HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-16 Planning Commission Packet
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 November 14, 2016 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. October 24, 2016
4. Public Hearings
a.
5. Business Items
a. WILDFLOWER 2ND ADDITION FINAL PLAT AND FINAL PUD PLAN: -
The Planning Commission will continue discussion for the Final Plat and Final
PUD Plan for Wildflower 2nd Addition which includes 38 single family homes.
b. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW: - The Planning
Commission is being asked to continue discussion of 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.
c. RURAL DENSITY DISCUSSION: - The Planning Commission is being asked to
consider the Rural Density for the area north of 10th Street.
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates – None
b. Staff Updates
i. Upcoming Meetings:
November 28, 2016
December 12, 2016
c. 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; 10-24-16
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of October 24, 2016
Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Larson, Griffin, Dodson, Williams, Dunn, Kreimer, Haggard
and Lundquist
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Fields
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman and City Administrator Handt
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to approve the Agenda as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion
carried unanimously.
Approve Minutes: October 10, 2016
M/S/P: Williams/Lundquist, move to approve the October 10, 2016 minutes as
amended, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing – Sign Variance River Country Cooperative
Wensman started his presentation for a variance for River Country Cooperative (Holiday
Station on Manning). They are requesting a variance from the maximum surface area
requirements of wall and canopy signs. After the realignment of Manning, the view
from the road will be on the back side of the building. Wensman went through the
findings. Staff feels that all of the variance requirements are met which include unique
circumstances, character of locality, adjacent properties and traffic. Notices were sent
to properties within 350 feet and no comments were received. Staff is recommending
approval subject to the following conditions 1) the new locations of the ground and
pylon signs shall be approved by the City and must adhere to all setback and other code
requirements 2) all lighting must adhere to the City’s lighting, glare control and exterior
lighting standards and 3) the erected signs shall not exceed the proposed square
footage described herein.
Dodson asked how much more lighting is added with this. Wensman stated that the
wall signs are the only ones that have more lighting and they will have to submit a
lighting plan to comply with the code. The lighting is not part of the variance.
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-24-16
The Planning Commission discussed how the new access would work.
Public hearing opened at 7:18 pm
No one spoke and there were no written comments received.
Public hearing closed at 7:18 pm
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to recommend approval of the request from River
Country Cooperative for a variance from the City’s sign regulations pertaining to
maximum canopy and wall sign area for the property located at 4201 Manning Avenue
North, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
Unanimously.
Public Hearing – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review by HC Golf Course LLC
HC Golf Course LLC has requested 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 Ave to the West and 10th Street to the South of
Village. Wensman went through some history on the Royal Golf Residential
development. Staff was instructed to craft a “Village Transition Area” as opposed to
creating a new land use classification and zoning district should the applicants apply for
a change to the comprehensive plan. The Council direction that was used as a guide for
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is the following: 1) Future development must be
via a PUD to ensure adherence to the 1.5 to 2.5 units per acre density range 2)
Protection of shoreland district land and/or wetlands within this area of the community
should be a principle factor in determining when sewered development will be
considered 3) Significant acreage should be required prior to consideration of a sewered
development within the new transition area 4) recognize that individual lots and/or
neighborhoods (who are not seeking to develop) may also request sewer extensions
if/when the extension of sewer service is economically feasible.
The land use plan language on “Buffering/Land Use Transitions” would be updated to
acknowledge the Village Transition Area and the criteria that must be met prior to
sewer being made available for existing properties or environmentally sensitive
development. In Criteria A, the City may treat a parcel, or group of parcels as being
guided for Village Urban Low Density if at least one of the following criteria is satisfied:
1) The land in question is subject to a failing septic system, and extension of the sanitary
sewer system is deemed necessary to protect the health, safety, or welfare of adjacent
properties or 2) The parcel or parcels in question have petitioned the City requesting an
extension of municipal services, and the extension project has been approved by the
City Council. In Criteria B, the City may treat a parcel of group of parcels as being guided
for Village Urban Low Density for the purposes of development if ALL of the following
criteria are satisfied: 1) A minimum of 40 contiguous acres is considered for
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-24-16
development at one time or is planned for a phased development 2) A minimum of one-
half of the gross acres proposed for residential development is within a shoreland
district 3) All shoreland district requirements for development can be successfully met
without variances 4) Development is completed as a PUD that conforms with the
allowable density range established for the Village Low Density land use classification 5)
The development incurs all costs for the extension of municipal services, the cost for
oversizing as may be needed for further extensions into the Village Transition Area,
and/or for upgrades to the existing municipal system as may be needed to service the
proposed development.
Griffin asked which parcels between 20th and 30th along Lake Elmo Avenue are in the
Shoreland district. Wensman pointed out the parcels that are in Shoreland.
Kreimer wanted clarification on if we would get credit for sewered development or if
this would be a bonus. Wensman stated that it would depend on the Met Council.
Dodson is wondering about criteria B. It appears that it only applies to one property.
How is this different than spot zoning? According to the City Attorney, it is not spot
zoning because there are properties that could combine and apply for a similar
application.
Williams is wondering what the total area of the Royal Golf is and how much area is in
the shoreland district. Wensman stated that the total area for Royal Golf including the
golf course and residential is 477 acres. He does not have the number in the shoreland.
Larson is wondering if the other considerations are things like the Hamlet on Sunfish.
Wensman stated that the transitional area gives more flexibility for emergency
situations like Hamlet on Sunfish. Larson is wondering if this is the way things have to
be done, or are we making things more difficult. Wensman stated that they are trying
to find a solution without creating a new land use category. They feel that this is the
best path to allow the developer to do what they want to do, while considering the
surrounding properties.
Clark Schroeder, HC Development, they are asking for this Comprehensive Plan
amendment also to address the environmental issues. Not to have individual septic on
these lots would be in the best interest for water quality. They have reduced the
density from original density of 360 units to 292 units based on feedback from the City.
They feel that this is as low as they can go for this project to go forward.
Rick Packer, HC Development, says he doesn’t think there is a lot for him to add. They
have tried to work with the City to come up with a solution for this property that
doesn’t reinvent the wheel with a new zoning category. With the cost of hooking up to
sewer, it probably isn’t feasible for a piece of property under 40 acres to hook up. They
understand the residents desire to keep this more at the OP density of 100 units, but it
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-24-16
just isn’t feasible with the sewer component and they are not willing to put the golf
course into a permanent conservation easement. There was a letter sent out with 25
findings of fact that he feels is not accurate, especially in regards to shoreland, MPCA,
etc. He would be happy to go through those if they are interested. Packer stated that
the total site is 477 acres, 50 of which are in West Lakeland Township and are not part
of proposal. The gross acres of this property is right around 420 acres. The residential
portion is right around 220 acres.
Dodson asked what the current state of the project is. Schroeder stated that the golf
course is close to being finished. They are currently planting grass on it. They are
hoping to have 9 holes open in the middle of the summer and the other 9 by the end of
the summer. They have done the MPCA remediation of the golf course. They have
taken out a demolition permit and cleaned out the clubhouse. They are waiting to make
sure the City is interested in moving this project forward, so they are at a standstill now.
If the City feels this project should not move forward, they would put the property up
for sale and market it to sell to the highest bidder. He hopes that doesn’t happen as he
feels this is a huge benefit to the area. Packer stated that they have the preliminary plat
ready, but have not officially submitted it, but the staff is looking at it for fatal flaws.
Public hearing opened at 7:53 pm
Shelli Wilk, 11253 14th Street, lives in the Homestead development and is in what she
considers a rural pocket. She feels that some of the areas along 94 and the Village were
developed more densely so that other areas could remain more rural. She feels that the
rural areas are protected by the Citys current zoning. She is concerned that changing
this area to sewer is a slippery slope. Shelli submitted a petition signed by 140 people
asking that the area in question not be changed to Village Area Transitional, and that
Royal Golf have a unique zoning designation.
Tim Mandel, 2479 Lisbon Ave, he is upset that the City would consider doing this. There
are over 250 homes in this area. When people are moving in and call the City and ask
about sewer for this area, they are told that there is no sewer planned for this area. He
feels that the Royal Golf has enough property that they could do a community septic
system on the site and avoid the city sewer altogether. He went through how many
people could live in the area based on this density, especially if the golf course failed. It
would be somewhere around 4600 people.
Vicki Bailey, 11326 14th Street, has lived in the Homestead for over 18 years. She is
wondering why we are here and why we are talking about this when we fought with the
Met Council for years to have low density and we have a comprehensive plan in place.
It should not be the goal of the staff to allow developers to do what they want to do,
but to look out for the needs and desires of the residents equally.
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-24-16
Jean Durand, 11332 20th Street, she owns the property across the street from the golf
course. She has lived there 68 years. She feels the number of homes they want to put
in is way too many. She doesn’t feel that sewer needs to be put in for this golf course.
There were written comments from Ann Bucheck, 2301 Legion Ave, she is opposed to
the Comprehensive Plan change and feels that OP standards would be appropriate and
can be done under the current Comprehensive Plan.
Nick Miller, 7730 50th Street, believes that the golf course would put the City on the map
and would attract people and bring in a lot big names to the area.
Wensman stated that in regards to bringing sewer to Tartan Park, the developer would
pay for the whole cost of bringing it there.
Public hearing closed at 8:12 pm
Williams would like to address the findings that he submitted. He submitted them
before he saw the actual application and some of them may need to be amended to
address the exact amendment. His conclusion is that this piece of property can be
developed under OP standards. It is false that the Royal Golf property cannot be
developed without sewer. It can be developed with an HOA owned community septic
system. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment would still be needed for OP, but that is
what he favors.
Larson feels that this golf course is an incredible opportunity for the City. This would
save all of the major features of this property. Another project could add even more
homes.
Dodson is concerned that if this project doesn’t go in, the Prairie Island community
might be interested. A resident stated that he has had conversations with Blake
Johnson, the community relations person for Prairie Island. Mr. Johnson stated that the
tribal council of Prairie Island has no further interest in purchasing the Tartan Park
property.
Dunn stated that Tartan Park is a gem for Lake Elmo and she supports a quality
development there. She is not excited about the Village Transition zoning. She would
like to see a zoning classification that takes into account that this is commercial and
residential both. What can we do as a City to address the buffering around the
established homes and be respectful of the residents that are already there?
M/S/F: Dodson/Larson, move to add #6 to criteria B to say that if MUSA areas need to
be expanded, that it doesn’t impact the averages elsewhere in the City and that Met
Council approval is given so that it will not impact other portions of the City, Vote:1-6,
motion failed.
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-24-16
Williams is not in favor of the Comprehensive Plan, so he is opposed to any changes to
it. He would urge the Commissioners to vote against the motion. Williams goes back to
the fact that it is false that sewer is required to develop this property. He feels the
whole exercise of looking at this amendment is moot and they should be working on
what amendment they do want. He would like to see the Planning Commission
recommends to the City Council that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to include
the Royal Golf property in the Rural Area of Lake Elmo which would allow OP
development and a golf course based on the findings.
Wensman stated that he would recommend a condition of approval that the expansion
of the MUSA not impact the averages rather than to add it to the criteria as that is
ultimately determined by the Met Council. The city is the one that makes the
determination if sewer is available or not. Wensman stated that the golf course will
continue to be zoned as public facility with an accessory commercial component.
M/S/F: Williams/Griffin, move to recommend that the Comprehensive Plan be amended
to include the Royal Golf property in the Rural Development area of Lake Elmo, which
would allow OP development and a golf course, Vote: 3-4, motion fails.
Williams stated that finding number 15 needs to be changed as it was now determined
that only the land located in the Shoreland area is subject to the shoreland regulations,
but the whole property would be subject to a PUD. Number 17, Williams would like to
add that the OP ordinance requires that 50% of the buildable area be preserved as Open
Space. Williams put on the overhead a map of how many golf courses are within 10
miles of City Hall. Larson feels that the City does not offer any services and that we go
outside the City for almost all of our services. He would like to see the City start
contributing to the larger community.
Haggard believes in drawing in quality development to Lake Elmo. She feels that this
project would be a huge draw for Lake Elmo. Haggard wanted to hear from the
developer about how this proposed change would affect the development.
Rick Packer, HC Golf stated that they are unwilling to go down in number of residential
units. If they proceed with OP, this project will not move forward. Williams stated that
according to MN rule 6120, if a residential PUD goes into a Shoreland district, 50% of the
area must be set aside as open space. The City has no discretion in that. Packer
disagrees with that interpretation and has emails from the DNR as late as today that
what they are proposing is below the minimum threshold of the Shoreland district and
the 50% open space does not apply. Packer pointed out that if Mr. Williams is correct,
whatever they do tonight won’t matter as they would be denied at the DNR submission
level. Wensman stated that this is a finding of fact and not necessarily relevant at this
time to the Comprehensive Plan amendment at this time.
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-24-16
Dodson, Larson and Kreimer all feel that the Tartan Park Golf Course would be a huge
benefit to the community.
Williams loves the rural character of Lake Elmo and feels that the boundary of 10th
Street for the MUSA is very important. He would be sad to lose the golf course, but
feels it would be worse to move the sewer to the north of 10 th Street. He feels that Lake
Elmo is already on the map and are known for many things such as the regional park,
Lake Elmo Inn, Sunfish Lake Park, etc.
Lundquist is in favor of this development. She recalls that about 33% or this
development is in Shoreland. She thinks it would be foolish not to put sewer in.
Griffin would like to see the golf course go into a conservation easement. She is not
comfortable that they won’t want to put houses there someday. She is not opposed to
the sewer, but not if the golf course is not in open space.
M/S/F: Williams/Lundquist, move to postpone consideration of this matter until they
have received clarification from the City Attorney about the question of a base density
of the residential area such that they would not need to set aside 50% of the area for
open space, Vote: 3-4, motion fails.
Wensman is not sure how that would affect one land use designation or another. Either
their proposal will meet the Shoreland densities or it will not and will be rejected.
Williams feels that it is an important question because it would address the total
number of units for this area. If they do not have to set aside 50%, that would make a
huge difference for the development in terms of numbers and how they feel about the
development. Lundquist asked if they reguide this property, what happens to the golf
course that is zoned PF. Wensman stated it would stay PF. This is technically not
reguiding, but saying if these conditions are met, they can develop at the urban low
density zoning.
Larson is wondering if there is anything with the PUD bonus densities that could be used
to come up with a compromise. Griffin is wondering if this amendment goes with this
plan or if it goes with the land. Wensman stated that this amendment includes the
whole area between the Village and the Southern section of the Royal Golf. If they vote
for this and the Royal Golf proposal doesn’t go through, this whole area will be reguided
to Village Transitional.
Dunn is wondering why the Village Transition has to be the whole area that is shown on
the map in the packet. Couldn’t it be a smaller area? Wensman stated that the genesis
of this is tying the Tartan Park area to the Village Area, or this doesn’t make much sense.
M/S/: Kreimer/Dodson, move to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Plan
amendment to be determined after this vote to create a Village Transitional area that
8
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-24-16
utilizes the Village Urban Low Density land use designation, No Vote Taken as motion to
substitute a motion passed.
Williams is opposed to the motion. He loves golf, but the golf course is not worth the
risk of this whole area being sewered, which is what could happen. Dunn is concerned
that the golf course is not being put into an easement. Wensman stated that they are
not willing to put the golf course into an easement. The other open space in relation to
the residential portion would be in an HOA controlled easement. Wensman stated that
the golf course would have to go through a formal rezone process as it would still be
public facility.
Packer stated that they will be putting infrastructure in the golf course area and the
HOA will own areas in the golf course area. It would be very difficult for someone else
to come in and redevelop it.
Shelli Wilk, 11253 14th Street, is wondering why it wouldn’t be easier just to rezone the
property owned by Royal Golf and create like a golf course community zone. It would
appease some of the concerns of the neighbors and not open up such a large area for
sewered development. Williams thinks this might be a unique solution for a unique
situation.
M/S/P: Williams/Dunn, move to consider a substitute motion to say that the Planning
Commission recommends that the City take the time to look for a unique solution to this
unique situation, Vote: 5-2, motion carried.
M/S/P: Williams/Lundquist, move to postpone consideration of the substitute motion
until at least the next Planning Commission meeting to ask the staff to propose a
reguidance to the Comprehensive Plan of a Golf Community category and follow up of a
new zoning district, Vote: 5-2, motion carried.
Williams doesn’t want to be more specific than that and wants to take the time to think
about it. He wants to come up with a solution that might work for the development,
but does not put the rest of the City at risk for additional sewer extensions. Larson likes
the idea of the golf community zone and a good starting point.
Williams would like a unique solution, like a golf community, because no other property
to the North of them could meet the criteria. He does not want to see the area north of
20th Street to be subject to sewer.
M/S/P: Williams/Lundquist, move to postpone consideration of the substitute motion
until at least the next Planning Commission meeting to ask the staff to propose a
reguidance to the Comprehensive Plan of a Golf Community category and follow up of a
new zoning district, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
9
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-24-16
Williams thinks they could use the Cimarron Park as a possible minimum for the Criteria.
It is approximately 60-70 acres.
Lundquist would like a condition on the Golf Course that it stays in open space. She
would like to see the development be sewered to protect the area. Williams stated that
this needs to be crafted with criteria that is specific to this property so that the criteria
can’t be met elsewhere. Williams suggested possibly 30% minimum Shoreland. Dodson
asked if they would be excluding Terry Emerson’s property. Wensman stated that there
have been conversations that the Emerson property might be part of the preliminary
plat of Royal Golf to be developed later. Emerson’s property is about 20 acres.
Wensman stated that he doesn’t see the connection between the Shoreland and the
Golf Course Community.
Kreimer suggested that a criteria could be that sewer is allowed on a golf course greater
than 60 acres and residential greater than 60 acres. Williams stated it must be a PUD.
Dodson suggested that the criteria on page III-14 might be a good starting point. They
would want to change the minimum acreage to 120 acres, minimum 60 for golf course
and minimum 60 acres for residential. Must be a PUD with 1 ½ - 2 ½ units per acre.
Wensman stated that they have probably put together enough for the guidance, but will
get to more of the details when they work on the zoning. Dunn asked about buffering.
Wensman stated that it would be written into the zoning district.
Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Non-Conforming Use Ordinance
Wensman started his presentation by stating that the Citys code pertaining to
nonconformities is not compliant with changes in the state statute. The section affected
pertains to the preservation of non-conforming uses. The non-conforming use may be
continued “through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement.”
“The continuation of the non-conforming used does not include expansion except as
otherwise permitted by this section.” The amendment specifies when you can restore
or replace a non-conforming structure.
Public Hearing opened at 10:33 pm
There were no other written or electronic comments received
Public Hearing closed at 10:33 pm
M/S/P: Williams/Griffin, move to recommend approval of the ordinance amending the
Lake Elmo Code of ordinances regarding non-conforming uses, buildings and structures,
Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Variance Ordinance Amendment
10
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-24-16
Wensman started his presentation by stating that the City Attorney suggested the City
amend the expiration section of the Variance Ordinance, Section 154.109 because it is
of questionable legality because variances run with the land. The change deals with the
expiration of the variance if it is not used by the applicant.
Public Hearing opened at 10:36 pm
No written or electronic comments were received.
Public Hearing closed at 10:36 pm
M/S/P: Dunn/Lundquist, move to recommend approval of ordinance 08-_ amending the
Lake Elmo code of ordinances, Section 154.109 as it pertains to expirations of variances,
Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
City Council Updates – October 18, 2016 Meeting
i) Inwood 4th Addition Final Plat – passed
ii) Conditional Use Permit – 5699 Keats Ave – passed
iii) Conditional Use Permit – Rock Point Church - passed
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. November 14, 2016
b. November 28, 2016
Staff has received updates from the DNR. They stated that we were not using the
current template. The City tweaked what we had previously submitted and resubmitted
for review.
Commission Concerns
Lundquist was uncomfortable with the resident who spoke that was making negative
comments about Mr. Wensman. She doesn’t want the Commission meetings to become
like Council meetings. If that type of thing happens again, she expects people to be
respectful and there should be a stop put to it.
Meeting adjourned at 10: pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 11/14/2016
AGENDA ITEM: 5A – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2016-40
ITEM: Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plans
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Emily Becker, City Planner
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
Robert Engstrom Companies is requesting approval of final plat, final PUD development plans for
the second phase of the Wildflower at Lake Elmo PUD development. The final plat includes 20
single family residential lots located to the east of the first phase. Staff is recommending approval of
the request subject to compliance with the conditions listed in this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Robert Engstrom Companies; 4801 West 81st Street, #101, Bloomington, MN
Property Owners: Robert Engstrom Companies; 4801 West 81st Street, #101, Bloomington, MN
Location: Outlot O, Wildflower at Lake Elmo 1st Addition, near the intersection of
Wildflower Drive and Monarch Lane.
Request: Application for lot Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan
approval for the second phase of the Wildflower PUD development. The final
plat includes 20 single-family residential lots, an outlot (courtyard), and an outlot
for future development.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant outlot and MDR/PUD.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North – vacant outlot and MDR/PUD zoning –; west –
Wildflower 1st Addition and MDR/PUD zoning –; south –
offices, business park land – General Business zoning; east –
Wildflower outlot and open space/Field of St. Croix II
subdivision open space – RR and OP zoning.
Comprehensive Plan: Village Medium Density Residential (3-4 units per acre)/Village Open
Space Overlay
History: The property is within the Village Planning Area boundary and municipal sewer
service area. The site was historically been used for faming activities. A large portion
of the site is located in a FEMA Flood District. The City approved a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment in 2014 that removed portions of the site from the open space land
category. The City approved a PUD Concept Plan for the property on June 17, 2014,
2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
and a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans on April 7, 2015. Wildflower 1st
Addition received final plat and PUD plan approval on 7/21/15.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 8/26/16
60 Day Deadline – 10/25/16
Extension Letter Mailed – Yes
120 Day Deadline – 12/24/16
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (MDR)
Article 16 – Planned Unit Development Regulations
§150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment Control
REQUEST DETAILS
Robert Engstrom Companies is requesting approval of a final plat and final PUD plan associated with
the second phase of the Wildflower Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed final plat will
replat the Outlot O, Wildflower at Lake Elmo, 19.2074 acres, in 20 single-family residential lots, of
which 10 will be the “garden villa” homes while the remaining 10 will be the general single family
homes located north of Wildflower Drive. In addition to the 20 single family homes, the final pla t
and PUD plans include two outlots. Outlot A is 0.5818 acres in size and will be an HOA owned
outlot for the garden villa courtyard. Outlot B is 11.99 acres in size and will be redeveloped into
residential lots in the future. The ten garden villa lots average 0.16 aces in size with the smallest lot
being 0.1405 acres in size and the largest 0.1774 acres in size; the ten single family lots average 0.29
acres in size, with the smallest being 0.2292 acres in size and largest being 0.3504 the acres in size.
The lots sizes and dimensions are consistent with the preliminary plat and PUD Plans.
Plat Summary:
Development area (Outlot O): 19.2074 acres
Total lot area: 4.4962 acres
Residential lots: 20 (10 villa, 10 regular)
Outlot for future development (Outlot B): 11.9934 acres
Outlot for courtyard (Outlot A): 0.5818 acres
R/W area: 2.1359 acres
Average garden villa lot size: 0.16 acres
Average single family lot size: 0.29 acres
Gross density (excluding outlots): 2.55 dwelling units per acre
Net density (excluding outlots and R/W) 4.0 dwelling units per acre
Grading. The site was graded with the first phase development, so no grading plans were included in
the final plat submittal.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS:
At the October 10, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, Staff discussed the PUD Agreement and a
conflict in the interpretation of the setback adjacent a public street in the courtyard areas. Since the
meeting, Staff has further researched the issue and discovered that the PUD Agreement Summary
document was in conflict with the Preliminary Plat Resolution No. 2015-23 (attached). The
resolution and attached 4/14/16 City Council minutes clarify the setback issue, establishing the
3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
sideyard setback adjacent a public street at 10 feet, rather than 15 feet. That being so, encroachments
are allowed into setbacks, but not necessarily drainage and utility easements unless the encroachment
is reviewed by the City Engineer and an encroachment agreement is executed. This process will
ensure that there will be no more issues similar to the encroachments on Lot 4, Block 4, Wildflower
at Lake Elmo 1st Addition.
Also at the October 10, 2016 meeting during the public hearing, stormwater from Wildflower and
Village Preserve was discussed and the Planning Commission and as a result, the Planning
Commission tabled the Wildflower 2nd Addition final plat and final PUD until the potential issues
were better understood. John Hanson from the Valley Branch Watershed District has since
investigated the storm water issues and has determined that there are some issues with the
Wildflower stormwater pond depth and non-functioning infiltration basins in the Village Preserve
development that will be corrected as part of the development process. The Village Preserve
infiltration basins will be corrected yet this fall. The report attributes the primary reason for the high
water levels to the large volume of rain this season. Overall, the report confirms that the planning
and design of the stormwater system is adequate for the proposed development and therefore, the
system can accommodate the additional stormwater that will be created with the development of the
Wildflower 2nd Addition.
Also at the public hearing, Rich Smith claimed some conditions of the 1st Addition plat have not
been satisfactorily addressed by the developer. The conditions appear to be a private agreement
between Mr. Smith and Mr. Engstrom that would have provided connection to municipal sewer,
landscaping and other improvements.
The issues remaining with the final plat are:
Stormwater. (as mentioned above).
Street Names. Street B on the Final Plat has not been given a proper name. This street should be
named consistent with the City’s street naming ordinance prior to recording the plat.
Engineering Review. The City Engineer has reviewed the final plat submittal and has prepared a
memorandum for the Commission and Council’s review. The comments in the City Engineer’s
review memorandum dated September 29, 2016 should be addressed prior to releasing the plat for
recording.
Landscape Plan. A revised landscape plan has been submitted for review, but has not been
approved. Approval of the landscape plan should be a condition prior to releasing the plat for
recording.
Protective Easement. A condition of preliminary plat was to protect all open space with protective
easements. An protective easement is being prepared to protect Outlot A from any future
development. This should be a condition of that needs to be addressed prior to releasing the plat for
recording.
Temporary Easements. The City Attorney has indicated that with the 2nd Addition Plat, existing
temporary easement between the city and Mr. Smith and a temporary access easement between the
developer and Mr. Smith will expire with the platting of the 2 nd Addition. New easement agreements
are being drafted and the execution of these agreements should be made a condition of the 2nd
addition final plat.
Preliminary Plat Conditions. The final plat is in conformance with the preliminary plat. The
preliminary plat and PUD plans were approved with conditions. Staff has provided comments on the
status of each in bold italics:
4
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
Preliminary Plat Conditions – With Staff Update Comments (updated information in bold
italics):
1) No lots within a FEMA flood zone shall be approved as part of a final plat until such time that
the City’s Floodplain Management Map has been amended to remove these lots. As an
alternative to amending this map, the developer must provide documentation that all structures
will be built above the regulatory flood protection elevation, that any public infrastructure will
also meet Floodplain Ordinance requirements, and that the proposed storm water ponds may be
constructed within the floodplain area. Comments: This condition will apply to the final plat
and all subsequent stages. The Valley Branch Watershed District has indicated that it will
undertake a study to amend the FEMA flood delineations to lower the flood levels in this area
to match those identified in the Goetschel Pond study. There are no buildable lots depicted on
the final plat that are located in a flood district.
2) Prior to any grading activity, the developer shall submit to the City temporary grading easements
from the owner of the lots adjacent to Layton Avenue within the Brookman Addition in order to
construct the improvements within this right-of-way as documented in the preliminary
construction plans. Comments: These easements have been secured and grading was
completed within this area.
3) The developer has requested the inclusion of public art within common areas and public property
throughout Wildflower development. Prior to the placement of any art on publicly owned
property or public rights-of-way, the developer and City shall enter into an agreement that
clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for maintenance, upkeep and removal of any
public art. No public art shall be lit in a manner that conflicts with the City’s Lighting
Ordinance. Comments: This is a condition that will apply to any placement of public art
within the development, including that installed in phase 1, the stamping of poetry into
sidewalks and sculpture in the right of way. A landscape license agreement shall be executed
to include public art as a landscape element and shall be executed prior to building permits in
the second phase.
4) Prior to the submission of a final plat for any portion of the Wildflower PUD, the developer shall
work with the City to determine the appropriate park dedication calculations for the entire
development area. Comments: The developer agreement for the first phase indicated that all
park dedication was satisfied with the first phase of the development.
5) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the
commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City
Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said plan
shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site. Comments: The site grading was
completed with the first phase of the development
6) The utility construction plans shall be updated to incorporate the recommendations of the City
Engineer as described in a February 18, 2015 memorandum to the City concerning the
appropriate location and size of sewer services through the PUD planning area, including any
requested oversizing of these facilities to service adjacent properties, prior to the submission of a
final plat. Comments: The supplemental plans included in the final plat submission address
the previous review comments. The City Engineer approved the supplemental plans. This
condition has been met.
5
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
7) The developer shall minimize the number of rain gardens within public rights-of-way consistent
with the review comments from the City Engineer. Any such storm water infiltration features
shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Comments: All rain gardens as
previously proposed have been eliminated from the plans.
8) The preliminary development plans must be revised to comply with City Street standards as
referenced in the City Engineer’s review memorandum dated February 18, 2015. Comments:
The plans have been updated to meet City standards and were approved as part of the PUD.
9) The City approves all requests for flexibility from City Zoning and Subdivision requirements
with the exception of the street standards noted in the preceding condition. Comments: The
revised plans address this condition.
10) The applicant is encouraged to incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study into the
open space areas within the subdivision. Comments: The final plans do not include any specific
references to the City’s theming study. This condition was not a mandatory requirement.
11) The preliminary landscape plan shall be updated to address the review comments from the City’s
landscape architecture consultant as noted in a review letter dated February 4, 2015. Comments:
The Preliminary Landscape Plans dated 5/28/15 generally meet the City’s requirements for
landscaping, however the Landscape Architect’s review comments have not been fully
addressed. The developer has since submitted an amended plan for a portion of the first
addition landscaping which have been approved, subject to the landscape requirements for the
entire site. The first phase landscaping will be evaluated for compliance once the first phase is
landscaped and an asbuilt plan has been submitted. A second phase plan has been submitted
and approval of the plan shall be required prior to recording the final plat of the 2 nd Addition.
12) All center median planting areas as depicted on the preliminary plat and plans shall be owned by
the City of Lake Elmo and maintained by the Homeowners Association. The applicant shall
enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities
responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park, trails,
or open space on the final plat. The developer has entered into a landscape license agreement
that meets this condition for the first phase which will need to be amended to address the
public art. A similar agreement will be required with the second addition and will be a
condition of approval. The agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of building permits
in the second phase.
13) The Final Plat and Plans must address the requested modifications outlined in the City Engineer’s
review memorandum dated February 18, 2015. Comments: The final plans have addressed
these comments/
14) Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat, the
Developer shall enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that
delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of public improvements.
Comments: A developer’s agreement was entered into for the first phase and will be for the
second phase.
6
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
15) The developer shall provide an easement over or dedicate in a separate outlot all trails to be
dedicated for public use. Any such trails shall be considered a park land dedication provide said
trails are constructed by the developer with other public improvements within the subdivision.
Comments: this condition has been met.
16) The City will not approve a final plat for any portion of Wildflower until such time that the City
has approved construction plans and received financial security related to the construction of the
public improvement project to connect the 39th Street Sewer to the 30th Street lift station.
Comments: This condition has been met and no longer applies.
17) The developer must follow all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act, and
adhere to the conditions of approval for the Valley Branch Watershed District Permit.
Comments: The developers plan have been reviewed and approved by the Watershed District
and grading work has been completed in accordance with this permit.
18) The developer shall maintain access to the Smith property (11514 Stillwater Boulevard North)
during construction of the first development phase. Said access shall, at a minimum, be capable
of supporting emergency management vehicles and be consistent with City access driveway
standards. The existing driveway easement shall be vacated prior to the recording of the final
plat. Comments: The driveway easement from the Smith property providing access to
Stillwater Boulevard has been vacated. Easements to the City and Mr. Smith will expire upon
the recording of the 2nd Addition Final Plat. These replacement easements are being drafted
and should be a condition of final plat.
19) The developer shall establish a legally binding agreement to prevent further residential or
commercial development of all outlots that are planned for open space or conservation uses
within the preliminary plat. Comments: This condition has been met for the first phase and is
being addressed in the second phase to protect Outlot A.
Staff is recommending approval of the final plat and PUD plans with conditions intended to address
the outstanding issues that will require additional review and/or documentation.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Staff is recommending conditions as part of this final plat review to address issues highlighted in this
report that include conditions of the preliminary plat that have not been fully addressed by the
applicant. The City Engineer’s review memorandum dated September 29, 2016 identifies a number
of issues that need to be addressed by the developer in order for the City to deem the final plans
complete. Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the final
plat and final PUD development plans for phase two with the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) The comments in the City Engineer’s review memorandum dated September 29, 2016 should be
addressed prior to releasing the plat for recording. Final construction plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to the recording of the Final Plat. All changes and
modifications to the plans requested by the City Engineer in a memorandum dated September 29,
7
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
2016 and any future reviews shall be incorporated into these documents before they are
approved.
2) Prior to the execution of the Final Plat by City officials, the Developer shall enter into a
Developer’s Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Council that
delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of the required
improvements for the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD
Development Plans with financial guarantees therefore.
3) All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works Department shall be
documented on the Final Plat prior to the execution of the final plat by City Officials.
4) A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of Wildflower at
Lake Elmo 2nd Addition and establishing a homeowner’s association shall be submitted in final
form to the Community Development Director before a building permit may be issued for any
structure within this subdivision.
5) The applicant shall also enter into a landscape license/public art agreement and maintenance
agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping
and public art installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the
final plat.
6) The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to releasing the final plat for
recording.
7) Street signs and no parking signs shall be installed on City Streets within the development prior
to any building permits being issued.
8) That street segment B, be given a name on the final plat prior to approval of the final plat by the
City Council.
9) That new easements be executed between the Developer and the City and the Developer and Mr.
Smith that replace the temporary easements that expire with the recording of the Wildflower at
Lake Elmo 2nd Addition.
10) That a protective easement be placed over Outlot A to protect the area from future development.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the proposed Wildflower Final Plat and Final PUD Plans
That all the requirements of City Code Section 153.07 related to the Final Plan and Final Plat
have been met by the Applicant.
That the proposed Final Plat for Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition consists of the
creation of 20 single-family detached residential structures.
8
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent
with the Preliminary Plat and Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on April 7, 2014.
That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent
with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat generally complies with the City’s
Urban Medium Density Residential zoning district, with the exceptions as noted in the
approved Preliminary PUD Plans and PUD Agreement.
That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat complies with all other applicable
zoning requirements, including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion
control and other ordinances, except as noted in this report or attachment thereof.
That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat complies with the City’s
subdivision ordinance.
That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan complies with
the City’s Planned Unit Development Ordinance.
That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat is consistent with the City’s
engineering standards with the exceptions noted by the City Engineer in his review
comments to the City dated September 29, 2016 and as otherwise identified in future reviews.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final Plat and Final
Development Plans for Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition with the 10 conditions of approval as
listed in the Staff report.
Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the final plat and PUD development plans for the Wildflower at
Lake Elmo 2nd Addition with 10 conditions based on the findings listed in the staff report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application and narrative
2. City Engineer Review Comments – 9/29/2016
3. 10/24/16 Planning Commission packet
4. Final Landscape Plan
5. Resolution 2015-23 – approving the final plat of Wildflower 1st Addn.
6. City Council minutes, 4-14-15, changing the 15’ setback to 10’
7. Rich Smith correspondence with the developer.
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 10/24/2016
AGENDA ITEM: 5A BUSINESS ITEM
CASE # 2016-40
ITEM: Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plans
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Emily Becker, City Planner
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
Robert Engstrom Companies is requesting approval of final plat, final PUD development plans for
the second phase of the Wildflower at Lake Elmo PUD development. The final plat includes 20
single family residential lots located to the east of the first phase. Staff is recommending approval of
the request subject to compliance with the conditions listed in this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Robert Engstrom Companies; 4801 West 81st Street, #101, Bloomington, MN
Property Owners: Robert Engstrom Companies; 4801 West 81st Street, #101, Bloomington, MN
Location: Outlot O, Wildflower at Lake Elmo 1st Addition, near the intersection of
Wildflower Drive and Monarch Lane.
Request: Application for lot Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan
approval for the second phase of the Wildflower PUD development. The final
plat includes 20 single-family residential lots, an outlot (courtyard), and an outlot
for future development.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant outlot and MDR/PUD.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North – vacant outlot and MDR/PUD zoning –; west –
Wildflower 1st Addition and MDR/PUD zoning –; south –
offices, business park land – General Business zoning; east –
Wildflower outlot and open space/Field of St. Croix II
subdivision open space – RR and OP zoning.
Comprehensive Plan: Village Medium Density Residential (3-4 units per acre)/Village Open
Space Overlay
History: The property is within the Village Planning Area boundary and municipal sewer
service area. The site was historically been used for faming activities. A large portion
of the site is located in a FEMA Flood District. The City approved a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment in 2014 that removed portions of the site from the open space land
category. The City approved a PUD Concept Plan for the property on June 17, 2014,
2
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
and a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans on April 7, 2015. Wildflower 1st
Addition received final plat and PUD plan approval on 7/21/15.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 8/26/16
60 Day Deadline – 10/25/16
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 12/24/16
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (MDR)
Article 16 – Planned Unit Development Regulations
§150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment Control
REQUEST DETAILS
Robert Engstrom Companies is requesting approval of a final plat and final PUD plan associated with
the second phase of the Wildflower Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed final plat will
replat the Outlot O, Wildflower at Lake Elmo, 19.2074 acres, in 20 single-family residential lots, of
which 10 will be the “garden villa” homes while the remaining 10 will be the general single family
homes located north of Wildflower Drive. In addition to the 20 single family homes, the final plat
and PUD plans include two outlots. Outlot A is 0.5818 acres in size and will be an HOA owned
outlot for the garden villa courtyard. Outlot B is 11.99 acres in size and will be redeveloped into
residential lots in the future. The ten garden villa lots average 0.16 aces in size with the smallest lot
being 0.1405 acres in size and the largest 0.1774 acres in size; the ten single family lots average 0.29
acres in size, with the smallest being 0.2292 acres in size and largest being 0.3504 the acres in size.
The lots sizes and dimensions are consistent with the preliminary plat and PUD Plans.
Plat Summary:
Development area (Outlot O): 19.2074 acres
Total lot area: 4.4962 acres
Residential lots: 20 (10 villa, 10 regular)
Outlot for future development (Outlot B): 11.9934 acres
Outlot for courtyard (Outlot A): 0.5818 acres
R/W area: 2.1359 acres
Average garden villa lot size: 0.16 acres
Average single family lot size: 0.29 acres
Gross density (excluding outlots): 2.55 dwelling units per acre
Net density (excluding outlots and R/W) 4.0 dwelling units per acre
Grading. The site was graded with the first phase development, so no grading plans were included in
the final plat submittal.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS:
At the October 10, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, Staff discussed the PUD Agreement and a
conflict in the interpretation of the setback adjacent a public street in the courtyard areas. Since the
meeting, Staff has further researched the issue and discovered that the PUD Agreement Summary
document was in conflict with the Preliminary Plat Resolution No. 2015-23 (attached). The
resolution and attached 4/14/16 City Council minutes clarify the setback issue, establishing the
3
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
sideyard setback adjacent a public street at 10 feet, rather than 15 feet. That being said,
encroachments are allowed into setbacks, but not necessarily drainage and utility easements. Staff
will enforce a no encroachment policy for the drainage and utility easements adjacent the public
street to ensure that there will be no more similar issues as was illustrated with Lot 4, Block 4,
Wildflower at Lake Elmo 1st Addition.
Also at the October 10, 2016 meeting, stormwater from Wildflower and Village Preserve was
discussed and the Planning Commission tabled the Wildflower 2nd Addition final plat and final PUD
until the potential issues were better understood. John Hanson from the Valley Branch Watershed
District is looking into the stormwater issues and will issue a report to the Valley Branch Board on
10/21/16, too late for the Planning Commission packet. Planning Staff will have copies of that
memo available at the Planning Commission meeting and will email it to Planning Commissioners
once it is received. The memo is anticipated to have an explanation of the stormwater issues that will
hopefully make sense and will allow Wildflower 2nd Addition to proceed.
The Rich Smith issue, comments made by Rich Smith that conditions of the first addition plat have
not been complied with, appear to be a private agreement between Mr. Smith and Mr. Engstrom that
would have provided connection to municipal sewer, landscaping and other improvements.
The issues remaining with the final plat are:
Stormwater. (as mentioned above).
Street Names. Street B on the Final Plat has not been given a proper name. This street should be
named consistent with the City’s street naming ordinance prior to recording the plat.
Engineering Review. The City Engineer has reviewed the final plat submittal and has prepared a
memorandum for the Commission and Council’s review. The comments in the City Engineer’s
review memorandum dated September 29, 2016 should be addressed prior to releasing the plat for
recording.
Preliminary Plat Conditions. The final plat is in conformance with the preliminary plat. The
preliminary plat and PUD plans were approved with conditions. Staff has provided comments on the
status of each in bold italics:
Preliminary Plat Conditions – With Staff Update Comments (updated information in bold
italics):
1) No lots within a FEMA flood zone shall be approved as part of a final plat until such time that
the City’s Floodplain Management Map has been amended to remove these lots. As an
alternative to amending this map, the developer must provide documentation that all structures
will be built above the regulatory flood protection elevation, that any public infrastructure will
also meet Floodplain Ordinance requirements, and that the proposed storm water ponds may be
constructed within the floodplain area. Comments: This condition will apply to the final plat
and all subsequent stages. The Valley Branch Watershed District has indicated that it will
undertake a study to amend the FEMA flood delineations to lower the flood levels in this area
to match those identified in the Goetschel Pond study. There are no buildable lots depicted on
the final plat that are located in a flood district.
2) Prior to any grading activity, the developer shall submit to the City temporary grading easements
from the owner of the lots adjacent to Layton Avenue within the Brookman Addition in order to
construct the improvements within this right-of-way as documented in the preliminary
4
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
construction plans. Comments: These easements have been secured and grading was
completed within this area.
3) The developer has requested the inclusion of public art within common areas and public property
throughout Wildflower development. Prior to the placement of any art on publicly owned
property or public rights-of-way, the developer and City shall enter into an agreement that
clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for maintenance, upkeep and removal of any
public art. No public art shall be lit in a manner that conflicts with the City’s Lighting
Ordinance. Comments: This is a condition that will apply to any placement of public art
within the development, including that installed in phase 1, the stamping of poetry into
sidewalks and sculpture in the right of way. A landscape license agreement shall be executed
to include public art as a landscape element and shall be executed prior to building permits in
the second phase.
4) Prior to the submission of a final plat for any portion of the Wildflower PUD, the developer shall
work with the City to determine the appropriate park dedication calculations for the entire
development area. Comments: The developer agreement for the first phase indicated that all
park dedication was satisfied with the first phase of the development.
5) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the
commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City
Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said plan
shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site. Comments: The site grading was
completed with the first phase of the development
6) The utility construction plans shall be updated to incorporate the recommendations of the City
Engineer as described in a February 18, 2015 memorandum to the City concerning the
appropriate location and size of sewer services through the PUD planning area, including any
requested oversizing of these facilities to service adjacent properties, prior to the submission of a
final plat. Comments: The supplemental plans included in the final plat submission address
the previous review comments. The City Engineer approved the supplemental plans. This
condition has been met.
7) The developer shall minimize the number of rain gardens within public rights-of-way consistent
with the review comments from the City Engineer. Any such storm water infiltration features
shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Comments: All rain gardens as
previously proposed have been eliminated from the plans.
8) The preliminary development plans must be revised to comply with City Street standards as
referenced in the City Engineer’s review memorandum dated February 18, 2015. Comments:
The plans have been updated to meet City standards and were approved.
9) The City approves all requests for flexibility from City Zoning and Subdivision requirements
with the exception of the street standards noted in the preceding condition. Comments: The
revised plans address this condition.
10) The applicant is encouraged to incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study into the
open space areas within the subdivision. Comments: The final plans do not include any specific
references to the City’s theming study. This condition was not a mandatory requirement.
5
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
11) The preliminary landscape plan shall be updated to address the review comments from the City’s
landscape architecture consultant as noted in a review letter dated February 4, 2015. Comments:
The Preliminary Landscape Plans dated 5/28/15 generally meet the City’s requirements for
landscaping, however the Landscape Architect’s review comments have not been fully
addressed. The developer has since submitted an amended plan for a portion of the first
addition landscaping which have been approved, subject to the landscape requirements for the
entire site. The first phase landscaping will be evaluated for compliance once the first phase is
landscaped and an asbuilt plan has been submitted.
12) All center median planting areas as depicted on the preliminary plat and plans shall be owned by
the City of Lake Elmo and maintained by the Homeowners Association. The applicant shall
enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities
responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park, trails,
or open space on the final plat. The developer has entered into a landscape license agreement
that meets this condition for the first phase which will need to be amended to address the
public art. A similar agreement will be required with the second addition and will be a
condition of approval. The agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of building permits
in the second phase.
13) The Final Plat and Plans must address the requested modifications outlined in the City Engineer’s
review memorandum dated February 18, 2015. Comments: The final plans have addressed
these comments/
14) Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat, the
Developer shall enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that
delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of public improvements.
Comments: A developer’s agreement was entered into for the first phase and will be for the
second phase.
15) The developer shall provide an easement over or dedicate in a separate outlot all trails to be
dedicated for public use. Any such trails shall be considered a park land dedication provide said
trails are constructed by the developer with other public improvements within the subdivision.
Comments: this condition has been met.
16) The City will not approve a final plat for any portion of Wildflower until such time that the City
has approved construction plans and received financial security related to the construction of the
public improvement project to connect the 39th Street Sewer to the 30th Street lift station.
Comments: This condition has been met and no longer applies.
17) The developer must follow all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act, and
adhere to the conditions of approval for the Valley Branch Watershed District Permit.
Comments: The developers plan have been reviewed and approved by the Watershed District
and grading work has been completed in accordance with this permit.
18) The developer shall maintain access to the Smith property (11514 Stillwater Boulevard North)
during construction of the first development phase. Said access shall, at a minimum, be capable
of supporting emergency management vehicles and be consistent with City access driveway
standards. The existing driveway easement shall be vacated prior to the recording of the final
6
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
plat. Comments: The driveway easement from the Smith property providing access to
Stillwater Boulevard has been vacated.
19) The developer shall establish a legally binding agreement to prevent further residential o r
commercial development of all outlots that are planned for open space or conservation uses
within the preliminary plat. Comments: This condition has been met.
Staff is recommending approval of the final plat and PUD plans with conditions intended to address
the outstanding issues that will require additional review and/or documentation.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Staff is recommending conditions as part of this final plat review to address issues highlighted in this
report that include conditions of the preliminary plat that have not been fully addressed by the
applicant. The City Engineer’s review memorandum dated September 29, 2016 identifies a number
of issues that need to be addressed by the developer in order for the City to deem the final plans
complete. Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the final
plat and final PUD development plans for phase two with the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) The comments in the City Engineer’s review memorandum dated September 29, 2016 should be
addressed prior to releasing the plat for recording. Final construction plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to the recording of the Final Plat. All changes and
modifications to the plans requested by the City Engineer in a memorandum dated September 29,
2016 and any future reviews shall be incorporated into these documents before they are
approved.
2) Prior to the execution of the Final Plat by City officials, the Developer shall enter into a
Developer’s Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Council that
delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of the required
improvements for the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD
Development Plans with financial guarantees therefore.
3) All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works Department shall be
documented on the Final Plat prior to the execution of the final plat by City Officials.
4) A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of Wildflower at
Lake Elmo 2nd Addition and establishing a homeowner’s association shall be submitted in final
form to the Community Development Director before a building permit may be issued for any
structure within this subdivision.
5) The applicant shall also enter into a landscape license/public art agreement and maintenance
agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping
and public art installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the
final plat.
7
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
6) Revised landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval consistent with recommended
changes per the City’s Consulting Landscape Architect’s review memo dated February 14, 2015,
prior to recording of the final plat.
7) Street signs and no parking signs shall be installed on City Streets within the development prior
to any building permits being issued.
8) That street segment B, be given a name on the final plat prior to approval of the final plat by the
City Council.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the proposed Wildflower Final Plat and Final PUD Plans
That all the requirements of City Code Section 153.07 related to the Final Plan and Final Plat
have been met by the Applicant.
That the proposed Final Plat for Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition consists of the
creation of 20 single-family detached residential structures.
That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent
with the Preliminary Plat and Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on April 7, 2014.
That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent
with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat generally complies with the City’s
Urban Medium Density Residential zoning district, with the exceptions as noted in the
approved Preliminary PUD Plans and PUD Agreement.
That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat complies with all other applicable
zoning requirements, including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion
control and other ordinances, except as noted in this report or attachment thereof.
That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat complies with the City’s
subdivision ordinance.
That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan complies with
the City’s Planned Unit Development Ordinance.
That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat is consistent with the City’s
engineering standards with the exceptions noted by the City Engineer in his review
comments to the City dated September 29, 2016 and as otherwise identified in future reviews.
RECOMMENDATION:
8
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final Plat and Final
Development Plans for Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition with the 8 conditions of approval as
listed in the Staff report.
Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the final plat and PUD development plans for the Wildflower at
Lake Elmo 2nd Addition based on the findings listed in the staff report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application and narrative
2. City Engineer Review Comments – 9/29/2016
3. Final Plat
4. Final Construction Plans
5. Preliminary Landscape Plan dated 5/28/15
6. Landscape Architect memorandum dated 2/14/15
7. Lot 4, Block 4, Wildflower at Lake Elmo 1st Addition Building Permit Survey
8. Resolution 2015-23 – approving the final plat of Wildflower 1st Addn
9. City Council minutes, 4-14-15, changing the 15’ setback to 10’
Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com
Memorandum
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southwest of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Project: 23820020.00 2200 346 and 352
c: Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse, John Hanson
Background and Introduction
As the Managers saw during their September 22, 2016, tour, some
infiltration basins on the Village Preserve site (see Figure 1) are
not functioning and water levels in the floodplain downstream
appear high (see Figures 2 and 3). The property owners west of the floodplain are concerned about the
high water levels and standing water in the Lake Elmo Avenue ditch. The City of Lake Elmo’s Planning
Commission rejected approval of the next construction phase of the Wildflower at Lake Elmo subdivision
until stormwater management issues are better understood and asked Valley Branch Watershed District to
study the issue and identify potential solutions.
To understand the cause of the observed high water levels, we compared 2016 precipitation data to other
years and reviewed the development plans and permit application models to determine if construction
was done as planned and if stormwater management facilities are functioning as assumed. Based on this
review, we have recommendations for corrective actions. This memo summarizes our analysis and
findings.
Precipitation
The area received 32.29 inches of precipitation from April 1–September 30, 2016, making it by far the
wettest year over the last 10 years. Between 2007 and 2015, the wettest April–September had been in
2014, with 28.54 inches of precipitation. The average during the 9-year period was 22.76 inches. Table 1
summarizes the precipitation recorded in the area.
Requested Manager Action
Review memo
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southw est of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Page: 2
P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382016\_MovedFromMpls_P\VBWD\2382016\MEETINGS\2016\10272016\ForDeb\Superseded\Memo_KruegersEtc_fringe.docx
Table 1 2007–2016 April–September Precipitation (inches)
Year April May June July August September Total
2016 Not
Available 2.20 4.290 9.30 10.41 5.82 >32.02
2.47 2.86 4.46 6.69 9.12 6.69 32.29
2015 3.02 3.59 5.29 6.11 3.69 5.32 27.02
1.99 4.16 4.34 7.07 3.07 5.55 26.18
2014 6.90 4.48 9.46 2.16 2.95 2.18 28.13
6.53 4.21 9.93 2.55 2.86 2.46 28.54
2013 5.19 5.15 9.06 2.24 0.57 1.69 23.90
5.46 5.35 9.67 1.57 1.21 1.56 24.82
2012 3.26 7.18 4.26 5.76 1.36 0.59 22.41
3.23 6.99 2.86 5.20 1.44 0.66 20.38
2011 3.58 3.11 5.58 10.6 4.85 0.71 28.43
2.13 4.07 3.40 6.98 5.11 1.02 22.71
2010 2.01 3.36 5.97 5.28 5.21 5.65 27.48
1.64 3.55 4.90 5.10 6.49 6.40 28.08
2009 1.38 0.58 2.94 2.12 7.02 0.64 14.68
0.75 0.60 3.56 2.39 7.25 0.93 15.48
2008 4.41 3.23 3.61 2.39 2.87 2.72 19.23
4.04 2.44 4.23 2.44 3.55 2.44 19.14
2007 1.51 3.62 1.17 1.06 5.75 6.52 19.63
1.85 4.06 1.32 1.32 5.95 5.00 19.50
The first row for each year is the precipitation recorded by VBWD citizen volunteer Charles Taylor at his
home on the northwest side of Lake Jane, 2.5 miles west of the site. The second row is the precipitation
recorded at the closest reporting station (within 2 miles of the site), accessed from
http://climate.umn.edu/HIDradius/radius_new.asp.
Historic Water Levels
The VBWD has not measured lowland water levels. We reviewed aerial photos, but these were taken in
early spring or late fall so were not helpful in determining extreme or typical summer water levels.
At Wetland F (see Figure 3 for the location and the following October 18, 2016, photos), cottonwood and
oak trees are standing in water. Based on their size, we estimate the trees to be 12–20 years old. While
cottonwood trees are flood-resistant, oak trees are not. Therefore, water levels in the wetland have not
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southw est of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Page: 3
P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382016\_MovedFromMpls_P\VBWD\2382016\MEETINGS\2016\10272016\ForDeb\Superseded\Memo_KruegersEtc_fringe.docx
likely been sustained at this level for at least 12–20 years. Aerial photos appear to show trees along the
wetland fringe in 1996, but not in 1992. This is consistent with precipitation records, which show that
2002, 1993, and 1991 were wet years; it’s probable that the trees came in after one of the wet years during
1990s when water levels in the wetland were high.
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southw est of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Page: 4
P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382016\_MovedFromMpls_P\VBWD\2382016\MEETINGS\2016\10272016\ForDeb\Superseded\Memo_KruegersEtc_fringe.docx
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southw est of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Page: 5
P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382016\_MovedFromMpls_P\VBWD\2382016\MEETINGS\2016\10272016\ForDeb\Superseded\Memo_KruegersEtc_fringe.docx
Drainage Patterns
Figure 2 shows the pre-development drainage patterns, overflow elevations of lowlands, and the
1%-probability flood level for the area. Figure 3 shows the developed conditions drainage patterns and
1%-probability flood level for the area.
Developments and Impacts
Areas south of the floodplain are currently under construction. Figure 1 shows the developments in
relation to the floodplain. Village Preserve and Arbor Glen Senior Living are on the west side and
Wildflower at Lake Elmo is on the east side; a future cul-de-sac extends to the west, separating the
floodplain from Village Preserve.
Wetland A and Krueger Property
The drainage area to Wetland A (see Figure 3) was reduced with development. Within the Village
Preserve site, 0.6 acres of the predeveloped 1.6-acre drainage area was diverted from flowing north into
Wetland A. Runoff from the remaining 1 acre (38% impervious) in the northwest corner of Village
Preserve drains to an infiltration basin with a capacity of 36,800 cubic feet (Infiltration Basin 1, see
Figure 3). Soils investigations prior to construction of this basin indicated infiltration rates exceeded 20
inches per hour. It was expected to drain dry within 48 hours of rainstorms with an infiltration rate of at
least 2 inches per hour. Basin overflows were anticipated only during storms significantly greater than the
100-year 24-hour design storm (7.3 inches).
During site visits in late August and September, Infiltration Basin 1 was found full of water. There were
also signs that it had discharged to the north along Lake Elmo Avenue and into Wetland A. The water
level in the basin on October 18, 2016, was approximately 1 foot below the overflow (see the following
photo, where the orange cone is the overflow). Therefore, this basin is not infiltrating as designed. As
noted above, it should drain dry within 48 hours of a rainstorm and should not discharge.
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southw est of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Page: 6
P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382016\_MovedFromMpls_P\VBWD\2382016\MEETINGS\2016\10272016\ForDeb\Superseded\Memo_KruegersEtc_fringe.docx
Within the Wildflower at Lake Elmo site (see Figure 1), the developer filled a low area south of Wetland A
(see Figure 2). That area now drains to an infiltration basin (Infiltration Basin 300) that overflows to
Wetland G (see Figure 3). This change, combined with the Village Preserve drainage change, reduced the
drainage area to Wetland A by 5.1 acres. Under pre-developed conditions, runoff from the south would fill
that low area; if it were to overflow, it would overflow to Wetland A.
Even with the reduction in runoff storage by the elimination of the low area south of Wetland A, less
runoff reaches Wetland A because of the development changes. Table 2 summarizes the drainage areas
and inflow runoff volumes.
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southw est of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Page: 7
P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382016\_MovedFromMpls_P\VBWD\2382016\MEETINGS\2016\10272016\ForDeb\Superseded\Memo_KruegersEtc_fringe.docx
Table 2 Drainage Areas, Inflow Volumes, and High Water Levels of Wetland A
Drainage Area from South
(acres)
2-Year 2-Hour Storm
Inflow Volume
(acre-feet)
High Water Level
(feet)
Pre-Development 17.9 0.98 911.9
Post-Development 12.8 0.64 911.6
High water levels were observed in Wetland A in 2014, prior to any development in the area. Given that
there has been much more precipitation in 2016, the current high water levels are not surprising. And,
they would likely be higher if the development had not made changes to the drainage area.
Wetland A overflows to Veronica’s Pond at Elevation 914.7. The 1%-probability flood level of Wetland A is
Elevation 916.9. The ground adjacent to an outbuilding on the Krueger property west of Lake Elmo
Avenue is approximately Elevation 917.5. While this outbuilding should be safe from flooding, the low
area between it and Lake Elmo Avenue will fill with water after large storm events and during wet-weather
cycles. Figure 4 shows a close-up view of Wetland A and the Krueger property.
Wetland H and G
Wetland H and G (see Figure 3) receive runoff from the Arbor Glen Senior Living Facility and Village
Preserve sites. Before development, runoff from the Arbor Glen Senior Living Facility and Village Preserve
generally drained southeast and eventually to Downs Lake. Once complete, part of the Arbor Glen Senior
Living site and all of the Village Preserve site will drain north to the Goetschel Pond watershed. The
VBWD allowed this diversion because soils investigations and computer modeling showed that the
diversion would not increase the 100-year flood level of the local lowlands or Goetschel Pond. Figures 5
and 6 show the pre- and post-development drainage areas.
Runoff diverted from the Downs Lake watershed into the Goetschel Pond watershed drains through a
series of stormwater management features before reaching the lowlands southwest of Goetschel Pond.
Runoff from the Arbor Glen Senior Living site will drain to a biofiltration basin and then to the Village
Preserve wet pond at the southwest corner of that subdivision. Runoff from Village Preserve generally
flows in a counterclockwise pattern through wet ponds before reaching a large infiltration basin
(Infiltration Basin 2) in the north-central portion of the site. Soils investigations prior to construction
indicated infiltration rates at this basin exceeded 20 inches per hour. It was expected to drain dry within
48 hours of rainstorms with infiltration rates of at least 4 inches per hour. Basin overflows were anticipated
only during storms significantly greater than the 10-year 24-hour design storm (4.17 inches). During site
visits in late August and September, the infiltration basin was found full of water and discharging to the
north (Wetland H, see Figure 6.) Therefore, Infiltration Basin 2 is not functioning as designed. If the basin
were functioning properly, Wetland H and downstream wetlands on the Wildflower at Lake Elmo site
would receive less runoff than they did this summer.
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southw est of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Page: 8
P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382016\_MovedFromMpls_P\VBWD\2382016\MEETINGS\2016\10272016\ForDeb\Superseded\Memo_KruegersEtc_fringe.docx
The Lake Elmo City Engineer and I have discussed the problem with the developer of Village Preserve. The
developer indicated that the infiltration basin will be cleaned out (sediment removed) before the end of
October. According to him, the basin was functioning well in the early part of 2016 and he expects that it
will function again once cleaned out. Neither the City nor the VBWD will release surety if it does not.
Wetland F
Wetland F (and Veronica’s Pond) is downstream of area developments and associated stormwater
management facilities under construction. While the current water level in the wetland appears to be
approximately Elevation 904, 11 feet below the 1%-probability flood level, it is higher than typical. As
previously described, several 8-inch-diameter and smaller oak trees, which are not flood-resistant, are in
standing water. The high water level is likely because:
• 2016 has been an extremely wet year. During the warm seasons of the last 60 years, only 2002,
1993, 1991, 1986, and 1978 were as wet.
• Infiltration Basin 2 on the Village Preserve site discharged water that eventually reached
Wetland F. It was designed to discharge only in extreme events; otherwise, no water should
discharge to the Wildflower at Lake Elmo site.
• Infiltration Basin 300 on the Wildflower at Lake Elmo site was not constructed to store as much
runoff as planned and could have sent more runoff downstream and eventually to Wetland F.
• Infiltration Basin 200 on the Wildflower at Lake Elmo site is not draining dry within 48 hours and is
sending more runoff downstream.
Needed Actions at Stormwater Management Facilities
The developer’s engineer for the Wildflower at Lake Elmo site submitted as-built drawings. The as-builts
show the grading and constructed infrastructure are generally with the appropriate tolerances with two
exceptions: (1) the outlet for Infiltration Basin 300 was constructed 0.6 feet lower than planned, and (2) the
bottom of Infiltration Basin 300 was constructed 0.1 foot lower than planned. Therefore, less volume is
being stored in the basin. This should be corrected or additional volume control needs to be provided.
Drainage patterns appear consistent with the as-built drawings and orginal plans, but Wetland G is
overflowing into the Wet Pond, rather than Infiltration Basin 200.
As previously noted, the infiltration basins on the Village Preserve site are not infiltrating. The developer
said they will be cleaned out by the end of October 2016.
On the Wildflower at Lake Elmo site, erosion problems should be corrected, builders should be more
diligent about installing and maintaining erosion controls, and vegetation should be better established
within the floodplain.
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southw est of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Page: 9
P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382016\_MovedFromMpls_P\VBWD\2382016\MEETINGS\2016\10272016\ForDeb\Superseded\Memo_KruegersEtc_fringe.docx
Conclusions
Higher-than-normal precipitation coupled with non-functioning infiltration basins have created
abnormally high water levels in Wetland F. Wetland A, which backs up water onto the Krueger property,
also has high water levels. While an infiltration basin draining to the wetland is not functioning properly,
the high water levels in Wetland A are due to higher-than-normal precipitation. The 100-year flood level
of Wetland A, both before and after development, is Elevation 916.9, which appears to be just below the
elevation of an outbuilding on the Krueger’s property.
The developer of the Village Preserve project has committed to cleaning the non-functioning infiltration
basins on the site. The developer of the Wildflower at Lake Elmo site will be informed that Infiltration
Basin 200 is not functioning as designed and Infiltration Basin 300 was not constructed as designed and
that corrective actions are needed. Erosion issues also need to be addressed on the Wildflower at Lake
Elmo site and vegetation needs to be better established. VBWD should not release any escrow deposit
until these corrective actions have been taken and proof is submitted that the projects conform to the
VBWD Rules and Regulations, as described in the VBWD permit closeout process.
Wildflowerat Lake Elmo
VillagePreserve
Arbor GlenSenior Living
See Floodplainin Figures 2 & 3Veronica's Pond
44th St
Stillwa
t
e
r
B
l
v
d
N
Li
l
y
Av
e
N
LittleBlueCir N
La
k
e
E
l
m
o
A
v
e
N
La
v
e
r
n
e
Av
e
N
Little
BlueCir N
44
t
h
S
t
L
a
Li
l
y
Av
e
N
L
i
l
y
A
v
e
N
Lady Slipper La N
43rd St N
Li
t
t
l
e
B
l
u
e
S
t
e
m
T
r
N
Little Blue Stem La
39th St N
456717
456714
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
4
,
2
0
1
6
-
1
0
-
2
1
1
5
:
1
2
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
V
B
W
D
\
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
\
W
o
r
k
_
O
r
d
e
r
s
\
O
u
t
_
o
f
_
S
c
o
p
e
\
S
i
t
e
_
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
_
M
a
p
p
i
n
g
\
2
0
1
6
_
S
i
t
e
m
a
p
s
\
S
W
_
G
o
e
t
s
c
h
e
l
\
F
i
g
0
1
_
L
o
c
a
l
_
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
m
b
s
2
Developed Subwatershed Boundary
Major Subwatershed Boundary
Imagery: USDA NAIP, 2015
I
350 0 350
Feet
Figure 1
LOCAL DEVELOPMENTSValley Branch Watershed DistrictWashington County, Minnesota
*Vertical Datum: NAVD88
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Wetland A
Low Area FilledWith Development
Veronica's Pond
Le
a
f
Av
e
N
LeafAve
N
43rd St N
La
k
e
E
l
m
o
A
v
e
N
456717
922.5
919.9
909.9
920.5
913.4
911.6
923.7
913.6
918.4
921.6
906.1
906.4
909.6904.3
914.7
917
910.8916.3
913.5916.6
921.2
916.7
914.4
913.7
920.5'
915'
916.9'
910
920
94
0
940
930
920
920
950 940
9
4
0
90
0
900
9
3
0
930
920
930
930
9
3
0
9
2
0 930
920
9
1
0
910
922
914
908
906
932
924
916
912
904
926
918
938
936
9
3
4
926
924
9
2
2
928
938936
932
92
8
926
924
922
926
922
918
916928
924
952
948
946
944
942
928926924
922
9
4
2
9
3
8
9
3
6
9
3
4
928
926
924
922
9
2
6
9
2
2
928
926
924
922
926
924 926
924922
9
2
2
9
1
6
916
912
9
0
6
9
0
2
904
92
6
9
2
4
9
2
2
91
4
9
1
2
902
938
936
9
3
2
932
924922
92
2
91
6
91
4
914
912
9
4
8
9
4
6
9
2
2
9
1
8
908
906
9
0
8
9
0
6
928
902
934
918
932
932
92
4
924
928
918
91
6
9
1
4
916
904
9
2
2
92
4
91
6
912
914
9
1
2
90
8
9
0
6
954
948
944
9
4
4
944
942
942
932
932
926
926
92
4
924
922
92
2
9
2
2
918 918
918
918
91
8
9
1
8
918
91
6
91
6
914
9
1
4912
906
926 922
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
4
,
2
0
1
6
-
1
0
-
2
1
1
5
:
1
6
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
V
B
W
D
\
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
\
W
o
r
k
_
O
r
d
e
r
s
\
O
u
t
_
o
f
_
S
c
o
p
e
\
S
i
t
e
_
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
_
M
a
p
p
i
n
g
\
2
0
1
6
_
S
i
t
e
m
a
p
s
\
S
W
_
G
o
e
t
s
c
h
e
l
\
F
i
g
0
2
_
S
W
_
G
o
e
t
s
c
h
e
l
_
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
_
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
m
b
s
2
%Depression Area Low Point Overflow Elevation (ft)
Local Depression Boundary
Inundation Extents to Local Overflow Point
100-Year Floodplain Labeled with1% Probability Flood Level (ft)
Contours (DNR, November 2011)
2-Foot Contour
10-Foot Contour
Imagery: Washington County, 2013
I
250 0 250
Feet
Figure 2
SOUTHWEST GOETSCHELWATERSHED DETAILValley Branch Watershed DistrictWashington County, Minnesota
*Vertical Datum: NAVD88
Veronica's Pond
Le
a
f
Av
e
N
LeafAve
N
43rd St N
La
k
e
E
l
m
o
A
v
e
N
456717
910
920
94
0
940
930
920
920
950 940
9
4
0
90
0
900
9
3
0
930
920
930
930
9
3
0
920
930
920
910
910
922
914
908
906
932
924
916
912
904
926
918
938
936
9
3
4
926
924
9
2
2
928
938936
932
92
8
926
924
922
926
922
918
916928
924
952
948
946
944
942
928926924
922
9
4
2
9
3
8
9
3
6
9
3
4
928
926
924
922
9
2
2
91
8
928
926
924
922
926
924 926
924922
9
2
2
9
1
6
916
912
9
0
6
9
0
2
904
92
6
9
2
4
9
2
2
91
4
9
1
2
902
938
936
9
3
2
932
924922
92
2
91
6
91
4
914
912
9
4
8
9
4
6
9
2
2
9
1
8
908
906
928
902
934
918
932
932
92
6
9
2
4
924
928
918
91
6
9
1
4
916
904
9
2
2
92
4
91
6
912
914
9
1
2
9
0
8
9
0
6
954
948
944
9
4
4
944
942
942
932
932
926
926
92
4
924
922
92
2
9
2
2
918 918
918
918
91
8
918
91
6
91
6
914
9
1
4912
9
0
6
906
926 922
915'
915'
915'
915'
915'
915'
916.9'
InfiltrationBasin200
InfiltrationBasin 300
InfiltrationBasin 2
InfiltrationBasin 1
Infiltration
Wet Pond 200
Wet Pond 2
Wetland B
Wetland C
Wetland A
Wetland G
Wetland H
Wetland F
Wetland E
Wetland D
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
4
,
2
0
1
6
-
1
0
-
2
0
1
4
:
4
7
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
V
B
W
D
\
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
\
W
o
r
k
_
O
r
d
e
r
s
\
O
u
t
_
o
f
_
S
c
o
p
e
\
S
i
t
e
_
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
_
M
a
p
p
i
n
g
\
2
0
1
6
_
S
i
t
e
m
a
p
s
\
S
W
_
G
o
e
t
s
c
h
e
l
\
F
i
g
0
2
_
S
W
_
G
o
e
t
s
c
h
e
l
_
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
_
M
a
p
_
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
m
b
s
2
Primary Overflow
Secondary Overflow
Wetland
Wet Pond
Infiltration Basin
Developed Inundation Extents Labeledwith 1% Probability Flood Level (ft)
Developed Subwatersheds
Original Goetschel Pond Subwatershed
Contours (DNR, November 2011)
2-Foot Contour
10-Foot Contour
Imagery: USDA NAIP, 2015
I
250 0 250
Feet
Figure 3
SOUTHWEST GOETSCHELDEVELOPED WATERSHED DETAILValley Branch Watershed DistrictWashington County, Minnesota
*Vertical Datum: NAVD88
%
%
%
%
%
%
La
k
e
E
l
m
o
A
v
e
N
43rd St N
456717
919.9
914.7
917
916.3
916.6
93
0
92
0
9
3
0
920
9
1
0
92
0
920
9
4
0
920
Wetland A
9
3
8
9
3
6
9
3
4
93
2
92
8 92
6 92
4 92
2
9
1
8
91
6
91
4
91
2
92
8
92
6
92
4
92
2
918
932
914
91
6
9
1
4
9
1
2
9
0
8
92
4
92
2
91
6
916
914
922
91
4
91
2
9
1
6
9
1
4
91
4
912
91
2
906
918
9
2
2
91
6
90
4
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
4
,
2
0
1
6
-
1
0
-
2
1
1
5
:
2
1
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
V
B
W
D
\
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
\
W
o
r
k
_
O
r
d
e
r
s
\
O
u
t
_
o
f
_
S
c
o
p
e
\
S
i
t
e
_
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
_
M
a
p
p
i
n
g
\
2
0
1
6
_
S
i
t
e
m
a
p
s
\
S
W
_
G
o
e
t
s
c
h
e
l
\
F
i
g
0
4
_
L
a
k
e
_
E
l
m
o
_
A
v
e
_
D
e
t
a
i
l
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
m
b
s
2
%Depression Area Low Point Overflow Elevation (ft)
Inundation to 914.7 Feet(Overflow Elevation)
Inundation to 916.9 Feet(100-Year Flood Level)
Developed Subwatersheds
Original Goetschel Pond Subwatershed
Culvert (Approximate Location)
Contours (DNR, November 2011)
2-Foot Contour
10-Foot Contour
Imagery: Washington County, 2013
I
80 0 80
Feet
Figure 4
LAKE ELMO AVENUE DETAILValley Branch Watershed DistrictWashington County, Minnesota
*Vertical Datum: NAVD88
!
KruegerOutbuilding
Veronica's Pond
Li
l
y
Av
e
N
44th St
Lit
t
l
e
Blu
e
Cir
N
L
e
a
f
A
v
e
N
Stillwa
t
e
r
B
l
v
d
N
LittleBlueCir N
Li
l
y
Av
e
N
La
k
e
E
l
m
o
A
v
e
N
La
v
e
r
n
e
A
v
e
N
44
t
h
S
t
L
a
L
i
t
t
l
e
B
l
u
e
S
t
e
m
T
r
N
Li
l
y
A
v
e
N
Lady Slipper La N
Little B
l
u
e
S
t
e
m
L
a
43rd St N
39th St N
456717
456714
920
94
0
90091
0
94
0
9
5
0
92
0
9
5
0
940
930
930
930
940
93
0
930
940
940
92
0
9
3
0
910
930
910
930
930
9
3
0
930
920
920
90
0
890
9
3
0
930
910
9
0
0
906
904
922
918
916
924
914
926
908
938
9
2
2
91
2
90
8
9
0
2
8
9
8
8
9
6
8
9
2
904
894
91
4
93
8
9
3
4
9
3
2
926
924
928
922
944
932928
924
92
6
92
2
9
6
2
9
5
8
9
5
6
9
5
4
9
4
8
94
6
92
8
926
924
922
92
4
9
4
8
9
4
6
952
944
942
946
942
938
936
942
9
3
8
928926
922
924
922
942
938
938
934
932
934
926
922
918
932
928
928
924
9
1
6
914
906
904
942
93
6
9
3
6
934
938
93
6
932928
926
922
922
922
918
914
912
9
3
6
93
4
92
8
92
6
926
9
2
4
9
3
4
92
8
912
9
0
2
91
8
9
1
6
918
952
944
934
924
9
1
2
96
8
934
932
91
2
948
93
2
9
2
8
9
2
2
9
1
8
9
1
6
90
8
902
934
932
928
924
922
9
1
8
91691
6
914
9
1
4
9
1
2
908
904
902
95
4
954
94
6
948
94
6
9
4
4
94
4
944
942
936
9
3
6
936
9
3
2
932
934
93
2
928
928
928
926
924
926
926
9
2
4
92
2
92
4
9
2
4
922
922
922
922
918
916
918
91
8
918
916
9
1
6
9
1
6
914
9
1
4
91
2
91
2
912
90
8
9
0
8
906
906
9
0
6
9
0
6
9
0
6
Wetland B Wetland C
Wetland A
Wetland G
Wetland H
Wetland F
Wetland E
Wetland D
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
4
,
2
0
1
6
-
1
0
-
2
0
1
4
:
4
4
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
V
B
W
D
\
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
\
W
o
r
k
_
O
r
d
e
r
s
\
O
u
t
_
o
f
_
S
c
o
p
e
\
S
i
t
e
_
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
_
M
a
p
p
i
n
g
\
2
0
1
6
_
S
i
t
e
m
a
p
s
\
S
W
_
G
o
e
t
s
c
h
e
l
\
F
i
g
0
5
_
P
r
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
_
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
_
A
r
e
a
s
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
m
b
s
2
Pre-Development Subwatershed Boundary
Downs Lake Watershed
Goetschel Pond Watershed
Contours (DNR, November 2011)
2-Foot Contour
10-Foot Contour
Imagery: Washington County, 2013
I
400 0 400
Feet
Figure 5
PRE-DEVELOPMENTDRAINAGE AREASValley Branch Watershed DistrictWashington County, Minnesota
*Vertical Datum: NAVD88
Veronica's Pond
Li
l
y
Av
e
N
44th St
Lit
t
l
e
Blu
e
Cir
N
L
e
a
f
A
v
e
N
Stillwa
t
e
r
B
l
v
d
N
LittleBlueCir N
Li
l
y
Av
e
N
La
k
e
E
l
m
o
A
v
e
N
La
v
e
r
n
e
A
v
e
N
44
t
h
S
t
L
a
L
i
t
t
l
e
B
l
u
e
S
t
e
m
T
r
N
Li
l
y
A
v
e
N
Lady Slipper La N
Little B
l
u
e
S
t
e
m
L
a
43rd St N
39th St N
456717
456714
InfiltrationBasin 200
InfiltrationBasin 300
InfiltrationBasin 2
InfiltrationBasin 1
InfiltrationBasin 100
Infiltration
Infiltration
Wet Pond 200
Wet Pond 2
Wet Pond 3
Wet Pond 4
Wet Pond 100
Wetland B Wetland C
Wetland A
Wetland G
Wetland H
Wetland F
Wetland E
Wetland D
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
4
,
2
0
1
6
-
1
0
-
2
0
1
5
:
1
3
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
V
B
W
D
\
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
\
W
o
r
k
_
O
r
d
e
r
s
\
O
u
t
_
o
f
_
S
c
o
p
e
\
S
i
t
e
_
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
_
M
a
p
p
i
n
g
\
2
0
1
6
_
S
i
t
e
m
a
p
s
\
S
W
_
G
o
e
t
s
c
h
e
l
\
F
i
g
0
6
_
P
o
s
t
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
_
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
_
A
r
e
a
s
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
m
b
s
2
Wetland
Wet Pond
Infiltration Basin
Developed Subwatershed Boundary
Downs Lake Watershed
Goetschel Pond Watershed
Imagery: UDSA NAIP, 2015
I
400 0 400
Feet
Figure 6
POST-DEVELOPMENTDRAINAGE AREASValley Branch Watershed DistrictWashington County, Minnesota
*Vertical Datum: NAVD88
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 11/14/2016
AGENDA ITEM: 5B– BUSINESS ITEM
CASE #2016-45
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
To: Planning Commission
From: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
Meeting Date: October 24, 2016
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
Introductory Information
Request: As a follow up to the recent concept plan review for the Royal Golf Club, the applicants
have requested 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.
Since the October 24th meeting, Ben Gozola, Consulting City Planner, has drafted a new
land use designation as requested which is attached to this Staff Report.
Review
Proposed
Changes:
The attached comprehensive plan amendment consists of 4 changes to the
comprehensive land use plan:
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
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Golf Course Community
Planning Commission Report; 11-14-16
Page 2
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) MUSA amendment will also be needed (not included).
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
“Golf Course Community” comprehensive plan amendment.
October 24, 2016 Planning Commission planning packet.
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 property 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]
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).
Need updated Planned Land Use
Map 3-3 showing Tartan Park and
Emerson as Golf Course Community
Update Legend Accordingly
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.
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Chapter III – Land Use Plan
III – 14
Buffering/Land Use Transitions
The City’s Land Use Plan calls for a diverse range of development types, from very low density
agricultural and rural residential uses to high density urban residential and commercial development. In
order to provide for a transition between the existing and planned rural development and future urban
development, the Land Use Plan creates a lower density urban residential district. This low density
urban district is planned for areas near existing rural development areas, and will provide for an area of
transition between higher density residential development and either existing or planned rural
development areas.
Certain areas designated as Public/Park on the Future Land Use Map (Map 3-3) have been established to
provide a green belt/buffer between areas developed under a previous Comprehensive Plan at rural
development densities and areas planned for residential development at higher densities. This green
belt will be incorporated as part of any development plans for new development with a minimum width
of 100 feet. The green belt may be incorporated as part of the greenway envisioned in the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan (Chapter IX).
Open Space Preservation
The City will encourage the preservation of open space within new developments through the
dedication of public parkland and the clustering of lots within urban residential districts. The specific
zoning development standards for the City’s urban residential districts will allow the platting of smaller
lots that will allow open space to be set aside in each development while still achieving the overall
minimum density guidance for each land use area.
Staging Plan/Memorandum of Understanding
The City of Lake Elmo entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Metropolitan
Council prior to the preparation of its 2005 Land Use Plan and this MOU remains in effect to ensure
the City’s conformance to metropolitan system statements as required by state law. This MOU has
since been revised; however, to take into account a severe downturn in the housing market and to
grant the City of Lake Elmo additional flexibility in meeting the population, household, and
employment targets from the original MOU. Table 3-C summarizes the updated development
staging plan that will be used to measure conformance to the MOU. This table is broken down into
five year increments starting in
2010 and continuing forward to the end of the planning period in 2030.
The targets from the original MOU have been moved back five years to reflect the economic
downturn and the extension of time to meet the mandated REC unit counts consistent with the
requirements of the revised MOU. The population and household targets at the end of the 2030
planning period have
not been adjusted and reflect the numbers approved in the MOU.
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
Existing Planned2010 to 20152015 to 20202020 to 20252025 to 2030
R E S I D E N T I
AL
Ru
r
a
l
A
r
e
a
Ru
r
a
l
A
r
e
a
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
n/
a
0
.
1
70
9
4
.
2
4
5
2
7
9
.
9
2
66
4
0
.
6
6
6
1
8
7
.
0
8
5
7
3
3
.
5
5
2
7
9
.
9
2
‐18
1
4
.
3
2
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
n/
a
0
.
1
7094.24 5249.9 6640.66 6157.06 5703.53 5249.9 ‐1844.32
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Es
t
a
t
e
s
0.
1
0
.
4
77
1
.
2
6
7
9
3
.
7
1
77
6
.
8
7
7
8
2
.
4
9
7
8
8
.
1
7
9
3
.
7
1
22
.
4
5
Es
t
a
t
e
s
0.
1
0
.
4
771.26 793.71 776.87 782.49 788.1 793.71 22.45
Ru
r
a
l
S
i
n
g
l
e
Ru
r
a
l
S
i
n
g
l
e
Fa
m
i
l
y
0.
6
6
2
16
6
5
.
9
2
1
6
6
6
.
4
1
16
6
6
.
0
4
1
6
6
6
.
1
6
1
6
6
6
.
2
8
1
6
6
6
.
4
1
0.
4
9
Fa
m
i
l
y
0.
6
6
2
1665.92 1666.41 1666.04 1666.16 1666.28 1666.41 0.49
Ur
b
a
n
L
o
w
Ur
b
a
n
L
o
w
De
n
s
i
t
y
2.
5
4
0
4
9
6
.
3
9
12
4
.
1
2
4
8
.
2
3
7
2
.
2
9
4
9
6
.
3
9
49
6
.
3
9
De
n
s
i
t
y
2.
5
4
0 496.39 124.1 248.2 372.29 496.39 496.39
Ur
b
a
n
M
e
d
i
u
m
Ur
b
a
n
M
e
d
i
u
m
De
n
s
i
t
y
4.
5
7
17
6
.
0
8
3
9
0
.
4
9
22
9
.
6
8
2
8
3
.
2
9
3
3
6
.
8
9
3
9
0
.
4
9
21
4
.
4
1
De
n
s
i
t
y
4.
5
7
176.08 390.49 229.68 283.29 336.89 390.49 214.41
Ur
b
a
n
H
i
g
h
Ur
b
a
n
H
i
g
h
De
n
s
i
t
y
7.
5
1
5
0
1
5
7
.
6
7
39
.
4
2
7
8
.
8
4
1
1
8
.
2
5
1
5
7
.
6
7
15
7
.
6
7
De
n
s
i
t
y
7.
5
1
5
0 157.67 39.42 78.84 118.25 157.67 157.67
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
U
r
b
a
n
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
U
r
b
a
n
Lo
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
1.
5
2
.
4
9
0
2
4
4
.
1
1
61
.
0
3
1
2
2
.
0
6
1
8
3
.
0
9
2
4
4
.
1
1
24
4
.
1
1
Lo
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
1.
5
2
.
4
9
0 244.11 61.03 122.06 183.09 244.11 244.11
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
U
r
b
a
n
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
U
r
b
a
n
Me
d
i
u
m
2.
5
4
.
9
9
0
1
1
9
.
1
1
29
.
7
8
5
9
.
5
6
8
9
.
3
3
1
1
9
.
1
1
11
9
.
1
1
Me
d
i
u
m
2.
5
4
.
9
9
0 119.11 29.78 59.56 89.33 119.11 119.11
De
n
s
i
t
y
De
n
s
i
t
y
go
l
f
co
u
r
s
e
1.
5
2.
4
9
0 424.39 0 424.39 424.39 424.39 424.39
C O M M E R C I
AL
2
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
7.
5
1
5
12
0
.
6
5
3
2
9
.
6
9
17
2
.
9
1
2
2
5
.
1
7
2
7
7
.
4
3
3
2
9
.
6
9
20
9
.
0
4
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
7.
5
1
5
120.65 329.69 172.91 225.17 277.43 329.69 209.04
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
4.
5
7
99
.
8
6
2
0
8
.
3
3
12
6
.
9
8
1
5
4
.
1
1
8
1
.
2
2
2
0
8
.
3
3
10
8
.
4
7
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
4.
5
7
99.86 208.33 126.98 154.1 181.22 208.33 108.47
Li
m
i
t
e
d
Li
m
i
t
e
d
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
–
–
11
1
.
4
1
6
6
.
1
6
10
0
.
0
9
8
8
.
7
8
7
7
.
4
7
6
6
.
1
6
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
–
–
111.41 66.16 100.09 88.78 77.47 66.16
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
M
i
x
e
d
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
M
i
x
e
d
Us
e
51
0
0
1
6
4
.
4
41
.
1
8
2
.
2
1
2
3
.
3
1
6
4
.
4
Us
e
51
0
0 164.4 41.1 82.2 123.3 164.4
P U B L I C / S E
MI
P
U
B
L
I
C
/
Pu
b
l
i
c
/
P
a
r
k
–
–
32
9
8
.
9
4
33
3
9
.
3
33
0
9
.
0
4
33
1
9
.
0
9
33
2
9
.
2
33
3
9
.
3
40
.
3
6
Pu
b
l
i
c
/
P
a
r
k
–
–
3298.94 2944.93 3309.04 2924.72 2934.78 2944.93 -354.01
Gr
e
e
n
b
e
l
t
Gr
e
e
n
b
e
l
t
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
4
––
0
8
2
.
6
7
20
.
6
6
4
1
.
3
4
6
2
.
0
1
8
2
.
6
7
82
.
6
7
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
4
––
0 82.67 20.66 41.34 62.01 82.67 82.67
Ro
a
d
R
O
W
s
–
–
89
0
.
9
3
8
9
0
.
9
3
89
0
.
9
3
8
9
0
.
9
3
8
9
0
.
9
3
8
9
0
.
9
3
0
Ro
a
d
R
O
W
s
–
–
890.93 890.93 890.93 890.93 890.93 890.93 0
U N D E V E L O
PE
D
Op
e
n
W
a
t
e
r
–
–
13
5
5
.
2
9
1
3
5
5
.
2
9
13
5
5
.
2
9
1
3
5
5
.
2
9
1
3
5
5
.
2
9
1
3
5
5
.
2
9
0
Op
e
n
W
a
t
e
r
–
–
1355.29 1355.29 1355.29 1355.29 1355.29 1355.29 0
TO
T
A
L
S
:
–
–
15
,
5
8
4
.
5
8
1
5
,
5
8
4
.
5
8
15
,
5
8
4
.
5
5
1
5
,
5
8
4
.
5
5
1
5
,
5
8
4
.
5
5
1
5
,
5
8
4
.
5
5
0
TO
T
A
L
S
:
–
–
15,584.58 15,584.58 15,584.55 15,584.55 15,584.55 15,584.55 0 15584.58 15584.58 15584.58 15584.58 15584.58 Land Uses Reductions:‐2243.6 Land Use Additions: 2243.6‐45.25 164.4
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
2
‐45
.
2
5
16
4
.
4
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
U
N
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
D
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 10/24/2016
AGENDA ITEM: 4B__– PUBLIC HEAR ITEM
CASE #2016-45
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
To: Planning Commission
From: Ben Gozola, City Planner
Meeting Date: October 24, 2016
Applicants:
Reviewed By:
HC Golf Course Development, LLC
Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 09/12/2016
60 Day Deadline – 11/11/2016
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 01/10/2017
Introductory Information
Request: As a follow up to the recent concept plan review for the Royal Golf Club, the applicants
have requested 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.
Council
Direction:
At their meeting on September 6th, 2016, the City Council weighed a number of
questions regarding the proposed Royal Golf Club concept plan, and ultimately
determined that consideration of potential ways to accommodate the proposed
development to preserve the Golf Course was in the best interest of the City as a whole.
Staff was specifically instructed to craft a “Village Transition Area” as opposed to
creating a new land use classification and zoning district should the applicants apply for
a change to the comprehensive plan. As such an application was received on 09/12/16,
staff prepared the proposed language with the following Council direction as our guide:
Craft an amendment that allows for utilization of the Village Urban Low Density
land use classification within a “Village Transition Area” ONLY if specific criteria
are met.
Future development must be via PUD to ensure adherence to the 1.5 to 2.5 units per
acre density range.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Village Transition Area
Planning Commission Report; 10-24-16
Page 2
Protection of Shoreland district land and/or wetlands within this area of the
community should be a principle factor in determining when sewered development
will be considered.
Significant acreage should be required prior to consideration of a sewered
development within the new Transition Area.
Recognize that individual lots and/or neighborhoods (who are not seeking to
develop) may also request sewer extensions if/when the extension of sewer service
is economically feasible.
Review
Proposed
Changes:
To implement the requested comprehensive plan change, staff is suggesting amendments
to two (2) areas of the City’s Land Use Plan:
1. Map 3-3, Planned Land Use, would be updated to show the boundaries of a
“Village Transition Area” in the eastern portion of the community between the
Old Village and 10th Street; and
2. The Land Use Plan language on “Buffering/Land Use Transitions” would be
updated to acknowledge the Village Transition Area and the criteria that must be
met prior to sewer being made available for existing properties or
environmentally sensitive development.
The specific changes being proposed can be seen on the draft language attached to this
report. Staff comments within the margins of the draft ordinance explain why each of
the various provisions were included.
Conclusion
The Planning Commission is asked to examine the proposed updates to the
Comprehensive Plan, and provide guidance on changes or additions for Council to
consider.
Commission
Options:
Staff fully acknowledges that the Planning Commission (as part of Concept Plan
review) did not support the City Council’s direction on a potential comprehensive plan
change, and the Commission is certainly free to reiterate that position at this time.
However, given that Council is already on record supporting a change, staff must also
ask the Commission to honor Council’s decision by providing comment and feedback
on the proposed changes in the event Council wishes to move forward with an
amendment despite a Commission recommendation to the contrary.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Village Transition Area
Planning Commission Report; 10-24-16
Page 3
(cont.) The Planning Commission, therefore, is asked to follow these steps in making your
recommendation:
1. Determine whether the Commission as a whole wishes to recommend denial of a
comprehensive plan amendment in general.
a. If YES, the Commission may choose to adopt such a recommendation with
findings, but must still proceed to Step #2 of the recommendation process
below.
b. If NO, the Commission should proceed to Step #2 of the recommendation
process below.
2. Given Council’s show of support for a potential comprehensive plan amendment
during the Concept Plan review, determine what (if any) changes are needed to the
proposed language currently under consideration.
The dotted outline on the map
would identify the new “Village
Transition Area” within which the
extension of sewer would be
considered under a specific set of
circumstances outlined on the
following two pages.
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.
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.
Buffering/Land Use Transitions
The City’s Land Use Plan calls for a diverse range of development types, from very low density agricultural
and rural residential uses to high density urban residential and commercial development. In order to
provide for a transition between the existing and planned rural development and future urban development,
the Land Use Plan creates a lower density urban residential district. This low density urban district is
planned for areas near existing rural development areas, and will provide for an area of transition between
higher density residential development and either existing or planned rural development areas.
Certain areas designated as Public/Park on the Future Land Use Map (Map 3-3) have been established to
provide a green belt/buffer between areas developed under a previous Comprehensive Plan at rural
development densities and areas planned for residential development at higher densities. This green belt
will be incorporated as part of any development plans for new development with a minimum width of 100
feet. The green belt may be incorporated as part of the greenway envisioned in the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan (Chapter IX).
And finally, it is recognized that land north of 10th Street, east of Lake Elmo Avenue, and south of the Old
Village is uniquely situated between the City’s two main urban centers. This area has been identified as the
Village Transition Area (see Map 3-3) in recognition of the area’s varied residential lot sizes (ranging from
0.31 acres to 57.22 acres), and the fact that all properties in this area have (or will likely have)
Commented [BGA1]: This first paragraph identifies why
the City is establishing a Village Transition District: it’s an
area uniquely situated between the City’s two urbanizing
areas that will, over time, have affordable and easy access
to sewer. Accordingly, it is in the City’s best interest to
acknowledge that hook up requests will be made, and to
establish the criteria under which such extensions may be
granted.
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Chapter III – Land Use Plan
III – 14
direct access to municipal sewer services over time. Within the Village Transition Area, the City may treat a
parcel (or grouping of parcels) as being guided for Village Urban Low Density if at least one of the following
criteria are satisfied and no further development of the property is proposed:
1. The land in question is subject to a failing septic system, and extension of the sanitary sewer system
is deemed necessary to protect the health, safety, or welfare of adjacent properties.
2. The parcel (or parcels) in question have petitioned the City requesting an extension of municipal
services, and the extension project has been approved by the City Council.
Additionally within the Village Transition Area, the City may treat a parcel (or group of contiguous parcels) as
being guided for Village Urban Low Density for the purpose of development if ALL of the following criteria
are satisfied:
1. A minimum of forty (40) contiguous acres is considered for development at one time or is planned
for phased development;
2. A minimum of one-half of the gross acres proposed for residential development is within a
Shoreland District;
3. All Shoreland district requirements for development can be successfully met without variances;
4. Development is completed as a Planned Unit Development that conforms with the allowable density
range established for the Village Urban Low Density land use classification;
5. The development incurs all costs for the extension of municipal services, the cost for oversizing as
may be needed for further extensions into the Village Transition Area, and/or for upgrades to the
existing municipal system as may be needed to service the proposed development.
Open Space Preservation
The City will encourage the preservation of open space within new developments through the dedication of
public parkland and the clustering of lots within urban residential districts. The specific zoning
development standards for the City’s urban residential districts will allow the platting of smaller lots that
will allow open space to be set aside in each development while still achieving the overall minimum density
guidance for each land use area.
Staging Plan/Memorandum of Understanding
The City of Lake Elmo entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Metropolitan
Council prior to the preparation of its 2005 Land Use Plan and this MOU remains in effect to ensure the
City’s conformance to metropolitan system statements as required by state law. This MOU has since
been revised; however, to take into account a severe downturn in the housing market and to grant the
City of Lake Elmo additional flexibility in meeting the population, household, and employment targets
from the original MOU. Table 3-C summarizes the updated development staging plan that will be used
to measure conformance to the MOU. This table is broken down into five year increments starting in
2010 and continuing forward to the end of the planning period in 2030.
Commented [BGA2]: This first component of the district
recognizes that parcels (or neighborhoods) over time may
be near existing sewer, and may request the ability to hook
up to the municipal system. In such an event, the
landowners would follow the City’s standard process to
petition for (and pay for) improvements, and if approved,
the City could complete the public improvements without
having to amend the comprehensive plan to change the
underlying land use guidance.
The two criteria before sewer could be extended are the
need to address health/safety/welfare concerns, OR
addressing a legal petition brought forward by an individual
land owner or neighborhood. Both of these scenarios WILL
arise in the coming years as landowners and neighborhoods
weigh the cost of replacing aging septic systems against the
cost of municipal services. This language will ensure the
City can consider their requests.
Commented [BGA3]: The second component of the
proposed language acknowledges that some land within the
Transition Area is developable, and that sewered
development is in the City’s best interest when certain
criteria exists:
-- Given the City’s history with communal septic systems,
larger developments (i.e. in excess of 40 acres) should be
considered for sewer if/when available;
-- Protecting the City’s shorelands is a major priority of the
City, so a minimum of one-half of the gross area proposed
for residential development must be within the Shoreland
district, and all Shoreland provisions must be met;
-- Development could only occur via a PUD within the
allowed density range established for the Village Urban Low
Density land use category;
-- All costs for extending municipal services would be born
by the developer
Suggested Royal Golf CPA Findings – submitted by Todd Williams, Planning Commissioner
Findings for comp plan amendment to accommodate Royal Golf Club
1. The applicant has requested a change in the Lake Elmo Comp Plan to allow expansion of the
MUSA north of 10th St to include his property between 10th St and 20th St, so that it may be
developed into residential development served by Metro sewer and City water, along with a golf
course.
2. Lake Elmo has approved for this property a concept of golf course surrounded by residential
development, but at some unspecified lower density than was proposed by the applicant in the
Concept Plan
3. The subject property is currently guided for Public/Park, which includes outdoor recreational
uses, such as a golf course. Any residential development on this property will require a Comp
Plan amendment.
4. All investments made to date by the applicant to purchase and modify the property are solely at
the applicant’s risk. The city of Lake Elmo is under no obligation to assure any return to the
applicant from these investments.
5. Lake Elmo city was required in 2005 to amend its Comp Plan to include installation of Metro
public sewer to comply with the Metro Council mandates for total sewered units, total
population, and total employment. These MUSA areas were limited to south of 10th St and to the
Old Village.
6. The current Comp Plan guides sufficient MUSA without any expansion required to comply with
the earlier mandates and current “targets” as provided by the Metro Council in 2016 for sewered
units, population and employment.
7. Lake Elmo has a long-standing and continuing vision of unsewered, large lot, rural residential
development outside the existing MUSA. From page III-1 of the Land Use Plan of 2013, “Lake
Elmo’s land use plan is guided by its core vision of creating and maintaining a rural community
within the Metropolitan region.”
8. Residential development of the applicant’s property utilizing Metro sewer would include small
lots and high densities inconsistent with Lake Elmo’s vision of rural development outside the
existing MUSA. From page III-7 of the Land Use Plan of 2013, “The remainder of the
community north of 10th Street and surrounding the Old Village will continue Lake Elmo’s long
tradition of providing rural living opportunities within the Metropolitan area.”
9. The surrounding communities of Afton, West Lakeland, Baytown and Grant allow residential
development with large lots and on-site sewage disposal. There appears to be a continuing
market for such development.
10. The applicant’s property borders on large lot residential development without public sewer in
Lake Elmo and West Lakeland, including 1.5 acre lot, Rural Single Family and OP development
in Lake Elmo.
11. Residential development at 18/40 units/acre with on-site sewage disposal is a legitimate use of
the applicant’s property. Such development can be done under the OP (Open Space Preservation)
section of the Lake Elmo zoning code. Some increase in density might be allowed per the
inclusion of amenities, as listed in 154.754 of the City Zoning Code.
12. The primary reason provided in support of the Comp Plan amendment with MUSA extension
(according to the applicant) is to enable the golf course by allowing dense, sewered residential
development around the course. The golf course by itself does not require a comp plan
amendment or sewer.
Suggested Royal Golf CPA Findings – submitted by Todd Williams, Planning Commissioner
13. The applicant has claimed that dense residential development with Metro sewer connection is
required in order for the golf course to be financially feasible. No evidence, other than the
applicant’s words, has been presented to support this claim.
14. Stoneridge Golf Course in West Lakeland, Logger’s Trail in Grant and Stillwater Oaks in Grant,
cited as nearby examples, are public courses surrounded by homes on 2.5 acre and larger lots
with on-site septic systems. They seem to be successful businesses without sewered development
around them. Mr. Cavner has stated, “Golf courses, if run properly, do very, very well.”
15. A large fraction of the proposed development is within the legislative “shoreland overlay
district” and the entire development is subject to shoreland regulations from the state and from
the City of Lake Elmo.
16. MN Rules 6120 regulates shoreland district development at the state level.
17. Section 154.800, Lake Elmo Shoreland Ordinance and MN Rules 6120 (6120.3800.subp 5.B.2A)
require at least 50% of the entire area to be preserved as open space for a residential PUD in the
shoreland district.
18. The golf course is an acceptable use of the 50% open space required under MN Rules 6120 and
satisfies Lake Elmo’s OP and PUD zoning ordinances if the open space is preserved in a
conservation easement per OP and MN Rules regulations. However, according to Dan Petrik,
land use specialist with the DNR, the club house, parking lot and required setbacks (as if it were
on a separate lot) are considered “commercial” uses and not permitted within the required open
space. According to Petrik, the City has no choice in this.
19. MN Rules 6120-3800, Subp 5.B.3.a states: “Residential planned unit developments must be
connected to publicly owned water supply and sewer systems, if available.” According to Dan
Petrik, land use specialist with the DNR, the local governmental unit determines if the publicly
owned systems are “available.
20. The same MN Rules section also states: “On-site water supply and sewage treatment systems
must be centralized and designed and installed to meet or exceed applicable standards or rules of
the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.” According
to Dan Petrik, land use specialist with the DNR, a City-owned, multi-unit, shared septic system
in OP development and in the shoreland district is an acceptable “publicly owned sewer system.”
Also, such an on-site disposal system is an acceptable use of the required open space.
21. Aaron Jensen of MN PCA says that if a system is properly designed, installed, managed and
maintained, there is no known limit to the lifetime of individual residential septic systems or of
multi-unit shared residential septic systems.
22. The City of Lake Elmo has experience with owning facilities (e.g., landscaped medians) but
having an HOA maintain them. Such an arrangement could be used for the multi-unit on-site
sewage disposal facilities in this development.
23. The City has experience owning, managing and maintaining multi-unit on-site sewage disposal
facilities, such as the “201” system for Legion Ave and others. Such an arrangement could be
used for the multi-unit on-site sewage disposal facilities in this development.
24. While a golf course in this location might be a nice amenity, its existence is not sufficient reason
to violate Lake Elmo’s vision of large lot, rural residential development outside the existing
MUSA boundaries. There are 18 public golf courses and at least 4 private courses within just 10
straight line miles of City Hall. See the attached map. There is no “need” for another course.
25. The applicant’s property may be developed into a golf course and residential development
consistent with the City’s OP standards and density (18/40 units per acre plus possible bonuses
Suggested Royal Golf CPA Findings – submitted by Todd Williams, Planning Commissioner
for amenities) utilizing City-owned, multi-unit on-site sewage disposal. No evidence has been
presented which says that such development is not possible under existing regulations.
Commissioner Todd Williams Comments
RECREATION COMMUNITY
This category is being created in response to an unanticipated situation which has arisen concerning the
land formerly known as Tartan Park, located north of 10th St and east of Lake Elmo Ave, formerly
owned by 3M Company. This land has been used and guided as Park/Public Facility for the last half
century. Many homes in the RS, OP and RE (Eden Park, Homestead, Tartan Meadows) categories have
been built on land surrounding Tartan Park, with the assumption that the existing recreational and open
space uses would continue in perpetuity. However, that land has recently been sold and the new owner
has proposed a combination of golf course and surrounding urban residential development. Extension of
public utilities including water and sewer has been requested. This extension would be into an area not
previously guided for inclusion in the City’s MUSA. This specific development request has triggered
consideration of this type of development throughout the City.
It is recognized that this development pattern, here and elsewhere in the City, may provide the City’s
residents with recreational benefits (not only golf, but potentially also other recreational facilities such
as tennis courts and sports fields, but not motorized uses, such as powered dirt bikes or go carts) not
otherwise available. However, it is also recognized that such developments are likely to be proposed in
areas not previously guided for inclusion in the City’s MUSA. Requiring the developer to pay all costs
of City water and sewer extensions will likely restrict such proposals to areas near the existing City
MUSA. Because such a development would be called a recreation facility-centered “community”,
sewered residential densities in the range of Village Urban Low Density (1.5-2.5 units/acre) or Urban
Low Density (2.5-4 units/acre) are anticipated.
Such densities will likely result in some disruption to the lifestyle experienced by any existing nearby
residential development at significantly lower densities, such as OP and RE. The required MUSA
extension is also in conflict with the City’s explicit vision of rural residential development on large lots
with on-site sewage treatment outside the existing MUSA. The increased density of homes will
contribute to increased traffic, noise, general congestion and demand for City services, while
contributing to the City’s tax base. In addition, nearby existing residents on large lots will be at an
increased danger of being forced to connect to City sewer, even if their septic systems are functioning
well and they have no wish to connect to City sewer. Finally, there will exist the possibility of the
developer’s converting the recreational facilities into more sewered housing at VULD or ULD densities
in the future.
Thus, there is a tradeoff between the City’s residents gaining access to new and/or unique recreational
facilities and the City’s residents losing some of the rural lifestyle for which they moved to the City in
the first place. In return for these potential disruptions of their preferred rural lifestyle, the existing
residents will receive an assurance that such disruption will not be increased (such as by conversion of
recreational facilities into more sewered housing) for many years into the future. Thus, on balance it is
in the City’s interests to accommodate this type of development but to regulate it in a sensible way.
Therefore, the City has created a new land use category called “recreational community” or RC,
comprising recreational facilities of some kind, largely surrounded by residential development of some
kind. The City may treat a parcel or group of parcels as being guided for RC land use if ALL of the
following criteria are satisfied:
Commissioner Todd Williams Comments
1. A minimum of 100 contiguous acres (60 acres without a golf course) is considered for
development at one time or is planned for phased development.
2. All Shoreland district requirements for development can be successfully met without
variances.
3. Development is completed as a Planned Unit Development that conforms to the allowable
residential density range established for the Village Urban Low Density or Urban Low
Density land use classification.
4. A minimum of one half of the gross acres is devoted to recreational uses, such as golf
courses, tennis courts, sports fields, fitness centers, swimming pools, open space and the like,
as well as accessory uses such as club house and parking.
5. All recreational facilities must be accessible to the public, optionally for a fee set by the
controlling entity, such as the developer or a common interest community (home owners’)
association.
6. The area used for recreational facilities must be subject to a conservation easement, assigned
to the City, for a minimum of 25 years, after which the land may revert to the Rural
Transition (RT) guidance, at the owner’s option.
7. The development incurs all costs for the extension of municipal services of water and sewer,
the cost for oversizing as may be needed for further extensions, and/or the cost for upgrades
to the existing municipal system(s) as may be needed to service the proposed development.
BUSINESS ITEM 5c
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 11/14/16
AGENDA ITEM: 5C– DISCUSSION ITEM
ITEM: Residential Districts – Allowed Density
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Emily Becker, City Planner.
Kristina Handt, City Administrator.
BACKGROUND:
During a recent City Council meeting, after the approval of the Open Space Preservation ordinance
amendment, there was discussion regarding the subdivision of property in the rural zoning districts in
to smaller lots than what is currently allowed. The discussion referenced other discussions in the past
regarding this same matter.
The subdivision of property into 2.5 acre lots is limited to the Residential Estates zoning district, and
such zoning is limited in the City to a small area. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan guides only a
small new area as residential estate. The City Council is requesting that the Planning Commission
discuss the expansion of 2.5 acre or similar sized lot development in the rural districts.
PLANNING ZONING ISSUES:
Current Minimum Lot Size Standards
The table below outlines the minimum lot area (in acres) required for properties within Rural
Districts.
RT A RR RS RE
20 40 10 1.5 2.5
Open Space Preservation Developments
The recently approved Open Space Preservation ordinance requires a minimum land area of a
nominal contiguous 20 contiguous acres for an open space planned unit development. The land
must also be located in the Rural Residential, Agricultural or Residential Estate zoning districts.
Any property that is in these zoning districts but does not or cannot meet the 20 acre-minimum
2
BUSINESS ITEM 5c
requirement through combining with adjacent parcels cannot further develop as an OP
development. Subdivision of these parcels would be limited to the lot sizes specified in the table
above. Such parcels are outlined in the attached map.
The current limitation on rural estate development in favor of OP development is consistent with the
current comprehensive plan policy and vision statements:
“Encourage the majority of the new households created in areas north of 10th Street north and
outside the Village Area to be efficiently developed in a rural context in the form of Open
Space Development cluster neighborhoods.”
“Lake Elmo’s land use plan is guided by its core vision of creating and maintaining a
rural community within the Metropolitan region.”
“The remainder of the community north of 10th Street and surrounding the Old Village
will continue Lake Elmo’s long tradition of providing rural living opportunities within
the Metropolitan area.”
The new (OP) Open Space Preservation Ordinance allows cluster development on properties 20
acres or greater. Previous Planning Staff had conducted an analysis to determine the potential
number of housing units that could be developed in the Agriculture and Rural Residential zoning
districts under the OP Ordinance when the minimum acreage was 40 acres. The total acreage
zoned identified (less 15% assumed unbuildable) was multiplied by (.45) to determine the
number of households. The number of households possible under the old ordinance was 524.
Staff did a similar exercise identifying lots between 20 and 40 acres in size have determined that
the new ordinance would allow an additional 494 households to be developed under the OP
Ordinance, or a total of 1,018 households.
Old OP Ordinance - Min 40 Acres Required
Zoning
District
# of
Parcels
Total
Acreage
# of
Households
Total
Acreage -
assuming
15%
unbuildable
area
# of
Households
(realistic)
A 8 586.28 263.826 498.338 224.2521
RR 13 783.24 352.458 665.754 299.5893
524.00
3
BUSINESS ITEM 5c
New OP Ordinance - Min 20 Acres Required
Zoning
District
# of
Parcels
Total
Acreage
# of
Households
Total
Acreage -
assuming
15%
unbuildable
area
# of
Households
(realistic)
A 20 941.57 423.7065 800.3345 360.150525
RR 45 1721.24 774.558 1463.054 658.3743
1018.00
Possible Increase in # of households by allowing Min 20 Acres for OP Development
(1018-524 = 494)
494
The remaining rural properties, 20 acres or less in size, are unable to develop into OP
developments. These properties are currently limited to 1 unit per 10 acres under Rural
Residential zoning, or 1 unit per 40 under Agriculture zoning. If the City were to allow rural
properties, 5-20 acres in size, to develop into 2.5 acre lots, as could be done under Residential
Estates zoning, the city might see an additional 418 households.
Zoning
District
# of Lots 5-20
acres
Potential Increase in
Number of Lots Under 2.5
Acre Minimum Standard
for lots 5-20 acres
A 29 81
RR 136 337
418 (new households)*
*(new lots - parent lots subtracted)
Total rural growth under with the new OP ordinance and if the city were to allow 2.5 acre
minimum lots elsewhere in the rural districts would be approximately 1,436 households, which
would result in potentially 556 more unsewered households and 1,329 more unsewered
population than forecasted for 2040.
(Met Council Forecasted Unsewered Households = 3,679)
(2014 MC Est. Unsewered Households = 2, 865 – 66 sewered lots = 2,799 rural households)
(Future rural households with OP and 2.5 acre zoning = 2,799 +1,436 (new rural households) = 4,235 households)
4,235 – 3,679 = 556* (MC Forecasted Unsewered Pop. 8792/MC Forecasted Unsewered HH of 3679 = 2.39) 1,329
2015 System Statement.
MN State Statute requires cities to have comprehensive plans that are in conformity with
metropolitan system plans. The Metropolitan Council approves such plans and has issued a
system statement which provides:
forecasted population, households, and employment through the year 2040;
4
BUSINESS ITEM 5c
guidance on appropriate densities to ensure that regional services and costly regional
infrastructure can be provided as efficiently as possible.
affordable housing need allocation;
The 2015 System Statement for Lake Elmo was issued by the Met Council in 2015 with forecasts
for the next comprehensive plan update:
2010 (actual) 2014 (est.) 2020 2030 2040
Population 8,061 8,594 10,500 14,100 18,200
Households 2,776 2,865 3,800 5,300 7,100
Employment 1,941 2,366 2,900 3,350 3,800
The Metropolitan Council has also determined the regional need for low and moderate income
housing for the decade of 2021-2030. Lake Elmo’s share of the region’s need for low and
moderate income housing is 508 new units affordable to households earning 80% of area median
income (AMI) or below. Of these new units, the need is for 27 affordable households earning at
or below 30% of AMI, 179 affordable to households earning 31% to 50% of AMI, and 302
affordable to households earning 51% to 80% of AMI. These forecasts are for new units which
translates to a Met Council requirement to have land area guided for Medium Density and High
Density Residential in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Affordable Housing Need Allocation for Lake Elmo
At or below 30% AMI 27 31 to 50% AMI 179
51 to 80% AMI 302
Total Units 508
As part of forecasted growth, a percentage of it is required to be sewered growth:
Forecast Year
Forecast Component
Population
Households
Employment
2010 MCES Sewered 0 0 623
2010 Unsewered 8,061 2,776 1,318
2020 MCES Sewered 2,912 1,059 2,338
2020 Unsewered 7,588 2,741 562
2030 MCES Sewered 6,160 2,240 2,788
2030 Unsewered 7,940 3,060 562
2040 MCES Sewered 9,408 3,421 3,238
2040 Unsewered 8,792 3,679 562
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending Planning Commission discuss allowing smaller lots in the Rural Districts.
5
BUSINESS ITEM 5c
ATTACHMENTS:
Map of properties zoned Agricultural, Rural Residential, and Residential Estate under 20
acres.
Properties Zoned Agricultural, Rural Residential, or Residential Estate
<20 Acres in Size
Legend
A, RR, and RE Parcels < 20 Acres NewZoning A RE RR
Development Status Sheet Final Plat ApprovalDA Agreement DA Agreement Plat Recorded Updated 11/9/16
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 52 43 LDR/MDR
Savona 3rd 9/15/2015 9/15/2016 9/16/2015 11/19/2015 Lennar Lennar 120 21 99 52 18 LDR/MDR
Savona 4th 3/15/2016 4/5/2016 6/27/2016 Lennar Lennar 78 78 0 0 0 LDR
309 188 121 146 100
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 18 9 PUD/LDR
Boulder Ponds 2nd 5/17/2016 OP 4 Boulder Ponds Creative Homes 18 18 0 0 0 PUD/LDR
65 65 0 18 9
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 18 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 18 LDR
51 51 0 47 36
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 36 PUD/MDR
Inwood 2nd 9/1/2015 11/19/2015 11/23/2015 Hans Hagen/MI Homes MI Homes 21 21 0 21 20 PUD/MDR
Inwood 3rd 4/19/2016 5/3/2016 5/16/2016 Hans Hagen/MI Homes MI Homes 68 68 0 27 0 PUD/MDR
Inwood 4th 10/18/2016 Hans Hagen/MI Homes MI Homes 60 60
189 189 0 87 56
HAMMES ESTATES - 163 Total
Hammes Estates 1st 10/7/2014 8/16/2016 8/16/2016 Rachael Development 57 57 0 0 0 LDR
57 57 0 0 0
DIEDRICH/REIDER - 46 Total 12 month extension to Final Plat Deadline to 12/1/16.
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 24 11 LDR
71 71 0 24 11
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 19 8 LDR
Village Preserve 2nd 4/19/2016 8/16/2016 8/19/2016 9/9/2016 Gonyea Homes Multiple 45 45 0 0 0 LDR
91 91 0 19 8
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 17 7 PUD/MDR
60 60 0 17 7
Cummulative Totals 893 772 121 358 227
VILLAGE PARK PRESERVE - 100 Total extension to Final Plat Deadline to 4/15/17.
On hold