HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Packet; 07-09-18
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 July 9, 2018
at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. May 30, 2018
b. June 4, 2018
c. June 18, 2018
4. Public Hearings
a. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUESTS. A request by Verizon
Wireless, 10801 Bush Lake Road, Bloomington, MN 55438, for a conditional use permit for
a proposed 125-foot monopole telecommunications tower and nine foot lightning rod for a
total 134-foot above ground level tower and variances from the required maximum height
standards; setback; and expiration dates of permit, variances, and conditional use permit.
11351 Upper 33rd Street North PID #13.029.21.31.0018.
b. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT. A request by the City of Lake Elmo for a zoning text
amendment to add language which will further define and clarify Home Occupations as an
accessory use in the City.
c. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT. A request by the City of Lake Elmo for a zoning text
amendment to update and remove language for the City’s Environmental Performance
chapter. Updates will clarify the mitigation plan for tree removal as well as the removal of
language requiring the installation of screening measures for parking lots.
5. Business Items
a. FINAL PLAT PLANS. A request from Pulte Group, 7500 Flying Cloud Drive, Suite 670
for the second addition which consists of 29 single family lots.
6. Communications
a. City Council Updates – None
b. Staff Updates
a. Upcoming Meetings:
July 23, 2018
August 15, 2018
7. Adjourn
***Note: Every effort will be made to accommodate person or persons that need special considerations to attend this
meeting due to a health condition or disability. Please contact the Lake Elmo City Clerk if you are in need of special
accommodations.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-30-18
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of May 30, 2018
Chairman Dodson called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Pearce, Emerson, Johnson, Dodson, Lundquist, Dorschner,
Weeks, & Hartley
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Kreimer
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Becker and City Administrator Handt
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Dorschner/Lundquist, move to approve agenda as presented, Vote: 7-0, motion
carried unanimously.
Approve Minutes: May 7, 2018
M/S/P: Hartley/Lundquist, move to approve the May 7, 2018 minutes as amended,
Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing – Final Plat and Planned Unit development and PUD Plans
Becker started her presentation regarding the Final Plat and PUD Plans for OP4 Boulder
Ponds 3rd and final phase of the residential areas. This application consists of 33 single
family detached residential units and 1 outlot PID #04.029.21.32.0038. There are a few
changes from preliminary plat. Lot 17 is being platted as a larger lot with some of the
other lots being smaller. The intent is to come back at a future date to amend the PUD
and add additional lots where that larger lot is. That is not being considered at this
time.
There are other revisions since preliminary plat. One of those is that there are
decreased lot widths. There are 15 lots that do not meet the 60 ft. minimum lot width
and two that do not meet the rear yard requirement of 30 feet. There was no indication
of flexibility for minimum lot width with the resolution of preliminary plat approval.
There were many of the lots outside of 3rd addition that did not meet the minimum lot
width. The Developer will be required to submit a lot book to demonstrate that the
homes will work on the lots. The landscape plan was revised to remove some items
from outlot J which is actually in 2nd addition. The items that were removed were not a
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-30-18
condition of approval. The preliminary plat showed construction of turn lanes on
Hudson Blvd. A recommended condition of approval is that this be done before building
permits are issued for 3rd addition. The driveway for Lot 6 Block 2 must access Jade Trail
N. In regards to landscaping, the required number of trees is not met. There needs to
be additional buffering and screening north of trail.
Steph Griffin, Excelsior Group, stated that the plan with the larger lot is to come back to
add make that into 3 lots that would be consistent with the rest of the development. If
they cannot move forward or it isn’t approved, it would be sold as one larger lot.
Dorschner is wondering why those additional lots are not being platted now and why
they needed to make the width of the other lots narrower. Griffin stated that the
product that they are doing in 3rd addition is market driven and they are HOA
maintained yards. Griffin stated that did not bring those forward now as it is a timing
issue. The builder wants to move forward with the development, and those lots will
require a PUD Amendment which will take more time.
Public Hearing opened at 7:19 pm
No one spoke and there were no written comments.
Public Hearing closed at 7:20 pm
M/S/P: Hartley/Lundquist, move to recommend approval of the Boulder Ponds 3rd
Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan with 13 conditions of approval as drafted by Staff
based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing – Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update
Becker stated that there have been some significant changes since the last public
hearing. The Urban Reserve category has been removed and replaced with a
combination of Low, Medium and High Density Residential. There have been new
chapters distributed including chapter 7, the transportation plan, chapter 8 surface
water, Chapter 9 wastewater and chapter 10 the water plan. There were also updates
to the land use chapter, housing chapter and implementation chapter. The plan is due
to the Met Council by December 31, 2018. Before it is submitted, it needs to go through
adjacent jurisdictional review. It can take up to 6 months to get comments back so they
are looking for feedback to move this along to the City Council to get approval to submit
for adjacent jurisdictional review.
Jennifer Haskamp, Swanson Haskamp Consulting, will present to the Planning
Commission the changes from the last meeting. The new sections provided all have to
do with infrastructure. The water and transportation sections had to also be updated to
reflect the changes to the other chapters because all of the projections have to carry
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-30-18
through to all chapters. With the removal of the urban reserve, it was a bit of a
balancing act to make the infrastructure and the numbers work. Some of the density
needed to be removed from the Village area due to capacity issues. Taking out the
urban reserve brings the numbers to the 23,735 population that was in the 2030 plan
which is the maxed out number. In the rural area, there are about 500 households
planned for in this planning period. When the urban reserve came out, adjustments had
to be made in the staging plan to accommodate for the infrastructure.
Haskamp talked about the transportation plan. A number of maps demonstrated the
planned capacity, the future connections and the bikeway and trail system. Dodson
asked if there were action items that the City would be doing to accommodate future
transportation. Haskamp stated that the existing County Roads can support the planned
growth. That’s the East/West and North/South County roads. The City has planned for
5th Street which will be a primary connector road that will serve the planning area. The
implementation section talks about some of those improvements and how to
implement them. The 2 new major roadways will be 5th street and the Village Parkway.
In the surface water, water supply & wastewater chapters the projections must match
up with population, household and employment forecasts contained in the Land Use
Chapter. These chapters are the technical implementation of the land use and housing
chapters. Portions of the Local surface water plan were updated, but it needs to be fully
updated to comply with state statute. The wastewater is pretty straight forward and is
from a regional system perspective. The individual treatment systems also have to be
addressed in the plan as well as the community systems.
Dorschner asked about the staging areas because there would be infrastructure
required. Haskamp stated that if the City allows development to occur outside the
current staging area, it could impact land that is in the current stage. That can be a
problem when land owners in current stage feels they have certain entitlement.
Dodson asked why the density in the Village needed to be reduced and move to the
southern area. Haskamp stated it is a two part answer. The total unit count is the issue.
The Engineer had planned for a certain number of units in the village area and o nce the
urban reserve was added back in, the number was over what the engineer had planned
for in the Village.
Hartley is wondering if the analysis was done from the perspective that once the City
moves to stage 3, all of stage 2 is completed. Haskamp stated that it is her
understanding that the analysis was done with a unit cap in the Village Planning area
that did not equate to a number of units that were in the MUSA area. There were
parcels in the MUSA that did not have density assigned to them.
Pearce is wondering why there is a difference in density in the Village area vs. the I94
area. Haskamp stated that the 2030 plan had differences and they are carrying that
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-30-18
through. Becker stated that in addition there is limited capacity in the Village Area, so
there is already a unit capacity problem.
Dodson asked about the commercial properties and how those SAC units are counted.
Haskamp stated that since the MOU expired, those SAC units are irrelevant and only
count towards the required employment numbers.
Lundquist asked about the article in the source that talks about the Village area
consisting of new commercial and high density, and an overlay consisting of an Old
Village District, Elmo Station District, and Civic District. There is no longer a green belt
buffer required around the Village area as there was in the 2030 plan. Haskamp stated
it is in the balanced growth and development chapter. Lundquist feels strongly that the
green belt buffer should be kept. Haskamp stated that it is not to eliminate the green
belt, but to look at how to make connections. There is a proposed green network map
that shows where open space and trails should make connection that essentially
accomplishes what the buffer from the last plan set out to do. A dditionally, most of the
properties in which the buffer from the last plan was located have been developed.
Dodson asked how the City will implement the affordable housing requirement.
Haskamp stated that the zoning will accomplish that. High density, Village Mixed Use
and Mixed Use Commercial all comply with affordable housing.
Dorschner is wondering why RS is allowed to have 2 dwelling units in unsewered, but
not sewered. Becker stated that it is the same land use designation for sewered vs
unsewered, so the standards should be the same. Dorschner is also wondering about
the percentages in the south planning area it only comes to 52%. Haskamp stated that
when urban reserve was taken out, the percentages were probably not adjusted for.
Dodson asked about the airport safety zones and if it changes the density along those
areas. Haskamp stated that the runway protection zone does not encroach into the
Village Planning Area. The safety zones will likely have different criteria, but they have
not been established yet. Those areas are in the last stage of the planning area and
would be at 2035 plus, except for the commercial area.
Hartley is wondering if there are existing requirements for safety zones A & B. Haskamp
stated that she doesn’t think the City has an overlay district for that. Hartley is asking if
there are currently requirements for the safety zones that the MAC enforces. Haskamp
stated that there are things that are strongly encouraged, but not requirements.
There was some discussion about the wastewater services chapter and what type of
growth the current system will support.
Lundquist asked about the storm water runoff and flooding and there is no reference to
pollution. Should there be something in there regarding the PFC and pollution of Lake
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-30-18
Elmo Lake and the cleanup. Haskamp stated that they are required to list the impaired
waters. Haskamp stated that this document is supposed to serve more as an executive
summary vs work program. The surface water management plan serves as the
implementation. That plan needs to be updated, but it is a large document.
Becker stated that the water supply plan is basically the DNR permit. It was submitted
to the DNR in December 2017 with the population numbers from the 2015 system
statement. The DNR has not reviewed the application yet. The population projections
have been revised and it has been resubmitted to the DNR.
Public Hearing resumed at 8:34 pm
Jim Ogren, 11790 Little Bluestem Ct, is wondering how the determination was done to
decide what property would be low density and what property would be medium
density that was taken out of urban reserve. Ogren thinks that the higher densities
should be the ones closer to downtown.
Haskamp stated that there is a unit constraint in the Village Planning area. All of the
urban reserve parcels were given the low density designation with the exception of the
property that is along the CSAH 14 realignment. This was given the medium density
designation because it will be along a major roadway.
Stephanie Lorang, 9918 7th Street, is concerned about the new mixed use business park
designation, especially in regards to the land directly across from Savona. This was
previously guided as Urban Medium Density. Lorang is concerned because there is no
zoning for this new category and they don’t know what could be allowed there. The
density would change from 4-8 units per acre with UMD to 6-10 units per acre.
Becker stated that in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the parcel referenced was actually
guided as mixed use. That parcel is a little different and per the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan could develop as medium density or if it developed with adjoining parcels could
develop as straight commercial. The project that was referenced, did not need a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment because of that provision. Haskamp stated that at the
6-10 unit per acre density, you would not end up with a multi-story apartment building.
The unit count would not work. It is more likely to be townhomes or row homes.
Ann Bucheck, 2301 Legion Ave, is wondering about the 35 foot height restriction and if
that is still in place. Bucheck would like to encourage the City to require the buffering in
the Village Planning area. Bucheck is wondering why the center of the Village area has
changed from a combination of residential and commercial to just commercial.
Haskamp stated that it is guided for Village Mixed Use which is a combination of
residential and commercial which is what it was guided in the 2030 plan. Bucheck is
encouraging the City to not include truck terminals in the business park. Bucheck
would like to see something included about maintaining the existing farms, providing a
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-30-18
healthy water supply, not draining the aquafers, and use of private sewer systems.
Bucheck is wondering if there should be talk about a historic district as there are a
number of buildings and homes that have been here for many years. Bucheck would
strongly encourage the City to eliminate Tax Increment Financing. Bucheck would like
to see the rate and volume standards restored to what they were in the past because
we will have problems with this much development.
Jackie McNamara, 10321 10th Street, is glad that the reserve property designation was
eliminated. McNamara would like clarification for her farm and the system capacity.
She would like to know if a developer is interested in the property if sewer could be
brought in from one direction or the other. Handt stated that the sewer is a long
distance from this property and the developer would need to pay to have it brought to
the property. Everything to the West of Keats is on one interceptor, and everything to
the East of Keats is on the other interceptor. The Lift station for the area East of Keats is
at Lake Elmo Ave and Hudson. There is a trunk service line that runs up Lake Elmo Ave
to the Village, but that is not designed to serve other areas.
David Screaton, 711 Manning Ave, owns the property that has the possible airport
impact. He would like to see the map updated to show the existing and proposed
runway.
Public Hearing closed at 9:01 pm
Dodson is thinking that the Planning Commission should have a resolution for each
chapter that is voted on and any concerns can be listed in the minutes.
M/S/P: Dodson/Lundquist, move to accept Chapter 1 of the Comprehensive Plan as
presented and recommend for City Council approval, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
M/S/P: Dorschner/Johnson, move to accept Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan as
presented and recommend for City Council approval, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
M/S/F: Lundquist/Johnson, move to amend Chapter 3 to include a greenbelt buffer
around the Village to still be denoted on the map, Vote: 1-6, motion failed.
Dorschner feels there is a lot of buffers and green built in with the trails. Dorschner
doesn’t want to be handcuffed by putting a boundary around a certain area when the
City doesn’t know how that area will develop. Johnson doesn’t feel that having that
specifically on the map would be helpful. Hartley feels that if it is applied inside the
MUSA, it forces more density somewhere else. Weeks stated that the greenbelt was
from the previous comprehensive plan and was not very well defined.
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-30-18
M/S/F: Pearce/Lundquist, move to amend Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan to
change the guidance of the property North of 5th Street and East of Keats to Medium
Density Residential, Vote: 2-5, motion failed.
Dorschner does not support the motion because he does not feel it will be harmful to
the surrounding property owners. It is across a main arterial street, and the same
concerns were raised by this development on the other side with an apartment building.
The numbers have to be met, and if this property is changed, the density will need to be
moved. Weeks stated that the sewered areas need to be developed with densities to
pay for the infrastructure. The mixed use is to help invite commercial and allow some
flexibility. Handt pointed out that the line for 5th Street is on the map arbitrarily. The
City will not know exactly where 5th Street will be built until the development comes
through.
M/S/P: Dodson/Dorschner, move to amend Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan to
include both proposed and existing flyways on the map, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
M/S/P: Dorschner/Johnson, move to accept Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan as
amended and recommend for City Council approval, Vote: 6-1, motion carried with
Lundquist voting nay. Lundquist would like the 2 amendments included and for the
City Council to be aware of them.
M/S/P: Dorschner/Johnson, move to approve Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan as
presented and recommend for City Council approval, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
M/S/P: Hartley/Dodson, move to approve Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan as
presented and recommend for City Council approval, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
M/S/P: Lundquist/Dorschner, move to approve Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan as
presented and recommend for City Council approval, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
M/S/P: Lundquist/Hartley, move to approve Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan as
presented and recommend for City Council approval, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
M/S/P: Dorschner/Lundquist, move to approve Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan as
presented and recommend for City Council approval, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
8
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-30-18
M/S/P: Lundquist/Dorschner, move to approve Chapter 9 of the Comprehensive Plan as
presented and recommend for City Council approval, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
M/S/P: Lundquist/Dorschner, move to approve Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan
as presented and recommend for City Council approval, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
M/S/P: Dodson/Hartley, move to change the term ISSTS to SSTS for the community
septics and would like it spelled out vs an acronym, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
M/S/P: Johnson/Dodson, move to conduct an ongoing review of chapter 150 in light of
the recent water issues, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Dorschner/Hartley, move to approve Chapter 11 of the Comprehensive Plan as
amended and recommend for City Council approval, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
M/S/P: Hartley/Dodson, move to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan as
amended and recommend for City Council approval for adjacent jurisdictional review,
Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
The Planning Commission thanked the consultant for all of their time to come up with a
plan that is very well done.
Business Item – Self Storage facility discussion
Becker started her presentation regarding self-service storage. Should self-service
storage be removed as an allowed use within the Business Park and Commercial Zoning
districts? With the 2040 draft plan, this use would not be consistent. It would not
provide the number of jobs necessary per acre. It might be more appropriate for the
Mixed Use Commercial.
Dorschner is concerned that with the existing self-storage business, how many more we
need. This use takes up a lot of land for the tax base that we get out of it. Hartley
stated that as a City, we want to maximize the value of our commercial land. Johnson
stated that the storage facilities typically are interim uses that turn into something else
down the road of more value.
Weeks is wondering if it is taken out of that part of the code and the existing ones
become non-conforming can they come in for a variance for expansion. Becker stated
that they would not be allowed to expand because you cannot do a use variance. They
9
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-30-18
have, however, indicated with the site plan submitted with their Conditional Use Permit,
where future buildings could be located. They would be allowed to expand per this site
plan.
Dorschner stated that self-service storage facilities do not employ many people, so to
meet employment numbers and bring vitality to Lake Elmo, this use is not the way to do
it.
Dodson is leaning towards adding additional standards. Becker does not understand
how adding standards would address the concerns regarding low tax base and low
employment rates.
Weeks feels that the Comprehensive Plan is trying to help the City in terms of tax base
and employment, which would be a good thing for the City. Weeks feels that if it is
taken out of the code, they could look at possibly adding to the mixed use possibly in a
smaller area, or not at all. Johnson is concerned about not allo wing certain types of
businesses based on certain criteria.
City Council Updates – May 15, 2018 Meeting
a. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Extension Request
b. Golf Cart Ordinance – passed
c. Accessory Structure update – passed
d. Variance 9369 Jane Road – passed
e. Easton Village 4th Final Plat and Developer Agreement - passed
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
f. June 4, 2018
g. June 18, 2018
Meeting adjourned at 10:09 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-4-18
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of June 4, 2018
Chairman Dodson called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Emerson, Kreimer, Dodson, Lundquist, Weeks, & Hartley
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Pearce, Dorschner & Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Becker
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Lundquist/Hartley, move to approve agenda as presented, Vote: 6-0, motion
carried unanimously.
Public Hearing – Final Plat and Planned Unit development PUD Plans and Easement
Vacation
Becker started her presentation regarding the final plat and final PUD plans for the
Royal Golf 2nd addition. This addition is for 64 residential lots, including 22 traditional
single family detached lots and 38 villa lots for detached single family townhomes. One
change from the preliminary plat is that some of the original single family lots are being
changed to villa lots and generally the neighbors are in favor of this change.
Becker went through some of the points of this development including that the density
is consistent with the preliminary plat. The outlots that will be city owned must be
dedicated to the City at the time of the plat being recorded. The developer is reducing
the number of trees being planted and has agreed to pay the City $500 of parkland
dedication for each required tree not planted. Most of the conditions of approval a re
conditions from preliminary plat not yet met. There is also a request for an easement
vacation, and new easements will be put in place.
Weeks asked about the restrictive covenant on outlot B. Becker stated that is a city
owned outlot and it is just to ensure there is no grading or anything that disturbs the
natural vegetation.
Hartley asked if there is a conservation easement, does the City understand that to
protect those easements, they will need to be monitored at least once a year. Becker
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-4-18
clarified that they are allowed to place a restrictive covenant as approved by the City; it
does not necessarily have to be a conservation easement.
Dodson asked about the size of the Villa lots and if they could go smaller to get density
numbers up. Becker stated that is as small as they can go per the approved preliminary
plan. Weeks asked about the comment that there was significant testimony that 20 th
Street is already dangerous without additional traffic. Weeks stated that when she
drives that road it is pretty quiet. Lundquist stated that part of the issue is that there is
no shoulder, so walking and biking is dangerous.
Hartley is wondering if condition of approval 19 and 26 are redundant. Becker stated
that this is the resolution that was already passed and is just being stated what the
progress on the preliminary conditions are.
Dodson asked about the HOA and sub HOA’s. He is concerned if separate villas have
their own HOA boards. Becker doesn’t think that is something the city can govern.
Dodson asked the developer about the HOA’s. Jim Felton, Royal Golf, stated that it is
structured that way because they are different types of products with different levels of
maintenance and they are separated by streets. Felton stated that they are already in
place for phase I. The HOA’s will be added to with each phase.
Public Hearing opened at 7:27 pm
No one spoke and there were no written comments.
Public Hearing closed at 7:28 pm
Lundquist thinks the development is phenomenal and the plan looks on target.
Hartley stated that his concern is the swapping out of one density of housing for
another. Becker stated that the preliminary plans have been revised to reflect the
change. Weeks stated that the villa product might be selling better.
M/S/P: Lundquist/Kreimer, move to recommend approval of the Royal Golf Club at Lake
Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and PUD Plans based on the findings of fact and conditions
outlined in the staff report, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Lundquist/KreImer, move to recommend approval of the easement vacation
request to vacate an existing drainage and utility easements over Outlots R, P and O,
subject to condition of approval, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment, Preliminary and Final Plat, Zoning Map
Amendment and Conditional Use Permit
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-4-18
Becker stated that at the request of the applicant, the proposed bus terminal is being
tabled, but the public hearing should be opened and not closed. The applicant plans to
come back to the June 18th meeting.
Public Hearing opened at 7:35 pm
M/S/P: Kreimer/Dodson, move to keep the public hearing for the bus terminal open
until the June 18th meeting, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing – Preliminary Plat and Zoning Map Amendment
Becker started her presentation regarding the Preliminary Plat and Zoning Map
Amendment for a ten unit single family detached home development to be called
Wyndham Village as well as a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property from
Rural Single Family Residential to Urban Low Density Residential. The existing home
that is currently on the site will move to a new location and 9 new single family lots will
be created. The biggest concern with the previous sketch plan was the lack of usable
back yards on some of the lots with the 66 foot NSP easement that runs in the back of
some lots. This reduced the number of lots on the sketch plan from 13 to 10 lots. This
reduced the density from 2.17 to 1.67 units per acre.
The property is located in the greenbelt corridor. There is no specific width, but the
map would indicate approximately a 200 foot width. The width was increased from 40
to 80 feet from the previous sketch plan and it is close to the buffer for Northport. The
landscape plan has not been approved yet, but it is a condition of approval that the
landscape plan be approved before the recording of final plat. Staff is recommending
that park dedication be met with fees. There is a trail that will connect that the
Northport development. The engineer has recommended a number of issues including
that the amount of ROW being dedicated be expanded and that written permission be
obtained for the stormwater discharge going to adjacent property. MAC is
recommending that a disclosure statement be given to new home buyers about
potential noise and location to the airport.
Generally the lot dimensions and bulk requirements are met with the exception of one
lot that does not meet the 70 foot width requirement for this zone. It is a
recommended condition of approval that the lot meet the minimum requirement.
There is a Zoning Map Amendment requested to rezone the property from RS to Village
Low Density. The surrounding properties are low density residential, with the minimum
density requirements of 2-4 units per acre. This property would not meet the density
requirements for this zone with the decreased densities so Staff is recommending that
this property be rezoned to V-LDR.
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-4-18
Kreimer is wondering if staff has discussed the lot width for that one lot. He is ok with it
being smaller. Becker stated that the developer was ok with it being a condition of
approval. If they don’t make the change, it would be a platting variance.
Hartley asked about the MAC’s letter requiring keeping the water retention ponds free
of water fowl. If this is shared with Northport, that becomes very difficult and it is also
owned by the City. This sounds like the City would be on the hook to chase the geese
out of there. Becker stated that it is a recommendation, not a requirement and it is the
same with Northport and Easton Village. Dodson stated that he remembers that the
ponds are designed with steep slopes to discourage water fowl. The open fields would
have attracted even more water fowl than the ponds would.
Public Hearing opened at 7:50 pm
Kevin Schroepfer, 11520 30th Street, owns property directly to the west of this
development. Schroepfer provided information from previous meetings. Schroepfer is
wondering why the applicant is requesting a different zone tonight than the one that
was proposed with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Becker stated they are
proposed to be rezoned to VLDR. There was a greenbelt buffer that was shown on the
Southern portion of this development. The February 20 th City Council meeting packet
had a recommended condition of approval of having a green belt on the Southern
portion of this parcel. The buffer was determined to be 80 feet. If you look at the
preliminary plat, the green belt buffer does not appear to be included in lot #7 and
would need to be added. Becker stated that if the City Council wants to see the buffer
included on lot #7, they can make that a condition of approval. The Comprehensive
Plan shows all of lot #7 being a Village green space corridor. There is no buffer on the
West Side or North Side of lot #7. Should these areas have buffers since it is the
perimeter of the proposed development? For the lots that abut the greenway, there
should be a 20 foot setback. Schroepfer would like disclosure statements to lots 8, 9
and 10 regarding the NSP easement and the restrictions that creates for those lots.
Schroepfer stated that the driveway for lot 7 running across the gas easement could
create a problem in the future with that lot not having access to their property if that
needs to be dug up.
Rich Coppersmith, 3075 Lisbon Ave N, is wondering if this development is approved, will
he also be able to develop his property. Becker stated that all property owners have the
right to apply to develop their property under the guidelines of the City. Dodson stated
that for 1 acre, it is typically not worth the expense because there are fees associated
with developing. Becker stated that she would have to review the property more
closely to determine what the density requirements would be and if it would meet all
City requirements.
Public Hearing closed at 8:06 pm
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-4-18
Emerson asked about the 20 foot setbacks to the green belt. Becker stated that is
referencing the Urban districts that is different than Village Low Density.
Dodson is wondering how the sewer connection will be done with that gas line
easement. Becker stated that is why a condition is that written permission be granted
for any utilities across that. Weeks stated that this seems consistent with nearby
development. Dodson stated that there are many challenges with this property and
they have done a good job accommodating those challenges.
M/S/P: Kreimer/Hartley, move to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Map
Amendment to rezone 11580 30th Street North from Rural Single Family to Village Urban
Low Density Residential, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Kreimer/Hartley, move to recommend approval of the Wyndham Village
Preliminary Plat subject to staff recommended findings and conditions of approval,
Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
City Council Updates – None
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. June 18, 2018
b. July 9, 2018
Meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-18-18
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of June 18, 2018
Chairman Dorschner called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission
at 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Emerson, Pearce, Dorschner, Weeks, & Hartley
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Kreimer, Dodson, Lundquist & Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Becker & City Administrator Handt
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Weeks/Hartley, move to approve agenda as presented, Vote: 5-0, motion
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Emerson joined the audience as this topic could be considered a conflict
of interest.
Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment, Preliminary and Final Plat, Zoning Map
Amendment and Conditional Use Permit
Becker started her presentation regarding the ZMA, Preliminary and Final Plat, Bus
Terminal Ordinance ZTA and Conditional Use Permit application from Stillwater Area
Schools. This application is to rezone a portion of the subject property to Business Park,
Preliminary and Final Plat to subdivide the property located at 11530 Hudson Blvd, ZTA
to allow “bus terminal” as a conditionally permitted principal use within Business Park
Zoning district and a conditional use permit to operate a school district transportation
center on the subject property.
The first thing that needs to be considered is the zoning map amendment. The
preliminary and final plat application cannot be approved without that. The request is
to change the zoning from rural development transitional to Business Park for 11 acres
of the subject property.
This property is in the MUSA area and the applicant needs to provide a plan of how to
bring sewer to the site. The applicant would be responsible to bring sewer and water to
the site at their cost and there might be easements that would need to be obtained.
The application did not address the extension of utilities.
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-18-18
The Zoning Text Amendment request is to allow “bus terminals” as a conditionally
permitted principal use on properties zoned Business Park. If approved, the applicant
would seek a conditional use permit to authorize a permanent bus terminal on the
subject property. Currently local transit is not an allowed use in any of the zoning
districts. In determining if this use should be added in the busines s park zoning, we
would look to the Comprehensive Plan.
While this use would create approximately 200 jobs on the 11 acres, the jobs being
created don’t really fit in the category of jobs that this land use category is intended to
have. This use does not fit the category of “high quality site and building architectural
design”. Additionally it would not add to increased revenues for the community as it
would be tax exempt. The use does not necessarily provide a harmonious transition to
residential development as most business activities are conducted outside and there is a
significant amount of traffic at peak times.
While not recommended by staff, if this application was permitted to move forward, the
City would want to create standards. If this use is allowed to move forward, staff is
recommending that standards be implemented to limit the use to this site only.
There is an 8000 gallon fuel tank to be relocated to the existing facility. Bulk storage
over 2000 gallons may be approved by Council if not detrimental to health safety and
general welfare. There are some zoning requirements specific to this and MPCA
requirements. The bus washing area will need expected sewer capacity for wastewater.
Becker went through the recommended findings for denial. Staff is recommending
denial based on these findings. Becker did not go through the findings for approval but
stated if the Planning Commission does recommend approval, there should be
conditions of approval.
Hartley asked where the location of the sewer is that would need to be run to the
property. Becker showed the maps that depict the locations.
Brian Zeller, Greystone Commercial, representing Terry Emerson, has been working to
find a developer interested in the whole 70 acre parcel for 4 years. When they first
starting looking, this parcel was not considered commercial. They have pre -paid over
$500,000 to bring water to the site. This development would also build a new frontage
road to a future controlled intersection.
Kristin Hoeheisel, Stillwater School District, stated that with the growth in Lake Elmo,
there will be many more students to provide for. The school district did previously
occupy this site and they were a good neighbor. The School district wants to work
collaboratively with the community.
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-18-18
Dorschner is wondering why the school district is specifically interested in this site vs.
expanding in some other location like Oak Park Heights. Hoeheisel stated that Stillwater
School District serves approximately 150 square miles and there central location is off of
I94. This property, location and building is a good fit for the school district.
Hartley clarified that it is not gasoline stored on site but diesel fuel. This is significant
because gasoline is more dangerous than diesel fuel.
Public Hearing opened at 7:45 pm
No one spoke and there were no written comments.
Public Hearing closed at 7:46 pm
M/S/P: Weeks/Hartley, move to recommend approval of the request from Stillwater
Area Public Schools for a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone Lot 1 Block1, Four Corners
from Rural Development Transitional to Business Park, Vote: 4-0, motion carried
unanimously.
M/S/P: Weeks/Hartley, move to recommend approval of the request from Terry
Emerson for the Four Corners preliminary and final plat to subdivide the property
located at 11530 Hudson Blvd N in to Lot 1, Block 1, Four Corners, along with three
separate outlots with the recommended conditions from staff, Vote: 4-0, motion
carried unanimously.
Weeks feels that even though 11 acres will become tax exempt, she feels there is a
greater benefit to the City and the area. Weeks stated that this would bring municipal
services to this area at no cost to the City which might encourage more businesses to
come to the area. Weeks stated that trips per day in comparison, Vali Hi drive -in has
800 spots. Weeks feels that the impact of the traffic for this area seems pretty small.
Hartley stated that there may come a time where the value of the land increa ses and
this usage no longer fits. This is a relatively low impact installation that could be torn
down and used for something else in the future. Hartley’s only reservation is that
governmental agencies do not respond to market changes as much as privat e entities.
Pearce feels the benefits outweigh the negatives. Dorschner also feels there is a lot of
benefit and the infrastructure will be put in place which will make things move faster.
Dorschner feels that in the scheme of things, 11 acres is not a lot of land.
M/S/P: Weeks/Pearce, move to recommend approval of the request from Stillwater
Area Public Schools for a Zoning Text Amendment to allow a local transit as a
conditional use within the Business Park zoning district with the standards as outlined in
the staff report, Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously.
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-18-18
Hartley wants the definition to distinguish that this use is not for pickup or drop off of
passengers. Dorschner feels that the standards really limit where the use would go
anyway. Becker stated that it something that would go in the standards and the public
hearing notice did not specify looking at the definition. Hartley stated that either place
would be appropriate as long as it is included. Weeks thinks it is already covered with
the school district language.
M/S/P: Weeks/Hartley, move to recommend approval of the request from Stillwater
Area Public Schools for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a school district transportation
center at the property located at Lot 1, Block 1, Four Corners with the conditions as
recommended by Staff, Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously.
There was discussion of if the parking lot should be paved or gravel. Becker stated that
it is a standard of the zoning code that any parking lot be paved. The school district can
ask for a variance from that standard if they wish. That request would require a
separate application and public hearing.
Public Hearing – Variance Request 8990 Lake Jane Trail
Becker stated that the applicant has requested that this item be tabled.
Public Hearing opened at 8:27 pm
No one spoke and there were no written comments.
Public Hearing closed at 8:27 pm
Public Hearing – General Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan – Camping
World and Gander Outdoors
Becker stated that the applicant has requested that this item be tabled.
Public Hearing opened at 8:28 pm
No one spoke and there were no written comments.
Public Hearing closed at 8:28 pm
M/S/P: Hartley/Weeks, move to table this item until a complete application has been
received, Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing – General Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan 11530
Hudson Blvd
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-18-18
Becker started her presentation regarding a request from Terry Emerson for a General
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a 15.77 acre commercial
development which includes a park and ride and commercial development in the
southeast corner of 11530 Hudson Blvd. The zoning would be both commercial and
convenience commercial. The applicant has requested a PUD because it is proposing to
have more than one building on one lot.
The applicant is asking to construct a park and ride facility on outlot C along with a
commercial development to the North on outlot B. While a park and ride is not a
commercial use, with this use, there is potential to attract more businesses. The park
and ride proposes 550 parking spots, including 12 handicap parking sp aces, electric
charging stations, bike racks, overhead canopy and a restroom building. This property is
in the MUSA and therefore municipal services would be required.
Generally this application seems to be consistent with the commercial and convenience
commercial zoning districts. There is not enough information provided to determine a
complete analysis if the requirements have been met. One thing that is obvious is that
the park and ride parcel would be over on impervious surface of 60% maximum. There
is a 20% open space requirement, but the applicant can come back and demonstrate
what amenities are being provided in exchange for the flexibility of the plan.
This development will change the alignment of Hudson Blvd which is desirable by the
City. An easement will need to be obtained from the North property owner as the
realignment at Manning extends past the property line. There are 3 access points, with
one being shared which will need to change to a right-in/right-out and center median as
well as turn lanes. Water is available at Hunter’s Crossing, but easements will need to
be obtained across adjacent properties.
Pearce is wondering why no trail or pedestrian access is required. Becker stated that
the engineer has required one to the North. Pearce is wondering if the stoplight would
be part of this development. Becker stated that this development might trigger the
traffic light. Handt stated that if it was determined that this development triggered a
signal light, the developer would pay for it. Hartley is wondering if because this is a
PUD, a lot of this is negotiated as part of the developer agreement. Becker stated that it
is negotiated up front as conditions of approval. Dorschner is wondering if
infrastructure including the road realignment could be considered an amenity. Becker
stated that those things are a requirement of any development, so that is not unique.
Hartley would argue that the road realignment would be an amenity. Handt stated that
it is standard practice to require developers to put the road where they need to be.
Brian Zeller, Greystone Commercial, representing Terry Emerson, stated that it is fully
anticipated by the property owner that the stoplight will be needed, but it is at least 2
years out. Zeller would argue that anyone that benefits, should share the cost.
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-18-18
M/S/P: Hartley/Weeks, move to recommend approval of the Four Corners 2nd addition
PUD Concept Plan as requested by Terry Emerson for the southwest corner of 11530
Hudson Boulevard with recommended conditions of approval, Vote: 4-0, motion carried
unanimously.
There was some discussion of the cost share of the traffic light and how that would
work. It would be the expectation of the city that those be paid for by the developer.
Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – remove self-storage facilities
This item is proposing the removal of self-storage facilities as an allowed use within the
Commercial and Business Park zoning districts.
Public Hearing opened at 9:05 pm
No one spoke and there were no written comments.
Public Hearing closed at 9:05 pm
M/S/P: Weeks/Hartley, move to recommend removal of self-storage facilities as an
allowed use within the Commercial and Business Park zoning Districts , Vote: 4-0, motion
carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Weeks/, move to reconsider the approval for the PUD Concept Plan as requested
by Terry Emerson so that the public hearing can be held, Vote: 4-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Public Hearing opened at 9:09 pm
No one spoke and there were no written comments.
Public Hearing closed at 9:09 pm
M/S/P: Weeks/Hartley, move to recommend approval of the Four Corners 2nd addition
PUD Concept Plan as requested by Terry Emerson for the southwest corner of 11530
Hudson Boulevard with recommended conditions of approval, Vote: 4-0, motion carried
unanimously.
City Council Updates – None
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-18-18
a. July 9, 2018
b. July 23, 2018
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant