HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-12-91 PZMThe Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City
Council. One of the Commission's functions is to hold
public hearings and make recommendations to the City
Council. The City Council makes all final decisions on
these matters.
Lake Elmo Ordinances require that certain documents and
information be included in applications. The Planning
Commission may postpone consideration of an application that
is incomplete and may for other reasons postpone final
action on an application.
For each item, the Commission will receive reports
prepared by the City Staff, open the hearing to the public,
and discuss and act on the application. If you are aware of
information that hasn't been discussed, please fill out a
"Request to Appear Before the Planning Commission" slip; or
if you came late, raise your hand to be recognized.
Comments that are pertinent are appreciated.
AGENDA
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 12, 1991
7:30 p.m. MEETING CONVENES
1. AGENDA
2. MINUTES: JULY 22, 1991
3. SITE & PLAN REVIEW: KUNZ OIL
4. SITE & PLAN REVIEW: CARMELITE MONASTERY
5. MUSA EXTENSION: CONTINUATION
6. PUBLIC HEARING: FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE
7. OTHER
8. ADJOURN
(
Date Approved: 8-12-91
Date Issued: 8-23-91
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 22, 1991
Chairman John called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:34
p.m. in the city council chambers. Present: John, Johnston, McLeod,
Stevens, Weeks, Enes, Bucheck, DeLapp, Schubert, Thomas, City Planner
Black, City Engineer Prew, City Auditor Tautges, Administrator Kueffner.
Absent: Conlin.
1. AGENDA
Move item 8. ahead of item 3.
M/S/P Stevens/DeLapp - to approve the Agenda as amended. (Motion
carried 9-0).
2. MINUTES: July 8, 1991
M/S/P Enes/Stevens - to approve the July 8, 1991 minutes as amended.
(Motion carried 8-0-1, abstain: Thomas).
Chairman John read a prepared statement, signed by him, to be made part
of the minutes as an addendum regarding the Stonegate Development
rezoning at the July 16, 1991 City Council Meeting.
3. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
M/S/P DeLapp/Stevens - to recommend the City Council add to the Planning
Commission work plan, as high priority, the creation of a study group
comprised of members as determined by the Planning Commission to
evaluate all aspects relating to the commercial economic development and
residential economic development in the City and how it affects the
taxes, quality of life and character of the City. (Motion carried 6-1-
1, against: McLeod - established business people in the community should
be part of this study group; abstain: Stevens).
M/S/P/ Mcleod/Johnston - recommend the economic advisory study group
within the Planning Commission include a minimum of 1/3 established
business people in community. (Motion carried 5-3, against: Thomas
it is making a statement that some people in the community are
inherently more valuable because of their background, Schubert - same
reason as Thomas, DeLapp - may end up with a committee comprised of
mostly business people.).
4. PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR
EXTENSION ON MUNICIPAL URBAN SERVICE AREA.
Chairman John opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. The public hearing
notice was published in the St. Croix Valley Press, the City's legal
newspaper, on July 10th and 17th, 1991 and all property owners within
350 feet were notified. In addition a public announcement was bulk
mailed to every resident.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1991 Page 2'
City Planner Mike Black and City Engineer Tom Prew were directed by the
City Council to prepare a report on a proposed amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan for extension of the Municipal Urban Service Area.
If recommended by the City Council, this report will be submitted to
Metropolitan Council for their consideration. City Planner Black stated
the purpose of this public hearing is to seek public comment and
questions, and for the Planning Commission to consider those comments
then make a recommendation to the city council. City Engineer Prew
presented three options available for interim connection to the W.O.N.E.
interceptor. City Auditor Rob Tautges presented recent financial
trends, recent legislation and analysis.
Chairman John opened public comment at 8:47 p.m.
Bob Stone, 2390 Legion Lane, asked how can the Planning Commission make
a decision if the cost is unknown and what the impact will be on the
community? Chairman John stated tonights meeting is to hear public
comment on the proposal of an amendment to the city's comprehensive plan
to extend the MUSA line, and this is not a commitment to put the line
in.
Commissioner Thomas asked how the decision was made to extend the area a
half mile east of County Road 19? City Planner Black stated it was the
city councils request and it is adjacent to and coincides with
Woodbury's MUSA line.
Jim Arkell, 8131 Hidden Bay Tr., asked is there a geological reason for
choosing a half mile north of I-94 rather than a quarter mile, will this
extension have impact on residential development? Mr. Black stated
there is not a geological reason for this and it is not intended to
serve residential areas as presented.
Bill Woodworth, 8242 Hidden Bay
support our City any longer and
.the advantage of every resident
residential taxes.
Tr., stated the State is not going to
this approach for business support is to
in Lake Elmo by relying less on
Joe Kiesling, 9359 Jane Road, Offered to clarify this proposal is not
intended to sewer the entire City, but simply for the development of a
more dense business park to generate taxes to help pay for services we
now enjoy.
Chris L. asked if the Comp. Plan, which is only 3 months old, can be
altered so soon then can the Limited Business Ordinance be altered?
Chairman John answered the city council can make changes to the
ordinances and would have to hold a public hearing.
Carl Tacke, 11306 31st Street, asked where is the water going to come
from, and will there be a need for a municipal well in that area?
Chairman John stated each business will have to have its own well or
perhaps a municipal well will be required, but it should be discussed.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1991 Page 3
Dick Hughes, 9191 49th St., asked Mr. Tautges if we continue to lose our
state aid, what affect will that have on our taxes? Mr. Tautges
answered that this is just one piece within the City, but in concept: if
you have greater values - the base gets larger and the rates stay under
control, generally commercial development lowers overall tax rates.
Carol Banister, 3100 Lake Elmo Ave., asked if the City Engineer has
received any input from Metropolitan Waste Commission? Mr.Black stated
has had staff meetings with Met. Waste Commission and they have
indicated a willingness to work with Lake Elmo, but are under the
direction of Metropolitan Council which is the governing agency.
Mike Lukin, 10759 10th St., asked if the capacity of the system is only
good to the year 2010, then what happens? Mr. Black stated this is a
detail that will have to be worked out with Met. Council, City of Lake
Elmo and either the City of Oakdale or the City of Woodbury.
Kurt Vanden Branden, 11008 32nd St., asked if there is going to be
enough demand to justify this proposal? Mr. Black stated the demand is
market driven, but Woodbury is developing quite a bit on the freeway.
Doug Killian, 11909 21st St., asked how is light industrial and heavy
industrial defined/compared, and give some examples? Mr. Black stated
the City has not officially adopted zoning standards, but the idea is
for corporate headquarters with research facilities, or multi -tenant
buildings for small business with office space and warehouse areas. The
idea is not for smoke stacks, chemical companies or iron ore companies
which are considered heavy industrial.
Steve Korhel, 5540 Keats Ave., asked what the price tag will be for
this? Mr. Tautges stated the estimate would come from city engineering
studies. Mr. Korhel then asked what are the procedures and methods to
finance this? Mr. Tautges replied there are many varieties of
combinations the City can choose, these would be packaged by the City's
fiscal consultant once the engineering study determined the cost, so
it's premature to discuss at this point.
Mr. Korhel asked Mr. Tautges if he could explain about a bond issue?
Mr. Tautges stated it depends on how it's structured, a revenue bond
issue can be issued under general obligation which means the security is
backed by the credit of the City; tax increment type can be issued as
general obligation or with specific revenues pledged related to the
improvement, and this is just one method, there are other methods that
are more secure.
Rosemary Armstrong, 8291 15th St., asked Mr. Tautges if it was common
for tax increments to be repaid in eight to twelve years? Mr. Tautges
stated yes, it depends on the type of district. Mrs. Armstrong then
asked if Mr. Tautges could state the amount of assessments that still
have to be paid for the construction of Helmo Avenue to improve Section
32, and if there are still outstanding hook up charges in Section 32?
Mr. Tautges stated he would need his files, but there was some delay in
the payment of assessments.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1991 Page 4
Steve Bachman, 3141 Klondike Ave., asked if developers today have to
guarantee payment of improvements such as a performance bond? Mr.
Tautges stated that is correct - the City can structure development to
be such that it is fully guaranteed by the developer with a developer's
agreement which is often accompanied by a letter of credit.
Ron Luther stated Woodbury and Oakdale are paying more taxes (than Lake
Elmo residents) and he doesn't see where development is helping them.
Mr. Tautges stated you would have to look at each specific community and
see the level of services they provide.
Those wishing to speak in support of the proposal were allowed to speak
first.
Jim Tobin, 4180 Irvin Ct., feels this is a good idea provided the
residents don't have to pay for all the improvements.
Dave Lang, 5451 Hilltop Ave., submitted a petition, made part of the
minutes by reference, signed by thirty residents supporting the Comp.
Plan Amendment and extension of the MUSA line proposal. Mr. Lang stated
he received a legislative report from representative Jeff Hansen which
he states "property tax increases have been kept down while beginning
the difficult process of weaning local governments from State aid.
State aid to local governments was cut by 70 million dollars". Mr. Lang
stated things are changing rapidly and we are being compelled to re-
examine our politics in Lake Elmo. Mr. Lang stated the cost of sewer is(
certainly an issue, but it will never be lower than it is today.
Jess Mottaz, 8770 Demontreville Tr., stated several years ago the City
determined there was a need to set aside a portion of the City to
receive MUSA to provide an area for commercial growth. Commercial
growth was needed to broaden and strengthen the City's tax base because
it was felt taxes from homes alone would not support the City without
placing exorbitant tax burdens on the homes. The planners at the same
time wanted Lake Elmo to remain open and rural requiring extra tax base
to support this philosophy. The area chosen for this commercial
designation was referred to as Section 32. Section 32 was an ideal spot
because it was located at the intersection of two major freeways and was
in the extreme corner of the city nearest the sanitary sewer. In 1990
the Municipal Commission granted the request of property owners in
Section 32 to be detached from Lake Elmo and annexed to Oakdale, as a
result of this action Lake Elmo lost all of the land where municipal
services would be available and consequently that area that was to
broaden and strengthen the City's tax base sought after by the earlier
planners. Troubled by this loss of tax based acreage consideration was
given to create another ideal area for a well rounded tax base potential
for the City of Lake Elmo. Along I-94 to the east of Section 32 exists
property whose owners are at the stage of unrest who feel the existing
conditions in Lake Elmo will not allow them to put their land at its
highest and best use. As a result they have made efforts to annex to
Woodbury. If this were to happen the land would be developed as
commercial nronertv and Lake Elmo would have absolutely no control over
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1991 Page 5
it and would lose all of the taxes generated by it. After what happened
to Section 32 we no longer dare say this will never happen. Mr. Mottaz
added he sincerely hopes the planning commission will recommend approval
of this proposal.
Bonnie McLeod, 2543 Lake Elmo Ave., stated she was in favor of the
proposal because she does not want to see anymore land leave Lake Elmo.
Steve Bachman, 3141 Klondike Ave., stated he is in favor of the
proposal, and is dismayed that he owns a business in Oakdale, but would
like to have it in Lake Elmo, but does not consider the business posture
very good. Mr. Bachman stated he thinks Lake Elmo is a beautiful place
to live, but if we're not careful we're going to be consumed by our
neighbors - Oakdale and Woodbury. Mr. Bachman stated based on the
current fiscal position the city is in, the short fall we're going to
have, our taxes are going to go up significantly, so we're going to have
to get some commercial development to help out or the city will go
bankrupt as they have in other parts of the country.
Chairman John read a letter from the Federal Land Company in favor of
the proposal, made part of the minutes by reference.
Charles Bartholdi, representing Federal Land Co., stated the property
owned by Federal Land is not developed is due primarily to the fact
there is no MUSA line near this property. Mr. Bartholdi stated with the
MUSA line the City will get a much better quality development because it
will give you a higher property value which will in turn give you a
greater tax recognition.
Gloria Knoblauch, 9181 31st St., stated she is in favor of the proposal,
and would go even farther than the proposal by extending the MUSA line
one mile north of I-94 at the intersection. Mrs. Knoblauch feels
business opportunity is greater located at the intersection.
Carol Banister, 3100 Lake Elmo Ave., stated she is in favor of the
proposal assuming there will be cost benefit studies, and studies on how
traffic will affect the City before the final approval of a development.
Dorothy Lyons, 10072 10th St., stated she is in favor of the proposal
and would like to see the line extended farther to help diversify
payment for the improvement, because MN/DOT owns property in this area
and cannot be assessed for the improvement.
Dave Johnson, 11291 30th St., stated this proposed area is 640 acres
which is close to the same amount of acreage we lost to Oakdale. The
reason Oakdale and Woodbury are using excess capacity in the system is
because that area never did develop. Some of that reserve capacity has
been borrowed by other cities, this is where excess capacity comes from,
there is no single pipe set aside for Lake Elmo. In conversations with
the MWCC it appears it's a first come first served situation. The
capacity is there through the year 2010 and those units should belong to
Lake Elmo and should be transferred to this area, but we must respond
quickly or we may lose it.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1991 Page 6
Ray Salus, 404 Lake Elmo Ave., stated he is in favor of the proposal
because he would be in the annexation to Woodbury. Mr. Salus stated he
has lived in Lake Elmo for 56 years and would like to stay in Lake Elmo,
but if MUSA isn't extended he will be going to Woodbury because the
annexation petition is being revived. Mr. Salus stated he would like to
see some employment in our City, we don't have much. Mr. Salus employs
a few people at his driving range and would like to see employment
opportunities for our young people here in Lake Elmo.
Craig Knoll, 3127 Laverne Ct., stated he is in favor of the proposal and
is appalled that our past city founders did not have the foresight to
actively do any planning for more than 20 years. The proposal tonight
only looks forward 20 years, but it's the first step towards a well
rounded, balanced program for Lake Elmo.
Jack Perkovich, 7832 Demontreville Tr., stated he is in favor of the
proposal, and feels it is extremely important for the City to establish
a balance between residential and commercial development, it's long
overdue. There's a real concern, as we continue to punch holes in the
aquifer, of ground water contamination and other things that are real
problems inherent to a community of our design.
Terry Arends, 8815 27th St., stated he is in favor of the proposal and
feels we have nothing to lose by having the MUSA there even if we don't
use it, and can't see losing anymore land.
Those wishing to speak in opposition to the proposal were asked to
speak.
Dean Johnston, 8200 Hill Tr., stated he feels the responsibility of the
advocates who want change to make their case, and the case they should
be making is this is for the good of all the citizens, but they've
clearly failed to make that case this evening. Mr. Johnston stated also
this proposal will involve major expenses, and these expenses have not
been analyzed, and to go ahead with this proposal would be bad business
and bad government. When talking about broadening the tax base as a
justification, Mr. Johnston firmly believes this is the most broadly
supported myth in city government. We've got to develop an established
infrastructure.
Marge Williams, 3025 Lake Elmo Ave., stated many people moved here for a
rural life style, and any densely developed commercial area would
probably pay for itself. The question is whether or not you want to
live next to, near or anywhere in the vicinity. Most of us who moved
here, moved away from urban style development, whether it be from
Oakdale, Woodbury, Stillwater or Maplewood. Most new residents move
here because of large lot developments. Somebody is going to pay for
this whether it's the residents or the businesses and the only people
that will clearly profit will be the initial land owners who will sell
off their land and make money.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1991 Page 7
Rosemary Armstrong stated there has been a great deal of planning in
this city, and 1990 was the year designated to look at extending the
MUSA line to County Road 19. It wasn't going to be near as big as this
proposal, but it was going to be extended. Section 32 has had the MUSA
line for years and nothing has developed there, but it's not for lack of
planning. The economy has slowed or stopped development, even in
Oakdale and Woodbury. We have had sound city management of money
because we have not stuck our necks out into debt and made the tax
payers hold the bill for prime developers to come in and make their buck
and leave. There is no way we're going to get commercial developers to
come into Lake Elmo now because the banks are not going to give anymore
commercial loans. If Conn -Co Shoes couldn't make it, I don't know who
we're going to get to come in here after that. Section 32 has had a
MUSA line for 20 years and no proposals came into the City of Lake Elmo
in those 20 years, and no proposals have come into Oakdale in the few
months they've had Section 32.
Chairman John read a letter from Dolan Marine and a letter from Lampert
Lumber, both stating opposition to the proposal, made part of the
minutes by reference.
Commissioner Stevens stated that he's lived here about 30 years. About
40 years ago the current area of Oakdale separated from what is now Lake
Elmo plus Oakdale, because they wanted fast development, and the people
in the present Lake Elmo area didn't. If Lake Elmo had been as forward
looking and business minded as some people think it should have been,
Lake Elmo would look like Oakdale today. In that case, a previous
speaker who moved here about a year ago because of its rural atmoshere
but now berates the city for not being forward looking enough would not
have settled here. He would have moved to Afton.
Scott Nietzel, 3291 Lampert, stated, with all due respect to
Commissioner Stevens, he's lived in Lake Elmo about 3 years now and it's
a shame that two years later Section 32 is gone and feels this should
never have happened.
Onno Van Demmeltraadt, 9406 Jane Road, stated he is against the
proposal. He's heard and read that the United States is saturated with
office space and the banks are having so many problems these days, and
is concerned with who's left holding the bag. It's too sketchy right
now.
Dave Johnson stated, in response to Commissioner Stevens, that the MUSA
is just an area that must be defined before you can extend any municipal
services and has no cost or project or physical pipe associated with it.
Commissioner Thomas asked if we have to be concerned about which option
to choose (for extending the MUSA from the interceptor) right now?
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1991 Page 8
Mr. Black stated not at this time, we are simply making application and
asking Met. Council if we can do further studies to further analyze the
impact of the MUSA on the City and will they indeed allow for an
expansion to Lake Elmo. we don't know what Met. Council's response will
be, they may deny our request, but they will address the short term
issue and the long term issue. Tonight we are simply trying to decide
if we will approach Met. Council with this request. By asking for the
MUSA line extension does not commit us to anything, we do not have to
proceed with any improvements.
Jess Mottaz stated he is only concerned with offering the City of Lake
Elmo the opportunity to replace the MUSA area that was lost with Section
32
Chairman John reiterated that we are just applying to Met. Council to
extend the MUSA line - it doesn't mean the extension will be here
tomorrow and development will begin tomorrow. It could be two or three
years before it arrives.
Carol Banister asked that Administrator Kueffner publicize when the
video tape of this meeting will be aired on cable.
Todd Williams, 3025 Lake Elmo Ave., asked the Planning Commission to
consider three questions: (1) whatare the specific circumstances under
which Oakdale and Woodbury are willing to work with Lake Elmo on this
proposal? (2) what will happen in the year 2010 when there is no more
sewer capacity? (3) what will be the City policy regarding payment -
will the city put in the sewer or will the city wait for development
proposals?
Sue Dunn, 11018 Upper 33rd St., stated she doesn't see why we have to
designate such a large area. Met. Council suggests starting slow from
the west to the east.
Dorothy Lyons stated alot of you people wouldn't be here if it weren't
for us farmers selling our property at one time or another and allowing
development to come in. Mrs. Lyons stated she would like to advocate a
rural community, but in such a way as is economical and feasible. If
you look at Section 32 from a business stand point, how do you get to it
- there is not easy access. The sign regulations are prohibitive. Look
at your planning.
Chairman John closed the public hearing at 10:30 p.m.
Commissioner McLeod stated what he's heard tonight makes economic sense,
and the City Auditor stated commercial tax base is better than
residential. The City Auditor also stated the State is cutting back on
funding cities so our taxes will go up. The statement that property
owners along I-94 are getting ready to annex is not a scare tactic - it
is not an idle threat. Unfortunately past city administrations have had
policies that lead to the loss of Section 32. Everyone has a different
opinion as to why Section 32 was lost, but the reality of it is the
Municipal Board voted in favor of the property owners. It's facetious \_
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1991 Page 9
of us to stick our heads in the sand and say it's not going to happen
again. It's not going to destroy our rural environment by putting
denser commercial development along I-94. We've got to be realistic,
we've been too inflexible in the past.
The Commission asked the City Auditor to analyze what the impact of
commercial development will be in this proposed area if densely (or
ultimately) developed vs. residential, and also to gather information
from other communities such as Edina or Spring Lake Park or the like to
compare what they get in revenue from established development,
commercial developments along freeways, apartment blocks, residential
estate developments - whatever they are in terms of total worth to that
community, also information on tax increment financing - how would that
impact the City. Increased services, such as Fire, Police, etc. will
have to be looked at by perhaps the City Planner.
M/S/P DeLapp/Bucheck - to table discussion until the next planning
commission meeting (August 12, 1991), and commission members are to
submit relevant questions in writing, to staff, by Monday, July 29th, to
be copied and given to Mike Black for review and brought up for
discussion at the next meeting. (Motion carried 9-0).
Agenda item #4 and #5 were postponed by the applicants.
M/S/P Johnston/Bucheck - to table the remaining agenda items and adjourn
the meeting at 11:00 p.m. (Motion carried 9-0).
(
?JUL 2 2 1991
I would like the following statement included in the minutes of
tonight's meeting as an addendum:
I, as Chair of the Planning Commission, want to express my
dissatisfaction with the Lake Elmo City Council, in their Council
meeting of July 16, when their assessment of the Goose Lake
(Stonegate) Development failed to gain the required majority for
rezoning.
This development complied with both the City approved
Comprehensive Plan and the Residential Estate Ordinance. If neither
of these City approved documents are acceptable to the Council, it
places in question all City approved Plans and Ordinances, at a time
when Lake Elmo is trying to correct an image of being anti -
development.
As Chair of a volunteer organization, I request the City Council to
provide explicit guidelines so that our decisions can be reached after
proper consideration of all facts. Time wasting of volunteers,
interested in carrying out the Council's wishes can then be avoided.
The Commission spends a lot of time assessing development and
changes within the city. The Goose Lake development was discussed
for at least 10 hours in three or four planning meetings, minutes of
which were supplied to the council. Further time was spent
discussing the program with the Parks Commission. The developer
responded to all our suggestions, and had earlier attended planning
sessions when the proposed Residential Estate Ordinances were
debated at length. Rejection of our recommendations on a
development which meets City standards, after what was a relatively
short examination by the Council, is unsatisfactory.
The Council has already approved other Residential Estate
Developments which complied with the ordinance. To reject this
developmt, appears arbitrary.
yn, . John
Chair, Lake Elmo Planning Commission.
JUL 1 5 1991
Federal "` Land Company
Yankee Square Office II • 3470 Washington Dnve • Suite 102 • Eagan, Minnesota 55122
Tel. 612-52-3303 FAX 612452.3362
July 11, 1991
The Honorable David Johnson,
Planning Commission Chairman Steve DeLapp,
and Members of the Lake Elmo City, Council
and Planning Commission
c/o Mary Kueffner, City Administrator
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Dear Mayor Johnson, Chairman DeLapp,
Members of the Lake Elmo City Council
and Planning Commission,
Federal Land Company hereby acknowledges receipt of Notice of a Public Hearing to consider
the extension of the Municipal Urban Service Area ("MUSA"). As the Lake Elmo City Council is
aware, Federal Land Company has for some time encouraged the City to extend the MUSA to its
property located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 94 and County Road
19. The lack of extension of the MUSA caused Federal Land Company to propose a two phase
development plan, first submitted in 1979, for its property. The extension of the MUSA as
proposed conforms to our plan and will, in our opinion, benefit the City due to the quality
development which will occur along the I-94 corridor. The implementation of quality
development should, in turn, further benefit the City by providing a significantly increased
taxbase, thereby giving the CIty greater revenues especially in these times of fiscal shortfalls.
The extension of. the MUSA is long overdue and Federal Land Company supports its extension.
We look forward to attending the public hearing and to providing you with further testimony in
support of the extension of the MUSA.
Sincerely,
4244R Cit.,
Martin F. Colon, Partner
MFC/lds
JUL 1 5 1941
MARINE • SPORTING GOODS • LEASING
600 WEST 7TH ST. (FORT ROAD) • ST. PAUL, MN 55102 • (612) 227.6653
9200 HUDSON BLVD. • LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 • (612) 738.3102
July 11, 1991
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Ave. No.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: Notice to extend the M.U.S.A.
Gentlemen or Ladies:
I am writina representing the Dolan Family partnership wnich
owns land between County Road 13 and County Road 19 in Lake
Elmo.
1 called the administrators office and a very nice lady
briefly explained the M.U.S.A. situation to me. In as much
as we are already paying suastantial R.E. taxes on our
property and we personally have no immediate use for sewer
facilities, I wish to express ray opposition to t`te M.U.S.A.
extension. /
cerely yrCtrs,
John H. Dolan, Managing Partner
Do an Family Partnershia
JHD/kee
BUILDING MATERIALS • LUMBER
LAM PERTS
1850 COMO AVENUE • SOX 64076 • ST. PALL. MN 55164
(612) 645-8155 • FAX* (612) 645-8155
July 18, 1991
Lake Elmo Planning Commission
3800 Laverne Ave. N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
aft 1 9 19t1
Re: Public Searing to consider amendment to the 1990
comprehensive plan for extension of the Municipal Urban
Service Area (M.U.S.A.)
Dear Sirs:
We are in the process of purchasing the property located at 9220
Hudson Blvd. This is the lumber yard that was owned by Lampert
Lumber Company.
We are not currently in favor of extending the municipal
utility service to the area until we have further information as
to what this entails, could entail in the future, and especially
the cost of the proposed project.
I am. sorry I cannot attend the scheduled meeting, but I will be
out of town on July 22, 1991. Even though we do not currently
own the property, I would hope that you would take our feelings
and consider our statements as though we are the current owner.
If you have any questions, please call.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
RT YARDS, Inc.
Robert T. Ungean
President
RTU/mbo
Since 1887
JULY 22, 1991
WE, THE UN➢ERHIGNED RESIDENTS OF LAKE ELMO, RECOGNIZING THE CRITICAL NEED TO DEVELOP
A COMMERCIAL TAX REVENUE EASE ALONG THE I94 CORRIDOR, SUPPORT THE EXTENSION OF THE
MUSA AREA TO ONE HALF MILE EAST OF COUNTY ROAD 19 AND ONE HALF MILE NORTH OF 194,
AND WE FURTHER SUPPORT THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT TO THE LAKE ELMO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAKE ELMO TO ADOPT THESE MEASURES.
NAME ADDRESS
rciHO
„ae.
14-
(fic744 4 /I
/1)04✓" ,e !'Yuan,
vsLtotelor
vaniyo
adi
•
(
n)
5(/(off td_4 (,if, Q�e.
5991
fi
��cN-,DP 4)e;
51/7/ /wCCC'/--7,2-t,
spa �oxay
1 /
SgiO tlauoy Ave
51RI0 Iki11io, f ii.
/lad /{// /(Tt AP, 11
1,22(
Sc29b
fa 'o
729
1
Wiz) a„,, Ar,
AGENDA TOPIC:
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
Meeting Date: August 12, 1991
Site & Plan Review: Kunz Oil
ITEM
NO. 3.
This was postponed at your last meeting, but you were given a packet of
information. Please review this information and bring it to the meeting.
Mike Black has also reviewed the proposal, and his report is attached.
AUG-07-'91 WED 14:39 ID:JAMES R HILL INC
TEL NO:612 890-6244 U004 P06
/ \\ AAMES R. HILL, INC.
-��MANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS _ T
2500 WEST COUNTY ROAO 42, SUITE 120, BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337 (612) 890-6044 FAX 890-6244
MEMORANDUM
TO; Lake Elmo Planning Commission and City Administrator
FROM: Mike Black
DATE: August 6, 1991
RE: BUILDING AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
Kunz Oil Company
The Kunz Oil Company is proposing to construct an accessory building on
their property at 4201 Stillwater Boulevard, The applicant is working
with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in cleaning contaminated
soils on site.
The subject property is zoned HB-Highway Business, Accessary uses
clearly incidental and subordinate to the permitted land use are allowed.
recommend approval of the site plan subject to:
1. Landscaping shall be provided as shown on the plan.
2. The structure is only temporary and the applicant agrees
to remove it upon completion of the soil clean up.
JUL 18 '91 10:07 T.K.D.A. & ASSOC.
P.1
rKDA
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
July 18, 1991
Planning and Zoning Commission
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Re; Site Plan Review
Kunz Peoples Plus ,
Gasoline Recovery System
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Conunission No. 9150-001
Dear Commission Members:
TOM, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
AND ABBOOIATIS. INOORPQRATEO
also AMERIOAN NATIONAL BANN BUILDINQ
SLANT PAUL. FMNNSBCTA rani o as*
nlarana4400
FAX if maaa-00U
I have reviewed the plans for the recovery system; the following are my comments.
1.
2.
3.
4,
Contaminated soils which were stockpiled on site have been removed.
The applicant has received a MPCA permit for this recovery system.
No surface discharge of treated groundwater will. occur. The process will dispose of
water through drainfield type trenches on site.
The recovery system is expected to be itt place about 5 years.
I recommend approval of this site plan,
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Prew, P.E.
TDP/mha
If
/
/
infil010 INFILTRATION TRENCH
A °° J PRELIMINARY LAYOUT DAHL
KUNZ PEOPLES PLUS
q GI
J CP
in I
W
1PJ9P McManumy flood
55 Int Proul, MN. 55II)
FFM (Bi1)19093)7J 5
k ASSOCIATES, INC,
LAKE ELMO , MINNESOTA En*onmenfol Constants, connogows .1! cnpoee,:
!PLAT ... __. , ..._. ..._�...
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
Meeting Date:_Auaust 12. 1991
AGENDA TOPIC:
SITE & PLAN REVIEW: CARMELITE MONASTERY
ITEM
NO. 4.
This too was postponed at your last meeting, and again we ask that you
review, and bring with you the information that was previously distributed.
Also attached is Mike Black's report regarding this request.
l
RUG-07—'91 WED 14:3B ID:JAMES R HILL INC
TEL NO:612 890-6244 #004 P05
JAMES R. HILL, INC.
PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS
2500 WEST COUNTY ROAD 42, SUITE 120, BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337 (6121 890-6044 Fax 890.6244
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lake Elmo Planning Commission and City Administrator
FROM: Mike Black
DATE: August 6, 1991
RE: BUILDING AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
Carmelite Monastery
The Carmelite Monastery property is zoned PF-Public Facilities. The
proposed use is a permitted use in the PF zoning district. Although this
site consists of a number of separate parcels, the placement of this new
monastery will conform to the district's setback standards.
I recommend approval of the new facility subject to:
1. Approval of a grading and drainage plan by the City Engineer.
2. Approval of the on -site sewer system by the Building
Inspector.
TKDA
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
August 14, 1991
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Re: Carmelite Monastery
Site Plan Review
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Commission No. 9150-001
Dear Mayor and City Council:
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
2500 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA55101-1893
612/292-4400
FAX 612/292-0083
The applicant has submitted the additional information I requested in my letter to the Planning
Commission.
Having reviewed these materials, I now recotnrnend approval of this site plan with the condition
the applicant receive a permit from the Valley Branch Watershed District. At this time the
applicant has received a permit for the entrance driveway, but not for the building site.
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Prew, P.E.
TDP/mha
cc: Father Burns, Carmelite Monastery, 8251 No. Detnontreville Tr., Lake Elmo, MN 55042
AGENDA TOPIC:
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
Meeting Date: August 12 ` 1991
Comprehensive Plan Amendment MUSA Extension (Cont.)
ITEM
NO. 5.
Attached is a memo from Mike Black and Tom Prew responding to some of the
questions that were raised at the public hearing.
Four members of the Commission sent questions, and some of these have been
addressed in the planner's memo.
I have copied the "Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and Order Memorandum
Opinion" from the second annexation petition, which was requested by some
of the commissioners.
Most of you had questions relating to the cost of providing the infra
structure (water, sewer, drainage), and who was going to pay for it. These
are very difficult questions to answer at this point in time.
The first step in bringing municipal urban services into the city is
defining an area where you would like to see the type of development that
would require this. That is the stage we now are at - defining an area
that would accommodate high density development.
Once you have a MUSA designation, the most likely next step would be to
order a feasibility report, so it could be determined what the cost would
be to put in the infra structure. A feasibility study is not done until an
area is defined, as this type of study is very, very expensive.
I can tell you that when the city did a sewer study in 1981 it cost
approximately $31,000.00. When the study was updated in 1986 - for the
MUSA we had in Section 32, the cost was approximately $16,000.00. I bring
this up only so you understand that we are not evading your questions, but
are unable to answer them at this time with much accuracy. If the City
does define an area, and the Met. Council approves it, as noted above, the
council would have to direct us to proceed with a feasibility study which
would determine the costs of the improvements.
I don't believe that it is the intention of the council to change the long
standing policy that development pays for itself. Therefore, once a MUSA
is defined, in all probability, the property owners would have to petition
for the improvements. If a petition was submitted, there is a hearing
process that the City must go thru before ordering the improvement. If a
property owner did petition for the improvements, more than likely it would
be in response to a particular development. At that time the city would be
able to assess the benefit (or cost) of the development to the city.
We do have the proposal that was presented to West Publishing that will
outline the cost versus benefit to the City. Rob Tautges will explain that
to you during his presentation.
f
JAMES R. Hut, INC.
PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS
2500 WEst COUNTY Cm 42, Suttt 120, Buzssvata, MIxNESOTA 55337 (612) 890.6044 FAX 890.4244
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lake Elmo Planning Commission and City Administrator
FROM: Mike slack
DATE: August 6, 1991
RE: MUSA LINE AMENDMENT
At our meeting on July 22, 1991, a public hearing was held to consider
an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The amendment would
establish a Business Park land use district along I-94 and would include
putting the subject area within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area
(MUSA).
The Lake Elmo City Council on April 11, 1991, authorized staff to proceed
with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and to request the Metropolitan
Council for a MUSA line extension. The report prepared by staff and
presented at the July 22nd public hearing was completed for submission to
Metropolitan Council and it mainly addresses the metropolitan systems
i act (sewer, transportation, open space and airports). At our public
hearing, many of the questions raised pertain to the local, impact(s) of
this proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. In addition to this
supplemental information separate reports are also being prepared by Tom
Prew, City Engineer and Rob Tautges, City Auditor. This report is
intended to provide additional information regarding the following issues
and/or questions raised on July 22nd.
WHAT IS THE PROCESS TOR A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT?
DURING WHAT STAGE or THE PROCESS I3 IT APPROPRIATE TO ASK LOCAL
IMPACT QUESTIONS?
Because this proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment involves a
change in the urban service area of more than 40 acres, a 90 day review
period and approval by the Metropolitan Council must take place. The
Metropolitan Council will only be concerned with the regional systems
impact. It is always an appropriate time to question the local impact
of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. In order to proceed to the
Metropolitan Council with this Amendment, at least four members of the
City Council must vote to approve the Amendment subject to review and
comments by the Metropolitan Council. This is not however the last
chance or only time the City can request information or analyze local
impacts. If approved, the City's Comprehensive Plan would designate the
area for Business Park development and an area planned for central
s( .tary sewer. Prior to approval of any building plans or prior to the
installation of any infrastructure, the City will again be able to
address local impacts.
rIVO ✓Jf- 71 WCL 14•.>f lilt Jh11'ICJ K MILL Lill.
I CL IV V : 1 07✓W-044 -1 4WW4 F thJ
City of Lake Elmo
( ,gust 6, 1991
rage 2
(
WHY OR HOW WAS THE 640 ACRE AREA DETERMINED?
The City Council direction to proceed with this Amendment included a
maximum area one-half mile north of 1-94 and one-half mile east of
County Road 19. The report prepared by staff did address the maximum
area (640 gross acres). The area could be reduced in size by either the
City Council or the Metropolitan Council. One additional comments is
that the easterly boundary (one-half mile east of County Road 19) does
conform to the easterly edge of Woodbury's recent MUSA line amendment.
WHAT TYPE or DEVELOPMENT IS ANTICIPATED OR ARE WE PLANNING rot?
The proposed future land use designation is Business Park. It is
intended to establish and maintain high standards of site planning,
building architecture and landscape design which will create an
environment attractive to a office - business campus setting. In
addition to office use other permitted land uses may include: medical
diagnostic equipment, telecommunications equipment, computer
peripherals, electronic components, data communications and similar
:es. Some related and supporting activities which are secondary to the
srmitted use may include: light manufacturing, assembling,
fabricating, and inside storage. No heavy industry, large retail
centers, exterior storage, or highway related commercial uses are
anticipated. The following facts and estimates have been made:
Gross Area
Developable Land
Total Building Square Feet
Total Employees
Total Sewer Use
Total Traffic
- 640 Acres
- 550 acres
- 4,000,000
- 14,600
- 1.9 MGD
- 45,000 ADT Atie AGCTonCY
IS THERE A MARIOIT OR DEMAND FOR THIS TYPE OF PLANNED AREA?
All development is market driven. This step to amend the City's Land
Use Plan is only the first step needed to consider a business park
industry development along I-94. However, without this step taken the
message or direction for the area, as currently designated on the future
land use plan, will be limited business with on -site septic systems. If
the City wants to set a goal and develop a policy to diversify its tax
base and create more employment opportunities in the City, than this
highly visible area long I-94 I believe has the best market potential in
the City.
HUIa-1J7—' 1 WtL 14: 0 ( 1 ll : J HPIt.J K I I1 LL 1 NL
IOL IYU:014 OrU'—OC'a'. I.r✓sr. ar-t
City of Lake Elmo
? vat 6, 1991
1,...4e 3
WHAT WILL THE EFFECT BE UPON THE CITY'3 CURRENT RURAL LIFE
STYLE?
The development of 640 acres along I-94 will indeed have an impact on
the rural atmosphere of Lake Elmo. In a sense however, each new home
constructed also has an impact on the City's rural character. All new
construction involves changing existing conditions. The City of Lake
Elmo will however keep a rural character in the area outside the MUSA
line and severe development pressures will not occur until sanitary
sewer is available throughout the City.
UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WILL THE CITIES OF WOODBURY AND
OAKDALE WORK WITH LAKE ELMO FOR THIS MUSA LINE AMENDMENT? I3
THIS THE FIRST STEP IN PROVIDING SANITARY SEWER TO ALL OF LAKE
ELMO?
Both cities of Woodbury and Oakdale have been mailed copies of the MUSA
line report prepared by staff. To date, no official comments have been
r-^eived from either city. During our staff meetings with each city,
1 .h indicated a willingness to cooperate and work with Lake Elmo. Both
cities also did express a concern that if they assigned part of their
existing sewer capacity allotment to Lake Elmo it could impact the
timing of ultimate development in their city. The existing Metro sewer
system does have a limited capacity. The Metropolitan Council and the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission have not prepared a plan for
expanding the present system to accommodate growth planned beyond the
year 2010.
WHAT WILL THE CITY'S POLICY BE REGARDING THE INSTALLATION AND
PAYMENT OF IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE TBIs AREA?
In the past Lake Elmo has not gone ahead to install public improvements
without a development proposal being submitted to the City. I would not
anticipated that policy to change. The City has also in the past
required new development to pay the full cost of new improvements
needed.
HOW WILL THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MUSA AREA INCREASE PUBLIC
SERVICES?
The development of a 640 acres business park will have a fiscal impact
on the City. Administration, public works, police, and fire departments
Id all demand higher levels of service. The key to this impact
q..astion is how will the cost of providing increased services balance
with the anticipated local tax revenues to be generated.
AUG 08 '91 14:58 T.K.D.R. & RSSOC.
P.1
IIOA
ENGINEERS ARCMIT80TS PLANNERS
TOLTErKING. DUVALL.ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES. INOORPORATIO
MO AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SAINT PAUL MINNESOTA B1101d180
011/101 M00
PAX N2l3O@ OO$$
MEMORANDUM
Lake Elmo
To: Planning Commission Reference: Traffic Projegtigps
Copies To; C§AEU3 SrlS 19
From,: Tom Prew
M417SA Extension
LBktEimo. MN
Date; August 8. 1991 Commission No. 9150.001.
CSAH 13 and CSAH 19 are both 4-lane, divided highways with grass medians for future turn
Ianes, Each of these roadways will handle 25,000 vehicles per day. We are projecting 45,000
vehicle trips under fully developed conditions.
Assuming that signals and tum lanes 'will be properly installed, these roadways are capable of
handling the traffic generated by the proposed office park development.
TDP/mha
D-248 Lake Elmo/
A-4573 Oakdale
BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
John W. Carey
Kenneth P. Sette
Shirley J. Mihelich
Chair
Vice Chair
Commissioner
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
THE DETACHMENT OF CERTAIN LAND FROM
THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO AND ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF OAKDALE PURSUANT TO
MINNESOTA STATUTES 414
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND ORDER
AND MEMORANDOX OPINION
The above -entitled matter came on for hearing before the
Minnesota Municipal Board pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as
amended, on September 7, 1989 at Lake Elmo, Minnesota, and was
continued from time to time. The hearing vas conducted by Terrence
A. Merritt, Executive Director, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
414.01, Subdivision 12. Also in attendance were John W. Carey,
Chair, Kenneth F. Sette, Vice Chair, and Shirley J. Mihelich,
Commissioner. The petitioners appeared by and through Mark
vierling and Lyle Eckberg, Attorneys at.Law. The City of Lake Elmo
appeared by and through Frederic Knack and Steve Carlson, Attorneys
at Law. Testimony was heard and records and exhibits were
received.
After due and careful consideration of all evidence, together
.with all records, files and proceedings, the Minnesota Municipal
Board hereby makes and files the following Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On May 19, 1989, a petition for concurrent detachment and
annexation by all of the property owners was filed with the
Minnesota Municipal Board.
The petition contained all of the information required
by statute including a description of the area proposed for
concurrent detachment and annexation, which is as follows:
31O °
417.0.6 Or
POO
All of Section 32, Township 29, Range 21 located within the
municipal limits of the City of Lake Elmo, Washington County,
Minnesota except the following:
79 acre, Parcel 11, State Project 8282 (94-392) 902 being Parcel
11 as shown on the plat designated as State Highway Right -of -Way
Plat No. 3 of 12 of State Project (5 P) S282 (94-392) 902 on file
and of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for
Washington County. Except 37032-2200.
1 acre. Part of the SW: of the 5E4, Section 32, Township 29,
Range 21, beginning at an iron monument set at the intersection
of a line drawn parallel to and 1325.57 feet east of the west
line thereof with the northerly right-of-way line of Minnesota
State Highway 12 as now being travelled and run; thence north
along said parallel line 330 feet to an iron monument; then east
on a line parallel to said Highway right-of-way line 132 feet to
an iron monument; thence south on a line parallel to said west
line 330 feet to an iron monument set on said northerly right -of-
way line of said Highway; thence west along said northerly right-
of-way line of said Highway 132 feet to the point of beginning
except that part taken for highway purposes.
.91 acre. Parcel 9, as shown on the plat designated as State
Highway Right -of -Way Plat No. 3 of 12 of State Project 8382
94=392 on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of
Deeds in and for Washington County.
1 acre. Part of the sh of the SF,h, Section 32, Township 29,
Range 21, beginning at an iron monument set at the intersection
of a line drawn parallel to and 1589.57 feet east of the west
line thereof with the northerly right-of-way line of Minnesota
Highway 12 as now being travelled and running thence north along
said parallel line 330 feet to an iron monument; thence east on a
line parallel to, said Highway right-of-way line 132 feet to an
iron monument; thence south on a line parallel to said west line
330 feet to an iron monument set on said northerly right-of-way
line of said Highway; thence west along said northerly right-of-
way line of said Highway 132 feet to the point of beginning,
except that part taken for highway purposes. Except that part
taken for Highway purposes.
1.0 acre.
Range 21,
of a line
Part of the 51 of the SEA, Section 32, Township 29,
beginning at an iron monument set at the intersection
drawn parallel to and 1721.57 feet east of the west
line thereof with the northerly right-of-way line of Minnesota
State Highway 12 as now being travelled and running thence north
along said parallel line 330 feet to an iron monument; thence
east on a line parallel to said Highway right-of-way line 132
feet to an iron monument; thence south on a line parallel to said
west line 330 feet to an iron monument set on said northerly
right-of-way line of said Highway; thence west along said
northerly right-of-way line of said Highway 132 feet to the point
of beginning. Except to Highway.
7C„ 4`3eOT0.80 acre. Part of the 8' of the SEh, Section 32, Township 29,
91'E OF Range 21, parcel 16 acres of State Highway Right -of -Way, Plat No.
4/124 " 3 of 12 of 82-17.
703:21:74601.35 acre. Parcel No. 23 of State Highway Right -of -Way Map 3 of
12, subject to easement.
Parcel No. 22 of State Highway Right -of -Way Plat No. 3 of 12 of
State Project (S.P.) 8282 (94=392) 902 on file and of record in
the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for Washington County
containing .21 acre more or less, subject to easement.
;4T14 p F_
Al mini
Part of the SEA, Section 32, Township 29, Range 21, and that part
of the SA, Section 33, commencing at the southeast corner of
said SEA; thence north along the east line of said 5E4 72 feet to
the northerly -right-of-way line of Minnesota Trunk Highway 12;
thence east along said north line 375 feet to the point of
beginning; thence north on a line'parallel to the west line of
said Section 33 366.2 feet to point; thence west at a right angle
595 feet more or less to the east line of existing roadway;
thence north 60 feet on a line parallel to the west line of said
Section 33 to a point; thence east at a right angle 655 feet to a
point; thence south on a line parallel to the west line of
Section 33, 425.42 feet more or less to the north line of Highway
12; thence west along said north line 60 feet to the point of
beginning. This description is a 60 foot strip which is 1st
Avenue and Emanuel Avenue. No value.
AND
All of the West 1/2 of Section 33, Township 29, Range 21, located
within the municipal limits of the City of Lake Elmo, Washington
County, Minnesota, except as follows:
Part of the Sigh of the SA, Section 33, Township 29, Range 21,
beginning at the southeast corner of the SWk of the SWh, Section
33; thence north along the east line of said SWk for it rods or
214.5 feet; thence west for 24 rods or 396 feet; thence north for
869 feet; thence east for 721 feet; thence south for 1083.5 feet
to the south line of said Section 33; thence west along said
south line of said Section 33 for 325 feet to the point of
beginning. Subject to easements except Highway Parcel 23A, MN
DOT Right -of -Way Plat 82-30.
Part of the 8E4 of theSWk, Section 33, Township 29, Range 21,
3
?a3 3
dloo
TPoTE CF
1.4ttotJ
being parcels 238 and 230 MN DOT Right -of -Way Plat 82-30 Trunk
Highway, State Project 8282 (94-392) 904 and 1094, 3 (304) 248.
Part of the SEh of the SWh, Section 33, Township 29, Range 21,
being the westerly 62 feet of the following description.
Commencing at a point on the south line of said h 255 feet west
of the southeast corner of said h, this being the point of
beginning; thence west along the south line of said h 181.85 feet
to a point; thence running north on a line parallel with the east
line of said h section to a point on a line connecting point on
east line of said h section 40 rods north of said southeast
corner of said h section and point on said south line of said h
section 48 rods west of said southeast corner of said h section;
thence running northeasterly along said connecting line to a
point 255 feet west of the easterly line of said h section;
thence running south parallel to the east line of said h section
to a point of beginning. Subject to easement. Also known as SP
8282 Parcel 23C.
Part of the SEh of the SWh of Section 33, Township 29, Range 21,
commencing at a point on the south line of said 1/4 section 255
feet west of the southeast corner said 1/4 section; this being
the point of beginning of this description; thence running west
along the south line of said 1/4 section 181.85 feet to a point;
thence running north on a line parallel with the east line of
said 1/4 section to a point on line connecting point on east line
of said 1/4 section 40 rods north of said southeast corner of
said 1/4 section and point on said south line of said 1/4
section, 48 rods west of said southeast corner of said 1/4
section; thence running northeasterly, along said connecting line
to a point distant 255 feet west of the easterly line of said 1/4
section; thence running south parallel to the east line of said
1/4 section to the point of beginning, except the westerly 62
feet thereof. Subject to rights of the public in public roads
abutting thereon. Also known as Highway Parcel 23D State Project
8282 (94=392), 904 Lake 71mo.
.717 acre. Part of the SE1/4 of the SW', Section 33, Township 29,
Range 21, commencing at a point on the south line of Section 33,
185 feet west of the southeast corner of the SA of said section;
thence north parallel with the east line of said 1/4 section
506.2 feet to a point; thence south 50 degrees 12' west 91.3 feet
to a point; thence south and parallel with the east line thereof
448 feet to the south line of said 1/4 section; thence east along
said south line 70 feet to the place of beginning. Except to
Highway.
Part of the SEh of the SA, Section 33, Township 29, Range 21,
beginning at a paint in the east line of said tract, 40 rods
north of the southeast corner thereof; thence southwesterly along
a line which intersects with the south line of said tract, 48
rods west of the southeast corner thereof to a point on said line
which is 185 feet west of the east line of said tract; thence
south on a line 185 feet distant and parallel with the east line
of said tract to the south line thereof; thence east along the
4
south line of said tract 185 feet to the southeast corner
thereof; thence north along the east line of said tract to the
point of beginning. Also known as Highway Parcel 23F, State
project 8282 (94=392) 904 Lake Elmo.
r.
Part of the SA of Section 33, Township 29, Range 21, being the
e
n 0e south 108.9 feet of the north 1733.2 feet of the east 200 feet.
H,v 4 )Also known as Highway Parcel 23G, State Project 8282 (94=392),
� 'HIV 904 Lake Elmo.
i Part of the SWh, Section 33, Township 29, Range 21, being the
i103C , south 108.9 feet of the north 1842.1 feet of the east 200 feet.
,:ri' i Also known as Highway Parcel 23G, State Project 8282 (94=392) 904
La yor Lake Elmo.
,• 1 1.) acne. Part of the SC�t of the SAof Section 33, Township 29,
it ange 21, beginning at an iron pipe monument set on the east line
,�/1) hereof at a point 1980 feet south of the center of said section
1Q dr and running thence north along said center line of said section
.ep 137.9 feet to an iron pipe monument; thence west by a deflection
el IV angle of 90 degrees 200 feet to an iron pipe monument; thence
south on a line parallel to said center line of said section
297.7 feet to an iron monument; thence northeasterly on a
straight line to the point of beginning. Also known as Parcel
23G State Project 8282 (94=392) 904 Lake Elmo.
A resolution objecting to the concurrent detachment and
annexation was received from the City of Lake Elmo on April 13,
1989.
The subject area was amended at the hearing, without
objection by the City of Lake Elmo, to the following described
property which is referred to as the subject area for the remainder
of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order:
All of Section 32, Township 29, Range 21 located within the
municipal limits of the City of Lake Elmo, Washington County,
Minnesota except the following:
.79 acre, Parcel 11, State Project 8282 (94-392) 902 being Parcel
11 as shown on the plat designated as State Highway Right -of -Way
Plat No. 3 of 12 of State Project (S P) 5282 (94-392) 902 on file
and of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for
Washington County. Except 37032-2200.
1 acre. Part of the SEs of the SEh, Section 32, Township 29,
Range 21, beginning at an iron monument set at the intersection
of a line drawn parallel to and 1325.57 feet east of the west
line thereof with the northerly right-of-way line of Minnesota
5
State Highway 12 as now being travelled and run; thence north
along said parallel line 330 feet to an iron monument; then east
on a line parallel to said Highway right-of-way line 132 feet to
an iron monument; thence south on a line parallel to said west
line 330 feet to an iron monument set on said northerly right-of-
way line of said Highway; thence west along said northerly right-
of-way line of said Highway 132 feet to the point of beginning
except that part taken for highway purposes.
,j -M91 acre. Parcel 9, as shown on the plat designated as State
3 of
2 of
ect 8382
o V 0 Z./Hihwa94=392yonyfileoanday ofPlat Norecord.
e ordain thelofficetofetheoRegistrar of
/ / Deeds in and for Washington County.
J� 1 acre. Part of the Sh of the SEh, Section 32, Township 29,
Range 21, beginning at an iron monument set at the intersection
�/ of a line drawn parallel to and 1589.57 feet east of the west
^ 3 line thereof with the northerly right-of-way line of Minnesota
/ 1 I, % Highway 12 as now being travelled and running thence north along
�7 tYt said parallel line 330 feet to an iron monument; thence east on a
�`� line parallel to said Highway right-of-way line 132 feet to an
/1 liron monument; thence south on a line parallel to said west line
�'(�i�,) 330 feet to an iron monument set on said northerly right-of-way
line of said Highway; thence west along said northerly right-of-
way line of said Highway 132 feet to the point of beginning,
except that part taken for highway purposes. Except that part
taken for Highway purposes.
/3.0 acre. Part of the Sh of the SEh, Section 32, Township 29,
to 'Range 21, beginning at an iron monument set at the intersection
611 of a line drawn parallel to and 1721.57 feet east of the west
v�1 Q line thereof with the northerly right-of-way line of Minnesota
J 6 State Highway 12 as now being travelled and running thence north
K t) along said parallel line 330 feet to an iron monument; thence
0,,,A1(�% east on a line parallel to said Highway right-of-way line 132
r' feet to an iron monument; thence south on a line parallel to said
west line 330 feet to an iron monument set on said northerly
right-of-way line of said Highway; thence west along said
northerly right-of-way line of said Highway 132 feet to the point
of beginning. Except to Highway.
10 20.80 acre. Part of the Sh of the SE4, Section 32, Township 29,
Range 21, parcel 16 acres of State Highway Right -of -Way, Plat Na.
�� J 3 of 12 of 82 ✓17 .
103 il,,'.35 acre. Parcel No. 23 of State Highway Right -of -Way Map 3 of
3 ;9- 12, subject to easement.
Parcel No. 22 of State Highway Right -of -Way Plat No. 3 of 12 of
��r. State Project (S.P.) 8282 (94=392) 902 on file and of record in
�� %T'� F the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for Washington County
14 0 containing .21 acre more or less, subject to easement.
Part of the SEh, Section 32, Township 29, Range 21, and that part
of the SA, Section 33, commencing at the southeast corner of
6
said SEh; thence north along the east line of said SE' 72 feet to
the northerly right-of-way line of Minnesota Trunk Highway 12;
thence east along said north line 375 feet to the point of
beginning; thence north on a line parallel to the west line of
said Section 33 366.2 feet to point; thence west at a right angle
595 feet more or less to the east line of existing roadway;
thence north 660 feet on a line parallel to the westline of said
Section 33 to a point; thence east at a right angle 655 feet to a
point; thence south on a line parallel to the west line of
Section 33, 425.42 feet more or less to the north line of Highway
12; thence west along said north line 60 feet to the point of
beginning. This description is a 60 foot strip which is 1st
Avenue and Emanuel Avenue. No value.
1.57 acres. Being part of the South h of the
Township 29, Range 21, being Parcel 8, MN DOT
No. 82-29, Trunk Highway Special Project 8282
(340) 248, together with all rights of access
plat.
SE', Section 32,
right-of-way Plat
(94=392) and I094-3
as shown on said
4.78 acres. 'Being part of the Southeast Parcel No. 16 of Section
32, Township 29, Range 21 West, State of Minnesota Highway Right -
of -Way Plat 3 of 12, Special Project 8282 (94-392) 902.
1.5 acres. Being part of the SAS of the SE4 beginning at an iron
monument set at the intersection of a line drawn parallel to and
216/.57 feet east of the west line thereof with the northerly
right-of-way line of Minnesota State Highway No. 12 as now
traveled and run; thence north along said parallel line 330 feet
to an iron monument; thence east on a line parallel to said
Highway right-of-way line 198 feet to an iron monument set at the
intersection of a line drawn parallel to and 2167.57 feet east of
the west line thereof with the northerly right-of-way line of
Minnesota State Highway No. 12 as now traveled and run; thence
north along said parallel line 330 feet to an iron monument;
thence east on a line parallel to said Highway right-of-way line
198 feet to an iron monument; thence south on a line parallel to
said west line 330 feet to an iron monument set on said northerly
right-of-way line of said Highway; thence west along said
northerly right-of-way line of said Highway 198 feet to the point
of beginning. (Excepting therefrom Parcel 37032-2075 described
as follows: being part of the SEh of the SE', Section 32,
Township 29, Range 21 described as follows: Commencing at the SE
corner of said Section, thence running westerly along said line
of Section 32 on an azimuth of 268° 31' 21" (azimuth oriented to
MN State Plane Coordinate System South Zone) 466.79 feet; thence
on an azimuth 359° 20' 13" 108.75 feet to a point of beginning of
the tract to be described; thence continuing on an azimuth 359°
20' 13" 254.25 feet; thence on an azimuth of 88° 31' 21" 162.64
feet; thence on an azimuth of 179° 29' 25" 255.13 feet; thence on
an azimuth of 268° 49' 37" 161.95 feet to the point of
beginning.)
4.03 acres. Part of the Nh of the 5E4 of Section 32, Township
29, Range 21, and part of the NW' of the SA, Section 33,
7
Township 29, Range 21, being Parcel No. 7 on MN DOT Right -of -Way
Plat No. 82-29 and 82-30. Also that part of the NEh of the SEh.
Section 32, shown as Parcel 17 on Right -of -Way Plat 82-17.
AND
All of the West 1/2 of Section 33, Township 29, Range 21, located
within the municipal limits of the City of Lake Elmo, Washington
County, Minnesota, except as follows:
Part of the SWh of the SWh, Section 33, Township 29, Range 21,
beginning at the southeast corner of the SWh of the SA, Section
33; thence north along the east line of said SA for 13 rods or
214.5 feet; thence west for 24 rods or 396 feet; thence north for
869 feet; thence east for 721 feet; thence south for 1083.5 feet
to the south line of said Section 33; thence west along said
south line of said Section 33 for 325 feet to the point of
beginning. Subject to easements except Highway Parcel 23A, MN
DOT Right -of -Way Plat 82-30.
Part of the SEh of the SWh, Section 33, Township 29, Range 21,
being parcels 23B and 23H MN DOT Right -of -Way Plat 82-30 Trunk
Highway, State Project 8282 (94-392) 904 and I094-3 (304) 248.
Part of the SEh of the SWh, Section 33, Township 29, Range 21,
being the westerly 62 feet of the following description.
Commencing at a point on the south line of said h 255 feet west
of the southeast corner of said h, this being the point of
beginning; thence west along the south line of said h 181.85 feet
to a point; thence running north on a line parallel with the east
line of said h section to a point on a line connecting point on
east line of said h section 40 rods north of said southeast
corner of said h section and point on said south line of said h
section 48 rods west of said southeast corner of said h section;
thence running northeasterly along said connecting line to a
point 255 feet west of the easterly line of said h section;
thence running south parallel to the east line of said h section
to a point of beginning. Subject to easement. Also known as SP
8282 Parcel 23C.
Part of the SEh of the SWh of Section 33, Township 29, Range 21,
Q� �tk)commencing at a point on the south line of said 1/4 section 255
feet west of the southeast corner said 1/4 section; this being
the point of beginning of this description; thence running west
along the south line of said 1/4 section 181.85 feet to a point;
thence running north on a line parallel with the east line of
said 1/4 section to a point on line connecting point on east line
of said 1/4 section 40 rods north of said southeast corner of
said 1/4 section and point on said south line of said 1/4
section, 48 rods west of said southeast corner of said 1/4
section; thence running northeasterly along said connecting line
to a point distant 255 feet west of the easterly line of said 1/4
section; thence running south parallel to the east line of said
1/4 section to the point of beginning, except the westerly 62
Q
8
0 03elvs-
feet thereof. Subject to rights of the public in public roads
abutting thereon. Also known as Highway Parcel 23D State Project
8282 (94=392), 904 Lake Elmo.
.717 acre. Part of the SEh of the SWh, Section 33, Township 29,
Range 21, commencing at a point on the south line of Section 33,
185 feet west of the southeast corner of the SWh of said section;
thence north parallel with the east line of said 1/4 section
506.2 feet to a point; thence south 50 degrees 12' west 91.3 feet
to a point; thence south and parallel with the east line thereof
448 feet to the south line of said 1/4 section; thence east along
said south line 70 feet to the place of beginning. Except to
Highway.
Part of the SEh of the SWh, Section 33, Township 29, Range 21,
beginning at a point in the east line of said tract, 40 rods
north of the southeast corner thereof; thence southwesterly along
a line which intersects with the south line of said tract, 48
rods west of the southeast corner thereof to a point on said line
which is 185 feet west of the east line of said tract; thence
south on a line 185 feet distant and parallel with the east line
of said tract to the south line thereof; thence east along the
south line of said tract 185 feet to the southeast corner
thereof; thence north along the east line of said tract to the
point of beginning. Also known as Highway Parcel 23F, State
Project 8282 (94=392) 904 Lake Elmo.
Part of the SWh of Section 33, Township 29, Range 21, being the
o VP/.south 108.9 feet of the north 1733.2 feet of the east 200 feet.
/ ,c. i Also known as Highway Parcel 23G, State Project 8282 (94=392),
904 Lake Elmo.
mart of the SWh, Section 33, Township 29, Range 21, being the
cuje outh 108.9 feet of the north 1842.1 feet of the east 200 feet.
rtyAlso known as Highway Parcel 23G, State Project 8282 (94=392) 904
Lake Elmo.
1 acre. Part of the SEh of the SWh of Section 33, Township 29,
Range 21, beginning at an iron pipe monument set on the east line
thereof at a point 1980 feet south of the center of said section
and running thence north along said center line of said section
137.9 feet to an iron pipe monument; thence west by a deflection
----angle of 90 degrees 200 feet to an iron pipe monument; thence
south on a line parallel to said center line of said section
297.7 feet to an iron monument; thence northeasterly on a
straight line to the point of beginning. Also known as Parcel
23G State Project 8282 (94=392) 904 Lake Elmo.
6.14 acres. Being part of the East h of the SWh being Parcel 23
I MN U'�v1. 8282G( T Right-of-Way
oa 94392)904andlI094-3at 30Trunk Special Project ((304)248, together with allright
of access as shown on said plat.
Parcel 237 and Parcel 7 as shown in MN DOT Right -of -Way Plat Nos.
9
82-30 and 82-47, together with all right of access as shown on
said Plat.
20.72 acres. Being part of the SA of Section 33, Township 29,
Range 21, being Parcel No. 16 as shown on State Right -of -Way Plat
No. 4 of 12 (37033-2601). Except all that part of the SA of the
SWh of Section 33, Township 29, Range 21, described as follows
to -wit: Commencing at the 'southwest corner of said Section 33;
thence north along the west line of said Section 72.0 feet to the
north right-of-way line of Minnesota Trunk Highway No. 12; thence
east along said north line 75 feet to the point of beginning;
thence east along said north line 100 feet; thence north along a
line parallel to the west line of said Section 183.8 feet to a
point; thence west at right angles a distance of 100 feet to a
point; thence south on a line parallel to the west line of said
Section a distance of 185.1 feet to the point of beginning,
Washington County, Minnesota.
Part of the Sw1 of the SA, Section 33, Township 29, Range 21,
commencing at the SEC of said SWIA of the SA, thence westerly on
a line 24 rods; thence northerly and parallel with the west line
of said Section 13 rods; thence easterly and parallel with the
south line 24 rods to the east line of said quarter 4 Section;
thence southerly 13 rods to the point of beginning.
2. Due, timely and adequate legal notice of the hearing was
published, served and filed.
3. The subject area is presently within the City of Lake
Elmo, hereinafter referred to as Lake Elmo, abuts the City of
Oakdale, hereinafter referred to as Oakdale, and is approximately
523 acres in size. The perimeter of the subject area is
approximately 25% bordered by Oakdale, approximately 53% bordered
by Lake Elmo & also bordered by Woodbury. The subject area abuts
oakdale.on the property's western boundary and a portion of its
northern boundary. The subject area is located immediately east
of Interstate 694, hereinafter referred to as I-694, and north of
Interstate 94, hereinafter referred to as I-94. The subject area
is northeast of the intersection of I-94 & I-694. Oakdale is
located on both the west side of 2-694 and also on the east side
of I-694, north and west of the subject area. A majority of the
10
subject area is located in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area,
hereinafter referred to as MUSA; the northeasternmost portion of
the subject area. is located outside of the MUSA. That land in Lake
Elmo which is within the MUSA is located in Section 32 and the west
quarter section of Section 33, which are northeast of the
intersection of I-694 and I-494. Since the subject area is that
portion of Lake Elmo which would change governmental entities if
the concurrent detachment and annexation is approved by the
Municipal Board, some of the findings of this contained herein will
deal with this specific area of Lake Elmo, while other findings may
deal with the totality of the City of Lake Elmo.
4. Oakdale had a population of approximately 7,818 in 1970,
approximately 12,123 in 1980, and a current population of
approximately 16,908. It is projected that in five years Oakdale
will have a population of approximately 20,000. In about 1983, the
.'Metropolitan Council projected that Oakdale would have a population
of 15,000 by 1990, and that by the year 2000 it would have a
population of 17,000. Oakdale has grown faster than was projected
by the Metropolitan Council.
5. Lake Elmo had a population of approximately 4,032 in
1970, a population of approximately 5,296 in 1980, and a current
population of approximately 5,580. The Metropolitan Council
estimates that Lake Elmo currently has approximately 2,076
households. The Metropolitan Council in its 1986 revision of the
Metropolitan Development i Investment Framework, hereinafter
referred to as MDIF, and Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan projected
that Lake Elmo would have a population of 6,200 by 1990 and 6,600
by 2000. The majority of the development of population within Lake
11
Elmo is single family residential. Lake Elmo is growing at
somewhat less than the projection of the Metropolitan Council.
Lake Elmo's population growth has been approximately 5% from 1980
to 1989.
6. The subject area has a present population of
approximately 26. It is projected based upon a 1989 study by
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. that in five years, with
full development, the subject area could have a population of
approximately 1,500.
7. The detachment and annexation of the subject area will
not significantly affect the existing population of either Lake
Elmo or Oakdale.
If the subject area were to achieve full development, its
projected population of 1,500 would be approximately a 9% increase
in the present population of Oakdale or approximately a 26%
increase for the present population of Lake Elmo.
8. The topography of the subject area is gently rolling and
irregular. The soils are glacial outwash and glacial till. There
are some prime agricultural soils in the eastern half and scattered
areas in the western half of the subject area. soils with severe
limitations for development serviced by on -site septic systems are
located in the north, west, and southeast portions of the subject
area. Those soil limitations do not apply to development serviced
by central sanitary sewer. There are steep slopes adjacent to
wetlands. There are two small lakes located in the northern part
of the annexation area, which are protected by the Department of
Natural Resources, hereinafter referred to as the DNR. There are
scattered wetlands in the north and west parts of the area. There
12
is an extensive floodplain area located in the north part of the
area that drains to the southeast and out of the area. There is
also an isolated floodplain area located in the west -central part
of the area. Most of the annexation area is located in the Cottage
Grove Ravine watershed, and drains southeast into Woodbury.
The Washington County soil survey indicates that in the
subject area there are approximately 30% poor soils for
construction purposes, 10% excellent soils for construction
purposes and the remaining soils are between the two extremes but
still suitable for construction purposes. The soil survey for the
subject area outside of the MUSA, found soils of both extremes.
The granular soils indicated in that portion of the subject area
are not beneficial to the construction of individual sewage
treatment systems because they drain too freely. The soils
indicated as not beneficial to individual sewage treatment systems
would be adequate for typical utility and street construction.
9. The general topography of Lake Elmo is gently rolling and
irregular. There are many depressions and knolls. The higher
elevations over 1,000 feet above sea level exist in the northern
and western portions of the city. The lower elevations in the city
down to 870 feet above sea level are in the southeastern corner.
Steep slopes traverse the city from the northwest to the southeast.
There are lakes in Lake Elmo.
There are soils, described as prime agricultural,
primarily to the northeast of the part of Lake Elmo described as
the old Village area and in the southwestern corner of Lake Elmo,
including a portion of the subject area. Soils with limitations
for septic systems are located primarily in the northwestern area
13
of Lake Elmo described as the Tri-Lakes area. There has been
rapid, high density development of the area and as a result, septic
system failures have become a recurring problem. Both the Tri-
Lakes area and the Old Village area of Lake Elmo, as well as almost
all of the general development in Lake Elmo, are over a mile and
a half away from the subject area. The Tri-Lakes area, in the
northwestern part of Lake Elmo, is over three miles away from the
subject area.
Lake Elmo is in both the Ramsey -Washington Metropolitan
Watershed District and the Cottage Grove Ravine Watershed District.
10. Oakdale has a topography that consists of low, rounded
hills and depressions. There are irregular, short, steep slopes
with a scattering of low areas containing lakes, wetlands, or
intermittent ponds. Many of the lakes, wetlands or intermittent
ponds are self-contained with the quantity of surface water runoff
insufficient to cause the impondment areas to overflow. The
existence of self-contained impondments can significantly reduce
the quantity of surface water runoff tributary to downstream lakes
and streams. Oakdale has soils of great variability ranging from
peat and clay to sand and gravel. Much of the city is underlaid
with lenses of clay of varying thicknesses and varying depths. On
sloping ground and on the upland a common soil is the Scandia loamy
fine sand, a well -drained soil. Within low-lying areas and
relatively flat areas, the soils commonly found in the city are
Adolph silty clay, muck, and peat. These soils are
characteristically very slow draining areas.
Oakdale is in the Ramsey -Washington Metropolitan
Watershed District, the Cottage Grove Ravine Watershed District and
14
the Valley Branch Watershed District.
The detachment and annexation of the subject area will
not impact the topography or natural features of either city.
11. Oakdale has a total acreage of approximately 6,600 acres.
12. Lake Elmo has a total acreage of approximately 15,680
acres.
The only portion of Lake Elmo within the MUSA is located
in Section 32 and the west quarter Section of 33. The subject area
includes some but not all of the MUSA area of Lake Elmo. Portions
of the MUSA area were previously before the board in Minnesota
Municipal Board Docket No. D-239 Lake Elmo/A-4453 Oakdale, and the
remaining portions of the Lake Elmo MUSA have not been petitioned
for concurrent detachment and annexation.
13. The 523 acre subject area is approximately 7.92% of the
present size of Oakdale and approximately 3.34% of the total area
of Lake Elmo. The proposed detachment and annexation of the
subject area will not substantially impact the size of either city.
14. The subject area has approximately 20 acres in low
density residential use, approximately 1.7 acres in medium density
residential use, approximately 9.8 acres in commercial use,
approximately 232.4 acres in agricultural use, approximately 52.6
acres in wetlands of which 20.7 acres are protected by the
DNB, approximately 193.5 acres of vacant land and approximately
12.6 acres of street right-of-way.
There are a few houses located in the subject area south
of Tenth Street and North of Fourth Street, East of Helmo Avenue
and West of County Road 13B. The land south of Fourth Street
contains rental housing units and an office showroom business.
15
East of the office showroom are two old dilapidated rental housing
units.
15. The Metropolitan Council completed a review of the 1979
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan on June 24, 1984. The Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Sewer Plan was updated and reviewed by the
Metropolitan Council in 1986. A plan amendment which revised a
concept plan for future land uses, herein after referred to as
LUCP, in Lake Elmo's MUSA was approved by the Metropolitan Council
on April 23, 1987. Additionally, a subsequent amendment to the
1979 Comprehensive Plan, deleted any reference to the provision of
sewer and water to the Lake Elmo MUSA by 1990; no new timelines
were included.
Lake Elmo has a zoning ordinance and a Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan.
16. The Oakdale Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in
1979. The Oakdale Comprehensive Plan review was completed by the
Metropolitan Council on May 1, 1985. A plan amendment to include
the northeast quadrant of Oakdale in the MUSA was wapproved by the
Council on April 13, 1989.
The City of Oakdale has a zoning ordinance, subdivision
regulations, an official map, a capital improvements program and
budgets, a fire code and a flood plain ordinance.
17. The concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject
area is not specifically considered by either the Lake Elmo or the
Oakdale Comprehensive Plans; since the subject area's concurrent
detachment and annexation was not considered at the time of the
development of the Comprehensive Plans, it is presently, therefore,
not consistent with either Comprehensive Plan.
16
Oakdale cannot request approvals from the Metropolitan
Council for an amendment to either its Comprehensive Plan or its
Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan until the subject area is in its
jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the LOOP and the included uses therein
are generally consistent with both Comprehensive Plans.
The MDIP attempts to direct orderly growth in the
Metropolitan Council Region and to provide regional services needed
to support that growth. Development is projected to move outward
from existing developed areas.
18. The 1986 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan indicates that
approximately 216 acres of land were in commercial use throughout
Lake Elmo in 1986. Lake Elmo's 1986 amended Comprehensive Plan
anticipates some commercial activity in the subject area in Section
32 and 33, before 1990. The anticipated commercial development in
the subject area has not occurred.
Lake Elmo issued commercial building permits valued at
"rL $103,000.00 in 1983, $204,000.00 in 1984, $314,000.00 in 1985,
Anb
V . $50,000.00 in 1986, and no commercial building permits in 1987 or
1988. There was no evidence that industrial permits were issued
by Lake Elmo in 1982 through 1986 and none were issued in 1987 or
1988.
The property owners anticipate additional commercial
development in the subject area.
The Lake Elmo LUCP encompasses the majority of the land
in the subject area. The plan provides for commercial and office
development in the western and southwesternmost portion of the
subject area, commercial development in the center of the subject
area, medium to high residential development in primarily the north
17
(central and northeastern portion of the subject area and low to
medium residential development in the northeastern portion of the
subject area in the MUSA. The plan also provides, along I-94, that
east of the commercial development is medium to high residential
development, and east of that proposed use is highway commercial
development. The concept plan does not include that portion of the
subject area lying outside of the MUSA.
19. The vast majority of the subject area is zoned rural
residential. Some of the subject area is presently in Green Acres.
In recognition of pre-existing uses on the site, portions of the
subject area are presently zoned general business, highway
business, and R-1 residential.
Under the existing zoning, development within the rural
residential zone can occur as one residence per 10 acres.
20. The LUCP projects the area zoned rural residential to be
used for office and commercial development as well as residential
\ development ranging from low density to high density.
21. Lake Elmo has not rezoned any of the subject area to
conform with its LUCP.
Presently the LUCP is inconsistent with the zoning of the
subject area.
22. Lake Elmo has land zoned for agricultural use,
agricultural preserve use, rural residential use, public use,
single family residential use, general business use, industrial use
located within the old village portion of the city, manufactured
home park use, highway business use, and a number of conditional
use permit areas. The land in Lake Elmo adjacent to the subject
area has portions zoned rural residential, agriculture, agriculture
18
preserves, public or R-1, single family residential.
23. The Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan notes the need to
provide costly municipal services as intensive development occurs.
Intensive development requires extensive services, which are
inconsistent with the rural lifestyle and type of development
sought for Lake Elmo. Lake Elmo wishes to avoid the need for the
extensive services that follow development, because those services
might result in expenditures to the remainder of Lake Elmo.
24. Pursuant to its land use plan Oakdale has designated land'
for residential use of a very low density, single family, low
density single family detached or duplexad development, medium
density and high density, as well as commercial use, general
industrial, industrial -office use, public and/or park use,
institutional use and ponding areas.
25. Land in Oakdale immediately adjacent to the subject area
is presently designated on its land use plan as follows: the land
immediately east of I-694 and south of 10th Street for commercial
and office use; the land immediately north of 10th Street, for
community commercial industrial office and some ponding areas; the
land immediately west of I-694, for community commercial industrial
office and ponding areas.
26. The ,Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan outlines the
approximately 470 acre tract of land in Sections 32 6 33 as the
only portion of Lake Elmo within the MUSA.
27. . Lake Elmo has indicated that for rezoning of any portion
of the subject area or the remaining land in Sections 32 6 33,
covered by the LUCP, it is necessary for the land owner to present
a specific development plan consistent with the LUCP and then
19
request a rezoning.
Lake Elmo does not presently anticipate initiating
rezoning of the subject area or any other portion of Sections 32
i 33 on its own.
28. Land that is zoned for intensive uses will need
additional municipal services as development occurs. The 1986 Lake
Elmo Comprehensive Plan notes that the Lake Elmo City Council
took no action on engineering feasibility reports for the subject
area and the remainder of the Lake Elmo MUSA area.
Lake Elmo controls growth by zoning. Lake Elmo has
indicated that as a land use alteration procedure, a rezoning
proposal request for a parcel of land must be accompanied by a
specific development plan for the property. Developers will be
responsible for paying all costs of new or extended services.
Presently, any development within the subject area or any other
undeveloped portion of Lake Elmo's MUSA area would necessitate a
request for rezoning to the appropriate zoning district.
At least one member of the Lake Elmo City Council views
any proposal put forth for the subject area as needing to be of a
major long term type of development, that will not be replaced
within approximately 20 years, but rather would not need any
redevelopment for 30 to 40 years. Lake Elmo requires a 4/sth's
vote of the City Council members 6 Mayor to rezone property.
Lake Elmo has not taken an active position of extending
sewer or water to the subject area or the remainder of the LUCP in
Lake Elmo. Lake Elmo has focused its growth and planning toward
a rural residential form of development. To change such a posture
would require a revision of the basic direction 'of Lake Elmo. In
20
Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan it is articulated that new
development in Lake Elmo must be carefully regulated in terms of
location and density to prevent the premature demand for costly
levels of municipal services. There is limited availability of
urban services such as central sewer and water, or paved roads.
29. Oakdale generally follows the practice of zoning land
consistent with its Comprehensive Plan. It examines any specific
development proposals in light of the existing zoning criteria.
Oakdale does not follow Lake Elmo's planning practice of performing
ad hoc rezoning of land after a review of specific proposal for the
land.
30. The concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject
area will relieve Lake Elmo of the need to review and determine
whether a specific development proposal warrants the rezoning of
land within the subject area consistent with the proposed use.
31. Oakdale would need to amend its Comprehensive Plan,
prior to any rezoning of the subject area. The LUCP for the
subject area and the remainder of the MUSA area is generally
consistent with the Oakdale Comprehensive Plan and the types of
zoning and land uses in Oakdale adjacent to the subject area. If
the subject area were a part of Oakdale, zoning of the subject area
as commercial, and various types of residential uses as well as
rural residential for the eastern most part of the land not in the
MIIBA, would be consistent with Oakdale's present Comprehensive
Plan.
Oakdale has issued commercial building permits valued at:
1982, $210,000.00, 1983, $588,000.00, 1984, $3,830,000.00, 1985,
$35,000.00, 1986, $1,987,000.00, 1987, $1,380,000.00, and 1988,
21
$1,444,000.00. Oakdale has issued industrial building permits
valued at: 1982, $800,000.00, 1984, $85,000.00, 1985,
$3,732,000.00, 1986, 585,000.00, and 1987, $998,000.00.
32. The concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject
area would benefit land use planning patterns and physical
development of the affected cities.
33. Lake Elmo and Oakdale have Appendix E of the Uniform
Building Coda. Oakdale has a building inspection department. If
the subject area becomes part of Oakdale, any future development
would have to conform with Oakdale's building code.
Presently, Oakdale permit fees are scheduled to cover
expenses relating to building inspection. There is no anticipated
problem should the subject area be within Oakdale's jurisdiction.
The proposed concurrent detachment and annexation will
have a neutral affect on the building code of the affected cities.
34. Oakdale has a transportation network that includes
interstate highways, state highways, county roads, and municipal
streets within its boundaries.
35. Lake Elmo has a transportation network that includes
interstate highways, state highways, county roads, and municipal
streets within its boundaries.
36. The subject area is bounded on the north by Tenth Street
on the westernmost portion of the subject area by 1-694 on its
southernmost boundary by I-94 on its easternmost boundary by County
Road 13B.
Tenth Street north is also known as County Road 70. A
Minnesota Department of Transportation frontage road bisects the
southern half of the subject area. Malmo Avenue north bisects the
22
northwestern quarter of the subject area.
The intersection of I-94 and I-694 is one of the major
freeway interchanges in the area.
37. Access to 1-694 north of 1-94 from the subject area is
either by the Minnesota Department of Transportation frontage road,
also known as Fourth Street, or County Road 70.
The Department of Transportation is responsible for the
maintenance of its frontage road.
38. The concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject
area will not alter the location of any of the state or county
roads. That portion of Helmo Avenue in Lake Elmo is totally
located in the subject area. Costs for the construction of Helmo
Avenue were assessed to the adjacent property owners. As
development occurs, consistent with the LUCP for types of uses,
additional streets serving as access to the various portions of the
subject area, are the only anticipated additions to the
transportation pattern.
Jurisdiction for maintenance and repair of the county and
state roads will not be altered because of the concurrent
detachment and annexation of the subject area.
The approval of the concurrent detachment and annexation
will relieve Lake Elmo of the need to construct access roads to the
subject area. Access from I-694 to the subject area is from the
west, similar to Oakdale's location to the subject area. Since the
LIMP is generally consistent with Oakdale's Comprehensive Plan,
traffic patterns and transportation networks developed to
accommodate the subject area will be consistent with those that
would have occurred if the subject area had been developable in
23
Lake Elmo.
The concurrent detachment and annexation will not create any
additional adverse traffic patterns or transportation problems for
Oakdale or Lake Elmo, given the fact that both communities
anticipate development of the subject area in a similar fashion.
39. Oakdale provides its residents with water, sanitary
sewer, storm sewer, fire protection, police protection, street
improvements and maintenance, administrative services, recreational
opportunities and ambulance service. Presently, Oakdale has a ten
inch water main loop around the Bergen Plaza X-Mart Development
hooking into the trunk water main system for Hadley Avenue.
This land is located west of the subject area across I-694.
Additionally, there is a ten inch water main system servicing the
property north of the,.subject area, as an extension of the trunk
water main system.
Oakdale has divided its water distribution system into
three zones. The subject area is adjacent to the central zone.
There are presently three wells in the central zone which could
serve the annexation area.
Oakdale has a present policy of not making any new
extensions of sanitary sewer or water outside of its present
corporate boundaries. Because of the configuration of Highway 120
on Oakdale's western border, Oakdale presently provides water
service to several properties in Maplewood and several in North St.
Paul, off existing systems, without the need for extending trunk
lines.
40. Oakdale presently has sanitary sewer within the Bergen
Plaza X-Mart site near the intersection of loth and Hadley.
f
24
Additionally, there is a twelve inch sanitary sewer line through
the property north of the subject area. There is a lift station
in the vicinity of Fifteenth Street at Eagle Point school referred
to as Lift Station #3. It is presently 20 years old. It was built
as a temporary lift station with a single pump and no back-up. It
costs approximately $3,000.00 per year to maintain the Litt
Station, and is projected to cost approximately $15,000.00 to
rehabilitate the Lift Station should it cease to function properly.
The long range plan to service that area is by gravity flow.
Gravity service to that area would be south past the
present Oakdale city limits at Tenth Street down to the Woodbury
Oakdale Northdale East Oakdale intercepter (hereinafter referred
to as WONE). Oakdale paid Lake Elmo approximately $48,000.00 for
oversizing the WONE, so that it could have capacity for that
portion of Oakdale.
41. Oakdale is planning to construct a new well someplace in
the vicinity of Fifteenth Street and Helmo North. Construction
will include a new water tower. The construction of the water
tower will occur regardless of any boundary change to the subject
area.
The well is anticipated to have a capacity of
approximately 1,000 gallons per minute. The current well capacity
per well in Oakdale ranges approximately between 1000-1600 hundred
gallons per minute.
The elevated tank under consideration could be sized
between one million and one half to two million gallons, depending
on need determination. The tank could have sufficient capacity to
service the subject area.
25
42. If the subject area was concurrently detached and
annexed, Oakdale could presently provide it with water service,
although Oakdale would need to eventually increase its water system
to supply a fully developed subject area.
43. The new well is anticipated to cost approximately
$250,000. The elevated tank for the present needs of Oakdale is
anticipated to cost approximately $900,000.
44. The cost of the new well and tank is covered by a fund
that receives water availability charges for hook-ups to the
Oakdale water system. The well and tank will be paid for whether
or not the subject area is concurrently detached and annexed.
45. Water service to the subject area, if it were
concurrently detached and annexed, would come from connection with
the water loop presently located in Bergen Plaza and X-Mart, west
of the subject area across I-694 as well as additionally from a
connection along Eelmo Avenue to the existing ten inch water main
loop.
46. To provide water to the subject area, Lake Elmo would
have to construct an entirely new water system in the subject area,
since its only present water system is located a significant
distance away in the old village portion of Lake Elmo. It would
cost Lake Elmo approximately $632,500 to construct a free standing
elevated 500,000 gallon -water tank to service the subject area and
'those portions of Sections 32 i 33 within the MUSA. Additionally
to service the subject area, Lake Elmo plans to construct two wells
and pump houses at a cost of approximately $900,400.
To increase Oakdale's proposed water storage tank, which
could service the subject area, by 500,00o gallons, the cost would
26
be approximately $250,000.
47. It would be cheaper to expand the Oakdale water system
to service the subject area than for Lake Elmo to construct a new
system to service the subject area by Lake Elmo.
48. Lake Elmo presently provides its residents with fire
protection through the Lake Elmo Volunteer Fire Department, police
protection through a contract with the Washington County Sheriff's
Department, ambulance service through Lakeview Memorial Hospital,
in Stillwater, Minnesota, street improvements and maintenance,
administrative services, water 'CO that portion of Lake Elmo
referred to as the ',Old Village'', and sanitary sewer, by a direct
connection to the WOKE to the Connco Shoe Store and the adjacent
rental housing unit located within the subject area.
At times, the Oakdale police department has responded to
requests for assistance from people in the subject area and arrived
c �Zc"ite, cd8J1e. fleta' L@ht&///p'unfjam� �l`% 7� 7
prior to Lake Elmo's police which is provided by the Washington
County Sheriff's Department.
49. There is no Metropolitan Waste Control Sanitary Sewer
Service within Lake Elmo, except for that portion of the sanitary
sewer serving the Connco Shoe Store and adjacent rental housing
unit.
Lake Elmo would have to construct its first major trunk
sewer line to provide'sanitary sewer service to the subject area.
50. Lake Elmo had a 1986 sewer flow, based on Lake Elmo's
1986 comprehensive sewer plan, of .0027 million gallons per day
(hereinafter referred to as MGD). The present sewer flow is
approximately the same as in 1986. Lake Elmo has a planned flow
of .133 MGD for the year 1990, and a planned flow by the year 2000
27
of .458 MGD based on the city's 1986 Comprehensive Sewer Plan.
Presently, there is a sewer capacity of .458 MGD reserved, in the
WONE interceptor for Lake Elmo, to be used by the MUSA area in
Sections 32 and the west one quarter of section 33.
51. That portion of the subject area in Section 33 located
south of Fourth Street and East of a northerly extension of Ideal
Avenue is within the MUSA, and considered by the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Sewer Plan.
The balance of the subject area located East of the
extension of Ideal Avenue north and north of Fourth Street within
Section 33 is not in the MUSA and no sewer service from the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission is presently planned for that
area.
52. Oakdale had a 1984 sewer flow of 1.79 MGD in Service Area
1, which is connected indirectly to the WONE interceptor. Oakdale
has a planned sewer flow of 2.12 MGD for the year 1990 and a 2.99
MGD flow planned for the year 2000 based on Oakdale's comprehensive
sewer plan.
53. Oakdale prepared and the Metropolitan Council approved
an amendment to Oakdale's Comprehensive Plan to extend the MUSA to
include the northeast quadrant of Oakdale. The Met Council granted
its approval on April 13, 1989.
Oakdale was able to extend the MUSA to this area of
Oakdale, because development had not occurred at the maximum limit
allowed by its Comprehensive Plan. The lesser density allowed
capacity to remain within the MUSA system allotted to Oakdale
thereby allowing for additional development. With this unused
capacity Oakdale was able to expand the MUSA to include its
28
northeast quadrant, which had previously been outside of the MUSA.
54. if the subject area is concurrently detached from Lake
Elmo and annexed to Oakdale, the sewer interceptor capacity
allocated to that area would remain allocated to those parcels that
had previously been assessed for sewer service and not to a
specific city. Land in the subject area within the MUSA has been
assessed for the WOKE sewer line. The WONE assessments on the
property have been paid or are in the process of being paid. There
is presently a $85,000 surplus in the WONE assessment fund and all
of the assessments have not been completely paid.
55. Oakdale cannot request an extension of the MUSA for that
portion of the subject area presently outside of the MUSA because
it is presently not within Oakdale's jurisdiction.
As the subject area develops, the city which controls it,
will be in a position to determine whether the density and flows
from the development have used up all of the present allotted
capacity within the MUSA, or whether there is existing room for
expansion within the present system. Such expansion could include
that portion of the subject area presently north and east of the
MUSA, since most of the land within Lake Elmo immediately north of
loth Street is presently zoned agricultural/agricultural preserves.
56. School District No. 622 provides service to the subject
area and those portions of Lake Elmo and Oakdale immediately
adjacent to it.
The concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject
area would not result in any change of that service and would have
no immediate impact on the school district. Potential development
of the subject area could enhance the overall school district tax
•29
base.
57. The subject area has an estimated market value of
approximately $3,618,800.
The subject area has a gross tax capacity of
approximately $110,379.
58. Oakdale has an assessed estimated market value of
approximately $415,459.400.
The gross tax capacity in Oakdale for the county is
23.030%, for Oakdale is 16.977%, and for the school district
52.159%.
59. The total bonded indebtedness for Oakdale is
approximately $26,010,000.
Oakdale has used tax increment financing to assist
development within Oakdale.
60. Oakdale has a class six fire insurance rating.
61. Lake Elmo has expressed no interest in tax increment
financing for the extension of services to the subject area.
Subsequent to the 93 acre petition for concurrent detachment
annexation approval, Minnesota Municipal Board Docket No. D-239
Lake Elmo/A-4453 Oakdale, and the present hearing on the 523 acre
request for concurrent detachment annexation, Lake Elmo has
retained a financial correspondent financial analyst to outline
the options available for the installation of municipal sewer and
water.
62. Half of the acreage within the subject area have soils
that would have problems with development on on -site septic
systems.
63. At the time of the original engineering feasibility study
30
for sewer and water, the property owners were apprised by Lake Elmo
that the cost for city sewer and water to the property owners would
be $3,000,000.00 paid up front.
64. The property owners in the subject area indicated to Lake
Elmo they were willing to pay for the extension of sewer and water,
but were looking for some form of city assisted financing so that
they did not have to pay all of the costs prior to any development
of the subject area.
Lake Elmo is concerned that extension of municipal sewer
and water to the subject area as well as the remainder of Section
32 and 33 would result in deferred assessments being borne by Lake
Elmo because of the land in Green Acres and other considerations.
The Lake Elmo officials did not offer any alternatives
to the property owners,.inquiry. Lake Elmo has indicated a desire
to avoid any risk related to the extension of sewer and water to
'Sections 32 i 33.
65. At least one commercial property owner in the subject
area does not get a reduction on his insurance for the sprinkler
system in his building since it is served by an on -site well and
not a municipal system.
The property owner would receive a benefit through
lowered fire insurance premiums if he received municipal water
service.
66. some property owners have received inquiries concerning
purchase of some or all of their properties, with the general
requirement that the property be part of Oakdale.
The property owner whose land is presently in Green Acres
is willing to bring it out of Green Acres if sewer and water were
31
available to it.
67. Lake Elmots desire for a long lasting anchoring type of
development proposal for Section 32 prior to installation of
municipal services may be unrealistic given the limited number of
such types of development available.
Lake Elmo provided at least one of the property owners
in the subject area with an industrial revenue bond to assist in
the purchase of commercial property in Lake Elmo that had stood
vacant. The revenue bond vas a ten-year bond with approximately
three years of payment remaining. The commercial building is now
one of the top 10 real estate taxpayers in Lake Elmo.
68. The subject area is presently not experiencing or causing
any known environmental problems.
There have been over the past years some on -site septic
system failure within the subject area or adjacent lands within
sections 32 and 33.
69. To continue to protect the environment it is necessary
that development in the subject area be served by municipal
sanitary sewer, especially in those areas with soils that are not
conducive to on -site septic systems.
There was no testimony as to any environmental problems
near the subject area in Oakdale or in Lake Elmo.
70. Lake Elmo's Tri-Lakes area, which is located
significantly north of the subject area, has experienced septic
system failures as a recurring problem, because of the rapid high
density development of that area.
71. The concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject
area will not improve or deteriorate the present environmental
32
conditions of Lake Elmo or Oakdale.
72. The 1986 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan indicated that Lake
Elmo maintains a 5-year capital improvement program for major
public works associated with implementing the Comprehensive Plan.
The 1988 and 1989 Lake Elmo budgets did not include any entries in
its 5-year capital improvement program for either municipal central
sewer or water.
Since the 1986 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan indicated
that some commercial development would occur prior to 1990 in the
MUSA area, a 5-year capitol improvement program for budgets 1988
and 1989 would take expenditures into account if it anticipated
that such services would be offered.
73. The concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject
area would allow for more efficient delivery of services by the
cities while not requiring Lake Elmo to invest any money in its
capitol fund for any deferred costs for the extension of sanitary
sewer or water to the subject area.
74. Lake Elmo has a bond indebtedness of $235,000 as of 1989.
75. The Tax Capacity of Lake Elmo in Washington County in
1989 is $4,990,800.
76. Lake Elmo has a local government tax capacity rate of
10.544. The concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject
area will not have a dramatic impact on the assessed value of Lake
Elmo or Oakdale.
77. The subject area will remain liable for any present
bonded indebtedness it is obligated for in Lake Elmo.
78. Lake Elmo's present bonded indebtedness will not be
impacted by the detachment and annexation.
33
79. The loss of potential development for Lake Elmo is offset
by the loss of the need to service the subject area to bring about
development. Oakdale gains potential development of the subject
area and the duty to serve it consistent with applicable statutes.
80. Governmental services now available in the affected
municipalities can be more effectively or more economically
provided by the proposed detachment and annexation.
CONCLUSIONS 0$ LAW
I. The Minnesota Municipal Board duly acquired and now has
jurisdiction of the within proceeding.
2. Concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject area
is in the best interest of that portion of Lake Elmo consisting of
the subject property.
3. Oakdale can provide the subject area with the necessary
governmental services.
• 4. The remainder of Lake 21mo can continue to survive
without the subject area and will be relieved of the need to
provide rezoning and utility service and other additional municipal
services required by development necessary to the type of
development Lake Elmo acknowledges is appropriate for the subject
area.
5. The concurrent detachment and annexation will provide for
more effective or economic delivery of services of the affected
municipalities.
6. The concurrent detachment and annexation will benefit
planning and land use patterns and physical development.
7. There are no major transportation issues or proposed
highway development and the transportation network will not be
34
adversed or altered by the concurrent detachment and annexation.
8. The concurrent detachment and annexation will benefit the
municipalities and is in the best interest of the municipalities.
9. The Minnesota Municipal Board should issue an order
approving the concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject
area from Laka Elmo to Oakdale.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the property described herein is
hereby detached from Lake Elmo and annexed to Oakdale the same as
if it had originally been a part thereof:
All of Section 32, Township 29, Range 21 located within the
municipal limits of the City of Lake Elmo, Washington County,
Minnesota except the following:
.79 acre, Parcel 11, State Project 8282 (94-392Y 902 being Parcel
Lt703d-c&a/0 11 as shown on the plat designated as State Highway Right -of -Way
17WTc OF Plat No. 3 of 12 of State Project (S P) S282 (94-392) 902 on file
',vAJ and of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for
Washington County. Except 37032-2200.
1 acre. Part of the 5E4 of the SEh, Section 32, Township 29,
Ff%03c? c7/SD Range 21, beginning at an iron monument set at the intersection
_ of a line drawn parallel to and 1325.57 feet east of the west
t "Tt OF H^) line thereof with the northerly right-of-way line of Minnesota
State Highway 12 as now being travelled and run; thence north
along said parallel line 330 feet to an iron monument; then east
on a line parallel to said Highway right-of-way line 132 feet to
an iron monument; thence south on a line parallel to said west
line 330 feet to an iron monument set on said northerly right-of-
way line of said Highway; thence west along said northerly right-
of-way line of said Highway 132 feet to the point of beginning
except that part taken for highway purposes.
.91 acre. Parcel 9, as shown on the plat designated as State
Highway Right -of -Way Plat No. 3 of 12 of State Project 8382
94=392 on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of
Deeds in and for Washington County.
1 acre. Part of the Sh of the SEi, Section 32, Township 29,
703 9-das Range 21, beginning at an iron monument set at the intersection
-�Tc`�/_��3of a line drawn parallel to and 1589.57 feet east of the west
line thereof with the northerly right-of-way line of Minnesota
Highway 12 as now being travelled and running thence north along
( said parallel line 330 feet to an iron monument; thence east on a
line parallel to said Highway right-of-way line 132 feet to an
'7o9a-a0a
79 t a1 NA)
25
iron monument; thence south on a line parallel to said west line
330 feet to an iron monument set on said northerly right-of-way
line of said Highway; thence west along said northerly right-of-
way line of said Highway 132 feet to the point of beginning,
except that part taken for highway purposes. Except that part
taken for Highway purposes.
1.0 acre. Part of the Sh of the SW*, Section 32, Township 29,
37a a-c'/4oRange 21, beginning at an iron monument set at the intersection
TATEQ�%Itiyt of a line drawn parallel to and 1721.57 feet east of the west
line thereof with the northerly right-of-way line of Minnesota
State Highway 12 as now being travelled and running thence north
along said parallel line 330 feet to an iron monument; thence
east on a line parallel to said Highway right-of-way line 132
feet to an iron monument; thence south on a line parallel to said
west line 330 feet to an iron monument set on said northerly
right-of-way line of said Highway; thence west along said
northerly right-of-way line of said Highway 132 feet to the point
of beginning. Except to Highway.
20.80 acre. Part of the Sh of the SE;, Section 32, Township 29,
701 -3ccs Range 21, parcel 16 acres of State Highway Right -of -Way, Plat No.
h'TE CFN,c) 3 of 12 of 82-17.
.35 acre. Parcel No. 23 of State Highway Right -of -Way Map 3 of
12, subject to easement.
Parcel No. 22 of State Highway Right -of -Way Plat No. 3 of 12 of
State Project (S.P.) 8282 (94=392) 902 an file and of record in
the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for Washington County
containing .21 acre more or less, subject to easement.
Part of the SE'M, Section 32, Township 29, Range 21, and that part
of the SA, Section 33, commencing at the southeast corner of
said SEA; thence north along the east line of said 3E4 72 feet to
the northerly right-of-way line of Minnesota Trunk Highway 12;
thence east along said north line 375 feet to the point of
beginning; thence north on a line parallel to the west line of
said Section 33 366.2 feet to point; thence west at a right angle
595 feet more or less to the east line of existing roadway;
thence north 60 feet on a line parallel to the west line of said
Section 33 to a point; thence east at a right angle 655 feet to a
point; thence south on a line parallel to the west line of
Section 33, 425.42 feet more or less to the north line of Highway
12; thence west along said north line 60 feet to the point of
beginning. This description is a 60 foot strip which is 1st
Avenue and Emanuel Avenue. No value.
7a7« -&70a
A7C a..y v
'70 a7502
'ATE OF�yv
7C2a-fl O
TV cf /A,te
6.4.420
1.57 acres. Being part of the South h of the SEA, Section 32,
7C3,l CCa Township 29, Range 21, being Parcel 8, MN DOT right-of-way Plat
TF 7E nF,yr> No. 82-29, Trunk Highway Special Project 8282 (94=392) and I094-3
(340) 248, together with all rights of access as shown on said
plat.
P70a-c10/Q 4.78 acres. Being part of the Southeast Parcel No. 16 of Section
`ere GP 44)
C
36
32, Township 29, Range 21 West, State of Minnesota Highway Right -
of -Way Plat 3 of 12, Special Project 8282 (94-392) 902.
1.5 acres. Being part of the sh of the SEh beginning at an iron
monument set at the intersection of a line drawn parallel to and
2167.57 feet east of the west line thereof with the northerly
right-of-way line of Minnesota State Highway No. 12 as now
traveled and run; thence north along said parallel line 330 feet
to an iron monument; thence east on a line parallel to said
Highway right-of-way line 198 feet to an iron monument set at the
intersection of a Line drawn parallel to and 2167.57 feet east of
the west line thereof with the northerly right-of-way line of
Minnesota State Highway No. 12 as now traveled and run; thence
north along said parallel line 330 feet to an iron monument;
thence east on a line parallel to said Highway right-of-way line
198 feet to an iron monument; thence south on a line parallel to
said west line 330 feet to an iron monument set on said northerly
right-of-way line of said Highway; thence west along said
northerly right-of-way line of said Highway 198 feet to the point
of beginning. (Excepting therefrom Parcel 37032-2075 described
as follows: being part of the SEh of the SEh, Section 32,
Township 29, Range 21 described as follows: Commencing at the SE
corner of said Section, thence running westerly along said line
of Section 32 on an azimuth of 268° 31' 21" (azimuth oriented to
MN State Plane Coordinate System South Zone) 466.79 feet; thence
on an azimuth 359° 20' 13" 108.75 feet to a point of beginning of
the tract to be described; thence continuing on an azimuth 359°
20' 13" 254.25 feet; thence on an azimuth of 88° 31' 21" 162.64
feet; thence on an azimuth of 179° 29' 25" 255.13 feet; thence on
an azimuth of 268° 49' 37" 161.95 feet to the point of
beginning.)
4.03 acres. Part of the N' of the SEh of Section 32, Township
v ?t
/�^'�'�:./ 29, Range 21, and part of the NWh of the SW1/4, Section 33,
47470e: fi) Township 29, Range 21, being Parcel No. 7 on MN DOT Right -of -Way
Plat No. 82-29 and 82-30. Also that part of the NEh of the 3E1/4,
Section 32, shown as Parcel 17 on Right -of -Way Plat 82-17.
AND
All of the West 1/2 of Section 33, Township 29, Range 21, located
within the municipal limits of the City of Lake Elmo, Washington
County, Minnesota, except as follows:
Part of the SWh of the SWh, Section 33, Township 29, Range 21,
beginning at the southeast corner of the SWh of the SWh, Section
33; thence north along the east line of said SWh for 13 rods or
214.5 feet; thence west for 24 rods or 396 feet; thence north for
869 feet; thence east for 721 feet; thence south for 1083.5 feet
to the south line of said Section 33; thence west along said
south line of said Section 33 for 325 feet to the point of
beginning. Subject to easements except Highway Parcel 23A, MN
DOT Right -of -Way Plat 82-30.
4;;z_^.r,1Part of the SEh of the SWh, Section 33, Township 29, Range 21,
37
. n . r�
Pt')
T2- er rpm..)
being parcels 23B and 23H MN DOT Right -of -Way Plat 82-30 Trunk
Highway, State Project 8282 (94-392) 904 and 1094-3 (304) 248.
Part of the 5E4 of the SW4, Section 33, Township 29, Range 21,
being the westerly 62 feet of the following description.
Commencing at a point on the south line of said h 255 feet west
of the southeast corner of said :, this being the point of
beginning; thence west along the south line of said 4 181.85 feet
to a point; thence running north on a line parallel with the east
line of saidsection to a point on a line connecting point on
east line of said h section 40 rods north of said southeast
corner of said 4 section and point on said south line of said k
section 48 rods west of said southeast corner of said h section;
thence running northeasterly along said connecting line to a
point 255 feet west of the easterly line of said k section;
thence running south parallel to the east line of said 4 section
to a point of beginning. Subject to easement. Also known as SP
8282 Parcel 23C.
Part of the SE' of the SW4 of Section 33, Township 29, Range 21,
commencing at a point on the south line of said 1/4 section 255
feet west of the southeast corner said 1/4 section; this being
the point of beginning of this description; thence running west
along the south line of said 1/4 section 181.85 feet to a point;
thence running north on a line parallel with the east line of
said 1/4 section to a point on line connecting point on east line
of said 1/4 section 40 rods north of said southeast corner of
said 1/4 section and point on said south line of said 1/4
section, 48 rods west of said southeast corner of said 1/4
section; thence running northeasterly along said connecting line
to a point distant 255 feet west of the easterly line of said 1/4
section; thence running south parallel to the east line of said
1/4 section to the point of beginning, except the westerly 62
feet thereof. Subject to rights of the public in public roads
abutting thereon. Also known as Highway Parcel 230 State Project
8282 (94=392), 904 Lake Elmo.
.717 acre. Part of the SEk of the SW4, Section 33, Township 29,
commencing 21, Range g 4 at a point on the south line of Section 33,
TC,,C rr�l� 185 feet west of the southeast corner of the SW4 of said section;
thence north parallel with the east line of said 1/4 section
506.2 feet to a point; thence south 50 degrees 12' west 91.3 feet
to a point; thence south and parallel with the east line thereof
'448 feet to the south line of said 1/4 section; thence east along
said south line 70 feet to the place of beginning. Except to
Highway.
Part of the SEA of the SW4, Section 33, Township 29, Range 21,
P7O33-d300 beginning at a point in the east line of said tract, 40 rods
iTFi- �F y v north of the southeast corner thereof; thence southwesterly along
a line which intersects with the south line of said tract, 48
rods west of the southeast corner thereof to a point on said line
which is 185 feet west of the east line of said tract; thence
t
38
'7013-&9oo
g-e 0.cetho
o33-a6S o
;476 OFgO
south on a line 185 feet distant and parallel with the east line
of said tract to the south line thereof; thence east along the
south line of said tract 185 feet to the southeast corner
thereof; thence north along the east line of said tract to the
point of beginning. Also known as Highway Parcel 23F, State
Project 8282 (94=392) 904 Lake Elmo.
Part of the SWh of Section 33, Township 29, Range 21, being the
south 108.9 feet of the north 1733.2 feet of the east 200 feet.
Also known as Highway Parcel 23G, State Project 8282 (94=392),
904 Lake Elmo.
Part of the SW', Section 33, Township 29, Range 21, being the
south 108.9 feet of the north 1842.1 feet of the east 200 feet.
Also known as Highway Parcel 23G, State Project 8282 (94=392) 904
Lake Elmo.
1 acre. Part of the SE% of the SW4 of Section 33, Township 29,
Range 21, beginning at an iron pipe monument set on the east line
thereof at a point 1980 feet south of the center of said section
and running thence north along said center line of said section
137.9 feet to an iron pipe monument; thence west by a deflection
angle of 90 degrees 200 feet to an iron pipe monument; thence
south on a line parallel to said center line of said section
297.7 feet to an iron monument; thence northeasterly on a
straight line to the point of beginning. Also known as Parcel
23G State Project 8282 (94=392) 904 Lake Elmo.
6.14 acres. Being part of the East 1 of the SW14 being Parcel 23
7033_�/, MN DOT Right -of -Way Plat 82-30, Trunk Highway Special Project
8282 (94=392) 904 and 1094-3 (304) 248, together with all right
r;97-E orMv of access as shown on said plat.
Parcel 23J and Parcel 7 as shown in MN DOT Right -of -Way Plat Nos.
82-30 and 82-47, together with alI right of access as shown on
said Plat.
7033-c�760, 20.72 acres. Being part of the SWh of Section 33, Township 29,
Range 21, being Parcel No. 16 as shown on State Right -of -Way Plat
riitre /FMO No. 4 of 12 (37033-2601) . Except all that part of the SWk of the
SW;t of Section 33, Township 29, Range 21, described as follows
to -wit: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 33;
thence north along the west line of said Section 72.0 feet to the
north right-of-way line of Minnesota Trunk Highway No. 12; thence
east along said north line 75 feet to the point of beginning;
thence east along said north line 100 feet; thence north along a
line parallel to the west line of said Section 183.8 feet to a
point; thence west at right angles a distance of 100 feet to a
point; thence south on a line parallel to the west line of said
Section a distance of 185.1 feet to the point of beginning,
Washington County, Minnesota.
7C23 //o Part of the SA of the SA, Section 33, Township 29, Range 21,
)/( commencing at the SE4 of said SAof the SWh, thence westerly on
• 39
a line 24 rods; thence northerly and parallel with the west line
of said Section 13 rods; thence easterly and parallel with the
south line 24 rods to the east line of said quarter h Section;
thence southerly 13 rods to the point of beginning.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: that the population of Lake Elmo is
decreased by 26.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: that the population of Oakdale is
increased by 26.
IT I8 FURTHER ORDERED: that the effective date of this order
is November 7, 1990.
Dated this 31st day of October,
1990.
MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD
165 Metro Square Building
St. P i1, Minnesota 5S101,
err nos 1.. ri't't
Executive Director
40
D-248 Lake Elmo/A-4753 Oakdale
M E M O R A N D II M
In approving the concurrent detachment and annexation of the
subject area from Lake Elmo to Oakdale the Board concludes that the
municipalities will benefit from the boundary change.
Minnesota Statute 414.061, Subdivision 5 does not empower the
Board with either the ability to expand the area to be detached and
annexed, or to reduce the area that is eventually detached and
annexed. While a portion of the subject area is outside the MIISA,
the Board did not have the option of detaching and annexing only
the MIISA area. Additionally, the property owners of the area not
within the MIISA also own land within the subject area that is
within the MIISA. Minnesota Statute 414.061, Subd. 5 requires that
• all of the property owners petition. Those property owners within
the LIICP that did not petition can't be forced by their neighbors
or the Board pursuant to this section of the statute, to become
part of Oakdale.
Those property owners that will remain in Lake Elmo and live
in the LUCP may benefit from the construction of sewer and water
by Oakdale. Once the trunk lines have been installed to service
the subject area, they may also be able to be used, if needed, by
the property owners that remain in Lake Elmo. Oakdale, on previous
occasions, has extended water on a case by case basis to areas in
need. Thus, Lake Elmo residents that need sewer and water may be
able to obtain it, without the need to place any of the rest of
Lake Elmo at risk for the construction costs.
Again and again in the testimony, it was noted that the
Oakdale fire and police as well as the State Highway patrol, as
well as the Washington County Sheriff's Department were responding
to calls for assistance from Section 32 & 33. The concurrent
detachment and annexation will not likely impact on such continued
service.
Lake Elmo remains rural and Oakdale remains urbanized. The
concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject area continues
to allow for the enhancement of these development perspectives.
Lake Elmo has looked on Sections 32 & 33 as separate from the
remainder of the city. The potential for central sanitary sewer
and the possibility of central water make development in that area
different from the remainder of Lake Elmo. Those opportunities for
the subject area are essentially the same type of opportunities
land within Oakdale faces. The similarities between the subject
area and Oakdale are as significant as the dissimilarities between
the subject area and Lake Elmo.
Xt is hoped that the communities can work together to address
issues raised in the northern portion of Lake Elmo, where testimony
indicated there had been polluted wells. The Board urges the
communities to put behind any trauma created by these proceedings.
The best interests of each municipality have been served by the
boundary adjustment, and hopefully the communities can get on with
the business of working together for the best interests of the
citizens. Jo -3 (-qO
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: LARRY WHITTAKERtiw
FROM: BRENT BROMMER, COMM. DEV. DIRECTOR
BRIAN BACHMEIER, CITY ENGINEER
DATE: AUGUST 7, 1991
SUBJECT: LAKE ELMO PROPOSAL TO EXTEND M.U.S.A. LINE
AUG 1 2 1991
INTRODUCTION
The City of Lake Elmo is contemplating an amendment to their
Comprehensive Plan which adds 640. gross acres into the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The request involves
property that borders the easterly limits of the Oakdale
annexation area, from 1-94 to one half mile north. The proposed
future land use for the property is business park development
which is similar to what Oakdale is planning for a good portion
of the annexation area along I694 and I94.
The subject area is within the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission Service Area No. 6, also known as the Cottage Grove
Ravine Service Area. The recent annexation of the west portion
of Section 33 to the City of Oakdale includes approximately 233
acres outside the MUSA boundary, which is also in the Cottage
Grove Ravine Service Area.
SHORT AND LONG TERM METHODS FOR SERVING Tim AREA
The proposed amendment presents three (3) short term alternatives
for servicing the area, one involves a lift station discharging
into the WONE interceptor, located in the southwest corner of the
Oakdale annexation area. The other two options for servicing the
property are through the City of Woodbury.
The connection to the WONE would utilize a portion of the 458,000
gallons per day capacity allocated to the annexation area within
the existing MUSA boundary. The Annexation Area Plan adopted by
the City of Oakdale indicates that this entire allocation would
be utilized based on the planned land use. Therefore, if the
Oakdale connection is the pursued, a joint agreement would need
to be worked out between Lake Elmo and Oakdale.
As a prelude to this agreement, Oakdale should pursue a joint
project with Lake Elmo that would serve the 233 acres in Section
33 which has soils not conducive to septic systems. Also, this
proposal would better serve that area south of 4th Street, in
the vicinity of the Guardian Angels Church, where construction of
a lift station would otherwise be required.
PAGE 2
LK. ELMO MUSA PROPOSAL
AUGUST 7, 1991
The long term benefit of the proposal may be to compel the
Metropolitan Council and MWCC to consider improvements with the
Cottage Grove Ravine Service Area. The improvement area served
by the development of this interceptor would include the 233
acres in the Section 33 of Oakdale. As a result, Oakdale would
have to participate in financing the interceptor improvements.
However, further operational and maintenance costs could be
realized by Oakdale with the elimination of the Stillwater/Ideal
Avenue lift station.
PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission reviewed this issue at their July 25
meeting and concur that Oakdale should consider participating in
the request in an attempt to add that portion of the Section 33
of the annexation area into the MUSA.
RECOMMENDATION •
It is recommended that Council direct staff to send a letter to
the City of Lake Elmo in general support of their request to add
640 gross acres into the MUSA and recommending that a joint
project be considered if the connection through Oakdale is
pursued.
Attachments: map of study area
proposed Oakdale connection (Option C)
A/ELMO
10 TH ST.
to
PHASE
PROPOSED
f MUSA
BOUNDARY
cr EXISTING
°i MUSA It111fllllf1II1I1111I1II1lll111111I111Ittl1111lltllllllllt11111f1II11Il I1III111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIf111
BOUNDARY = i
WEST
1 GAKDALE __
111111IIIIH111111111111II d =
0
iI
MWCC
1
9
.-... ..4•-
.r•r 1-4 �•�s,
-INTERCEPTOR
4
4
EAST
PHASE m
1
i" = 1800'
W00DBURY
•i:~•— PROPOSED FORCEMA1
EXISTING
_� M
BOUNUSADARY .._.-0.... EXISTING FORCEMAII!
DRIVE=
TRUNK SANITARY
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
LAKE ELMO, MN
-€;•- PROPOSED
LAKE ELMO GRAVITY SEWER
-�- EXISTING
GRAVITY SEWER
LIFT STATION
OPTION C
TKDA
COMM. 9150
1
122
I\
LINE '
,r.
r
v
0
{i.__rPROPOSED ..`... MUSA •__._..,: ..,.-.�.� �. .-.,�3. EO. __
L\.
EXISTING ^^^
OATTOWS OEvctOPInNT co-�
640± ACRES
1±1
' MUSA
STUDY AREA
c▪ Tht-
r tAbAb-EoititI6 =
[ORES
ROT OVNON
OOLAN ;MOLT PARTNEMIR?
(
rl
Z
m
▪ 36 -
r___ _
ti _.O'
T J L : 4,-." yD
C4 4Tb P 4 ...
11 t T -\C
lYgP -6 1
1 C 'fI
lr I
S
"N L��i�reniTvuein 4-b LoxL!-Kzue -;;;;ENEDELTEIf-------- -
fit
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
(
B.O..P.q
PROJECT vJ
ceo
Impact on Tax Capacity Expansion acit of Ex ans' n of MUSA Line
Residential Development
▪ Assumptions:
It 640 gross acre area
- ✓ Six homes per 20 acres (no commercial development)
✓
$200,000 average home value
Tax capacity rate of 100%
Average home value $200,000
Total number of homes x 192
Total increase in market value $38,400,000
1 Effect on tax capacity:
Payable 1991 Payable 1992 Payable 1993
First tier of market value:
$68,000 @ 1.00% $680
$72,000 @ 1.00% $720 $720
Second tier of market value:
$68,001 to $110,000 @ 2.00%
$72,001 to $115,000 @ 2.00%
Over $72,000 @ 2.00 %
840
860
2,560
Third tier of market value:
Over $110,000 @ 2.50% 2,250
Over$115,000 @ 2.50% 2,125
3,770 3,705 3,280
x 192 x 192 x 192
Total tax capacity of developed area $723,840 $711,360 $629,760
Payable 1991 tax capacity of City of Lake Elmo - $4,638,462
J
ite Impact on Tax Capacity of Expansion of MUSA Line
Commercial Development
Assumptions:
✓ 4,000,000 square feet of commercial (no residential)
✓ 70% development @ $60 per square foot
'� 30% development @ $40 per square foot
'� Average size of individual property of 50,000 square feet
Market Value of Average Facility:
50,000 square feet x 70% x $60 $2,100,000
50,000 square feet x 30% x $40 600,000
$2,700,000
t 1 Effect on Tax Capacity:
Payable 1991 Payable 1992 Payable 1993
First $100,000 of market value:
@ 3.20%
@ 3.10%
@ 3.00%
Over $100,000 of market value:
@ 4.95%
@ 4.75%
@ 4.70%
$3,200
128,700
$3,100
123,500
$3,000
122,200
131,900 126,600 125,200
x 80
x 80 x 80
Total tax capacity before fiscal disparities 10,552,000 10,128,000 10,016,000
Fiscal disparities (4,220,800) (4,051,200) (4,006,400)
Total tax capacity after fiscal disparities $6,331,200 $6,076,800 $6,009,600
Payable 1991 tax capacity of City of Lake Elmo - $4,638,462
Residential Development
Tax Capacity Values
City of Lake Elmo
Before After
$4,275,566 $4,999,414
Fiscal Disparity:
Contribution (270,099) (270,099)
Distribution 632,995 600,000
Net tax capacity values 4,638,462 5,329,315
District wide levies:
City 849,756 849,756
County 1,458,729 1,458,729
School District 2,666,748 2,666,748
Other 399,921 399,921
Totals 5,375,154 5,375,154
District wide tax capacity rates:
City
County
School District
Other
Totals
City tax on home valued at $100,000
City tax on home valued at $150,000
City tax on home valued at $200,000
15.164
27.313
55.441
10.171
108.089
$200
$382
$572
12.842
27.100
54.215
10.158
104.315
Difference
$170 $30 15,24%
$324 $58 15.28%
$484 $88 15.36%
Commercial Development
City of Lake Elmo
Before After
Tax Capacity Values $4,275,566 $14,827,566
Fiscal Disparity:
Contribution (270,099) (4,490,899)
Distribution 632,995 600,000
Net tax capacity values 4,638,462 10,936,667
District wide levies:
City 849,756 849,756
County 1,458,729 1,458,729
School District 2,666,748 2,666,748
Other 399,921 399,921
Totals 5,375,154 5,375,154
District wide tax capacity rates:
City 15.164 5.875
County 27.313 25.587
School District 55.441 46.304
Other 10.171 9.078
Totals 108.089 86.844
Difference
City tax on home valued at $100,000 $200 $78 $122 61.00%
City tax on home valued at $150,000 $382 $148 $234 61,26%
City tax on home valued at $200,000 $572 $222 $350 61.19%
AGENDA TOPIC:
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
Meeting Date: August 12. 1991
Public Hearing: Floodplain Ordinance
ITEM
NO. 6.
Attached is Mike Blacks report and a revised copy of the Flood Plain
regulations for Lake Elmo. Also attached is a copy of the public hearing
notice.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the Lake Elmo Planning Commission
will hold a public hearing on Monday, August 12, 1991 at 7:30 p.m., at
city hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue North, to consider the proposed
Comprehensive Amendment to the Flood Plain Management Ordinance
Section 304.010 of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code.
Full text of proposed ordinance is available at the city office,
3800 Laverne Avenue N.
All interested persons will have an opportunity to be heard at
this hearing. Written comments will be accepted until 4:00 p.m.,
August 15, 1991.
Mary Kueffner
City Administrator
Published in the July 24, 1991 St, Croix Valley Press
Molly Comeau
DNR
120Q Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
JAME5 R. HILL, INC.
PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS
2500 WEST COUNTY ROAD 42, SUITE 120, BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337 (612) 890-6044 Fax 890-6244
Mia4ORANDLIM
TO: Lake Elmo Planning Commission and City Administrator
FROM: Mike Black
DATE: August 7, 1991
RE: FL00DPLAIN ORDINANCE
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has required the City of
Lake Elmo to amend the City's floodplain regulations to become in com-
pliance with new federal regulations. A revised ordinance was drafted
(dated May 23, 1991) and mailed to the DNR for review and comment. In
a letter dated May 29, 1991, the DNR stated that the new draft ordinance
was found to be in compliance with "Statewide Standards and Criteria for
Management of Floodplain Area of Minnesota", Minnesota Regulations,
Parts 6120.5000 to 6120.6200.
The attached copy dated August 7, 1991, does contain a few changes which
! 11 be explained at our Public Hearing. A revised copy has again been
..,rwarded to the DNR.
I recommend approval of the floodplain regulation ordinance subject to
acceptance and approval by the Minnesota DNR.
RUG-07-'91 WED 14:40 ID:JAMES R HILL INC
TEL N0:612 890-6244 #004 P08
City of Lake Elmo
August 7, 1991
FLOODELAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION 304.010 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF
FACT AND PURPOSE 1
A. Statutory Authorization 1
B. Findings of Fact 1
C. Statement of Purpose 1
SECTION 304.020 GENERAL PROVISIONS 1
A. Lands to Which Ordinance Applies 1
B. Establishment of Official Zoning Map 1
C. Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation 2
D. Interpretation 2
E. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions 2
F. Warning and Disclaimer of Liability 2
G. Severability 2
SECTION 304.030 DEFINITIONS 3
SECTION 304.040 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS 4
A. Districts 4
B. Compliance 5
SECTION 304.050 FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW) 5
A. Permitted Uses 5
B. Standards for Floodway Permitted Uses 6
C. Conditional Uses 6
D. Standards for Floodway Conditional Uses 7
SECTION 304.060 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) 9
A. Permitted Uses 9
B. Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted Uses 9
C. Conditional Uses 9
D. Standards for Flood Fringe Conditional Uses 9
E. Standards for All Flood Fringe Uses 11
SECTION 304.070 GENERAL FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT 12
A. Permissible Uses 12
B. Procedures for Floodway and Flood
Fringe Determinations 13
i
AUG-07-'91 WED 14:41 ID:JAMES R HILL INC
TEL N0:612 89U-6244 4UU4 NUJ
SECTION 304.080 PUBLIC UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS,
AND BRIDGES 14
A. Public Utilities 14
8. Public Transportation Facilities 14
C. On -site Sewage Treatment and Water
Supply Systems 14
SECTION 304.090 ADMINISTRATION 15
A. Zoning Administrator 15
8. Permit 15
C. Application for Permit 15
D. State and Federal Permits 15
E. Certificate of Zoning Compliance 15
F. Construction and Use 15
G. Certification 16
E. Record of First Floor Elevation 16
I. Subdivisions 16
SECTION 304.100 APPEALS AND VARIANCES/DUTIES OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 16
A. Rules 16
B. Administrative Review 16
C. Variances 16
D. Hearings 17
E. Decisions 17
F. Appeals 17
G. Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping 17
SECTION 304.110 CONDITIONAL USES - STANDARDS OF
EVALUATION PROCEDURES 18
A. Hearings 18
B. Procedures 18
C. Factors 18
D. Conditions 19
SECTION 304.120 NONCONFORMING USES 20
SECTION 304.130 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION 21
SECTION 304.140 AMENDMENTS 22
ii
, AUG-07-'91 WED 14:41 ID:JAMES R HILL INC
TEL NO:612 890-6244 4004 P10
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
SECTION 304.010 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT
AND PURPOSE
A, Star,irnr.. Authnrjzarinn. The legislature of the State of
Minnesota has, in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103F and 462.357
delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt
regulations designed to minimize flood losses. Therefore, the
City Council of Lake Elmo, Minnesota does ordain as follows:
B. Findings of Fact:
1. The flood hazard areas of Lake Elmo, Minnesota, are
subject to periodic inundation which results in potential
loss of life, loss of property, health and safety hazards,
disruption of commerce and governmental services,
extraordinary public expenditures or flood protection and
relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which
adversely affect the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
2. Methods Used to Analyze Flood Hazards. This Ordinance
is based upon a reasonable method of analyzing flood hazards
which is consistent with the standards established by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
C. Statement of Pnrpp-o: It is the purpose of this Ordinance
to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and to
minimize those losses described in Section 304.010 B. by
provisions contained herein.
SECTION 304.020 GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Lands to Which Ordinance Applies: This ordinance shall apply
to all lands within the jurisdiction of the City of Lake Elmo
shown on the City's Flood Boundary and Flooding Map and the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (hereafter "Official Maps") as being located
within the boundaries of the Floodway, Flood Fringe, or General
Flood Plain Districts.
B. FarAiniiahment of Official Toning Map: The Official Zoning
Map together with all materials attached thereto is hereby adopted
by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The
attached material shall include the Flood Insurance Study for the
City of Lake Elmo prepared by the Federal Insurance Administration
dated January 1979, and the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map and
Flood Insurance Rate Map dated July 2, 1979 therein.
1
AUG-07-'91 WED 14:42 ID:JAMES R HILL INC
TEL N0:612 890-6244 #004 P11
C. Regnl,ta,t,nry Flnni Prntert4nn Flavation: The Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot
above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in
flood elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain that
result from designation of a floodway.
D. TntAraratatinn,:
1. In their interpretation and application, the provisions
of this Ordinance shall be held to be minimum requirements
and shall be liberally construed in favor of the Governing
Body and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any
other powers granted by State Statutes
2. The boundaries of the Floodway, Flood Fringe and General
Flood Plain districts shall be determined by scaling
distances on the Official Maps. Where interpretation is
needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the
district as shown on the Official Maps, as for example where
there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and
actual field conditions and there is a formal appeal of the
decision of the Zoning Administrator, the Board of Adjustment
shall make the necessary interpretation. All decisions will
be based on elevations on the regional (100-year) flood
profile and other available technical data. Persons
contesting the location of the district boundaries shall be
given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the
Board and to submit technical evidence.
E. Abrogation anti freater_RPstrirtinua: It is not intended by
this Ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing
easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this
Ordinance imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this
Ordinance shall prevail. All other ordinances inconsistent with
this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the
inconsistency only.
F. Warning and Disclaimer of Liability. This Ordinance doesnot
imply that areas outside the flood plain districts or land uses
permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or
flood damages. This Ordinance shall not create liability on the
part of the City of Elmo Elmo or any officer or employee thereof
for any flood damages that result from reliance on this Ordinance
or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder.
G. Severability• If any section, clause, provision, or portion
of this Ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance
shall not be affected thereby.
AUG-07-'91 WED 14:43 ID:JAMES R HILL INC
TEL NO:612 890-6244 4004 P12
SECTION 304.030 DEFINITIONS
Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this
Section shall be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning
as they have in common usage and so as to give this Ordinance its
most reasonable application. In the event that a definition in
Section 301.040 is different than the definition herein, the
definition found in this Section shall apply.
Accessory Use or Structure - a use or structure on the same lot
with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to,
the principal use or structure.
Basement - means any area of a structure, including crawl spaces,
having its floor or base subgrade (below ground level) on all four
sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below ground level.
Conditional Use - means a specific type of structure or land use
listed in the official control that may be allowed but only after
an in-depth review procedure and with appropriate conditions or
restrictions as provided in the official zoning controls or
building codes and upon a finding that: (1) certain conditions as
detailed in the zoning ordinance exist and (2) the structure
and/or land use conform to the comprehensive land use plan if one
exists and are compatible with the existing neighborhood.
Equal Degree of Encroachment - a method of determining the
location of floodway boundaries so that flood plain lands on both
sides of a stream are capable of conveying a proportionate share
of flood flows.
Flood - a temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or
in the stage of a wetland or lake that results in the inundation
of normally dry areas.
Flood Frequency - the frequency for which it is expected that a
specific flood stage or discharge may be equalled or exceeded.
Flood Fringe - that portion of the flood plain outside of the
floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term "floodway
fringe" used in the Flood Insurance Study for the City of Lake Elmo.
Flood Plain - the beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland,
lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by
the regional flood.
Flood -Proofing - a combination of structural provisions, changes,
or adjustments to properties and structures subject to flooding,
primarily for the reduction or elimination of flood damages.
Floodway - the bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a water-
course and those portions of the adjoining flood plain which are
reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge.
3
RUG-07-'91 WED 14:43 ID:JRMES R HILL INC
TEL NO:612 390-6244 4004 P13
Obstruction - any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile,
abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert,
building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or
matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, water-
course, or regulatory flood plain which may impede, retard, or
change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by
catching or collecting debris carried by such water.
Principal Use or Structure - means all uses or structures that are
not accessory uses or structures.
Reach - a hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal
segment of a stream or river influenced by a natural or man-made
obstruction. In an urban area, the segment of a stream or river
between two consecutive bridge crossings would most typically
constitute a reach.
Regional Flood - a flood which is representative of large floods
known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably
characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average
frequency in the magnitude of the 100-year recurrence interval.
Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in
the Flood Insurance Study.
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation - The Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot
above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in
flood elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain that
result from designation of a floodway.
Structure - anything constructed or erected on the ground or
attached to the ground or on -site utilities, including, but not
limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached garages, cabins,
manufactured homes and other similar items.
Variance - means a modification of a specific permitted development
standard required in this ordinance to allow an alternative develop-
ment standard not stated as acceptable in the official control, but
only as applied to a particular property for the purpose of
alleviating a hardship, practical difficulty or unique circumstance.
Economic considerations alone shall not consitute an undue hardship
if reasonalby use for the property exists under the terms of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 304.040 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS
A. Districts•
1. Floodway District. The Floodway District shall include
those areas designated as floodway on the Flood Boundary and
Floodway Map.
NUIruf-'71 WCI) 14:44 1U JH1ICb K MILL-11Y1. - !Mt- IYU:OI4 0D✓) OC44
HEX,. r 14'
2. Flood Fringe District. The Flood Fringe District shall
include those areas designated as floodway fringe on the
Flood Boundary and Floodway Map.
3. General Flood Plain District. The General Flood Plain
District shall include those areas designated as unnumbered A
Zones an the Flood Insurance Rate Map.
B. compliance. No new structure or land shall hereafter be used
and no structure shall be located, extended, converted, ar
structurally altered without full compliance with the terms of
this Ordinance and other applicable regulations which apply to
uses within the jurisdiction of this Ordinance. Within the
Floodway, Flood Fringe and General Flood Plain Districts, all uses
not listed as permitted uses or conditional uses in Sections
304.050, 304.050, and 304.070 that follow, respectively, shall be
prohibited. In addition, a caution is provided here that:
1. New manufactured homes, replacement manufactured homes
and certain travel trailers and travel vehicles are subject
to the general provisions of this Ordinance;
2. Modifications, additions, structural alterations or
repair after damage to existing nonconforming structures and
nonconforming uses of structures or land are regulated by the
general provisions of this Ordinance and specifically Section
304.120; and
3. As -built elevations for elevated or flood proofed
structures must be certified by a Registered Land Surveyor
and flood proofing techniques must be designed and certified
by a registered professional engineer, architect and/or land
surveyor as specified in the general provisions of this
Ordinance and specifically as stated in Section 304.090 of
this Ordinance.
SECTION 304.050 E'LOODWAY DISTRICT (FW)
A. Permitted Uses: The following uses have a low flood damage
potential and do not obstruct flood flows. These uses shall be
permitted within the Floodway District to the extent that they are
not prohibited by any other ordinance and provided they do not
require structures, fill, or storage of materials or equipment.
In addition, no use shall adversely affect the capacity of the
channels or floodways or any tributary to the main stream or of
any drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility ar system.
1. Agricultural uses such as general farming, pasture,
grazing, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, truck
farming, forestry, sod farming and wild crop harvesting.
5
2. Private and public recreational uses such as golf
courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges,
picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swimming areas, parks,
wildlife and nature preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries,
shooting preserves, target ranges, trap and skeet ranges,
hunting and fishing areas, and single or multiple purpose
recreational trails.
3. Residential uses such as lawns, gardens, parking areas,
and play areas.
B. Stan ards for Ftoodciay Permttted Uses•
1. The use shall have a low flood damage potential,
2. The use shall be permissible in the underlying zoning
district.
3. The use shall not obstruct flood flows or increase flood
elevations and shall not involve structures, fill,
obstructions, excavations or storage of materials or equipment.
C. CilorrlitinnAl Tl, :
1. Structures accessory to the uses listed in 304.050 A.
above and the uses listed in 2 through 8 below.
2. Extraction and storage of sand, gravel, and other
materials.
3. Marinas, boat rentals, docks, piers, wharves, and water
control structures.
4. Railroads,
and pipelines.
5. Storage yards for equipment, machinery, or materials.
6. Placement of fill.
streets, bridges, utility transmission lines,
7. Travel trailers and travel vehicles either onindividual
lots of record or in existing or new subdivisions or
commercial or condominium type campgrounds, subject to the
exemptions and provisions of this Ordinance,
8. Structural works for flood control such as levees, dikes
and floodwalis constructed to any height where the intent is
to protect individual structures and levees or dikes where the
intent is to protect agricultural crops for a frequency flood
event equal to or less than the 10-year frequency flood event.
C
f
RUG-07-'91 WED 14:46 ID:JAMES R HILL INC
TEL NO:612 890-6244 #004 P16
D. $tandards for Floodway Conrlitinnal naafi:
1. All Uses. No structure (temporary or permanent), fill
(including fill for roads and levees), deposit, obstruction,
storage of materials or equipment, or other uses may be
allowed as a Conditional Use that will cause any increase in
the stage of the 100-year or regional flood or cause an
increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected.
2. A11 floodway Conditional Uses shall be subject to the
procedures and standards contained in Section 304.110 of this
Ordinance.
3. The Conditional Use shall be permissible in the
underlying zoning district.
4. Fill:
(a) Fill, dredge spoil and all other similar materials
deposited or stored in the flood plain shall be
protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching,
rip -rap or other acceptable method.
(b) Dredge spoil sites and sand and gravel operations
shall not be allowed in the floodway unless a long-term
site development plan is submitted which includes an
erosion/sedimentation prevention element to the plan.
(c) As an alternative, and consistent with Subsection
(b) immediately above, dredge spoil disposal and sand
and gravel operations may allow temporary, on -site
storage of fill or other materials which would have
caused an increase to the stage of the 100-year or
regional flood but only after the Governing Body has
received an appropriate plan which assures the removal
of the materials from the floodway based upon the flood
warning time available. The Conditional Use Permit must
be title registered with the property in the office of
the County Recorder.
5. Accessory Structures:
(a) Accessory structures shall not be designed for
human habitation.
(b) Accessory structures, if permitted, shall be
constructed and placed on the building site so as to
offer the minimum obstruction to the flow of flood
waters. (1) Whenever possible, structures shall be
constructed with the longitudinal axis parallel to the
direction of flood flow, and, (2) So far as practicable,
structures shall be placed approximately on the same
flood flow lines as those of adjoining structures.
7
AUG-07-'91 WED 14:46 ID:JAMES R HILL INC
TEL N0:612 89D-6244 PUU4 rir
(c) Accessory structures shall be elevated on fill or
structurally dry flood proofed in accordance with the
FP-1 or FP-2 flood proofing classifications in the State
Building Code. As an alternative, an accessory
structure may be flood proofed to the FP-3 or EP-4 flood
proofing classification in the State Building Code
provided the accessory structure constitutes a minimal
investment, does not exceed 500 square feet in size, and
for a detached garage, the detached garage must be used
solely for parking of vehicles and limited storage. All
flood proofed accessory structures must meet the
following additional standards, as appropriate:
(1) The structure must be adequately anchored to
prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of
the structure and shall be designed to equalize
hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls; and
(2) Any mechanical and utility equipment in a
structure must be elevated to or above the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation or properly
flood proofed.
6. Storage of Materials and Equipment:
(a) The storage or processing of materials that are, in
time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially
injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited.
(b) Storage of other materials or equipment may be
allowed if readily removable from the area within the
time available after a flood warning and in accordance
with a plan approved by the Governing Body.
7. Structural works for flood control that will change the
course, current or cross section of protected wetlands or
public waters shall be subject to the provisions of Minnesota
Statute, Chapter 105. Community -wide structural works for
flood control intended to remove areas from the regulatory
flood plain shall not be allowed in the floodway.
8. A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway
shall not cause an increase to the 100-year or regional flood
and the technical analysis must assume equal conveyance or
storage loss on both sides of a stream.
(
C
9
Code and, specifically, that all electrical, fleeting,
ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and
other service facilities must be at or above the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation or be designed to
prevent flood water from entering or accumulating within
these components during times of flooding.
(b) Specific Standards for Above -grade, Enclosed Areas
- Above -grade, fully enclosed areas such as crawl spaces
or tuck under garages must be designed to internally
flood and the design plans must stipulate:
(1) The minimum area of openings in the walls where
internal flooding is to be used as a flood proofing
technique. When openings are placed in a
structure's walls to provide for entry of flood
waters to equalize pressures, the bottom of all
openings shall be no higher than one -foot above
grade. Openings may be equipped with screens,
louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices
provided that they permit the automatic entry and
exit of flood waters.
(2) That the enclosed area will be designed of
flood resistant materials in accordance with the
FP-3 or FP-4 classifications in the State Building
Code and shall be used solely for building access,
parking of vehicles or storage.
2. Basements, as defined by Section 304.030 of this
Ordinance, shall be subject to the following:
(a) Residential basement construction shall not be
allowed below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
(b) All areas of non residential structures including
non-residential basements to be placed below the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be flood
proofed in accordance with the structurally dry flood
proofing classifications in the State Building Code.
10
PUS-07-'91 WED 14:47 ID:JAMES R HILL INC
TEL NO:612 890-6244 #004 P18
SECTION 304.060 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF)
A. Permitted Uses; Permitted Uses shall be those uses of land
or structures listed as Permitted Uses in the underlying zoning
use district(s) provided such use does not constitute a public
nuisance.
B. Standards fnr r2'od Fringe Permitted Uses:
1. All structures, including accessory structures, must be
elevated on fill so that the lowest floor including basement
floor is at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures shall
be no lower than one (1) foot below the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation and the fill shall extend at such
elevation at least fifteen (15) feet beyond the outside
limits of the structure erected thereon.
2. As an alternative to elevation on fill, accessory
structures that constitute a minimal investment and that do
not exceed 500 square feet for the outside dimension at
ground level may be internally flood proofed in accordance
with Section 304.050 5. (c).
3. The cumulative placement of fill where at any one time
in excess of one -thousand (1,000) cubic yards of fill is
located on the parcel shall be allowable only as a
Conditional Use, unless said fill is specifically intended to
elevate a structure in accordance with Section 304.060 B. of
this ordinance.
4. The storage of any materials or equipment shall be
elevated on fill to the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation.
C. Condittonal uses• Any structure that is not elevated on fill
or flood proofed in accordance with Section 304.060 B.1. and 2. or
any use of land that does not comply with the standards in Section
304.060 B.3. and 4. shall only be allowable as a Conditional Use.
An application for a Conditional Use shall be subject to the
standards and criteria and evaluation procedures specified in
Sections 304.110 of this Ordinance.,
D. Standards for Flood Fringe Conditional Uses•
1. Alternative elevation methods other than the use of fill
may be utilized to elevate a structure's lowest floor above
the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. These alternative
methods may include the use of stilts, pilings, parallel
walls, etc., or above -grade, enclosed areas such as crawl
AUG-07-'91 WED 14:48 ID:JAMES R HILL INU
TEL NU:bl2 b7b-bd44 gUb4 ri7
spaces or tuck under garages. The base or floor of an
enclosed area shall be considered above -grade and not a
structure's basement or lowest floor it: 1) the enclosed
area is above -grade on at least one side of the structure; 2)
it is designed to internally flood and is constructed with
flood resistant materials; and 3) it is used solely for
parking of vehicles, building access or storage. The above -
noted alternative elevation methods are subject to the
following additional standards:
(a) besign and Certification - The structure's design
and as -built Condition must be certified by a registered
professional engineer or architect as being in compliance
with the general design standards of the State Building
Code and, specifically, that all electrical, heating,
ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and
other service facilities must be at or above the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation or be designed to
prevent flood water from entering or accumulating within
these components during times of flooding.
(b) Specific Standards for Above -grade, Enclosed Areas
- Above -grade, fully enclosed areas such as crawl spaces
or tuck under garages must be designed to internally
flood and the design plans must stipulate:
(1) The minimum area of openings in the walls where
internal flooding is to be used as a flood proofing
technique. When openings are placed in a
structure's walls to provide for entry of flood
waters to equalize pressures, the bottom of all
openings shall be no higher than one -foot above
grade. Openings may be equipped with screens,
louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices
provided that they permit the automatic entry and
exit of flood waters.
(2) That the enclosed area will be designed of
flood resistant materials in accordance with the
FP-3 or FP-4 classifications in the State Building
Code and shall be used solely for building access,
parking of vehicles or storage.
2. Basements, as defined by Section 304.030 of this
Ordinance, shall be subject to the following:
(a) Residential basement construction shall not be
allowed below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
(b) All areas of non residential structures including
non-residential basements to be placed below the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be flood
proofed in accordance with the structurally dry flood
proofing classifications in the State Building Code.
10
HUU-✓J(-'71 WCLI 14:47 1L';JHIta K HILL inn.
IGL IYV.W..=
Structurally dry flood proofing must meet the FP-1 or
FP-2 flood proofing classification in the State Building
Code and this shall require making the structure
watertight with the walls substantially impermeable to
the passage of water and with structural components
having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy.
Structures flood proofed to the FP-3 or FP-4
classification shall not be permitted.
3. when at any one time more than 1,000 cubic yards of fill
or other similar material is located on a parcel for such
activities as on -site storage, landscaping, sand and gravel
operations, landfills, roads, dredge spoil disposal or
construction of flood control works, an erosion/sedimentation
control plan must be submitted unless the community is
enforcing a state approved shoreland management ordinance.
In the absence of a state approved shoreland Ordinance, the
plan must clearly specify methods to be used to stabilize the
fill on site for a flood event at a minimum of the 100-year
or regional flood event. The plan must be prepared and
certified by a registered professional engineer or other
qualified individual acceptable to the Governing Body. The
plan may incorporate alternative procedures for removal of
the material from the flood plain if adequate flood warning
time exists.
4. Storage of Materials and Equipment:
(a) The storage or processing of materials that are, in
time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially
injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited.
(b) Storage of other materials or equipment may be
allowed if readily removable from the area within the
time available after a flood warning and in accordance
with a plan approved by the Governing Body.
E. Standards for All Flood FrinrTn TT40/;
1. All new principal structures must have vehicular access
at or above an elevation not more than two (2) feet below the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. If a variance to this
requirement is granted, the Board of Adjustment must specify
limitations on the period of use or occupancy of the
structure for times of flooding and only after determining
that adequate flood warning time and local flood emergency
response procedures exist.
2, Commercial Uses - accessory land uses, such as yards,
railroad tracks, and parking lots may be at elevations lower
than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. However, a
permit for such facilities to be used by the employees or the
11
HUU-WY--J1 Wkll 14:i W:JHI'Ita K MILL IN;
ICI. IYU: 014 a VU—oc.H4 4+ JU f rcr
general public shall not be granted in the absence of a flood
warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if
the area would be inundated to a depth greater than two feet
or be subject to flood velocities greater than four feet per
second upon occurrence of the regional flood.
3. Manufacturing and Industrial Uses - measures shall be
taken to minimize interference with normal plant operations
especially along streams having protracted flood durations.
Certain accessory land uses such as yards and parking lots
may be at lower elevations subject to requirements set out in
Section 304.060 E.2. above. In considering permit
applications, due consideration shall be given to needs of an
industry whose business requires that it be located in flood
plain areas.
4. Fill shall be properly compacted and the slopes shall be
properly protected by the use of rip -rap, vegetative cover or
other acceptable method. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the
special flood hazard area designation for certain structures
properly elevated on fill above the 100-year flood elevation -
FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and
side slope protection standards for multi -structure or multi -
lot developments. These standards should be investigated
prior to the initiation of site preparation if a change of.
special flood hazard area designation will be requested.
5. Flood plain developments shall not adversely affect the
hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining flood plain
of any tributary watercourse or drainage system where a
floodway or other encroachment limit has not been specified
on the Official Zoning Map.
6. All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an
adequately anchored foundation system that resists flotation,
collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may
include, but are not to be limited to, use of over -the -top or
frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in
addition to applicable state or local anchoring requirements
for resisting wind forces.
SECTION 304.070 GENERAL FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT
A. permissible Uses: The uses listed in Section 304.060 A. of
this Ordinance shall be permitted uses. All other uses shall be
subject to the floodway/flood fringe evaluation criteria pursuant
to Section 304.070 B. below. Section 304.050 shall apply if the
proposed use is in the Floodway District and Section 304.060 shall
apply if the proposed use is in the Flood Fringe District.
12
RUG-57-'91 WED 14: SU 1D:UHMEb K HILL UV, IC.L NLJ b1G b7U-OCvv
B. pronadure1 for Floodway and Flood Wringo natarmination9
within tbs. GAnfr*J wlnnri Plain niatri,at,
1. Upon receipt of an application for a Conditional Use
Permit for a use within the General Flood Plain District, the
applicant shall be required to furnish such of the following
information as is deemed necessary by the Zoning
Administrator for the determination of the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation and whether the proposed use is within
the Floodway or Flood Fringe District.
(a) A typical valley cross-section showing the channel
of the stream, elevation of land areas adjoining each
side of the channel, cross -sectional areas to be
occupied by the proposed development, and high water
information.
(b) Plan (surface view) showing elevations or contours
of the ground; pertinent structure, fill, or storage
elevations; size, location, and spatial arrangement of
all proposed and existing structures on the site:
location and elevations of streets; photographs showing
existing land uses and vegetation upstream and
downstream; and soil type.
(c) Profile showing the slope of the bottom of the
channel or flow line of the stream for at least 500 feet
in either direction from the proposed development.
2. The applicant shall be responsible to submit one copy of
the above information to a designated engineer or other
expert person or agency for technical assistance in
determining whether the proposed use is in the Floodway or
Flood Fringe District and to determine the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation. Procedures consistent with Minnesota
Regulations 1983, Parts 6120.5000 - 6120.6200 shall be
followed in this expert evaluation. The designated engineer
or expert is strongly encouraged to discuss the proposed
technical evaluation methodology with the respective
Department of Natural Resources' Area Hydrologist prior to
commencing the analysis. The designated engineer or expert
shall:
(a) Estimate the peak discharge of the regional flood.
(b) Calculate the water surface profile of the regional
flood based upon a hydraulic analysis of the stream
channel and overbank areas.
(c) Compute the floodway necessary to convey or store
the regional flood without increasing flood stages more
than 0.5 foot. A lesser stage increase than .5' shall
be required if, as a result of the additional stage
13
19VU-W I- 21 WV.V LW•JJ 1IJ•JIl11L.J 1\ I It LL -1 I1W
increase, increased flood damages would result. An
equal degree of encroachment on both sides of the stream
within the reach shall be assumed in computing floodway
boundaries.
3. The Zoning Administrator shall present the technical
evaluation and findings of the designated engineer or expert
to the Governing Body. The Governing Body must formally
accept the technical evaluation and the recommended Floodway
and/or Flood Fringe District boundary or deny the permit
application. The Governing Body, prior to official action,
may submit the application and all supporting data and
analyses to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
Department of Natural Resources or the Planning Commission
for review and comment. Once the Floodway and Flood Fringe
Boundaries have been determined, the Governing Body shall
refer the matter back to the Zoning Administrator who shall
process the permit application consistent with the applicable
provisions of Section 304.050 and 304.060 of this Ordinance.
SECTION 304.080 PUBLIC UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND
BRIDGES
A. 2V-0 ;r rTr;Ti iee All public utilities and facilities such
as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply systems to be located
in the flood plain shall be flood -proofed in accordance with the
State Building Code or elevated to above the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation.
B. PTihlin Transnnrtation Far+Tities. Railroad tracks, roads,
and bridges to be located within the flood plain shall comply with
Sections 304.050 and 304.060 of this Ordinance. Elevation to the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be provided where
failure or interruption of these transportation facilities would
result in danger to the public health or safety or where such
facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area.
Minor or auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a
lower elevation where failure or interruption of transportation
services would not endanger the public health or safety.
C. nn-gite Sewage Treatment and Water Supply systems: Where
public utilities are not provided: 1) On -site water supply
systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of
flood waters into the systems; and 2) New or replacement on -site
sewage treatment systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate
infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from
the systems into flood waters and they shall not be subject to
impairment or contamination during times of flooding. Any sewage
treatment system designed in accordance with the Staters current
state-wide standards for on -site sewage treatment systems shall be
determined to be in compliance with this Section.
14
SECTION 304.090 ADMINISTRATION
A. Zonina Admirierrarnr: A Zoning Administrator or other
official designated by the Governing Body shall administer and
enforce this Ordinance. If the Zoning Administrator finds a
violation of the provisions of this Ordinance the Zoning
Administrator shall notify the person responsible for such
violation in accordance with the procedures stated in Section
304.120 of the Ordinance.
B. permit Retliremente• A Permit issued by the Zoning
Administrator in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance
shall be secured prior to the erection, addition, or alteration of
any building, structure, or portion thereof; prior to the use or
change of use of a building, structure, or land; prior to the
change or extension of a nonconforming use; and prior to the
placement of fill, excavation of materials, or the storage of
materials or equipment within the flood plain.
C. Application for permit Application for a Permit shall be
made in duplicate to the Zoning Administrator on forms furnished
by the Zoning Administrator and shall include the following where
applicable: plans in duplicate drawn to scale, showing the
nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the lot; existing
or proposed structures, fill, or storage of materials; and the
location of the foregoing in relation to the stream channel.
D. State arta Federal Permtta. Prior to granting a Permit or
processing an application for a Conditional Use Permit or
Variance, the Zoning Administrator shall determine that the
applicant has obtained all necessary State and Federal Permits.
E. rertifirate of Znnjncr C,synpljance for a Now, Alt -red. or
Nonconforming Use It shall be unlawful to use, occupy, or permit
the use or occupancy of any building or premises or part thereof
hereafter created, erected, changed, converted, altered, or
enlarged in its use or structure until a Certificate of Zoning
Compliance shall have been issued by the Zoning Administrator
stating that the use of the building or land conforms to the
requirements of this Ordinance.
F. C.nnsttUrrinn emd pse rn be as Prnviepd nn Applications,
plans, Permits, Variances ands'arrifiraraa of Zoning Compii,anme
Permits, Conditional Use Permits, or certificates of ?,nninn
rnmrlianco iaeuz4 Litt uasIS of approved plans and applications
authorize only the use, arrangement, and construction set forth in
such approved plans and applications, and no other use,
arrangement, or construction. Any use, arrangement, or
construction at variance with that authorized shall be deemed a
violation of this Ordinance, and punishable as provided by Section
304.130 of this Ordinance.
15
RUG-07-'91 WED 14:n ID:JAMES R HILL INC
TEL NO:612 890-6244 - 14uu4 R b
G, S•eetifj nt4nn The applicant shall be required to submit
certification by a registered professional engineer, registered
architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and
building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the
provisions of this ordinance. Flood -proofing measures shall be
certified by a registered professional engineer or registered
architect.
g, Parnrri nt_Firgt Flnnr F3svation The Zoning Administrator
shall maintain a record of the elevation of the lowest floor
(including basement) of all new structures and alterations or
additions to existing structures in the flood plain. The Zoning
Administrator shall also maintain a record of the elevation to
which structures or alterations and additions to structures are
flood -proofed.
S, Suhdtviainnq,. No land shall be subdivided which is
unsuitable for the reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, water
supply or sewage treatment facilities. All lots within the flood
plain districts shall contain a building site at or above the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. All subdivisions shall
have water and sewage treatment facilities that comply with the
provisions of this Ordinance and have road access both to the
subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two
feet below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. For all
subdivisions in the flood plain, the Floodway and Flood Fringe
boundaries, the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and the
required elevation of all access roads shall be clearly labelled
on all required subdivision drawings and platting documents. For
all residential structures in the flood plain, the floodway and
the flood fringe boundaries, the basement construction or the
lowest floor it there is no basement shall not be allowed below
the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
SECTION 304,100 BOARD AND ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
A. jtu1s . The Board of Adjustment shall adopt rules for the
conduct of business and may exercise all of the powers conferred
on such Boards by State law.
B. Administretiva Raviaw. The Board shall hear and decide
appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order,
requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative
official in the enforcement or administration of this Ordinance.
C. Variances. The Board may authorize upon appeal in specific
cases such relief or variance from the terms of this Ordinance as
will not be contrary to the public interest and only for those
circumstances such as hardship, practical difficulties or
circumstances unique to the property under consideration, as
provided for in the respective enabling legislation for planning
and zoning for cities or counties as appropriate. In the granting
16
of such variance, the Board of Adjustment shall clearly identify
in writing the specific conditions that existed consistent with
the criteria specified in the respective enabling legislation
which justified the granting of the variance. No Variance shall
have the effect of allowing in any district uses prohibited in
that district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for the particular area, or
permit standards lower than those required by State law.
A. Bearings. Upon filing with the Soard of Adjustment of an
appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator, or an
application for a variance, the Board shall fix a reasonable time
for a hearing and give due notice to the parties in interest as
specified by law. The Board shall submit by mail to the
Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for
proposed variances sufficiently in advance so that the
Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing.
E. peciGinns. The Board shall arrive at a decision on such
appeal or Variance within 30 days. In passing upon an appeal, the
Board may, so long as such action is in conformity with the
provisions of this Ordinance, reverse or affirm, wholly or in
part, or modify the order, requirement, decision or determination
of the Zoning Administrator or other public official. It shall
make its decision in writing setting forth the findings of fact
and the reasons for its decisions. In granting a Variance the
Board may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards such as
those specified in Section 304.100, which are in conformity with
the purposes of this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions and
safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Variance
is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance
punishable under Section 304.130. A copy of all decisions
granting Variances shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner
of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action.
F. Appeals. Appeals from any decision of the Board may be made,
and as specified in Section 301.060 C. Minnesota Statutes.
G. Plnnd Tn=3Trance Notice and Recnrd Keeping. The Zoning
Administrator shall notify the applicant for a variance that: 1)
The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base
flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood
insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance
coverage and 2) Such construction below the 100-year or regional
flood level increases risks to life and property. Such
notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance
actions. A community shall maintain a record of all variance
actions, including justification far their issuance, and report
such variances issued in its annual or biennial report submitted
to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program.
K
17
n VIJ eJ I J• WL.0
SECTION 304.110 CONDITIONAL USES
The planning Commission shall hear and decide applications for
Conditional Uses permissible under this Ordinance. Applications
shall be handled in accordance with Section 301.060 D.
A. Hearings. Upon filing with the City of Lake Elmo an
application for a Conditional Use Permit, the City Council shall
submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of
the application for proposed Conditional Use sufficiently in
advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days
notice of the hearing.
B. Zrnnp,it,ree to he followed by 1-ha fity of Lake Elmo in Rasling
on Conditional rap 1}arm4 r ➢polj.catiarc wi f-r 9 n all Flnnd Plain
Districts.
1. Require the applicant to furnish such of the following
information and additional information as deemed necessary by
the City Council for determining the suitability of the
particular site for the proposed use:
(a) Plans drawn to scale showing the nature, location,
dimensions, and elevation of the lot, existing or
proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, flood -
proofing measures, and the relationship of the above to
the location of the stream channel.
(b) Specifications for building construction and
materials, flood -proofing, filling, dredging, grading,
channel improvement, storage of materials, water supply
and sanitary facilities.
(c) Transmit one copy of the information described
above to a designated engineer or other expert person or
agency for technical assistance, where necessary, in
evaluating the proposed project in relation to flood
heights and velocities, the seriousness of flood damage
to the use, the adequacy of the plans for protection,
and other technical matters.
(d) Based upon the technical evaluation of the
designated engineer or expert, the City Council shall
determine the specific flood hazard at the site and
evaluate the suitability of the proposed use in relation
to the flood hazard.
C. Fartnra rToon Wilirh the nenieion of the City rnmr..ii Shall Be
Raeed. In passing upon Conditional Use applications, the City of
Lake Elmo shall consider all relevant factors specified in other
sections of this Ordinance, and:
18
1. The danger to life and property due to increased flood
heights or velocities caused by encroachments.
2. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands
or downstream to the injury of others or they may block
bridges, culverts or other hydraulic structures.
3. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the
ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination,
and unsanitary conditions.
4. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its
contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the
individual owner.
5. The importance of the services provided by the proposed
facility to the community.
6. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront
location.
7. The availability of alternative locations not subject to
flooding for the proposed use.
8. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing
development and development anticipated in the foreseeable
future.
9. The relationship of the proposed use to the
comprehensive plan and flood plain management program for the
area.
10. The safety of access to the property in times of flood
for ordinary and emergency vehicles.
11. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise,
and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the
site.
12. Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of
this Ordinance.
D. Conditions Attsrhed to Conditional Use Permits Upon
consideration of the factors listed above and the purpose of this
Ordinance, the City of Lake Elmo shall attach such conditions to
the granting of Conditional Use Permits as it deems necessary to
fulfill the purposes of this Ordinance. Such conditions may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Modification of waste treatment and water supply
facilities.
2. Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation.
19
MULL [J1. J1 WLL 1`.....ma •✓. it IL... I, ii♦�r •�..
3. imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed
restrictions.
4. Requirements for construction of channel modifications,
compensatory storage, dikes, levees, and other protective
measures.
5. Flood -proofing measures, in accordance with the State
Building Code and this Ordinance. The applicant shall submit
a plan or document certified by a registered professional
engineer or architect that the flood -proofing measures are
consistent with the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and
associated flood factors for the particular area.
SECTION 303.120 NONCONFORMING USES
A. A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was
lawful before the passage or amendment of this Ordinance but which
is not in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance may be
continued subject to the following conditions:
1. No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or
altered in a way which increases its nonconformity.
2. Any alteration or addition to a nonconforming structure
or nonconforming use which would result in increasing the
flood damage potential of that structure or use shall be
protected to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation in
accordance with any of the elevation on fill or flood
proofing techniques (i.e. , FP-1 through FP-4 flood proofing
classifications) allowable in the State Building Code, except
as further restricted below.
3. The cost of any structural alterations or additions to
any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure
shall not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the
structure unless the conditions of this Section are
satisfied. The cost of all structural alterations and
additions constructed since the adoption of the Community's
initial flood plain controls must be calculated into today's
current cost which will include all costs such as
construction materials and a reasonable cost placed on all
manpower or labor. If the current cost of all previous and
proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the
current market value of the structure, then the structure
must meet the standards of Section 4.0 or 5.0 of this
Ordinance for new structures depending upon whether the
structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe, respectively.
20
4, If any nonconforming use is discontinued for 12
consecutive months, any future use of the building premises
shall conform to this Ordinance. The assessor shall notify
the Zoning Administrator in writing of instances of
nonconforming uses which have been discontinued for a period
of 12 months.
5. If any nonconforming use or structure is destroyed by
any means, including floods, to an extent of 50 percent or
more of its market value at the time of destruction, it shall
not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions
of this Ordinance. The applicable provisions for
establishing new uses or new structures in Sections 304.050,
304.060 or 304.070 will apply depending upon whether the use
or structure is in the Floodway, Flood Fringe or General
Flood Plain District, respectively.
SECTION 304.130 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION
A. violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or failure to
comply with any of its requirements (including violations of
conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of
Variances or Conditional Uses) shall constitute a misdemeanor and
shall be punishable
as defined by law.
8. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the City of Lake Elmo
from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or
remedy any violation. Such actions may include but are not
limited to:
1. In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the
Zoning Administrator and Local Government may utilize the
full array of enforcement actions available to it including
but not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after -
the -fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request
to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood
insurance availability to the guilty party. The community
must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and
to correct ordinance violations to the extent possible so as
not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood
Insurance Program.
2. When an ordinance violation is either discovered by or
brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, the
Zoning Administrator shall immediately investigate the
situation and document the nature and extent of the violation
of the official control. As soon as is reasonably possible,
this information will be submitted to the appropriate
Department of Natural Resources' and Federal Emergency
Management Agency Regional Office along with the Community's
plan of action to correct the violation to the degree possible.
21
3. The Zoning Administrator shall notify the suspected
party of the requirements of this Ordinance and all other
Official Controls and the nature and extent of the suspected
violation of these controls. If the structure and/or use is
under construction or development, the Zoning Administrator
may order the construction or development immediately halted
until a proper permit or approval is granted by the
community. If the construction or development is already
completed, then the Zoning Administrator may either (1) issue
an order identifying the corrective actions that must be made
within a specified time period to bring the use or structure
into compliance with the official controls, or (2) notify the
responsible party to apply for an after -the -fact permit/
development approval within a specified period of time not to
exceed 30-days.
4. If the responsible party does not appropriately respond
to the Zoning Administrator within the specified period of
time, each additional day that lapses shall constitute an
additional violation of this Ordinance and shall be
prosecuted accordingly. The Zoning Administrator shall also
upon the lapse of the specified response period notify the
landowner to restore the land to the condition which existed
prior to the violation of this Ordinance.
SECTION 304.140 AMENDMENTS
The flood plain designation on the Official Zoning Map shall not
be removed from flood plain areas unless it can be shown that the
designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or
above the elevation of the regional flood and is contiguous to
lands outside the flood plain. Special exceptions to this rule
may be permitted by the Commissioner of Natural Resources if he
determines that, through other measures, lands are adequately
protected for the intended use.
All amendments to this Ordinance, including amendments to the
Official Zoning Map, must be submitted to and approved by the
Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption. Changes in
the Official Zoning Map must meet the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's (FEMA) Technical Conditions and Criteria and must receive
prior FEMA approval before adoption. The Commissioner of Natural
Resources must be given 10-days written notice of all hearings to
consider an amendment to this Ordinance and said notice shall
include a draft of the ordinance amendment or technical study
under consideration.
22