HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-99 CCMLAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
APRIL 21, 1999
Mayor Hunt opened up the workshop on the Open Space Preservation Ordinance at 5:00 p.m. in the
Council chambers. PRESENT: CITY COUNCIL: Siedow, Dunn, Hunt, Armstrong, DeLapp, and City
Planner Dillerud. PLANNING COMMISSION: Helwig, Sedro. DEVELOPERS WITH ACTIVE
DEVELOPMENTS: Terry Emerson, Bob Engstrom, Tim Freeman, Will Zintl
The Council received memos on amendments to the OP Ordinance from Robert Engstrom Companies and
Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Asssoc.
GOALS FOR OP AMENDMENTS:
Open Space vs. open space (preserved open space)
Density — Are we getting too much?
Preservation of Park Dedication Policy vs. Open Space
Consistency with changes from zoning to CUP Process
Resolving streetscape/street section issues
Buffer what from what?
Viable Open Space
Density Bonuses — What really works for the City?
(OP easement to qualified land trust)
Village Greens
Alternative Housing styles
The Council made the following comments:
Council member Dunn voiced her concern on being sensitive to the people's rights already living next to
the proposed open space developments. She has a problem with some of the streets being too narrow and
concerned with safety issues. She is not in favor of 30' street width as in Foxfire. The houses are too close
together. The definitions need to be changed for duplexes, townhouses and house and make it clear and
easy to understand by the Council and developers.
Council member DeLapp does not want OP more intense of an impact for neighbors than RE. Areas kept
open are not necessarily contiguous in ways that add to their viability for enhancement. He liked the
concept of a townhouse as a single family attached dwelling. In regard to the Village Commission's Plan,
he illustrated how townhouses could be put in the core area as a lifestyle choice. For example the Shiltgen
property, assume 8 per 20 density inside the greenbelt would be 218 units.
Planner Dillerud drew on the board an illustration of a 200' buffer. If a 40-acre piece is unplatted, no buffer
is required. What are you buffering from? A guy that is one -quarter of a mile away? Council member
Siedow stated I could buy a 40-acre parcel and put a house on the lot line. If you want that 200 acres next
to you to remain a cornfield, then you should buy it. This is what we saw with the Zintl project. He is in
favor of OP zoning. If we don't do something with the land now, Oak Park Heights will.
Mayor Hunt liked the idea of preserving Open Space permanently. Need better standards on how OP lines
up between developments. He is a proponent of the wetland treatment system.
Council member Armstrong understood the goal of open space is to preserve green areas. She continued
that one-third acre, one -quarter acre lots that cannot sustain a septic system is a big mistake for the City; the
school districts are not prepared for this; that OP is too much, too fast; that streets are too narrow that
results in delivery trucks getting stuck, and she would like to go slower with this. Wetland treatment
systems are experimental, and we should wait about five years to see how the systems work. She also
stated that two single-family homes with an attached wall are absurd because we are ending tip with lots
that are too small. Lake Elmo is an unsewered community and should be able to sustain itself. Townhouses
are inappropriate in a rural area. The Old Village is very condensed now, and some houses have septic
problems.
City Planner Dillerud asked the Council to review what the Planning Commission has added.
Subd. 7 Development Standards: Insert "Planning Commission review"
Bob Engstrom pointed out that the City Administrator has stated before that an OP development could be
done with a structured PUD ordinance. This would give the developer more flexibility to do developments,
be more creative, and get away from surveyor plats. DeLapp responded that we had a PUD ordinance
under the disguise of the automatic variance process. If we take out the four -fifths OP variance process, we
have to go with the PUD to make up for the deficiencies. Planner Dillerud suggested we take the four -fifths
OP variance process out because it has brought some unfair treatment from project to project in the eyes of
the Planning Commission.
A. Land Area: Dillerud asked how should we define the wetlands? There are the DNR protected wetlands
and the WCA wetlands (inundated with water for one day).
2. Parks - Preservation of Park Dedication policy versus Open Space. Dillerud explained the OP Ordinance
is drafted and applied in every project as a percentage taken on a percentage. Park dedication is a function
of the subdivision ordinance, not the zoning ordinance. It can be applied to OP projects regardless of the
open space aspects of it. If this isn't done, we should change the park plan in terms of area, or money to
execute development in the park. The Park ordinance permits taking land or cash. The Park Commission
came to the conclusion not to take land that doesn't show in the park plan. They will accept cash from here
on out. The ordinance is modified to make that distinction. The Park director decides what the facilities are
in the park.
Tim Freeman pointed out that at the last meeting the Council decided that the park plan was part of the
open space. He said that one of the things we look at is the natural features and the goals in the comp plan
that created the OP district. Regulations in the ordinance create difficulties and take away the flexibility to
create a nice project. Keep the goals for OP in the Comp Plan.
Dillerud: OP goals are already in Comp Plan. Sometimes regulations in ordinance create difficulties and
prevent a nice project. CUP and proper text in comp plan is the direction needed. What developer proposes
isn't in the comp plan will not get a CUP.
K. Streets: Dillerud: What should be the street surface and width? Factors include how to handle on street
parking problem, and difficulty created when the wind blows snow on the streets. This subject needs to be
addressed when we talk street width, in relationship to curbing, storm water needed, asphalt curbing
snowplow mowing it down.
E. Buffer Zones: Tim Freeman stated he couldn't do anything on 200' buffer —not definable. DeLapp
suggested 200' from any existing structure, no roadways allowed. Dillerud: As originally worded, if there
were a possibility of residential development next door, then the 200' buffer would apply. This allowed the
next door neighbor to decide if there is a buffer, even though there was not a development there. He
suggested to the Planning Commission, if there is a development next to it, then the buffer applies. This is
how it now reads.
Viable open space: Ordinance doesn't address it. MN land trust will only accept certain amount of the open
space that we offered, 10 acres or more. When we get this open space, it is viable.
Density Bonuses: PZ discussed and eliminated two provisions: OP easement to a qualified land trust and
the one involving Village Greens.
The City Planner voiced his concern on standards being changed because Bob Engstrom will be
resubmitting his plan and Terry Emerson will be submitting a new plat.
The Workshop was adjourned at 7:55 p.m
Folz, Fivem); Duey e. Assoc., Inc.
To:
Honorable Mayor & City Council
From:
TimodryJ. Freeman
Date:
Tuesday, April 20, 1999
Subject
Amendments to OP Ordinance
Lake Elmo stands at the forefront of communities that are striving to preserve
open spaces, while creating quality neighborhoods. Lake Elmo has created,
with it's ordinance, developments that the other communities strive for. I am
proud to have been a part of many of these projects.
The purpose of this memo is to provide a USER'S prospective on the
proposed amendments to the Open Space Preservation Ordinance. It is
agreed that changes need to be made to this ordinance to update the items
related to the amendments in the way this ordinance is used. By deleting the
OP designation on the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan, and
adding the use of this ordinance with a Conditional Use Permit in the RR and
AG districts, several housekeeping amendments are in order, but there are
several amendments being proposed that are not related to these housekeeping
items. Also, some areas that have not been addressed should be updated.
The most detrimental of the proposed amendments is the change in total
density units allowed. The reduction of density units will make economical
development extremely difficult. There are many items required by the
ordinance to promote quality projects, that are only affordable with the
densities currently allowed. To reduce the density, and still expect the type of
quality developments that we have seen in the prior developments, is too
optimistic.
The proponents of reducing the densities will say that the developers aregettirtg rich
with the current densities. The cold hard fact is that the developers do not pay
for anything that is required in any ordinance. The prospective new citizens of
Lake Elmo will pay the cost of any reduction in the densities or increase in the
development costs. This only serves to continue to drive up the cost of lots
and homes in Lake Elmo.
1815 Nordnvestem Ave. 1
Stillwater, MN 55082
651-439-8B33 Office
651-430-9331 Fax
ffdsurv®attoet
The idea of eliminating some or all of the bonus densities allowed by the
ordinance may put the city in jeopardy of being accused of "taking without just
compensation". My understanding of the current system of base density and
bonus units was to use the bonus units to not only compensate for requiring
50% Open Space being set aside, but to also encourage the design features that
would make these developments unique. This system has worked quite well.
Elimination of modifications to the development standards with four
affirmative votes on the City Council will discourage the creativity that was
intended when this provision was added. This provision is a standard feature
in Planned Unit Developments. Since the OP Ordinance is designed to have
some of the flexibility found in Planned Unit Developments, it seems like a
good way to encourage flexibility, without the City Council giving up any
control over the process.
Requiring buffer zones is a feature of this ordinance that is not found in the
other residential zoning districts in the city. Some might view buffer zones as
an additional taking from the land without compensation. I understand why
buffer zones are popular with the existing residents that may have built on
there own property without concern for what may happen on adjacent
properties. Many communities have existing residents that wish to control the
use of adjacent properties with zoning regulations, instead of purchasing the
land.and preserving it's use as they wish. Residents seldom recognize that if
the same restrictions they propose for the adjacent properties were in effect on
their land, perhaps their home may not have been allowed to be built as is.
The proposed language that would not allow roads to be built in these buffer
zones seems to go beyond the intended principle of preventing homes from
being too close to existing neighborhoods.
There are a few items in the Utilities section of the Ordinance that need to be
looked at. Under paragraph I., the reference to individual septic tanks and
communal drainfields, is not in keeping with the accepted past practice on
many of the past OP Developments. The use of individual septic tanks is not
used when sanitary sewer pipes are used to collect sewage for the Wetland
Treatment Systems. This oversight should be corrected. Under paragraph 4.,
the wetland treatment systems are not considered a part of the required Open
Space. This seems to be contrary to the whole idea of preserving Open Space.
As we all well know, Open Space is intended to be an area without homes
built. An area that looks and feels open. Having a subsurface use should not
preclude an area from being open. These treatment areas are not open sewer
lagoons, but landscaped areas with wild flowers and plants. Certainly the type
1815 Northwestern Ave. 2
Stillwater, MN 55082
651439-8833 Office
651-430-9331 Fax
ffdsum@Aa.net
of use allowed in an Open Space. The ordinance allows individual drainfields
to be located within the Open Space, why not the wetland treatment systems.
The Streets section of the Ordinance is another area that should be looked at.
In paragraph 6., the street pavement standards need to be updated. The
experience of the prior OP Developments tells us that some of the street
widths are too narrow, while some of them are too wide. A 14 foot wide
one-way street is too narrow when people park on one side of the street. The
prior developments that have featured 16 foot wide one-way streets have even
experienced problems with parking on the street. The answer is not to
prohibit parking. People need the flexibility of having a family gathering or
party on occasion, and allowing parking on the public street. The best example
of these problems is when the homes are being constructed. Workers park
their pickup trucks on the street and cars have a difficult time passing without
jumping the curbs. This problem is compounded in the winter when snow
plowing cannot always clear the entire street surface. A 14 foot wide single
lane divided entrance road would be adequate when there are no homes along
it. On some low volume two way streets, 26 feet wide is too wide. 24 feet
wide would be an acceptable width where the street is not in an area where
traffic is circulating throughout the development. Perhaps 24 feet wide on
dead end and cul-de-sac streets. While I am not generally a proponent of rural
section streets, to prohibit their use seems to be too restrictive. There are
circumstances when a rural section street with shoulders and ditches is
appropriate. Let us remember that Lake Elmo has many of these rural section
streets serving the public well.
This memo is not intended to berate the Staff and Planning Commission in
their efforts to improve the ordinance. It is only the observations of one
Developer's Representative. I intend to be available at the Workshop
scheduled for April 21, 1999 to answer any questions the City Council may
have. Thank you for your consideration of my views.
1815 Northwestern Ave. 3
Stillwater, MN 55082
651-439-8833Office
651-430-9331 Fax
ffdmrvQatt.uct
I�BERT ENGSTROM CAMPANIES
April 20, 1999
TO: Lake Elmo Mayor Lee Hunt and City Council
FROM: Bob Engstrom
REF: Amendments for the OP Ordinance
Some of the proposed changes may be necessary for the change from open space
preservation district to conditional use. Criteria for other changes could include:
• Does it make creative development more workable?
• Is the open space/rural atmosphere enhanced?
• Does the change help the livability for the residents?
• Does the change encourage or discourage a cluster/hamlet type of land plan as
contrasted to typical suburban sub -divisions?
• These changes, if any, should be included in the Comprehensive Plan update.
Specific items:
D-3- The existing graphics are an embarrassment.
E-2- Landscape and land planning design is more important than arbitrary
setback requirements.
An overall observation is that the OP ordinance provisions were enacted before the
advent of the more environmentally sensitive alternative wastewater systems. Also, that
proposed changes should examine some of the provisions of the original ordinance.
H. Densities - The proposed changes appear to be either ill-conceived or a desire
to waste land and to eliminate people. It is likely that the initial zoning district
change was in violation of the comprehensive plan requirements of the State
of Minnesota Land Planning Act. A further reduction in densities will agitate
that problem. The credit for open space development was an incentive to
discourage the past practices that were consuming the landscape at an
inordinate pace. The credit of one unit for $25,000 or more of Historic
preservation is grossly inadequate if the objective is to preserve existing
buildings. The secretary of Incentive Standards for Rehabilitation are
inappropriate for adaptive re -use of rural buildings. The elimination of the
Village Green (which could be more properly called a Common Green) will
tend to create more double loaded streets and diminish a sense of community.
I. Minimum District Requirements
• A townhouse is a single family attached.
• Side yard requirements of 15 feet discourages techniques of mitigating
the impact of the garages. The original 15 feet requirement was
...RESIDENTIAL LAND DEVELOPERS...
4801 West 81st Street • Suite 101 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437 9 (612) 893-1001 9 Fax (612) 893-1841
N
ROBERT ENGSTROM COMPANIES
established to enable a septic tank servicing truck to get to the back
yard. A better standard would be 10 feet each side or 10 feet on the
house side and 5 feet for a garage.
The arbitrary '/z acre requirement should have some flexibility to
encourage better design.
The definition of a townhouse should be: 2 or more single family
attached units.
J. Utilities
The standards were designed for Communal Drainfields rather than
Constructed Wetlands Systems.
The individual septic tank requirement was supposed to have been
previously deleted.
J-4 - Where soil conditions are favorable, cell #2 of a Wetlands
Treatment System may be trenches covered with native prairie
restoration, therefore should not be excluded from open space
calculations.
K. Streets
I recommend:
• 14 foot wide one way streets allowed for divided streets or streets
where no off-street parking is anticipated.
0 A 24 foot wide street permits parking on both sides and allows a
vehicular lane. This is a better dimension than either 22 ft or 26 ft
with the exception that 22 ft is an ideal dimension for 2-way streets
with no parking.
9-9- The Secretary of Interior standards for adaptive reuse of rural buildings are
inappropriate.
B. Planning Commission Review
I don't know of any other community that requires a public hearing for a
concept plan and the preliminary development plan. Usually the concept plan is a
discussion plan for the staff, planning commission, council and the applicant.
...RESIDENTIAL LAND DEVELOPERS...
4801 West 81st Street • Suite 101 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437 9 (612) 893-1001 • Fax (612) 893-1841
THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD A WORKSHOP ON
THE OPEN SPACE (OP) ORDINANCE ON
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1999
5:00 P.M.
LAKE ELMO CITY HALL
AN INVITATION, AS OBSERVERS, IS EXTENDED TO THE LAKE
ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO THE DEVELOPERS OF
ACTIVE OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENTS