may be used to calculate an average density
per lot to determine compliance with the individual lot area requirements.
(B) Lot Dimension Reductions. Other reductions in dimensional standards may be
considered as part of a planned unit development if these reductions provide for
common open space within a development.
(C) Lots Adjacent to Public Greenway Corridors. On any lot that abuts a public
greenway as depicted in the Comprehensive Plan the minimum setback for all
structures, including accessory buildings, shall be the required rear yard setback for
the district in which said structure is located.
§ 154.454 SITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
Development of land within the urban residential districts shall follow established
standards for traffic circulation, landscape design, parking, signs and other
considerations as specified in Articles 5, 6 and 7. The following standards apply to
specific uses, and are organized by district.
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
9
(A) Planned Unit Developments, All Urban Residential Districts. A planned unit
development may be submitted for consideration within any residential district,
subject to the requirements and standards established in Section 154.800, Planned
Unit Developments.
(1) A residential development that exceeds 15 units per acre in an HDR Zoning
District may be allowed as a Planned Unit Development in accordance with the
density bonus provisions of Section 154.800, Planned Unit Developments.
(B) Single-Family Detached Dwellings, All Urban Residential Districts. All single-
family dwellings shall be at least twenty-four (24) feet in width, at least nine
hundred sixty (960) square feet in area, and be placed on a permanent foundation.
(C) Secondary Dwelling, All Urban Residential Districts. The purpose of a secondary
dwelling is to provide life-cycle housing opportunities for family members or small
households of one or two people, while providing more efficient use of large single-
family dwellings or large lots.
(1) A secondary dwelling unit may be located within a principal structure used
as a single-family detached dwelling, above a detached garage, or within a
separate detached structure.
(2) There shall be no more than one secondary dwelling unit on the zoning lot.
(3) At least one dwelling unit on the zoning lot shall be owner-occupied.
(4) The minimum lot area shall be 2,500 square feet greater than the minimum
lot area required for a single-family detached dwelling in the zoning district.
(5) If the secondary unit is included in the principal building, the appearance
of the building shall remain that of a single-family dwelling. Any new or
additional entrances must face the side or rear of the building.
(6) Whether the secondary unit is an addition to an existing structure or a new
detached structure, roof pitch, windows, eaves and other architectural
features must be the same or visually compatible with those of the principal
building. Exterior finish materials and trim must be the same or closely match
in type, size and location the materials and trim of the original building.
(7) A secondary unit within the principal structure shall not contain more than
30% of the principal building’s total floor area or 800 square feet, whichever is
less. A detached secondary unit shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in gross
floor area.
(8) Impervious limits for the lot within the zoning district in question shall not
be exceeded.
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
10
(D) Wayside Stand, All Urban Residential Districts.
(1) No more than one stand per lot shall be permitted.
(2) Adequate off-street parking shall be provided.
(E) Single-Family Detached Dwelling, All Urban Residential Districts
(1) No parking shall be located in the front yard or between the front facade
and the street except on a permitted driveway.
(2) The primary entrance shall be located on the facade fronting a public
street.
(F) Two-Family Dwelling, MDR and HDR Districts.
(1) No parking shall be located in the front yard or between the front façade
and the street except on a permitted driveway.
(2) Access to the second dwelling unit shall be either through a common
hallway with one front entrance, or by means of a separate entrance.
(3) New housing types should be introduced in limited quantities to increase
diversity and housing choice, not to replace whole blocks of existing housing.
Therefore, no more than 1/4 of the lineal frontage of a developed block may
be redeveloped as two-family units, and no further two-family or higher
density development is permitted once this threshold is reached. Lineal
frontage shall be measured around the entire perimeter of the block.
(4) Two-family dwellings shall be designed to reflect the general scale and
character of surrounding buildings on surrounding blocks, including front yard
depth, building width height and roof pitch, primary materials, facade
detailing and size and placement of window and door openings.
(G) Single-Family Attached Dwelling (Townhouse), MDR District.
(1) A maximum of 8 units shall be permitted within a single building. Buildings
with more than 8 units may be allowed as a conditional use.
(2) Townhouses shall be located on lots in such a way that each individual unit
has a minimum of 15 feet of street frontage. No parking shall be located in the
front yard or between the front façade and the street.
(a) Townhouses that do not meet the minimum requirements for
frontage along a street or that have frontage along a private street may
be allowed as a conditional use.
(3) The primary entrance shall be located on the façade fronting a public
street unless the townhouses are approved as a Conditional Use under division
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
11
§154.455.(G)(2)(a) above; an additional entrance may be provided on the rear
or side façade.
(4) New housing types should be introduced in limited quantities to increase
diversity and housing choice, not to replace whole blocks of existing housing.
Therefore, no more than 1/4 of the lineal frontage of a developed block
(measured around the entire block perimeter) may be converted to townhouse
units, and no further townhouse, two-family or higher-density development is
permitted once this threshold is reached.
(5) Townhouse units shall be designed to reflect the general scale and
character of existing buildings on surrounding blocks, including front yard
depth, height and roof pitch, primary materials, facade detailing and size and
placement of window and door openings.
(6) Common open space for use by all residents or private open space adjacent
to each unit shall be provided. Such open space shall comprise a minimum of
500 square feet per unit.
(H) Multi-Family Building, MDR District.
(1) A maximum of 8 units shall be permitted within a single building. Buildings
with more than 8 units may be allowed as a Conditional Use.
(2) The multi-family building shall be designed to reflect the general scale and
character of buildings on surrounding blocks, including front yard depth, roof
pitch, primary materials, façade detailing and size and placement of window
and door openings.
(3) No parking shall be located in the front yard or between the front façade
and the street.
(4) New housing types should be introduced in limited quantities to increase
diversity and housing choice, not to replace whole blocks of existing housing.
Therefore, no more than 1/4 of the lineal frontage of a block (measured
around the entire block perimeter) may be developed as multi-family units,
and no further multi-family, two-family or townhouse development is
permitted on the block once this threshold is reached.
(5) Common open space for use by all residents or private open space adjacent
to each unit (as a courtyard or balcony) shall be provided. Such open space
shall comprise a minimum of 300 square feet per unit.
(I) Funeral Home, HDR District. A facility developed after the effective date of this
chapter shall have access to an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
12
accommodate the traffic that the use will generate. A minimum of two access points
shall be provided.
(1) Additions or new construction shall be designed to reflect the general scale
and character of the existing building and surrounding neighborhood, including
front yard depth, roof pitch, primary materials, façade detailing and size and
placement of window and door openings.
(J) Single-Family Attached Dwelling, HDR District.
(1) A maximum of 10 units shall be permitted within a single building.
Buildings with more than 10 units may be allowed as a conditional use.
(2) Townhouse dwellings shall be located on lots in such a way that each
individual unit has a minimum of 15 feet of street frontage. No parking shall
be located in the front yard or between the front façade and the street.
(a) Townhouses that do not meet the minimum requirements for
frontage along a street or that have frontage along a private street may
be allowed as a conditional use.
(3) The primary entrance shall be located on the facade fronting a public
street unless the townhouses are approved as a conditional use under division
(J)(2)(b) of this section; an additional entrance may be provided on the rear or
side façade.
(4) Common open space for use by all residents or private open space adjacent
to each unit shall be provided. Such open space shall comprise a minimum of
300 square feet per unit.
(K) Multi-Family Building, HDR District.
(1) No parking shall be located in the front yard or between the front façade
and the street.
(2) Common open space for use by all residents or private open space adjacent
to each unit (as a courtyard or balcony) shall be provided. Such open space
shall comprise a minimum of 200 square feet per unit.
(L) Live-Work Unit, HDR District. The purpose of a live-work unit is to provide a
transitional use type between a home occupation and a larger commercial
enterprise, and to provide neighborhood-oriented commercial services, while
maintaining a generally residential character in which the work space is subordinate
to the residential use.
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
13
(1) The work space component shall be located on the first floor or basement
of the building.
(2) The dwelling unit component shall maintain a separate entrance located on
the front or side façade and accessible from the primary abutting public
street.
(3) The work space component of the unit shall not exceed 30% of the total
gross floor area of the unit.
(4) A total of two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for a live-work
unit, located to the rear of the unit or underground/enclosed.
(5) The size and nature of the work space shall be limited so that the building
type may be governed by residential building codes. An increase in size or
intensity beyond the specified limit on floor area would require the building to
be classified as a mixed-use building.
(6) The business component of the building may include offices, small service
establishments, home crafts which are typically considered accessory to a
dwelling unit, or limited retailing (by appointment only) associated with fine
arts, crafts, or personal services. It may not include a wholesale business, a
manufacturing business, a commercial food service requiring a license, a
limousine business or auto service or repair for any vehicles other than those
registered to residents of the property.
(7) The business of the live-work unit must be conducted by a person who
resides on the same lot. The business shall not employ more than 2 workers
on-site at any one time who live outside of the live-work unit.
(M) Offices or Personal Services, HDR District. The establishment shall not exceed
3,000 square feet in size, and may be located within a multi-family building or a
freestanding building.
(1) Additions or new construction shall be designed to reflect the general scale
and character of surrounding buildings, including front yard depth, roof pitch,
primary materials, facade detailing and size and placement of window and
door openings.
(2) No parking shall be located in the front yard or between the front facade
and the street.
(3) No building shall be constructed and no residential building shall be wholly
or partially converted to such a use within a distance of 300 feet from any
other retail or service business on the same street within the HDR District.
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
14
(N) Neighborhood Convenience Store, HDR District.
(1) The establishment shall not exceed 3,000 square feet in size, and may be
located within a multi-family building or a free-standing building.
(2) Additions or new construction shall be designed to reflect the general scale
and character of existing buildings on surrounding blocks, including front yard
depth, roof pitch, primary materials, facade detailing and size and placement
of window and door openings.
(3) No parking shall be located in the front yard or between the front facade
and the street.
(4) The use shall occupy a corner property. Any freestanding building
developed on such a property shall have a minimum setback of 10 feet from
each right-of-way line.
(5) No building shall be constructed and no residential building shall be wholly
or partially converted to such a use within a distance of 500 feet from any
other retail or service business on the same street within the HDR District.
(O) Development, GCC District.
(1) Open Space Required. A minimum of 50% of the gross acreage being
developed as Golf Course Community must be dedicated to either a golf
course and its accessory uses, or as open space.
(2) Buffers Required. All residential lots must be a minimum of 100 feet from
external lots within the City on the periphery of the proposed Golf Course
Community. The resulting buffer area shall be part of the required 50% open
space.
(3) Connectivity. Trails, walkways, or paths must make planned connections
to external trails, walkways or paths within the community. There must also
be internal trail connectivity between proposed housing and the golf course or
main area of open space being established within the Golf Course community.
(4) Street Design. Adequate street design, placement and width is required to
support the proposed uses within the community.
(P) Restaurant and Drinking and Entertaining, GCC District. Restaurants and drinking
and entertaining establishments within the Golf Course Community must adhere to the
following standards:
(1) Restaurants and drinking established are only allowed on the same parcel as
and must be accessory to a golf course within this district.
Commented [BGA11]: I’d suggest putting this
requirement first as the subsequent buffer requirements
mentions the required open space. Note that I’m also
suggesting a slight rewording of this provision to better
describe the gross acreage and eliminate the term
“development area,” and better explain that two options
exist for use of the open space.
With this type of provision, Emerson could develop on his
own. I’d prefer that his land be ghost platted as part of the
main development, but the door would be open for a
separate deal IF he was willing to set aside a full 50% of his
land.
Commented [BGA12]: If the developer is fine with this
and the revised plans will work, then there’s no reason not
to go with this. If they haven’t seen this provision, then I’d
be leery about making “distance” the only mechanism we
can use to provide separation between old and new. I’m
also a bit concerned about saying “all development” as that
could be read to include any movement of dirt, plantings,
roads, etc.
I also changed “Community Golf Course” to “Golf Course
Community” to be consistent with the rest of the ordinance.
Commented [BGA13]: I made a slight change here to say
“proposed uses within” as opposed to a mix of uses as
theoretically one of these could be built around open space
(i.e. Emerson if done separately). In that case, there really
isn’t a mix of uses…
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
15
(2) Hours of operation must be limited to the hours of 7am and 10pm, or as
otherwise determined by Council.
(3) Drive-through service is prohibited.
(4) Maximum restaurant and/or drinking and entertaining establishment
capacity is to be determined by Council.
(5) Parking standards as set forth by 154.210 must be met.
§ 154.455 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS.
Review of Design. For certain development activity as specified in the Lake Elmo
Design Guidelines and Standards Manual, design review is required as part of the
approval process for a permit or certificate under this Ordinance. All projects
subject to design review shall be reviewed for conformance with the Lake Elmo
Design Guidelines and Standards Manual and shall follow the review procedures
specified in §154.506.A.
§ 154.456 ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES.
Accessory uses are listed in the Urban Residential District Use Table as permitted or
conditional accessory uses. Accessory uses and structures in the urban residential
districts shall comply with the following standards and all other applicable
regulations of this subchapter.
(A) Phasing. No accessory use or structure shall be constructed or established on any
lot prior to the time of construction of the principal use to which it is accessory.
(B) Incidental to Principal Use. The accessory use or structure shall be incidental to
and customarily associated with the principal use or structure served.
(C) Subordinate to Principal Use. The accessory use or structure shall be subordinate
in area, extent, and purpose to the principal use or structure served.
(D) Function. The accessory use or structure shall contribute to the comfort,
convenience, or necessity of the occupants of the principal use or structure served.
(E) Location. The accessory use or structure shall be located on the same zoning lot
as the principal use or structure.
§ 154.457 RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
In all residential districts, the design and construction of any garage, carport, or
storage building shall be similar to or compatible with the design and construction of
the main building. The exterior building materials, roof style, and colors shall be
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
16
similar to or compatible with the main building or shall be commonly associated with
residential construction.
(A) Attached structures. An accessory structure shall be considered attached, and an
integral part of, the principal structure when it is connected by an enclosed
passageway. All attached accessory structures shall be subject to the following
requirements:
(1) The structure shall meet the required yard setbacks for a principal
structure, as established for the zoning district in which it is located; and
(2) The structure shall not exceed the height of the principal building to which
it is attached.
(B) Attached garages.
(1) Attached garages are encouraged to be side or rear loaded. If facing the
primary street, garages shall be designed using one of the following
techniques, unless specific physical conditions on the lot in question require a
different approach:
(a) The front of the garage is recessed at least 4 feet behind the plane
of the primary facade;
(b) The front of the garage is recessed at least 4 feet behind a porch if
the garage is even with the primary façade; or
(2) The width of the attached garage shall not exceed 60% of the width of the
entire principal building façade (including garage) fronting the primary street.
(3) Attached garages shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in area at the ground
floor level except by conditional use permit.
(4) Garage doors or openings shall not exceed 14 feet in height.
(C) Detached structures. Detached accessory structures shall be permitted in
residential districts in accordance with the following requirements:
(1) Detached accessory structures shall be located to the side or rear of the
principal building, and are not permitted within the required front yard or
within a side yard abutting a street.
(2) Detached garages shall not exceed 1,000 square feet at ground floor level
and shall not exceed a height of 22 feet or the height of the principal
structure, whichever is higher. The maximum size and height may be
increased upon approval of a conditional use permit, provided that lot
coverage requirements are satisfied.
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
17
(3) Pole barns, as defined herein, exceeding 120 square feet shall be
prohibited.
(4) No more than 30% of the rear yard area may be covered by accessory
structures.
(5) Garage doors or openings shall not exceed 14 feet in height.
§ 154.458 ACCESSORY USES.
(A) Exterior Storage in Residential Districts. All materials and equipment shall be
stored within a building or be fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining
properties, except for the following:
(1) Laundry drying;
(2) Construction and landscaping materials and equipment currently being
used on the premises. Materials kept on the premises for a period exceeding 6
months shall be screened or stored out of view of the primary street on which
the house fronts;
(3) Agricultural equipment and materials, if these are used or intended for use
on the premises;
(4) Off-street parking and storage of vehicles and accessory equipment, as
regulated in § 154.095;
(5) Storage of firewood shall be kept at least 10 feet from any habitable
structure and screened from view from adjacent properties; and
(6) Outdoor parking.
(B) Temporary sales. Temporary sales, also known as yard or garage sales, are
permitted in all residential districts, limited to 2 per calendar year per residence,
not to exceed four 4 days in length.
§ 154.459 ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES NOT LISTED.
Standards for accessory uses and structures that are permitted in all districts, or in
all residential buildings in any district, are listed in Article 7, Specific Development
Standards. These include uses such as family and group family day care, bed and
breakfast facilities, and home occupations, and structures such as swimming pools
and solar equipment.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo.
Planning Commission Draft 1/9/17
18
SECTION 3. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08-______ was adopted on this ___ day
of ____________ 2017, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
______________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
This Ordinance 08-___ was published on the ____ day of ___________________, 2017.
Definitions and Standards of Allowed Uses in Golf Course Community Zoning District
Single Family Detached. A building containing only one dwelling unit, surrounded by landscape
area or yards on all sides.
Secondary Dwelling. A residential dwelling unit, but not a manufactured home, located on the same
lot as a single family dwelling unit, either within the principal structure, above a detached garage, or
within a detached structure.
Wayside Stand. A temporary structure or vehicle used for the seasonal retail sale of agricultural
goods, floriculture, and horticulture produced by the operator of the wayside stand, which is clearly a
secondary use of the premises and does not change the character thereof.
Family Day Care. A residence licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services in which
no more than 10 children at any one time receive care, maintenance and supervision by someone
other than their relatives or legal guardians for less than 24 hours per day.
Standard Restaurant. An establishment whose principal business is the sale of food and/or beverage
to customers in a ready to consume state, and whose principal method of operation includes one or
both of the following: 1) customers, normally provided with an individual menu, are served their
food and beverage by restaurant employees at the same table or counter at which the food and/or
beverage are consumed, 2) a cafeteria-type operation where food and beverage generally are
consumed within the restaurant building.
Indoor Athletic Facility. A commercial recreation facility that provides completely enclosed or
indoor recreation space, such as racquet clubs, indoor skating rinks, swimming pools, or
gymnasiums.
§ 154.307 STANDARDS FOR INDOOR RECREATION/AMUSEMENT.
A. Indoor Athletic Facility, Indoor Recreation. Facilities that would generate substantial traffic shall
be located with access to a street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic that the use will
generate. A minimum of two (2) entry points to such facilities shall be provided.
(Ord. 08-080, passed 5-21-2013)
Golf Course. A tract of land for playing golf, improved with tees, greens, fairways, hazards, and
which may include clubhouses and shelters. Included would be executive or par 3 golf courses.
Specifically excluded are independent driving ranges or miniature golf facilities, which are classified
as outdoor recreation facilities.
§ 154.306 STANDARDS FOR OURDOOR RECREATION USES.
A. Golf Course.
1. Location. The facility shall have access to a collector or higher classification street. A minimum of
two (2) entry points to such facilities shall be provided.
2. Site Plans. Site plans for such facilities shall indicate all proposed recreation areas, building uses
and locations, sanitary facilities, storage areas, parking, circulation and other information needed to
assess the impacts of the proposed operation on surrounding properties and the road network.
3. Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses are permitted in conjunction with a golf course: A
driving range, putting greens, pro shop, club house and locker facilities, maintenance buildings,
course shelters, and cart storage facilities. Other accessory uses may require a separate conditional
use permit.
4. Resource Protection. Golf courses shall be designed with consideration of environmental
resources, including:
a. Water recycling and conservation through on-site storage and use facilities;
b. Use of landscaped buffers and other Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to minimize fertilizer
runoff and other chemicals from entering surface water bodies; and
c. Use of landscaping and site layout to preserve and enhance wildlife habitat.
5. Buffering. A planted buffer may be required to screen adjacent residential and other uses.
6. Other Conditions. Other conditions may be imposed to mitigate the potential impacts of the use.
Outdoor Recreation Facility. A commercial recreation facility that is primarily an open-air facility,
such as baseball fields, swimming pools, skating rinks, golf driving ranges, or miniature golf
facilities.
§ 154.306 STANDARDS FOR OURDOOR RECREATION USES.
C. Outdoor Recreation Facility. Facilities that would generate substantial traffic, such as playing
fields or aquatic centers, shall be located with access to a street of sufficient capacity to
accommodate the traffic that the use will generate. A minimum of two (2) entry points to such
facilities shall be provided.
2017 Planning Commission Appointments and Terms
Commissioner Term Term Expires Eligible to reapply for 3 year term?
Seat #1: Todd Williams 2 12/31/2017 No
Seat #2: Rolf Larson 1 12/31/2017 Yes (Eligible to serve one additional term)
Seat #3: Tom Kreimer 2 12/31/2018 No
Seat #4: Wendy Griffin 1 12/31/2018 Yes (Eligible to serve one additional terms)
Seat #5: Dean Dodson 1 12/31/2018 Yes (Eligible to serve one additional term)
Seat #6: Gary Fields 1 12/31/2019 Yes (Eligible to serve one additional term)
Seat #7: Dale Dorschner 1 12/31/2019 Yes (Eligible to serve two additional terms)
1st Alternate: Kristina
Lundquist N/A N/A N/A
2nd Alternate: Kathy Haggard N/A N/A N/A
*Denotes that the current term fills a previous vacancy.
Sewered Development
Development Status Sheet Final Plat ApprovalDA Agreement DA Agreement Plat Recorded Updated 1/3/17
Approved Signed Total #Total # of Total # of Building CO's
Southern Developments Developer Builder Of Homes SF Homes Townhomes Permits Issued Issued Zoning
SAVONA - 310 Total
Savona 1st 2/18/2014 5/20/2014 6/18/2014 9/25/2014 Lennar Lennar 44 44 0 42 39 LDR
Savona 2nd 9/16/2014 9/16/2014 10/22/2014 4/14/2015 Lennar Lennar 67 45 22 53 45 LDR/MDR
Savona 3rd 9/15/2015 9/15/2016 9/16/2015 11/19/2015 Lennar Lennar 120 21 99 53 21 LDR/MDR
Savona 4th 3/15/2016 4/5/2016 6/27/2016 7/27/2016 Lennar Lennar 78 78 0 0 0 LDR
309 188 121 148 105
BOULDER PONDS - 162 Total
Boulder Ponds 1st 4/21/2015 4/21/2015 5/16/2015 6/5/2015 OP 4 Boulder Ponds Creative Homes 47 47 0 21 13 PUD/LDR
Boulder Ponds 2nd 5/17/2016 OP 4 Boulder Ponds Creative Homes 18 18 0 0 0 PUD/LDR
65 65 0 21 13
HUNTER'S CROSSING - 51 Total
Hunter's Crossing 1st 7/1/2014 10/7/2014 10/15/2015 12/18/2014 Ryland/Cal Atlantic Cal Atlantic 22 22 0 21 20 LDR
Hunter's Crossing 2nd 5/5/2015 5/5/2015 5/29/2015 8/4/2015 Ryland/Cal Atlantic Cal Atlantic 29 29 0 26 20 LDR
51 51 0 47 40
INWOOD - 537 Total
Inwood 1st 5/19/2015 5/19/2015 6/9/2015 8/3/2015 Hans Hagen/MI Homes MI Homes 40 40 0 39 38 PUD/MDR
Inwood 2nd 9/1/2015 11/19/2015 11/23/2015 Hans Hagen/MI Homes MI Homes 21 21 0 21 21 PUD/MDR
Inwood 3rd 4/19/2016 5/3/2016 5/16/2016 5/23/2016 Hans Hagen/MI Homes MI Homes 68 68 0 35 5 PUD/MDR
Inwood 4th 10/18/2016 Hans Hagen/MI Homes MI Homes 60 60
189 189 0 95 64
HAMMES ESTATES - 163 Total
Hammes Estates 1st 10/7/2014 8/16/2016 8/16/2016 9/27/2016 Rachael Development 57 57 0 3 0 LDR
57 57 0 3 0
DIEDRICH/REIDER - 46 Total 12 month extension to Final Plat Deadline to 12/1/17
Northern Developments
EASTON VILLAGE - 217 Total
Easton Village 1st 3/3/2015 3/3/2015 7/23/2015 8/10/2015 Chase Development Multiple 71 71 0 30 16 LDR
71 71 0 30 16
VILLAGE PRESERVE - 91 Total
Village Preserve 1st 5/5/2015 6/2/2015 8/3/2015 8/25/2015 Gonyea Homes Multiple 46 46 0 23 11 LDR
Village Preserve 2nd 4/19/2016 8/16/2016 8/19/2016 9/9/2016 Gonyea Homes Multiple 45 45 0 1 0 LDR
91 91 0 24 11
WILDFLOWER - 145 Total
Wildflower @ Lake Elmo 1st 7/21/2015 8/4/2015 8/27/2015 10/6/2015 Engstrom Companies Multiple 60 60 0 20 10 PUD/MDR
Wildflower @ Lake Elmo 2nd 12/6/2016 20 20 PUD/MDR
80 80 0 20 10
Cummulative Totals 913 792 121 388 259
VILLAGE PARK PRESERVE - 100 Total extension to Final Plat Deadline to 4/15/17.
On hold
Note: Building Permits are updated at the end of each month. CO's are updated as issued.