HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Packet; 06-12-17
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 747-3900
www.lakeelmo.org
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday June 12, 2017 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. May 22, 2017
4. Public Hearings
a. PUD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT AND PLANS: A request by CM
Properties 94, LP for a PUD Preliminary and Final Plan approval for a 3
commercial lot Planned Unit Development on property with the legal description:
Outlot A, Lakewood Crossing, according to the recorded plat thereof, Washington
County, MN.
b. SHORELAND VARIANCE: A request by Scott Drommerhausen, 9359 Jane Rd
N, Lake Elmo, MN 55042, for variances to allow expansion of an existing non-
conforming structure which does not meet minimum setback standards from the
Ordinary High Water Level and maximum impervious surface standards within a
shoreland district. PID# 10.029.21.24.0006.
c. FENCE ORDINANCE: A request by the City of Lake Elmo to make amendments
to Section 154.205: Fencing Regulations of the City’s Zoning Code.
5. Business Items
a. HIDDEN MEADOWS 2ND ADDITION (OP-OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT)
FINAL PLAT. RM Investments, LLC & Mpls RE, LLC is requesting final plat
approval of Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition, a 26-unit single family OP (Open
Space) development located off of Keats and State Highway 36.
b. SOUTHWIND FINAL PLAT. Southwind Builders, Inc. is requesting final plat
approval of Southwind, a 46-unit single-family attached development located off
of Lake Elmo Avenue, North of Hunter’s Crossing.
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates – 6/6/17 Meeting
i. Hammes 1st Addition Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation –
ii. Easton Village 2nd Development Agreement
iii. Inwood 5th Developers Agreement –
iv. Royal Golf Course Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans –
v. Wildflower PUD Amendment –
vi. Parcel A – Schiltgen Property Concept PUD
b. Staff Updates
i. Upcoming Meetings:
June 26, 2017
July 10, 2017
2
ii. MAC CEP Report-none
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 C lerk if you are in need of special
accommodations.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-22-17
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of May 22, 2017
Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dorschner, Larson, Kreimer, Dodson, Emerson, Williams,
Lundquist and Hartley
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Dorschner/Larson, move to approve the agenda as presented, Vote: 7-0, motion
carried unanimously.
Approve Minutes: May 8, 2017
M/S/P: Williams/Lundquist, move to approve the May 8, 2017 minutes as amended,
Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing – Concept Plan – GWSA Planned Unit Development
Wensman started his presentation regarding the PUD Concept plan for GWSA land
development for a 279 single family detached dwelling development on 99.12 acres
with a net density of 2.9 Development units per acre. This development is a P UD as it
falls within the Shoreland of Sunfish Lake. The developer is requesting flexibility from
the shoreland regulations and the V-LDR district regulations. An AUAR was completed
and no further environmental review is required.
Wensman went through the objectives of a PUD. This proposal meets those objectives.
They are proposing to provide more than required amenities, considering dedication for
Reid Park, and the development will extend sewer to the Hamlet development. There is
23% open space with a possible additional 7 acres of parkland dedication for Reid Park.
50% of the shoreland is required to be protected open space. A tiering analysis is
needed, complying with the shoreland ordinance with the preliminary plat application .
The concept plan does not include street stubs to the north or south for possible future
subdivision. In the V-LDR zoning, the allowable density is 2.49 units per acres, which can
be increased by 20% through amenity points. The total potential amenity points is 23.
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-22-17
Larson asked how many more households 23 points would give them. Williams asked if
the current plan includes bonus density. Wensman stated that their plan includes the
increase of 20% assuming the amenity points will be awarded.
There are a number of deviations being requested with this plan. The V-LDR calls for
minimum lot width of 70 feet. They are proposing 140 lots to be 55 feet wide and 133
lots to be 65 feet wide. The required minimum lot area is 9000 square feet, they are
proposing lots from 6800-14,000 square feet. There are also deviations from some of
the setbacks. These need to be evaluated for impacts, especially the request for the
front setback to be reduced to 15 feet on side loaded garages. In the Comprehensive
plan, there is an identified buffer of approximately 200 feet wide along the west and
north property lines. The concept plan shows a buffer to the north of 20 feet and to the
west. 10 feet wide. This buffer needs to be enlarged or substituted with landscaping
and berming with a landscape easement, which would require City Concil approval. The
developer is proposing a private HOA owned park with a pool and small playground near
the north entrance. There is also a proposed HOA owned open green space that is in
the center of the development. The parks commission is recommending no dedicated
parkland rather, they recommend cash in lieu. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the
need for trails to connect Lake Elmo Avenue to Hamlet on Sunfish and Sunfish Ponds
trails. Currently the trails in Hamlet on Sunfish and Sunfish Ponds are private HOA
owned trails. The Parks Commission recommended connecting these trails provided the
City can obtain ownership and maintenance responsibility of currently private trails.
Staff does not recommend connecting public trails to private HOA trails, as would be the
case with a trail to Sunfish Ponds.
The Staff and the City Engineer recommend the development provide street stubs to the
north and two to the South. The County has stated that there will be no further access
granted on CSAH 17 from this development south to Hwy 14. There are no trees on the
site, so no tree preservation plan is required. A phasing plan is needed to understand
when sewer can be expanded to serve the Hamlet neighborhood. Wetlands and
buffers need to be contained in outlots, which this plan does not show and there is no
stormwater management plan. It will be up to the Planning Commission and City
Council to determine how many amenity points will be awarded to this development.
The developer did not provide enough detail in the narrative or concept plan to properly
determine amenities being proposed. Staff has identified a number of findings. There is
concern that the pool being so close to the entrance of the development could cause
parking congestion on the public street. Staff is recommending parking be provided for
the pool/playground area.
Dodson asked about the Village Parkway. Wensman stated that the Village Area Plan
showed the parkway deadending, so it doesn’t make sense to extend it when it doesn’t
actually lead anywhere.
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-22-17
Craig Allen, GWSA, stated that there are no trails shown, but it is understood that there
will need to be some. The other amenity points, would come from providing 10 or so
more acres of open space than is required. The Concept Plan will provide trails, theming,
the clubhouse and pool, the street lighting and fencing to fit theming. The enhanced
landscaping will meet the V-LDR Zoning buffer requirements, and they require their
builders to put in additional landscaping. There will be architectural requirements for
this development as well. There will be 3 acres dedicated to the City adjacent to Reid
Park. The developer feels that is worth 10 amenity points. Allen stated that the
demand in the market seems to be for the smaller lots and taking the lot savings and
putting it into the house. Allen stated that they would prefer to provide buffer
landscaping and berming in a landscape easement on the lots vs. a wide buffer of land.
Dorschner is wondering if Acsah 17 street access could be put in to be shared with the
Schiltgen Farm. Allen stated that their vision for the stub to the south would be right in
the middle of the south property line of the development.
Public Hearing opened at 8:20 pm
Stephanie Buss, 3849 Kindred Way, she lives in Hamlet on Sunfish Lake, she understands
that there was a traffic study done, but she finds it really hard to believe that the
current 2 lane road will accommodate the traffic that this development along with the
others will generate. Wensman stated that the County has determined that once this
road reaches 12,000 trips per day it will necessitate the need for a 4 lane road and that
this development will not trigger that threshold.
Josh Peltier, 4167 Kirkwood Lane N, he lives in Sunfish Ponds, he would like the Planning
Commission to keep in mind the lower densities of the 2 developments that this new
development will abut. GSWA is asking for deviations from such things as density and
he would just like the Planning Commission to keep in mind that the neighborhoods that
this will abut to are all 1 acre lots.
There were no other written communications or phone calls.
Public Hearing closed at 8:25 pm
Dorschner asked about the time frame for the Hamlet sewer connection. Wensman
stated that the connection must take place by the end of 2020 or it would trigger fines
or a requirement to replace their community septic at a great expense.
Williams stated that overall he thinks this is a good development. He is a little
concerned with the density. Overall he does not feel that they have received sufficient
justification for the proposed density bonus. Hartley agrees because the plans do not
reflect what the developer is saying they will do. Williams stated that sidewalks and
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-22-17
trails are required and are not considered additional amenities. The pool and clubhouse
are private amenities, so as far as he is concerned, those do not count as amenity points
for a plaza.
M/S/P: Williams/Lundquist, move to add a finding that the current Concept PUD Plan
does not provide justification for a density bonus of more than 10 points under the City
PUD ordinance, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Dorschner wants to point out that the sewer situation with Hamlet should be a caution
to them when approving open space developments with community septic and
expecting the HOA to maintain them.
Larson asked what kind of amenities the Planning Commission would like to see to
receive the requested points. Williams stated that they are all in the PUD ordinance.
Dodson asked about having the main entrance moved from the north section of the
development to be across from 39th Street as an extension of the Village Parkway and to
locate the pool and clubhouse amenity more toward the center. Allen stated that the
turn lane was already installed at the northern entrance when Lake Elmo Avenue was
done and they would like to use it for the first phase. Allen stated that they plan to
phase the development starting with the northeast section and that is the quickest
route to get the sewer to Hamlet. Dodson would like to see the full landscape plan at
preliminary plat to know if it is worthy of amenity points.
Hartley wanted to clarify that smaller lots does not necessarily mean smaller houses.
Dodson stated that the higher density does not necessarily scare him. Larson stated
that the smaller the lots get, the more open space that is needed for kids to play.
Williams stated that the motion they just passed would substitute for finding number 6
in the staff report.
M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to add a finding #8 that the proposed green space
buffers on the north and west are too narrow as shown , Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Kreimer stated that he feels going down to 10 or 20 feet for the buffer overlay, even
with additional landscaping is way too narrow. Williams thinks that a 100 foot buffer
with berming and extensive landscape screening is needed to provide adequate
screening for existing residents. Lundquist had suggested to the developer that they
possibly purchase an easement from one of the properties on 43 rd street to put in an
additional access. Hartley would like to see this buffer not rely on the existing
landscaping or distances to homes on properties to the north or west. The developer
should be responsible for the buffer.
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-22-17
M/S/P: Kreimer/Williams, move to modify condition #12 that the developer provide off
street parking for the proposed HOA clubhouse/pool area, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
M/S/P: Hartley/Williams, move that the side yard setbacks be the 10 ft./5 ft. as
described by the V-LDR district, or an alternative of 7.5 ft. on each side with all
structures, including window wells being outside of easement s, Vote: 7-0, motion
carried unanimously.
The Planning Commission is concerned about the 15 foot front yard setback for garages.
It would help if they had exhibits to look at.
M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, move to have the Village Parkway design carry through in this
development with the southern road at least to the first street stub providing access to
the south, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/W: Hartley/Williams, move to change the setback for side loaded garages to 20
feet, but the garage side facing the street must have a window area of at least 4 X 4,
motion withdrawn.
Wensman suggested a finding such that the Commission is open to a smaller setback if
there are architectural features on the garage wall facing the street. Then the
developer can come back with ideas, rather than being specific at this time.
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to add a finding that the Planning Commission is open
to reducing the front yard setback for side loaded garages to 20 feet provided there is
sufficient architectural detail on street facing wall, Vote: 4-3, motion carried.
M/S/F: Kreimer/Dodson, move to amend the motion from 20 feet to 15 feet, Vote: 3-4,
motion failed.
Dorschner is not in favor of reducing the setback to 20 feet, but is in favor of having
architectural detail on side load garages, regardless of the setback.
Wensman requested that the first condition be struck because it is unknown how the
lots will be split at this time.
M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, move to strike condition #1 in the staff report, Vote: 7-0,
motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Williams/Dorschner, move to recommend approval of the Concept PUD with the
amended findings and conditions, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-22-17
Hartley stated that they did not talk about the reduced lot sizes. He feels the range
proposed for a development this size if curious. He is wondering why we would reduce
it from the 9000 sf. required for mixed use to 6800 sf. Williams asked what the average
lot size was. Emerson stated that he calculates it to be around 9400 sf. Williams stated
that the average is close to 9000 sf., then he is ok with the range.
City Council Updates – May 16, 2017 Meeting
i) Zoning Map Amendment VMX Rezoning – passed
ii) Zoning Text Amendment V-LDR/VMX – passed
iii) Wildflower PUD Agreement Amendment - tabled
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. June 12, 2017
b. June 26, 2017
2. MAC CEP Report
Commission Concerns
Kreimer wanted to thank Commissioner Fields for his service the last couple of years.
Dodson asked what the status of the solar ordinance is. Wensman stated that he has
not had a chance to follow up with building of fire staff for feedback.
Dorschner heard a very good speaker through his work and gave the contact info to
Wensman. There might be an opportunity for a workshop for the Commission.
Williams stated that starting at page 476 of the link that Wensman sent regarding solar,
there is a model ordinance for Minnesota which everyone should read.
Larson stated that there are also solar shingles that could change things as well.
Wensman asked the Commission if there would be a better way to frame these concept
PUD’s. Hartley stated that it is difficult to award points for items that the developer
says they are going to do, vs. what is on the plan. Dodson stated he likes that the
concept plan is more of a sketch so that they can give feedback for changes. Emerson
thinks that when people come in with a PUD there are so many variables and it is hard
to judge a development until it is all set up.
Wensman stated that sometime it is hard to put conditions on something that is still
nebulous. Williams stated that they don’t really have enough experience to know how
to rate the amenities being presented. Wensman suggested that maybe at Concept
plan there should be more of a free dialog vs. conditions and approvals. This is likely
going to be suggested in a PUD ordinance change. Hartley pointed out that sometimes
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-22-17
what the developer thinks an amenity for the development is an amenity to the City.
Hartley thinks that it should be clear in the ordinance what an amenity for the City is.
Dodson is concerned that if the developer comes back and has not addressed a lot of
these issues, they would have to deny. Wensman suggested that he will reach out to
developer and recommend that they sit down with staff to review the plans before
moving forward with preliminary plat stage.
Meeting adjourned at 9:52 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 6/12/2017
REGULAR
ITEM # 4a
MOTION
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Emily Becker, City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat and Planned
Unit Development (PUD) Plans
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
BACKGROUND:
CM Properties 94, LP has submitted applications to the City for a Preliminary and Final Plat and Planned
Unit Development (PUD) Plans for Outlot A of Lakewood Crossing 1st Addition. The proposal will
subdivide the existing 3.82 acre parcel in to three separate parcels. These parcels will include a full
service restaurant with outdoor patio; quick service restaurants with drive-throughs; and other retail
activities.
Applicant and
Property Owner:
CM Properties 94, LP c/o MFL Properties Corp., 3460 Washington Dr., Ste 100
Eagan, MN 55122
Location: Southwest of Kwik Trip Gas Station (9955 Hudson Blvd N), PID#
3402921440015
Existing Land Use
and Zoning:
Vacant land, Commercial (C)
Comprehensive
Plan:
Commercial
History: The property has been under the ownership of CM Properties 94, LP for over 45
years, and it is the intent that this company will continue to own the property for
years to come.
Lakewood Crossing Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit for
a gasoline station (Kwik Trip) Approval: 7/22/2014
Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition PUD Concept Plan Approval: 3/21/2017
Deadline for
Action:
Application Complete: 5/30/2017
60 Day Deadline: 7/28/2017
Extension Letter Mailed: N/A
120 Day Deadline: N/A
Applicable
Regulations:
Article XVI – Planned Unit Developments
Article XII – Commercial Districts
Chapter 153: Subdivision Regulations
ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION:
The Commission should hold a public hearing, review the proposed Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD
Plans, provide feedback, and make recommendation to Council.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
PUD and Plat Process. The applicant has submitted application for both Preliminary and Final Plat and
PUD Plans concurrently. The applicant received PUD Concept Plan approval by Council on March 21,
2017. Approval of the PUD Concept Plan alone did not afford the developer/applicant any rights but did
provide feedback to the applicant regarding the proposed development.
Identified PUD Objectives. The PUD process is appropriate for the proposed development to allow
flexibility in the location, design, and mix of commercial uses on a single large site. The City should
consider whether one or more of the objectives listed in Section 154.751 are met when reviewing requests
for approval of planned unit developments. It is of Staff opinion that the following objectives are met with
this request:
A. Innovation in land development techniques that may be more suitable for a given parcel than
conventional approaches.
Note: The parcel is an irregularly-shaped parcel and so meeting all of the lot dimension
requirements of the Commercial zoning district would be a hardship.
F. Coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility within the
development and surrounding land uses.
Note: The development will include additional retail and service businesses which will supplement
the gas station.
PUD Flexibility. The following outlines PUD flexibility the applicant seeks. In summary, the applicant is
requesting flexibility from the following zoning standards:
Medical facilities, drive-throughs, and outdoor dining as a permitted, rather than conditional, use.
Minimum lot width
Impervious surface allowance
Parking lot setback
Certain Lake Elmo Design Guidelines and Standards Manual
Certain landscape requirements
Waive off-street loading requirements
Required 20% protected open space within a PUD
Signage
Permitted and Conditional Uses. The proposed development will include a full service restaurant with
outdoor patio; quick service restaurants with drive-throughs; chiropractic care, and other retail activities.
General retail sales and restaurants are permitted uses within the Commercial zoning district, while
medical facilities (chiropractic care), drive-through facilities, and outdoor dining are conditional uses.
Conditional Use to Permitted Use. Because the applicant is proposing a Planned Unit
Development, the applicant is requesting that uses that would normally be conditional become
permitted uses within this development. This is to prevent new tenants from having to go the
Conditional Use Permit process. It should be noted that if plans are significantly amended (i.e. an
additional drive through is requested after the PUD is approved), the PUD would also need to be
amended. If the Commission wishes to recommend that these uses be allowed as permitted, rather
than conditional, uses within this PUD, the Commission should thoroughly review the proposal,
requesting more information if needed, in order to properly ensure that standards are being met
and that the proposed uses will not be detrimental to the development or surrounding area
Medical Facilities. The Code mandates that medical facilities have access to an arterial or collector street
of sufficient capacity to accommodate generated traffic and that two access points are granted. Currently,
the site plan only indicates one access. Therefore, this standard is not met. However, it should be noted
that the proposed medical facility would be a chiropractic office, which is a less intense use than other
medical facilities such as urgent care or an emergency room is, and the two access points would likely not
be needed.
Drive-Throughs. The applicant had previously proposed four drive-throughs in the Concept PUD Plan.
The applicant hired Spack Consulting to perform a Drive-Through Analysis to review information of
these different drive-through types to determine whether sufficient stacking was provided. Due to
feedback from this report and subsequent discussions regarding potential circulation conflicts, the
previously-proposed high volume drive-through located on the east end of the Lot 2 building was
eliminated, reducing the number of proposed drive-throughs to three.
Recommendations from Report. Summarily, the drive-through report recommends the following
to improve drive-through operations. It is a recommended condition of approval that the
Applicant adhere to all recommendations made in this report:
o Locate drive-through windows in buildings to maximum vehicle stacking.
o Offset median islands and parking lot driving lanes from the drive-throughs between Lots
1 and 2 to avoid driver confusion.
Note: The Applicant has offset the landscape medians to address this comment.
o Provide one-way eastbound circulation around the west, south, and east sides of Lots 1
and 2 to avoid unnecessary conflicts with drive-through vehicles at the windows.
Note: The updated Site Plan does not indicate one-way traffic along the south of
Lots 1 and 2 nor the east side of Lot 1. It should be noted that these aisles are
wide enough by City standards for a 2-way aisle driveway in a parking lot. Lines
clearly delineating the two aisles should be provided on the site plan if the City is
to allow two-way traffic along these aisles.
o Provide appropriate signage and pavement markings for all drive-through lanes to inform
drivers of expected operations. A convex mirror may be necessary in select areas to
improve sight distance and see other approaching vehicles.
Explanation of Low-Volume and High-Volume Drive-Throughs. Spack included reports that
looked at drive-through lane usage of five different land uses in Minnesota: banks, car washes,
coffee shops, fast food restaurants, dry cleaners and pharmacies.
o Proposed Low-Volume Drive Throughs provide enough storage space for approximately
four vehicles before they begin to spill out into the drive-through and block drive aisles.
Based on the maximum number of cars observed in queue at any one time in Spack’s
report, land uses with low-volume drive-throughs include: car wash, pharmacy, dry
cleaner, and sit-down takeaway restaurant.
o Proposed High-Volume Drive Throughs provide enough storage space for approximately
twelve stacked vehicles. Based on the maximum number of cars observed in queue at any
one time in Spack’s report, land uses with high-volume drive-throughs include: fast food
restaurant, coffee shop, donut/bakery shop, and bank.
o It is a recommended condition of approval that uses utilizing these drive-throughs be
limited to those which the drive-through can support.
Adherence to Standards. The Applicant has still not provided enough detail for Staff to analyze if
adherence to all standards for restaurants with drive-throughs have been met. It is a recommended
condition of approval that the Applicant provide this information.
Standard Required Proposed
Sec. 154.304: Standards for Food Services
Restaurant
with Drive-
Through
1. Drive-through elements shall not be
located between the front façade of
the principal building and the street.
No service shall be rendered,
deliveries made or sales conducted
within the required front yard,
although tables may be provided for
customer use.
1. The drive-through elements are not
outlined. One of the elements appears to
be in front yard of Lot 3.
2. This is hard to determine without
knowing exact locations of speakers and
service windows, however the applicant
has provided a report prepared by a traffic
consultant which analyzes the site design
and has made necessary changes.
2. Site design shall accommodate a
logical and safe vehicle and pedestrian
circulation pattern. Adequate queuing
lane space shall be provided, without
interfering with on-site
parking/circulation.
3. Drive-through canopies and other
structures, where present, shall be
constructed from the same materials
as the primary building, and with a
similar level of architectural quality
and detailing.
4. Sound from any speakers used on
the premises shall not be audible
above a level of normal conversation
at the boundary of any surrounding
residential district or on any
residential property.
5. Each food or beverage drive-
through business shall place refuse
receptacles at all exits.
3. Canopy detail and other structure detail
not provided.
4. Unable to determine.
5. Information not provided.
Outdoor Dining. The standard set forth in Section 154.554 of the Zoning Code for outdoor dining is that
tables cannot block a public sidewalk or other walkway needed for pedestrian circulation. Minimum of 5
ft. of sidewalk must remain open. There is only one small sidewalk in front of the building located on Lot
3 which provides access from the parking lot to the building. Because the exact placement of the tables will
likely be up to the occupant of the building, which may change from time to time, this standard has been
added as a recommended condition of approval.
Lot Dimensions and Bulk Requirements. Generally, the proposed development meets lot dimension and
bulk requirement standards. Flexibility is being requested on:
Lot width minimum. The parcel that is being developed is a uniquely-shaped parcel, and so the
manner in which the parcel is being subdivided is unique.
Impervious surface for Lot 2. The overall impervious surface of the three parcels averages 75%,
which meets the Commercial zoning district’s maximum impervious surface requirement. Lot 2
individually, however, exceeds this maximum requirement at 80%.
Parking setback on Lot 1. The parking lot will cover all three lots, so there is a 0 ft. setback between
the three newly-created parcels. Also, the parking lot is connected to a through lane on the east side
of the property with an 8.7 ft. setback. Setbacks from the south and west of the parcel are met.
Driveway Standards. Flexibility is being requested for the following on driveway standards:
Distance from driveway to side lot line (5 feet required). Lot 3 will share a driveway access with
Kwik Trip, to the east of the property, and so will not meet this standard with a 0 ft. setback.
Commercial District Design Standards. The following details significant design standards set forth by
the City of Lake Elmo Design Guidelines and Standards that have not been met in the proposal. The
Commission should consider whether or not flexibility should be allowed for the following standards:
Orientation of buildings. The unique shape of the parcel that is being developed resulted in a unique
shape of Lot 3. As a result, the building is oriented according to the shape of the parcel and to
accommodate better traffic circulation and proximity to the parking lot.
Landscaped open or gathering spaces. Being that this a small commercial development located in
close proximity to the highway that will likely serve quick visits, Staff does not feel it necessary to
provide this open space. An outdoor dining area is being proposed, and the restaurants will likely
provide adequate seating for guests.
Sidewalks. No sidewalk is provided along Hudson Blvd. However, there are no other sidewalks
along Hudson Blvd. to which it could connect. There is an on-road bike lane on Hudson Blvd that
will accommodate bikers.
Streetscape Lighting. No lighting is provided along Hudson Blvd. Lighting is provided within the
interior of the parking lot.
Fencing of Outdoor Dining Areas. The applicant has not indicated on the site plan where the
outdoor dining will be located.
Site furnishings. The manual details that furnishings such as decorative fencing, trash receptacles,
planters, bicycle racks, and benches are recommended – design elements from Branding &
Theming Study encouraged. The Commission may wish to recommend that the applicant include
these in the site plan.
Parking. There is minimal exterior parking lot landscaping and screening provided. Also, the
parking lot is located in the front of 2 buildings and exceeds 60% of street frontage.
Landscape Requirements. The applicant has amended the landscape plans to comply with some of the
deviations from City standards that were outlined during the Concept PUD Plan review. However, there
are still standards to which the proposed plans do not adhere. The proposed Landscape Plan does not meet
the following standards of the Zoning Code. The Commission should consider whether flexibility should
be provided via the PUD process or if these standards should be met.
There are only five trees proposed along Hudson Blvd, and six are required.
Thornless Hawthorn (deciduous ornamental) are required to be 2” caliper, not 1.5” as proposed.
There is no screening consisting of masonry wall, fence, berm, or hedge provided along Hudson
Blvd that is 3.5-4’ in height and less than 50% opaque as required, but the drive-through lane is
screened with a spire hedge.
Tree Preservation Requirements. There are no trees currently on the site, and so a tree preservation plan
is not required.
Off-Street Parking. The applicant meets general parking space size and aisle width standards. The
applicant has provided a narrative that explains that adequate parking has been provided.
Specific Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements. The applicant is unsure exactly what the
final tenant mix will be, but has shown that assuming 19,000 square feet of the buildings are retail
and 8,700 square feet are restaurants, that a total of 164 parking spaces would be required. The
applicant is providing 165 parking stalls, or 5.92 stalls per 1,000 square feet, so the proposed
parking is more than adequate.
Shared Parking. The applicant has indicated in a narrative that a Reciprocal Easement and
Operating Agreement has been drafted and will be recorded to account for shared parking and
access. This is a recommended condition of approval.
Off-Street Loading Areas. Section 154.211 of the Zoning Code requires that off-street loading areas be
provided in all districts for any nonresidential use which involves the receipt or distribution of materials
or merchandise by trucks or similar vehicles and has a gross floor area of 5,000 square feet of more. The
proposed site plan does not provide an off-street loading area. The applicant has provided a narrative that
indicates that deliveries to Lake Elmo Shoppes will occur behind the buildings and will utilize the service
door in the back of each tenant space and that no dock doors or drive-in doors are needed for the types of
tenants that occupy Lake Elmo Shoppes. Staff is supportive of waiving the off-street loading requirement.
Sign Regulations.
Comprehensive Sign Plan. A Comprehensive Sign Plan is required of any applicant for all planned
developments and commercial or industrial multi-tenant developments where different occupancies
will compete for permitted square footage on a single lot. The Applicant has submitted a
Comprehensive Sign Plan, attached to this report, detailing proposed wall signage and two ground
signs. The Applicant states in the narrative that an increased amount of signage is being requested
in order to be seen by the vast number of commuters and the local traffic patterns. Their signs will
provide consistency in size and construction materials, while allowing each tenant the flexibility
and square footage to showcase building storefronts, brand names, and individual site locations as
best as possible.
Wall signs. The current standard for wall signs is 1 square footage per 1 lineal foot of storefront.
The Applicant has submitted an exhibit which shows what signs of this size would look like on the
proposed building, stating that this ratio looks quite small on the façade. The applicant has
submitted the request for 2.5 square feet of signage for every one lineal foot of building on the front
and rear façades and 1.5 square feet of signage for every one lineal foot of building on the east and
west elevations.
Ground Signs. One ground sign per street frontage is allowed per lot, and ground signs on lots that
front streets with the number of traffic lanes and speed limit of these lots are allowed to be a
maximum height of 12 feet and 80 square feet. The applicant has proposed two ground signs: one
12 feet, 4 inches in height and 80 square feet, and one 30 feet in height and 273 square feet. The
proposed signs meet the setback requirement of 15 feet of a crosswalk, or within 15 feet of the
intersection of any circulation lane, driveway, or alley. Because the property abuts the Keats Ave
N to WB I-94 ramp and Hudson Blvd, the Applicant is looking for visibility from both frontages.
Open Space. The City’s PUD ordinance sets forth the requirement that at least 20% of the project area
within a PUD be preserved as protected open space. This requirement appears to be more appropriate or
applicable to residential development. However, other public and site amenities may be approved as an
alternative to this requirement. The proposed PUD does not meet the open space requirement. The applicant
has provided a narrative that proposes that this development enhances the site and retail shopping and dining
experience with enhanced architectural materials and site furnishings through natural colors, textures, and
shapes; flanking that offers a three-dimensional quality and skyline interest; mixture of materials; unique
cornices; variety of awnings; ornamental light fixtures; and four-sided architecture.
Lighting. The applicant has stated that a photometric plan has been ordered and will be forwarded to the
City once received. It is a recommended condition of approval that a lighting plan be submitted meeting
Sections 150.035-150.038 of the City Code.
Engineering Comments. Attached is a memorandum from the City Engineer dated May 31, 2017, which
details a number of comments that will need to be addressed. A condition of approval has been added that
requires that the Applicant address all of the comments outlined in this memo. Outlined comments include
the following:
No construction for Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition may begin until the applicant has received
Engineer approval for Final Construction Plans; all applicable permit approvals; easements and
permissions for the project; and a preconstruction meeting has been held.
Preliminary plans must be updated and the final construction plans must include a right turn lane
along eastbound Hudson Boulevard and any additional fire hydrants as required by the Fire
Chief/Building Official.
Preliminary and final construction plans and plat must be updated to include all necessary drainage
and utility easements as required for the public sanitary sewer and watermain/hydrants.
Traffic. The applications have been sent to Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT), as the
development abuts the Keats Ave N to WB I-94 ramp, and Washington County, as the County has indicated
a study will be done on the Keats Ave N and Hudson Blvd N intersection, to which this project is near.
MNDOT had made comments that the grading should stay within the limits of the development; the Hudson
Blvd right-of-way should be shown as City of Lake Elmo rather than MNDOT; and MNDOT drainage
permit will be required.
Access Management. Hudson Blvd is planned as a major collector road. The Comprehensive Plan’s access
management guidelines limit full commercial driveway access to 660 ft spacing. The PUD Concept Plan
had shown a second access on the site approximately 240 ft away from the access to Kwik Trip. It was a
recommended condition of approval of the PUD Concept Plan that the Applicant work to include PID#
34.292.1440004 (Ebertz Property – the small property to the west) as part of the Preliminary Plat and PUD
Plans or work with the owner of this property to provide shared access. The Applicant details in the narrative
that because CM Properties 94, LP does not own or control this property, access was not able to be shifted.
The Applicant eliminated the second access on the Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD Plans application
as a result, and Staff recommends the developer continue to work with the Ebertz’s to gain access to a
secondary access to Hudson Blvd on the Ebertz property in the future. A future access driveway connection
to the adjacent westerly property has been shown on this site plan. There are currently no plans for a raised
center median along Hudson Boulevard, and so right-in/right-out access locations cannot be allowed along
Hudson Boulevard.
A right turn lane should be required on Hudson Boulevard. There is an existing westbound turn lane on
Hudson Boulevard at the existing access location to this development. However, an eastbound right turn
should be required as part of this project to handle increased traffic volumes. Hudson Boulevard is expected
to receive significant growth in traffic volume as the I-94 corridor develops. It is the goal of the City to
maintain Hudson Boulevard as a two-lane road. Therefore, left and right turn lanes will need to be
implemented throughout the corridor to facilitate the turning movements for the developing areas while
maintaining mobility of the through traffic.
Fire Chief and Building Official Comments. The Fire Chief and Building Official have reviewed the
proposed site plan and have the following comments as they relate to the Utility Plan:
The drive-through aisle and lane to the west of the drive-through are 12 and 16 feet in width. The
drive-through aisle on Lot 3 also indicates a width of 12 feet. These should be at least 20 feet in
width to allow for required apparatus access around the perimeter of the buildings.
Additional fire hydrants will be needed on the northwest end of the building on Lot 2, the northeast
end of the building on Lot 1, and the southwest end of the building on Lot 3.
Additional watermain and fire hydrant easements will be required over the additional fire hydrant
locations and watermains.
Circulation. In addition to issues raised in the drive-through section of this report, there is a bit of concern
about circulation on the site. The shared access with Kwik Trip could prove to be confusing to site visitors,
as the existing median is essentially where the right turn lane for the Kwik Trip portion of the access is.
Additionally, drivers accessing Kwik Trip from the proposed development may or may not know to stop
for oncoming traffic from those exiting back portion of Kwik Trip. Additional striping may improve this
situation. A recommended condition of approval is that the Applicant provide additional striping and/or a
stop sign in this area to facilitate proper traffic circulation.
Municipal Sanitary Sewer and Water Supply. The proposed site is located within the Stage 1 Regional
Sewer area. The property is currently served with municipal sewer and water, and no phasing is required
for infrastructure improvements. The Applicant has indicated in the submitted narrative that sanitary sewer
and water service be extended to the property to the west, provided the owner is willing to pay the cost to
extend. The owner at this time appears willing, but no agreement has been reached. The Applicant has
suggested as an alternative that the property access utilities under Hudson Blvd from the North. This,
however, is a business decision that should ultimately be made by Council. The City should only accept
one boring under Hudson Blvd. A boring was made for Kwik Trip, so Staff recommends that no additional
borings be allowed. As such, the Applicant should be made to extend sanitary sewer and water service to
the westerly parcel regardless of whether or not the owner of the aforementioned parcel agrees to help pay
for it.
Stormwater. An infiltration basin is provided on the east side of the property. Stormwater runoff will be
routed through two underground parking lot storm chamber systems that will provide infiltration and
retention in addition to one above ground infiltration basin. The above ground infiltration basin will be
obtained by converting an existing storm water pond to an infiltration basin. Pretreatment for the infiltration
basins will be provided by oversized sump manholes equipped with scour prevention devices. Due to
proximity to the Kwik Trip site, the MPCA should be consulted to verify infiltration practices will be
allowed. Written landowner permission may be required for any off-site storm water discharges to adjacent
properties to avoid negative impacts to downstream properties.
Phasing. The Applicant has requested to plat all three lots at this time, but construction will occur in three
phases: Three phases: 1st: 14,700 sf building on Lot 1 2nd: 10,120 sf building on Lot 2 3rd: 3,192 sf building
on Lot 3. The Applicant should submit construction plans for approval by the City which will detail phasing
of utilities and grading and site improvements.
Existing Easements. The Applicant has indicated the need to vacate existing easements over the property.
The Applicant will need to submit a separate application for this, and the public hearing may be held at the
City Council meeting concurrently with Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD Plan approval.
Comprehensive Plan. The property is guided for and zoned Commercial. The proposed development is
commercial in nature. Commercial development is guided for 4.5-7 residential equivalency units (REU)
per acre.
Residential Equivalency Units (REU). Because the development is within the beginning stages, the Met
Council has not yet made a determination for WAC/SAC Charges. However, the following outlines REU
information for the proposed uses within the development:
Restaurant
Fixed Seating (actual number of seats) 10 seats 1
Non-Fixed Seating (the greater of the square feet of dining area @ 15 square
feet/seat or number of seats shown on the plan) 10 seats 1
Outdoor patios and sidewalk seating are counted same as inside seating.
(See Section 5.2.1.7.1 for discount) - -
Drive-in (See Section 5.2.1.7 for discount) 9 parking
spaces
1
Take-out (no seating) 3,000 square
feet 1
Outpatient clinic *17 fixture
units
1
Sterilizer (4 hours x gallons per minute x 60 minutes) 274 gallons 1
X-ray film processor (4 hours x gallons per minute x 60 minutes) 274 gallons 1
Retail Store (deduct mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, stairwells, escalators,
restrooms and unfinished storage areas) (for remainder use other criteria) (i.e. Gas
Pumping)
3,000 square
feet
1
Shower (if lockers are included use Locker Room criteria) *17 fixture
units
1
Park Dedication/Parks and Trails. The parkland dedication requirement for the proposed commercial
development is presently $4,500 per acre in lieu of dedicated land. The proposed development area is 3.82
acres in size, and so the required parkland dedication based on the present fee schedule would total $17,190.
The Parks Commission was informed of the proposed development at the March 20, 2017 meeting.
PUD Agreement. A PUD agreement that clearly articulates permitted and conditional uses, placement of
structures, development intensity, density, setbacks, building requirements, lot requirements, signage, or
other elements of the plan that deviate from the Commercial Zoning District standards will be
incorporated into the Findings of the Resolution if the PUD is approved. The PUD Agreement will
provide the development regulations that prevail for the site. Those items not addressed by the PUD
Agreement will default to the underlying Commercial Zoning standards.
RECOMMMENDED FINDINGS FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT AND PUD PLANS:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the
proposed Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD Plans:
1. That the Applicant has submitted all application requirements outlined in Sections 153.07;
153.08; and 154.759 for Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD Plans.
2. That the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans meets at least one or
more of the objectives outlined in Section 154.751 of the Zoning Code.
3. That the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD Plans propose to
enhance the site and retail shopping and dining experience with enhanced architectural materials
and site furnishings.
4. That the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD Plans is consistent
with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
5. That the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD Plans generally
comply with the City’s Commercial zoning district.
6. That the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD Plans complies
with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.
7. That the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat meets other City zoning
ordinances, such as landscaping, tree preservation, erosion and sediment control, and other
ordinances, except where noted in the conditions of approval, Staff report to the Planning
Commission dated June 12, 2017 or attachments thereto.
8. That the Applicant has requested the following PUD flexibility from the City’s Zoning Code:
a. Allowing medical facilities, drive-throughs, and outdoor dining as a permitted, rather
than conditional, use.
b. Allowing a minimum lot width of 18 feet for Lot 2.
c. Allowing a maximum impervious surface of 80% for Lot 2, with a total of 75%
impervious surface.
d. Allowing flexibility from the minimum parking lot setbacks from property lines, allowing
a zero foot setback between three lots and an 8.7 foot setback from the lot to the east.
e. Allowing flexibility from certain Lake Elmo Design Guidelines and Standards Manual as
detailed in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 12, 2017.
f. To waive off-street loading requirements.
g. To waive requirement PUD requirement for 20% protected open space, as other site
amenities are provided within the development.
h. Approval of a Comprehensive Sign Plan which allows 2.5 square feet of wall signage per
one (1) lineal foot of store front on the front and rear elevations; 1.5 square feet of wall
signage per one (1) lineal foot on building on the west and east elevations; a 10’ X 12’
multi-tenant ground sign near the northeastern corner of the site; and a 14’ X 30’ multi-
tenant monument sign located in the southwest corner of the site.
9. That the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD Plans is consistent
with the City’s engineering standards provided the plans are updated to address the City
Engineer’s comments documented in a letter dated May 31, 2017.
10. That the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD Plans will require a
relatively minor amount of city services and will not create a significant burden on the City.
11. That the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD Plans will not
conflict with nearby land uses.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat
and PUD Plans with the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall address all of the comments outlined in the City Engineer memorandum
dated May 31, 2017.
2. The Final Plat shall not be recorded until final construction plan approval is granted and all
easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works department are recorded on the
Final Plat.
3. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits including but not limited to all applicable city
permits (building, grading, sign, etc.), NPDES/SWPPP permits, and Valley Branch Watershed
District approval.
4. The Applicant should review with the MPCA if infiltration practices will be allowed, in particular
the planned conversion of the existing storm water pond to a storm water infiltration basin
directly east and adjacent to the service station.
5. The Applicant shall address all comments outlined in the Minnesota Department of
Transportation memorandum dated June 1, 2017.
6. The Applicant shall be required to extend sanitary sewer and municipal water service to the
westerly adjacent property.
7. Stormwater facilities shall be privately owned and maintained. A Stormwater Maintenance and
Easement Agreement in the City’s standard form must be executed and recorded.
8. A right turn lane on Hudson Boulevard shall be constructed at the Applicant to handle increased
traffic volumes.
9. The Applicant shall amend the proposed Landscape Plan to comply with City standards and
obtain approval by the City.
10. The Applicant shall provide financial security for 125% of landscaping materials with a Site
Work Agreement.
11. The Applicant shall provide further information on the proposed drive-through locations
including but not limited to exact location of speakers, windows, and refuse receptacles as well as
drive-through canopy detail.
12. The Applicant shall address all of the recommendations to improve the drive-through operations
as outlined in the Technical Memorandum prepared by Spack Consulting dated April 12, 2017.
13. The Applicant shall submit a photometric plan, and all lighting must meet requirements of
Sections 150.035-150.038 of the City Code.
14. The Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee of $4500 per acre, totaling $17,190, in lieu of
required parkland.
15. The Applicant shall address all comments outlined in the Fire Chief and Building Official email
memos dated May 10, 2017 and May 11, 2017. Specifically, the building on Lot 3 shall be
sprinklered; fire hydrant locations shall be added according to comments; and the drive aisle
width to the west of the drive-through lane on Lot 2 shall be widened to 20 feet. The Applicant
shall submit a plan and obtain approval from the Building Official and Fire Chief for the location
of hydrants and No Parking and Fire Lane signs.
16. A Reciprocal Easement and Operating Agreement provided shared parking access across all lots
shall be provided, approved by the City, and recorded.
17. Tables cannot block a public sidewalk or other walkway needed for pedestrian circulation.
Minimum of 5 ft. of sidewalk must remain open
18. Mechanical rooftop equipment must be screened.
19. The Site Plan shall be updated to include lines that clearly delineate two aisles on the lanes to the
south of Lots 1 and 2 and the east side of Lot 1.
20. The Applicant shall provide additional striping and/or a stop sign to facilitate traffic circulation in
the area where access is shared with Kwik Trip.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The development of this currently vacant site will create three taxable parcels. Additionally, it will
contribute SAC/WAC fees and park dedication fees of $17,190.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Lakewood Crossing 2nd
Addition Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD Plans with the 20 conditions of approval as listed in the
Staff report. Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat and
PUD Plans with the 20 conditions of approval as drafted by Staff based on the findings of fact listed in
the Staff Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD Plans application.
2. Engineering Review Memo dated May 31, 2017.
3. Comprehensive Sign Plan
4. Fire Chief and Building Official Comments
5. MNDOT Review Comments
Written Statements:
The following are answers to Questions 2a thru 2m on the Preliminary Plat Application
form:
a. Record Owner Engineer / Surveyor
CM Properties 94, L.P. Carlson McCain, Inc.
3460 Washington Drive, Suite 100 3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE, Suite 100
Eagan, MN 55122 Blaine, MN 55449
Attn: Bruce Miller Attn: Joe Radach, PE
(651) 452-3303 (763) 489-7912
Architect
Architectural Consortium, LLC
901 No. Third Street, Suite 220
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Attn: Kathy Anderson
(612) 436-4030
b. The property has an unassigned address but is currently legally described as Outlot
A, Lakewood Crossing, according to the recorded plat thereof, Washington County,
MN.
PID #34.029.21.44.0015
Zoning – Commercial
Parcel Size – 3.82 Acres / 166,449 Sq.Ft.
c. Subdivision Name: Lakewood Crossing
Number of Lots: Three (3)
d. N/A
e. The intent of this 3 lot, 3 building project is to create a successful retail project
providing a warm and inviting place for residents in the area to shop and dine. Our
goal is to have a quality, sit down, full service restaurant on the east side of the
project including a large outdoor patio to accommodate outside seating for
restaurant patrons. In addition to a sit down restaurant, we are targeting fast
casual restaurants with drive thru, coffee with drive thru, a hair salon, dry cleaner,
chiropractor, bank or credit union with drive thru and other similar services and
retail businesses. Our intention is to build the project in three (3) phases with the
initial plan to construct at 14,700 square foot retail building and follow up with a
10,120 square foot and 3,440 square foot building as the market dictates. Our firm
has owned this property for over 45 years and we intend to continue to own it for
years to come. Our intention is to build something both we and the City can be
proud of and that meets what the market is looking for and stands the test of time
architecturally.
f. N/A
Written Statements
Page 2
g. The property is currently served with municipal sewer and water. No phasing is
required for infrastructure improvements.
h. There are only 3 non-related, non-public property owners within 350’ and they are
also excited about the prospect of additional development occurring on this corner.
This development will have positive impact on property values in this area by
providing much needed retail and service businesses.
i. This development should not conflict with nearby land uses. As a matter of fact, it is
our intent to get tenants who enhance our neighbors property values and provide
goods and services to the residential areas in and around this intersection.
j. In the grand scheme of development occurring in Lake Elmo, this project is
relatively minor in terms of city services required and will not create a burden on
the City. As a matter of fact, commercial tax rates are significantly higher than
residential and therefore this project will only help the budgets of the City,
County and School District.
k. N/A
l. As this is a small commercial development, we are intending on providing a park
dedication fee in lieu of dedication which the City will be able to utilize to enhance
its overall parks / open space plan.
m. Our intention is to commence construction in July or August with the first phase
14,300 square foot building to be complete by year end. The Phase II and Phase III
building will be constructed as the market dictates.
Narrative Answering Questions / Concerns Raised for Concept Approval
and Outlined in Resolution 2017-026:
1. Regarding the City Engineer comments from that March 8th Memorandum, the plans
have been revised to address most of the comments. To address the second access to the
west, as we do not own or control the property to the west, we are not able to shift the
access. However, we are willing to provide an access easement to the property owner to
the west to provide them access so they won’t need to request a third access. In
addition, when the City determines the traffic counts warrant it, we will install a
median on Hudson Boulevard to restrict access to right in and right out only. Regarding
the turn lanes, our intention is not to build the secondary (westerly) access with Phase I
and therefore will only utilize the existing shared access with Kwik Trip. When we
build Phase II we will construct the turn lanes as needed. Regarding the extension of
water and sanitary sewer to the property to the west, we will accommodate provided
that owner is willing to pay the cost to extend. We have had discussions with them and
they appear willing however no agreement has been reached. If we are not able to reach
an agreement, the property still can be served with utilities by jacking them under
Hudson Blvd. from the North. As a reminder, this is what we had to do with the water
when we developed Kwik Trip.
2. It is acknowledged and we shall obtain all other necessary permits. Attached find
VBWD Permit #2017-08 Permit dated March 27, 2017.
3. As mentioned above, we will extend sanitary sewer and water to the westerly property
provided we can come to an agreement with the property owner. In the alternative,
they can extend the utilities from the property they own to the north.
4. It is acknowledged a storm water maintenance agreement will be required. Please
provide City standard form or if you don’t have one, we can prepare.
5. The Landscape Plan has been revised to provide four (4) more parking islands,
landscaping on north side of driveway as well as other modifications to comply with City
standards.
6. Acknowledge a Letter of Credit / Financial Guaranty is required for landscape
materials.
7. Attached is a Comprehensive Sign Plan along with a narrative detailing the flexibility
being requested.
8. The three (3) buildings will be a mix of retail, service and restaurant uses. Section
154.2 of the Code for General Retail is 1 space per 250 square feet or 4 spaces per 1,000
square feet. Lake Elmo Shoppes will have a total of 27,860 square feet. Based on
general retail of 4 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft., this results in 111 required stalls. We are
providing 165 stalls or 5.92 per 1,000 sq.ft. which is significantly over what is required
by code. Some uses, such as restaurants require more parking (1 stall per 100 sq.ft. =
10 stalls per 1,000 sq.ft.) and others require less than general retail such as personal
services at 3.33 per 1,000 sq.ft. Although we are not sure what the final tenant mix will
be, if 19,000 sq.ft. were retail that would require 77 stalls and 8,700 sq.ft. of restaurants
which would require 87 stalls for a total of 164 parking stalls Based on our experience
in owning and developing retails centers, we are confident we have more than adequate
parking.
Narrative – Page 2
Lake Elmo Shoppes
9. To address the site amenity as alternate to 20% open space, we are offering to enhance
the site and retail shopping and dining experience with enhanced architectural
materials and site furnishings. The Lake Elmo Shoppes architecture is upgraded and
features a variety of warm, natural colors, textures and shapes. The corner towers
flanking each end features standing seam metal roofs and offer a 3-dimensional quality
as well as skyline interest. A mixture of stone, brick and glass combine to help provide
individuality to the various tenants. Unique cornices project above the signage band for
added interest. A variety of both canvas and metal awnings create pedestrian scale
interest. Ornamental light fixtures repeat intermittently for nighttime attraction. The
architecture is four-sided being that is visible from both the highway and internal.
Signage is limited to designated areas within each tenant lease lines and design
controls of individually lit channel letters will ensure quality.
The overall development sets an up-scale environment with the attention to details
within the streetscape. Coordinated benches, trash receptacles and bike racks, outdoor
dining patios with wrought iron fencing, pedestrian scale ornamental light fixtures and
landscaping all combine to enhance the shopping experience.
10. The plans detail the location of the drive-thru elements. Based on questions at the
Planning Commission and City Council, we commissioned a drive thru analysis which
will be addressed in further detail in 19 below.
11. A photometric plan has been ordered and will be forwarded to the City once received. It
is acknowledged, an acceptable photometric plan is a condition of final approval.
12. It is understood the final plan showing location of fire hydrants, no parking and fire
lanes need approval from the building official and fire chief.
13. The adjacent property owner to the west will not be a party of the Preliminary Plat or
PUD however, we will work with them to provide shared access in the location noted on
the site plan.
14. Although we are not proposing to construct any new access points with the first phase of
the development, it is acknowledged turn lanes will need to be constructed with the new
access.
15. It is our position, current traffic doesn’t warrant widening Hudson Blvd., but depending
on future development to the north and west, future road improvements may be
necessary.
16. Lake Elmo Shoppes deliveries will occur behind the buildings and will utilize the service
door in the back of each tenant space. No dock doors or drive-in doors are needed for the
types of tenants we will be pursuing.
17. A Reciprocal Easement and Operating Agreement drafted and will be recorded to
account for shared parking and access.
Narrative – Page 3
Lake Elmo Shoppes
18. All mechanical rooftop equipment will be screened by the high parapet walls provided in
the design of Lake Elmo Shoppes.
19. Attached is the drive-thru analysis prepared by Spark Consulting Engineers. As you
will see the report, Spark states the two high volume and two low volume drive-thru
locations have sufficient stacking and circulation. However, based on some of the
comments in the report and subsequent discussions regarding potential circulation
conflicts, we did decide to eliminate the “high volume” drive-thru located on the east end
of the Lot 2 building. Therefore, the request for drive-thru’s has been revised to three
(3).
PAGE 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 31, 2017
To: Emily Becker, City Planner Re: Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition
Cc: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director Preliminary/Final Plat Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Preliminary/Final Plat. The
submittal consisted of the following documentation received on May 30, 2017 and prepared by Carlson McCain:
Lake Elmo Shoppes Site Improvement Plans dated May 24, 2017.
Lake Elmo Shoppes Stormwater Management Plans dated April 26, 2017.
Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Plat dated April 26, 2017.
Narrative, not dated.
STATUS/FINDINGS: Following comments should be incorporated as conditions of Preliminary/Final Plat approval.
FINAL PLAT: LAKEWOOD CROSSING 2ND ADDITION
The Final Plat shall not be recorded until final construction plan approval is granted and all easements as
requested by the City Engineer and Public Works department are documented on the Final Plat.
No construction for Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition may begin until the applicant has received City
Engineer approval for the Final Construction Plans; the applicant has obtained and submitted to the City all
applicable permits, easements and permissions needed for the project; and a preconstruction meeting has
been held by the City’s engineering department.
Final Construction Plans and Specifications must be prepared for any phased site improvements and
submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to construction. The Final Construction Plans
and Specifications must be prepared in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual
using City details, plan notes and specifications and meeting City Engineering Design Guidelines.
The preliminary plans must be updated and the final construction plans must include a right turn lane along
eastbound Hudson Boulevard and any additional fire hydrants as required the Fire Chief/Building Official.
The preliminary/final construction plans must be updated to include all necessary drainage and utility
easements as required for the public sanitary sewer and watermain/hydrants.
There are no Outlots as part of this Plat to be dedicated to the City.
Prior to the start of construction a Stormwater Maintenance and Easement Agreement in the City’s
standard form must be executed and recorded with the County.
Traffic and Access Management Requirements:
Primary access. The shared access location with Kwik Trip has been approved for this site.
Right turn lane should be required on Hudson Boulevard. There is an existing westbound left turn lane on
Hudson Boulevard at the existing access location to this development. However an eastbound right turn
should be required as part of this project to handle the increa sed traffic volumes. Hudson Boulevard is a local
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4285
PAGE 2 of 3
collector roadway and Municipal State Aid route. Hudson Boulevard is expected to receive significant growth
in traffic volume as the I94 corridor develops. The road is considered to be a major collector for serving the
area but it is the goal of the City to maintain the road as 2‐lanes. In order to achieve that goal left and right
turn lanes will need to be implemented throughout the corridor to facilitate the turning movements for the
developing areas while maintaining the mobility of the through traffic.
Secondary access. The site does not have sufficient frontage along Hudson Boulevard to accommodate a
secondary access. The secondary access shown on the concept plans approximately 250 feet to the west of
the shared access has therefore been eliminated as required by staff. The Access Management Guidelines
per the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan requires access spacing of 1/8 mile (660 feet) for full
access intersections and commercial driveways along Hudson Boulevard. A shared access driveway was
planned as part of the Lakewood Crossing 1st Addition to allow access to the proposed development area
while maintaining the required access spacing guidelines.
Future secondary access potential. A second access location cou ld be planned along the south side of Hudson
Boulevard that would align with the property to the west of Lakewood 2 Addition with this parcel (PID No.
3402921440004) coordinating and sharing access with Lakewood 2nd Addition. A potential future access
connection to the adjacent westerly property has been shown on the site plan.
Right‐in/Right‐out access locations cannot be allowed along Hudson Boulevard since the roadway does not
include raised center medians to prohibit left turning movements from the site. There currently are no plans
for a center raised median along Hudson Boulevard.
Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan:
Governing Specifications and Plan Details for grading and erosion control must be in accordance with the
City of Lake Elmo standard specifications.
Retaining walls that exceed 4 feet in height must have a design submitted and certified by an engineer
licensed in the state of Minnesota.
Utility Plans:
Connection to existing sanitary sewer stub. The project proposes to connect to the existing sanitary sewer
stub located in the northeast corner of the property and is extended throughout the development to connect
3 commercial buildings. Sanitary sewer is extended along the northwest property line and stubbed to the
westerly adjacent plat limits as required by City policy. A drainage and utility easement is shown on the plat
over the portion of sanitary sewer to be owned and maintained by the City.
Connection to existing watermain stub. The project proposes to connect to an existing 8‐inch watermain
located in the northeast corner of the property and is extended along the northwest property line and
stubbed to the westerly adjacent plat limits as required by City policy. A service stub is shown for connection
for Lot 3. A lateral 6‐inch watermain to the south of the development is also proposed for the placement of
a fire hydrant and the connection of two additional buildings. A drainage and utility easement is shown on
the plat over the portion of watermain/hydrant to be owned and maintained by the City.
Fire Hydrant locations. Additional fire hydrants may be required based on review by the Fire Chief/Building
Official. All watermain and fire hydrants required for the project are to be owned and maintained by the City
and will require the necessary easements outlined below.
Drainage and utility easements are required over all public sanitary sewer and watermain not located on
City Outlots and right‐of‐way, minimum 30‐feet in width, 15 feet from centerline on each side of pipe
(including 15 feet from all sides of a fire hydrant). Drainage and utility easements must be provided on the
plat or in the City’s standard form of easement agreement.
Stormwater Management:
The site plan is subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD and City rules and
regulations. A VBWD permit has been obtained for the improvements.
Stormwater runoff will be routed through two underground parking lot storm chamber systems that will
provide infiltration and retention in addition to one above ground infiltration basin. The above ground
infiltration basin will be obtained by converting an existing storm water pond to an infiltration basin.
PAGE 3 of 3
Pretreatment for the infiltration systems will be provided by oversized sump manholes equipped with scour
prevention devices.
Due to the proximity of the site to the Kwik Trip Service Station the applicant should review with MPCA if
infiltration practices will be allowed, in particular the planned conversion of the existing storm water pond
to a storm water infiltration basin directly east and adjacent to the service station.
The proposed storm water facilities will be privately owned and maintained. Prior to the start of onsite
construction a Stormwater Maintenance and Easement Agreement in the City’s standard form must be
executed and recorded with the County. The agreement shall provide a maintenance plan defining the
maintenance responsibilities for the private owner, the type of maintenance and the maintenance intervals.
Written landowner permission may be required for any off‐site st o r m w a t e r d i s c h a r g e s t o a d j a c e n t
properties to avoid negative impacts to downstream properties.
COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN NARRATIVE
Lake Elmo Shoppes is proposed to be an upscale neighborhood shopping and dining
experience. Signage for Lake Elmo Shoppes should be allocated and designed to encompass
a professional, first class look and feel. When potential tenants deliberate on signing leases
and joining the Lake Elmo business community, they must also have the confidence that
their brand will be properly showcased and seen by the vast numbers of commuters and the
local traffic patterns. Our signage goals are to provide consistency in size and construction
materials, while allowing each tenant the flexibility and square footage to showcase their
building storefronts, brand names, and individual site locations as best as possible. Lake
Elmo Shoppes is proposing wall signage and two (2) ground signs.
Wall Signs:
As we began to develop the sign criteria for the various buildings at the Lake Elmo
Shoppes, we reviewed what the current sign code allows, which is 1 square foot of signage
per 1 lineal foot of storefront on the front elevations and .5 square foot of signage per 1
lineal foot of frontage for the rear elevation. Wall signs sized to code are represented on the
attached Exhibit 1 “Sign Per Code”. As you can see on Exhibit 1, at these ratio’s the signs
look small on the storefront and do not “fit” the façade. The signs look dwarfed on these
elevations and certainly do not give the look or exposure that tenants would consider
adequate. Regarding the even smaller signs on the back, the Tenants would pass on adding
signage on the rear of the property as the cost and readability would make for an unworthy
investment.
Exhibit 2 “Comprehensive Sign Plan” represents a 2.5 square feet of signage per 1 lineal
foot of storefront on the front and rear elevations, and a 1.5 square feet of signage per 1
lineal foot on the west and east elevations. As you will see, these signs look much more
proportional and “fit” the elevations much better. These ratios will also create consistency
with any size proportion issues that arise with future tenants and their short and long
business names. The north elevation will now be visible from Hudson Blvd., and tenant’s
will be able to showcase their place of business. The rear signage is really designed to
capture the traffic from the westbound on-ramp traffic to I-94. With this increased size, it
will now be readable and will help in the promotion and success of the Lake Elmo Shoppes
retail and restaurant businesses. The 1.5 square feet of signage per 1 lineal foot on the
west and east elevations will allow those tenants the opportunity to capture additional
angles of east and west traffic and stop light patterns as commuters enter the freeway as
well as from the adjacent Kwik Trip.
The intention of the increased ratios is to develop a uniform criteria that creates a fair
amount of square footage allowance for all tenants. Since there is uncertainty of what new
businesses will occupy each space at this time, utilizing this new ratio implements tenant
fairness while ensuring a professional look. This will also address the variety and length of
actual store names, their corporate sign regulations, and desired letter sizes that tenants
will be required or want to achieve with their space. This provides flexibility and approval
to enhance their investment with the specified ratio, provided that their identity and look is
approved by the Landlord.
Ground Sign #1:
Ground Sign #1 is an attractive 10’x12’ multi-tenant, sign to be located in the northeastern
access and will face Hudson Boulevard. As the two main retail buildings are set back up to
400’ from Hudson Boulevard, this monument will allow potential customers to know which
businesses are in the shopping center. Ground Sign #1 will help in the promotion and
success of these Lake Elmo businesses.
Ground Sign #2:
Ground Sign #2 is an attractive 14’x30’ multi-tenant sign located in the southwest corner of
the development and is intended to provide a signage opportunity to the over 100,000 VPD
on I-94. Ground Sign #2 will have print that is large enough for the traveling public to be
able to notice what businesses are in Lake Elmo Shoppes which will further enhance the
promotion and success of these Lake Elmo businesses.
Lake Elmo Shoppes has 22’ high, prominent storefronts and proportionate signage on these
storefronts is necessary both from the tenants branding perspective as well as the building
look. We believe this Comprehensive Sign Plan overall enhances the quality and
effectiveness of the shopping and dining experience.
EXHIBIT A
SIGN CRITERIA
Lake Elmo Shoppes, Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Tenant agrees to be bound and comply with the Sign Criteria as follows:
1. EXTERIOR SIGNAGE:
A. Tenant shall be required to identify its Leased Premises with an exterior sign.
B. Tenant’s signs shall be retail store identity signs only with restricted copy to designate the
Tenant’s name, product, or service.
C. Each Tenant will be allocated an area on the exterior sign band of the building.
D. Sign size and placement will be restricted to the sign band. The beginning and end of the
Tenant’s sign shall not be nearer than 18” to outside edges of the Tenant’s allocated sign
area, and determined by Lessor as per Exhibit G. All signs shall contain individual letters.
All signs shall be lighted, and all transformers will be installed inside the Tenant’s Leased
Premises. All exterior signs shall be located within the designated signing area. Any
drilling or boring to be done through the exterior wall of the building shall be performed in
accordance with all architecturally accepted methods and every precaution shall be taken to
assure that these areas be sufficiently waterproofed. All illuminated sign letters shall be
channel type construction, plastic faces attached with trim cap. All illuminated sign letters
must be LED lit. Colors need to be approved by the Landlord, raceways behind the parapet
wall are required on all signage above the roof line and must be installed in a manner as to
not void the roof warranty.
E. Each Tenant is allowed (1) sign on the Front of the Building (North Elevation) and (1) on the
Back of the Building (South Elevation).
F. The total sign surface area of all wall signs on a façade shall not exceed 2.5 square feet of
sign area per 1 lineal feet of storefront leased on the front elevation.
G. Each end cap Tenant is allowed (1) additional signage area that will be utilized to face the
west or east elevations for a maximum total of (3) signs for those Tenant’s only. End cap
tenants are allowed (1) added sign that is 1.5 sf per lf of leased frontage on that elevation.
H. Awnings are acceptable with Landlord approval. Awnings cannot include logos or copy.
I. The use of predominantly decorative sculpture, coat of arms, shields or other such logos
requires special approval by Landlord
J. Landlord expressly reserves the right to deviate from this sign criteria when dealing with
other tenants.
2. GROUND SIGN #1:
A. (1) freestanding multi-tenant ground sign shall be allowed in the northeast corner of the
development providing signage to Hudson Boulevard.
B. Ground sign is limited to a maximum height of 12.5’.
C. Landlord will allocate which tenants shall be on the ground sign and allocate the amount of
space to the individual tenants.
D. Landlord expressly reserves the right to deviate from this sign criteria when dealing with
other tenants.
E. Freestanding sign will incorporate colors and/or decorative design similarities to building
façade as determined by Landlord.
SIGN CRITERIA
PAGE 2
3. GROUND SIGN #2:
A. (1) freestanding multi-tenant ground sign shall be allowed in the southwest corner of the
development providing signage to I-94.
B. Freestanding sign is limited to a maximum height of 30’
C. Landlord will allocate which tenants shall be on the ground sign and allocate the amount of
space to the individual tenants.
D. Landlord expressly reserves the right to deviate from this sign criteria when dealing with
other tenants.
E. Freestanding sign will incorporate colors and/or decorative design similarities to building
façade as determined by Landlord.
4. PROHIBITED SIGNS:
The following types of signs or sign components shall be PROHIBITED.
A. Signs employing exposed raceways, ballast boxes or transformers.
B. Signs employing moving of flashing lights.
C. Signs, letters, symbols, or identification of any nature painted directly on the surface of the
exterior to Leased Premises.
D. Signs employing unedged or uncapped plastic letters or letters with no returns or expose d
fastenings.
E. Cloth, wood, paper or cardboard signs, stickers, decals or painted signs around or on exterior
surfaces (doors and/or windows of the Leased Premises.
F. Rooftop signs.
G. Signs employing noise-making devices or components.
H. Signs exhibiting the names, stamps, or decals of the sign manufacturer or installer.
I. Signs prohibited by city ordinance.
5. SIGN APPROVALS:
Procedure for obtaining Landlord’s approval of sign drawings
A. Tenant shall submit one (1) set in electronic format (.pdf or .jpg) including a color photo
rendering and specifications to Landlord for all proposed sign work.
B. The drawings shall clearly show location of sign onto fascia of building, graphics, color and
construction and attachment details
C. The Landlord shall reply to Tenant with “Approved”, “Approved as Noted” or “Disapproved”.
In no event shall erection of any sign take place without the written approval of the
Landlord. Sign drawings that have been disapproved are to be redesigned and resubmitted
to Landlord for approval within (7) days of receipt by Tenant. After the sign has been
approved by Landlord, Tenant shall also require the approval of the City of Lake Elmo prior
to the erecting said sign if said approval is required or requested by said City. Tenant is
responsible for receiving and paying for all fees associated with the installation of this sign,
including ALL permits.
D. Approval of store design drawings or working drawings and specifications for Tenant’s
Leased Premises does not constitute approval of any sign work
SIGN CRITERIA
PAGE 3
6. GENERAL TENANT REQUIREMENTS
A. The furnishing and installation of signage and all expense incurred shall be the sole
responsibility of the Tenant.
B. Sign construction is to be completed according to the instructions contained within this
criteria
C. All exterior signage installation must be performed utilizing mechanical platforms on the
outside of the building. No ladders may be used in connection with said installation
D. A representative of Landlord must be present prior to the installation of any exterior signage
in order to supervise same
E. Tenant shall, at its own expense, install and maintain a time clock that will cause its
exterior signage to be fully illuminated at times provided in the Lease.
From:Michael Bent
To:Emily Becker
Cc:Greg Malmquist
Subject:Lake Elmo Shoppes Site Plan Review - Revisions
Date:Thursday, May 11, 2017 9:10:20 AM
Hey Emily
Greg and I have reviewed the utility plan for the Lake Elmo Shoppes project. Below are revisions to
the comments I sent to you previously and refer specifically to page C6:
1. The apparatus access roads look pretty good around the entire site with the following
exceptions:
a. The west end of the proposed building on Lot 2 indicates a Drive Thru lane and then a
lane to the west of the drive thu lane, the plan does show a width for this lane, but it
indicates a 16’ width (I missed it), please have the developer widen this to 20’ as the
apparatus access width is set at a minimum 20’ wide. It doesn’t make any sense to
choke the width down to 16’ and then widen it to the required width beyond and
behind the buildings.
2. The fire protection water service is shown on the south side of both buildings. The Fire
Department Connections for both of the proposed buildings will be installed on the north
(front) of the buildings. A fire hydrant will need to be located on the west end island of the
building on lot 2 and the east end island of the building on lot 1, in line with the proposed
hydrant in the island at the northwest corner of lot 1. (totaling 3 hydrants on the north side of
both buildings.)
3. No other hydrants are shown on the plans, another fire hydrant needs to be added in the
vicinity of the west end of the building proposed to the north, my previous comment
regarding the addition of a hydrant on the east end of the building to the north can be
removed, there is an existing hydrant on the Kwik Trip property that will suffice for coverage.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Michael Bent
Building Official
City of Lake Elmo
651-747-3910
mbent@lakeelmo.org
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 6/12/2017
REGULAR
ITEM #: 4b
MOTION
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Emily Becker, City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Shoreland Variance Request to Allow Expansion of an Existing Non-
Conforming Structure Which Does Not Meet Minimum Structure Setback
from Ordinary High Water Level and Maximum Impervious Surface
Standards - 9359 Jane Road North
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
BACKGROUND:
The City has received application from Scott and Julie Drommerhausen of 9359 Jane Road North for
variances to allow expansion of a non-conforming structure which does not meet the required minimum
structure setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) and maximum impervious surface
standards of the City’s shoreland district.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing and make recommendation on the above-
mentioned variance requests.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Applicant: Scott and Julie Drommerhausen
Property Owners: Scott and Julie Drommerhausen
Location: 9359 Jane Road North, PID# 10.029.21.24.0006, Lots 9 & 10, Berschen’s
Shores, Washington County, Minnesota
Request: Variance from Shoreland Standards – Expansion of a Non-Conforming
Structure and Maximum Impervious Surface
Existing Land Use: Single-Family Detached Residential Dwelling
Surrounding Land
Use:
Surrounded by other single-family detached residential dwellings and abuts
Lake Jane on the westerly side of the property
Existing Zoning: Rural Single Family/Shoreland Overlay District
Comprehensive Plan: Rural Single Family
History: A number of variance requests have been made for this property in the past:
1987: Permit for restoration and remodeling of home and install riprap to
control shoreline erosion and floodproof home by raising home above 100 year
issued by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Permit included a letter
clarifying that a deck cannot be constructed so that it encroaches toward
Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL).
Planning Commission
6/12/2017 Regular Agenda item # 4b
Page 2
1988: Permit transferred to new owner. New garage and lateral expansions not
part of review for variance to raise home.
1988: Application for variance to build double garage, denied by City Council.
1989: Numerous MNDNR permit violations documented regarding
unpermitted deck.
1990: Application for variance to build a deck not meeting OHWL setbacks.
First approved by City Council, then appealed, then denied.
1991: Application for variance for emergency exit to lake.
1991: Agreement reached with MNDNR for four foot deck on side of the
house, provided no more variances are allowed for any additional construction
or development of any type.
2001: Valley Branch Watershed District permit for fill and grading to restore
lot and raise above flood plain.
Variance Appeal: June 5, 2001 (denied June 19, 2001)
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 5/9/2017
60 Day Deadline – 7/8/2017
Extension Letter Mailed – N/A
120 Day Deadline – N/A
Applicable
Regulations:
Article V – Zoning Administration and Enforcement
Article XIX – Shoreland Management Overlay District
Request Details. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to his home which will allow all
bedrooms to be on one level. There currently exists an 18’ X 32’ (576 square feet) deck on the southeast
side of the house that will be removed, along with a tree as indicated in the attached survey. This will be
replaced by an approximate 24’ X 26’ (685 square feet) addition. The deck was allowed to be built through
the variance process, explained in further detail later in this report. Staff cannot find the Resolution granting
this variance, and so it is unclear the exact setback the variance allowed from the OHWL. The minutes from
the meeting at which the variance request was approved are attached. The proposed addition is setback 45.4
feet from the OHWL, and the required setback within the City’s shoreland district for an unsewered
property on Lake Jane, a Recreational Development lake, is 100 feet. The proposed addition is also within
the Shore Impact Zone, which is defined as the land located between the OHWL of a public water and a
line parallel to it at a setback of 50% of the structure setback (50 foot setback from the OHWL of a
Recreational Development lake).
Additionally, the lot currently has an impervious surface percentage of 26.9%. The proposed addition
increases the lot’s impervious surface to 29.7%. The maximum impervious surface allowed within the
City’s shoreland district per the Zoning Code is 15% for unsewered properties within a Recreational
Development shoreland.
Planning Commission
6/12/2017 Regular Agenda item # 4b
Page 3
Lot Details. The property meets all setbacks for the Rural Single Family Zoning district but does not meet
the minimum lot size requirement of 1.5 acres.
Area: 23,025 square feet (0.52 acres)
Front yard setback: 41.5 feet
Proposed front yard setback: 39.8 feet (30 feet required)
Side yard setback (west): 13.7 feet (10 feet required)
Existing side yard setback (east): Approximately 96 feet (10 feet required)
Shore Impact Zone
100’ Required
Structure Setback
Planning Commission
6/12/2017 Regular Agenda item # 4b
Page 4
Proposed side yard setback (east): Approximately 72 feet (10 feet required)
Proposed septic setbacks: 17.2 from septic equipment and 20.6 feet from drainfield (10 and 20 feet
required, respectively)
Septic Permit Needs. The proposed addition will allow for all bedrooms to be on one level, but
current downstairs bedrooms will be converted to living space and therefore no septic permit or
inspection is required.
Nonconformities within a Shoreland. The City’s Shoreland Ordinance states that all additions or
expansions to the outside dimensions of an existing nonconforming structure must meet the setback, height,
and other requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance. Any deviation from these requirements must be
authorized by a variance. There is an additional provision that states that where structures exist on the
adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be altered without a variance
to conform to the adjoining setbacks from the OHWL, provided the proposed structure is not located in a
shore impact zone or bluff impact zone. It should be noted that this provision in the ordinance was not
drastically changed in the 2017 amendment to the Shoreland Section of the Zoning Code, as previously an
improvement to a riparian substandard structure was allowed to extend laterally by a conditional use permit
(as opposed to a variance), provided it was in compliance with all other dimensional standard. The proposed
addition is within a shore impact zone, and so this provision may not be applied towards this expansion. As
stated later on in this report, two properties adjacent to the subject property were granted variances to allow
structures to be located nearer to the OHWL than is permitted by the Shoreland Ordinance. Both of these
structures are setback around 40 feet from the OHWL.
Previous Variance Requests. In 1989, the Council denied a variance request by a previous property owner
of the subject property. The variance request was for a deck that would further extend in to the OHWL than
the home currently was. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) recommended
denying this request based on lack of hardship. The Council had originally approved the variance, and then
received an appeal from the MNDNR and denied the requested variance for a deck based on the following
findings of fact:
1. The applicant had no hardship.
2. The applicant had a reasonable use of the property without a deck.
3. There were alternative locations for the deck which would not increase the substandard setback of
the house.
4. The MNDNR stated in a permit issued to allow shoreland fill that no deck would be allowed.
Later, the property owner at the time had negotiated an agreement with the MNDNR that a portion of the
deck could be constructed if this property owner at that time would never again seek an OHWL setback
variance for this parcel. Based on this agreement, the City Council approved the variance, and a deck was
constructed. This is the deck that now exists on the lake/southeast side of the home.
In 2001, that same property owner requested another variance to enlarge his home and again requested 550
more square feet of decking that further extended in to the OHWL (22 feet from the OHWL). The Planning
Commission had approved the variance request originally, but then the Board of Adjustment and Appeals
received a notice of appeal to the Planning Commission’s decision from then City Administrator Kueffner.
The basis for that appeal was insufficient findings by the Planning Commission to support the variance
approval decision. The request was denied based on the following findings (in summary):
1. The literal interpretation of the zoning ordinance would not deprive the applicant of reasonable
rights.
2. The degree of OHWL departure was more than what was previously granted.
3. No hardship had been demonstrated.
4. Since no hardship was demonstrated, granting the variance would not alleviate the hardship.
5. The area of OHWL was artificially created from lakebed in years past.
Planning Commission
6/12/2017 Regular Agenda item # 4b
Page 5
It should be noted that this (2017) variance request differs from the previously-denied variance requests in
the following ways:
The applicant is requesting an addition to the home that does not further encroach on the required
setback from the OHWL than the existing home already does.
The MNDNR has reviewed the variance request and has not provided comment after receiving the
application and being sent notice of the public hearing.
Adjacent Property Variances. The City granted similar variances to adjacent properties. This should not
be a basis for granting an additional variance for the subject property, but it does show that the granting of
the variance may not change the character of the surrounding area.
In 2000, 9369 Jane Road North was granted a variance to place a structure 44.2 feet to 52.7 feet
from the OHWL and to allow a lot width of 103.34 feet.
9287 Jane Road North was granted a variance, also in the year 2000, to permit two additions to the
primary structure consisting of a 16’ X 26’ garage addition to the north side; and a 14’ X 24’
addition to the south side; both additions less than the required 100 foot setback from the OHWL.
Engineering Review. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed variance and has indicated that he does
not readily see any engineering matters to comment on regarding this application in regards to shorelands.
It is not one of the original properties connected to the City 201 system, but it is adjacent to a property that
is connected to a city system.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake
Elmo City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to city code requirements can
be granted. These criteria are listed below, along with recommended findings from Staff regarding
applicability of these criteria to the applicant’s request.
1) Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board
of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict
enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to
the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such
actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical
difficulties - “Practical difficulties” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means
that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an
official control.
FINDINGS: The subject property was platted prior to adjustment of the Ordinary High Water of
Lake Jane and the adoption of Shoreland standards by the City, and therefore the lot is much wider
than it is long. Because of the shape of the lot, the Applicant is proposing to expand the home
laterally rather than further encroaching on the current setback of the Ordinary High Water Level.
Additionally, the addition will not expand much more of the footprint of the principal structure, as a
slightly smaller deck that will be torn down exists where the addition is being proposed. Additionally,
although the City’s ordinance does not treat decks as impervious, many do. If decks were considered
impervious, the addition would only add 109 square feet of impervious surface, or an increase of
about 0.46%.
Planning Commission
6/12/2017 Regular Agenda item # 4b
Page 6
2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner.
FINDINGS: As mentioned above, the property is unique in that it is much wider than it is long, and
the Applicant was not involved in the platting process of this property nor the adoption of the City’s
shoreland standards. The Applicant also was not involved in previous variance requests for the
property that were denied.
3) Character of Locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the
locality in which the property in question is located.
FINDINGS: The proposed addition is in place of an existing deck and only slightly increases the
footprint of the existing principal structure, including the existing deck, by 109 square feet.
Additionally, the proposed addition does not further encroach on the existing setback of the principal
structure from the OHWL of the property and has a setback from the OHWL similar to those of
adjacent principal structures.
4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to properties adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the
congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
FINDINGS. The proposed addition will not further encroach on the setback of the existing structure
from the OHWL and therefore will not further impair lake views of neighboring properties. It also
will not increase congestion of public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood. Adjacent properties, including the subject property, have been granted
similar variances and are setback a similar distance from the OHWL.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
OPTIONS:
The Planning Commission may:
Recommend approval of the variance requests, subject to conditions of approval as recommended
by Staff.
Amend conditions of approval as recommended by Staff and recommend approval of the variance
requests, subject to amended conditions of approval.
Recommend denial of the variance requests.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request by Scott and
Julie Drommerhausen of 9359 Jane Road North for a shoreland variance request from the minimum
structure setback from the Ordinary High Water Level and maximum impervious surface
standards for the property located at 9359 Jane Road North. Staff also recommends the following
conditions of approval:
Planning Commission
6/12/2017 Regular Agenda item # 4b
Page 7
1) The Applicant shall secure any required permits and plan approvals from the City and other
applicable jurisdictions.
The suggestion motion for taking action on the Staff recommendation is as follows:
“Move to recommend approval of the request for shoreland variances to allow expansion of a non-
conforming structure that does not meet setback requirements from the Ordinary High Water
Level and maximum impervious surface standards, subject to conditions of approval as
recommended by Staff”
ATTACHMENTS:
Application with narrative and survey
Minutes approving 1991 variance
MNDNR Agreement
Resolution 2001-043 denying variance request
J
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
L
a
k
e
J
a
n
e
S
1
M
i
n
n
e
t
o
n
k
a
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
5
5
3
4
5
P
h
o
n
e
(
9
5
2
)
4
7
4
-
7
9
6
4
1
7
9
1
7
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
7
W
e
b
:
w
w
w
.
a
d
v
s
u
r
.
c
o
m
S
H
E
E
T
1
O
F
1
40200 LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lots 9 and 10, BERSCHEN'S SHORES, Washington County, Minnesota.SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS:1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above.The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legalmatter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competentlegal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct and that any matters of record,such as easements, that you wish to be included on the survey have been shown.2. Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary for thesurvey.3. Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the corners of theproperty.4. Showing and tabulating impervious surface coverage of the lot for your review and forthe review of such governmental agencies that may have jurisdiction over theserequirements to verify they are correctly shown before proceeding with construction.5. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of thetopography of the site. We have also provided a benchmark for your use in determiningelevations for construction on this site. The elevations shown relate only to thebenchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one otherfeature shown on the survey when determining other elevations for use on this site orbefore beginning construction.6. Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, aretaken from the siding and or stucco of the building.7. While we show a proposed location for this home or addition, we are not as familiar withyour proposed plans as you, your architect, or the builder are. Review our proposedlocation of the improvements and proposed yard grades carefully to verify that theymatch your plans before construction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with localcodes and minimum requirements as the local building and zoning officials in thiscommunity are. Be sure to show this survey to said officials, or any other officials thatmay have jurisdiction over the proposed improvements and obtain their approvals beforebeginning construction or planning improvements to the property.8. While we show the building setback lines per the City of Lake Elmo web site, we suggestyou show this survey to the appropriate city officials to be sure that the setback lines areshown correctly. Do this BEFORE you use this survey to design anything for this site.STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:"●" Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted.EXISTING HARDCOVERHouse 1,953 Sq. Ft.Existing Decks 628 Sq. Ft.Shed 176 Sq. Ft.Concrete Surfaces 3,197 Sq. Ft.Ret. Walls 237 Sq. Ft.TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 6,191 Sq. Ft.AREA OF LOT TO OHW 23,025 Sq. Ft.PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 26.9%
#
L
I
C
E
N
S
E
N
O
.
D
A
T
E
M
A
Y
4
,
2
0
1
7
M
A
Y
4
,
2
0
1
7
#
5
2
7
1
6
J
o
s
h
u
a
S
.
R
i
n
k
e
M
A
Y
3
,
2
0
1
7
D
A
T
E
S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
:
S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
B
Y
A
D
V
A
N
C
E
D
S
U
R
V
E
Y
I
N
G
.
&
E
N
G
.
,
C
O
.
GRADING & EROSION CO
N
T
R
O
L
N
O
T
E
S
:
BEFORE DEMOLITION AN
D
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
B
E
G
I
N
•Install silt fence/bio roll ar
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
.
•Sediment control measure
s
m
u
s
t
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
u
n
t
i
l
f
i
n
a
l
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
and then shall be removed.
S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
m
a
y
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
t
o
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
s
h
o
r
t
t
e
r
m
construction activity but m
u
s
t
b
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
b
e
f
o
r
e
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
r
a
i
n
.
•A temporary rock construc
t
i
o
n
e
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
a
t
e
a
c
h
a
c
c
e
s
s
p
o
i
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
a 6 inch layer of 1 to 2 inc
h
r
o
c
k
e
x
t
e
n
d
i
n
g
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
5
0
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
be underlain with permeab
l
e
g
e
o
t
e
x
t
i
l
e
f
a
b
r
i
c
.
T
h
e
e
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
construction by top dressi
n
g
o
r
w
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
t
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
o
r
f
l
o
w
o
f
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
o
p
u
b
l
i
c
streets, walks or alleys. P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
e
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
n
o
t
s
o
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
l
o
s
e
d
b
y
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
to prevent unprotected exit
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
DURING CONSTRUCTION:•When dirt stockpiles have
b
e
e
n
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
,
a
d
o
u
b
l
e
r
o
w
o
f
s
i
l
t
f
e
n
c
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
escape of sediment laden r
u
n
o
f
f
a
n
d
i
f
t
h
e
p
i
l
e
s
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
a
r
e
t
o
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
for more than 14 days, the
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
e
e
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
e
e
d
Mixture 22-111 at 100 lb/a
c
r
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
e
d
b
y
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
s
p
r
a
y
m
u
l
c
h
.
•A dumpster shall be place
d
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
f
o
r
p
r
o
m
p
t
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
b
r
i
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
dumpsters shall be service
d
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
o
v
e
r
f
l
o
w
i
n
g
a
n
d
b
l
o
w
i
n
g
o
n
t
o
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
properties. Disposal of sol
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
P
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
Control Agency requireme
n
t
s
.
•A separate container shall
b
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
f
o
r
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
o
f
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
.
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
be disposed of in accordan
c
e
w
i
t
h
M
P
C
A
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
•Concrete truck washout sh
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
t
h
e
p
l
a
s
t
i
c
l
i
n
e
d
d
i
t
c
h
a
n
d
d
i
s
p
o
s
e
o
f
w
a
s
h
i
n
g
s
a
s
s
o
l
i
d
waste.•Sediment control devices s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
e
d
a
n
d
a
f
t
e
r
m
a
j
o
r
r
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
e
v
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
be cleaned and repaired as
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
•Streets and other public w
a
y
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
e
d
d
a
i
l
y
a
n
d
i
f
l
i
t
t
e
r
o
r
s
o
i
l
s
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
d
e
p
o
s
i
t
e
d
i
t
shall promptly be removed
.
•If necessary, vehicles, that
h
a
v
e
m
u
d
o
n
t
h
e
i
r
w
h
e
e
l
s
,
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
l
e
a
n
e
d
b
e
f
o
r
e
e
x
i
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
i
n
the rock entrance areas•Moisture shall be applied t
o
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
u
s
t
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
•Portable toilet facilities sh
a
l
l
b
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
o
n
s
i
t
e
f
o
r
u
s
e
b
y
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
maintained.•If it becomes necessary to
p
u
m
p
t
h
e
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
p
u
m
p
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
into the stockpile areas so
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
d
o
u
b
l
e
s
i
l
t
f
e
n
c
e
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
s
e
a
r
e
a
s
c
a
n
f
i
l
t
e
r
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
before it leaves the site.•Temporary erosion control
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
n
o
l
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
1
4
d
a
y
s
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
i
s
f
i
r
s
t
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
and shall consist of broadc
a
s
t
s
e
e
d
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
e
e
d
Mixture 22-111 at 100 lb/a
c
r
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
e
d
b
y
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
s
p
r
a
y
m
u
l
c
h
.
SITE WORK COMPLETION
:
•When final grading has be
e
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
b
u
t
b
e
f
o
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
s
e
e
d
o
r
s
o
d
a
n
“
a
s
b
u
i
l
t
”
survey shall be done per C
i
t
y
o
f
L
a
k
e
E
l
m
o
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
w
a
s
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
done.•When any remedial gradin
g
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
,
s
o
d
o
r
s
e
e
d
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
any erosion control blanke
t
s
f
o
r
s
t
e
e
p
a
r
e
a
s
.
•When turf is established, s
i
l
t
f
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
i
n
l
e
t
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
v
i
c
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
be disposed of and adjace
n
t
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
,
a
l
l
e
y
s
a
n
d
w
a
l
k
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
l
e
a
n
e
d
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
a
s
i
t
e
that is erosion resistant an
d
c
l
e
a
n
.
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
H
A
R
D
C
O
V
E
R
H
o
u
s
e
2
,
6
0
9
S
q
.
F
t
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
D
e
c
k
s
6
2
8
S
q
.
F
t
.
S
h
e
d
1
7
6
S
q
.
F
t
.
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
3
,
1
9
7
S
q
.
F
t
.
R
e
t
.
W
a
l
l
s
2
3
7
S
q
.
F
t
.
TO
T
A
L
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
H
A
R
D
C
O
V
E
R
6
,
8
4
7
S
q
.
F
t
.
AR
E
A
O
F
L
O
T
T
O
O
H
W
2
3
,
0
2
5
S
q
.
F
t
.
PER
C
E
N
T
A
G
E
O
F
H
A
R
D
C
O
V
E
R
T
O
L
O
T
2
9
.
7
%
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 6/12/2017
REGULAR
ITEM # 4c
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Emily Becker, City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Fence Ordinance
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
BACKGROUND:
The City’s Zoning Code prohibits solid wall fences over four feet in height on lots under ½ acre in size.
Any portion of a fence over four feet in height on such lots is to be at least 75% open to air and light, with
certain provisions. A solid wall fence six feet in height was erroneously permitted on a lot within the
Hunter’s Crossing development on a lot under half an acre in size. The fence permit application was not
signed by the Planning department, yet the permit was erroneously issued.
There are a number of issues with what transpired with this particular fence permit application, yet the
ordinance that a solid wall fence that is over four feet in height is prohibited except under certain
provisions still governs. The City has recently received a complaint by a property owner who has
observed the aforementioned fence, also owns a lot that is under one half acre in size within the Hunter’s
Crossing development, and believes that he should be able to have a solid wall fence six feet in height or
that the aforesaid fence should be required to be removed.
The City Council reviewed the City’s fence ordinance at its May 9, 2017 workshop and recommended
that the Planning Commission review Section 154.205 of the City’s Zoning Code.
ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing and make recommendation on Section
154.205: Fencing Regulations of the City’s Zoning Code.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Ordinance Review. The City’s fence ordinance has been reviewed multiple times over the years. In
2013, a number of amendments were made to this Section. These amendments were thoroughly vetted
over a number of meetings. While Council has asked that the Planning Commission review the City’s
Fencing Regulations, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission specifically focus on Subd. (E),
and specifically Subsection (3), which requires any portion of a fence over four feet in height on a yard
that is less than half an acre to be at least 75% open to air and light. The most recent version of this
section of the ordinance is below:
3. Residential Fence Design Requirements. Solid wall fences over four (4) feet in height shall be
prohibited on any lot under ½ acre (21,780 square feet) in size. Any portion of a fence over four (4)
feet on such lots shall be at least 75% open to light and air, except under one of the following
circumstances:
a. When a residential property abuts a district or use of a higher classification, and
specifically, when an A, RR, RS, RE, or LDR district abuts any other district or a single
family residential use abuts a multi-family residential use or a non-residential use.
b. When a property is a through lot and abuts a street that is a higher functional classification
than the street abutting the front yard of the property.
c. For screening of outdoor living space subject to the following criteria:
i. The area enclosed by outdoor extended living area fencing shall not exceed an
enclosed area of 500 square feet.
ii. A fence utilized to enclose an outdoor extended living area shall be extended to a
point not more than 6 inches from the principal structure at 1 fence termination point.
iii.A fence utilized to enclose an outdoor extended living area shall not extend into
side yard of a lot beyond the existing building line of the existing principal structure,
nor shall such fences be located in any side or front street yard.
d. For screening or privacy purposes when the lineal measurement of the fence does not
exceed one-fourth (¼) of the linear distance of the perimeter of a lot.
Recent Amendments to Fencing Regulations. The Council re-reviewed this requirement in September
and October of 2016 and made certain amendments to these provisions, striking the following. The Council
at that time was not amenable to removing the prohibition of solid wall fences over four feet in height on
lots less than half an acre in size entirely.
d. For screening or privacy purposes when the lineal measurement of the fence does not
exceed one-fourth (¼) of the linear distance of the perimeter of a lot. Such fences may only
be installed with the written consent of the adjacent property owner.
e. Under other circumstances when a solid fence is warranted due to safety, health, animal
containment. or a similar purposes subject to review and approval by the City Council and
with the written consent of the adjacent property owner.
Planning Analysis. When lot sizes decrease, so does privacy from abutting lots. With narrower lots and
houses closer together, there are not as many opportunities to provide adequate privacy and separation
between homes and yards through site design alone.
Fence Ordinance of Other Cities. Attached is a table that outlines fence ordinances of other cities. These
cities were selected, as they were the cities used in the market analysis of the Job Classification and
Compensation Study. This table shows that these cities generally allow a solid wall fence of up to six feet
in height in side and rear yards.
Current Code Limitations on Fences within Front and Side (Corner) Yards. The Fence Height and
Design Section currently already limits fences on any lot to be over 42 inches in height within front or side
(corner) yards and mandates that they be at least 50% open to air and light. This is consistent with other
cities’ requirements and promotes public safety so as not to limit sight lines for drivers and pedestrians on
streets. However, it should be considered that a rear yard may abut a public right-of-way, so it may be
beneficial to change the language aforementioned language to the following:
Fences within Front and Side (Corner) Yards. Any fence within a front or side (corner) yard
setback or any required setback from a public right-of-way may not exceed forty-two (42)
inches in height and must be 50% open to air and light.
Open Space Preservation. Staff understands that the intent of prohibiting solid wall fences over four
feet in height and limiting that portion of the fence over this height to be at least 75% open to air and
light is to preserve the City’s open space value, especially in the rural districts. Therefore, an
amendment option may be to allow solid wall fences over four feet in height on any residential
property within the City’s urban districts. An example of such an amendment is as follows:
3. Residential Fence Design Requirements. Solid wall fences over four (4) feet in height shall be
prohibited on any lot under ½ acre (21,780 square feet) in size in the rural zoning districts. Any
portion of a fence over four (4) feet on such lots shall be at least 75% open to light and air, except
under one of the following circumstances:[…]
Fences Within Shoreland Setbacks. Some cities prohibit or place height restrictions on fences
within the shoreland setback. The City used to prohibit fences within the structure setback from the
Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL), but this provision was struck some time ago. If the
Commission wishes to recommend that the solid wall fence restriction be placed only on properties
within the shoreland district, an example of such an amendment is as follows:
3. Residential Fence Design Requirements. Solid wall fences over four (4) feet in height shall be
prohibited on any lot under ½ acre (21,780 square feet) in size within the required structure setback
from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of a property within a shoreland district, as indicated in
Section 154.800. Any portion of a fence over four (4) feet on such lots shall be at least 75% open to
light and air, except under one of the following circumstances:[…]
Additional Amendment Regarding Fences on Property Lines. There is currently a provision that
requires that property owners wishing to erect a fence on a property line obtain permission from the adjacent
property owner. The purpose of this provision is that typically erecting a fence on a property line will
require access to a neighboring property for erection and maintenance of said fence. However, the provision
only specifies that this permission is required if the fence is erected directly on the property line. This could
mean that a fence that is erected even one inch off the property line would not require permission from the
adjacent property owner. However, erecting and maintaining a fence set such a distance from the
neighboring property line would still require access to the adjacent property. In order to provide clarification
on this, Staff is recommending that language be amended to mandate that fences erected up to one foot off
the property line require permission from the adjacent property owner.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
OPTIONS:
Recommend adoption of Ord. 08- , Staff-recommended amendments to Section 154.205 of the
Zoning Code.
Recommend amendments to Section 154.205 of the Zoning Code, prohibiting solid wall fences
over four feet in height only in the rural districts.
Recommend amendments to Section 154.205 of the Zoning Code, prohibiting solid wall fences
over four feet in height only within the required structure setback from the OHWL of a property
within a shoreland district.
Make additional amendments to Section 154.205 of the Zoning Code, including Staff-
recommended amendments.
Make additional amendments to Section 154.205 of the Zoning Code, not including Staff-
recommended amendments.
Not recommend making any amendments to Section 154.205 of the Zoning Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of Ord. 08- , amending Section
154.205 of the City’s Zoning Code. Staff’s recommended amendments can be recommended by the
following motion:
“Move to recommend adoption of Ord. 08- , amending Section 154.205: Fencing Regulations of the
City’s Zoning Code.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Ord. 08-
Fence Ordinance Comparison Table
1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 08-___
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 154.205 FENCING REGULATIONS OF THE
LAKE ELMO CITY CODE.
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code; Article VII: General Regulations; Section 154.205:
Fencing Regulations by amending the following:
§ 154.205 FENCING REGULATIONS.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide for the regulation of fences in the
City of Lake Elmo and to prevent fences from being erected that would be a hazard to the
public, an unreasonable interference with the uses and enjoyment of neighboring property
or are incompatible with existing uses and other zoning restrictions.
B. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall
have the meaning ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly
indicates a different meaning:
Permanent Fence. Fences that are installed in a fixed or enduring manner that are not
intended for a seasonal or temporary purpose.
Temporary Fence. Fences that are installed and removed on a seasonal basis, such as snow
fences, garden fences and seasonal recreational fences, such as hockey boards.
C. Permit Required.
1. Permanent Fence. No permanent fence shall be erected without first obtaining a
fence permit. Application shall be made to the Planning Director. The fee shall be
established by the City’s Fee Schedule. The Planning Director is authorized to
issue a fence permit if the application indicates that the fence will be in
compliance with this Ordinance. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall hear
and decide appeals when it is alleged that the Planning Director was in error. The
appeals shall follow the procedure outlined in §31.01.
2. Temporary Fence. Temporary fencing that complies with subsection (F) and all
other applicable provisions of this Ordinance shall be exempt from permit
requirements.
D. General Requirements. All fences erected in the City of Lake Elmo are subject to the
following requirements:
2
1. Maintenance. All fences shall be property maintained with respect to appearance
and safety. Fences that remain in a state of disrepair for an extended period of
time shall constitute a nuisance per §96.03.
2. Face of Fence. The finished side of any fence or wall must face abutting property
or street rights of way.
3. Fence Materials. Permitted fence materials shall be limited to brick, stone, wood,
wrought iron, vinyl, composite material, steel, aluminum, chain-link, and in cases of
temporary fencing only, materials that are consistent with temporary fencing as
regulated under subsection (F)
4. Traffic Obstruction. No fence or wall shall obstruct a motorist’s or a pedestrian’s
safe view from the driveway or street.
5. Location.
a. Fences may be installed on any portion of a lot subject to the height
restrictions of §154.205.E and may be installed along or within one foot
of property lines provided the adjacent property agrees, in writing, that
such fence may be erected on or within one foot (12 inches) of the
boundary lines of the respective properties. Any portion of the fence and
all footing material shall not encroach on the neighboring property.
b. All pertinent property pins shall be visible upon inspection for fences
installed within one foot (12 inches) of a property boundary.
c. In the case of a dispute, the City may require a survey to establish the
boundary line of a property.
6. Easement Encroachment. An easement encroachment agreement must be approved
by the Planning Director or his/her designee after review and approval
from the City Engineer or his/her designee, along with a fence permit, for any fence
that will be installed within a City easement.
7. Swimming Pools. All swimming pools shall be enclosed with required fencing per
§151.085.
E. Fence Height and Design
1. Fences within Front and Side (Corner) Yards. Any fence within a front or side
(corner) yard setback or any required setback from a public right-of-way may not
exceed forty-two (42) inches in height and must be 50% open to air and light.
2. Residential and Mixed-Use Districts. No fence shall exceed six feet (6’) in height,
and shall be subject to the design requirements of §154.205.E.3.
3. Residential Fence Design Requirements. Solid wall fences over four (4) feet in
height shall be prohibited on any lot under ½ acre (21,780 square feet) in size. Any
3
portion of a fence over four (4) feet on such lots shall be at least 75% open to light
and air, except under one of the following circumstances:
a. When a residential property abuts a district or use of a higher classification,
and specifically, when an A, RR, RS, RE, or LDR district abuts any other
district or a single family residential use abuts a multi-family residential use
or a non-residential use.
b. When a property is a through lot and abuts a street that is a higher
functional classification than the street abutting the front yard of the property.
c. For screening of outdoor living space subject to the following criteria:
i. The area enclosed by outdoor extended living area fencing shall not
exceed an enclosed area of 500 square feet.
ii. A fence utilized to enclose and outdoor living area shall be
extended to a point not more than 6 inches from the principal
structure at 1 fence termination point.
iii. A fence utilized to enclose an outdoor extended living area shall
not extend into side yard of a lot beyond the existing building line of
the existing principal structure, nor shall such fences be located in any
side or front street yard.
d. For screening or privacy purposes when the lineal measurement of the
fence does not exceed one-fourth (1/4) of the linear distance of the perimeter
of a lot.
4. 3. Commercial and Industrial Districts. No fence or wall shall exceed eight feet (8’)
in height. Fences that exceed eight feet (8’) in height require a conditional use permit.
F. Temporary Fences
1. Height and Performance. Temporary fences shall comply with the fence height
standards of subsection (E). Temporary fences shall be at least 40% open to air and
light. If unable to be at least 40% open to air and light, temporary fences shall not
exceed forty-two inches (42”) in height.
2. Duration and Limitation
a. No snow fence or posts shall be installed prior to October 1, and must be
removed prior to April 15.
b. Seasonal recreational fencing intended for winter sports, such as hockey or
broomball shall not be installed prior to October 1, and must be removed
prior to April 15.
4
3. Location. Snow fences shall be set back at least 50 feet from any south or east
property line, or such additional distance as may be required to prevent the
accumulation of snow on public streets or adjoining property, as determined by the
Public Works Director.
G. Prohibited Fencing. Barbed wire and electric fencing are prohibited in platted areas.
H. Agricultural Exemption. Fences constructed on parcels in excess of 5 acres for the keeping
of horses; and fences constructed on parcels in excess of 10 acres are specifically exempted
from the provisions of this Section. Any such agricultural fencing shall be at least 75% open
to air and light.
(Ord. 08-086, passed 7-16-2013; Am. Ord 08-140, passed 7-5-2016; Am. Ord. 08-154,
passed 10-4-2016
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo.
SECTION 43 Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08-___ was adopted on this ______ day of ___
2017, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
_________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
This Ordinance 08-____ was published on the ____ day of ___________________, 2017.
City 6 Foot Solid Wall Fence Allowed?
Ham Lake Yes, but not in front yard
Little Canada Yes, but not in front yard or in visibility triangle
Mounds View Yes (up to 8 feet), except within 30 feet of an intersection
Rogers Yes, but not in front or corner side yards
Victoria Yes, but not in front or corner side yards
Vadnais Heights Yes, but must meet accessory structure setback requirements if less than 25% open
Orono Yes, but not within shoreland setback or rear or side yard facing a street
Mound Yes, but not in the front or side corner yard
Mahtomedi Yes, but not in front yards
Albertville Yes, but not in front yards
Waconia Yes, but not in front yards