Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Untitled
• CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 14168 Oak Park Boulevard No. • P.0 Box 2007. Oak Park Heights,MN 55082-2007 • Phone:651/439=4439 • Fax:651/439-0574 • September 26,2002 • Peter J. Coyle Larkin,Hoffman,Daly&Lindgren,Ltd. 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza 7900 Xerxes Aveune South Bloomington,MN 55431 Dear Mr. Coyle: I am writing to inform you that the City Council passed a motion at its September 24, 2002 meeting to accept the request to withdraw the pending petition to detach certain property from the City of Lake Elmo and annex it into the City of Oak Park Heights. It was a pleasure to work with you and your clients throughout the process. Please,feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely;' Kimberly Karnper Acting City Administrator cc: Mayor and Council City Attorney Tree City U.S.A. Oak Park Heights Request for Council Action Meeting Date 9/24/02 Agenda Item Title Request for Petition to Detach from Lake Elmo and Annex to Oak Park Heights Time Required 5 min. Agenda Placement Old Business Originating Department/Requestor Administration/Kimberly Kamper Requester's Signature Action Requested Take Appropriate Action Background/Justification (Please indicate any previous action, financial implications including budget information and recommendations). • The City Council received a Request for Petition to Detach from Lake Elmo and ty q Annex to Oak Park Heights at its August 13, 2002 meeting. The City Council held two Worksessions to discuss the issue further. The first Worksession was held on August 29, 2002 to discuss the issue with the applicant. The second Worksession was held on September 18, 2002 to discuss the issue with the City of Lake Elmo. The City Council may take further action on this issue. n . u (0) • S:\SHARED\Forms\COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST.doc FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (TUE) 9. 24' 02 13:48/ST. 13:48/N0. 4260872020 P 1 F.A&CSIMILE COVER SHEET LARKIN,HOFFMAN,DALY&LINDGREN,LTD. Attorneys at Law 1500 Norwest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington,Minnesota 55431 Telephone: (612)835-3800 TO: Kimberly Kamper Total Transmitted Pages 2 FAX NUMBER: 651-439-0574 (Including Cover Sheet); Copy to follow by U.S.Mail: ❑ Yes ❑ No FROM: Peter J. Coyle PHONE NUMBER.: 952-896-3214 Respond to FAX No. (952) 896-3333 DATE: September 24,2002 FILE NUMBER: 25358-00 MESSAGE 17c2 r;.1.7) THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED ED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OP THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, Y IS STRICTLY HEREBY NOTIFIED E. THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THE COMMUNICATION US BY TIF ELEPHONE YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US ATTHE A ABOVE ADDRESS IMMEDIATELY VIA THE U.S POSTAL 'I'ELEPSONE AND RETURN THE THANK YOU. Fax Operator's Initials: Time Transmitted: FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (TUE) 9. 24. 02 13:49/ST. l3:48/NO. 41bUa'l1ULU r LARKIN,HOFFMAN,DALY<h4DGREN,LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW w 1500 WELLS FARGO PLAZA 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON.MINNESOTA 55431-1194 PETER J.COYLE TELEPHONE(952)8363800 DIR.DIAL(952)8984214 FAX(952)888 3333 E-MAIL palle®Ihdl.com September 24,2002 Ms. Kimberly Kamper City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Boulevard Oak Park Heights,Minnesota 55082 Re: Concurrent Detachment-Annexation Petition Dear Ms.Kamper: We represent Mr. Bernie Nass in connection with the pending petition to detach certain property from the City of Lake Elmo and annex it into the City of Oak Park Heights. I am authorized by my client to withdraw the pending request for approval of a resolution in support of the application. We are, therefore,requesting that the application for concurrent detachment and annexation be withdrawn and that the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights take no action on it. Please call me if you have any questions. rely, • Peter J. Coyle, for LARKIN,HOFFMAN,DALY&LINDGREN, Ltd. Cc: Mr.Bernie Nass Mr.Pat Cropsey Mr. Clark Wicklund 797217.1 • J Y�nn Oak Park Heights Request for Council Action Meeting Date 9/24/02 Agenda Item Title Request for Petition to Detach from Lake Elmo and Annex to Oak Park Heights Time Required 5 min. Agenda Placement Old Business Originating Department/Requestor Administration/Kimberly Kamper Requester's Signaturei� Action Requested Take Appropriate Action Background/Justification (Please indicate any previous action, financial implications including budget information and recommendations). The City Council received a Request for Petition to Detach from Lake Elmo and Annex to Oak Park Heights at its August 13, 2002 meeting. The City Council held two Worksessions to discuss the issue further. The first Worksession was held on August 29, 2002 to discuss the issue with the applicant. The second Worksession was held on September 18, 2002 to discuss the issue with the City of Lake Elmo. The City Council may take further action on this issue. S:\SHARED\Forms\COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST.doc cn cli W O O 0 Ti .ci H t!i V) CI > ~ 0 `a Co r FC I tii � � ° tT o. r � CrJZ 0 _o › I+ P, � 'UO � � ; x� tti � � o XI 9 , X ( > x o 0 gZ8rA tij O � ZrWV) 0 • r - to x x ° ro 2. CD k o -- l .v• "" 1 . x. ' AANNING AVENUE x �� — — — I. i ZZ ,„,,,,/ — ?, 'a ,� p 7 / tA :a p u T i P ir] 0 % ;-: • -i;:k 4 ' ;. 11r1 . - 1 ' o-", ' - i ill t- f •.• I . Z — 1 [1...+%... U % I\ — * .,,,,c -' 14•010 • eve if., ri , .10r. 451 1 li / " W 1 i76' n 1 40 s " �y: 'iiii ,,,,_,,i,:s#11_,....,c,:t9. . 'FY t III 11:":„.;14", i� J a' w gig ...• ' . ii, ' I 4 - , , .,.. . , , , > . ,..... _ i .. r . , Z N't i ---\ ` ZZ <.i,,,,.7,, :,,, :::::4,... p 0 ,� s ,.. i M , i K 7J '; `�i , V 4 Wit ` ' Q �- F 1,�9r .• a I / # t A `,, ; ■ F.P, 'i 0 g cn ,, .g , , . _ 0 0 .d mmmomvaommov r= r-. Nb - , r vvvvvvvvvvv G) r P1 �� r. "�, 0 //``'�� ZZZZZZZZZZZ En r... " +{ y 0G)000)G)G)G)G)G)G) > / a '- 1Fe • C P 0 7Ce•--SGITIr10003> •• i 5 5 C7OIVC)OC)OO.NCCCntn0 �` (/) 1*1' : o 00000000000 r*I�r t 0 00000000000 �r. K. �r� •,, 0 00000000000 '' / m rn 1 * T. , w'; `sanZr NNIANNNInCnNNV)V) -Z Z.•,* J R,,�„ o1— - �M-� ��",, --1 11 s•omZ 4' � " ` I I - `"" 4. _ "TM °a. aeZ� n ` I I R: f1I N.:, A6. r Alliant Engineering, Inc. -e g LETTER TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 13, 2002 JOB NO. TO: Kim Kamper SENT BY: Clark City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Boulevard North Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 SEP 3 52 ......_ .... FROM: Clark Wicklund SUBJECT: Nass Property NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION 21 9-13-02 Conceptual Site Plan REMARKS: Kim, We are providing you with a copy of the Conceptual Site plan for the Nass property at the request of Mr. Peter Coyle of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly& Lindgren, Ltd. We are providing you with 21 copies as requested. Please call me at 612-758-3082 with questions or comments. Thanks. 233 Park Avenue South,Suite 200,Minneapolis Minnesota 55415-1108 Phone 612.7583080,Fax 612.7583099 •U•( kt, tr-r4NI f vc) j.nti\ • (Zetr/e,,,v .c?itydlCerr PhAll A•rit4r) ^4,1, ryikJ - Our Co,k (>11AA/5q7AAm-renwo5e., ,i.:vc,frryi. r-r,,K "' Or 4, ct 44 42 A.-1--c-147,-€4, /i—c6,1 s Crzt.se- tdie,11;. "ST ilk-ad To ii1f/P-1--1-/5, 0*z-6:16-1"'e-- Itw-s-14,4 (5023 4' L . kil( ce „ . — n"e'vc-6 (4e-R4if,'77 - QJop t/- k In 41' itill•-f) • • (A T ) r!) -cal"c_twr,c,,....if• - ,- "•• er, CA6....c-- 5 0-5-e g 0.■ ti )Afp.e IAAN-5--cosAki b•c. • 1-ct-/tqt-,1 AftcJ y 575 - 7-z) e- -,„5 (`k 0,L //(4.-,z) Lkkz 0$/ e7,1 rtry- 41,60P1 ' aivr- )7 - e--- 0-1e-, 1 01 6,02, ) > ? Propcsa,/-r51,-;730y, pre.74" of,.-fi-cizzvtv c,ry srzyn, L'reek.. (Aely CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION THURSDAY AUGUST 29, 2002, 4:30 P.M. 4:30 p.m. Discussion of Request for Petition to Detach from Lake Elmo and Annex to Oak Park Heights (I 5:30 p.m. Adjourn • • 'ROOM'I-MCWROAN LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. c ANG GERALD H.FRIEDELL LYNN M.STAR JOHN D.J.DRIBCOLL ATTORNEYS AT LAW RAKER - v JOAN D.FUU.MER ANN M.MEYER FRANK L HARVEY STEPHEN J.KAMINSKI THOMAS °J 1500 WELLS FARGO PLAZA ONSELT F. LINDA H.FISNER ADAM S.HUKVA• MICHAEL L C BTaT4AAN 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH JAMES M.SUMO• JOHNS. I HAOKMAN DMSEL J.BAUJNTINE JONN S.SN ew BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431-1194 JEFFREY D.CAHILL OMAS SEAN D.KELLY.FLYNN JJAA ESPP,QUIN! TELEPHONE(952)835-3800 JOSEPH9i. FO JR' GERALD L>ECK FAX(952)896-3333 JONATHAN J.FOGEL JOHN B.OLAN•IST WORK D.CHRISIOPHERSON JOHN A.COTE NEALJ.SLANCHETT JOHN B.COTTER• TAMARA O'N EILL MORELAND PAUL E P4 M.PIC' i © r7 t1(�f] E III JAMES A.MOGREEVY.III �T NEPI N lL� IL�� \LVJ! T A. • GREGORYE KCESTAD TODD A.TAYLOR GARYA.VANEANE f. CHRISTOPHERJ.DEIKE TIMOTHY J.SCHE f KECK MARLA M.WCIRAEL W.ScHLEY DIONNE IA. G TERRENCE E.ARY BISHOP "' 7 2002 lilt ij JEREMY O.BENSON CHRISTOPHER J.HARRISTHAL JOAN!C. .STIER KENDELJ.OHLftO°EE t'I' CAN!C. OBERG WER WILLIAM C.DOUGLAS 1'L/ MICHAEL ESSIEN WILLIAM C.GRIFFITH,JR. 1L✓/ JOHN R.PALL Of COUNSEL PETER J.COYLE JAMES P.LARKIN LARRY.B EMER JACK F.DALY JOHN JANE J.Sf STE EFFE NHAGEN D.KENNETH UNOGREN MICHAEL!.SMITH • ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN FREDERICK W W.ANDREA,F. N " ONLY ADMITTED IN IOWA D .M NIESUHR July 29, 2002 • Mayor and City Council City of Oak Park Heights P. O.Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082-3007 Re: Petition to Detach From Lake Elmo and Annex to Oak Park Heights; Our File 25,358-00 Dear Mayor and Council Members: This letter accompanies our petition request, on behalf of all the affected property owners, for detachment from the City of Lake Elmo (Lake Elmo) and attachment to the City of Oak Park Heights(Oak Park Heights) of 49 acres in the southeast quadrant of State Highway 36 and Maiming Avenue(the Property). Oak Park Heights supported annexation of this area with Kern Center in 1998. The annexation was delayed at that time to provide an opportunity for Lake Elmo to plan for growth in accordance with regional policies. Lake Elmo has instead planned for low-density rural estates on this freeway frontage, and has rejected landowners' recent requests to allow suitable commercial development. We therefore request detachment from that community and annexation to Oak Park Heights,with extension of utilities from Oak Park Heights. . In support of this petition,we have enclosed a Sanitary Sewer Extension Analysis prepared by Alliant Engineering in consultation with the Oak Park Heights City Engineer. The Analysis concludes that an extension of sewer is feasible to construct, and is the least costly means of serving the Property. Existing capacity is more than sufficient to serve the Property, and annexation allows Oak Park Heights to recapture a greater return on its previous utility investment. In fact,the Metropolitan Council, in reviewing Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan,has taken the position that greater development must occur LARKIN,HOFFMAN,DALY&LINDGREN,LTD. Mayor and City Council July 29,2002 Page 2 on land currently within Lake Elmo to compensate for regional investmentsl. Annexation would ensure benefits to Oak Park Heights from this development. • The annexation benefits all the parties involved. The Property owners will be able to plan for development that maximizes value. Oak Park Heights gains room to expand,possible expansion of its tax base, and will be able to recoup costs already expended for utilities serving the Property. Annexation will reduce the conflict between Lake Elmo's plan and regional planning. We therefore ask your support for the petition. incer , Peter J. Coyle, and Neal J. Blanchett, for LARKIN,HOFFMAN,DALY&LINDGREN,Ltd. cc: Bernie Nass Pat Cropsey Clark Wicklund Robert and Jolene Buberl Tom Bidon 780033.1 1 The Metropolitan Council's Staff Report stated"In Lake Elmo's' case, it could choose the staging and location of where urbanization will occur but not whether or when it will occur." BEFORE THE OFFICE OF STRATEGIC AND LONG-RANGE PLANNING OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: PETITION FOR CONCURRENT DETACHMENT AND ANNEXATION PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES § 414.061, SUBD. 5 1. This is a petition brought by property owners pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 414.061, subdivision 5 for the concurrent detachment of land from the City of Lake Elmo (Lake Elmo) and annexation to the City of Oak Park Heights (Oak Park Heights). 2. The real property subject to this petition(the Property) is described in Exhibit A. It is approximately 49 acres, adjacent to the west edge of Oak Park Heights and forming a triangular peninsula from an otherwise-straight side of Lake Elmo. It is adjacent to and south of Highway 36 a major regional transportation corridor, and across Highway 36 from the Cities of Grant and Stillwater. 3. The owners of the Property are Bernie and Louella Nass, Tom Bidon, and Robert and Jolene Buberl. They are 100%owners of the parcels which comprise the Property. 4. The Property is part of an area that was the subject of an annexation petition and proceeding in 1998 (the 1998 Annexation). The 1998 Annexation detached from Lake Elmo land east and adjacent to the Property(the Kern Center), and annexed the Kern Center to Oak Park Heights. 5. In the 1998 Annexation,the Municipal Board of the State of Minnesota concluded that the Kern Center was, and was about to become,urban or suburban in character. The Kern Center has since been developed with commercial, industrial, and government buildings served by municipal utilities and improved roadways. 6. The 1998 Annexation included consideration of an Agreement for Orderly Annexation between Lake Elmo and Baytown Township,requesting that both Kern Center and the Property be annexed to Oak Park Heights. In annexing the Kern Center but not the Property to Oak Park Heights,the Municipal Board cited regional planning and policies of the Metropolitan Council and gave Lake Elmo an opportunity to conform with the policies and planning in regulating development of the Property: In reducing the area proposed for annexation [to Oak Park Heights] . . . the Municipal Board is cognizant of the policies of the Metropolitan Council growth strategy and is confident Lake Elmo will,through the comprehensive plan revision process, reconcile its own development policies and philosophy with those of the Metropolitan Council. 7. The Metropolitan Council's growth strategy,to which Lake Elmo has been directed to conform, identifies Lake Elmo as a community that should have urban services, including sewer services,provided to it by 2010. Exh. B (Metropolitan Council Review of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan),p. 3. 8. The Metropolitan Council's staff review of Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan identifies Lake Elmo's Plan as inconsistent with the following regional plans: Regional Growth Strategy;the regional system plan for recreation open space; the Regional Transportation Policy Plan; and the Water Resources Management system plan. The Metropolitan Council's review concludes that Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan would require the region's taxpayers to fund duplicate infrastructure elsewhere in the region, and notes that "the least costly and most efficient means to accommodate the region's growth is to provide urban services for urban density development to areas such as Lake Elmo." Exh. B,p. 6,24. 9. The owners propose to develop the Property into commercial or similar medium-intensity uses appropriate for its location on an at-grade intersection to Highway 36, a major � regional transportation corridor. This development will require urban services such as municipal sewer and water, and urban/suburban street improvements. Exh. C (Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment). 10. The Property owners requested that Lake Elmo adopt a Comprehensive Plan that would allow commercial development on the freeway frontage portions of the Property. Lake Elmo rejected this request and has proposed Rural Agricultural Density(one unit per ten acres) for the Property. 11.The Property owners applied for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow commercial development. Lake Elmo denied this application. 12.Lake Elmo opposes the extension of urban services to the Property. Lake Elmo has taken steps to lower the level of service to the area,by barricading Manning Avenue to prevent a possible connection to 55th Street. 13.Metropolitan Council policies appear in the Regional Blueprint. The Regional Blueprint entails developing freeway corridors and other areas served by regional infrastructure. regional The Blueprint specifically calls for higher-density development alon g gi onal transportation corridors,within the 2020 MUSA, such as Highway 36 in Lake Elmo. The Blueprint states that future planning must: Recognize that the cumulative impact of small-scale development inconsistent with Council rural area policies may have a substantial negative impact on the Council's transportation policy plan or constitute a substantial departure from the plan. Similarly, in the urban area the cumulative effect of very low densities and inefficient land uses may lead to underutilization of regional facilities and may constitute a substantial negative impact on the system or a substantial de p arture from system plans. Blueprint,p.67 (emphasis added). The Metropolitan Council's regional planning policy is to Make more efficient use of local and regional infrastructure by working with local governments and the private sector to 2. r selectively increase the density of development-for example intensifying development along certain transportation corridors or filling in vacant land parcels. (Blueprint p. 46 (emphasis added)). 14.Lake Elmo's Plan blocks efficient provision of utilities from the east,where public funds have already been invested in utility lines with adequate capacity to serve the Property • and the immediate neighbors. 15. Lake Elmo has indicated it is unwilling to provide municipal services to the Property. The urban utility services can be provided by Oak Park Heights. Therefore,the most efficient way to provide the necessary services is through concurrent detachment from Lake Elmo and annexation to Oak Park Heights. 16. A Sanitary Sewer Extension Analysis for the Property, attached as Exhibit D, concludes that adequate utility capacity exists to serve the Property, and that provision of services to the Property after annexation would generate$129,010 in sewer system fees to Oak Park Heights at current rates of$2,660 per acre. It is unlikely that capacity built to serve the Property can serve any other property, since land to the north, east, and south is already served by private or public utilities. 17. The parties entitled to mailed notice from Minnesota Planning pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 414.09, subd. 1 are: The Metropolitan Council Washington County The City of Lake Elmo The City of Oak Park Heights The City of Stillwater The City of Grant Brown's Creek Watershed District 18. Lake Elmo has indicated that it opposed the location of freeways on its north and south borders. Therefore, detaching these corridors from Lake Elmo and annexing to neighboring communities serves Lake Elmo's goal to remove portions of these roads from its borders. 19. Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan is under extended review by the Metropolitan Council. Exh. B. Council staff has noted that Lake Elmo's plan to minimize development conflicts with regional plans and policies to promote full and efficient use of existing infrastructure. The Petitioners propose development that furthers full and efficient use of regional infrastructure,but conflicts in that respect with Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan. Detachment from Lake Elmo therefore eliminates conflict between Lake Elmo and the Metropolitan Council with regard to the Property, and would therefore reduce conflict between Lake Elmo's Plan and regional policies. 20. The detachment and annexation is in the best interest of the municipalities and the Property owners. Among other reasons, detachment and annexation will allow Oak Park Heights to realize a return on funds it invested in utilities planned to serve the area. It 3. • will allow the Property owners to develop the land in a way that better serves regional needs, and realizes the public investment in infrastructure serving the Property. It will reduce conflict between Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Council's regional planning. WHEREFORE,the Petitioners pray that the Minnesota Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning assume jurisdiction of the proceeding pursuant to Minnesota State Statute § 414.061, subd. 5, conduct hearings, and issue its order pursuant to Minnesota Statute §414.09 detaching the Property from Lake Elmo and annexing it to Oak Park Heights. rte- -4/ Bernie Nass ouella Nass L4ta6ec-ta fi�C rat)((ne ad2eA Robert Buberl ii-)lenK Bub erl • om Bidon RESOLUTION Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights as follows: 1. The City of Oak Park Heights supports the petition for concurrent detachment and annexation for the Property described in this petition and requests that the Minnesota Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning assume jurisdiction over the petition, conduct hearings and issue an order, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 414.09, detaching the Property from Lake Elmo and annexing it to Oak Park Heights. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS Mayor City Administrator ATTEST Clerk 770989.1 4. EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A Legal Description Parcel 0001: All that part of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 6, Township 29,Range 20 West, that lies Southerly and Westerly of the Southerly right of way line of Minnesota Tnmk Highway NO. 36 and Northerly and Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of said NW '/4 that is 923.00 feet, as measured along said West line, Southerly of the Northwest corner of said Section 6;thence Northeasterly by a deflection angle to the right of 73° for a distance of 336.41 feet; thence Southerly,parallel to the West line of said NW 1/4, for a distance of 148.5 feet;thence Easterly,parallel to the North line of said NW 1/4 for a distance of 784.70 feet more or less to the East line of said NW '/4 of NW V4 and there terminating. Subject to Manning Avenue and N.S.P. easement across said property. Parcel 0002: All that part of the North 1341.01 feet of the W '/2 of Section 6,Township 29,Range 20, lying Southerly of the following described line: Southerly of the Northwest corner, thence Northeasterly by a deflection angle to the right of 73 degrees for a distance of 330.0 feet; thence Easterly,parallel to the North line of said NW %4 for 795 feet,more or less, to the East line of said W %2 and there terminating. Subject to Manning Avenue across said property except the South 104.5 feet of said W 1/2 of said NW Y4. Parcel 06-29-20-23-0001: All that part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest Y4 of Section 6,Township 29,Range 20 that lies northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Northwest '/4 of said Section 6;thence North 1° 14' 50"East, along the West line of said Northwest Y4,for 969.67 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described;thence South 87°25' 34"East for 1120.72 feet more or less,to the East line of the Southwest '/4 of said Northwest '/4, and there terminating, except the North 1236.51 feet thereof and also excepting therefrom all that portion of the Southwest '/4 of the Northwest %4 of said Section 6, lying West of the Town Road as it now traverses said Section 6. Together with all that part of Northwest '/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6, Township 29,Range 20 except the North 1341 feet thereof subject to Manning Avenue. Parcel 06-029-20-21-0001: That part of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 29 North,Range 20 West,Washington County,Minnesota lying Westerly and Northerly of KERN CENTER and KERN CENTER 2ND ADDITION,according to the plats of record and on file in the office of the County Recorder,Washington County,Minnesota containing 22.99 acres,more or less. Subject to a highway easement along the Northerly line thereof for Trunk Highway 36 as described in Book 275 of Deeds,Page 497, of record and on file in said Office of the County Recorder. Also subject to a transmission line easement in favor of Northern States Power Company as described in Book 297,Page 288, of record and on file in said Office of the County Recorder. 745257.1 • 2. O Presentation Executive Summary Agenda Item:2002-156 Meetin• date: June 26, 2002 • ADVISORY INFORMATION Date: . June 3,2002, Subject: Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Comprehensive Plan--Referral File No. 18608-1 District(s), Member(s): Metropolitan Council District 12(Marc Hugunin,651-430-3515) Policy/Legal Reference: Minn.Stat. §473.864,Subd.2 and§473.175,Subd. 1 Staff Prepared/Presented: Jim Utley,AICP,Planning Analyst(651-602-1361) Eli Cooper,Director,Planning and Growth Management Dept(651-602-1521); Caren Dewar,Deputy Regional A inistrator,Policy Alignment and Development Division(651-602-1306) Division/Department: Policy Alignment and Development/Planning and Growth Management OVERVIEW The Regional Growth Strategy contained in the Metropolitan Council's 1996 Regional Blueprint identifies Lake Elmo as being in three policy areas:permanent rural,urban reserve and illustrative 2020 MUSA. The regional system plans for aviation,transportation and water resources management are based on and designed specifically to support the Regional Growth Strategy. In 1996,after an extensive public participation process,the Council adopted a 2020 Regional Blueprint and regional system plan chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide for aviation,transportation and water resources. The Regional Blueprint is part of the comprehensive development guide prepared and adopted by the Council in conjunction with its implementation of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. As part of its Blueprint,the Council established a new regional vision for the metropolitan area called the Regional Growth Strategy which outlines an urban growth and development pattern for the seven-county metropolitan area and identifies wide-ranging policies and actions needed to implement that development pattern. The Regional Growth Strategy recognizes that regional services like highways,transit,wastewater treatment and airports play key roles in supporting new development and that regional investments must be provided in an efficient and effective manner. The Regional Growth Strategy was incorporated by reference into the regional system plans for transportation and water resources in such a way that any local plan that is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy automatically is inconsistent with and therefore not in conformity with the Council's regional system plans. According to the Council's Regional Growth Strategy,communities identified as"permanent rural"should plan to support a rural lifestyle and have a rural residential density of one dwelling per 10 acres. Clustering on small lots with individual sewage treatment systems(ISTS)or smaller lots with community sewage treatment system and drainfield is permitted as long as the overall density is maintained. Council policy with respect to"urban reserve"says that communities identified as urban reserve should protect such areas for future urbanization that is expected to occur before 2040. Such areas are not intended to support a rural residential life-style,and the overall density should be one dwelling per 40 acres. Clustering on small lots with ISTS or smaller lots with a community sewage treatment system and drainfields is permitted as long as the overall density is maintained. The principal policy concern is to preserve such areas for future urbanization. Short-term open space protection related to cluster platting is acceptable,but • long-term or permanent open space protection is not acceptable for areas that should be designated"urban reserve." Communities may plan for limited, interim rural residential uses for areas designated as"urban reserve,"as long as such development reflects Council density guidelines and will not have the effect of making future urbanization difficult. 1 hi conjunction with the implementation of its Regional Blueprint,the Council established an"illustrative �, ' his best described as an overlay district. It overlays portions of the region's urban 2020 MUSA"which y ys p reserve area and identifies those areas of urban reserve that may be needed to begin to urbanize before 2020. The"Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy"map,which was adopted as part of the 1996 Regional Blueprint,identifies a large area of illustrative 2020 MUSA in Lake Elmo.This is the area within which the city is expected to plan for urbanization to help accommodate regional growth and development that is anticipated to occur within the near future. However,the map does not show the extent of expected urbanization in Lake Elmo by 2020. The amount of urbanization for which local communities are expected to plan is identified in the Council's system statement. The regional system plans for transportation (generally)and water resources management(specifically)establish the Council's plans for infrastructure needed to support the Regional Growth Strategy and identify how much urbanization(affecting regional sewer flow and transportation systems)a community should plan to accommodate by 2020. Individual community system statements were sent to communities in early 1997,as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act(Minn.Stat.§473.856). The system statements identified specifically how much urbanization local communities should plan to accommodate and provide information about the location,size and timing of regional infrastructure that the Council will have in place to support that growth. Under the Act(Minn. Stat. §473.857),communities have 60 days to request a hearing to resolve disagreements over the content of the system statement. The content of the 1997 system statement was not disputed or challenged by the city. Lake Elmo did not request a hearing or contact the Council to advise that it had a disagreement with its system statement. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires communities to plan for development as outlined in the system statement,a reflection of regional system plans as they pertain to individual communities. Local communities have flexibility in determining the most suitable locations and mix of uses so long as they plan reflective of regional systems policies and directions. What this means in practice is that some communities, with several possible locations to urbanize,can decide the most appropriate areas to begin their urbanization. In Lake Elmo's case,it could choose the staging and location of where urbanization will occur but not whether or when it will occur. It could choose to trade some permanent rural residential area in one part of the city for urban reserve elsewhere,if the net results of the"trading"remains approximately the same in overall acreage. Lake Elmo is currently a rural,mostly unsewered community. The city is approximately 8 miles(10 minutes on I-94)east of Council offices at Mears Park Centre. It is immediately adjacent to the fastest growing city in the region in the 1990's,the city of Woodbury. The Council's Regional Growth Strategy,as identified in its Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy map and 1997 system statement,as it pertains to Lake Elmo,calls for substantial urbanization of the community by 2040. The Council based its decision on several factors: • the region's(then forecasted)need to accommodate 320,000 new households and 380,000 new jobs in the region between 1995 and 2020 (2000 Census data suggest the estimated number of new households and new jobs in this metropolitan area by 2020 will be substantially more than previously estimated) • the close proximity of Lake Elmo to one of the core cities(St.Paul)in the region • the availability of the highest level(principal arterials)of regional transportation infrastructure immediately adjacent to the city on both the north and south sides • the potential for transit services to the community • the availability of an existing and as yet under-used regional park preserve within the city • the availability of regional wastewater services to serve the community in a cost-effective manner The city ty is very ry well served by regional systems(Figure 3)that reflect major regional,onal,state and federal infrastructure investments. The city is bounded on the south by I-94 and on the north by State Highway 36, tY Y 2 both of which are principal arterials(the highest class of regional highway). I-694,also a principal arterial highway,is one mile west of the city. State Highway 5,an A-minor arterial(the second highest class of regional highway),runs through the center of the city. In the three and one-half mile section of 1-94 along the southern edge of the city,three interchanges serve residents of Lake Elmo and nearby communities. Two I-694 interchanges serve Lake Elmo residents. One hundred twenty acres of Lake Elmo in the southwest corner of the city is presently served by regional wastewater services(Figures 3 and 5). Additional sewer capacity has been planned and programmed for the city. A$10 million Lake Elmo-Metro Interceptor sewer is scheduled for construction in 2006-2007 and currently is included in the Council's Environmental Services Capital Improvement Program. The 2,065- acre Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve lies in the center of Lake Elmo. The regional investment in the park reserves totals$7.6 million,including$5.6 million for land acquisition.The city also received tax- equivalency payments when the regional park reserve originally was established. The Minnesota State Legislature,in 1967,established the Council to plan and coordinate development in the seven-county metropolitan area. The legislature directed the Council to develop a development plan (framework)and regional system plans for aviation,parks and open space,transportation and wastewater. In 1976,the Legislature passed the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requiring the Council to issue system statements to local communities and for local communities to prepare comprehensive plans based on those system statements. In 1995,the Legislature amended the Metropolitan Land Planning Act to require all communities in the metropolitan area to review,and if necessary,amend their entire comprehensive plans and fiscal devices and official controls by December 31, 1998 and at least once every ten years thereafter. In conjunction with the 1995 amendments,the Council updated its policies and regional system plans to serve as a basis for the new round of comprehensive plans. The Council undertook an.18-month process with extensive public meetings and participation by local government officials and other stakeholders, and after a series of public hearings, adopted the 2020 Regional Blueprint and three extensively updated regional system plans(aviation, transportation and water resources),as well as less extensive modification to the regional system plan for recreation open space in December 1996. The Regional Blueprint contains a preface,executive summary,overview,and five strategy chapters: regional economic strategy,regional reinvestment strategy,regional strategy for building strong communities,regional environmental strategy,and a regional growth strategy. Each chapter contains policies and action statements. The Regional Growth Strategy sets the urban growth and development pattern for the seven-county metropolitan area as well as the identification of wide-ranging policies and actions needed to carry it out. The intended result is to accommodate 330,000 additional households and 650,000 more people by 2020. In'this review report,the term Regional Growth Strategy refers to the policies,action statements,maps and text found in the Regional Growth Strategy chapter of the Regional Blueprint,pages 43 through 65. The Council's adopted forecasts and their relationship to the Regional Growth Strategy are discussed generally on pages 74 through 77 and in Appendix J in the Regional Blueprint. The Regional Growth Strategy and other chapters of the Regional Blueprint set the overall policy direction of the Council and serve as the framework or basis for each of the regional system plans. In 1996,the Council adopted the Regional Growth Strategy chapter as part of the regional system plans for transportation and water resources management,making it an integral part of those system plans. A discussion about the relationship of the Regional Blueprint to the regional system plans is found in Appendix A,pages 66 though 69. The Regional Growth Strategy identifies Lake Elmo as a community within the region that should plan to have urban services i.e. sewer services,provided to it by 2010. The Council made a preliminary projection 3 of 200 sewered households and 600 sewered employees in 2010 and 1,500 sewered households and 1,000 employees by 2020.These projections were approved by the Council as part of the Water Resources Management Policy Plan and sent to the city as part of the Council's 1997 systems statement. The projections were made on assumptions of when metropolitan sewer services could be made available to the city and how long it would take the city to extend sewer services to a MUSA boundary to be designated by the city. The projections were to be revisited at the time the city's comprehensive plan was reviewed by the Council. It was anticipated that the Council would have completed its facility plan for the new Southeast Regional WWTP and Interceptor with a schedule for the sewer services by that time. On August 24,2001,Lake Elmo submitted its 2000—2020 comprehensive plan to the Council and adjacent communities for review and comment. The Council review could not begin until after a 60-day period for adjacent local government review and comment. On October 21,2001,the Council began its formal review of the Lake Elmo plan. The plan was found incomplete and the review suspended until additional information was received. On February 8,2002,Council staff completed an evaluation of supplemental materials submitted by the city and determined that the city's 2000—2020 comprehensive plan was complete for review and the review was restarted. Under state law(Minn.Stat. §473.175),the Council has up to 120 days to complete its review once a plan is determined to be complete. A local community and the Council may mutually agree to extend the review period. The Council completed the facility plan for the new Southeast Regional WWTP and Interceptor in 2000. Representatives of the city of Lake Elmo were members of the task force that reviewed the various alternatives studied and agreed that the proposed alternative of providing regional wastewater services to the city starting at the city's southwestern corporate limits was the city's desired alternative. The facility plan provides sewer service to Lake Elmo through the proposed Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor that is scheduled for construction in 2006-2007 in coordination with expansion of I-94. Coordinating the construction of the regional sewer interceptor with MnDOT's planned expansion of I-94 in 2006-2007 will permit the Council to realize substantial cost savings. If the Council is required to construct the interceptor at some unspecified future date after MnDOT's 1-94 expansion project is completed,the cost of constructing the Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor will escalate significantly. However,the proposed comprehensive plan for the city does not include the phasing of sanitary sewer services to this area of the city that would show an orderly progression of urban growth,consistent with the Council's planned extension of regional sewer service to the city,nor does the comprehensive plan preserve the Urban Reserve for future urban development. While Lake Elmo's plan proposes only 200 fewer households overall(4,500)than the Council's 2020 household forecast of 4,700 households(March 1997),the plan fails to provide for any of the 1.500 sewered households identified in the regional system plan for water resources management. While the Regional Growth Strategy map(Figure 2)anticipates urban development in Lake Elmo in the 2000—2020 planning period and calls for the maintenance of a substantial urban reserve area of 8,188 acres,Lake Elmo's plan fails to plan for any urban reserve. While the Regional Growth Strategy calls on Lake Elmo to plan to keep a portion of the city in permanent rural land use at an overall density of 1 unit per 10 acres,the Lake Elmo plan (Figure 5)proposes to allow rural residential development that is four times more dense than Council guidelines for the permanent rural area. Looking ahead,by 2030,Lake Elmo is now forecasted to grow to a total of 6,000 households by 2020(versus 4,700 household in 2020 included in the Council's Regional Blueprint in 1996)and 9,500 households by 2030,according to the Council's new preliminary forecasts. Lake Elmo's neighboring city of Woodbury has been supportive of the Council's Regional Growth Strategy taking 3,000 additional households by 2020 according to its comprehensive plan reviewed by the Council. Neighboring Oakdale has also been supportive of the Regional Growth Strategy,although its available land supply caused the city to come in short of Council household forecasts. Lake Elmo's failure to plan for 4 future urbanization,to protect lands for future urbanization,and to plan for lower densities in its rural area are contrary to the planning of its neighbors as well as the Regional Growth Strategy. In light of the foregoing,it appears clear that Lake Elmo's 2000--2020 comprehensive plan is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and does not conform to metropolitan system plans. The plan proposes a substantial rural residential area,but it does not establish an area of urban reserve and does not propose to urbanize a portion of the community consistent with Council plans and the system statement. The city's plan proposes that the community remain permanently rural. This is inconsistent with the Council's Regional Growth Strategy calling for future urbanization of the community beginning by 2010. The plan does not establish an urban reserve in the community,and fails to protect land for any future urbanization. The city does not plan for 1,500 sewered households by 2020 as envisioned in the Regional Growth Strategy and the Council's regional system plan for Water Resources Management. The city's plan is,therefore,not in conformity with and represents a substantial departure from the regional system plans for recreation open space,transportation and water resources. If the Council agrees with staff's findings and conclusions,the Council may require Lake Elmo to modify its plan to bring it into conformity with regional system plans. BACKGROUND Lake Elmo is ranked 33`d among metropolitan communities in anticipated growth to 2020 based on the Council's 1997 forecasts. In 2000,Lake Elmo had 6,863 people in 2,347 households and 1,635 jobs. According to Council forecasts(March 1997),Lake Elmo should plan to.accommodate 12,500 people in 4,700 households and 2,650 jobs in 2020. While this plan is not expected to address them,the preliminary new Council forecasts for Lake Elmo,based on the region's need to accommodate over 900,000 new people by 2030,shows 6,000 households for 2020 and 9,500 households for 2030. Lake Elmo is easily accessible to east metro employment centers(Figure 8). Nearly 40,000 jobs are within five miles and nearly 200,000 jobs are within ten miles of Lake Elmo. Those jobs represent 2.5 percent and 13 percent of the region's jobs,respectively. According to the city's plan,the majority of land in Lake Elmo is planned for development as Rural Agricultural Density(RAD). RAD development normally occurs at a density of 16 units per 40 acres or one unit per 2.5 acres on cluster-platted lots with the undeveloped portion of the property placed in"permanent" easement. Lake Elmo is one of the foremost practitioners of rural cluster platting and is recognized as a regional leader in its approach to incorporation of permanent rural residential with permanent open space protection. The Council staff accepts this aspect of the city's plan,as long as it is applied in the area of permanent rural identified in the Regional Growth Strategy. This approach may be acceptable in the urban reserve and future urban areas but only if the undeveloped land is not set aside in"permanent"open space, new home-buyers are fully informed of the planned urbanization and of the requirement that unsewered residences must hook up to public sewer within two years from the time local sewer service becomes available,and current development does not prevent future efficient and cost-effective urbanization in the community. 5 LINKAGE TO COUNCIL STRATEGIES 0 Infrastructure:The city's plan is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and not in conformance with and is a substantial departure from the regional system plans for recreation open space,transportation,and water resources. As proposed,the plan would cause the Council to spend additional regional tax dollars to build duplicate infrastructure to accommodate future urban growth elsewhere in the region that otherwise would have occurred in Lake Elmo. 0 Quality of life:Implementation of the city's plan as proposed could divert to other metropolitan-area communities current and future urban growth that otherwise would occur within the city,which likely would result in additional local public infrastructure investments and unnecessary duplicative regional infrastructure investments. 0 Communication/constituency building:The city should modified its plan to reflect future urbanization consistent with the existing and planned regional systems for this area of the region and to incorporate medium- and high-density housing elements into its plan to help provide adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional housing needs and promote the availability of land for the development of low- and moderate-income housing. 0 Alignment:The city's plan is not consistent with regional policies and until the plan is found to be consistent,the Council will apply its alignment policy to the city of Lake Elmo. This means that the city will receive no priority for funding of grants and loans over which the Council has advisory or discretionary approval authority and the city may be ineligible to qualify for other funding and for certain regional system improvements. ATTACHMENTS Comprehensive Plan Policy Matrix Review Record--Review of the City of Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Comprehensive Plan Figure 1 -Location Map,City of Lake Elmo Figure 2-Regional Growth Strategy Policy Areas,City of Lake Elmo Figure 3 -Regional Systems,City of Lake Elmo Figure 4-Existing Land Use,2000,City of Lake Elmo Figure 5-Land Use Plan,City of Lake Elmo Figure 6-2000 Aerial Photography,City of Lake Elmo Figure 7-Properties Seeking Sewer Service,City of Lake Elmo, 1998 Figure 8-Employment Within 5 and 10 Miles of Lake Elmo Figure 9—Regional Recreation Open Space System,December 1996(1997 system statement) Appendix A-Land Use Plan,excerpt from the Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Comprehensive Plan Appendix B-Intergovernmental Comments Appendix C-Public/Property Owner Comments Appendix D— 1997 System Statement—Lake Elmo Appendix E—Adoption of Amended Regional Blueprint, Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan, Water Resources Management Policy Plan,Aviation Development Guide/Policy Plan and Regional Recreation Open Space System Plan. Report of the Committee of the Whole,December 19, 1996 • V:\L•ibrary\CoinDevRp\Lake Elmo CPU 15608-1 6 ' . . -„....,- co $. 6 05 0 ICI 4 to 4. I t4.4 'h) eA .h) f„) ;c5 g 'E 're g g 'n 5 0 c) '' 0 ca '0 -8 t 0 g 4 6 al ,.4 c4-• i 4i2 ,C) .4:1 '0 '-'44 .11 '''' a.) V 0 0 c•I '114 . cNi '4-6 @ ti) .02 +-1 ° 0 g VI :,!..: ■C) ° .04° ,A. g ° ra g i A: P4 .0 g TN' a 7,4 .". '5 8- `' 8 8 .N ,, .0 .4 '..5 'CI cn 11 V c° 00 ?+ 004g .cA N -' -. vl 4 ,_, ':',*; ‘C. 4) ••-t k 0 '-' 0 ."-• 41.-1 513 g .0 - 5 '5 .5 .., `-' n, .,... 04 ril p c4-■ ,, d) -.... . 0 la 0 •r4 g . .-. a. o .. ' . -15, 0 .5 ° 0 .-4 1-egt-I140 . -■ 2 1:3 r,3 ° --la 3 0 P2 cv ../ 130_, ni 0 g at F.-- 0 p 4-4 E es .- :i t4 a) to 5: . - .•.i '15. g iti 0 r) gl -.-4 4 2 2 ^iii ;?., NI r--- 4 4,-, § t8 0 0 .5.) • , el: 0 '-4 0 0 4, 11 la' 0 w a °. 1::) 0 t •P • c4 7.1% r) :i..:1, g -0 4 2 2 0 ,;-; ,4 _ 2 0 C4.4 4) 0 '4:, 1:1.1 0 0 •,-, 11, 0 a 0 cti cn 0 Ai 4-. 1 1 •Clts. g',13' g70 ..,5g3b40 t8 4 '5d 0 u gt1404) r4047' Gcci.:2111 :9) Fi i -0 - el 1 0 ...... L.4.,: A g 'al § N '2 ° 1 .5 /E). 1 ..-1 t) c3 43 g ..73 H 1 .5 g 040 ' o ot .Po 't-119 ,2 • at ..4 •rq. ,--t .,..., r6 >. 7',f' e■I'-'4 4) 3-■ 1-1 4-' cn a, i • ., 4-'( a :ro 00 ca ° u .._. 6h. 0 g E.,) ci) gf 4.' cu -4., "0 , ,•..., al pij a) 0 Pt -,-, 0 4-, 4-, --■ {,3 ,--1 E.,) ci..t ICI "0 41 gr- 8 '53 0 P4 '1') •'.. ng 1-:,',, 0 ""a R .1.':i ig • ....-:,.:. es 4., 0 0 ,., V, 1-4 4.. lj el t r.. cn 10 0/' cil• ° ccl 4) ."I ° aill• I-9 "Pa 1.." . w rl rn -.CU " "."9 g '-' ..:.,.! '4 " .-" .-4 "a . g ,. .- E3i • gc-iidcaciti, ,rodogo ' . a- t'i 6 rti 01 04, el, 0 0 •.-1 t.4 0 0 laf ,..0 0 5 ...... .0 .-. 1 •,..: o (0, 0 8 § e.) 4_,-, . ca -c7,3 a -6 0 0 ,--.) cl .8 6-' cil .151c4_, 0 w . 0 0 -0 0 0 0 -k 0 .:•,;.. a) (..1 7:3 ,.., .5 8 ...,.L g 0 ..., › .50 0 0 -FL a Lel .g. ,... 0 P 0 g• • :II eD el t cA ..13 "c3 it cd 0 L.'-' g .5 g 4)4 A .4 4cA. In" -El-S) 8 "8 il.4) g > A' 14 oo •--1 cd c) 41 •Eg: • 5 P -o E 5 g "d 0 0 g to gi -0 az `) c0 cn 0 0 0 1 . C12 hi -00 ... g I Po i'w o .5 o PI 0 0 h oo 0 • I j..1 At ..",':,:•o III 0 Z Z ,-4 • • • • • • + cct •4::?,, 0 0 0 4.. W rg a 0 r: C >4 k cr) 0 g co "0 o 0 I-1 ts- 1 0 ,.e, 8 g • . ,-, 0 ga.. Ca4 -cjb1:1 1:4 e+s‘...../ ...... "C) Ctt 11 CO 0 0 iii Cl 141 .5 g CC C.) 0 r4 •14 , ..1 c, a,,r) ,0 ,e, •:o) 0 (D., ..... - co 0 cd d) g. 0 ..4 •+l Cn C.11 0 1+1 000 4) tra 0 0 1 '0 ril c4 1:4 0 „0 .4 a -. 5 ,.., ....,, 13. ". ._, 4-■ ‘rtt :4, g 1 g (I I R. g 4-04 P if.§ I ._. ...... t . 1 . i"... • • ct co N : _. •__ . • • • • • ' . 1 ' . -4 74 :-, a) 0 0 > . 0 g C) 0 0 op 0.) I* V) 1 0 0 el co 5 v) 0 , e•11 _ACP CI 4:0 14 1 (4 'ge • • • t 0 cd PI 6p cd + a) ' w y ° a) i b 'd f"4 Oa O ,..1 U p p a o .s• g4 r' og .si g714,2, Eio' 5 ° �• g 0 ,o • d 5 y 6 t , cc L iii q 'g � A aa ° o y q bo 0.3 Ed a > p au 0 5 q a +, . w q w y y 03 11-4_44 ~ ° p Qv U 6 1.4 .•• 0 b 't3 • $.4 C 11 v U U P O U ,• c) N i q a) U 'Cy � • bA or-100 .00 co ' �y cd h ,•r aci , V1 O w 0 4.. a) V + 0 • b b q '0 V y ❑ "L3 d t+ O G ¢, R •N a O '' ed � ' mg ." 4- 4) q G S°j y ra C,9 ' •d )U U , O O 8 b0 4-4 8 c0 o , q a 5 q 0 ° buo > `5 �' .- 'p '�y" a O .4 .,g ° O g w y 4' W ' 0 a) ca • ed O 1:14 a y y a p 7 ni ecd 0 y •,' ° a bA•g q 0 o 4 ..0 t o ca q " ° cd d q ° b0 V *b q o � U d � —, ••'" O 0 ° p rn▪ p `O ¢, .0 -0 U .d m .N' •O p •m U 1 U y U ti 9 • ' . 1 p 0 �1) 5 E g ' , N U O (t O Pa) 2 0 0 e v •P cd go m " a + '0 'd4C.) Z041 ,5bE •4 � &� e '0gy a 0 5 g a . •EL y w {.°.r .° - F? N c-P :b• .a 0 71,70 U '" E ',5 I 1 i ", w 0 4:4 . Ngs, . +o 0000 o O .° . O0 x . ZZZZ 0 a NZ 5 E U • • • • • • • • .d 0 o 2 O , 'CN V �' 0' y � hy .0 Acrd d •.- N,' w• op., O P s w vp o . o c O O b c � � W w O • c.,.c.,.., 0 d a) 44 o p., a, C a P, pa w a ca • • • • a • • • a 0 WI Eil O 44 0 GM 0 VI c co as et 1.0 v vl 0 as , Z a . . 'O �d 0 yN V1 tY p ,g G)+ g i.r y FI y s. v LC '5 y 0 r ^� �.., U -0 8.cl � � v o ,-, mow°: moo oo , I. i. o i, Set o 'd ar, rng 'aN3 E a,cn a4° , s• 44 0 o � o '.Pi go g plot-) 4 3 .b co 2 a� ..p y _p y n a as ° 44 O `'-, c .t , y . b 0 0 p v i M ' 'a • N '"i U 0 � 0 � y U 'A 2 y Ub o = b d 1it N VI O E + O y cn o o 0 '0 .� 4, 04 a V " � 0 0 rn a '"� +,a, � o p � , oc- p r V . . O V . y •I ° °v 4.- x 50'O 4-p: b . g 'D p C @ .A N O b a.a a c) U ca 4 o cn il i 4-1 A C cv y o A o 45 o 4� o ,5 ,2 LU p 0 .y aR iz • • • o 2 o c teA, o a 4 � a � 3r.5 '� 5 4) - •5 � huh N • C 0 v O 3 C)) O OC .0 •50 "g R' 90 t ,.,0 • n • N O y s.., v cu s� s., U cd }+ 0 0 O s•. U i.i O O 4-, b O Oka 0 O A ›, '_ g g v° a o a a cg -1:1 El a, w aaGE a4 awa4 ,A=1 o • • • • • • rn a) 0 0) o a. eik as■f., at C�•d� E-( Ir1 • • a ' PUBLIC POLICY QUESTIONS Overall System Questions 1. Regional Parks. Does the proposed Lake Elmo comprehensive plan update conform to the regional system plan for Recreation Open Space? If not,will the plan have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from the metropolitan system plan? 2. Transportation. Does the proposed Lake Elmo comprehensive plan update conform to the regional system plan for Transportation? If not,will the plan have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from the metropolitan system plan? 3. Wastewater Treatment. Does the proposed Lake Elmo comprehensive plan update conform to the regional system plan for Water Resources?If not,will the plan have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from the metropolitan system plan? 4. Aviation. Does the proposed Lake Elmo comprehensive plan update conform to the regional system plan for Aviation? If not, will the plan have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure form the metropolitan system plan? 5. Subregional and Regional Interests. Does Lake Elmo's proposal not to designate an urban reserve area or plan for higher density development within the next twenty years: (a)affect other communities in that area of the Region who must consider regional growth issues and the availability of regional systems when they engage in their own local planning efforts, or(b) effectively require other metropolitan-area communities to accommodate urbanization that would have been expected to occur in Lake Elmo given the regional systems and infrastructure investments that either now serve the City or are planned to serve the City within the next few years? 6. Housing Needs. If Lake Elmo fails to designate an urban reserve area to accommodate a reasonable amount of urbanization or encourage higher-density residential development within the relatively near future,how will Lake Elmo fulfill its statutory obligation to adopt a land use plan that provides adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional housing needs, particularly in light of the increases in population, household and employment that are projected to occur within the next twenty years in this metropolitan area? 7. Efficient Infrastructure Investment Decisions. If Lake Elmo fails to designate an urban reserve area to accommodate a reasonable amount of urbanization within the reasonable period of time, will the Council be required to make substantial additional (i.e., duplicative) investments for regional infrastructure in other areas of the metropolitan area? 8. Other Interests. Have neighboring municipalities or other interested persons in the region questioned the sufficiency of Lake Elmo's proposed Comprehensive Plan Update or recommended that the Council find Lake Elmo's proposed Plan Update inconsistent with regional system plans,and what weight should be given to this factor? 10 Regional Water Resources System 9. Policy 12a of the Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan states: The timing and density of development which is inconsistent with the growth management strategy adopted as part of the Regional Blueprint and which would affect the cost of providing metropolitan sewer service will be viewed as a departure from or having a substantial impact on the metropolitan wastewater system, requiring modifications to the local comprehensive plan. 10. Is it significant that if the $10 million interceptor project does not occur in 2006-2007 as planned to coincide with MnDOT's 1-94 improvement project along the southern border of Lake Elmo, the cost of constructing the Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor will be both more costly and more technically challenging? 11. If the Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor is not built as planned,what are the consequences to property owners in the southwestern area of the City,residents of surrounding communities and taxpayers of the Region if on-site sewage systems are installed in the City in lieu of public sewer systems and those on-site systems fail in the future? • 12. Is there a financial advantage to the region as a whole to provide regional interceptor sewer service to communities like Lake Elmo that are well-served by regional systems, rather than constructing regional interceptor sewer facilities elsewhere in the region to serve a similar number of residential and non- residential hook-ups? 13. Is it significant that the City actively participated in the Council's process to develop the South Washington County Interceptor Facility Plan and that the $10 million interceptor project currently programmed in the Council's Environmental Services Capital Improvement Program is planned primarily for the purposes of serving the City of Lake Elmo? Regional Recreation Open Space System 14. What are the consequences of implementing the proposed Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Update in light of the Council's 1996 Regional Blueprint which, at page 68, states guidelines affecting the location and operation of regional park facilities? Set regional objectives for the open space system consistent with the Regional Blueprint...Develop regional recreation facilities that attract large numbers of users generally in the urban area... If it is necessary to develop such facilities in the rural area, adequate support services such as roads and sewers must be provided. 15. Is the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Update consistent with the Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy map,adopted as part of the Council's 1996 Regional Blueprint,which identifies a significant portion of Lake Elmo,including the area of the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve as urban reserve? 16. Would the partial urbanization of Lake Elmo proposed in the Regional Blueprint 2020 allow better access to and utilization of Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve? Would it improve access to the park on local roads and by bike and walking? Would it make improved transit services to the park reserve more feasible? 11 • 17. Does Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan Update constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans because it fails to provide for the development of 1,500 sewered households and 1,000 employees served by regional wastewater services by 2020? 18. Is it significant that the Council supported the establishment of the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve and invested $7.6 million for its acquisition and development in part as a response to active encouragement from the City regarding the establishment of a regional park facility within its jurisdiction and in response to the City's concerns regarding urbanization at that time? Regional Transportation System 19. Does Lake Elmo's proposal not to accommodate higher density development and designate an urban reserve area have a significant impact on or constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans because the City has exceptional regional highway(principal arterial) access via I-94 and TH 36 along its northern and southern borders and by I-694, and excellent regional north/south highway (principal arterial)located approximately 1 mile west of Lake Elmo? 20. Does Lake Elmo's proposal not to accommodate higher density development and designate an urban reserve area have a significant impact on or constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans because"A"minor arterials in the City—including TH5, County Road(CR) 13, CR 10 and CR19 (all "expanders") and CR 15 (a "connector")—provide excellent interconnections to the regional transportation system? 21. Will the development of the City at higher density levels make the provision of regional transit service more economically feasible than in other urbanizing communities in the region because transportation infrastructure exists in or near the City and Lake Elmo is located near the urban core and major employment centers? 22. Would urbanization of western Lake Elmo allow greater utilization of Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve so as to avoid use of the regional highway system? 23. If transportation funding continues to be a major public policy issue,is it likely the region as a whole can provide as good or better regional highway access to other areas of the region in support of urbanization if Lake Elmo does not urbanize? 12 REVIEW RECORD CITY OF LAKE ELMO 2000 - 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BACKGROUND The city of Lake Elmo is a developing suburban and rural community located nine miles from downtown Saint Paul. It is surround by the cities of Oakdale,Pine Springs,Grant,Stillwater/Stillwater Township,Oak Park Heights,Baytown Township,West Lakeland Township,Afton,and Woodbury.(Figure 1). The city is 15,341 acres(24 square miles)in area. In 2000,Lake Elmo had 6,863 people in 2,347 households,and an estimated 1,635 jobs. According to Council 1997 forecasts,Lake Elmo should plan to accommodate a total of 12,500 people in 4,700 households and 2,650 jobs by 2020. Although Lake Elmo's plan is being reviewed using 1997 Council forecasts,data from the 2000 Census suggest that it would be reasonable to expect Lake • Elmo to plan for and accommodate even more additional household and jobs by 2020. Lake Elmo ranks 33rdth among communities in the region in forecasted household growth for the period 2000 to 2020. The Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Comprehensive Plan,hereafter referenced as the"plan,"establishes policies to guide growth to the year 2020 and,when adopted,will replace the former comprehensive plan,adopted in 1991. Lake Elmo,in 1997,received a grant from the Council for preparation of its comprehensive plan, Grant No. SG-97-244,in the amount of$10,530. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires local units of government to submit comprehensive plans and plan amendments to the Council for review and comment(Minn. Stat. §473.864, Subd.2). The Council reviews the plans to determine their conformity with metropolitan system plans,apparent consistency with other adopted plans of the Council,and compatibility with the plans of other local jurisdictions in the metropolitan area. The Council may require a local governmental unit to modify any comprehensive plan or part thereof,which may have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans(Minn.Stat. §473.175,Subd. 1). HISTORY/PREVIOUS ACTIONS The Lake Elmo Park Reserve and Growth Pressures, In 1967,the Twin Cities Metropolitan Planning Commission(soon to become the Metropolitan Council)sent a memo to Washington County concerning an acquisition program for parkland in Washington County." The purposed parks were based on the principle of locating parks close to population concentrations and rapidly growing communities. A 1,005-acre park adjacent to Lake Elmo and Eagle Point Lake was identified as a possible inclusion into the"Joint Program of the Metropolitan Open Space System." This plan was included as part of the 1967 Washington County Comprehensive Plan. In the early 1970's,the Council divided the region into 10 sectors for purposes of determining the number, size and locations of regional parks and park reserves. Lake Ehno was within Sector 4,which encompassed the northern half of Washington County and a small portion of the northeastern part of Ramsey County. The acquisition standard use by the Council was 7 acres of regional park land and 18 acres of regional park reserve land per 1000 people. Washington County,the then Village of Lake Elmo,and the Council continued to jointly support the idea and requested federal and state monies to initiate an acquisition program. Lake Elmo Village Council passed a resolution on March 3, 1970 establishing a Metropolitan Park in the Village of Lake Elmo expressing concern about possible private development in the area. It reads in part... "Whereas,said[Village]Council...is of the opinion that such private development,inconsistent with the proposed park plan,is an immediate possibility." "...[T]hat such action as may be necessary for the acquisition of lands be taken at the earliest possible date because of the immediate possibility of conflicting private development." 13 On August 3, 1971,the Lake Elmo Village Council again stated in a resolution the following: "Whereas,the Village Council is of the opinion that the land for said Park should be acquired at the earliest possible time so that it may be secured before it becomes the subject of urban development and is,thereby,lost forever for park purposes." The original 1973 park acquisition plan considered population density near the regional park and the forecasted population in the sector in which the Lake Elmo Park Reserve is located. The acquisition plan projected more population growth than actually occurred by 1990,although the actual population was within 10 percent of the projected growth. On May 21, 1974,the Village Council urged the Metropolitan Council in cooperation with Washington County to promptly acquire the"Lake Elmo Metropolitan Park'with the statement: "Resolved,that the Village Council of the Village of Lake Elmo... does hereby reaffirm its expressions of approval of the concept of a Metropolitan Park of regional significance...." The 1974 Legislature enacted the 1974 Metropolitan Parks Act,which states that: "the pressure of urbanization and development threatens the most valuable remaining large recreational open space areas in the Metropolitan Area at the same time as the need for such areas is increased." This act provided an initial$40 million appropriation to the Council to provide grants to"implementing agencies"to acquire what were defined as"immediate action sites" The sites were part of what was called the Immediate Action Program. The implementing agencies were responsible for the planning,acquiring, developing,operations and maintenance for the regional facilities. The Council developed the Long Range system policy plan for Regional Recreation Open Space as part of the Council's Development Guide. Lake Elmo Park was earmarked for immediate acquisition. At this time,Dayton Hudson Properties was holding 1,250 acres in the city of Lake Elmo"for the purpose of developing a major diversified center." The Lake Elmo City Council passed a resolution stating: "It is essential the Dayton Hudson property be acquired under the first priority acquisition before the Dayton Hudson development plan is submitted to the City of Lake Elmo."(July 16, 1974) As part of a memorandum to the Council dated July 16, 1974,Washington County stated: "...the purpose of the Legislative Act,which provided this 40 million dollars...was so that acquisition could take place and preserve these twelve regional sites that were in immediate danger of being lost to development. As far as this one(Lake Elmo)is concerned,if we do not take immediate steps to acquire the entire park,those parcels not provided for under this funding will be lost to developers within the next two to three years." Lake Elmo was originally identified as a regional Park for active recreation purposes. In a report dated July 16, 1974,to the Chair of the Council's Environmental and Transportation Committee the Chairman of Metro East stated... "Since our primary concerns lie with the eastern suburbs,we have spent a considerable amount of time studying growth patterns as they affect the east metropolitan area. From these studies we have found that growth is moving eastward into western and central Washington County. Development pressures are real in this area. Because of these growth pressures and the need for a regional park facility in this area, Metro East does endorse and support the establishment of the Washington County Lake Elmo Regional Park." The Metropolitan Council authorized a grant in July 1974 and executed a contract in October 1974 with Washington for$4,650,000 to secure a major portion of the park. When the County submitted the master plan for Washington County Regional Parks,the staff report stated that: "Lake Elmo Regional Park will be affected by several major proposed developments including Interstate 94,3M,Dayton Hudson with housing development adjacent to the park on the south and southwest." 14 The 1977 Washington County Regional Recreation Open Space 5 Year Capital Improvement Program included Lake Elmo as a park reserve with first priority including the need to purchase the remaining parcels in the park"...because of intense development pressure and the proposed higher density of new residences in the area...." During the last 25 years,capital improvements totaling$7.6 million have been spent on the park for acquisition and development. The Council paid tax equivalency payments to the city of Lake Elmo for a period of time after parcels were acquired. The Council makes annual operations and maintenance payments to Washington County as a partial reimbursement. Today,Lake Elmo Park Reserve encompasses 2,165 acres with 1,995 acres of land and 170 acres of water. It sees fairly good use with an estimated 398,000 visits in 2000. Approximately 45%of visitors live within Washington County. Comprehensive Planning The Lake Elmo 1990-2010 Comprehensive Plan was submitted to the Council in 1990 and reviewed in 1991. In its review,the Council found the city's rural density of three units per ten acres,with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres,inconsistent with rural policies. In 1992,the city proposed a 440-acre MUSA expansion in the southwest corner of the city. The proposed land use designation for all 440 acres was Business Park. At the time there was not adequate sewer capacity allocated to Lake Elmo to accommodate the expected sewer flow. In a resolution sent to the Council,the city of Woodbury outlined 11 "negative findings." Woodbury expressed concerns regarding sewer planning, transportation,storm drainage,septic systems and long range planning. Four of Woodbury's long-range planning findings follow. The Comprehensive Plan does not review development and growth for a long-term period. The plan is ' very short term oriented and only for a specific development. The plan should deal(with)overall community needs. The proposal involves land only for commercial development. The market area has a sufficient supply of commercial land,which is already in the MUSA. The proposed uses to be allowed outside the MUSA are almost identical to those allowed inside the MUSA. Some of the uses,such as restaurants,are very difficult to operate on septic systems. The plan made no representation of this being a temporary short-term situation. It appears they intend these commercial businesses to operate on private systems on a permanent basis. Allowing such development is not consistent with Rural Development Policies. The Council review resulted in required plan modifications,and removal of the 440 acres form the MUSA. In 1994,Lake Elmo addressed the modifications and a 120-acre MUSA expansion was approved. Since 1994,the city has submitted 11 comprehensive plan amendments. A 1996 amendment established an open space development concept providing for the clustering of rural housing and the dedication of substantial open space. The Rural Agricultural Density(RAD)land use designation in the proposed comprehensive plan is a further evolved version of the open space development concept. The amendment proposed to change the land use designation of 4,460 acres(30 percent of the city) to Open Space Development. Development was permitted at six units per 20 acres(3 per 10 or 1 dwelling per 3.3 acres)with performance bonuses up to ten units per 20 acres(16 units per 20 acres or 1 dwelling per 1.25 acres). Permanent dedication of 50 percent of the site for open space was required. The Open Space development category was not applied to the area between I—94 and 10`s Street,sometimes called the I-94 corridor area(Figure 7). The Council review included the following three recommendations: 1. Inform the city of Lake Elmo that it may put the proposed plan amendment into effect and that no plan modification is required. 15 2. Recommend that the city of Lake Elmo monitor the open space development and forward annual reports to the Council. The reports should include information on on-site systems,water supply,housing affordability and whether the new development meets the city's intended open space development goals and objectives. 3. Recommend that the city of Lake Elmo coordinate planning with the Council and with Washington County as the growth options analysis develops. The growth options analysis was part of the 1996 Regional Blueprint process. The Council has not received annual reports monitoring open space development in the city. From 1996 through 1998,a city-appointed I-94 task force including the Chairmen of the Planning Commission and property owners met to develop and evaluate alternative development options for the I-94 Corridor Study Area(Figure 7). The task force,with assistance from the City Planner and a consulting planner,developed three options. The I-94 Economic Development Option featured sewered research and development/business park sites,rural estate development,open space development,and a large area designated post 2015 development. The 1-94 Livable Community Option was similar except that it substituted urban sewered residential development for open space development. The I-94 Existing/Future Land Use Option called for both sewered and unsewered research and development office park sites,open space development,rural estate development,and a large post 2015 development area. A fiscal impact assessment of the three options was prepared;however,the city did not end up selecting any of the three land use options. ANALYSIS Staff reviewed the plan update for conformity with regional system plans for aviation,recreation open space, transportation and water resources management,for consistency with the Regional Blueprint and other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide,and for compatibility with the plans of adjacent governmental units and school districts. Materials received for review included: • The Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Comprehensive Plan,submitted initially on August 24,2001,and found complete for review on February 8,2002. • Other supplementary materials received on November 16,2001;November 28,2001;December 21, 2001;December 27,2001;and April 11,2002. REGIONAL BLUEPRINT(Michael R.King,AICP,651-602-1438 and Jim Uttley,AICP,Planning and Growth Management Department,651-602-1361) • Lake Elmo is a substantially rural community with two small urban areas. One is the old village where there is a mix of commercial development and urban-density residential on individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS). The other is an area of 120 acres of commercial development in the southwest corner of the city, adjacent to Oakdale,which is served by public sewer and is connected to the regional water resources management system. The Regional Growth Strategy shows Lake Elmo as beginning to urbanize in the 2000—2020 planning period. The Regional Growth Strategy map(Figure 2)shows the city of Lake Elmo immediately adjacent to the region's"urban area." Oakdale is located to the west. Woodbury is located to the south. Stillwater and Oak Park Heights are located to the northeast. The Regional Growth Strategy proposes that a substantial portion in the east and northeast sections of Lake Elmo should plan remain in"permanent rural"land uses. Much of the remainder is proposed by the Council to be preserved for future urbanization through 2040,with a small area of approximately 525 acres proposed to urbanize before 2020. The Regional Growth Strategy policy areas as shown in Figure 2 as applied to Lake Elmo show 120 acres of existing Urban Area(all commercial); 9,846 acres of Urban Reserve of which 3,907 acres are shown as Illustrative 2020 MUSA;and 5,375 acres of Permanent Rural. The Illustrative 2020 MUSA was not intended to show the expected extent of urbanization by 2020. Rather,it shows the general area within which the city should plan for urbanization to expand in the city consistent with its regional growth forecasts 16 and the regional water resources management system plan for sewer households and sewered employment through 2020. Another way to look at the Regional Growth Strategy guide for Lake Elmo is as follows. Lake Elmo should plan for 5,275 acres(35 percent of the city)to continue in permanent rural uses through the planning period to 2040. It.should plan for its existing 127 acres of urban development(0.1 percent of the city)to remain urban. It should plan to urbanize enough land to accommodate 1,500 sewered households and a sewered employment of 1,000 by 2020. And,it should protect the remainder of 9,846 acres(64 percent of the city)of undeveloped urban reserve for future urbanization through 2040. The Council did not tell Lake Elmo how to urbanize or at what density or how much land to use,beyond applying a minimum density of three units per acre. If the city planned for the minimum urban density,it would be expected to urbanize approximately 500 additional acres for residential purposes by 2020. With respect to land demand for jobs,the Council uses an average of 40 employees per acre for its general sewer flow forecasting. The 1,000 sewered employees reflect a demand for approximately 25 acres of sewered commercial/industrial land by 2020. Thus,if the city planned to urbanize 525 acres of land by 2020,it should be able to accommodate all of the sewered and sewered employees forecasted for the city to 2020. households emp y ty Lake Elmo's com p rehensive plan does identify and propose to continue the existing urban area in the o the urban area and does not plan to southwest corner of the city(Figure 5). It proposed no expansion of p accommodate the sewered households and employment as directed in the regional system plan for water resources management. The plan does not identify an area of urban reserve or adequately protect the 9,846 acres of land identified by the Council for future urbanization. Council guidelines suggest that cities should plan for rural residential densities not to exceed one dwelling per 40 acres as a way to protect rural lands for future urbanization. Instead,the city plans for the vast majority of the city—areas that the Council shows as both urban reserve and permanent rural,to be rural residential. However,it does not follow the Council's density guidelines for permanent rural areas(an average of one dwelling per 10 acres). The city's land use acreage table identifies four residential land use categories:urban residential,suburban residential,rural estates and rural agricultural development. The"urban residential"category is applied to the existing Cimarron manufactured housing development of 505 Units,approximately 189 acres in 2000. No new"Urban Residential"is proposed in the city's plan. The"suburban residential"category is applied to the existing residential development in the Old Village and elsewhere. Most suburban residential development took place in.the early to mid 20th Century when the city was 700 acres in size(before annexing East Oakdale Township).The City Planner advises that few parcels remain=built within these old(suburban residential)plats; and no unplatted land has been proposed for the SRD designation as yet,total 2000 land use in this category was approximately 1,780 acres. The effective densities in these old plats range up to three units per acre. According to Chuck Dillerud,the Lake Elmo Ci ty Planner: • The focus of the soon-to-be-started Old Village Neighborhood Design Study(Thorbeck Architects are under contract)is to address limited Old Village expansion at this elevated density(not unlike the ideas that Calthorpe g ave us a couple years ago for this area)using the engineere d wetland wastewater treatment systems like those now serving several of our OP plats-up to 200 units on a single combined system.The"trick"that Thorbeck must overcome is to retain the ambiance and character of the Old Village with 21st Century housing and layout-as well as the wastewater solution.... The only contemporary plat that is guided SRD is Carriage Station at 55th and Stillwater Blvd.We added an SRD definition to the 1990 Plan @1.4 units per acre,with specific locational criteria,to accommodate SRD there-as a measure to "step down"density from Oak Park Heights scale to Lake Elmo scale from north to south across that neighborhood. 17 The residential estates development(RED)is conventional platting,which at approximately three units per 10 acres. According to the City Planner,nearly every RED guided area on the Plan is existing-with a couple of minor exceptions,based on statements made to adjacent homeowners. Since 1996 only one RED plat has been proposed and approved. All the rest(except Carriage Station)have been cluster developments - 11 in all;with an area of approximately 811 acres in 2000. The majority of the land in Lake Elmo is proposed for development as Rural Agricultural Development (RAD)(see Figure 5). RAD permits development of a density of one unit per 10 acres,but is normally developed at 16 units per 40 acres,with 50 percent of the land area to be dedicated as permanent open space. The resulting density is 0.4 units per acre or an average of one unit per 2.5 acres of land. This land use plan category is planned throughout the city,including the southern section of the city. (Figure 5) This density is four times higher than the Council recommended density for permanent rural areas and sixteen times higher than the Council's recommended density for areas of urban reserve. In 2000,RAD land use category accounted for 7,622 acres. Most review reports contain a table that compares city and Council forecasts. The table has been omitted from this review report in place of a more extensive analysis and commentary found in the policy matrix section of the report immediately following the executive summary. There are a few areas in the city with compact intensively developed lands,which are of a village or small town scale. These areas include the Old Village area south of state trunk highway(STH)5 and County Road 17,the adjacent commercial strip along STH 5 and the Cimarron modular home community south east of County Road 17 and 10th Street(Figure 5). Two areas are proposed for new intensive development. The comprehensive plan calls for the expansion of the Old Village with new"village scale"residential and commercial development and a surrounding greenbelt(Appendix A:pages 34—37 and Map 2). This smart growth concept was developed in part through the Council funded Saint Croix Valley Design Study. The comprehensive plan also proposes a"limited business"district along the I-94 frontage road. That district would extend west one mile from the MUSA line to Keats Avenue(County Road 17). This commercial development area is smaller than that called for in the Lake Elmo 1990—2010 Comprehensive Plan. Both areas are proposed for development without connection to the regional water resources management system. Sub-Regional Analysis —Comparing Lake Elmo to Grant Lake Elmo is a community at the crossroads. It is a community with some of the best transportation access in the region,with principal arterial highways on two borders(with existing interchanges),and a third located a mile from one of its remaining borders. It has relatively large parcels of land and may have one of the best urban development potentials of any city in the region,because it is located near the core cities and other employment centers and because regional transportation,sewer and park facilities are located within the city or immediately next to the city. Unlike its urban neighbors to the west,south and northeast,it seeks a quasi-rural lifestyle like its neighboring townships to the east. All of its neighboring communities except West Lakeland Township have had their comprehensive plans reviewed by the Council. West Lakeland Township has not yet been submitted for Council review. The city of Grant,located immediately north of Lake Elmo was shown in the Regional Growth Strategy as mostly permanent rural,but with substantial areas in the western part of the community proposed by the Council for urban reserve. Grant's plan proposed that the entire city remain in permanent rural at densities consistent with Council policies for permanent rural areas. The Council's reviewed Grant's plan on January 28, 1999. In its review,the Council said: The[city of Grant's)plan does not identify any future sewered areas,but indicates that the city will reconsider identifying potential sewered areas in the year 2008,during the next plan update. More importantly,the city will continue to vigorously enforce its 1/10 density policy,which will not preclude future urban development. Therefore,while the plan is not consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and represents a departure from the Water Resources Management Policy Plan,Council staff finds that the plan does not constitute a substantial departure. 18 How is Lake Elmo's plan different from Grant's? The regional water resources management system plan did not propose any sewered residential households or employment in Grant through 2020,while it does propose 1,500 sewered households and 1,000 sewered employment in Lake Elmo by 2020. While the Regional Growth Strategy shows both Urban Reserve and Illustrative 2020 MUSA in Grant,the city was not expected to plan for urbanization before 2020. It was only expected to protect land for future urbanization. Grant proposes to do this by vigorously applying its 1/10 permanent rural density standard. Further,Grant agreed to revisit the question of future urbanization in its 2008 update of its comprehensive plan. Lake Elmo is also shown with both Urban Reserve and Illustrative 2020 MUSA,but in this case Lake Elmo was expected to plan for urbanization to begin before 2020. Its plan proposes to permit rural densities four times higher,and therefore inconsistent with future urbanization. Further,although L ake Elmo's plan requires to encourage clustering in the rural area(generally an acceptable practice),it equu es the undeveloped open space in each development to be set aside as"permanent"open space(through easements, dedications and fee title transfers). This practice,if allowed,would make future urbanization considerable more difficult if not virtually impossible. Sand,Gravel and Dolostone Deposits The Council's study of aggregate resources in the Twin Cities area,Aggregate Resources Inventory of Seven- County Metropolitan Area,Minnesota(May 9,2000),identified sand and grave deposits in Lake Elmo,one northwestern area of the city to the south and west of Lake Jane,Olson Lake and Lake De area in the n ty Montreville and the other south and east of Goose Lake. Much of the area identified in northwestern Lake Elmo is considered urbanized or mined out.There are two existing sand and gravel mines;new mines are not permitted. The plan indicates that by 2020 there will be no more extraction activities in the community. Historic Site Preservation;Solar Access Protection The comprehensive plan does not include a historic protection element or provide an element for solar access protection. These protection elements as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act(Minn. Stat. § 473.859,subdivision 2 . The city should prepare and submit these elements to the Council for review as 4 ) t3' P P required by law. Plan Implementation The city has approved the following 2000—2020 Comprehensive Plan implementation work projects:the Community Facilities/Staffing forecast,Zoning Ordinance Redraft,Old Village Neighborhood Design Study and the Cimarron Neighborhood Analysis. The city has adopted a 2002—2006 Capital Improvements Program. Land Use Summary ry Lake Elmo's plan is inconsistent with Council's Regional Growth Strategy policies contained in the Regional Blueprint, adopted by the Council in December 1996. It is inconsistent with the Council's 2020 household and employment forecasts. In the present context,the variance particularly in employment forecasts raises concerns because they are reflected in significantly lower forecasts from the city for sewered households and Y g� Y employment,which are found later in this review to be substantial departures from the regional system plan for water resources management. The city does not plan for future urbanization in the city beyond an existing 127-acre urbanized area in the southwest corner of the city. The city does not establish an Urban Reserve area in the community as directed Strategy and does not attempt to protect land in the city for future urbanization by the Regional Growth Str gy an p p ty through 2040 by establishing densities approaching one dwelling per 40 acres as Council guidelines suggest. area "permanent rural"but its densities of one dwelling per 2.5 acres are four times The city does have an are of g p more dense that the Council's guidelines of one dwelling per 10 acres. The city's plan proposes densities four times denser than Council guidelines in the permanent rural area and 16 times denser than Council 19 " ` N O N M [� \O N l`N t0 Ali t'1 r O :. ~ — CO b O H N 'r 00 r� H ON ON =i 0�0 000 'r O N ,1 00 M 00 e !.:Y "•; l: O M of d a V! H r■1 r■1 eel it,a1 L _ _ _ frek 'O 'd A .•G.vc N et 6i ei O. Q 03 E., lit' Cr; N O O a .�.. .. >a v a . . 4 AA e r •: y 4-. II ti 3 fo O : O F F n N A • ��ev cd A t� H au • y y W a ...} a N N cl CO N cd p4 g b ,r u c`g -0 Cp 4-i 6- b O N b 00 O� d N 1-1 00 N O rti 0 II o 0 O •-y •-+ O O N N N N !P N N IA a■ O� r0y a qt. V1 O M et N' h d' C 00 •62. 00 O M K1 O. Q1 O r- N M N ,--I O M M . 'rv: 10 N cf.) a 000 00 co N .r M N !R N M et M `.der N N N M 'D•ct M r•+ 1.4 �b o o a F 'Li a a O ' 4) a F d '0u p AA C F I V . d o. F 0 .Q Q .N.e V1 b 0 W t7 -� O Cil 4 0 O cef p a b C ba v1 t N V b a� �� b L. b •.b0 tU y� . � 11041 g E a � guidelines for areas of urban reserve. Additionally,Lake Elmo's plan allows rural clusters where substantial land is placed into"permanent"open space. This technique is permitted in the Council's permanent rural area when associated with lower density rural residential development(1 per 10 not 1 per 2.5). However,it is inconsistent in areas that the Council has designated as urban reserve,where such permanent open space would significantly add to the costs for extending urban infrastructure,perhaps making urbanization financially infeasible. REGIONAL SYSTEMS Aviation(Chauncey Case,Transportation and Transit Development,651-602-1724) The city of Lake Elmo is within the airport influence area of the Lake Elmo Airport and involves airport- planning considerations. The comprehensive plan includes an aviation element. This city's plan adequately addresses the airspace protection requirements and is in conformance with the Aviation Policy Plan. Recreation Open Space(Arne Stefferud,Parks,Phyllis Hanson,Manager,Planning and Technical Assistance Office,651-602-1566,Michael McDonough,Planning and Growth Management Department, 651-602-1054) The Lake Elmo 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan is not in conformance with and represents a substantial departure from the Regional Recreation Open Space System Plan. The 2,165-acre Lake Elmo Park Reserve lies in the center of Lake Elmo. The regional investment in the park reserve totals$7.6 million,including $5.6 million for land acquisition. Lake Elmo received tax equivalency payments for a period of time after parcels were acquired. In addition,Washington County,as the Implementing Agency,receives partial reimbursement annually for operations and maintenance costs for the regional system,including Lake Elmo Park Reserve. The Lake Elmo Park Reserve had an estimated 398,000 visits in 2000. Approximately 45% of the visitors live within Washington County. The Lake Elmo Park Reserve is a regional amenity and an substantial infrastructure investment that was invited and welcomed by the city of Lake Elmo. While the principal considerations in establishing regional parks and park reserves have more to do with protection of regionally significant open space more than locating them for ease of access to regional park users,park users are a consideration. Urban level development would allow more access to the park by alternative transportation,such as biking,walking,and using the transit system. It also permits more people to access the park without using the regional highway system,thereby reducing demands on that system. The 1996 Regional Blueprint in Appendix A,pages 66-72,establishes guidelines affecting regional systems. In its first section,entitled,"Directions for Regional Systems,"it says... "The Blueprint will be used to help interpret policies in the Council's system plans and its other regional plans. All of the Council's regional plans need to reflect the policies of the Blueprint...which is the keystone chapter(of the Metropolitan Development Guide)." On page 68,the Blueprint says"... Set regional objectives for the open space system consistent with the Regional Blueprint...Develop regional recreation facilities that attract large numbers of users generally in the urban area...If it is necessary to develop such facilities in the rural area,adequate support services such as roads and sewers must be provided. The Lake Elmo Park Reserve is located within the area that the Regional Growth Strategy identifies as urban reserve(future urban),which is consistent with the concept expressed above of developing regional recreation facilities that attract large numbers of users generally in an urban area. Lake Elmo's plan to keep the area rural and prevent it from urbanizing in the future is not in conformity with Council policy and represents a substantial departure from the regional system plan for Regional Recreation Open Space. The city should be required to modify its plan to make it consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. 21 Lake Elmo's Park Plan is generally very ry com p rehensive. However,the trail plan includes a proposed i Marine Regional Park Reserve in northern Washington County frail intended to connect the Big gi gt ty with the Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park in southern Washington County. A combination of the proposed community and neighborhood trails could make this connection. The city's plan is not in conformity with and is a departure from the regional system plan because it does not show the regional trail as described above and included in the 1996 Regional Recreation Open Space System statement The.city should modify its plan map show the connection as a future regional trail. Transportation(Ann Braden,Planning and Growth Management Department,651-602-1705) The city's plan is not in conformity with and represents a departure from the regional system plan for (Transportation Policy Plan[TPP]). The plan recommends traffic calming for TH 5 through (Transpo cY [ ]) p g gh the Old Village area of Lake Elmo. TH 5 is currently carries about 12,000 vehicles per day. Strategy 11H of the regional Transportation Policy Plan states that traffic-calming measures are not appropriate on principal or minor arterials because they inhibit the highway from fulfilling its regional role of providing mobility. Traffic calming measures on TI!5 that would impair mobility along TH 5 would be inconsistent with Council policy. The city should revise the language in its plan regarding traffic-calming measures on TH 5. In addition,the city's plan is not in conformity with and represents a substantial departure from the regional system plan for transportation. In its adoption of the Transportation Policy Plan on December 19, 1996,the Council incorporated its Regional Growth Strategy into the TPP(page 10),which says... The Metropolitan Council's regional growth strategy was adopted as part of its Regional Blueprint. `...to ensure that this regional growth strategy is implemented,the Council's regional growth strategy is hereby incorporated into the Council's system plan for transportation. Local government plans will be reviewed by the Council for their consistency[sic)with the Council's metropolitan system plans. The Council's metropolitan system plans including the regional growth strategy,will serve as the basis for the Council's determination to require a local plan modification if a local plan or any part of a local plan has a substantial impact on or contains a substantial departure from the Council's metropolitan system plans. Lake Elmo has some of the best transportation access of any community in the region. Lake Elmo is bordered by two principal arterials:I-94 on the south and state trunk highway(TH)36 on the north. "A" minor arterials in the city include TH 5,County Road(CR) 13, CR 10,and CR 19(all"expanders")and CR 15(a"connector"). Since the plan was drafted,Metro Transit Route 63 service between downtown St.Paul and the Cimarron Neighborhood in southeastern Lake Elmo has been eliminated. In addition to Metro Transit express Route 294 service,Washington County's Human Services,Inc.provides ADA paratransit service to Lake Elmo from 5:00 am to 7:00 p.m. The city's plan,as was noted earlier,is inconsistent with the Council's Regional Growth Strategy with respect to forecasts,sewered households and employment,lack of future urbanization,lack of urban reserve, inconsistent density policies needed to protect urban reserve and permanent rural areas. The Regional II Blueprint,on page 67,states... Recognize that the cumulative impact of small-scale development inconsistent with the Council rural area policies may have a substantial negative impact of the Council's transportation policy plan or constitute a substantial departure from the plan. Similarly,in the urban area the cumulative effect of very low densities and inefficient land uses may lead to underutilization of regional facilities and may constitute a substantial negative impact on the system or constitute a substantial departure from the system plans. • Lake Elmo's plan for city-wide low-density rural residential development and permanent open space makes Ili it economically infeasible to provide the citizens of Lake Elmo and some adjacent communities with cost effective transit services. The Regional Blueprint,on page 68,states that the Transportation Policy Plan shall "emphasize and promote transit services...and which reduce automobile dependence to improve air 22 quality...decreasing congestion,promoting community character,and devoting less land to transportation facilities." Wastewater Services(Bryce Pickart,Assistant General Manager,MCES and Donald Bluhm,Manager, Municipal Services,MCES,651-6024116) History In 1992,Lake Elmo submitted a request to the Council to add 440 acres in southwest Lake Elmo to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area(MUSA). The request was not permitted because there was not sufficient capacity within the interceptor system to provide for the requested service. Another consideration was embodied by comments from the city of Woodbury,which objected to Lake Elmo's MUSA request because no housing was included,only commercial land use. In 1994,the city requested that 120 acres be added to their MUSA. The Council approved 120 acres for inclusion in MUSA,based on projections of available capacity in the WONE Interceptor. In 1994,the Council's Environmental Services Division completed a long-range wastewater system planning study entitled the Centralization/Decentralization Study. This plan included the implementation of the Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant to serve Cottage Grove,Woodbury,and Lake Elmo. The 1996 Water Resources Management Policy Plan,based on the 2020 Regional Blueprint,programmed the expansion of the Metropolitan Disposal System to provide wastewater services to the city of Lake Elmo.The 1997 systems statement that was sent to the city of Lake Elmo to initiate their comprehensive plan update stated that regional sanitary sewer service would be provided for 1,500 housing units by 2020. The content of the 1997 system statement was not disputed or challenged by the city. In 1996,the Council began the siting process for the Southeast Regional WWTP. In 1998,the Council completed the siting process with the decision to re-use the existing Cottage Grove WWTP site,which cannot accommodate a plant as large as originally envisioned for the Southeast Regional WWTP(renamed the South Washington County WWTP). The plant siting decision resulted in a re-evaluation of the plant's sewer service area and options to provide capacity at other locations as part of the interceptor system facility planning,which was initiated in 1998. In April 2000,the Council adopted the South Washington County Interceptor Facility Plan. The facility plan provides sewer service to Lake Elmo through the proposed Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor,with capacity for up to 3.7 mgd wastewater flow from Lake Elmo,and with construction scheduled for 2006 to coincide with a planned MnDOT project to widen and improve I-94 east of St.Paul. The objective is to achieve efficient construction of public infrastructure and consistency of regional transportation and wastewater system capacities. Interim wastewater service for the previously mentioned 440-acre area of Lake Elmo would be provided by the WONE Interceptor,which will have capacity available upon Woodbury's diversion of wastewater flow to the new South Washington County interceptor and wastewater treatment plant in 2003. In addition,the facility plan allocates 1.4 mgd of reserve capacity for the I-94 corridor east of Woodbury and the four St. Croix communities in the South Washington County Interceptor. The 3.7-mgd of wastewater flow planned for Lake Elmo equates to 13,500 residential equivalent connections and to an urban service area of approximately 5,000 to 8,000 acres. This area encompasses the entire area between I-94 and 10th Street that is available for development,plus some of the developable area north of 10th Street,plus the larger existing developments(Cimarron,Old Village);an area consistent in size with the entire area shown as"urban reserve"in the Regional Growth Strategy minus the 1,995 acre Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve,which is undifferentiated within the area shown as urban reserve. The 2002-2007 MCES Capital Improvement Program includes the$10 million Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor with construction scheduled for 2006-2007. 23 Public Comments Ili Public participation played an important role in shaping the plans for the South Washington County Interceptor. Early in the process of preparing the facility plan,an interceptor community advisory committee (ICAC)was formed consisting of representatives of Lake Elmo,Afton,Cottage Grove,Woodbury, Washington County,South Washington Watershed District,Department of Natural Resources and the Council. Committee members included citizens,elected officials,and local government staff. Five meetings were held between January 1998 and January 1999. Mayor Wyn John,Todd Williams,and City Engineer Tom Prew officially represented Lake Elmo. Other participants.included Lake Elmo city council member Susan Dunn,property owner Dorothy Lyons and Bruce Miller of MFC Properties Corporation. Throughout the one-year span of the ICAC meetings,MCES consultants and staff presented information on ent alternatives for the interceptor as they were gradually narrowed to the final the various alignment p y gr y recommended plan. Lake Elmo's representatives preferred alignments oriented towards the western side of the city. This conformed better to the city's plan to stage development in the area adjacent to I-94 from west to east. City of Afton representatives vigorously opposed the eastern-most interceptor alignment along their shared border with Woodbury. They were concerned that this would bring undesirable pressure to urbanize their northwestern sector.At the fourth ICAC meeting,the Council proposed a new interceptor alternative for future service to Lake Elmo,the Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor,which responded to both cities'concerns. district representative and staff met with the Lake Elmo city council on Jul 7, 1998,and again The Council des p ty July g on September 1, 1998,to discuss the means of providing interceptor service to the city. At the request of the ICAC members,a narrative evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the remaining interceptor alternatives was provided in January 1999. The Facility Plan was published in March 2000,and an official public hearing on the South Washington County Facility Plan was held on April 6,2000. The Council officially adopted the facility plan on April 26,2000,and Lake Elmo officials were informed and consulted during the planning for the interceptor,but their comments influenced changes in that plan. System Impacts The Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan provides interceptor service capacity for 13,500 residential equivalent connections in Lake Elmo in the long-term,which would require approximately 5,000 to 8,000 acres of developable land. The system statement provided for 1,500 housing units to be served by 2020. The Regional Growth Strategy anticipated approximately 8,200 acres of MUSA and Urban Reserve. The city's comprehensive plan projects a need for 482 residential equivalent connections by 2020. The city's comprehensive plan projects no need to expand its current 120-acre MUSA. The city's comprehensive plan provides for development of most of its land at the rural density of one unit per 2.5 acres(16 units per 40 acres). This development pattern would make it impossible to achieve urban densities appropriate for MUSA in the future. These city proposals are a substantial systems departure from the Wastewater System Plan and Policy 12a of the Water Resources Management Policy Plan,which states: ...The timing and density of development which is inconsistent with the growth management strategy adopted as part of the Regional Blueprint and which would affect the cost of providing metropolitan sewer service will be viewed as a departure from or having a substantial impact on the metropolitan wastewater system,requiring modifications to the local comprehensive plan. Lake Elmo is the closest community to the Metropolitan WWTP in St.Paul that has significant developable land that is not already within the MUSA or Urban Reserve. The least costly and most efficient means to accommodate the region's growth is to provide urban services for urban density development to areas such as Lake Elmo,as described in the 1996 Regional Blueprint. 24 OTHER METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE CHAPTERS • Housing(Guy Peterson,Livable Communities Department,651-602-1418) Based on the 2020 Blueprint and its Regional Growth Strategy,the Lake Elmo plan,as submitted,is inconsistent with regional housing policy and the housing planning requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The Regional Growth Strategy identifies areas of urbanization in the city through 2020. The framework established for implementing the housing planning requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act calls for Lake Elmo to adopt affordable housing goals through 2010 consistent with the regional goal-setting framework. This goal-setting structure with benchmarks and goals identifies some range parameters within which the city is asked to plan for its share of affordable and life-cycle housing through 2010. Using the Council's forecasted sewered residential growth in the city through 2010,and the goals accepted by Lake Elmo when it was a participant in the Livable Communities Local Housing Incentives Program (numbers which are actually lower than the benchmark range accepted by other suburbs east of St.Paul),the city would be expected to permit development of some new affordable ownership units—townhomes and rental housing—before 2011. Using the goal Lake Elmo adopted,it would be expected to add 20 rental units (high density)and 79 affordable ownership units(medium density townhomes). If the more ambitious benchmark range numbers were used for goals,the low end of the actual goal ranges for eastern suburbs would yield numbers that would represent the addition of 46 rental units and 106 affordable ownership units. These goals when viewed as units then require the city to fulfill the second major affordable housing requirement of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act—guiding sufficient land to permit this development to occur should the market choose to build it. These modest goals would mean the need for two to five acres available for high density rental housing(10 or more units per acre),and 13 to 18 acres available for medium density residential development(at least six units per acre)through 2010. With the systems statement indicating the expectation to sewer 1,500 homes in the city by 2020,perhaps as many as 120 acres of additional land in the city would need to be "reserved"at one unit per 10 acres through 2010,to permit additional affordable and life-cycle housing to be developed after 2010. The city's plan to grow without any sewered residential development creates a rationale for not having new affordable housing goals and not permitting the development of medium-and high-density residential development. The comprehensive plan is inconsistent with regional housing policy and the Metropolitan Land Planning Act housing planning requirements if the Council requires the comprehensive plan to be consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy,with sewered residential growth to begin in the city before 2010. A failure to provide or protect more land to facilitate life cycle and affordable housing development between 2010 and 2020 exacerbates the plan's deficiencies. Water Resources Management(James Larsen,Planning&Growth Management Dept.651-602-1159) Sanitary Sewer Element—Individual Sewage Treatment Systems(ISTS) The city's ISTS management program is consistent with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)and Council requirements. Sanitary Sewer Element—Private Wastewater Treatment Systems Nine clustered housing neighborhoods in the city are currently being served by seven engineered-wetland wastewater treatment systems. The systems are permitted by the MPCA. Surface Water Management The majority of the city is located within the Valley Branch Watershed,but portions also lie within the Browns Creek and South Washington Watersheds. Council staff encourages the city to work closely with all three of these watershed management Districts having jurisdiction over surface water management issues in portions of the city. 25 The city's plan includes policy language requiring utilization of MPCA's best management practices and Nationwide Urban Runoff Program wet detention basin design criteria,consistent with the Council's Interim Strategy to Reduce Non point Source Pollution to all Metropolitan Water Bodies. The plan also acknowledges the need to incorporate these standards and requirements into the city's land use controls to implement these policies. The city should amend its land use controls to incorporate these standards and requirements within nine months of final Council action on the plan. Water Supply The city submitted as a part of the plan,an update of its original 1996 water supply plan element. The update has been reviewed an d comments have been provided to the city under separate cover. The city's water supply plan element is consistent with Council guidelines. At such time as the city expands its present public water system to serve urbanizing part of the community,it will need to revise its Water Supply plan and resubmit it to the Council for review. COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS The plan was forwarded to the adjacent jurisdictions,Washington County,and watershed districts for review and comment. The cities of Oakdale and Woodbury, Washington the South Washin on Watershed District,and the Valley Branch Watershed District all have commented on the Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Plan. The comment letters are attached in Appendix B. Intergovernmental and Public Comments Intergovernmental comments have been received from the city of Oakdale,the city of Woodbury,the South Washington County Watershed District,and the Valley Branch Watershed District,(Appendix B). The city of Oakdale writes in part,the following. We respect the acknowledgement in the plan of the City's continued strategy of preserving natural amenities and agricultural heritage. At the same time, we caution the City not to overlook proper planning for the inevitable development based on projected growth for Washington County. This will require making investments in the necessary infrastructure. The plan seems to recognize that Lake Elmo, "faces the march of urbanization,"but it could go further with discussion on strategies for how increasing growth pressures will be managed. The city of Woodbury letter expresses concerns about the extent of the proposed unsewered housing and its potential impact on the ground water system that flows towards Woodbury,the traffic impacts of the rural clustered housing development,and the impacts of surface water flowing from Lake Elmo into Woodbury. The city also made the following land use comments. The proposed land use element does not address issues in the Metropolitan Council Regional Blueprint as it relates to providing an expanded MUSA in a logical outward eastern expansion from the City of Oakdale. The Regional Blueprint shows the MUSA being expanded into Lake Elmo generally extending to Washington County Road#13. The Lake Elmo plan proposes no MUSA for housing in the entire city. The Council also received letters from four property owners or their representatives,(Appendix C). Bruce Miller of MFC properties sent a copy of a 1998 petition from property owners requesting sewer service from the city of Lake Elmo. Mr.Miller indicates that the property owners represent approximately 1,500 acres along 1-94. Attorney Christopher Dietzen,wrote concerning the 34-acre Reco Real Estate property near 1-94 and County Road 17(Lake Elmo Avenue). They would like their land to continue to be designated commercial. 26 Attorney John Lang wrote to the Council concerning the Dale Properties 90 acre parcel north east of County Road 13(Inwood Avenue)and 10th street,indicating an intent to develop sewered housing. He points out their proximity to employment centers,sewer service and sewered housing development in Oakdale. Thomas Schutte,of the North Suburban Company wrote concerning their 150 acre parcel at the southeast corner of County Road 13 (Inwood Avenue)and 10th street. They object to the plan's Rural Agricultural Density designation of their property,and ask the Council to,"take measures necessary to accommodate a more appropriate use of our property." At the May 6,2002,Livable Communities Committee meeting two property-owner representatives spoke. Joe Fogerty,Edina Realty,addressed the committee on behalf of Dale Properties,owners of land on the northeast corner of County Road 13(Inwood Avenue)and 10th Street. He urged committee members to visit the site to understand the location and level of infrastructure that is in place. Mr.Fogerty,noted that as a Cottage Grove City Council Member,active in the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities,he had participated in the debate leading up to the adoption of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. He said,it was clearly contemplated at the time of adoption that"substantial impact on or substantial departure form a metropolitan system plan,"could result from the underutiliization of public infrastructure investments. Attorney Neal Blanchett,spoke on behalf of two clients,including the RECO Real Estate property discussed above. He also addressed the committee concerning the NassBuberyBidon property in the northeast corner of the city on state highway 36 and Manning. He said the property was essentially on freeway frontage and it was not appropriate for the Rural Agricultural Density land use designation. 27 NASS PROPERTY SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION ANALYSIS CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS Prepared for: Mr. Bernie Nass July 23, 2002 Prepared by: Alliant Engineering,Inc. 233 Park Avenue South Suite 200 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55414 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under My direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota eit."4 Signature 1— 7.3 Date Registration • City of Oak Park.Heights Sanitary Sewer Extension Analysis . Nass Pro P e • ly • Table of Contents : • Section Page • • • 1.0. Introduction 1 . 2.0 Existing Conditions 2 3.0 Proposed Development • 3 4.0 Existing Sanitary Sewer Improvements ,.. 4 5.0 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Improvements ... 6 6.0 Cost Estimate • .7 • 7.0 - Concision 8 List of Appendices • Appendix A Washington County Aerial with Topographic Overlay Appendix B ..Conceptual Site Plan Appendix C 'Existing Sanitary Sewer Exhibit Appendix D Kern Center Utility Improvements As-built Plan Appendix E .Proposed Sanitary Sewer Routing Plan Appendix F - Construction Cost Estimate Appendix G Kern Center Feasibility Study Appendix H ..Oak Park Heights Sanitary Sewer System Map • • • • • • - 1.0 Introduction • • At the request of the Land Owner;Alliant Engineering has prepared the following analysis in .order to determine the feasibility of extending a sanitary sewer lateral line and associated sanitary services to a 48.5 acre parcel of land located in the.City of Lake Elmo. Potential issues have been raised by representatives of the City of Oak Park Heights and City of Lake Elmo regarding the cost of constructing a sanitary sewer system. In addition,the capacity of the Oak Park.Heights system located immediately east of the subject property is in question and will most likely be subject to receiving wastewater from the subject property should it be feasible to connect. • The analysis contained within is based on.our review of the following documents: • City of Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kem Annexation Study prepared by Northwest Consultants,dated July 1997 • • Preliminary Report on Kern Center Improvements for Oak Park Heights prepared•by Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik&Associates(BRAA)dated May 29, 1998 and amended July 1, 1998 • • Kern Center Utility Improvements as-built drawings prepared by BRAA,dated,February 16, 2000 • City of Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan,prepared by BRAA, dated • • July, 1999. • Washington County Department of Transportation and Physical Development Aerial Photographs with Topographic Overlay, dated April 2000. • Conceptual Site Plan prepared by Brodsho Consulting,dated January 16,2002. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 1 • • • • • • 2.0 Existing Conditions The subject property is approximately 48.5 acres and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Highway 36 and Manning Avenue North in the City of Lake Elmo. The parcel is , currently undeveloped and occupied by Mr.Bernie Nasa,the land Owner.. The City of Oak Park Heights currently identifies this area as Business/Residential Transitional and Low Density Estate • Residential in their Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan prepared by Bonestroo,Rosene, Anderlik&Associates,dated July, 1999. • • The property is bound by Highway 36 to the north,the Kern.Center,a commercial/industrial . development located in the City of Oak Park Heights to the east,residential property to the south and Manning Avenue North to the west. A 225 foot wide easement currently exists for Northern States Power Company(a.k.a Xcel Energy)overhead transmission lines,which parallel Highway 36 and extend from Manning Trail to the Kern Center and are located in the northern third of the ' property. Any reference to the Kern Center development hereby refers to that area bound by Highway 36 to the north,Highway 5 to the east, 55th Street North to the south and the subject property to the west. The subject property has an approximate mean elevation of 950 feet,though elevations vary from 990 feet near Highway 36 to 930 feet near the south and is approximately 10 feet higher than the Kern Center,which has an approximate mean elevation of 940 feet. A large regional retention facility is located near the southeast corner of the property at an elevation of approximately 928 feet. The pond outlets to the north via a significant drainage ravine,which provides a physical . boundary between the subject property and the Kern Center to the east except for a crude hauling road which connects the two properties. Three contiguous wetland areas are located off-site and adjacent to the south property line, which will most likely hinder any infrastructure improvements • to the south through that area. Refer to Appendix A of this report for a copy of the Washington County Aerial Photograph with . a topographic overlay dated April,2000. • • • • • 2 - 3.0 Proposed Development • On behalf of the Land Owner,Ms.Debra Brodsho has prepared a Conceptual Site Plan, which is the basis of our analysis. The plan consists of seven commercial/retail buildings and associated parking fields,which surround the buildings perimeter. A roadway is proposed to be located within the NSP easement,which will connect Manning.Trail North to the west and the Kern Center development to the east. The proposed roadway is the.natural and westerly continuation. of 58s'Street,which currently serves the Kern Development and also serves the existing• - commercial/retail development east of State Highway 5. It should be noted that the proposed roadway alignment is conceptual and it location will need to be coordinated with the Kern Center development property. owners. • In order to determine the feasibility of providing a gravity flow system,finished floor elevations have been determined for the seven buildings, which are assumed to be a slab-on-grade construction type. The finished floor elevations are approximate and may be subject to change during development of the mass grading plan. Refer to Appendix B for a copy of the Conceptual Site Plan prepared by Debra Brodsho, dated • January 16,2002 and Appendix E for a copy of the Proposed Sanitary Sewer Plan prepared by Alliant Engineering, dated July 15,2002 which depicts the finished floor elevations. • • • • • • • • • • 3 • - • • • • • • — 4.0 Existing Sanitary Sewer Improvements . • The City of Oak Park Heights is currently provided with sanitary sewer service by the Stillwater Wastewater Treatment Plant via the MCES Bayport Interceptor. A trunk line owned by the City of Oak Park Heights is located immediately south of State Highway 36 and conveys sewage easterly from numerous lateral lines located to the west. The entire system flows easterly towards the river,which is consistent with the topography of the area. The trunk line system has an ultimate design capacity of 4.42 MGD (million gallons per day) at the point were it-enters the MCES Interceptor line. ' . . In 1999 the City of Oak Park-Heights extended utilities further to the west and sized the.systems to accommodate future development for an area ofapproximately 249 acres. The area is comprised of three sub-areas referred to as the Kern Development(103 acres),the Screaton property(92 acres)and a rural residential property(54 acres)located immediately west of the _ • Kern Development. The land area was part of Baytown Township nwtil it was recently annexed into the Cities of Oak Park Heights and Lake Elmo: The Screaton property has since been developed in the City of Lake Elmo and a community sewage treatment facility has been constructed specifically for the Screaton property.'Therefore,approximately 92 acres•has been removed from contributing waste to the City of Oak Park Heights sanitary sewer system. A total- project cost of approximately$833,000.00 was calculated for the Kern Center Improvements in a feasibility study prepared by Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik&Associates,dated July 1, 1998. • As part of the 1998 Kern Center Utility Improvements Project,approximately 6100 feet of sanitary sewer lateral line and a lift station were installed in order to provide for future • development of the area. Lateral line improvements consisted of approximately 2500 feet of 8 inch PVC pipe in Memorial Avenue North, approximately 500 feet of 8 inch PVC in 55th Avenue, a 300 GPM lift station located near the intersection of State Highway 5 and 551 Avenue and approximately 3100 feet of 6 inch force main located within Highway 5 right-of-way. Sewage • generated within.the Kern Center development and beyond is routed southwesterly in Memorial Avenue,east in 55th Avenue and northwesterly via the 6 inch force main where it enters the • existing system via•a manhole in Neal Avenue North and continues by gravity in a 10 inch diameter line towards the east. The connection to the manhole in Neal Avenue North is required in order to bypass an existing 8 inch diameter line located in 58th Street North in the area of the High School which is currently at capacity. A detailed description of the line and issues related to capacity of the system in that area is described in detail in the City of Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kem Annexation Study prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, dated July • 1997. • The Memorial Avenue North 8 inch diameter lateral line has a hydraulic capacity of approximately 0.619 MGD based on a.roughness coefficient of 0.01 and a slope of 0.4%as depicted in the as-built drawings prepared by Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik&Associates, dated February 16,2000. Appendix E in the City of Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan has calculated an ultimate design flow in that line of approximately 0.23 MGD.•Therefore, approximately 0.389 MGD of capacity is available for future development. The invert of the line • is at an elevation of 925.5 feet near the intersection of Memorial Avenue North and 58th Street North. Refer to Appendix C for a copy of the existing sanitary sewer routing plan prepared by Alliant Engineering,Appendix D"for a copy of drawing sheet 2 taken for the Kern Center Utility • Improvements plans dated February 16,2000 which depicts utility improvements in the Kern Development,Appendix G for a copy of the Feasibility Report prepared forthe•Kern Center • . 4 • . • • • Utility Improvements project and Appendix H for a copy of the.Oak Park Heights Sanitary Sewer Systems Map. ;:.;::; • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5 • • • • • • - 5.0 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Improvements In order to determine the feasibility of providing the subject property with a gravity flow sanitary sewer system,a Conceptual Routing plan has been prepared based on the Concept Site plan prepared by Linda Brodsho and the proximity and depth of existing sanitary sewer available for connection. Finished floor elevations have been established for individual buildings with the understanding of working towards no import or export of soil. It is our assumption that 58th Street will be continued westerly through the Kern Center site and that right-of-way will be available for future sewer installation in that area. The Conceptual Routing plan will require approximately,3,250 feet of 8 inch diameter lateral line. improvements and 11 manhole structures. The system will flow easterly by gravity towards the Kern Center sanitary sewer system and ultimately connect to an existing manhole located near the intersection of Memorial Avenue North and 58th Street North at an elevation of approximately 932.2 which is 6.7 feet above the invert of the existing manhole. Therefore,the entire subject property could be lowered by that amount if necessary. Rim elevations for manhole structures depicted on the Conceptual Routing plan are assumed to be future roadway elevations in those locations. It should be noted that constructing 58th Street through the existing ravine and atop the existing hauling road connecting the subject property and the Kern Center will have an impact on the linear pond immediately south of the crossing: Approximately seven feet of fill will be required in this area to provide adequate.cover atop the proposed sewer line and will have an impact on the area. • • Approximately 0.20 MGD of wastewater will be generated on the subject property based on a tributary area of 48.5 acres. This assumes a peak flow factor of 4.0 and a wastewater generation . rate of 1000 gal-acre-day for commercial/retail land and is consistent with the methodology used.. • in development of the City of Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan. Review of record drawings for the City of Oak Park Heights and the surrounding communities did not indicate the existence of any other sanitary lateral lines available for use. An alternate routing which extended southerly from the south boundary of the subject property and continued to 55th Street North was briefly considered. However,it was determined that the depth of cover in the wetland areas would be minimal thereby requiring fill in that area which would have a significant impact to the existing wetlands. In addition,the depth of cover would be excessive immediately south of the wetland areas as the elevations rise to a height 950 feet and the sewer would be at an approximate depth of 925 feet,which would be costly to construct. Therefore, further consideration of this as an alternate routing was discontinued. • • Refer to Appendix E for a copy of the Conceptual Routing Plan prepared by Alliant Engineering • dated July 15, 2002. . • 6 • . 6.0. Cost Estimate A cost estimate for the extension of sanitary sewer onto and within the subject property has been prepared in addition to identifying any pending assessments required by the City of Oak Park Heights for future sewer connections. The construction estimate is based on the Conceptual Routing plan prepared by our office and accounts for service extensions to each of the seven buildings. It should be noted that the cost for acquisition of that area impacted by the' . continuation of 1581 Street North through the Kern Center has not been accounted for in our estimate and amounts to approximately.1.83.acres assuming a future right-of-way width of eighty • feet. A sanitary sewer cost of approximately$149,220.00 has been determined assuming soft costs of 28 percent for design, administration and legal fees. In addition, a sanitary sewer systems charge of$129,010.00 will be required by the City of Oak Park Heights based on$2,660.00 per acre. Therefore, approximately$278,230.00 is anticipated as a result of providing sanitary sewer to the . subject property. • It should be noted that the continuation of sanitary sewer into the subject property will allow the City of Oak Park Heights to capture some portion of those cost associated with providing sanitary sewer to that area west of Highway 5. The sanitary sewer system downstream and east of that area was designed and constructed to provide service for the area depicted in the Screaton/Kem • Annexation Study(250 acres+/-)as annexation of those areas had not yet occurred. Refer to Appendix.F for a copy of the sanitary sewer improvements cost estimate. • • • • • • • • • . 7 . • • • 7.0 ' Conclusion The extension of sanitary sewer as depicted in the Conceptual Routing plan is feasible to . • . . construct and is the least costly means of providing continued sanitary sewer service to the subject property based on our review of as-built records for the City of Oak Park Heights andthe • surrounding communities. The existing sanitary sewer system located immediately downstream from the subject property will have approximately 0.389 MGD of available capacity upon the ultimate completion of the Kern Center of which 0.20 MGD will be required for the subject property. Approximately 0.189 MGD of capacity will remain for any future developments beyond the scope of our analysis. • • • • • • • • • • • 8 . • • . . • Appendix A , -If: . . i• till 1 i -, • I ill ill t 1 1911 II 9 3, r 11111 1 :.`. ♦ r, •" y, 7 L-�— ,''f.."---!°:/;''..;':, ';',:f':,,,f ,., >� 1 '�. rV;:',“ ; ;_1.1�L , 1 i';tt \ > a;`� r d l.( //r�{/r »1l.' ,� ..;_,..---;':f /{;r^r- \S.,� ) .ai�.1■t � .� �,,�5t � � (� l(jf � 1'., 11, i )/y 1 i I 1 , '" z ç( ' 1:F_r )�t _ f IZt., 2 ",' , 3 {{ ,; SS r - v 1 ( ,JU'I�i ti f It .h✓ ,; 1\',`l,(4 e y T ' \ - , `_\\_- ' it! t\ 1-, �j z. j tisll„ 1,;;:„' v �V 1 li1t� y )) E �{�}� ��f, J y `1 1. i, Li �s i ,"4,,... :.\1\\ 1\\ i l y ,. r \�Ti iI1 i 1 i�F. ;,� 1 r x 1 )4E� r L�t1 4e 7 `Yo- �, �! \'.`er---.---,-;,=--,,�/j i + 4' �, r�f 1�7T1!{i' i� r Uzi, Rk �. �� '.7.:-�,l, .. ,l( 1 l ty. .r s , ' { °,,, IP � _ .d �.......,... i{ � ',\----\\�! � � 1 � :1, f f ,�-:Ju 1.'9 �� 4 y tF ".; ;;\ tlft' r1 ri\� ,,- -�{ s! tf l4,-.),0":,,,� g1 y ■ tA : r7-tit"a tyf t •� ,.=cL„/ V A ft �fi tia� ' \> .rte 1L `" w ` a 1 9f. i{ it • �� 1 v �'�' v s 1 , t T �, t j � o l \ "\',14 s�`� .,-.7e,',7,4,',:,44.2,.....,;,it � )1 l et �-r .. , � 111. }• 1 r` /J ' �� F Vt j rc l',1'�}�l '1 oci rte W ''''''„;11:• ••::''a Z� '�.l ., rn t •! 4C _ :∎: , f7, �, ' r�. '.1 \ i f:�=� ! � A��t ee ��N''';'-'':,..;,-• ;11 � �1;'il �i„ ' '\‘-;.,4•.:,..„.%,•-.._'a n ,:‘,.*---.N.,;:17. f,t, ."' t� �.ti •r 1�Jr 1.1:,, 7F � .rn''v '•�. <? � �,M/• 4�, F �� �\ •� ate+ r �F 4�� I IIY c,. � �� t..l�a� �. ?�I � i.' a '+°'' � •t�tt\•11A � lI, �:jP :n I w..i}}.n i q i �_ J_Y Q:f U: ,Ifs ��� c r r'}i i , o .�'}:�,Vt lAtt�A 1 i'�, u it l gi y •�^�-/ ' _. /1/�'N �;,,,...1e. 'T r' f /0', )• :,� 7 S t i I. i. t ` ` tom, ; ° \ " ' ) 1 i ,( j'15E, -.,L \ f 1 :�'t �5 a p r te,` 4 , Ili D ■ 1 {� , �'-j : 4''•�` ..,yr . rf.: \ kC yCr 3 € ''t— t�f .:'- r,ti �\ , `�` j 1. ' . i' r W I !ill- - - - irik..----' . .., . N ," ''.' - -....i..L...1*. *.‘,.qi-.�Fjt�� � ;_ r- fir. ; E 1 I J�� ys J�q rp. . �t y � Q ,_f��`,ir�{r,l �e \ �� j. ,c.0 :' 'rte r irj i-1 ._ 1. p k. a 'Nn `o.ly4,q,.. --0,,.-... o. ,��! !(J 1t)(v]' • �."r^ :.s _! �.•. �l IMF')-� ' • • .. J .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • Appendix B • • • • • • fl(f • ,, . _ ,,, , s ,,„ s `r il ;' 1 1 l. . , . .. . 1 �, / s III i ��� �. „. , t; , ,• -_, _ ,_ _ __ _:_,:...,✓ �,F ` i i Ij 1 -. :4 f 1l I r � N f t, � 1� i� �1 f } ;i fF b ''! r ' • • • ,y + • • ., lr`i S A I 1 • • —_ __• i . . 64a ,'''''1: 1 a 1. 1. ,1 • • z \ ' 1 � r';'..' ' ! II , I { '''11. t n \ f 1 �1 I f 7 f I t �.�f: �. • \ t is ;',:'','1/41 .: ? ' 1'11I t: � f {`II`� 14111 IJ __ r f':' fh ' , la Cla 1 ; L ',,' o ^� h l { v, dC,, 9 > ,'",.",‘,•!.'1 R .. ..t' .-. ' ,.'i',.'i' / �,`\ ,�4 dy !I, S ' �t I t � 1 �' t i� fir V ■ > I f� 2.' y• 11 ,y� . A!r to 1 W s_& d /- + � tip 1' �fl ' JF e■[ yv�� .. ./c t 1.it'.It V Q 1f 41 'f� t � • ��77 'I ! I vR � s t��. 7 N I( • . ii 'r^� ���I '�f ��° � �.it 1 1� r1 -4 ,,,,f 1 F' 1 n0 ' I ! > .. .a! r , �' ' I m! tIfitill i1 - s ' lilt , . ., :, : ,, -, ' -- i', . - -, , . — .,,}.:.:,,.: ''21.,,,:::',.'-i:;•-,_.,-,',',',,,,,,i,l.', '0, , . • .. • c/, , • . • • • • • Appendix C • I I _ —.r -- MANNING AVENUE NORTH , ' • pp L r pI ...r`.; III�rw--`� - - ,, IC...4.,.... ■ ijor. ' cc�acyc s'_�r �ir 116 P 1 i t --,-,../.-'3- � - -.4 ,. / i... c Illi\ 1• a s\ I 111 la I 1 -, _.,,, i 1 Mb I I b ,__ ):I. .._-,-4,.. w 1 ii\> \ • c r--\ K i \V" ../j.V .) ! E ms. --- `, ) /7 --Y• Jill 1 i'l � I lu: ----\ --.,,. \ `\ .„1--- - ' jfitti 11 . \\. 3. /t(51 1% 4 f 1-/1 ---VI'l 11 II i iii • r tfr i in i. -a R ,. 4 • ,, r ,i !-�� `?Ski :11! .; ,,. i a�a � `�� 1 "'f � 11111�. r I I ' A I\ 11 iga II_ `` v� / �` 9f ,� /� 7 I. / j{ l 4 Tev`. .. I ,i ` 1 I` JI 1 Ili ai l , f ` b / ° Ii4I P ,I.M---.... 0 ,_. z•.‘'4;,N. I / , OA 1. /ir. 1' . ' 1 f _/ 4) hydr t '\ r ``4,i 1 s . —- t — -- ` �— .-• vt. - -‘-• 1 — , —•- - V to A r •: — " \ T.ss a 1 Ey:\\ . \ w '\\ I r 4 4. \ , , 7 M • 1te�•,��4.9 ok by• •,\,\. ` I Y'' s. _ s w .„w / Aokkt +� Al. v p I 1 NI) 1 • p es T.— i 1 ' is„. '$ C 1 s m t /./4,0!% rij .,„. / tl! N n ._,____ _.\___ _,_..„/.y� -- -'I - '9n,,-o... . f ,t. ,, Ric I f ! /i ' O ' i \ `\ ;"4' - i s 3. ,- / %,/, I. I` - \ N - .T 1 v O 1 . 211 v. r i A ,.,---,aa�te 4 i. L. Zp4 tZn T)f %i \1r /fir 441. (f•— , '1 1, el . , G 1•' I ......: I. r a q.,,,,, -- 1 ,, r::.. , z •F1_� j 1' 0 I. e3 . fill N �"• I-, f I: 1 \Pi:«�`'.'4. Chi ' ,till - • • • • Appendix D • • • r , ,• •• • ills ►.� ao. • • .• . II . .; '' tri tilil noR > 1 13 . r -� VP'" .„ • 1i! VPI Inc rel!ilia • j q o. Iiii 1 �. z • • iiif 12 1 + . • . • : • . • • i a _a i 0 �1 I I I. - • . • I • 4 M o Z • CD ". /4/rjr..r- -- , ` . ,T. Or p-,‘,...,,„ _f , . • - ,c, .... 4 N i.- . 1 „ , A . C SID ftp• 1 0 ?. (.4 Xi/ . Sic/ite 4 .44\ 0 174 , v, .:41 .. . . . /al, P--'4—-- - -.4. 4 E7 . -v.. . 1 , , ::. ' •:.:..---;'---...;•..:s. 1 , • ... .) •1 \\\..,\ : • ....-.. ..-•.:.. . • ) d . w pa ,l• I� t ..ti ' /V 0/ iote 1, + 11 of 4% Q / ---7 (V1 CC3fr's •. . q [I. L__— [• • - i 4 . t . 1,L. OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA Roan esvoo alt :• "1° "41 „, ^” a= • ---� KERN CENTER IMPROVEMENTS sen. esa 001011. -1 LOCATION PLAN Mt ,n 11. A.Nf r•an., ..u� Associates .s we•r. m[ ' Appendix E • I If .. • __MANN! G AVENUE NORTH. .r,"/.,..„:„Js______,....._,..........„.r, -4 ' OA .1 ti --so d t . ► II a ,ii ,! I . ''.*2r/YSI.-- ,,,x/r.:47,,wzg. iroesa„.7,, ,.....,,, ,,„, ,. I I 1""g 1 1 d g / '(-1!(''-.1 1 1:- ‘i ilif L i if II i I i . l, Dui� ;/ IV 'd a,1 • r Ih I /il iW ro o l :.I17r. 1��,�� =�n 1 � I i1 l u .�aOC A* � _ g.� T fir-.0. 4-7 , • ri4,,mmiC.411 ►1hiJt „,,I. ,1 1 PTY a u nuo n- 1 1411 1 I['I l n OF o acxrs \s 4 f E� I . v , ��� 1 , 04, ,O'44, ,/ x[ ' �''1 A "� / �. lT' I y ° 1 f4, II 1' ''\ '-....,.14.....,,,,_.:x.t `Y Q,M{" rrC , A5 �� ,:,; 1 `L� � � • 11111:1' fJ �•' I R. . !t j,� � I. , k y I �d h XIII j ..-k:::. ,,„ . / 1.till$ . rti ; --," ,teee , Fir iq -r_ 1. � � � • g /� Jay • !• , ' �_ '�1 I ii tNJ �! f • • I• ai'i �'�' Y, 0 n Q� 1 / o t_I _ '� l 1�/In _ i II \. I - �j 7 1 I �/ Si. • - f 4.'.• •v. - "Q ' .x 4-tti,,, ,,z,.4„,,,:......4x„ 1_ ,, , 1 ' Rif e ,•• it ) Y I, - I alI �•- !~ „, ..,,./ �� Srq\`\ 1 Nei l 1 - -� ). a • ya+/ t ...'N., .4.,, , 4k. 0 , / 1 F A ._.._.-__;_- - .-._-1 -- --j�'iii - ` o-'1 .."'S'—'... •1\----- [._..• N R r %:. ) h t \ . 1■X , H I .1 I , ii. •4.,.1., ..... s'i: NN,.1 (::::. 1 -o 3 1 1 2 2 . i/i.i •,.--'-'!".',••... •..4"- . • it It t .N.--31kbk '!:'...4 s'.:' ....1 z vi pQ ap�,.`y .i• r "` d it � N I+ml {/i J s 3 ` •1` y, �h'. 4} • 9, '•�i� �a au +.a��i Al • Appendix F • ( • • • • Estimated Costs • Sanitary Sewer Improvements Item No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount • 1 Core, Drill, and Connect EA 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 2 8"PVC SDR-35, 6'-8'Deep LF 1595 $ 18.00 $ 28,710.00 3 8" PVC SDR-35, 8`-10'Deep LF 1345 $ 20.00 $ 26,900:00 4 8" PVC SDR-35, 10'-12' Deep LF 390 $ 22.00 $ 8,580.00 5 6" PVC SDR-35, Service Line LF 210 $ 16.00 $ 3,360.00 6 6" PVC End Cap EA 6 $. 50.00 .$ 300.00 7 48" Dia.Manhole w/Casting EA 11 $ 2,500.00 $ ° 27,500.00 8 8"x6" PVC Wye EA 6 $ 50.00 $ 300.00 9 Patch Exisiting Street Crossing LS 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 10 Televised Inspection LF 3330 $ 1.00 $ 3,330.00 11 Erosion Control LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Subtotal $ 105,980.00 • 10%Contingency 0 $ 10,600.00 Total Construction Cost $ • 116,580.00 28%Indirect Costs $ 32,640.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 149,220.00 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS • • • • • • • Appendix G • • • • „r;.. -• •• s Bonestroo,Rosen Anderiik and Associates.1 An.Affirmatrve Action'Equal Opportunity Employer ` • Bonestroo Principals:Otto G,Bonestroo..R.E:•Joseph G.Anderlik.RE.'•Marvin L.Sorvata•RE.• J p Richard E.Turner.P.E.•"Glenn RsCook_RE•Robert G.Schunicht.P.E.• Jerry,A.Bourdon.P.E.• Rosen e:• Robert W.Rosene:P.E.and Susan M.Eberlin,C.P.A..Senior Consultants . Associate Principe&Howard A..Sanford.P.E.•Keith A.Gordon,RE.•Robert R Pfetterie,P.E. Ande'rlrk & Richard W.Foster.P.E.•David 0•Loskota.P.E.•Robert C.Russek.A.I.A •Mark A.Hanson,P.E.• • Michael T Rautmann.P.E •Ted KField.RE.•Kenneth P.Anderson.P.E.•Mark R.Rolls.RE Associates .Sidney P..Williamson.P.R.,LS.• Robert F.Kotsmith•Agnes M.Ring•Michael P.Rau.RE.• • .D 'Man.Rick Schmidt,P•E. . Engineers'Se Architects Offices:Sc.Paul.Rochester,Willmar and Sr.Cloud,MN•Milwaukee.WI • Website:www.bonestroo.com • • • • • • • PRELIMINARY REPORT • • ON . KERN CENTER IMPROVEMENTS • • OAK PARK HEIGHTS,MINNESOTA • File No. 55-98-802. • May 29, 1998 • Amended July 1 199 . • • • • INTRODUCTION • • • A commercial subdivision known as Kern Center has recently been annexed into the City of Oak Park Heights. This plat is located west of and adjacent to Highway No. 5 and is between Highway 36 and 55th Street The existing buildings within the development are served with individual wells and on-site septic sewage systems. In accordance with City policy and the desire of the•vacant landowners, there is•a need to consider extending public utilities to this area so that'future development will not be required to install on-site water and sewer systems. The • installation of public utilities will also make these facilities available to the developed lots in the event of system failures or to enhance fire protection for the buildings. • • The purpose of this report is. to define the improvements required to serve the development and to provide cost estimates and a method of cost allocation to determine project • feasibility. The general layout of the subdivision and the required improvements to•serve the area is shown on the drawing attached to this report and designates as Figure 1 • • • • 1 • ` . 2335 West Highway 36 ! Si. Paul, MN 55.113 • 612-636-4600 ■ Fax: 612-636-1311 REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS ' Very little of the Kern Center'tan be served by gravity from the existing sanitary sewer mains on 58th Street and Neal Avenue. Therefore, it is proposed that all sewage'generated and • collected be pumped to the 10 inch diameter main on Neal Avenue which is located just north of the'Rainbow/Oppidan site. It is proposed that a sewage pumping station be constructed at the northwest corner of Highway No. 5 and 55th Street with discharge through a force main parallel to Highway No. 5 and then easterly along an easement on the north edge of the Brackey West plat to the existing sanitary sewer at Neal Avenue. Sanitary sewer would be installed along the east side of Memorial Avenue to serve each of the lots in the subdivision and be connected to the • pumping station. A 12 inch diameter water main exists on 58th Street on the east side of Highway No. 5. This main has sufficient capacity to serve Kern Center and can be extended westerly by jacking under the highway and extending it to Memorial Avenue. Because of the long dead end condition.and potential for high fire demands it is proposed that the water main continue along the west side of Memorial Avenue as a 12 inch diameter pipe to 55th Street. Water main on 55th Street and north of 58th Street would be 8 inches in diameter. The water system would be equipped with the necessary valves and hydrants for operation. control and fire protection. At some future date, consideration could be given to providing a looped system in the vicinity of Highway 36 which is about the only opportunity available for looping. Four inch diameter sewer stubs and 6 inch diameter valved water services would be extended to each of The lots in the subdivision for future service to the lots and/or buildings. This will require crossings of the existing street surfacing. As a part of this project it is assumed that the gravel.base and bituminous surfacing will be restored and patched at each of the utility . crossings and that a 1-1/2 inch thick bituminous overlay will be installed over all bituminous streets to cover the patches and to increase the load bearing capacity of these roadways. • • • 2 . li • • • - The S P treet rooJ ect would also include connection'of Memorial Avenue to 55th ' and the improvement of-.55th' Street from Memorial Avenue to Highway No. 5 to provide .for an additional point of access for public safety and other. purposes. The. surface would be tY P P P rP constructed to a width of 24 feet with minimal gravel shoulders to a section similar to Memorial Avenue. • • • Kern Center currently has very shallow ditches along the roadways to convey•storm water runoff to existing'ponding areas. These ditches will become inadequate as. further • development creates additional runoff from the area. It is anticipated that eventually lateral storm sewer will be installed to replace the ditch system and the streets expanded to an urban section. A large storm water detention area will be required in the future in the ravine along the west edge of Kern Center with a flow control structure to reduce the rate of flow under Highway 36 and to Long Lake. This work would be coordinated with the Browns Creek Watershed District and may have to be implemented by the District because the proposed pond and outlet would serve two municipal jurisdictions. In addition to the utilities noted above,this newly annexed area does not receive coverage from the existing warning sirens in the City. Therefore, as a part of this utility project it is proposed that an additional warning siren be installed. PERMITS AND EASEMENTS REQUIRED There are no wetlands which will be disturbed as a part of the proposed improvements,so no wetland permits will be required. While it is proposed to continue restriction of storm water runoff rates to those which currently exist, the plans will be submitted to the Browns Creek Watershed District and the City of Stillwater for review and comments. ' ' .All work to be done will be within public land or rights-of-way except for a small parcel which must be obtained for the site of the sewage pumping station.' It will also be necessary to obtain construction easements along the utility routes. . • 3 • - A permit must be secured from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for all work within the Highway No. 5 tight-of-way. Standard•construction permits are required and will be obtained from the Minnesota.Department of Health and Pollution Control Agency for the water main and sanitary sewer construction. A General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activities must also be obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. COST ESTIMATES Detailed cost estimates have been prepared for the construction of public utilities and street improvements to provide utility service to Kern Center and are included in the Appendix to this report. All costs are based on unit prices anticipated for the 1998 construction season and include a twenty-five (25) percent allowance for engineering, administrative fees and financing. No costs are included for capitalized interest during the construction period and before assessments are levied. An overall summary of these costs is shown below: • • Item Estimated Cost Sanitary Sewer $165,700.00 Lift Station&Force Main 184,700.00 Water Main 137,000.00 Building Services 77,700.00 Warning Siren 21,900.00 Street Improvements 60,900.00 Subtotal $647,900.00 Trunk&Oversized Water Main 73,600.00 Trunk Storm Sewer 111,500.00 • TOTAL PROJECT COST $833,000.00. • All costs shown above except for the trunk water and storm sewer are proposed to be assigned to the Kern Center. All trunk costs would be recovered from the area or connection charges. • • 4 • • .. :. • COST ALLOCATION • The Kern Center development contains 22 platted lots on 84.40 acres of land which doe's not include the Iot purchased by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for storm water • ponding purposes. 'These parcels contain 5,309 feet of frontage on Memorial Avenue where the • utilities are being installed. It is further noted that 47.20 acres of the land is developed which also represents 2,531 feet of.frontage on Memorial Avenue. 0 • Because the land which has been developed has incurred the cost of drilling private wells and installing individual on-site sewer systems, the City of Oak Park Heights has developed a policy where existing buildings will not have to connect to the water or sewer system until six • (6)years after the systems are available or if a failure in the individual on-site system occurs. At that time,the individual parcels would have to pay the equivalent amount equal to those charges • defined herein which are to be assigned to the vacant parcels. For the purpose of this report it is assumed that the lateral sanitary sewer, water main, siren and street assessment rate would be computed on a front footage basis by dividing the cost by the total front footage on Memorial Avenue and that the services cost would be on a per lot basis. These rates are shown in the following computations: • Item Computation Assessment Rate Sanitary Sewer $165,700.00_5,309 ft. $31.20/front foot Water Main. 137,000.00_5,309 ft. 25.80/front foot • Warning Siren 21,900.00;5,309 ft. 4.10/front foot • Street Improvements 60,900.00 5,309 ft. 11.50/front foot Building Services 77,700.00;22 lots 3,530.00/1ot • • It is further assumed that the current area charge or connection charge rates which have been adopted by the City of Oak Park Heights would be assigned to the developing parcels. • • • 5 • ? "t} • These charges are as shown below: Charge Rate Trunk Sanitary Sewer • $2,310.00/acre • ,Trunk Waterworks 4,010.00/acre • Trunk Storm Sewer 5,080.00/acre Storm Water Ponding • 3,200.00/acre • It is recommended that the storm water ponding charge not be applied until that work is undertaken by Browns Creek Watershed District or as a joint project by the two municipalities. • If the rates established above are applied to the vacant property in the Kern Addition, the City will obtain the following revenue: • r Item Computation Revenue P Lateral Improvements 2,778 ft x $72.60/ft. $201,682.80. Building Services 11 lots x 3,530.00/lot 38,830.00 Trunk Sanitary Sewer 37.20 ac x 2,310.00/ac 85,932.00 Trunk Waterworks 37.20 ac x 4,010.00/ac 149,172.00 Trunk Storm Sewer 37.20 ac x 4,650.00/ac 188,976.00 TOTAL REVENUE • • $664,592.80 It should be-noted that the revenue to be collected by the method shown above will be approximately $168,000.00 less than the estimated cost of the project. This will be recovered in , the future when the existing buildings are connected to the system and pay their equivalent share for service. • CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMIVIEENDATIOINTS As a result of the study undertaken, it can be concluded that construction of utilities and streets to serve Kern Center west of Highway No. 5 is feasible with costs being similar to other developing areas in the City of Oak Park Heights. However, because of City policy to allow • 6 • existing businesses to further utilize their on-site sewer and water systems, a portion of the cost will have to be carried by the City for a period of time. - The project is necessary to allow for the continuation of development in the Kern Center • • in a manner which better protects the environment as it relates to,wastewater disposal. Because of the proximity of the existing utilities and other public facilities which are in place, the improvements are cost effective. • It is recommended that this report be used as a guide for the layout and design of the public improvements to provide public utility service to Kern Center. To further evaluate the project and the cost allocation method, it is recommended that a public hearing be held to receive comments from the property owners so as to determine the further action to be taken. For hearing purposes,the following information should be utilized: r Estimated Project Cost: $833,000.00 . Benefited Area: All lots and parcels in Kern Center and Kern Center 2nd Addition located in • the City of Oak Park Heights, County of Washington, • and State of Minnesota. I hereby certify that this plan,specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly • registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Joseph C. Anderlik,P.E. Date: July 1, 1998 Registration No.6971 7 • • APPENDIX A KERN CENTER. COST ESTIMATES SANITARY SEWER 1,700 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C.SDR-35,.10'-12' deep in pl. @ 16.00 $27,200.00 240 Lin.ft. 8"P.V.C. SDR 35, 12'-14'deep in pl. @ 18.00 4,320.00 60 Lin.ft. 8" P.V.C..SDR-26, 12'-14'deep in pL @ 20.00 • 1,200.00 . 140 Lin.ft. 8" P.V.C.SDR-26, 14'-16'deep in pl. @ 22.00 3,080.00 140 Lin.ft. 8" P.V.C. SDR-26, 16-18'deep'in pl. @ 24.00 3,360.00 200 Lin.ft. 8"P.V.C. SDR-26, 18'-20'deep in pl. @ 26.00 5,200.00 820 Lin.ft. 8"P.V.C. SDR26,20'-22'deep in pl. @ 28.00 22,960.00 11 Each Std 4'diem.MH.,8'deep w/cstg in pl. @ 1,200.00, 13,200.00 70 Lin.ft. Manhole depth greater than 8'dp @ 100.00 7,000.00 16 Each 8"x4"PVC,SDR-35 wye branch in pL @ 50.00 800.00 7 Each 8"x4" PVC,SDR-26 wye branch in pl. @ 60.00 420.00 50 Lin.ft. 8"PVC,schedule 40 riser in pl. @ 15.00 750.00 3,300 Lin. ft. Television inspection of 8"sewer @ 1.00 3,300.00 3,300 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtl.,6"thick in pl. @ 2.00 6,600.00 80 Lin.ft. Remove and replace driveway culverts @ 10.00 800.00 2 Each Patch existing driveway @ 750.00 1,500.00 Lump Sum Clear&grub trees 1,500.00 1 Each Patch existing street crossing @ 1,000.00 1,000.00 Lump Sum Cross end of existing triple culvert 1,000.00 500 Cu.yd. Core excavation @ 4.50 2,250.00 900 Ton Class 5 gravel base in pl. @ 6.00 • 5,400.00 5,000 Sq.yd. Sodding of drainage ditch @ 2.50 12,500.00 2.5 Acres Seeding w/mulch anchored in pl. @ 2,400.00 • 6,000.00 400 Lin. ft. . Hay bale diversions in pl. @ 3.00 1,200.00, Estimated Construction Cost $132,540.00 , 25%Engr.,Fiscal &Admin. 33 160.00 TOTAL SANITARY SEWER $165,700.00 • • • Al • LIFT STATION&FORCE MAIN 1 Each 300 GPM duplex submersible lift sta. in pL @ 85,000.00. $85,000.00. . 2 Each 150 GPM impellers for sewage pumps @ 150.00 300.00 2,960 Lin. ft. 6"D.I.P.Class 52,7-1/2'cover in pL @ 13.00 38,480.00 100 Lin.ft. 6" D.I.P.jacked in pl. w/steel carrier @ 150.00 15,000.00 545 Lbs.. D.I.fittings in pL @ 1.00 .. 545.00' • .1 Each Cut-in to existing manhole @ 200.00 200.00 1 Each Patch existing street crossing @'1,000.00 1,000.00 3.0 Acres Seeding w/mulch anchored in pL @ 2,400.00 7,200.00 Estimated Construction Cost '$147,725.00 25%Engr.,Fiscal&Admin. 36 975.00 TOTAL LIFT STA. &FORCE MAIN $184,700.00 WATER MAIN • 2,890 Lin.ft. 12"D.I.P.,Class 52,7 1/2'cover in pl. @ 25.00 $72,250.00 100 Lin.ft. 12"D.I.P.jacked in pL wlsteel carrier @ 160.00 16,000.00 1,140 Lin. ft. 8" D.LP.,Class 52,7 1/2'cover in pl. @ 17.00 19,380.00 160 Lin.ft. 6" DIP., Class 52,71/2'cover in pL @ 13.00 2,080.00 6 Each 12" gate valve&box in pl. @ 1,000.00 6,000.00 2 Each 8"gate valve&box in pL @ 600.00 1,200.00 8 Each 6" gate valve&box in pL @ 400.00 3,200.00 8 Each 5"valve hydrant in pl. @ 1,200.00 9,600.00 5,745 Lbs. D.I.fittings in pL @ 1.00 5,745.00 1 Each Cut-in to existing 12" plug @ 500.00 500.00 . 4,200 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtL,6"'thick in pl. @ 1.00 4,200.00 240 Lin.ft. Remove and replace driveway culverts @ 10.00 2,4C°.i_:' 6 Each Patch existing driveways @ 500.00 3,000.00 1 Each Patch existing street crossings @ 1,000.00 1,000.00 Lump Sum Cross end of existing triple-culvert 1,000.00 5,000 Sq. yd. Sodding of drainage ditch @ 2.50 • 12,500.00 3.0 Acres , Seeding w/mulch anchored in p1. @ 2,400.00 7,200.00 400 Lin, ft. Hay bale diversion in pl. @ 3.00 1.200.00 Estimated Construction Cost. $168,455.00 • 25% Engr.,Fiscal&Admin. 42 145.00 TOTAL WATER MAIN $210,600.00 • :k • A-2 • • • • • TRUNK STORM SEWER 940 Lin.ft. 42"RCP,Class 2,0`=:.ltl'deep in pl. @ 70.00 . . . •$65,800:00 : 1 Each Std 6'diam.MH w/cstg in pl. @ 2,400.00 . '2,400.00. 2 Each 42"RCP flared end w/trash guard @ 2,500.00 5,000.00 40 Ton Rock rip rap,Class 3 in pl. @ 50.00 • . 2,000.00 1 Each Repair existing street crossing @ 750.00 750.00 940 Lin.ft. Remove existing 18" storm sewer @.10.00. 9,400.00 1 Each 12"diam_orifice plate in pl. @ 250.00 • 250.00 1.5 Acres Seeding w/mulch anchored in pl. @ 2,400.00 3.600.00 .. Estimated Construction.Cost $89,200.00 25%Engr.,Fiscal&Admin. 22 300.00 TOTAL TRUNK STORM SEWER $111,500.00 TRUNK WATER MAIN • 800 Lin.ft. 12"D.I.P.,Class 52,7 1/2'cover in pI. @ 25.00 20,000.00 100 Lin.ft. 12"D.I.P.jacked in pl.w/steel carrier @ 160.00 16,000.00 1 Each 12"gate valve&box in pl. @ 1,000.00 1,000.00 590 Lbs D.I.fittings in pl. @ 1.00 - 590.00 1 Each Cut-in to existing 12"plug @ 500.00 500.00 Estimated Construction Cost $38,090.00 25%Engr., Fiscal &Admin. . • 9.510.00 TOTAL TRUNK WATER MAIN $47,600.00 - • WATER MAIN OVERSIZING 2,090 Lin.ft. 12" DIP. in lieu of 8" D.LF. @ 8.00 $16,720.00 5 Each 12" gate valve in•lieu of 8" gate valve @ 400.00, 2;000.00 2,095 Lbs. . Extra D.L fittings in p1. @ 1.00' 2.095.00 Estimated Construction Cost $20,815.00 25%Engr.,Fiscal &Admin • 5.185.00 TOTAL WATER MAIN OVERSIZING $26,000.00 A-3 • I .4 11• t • SERVICE LINES ::e :-.23 Each 6"gate valve&box in pL'@ 400.00 $9400:00 9,975 Lbs. D.I.fittings in pL @ 1.00 • . 9,975.00 1;050 Lin. ft 6" D.LP. water service in pl. @ 15.00 15,750.00 1,510 Lin.ft. 4" PVC, Schedule 40 sewer service in pl. @ 10.00 15,100:00 22 Each, Patch existing street crossing @ 500A)0 11,000,00 46 Each Install service marker in pl. @ 25.00 1.150.00 Estimated Construction Cost• $62,175.00 25%Engr.,Fiscal&Admin. ,' 15.525.00 TOTAL SERVICE LINES • $77,700.00 STREET IMPROVEMENTS . 7,000 Sq.yd. Surface preparation @ 0.20 $1,400.00 2,700 Sq.yd Subgrade preparation @ 0.50 1,350.00 600 Ton Type 31 bituminous base w/AC-1 in pL C 25.00 15,000.00 200 Ton Type 41 bituminous base w/AC-1 in pl. @ 27.00 5,400.00 700 Ton Type 41 bituminous overlay w/AC-1 in pl. @ 30.00 21,000.00 r 400 Ton Class 2 crushed aggregate for shoulders @ 10.00 4,000.00 550 Gal. Bituminous mtl.for tack coat in pL @ 1.00 . . 550.00 Estimated Construction Cost $48,700.00 25%Engr.,Fiscal&Admin. 12 200.00 TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS $60,900.00 • • • A-4 • �. , . • ' • • • ir t I. y��t. .•f., �s. Voall f/ �' . , • •�,�,,�. ss.011. ...4.,i•e'��. STATE OF *&SL=..!_^��, %�` � .�.. WISCONSIN u -7 air VA u �, i1 _ `7 [I: �` .1 . 11111111511169 ok -- I ■ r ra: :1 F.- Q . 7-1 "1 ' / i I-'-0-' 71; ilk c-, C1J 'Aci I ' STATE HIGHWAY 3� i ! ----- _- 0.'' ''''''''"--- Nak6 iih. r _ ftm7AdIrAINV ‘k■. I" "441E-11-6,1■ . I : ii`0-� 0 4110,1111:b 58TH STi\ N` • 11&? a id akillb- -41n*-•:-12111kilk N‘i * '---- fii Sir�: I ham �,�∎1 *maf , 'MI;III 0'''.."'" .. , .. �`�. ______/ . . f--, ; Ilili, --\.110-E ' ! ,. .. laimromilonni i : 'iv _ t I li ■ .........\ 'IIIII • Seet, ., 411.,_:; Iii‘N , 7 ::// ,,,,.-,:,:z_.4. 11 :- 1\. i i .\''''''';1 111.--inlit \11111■71 , r _.ter...� .are !�-- r � .; it \' • • • LOCATION PLAN jjjjBoneszroo • R Rosene • • OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA r Anderlik & FIGURE 1 • VI Associates KERN CENTER IMPROVEMENTS S a Anthtlects /55QRRrr-i iccs,r-»n' c /••,o /no • ■ SATE NiGNI 36 n.► . / .TT . TJT77 0 3 SO:c 4 / - tit!, 4411111140 • 41t steijr PROUD �•r FO ,RCE MAIN i ,,,,,4„ -w' o Abie Cf ♦ •7 TR Ar 4, 1 o 4P■Pe v KERN -> >- !� ... . ♦ * �y � ! g v ! KERN'S EDUU71OK Ao MON r a O 4 ° 4it 5 r ". . ,3(:,' SEINER • . 3 _ � . 3! f.. • . 0 • t _"'-1_. Si1Ll 1101 2 1 TER HIGH SCHOOL r� 1 STA 55TH S W NORTH 0 C=• t rTh r 1 SITE PLAN" • iiii Bonestroo Rosene • ilAndeti r7c & OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA , FIGURE 2 Associates KERN CENTER IMPROVEMENTS Engineers&Anzhitects /5598802/55802R01 5/28/98 5598802 • t, • Appendix H • • •• ..v.h • .-,:..t•.• ..J 3: •'�. •} C Sa } ; iY•1° 't • ; 'f. 4�y ,.,� i .. i ' Yr• r� . •3 {' '7 ` : R >.x. ;; ..a • • - .• r?"}�r ��..A.� •� �4iT �:M��•yb • 3'��.. :• - Yµ • IN }• h,fl 9.`• . , . le•• .3R•tr.!".'3` J ., ....I'� '41:k.'/:••i" Jam.iY1; ..{: ...4... �} ' t.1.-•• >' w J r '..c.:14..,. krh ?'YY'.:ak•� 1.xa,:i• .•. •i,..;.a• '•-• .. r y!;•' r' l;pay' ,P iY `%°�:. ,L. .ti:•F1° ' ',"' :Est• ' r, py, • • 1111111 /I - ir "MI-1,_____-..1-.. 4 •.„,,,,i•it, ,,,•„:,,,.4:•,,,,.6. i I ['fill' 1 l' a Ol 1 1, . i wa f 'l 1•N�±\111104 1 "11 millill _It 1 , _ ∎,�r�r d�J I tj � v� r�.. Jj • .,:, •kilig..N....____,'1"-#_.!‘.11illi..5isiat'")....6,-Tlirmib, „,„„,,,.'11.4":"''''''''il ',.........I*----, AIL _ _/i.�1�-._ , itl r , __� ail:S in.ow= r �c *r• Ik■ Jr w+ Vi• 1/ \9 1_ !(fa1.71s,�1!� 0.�... �� � ■Iii N ■i .l. \1,4 jsl 'fiyi� k �7 F a ,4.....s, I _1111 N-=Vi. MINNIIIIIII IN s q qc co x. •,� .� ,lei? \7,, 4 l ,■_ -rt 7:„.----,.-.- J�111 m 1� .,L..t' -s'\3'+ -�'4 � �'.4 e '�'rc` 1 'iii�.�.3.R. �`2F' \ �5,� yyy y pp .,_ • � �>Y s',i Y•.�1�C(.ri y S'?lEb81 C�`S➢ _ -�...r - - 3 "%1"1.7.1'1'4 d 111 is: NM,r 3 ji mmy I, ,i6.yi` i I �G1f] ■i . 3 1 alt 1 I 3 i i.. ms�x. F` 2>Si �v.c+a - �IrY iin • ,t 1 �'�/. +2. ilil�:`•y , _.,,;;11,,,,,, ail ,'-'' i , - l': +. _Ent! ,1 ,f_0--7,,-"e ,.• ' f,„'" ;-';','", • , • 71, E r ,, 11 I,,■i_,�'./. ,, • f ... / v f 1. , 0�gli ���• ; 4x 4111;;#-11."-k-1,17::::-'1 � 1 = it EXHIBIT ' k LAIC._ a, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGRL ..;TD: GA rnovarrou EDWARD J. dLL ' JOW4 D.FLLLMER ' ATTORNEYS A T LAW IVERETH COREYEDSTROM FRANK I.HARVEY • ' . AHOiM.MEYER CHAN.ESS.MODELL SWAMI J.IOIM NSIG ' CWSTOFISHER H dET�H - 1500 WELLS FARGO PLAZA .. DWELT.KAD � R M P. N '7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH MS.H HTA*L . JOIN B DieL JAMES M.SWAG• JOBS.SNIT:MENGE BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431-1194 DANELJ.SAWNIE TH CFMSJ.FLYNN. • JEFFREY D.CAH N. • TOOD I JAMESP. TELEPHONE(952)835-3800 SONY R� GERALD L BECK FAX(952)696-3333 JOSEPH J.FITTANTE,JR. JOHN B.LLNH HIST ( ) THOANSJ,OPPOLD" DAYLE NOLAN• .'JONATHAN J.FOGEL JOHN COTTER CYMMA M.MAUS PNJ.B.AU/NICETY MARK D.CHRISTOPI SON ALAN IOLOOW • NBAL J.BLANCHER KATHIJ EN M.PICDTTE NEWMAN .' TAMARA D•NELLM DRBANo GREGORY E.RORSTAD •JAMESA.McGREEVY,B GARYA VAN CLEVE. THOMAS GUMP• MTDI.EYJ,IGJMNHE• .. TOOOA TAYLOR Dam MICHNEL W.SCHLEP • S- A 1BEQC TERRENCc E BISHOP ' GARY A.RENNEKE MARIA M.ZAOK CNIST'OPHERJ.HARRTSIHAI. ' ' .DIOHNE M.BENSON • IO3DELJ.OHLNOGGE JEREMY C.SLIER BRUCEJ.DOUGLAS CHRIS M.H EFNE RAVER WILLLAMO GRIMM,JR. • JOHN R.HILL . OF COUNSEL PETERJ.COYLE JAMESP.IAHON• LARRY D.MARTIN J KE.DALY LJi[X3REN • JANE E.BREMER . ....JOKKJ.ST»FIAGB/ ' MICVIE.J.SMITH • ALSO MEACITED N WISOONBI • ANDREW F.MAN • "' O LYAOMHTTED INIOWA FREDERICK W.NIEBUHR • March 25, 2002 Ms.Mary Kueffner Lake Elmo City Administrator 3800 Laverne Avenue North . Lake Elmo,MN 55042 Re: Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Dear Ms.Kueffner: On behalf of Mr.Bernie Nass,please consider our request to change the City of Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan.Designation for a parcel Mr.Nass owns(the Site) southeast of the intersection of State Highway 36 and Manniing Avenue. We understand that Mr.Nass's site is now guided for Rural Agricultural'Density(RAD)development,i.e. large residential estates or small hobby farms of 10 acres. 'The attached exhibits illustrate why a change to guide the area for Commercial use, and allow the extension of utilities from the east, is appropriate. . • Exhibit 1 shows the Site as it currently exists,including the physical development constraints.. Exhibit 2 shows surrounding development. The Site is at the.intersection of four communities. To the east and south, Oak Park Heights is developing with commercial and industrial uses. To the north, Stillwater is developing with commercial uses that depend heavily on Highway 36 as a transportation corridor. To the northeast,the City of Grant will remain large-scale commercial,to preserve the possibility of . development when utilities are extended. These three communities recognize the importance of the Highway 36 corridor to serve the commercial needs of area residents, and consequently have enacted Comprehensive Planning and zoning controls to foster and allow this continued commercial development. Our proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would allow Lake Elmo to join its neighbors in this regard. Exhibit 3 shows a conceptual proposal of development that could occur on site under the appropriate Comprehensive Plan designation. • . Mr.Nass's neighboring property owners,Mr.Robert Buberl to the east, and Mr. Tom Bidon, who owns the property between the two parcels Mr:Nass owns,have joined in our application. The terrain and easement challenges on these parcels make Rural Agricultural Development infeasible. The properties Lam. HOFFMAN,DALY&LINDGREN,L Lake Elmo,MN 55042 • • March 25, 2002 Page 2 slope toward Highway 36, combined with the power line easement would either force residences intended to be rural too close to a major highway,or would force oversize lots that would idle most of the properties. The site constraints,high traffic counts, and growth in the area combine to make the properties appropriate for commercial, and inappropriate for residential development. . Please review these materials and notify us when this matter is scheduled for a hearing by the City Council or Planning Commission. In the meantime, you may contact me with any questions at 952-896- 3214. rely, • • Peter J. Coyle for LAP 1N,HOFFMAN,DALY&LINDGREN, Ltd. . 737670.1 • • • • • • • g o y of Lake Elm 'ADO Cavan Avenue Noses • take Elmo p11n11.3Ma 55°42 DEVEL9PMENT APPLICAT ON FORM • 777-5590 . X. COSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT MINOR SUBDIVISION ZONING DISTRICT AMENDMENT - RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION bXETCE/CO1 Cte .PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT RESIDENTIAL.SUBDIVISION :CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (C.U.P.) PRELIEUNARY/FINAL PLAT 1-10 LOTS C.U.P. AMENDMENT 11-20 LOTS . 21 LOTS OR MORE. APPEALS EXCAVATION & GRADING SITE & BLDG. PLAN REVIEW PERMIT . VARIANCE* (see below) • FLOOD PLAIN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. APPLICANT. Bernie Nass 5651 Manning Ave. No. Stillwater, MN' . 55082 (Name) (Address) (Zip) TE�EpAtoN$: Work:. N�A Home: 651-439-7589 FEE OWNER: Same (Name) (Address) (Zip) TELEPHONE: Work: Home: ' PROPERTY LOCATION (Street Address and Complete (Long) Legal Description): See attached Exhibit A • • DETAILED REASOF FOR REQUEST: . To allow commercial development with utilities as planned in regional planning. • * VARIANCE REQUESTS:• As outlined in Section 301.060 C. of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code the applicant must demonstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related to this application is as follows: • • • In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have-read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application procedures and hereby agree to pap all statements recej.ved from the City pertaining to additional, application expense, - . • ,c--------'_ Kid>___����___ d.-a 1-41• • Signature of plicant Date ' J -i 9. Ca srL--.D../ "'D Signature o Fee Owner Date 11 1 AM .,- —r- XtiKtt i w 1 14 -6; -- II- iv -, r- , ____j 1 h 111 I LI 11 IS i 1 , ' I \At ---- 4 1 011 ,to P sl ei 1.. +e _ I f .I II' 11 Zu, •' ���� - °.t :1 , i �:_"� sop. CI 1 m ,: g .y m I- 4 NIP" 1 �. i - I • P).... ,_ —1,--/ Ai — I; a . ri _ ik... „ i 1 '1 i �4r� ► I N 4 I N.,..„ .4„,3i i1 1 r.511 1111 t I 1 --T..-Jt-----• II r� / ! II 1 - \1IIJ �; /1 i ill, gil -----+--4---- - i--, w is. !• . f• .. I' I 1 ,. ,,,i • N-.\.,;1 4 . . I i I I ;-1, # b I .` I - C)C) 111111 I .:' _� o0 11 I IIIII � , o.Ili ?y `1 11;1 e7 I X 1 � 1 � � I I rri 15 i tw, 114.-0 ,,, 0 I t I -:i... . I .1 o = - Nm to q N > • r , • ;�� 1 Ati . . 1 • ♦ -.'( !' Lam. i-_..__, tea, ��, ..�-. • i 1• ' itw II.- • .. :IAN • . i I ''I 1 i Br i ili , 1` • • , 1 • . • . .0 I , 'rn•—swo. T N- IA ,,, 11' - '44, '''' *, `.•?, ' • .. . • . fl j pi , 40.,, \\ . .. .,,,-1-1 41 1 _11. 11 : . ,�A 1 --- goo IN • • - . • • • • .: .• ,.-..,:A • ftoli ....i'- N: • II 1 ,� I • f j � • • his _ %;, , , , ( t • • • •r Y a vtLL1� t ......4!"11frT _date■'. kb' !IA' ;\ • • I li , .• .F.N. .. R , f' ,• .. . ' ' I . - . . .. I .... . . , . ,, . Hi -i--.1 . ;•. ,.. i. .kip,..... .• • .; ... , ..,. -. ... •••• 2 1 : . , I • • • • • • • • • • • :/.. 't . _..:•r( Ir. fr.t; Ir • ',gin—`r. . }. •• ••••.; r + . µ S _ ili of, -- ,-;11..to Y ,• k 72' -117'. ' 1 ' 5) _ Ii il 1 ILI a , '''l ima r Isfi ,• .1., • 1.. i ■ I +�+ ' rtitl• 'l' f !ill ,......,..:... . 4,.,...,.... ,.. „.. - .,,, ..., •. .- a � ; ! F � r "7`x•1•4 .tilt : 4 Y ' P.ti, r • 1 i I MA .;I: ' ." ,.•. ;:, ; '. '• , “ ./...„ . ;7;,-1 K'14. ':.‘.:.:!"'...:','.'1::.".t' 0.7 '„op,, 1-4ift,ti"IA, •.1,1 ''',, ,, ill* ...fl; • • ... Z i II L"# + C �t 6a f 1 r , +t r aVl�k'i�� i _"� �y} � �� s S 7 D.'1 CI C II m ya+"♦ w ,�{� a �s ��� a IVy is�di�GE f $f dr Per. 7`_t,„,t.S" gl.1)d"Sy;,4i t°. Mit zr `� f;',;,,14'.....,0 d Q� IiI 1 aw,'IP Y � '�� ^�s,�,.-e °f u. Ps i$!� � �. �tl�YY.v,YI�.:4y�,Q 1 L. iii R4:4 ��� af� a e , tx{ .,w tip, ,. :..,,41,,,„.„3.......,..)i i : i$$ ', \4 -14.x"4-i'!li....,,,,,,,,,4,'''''.",,1)....c---',,,,-,,,,,,r, 0,•,,,i ;,.....N''..k , , ,e,,,14 i', * ,„4,, ki.,1 • 4.11.11;,,II!,V1-1:11:1'.'4.: • rH'41'.-.1.3°,,,..17! ,l3, �` '�'aq . � � �" `4'ACC } � 0, a••••• j aw a6o En � �i�till id • '� ', , +, /' m ar . . �j liii 4 li Eax•, �. • ir. ell z a",_ 1' rc r ), =. 1 ii b, -\ 1 '' " ■ r i, ;I C� i J■,r f; r I. ■� 1 I 7,,,.„� Iii �.r ''1 v f� / 1 '1 1'. r ���..• li A@ 1 1i4 t s r v7 - 1� p , , .• i i F ;� a 1- !i I t '� i el,� �I ,,'I 1 1 ti�Y i-1 "� a -Rr - y YQ. I� • IA, }�i , II' ,, E •I 'J� j '' I.'`,11 I• 8 • �f 1 — -- -\ A �'I' I f 1I`l'..-1,I I{ n 'I _ ' S i gel I — - l � 'ail � iii _ ��' � I t t �.� I v N ., ' FiI //i • �• `r ro �' , I � r 1 11 I •- • Vr N ' 'S L ` 9 1'q > Y.. , C I � ' •' • CZ � I �1 : y3p lint ! ,'i X, t F'f„ , \‘. , ', r 8 t I t if •��n•• II!!4” ri,7 1 ft �' 'f•,1{ ,..i. . #,, / _ ,, �.; I ',``C� F f f' D II� � � Ej � \ i'I' 1 4 ,t:,,,-m q Z . - Y I' S I' , ! '' ' '1 l�1'1j�{ S1 i y,■ I '1,-;71.•'- ¢ ,' p,1, I i�111 .tik„•� ,a LEI ,'• � {--- 9 I � • ' • • • • • • .. • • • mum L1111111P1 nurrivui Ut 1 t7JLJU7U JLUJ 1+'111/ v. .7 VA V,-1J/ w+• 414-14.1 1LVVV1LI N + LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 7,2002 1. AGENDA 2. MINUTES: April 16,2002 3. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL: A. Public Inquiries B. Request from Lake Elmo Jaycees C. Recommendation from Environmental Commission for City Participation in the Shoreland Stabilization Project to take place on the DNR Public Access on Lake DeMontreville 4. FINANCE: A. Claims 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. CONSENT AGENDA: 7. MAINTENANCE/PARK/FIRE/BUILDING: A. Update on Fire Department Activities: Fire Chief Greg Malmquist— Appointment of Captains,Boots, Sirens B. et date for workshop with Council S p C. Lights for Pebble Park 8. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT: 9. PLANNING,LAND USE&ZONING: A. Accessory Structure Location—Joan and Steve Ziertman B. Amendment to Section 1340—Outside Storage of Boats and Trailers C. Zoning Variance—Daniel Rude,Kraft Circle D. Commercial Exterior Surface Standard—Amend LB, CB, GB and BP Districts E. Section 520 Site Plan—Hiner Development Comprehensive Plan Amendment—Nass/Buberl/Bidon G. Sunfish Ponds Open Space Concept Plan H. Extend Zoning Variance Review—Patrick Kinney I. Escrow Reduction—Eagle Point Business Park 2°d Addition J. Final Plat—Eagle Point Town Office Park 10. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: 11. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: A. Resolution adopting Policy for the Sale of City Owned Land B. Summary of Ordinance 97-106 Charitable Gambling C. Unfinished Business D. $500,000 Internal Loan to Water Fund 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7,2002 1 itivw .. ,.. ..�. ........ _..__ ..�... �. � ��.� high grade sand/gravel that could be removed from the site is an issue that will be handled administratively-"mining". The Council received a letter from Ray Salus,Country Air Driving Range indicating his concerns with the proposal. Rich Hiner explained he will lease out the golf school to a golf pro and lease the pro shop and coffee shop The County has given approval to road. Parking lot is planned for 210 cars and additional 40 cars with 175 parking spaces plus parking for employees. Because of special promotions,they will need the additional parting area. MIS/P ATmstrong/Siedow—to approve the section 520 site plan of Hiner Development for a golf practice facility,subject to the following conditions: 1.A 50 foot parking setback to Keats Avenue shall be maintained. 2. Enlargement of the parking lot landscape islands to comply with Code standards. 3. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer. (Motion passed.5-0.) F. Comprehensive Plan Amendment—Nass/Buberl/Bidon, Peter Coyle,Larkin,Hoffman,Daly&Lindgren,representing Mr. Nass stated Mr.Buberl to the east and Mr. Bidon,who owns property between the two parcels Mr.Nass owns,have-joined in the application.Mr. Coyle summarized his letter dated March 25,2002. Attorney Filla provided additional language to the Resolution if the Council was planning on denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The language is as follows: WHEREAS,at its May 7, 2002 meeting, the lake Elmo City Council reviewed the application of Nass/Buberl/Bidon for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; the City Planner's memo of April 17, 2002; and the recommendations of the City's Planning Commission. WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo City Council has reviewed its records regarding the adoption of the City's 2000 Comprehensive Plan (See City Planner memo dated April 17, 2002) and has determined that the City's 2000 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations for this site were not the result of error and that the conditions relating to the site and its • surroundings have not changed significantly since the adoption of the City's 2000 Comprehensive Plan. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7, 2002 8 rttUM LAWN nurrmniv 'UAW 07Lloyv-7L07 rind 0. tIL 0;47/01. 0;iL/11v. 'WMiLICt7 r iv it _ M/S/P DeLapp/Dunn—to adopt Resolution No.2002-037,as amended by the City Attorney,A Resolution Denying the Application of Nass/BuberyVBidon for Land Use Plan reclassification from RAD to C based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Findings contained in the Resolution. (Motion passed 5-0). G. Sunfish Ponds Open Space Concept Plan Planner Dillcrud reported the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this Open Space Preservation Concept Plan application to develop a combined site of 40 acres with 16 single family detached building sites. The Commission recommended approval of the OP Concept Plan; subject to design modification as follows: 1. Those conditions recommended by the April 2 Planning Staff Report (Wetlands Evaluation,MN Land Trust comments, and outlot redesign.) 2. Relocation of some building lots to more northerly portions of the site —at a minimum reversing Outlot B with Blocks 2 and 3. 3. Reduce the length of the cul-de-sac streets to increase the continuing of the Preserved Open Space on the south periphery of the site. The notices for the April 8,2002 public hearing were sent out on a 10 day cycle rather than a 14 day cycle.Attorney Filla recommended the Council conduct a public heating on this application. Mayor Hunt opened up the Public Heating at 9:20 p.m. Neal Krueger,4452 Lake Elmo Avenue N., explained when the MN Design Team visited Lake Elmo,the message from the residents were"Listen to The Land". This residential proposal takes 40 acres of farmland for which the highest and best use is Ag. He pointed out the outlots do not give contiguous open space and the scenic vista is severely interrupted by the high homes on the been. He felt this residential concept plan did not meet the intent and spirit of the Open Space Ordinance. Doug Olson, 3834 Kindred Way,stated his concern with wetlandseur wetland and water runoff from that area. He asked why they are not having a common septic system. We do not have an inspection system when the systems are being built. He wants to retain our ponding. The ponding area in Hamlet of Sunfish Lake is with the MN conservation land trust and would like to see Sunfish Ponds property also owned by the Land Trust. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7,2002 9 v1 "\ Z t . N / , 1 .4,01 X1113 \ , 1- N.,. ../../9 111;1 >7- 1 - ... ,/ I :II ji,N tketbs. ::,-. \ , , ,,, D o i 1 (--F-----t„,2__ : kv, 41 -----. . ',) j 1 A., ti , ;11\, ' 1 „ t1 rib'L libili 1 1 1 i 11 --< rii J . .._. 'T - 6 a — r. s S 1( -.—) I 1 - ±---- S it 1 ijiJ g , ill i 1 LI i_____L-------•____i__-- 12,..,I 1 ,..... .. . _ , 5„.. L anew OPROMI .• i ; ill eh' S Mil III 1 , ..___1"--” li sip f pill -.7 7 I 1 iiiii ih i i 1 . M1j11 ,II ji la!it 1 iiil hiRt Kim Kamper, From: Postler, Dennis M [dpostler @bonestroo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 6:20 PM To: Kimberly Kamper(E-mail) Cc: Jay Johnson (E-mail); Kris Danielson (E-mail); Jim Butler(E-mail); Mark Vierling (E- mail); Scott Richards (E-mail); cwicklund @alliant-inc.com Subject: Nass Property Annexation Kim: As discussed with you earlier today, I have a previous commitment I overlooked that conflicts with tomorrow's Work Session regarding the Nass Property Detachment/Annexation. As such, please accept/consider the following comments relative to engineering issues since I will not be able to attend: Streets/Access: The alignment of the proposed 58th Street North extension from Memorial Avenue N. to Manning Avenue is reasonable. • The proposed street extension will fall within Xcel Energy's overhead transmission line easement that encumbers portions of three Kern Center lots. This development would need permission/easements from Xcel and the other three underlying property owners for the proposed street and utility extensions • The proposed street will also cross a narrow existing wetland just west of the Kern Center. This may require a bridge in lieu of filling and installing culverts to avoid impacting the existing wetland and storm water runoff storage capacities in the area. • The connection to Manning Avenue is approximately 400'from Hwy. 36 right-of-way which should be sufficient if access to Hwy. 36 from Manning Avenue remains as is. The developer should contact MnDOT to verify their latest proposal(s)for this intersection and any access revisions that could affect this development(I believe several concepts from their previous Hwy. 36 Corridor Study, the"Freeway"concept and the"Hybrid" concept, involved eliminating access to south Manning Avenue completely and freeway-style east-bound on and off ramps being located in this quadrant of the intersection). Sanitary Sewer: The Sanitary Sewer Extension Analysis prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc. is quite thorough and I concur with the information in the report. [It appears that the proposed north/south sanitary sewer line from proposed 58th Street N. down to serve Building G (Appendix E, Sheet 2/2) has the invert elevations shown incorrectly (inverts show running south,whereas the line obviously needs to run north as the arrows indicate). This will most likely result in the finished floor elevation of Building G needing to be higher.] Water Main: Water Main is not addressed in the engineering report. Assuming this development would connect to the City of OPH's water system, the most logical place to connect would be adjacent to the proposed sanitary sewer in the extension of 58th Street North. We would, however, recommend that any water main extending to the west be looped back to the Kern Center at an additional location to prevent a long dead end line of service. This appears to be difficult given the existing topography of the site (numerous wetlands). If the property to the south of this site would ever be a candidate for annexation into OPH, then the water main could be stubbed to the south limits of this site for future extension and connection to the water main that exists at 55th Street N,/Memorial Avenue N. in the City. Storm Water/Ponding: Storm water runoff/ponding is not addressed in the engineering report either. • We will require to see a drainage area map and calculations showing proposed runoff rates and ponding requirements related to pre and post development scenarios. • Brown's Creek Watershed District will be a key player in approving the specifics of this proposed development, particularly as it pertains to storm water runoff/ponding rate and volume control, and to any impacts to existing wetlands on site. If you have any questions or require additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks. Dennis M. Postler Bonestroo, Rosene,Anderlik&Associates 2335 West Highway 36, St. Paul, MN 55113 Direct: (651)604-4815 Office: (651)636-4600, x4815 Fax: (651)636-1311 Cellular: (612) 865-9187 E-mail: dpostler(c�bonestroo.com • • • M'yy. • • g s Date #of 7671 Gl�/Zf �— pages `Jk, Post-it®Fax Note To (7,fe✓6,0 to { Co. Co./Dept.: Phone# Phone# ty of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MM 55082 Phone(651)439-4439 Facsimile(651)439-0574 facsimile transmittal To: ,per-rec (e. Fax: 9 5-(2), L/c J 1 ? Uy From: K "„" Date: l Re: )0�� Foe S 3 5 -ut) Pages: CC: ❑ Urgent For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle Notes: if CITY OF © 7p�ir*;ka^ 'iS LAKE ELMO �r,t City of Lake Elmo �; � ';. . 651/7775510 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, MN 55042 August 22,2002 Kimberly Kamper Acting City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Boulevard North P.O.Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082-2007 Re: September 17th Meeting Regarding Concurrent Detachment/Annexation Petition Dear Kim: The Lake Elmo City Council accepted your invitation to meet on September 17,2002 at 5:00 PM,in the Lake Elmo City Council Chambers to discuss the above captioned issue. The City of Lake Elmo also intends to invite the Valley Branch Watershed,and the DNR to this meeting. I hope everything is going well for you,Kim,and look forward to seeing you on the 17th. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mary K effner City Administrator ita printed on recycled paper pR� CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS $ - 14168 Oak Park Boulevard No • P.O.Box 2007 • Oak Park Heights,MN.•55082-2007 • Phone:651/439-4439• Fax:_::651./43.9-0574 August 15,2002 Mary Kueffner Mark Doneux City of Lake Elmo Brown's Creek Watershed District 380.0 Laverne Ave.N. 1825 Curve Crest Boulevard - Lake Elmo,MN 55042-9629 Stillwater,MN 55082 Dear Ms.'Kueffner and Mr.Doneux: I'am writing on behalf of the Oak Park Heights City Council to invite the Lake Elmo City Council and representatives of Brown's Creek Watershed District to attend a joint Worksession at 5:00 p.m. September 17,2002. In addition,the Oak Park Heights City Council would like to request that the meeting be held at the Lake Elmo_City Hall. The City Oak Park Heights has received a petition to detac h 49 acres in the southeast quadrant of State Highway 36 and Manning Avenue from Lake Elmo and Annex to Oak Park Heights. I have enclosed a copy of the petition and related material for review.-At the August 13,`2002 Oak Park Heights City Council meeting the Oak Park Heights City Council.passed a motion to set a joint Worksession with the Lake Elmo City Council and. representatives from Brown's Creek Watershed District at 5:00 p.m.September 17,2002 at the Lake Elmo City Hall. The Worksession would be held to jointly discuss issues related to the petition. Please contact me at 439-4439 to inform me of your organization's interest in - participating in the Joint Worksession. " Sincerely, Kimberly Kamper . Acting City Administrator cc: City Council, Peter Coyle and Neal J. Blanchett Larkin,Hoffman, Daily&Lindgren, Ltd. 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza 7900 Xerxes Ave. South Bloomington, MN 55431-1194 • Tree City U.S.A. CITY OF . • ' 42c - OAK. P; RK HEIGHTS' • '� � ;: :14168-.OalePark Biiulevard No,r P.O.BoX 2007' Oak Park Heights,MN:55082=2007 • Phoge:6511439-4439.•.Fdia 651/439 4)571 August 15,2002 `P eter Coyle and Neal:'3 lane ett y B h . - . . .•-. . .- Larkin,.Hgffman,Dally&Lindgren,Ltd. . -.`. : > : ,- 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza. - 7900 Xerxes Ave. South :.. omin on 1VIN°5543111. - --Blo 94 • • a ,Dear.Gentleman: Yo ur P etitio t o detach from Lake Elmo an d Ann e x to Oak ak.�arkH ei M1t s (y our file . 25,35.8-00),appeared On the August 13,2002 Oak Park.Heights City'Couiicil agenda.: :.:: .The Oak Park Heights City Council paised passed a motion to set a:Worksession for 4:30 p.m. • . . -. •. .:. August 29,2002 with'the-applicant(your client}to discuss the request. .The Worksession will be held at the Oak Park Heights City Hall located at 14168 Oak Park Boulevard • North` Oak Park He is `MN.`. • Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the meeting. I can be reached at 651-439-4439. Sincerely ' - Kimberly Kamper : _ - Acting City Administrator • cc: City Council • • Tree City.U.S.A. • Oak Park Heights Request for Council Action Meeting Date 8/13/02 Agenda Item Title Request for Petition to Detach from Lake Elmo and Annexx to Oak Park Heights Time Required 5 min. Agenda Placement New Business Originating Department!Requestor Administration/Kimberly Kamper f Requester's Signature Action Requested Receive Information and Take Appropriate Action Background/Justification (Please indicate any previous action,financial implications including budget information and recommendations). Pew Co)°(P� See Attached. 15-)- -811 Z -I 7o4( S:\SHARED\Forms\COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST.doc Point Paper Oak Park Heights Annexation/Consolidation Policy These criteria for annexation or consolidation are an attempt to ensure a fair deal to all parties so that one group of citizens does not benefit at the expense of the other. At the same time, the City would have in place a public policy known to all on this important issue/policy. 1. In the event of consolidation, create a rural taxing/service district-Under the laws of the State of Minnesota,the two parties may agree to the establishment of a rural taxing and service district. That taxing and service district would continue with the present level of services and the present taxing as well as the present rural housing type of zoning. Instead of doing a mass rezoning of the area and averaging the total tax rate, thereby lowering the city's taxes and raising township taxes,the city would find it beneficial to keep two separate service and taxing districts. An example of this is the Red Wing and Burnside Township consolidation of the early 1970's. The separate service/tax districts still continues to this day with the two separate taxing jurisdictions. Part of the rationale is, if the area does not need extra services, why charge them for extra services? The result, Township taxes stay the same as do City taxes,with neither area abusing the other. 2. In the event of consolidation, create a Transition Area-There are certain areas outside of any community that may, in the next 20 years,become more urbanized in nature. They may develop either as multi-family, single-family/urban or industrial/commercial areas. This needs to be spelled out so that only these areas would go into transition and would have the potential for developing into a higher density. It should also be guaranteed that the only time that those areas would develop is if the landowners themselves approach the community and ask for the zoning changes. These changes would have to go through the normal rezoning process and, at the same time, would guarantee that the developers would pay all costs of utility services to their areas. This would be the only way that the development could happen. 3. In the event of consolidation- Governance -By state law,the cities have the capability of expanding their City Councils to seven members. If there were to be a consolidation by contract,the parties would guarantee that at least two members would come from the township. If more members run from the township and beat all other candidates,there would be an option having more than two township members. However,there would be a guarantee of two out of the seven members on the City Council coming from the former township area. At the same time,their Planning Commission would be expanding to seven members with the same guarantee of at least two members from the former township area. Additionally,the Park Commission would be expanded to seven members with the guarantee of at least two members from the former township area. Another issue would be the name of the finalized community. To give a transition time for people that live in the community, a combination name would be used to provide a transition time so a decision could be made as to what the city would like and time for the name to be accepted. 4. Annexation. The City of Oak Park Heights will not independently petition or initiate for annexation of property outside of the City limits. All property for annexation must be requested by the property owner of the area in question. All costs of said petition and annexation request must be borne by the petitioner. 5. Detachment/Attachment. The City of Oak Park Heights will not initiate actions for detachment/attachment unless we are first petitioned by the affected land owner. As part of the petition,the land owner must first demonstrate efforts to work with the city in which they currently exist. Only after those actions have failed will the City of Oak Park Heights accept a petition from the property owner. Once the petition has been accepted,the City would only act as a supporter and recipient of the property/project in e for The land owner would be the prime petitioner/proponent f r th e detachment/attachment to the appropriate state or regional agencies. All City costs associated with the request must be paid by the property owner requesting the action. 9124/6)e1 ROBERT L.HOFFMAN LARKIN HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN LTD. WILLIAM G.THORNTON GERALD H.FRIEDELL > > LINDGREN, DOUGLAS M.RAWER EDWARD J.DRISCOLL LYNN M.STARKOVICN JOHN D.FULLMER ATTORNEYS AT LAW KENNETH COREY-EDSTROM FRANK I.HARVEY ANN M.MEYER CHARLES S.MODELL STEPHEN J.KAMINSKI CHRISTOPHER J.DIETZEN THOMAS F.ALEXANDER LINDA H.FISHER 1500 WELLS FARGO PLAZA DANIEL T.KADLEC THOMAS P.STOLTMAN ADAM S.HUHTA* MICHAEL C.JACKMAN 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH JAMES M.SUSAG' JOHN E.DIEHL DANIEL J.BALLINTINE JON S.SWIERZEWSKI BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431-1194 JEFFREY D.CAHILL THOMAS J.FLYNN SEAN D.KELLY JAMES P.QUINN TELEPHONE(952)835-3800 JOSEPH J.FITTANTE,JR. TODD I.FREEMAN THOMAS J.OPPOLD" GERALD L.SECK J.FOGEL JOHN B.LUNDQUIST FAX(952)896-3333 CYNTHIA M.KLAUS DAYLE NOLAN* MARK D.CHRISTOPHERSON JOHN A.COTTER' NEAL J.BLANCHETT PAUL B.E N N.PICOTTE a /-+ . JTAMARA E .O'NEILL MCGR EVY,III D KATHLEEN M.PICOTTE NEW MAN `/`(1J= r�/( �� I \ JAMES A.A.GUMP W,III CE GREGORY E.KORSTAD 11... -! 1 THOMAS A.GUMP' GARY A.VAN CLEVE` ,_�.�_' I TODD A.TAYLOR TIMOTHY J.KEANE CHRISTOPHER J.DEIKE MICHAEL W.SCHLEY .I GENEVIEVE A.BECK TERRENCE E.BISHOP MARLA M.ZACK GARY A.REFINEKE .... 7 2002 DIONNE M.BENSON CHRISTOPHER J.HARRISTHAL (-�)l. JEREMY C.STIER KENDEL J.OHLROGGE JOANI C.MOBERG BRUCE J.DOUGLAS CHRIS M.HEFFELBOWER WILLIAM C.GRIFFITH,JR. { i MICHAEL ESSIEN JOHN R.HILL f PETER J.COYLE OF COUNSEL LARRY D.MARTIN JAMES P.LARKIN' JANE E.BREMER --°--- ----- - JACK F.DALY JOHN J.STEFFENHAGEN 0.KENNETH LINDGREN MICHAEL J.SMITH ■ ANDREW F.PERRIN * ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN FREDERICK W.NIEBUHR ` ONLY ADMITTED IN IOWA July 29, 2002 Mayor and City Council City of Oak Park Heights P. O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082-3007 Re: Petition to Detach From Lake Elmo and Annex to Oak Park Heights; Our File 25,358-00 Dear Mayor and Council Members: This letter accompanies our petition request, on behalf of all the affected property owners, for detachment from the City of Lake Elmo (Lake Elmo) and attachment to the City of Oak Park Heights (Oak Park Heights) of 49 acres in the southeast quadrant of State Highway 36 and Manning Avenue (the Property). Oak Park Heights supported annexation of this area with Kern Center in 1998. The annexation was delayed at that time to provide an opportunity for Lake Elmo to plan for growth in accordance with regional policies. Lake Elmo has instead planned for low-density rural estates on this freeway frontage, and has rejected landowners' recent requests to allow suitable commercial development. We therefore request detachment from that community and annexation to Oak Park Heights, with extension of utilities from Oak Park Heights. In support of this petition, we have enclosed a Sanitary Sewer Extension Analysis prepared by Alliant Engineering in consultation with the Oak Park Heights City Engineer. The Analysis concludes that an extension of sewer is feasible to construct, and is the least costly means of serving the Property. Existing capacity is more than sufficient to serve the Property, and annexation allows Oak Park Heights to recapture a greater return on its previous utility investment. In fact, the Metropolitan Council, in reviewing Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan,has taken the position that greater development must occur LARKIN,HOFFMAN,DALY&LINDGREN, LTD. Mayor and City Council July 29, 2002 Page 2 on land currently within Lake Elmo to compensate for regional investmentsl. Annexation would ensure benefits to Oak Park Heights from this development. The annexation benefits all the parties involved. The Property owners will be able to plan for development that maximizes value. Oak Park Heights gains room to expand,possible expansion of its tax base, and will be able to recoup costs already expended for utilities serving the Property. Annexation will reduce the conflict between Lake Elmo's plan and regional planning. We therefore ask your support for the petition. incer , Peter J. Coyle, and Neal J. Blanchett, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. cc: Bernie Nass Pat Cropsey Clark Wicklund Robert and Jolene Buberl Tom Bidon 780033.1 1 The Metropolitan Council's Staff Report stated"In Lake Elmo's' case, it could choose the staging and location of where urbanization will occur but not whether or when it will occur." BEFORE THE OFFICE OF STRATEGIC AND LONG-RANGE PLANNING OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA PETITION FOR CONCURRENT DETACHMENT AND ANNEXATION PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES § 414.061, SUBD. 5 1. This is a petition brought by property owners pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 414.061, subdivision 5 for the concurrent detachment of land from the City of Lake Elmo (Lake Elmo) and annexation to the City of Oak Park Heights (Oak Park Heights). 2. The real property subject to this petition(the Property) is described in Exhibit A. It is approximately 49 acres, adjacent to the west edge of Oak Park Heights and forming a triangular peninsula from an otherwise-straight side of Lake Elmo. It is adjacent to and south of Highway 36 a major regional transportation corridor, and across Highway 36 from the Cities of Grant and Stillwater. 3. The owners of the Property are Bernie and Louella Nass, Tom Bidon, and Robert and Jolene Buberl. They are 100% owners of the parcels which comprise the Property. 4. The Property is part of an area that was the subject of an annexation petition and proceeding in 1998 (the 1998 Annexation). The 1998 Annexation detached from Lake Elmo land east and adjacent to the Property(the Kern Center), and annexed the Kern Center to Oak Park Heights. 5. In the 1998 Annexation, the Municipal Board of the State of Minnesota concluded that the Kern Center was, and was about to become, urban or suburban in character. The Kern Center has since been developed with commercial, industrial, and government buildings served by municipal utilities and improved roadways. 6. The 1998 Annexation included consideration of an Agreement for Orderly Annexation between Lake Elmo and Baytown Township,requesting that both Kern Center and the Property be annexed to Oak Park Heights. In annexing the Kern Center but not the Property to Oak Park Heights, the Municipal Board cited regional planning and policies of the Metropolitan Council and gave Lake Elmo an opportunity to conform with the policies and planning in regulating development of the Property: In reducing the area proposed for annexation [to Oak Park Heights] . . . the Municipal Board is cognizant of the policies of the Metropolitan Council growth strategy and is confident Lake Elmo will, through the comprehensive plan revision process, reconcile its own development policies and philosophy with those of the Metropolitan Council. 7. The Metropolitan Council's growth strategy,to which Lake Elmo has been directed to conform, identifies Lake Elmo as a community that should have urban services, including sewer services,provided to it by 2010. Exh. B (Metropolitan Council Review of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan),p. 3. 8. The Metropolitan Council's staff review of Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan identifies Lake Elmo's Plan as inconsistent with the following regional plans: Regional Growth Strategy; the regional system plan for recreation open space; the Regional Transportation Policy Plan; and the Water Resources Management system plan. The Metropolitan Council's review concludes that Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan would require the region's taxpayers to fund duplicate infrastructure elsewhere in the region, and notes that "the least costly and most efficient means to accommodate the region's growth is to provide urban services for urban density development to areas such as Lake Elmo." Exh. B,p. 6, 24. 9. The owners propose to develop the Property into commercial or similar medium-intensity uses appropriate for its location on an at-grade intersection to Highway 36, a major regional transportation corridor. This development will require urban services such as municipal sewer and water, and urban/suburban street improvements. Exh. C (Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment). 10. The Property owners requested that Lake Elmo adopt a Comprehensive Plan that would allow commercial development on the freeway frontage portions of the Property. Lake Elmo rejected this request and has proposed Rural Agricultural Density(one unit per ten acres) for the Property. 11. The Property owners applied for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow commercial development. Lake Elmo denied this application. 12. Lake Elmo opposes the extension of urban services to the Property. Lake Elmo has taken steps to lower the level of service to the area,by barricading Manning Avenue to prevent a possible connection to 55th Street. 13. Metropolitan Council policies appear in the Regional Blueprint. The Regional Blueprint entails developing freeway corridors and other areas served by regional infrastructure. The Blueprint specifically calls for higher-density development along regional transportation corridors, within the 2020 MUSA, such as Highway 36 in Lake Elmo. The Blueprint states that future planning must: Recognize that the cumulative impact of small-scale development inconsistent with Council rural area policies may have a substantial negative impact on the Council's transportation policy plan or constitute a substantial departure from the plan. Similarly, in the urban area the cumulative effect of very low densities and inefficient land uses may lead to underutilization of regional facilities and may constitute a substantial negative impact on the system or a substantial departure from system plans. Blueprint,p.67 (emphasis added). The Metropolitan Council's regional planning policy is to Make more efficient use of local and regional infrastructure by working with local governments and the private sector to 2. selectively increase the density of development - for example intensifying development along certain transportation corridors or filling in vacant land parcels. (Blueprint p. 46 (emphasis added)). 14. Lake Elmo's Plan blocks efficient provision of utilities from the east,where public funds have already been invested in utility lines with adequate capacity to serve the Property and the immediate neighbors. 15. Lake Elmo has indicated it is unwilling to provide municipal services to the Property. The urban utility services can be provided by Oak Park Heights. Therefore, the most efficient way to provide the necessary services is through concurrent detachment from Lake Elmo and annexation to Oak Park Heights. 16. A Sanitary Sewer Extension Analysis for the Property, attached as Exhibit D, concludes that adequate utility capacity exists to serve the Property, and that provision of services to the Property after annexation would generate $129,010 in sewer system fees to Oak Park Heights at current rates of$2,660 per acre. It is unlikely that capacity built to serve the Property can serve any other property, since land to the north, east, and south is already served by private or public utilities. 17. The parties entitled to mailed notice from Minnesota Planning pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 414.09, subd. 1 are: The Metropolitan Council Washington County The City of Lake Elmo The City of Oak Park Heights The City of Stillwater The City of Grant Brown's Creek Watershed District 18. Lake Elmo has indicated that it opposed the location of freeways on its north and south borders. Therefore, detaching these corridors from Lake Elmo and annexing to neighboring communities serves Lake Elmo's goal to remove portions of these roads from its borders. 19. Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan is under extended review by the Metropolitan Council. Exh. B. Council staff has noted that Lake Elmo's plan to minimize development conflicts with regional plans and policies to promote full and efficient use of existing infrastructure. The Petitioners propose development that furthers full and efficient use of regional infrastructure,but conflicts in that respect with Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan. Detachment from Lake Elmo therefore eliminates conflict between Lake Elmo and the Metropolitan Council with regard to the Property, and would therefore reduce conflict between Lake Elmo's Plan and regional policies. 20. The detachment and annexation is in the best interest of the municipalities and the Property owners. Among other reasons, detachment and annexation will allow Oak Park Heights to realize a return on funds it invested in utilities planned to serve the area. It 3. will allow the Property owners to develop the land in a way that better serves regional needs, and realizes the public investment in infrastructure serving the Property. It will reduce conflict between Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Council's regional planning. WHEREFORE, the Petitioners pray that the Minnesota Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning assume jurisdiction of the proceeding pursuant to Minnesota State Statute § 414.061, subd. 5, conduct hearings, and issue its order pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 414.09 detaching the Property from Lake Elmo and annexing it to Oak Park Heights. Bernie Nass ouella Nass ,,,�pp l l� / /rM a66t4 Robert Buberl Jolen(BuDerl om Bidon RESOLUTION Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights as follows: 1. The City of Oak Park Heights supports the petition for concurrent detachment and annexation for the Property described in this petition and requests that the Minnesota Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning assume jurisdiction over the petition, conduct hearings and issue an order, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 414.09, detaching the Property from Lake Elmo and annexing it to Oak Park Heights. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS Mayor City Administrator ATTEST Clerk 770989.1 4. EXHIBIT i -i----- EXHIBIT A Legal Description Parcel 0001: All that part of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 6, Township 29, Range 20 West, that lies Southerly and Westerly of the Southerly right of way line of Minnesota Trunk Highway NO. 36 and Northerly and Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of said NW 1/4 that is 923.00 feet, as measured along said West line, Southerly of the Northwest corner of said Section 6; thence Northeasterly by a deflection angle to the right of 73° for a distance of 336.41 feet; thence Southerly,parallel to the West line of said NW 1/4, for a distance of 148.5 feet; thence Easterly,parallel to the North line of said NW 1/4 for a distance of 784.70 feet more or less to the East line of said NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 and there terminating. Subject to Manning Avenue and N.S.P. easement across said property. Parcel 0002: 1 of Section 6, Township 29, Range 20, lying All that part of the North 1341.01 feet of the W /z S p g Yi g Southerly of the following described line: Southerly of the Northwest corner, thence Northeasterly by a deflection angle to the right of 73 degrees for a distance of 330.0 feet; thence Easterly,parallel to the North line of said NW 1/4 for 795 feet, more or less, to the East line of said W 1/2 and there terminating. Subject to Manning Avenue across said property except the South 104.5 feet of said W 1/2 of said NW 1/4. Parcel 06-29-20-23-0001: All that part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6, Township 29, Range 20 that lies northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 6; thence North 1° 14' 50"East, along the West line of said Northwest 1/4 , for 969.67 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 87°25' 34"East for 1120.72 feet more or less,to the East line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Northwest 1/4, and there terminating, except the North 1236.51 feet thereof and also excepting therefrom all that portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 6, lying West of the Town Road as it now traverses said Section 6. Together with all that part of Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6, Township 29, Range 20 except the North 1341 feet thereof subject to Manning Avenue. Parcel 06-029-20-21-0001: That part of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 29 North,Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota lying Westerly and Northerly of KERN CENTER and KERN CENTER 2ND ADDITION, according to the plats of record and on file in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County,Minnesota containing 22.99 acres, more or less. Subject to a highway easement along the Northerly line thereof for Trunk Highway 36 as described in Book 275 of Deeds, Page 497, of record and on file in said Office of the County Recorder. Also subject to a transmission line easement in favor of Northern States Power Company as described in Book 297, Page 288, of record and on file in said Office of the County Recorder. 745257.1 2. EXHIBIT • B O Presentation Executive Summary Agenda Item: 2002-156 Meetin• date: June 26, 2002 ADVISORY INFORMATION Date: June 3,2002, Subject: Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Comprehensive Plan --Referral File No. 18608-1 District(s), Member(s): Metropolitan Council District 12(Marc Hugunin, 651-430-3515) Policy/Legal Reference: Minn. Stat. §473.864, Subd.2 and§473.175, Subd. 1 Staff Prepared/Presented: Jim Uttley,AICP,Planning Analyst(651-602-1361) Eli Cooper,Director,Planning and Growth Management Dept(651-602-1521); Caren Dewar,Deputy Regional Administrator,Policy Alignment and Development Division(651-602-1306) Division/Department: Policy Alignment and Development/Planning and Growth Management OVERVIEW The Regional Growth Strategy contained in the Metropolitan Council's 1996 Regional Blueprint identifies Lake Elmo as being in three policy areas:permanent rural,urban reserve and illustrative 2020 MUSA. The regional system plans for aviation,transportation and water resources management are based on and designed specifically to support the Regional Growth Strategy. In 1996,after an extensive public participation process,the Council adopted a 2020 Regional Blueprint and regional system plan chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide for aviation,transportation and water resources. The Regional Blueprint is part of the comprehensive development guide prepared and adopted by the Council in conjunction with its implementation of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. As part of its Blueprint, the Council established a new regional vision for the metropolitan area called the Regional Growth Strategy which outlines an urban growth and development pattern for the seven-county metropolitan area and identifies wide-ranging policies and actions needed to implement that development pattern. The Regional Growth Strategy recognizes that regional services like highways,transit,wastewater treatment and airports play key roles in supporting new development and that regional investments must be provided in an efficient and effective manner. The Regional Growth Strategy was incorporated by reference into the regional system plans for transportation and water resources in such a way that any local plan that is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy automatically is inconsistent with and therefore not in conformity with the Council's regional system plans. According to the Council's Regional Growth Strategy, communities identified as"permanent rural"should plan to support a rural lifestyle and have a rural residential density of one dwelling per 10 acres. Clustering on small lots with individual sewage treatment systems(ISTS)or smaller lots with community sewage treatment system and drainfield is permitted as long as the overall density is maintained. Council policy with respect to"urban reserve"says that communities identified as urban reserve should protect such areas for future urbanization that is expected to occur before 2040. Such areas are not intended to support a rural residential life-style,and the overall density should be one dwelling per 40 acres. Clustering on small lots with ISTS or smaller lots with a community sewage treatment system and drainfields is permitted as long as the overall density is maintained. The principal policy concern is to preserve such areas for future urbanization. Short-term open space protection related to cluster platting is acceptable,but long-term or permanent open space protection is not acceptable for areas that should be designated"urban reserve." Communities may plan for limited,interim rural residential uses for areas designated as"urban reserve,"as long as such development reflects Council density guidelines and will not have the effect of making future urbanization difficult. 1 In conjunction with the implementation of its Regional Blueprint,the Council established an"illustrative 2020 MUSA"which is best described as an overlay district. It overlays portions of the region's urban reserve area and identifies those areas of urban reserve that may be needed to begin to urbanize before 2020. The"Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy"map,which was adopted as part of the 1996 Regional Blueprint, identifies a large area of illustrative 2020 MUSA in Lake Elmo. This is the area within which the P g city is expected to plan for urbanization to help accommodate regional growth and development that is anticipated to occur within the near future. However,the map does not show the extent of expected urbanization in Lake Elmo by 2020. The amount of urbanization for which local communities are expected to plan is identified in the Council's system statement. The regional system plans for transportation (generally)and water resources management(specifically)establish the Council's plans for infrastructure needed to support the Regional Growth Strategy and identify how much urbanization(affecting regional sewer flow and transportation systems)a community should plan to accommodate by 2020. Individual community system statements were sent to communities in early 1997,as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act(Minn. Stat. §473.856). The system statements identified specifically how much urbanization local communities should plan to accommodate and provide information about the location,size and timing of regional infrastructure that the Council will have in place to support that growth. Under the Act(Minn. Stat. §473.857),communities have 60 days to request a hearing to resolve disagreements over the content of the system statement. The content of the 1997 system statement was not disputed or challenged by the city. Lake Elmo did not request a hearing or contact the Council to advise that it had a disagreement with its system statement. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires communities to plan for development as outlined in the system statement,a reflection of regional system plans as they pertain to individual communities. Local communities have flexibility in determining the most suitable locations and mix of uses so long as they plan reflective of regional systems policies and directions. What this means in practice is that some communities, with several possible locations to urbanize,can decide the most appropriate areas to begin their urbanization. In Lake Elmo's case,it could choose the staging and location of where urbanization will occur but not whether or when it will occur. It could choose to trade some permanent rural residential area in one part of the city for urban reserve elsewhere,if the net results of the"trading"remains approximately the same in overall acreage. Lake Elmo is currently a rural,mostly unsewered community. The city is approximately 8 miles(10 minutes on I-94)east of Council offices at Mears Park Centre. It is immediately adjacent to the fastest growing city in the region in the 1990's,the city of Woodbury. The Council's Regional Growth Strategy,as identified in its Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy map and 1997 system statement,as it pertains to Lake Elmo,calls for substantial urbanization of the community by 2040. The Council based its decision on several factors: • the region's(then forecasted)need to accommodate 320,000 new households and 380,000 new jobs in the region between 1995 and 2020 (2000 Census data suggest the estimated number of new households and new jobs in this metropolitan area by 2020 will be substantially more than previously estimated) • the close proximity of Lake Elmo to one of the core cities(St.Paul)in the region • the availability of the highest level(principal arterials)of regional transportation infrastructure immediately adjacent to the city on both the north and south sides • the potential for transit services to the community • the availability of an existing and as yet under-used regional park preserve within the city • the availability of regional wastewater services to serve the community in a cost-effective manner The city is very well served by regional systems(Figure 3)that reflect major regional,state and federal infrastructure investments. The city is bounded on the south by I-94 and on the north by State Highway 36, 2 both of which are principal arterials(the highest class of regional highway). I-694,also a principal arterial highway,is one mile west of the city. State Highway 5, an A-minor arterial(the second highest class of regional highway),runs through the center of the city. In the three and one-half mile section of I-94 along the southern edge of the city,three interchanges serve residents of Lake Elmo and nearby communities. Two I-694 interchanges serve Lake Elmo residents. One hundred twenty acres of Lake Elmo in the southwest corner of the city is presently served by regional wastewater services(Figures 3 and 5). Additional sewer capacity has been planned and programmed for the city. A$10 million Lake Elmo-Metro Interceptor sewer is scheduled for construction in 2006-2007 and currently is included in the Council's Environmental Services Capital Improvement Program. The 2,065- acre Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve lies in the center of Lake Elmo. The regional investment in the park reserves totals$7.6 million,including$5.6 million for land acquisition.The city also received tax- equivalency payments when the regional park reserve originally was established. The Minnesota State Legislature,in 1967,established the Council to plan and coordinate development in the seven-county metropolitan area. The legislature directed the Council to develop a development plan (framework)and regional system plans for aviation,parks and open space,transportation and wastewater. In 1976,the Legislature passed the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requiring the Council to issue system statements to local communities and for local communities to prepare comprehensive plans based on those system statements. In 1995,the Legislature amended the Metropolitan Land Planning Act to require all communities in the metropolitan area to review,and if necessary,amend their entire comprehensive plans and fiscal devices and official controls by December 31, 1998 and at least once every ten years thereafter. In conjunction with the 1995 amendments,the Council updated its policies and regional system plans to serve as a basis for the new round of comprehensive plans. The Council undertook an 18-month process with extensive public meetings and participation by local government officials and other stakeholders,and after a series of public hearings, adopted the 2020 Regional Blueprint and three extensively updated regional system plans(aviation, transportation and water resources),as well as less extensive modification to the regional system plan for recreation open space in December 1996. The Regional Blueprint contains a preface, executive summary,overview,and five strategy chapters: regional economic strategy,regional reinvestment strategy,regional strategy for building strong communities,regional environmental strategy,and a regional growth strategy. Each chapter contains policies and action statements. The Regional Growth Strategy sets the urban growth and development pattern for the seven-county metropolitan area as well as the identification of wide-ranging policies and actions needed to carry it out. The intended result is to accommodate 330,000 additional households and 650,000 more people by 2020. In this review report,the term Regional Growth Strategy refers to the policies,action statements,maps and text found in the Regional Growth Strategy chapter of the Regional Blueprint, pages 43 through 65. The Council's adopted forecasts and their relationship to the Regional Growth Strategy are discussed generally on pages 74 through 77 and in Appendix J in the Regional Blueprint. The Regional Growth Strategy and other chapters of the Regional Blueprint set the overall policy direction of the Council and serve as the framework or basis for each of the regional system plans. In 1996,the Council adopted the Regional Growth Strategy chapter as part of the regional system plans for transportation and water resources management,making it an integral part of those system plans. A discussion about the relationship of the Regional Blueprint to the regional system plans is found in Appendix A,pages 66 though 69. The Regional Growth Strategy identifies Lake Elmo as a community within the region that should plan to have urban services i.e. sewer services,provided to it by 2010. The Council made a preliminary projection 3 of 200 sewered households and 600 sewered employees in 2010 and 1,500 sewered households and 1,000 employees by 2020. These projections were approved by the Council as part of the Water Resources Management Policy Plan and sent to the city as part of the Council's 1997 systems statement. The projections were made on assumptions of when metropolitan sewer services could be made available to the city and how long it would take the city to extend sewer services to a MUSA boundary to be designated by the city. The projections were to be revisited at the time the city's comprehensive plan was reviewed by the Council. It was anticipated that the Council would have completed its facility plan for the new Southeast Regional WWTP and Interceptor with a schedule for the sewer services by that time. On August 24,2001,Lake Elmo submitted its 2000--2020 comprehensive plan to the Council and adjacent communities for review and comment. The Council review could not begin until after a 60-day period for adjacent local government review and comment. On October 21,2001,the Council began its formal review of the Lake Elmo plan. The plan was found incomplete and the review suspended until additional information was received. On February 8,2002,Council staff completed an evaluation of supplemental materials submitted by the city and determined that the city's 2000--2020 comprehensive plan was complete for review and the review was restarted. Under state law(Minn. Stat. §473.175),the Council has up to 120 days to complete its review once a plan is determined to be complete. A local community and the Council may mutually agree to extend the review period. The Council completed the facility plan for the new Southeast Regional WWTP and Interceptor in 2000. Representatives of the city of Lake Elmo were members of the task force that reviewed the various alternatives studied and agreed that the proposed alternative of providing regional wastewater services to the city starting at the city's southwestern corporate limits was the city's desired alternative. The facility plan provides sewer service to Lake Elmo through the proposed Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor that is scheduled for construction in 2006-2007 in coordination with expansion of 1-94. Coordinating the construction of the regional sewer interceptor with MnDOT's planned expansion of I-94 in 2006-2007 will permit the Council to realize substantial cost savings. If the Council is required to construct the interceptor at some unspecified future date after MnDOT's I-94 expansion project is completed,the cost of constructing the Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor will escalate significantly. However,the proposed comprehensive plan for the city does not include the phasing of sanitary sewer services to this area of the city that would show an orderly progression of urban growth,consistent with the Council's planned extension of regional sewer service to the city,nor does the comprehensive plan preserve the Urban Reserve for future urban development. While Lake Elmo's plan proposes only 200 fewer households overall(4,500)than the Council's 2020 household forecast of 4,700 households(March 1997),the plan fails to provide for any of the 1,500 sewered households identified in the regional system plan for water resources management. While the Regional Growth Strategy map(Figure 2)anticipates urban development in Lake Elmo in the 2000—2020 planning period and calls for the maintenance of a substantial urban reserve area of 8,188 acres,Lake Elmo's plan fails to plan for any urban reserve. While the Regional Growth Strategy calls on Lake Elmo to plan to keep a portion of the city in permanent rural land use at an overall density of 1 unit per 10 acres,the Lake Elmo plan (Figure 5)proposes to allow rural residential development that is four times more dense than Council guidelines for the permanent rural area. Looking ahead,by 2030,Lake Elmo is now forecasted to grow to a total of 6,000 households by 2020(versus 4,700 household in 2020 included in the Council's Regional Blueprint in 1996)and 9,500 households by 2030,according to the Council's new preliminary forecasts. Lake Elmo's neighboring city of Woodbury has been supportive of the Council's Regional Growth Strategy taking 3,000 additional households by 2020 according to its comprehensive plan reviewed by the Council. Neighboring Oakdale has also been supportive of the Regional Growth Strategy,although its available land supply caused the city to come in short of Council household forecasts. Lake Elmo's failure to plan for 4 future urbanization,to protect lands for future urbanization,and to plan for lower densities in its rural area are contrary to the planning of its neighbors as well as the Regional Growth Strategy. In light of the foregoing,it appears clear that Lake Elmo's 2000--2020 comprehensive plan is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and does not conform to metropolitan system plans. The plan proposes a substantial rural residential area,but it does not establish an area of urban reserve and does not propose to urbanize a portion of the community consistent with Council plans and the system statement. The city's plan proposes that the community remain permanently rural. This is inconsistent with the Council's Regional Growth Strategy calling for future urbanization of the community beginning by 2010. The plan does not establish an urban reserve in the community,and fails to protect land for any future urbanization. The city does not plan for 1,500 sewered households by 2020 as envisioned in the Regional Growth Strategy and the Council's regional system plan for Water Resources Management. The city's plan is,therefore,not in conformity with and represents a substantial departure from the regional system plans for recreation open space,transportation and water resources. If the Council agrees with staff's findings and conclusions,the Council may require Lake Elmo to modify its plan to bring it into conformity with regional system plans. BACKGROUND Lake Elmo is ranked 33`d among metropolitan communities in anticipated growth to 2020 based on the Council's 1997 forecasts. In 2000,Lake Elmo had 6,863 people in 2,347 households and 1,635 jobs. According to Council forecasts(March 1997),Lake Elmo should plan to accommodate 12,500 people in 4,700 households and 2,650 jobs in 2020. While this plan is not expected to address them,the preliminary new Council forecasts for Lake Elmo,based on the region's need to accommodate over 900,000 new people by 2030,shows 6,000 households for 2020 and 9,500 households for 2030. Lake Elmo is easily accessible to east metro employment centers(Figure 8). Nearly 40,000 jobs are within five miles and nearly 200,000 jobs are within ten miles of Lake Elmo. Those jobs represent 2.5 percent and 13 percent of the region's jobs,respectively. According to the city's plan,the majority of land in Lake Elmo is planned for development as Rural Agricultural Density(RAD). RAD development normally occurs at a density of 16 units per 40 acres or one unit per 2.5 acres on cluster-platted lots with the undeveloped portion of the property placed in"permanent" easement. Lake Elmo is one of the foremost practitioners of rural cluster platting and is recognized as a regional leader in its approach to incorporation of permanent rural residential with permanent open space protection. The Council staff accepts this aspect of the city's plan,as long as it is applied in the area of permanent rural identified in the Regional Growth Strategy. This approach may be acceptable in the urban reserve and future urban areas but only if the undeveloped land is not set aside in"permanent"open space, new home-buyers are fully informed of the planned urbanization and of the requirement that unsewered residences must hook up to public sewer within two years from the time local sewer service becomes available,and current development does not prevent future efficient and cost-effective urbanization in the community. 5 LINKAGE TO COUNCIL STRATEGIES RI Infrastructure:The city's plan is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and not in conformance with and is a substantial departure from the regional system plans for recreation open space,transportation,and water resources. As proposed,the plan would cause the Council to spend additional regional tax dollars to build duplicate infrastructure to accommodate future urban growth elsewhere in the region that otherwise would have occurred in Lake Elmo. Er Quality of life: Implementation of the city's plan as proposed could divert to other metropolitan-area communities current and future urban growth that otherwise would occur within the city,which likely would result in additional local public infrastructure investments and unnecessary duplicative regional infrastructure investments. El Communication/constituency building: The city should modified its plan to reflect future urbanization consistent with the existing and planned regional systems for this area of the region and to incorporate medium- and high-density housing elements into its plan to help provide adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional housing needs and promote the availability of land for the development of low- and moderate-income housing. Cd Alignment: The city's plan is not consistent with regional policies and until the plan is found to be consistent,the Council will apply its alignment policy to the city of Lake Elmo. This means that the city will receive no priority for funding of grants and loans over which the Council has advisory or discretionary approval authority and the city may be ineligible to qualify for other funding and for certain regional system improvements. ATTACHMENTS Comprehensive Plan Policy Matrix Review Record--Review of the City of Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Comprehensive Plan Figure 1 -Location Map,City of Lake Elmo Figure 2-Regional Growth Strategy Policy Areas, City of Lake Elmo Figure 3 -Regional Systems,City of Lake Elmo Figure 4-Existing Land Use,2000,City of Lake Elmo Figure 5-Land Use Plan,City of Lake Elmo Figure 6-2000 Aerial Photography,City of Lake Elmo Figure 7-Properties Seeking Sewer Service,City of Lake Elmo, 1998 Figure 8-Employment Within 5 and 10 Miles of Lake Elmo Figure 9—Regional Recreation Open Space System,December 1996(1997 system statement) Appendix A-Land Use Plan,excerpt from the Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Comprehensive Plan Appendix B -Intergovernmental Comments Appendix C-Public/Property Owner Comments Appendix D— 1997 System Statement—Lake Elmo Appendix E—Adoption of Amended Regional Blueprint, Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan, Water Resources Management Policy Plan,Aviation Development Guide/Policy Plan and Regional Recreation Open Space System Plan. Report of the Committee of the Whole,December 19, 1996 V:'\.Library\CoiniaerRp\Lake Elmo CPU 18608-1 6 a) +4 to a), , O 1 r hi hhI -0 ID w .00 � . 0 ;■ � d a' b 5 0) ° U . -D • • U O 0 'g O N - U ` G G ° b U p U ,. ~ m 0 z = O cz 0 O i ^" O a) N t. + . O O ^ U O N $" + d " 4i Q ) O G . 0 cal ■ I. .4 g N U N c 0 a) a) to O v bp = a /1 A CA - 4-. U i ) •� 0 d Z V' o C3 a� 3 0 4° � s. •E o ° N 0 ° go n u5 b Ti ,3 �o , 9 d , s c1)'-, --+ a) a) s•.m O U O o o O k N U o '3 /:'" c� b 0 � O d] E iiI' ll N t F U O O al a) •?a '3 - , .� . . -0 . r °N ,0 . w U -' t ¢ i — 3 � " ' a) H- _, 6 a, 0 a 3w c r. b ,Y.'; > 3 O ct ao tw O Q a) -o .O N P ° .N '(, ¢ yN y U ' ° U ' O Q „ • b > ; cd N Q„ cal -, 4r C ' bn. . •, -0 1 C d b 4 ` ° ° ~ 4 ›' ° O 4] • C ct n ~- '° • y 5 vi 4 c° cd c`? 0 7 `' C FU" 5 o `d 5 . a v .; a, ' ' �' a a'D rn Q 0.0 9 y 0 a . , M o .4 0 CA a) N az U m C O w y Q 4 O U C y N ,,, .r. cV U N 0 c • U m ,b . V "0 N , 0 N N 'd . cl gb ,A U > a U a cn o n 0 . .- y > ° b > Q t O • +- .. o a) O a) U bA as a) O 1 to U i) O o - p• 3 .4 ) a 4 a H •• 4 0 +.° Sr .4 vl .fn a 0 -10 t.■ r > = 0 00 ,-r as cat R U 4. .- 4+ t E—( 71 sr . j a) El Q 1 b � It V ° 3 > 0 -° to m 0) W a) as b rn a a U 4 O r ) U O a.o a a x N ~' O O c d al y v) 0 ▪ a O ) O Z z •-, .- = G •° . Z r W N ,-r d• O m N • • • • • • W U ed O ti Co) '� v Uf. U o iC >C as N I U 0 CI. C> O� O�PA rnN '� a) -r V 0 3 ci, 0 0. b y r.■ -• a)to P4 © d cC y O '• 0 U .4 _ F. .-r ° w 00 CI O g f ••—•r c• i∎I U O d) ' O 4 O y O O ° O a) 0 a) 0 `-' c� O cal 0 0 o at oo 1) � M + . 4 0 ~ 0 c o ma ✓ °v, N • • • • • • 1 a) D CA a.) a) A a = o � 0 0 0 VI 0 co x • • • a at y • a• o a� °; yam .' '' = E .4 3 a > o ° •g 0 5 0 -0 0 �O of -g ... ^d •0 3 a) 0 '" �. �' p. �, U �, y g al U +., 3 a) 0 U CU 0 ." ' 0 m■ a a)+' • ,.,..t —. o r � 'a O o 0 � . 4. ' � U .� 0 v C L U U o.� l � - oi •) '0 y. - 0 `4 O 0 �, N �▪ g "C/0 id pp 0 a0 0 0 g 0 ,4 >-,ai j � til) o Qv• N ' ▪ a 0 S bA N a N N i � U a • ,0 v y U � a 4-s, c73 3 O N E , m "" cn v U .p 'C v -o $• O Ug C/l 'a 'd Ti a) O o O to N 0 a) U 0 0 o ,•, , s ..... �C 0 0 ,4_, c9 cd E y - 415 P• c •t n 'r O ..-, � •.r N E' O vi 0 1. • 'd 0 . 5 .4 ao 4. ON .r -, En • 0 Q" +' d O + C:1:1 , C P .aS O ' 0 0 0 .4-4 O Z O b4r. N A t ,0 ' ' an p as N Y .0 0 O 0 `O n �.- 0 0 0 5 O 4-4. .� bU U •v - ▪ U ' N y - bA = O +4 N N O 0 � V .5 d 0 by a . '-0 0 O 0 0 0 0 5 •-, .0 .O 0 O o O O O i. ,� N a) „, p„Ri 0 •... 0 ›' -o P U t -0 'y as H .0 b b : U 4. H 0 m � $4. • . VI cn s-, U 0 0 '0 4.g.N ct x O 43 $, O. Q N of Q. EZ - b .2 Td 7' 2 0 4.0 74 0 • 'o .� 0 a .0 o �" an s '0 N 0 y 75 b a) � dU � �•_ o 0 b CZ U 00 CA P4 ,0 zzzz a CIE z U • • • • • Q • • • a - 0 O 0 A yo Y 'C Ri ,x •-. .� 0 U Ll, a) ;.. ^■ 0 0 $-■ 0 .r 0 cH 5 ai .-+ 4 +'0+" N 0 V 0 bp G. a) 0. 0 0 0 V p •� ed o O 1. 0 O g ,•, 0 a) O -' .0 a) a�i a�i Y C7 4) w w 7:;) bO w w w. N p 'V e2 U 0 " o r '. a) 43 ai •'" 43 0 4-0 U• c 0 0 co a) o aa aapi. oa i cd 0 • • • • P-, • • • 0 c) 5 O WI C CA O cls • cy an Z x • • v T rn • O a ate+ - O O 0 -0 E� O bA 0 0 O s� 0 to y 'd .4 rI E O j ...0 0 ' •O V O •�to O O � ' ' " � � O 0 V O Qa -O u O ; $" ,/ o '" > O F °' -`, � -d ate. cd ,S0 cd o ,}r, V O ,—a VOi 4'' O . �' p O 0 s� • 0 •� 6, ••'� •-, c~d Faa 2 a 0 3 0 Qa 2 N E� 'Fb �a v? p. w w �O N 0 4-, O . a N O 0 O O rn bA 0 cd 0`� o 0 c o b `' o o c o ° o ¢ fix, o „, 0 0 •c cn 0 'C 0 �bA N ° -d ta U O y ›' cd N O CA N = U O rn "0 V Cd ,O .-i 0 0. Q pa-0 0 N 5 o 3 s-+ .E t ,,, U Cd sa O o ..r a> rn U 3 45) cd O .a O r✓ r✓ Qa c0 N rOi, 0 E—+ cd r'4..' sCd. dy 0 0 o V Q•'y r/) -0 Qa $� 0 z L. O rn s•a rn •• ,-+ " +r G r°\ E •8 .Fs! `) > b -0 a) 0 w) cd C D N N 0 d •° a0i 0 E o •o°�o ° > 0 -d CD AO 0 ° > ? et -d C/ H N •P. -0 Cd v, w -d c° - . 0 cn •H 0 .t°r" 0 0 -c3 a•5 Qa•U L7 cd • a) 0 0 c ° .fl - 0 0 ar s� 0 s•a W •- rn t Q +° o r ° $-' rE ° / V N n0rn 6, O '0S 0 r 0 b N y 1.., N$.4 A cd O d O N y r. a � ° a �' z gab Z E 2a � 0 cci• • • • • • rn 0 y . 0 0 a 0 (F-, cH .O o o 2 o o 0 a, ++ N 3 �.+ N `3 a..' .d rn �1a .1-.4 ..a +-+ cd •., o cd O cd bA.. .0 Y .0 Cl.) CON �Taa, b4 cA t N 0O 5 sa . 0 5 O �, at o 0 44-4 y rn O rn 6, U cd t., s, U cd s, O N 0 o U , 0 ,2 4-a g c0 c0 4a 0 c0 ..0 O O O O O N g a✓ `4 ' .0 o o to E o c' 0" ,+ •a = � o., O ao aaawa0 aria • • • • • • a) C © 6 o CO a nn z Cis)Ci. CI H • • PUBLIC POLICY QUESTIONS Overall System Questions 1. Regional Parks. Does the proposed Lake Elmo comprehensive plan update conform to the regional system plan for Recreation Open Space? If not, will the plan have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from the metropolitan system plan? 2. Transportation. Does the proposed Lake Elmo comprehensive plan update conform to the regional system plan for Transportation? If not,will the plan have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from the metropolitan system plan? 3. Wastewater Treatment. Does the proposed Lake Elmo comprehensive plan update conform to the regional system plan for Water Resources?If not, will the plan have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from the metropolitan system plan? 4. Aviation. Does the proposed Lake Elmo comprehensive plan update conform to the regional system plan for Aviation? If not, will the plan have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure form the metropolitan system plan? 5. Subregional and Regional Interests. Does Lake Elmo's proposal not to designate an urban reserve area or plan for higher density development within the next twenty years: (a) affect other communities in that area of the Region who must consider regional growth issues and the availability of regional systems when they engage in their own local planning efforts, or (b) effectively require other metropolitan-area communities to accommodate urbanization that would have been expected to occur in Lake Elmo given the regional systems and infrastructure investments that either now serve the City or are planned to serve the City within the next few years? 6. Housing Needs. If Lake Elmo fails to designate an urban reserve area to accommodate a reasonable amount of urbanization or encourage higher-density residential development within the relatively near future,how will Lake Elmo fulfill its statutory obligation to adopt a land use plan that provides adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional housing needs, particularly in light of the increases in population, household and employment that are projected to occur within the next twenty years in this metropolitan area? 7. Efficient Infrastructure Investment Decisions. If Lake Elmo fails to designate an urban reserve area to accommodate a reasonable amount of urbanization within the reasonable period of time, will the Council be required to make substantial additional (i.e., duplicative) investments for regional infrastructure in other areas of the metropolitan area? 8. Other Interests. Have neighboring municipalities or other interested persons in the region questioned the sufficiency of Lake Elmo's proposed Comprehensive Plan Update or recommended that the Council find Lake Elmo's proposed Plan Update inconsistent with regional system plans, and what weight should be given to this factor? 10 Regional Water Resources System 9. Policy 12a of the Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan states: The timing and density of development which is inconsistent with the growth management strategy adopted as part of the Regional Blueprint and which would affect the cost of providing metropolitan sewer service will be viewed as a departure from or having a substantial impact on the metropolitan wastewater system, requiring modifications to the local comprehensive plan. 10. Is it significant that if the $10 million interceptor project does not occur in 2006-2007 as planned to gn p p J coincide with MnDOT's I-94 improvement project along the southern border of Lake Elmo, the cost of constructing the Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor will be both more costly and more technically challenging? 11. If the Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor is not built as planned, what are the consequences to property owners in the southwestern area of the City,residents of surrounding communities and taxpayers of the Region if on-site sewage systems are installed in the City in lieu of public sewer systems and those on-site systems fail in the future? 12. Is there a financial advantage to the region as a whole to provide regional interceptor sewer service to communities like Lake Elmo that are well-served by regional systems, rather than constructing regional interceptor sewer facilities elsewhere in the region to serve a similar number of residential and non- residential hook-ups? 13. Is it significant that the City actively participated in the Council's process to develop the South Washington County ty Interce for Facility ty Plan and that the $10 million interceptor project currently programmed in the Council's Environmental Services Capital Improvement Program is planned primarily for the purposes of serving the City of Lake Elmo? Regional Recreation Open Space System 14. What are the consequences of implementing the proposed Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Update in light of the Council's 1996 Regional Blueprint which, at page 68, states guidelines affecting the location and operation of regional park facilities? Set regional objectives for the open space system consistent with the Regional Blueprint...Develop regional recreation facilities that attract large numbers of users generally in the urban area... If it is necessary to develop such facilities in the rural area, adequate support services such as roads and sewers must be provided. 15. Is the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Update consistent with the Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy map, adopted as part of the Council's 1996 Regional Blueprint, which identifies a significant portion of Lake Elmo,including the area of the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve as urban reserve? 16. Would the partial urbanization of Lake Elmo proposed in the Regional Blueprint 2020 allow better access to and utilization of Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve? Would it improve access to the park on local roads and by bike and walking? Would it make improved transit services to the park reserve more feasible? 11 17. Does Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan Update constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans because it fails to provide for the development of 1,500 sewered households and 1,000 employees served by regional wastewater services by 2020? 18. Is it significant that the Council supported the establishment of the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve and invested $7.6 million for its acquisition and development in part as a response to active encouragement from the City regarding the establishment of a regional park facility ty within its jurisdiction and in response to the City's concerns regarding urbanization at that time? Regional Transportation System 19. Does Lake Elmo's proposal not to accommodate higher density development and designate an urban reserve area have a significant impact on or constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan system 4 and TH 36 plans because the City has exceptional regional highway (principal arterial) access via 1-94 along its northern and southern borders and by I-694, and excellent regional north/south highway (principal arterial)located approximately 1 mile west of Lake Elmo? ' urban 20. Does Lake Elmo's proposal not to accommodate higher density development and designate an urb reserve area have a significant impact on or constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans because"A"minor arterials in the City—including TH5, County Road(CR) 13, CR 10 and CR19 (all "expanders") and CR 15 (a "connector")—provide excellent interconnections to the regional transportation system? 21. Will the development of the City at higher density levels make the provision of regional transit service more economically feasible than in other urbanizing communities in the region because transportation infrastructure exists in or near the City and Lake Elmo is located near the urban core and major employment centers? 22. Would urbanization of western Lake Elmo allow greater utilization of Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve so as to avoid use of the regional highway system? 23. If transportation funding continues to be a major public policy issue,is it likely the region as a whole can provide as good or better regional highway access to other areas of the region in support of urbanization if Lake Elmo does not urbanize? 12 REVIEW RECORD CITY OF LAKE ELMO 2000 - 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BACKGROUND The city of Lake Elmo is a developing suburban and rural community located nine miles from downtown Saint Paul. It is surround by the cities of Oakdale,Pine Springs,Grant, Stillwater/Stillwater Township,Oak Park Heights,Baytown Township,West Lakeland Township,Afton,and Woodbury. (Figure 1). The city is 15,341 acres(24 square miles)in area. In 2000,Lake Elmo had 6,863 people in 2,347 households,and an estimated 1,635 jobs. According to Council 1997 forecasts,Lake Elmo should plan to accommodate a total of 12,500 people in 4,700 households and 2,650 jobs by 2020. Although Lake Elmo's plan is being reviewed using 1997 Council forecasts, data from the 2000 Census suggest that it would be reasonable to expect Lake Elmo to plan for and accommodate even more additional household and jobs by 2020. Lake Elmo ranks 33rd`'among communities in the region in forecasted household growth for the period 2000 to 2020. The Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Comprehensive Plan,hereafter referenced as the"plan,"establishes policies to guide growth to the year 2020 and,when adopted,will replace the former comprehensive plan,adopted in 1991. Lake Elmo,in 1997,received a grant from the Council for preparation of its comprehensive plan,Grant No. SG-97-244,in the amount of$10,530. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires local units of government to submit comprehensive plans and plan amendments to the Council for review and comment(Minn. Stat. §473.864, Subd.2). The Council reviews the plans to determine their conformity with metropolitan system plans,apparent consistency with other adopted plans of the Council,and compatibility with the plans of other local jurisdictions in the metropolitan area. The Council may require a local governmental unit to modify any comprehensive plan or part thereof,which may have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans(Minn. Stat. §473.175, Subd. 1). HISTORY/PREVIOUS ACTIONS The Lake Elmo Park Reserve and Growth Pressures In 1967,the Twin Cities Metropolitan Planning Commission(soon to become the Metropolitan Council)sent a memo to Washington County concerning an acquisition program for parkland in Washington County. The purposed parks were based on the principle of locating parks close to population concentrations and rapidly growing communities. A 1,005-acre park adjacent to Lake Elmo and Eagle Point Lake was identified as a possible inclusion into the"Joint Program of the Metropolitan Open Space System." This plan was included as part of the 1967 Washington County Comprehensive Plan. In the early 1970's,the Council divided the region into 10 sectors for purposes of determining the number, size and locations of regional parks and park reserves. Lake Elmo was within Sector 4,which encompassed the northern half of Washington County and a small portion of the northeastern part of Ramsey County. The acquisition standard use by the Council was 7 acres of regional park land and 18 acres of regional park reserve land per 1000 people. Washington County,the then Village of Lake Elmo,and the Council continued to jointly support the idea and requested federal and state monies to initiate an acquisition program. Lake Elmo Village Council passed a resolution on March 3, 1970 establishing a Metropolitan Park in the Village of Lake Elmo expressing concern about possible private development in the area. It reads in part... "Whereas,said[Village] Council...is of the opinion that such private development,inconsistent with the proposed park plan,is an immediate possibility." "...[T]hat such action as may be necessary for the acquisition of lands be taken at the earliest possible date because of the immediate possibility of conflicting private development." 13 On August 3, 1971,the Lake Elmo Village Council again stated in a resolution the following: "Whereas,the Village Council is of the opinion that the land for said Park should be acquired at the earliest possible time so that it may be secured before it becomes the subject of urban development and is,thereby, lost forever for park purposes." The original 1973 park acquisition plan considered population density near the regional park and the forecasted population in the sector in which the Lake Elmo Park Reserve is located. The acquisition plan projected more population growth than actually occurred by 1990,although the actual population was within 10 percent of the projected growth. On May 21, 1974,the Village Council urged the Metropolitan Council in cooperation with Washington County to promptly acquire the"Lake Elmo Metropolitan Park"with the statement: "Resolved,that the Village Council of the Village of Lake Elmo... does hereby reaffirm its expressions of approval of the concept of a Metropolitan Park of regional significance...." The 1974 Legislature enacted the 1974 Metropolitan Parks Act,which states that: "the pressure of urbanization and development threatens the most valuable remaining large recreational open space areas in the Metropolitan Area at the same time as the need for such areas is increased." This act provided an initial$40 million appropriation to the Council to provide grants to"implementing agencies"to acquire what were defined as"immediate action sites." The sites were part of what was called the Immediate Action Program. The implementing agencies were responsible for the planning,acquiring, developing,operations and maintenance for the regional facilities. The Council developed the Long Range system policy plan for Regional Recreation Open Space as part of the Council's Development Guide. Lake Elmo Park was earmarked for immediate acquisition. At this time,Dayton Hudson Properties was holding 1,250 acres in the city of Lake Elmo"for the purpose of developing a major diversified center." The Lake Elmo City Council passed a resolution stating: "It is essential the Dayton Hudson property be acquired under the first priority acquisition before the Dayton Hudson development plan is submitted to the City of Lake Elmo."(July 16, 1974) As part of a memorandum to the Council dated July 16, 1974,Washington County stated: "...the purpose of the Legislative Act,which provided this 40 million dollars...was so that acquisition could take place and preserve these twelve regional sites that were in immediate danger of being lost to development. As far as this one(Lake Elmo)is concerned,if we do not take immediate steps to acquire the entire park,those parcels not provided for under this funding will be lost to developers within the next two to three years." Lake Elmo was originally identified as a regional Park for active recreation purposes. In a report dated July 16, 1974,to the Chair of the Council's Environmental and Transportation Committee the Chairman of Metro East stated... "Since our primary concerns lie with the eastern suburbs,we have spent a considerable amount of time studying growth patterns as they affect the east metropolitan area. From these studies we have found that growth is moving eastward into western and central Washington County. Development pressures are real in this area. Because of these growth pressures and the need for a regional park facility in this area, Metro East does endorse and support the establishment of the Washington County Lake Elmo Regional Park." The Metropolitan Council authorized a grant in July 1974 and executed a contract in October 1974 with Washington for$4,650,000 to secure a major portion of the park. When the County submitted the master plan for Washington County Regional Parks,the staff report stated that: "Lake Elmo Regional Park will be affected by several major proposed developments including Interstate 94,3M,Dayton Hudson with housing development adjacent to the park on the south and southwest." 14 The 1977 Washington County Regional Recreation Open Space 5 Year Capital Improvement Program included Lake Elmo as a park reserve with first priority including the need to purchase the remaining parcels in the park"...because of intense development pressure and the proposed higher density of new residences in the area...." During the last 25 years,capital improvements totaling$7.6 million have been spent on the park for acquisition and development. The Council paid tax equivalency payments to the city of Lake Elmo for a period of time after parcels were acquired. The Council makes annual operations and maintenance payments to Washington County as a partial reimbursement. Today,Lake Elmo Park Reserve encompasses 2,165 acres with 1,995 acres of land and 170 acres of water. It sees fairly good use with an estimated 398,000 visits in 2000. Approximately 45%of visitors live within Washington County. Comprehensive Planning The Lake Elmo 1990-2010 Comprehensive Plan was submitted to the Council in 1990 and reviewed in 1991. In its review,the Council found the city's rural density of three units per ten acres,with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres,inconsistent with rural policies. In 1992,the city proposed a 440-acre MUSA expansion in the southwest corner of the city. The proposed land use designation for all 440 acres was Business Park. At the time there was not adequate sewer capacity allocated to Lake Elmo to accommodate the expected sewer flow. In a resolution sent to the Council,the city of Woodbury outlined 11 "negative findings." Woodbury expressed concerns regarding sewer planning, transportation,storm drainage,septic systems and long range planning. Four of Woodbury's long-range planning findings follow. The Comprehensive Plan does not review development and growth for a long-term period. The plan is very short term oriented and only for a specific development. The plan should deal(with)overall community needs. The proposal involves land only for commercial development. The market area has a sufficient supply of commercial land,which is already in the MUSA. The ro osed uses to be allowed outside the MUSA are almost identical to those allowed inside the P p MUSA. Some of the uses,such as restaurants,are very difficult to operate on septic systems. The plan made no representation of this being a temporary short-term situation. It appears they intend these commercial businesses to operate on private systems on a permanent basis. Allowing such development is not consistent with Rural Development Policies. The Council review resulted in required plan modifications,and removal of the 440 acres form the MUSA. 1 addressed a 12 - cre MUSA ex expansion was approved. Since In 1994,Lake Elmo addr ss d the and 0 a p pp 1994,the city has submitted 11 comprehensive plan amendments. A 1996 amendment established an open space development concept providing for the clustering of rural housing and the dedication of substantial open space. The Rural Agricultural Density(RAD)land use designation in the proposed comprehensive plan is a further evolved version of the open space development concept. The amendment proposed to change the land use designation of 4,460 acres(30 percent of the city) to Open Space Development. Development was permitted at six units per 20 acres(3 per 10 or 1 dwelling per 3.3 acres)with performance bonuses up to ten units per 20 acres(16 units per 20 acres or 1 dwelling per 1.25 acres). Permanent dedication of 50 percent of the site for open space was required. The Open Space development category was not applied to the area between I—94 and 10t Street,sometimes called the 1-94 corridor area(Figure 7). The Council review included the following three recommendations: 1. Inform the city of Lake Elmo that it may put the proposed plan amendment into effect and that no plan modification is required. 15 2. Recommend that the city of Lake Elmo monitor the open space development and forward annual reports to the Council. The reports should include information on on-site systems,water supply,housing affordability and whether the new development meets the city's intended open space development goals and objectives. 3. Recommend that the city of Lake Elmo coordinate planning with the Council and with Washington County as the growth options analysis develops. The growth options analysis was part of the 1996 Regional Blueprint process. The Council has not received annual reports monitoring open space development in the city. From 1996 through 1998,a city-appointed I-94 task force including the Chairmen of the Planning Commission and property owners met to develop and evaluate alternative development options for the I-94 Corridor Study Area(Figure 7). The task force,with assistance from the City Planner and a consulting planner,developed three options. The I-94 Economic Development Option featured sewered research and development/business park sites,rural estate development,open space development,and a large area designated post 2015 development. The I-94 Livable Community Option was similar except that it substituted urban sewered residential development for open space development. The 1-94 Existing/Future Land Use Option called for both sewered and unsewered research and development office park sites,open space development,rural estate development,and a large post 2015 development area. A fiscal impact assessment of the three options was prepared;however,the city did not end up selecting any of the three land use options. ANALYSIS Staff reviewed the plan update for conformity with regional system plans for aviation,recreation open space, transportation and water resources management,for consistency with the Regional Blueprint and other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide,and for compatibility with the plans of adjacent governmental units and school districts. Materials received for review included: • The Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Comprehensive Plan,submitted initially on August 24,2001,and found complete for review on February 8,2002. • Other supplementary materials received on November 16,2001;November 28,2001;December 21, 2001;December 27,2001;and April 11,2002. REGIONAL BLUEPRINT(Michael R.King,AICP,651-602-1438 and Jim Uttley,AICP,Planning and Growth Management Department,651-602-1361) Lake Elmo is a substantially rural community with two small urban areas. One is the old village where there is a mix of commercial development and urban-density residential on individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS). The other is an area of 120 acres of commercial development in the southwest corner of the city, adjacent to Oakdale,which is served by public sewer and is connected to the regional water resources management system. The Regional Growth Strategy shows Lake Elmo as beginning to urbanize in the 2000—2020 planning period. The Regional Growth Strategy map(Figure 2)shows the city of Lake Elmo immediately adjacent to the region's"urban area." Oakdale is located to the west. Woodbury is located to the south. Stillwater and Oak Park Heights are located to the northeast. The Regional Growth Strategy proposes that a substantial portion in the east and northeast sections of Lake Elmo should plan remain in"permanent rural"land uses. Much of the remainder is proposed by the Council to be preserved for future urbanization through 2040,with a small area of approximately 525 acres proposed to urbanize before 2020. The Regional Growth Strategy policy areas as shown in Figure 2 as applied to Lake Elmo show 120 acres of existing Urban Area(all commercial); 9,846 acres of Urban Reserve of which 3,907 acres are shown as Illustrative 2020 MUSA;and 5,375 acres of Permanent Rural. The Illustrative 2020 MUSA was not intended to show the expected extent of urbanization by 2020. Rather,it shows the general area within which the city should plan for urbanization to expand in the city consistent with its regional growth forecasts 16 and the regional water resources management system plan for sewer households and sewered employment through 2020. Another way to look at the Regional Growth Strategy guide for Lake Elmo is as follows. Lake Elmo should plan for 5,275 acres(35 percent of the city)to continue in permanent rural uses through the planning period to 2040. It should plan for its existing 127 acres of urban development(0.1 percent of the city)to remain urban. It should plan to urbanize enough land to accommodate 1,500 sewered households and a sewered employment of 1,000 by 2020. And,it should protect the remainder of 9,846 acres(64 percent of the city)of undeveloped urban reserve for future urbanization through 2040. The Council did not tell Lake Elmo how to urbanize or at what density or how much land to use,beyond applying a minimum density of three units per acre. If the city planned for the minimum urban density,it would be expected to urbanize approximately 500 additional acres for residential purposes by 2020. With respect to land demand for jobs,the Council uses an average of 40 employees per acre for its general sewer flow forecasting. The 1,000 sewered employees reflect a demand for approximately 25 acres of sewered commercial/industrial land by 2020. Thus, if the city planned to urbanize 525 acres of land by 2020,it should be able to accommodate all of the sewered households and sewered employees forecasted for the city to 2020. Lake Elmo's comprehensive plan does identify and propose to continue the existing urban area in the southwest corner of the city(Figure 5). It proposed no expansion of the urban area and does not plan to accommodate the sewered households and employment as directed in the regional system plan for water resources management. The plan does not identify an area of urban reserve or adequately protect the 9,846 acres of land identified by the Council for future urbanization. Council guidelines suggest that cities should plan for rural residential densities not to exceed one dwelling per 40 acres as a way to protect rural lands for future urbanization. Instead,the city plans for the vast majority of the city—areas that the Council shows as both urban reserve and permanent rural,to be rural residential. However,it does not follow the Council's density guidelines for permanent rural areas(an average of one dwelling per 10 acres). The city's land use acreage table identifies four residential land use categories:urban residential, suburban residential,rural estates and rural agricultural development. The"urban residential"category is applied to the existing Cimarron manufactured housing development of 505 Units,approximately 189 acres in 2000. No new"Urban Residential"is proposed in the city's plan. The"suburban residential" category is applied to the existing residential development in the Old Village and elsewhere. Most suburban residential development took place in the early to mid 20th Century when the city was 700 acres in size(before annexing East Oakdale Township).The City Planner advises that few parcels remain unbuilt within these old(suburban residential)plats; and no unplatted land has been proposed for the SRD designation as yet,total 2000 land use in this category was approximately 1,780 acres. The effective densities in these old plats range up to three units per acre. According to Chuck Dillerud,the Lake Elmo City Planner: The focus of the soon-to-be-started Old Village Neighborhood Design Study(Thorbeck Architects are under contract)is to address limited Old Village expansion at this elevated density(not unlike the ideas that Calthorpe gave us a couple years ago for this area)using the engineered wetland wastewater treatment systems like those now serving several of our OP plats-up to 200 units on a single combined system.The "trick"that Thorbeck must overcome is to retain the ambiance and character of the Old Village with 21st Century housing and layout-as well as the wastewater solution.... The only contemporary plat that is guided SRD is Carriage Station at 55th and Stillwater Blvd.We added an SRD definition to the 1990 Plan @1.4 units per acre,with specific locational criteria,to accommodate SRD there-as a measure to "step down"density from Oak Park Heights scale to Lake Elmo scale from north to south across that neighborhood. 17 The residential estates development(RED)is conventional platting,which at approximately three units per 10 acres. According to the City Planner,nearly every RED guided area on the Plan is existing-with a couple of minor exceptions,based on statements made to adjacent homeowners. Since 1996 only one RED plat has been proposed and approved. All the rest(except Carriage Station)have been cluster developments - 11 in all;with an area of approximately 811 acres in 2000. The majority of the land in Lake Elmo is proposed for development as Rural Agricultural Development (RAD)(see Figure 5). RAD permits development of a density of one unit per 10 acres,but is normally developed at 16 units per 40 acres,with 50 percent of the land area to be dedicated as permanent open space. The resulting density is 0.4 units per acre or an average of one unit per 2.5 acres of land. This land use plan category is planned throughout the city,including the southern section of the city. (Figure 5) This density is four times higher than the Council recommended density for permanent rural areas and sixteen times higher than the Council's recommended density for areas of urban reserve. In 2000,RAD land use category accounted for 7,622 acres. Most review reports contain a table that compares city and Council forecasts. The table has been omitted from this review report in place of a more extensive analysis and commentary found in the policy matrix section of the report immediately following the executive summary. There are a few areas in the city with compact intensively developed lands,which are of a village or small town scale. These areas include the Old Village area south of state trunk highway(STH)5 and County Road 17,the adjacent commercial strip along STH 5 and the Cimarron modular home community south east of County Road 17 and 10th Street(Figure 5). Two areas are proposed for new intensive development. The comprehensive plan calls for the expansion of the Old Village with new"village scale"residential and commercial development and a surrounding greenbelt(Appendix A:pages 34—37 and Map 2). This smart growth concept was developed in part through the Council funded Saint Croix Valley Design Study. The comprehensive plan also proposes a"limited business"district along the I-94 frontage road. That district would extend west one mile from the MUSA line to Keats Avenue(County Road 17). This commercial development area is smaller than that called for in the Lake Elmo 1990—2010 Comprehensive Plan. Both areas are proposed for development without connection to the regional water resources management system. Sub-Regional Analysis --Comparing Lake Elmo to Grant Lake Elmo is a community at the crossroads. It is a community with some of the best transportation access in the region,with principal arterial highways on two borders(with existing interchanges),and a third located a mile from one of its remaining borders. It has relatively large parcels of land and may have one of the best urban development potentials of any city in the region,because it is located near the core cities and other employment centers and because regional transportation,sewer and park facilities are located within the city or immediately next to the city. Unlike its urban neighbors to the west, south and northeast,it seeks a quasi-rural lifestyle like its neighboring townships to the east. All of its neighboring communities except West Lakeland Township have had their comprehensive plans reviewed by the Council. West Lakeland Township has not yet been submitted for Council review. The city of Grant,located immediately north of Lake Elmo was shown in the Regional Growth Strategy as mostly permanent rural,but with substantial areas in the western part of the community proposed by the Council for urban reserve. Grant's plan proposed that the entire city remain in permanent rural at densities consistent with Council policies for permanent rural areas. The Council's reviewed Grant's plan on January 28, 1999. In its review,the Council said: The[city of Grant's]plan does not identify any future sewered areas,but indicates that the city will reconsider identifying potential sewered areas in the year 2008,during the next plan update. More importantly,the city will continue to vigorously enforce its 1/10 density policy,which will not preclude future urban development. Therefore,while the plan is not consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and represents a departure from the Water Resources Management Policy Plan,Council staff finds that the plan does not constitute a substantial departure. 18 How is Lake Elmo's plan different from Grant's? The regional water resources management system plan did not propose any sewered residential households or employment in Grant through 2020,while it does propose 1,500 sewered households and 1,000 sewered employment in Lake Elmo by 2020. While the Regional Growth Strategy shows both Urban Reserve and Illustrative 2020 MUSA in Grant,the city was not expected to plan for urbanization before 2020. It was only expected to protect land for future urbanization. Grant proposes to do this by vigorously applying its 1/10 permanent rural density standard. m Further,Grant agreed to revisit the question of future urbanization in its 2008 update of its comprehensive plan. Lake Elmo is also shown with both Urban Reserve and Illustrative 2020 MUSA,but in this case Lake Elmo was expected to plan for urbanization to begin before 2020. Its plan proposes to permit rural densities four times higher,and therefore inconsistent with future urbanization. Further,although Lake Elmo's plan proposes to encourage clustering in the rural area(generally an acceptable practice),it requires the P open undeveloped o space in each development to be set aside as"permanent"open space(through easements, p p dedications and fee title transfers). This practice,if allowed,would make future urbanization considerable more difficult if not virtually impossible. Sand,Gravel and Dolostone Deposits The Council's study of aggregate resources in the Twin Cities area,Aggregate Resources Inventory of Seven- County Metropolitan Area, Minnesota(May 9,2000),identified sand and grave deposits in Lake Elmo,one area in the northwestern area of the city to the south and west of Lake Jane,Olson Lake and Lake De Montreville and the other south and east of Goose Lake. Much of the area identified in northwestern Lake Elmo is considered urbanized or mined out.There are two existing sand and gravel mines;new mines are not permitted. The plan indicates that by 2020 there will be no more extraction activities in the community. Historic Site Preservation; Solar Access Protection The comprehensive plan does not include a historic protection element or provide an element for solar access protection. These protection elements as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act(Minn. Stat. § 473.859,subdivision 2). The city should prepare and submit these elements to the Council for review as required by law. Plan Implementation The city has approved the following 2000 2020 Comprehensive Plan implementation work projects:the Community Facilities/Staffing forecast,Zoning Ordinance Redraft,Old Village Neighborhood Design Study and the Cimarron Neighborhood Analysis. The city has adopted a 2002—2006 Capital Improvements Program. Land Use Summary Lake Elmo's plan is inconsistent with Council's Regional Growth Strategy policies contained in the Regional Blueprint,adopted by the Council in December 1996. It is inconsistent with the Council's 2020 household and employment forecasts. In the present context,the variance particularly in employment forecasts raises concerns because they are reflected in significantly lower forecasts from the city for sewered households and employment,which are found later in this review to be substantial departures from the regional system plan for water resources management. The city does not plan for future urbanization in the city beyond an existing 127-acre urbanized area in the southwest corner of the city. The city does not establish an Urban Reserve area in the community as directed by the Regional Growth Strategy and does not attempt to protect land in the city for future urbanization through 2040 by establishing densities approaching one dwelling per 40 acres as Council guidelines suggest. The city does have an area of"permanent rural"but its densities of one dwelling per 2.5 acres are four times more dense that the Council's guidelines of one dwelling per 10 acres. The city's plan proposes densities four times denser than Council guidelines in the permanent rural area and 16 times denser than Council 19 N O N M 'r: �O l l� A M M C-- CO _. '-. 'r 00 to O . O vi 00 et vi 2 ,o •-, eY vO N N O O\ 4 1 — et v', O O — O to ,--I N O O O — ' 00 0 _ O N S00M V — VD 00 � 00 e7 00 trj. 4 .-.+ r: O M et 'V lin r•J ,-• - - N •1F 00 CI) en N O O a Ei > > O cle 0 A A c H .-, ,..1 E� II 61 1,1 I O et E, N ,_ti 0 a o 3 y v N ? o - Q Q q cs Y 44 41) Y.• W 0 G4 ca '' 1 cct ;-■ t'.P-, y U O O 'b 0 A a> Utn � � w es v) U Saa i:z 8' O N O 0 00 0 0 O ,t1 . O O N .1; N N N 74 1. N v°, V ON O M 00 77 rn en L. N OM — °° oo 600 vl - N v. en N M 'Ct' C M �.■ e't N ' N N M M �O V' M ,, r,y 44 Cl. CI CG AA C4 H d O F co U 4 Vl .. "O O r -b 09 g 0 p, on a 0 Z• P., w y a; rn --8 0 — iti •Gw cC b -;<' .O s 70 U N w v) 44 Ua4, at � :; 8'- guidelines for areas of urban reserve. Additionally,Lake Elmo's plan allows rural clusters where substantial land is placed into"permanent"open space. This technique is permitted in the Council's permanent rural area when associated with lower density rural residential development(1 per 10 not 1 per 2.5). However,it is inconsistent in areas that the Council has designated as urban reserve,where such permanent open space would significantly add to the costs for extending urban infrastructure,perhaps making urbanization financially infeasible. REGIONAL SYSTEMS Aviation(Chauncey Case,Transportation and Transit Development,651-602-1724) The city of Lake Elmo is within the airport influence area of the Lake Elmo Airport and involves airport- ', planning considerations. The comprehensive plan includes an aviation element. This city's plan adequately addresses the airspace protection requirements and is in conformance with the Aviation Policy Plan. Recreation Open Space(Arne Stefferud,Parks,Phyllis Hanson,Manager,Planning and Technical Assistance Office,651-602-1566,Michael McDonough,Planning and Growth Management Department, 651-602-1054) The Lake Elmo 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan is not in conformance with and represents a substantial departure from the Regional Recreation Open Space System Plan. The 2,165-acre Lake Elmo Park Reserve lies in the center of Lake Elmo. The regional investment in the park reserve totals$7.6 million,including $5.6 million for land acquisition. Lake Elmo received tax equivalency payments for a period of time after parcels were acquired. In addition,Washington County,as the Implementing Agency,receives partial reimbursement annually for operations and maintenance costs for the regional system,including Lake Elmo Park Reserve. The Lake Elmo Park Reserve had an estimated 398,000 visits in 2000. Approximately 45% of the visitors live within Washington County. The Lake Elmo Park Reserve is a regional amenity and an substantial infrastructure investment that was invited and welcomed by the city of Lake Elmo. While the principal considerations in establishing regional parks and park reserves have more to do with protection of regionally significant open space more than locating them for ease of access to regional park users,park users are a consideration. Urban level development would allow more access to the park by alternative transportation,such as biking,walking,and using the transit system. It also permits more people to access the park without using the regional highway system,thereby reducing demands on that system. The 1996 Regional Blueprint in Appendix A,pages 66-72,establishes guidelines affecting regional systems. In its first section,entitled,"Directions for Regional Systems,"it says... "The Blueprint will be used to help interpret policies in the Council's system plans and its other regional plans. All of the Council's regional plans need to reflect the policies of the Blueprint...which is the keystone chapter(of the Metropolitan Development Guide)." On page 68,the Blueprint says"... Set regional objectives for the open space system consistent with the Regional Blueprint...Develop regional recreation facilities that attract large numbers of users generally in the urban area...If it is necessary to develop such facilities in the rural area,adequate support services such as roads and sewers must be provided. The Lake Elmo Park Reserve is located within the area that the Regional Growth Strategy identifies as urban reserve(future urban),which is consistent with the concept expressed above of developing regional recreation facilities that attract large numbers of users generally in an urban area. Lake Elmo's plan to keep the area rural and prevent it from urbanizing in the future is not in conformity with Council policy and represents a substantial departure from the regional system plan for Regional Recreation Open Space. The city should be required to modify its plan to make it consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. 21 Lake Elmo's Park Plan is generally very comprehensive. However,the trail plan includes a proposed regional trail intended to connect the Big Marine Regional Park Reserve in northern Washington County with the Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park in southern Washington County. A combination of the proposed community and neighborhood trails could make this connection. The city's plan is not in conformity with and is a departure from the regional system plan because it does not show the regional trail as described above and included in the 1996 Regional Recreation Open Space System statement. The city should modify its plan map show the connection as a future regional trail. Transportation(Ann Braden,Planning and Growth Management Department,651-602-1705) The city's plan is not in conformity with and represents a departure from the regional system plan for transportation(Transportation Policy Plan[TPP]). The plan recommends traffic calming for TH 5 through the Old Village area of Lake Elmo. TH 5 is currently carries about 12,000 vehicles per day. Strategy 11H of the regional Transportation Policy Plan states that traffic-calming measures are not appropriate on principal or minor arterials because they inhibit the highway from fulfilling its regional role of providing mobility. Traffic calming measures on TH 5 that would impair mobility along TH 5 would be inconsistent with Council policy. The city should revise the language in its plan regarding traffic-calming measures on TH 5. In addition,the city's plan is not in conformity with and represents a substantial departure from the regional Policy Plan on December 19, 1996,the system plan for transportation. In its adoption of the Transportation y , C ouncil incorporated its Regional Growth Strategy into the TPP(page 10),which says... The Metropolitan Council's regional growth strategy was adopted as part of its Regional Blueprint. `...to ensure that this regional growth strategy is implemented,the Council's regional growth strategy is hereby incorporated into the Council's system plan for transportation. Local government plans will be ' system plans. The reviewed by the Council for their consistency[sic]with the Council's metropolitan syst p Council's metropolitan system plans including the regional gr owth strategy,will serve as the basis for the Council's determination to require a local plan modification if a local plan or any part of a local plan has a substantial impact on or contains a substantial departure from the Council's metropolitan system plans. Lake Elmo has some of the best transportation access of any community in the region. Lake Elmo is highway bordered by two principal arterials: I-94 on the south and state trunk (TH)36 on the north. "A" minor arterials in the city include TH 5,County Road(CR) 13,CR 10,and CR 19(all"expanders")and CR n' tY ( ) � , ( P ) 15 (a"connector"). Since the plan was drafted,Metro Transit Route 63 service between downtown St.Paul and the Cimarron Neighborhood in southeastern Lake Elmo has been eliminated. In addition to Metro Transit express Route 294 service,Washington County's Human Services,Inc.provides ADA paratransit service to Lake Elmo from 5:00 am to 7:00 p.m. i plan,as was noted earlier,is inconsistent with the Council's Regional Growth Strategy with Thectyspa , g g}' respect to forecasts, sewered households and employment, lack of future urbanization, lack of urban reserve, inconsistent density policies needed to protect urban reserve and permanent rural areas. The Regional Blueprint,on page 67,states... Recognize that the cumulative impact of small-scale development inconsistent with the Council rural area policies may have a substantial negative impact of the Council's transportation policy plan or constitute a substantial departure from the plan. Similarly,in the urban area the cumulative effect of very low densities and inefficient land uses may lead to underutilization of regional facilities and may constitute a substantial negative impact on the system or constitute a substantial departure from the system plans. Lake Elmo's plan for city-wide low-density rural residential development and permanent open space makes it economically infeasible to provide the citizens of Lake Elmo and some adjacent communities with cost effective transit services. The Regional Blueprint,on page 68,states that the Transportation Policy Plan shall "emphasize and promote transit services...and which reduce automobile dependence to improve air 22 quality...decreasing congestion,promoting community character, and devoting less land to transportation facilities." Wastewater Services(Bryce Pickart,Assistant General Manager,MCES and Donald Bluhm,Manager, Municipal Services,MCES,651-602-1116) History In 1992,Lake Elmo submitted a request to the Council to add 440 acres in southwest Lake Elmo to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area(MUSA). The request was not permitted because there was not sufficient capacity within the interceptor system to provide for the requested service. Another consideration was embodied by comments from the city of Woodbury,which objected to Lake Elmo's MUSA request because no housing was included,only commercial land use. In 1994,the city requested that 120 acres be added to their MUSA. The Council approved 120 acres for inclusion in MUSA,based on projections of available capacity in the WONE Interceptor. In 1994,the Council's Environmental Services Division completed a long-range wastewater system planning study entitled the Centralization/Decentralization Study. This plan included the implementation of the Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant to serve Cottage Grove,Woodbury,and Lake Elmo. The 1996 Water Resources Management Policy Plan,based on the 2020 Regional Blueprint,programmed the expansion of the Metropolitan Disposal System to provide wastewater services to the city of Lake Elmo. The 1997 systems statement that was sent to the city of Lake Elmo to initiate their comprehensive plan update stated that regional sanitary sewer service would be provided for 1,500 housing units by 2020. The content of the 1997 system statement was not disputed or challenged by the city. In 1996,the Council began the siting process for the Southeast Regional WWTP. In 1998,the Council completed the siting process with the decision to re-use the existing Cottage Grove WWTP site,which cannot accommodate a plant as large as originally envisioned for the Southeast Regional WWTP(renamed the South Washington County WWTP). The plant siting decision resulted in a re-evaluation of the plant's sewer service area and options to provide capacity at other locations as part of the interceptor system facility planning,which was initiated in 1998. In April 2000,the Council adopted the South Washington County Interceptor Facility Plan. The facility plan provides sewer service to Lake Elmo through the proposed Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor,with capacity for up to 3.7 mgd wastewater flow from Lake Elmo,and with construction scheduled for 2006 to coincide with a planned MnDOT project to widen and improve I-94 east of St.Paul. The objective is to achieve efficient construction of public infrastructure and consistency of regional transportation and wastewater system capacities. Interim wastewater service for the previously mentioned 440-acre area of Lake Elmo would be provided by the WONE Interceptor,which will have capacity available upon Woodbury's diversion of wastewater flow to the new South Washington County interceptor and wastewater treatment plant in 2003. In addition,the facility plan allocates 1.4 mgd of reserve capacity for the 1-94 corridor east of Woodbury and the four St. Croix communities in the South Washington County Interceptor. The 3.7-mgd of wastewater flow planned for Lake Elmo equates to 13,500 residential equivalent connections and to an urban service area of approximately 5,000 to 8,000 acres. This area encompasses the entire area between I-94 and 10th Street that is available for development,plus some of the developable area north of 10th Street,plus the larger existing developments(Cimarron,Old Village); an area consistent in size with the entire area shown as"urban reserve"in the Regional Growth Strategy minus the 1,995 acre Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve,which is undifferentiated within the area shown as urban reserve. The 2002-2007 MCES Capital Improvement Program includes the$10 million Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor with construction scheduled for 2006-2007. 23 Public Comments Public participation played an important role in shaping the plans for the South Washington County Interceptor. Early in the process of preparing the facility plan,an interceptor community advisory committee (ICAC)was formed consisting of representatives of Lake Elmo,Afton,Cottage Grove,Woodbury, Washington County,South Washington Watershed District,Department of Natural Resources and the Council. Committee members included citizens,elected officials,and local government staff. Five meetings were held between January 1998 and January 1999. Mayor Wyn John,Todd Williams, and City Engineer Tom Prew officially represented Lake Elmo. Other participants included Lake Elmo city council member Susan Dunn,property owner Dorothy Lyons and Bruce Miller of MFC Properties Corporation. Throughout the one-year span of the ICAC meetings,MCES consultants and staff presented information on the various alignment alternatives for the interceptor as they were gradually narrowed to the final recommended plan. Lake Elmo's representatives preferred alignments oriented towards the western side of the city. This conformed better to the city's plan to stage development in the area adjacent to I-94 from west to east. City of Afton representatives vigorously opposed the eastern-most interceptor alignment along their shared border with Woodbury. They were concerned that this would bring undesirable pressure to urbanize their northwestern sector.At the fourth ICAC meeting,the Council proposed a new interceptor alternative for future service to Lake Elmo,the Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor,which responded to both cities' concerns. The Council district representative and staff met with the Lake Elmo city council on July 7, 1998,and again on September 1, 1998,to discuss the means of providing interceptor service to the city. At the request of the ICAC members,a narrative evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the remaining interceptor alternatives was provided in January 1999. The Facility Plan was published in March 2000,and an official public hearing on the South Washington County Facility Plan was held on April 6,2000. The Council officially adopted the facility plan on April 26,2000,and Lake Elmo officials were informed and consulted during the planning for the interceptor,but their comments influenced changes in that plan. System Impacts The Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan provides interceptor service capacity for 13,500 residential equivalent connections in Lake Elmo in the long-term,which would require approximately 5,000 to 8,000 acres of developable land. The system statement provided for 1,500 housing units to be served by 2020. The Regional Growth Strategy anticipated approximately 8,200 acres of MUSA and Urban Reserve. The city's comprehensive plan projects a need for 482 residential equivalent connections by 2020. The city's comprehensive plan projects no need to expand its current 120-acre MUSA. The city's comprehensive plan provides for development of most of its land at the rural density of one unit per 2.5 acres(16 units per 40 acres). This development pattern would make it impossible to achieve urban densities appropriate for MUSA in the future. These city proposals are a substantial systems departure from the Wastewater System Plan and Policy 12a of the Water Resources Management Policy Plan,which states: ...The timing and density of development which is inconsistent with the growth management strategy adopted as part of the Regional Blueprint and which would affect the cost of providing metropolitan sewer service will be viewed as a departure from or having a substantial impact on the metropolitan wastewater system,requiring modifications to the local comprehensive plan. Lake Elmo is the closest community to the Metropolitan WWTP in St.Paul that has significant developable land that is not already within the MUSA or Urban Reserve. The least costly and most efficient means to accommodate the region's growth is to provide urban services for urban density development to areas such as Lake Elmo,as described in the 1996 Regional Blueprint. 24 OTHER METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE CHAPTERS Housing(Guy Peterson,Livable Communities Department,651-602-1418) Based on the 2020 Blueprint and its Regional Growth Strategy,the Lake Elmo plan,as submitted,is inconsistent with regional housing policy and the housing planning requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The Regional Growth Strategy identifies areas of urbanization in the city through 2020. The framework established for implementing the housing planning requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act calls for Lake Elmo to adopt affordable housing goals through 2010 consistent with the regional goal-setting framework. This goal-setting structure with benchmarks and goals identifies some range parameters within which the city is asked to plan for its share of affordable and life-cycle housing through 2010. Using the Council's forecasted sewered residential growth in the city through 2010, and the goals accepted by Lake Elmo when it was a participant in the Livable Communities Local Housing Incentives Program (numbers which are actually lower than the benchmark range accepted by other suburbs east of St.Paul),the city would be expected to permit development of some new affordable ownership units—townhomes and rental housing—before 2011. Using the goal Lake Elmo adopted,it would be expected to add 20 rental units (high density)and 79 affordable ownership units(medium density townhomes). If the more ambitious benchmark range numbers were used for goals,the low end of the actual goal ranges for eastern suburbs would yield numbers that would represent the addition of 46 rental units and 106 affordable ownership units. These goals when viewed as units then require the city to fulfill the second major affordable housing requirement of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act—guiding sufficient land to permit this development to occur should the market choose to build it. These modest goals would mean the need for two to five acres available for high density rental housing(10 or more units per acre),and 13 to 18 acres available for medium density residential development(at least six units per acre)through 2010. With the systems statement indicating the expectation to sewer 1,500 homes in the city by 2020,perhaps as many as 120 acres of additional land in the city would need to be "reserved"at one unit per 10 acres through 2010,to permit additional affordable and life-cycle housing to be developed after 2010. The city's plan to grow without any sewered residential development creates a rationale for not having new affordable housing goals and not permitting the development of medium-and high-density residential development. The comprehensive plan is inconsistent with regional housing policy and the Metropolitan Land Planning Act housing planning requirements if the Council requires the comprehensive plan to be consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy,with sewered residential growth to begin in the city before 2010. A failure to provide or protect more land to facilitate life cycle and affordable housing development between 2010 and 2020 exacerbates the plan's deficiencies. Water Resources Management(James Larsen,Planning&Growth Management Dept. 651-602-1159) Sanitary Sewer Element—Individual Sewage Treatment Systems(ISTS) The city's ISTS management program is consistent with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)and Council requirements. Sanitary Sewer Element—Private Wastewater Treatment Systems Nine clustered housing neighborhoods in the city are currently being served by seven engineered-wetland wastewater treatment systems. The systems are permitted by the MPCA. Surface Water Management The majority of the city is located within the Valley Branch Watershed,but portions also lie within the Browns Creek and South Washington Watersheds. Council staff encourages the city to work closely with all three of these watershed management Districts having jurisdiction over surface water management issues in portions of the city. 25 The city's plan includes policy language requiring utilization of MPCA's best management practices and Nationwide Urban Runoff Program wet detention basin design criteria,consistent with the Council's Interim Strategy to Reduce Non point Source Pollution to all Metropolitan Water Bodies. The plan also acknowledges the need to incorporate these standards and requirements into the city's land use controls to implement these policies. The city should amend its land use controls to incorporate these standards and requirements within nine months of fmal Council action on the plan. Water Supply The city submitted as a part of the plan,an update of its original 1996 water supply plan element. The update has been reviewed and comments have been provided to the city under separate cover. The city's water supply plan element is consistent with Council guidelines. At such time as the city expands its present public water system to serve urbanizing part of the community,it will need to revise its Water Supply plan and resubmit it to the Council for review. COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS The plan was forwarded to the adjacent jurisdictions,Washington County, and watershed districts for review and comment. The cities of Oakdale and Woodbury,the South Washington Watershed District,and the Valley Branch Watershed District all have commented on the Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Plan. The comment letters are attached in Appendix B. Intergovernmental and Public Comments Intergovernmental comments have been received from the city of Oakdale,the city of Woodbury,the South Washington County Watershed District,and the Valley Branch Watershed District,(Appendix B). The city of Oakdale writes in part,the following. We respect the acknowledgement in the plan of the City's continued strategy of preserving natural amenities and agricultural heritage. At the same time, we caution the City not to overlook proper planning for the inevitable development based on projected growth for Washington County. This will require making investments in the necessary infrastructure. The plan seems to recognize that Lake Elmo, "faces the march of urbanization," but it could go further with discussion on strategies for how increasing growth pressures will be managed. i The city of Woodbury letter expresses concerns about the extent of the proposed unsewered housing and its potential impact on the ground water system that flows towards Woodbury,the traffic impacts of the rural clustered housing development,and the impacts of surface water flowing from Lake Elmo into Woodbury. The city also made the following land use comments. The proposed land use element does not address issues in the Metropolitan Council Regional Blueprint as it relates to providing an expanded MUSA in a logical outward eastern expansion from the City of Oakdale. The Regional Blueprint shows the MUSA being expanded into Lake Elmo generally extending to Washington County Road#13. The Lake Elmo plan proposes no MUSA for housing in the entire city. The Council also received letters from four property owners or their representatives,(Appendix C). Bruce Miller of MFC properties sent a copy of a 1998 petition from property owners requesting sewer service from the city of Lake Elmo. Mr.Miller indicates that the property owners represent approximately 1,500 acres along I—94. Attorney Christopher Dietzen,wrote concerning the 34-acre Reco Real Estate property near I—94 and County Road 17(Lake Elmo Avenue). They would like their land to continue to be designated commercial. 26 Attorney John Lang wrote to the Council concerning the Dale Properties 90 acre parcel north east of County Road 13 (Inwood Avenue)and 10th street,indicating an intent to develop sewered housing. He points out their proximity to employment centers,sewer service and sewered housing development in Oakdale. Thomas Schutte,of the North Suburban Company wrote concerning their 150 acre parcel at the southeast corner of County Road 13 (Inwood Avenue)and 10`h street. They object to the plan's Rural Agricultural Density designation of their property,and ask the Council to, "take measures necessary to accommodate a more appropriate use of our property." At the May 6,2002,Livable Communities Committee meeting two property-owner representatives spoke. Joe Fogerty,Edina Realty,addressed the committee on behalf of Dale Properties,owners of land on the northeast corner of County Road 13 (Inwood Avenue)and 10`1 Street. He urged committee members to visit the site to understand the location and level of infrastructure that is in place. Mr.Fogerty,noted that as a Cottage Grove City Council Member,active in the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities,he had participated in the debate leading up to the adoption of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. He said,it was clearly contemplated at the time of adoption that"substantial impact on or substantial departure form a metropolitan system plan,"could result from the underutilization of public infrastructure investments. Attorney Neal Blanchett,spoke on behalf of two clients,including the RECO Real Estate property discussed above. He also addressed the committee concerning the Nass/Bubery/Bidon property in the northeast corner of the city on state highway 36 and Manning. He said the property was essentially on freeway frontage and it was not appropriate for the Rural Agricultural Density land use designation. 27 a NASS PROPERTY SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION ANALYSIS CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS Prepared for: Mr. Bernie Nass July 23, 2002 Prepared by: Alliant Engineering, Inc. 233 Park Avenue South Suite 200 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under My direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota e/12"le (sti,oet■ Signature ?- 40?V"2- - Date Registration City of Oak Park Heights Sanitary Sewer Extension Analysis Nass Property Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Existing Conditions 2 3.0 Proposed Development 3 4.0 Existing Sanitary Sewer Improvements 4 5.0 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Improvements .. 6 6.0 Cost Estimate 7 7.0 Conclusion 8 List of Appendices Appendix A .Washington County Aerial with Topographic Overlay Appendix B .Conceptual Site Plan . Appendix C .Existing Sanitary Sewer Exhibit Appendix D Kern Center Utility Improvements As-built Plan Appendix E Proposed Sanitary Sewer Routing Plan Appendix F Construction Cost Estimate Appendix G Kern Center Feasibility Study Appendix H ..Oak Park Heights Sanitary Sewer System Map r • i - 1.0 Introduction At the request of the Land Owner,Alliant Engineering has prepared the following analysis in order to determine the feasibility of extending a sanitary sewer lateral line and associated sanitary services to a 48.5 acre parcel of land located in the City of Lake Elmo. Potential issues have been raised by representatives of the City of Oak Park Heights and City of Lake Elmo regarding the cost of constructing a sanitary sewer system. In addition,the capacity of the Oak Park Heights system located immediately east of the subject property is in question and will most likely be subject to receiving wastewater from the subject property should it be feasible to connect. The analysis contained within is based on our review of the following documents: • City of Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kem Annexation Study prepared by Northwest Consultants, dated July 1997 • Preliminary Report on Kern Center Improvements for Oak Park Heights prepared by Bonestroo,Rosene, Anderlik&Associates (BRAA) dated May 29, 1998 and amended July 1, 1998 • Kern Center Utility Improvements as-built drawings prepared by BRAA, dated February 16, 2000 • City of Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan,prepared by BRAA, dated July, 1999. • Washington County Department of Transportation and Physical Development Aerial Photographs with Topographic Overlay,dated April 2000. • Conceptual Site Plan prepared by Brodsho Consulting, dated January 16,2002. 1 - 2.0 Existing Conditions The subject property is approximately 48.5 acres and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Highway 36 and Maiming Avenue North in the City of Lake Elmo. The parcel is currently undeveloped and occupied by Mr.Bernie Nass,the land Owner. The City of Oak Park Heights currently identifies this area as Business/Residential Transitional and Low Density Estate Residential in their Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan prepared by Bonestroo,Rosene, Anderlik&Associates, dated July, 1999. The property is bound by Highway 36 to the north,the Kern Center,a commercial/industrial development located in the City of Oak Park Heights to the east,residential property to the south and Manning Avenue North to the west. A 225 foot wide easement currently exists for Northern States Power Company(a.k.a Xcel Energy)overhead transmission lines, which parallel Highway 36 and extend from Manning Trail to the Kern Center and are located in the northern third of the property. Any reference to the Kern Center development hereby refers to that area bound by Highway 36 to the north,Highway 5 to the east, 55th Street North to the south and the subject property to the west. The subject property has an approximate mean elevation of 950 feet,though elevations vary from 990 feet near Highway 36 to 930 feet near the south and is approximately 10 feet higher than the Kern Center,which has an approximate mean elevation of 940 feet. A large regional retention facility is located near the southeast corner of the property at an elevation of approximately 928 feet. The pond outlets to the north via a significant drainage ravine,which provides a physical boundary between the subject property and the Kern Center to the east except for a crude hauling road which connects the two properties. Three contiguous wetland areas are located off-site and p p � adjacent to the south property line,which will most likely hinder any infrastructure improvements to the south through that area. Refer to Appendix A of this report for a copy of the Washington County Aerial Photograph with a topographic overlay dated April, 2000. 2 - Pr Development � 0 Proposed D velopm nt On behalf of the Land Owner,Ms. Debra Brodsho has prepared a Conceptual Site Plan, which is the basis of our analysis. The plan consists of seven commercial/retail buildings and associated parking fields,which surround the buildings perimeter. A roadway is proposed to be located within the NSP easement,which will connect Manning Trail North to the west and the Kern Center development to the east. The proposed roadway is the natural and westerly continuation of 58th Street, which currently serves the Kern Development and also serves the existing commercial/retail development east of State Highway 5. It should be noted that the proposed roadway alignment is conceptual and it location will need to be coordinated with the Kern Center development property. owners. In order to determine the feasibility of providing a gravity flow system, finished floor elevations have been determined for the seven buildings,which are assumed to be a slab-on-grade construction type. The finished floor elevations are approximate and may be subject to change during development of the mass grading plan. Refer to Appendix B for a copy of the Conceptual Site Plan prepared by Debra Brodsho, dated January 16,2002 and Appendix E for a copy of the Proposed Sanitary Sewer Plan prepared by Alliant Engineering, dated July 15,2002 which depicts the finished floor elevations. 3 - 4.0 Existing Sanitary Sewer Improvements The City of Oak Park Heights is currently provided with sanitary sewer service by the Stillwater Wastewater Treatment Plant via the MCES Bayport Interceptor. A trunk line owned by the City of Oak Park Heights is located immediately south of State Highway 36 and conveys sewage easterly from numerous lateral lines located to the west. The entire system flows easterly towards the river,which is consistent with the topography of the area. The trunk line system has an ultimate design capacity of 4.42 MGD (million gallons per day)at the point were it enters the MCES Interceptor line. In 1999 the City of Oak Park Heights extended utilities further to the west and sized the systems to accommodate future development for an area of approximately 249 acres. The area is comprised of three sub-areas referred to as the Kern Development(103 acres),the Screaton property(92 acres)and a rural residential property(54 acres) located immediately west of the Kern Development. The land area was part of Baytown Township until it was recently annexed into the Cities of Oak Park Heights and Lake Elmo. The Screaton property has since been developed in the City of Lake Elmo and a community sewage treatment facility has been constructed specifically for the Screaton property. Therefore, approximately 92 acres has been removed from contributing waste to the City of Oak Park Heights sanitary sewer system. A total project cost of approximately$833,000.00 was calculated for the Kern Center Improvements in a feasibility study prepared by Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik&Associates, dated July 1, 1998. As part of the 1998 Kern Center Utility Improvements Project, approximately 6100 feet of sanitary sewer lateral line and a lift station were installed in order to provide for future development of the area. Lateral line improvements consisted of approximately 2500 feet of 8 inch PVC pipe in Memorial Avenue North, approximately 500 feet of 8 inch PVC in 55th Avenue, a 300 GPM lift station located near the intersection of State Highway 5 and 55th Avenue and approximately 3100 feet of 6 inch force main located within Highway 5 right-of-way. Sewage generated within the Kern Center development and beyond is routed southwesterly in Memorial Avenue,east in 55th Avenue and northwesterly via the 6 inch force main where it enters the existing system via a manhole in Neal Avenue North and continues by gravity in a 10 inch diameter line towards the east. The connection to the manhole in Neal Avenue North is required in order to bypass an existing 8 inch diameter line located in 58th Street North in the area of the High School which is currently at capacity. A detailed description of the line and issues related to capacity of the system in that area is described in detail in the City of Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants,dated July 1997. The Memorial Avenue North 8 inch diameter lateral line has a hydraulic capacity of approximately 0.619 MGD based on a roughness coefficient of 0.01 and a slope of 0.4%as depicted in the as-built drawings prepared by Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik&Associates, dated February 16,2000. Appendix E in the City of Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan has calculated an ultimate design flow in that line of approximately 0.23 MGD. Therefore, approximately 0.389 MGD of capacity is available for future development. The invert of the line is at an elevation of 925.5 feet near the intersection of Memorial Avenue North and 58th Street North. Refer to Appendix C for a copy of the existing sanitary sewer routing plan prepared by Alliant Engineering,Appendix D for a copy of drawing sheet 2 taken for the Kern Center Utility Improvements plans dated February 16,2000 which depicts utility improvements in the Kern Development,Appendix G for a copy of the Feasibility Report prepared for the Kern Center 4 Utility Improvements project and Appendix H for a copy of the Oak Park Heights Sanitary Sewer Systems Map. 5 5.0 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Improvements In order to determine the feasibility of providing the subject property with a gravity flow sanitary sewer system,a Conceptual Routing plan has been prepared based on the Concept Site plan prepared by Linda Brodsho and the proximity and depth of existing sanitary sewer available for connection. Finished floor elevations have been established for individual buildings with the understanding of working towards no import or export of soil. It is our assumption that 58th Street will be continued westerly through the Kern Center site and that right-of-way will be available for future sewer installation in that area. The Conceptual Routing plan will require approximately 3,250 feet of 8 inch diameter lateral line improvements and 11 manhole structures. The system will flow easterly by gravity towards the Kern Center sanitary sewer system and ultimately connect to an existing manhole located near the intersection of Memorial Avenue North and 58th Street North at an elevation of approximately 932.2 which is 6.7 feet above the invert of the existing manhole. Therefore,the entire subject property could be lowered by that amount if necessary. Rim elevations for manhole structures depicted on the Conceptual Routing plan are assumed to be future roadway elevations in those locations. It should be noted that constructing 58th Street through the existing ravine and atop the existing hauling road connecting the subject property and the Kern Center will have an impact on the linear pond immediately south of the crossing. Approximately seven feet of fill will be required in this area to provide adequate.cover atop the proposed sewer line and will have an impact on the area. Approximately 0.20 MGD of wastewater will be generated on the subject property based on a tributary area of 48.5 acres. This assumes a peak flow factor of 4.0 and a wastewater generation rate of 1000 gal-acre-day for commercial/retail land and is consistent with the methodology used in development of the City of Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan. Review of record drawings for the City of Oak Park Heights and the surrounding communities did not indicate the existence of any other sanitary lateral lines available for use. An alternate routing which extended southerly from the south boundary of the subject property and continued to 55th Street North was briefly considered. However,it was determined that the depth of cover in the wetland areas would be minimal thereby requiring fill in that area which would have a significant impact to the existing wetlands. In addition,the depth of cover would be excessive. immediately south of the wetland areas as the elevations rise to a height 950 feet and the sewer would be at an approximate depth of 925 feet,which would be costly to construct. Therefore, further consideration of this as an alternate routing was discontinued. Refer to Appendix E for a copy of the Conceptual Routing Plan prepared by Alliant Engineering dated July 15, 2002. 6 — 6.0 Cost Estimate A cost estimate for the extension of sanitary sewer onto and within the subject property has been prepared in addition to identifying any pending assessments required by the City of Oak Park Heights for future sewer connections. The construction estimate is based on the Conceptual Routing plan prepared by our office and accounts for service extensions to each of the seven buildings. It should be noted that the cost for acquisition of that area impacted by the. continuation of 158th Street North through the Kern Center has not been accounted for in our estimate and amounts to approximately 1.83 acres assuming a future right-of-way width of eighty feet. A sanitary sewer cost of approximately$149,220.00 has been determined assuming soft costs of 28 percent for design, administration and legal fees. In addition, a sanitary sewer systems charge of$129,010.00 will be required by the City of Oak Park Heights based on$2,660.00 per acre. Therefore, approximately$278,230.00 is anticipated as a result of providing sanitary sewer to the . subject property. J p P Y It should be noted that the continuation of sanitary sewer into the subject property will allow the City of Oak Park Heights to capture some portion of those cost associated with providing sanitary sewer to that area west of Highway 5. The sanitary sewer system downstream and east of that area was designed and constructed to provide service for the area depicted in the Screaton/Kern Annexation Study(250 acres+I-)as annexation of those areas had not yet occurred. Refer to Appendix F for a copy of the sanitary sewer improvements cost estimate. 7 - 7.0 Conclusion The extension of sanitary sewer as depicted in the Conceptual Routing plan is feasible to construct and is the least costly means of providing continued sanitary sewer service to the subject property based on our review of as-built records for the City of Oak Park Heights and the surrounding communities. The existing sanitary sewer system located immediately downstream from the subject property will have approximately 0.389 MGD of available capacity upon the ultimate completion of the Kern.Center of which 0.20 MGD will be required for the subject property. Approximately 0.189 MGD of capacity will remain for any future developments beyond the scope of our analysis. 8 Appendix A Appendix B • • I i , 111 11111 1 it i I roxi riP k, tt z "i-=, 3„ ('''::f*,: ,:.: :I_ 1 '. , , ' , ,ii r. u s Pi �i ---,•.•, i!).;,---!,..„:,,,--,----,,,,,,,,,---..As.----, -..:).,4',1,,,i,-,......,...->-..,,-,..,..,,,,,,-. p.:,b11, ;•..,:,,,,.., ilf . �■g,'� �'>_ � �}d �V-� � /�t .,ter�':----.-,-..=----5-1-;':;,'., •,,-..1','- -:.--7-'..'""YJ ,, �-- � � li j 1 I� ° � 1 \t i I r•' 1 1 1 J X11� a by IL1&? 1 E a .tt� i41� � � t fIy3 } ) III ��Ofr \�•, f�r \ 11 { • / '�Pf k �1 R;� VII/ Syr (q ��, X4;1 �w' 111,.1...',,,\i 1 1��41f �h_ All Iii 1 �� 7p. ^ r: ,\E \ , �� /4 mot{ Ott q t�'�\ `,'' .i.' -,il, \-1��"rte -��" a$ 1 ': 1 � I"'I, ,rm xz�. av'" :„^'°"�- a :� 11 fit.,/( Y?.11 ate. i1 qC t I 1 z i �yy� ° ° Y'1 '��s� ti\ ��4,,I!/L..2.1,"'lP;il'� iY7�a\,� I„ F d�rE , 1 4.w r 1'. Fr F--,1—I 1 i f`'— ;4'. / ., a�., �'` ri s s r: .� E r 1 I L —L pC r r/r o�� � � e.. '+,i q^_ ltT �, �:.�.-J"$��`3 'y��"��'�3��ys yZ�-1.1 ; �,gMg i 01 ii a t `^"i nk 1 { , 9 V1 .5 e. ti \ s ✓ pF ., +0�4,i 1• y I I t I 7 N...„..:,..:4::-,0.' . -;' rn . 1. / „., f i,s ,' `F f,,-,,`1i� `rtl,� -,, `'� w r o- � �v �p E � 4k ��A� 1 Pl IN x1=171 v A ,' o \,,,-; y A 1, ljYg // i j�j 4 H 'Ytia. °' � ,://,,. " ~ E �. I' IIi I? ii • J,k,_,--- -.:1'..,)`';'''''';'.22-..;-.. .... .4*.\,,,:. \-. '''. : :'•..- _. . '.,•4=- *./.. - .—:\-', :-.,..k,-,c,-, itl, ',' 11 �i , l� ,` ' C dpi 16 _ d . .. � 1 ° 4Y a w / Lam,; :' I;1:I t•1 w r1 ��. . , 9 x S�� � � � 1 �-- ti r l f S P t a � � Y I �r 1�`� 1 j c� � � � �^ � e61111\.'1, j 3f Gf l t 12i '�„ k' �'� s 7 liii E �11�° t / _- F..1r itd..1 ,r- ,t s 1 7 111 il ill 11 1 �S , t 1g 4 i j ` i ,_� 1 [ u` N t �1i ��r ✓ R ter l ` 1,I1_ ' d Jd kp5 C ly l'''','",',' 61 d I . " r ] n�l�Ilsf t { 1} E � f! `. �;ti� �x U t6 �i '� I�' a¢)t at, �_ ����� I �"a't r • 6/11,y,,,';;. G d a , p I'-. r'1 si. 1 �' �1 ,' �'m'A ;, { L, i.1■ �a c t• ��h fi�d ,.,1,.'..,,� � � line Ilitill �ti ` t .I ''.....''/('' '�i �Rh irk itit m �t �, �� 1vI I -a 7 � ''.,;',1,,,_4 ,- rrrr,fi _ ¢ I' ' m , x. ra r ■�t)d" [ k t� ', ,t t �■■ >kr' 7f'� 1+ f tl Z WX din• /,_ fib '; ` a • l � =,v 11. . , ,, .N.-...*-,..- / - ,,,� u # '1 „� F_ 1 � i r , I.g � r li ', x�e 'I ''l E rY 1 1 !.{ a r� g li I c)'�� n I■„ --4 �r t v '! r / ii E i i i : ii!ii s',..''''''.,‘ -1'''' -' ,, ' : '''',', i' ,,,--' 7 9 1 IN ( '''• ,;' i,'; ',' -;'' '' o;l , r m I ', p G h Ir L!o is a ICI `h Y'7 ii :ill '''' '' ' ''''''''' r•tr..,'!i'..[:,,.(7'1:11-:',, -1'-,'2 , .■ ' Q x N O = H o 0 Appendix C • MANNING AVENUE NORTH ,..._...,., i r;.m0' tm ,>. II )00;),,,,,rY; i:^ 11t\t7c '.II} lr � { �fl i ° 'hil iit t ( �� )ark i ,..",_....CITY OF LAKE�o .,,. } , v t �v '[I+I�I�4 I i 1, '\ I 1 4 1 ' --cr-,/q,),•111,1—,11,\-E4iitk,,,,, ( \ -,,, 1,1 ,i 1)41 i \ )d ( , . .,--.9 ,it-N1 1 \ \,t.--,-;-) ---. ! .1 %. ' 11(\_74.'/,-----\\rki ? \`, '-\), —))k/t 1 )) 3 .1 ---'-‘,---,, \‘[.,\ \ -_,,;-.=_:.---=;-,,/, ,/) , t ,, ________,_......„--,:-:: 1 , , ,,,,..„ , ,.., .s ,,..,_,, \ ......,_7 7.7....,„, i ,,,, i ,, . ,_ ‘,.., ) _ ..,. ((,, 4., ,.._ ,‘CITY OF OAK ANK HEIGHTS- - ,` }�` —�;'�`I i 7 L i.'t'�}'-,;;`1,\\ �‘-`��-+ �y��Ij�i'. / l' ‘t, ii r ar,::):,c,' ' '''*----./1 4k\i ...\ " '.-`'' '': ,__/ oNr5t. 1 ',,j 1 1 \ 11:M4 s D I ',---. s/ / �^�2',�,�" }L,�j•� r 1 t': / ,'" I 4 1,�11, 5 `•• ',,,4'_ y !' d/! i' 11 j(z / / 1 // _.p J � $ . i/ 4�4 \a� e ��. /� E�/ / fly I ��< /4.',', ` v'^S •i•' % •F;ay' 1 /' / / �; k $N `.k ; I. / `..,,�k„� o:/ i/, Z '',//111., 1, ; ° .-.u;, I 12 1' e w �I.: _!....‘t N I I'°Vj �Ti t`\•�/**�\''/6• // ``° ` 'Z / 6 1,''''9 ') PA Y.H 1\i....r.,. ....„.,_., ..,,.... :XII ":, :-S.., 7/4, 1_L __.fr i__ __ 7")fle._411._ .. ___,,.._'. _ __Z-.!.:.' ,,- 1',t4.., ,1 ., \ / ., /4. A -Vc— 4 r-, , I / I I „ or,a 8 `. -•-4.`°.;�. •k\ • ` <. -� -- ,__,._____,—r 4., 1 e y v f ' _ .- -`,, ;r\ s A \\A , N7� ``` \-\ I i I I 1, + �4`�, , /Wit\- - " ,`la/ 4 i A) ii f.it N,, NN, '''\Ali*;\f il -S--woo-a ut . e, ( 1 (1 � � $44 / i la C /g i / \\.S O' I 1 4 . 1 1+r al tn s m\v \T/111 �, � -----�_.------ --�----gp--¢- /, �„� -, to it ,�,•� �� \ .,,�\ - j mp t i v , �� 9'�4 i /$''yam•\\\* /!, �� ‘44N.vt°I ? ,,,4'+. I•L) 1 4 7 ,, 4 , 1 ."", 1 2.11.4,■j / 1,3 3 1 4., 1 ,,,,/,..,, .'-\\, $$ ,.1I , , 1- n'Ai 1 ,adz , + / / \ r\\ N I 11 1 �I . � / \7 t IA LF; F. ai•I —_,,___-- r.,,,,--wee_. /lit ■ \ � ,"yI j `yam x 111 1 Appendix D • pm $ _� K s /m R 0 > e�i c7•M ;' _ 4 � m N A s K K + m .1 q rig 14-> T qD.q gl• 4 z gro iiiig c.t 0 . i 2 th • 11 1 ii • Co . ._/2,4 .j . 0 \-.1 H . / z L. - • CD rt " 'INV a • m / / - L j --'1- \.// - ilk.r ,� m �. /71"/ . s'■:f .4. / ,,,,i,,,„ c/4 c" v. ors 0 Z \. I • ❑ G 1�* -��— si•A", , Om aim , . ° I , 111! . • 6. ) . \ \\\i-. w -- F • ir--1 , f. / . , 2 6,1t f o (..,Lra2fir- ) 'IN Sfr4, .4:::„ i I [7.1 r.-------" CS). 41*.....‘ \ " '*+' 4\11-? 7 . v 4 OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA kBonest roo Aa" "�"uA qL""f,....v�,POfeF.Pwp P L el4\B' OM,N'" "U aR —f KERN CENTER IMPROVEMENTS rAdne k 4444440 A LOCATION PLAN • �ASSOCWtes CM •11 M ' aer Appendix E — • gA A R - N 3 MANNI G AVENUE NORTH 9 $ r .0 -=_-111 -^ .,1 Il ...__ }¢" ',- ;-" X7:7- Fick. I 1 1 (11- b I w ° k g i 1�� $ fin it -� )s /1 ?J I li �� ,i1 ig i i;::T:!± /vvrw� mAr iffillilliF-" r r......1-..,\ 1,,, i ._.._ ,__... 1 �. Ar )I � ,� .I 0 - ,;I. i1' , � �-rn / 1 . / k I,/ raTir ,.....--- ■ I-- \ /li1\!�VJii i 1 y �' \._.\ �araa1.rs�wer�w•msnr r7.--,::,, ),. N-' /. att of LAKE DUO .0 1 r „r VINS v�r �► „ 1, —_CITY OF OAK ARK HEIGHTS n '\' 1•l. ---� �,, J/ ,1 .' ill y; ,�I tl�l h„, , . ,‘ ., , ,IN11 CLC,? 4,nY/,,,,,,,,,,,,.,.o art Fl, ., J;\•' ''' s � r --.\_,'— 4,,, ,,,,,„., I '�o Ii.,-1-t-,-,----0---4 ,, ,\.a\ /1 � �',11./t�J1Ja I Y/ J` 1e !0, 1. e� .,/ ,�,F° •..y. J /� I■,'%� �y /` / Ida +t le i p,. '� \``��,+ I // / 3 // ''\,,�,• x III` g i i E /C7 A+N HI' a f, I �l Sel /> tomg`\,,di, 4y/ �'?Gy`�v` , /J / i i.. // ��I q V, I•A g ; yo sC .. r , / / 1 i 1 'y�- / `lam a lb yn n \ A o 1 Ply N g `�. / / \�.�.w 5.I N.Q, .- jam. I w _ ° 1 \ ,, ! + �� °,\ kh,<SlUE.i�, / xvJ Vii` j 1 I II x ...V\ \` c I --,...7.„..„7.-...--,, y� 1 i tom: l • /,"v, r Ni r I KI 1 C 7",Yy,/ �'\ts\`^• y c 1. -- A , / / \ `',may+ _ N./0' z Q / ,, ,, ,:rc 's 1 i� .h J 1 T°4 \ i g a a 'e i 1 i "F�'<- e A. �'\''�....; �i�I ` , gym\ \, t I q,N. 0 1!io 1 I j ! 3 - i.�. '4, �a�,.`".. _ -&•! , / ,a�\\<' , \ ,°'`° \I; 1 to 1,1 N) Appendix F Estimated Costs Sanitary Sewer Improvements Item No. Item 111111 Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 Core, Drill, and Connect EA 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 2 8" PVC SDR-35, 6'-8' Deep LF 1595 $ 18.00 $ 28,710.00 3 8" PVC SDR-35, 8'-10'Deep LF 1345 $ 20.00 $ 26,900.00 4 8" PVC SDR-35, 10'-12' Deep LF 390 $ 22.00 $ 8,580.00 5 6" PVC SDR-35, Service Line LF 210 $ 16.00 $ 3,360.00 6 6" PVC End Cap EA 6 $ 50.00 $ 300.00 7 48" Dia. Manhole w/Casting EA 11 $ 2,500.00 $ 27,500.00 8 8"x6" PVC Wye EA 6 $ 50.00 $ 300.00 9 Patch Exisiting Street Crossing LS 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 10 Televised Inspection LF 3330 $ 1.00 $ 3,330.00 11 Erosion Control LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Subtotal $ 105,980.00 10% Contingency $ 10,600.00 Total Construction Cost $ 116,580.00 28%Indirect Costs $ 32,640.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 149,220.00 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS • • Appendix G • !1 r est Bonestroo.Rosene.Anderl:k and Associates.L an Affirmative-Action Equal Opportunity Employer Bonestroo • Principals:Otto G.Bonestroo.P.E.- Joseph C.Anderlik.P.R.- Marvin L.Sorvala.PE.- Richard E.Turner,P.E.•Glenn R.Cook.PE.•Robert G.Schunicht.PE.• Jerry A.Bourdon.PE.- RoseneRobert W.Rosene.P.R.and Susan M.Eberlin,C.P.A.. Senior Consultants Associate Principals:Howard A.Sanford.PE.• Keith A.Gordon.P.E.•Robert R Pfefferie.P.R.Anderlik - Richard W.Foster.P.E.•David O.Loskota,P.E.•Robert C.Russek.A.I.A • Mnrk A.Hanson.PE.• Michael T.Rautmann.P.E • Ted K.Field.P.E.• Kenneth P Anderson.P.E.• Mark R.Rolls,PE.- - AssocAssociates Sidney P Williamson.PE..L.S.•Robert F Kotsmith-Agnes M.Ring•Michael P.Rau.RE.• iates,D Allan Rick Schmidt„P.E. Engineers &Architects Offices:St.Paul.Rochester. Willmar and St.Cloud.MN•Milwaukee. �.i Website:www.bonestroo.com PRELIMINARY REPORT ON . KERN CENTER IMPROVEMENTS OAK PARK HEIGHTS, M NNESOTA File No. 55-98-802 May 29, 1998 Amended Jul 1, 1998 � Y INTRODUCTION A commercial subdivision known as Kern Center has recently been annexed into the City of Oak Park Heights. This plat is located west of and adjacent to Highway No. 5 and is between Highway 36 and 55th Street. The existing buildings within the development are served with individual wells and on-site septic sewage systems. In accordance with City policy and the • desire of the vacant landowners, there is a need to consider extending public utilities to this area so that future development will not be required to install on-site water and sewer systems. The installation of public utilities will also make these facilities available to the developed lots in the event of system failures or to enhance fire protection for the buildings. The purpose of this report is to define the improvements required to serve the development and to provide cost estimates and a method of cost allocation to determine project feasibility. The general layout of the subdivision and the required improvements to serve the area is shown on the drawing attached to this report and designates as Figure 2. 1 2335 West Highway 36 - St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 • Fax: 612-636-1311 REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS Very little of the Kern Center can be served by gravity from the existing sanitary sewer mains on 58th Street and Neal Avenue. Therefore, it is proposed that all sewage generated and collected be pumped to the 10 inch diameter main on Neal Avenue which is located just north of the'Rainbow/Oppidan site. It is proposed that a sewage pumping station be constructed at the northwest corner of Highway No. 5 and 55th Street with discharge through a force main parallel to Highway No. 5 and then easterly along an easement on the north edge of the Brackey West plat to the existing sanitary sewer at Neal Avenue. Sanitary sewer would be installed along the east side of Memorial Avenue to serve each of the lots in the subdivision and be connected to the pumping station. A 12 inch diameter water main exists on 58th Street on the east side of Highway No. 5. This main has sufficient capacity to serve Kern Center and can be extended westerly by jacking under the highway and extending it to Memorial Avenue. Because of the long dead end condition and potential for high fire demands it is proposed that the water main continue along the west side of Memorial Avenue as a 12 inch diameter pipe to 55th Street. Water main on 55th Street and north of 58th Street would be 8 inches in diameter. The water system would be equipped with the necessary valves and hydrants for operation. control and fire protection. At some future date, consideration could be given to providing a looped system in the vicinity of Highway 36 which is about the only opportunity available for looping. Four inch diameter sewer stubs and 6 inch diameter valved water services would be extended to each of the lots in the subdivision for future service to the lots and/or buildings. This will require crossings of the existing street surfacing. As a part of this project it is assumed that the gravel base and bituminous surfacing will be restored and patched at each of the utility crossings and that a 1-1/2 inch thick bituminous overlay will be installed over all bituminous streets to cover the patches and to increase the load bearing capacity of these roadways. 2 - The project would also include connection of Memorial Avenue to 55th Street and the improvement of 55th Street from Memorial Avenue to Highway No. 5 to provide for an additional point of access for public safety and other purposes. The surface would be constructed to a width of 24 feet with minimal gravel shoulders to a section similar to Memorial Avenue. Kern Center currently has very shallow ditches along the roadways to convey storm water runoff to existing ponding areas. These ditches will become inadequate as further development creates additional runoff from the area. It is anticipated that eventually lateral storm sewer will be installed to replace the ditch system and the streets expanded to an urban section. A large storm water detention area will be required in the future in the ravine along the west edge of Kern Center with a flow control structure to reduce the rate of flow under Highway 36 and to Long Lake. This work would be coordinated with the Browns Creek Watershed District and may have to be implemented by the District because the proposed pond and outlet would serve two municipal jurisdictions. In addition to the utilities noted above,this newly annexed area does not receive coverage from the existing warning sirens in the City. Therefore, as a part of this utility project it is proposed that an additional warning siren be installed. PERMITS AND EASEMENTS REQUIRED There are no wetlands which will be disturbed as a part of the proposed improvements, so no wetland permits will be required. While it is proposed to continue restriction of storm water runoff rates to those which currently exist, the plans will be submitted to the Browns Creek Watershed District and the City of Stillwater for review and comments. All work to be done will be within public land or rights-of-way except for a small parcel which must be obtained for the site of the sewage pumping station. It will also be necessary to obtain construction easements along the utility routes. 3 A permit must be secured from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for all work within the Highway No. 5 right-of-way. Standard construction permits are required and will be obtained from the Minnesota Department of Health and Pollution Control Agency for the water main and sanitary sewer construction. A General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activities must also be obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. COST ESTIMATES Detailed cost estimates have been prepared for the construction of public utilities and street improvements to provide utility service to Kern Center and are included in the Appendix to this report. All costs are based on unit prices anticipated for the 1998 construction season and include a twenty-five (25) percent allowance for engineering, administrative fees and financing. No costs are included for capitalized interest during the construction period and before assessments are levied. An overall summary of these costs is shown below: Item Estimated Cost Sanitary Sewer $165,700.00 Lift Station &Force Main 184,700.00 Water Main 137,000.00 Building Services 77,700.00 Warning Siren 21,900.00 Street Improvements 60,900.00 Subtotal $647,900.00 Trunk&Oversized Water Main 73,600.00 Trunk Storm Sewer 111,500.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $833,000.00 All costs shown above except for the trunk water and storm sewer are proposed to be assigned to the Kern Center. All trunk costs would be recovered from the area or connection charges. 4 CAST ALLOCATION The Kern Center development contains 22 platted lots on 84.40 acres of land which does not include the lot purchased by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for storm water ponding purposes. These parcels contain 5,309 feet of frontage on Memorial Avenue where the utilities are being installed. It is further noted that 47.20 acres of the land is developed which also represents 2,531 feet of frontage on Memorial.Avenue. Because the land which has been developed has incurred the cost of drilling private wells and installing individual on-site sewer systems, the City of Oak Park Heights has developed a policy where existing buildings will not have to connect to the water or sewer system until six (6) years after the systems are available or if a failure in the individual on-site system occurs. At that time, the individual parcels would have to pay the equivalent amount equal to those charges defined herein which are to be assigned to the vacant parcels. For the purpose of this report it is assumed that the lateral sanitary sewer, water main, siren and street assessment rate would be computed on a front footage basis by dividing the cost by the total front footage on Memorial Avenue and that the services cost would be on a per lot I > basis. These rates are shown in the following computations: Item Computation Assessment Rate Sanitary Sewer $165,700.00_5,309 ft. $31.20/front foot Water Main 137,000.00_5,309 ft. 25.80/front foot Warning Siren 21,900.00_5,309 ft. 4.10/front foot Street Improvements 60,900.00-5,309 ft. 11.50/front foot Building Services 77,700.00=22 lots 3,530.00/lot It is further assumed that the current area h ve char a or connection charge rates which g g a been adopted by the City of Oak Park Heights would be assigned to the developing parcels. 5 These charges are as shown below: Charge Rate Trunk Sanitary Sewer $2,310.00/acre Trunk Waterworks 4,010.00/acre Trunk Storm Sewer 5,080.00/acre Storm Water Ponding 3,200.00/acre It is recommended that the storm water ponding charge not be applied until that work is undertaken by Browns Creek Watershed District or as a joint project by the two municipalities. If the rates established above are applied to the vacant property in the Kern Addition, the City will obtain the following revenue: Item Computation Revenue Lateral Improvements 2,778 ft x $72.60/ft. $201,682.80 Building Services 11 lots x 3,530.00/lot 38,830.00 Trunk Sanitary Sewer 37.20 ac x 2,310.00/ac 85,932.00 Trunk Waterworks 37.20 ac x 4,010.00/ac 149,172.00 Trunk Storm Sewer 37.20 ac x 4,650.00/ac 188,976.00 TOTAL REVENUE $664,592.80 It should be noted that the revenue to be collected by the method shown above will be approximately $168,000.00 less than the estimated cost of the project. This will be recovered in the future when the existing buildings are connected to the system and pay their equivalent share for service. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of the study undertaken, it can be concluded that construction of utilities and streets to serve Kern Center west of Highway No. 5 is feasible with costs being similar to other developing areas in the City of Oak Park Heights. However, because of City policy to allow 6 existing businesses to further utilize their on-site sewer and water systems, a portion of the cost will have to be carried by the City for a period of time. The project is necessary to allow for the continuation of development in the Kern Center in a manner which better protects the environment as it relates to wastewater p disposal. Because of the proximity of the existing utilities and other public facilities which are in place, the improvements are cost effective. It is recommended that this report be used as a guide for the layout and design of the public improvements to provide public utility service to Kern Center. To further evaluate the project and the cost allocation method, it is recommended that a public hearing be held to receive comments from the property owners so as to determine the further action to be taken. For hearing purposes, the following information should be utilized: j Estimated Project Cost: $833,000.00 Benefited Area: All lots and parcels in Kern Center and Kern Center 2nd Addition located in the City of Oak Park Heights, County of Washington, and State of Minnesota. I hereby certify that this plan,specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Joseph C. Anderlik,P.E. Date: July 1, 1998 Registration No. 6971 7 APPENDIX A KERN CENTER COST ESTIMATES SANITARY SEWER 1,700 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C. SDR-35, 10'-12' deep in pl. @ 16.00 $27,200.00 240 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C. SDR-35, 12'-14'deep in pl. @ 18.00 4,320.00 60 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C. SDR-26, 12'-14'deep in p1. @ 20.00 1,200.00 140 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C. SDR-26, 14'-16'deep in pl. @ 22.00 3,080.00 140 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C. SDR-26, 16'-18'deep in pl. @ 24.00 3,360.00 200 Lin.ft. 8"P.V.C. SDR-26, 18'-20'deep in p1. @ 26.00 5,200.00 820 Lin. ft. 8"P.V.C. SDR-26,20'-22'deep in p1. @ 28.00 22,960.00 11 Each Std 4'diam.MH.,8'deep w/cstg in pl. @ 1,200.00 13,200.00 70 Lin. ft. Manhole depth greater than 8'dp @ 100.00 7,000.00 16 Each 8"x4"PVC,SDR-35 wye branch in pl. @ 50.00 800.00 7 Each 8"x4" PVC,SDR-26 wye branch in pl. @ 60.00 420.00 50 Lin.ft. 8"PVC,schedule 40 riser in p1. @ 15.00 750.00 3,300 Lin. ft. Television inspection of 8" sewer @ 1.00 3,300.00 3,300 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtl.,6"thick in pl. @ 2.00 6,600.00 80 Lin. ft Remove and replace driveway culverts @ 10.00 800.00 2 Each Patch existing driveway @ 750.00 1,500.00 Lump Sum Clear&grub trees 1,500.00 1 Each Patch existing street crossing @ 1,000.00 1,000.00 Lump Sum Cross end of existing triple culvert 1,000.00 500 Cu.yd. Core excavation @ 4.50 2,250.00 900 Ton Class 5 gravel base in pl. @ 6.00 5,400.00 5,000 Sq.yd. Sodding of drainage ditch @ 2.50 12,500.00 2.5 Acres Seeding w/mulch anchored in pl. @ 2,400.00 6,000.00 400 Lin. ft. _ Hay bale diversions in p1. @ 3.00 1,200.00 Estimated Construction Cost $132,540.00 25% Engr.,Fiscal&Admin. 33,160.00 TOTAL SANITARY SEWER $165,700.00 A-1 LIFT STATION&FORCE MAIN 1 Each 300 GPM duplex submersible lift sta. in pl. @ 85,000.00 $85,000.00 2 Each 150 GPM impellers for sewage pumps @ 150.00 300.00 2,960 Lin. ft. 6" D.I.P. Class 52,7-1/2'cover in pl. @ 13.00 38,480.00 100 Lin. ft. 6" D.I.P.jacked in pl. w/steel carrier @ 150.00 15,000.00 545 Lbs. D.I. fittings in pi. @ 1.00 545.00 1 Each Cut-in to existing manhole @ 200.00 200.00 1 Each Patch existing street crossing @ 1,000.00 1,000.00 3.0 Acres Seeding w/mulch anchored in p1. @ 2,400.00 7,200.00 Estimated Construction Cost $147,725.00 25%Engr.,Fiscal &Admin. 36,975.00 TOTAL LIFT STA. &FORCE MAIN $184,700.00 WATER MAIN 2,890 Lin. ft. 12" D.LP. Class 52 7 1/2'cover in pl. @ 25.00 $72,250.00 100 Lin. ft. 12"D.I.P.jacked in pl. w/steel carrier @ 160.00 16,000.00 1,140 Lin. ft. 8" D.I.P.,Class 52,7 1/2'cover in pl. @ 17.00 19,380.00 160 Lin. ft. 6" D.LP.,Class 52,7 1/2'cover in pl. @ 13.00 2,080.00 6 Each 12" gate valve&box in p1. @ 1,000.00 6,000.00 2 Each 8" gate valve &box in p1. @ 600.00 1,200.00 8 Each 6" gate valve&box in pl. @ 400.00 3,200.00 8 Each 5"valve hydrant in pl. @ 1,200.00 9,600.00 5,745 Lbs. D.I.fittings in p1. @ 1.00 5,745.00 1 Each Cut-in to existing 12"plug @ 500.00 500.00 4,200 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtL,6"-thick in p1. @ 1.00 4,200.00 240 Lin. ft. Remove and replace driveway culverts @ 10.00 2,4[.'1..'J 6 Each Patch existing driveways @ 500.00 3,000.00 1 Each Patch existing street crossings @ 1,000.00 1,000.00 Lump Sum Cross end of existing triple culvert 1,000.00 5,000 Sq. yd. Sodding of drainage ditch @ 2.50 ' 12,500.00 3.0 Acres Seeding w/mulch anchored in pl. @ 2,400.00 7,200.00 400 Lin. ft. Hay bale diversion in pl. @ 3.00 1,200.00 Estimated Construction Cost $168,455.00 25% Engr.,Fiscal &Admin. 42,145.00 TOTAL WATER MAIN $210,600.00 A-2 TRUNK STORM SEWER 940 Lin. ft. 42"RCP,Class 2,0'-10'deep in pl. @ 70.00 $65,800.00 1 Each Std 6'diam.Mil w/cstg in p1. @ 2,400.00 2,400.00 2 Each 42"RCP flared end w/trash guard @ 2,500.00 5,000.00 40 Ton Rock rip rap,Class 3 in p1. @ 50.00 2,000.00 1 Each Repair existing street crossing @ 750.00 750.00 940 Lin. ft. Remove existing 18" storm sewer @ 10.00 9,400.00 1 Each 12" diam_ orifice plate in p1. @ 250.00 250.00 1.5 Acres Seeding w/mulch anchored in p1. @ 2,400.00 3,600.00 Estimated Construction.Cost $89,200.00 25%Engr.,Fiscal&Admin. 22 30(100 TOTAL TRUNK STORM SEWER $111,500.00 TRUNK WATER MAIN 800 Lin.ft. 12" D.LP.,Class 52, 7 1/2'cover in p1. @ 25.00 20,000.00 100 Lin.ft. 12"D.I.P.jacked in pl. w/steel carrier @ 160.00 16,000.00 1 Each 12" gate valve&box in pl. @ 1,000.00 1,000.00 590 Lbs D.I. fittings in pl. @ 1.00 590.00 1 Each Cut-in to existing 12" plug @ 500.00 500.00 Estimated Construction Cost $38,090.00 25%Engr.,Fiscal &Admin. 9,510.00 TOTAL TRUNK WATER MAIN $47,600.00 WATER MAIN OVERSIZING 2,090 Lin.ft. 12"D.LP. in lieu of 8"D.I.P. @ 8.00 $16,720.00 5 Each 12" gate valve in lieu of 8" g ate valve @400.00 2;000.00 2,095 Lbs. Extra D.I. fittings in pl. @ 1.00 2,095.00 Estimated Construction Cost $20,815.00 25% Engr.,Fiscal &Admin. 5 185.00 TOTAL WATER MAIN OVERSIZING $26,000.00 A-3 • SERVICE LINES 23 Each 6"gate valve&box in pl. @ 400.00 $9,200.00 9,975 Lbs. D.I. fittings in pl. @ 1.00 9,975.00 1,050 Lin. ft 6" D.I.P. water service in p1. @ 15.00 15,750.00 1,510 Lin. ft. 4" PVC, Schedule 40 sewer service in pl. @ 10.00 15,100.00 22 Each Patch existing street crossing @ 500.00 11,000.00 46 Each Install service marker in pl. @ 25.00 1.150.00 Estimated Construction Cost $62,175.00 25%Engr.,Fiscal&Admin. 15.525.00 TOTAL SERVICE LINES $77,700.00 STREET IMPROVEMENTS 7,000 Sq.yd. Surface preparation @ 0.20 $1,400.00 2,700 Sq.yd Subgrade preparation @ 0.50 1,350.00 600 Ton Type 31 bituminous base w/AC-1 in pl. @ 25.00 15,000.00 200 Ton Type 41 bituminous base w/AC-1 in pl. @ 27.00 5,400.00 700 Ton Type 41 bituminous overlay w/AC-1 in pl_ @ 30.00 21,000.00 400 Ton Class 2 crushed aggregate for shoulders @ 10.00 4,000.00 550 Gal. Bituminous intl.for tack coat in p1. @ 1.00 550.00 Estimated Construction Cost $48,700.00 25%Engr.,Fiscal&Admin. 12,200.00 TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS $60,900.00 A-4 •, . . ) I „ -/ r^; ) _..:. ..\ P iL...._,,,;- I • 7,_ __..i, . . ,, .. _i 1 , -:,,, ,, 1 • 4•KFEL--Ni.LLLJ::- . ! , ,72..7-- t•2 E_--, , : ' a* p:A t .:7---, III 1 ,1----",: ..._\ ...., ,. iwi 00111:01-14 . . \\.___/ L7_,.74 i.4$017..freir*Allipt • • '■°‘S1S%OA 111 : i , 4 44 01404 0 0 81:% • f ' *4 ■4 0 I or•04 P •\ STATE OF 1 V ..10 Z., : ell . ..-,p ! 7 / 1. li■ :-.- ' 40 Ow L --, 10$ 411:6 WISCONSIN • , ..ti'::: fo VAL - N --, '--, -:-” ..., ir ---- N. --,. , . It - -y . , I I • • • /sic* , - - F--- I r Q i • • --..• .0 c%' • <7 -1-- c'c's . ust..•van --- • i 1 •—A. ' - .,•- ■-t‘, - STATE HIGHWAY 36 r- 4....._. i . 1 • __..-''i 1 I I I liiiii - IIMIA 1 f'441'riAllr-A\, 1r Aso •:.-----•-•-______i.. _ ), k - ,- 1. 4-=3)... 3 0 ! a ! • 1-,i-k , , 58TH STA 11:111■ a iFi 1'014 4r 4.. ins 01 ii,„*, -- ,,,, z i i ..... atm -1121 • 1 1 ' , . I - 41•11 ,, NIT\'' 3 Al& 7111111 lb \ 1 • Z I' 1 0 : iiii i • t i si.. • ; \ I; • .... /• - .! --,-) 1111 . IL \ \Im , / - • i ... . IL \ 11111 . ---___ ,,i,....--.-: i ./ . • •-• i'.----5:: . \ ; No! '. 1 ; ' ' 1!---In. ,1•Woot .-. , .. aiiiiii •, i ' I I It 1 1 1=,__=_.1!--7.-.4 1•11%trt I.,a i '.. , .1 I • ,-- ; IV •..., •-•1L \ TY f. -, r LOCATION PLAN Bonestroo Rosene OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA , - 11 Anderlik & FIGURE 1 Associates KERN CENTER IMPROVEMENTS Enghwers & AnMaas /55aFts:tn-3 tR.R52n-)0,-, Ana /n 0 t • STATE Ff_GHWAY 36 _—: AM/ 2 KERN CENTER IIIII 3 •� PROPO6E0 / 2�'r/j/f' /------ - " 4114111kcitki ' / ' FORCE WIN .j yr SIP O 1 h� ySr 2! / • SANITARY SEWER --•-,....-011r.ir 6 WA / ? ULJ ^ 0 *tj /_ KERN .a a-4 , .. r : _ 5 O KERNS EDUCJ►TIOn AOOf[1pN 4 0 • � 4.0,`tea' 4 SOUL TED WILE 4, 3 7 40„.1 SE 45-b _ 570 P WATER 3 4' ! 2 O ��� ' 2 1 c,$ 4 S7111]IlU►2ER HIGH SCHOOL 1 • STA • r • 0 r" r , 35TH �ircect NORTH II C Q o r-r 1-----1 SITE PLAN AO Bonestroo Rosen• Anderlik & OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA , FIGURE 2 Associates KERN CENTER IMPROVEMENTS Engineers a Ardziteds /5598802/55802R01 5/28/98 5598802 • • $ r Appendix H • = 5 • Imili$1 1 ,,,, ,,,. . . .. .Z . 1111 rAi Eit,--■_-__Itt,..4 RIP., tla :- - ' , ',,.,. . 1,,, � Min 1 it 1.11111. � cs Ili, \ T 7:1`�. 1 gi ' il ay..,,t....-Ii.vr•tReoo4,r_ oil =gr.—--AI.-■■•■■■■■•larti; ,..A._ 1( ' 611 lop I ,11111 If �,I ����4111,1 -`'I� @IUriygB�� ���� 44E, e 111 �jto a 11•41101 ad/ 1 -',� ia"lsta .- ri ?a••C�.noty i ` 1u:U■41 co �� `1, �� �.- ibil RI 2.lit.-..:1 JILL 1Ti ld ,"1 iI'��i. a. \\\\ �9 ® L A11 I�r ni.�. •`J �1 laver;a _Irk ,i, ;',i�r ; s 4-rii °e,zi a 11141111i11,17• co \\ \ �� t IIII C 1 t v �xa a�rY'"x ! y1Ck } •q a��+a� ;1 1 W.__ nu 1 IIIf C " \ t.{4'1-'+, {3T ¢ ` 41 t foV`,dK x It k r. q.e a 1- , f�, 'f 2 �� � -' �,,„,,..,„.1-:...;:r..!,i �e J.:t �� it w �"� �® ~d fir` S ro e ,ri: en 191)21,,,-,-- l'., : �— 1, ; ■r14f-111. ' ����� i[t7 I 1 � 41 lBia�€B ul�• �� ►i ,� b�Tra?:,J`�.. t S <'i 1@1�lI�}as 11/• \//�� I�J aaOn,..111119 I '' ��� _ `II— �.gn1 ducal . .I/ 0,...'.. 1 / —— ' MP'l°� !c • fl 111 iF �� (. 1' ,1 f � 7 ,° ' ” " II . 1 .44,-- � 4,'� ems ' af3+.rVa E!Ip" �"'S° '.10 i 'I i fill 3n2',�4�' `,k 'x fir`-.rg FY* �1 a /III���1 1�� r l< ' ' i ti ff X41:4^tl a 1� fi p ',. t.r 4 ;z3 fr- ! Y.' <l i,GPs al4. <s -` ;?• a .9I,Yasa.,s xP+uCA">' 1d Ex";s',.'+'��".3 ,.F i .f,. ' s� EXHIBIT a 3 EXHIBIT a s GERALD fLi HO EOM LAK_ f, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGRL ITD. o G.THORNTON EDWARD.J. LMEROLL ATTORNEYS A T LAW LYNN N.REYO1n-msrnOM JOHN O.FULLMER FRANK I.HARVEY . ANN M.MEYER CHARLES S.MODELL STEPHEN J.KAMINSKI CHRISTOPHER J.DIET ZEN 1500 WELLS FARGO PLAZA THOMAS F.ALEXANDER UNDA H.FISHER THOMAS P.STOLTMAN PAUL H.MCDOWALL MICHAEL C.JAOTMAN 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH ADAM S.HUHTA• JAMES M.SUSAG• JOHN E.DIEHL DANIEL J.BALUNTINE THOS.SJ.FLYNN YEYVSW BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431-1194 THOMAS J.F JEFFREY D.CAHILL TELEPHONE(952)835-3800 SEAN D.KELLY JAMES P. -EMA SONYA R BRAUNSCHWEIG TODD C FREEMAN JOSEPH J.FITTANTE,JR GERALD L NECK FAX 952 896-3333 JOHN B.LUNDOUIST ( ) THOMAS J.OPPOLO•• DAYLE NOLAN` JONATHAN J.FOGEL JOHN A.COTTER• CYNTHIA M.KLAUS PAUL B.PLUNfETT MARK O.CHRISTOPHERSON ALAN L KILDOW - NEAL J.BLANCHETT KATHLEEN M.PICOTTE NEWMAN TAMARA O'NEILL MORELAND GREGORY E.KORSTAD JAMES A.MCGREEVY,lit GARY A.VAN CLEVE• THOMAS A GUMP• MICHAEL W.D TODD A.TAYLOR ANE DEICE IFWLW.SCHLEP CHRISTOPHERJ.D TERRENCE E.BISHOP GENEVIEVE A.BECK GARY A RENNEXE MARIA M ZACK TIRISTOPHERJ_HARRISTHAL DIONNE M.BENSON KENDELJ.OHLROGGE JEREMY C.STIER BRUCE J.DOUGLAS CHRIS N.HEFFELE TRIER WILLIAM C.GRIFFITH,JR JOHN R HILL OF COUNSEL PETER J.COYLE JAMES P.LARKIN' LARRY O.MARTIN JACK F.DALY JANE E.BREMER D.KENNETH LIPOGREN JOHN J.STEFFENHAGEN MICHAEL J.WITH * ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ANDREW F.PERRIN •' ONLY ADMITTED IN IOWA FREDERICK W.MEBUHR March 25, 2002 Ms.Mary Kueffner Lake Elmo City Administrator 3 800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Re: Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Dear Ms. Kueffner: On behalf of Mr. Bernie Nass,please consider our request to change the City of Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan Designation for a parcel Mr. Nass owns (the Site) southeast of the intersection of State Highway 36 and Manning Avenue. We understand that Mr.Nass's site is now guided for Rural Agricultural Density(RAD) development,i.e. large residential estates or small hobby farms of 10 acres. The attached exhibits illustrate why a change to guide the area for Commercial use, and allow the extension of utilities from the east, is appropriate. Exhibit 1 shows the Site as it currently exists,including the physical development constraints. Exhibit 2 shows surrounding development. The Site is at the intersection of four communities. To the east and south, Oak Park Heights is developing with commercial and industrial uses. To the north, Stillwater is developing with commercial uses that depend heavily on Highway 36 as a transportation corridor. To the northeast,the City of Grant will remain large-scale commercial,to preserve the possibility of development when utilities are extended. These three communities recognize the importance of the Highway 36 corridor to serve the commercial needs of area residents, and consequently have enacted Comprehensive Planning and zoning controls to foster and allow this continued commercial development. Our proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would allow Lake Elmo to join its neighbors in this regard. Exhibit 3 shows a conceptual proposal of development that could occur on site under the appropriate Comprehensive Plan designation. Mr.Nass's neighboring property owners,Mr.Robert Buberl to the east, and Mr. Tom Bidon, who owns the property between the two parcels Mr.Nass owns,have joined in our application. The terrain and easement challenges on these parcels make Rural Agricultural Development infeasible. The properties LAR ,HOFFMAN,DALY&LINDGREN,I Lake Elmo, MN 55042 March 25, 2002 Page 2 slope toward Highway 36, combined with the power line easement would either force residences intended to be rural too close to a major highway, or would force oversize lots that would idle most of the properties. The site constraints, high traffic counts, and growth in the area combine to make the properties appropriate for commercial, and inappropriate for residential development. Please review these materials and notify us when this matter is scheduled for a hearing by the City Council or Planning Commission. In the meantime, you may contact me with any questions at 952-896- 3214. rely, 1 Peter J. Coyle for LARIUN,HOFFMAN, DALY &LINDGREN, Ltd. 737670.1 I ' o City_ of Luke Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo.Minnesota 55042 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM 777-$510 )C COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT MINOR SUBDIVISION ZONING DISTRICT AMENDMENT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION SKETCH/CONCEPT PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION : CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (C.U.P.) PRELIMINARY/FINIAL PLAT 1-10 LOTS C.U.P. AMENDMENT _ 11-20 LOTS 21 LOTS OR MORE APPEALS EXCAVATION & GRADING SITE & BLDG. PLAN REVIEW PERMIT VARIANCE* (see below) FLOOD PLAIN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Bernie Nass 5651 Manning Ave. No. Stillwater, MN 55082 (Name) (Address) (Zip) TELEPHONE: Work: N/A Home: 651-439-7589 FEE OWNER: Same (Name) (Address) (Zip) TELEPHONE: Work: Home: PROPERTY LOCATION (Street Address and Complete (Long) Legal Description) : See attached Exhibit A DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST: To allow commercial development with utilities . as planned in regional planning. * VARIANCE REQUESTS: As outlined in Section 301.060 C. of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code the applicant must demonstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related to this application is as follows: In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the City pertaining to additionV, application expense. (r a -a/-3 Signature of plicant Date L c � --a/ 0 Signature o Fee Owner Date • • • b tg fig - o i II t , 11 1 ill 1 - aa, 1 . Ale. --.....1-11MIN,L1 _ tv• Iii T r_= - Y ¢ 1 i 1. i Ii 1 I I� 1 1 i I I ; • �� }pppp--q-,' p - � �7, 1 lC1 p T 37 _ j I �A 8 191 - .Tg i I li DA W I i �L .1 R, 0 Ol — I _,z C) an arua MA _ _ { g D +d 1, ++ t - S r o m • 1 i 1 427 ;' 1 • --1 l' !( m a r a I I I CO) „ 5:N 15\ I :zi' 4 q \ I '" ei Q .N F - ,� 1.t+..::0.' --�,-k i 4;1 - \-I ff• rn )ear lid ., .:`� ffi 4 I , Z 1 1 I z� 11 VD it'll} 3 ii S.•e* a 'i //i �. , .; ■ °is1 i I / I r - I• _ ` i , , n S 1 CZ `C@ , as , I= I 3• .. tFfe= P� �. N I IAC 1 •WI i, 1. ^4'W.\." ,may$. r \ ` I IS Vi ' ' ��4"N Nw 1 `. ?\''a 11 �•�a� H i1�a I • $ 1/./ `,- ? V* l/' �+9 O 1 /;y 1?r\`.. 1 ■ • 0 0J RI • Y• 3s E`E �1 rail Atli i I + z t 1 •• is+ , / RSn n dig 1 , I f L v% _ • yy ill J 1 { / � 1, - - • JACOB r i I OP a:1v` _"I tf* ' re . ,. • r.,1 r,-; 1 1 . '/". t '''. i -..'''' . 1 ia'a i . \ 1,1 r. , , r-'::',76,.. . ' ..I rn ' 2 N 5 Iv O � a � 1111 N 1 I I � .. iii _ I 1 ? F es �. _ �{ ��'II�1t I Ill! ^ij1c-'��=_`` - jaw ,c -rte >�.�i `T .2- r� I 1 i A ! 1 i4 w 1 i i i1 a , � }� ' . n t 1 10 r cm.LAKE[wo 0 -JIa otr 'w of QM l • ii .. m at n,, " I 0 i ,-).0 ..% -II' 111 r i, I , I I z ! I. ,a* \ - ' 11 i• eZ V I _ lik,.4,4, I _‘./-1--- 4 --k-- '..44..-—V- --41.\--/ _ !, w .. to, . i li 1 ! „ �� I 1 i 4/ I I i 6 I. �. -1�..-:.. _‘5.__ I 1 i I l ill r i E. ,/ , ,.. ) I e / ;' ',,,, N,,cf , a 1 i 1.\ i r lit + 15 1, - '-*, ,,t.. _ _____ 4.1_ li-t 2 N a * '011'. /._ ♦ 1 \ 1 00 I lily ---1 ' ; N \H 11 o I 1 it ii�`` f '. i r $ 'l 11! I I — cn a N i . / / r ' I I I a ,:4 11 , il I IN II 1 [1 ' 1 ,'. , ' *: ' 1,-77,-.,' • i. 1 i I L-,,,,,,,', 1,----g 2 , 1 , __ --- ii -.1- Kr,',1,., ,°4:' ' r 1 ' 1 1 x,.. nih 't;; ''.1: , , ■••', IfIL ',1 ' - ___,.... i - ;; I I, ,i ly on, yin ,... : . ^.r. r- ,...., ,. , 1,1 -2- / .. . .3 k _______411- ' 1'1 i 01 ._32 - , !! a 1 , .11 il ,, „ ■1 i ' II . i ' ,•f,,„,.. -, I, 1.__-..--. ' 't 1'1 '1,,, , ' f` . ' :_--------=------------'75-- ------,, -- I I I . 1., 1 , • . -,:•.e,-. 1 71 2' "r 1 ' ----- 4 '11 1 :..I•.1. ■' ' ‘;'-'77.7 1 i 111111 I 1111 )111 I , i:;:jilt,kiii,:j'-'1‘'. o 11 p - . ' —1, ' _ 4_ I .- I 0, 1 8 I 111111 1 MI r i,.-1..,4,-.-, / m Ilig,.._‘-pWigliqQilciN --- E —L..7.-0- z II ii 1 ....- la il .'- ''''..-Zar;'''''' ii 5 li 1-1 '.. ' t 0 1 1 q ' c 1 ,A1 ' _lid „,,, ,i ,,,, ,,,,,,IL : . ,-- "--- gN___, ti,,,, ilrstAlli!".4giF :11 -- 41, 'T.1.__1§-1-1` :---‘- !4111111°4=1/1,111,e'r6. t, 1 'th' a ; o Pill ;''`III '' . tk411fl c illi m 4, - „ f ,NI08-*+' Cl) 1 itil.eil"--i--':, rn I 8 "T'4!ENV, 4;?;t'llCk,, 18 ii ' ii,,rsi a 1 lit4r .,„44i1c, ,, ),,; 1 ,,c,„ ,-.-." r— .... . Atifliirt ,, ■;,, ,,; , ,„,r-Fr& t 1 ....... - 4,1„ 40 t ' *04 "liA nw,liatts,-4..wv I tt'01,,,,Y .,,, g' ,,,..04 kt,, Am,...,. ..r. ', . 1 :*it 1 ,'' ,lit _ II itii: .,, 1 , 4 . 1 e, ii ._ I T1 i - , 1. ,. . .. . . sp,,t , , , -,„:444 ,,i,,,fvxv.; '4- ' ''''r ""'"---* ji 1 1 „i..._0,1 , ,, .4,,,„,;',.,,''1„tko'i'r'Clf.,,,'- <.■,', ,VI. ,-4 rAifiltItf -egq - I taNkjaMo.4 tr.' - •Agtilkwrimc.. '' 'NA* , ,)'1;(41(*ix.,1t:',, 1.1' ,.. t:.:/- C7'"'—i,"-*4- E. 14 s fl ir,,,1 lir,A) , ,. :,,ii. , ,, i ',,,i," .1,4,1!;`, , ,',I ;',,qtrOe*ir s■ ' GI hp-'''',-„,0,.. rrt VII IN I 1 I if ivy „ i • : . .......„. , ,),,, . km... ifflills Lb.; ' , ' \„;', , ,,,,.'-,.. hif ifig!, 4,•,1„.", tr, ',,,;,.. .)1, I hil t A‘,, -,', it', mill 1 iiji _- - iA;S„ ..s. ip oil , 7,,,:0--T':„ — •". it I i •• ®jcl 11 C m Z E,f;I i1 f II` ,4 F h ..- a.; V.. iJ + a+ , y gi 1 +'vt w[p ss Ilit y 14 eJ1' : 'f1i,; ;?�a � N , t 4 d ';I t ;- � !1".. . 1f g , �! d !I I reu r.�w !, l , rt� kr( t r 4 . , Xi"1,, J , ,,, � '� f�p ".''''-'4 l ir '' fik1 It', +1,1,'"" V' � il iS S4° 3 I r t t r d +r �' �Q, 7 l\`s 1 E W 'i if j @ A, L - a Flr r � e1411 1 Y. r ', : :,i I ‘.'4, 1'r'''',',' k c� ' "if 11. f, d , �;s. Y J1 ;t4'1.01'1'. Air'f1 l, it " ;' v.,v 3� ii iV. f ,a a ti c1,1 i A N at � ` q i ni, II p y d) Ii;Li'., i ,r s i i i t 1 '4;.i."'''', 111 :'''.i.'', s J i ,1 }1 '1. ,.,r " t F 1� ',1, ' ', '; I `11-',',J1'''','✓ ' ,,I* 1(.4 1,7 ;r : 1. i',.,:,1,',,,',', ,, f', I t I.Jr i ' ' S ' -1 t i 1.1.,-,,,,',:;:;.•. r i �I�1 u v P ` 1"u � ASt � rt f l 1 i V �`'� wf 1I' r "a ! k 1' s ''{ �'t . t '1'....,'''R , l I; �� �e 1 �'T t t it�` r I�i :fiI i� ,« i 4 t i ri Z ; \ \:, d ' k � '; , fi? '� Y� ' t� ," '1 Ii i+J 0 Q. z 1 Ao ' D 'I.t 1 I 4 s{ 1 t— � \ eF : FA � Y CI I r w, 4+{ mo�.��i, -, 5� �2 .:', l �y � � �Lt .1 CE ��;Ii:1-e � 's+ ,r � '' { " , ..4,F I "# sa } 1'� ' it ' r . J �� , ^� �. ` IV %f� k_,.,.i. ' ns s ,,�- i gr-�i + , I 'AJk; Z till ( 1 �� 1 re ° !Al h ± 2) ill � 1 , < / 1�i 1 �' @ P 1 a 1 i� I, I 1j d, i . s pl Li n, ' 3 f III! � �'�, la's �, J r� 1 ' a � tii � ..,,,,„/„..‘..,,,,,,,,„,,I,; ,: `�/:; ,.H.-,-i.,..,,,,,,i.,- -,,. ..t-,,,..f...:N1,),,,,/,,,:i :itlz till E� ** i , f r / V 91 k n C7` la t II °� . I t aY s . ,I 14'4%.'..'''').‘.. �. ' pll..'''',1'.'! 1+ 4 �..\ti `�.",'',..,\,' 'I '1.-,,',.I ' O O I 1 1 t „ .q �1 f( 1�� -.7`H- I r{, f ti .. i , �cif _� l p iK . / 01 1 8 +u tY , 11 1• b '\1 1,I �f >�� 1,+ t�� ,� � in° t 1 "j f i � P 1 tl I..,, rs» t ' �l + I, pa aF I & t I m S 1: w l ll r�1 5 y, I I t-: r � � 1� S f 1 , 1 1 ..1 �-lal :'..''• , ' ::',. ,'. , '''', -::`!;.-',4j'.'.:C gg i .►)''', ��`r1 iy"6 , �,4 � it'Ii �I , i gR V �+ -� Z 1 't I�� 1f1i 111 I. t t: N • C.0 N FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (FRI) 8. 9' 02 8:43/ST. 8:42/NO. 4260872745 P 2 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 7, 2002 1. AGENDA 2. MINUTES: April 16, 2002 3. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL: A. Public Inquiries B. Request from Lake Elmo Jaycees C. Recommendation from Environmental Commission for City Participation in the Shoreland Stabilization Project to takc place on the DNR Public Access on Lake DeMontreville 4. FINANCE: A. Claims 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. CONSENT AGENDA: 7. MAINTENANCE/PARK/FIRE/BUILDING: A. Update on Fire Department Activities: Fire Chief Greg Malmquist— Appointment of Captains,Boots, Sirens B. Set date for workshop with Council C. Lights for Pebble Park 8. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT: 9. PLANNING,LAND USE&ZONING: A. Accessory Structure Location—Joan and Steve Ziertman B. Amendment to Section 1340—Outside Storage of Boats and Trailers C. Zoning Variance—Daniel Rude, Kraft Circle D. Commercial Exterior Surface Standard—Amend LB, CB, GB and BP Districts E. Section 520 Site Plan—Hiner Development 0 Comprehensive Plan Amendment—NasslBuberl/Bidon GG. Sunfish Ponds Op en Space Concept Plan P H. Extend Zoning Variance Review—Patrick Kinney I. Escrow Reduction—Eagle Point Business Park 2°d Addition J. Final Plat—Eagle Point Town Office Park 10_ CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: 11. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: A. Resolution adopting Policy for the Sale of City Owned Land B. Summary of Ordinance 97-106 Charitable Gambling C. Unfinished Business D. $500,000 Internal Loan to Water Fund 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7, 2002 1 FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (FRI) 8. 9' 02 8:45/ST. 8:42/NO. 4260872745 P 9 high grade sand/gravel that could be removed from the site is an issue that will be handled administratively-"mining". The Council received a letter from Ray Salus, Country Air Driving Range indicating his concerns with the proposal. Rich Hiner explained he will lease out the golf school to a golf pro and lease the pro shop and coffee shop The County has given approval to road. Parking lot is planned for 210 cars and additional 40 cars with 175 parking spaces plus parking for employees. Because of special promotions,they will need the additional parking area. M/S/P Armstrong/Siedow—to approve the section 520 site plan of Hiner Development for a golf practice facility,subject to the following conditions: 1.A 50 foot parking setback to Keats Avenue shall be maintained. 2. Enlargement of the parking lot landscape islands to comply with Code standards. 3. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer. (Motion passed 5-0.) F. Comprehensive Plan Amendment—Nass/BuberlfBidon Peter Coyle,Larkin,Hoffman,Daly&Lindgren.representing Mr. Nass stated Mr.Buberl to the east and Mr. Bidon,who owns property between the two parcels Mr. Nass owns,have in the application. Mr. Coyle summarized his letter dated March 25,2002. Attorney Filla provided additional language to the Resolution if the Council was planning on denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The language is as follows: WHEREAS, at its May 7, 2002 meeting, the lake Elmo City Council reviewed the application of Nass/Buberl/Bidon for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; the City Planner's memo of April 17, 2002; and the recommendations of the City's Planning Commission. WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo City Council has reviewed its records regarding the adoption of the City's 2000 Comprehensive Plan (See City Planner memo dated April 17, 2002)and has determined that the City's 2000 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations for this site were not the result of error and that the conditions relating to the site and its surroundings have not changed significantly since the adoption of the City's 2000 Comprehensive Plan. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7, 2002 8 FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (FRI) 8. 9' 02 8:45/ST. 8:42/N0. 4260872745 P 10 MJS/P DeLapp/Dunn—to adopt Resolution No. 2002-037, as amended by the City Attorney,A Resolution Denying the Application of NassBuberyllBidon for Land Use Plan reclassification from RAD to C based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Findings contained in the Resolution. (Motion passed 5-0). G. Sunfish Ponds Open Space Concept Plan Planner Dillerud reported the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this Open Space Preservation Concept Plan application to develop a combined site of 40 acres with 16 single family detached building sites. The Commission recommended approval of the OP Concept Plan; subject to design modification as follows: I. Those conditions recommended by the April 2 Planning Staff Report (Wetlands Evaluation,MN Land Trust comments, and outlot redesign.) 2. Relocation of some building lots to more northerly portions of the site —at a minimum reversing Outlot B with Blocks 2 and 3. 3. Reduce the length of the cul-de-sac streets to increase the continuing of the Preserved Open Space on the south periphery of the site. The notices for the April 8,2002 public hearing were sent out on a 10 day cycle rather than a 14 day cycle.Attorney Filla recommended the Council conduct a public hearing on this application. Mayor Hunt opened up the Public Hearing at 9:20 p.m. Neal Krueger,4452 Lake Elmo Avenue N.,explained when the MN Design Team visited Lake Elmo,the message from the residents were"Listen to The Land". This residential proposal takes 40 acres of farmland for which the highest and best use is Ag. He pointed out the outlots do not give contiguous open space and the scenic vista is severely interrupted by the high homes on the berm. He felt this residential concept plan did not meet the intent and spirit of the Open Space Ordinance. Doug Olson, 3834 Kindred Way, stated his concern with wetlandsex wetland and water runoff from that area. He asked why they are not having a common septic system. We do not have an inspection system when the systems are being built. He wants to retain our ponding. The ponding area in Hamlet of Sunfish Lake is with the MN conservation land trust and would like to see Sunfish Ponds property also owned by the Land Trust. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7, 2002 9 a ° I it 1 i y� Iti --�I �, ,- Ya �t t ' i f.at y,1 4{{�A r1 fj, �I rW ft. s t k3:w ++�� -II i 4 . I al 1:n .t tki r' � { i^' �µ ''K r:t r 4xp c 'R :;;. . ',4l r s t �y �l P {r 1 � u"}�' rr �,Lu �� t�-�A } ya i :., ;, ;)k L I R n F g 4. rb ' ! a � r " tF�t ��{. a �r}P' �' b ,'jjd fJ 1 �t.P I) r6.d .��' °'f!�6f'' 1t a+^.'r`it~( "$ , ' ( )S T'iil� I Ka rat W!� . _ a 7P f i ° Vt h, I 'i 1 r:,� ,, r � TzJE� '.-,:,.,54' y s�n�� s p1 �r. �t't,14 :1:4-'.1 }t,1 s ,t >l?� ii, i� f•�j - ,� (� 4f 11 } P .„.,, �i�� r 1 ,a�Nk1 ett^r to °"hY \ �c f�� > �* � � ��� ��xAr >,.ai e� 9t,..� � �a'` sPr fir y A s;+ 'r �','—,eNi& y:ax la . r `I�f f f�I /N w. r i h ,rnT A 'M ' A 3 y: � ,- ,� ,.� 4, F� t (�r I� i. § m e II yy t 'ik �, if 1 � x' II > t: t v {' ! ';1.,,' { �y.�-• _ E ,: �TS� „g \ t t'.... -. 5 � f I Yom:' I i f1i�. },�:. :,,, °� � .,.f I 'i �,f�! .�7s,, 'f,p i -c } 'ti e P,„4 s� k a S t l x'' �.P.1lr t- 7dz�., �, tt . .. ��k�;.'.(I-'i�)1?S+�* :.` °if ! -!l4!:f,"';'! 1�:� .i1'..:a�',4. r 'i - i� 9�i r tfe i� , yA,<, 1t, ,�{ y-'?}'9 °i9, i -;:-.".--..,:,=-'-'.':;" ; Ti g'',�t( { �9Y r�1 7.-� t u 1_)7 s r!..,*-,,i,,,,;-;;',.,:;,11,-.',....J f 110. � A> °Il { L 1 {.. S }.,i IA i j I r J k, a ,, ,�� �, C 5� � {r 3 v�::r 0 'S�t s S � � �' �d� r "��f � tl ,�i I � l"`.P J '€f�'xi �, b fifx {{ v ,',;?:',':',4;,„ d n p4� Ski t s 11 i } -'t K;r ,. .� jL ' �?t IF;!,{ ,1 '..:� *ii �. i I Uy{I t�i / r i y, i ,,',0 td , ! J,� r ! 4 I, J l r :1j I 1 S .` I,f..'L+f N 6'� d'�' d 5r' ,5� 'e )! i i• j,9y, R✓' .:„-, r tNa �, r........i t `fi r F' ;1 ar {n.1' a. t ':P -f # i u. )��i� �,)�rt�h r ' �.��( �L� �1”� ly x �� �r � � _ 1 ' ��• •� S���V�`� r'�� t 9� .f t: r { .1r7) !:',:-..q, r'^ 1 f{ {� it S ,ii-,'A .`.° '` p6Bor i ..�� �� Ej fll R{��.-. l� <J a■ � t � ! a tr �r r �. t ; if" ,� [ SLY ,..,-,..4„ : ,) , if V4. ) J ' a-i l a r r �' ( `tr E'i ;.:1!„-:";.14,7‘1.q:',.'!2'1%,, a , .( �r f S } ,1. `; T u , . ' w( , r, _i ;iF mdt�a4 ;` w �,'il' 4 [' .: . �fi P' SL,[4_' n : k,.i, 't rY.�${��� {,t k,/ ." t�( 1FN i,�`Pr ti ik I�?' � iL'Likth j / ' .tC"� 71.1 r' ^l""�1f1� fr _ 1 1- f If!� a' P�i t 11�: �I u� t i,u III � �I � t fi Z `\+'kk; l tSZ. !:`d ,� 3�� �.�`�ls�' -� 3 "��n��l` oi t�A ltr� 1t v,I .., �..�',r,a- . !F.--�' �-.,� ': j ' t„ ��t }� ) �� �� i �f ylr 3ifr If r� '4.,14.4"2.� ' I �i 3`3 I it r� y !:: 171 , t { �' . IR 1.4`} 6; �f ,'.ti III},,, �. �l,•;'i r �r�� i � ` y�))] '' rr,l gut � v, � � d�`�i � � r '•�& a `� i S w i I V i ,� A } Ems-.., 1� ,� 'f S`- C �.i9 A'9,f� ` ��6'' �S! "✓r �"\ I ovyi 4�n °& � 7,:} I lI � I> 4 1, D ,�vt; ✓%� "` y4 t; of >i r�/ � �fy� � �`t �� r �t � � ��`� ) ' � p`�i ���� �! 1 i J.. rkn a 1/ .fir ayII #P3 // �y �. �� �.Jr� r. - tP, ..�. `)l , q t ttt ', • �,+ 1 T i i � !N ,' l- F a l b (/� 1'''''';',41,i'..-. ..F''" S �� A t r V.,.k,L. L if�W9 tiJ r {t r 'T '"� ��ti�� s4'• "> i•� � � I s..,.; �: :r�A 'y�� .z. ��d�A�oiM D69r�"r'" 4.. �� ��" , f::"..^�i � � �,r� � f I: r 3a+r i c t I j i �"� W'Y"r ��.7 ': 1 eY {}Rf gq 1^�'�1 si x`�k ! I r� ,.,......,--!.-.2..-:;,/• ;, *'di �l{i� tf�./ M �l r7 r {Sr�l`� .�'M � .::,> \1 '�.Y,�� � {t .: F r V I � ? A 4 { t. ads 3 { H 8 i r rz - ¢ `.. °P . { �� ,�;. s I 1 l , tul �,- ;t!' h. L 9, t �, rj "� \�G ti G r 'r .c yuc' 4~\ `c �}' , t S --N.,q vy r rid 7 ,/ tai -1 ', ik �e '-'pti, r , u R =� d s : n` ,°�.,�1 rlir .vt w 'w"�, .� �h $' <i:° ,' .I r r4Y A'i V !1 C '1 C) Z 4 i {l �Ii� f,, j / � r `A1F ,.0 r' L•(q -•..�'∎' 't', } I a,ki 1 t f P i!r -. �. "'`.t, ^\ r 1 r � t 1" 1i fi, r r t 8 vy{ A' i 31 { Ui, v Ali �� rsstily rt �, ,. i v v '' /f. fit � { i�� ! a � I ® - "` a ' t '*y ?r f� 1:-'44g- �� fit ..1 `� 4✓r 4101#' r &.! gill,i !,F�kr'Y� l�g� ' ' = . -�{# :c,� ^'�+ ty:� .a v� f ;� ,: iir,, i. ,t II ,' " 1 ./��"i 1{te ;,.I ' "SI ,' l i. i y� y � V - , � ��' w �n���,r�.�- � {Xpk r 1 f� � ��w � � � �F�r``,:r d� 1 j'a. ♦ tiy''t�! �y ,,v � `� f� + �P� t4 y Si J•Y!7 Fk , .n „n a ,�?4 ,q < ( ,%�` ?.�i Lr' r `{�v Lr!'.., ' t ' 9sr �.F1 / !L; 1 b'1 f r ��. y y Jc'` ',, w r fir x ' it "`•1t ' lJ JF 't..i:;} {I tt f. � i r t o i j r r +e ',;;;P..,' tt%l/ r 7 -r.�! (� ' ( T� • Ihaq n I �ir` `u L�^'r y n s ''';'''-:-;:',..'1,1':',-.r;,.'l 5�c `' a t }i'j]� ' � 1 Y i} t_ kr: ,.lyr.. t .. f l ` nr o `!t C L y '.':'-:1-.,.'',!:..',..:Z',:'' p"� N.'",l� , �';>;�L ;'', f', t1 Da °'lI O k,,, n 2 w��1 g t P- ` .,l f:;I 'ir Tf- 1 r�i> > � �a4,, i-r r r j i,,, �t, f P ' . S�r �j �P'.4 tLt I L /1 _ '�5 �'fiF ` /� k✓r A�ti,� >.A R0. 7 NP I)‘t,,,..,,,..,,...,,..,1:i'/ tt e r1 I �'j< . . aka top t r. 1, t s ! ,r}r"4 ®I 1111 it h�� � �. t �5 t�a S'r Yf�.3 t})! lr -4f,{, E , I r J/i/ {` t ;.\'y t{ fYr a Y S "',. a L>r`�. r '4n' '.t )�. { -. �,i �''%�' S`'�f 4 .�,y,',t> a tS 7.m ' �il ?is y t 4`'g,� •,,.7F.; d...' 1 //r it 'i.v 1 . •fir st•9 ? , e� ti�� t�gi ` r :4> � r�{7! . A 4, ._ { :i.f{f1'.r t t II t y '. k 1 }/ l {,'�'F ,: } 1, j 'e 54 �}t 7Tt t L 'i ] K r/�!Pi 1 £ n.� .^.� do Z r V i I ..}� iii i5{ t x tt tt lni { w .? f * i f r�rrr `.4'9.. }11{. r i ''y f ' "� 4�'r1 ! r 1� t Ir / vr_9l 1111 4t 1' S , !•*', r Ll 1..',,,,e,%:;,..,;.;:-.,-'.4.,;••••:;„,',',..!t > t ] ',1' 1 .} t , � � a `Cr 1 I ry 1� � d ? t'li q c � `,. g 1 cYi> : f. '.1 1, t„k >r i ;It, . : I ,A� l r, i 1� ' #' � e ��ik � V �� 1 <\`�� x �a g A ..Am„ GSA kar} R.>r ?i:. , 1, ii <a I{t�L)� St' ° ,� ',{`� ���{ IhU' f' jn Av22'� k 2 ,:,�o �^ gy O�b 1 �e yti 1 , t f. n )�Ga vryJ(' L.� 2� k�d"� F @� t�A4� t��ft � li l�ll'{ �l � F:' ��IIII �tl TtiIT}��II{ '1!�KL``�`� ��'',tCAS a j ,3.� P n tart i .It'F¢ ( t ,S -P j , tf` ?, / ' nvv ti a o ntr ,ks 9 Vf '' ) i-a.e�` a-7: 1,r tt. m i `3,u'�' � �is � � �P da k�!7:�r'va � �< �lt�t� — �.t tr;� �1 A� �� � s / �' '. i° ° t i ,..."-",=';"T,;... Ht4 1,`: ' Z r - � ' $ ,� { -.. a r t <.�,/ ,I _ ,.,F,A!e r<CiW ,. ,,,�+ h',ira t �..�a ` qt. - A > i l q�\. 'C C r yr .�- L.c� k 1 Py „,�g A? Ik A {t. k y :fit �LP�i� , Qy�r L�c�j� }fir} ' h. f% 3 ��� $ n� � $� ^. t t�. 1 �f�\� J _ r�1.-.• 7 y{ rx 4tt�.. p I,.. vtY >��v trC �,�n s' )a t r }@ a t•s - ,C rnr$ .Pt rrtf {gr;>s rt 1 .- l .o'b.'P.?r�rCJI�� } �, p+` r�'�r'.(•..� a r�lX '. r , 'P ad 7.,.--;-:..,:i:,.,-,:,- ,4 , Y` Skk,9�.., J--IF. �4} r v�B ,. it k f� r..S r{"`t r-� uff 'i �ri ' \� ` ('� Y ti; $' !1}1 , 5 u k I* ''y +" t { ,€h r 1� xH}A�. �. �;�. .l - rye., rt1 r- . .. 3;yT � 1 f t4. 4 1 { a:: k`}', �+�C It rt ti'! E� ' r .+. '� P. � .( �, ,, � k r l `. r 71�'� IAA f S s° �1fy3E SY*rr tb. ti I r ' �' .;t4,.,,'',::::',., !, s �+^' ix : ,! P R� 4 n3 t a it 1k s!' ' . .a v r I T li't r :3,{d tt Ar•p:. � r -� �l [t[t Ih I`il L. 1.� , ...1 f •c•Sd `rir i•�i{a z I ,;t, Y \, JJt i.:;:„...,, a{' '� 9' ,^ -r IJviltPr, i�ll.4ra�tl r1Et;/.'1'�. ki,\ It '. ! " �i �fM. r• kjb =ar r IY.`{11-:!..c.;',.' �, y'°,Rd t !s 0,:-:':: a ; 1 tpc. �rhh I `:.r, y,,li! ,.�yF�er L1 ( ' � F,, s bvi�.c3rkrr i I vJ $3 r i t) (''' ��..1� ' {I li,)b zr !lif � 3h�wtV¢; .4�'R,1ka 4 !'' }' t ,r .,,:. S E � V +F cL ! ' 9 '� )1>1 P�E .I T � . .car t '.'f ` ! . r4 tt {t Y j } Z j iA risr nr , c '; i ,��r -f �> i-z,'�l _'f yS?.''d�1iv i{ i !ri 1 r i P .�, qC t, a 2' k5. r r I'! i „ ;.. .. Ii -� ;.i , ,��r ✓ Ir PI �.'iH + l r n ' r�y. �'1sr:dry ,�ti '� . et�t ,° ! t ]f C 5 = `. y' j 1 f c, A' ,,ti i..ao%F��,k !r"-.f„�.'�i u'u,r A t?,�!�.. - {. F�,!;,,�{f 5t;„r. . t '1,c. 7.ka. :f,r S��4a},ra 1;�13 i ,�t� 11'9.$r r._•. X p 2 W CO 1 ^I CD 0 0 0 0 0 X N . 1 N ' N m �1 A !? , N a N f 1 AVENUE NORTH.ci s o AVEN t7 a m n d I - ��,. k b rJy-,. F i ! rA. .+I."k..+FIT m r`.t f z, i t I I - -a � .k^.•` �. t I 1/4.',A."4F I:! I - I - 1 (▪ I '..1 j j, !. ,5 ,S t :c.', 1 - .. I ' ) S I s}• r.,..-- 1 I I ! I !I 7 !1 I I •.,'. `'. `:.. fi /� t - it , ' i i I▪ L }r C, - , 4nfe > I :' Y J,. �fi .d ,1, € j I I i• y Z j .,. ! i t t • 1 1 I• .x , .' 1 ,— k r + ,, . i�- I,i�1 } 0 E I M I / r , �.I I 3 ,1 I 1 I`'r .� I ._I • .r.1 i•� i t•:; •`' •'1I' ){�}� s� t i ': if t,Ii m I r ,. (. :( 1 ! I I 1 I 11\0' $ i , , I 1 I I I !I f'6 i l \".� t & ' I � j ,, 1 I •.' 0:-, I, ..- I JI t \q 1 t 1 vi• } 1•— 1 _II,ans ri{ i h i �' ( 11I fY gar x /I —'''1.1'' lI(I � r X l �� t0 i kIl\1I i I 1 i i -'Itl i ,; .J - f , ` a Ir l! i.ayt ...i !i� -II , ',. I,,'a r; 1 I I J (, i. ty 11 � jI ' !� I , iff ii t� 't l ) ( .' i. t (11 1 t 1 �. I i ;lI If J ! T !I C{; ` I t � `r !I � r I I(ii �< Z I I `� v ('i i I Iii ''•�'j\I,I I • xt/, 'r +i`'.. i i ▪ a , a r. t r- 'I 11-_ a_s /.}a!,S , t,if .'l I Ii CITY OF LAKE ELMO �' ,ri �r J . 1_ _ . ! I.,:it .:„.....11,14,--4-...)i1 ti4 ,i* t1{Ii i ;i1;i1 I � I,_ i<•.ct �b 1 1 1, - ti ,t�\ ..bra 11j1 t '(�. '1 it i.• 1. CITY OF OAK ARK HEIGHTS ri ! ', 1 a ��( i i J q ` ,�(t`! j j fJ� ▪ rt(11 l' t. I P fry!,r f l ... i a by,..•yyY K •x. .\l: 1jT JIP' ' '11,I /\, Al?f � , j: _,,i .r - s 4,' I 2k1 i K x,,' J,I _Jrr IJ c ! 1 I { Itll•i n ( ,J t Fy{ E 1y. 1 1 1 A .I 1 '.4-- ` :�+,.F r!',. 1 •a : e.. , ♦ y 9 ♦1. (j( 1 , if• il l'IN /!� ` I i rdr r ''' �r • ,TV 1 '`t v d Ip)d( I lfI !ai •, tri.Fi d� i cam'> �' a � 1, 1'�} I{" ,I'•a 1 f. _... Jr II ` U. O Z i LLtw..... �' \ ° )k l: :' / "� r,• `, ; .._ , 11141 . l 1 1 .. gg x•14 ;f l• o to r D - I I `+#'1* c. JJ ti r-W� • f ',o-.. F!1+ltrj/ ., ,i \II,:f� m o p I 1 Si �° !'w g i '3ae • .: :` G� +Ij'y � ' j x 3 :j;m la •°a�#+. .. 7 ; t 1�\'Rt' - • m 1,61 ,11 f I i�! -!r 3 0 �1 r tnitt•c-I 1 A !i ;x '�`+, 2ra s r - N•i ! %' `•�iw.� au•,.�;�-• �l��ra!lr -Ill�ll I t I 1< y� R �y, /fsns a• I LS': 4r'�i }��I�III, f In 0-, '� I -i 4,N'J) !!.�" ��YLa1•,� t !" 1- • 'd "+ r' • �,j 11`` I g. F x {•A lam ) 4 E�':r' t t '{ tr ii_i'�• m o Cr)r <Z g f > w, ;r.� t I SI{{rl y DZZD ,'� om y N ,i x! -l,'..�•. (.(�.a, '� `;` l,f I •.-,v .'- ny•n 0 ` .,.1` F;i., 't{;tt•N Tl D.U� ,I ryI JY r• $+S '."II ,� 1 t3'. ;.'r .CI� ! M'" \ lll, 1''.. I r„D , ', t a.w ,': .t%.^.a 1 $;'! 'S` ../42 j x. . 3 i 1 o si ■, J a i' :'�' r: i D r +# f Z rtr i. i ;fN. .I ... r!Y•. 1 F ;.... h JI , . • IQ I it ti }.,,,, 1v ,.nt .v a` ,.r:,I (` }1 Y Ii C�r Tp J. A I ;; 1} I • • {• 1 a. V *4,..-„/ .5 f 2 wa�Z •_ } . 7 x N o a w J ( F in � i i t t ( i.:..-..i- '4,o- ` RI3 + / I i s tE t ;Y i Z , � a v x, m 1„. ?'qy I ,. ,t j .., r• s i / Z i r t 1 ii •a x lot ♦, f °, r•. O DZ o yr k' � r f 4 1-;.,-;/:� I -.• „'''',r :, - 1Y /'•°a, { I { Z N N d•, d s', '2„50,C/�4/♦( / It /i i $a 7 tit 1+ f I i O N D D r J` 1. `y to ♦ .'F ,,..• i „2'' r� , t' 1•CO Q D Z Z / !z' 1 s ¢ NN ...V1+�+ �•,,^i i ..S • Ji,t •. i3.3. D D I:I ( I t i,i _i1I C rvr - ,l1 I f� �', 1 a: I I` 1. m I 1 s.� Eyl ' 3 I = fNTI A i s - _.. 'JI _I ..... r'! ' g\ ' i 9 ,LAS. — f ! in 1 n 1 a �",, , ', r 5i fr; i m d _. ....J q,,, fl,,.ta .v'$... Y j a•.,. µ u, y ,`Ii ! —� A $ ;. 6 c a v' '' a I ""A ' ' 4..,,q ,IT ' > tiry s+„s' D i € N Z } 1 i dj q Enz K C m � —rn m 0' X�A 0ri : N 1D Am � Z D N m$2O� N r o D N t, •_ O (Jn ;f 2 N N N t-• rn. yeN N N T m^ .1,1 01 F N> • N VIOL rn On F (a (�I�T1{IV " C tG�rD S p T Ir)CO TTI c AUCOT ii M NY� C8 -cnmm O 531.)s8m N Z ch1 > m m C to I • O tZCyso I ;� — f Z z tNt w gZ w 9 0 o A tv 2 N-" 4 2 TA � !, 0 a m >g 18" + 0 r t, 0 A . at 0 C m �A 53 m H C 2 KI T 8 N m c co tO o t" z gm m (,1 . t t;; ` ] iI f 1 j1 1 1 f i!IZI y '1 1! ' ' .1 1I1 1 r4 ii it 1 I Z i l c.E �► / / �.: #•'O / /'f t / ;/ ,, it • 11 w � % may. C�0 �4 I I,It it / ,'44. � • '``'\ 'Tn 1 H 1 I� , 401; N N ,,,„ 1 I t•i:Y 1 > ti 1 11 - ),,<, r�Th En � '2" �- t I n.''� <i "r ea O i 1 c I 1 ' - � z 4... ! w I r �// ,� t,•y 0 ��� 8, 73 1 11 0 Y W o i I r1-. i /" I = ,,,...._, ) ° i ) ,,, & -, --- ' • i Ir , do .;� sir' . o , � j 'o . 1 , !1' ( \i . II I 4- N., %.,,, \ { 1 ij I" > t f i il---- ---- >* '.k f L_n of I 1 „\\::\ _ i i = r....: O 1 ,ti \ 1 _ �e �`e f G7 i -+- tv `+Y V(n @ z) k._ .. 1 i J o t , � ��.. l '\ ♦ 1, I II ,r 1 t X° 0 1 OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA ki Bonestroo i HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS PUN,SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT SURVEY REVISION OAT_ WAS PREPARED DV NE OR UNDER IEF DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AEA A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER DRAWN DJi ----f KERN CENTER IMPROVEMENTS c� Rosene UNDER THE Uws OF THE SAME OF MINNESOTA • DESICNEU CAE ..6. $ Anderlik & I LOCATION P��NN Associates APPROVED CA q. T AND TYPICAL SE TIONS Engineers & Architects DATE REO N_ GATE , ■al .. X t0' ›, - ' o - - na a " MANNING AVENUE NORTH • ... . . f f.:n o a ,-, .,.„--...,-- -- -- ---- -. - -4:::. "::\ ..:2:..---,-- ;1.7,-,"-r• -",4,71!kr,,;:..,...)., ,,:- ..„ c " r- ‘7,- -,:/ 1 . .. - - I i 1 ------. ---"- w'n, . , r.... ,1 4:$5:,, , ) : ...--1•-"•■-•!,,Ai...1"••;:•/'\I 1 11.‘','.:.1‘,.".....1,:''-1 ":.A- ' `. \ *•-'''.. i I I'•It ,‘1 !, , o * 0 x J , ...1,,,.', f 1?',1- ....;//1 ',/ '•;...'••,', "'....;;••.;k;,. .',.....j; ll 1• ."...--.. i / \\' ?!, •,*•'.... ,..-- •; ;:i.I'', I i '11 I 'r"7-'; c-) - .._,T o a ,;2 -...4 I I lisi i. ; 1 '• t 1 t - ,.1 ; +II.;-*,.. ,--.:::',1.--,--;-rfl:;,?:7' i \,-Cr.t..--:', ...-:.- tg-t-t."1.,,It 1 ( .2j It I'l- -'----1 tt . I § i ,I •I: t ----t ct., :tt,: Ft lit-7--,--I I------'------ 'Ai;s !tt 553: IF, 1 ,p r...--;;;:..,-1.:?:::-..,. ..‘:::";:.:-.=:::%:;:"::'-:::::_l f,. --4 EIE-- .-::::„: ' '0.16c17- ""--.:1-....-„... II' . i 1 ••,-,- •-•:-.---.,,,,,,--•---- .-4,,;,.,-*,,,. s• •,,,?.!--:•-:•. ....:---- .•••••:-.. . • ..., .:. •-•• \ 1. . . _,•4,1 , 1•Ii •,,, . . iF,1 1 • , , " •• — , •,--,--,--- .• ,-.,..--,--, ,, . _. .-„,-..• :,--... .--:,.-4----:::... _.....-.....,:i ii,41,-..,li , . , , P ' : ig1 i , 1 i ''''' • t 1 T It-1, ,t ';,,.,., r• ' • '' I", ' --- '''\"515,':'-'"'"15' '.7••'..-41 • : ..."5. u(V 1 '. ' ,--.. 1.1k,ij I. . . ' , 1 1 ....,,,,-., ..,i;„ .:1 ,. ' • 1''" .-,..''I) i\)i/;/' 'Till '' II - i . -—0&‘A5.11.9,4.9 I i•...-- .. ................ ...- - . , / '. ,,at".... • •''/.----.7...:,:r. - _,..i. ,i',...Q1'...,, /„ i ' . , M I .,,, i,a, •-- .! ...•1........ •• ..,..;:,. 1.. „2. : L ,,‘,.1 E---o: I' i' (ii id 20 Lilt ' I , . ' ' I i 1 t, ---" -401",---.- -5-1`,-,\16 ,ii_ - •- ,,r...._..„,-., ,... . 1,,-, . 4, , I.„ ,I.,:::,, ..', (I i' ) i i i h 1. 1 n 11 1 ; $ .. • g't - '' ' 1.4I- ' ''''''`, '''4.;\\\:',..:7:---. \k 11 --i' g k' 1.m.s. I i 'II ' W2 '').: " 1 i II)ki. 2 '. L' „,,°/.1.r. • , : tt: -, ----: i -":—... s1 I - il 1:i „s - -.I.:',! 0 t ' . 1 ' 1'' I 1 t,i. .•:'''' .....7%."'',.:17 .-- ..' 1 la/ :i Co'. ..' '!...19;'.' 1 ] a T., „ ) ,ii, f ---..-ICIi'I. I'-ii t .1`., -i,../. ,.,-;.; -,---•;:..1.-,-,:.I.-.::::C--,11IiIII at:5 tt---------;:-'./2-;/)-; o : 2 1 1 U., - - •- -- 1 i 1 - • ' ”''' •• i . - 1' ., _,.--- x rn . c I .,:.:.-:•", ;,-..:-.7:7•., ....'''..---:. ._.4...f.4'102."S'''' . 31 1- 1 • 1,'''.----.4."'! , 0 ■ ,... X 1,, - 1 1 (''..-:1::,:',,‘ ., -- , ','1W I f/''::::.,;: :: .'"-:.-i:::: ii I' I'';,,,a\...‘'..,,:::. :21-_11 1)ti,;;,1 i 1 I '---.. in 1 %.Mi,.-- "----. 1 ( i ,f : .,— / --, -,1-...1.6-----, ' ) 1..,1 <IA\.',. ', -., ihil 1 1,,, 1 I , „I, 1.. .., I, m .. I &-;.' ' (I • : !f. .:"..-- ..- '.7i --L--. !f ;` ; \'-' 1,111.;:fr I II.' f \ •A),-• I .• ' 11. ' .. `. , , .i 0 i q 4..a. li . „ „, '.,',...'-...',:_-:.-.;',...'.....--'___ '.-• \it.\ VO•:...1. .115Fi, 1,)/ ) '.4.-•,::)-.- .•- .-:-i -T:1........i,..%,i L liirolit 1 i .._...--, ,...-...------- -••FP., \:-=?\‘‘. ,.:\',..,',„ t'!Aii i. .., . , •• i; , ... „ zj •',I••••(•:.• • • ./.4.f.::---.-IL•-.:::::::::.•....:.....-,i.ifit i 4 1 I I 2 0, I \ '4,.. \ ') '- ''" k `800-`,".----;......?"..-... i• ."...' 1 I(. -. ,'' / -:::7'.'ki:7,,,---,.-....:•:,p 1'il! }" ' ' . IA I .. •••,,,,,...4, -., , ••••• -. PA t!..'' •',.. _ . F.—• ••,', -,\1/2.,... .110 ,•'''tt I'.1 11-.,,;-•1'.;'---.1.'Al tiq'iti, III I I ! Ip 1 z . i -'---.-. :" /f, 11..• "---------1.)1,tk'fiiiii"-1-17 , 11- •I;I: i 1 Oily 1 i;';. I .. i ,, J;;;.;;;,■ 1 1 CITY OF 1_, E ELMO N,,,, ..__________,......._...-,-- •- „ ;,9X- - 1 ; ,,..,, i ;, .. ....\t.': .). ..:1 1 .1.: ...,.i''.,::::".. i•E il ''.:1 „.6°..,(),:...;.,..: 1 1...::„.1‘,.i......z..11'..1 1':.1 j.ii i,;..:'•..1:'tlitli.tiiti!i:11,4)1 11'i' [,1;II::';. 1.1..,,ki 41- - ---- ..T.7,---- ..-1.- '-'---"-' j';:., ,2,-.. /V -k \- .' 'c' ----...\ s'it,t,. •/) „--- -1 ill ' .1.1i. •1 'r ==•:?7111\41, i CITY OF OAK :'ARK HEIGHTS 1 , ---i , , ••,,, . ■ • 11,1 ••'•••••at-••••••f i ... ,...tes.\•..„,. ••.::.:t:' ',.4'' .f.'',..7 :-• "';''':It iiill‘r;:':'''''' '''''..X'''''''..F111111111 ' 1 I ” '-'lel . ' 1 . 4,. I r_ i ., - , -... .,,:'14`,, -iv,:z 1 ;.-0 111 . ; 4 , '; lk."51J.:, .....;1' . I& : 1 ?, ., '64, -A''.. • ';','•,.'.,; ' ',;i 1,'" ..,1 -. 1. i P\\‘, ,.4g----- 4 - ...! • :ffil::.,A),4.1Y,.„... •,,,k4-..-. :\s .wili 1 I I. t, 1 • i'i, . 1,. 1 A t/ /4, 'Ii4I6 ,,./ ,::: ! g •• , ' 0 4111101 ., , ,,!, -.,..: 1 • 1, .., a ;..- 1 P.., 1 -q .9 / , 1 , I 1 ' '-PI' ; •.kl, ..-:.'..-.. • '..,..,..., n-.:. .,.. - .1 1,,,o/ ;.r,/,,, 1.(0/; , ,,,;/:".,:.: 4:....y.;:.: :..,:: :.' ,---......-.:-.,: ,,...,...„.' .._ ,.. ......,,,..s1' f„.."'''''Itil "' I.I''' \ ,ii:11 I t.. it 11 1 ' a -i-r, -;... •••-....:.t.,;,:t41,6, , . ' ,1;;;, 1‘3,, p-- ' ',8,..;:.-. ..,;:•.,,,C., ... . 1.1, 11 1 '1, I i 1' Ira ti;m> . . ..rr 1 .,, i : . , ,,,,,,,.r. ,••. ,,,, \or. ,...,„...„,:,: 1°P-r--- $11 -onzz>r 1 omz i 1: _ 1 , I, , i ; , ..,' • ' „,r2,-,,. is,,c,,,/ . r ,." , - ../ ...,t..,.. ,/ ..,,.:,..., ••,/ • -...,‘„,... ... ..., -.,-- ,, AW ) ',..:,;.:',..., ',..,VP: • .„,,.....-' -", Pi§ / a I, • 1 !" .'. 111'-' -". ' " , i 1.,m—i ' '-• 1- ,..0". , . ... - . .p.a . , s --4,47----4 !, ---,, --,,,- •,-.' .. , . . ,./..., , , .•,,, ,:....,. .„, , ,, .. \ a it 0 0 -4!;.,-,,.., ---•• N-.. .... ::--;.- t,” • .•..., ,. .. ' -/ . A ..4•'' ) F,.'i f(11::11::::: ".1:1.11 ''1,,11-1-11- , i , ., .. ...... .-..„... . illiktlift.: { I' i • I • i . •-• . .. . .,_' Tr sii,,Ii. 0:1,4, .I '...',4 t■SAA,,, 1,1,,,k1,/„...Tlk k, , 1 % .'.,-. ' ;<"'f.....7",.• • ;.',,,-,N'441-1. fi,.,;;Wt:',1--4011.,1,11/11,‘,"•,1‘.1ttlift , 11 t;11 ,i, ' ' 4i,..,. ,, ..4 ''.',' •';;',4 ; ...,77' ,, ," j , t .' " .... *,,tr. '••'., i CI 1.,4"1';i''"N'il'Z'NI,..";:37,44'il.,`:.0,!. x F? c .*::::! V 1.'r.. . .' .,:v -".•'---... .r-,--.1 .' .' -a ,,--i 4' ,,t141itt , / 1. III 1 -.,,,.. ...< t, 1 I t I ,. . ,. : t ,T ::■-•e,....1‘.?7,..e..si., .... ,Il t I 1 FA Fr;ftt; li:: N // i 1. 4,,,, -II-II,/t: fr LI''' . • ,.;,. ../.. A L ' -,,,‘ ..,...„..1,,,-...-„•..: il 1 •,,, . mz.,. 1 '-'' ''-'• ' ' 1 . 1 .. , • • r4.::„... 1-,1 5 1 ,Ar- -'"-''' ) 1 ''. I ''.+ ;;,;; ..,':''''' ' Ill ( 't.'..A. I . ' / : ''''A.,',. 1 t •,.. 1. . e',, ../.:::.' IA . . l'.,,-'4, 1 il 33 g ti, R ( in --......./ /..•, ,`••• ' •••-, . ..1i- l' ii'l 5,-.3.. .0 0 0 g•13> 11, -I MA :' ... ''' ''' ''' ''.. ., / •,-. : I ,0, 1, ,... "s`,, •... ,.• ......... .. . .• ,i,rt! 1g 4.,,...., ' I .,1:7 r 0 I. 'III'i'Lrl' H Eti2-4 U 11,2 --,, " e.--;?,-, --,..• , L.::./ og ,„ ---, 1■1111-4 t 1 1 -ir 1 Z o 18-6 ,...,. , , Z 11) .. $V. 49 '. • , ill ., 1-...:, ,"- 'rif.- •p,Fi,. H 1' 1 rn>ni 1) t,to .- — '4 w r 77 7' ',....,,' ... L'...•.....; .. s. . . . '7,:i '.. o 14. .. "-,' ' ' ii , -3:j 2 w z .: , , "0 'i, tr....1 P 4.-e• 0 ' " ii . . - --'"'•:'"VI 'e.?/A•I"." ( ' .' A I','"' /1 I - ut o o* - . :77:1 1 1 III , 2 z... A I I-"•;'*..„ '`•PI .'...'i -••', Zt;•.. ,=i '14, "'I•• i' •• ,.7'‘ f•/ ', 11 g 111>' -b'-t-'1".041:t.. / ..t>- - 9 '' ' ',. ."/ . 4- ,,. ,„ :, •-_-..,-zoi .? e o x g '--..:,'/0.,. ,i',.-: ' , ,.. •,, z-+11 ., • / ,.. IC it,' , f , N , ,. VI.i )4K 1- '..,..',/.' . 4.. .. '. 1).,.."' ..i. r:i 0 \, ' .:.. ...2....,, ' .----- – ?-7.rj :N u, r-r,.....•ZI '1, ' •' i t" ;.1 . ill: --,0 --....,,,,.:., .... ...,„ .•1- I ,.. ,I, ,., t/III-',?I,/ ' - • i _.... ..t:Tir-3771-1 - 1,-, I1 - -±'>to ...... IV . , n r--< • ,,,,... , ' •:1 ••••.„ -.. '''4',-, '',-'-- gi • X, ' i 4;•'" .' ./ <'• i ;....^ r.X.:`, ... . • ■ • .., '... (4.... l ..4,. '' .. ...7.1ir-,‘Lt,7 '''',;;Ng•- MA'- ' .. .. : I, 1 x a . co . , , I . a g -a .......___...... . t , •• -0 > S ...:,::, .,.....,-,-7--..--.... ;:-....1.._ a i ;,.... ,.' ,,„ ''''.1::-.:,vet Z. N. 8P .v,- '1) ' , A . I' ' 'I) Z .. , .. , -t 0 t ---I - 1 itt„ '' ' „0,,, t.:/.., 11 ---.L., ,,,._ • ,-!%t.,.'' ,. -< % ,.. 4,4. -.... '.4e0.14%,.,.. .-... . E 2 ‘.0 '1‘.:4 '' •-, i'''' P t 1-1 II.-.11-1::, , ;.,.",•••: - '07• ••• '••'.• '44(tIrlu 4c,'•••-. ,....:..,i 13 ;:, , z mo X 7, ! ...'?' i -ii•'•"- Ai, /-•• -±,-.:- ,•.„.„. , ti -•'.••••.•;. 7•2, 0 d I .:!4-..„ : „..1, eo- .-."' / ./ 1"4z, --.. 1!I 1 , - i ,,, . . 4--) %,„,,,„:- '.,, '.:;;:.-', -.. i •67••••.......1,4 ' ° i;'•,/ /O. !I 1 1 --1. 7,-"53.5,,:e. .... - , g ..4, .• 41, 1,,)17 ..,....:co, 9 I 1 i ig f,--•- /‘ ' -. ',,,1':;...4:',.5z-- '--- ' / / . 11 1 :±1 1 1 1 -''-1400W, / i :51 f,5 ''''i :5;1' . Att-4 tzlt.:ttit:,-- 1, 5' i a . .i p. „ i ,;,...$' , . 4,.%' !-' 1 i . I i t.; .,i'...../ ' :','' I I I 1 I • . '''<flz. ,...' ...';',„...t..94 .1/4,,1*:--,-...-.:.-• /. li , . -., I .i / ,.. , -., 1 , . . . , ''• /fro • • • i.,,, ! it, I .• 4)). , 2,. • . 1• . --•--5 ‘ v.,. -..,• ,47,,,.-,..,..,. ft. • , .... . ...,„:, ...I., ,••,..0 , ,i•,.., ‘.,„,,, • • T: ! i • ;;) t . i 1 , i .. ;Z.:;: .";''';',,...; • ' • ;;;:"!. 4! / 1 fii .;I •. , . t ( I ;:,,eT N ''' t' 9a.,-. . . ,4,,,, - , . , '-: :7,I. . 0 .. - 1 i I , _ • i 1 W 9P , , . I . , i Z i .., : ..-_-_: ..4."2.',.-.'">"'", ,.'''' ''''''. .01■'''...1/4....'''''... ....3' . . . . . i ,. ...... , ' a---, . ' . . ..., ''.- -111"kk... ill 1 a 6. / ';,-,--- I 1 i -. ,...,L., c:.:7., ;,.r ....? ,.j,, /... --1-':g..''',';'''',(4-A. '''..,,'Xiii ",‘.1*':. I •.-• ' . / ,..,,,,,, 4' i' iv./ '''-'.4•F' N.."-...'-'.. ... ,,.94,444:-1, .:..:;:a. , I i ,, 41 , ,,, .,/ ,,,,/,;(( i', / ..(t',;(,,, .,„ 4 ,N., k i ;Xi.„ i ,Z1! 1'4; Ln 13 -i o ,-- '''-('-''' "1:4'..--''' i,x.:-.7-,! ,.% + ''-,..-4--.l' 1-..',.1-S ''.- I D. M -- .. ..,.... ... I 0 i "a':.F.; ,a''''2 .,--..." .,. il..,": 1 '..., '''ge --. ',.. i.... -... ---7-1 -c-1 • • ' > 0 i , , . /•:,, s ..,.. . ,... ..• -, ....:WV-- t'',,,-.., • ,'''''),`''.;'‘....," ' '•.''.. 3J VI ,-,-, . i ,t.l. j . . 1/1. ,-- -ii........... .._-n , ••. .■< rn -- . -,. I. 1• I','; %„. / /..., ... ... ./ 1 1tt'n, t....-, i ' 1 I i 0 : ,,1 (0 ,('/,„ / -..- . (1) ep ... .-,AI. 1 ..>(...%.,. '--....:,:' I Pi 0 ° - 471 $ -) ,i -..,-., ,.,-. 1 , ,,;••••... ,,„ ,---... . , o P- , Y:' %-,•,,,, .;-.11h..,.. ‹"--„ -,q) ....g.... ....^ : .• z in f 1 i z ;„•,. , .,, .. . 1 •4 •"..N, i ----........„ ' I' xi (:) 2 -0 pi m" xi x ..,' •,'"•,,,,.. 1...••1 /ii-• -•-. . . . c.n v) -13 -1 0 z ••'..4•44/' ' .„ -- r''t. ,.? ./., : '.. ..''''. • '•' • 1„ .„ 7.1,'••, 1 .;.: „..".i.•••-; . g ••••...'Nf's..--„,.•••:;t„. \.,\:';',..., 1 1 > Z 0 0 1 t t' ; '.;•••,:.?..,. .. ... , m Z 0 0 v) v) , i ! Iiii ca , > - •., 1 '-y..iiw %: L.,.. ,,,.,',:'''.::.‘'..1:1=.1*,::,.1.17:".'" :::' '"'"?:,-,''' 11 . •7 i-1.9k' 0 .. ,.:.,,,!, •k.. • 0 5.1 xi 73 Z M 1 .„,.1..'..i:, ,•.' * 1 \ \ ,„0 i, t ••".--; / 10., 1 , -5,i 7., ( ...:i:t.,,t.,i ** ''.%;;'. 33 . m 0 (f) : ' VA * M ) • I m 0 •1'1'i't ' ...i I„, '.,:x....-- '., , , , ,,,.•--".-- ; !•-.F. --1,.. ,..;,. 1 NJ rn _ ..et09.................. L.._: --•••• 14-------------/ I 1 ---••4 ,,k.4:. i-• •.' 1 • .-"- • ., . 1-,: I .• . ••!:;:,•:„:":..:),A...-• '-it, z g . •-,.,„,. : il i t N) EN `� 1.i • � i ,/ .....1 .1 .ii 1 li iiiim i r-------- Noriiiir---0,01,14, - -. , - 1 •, t ., 2, I- IV/INN 0'4%11111 Preto ' ' I- - : - — : ' 'llif° ,..,_ .......4.„ ... ..I ......! 01110. ,, , .„,,s., , mr,' :..,..zt 111_1r,s4. .... ' . ,L. iii ::',.,..8----y:o ' ......a......„,iwAmillrov Ei wislutftati .N,,, - .... i pit 4, ,-,- ,. ,k- , . g i 1■41iimmr•;_„.),..4.4m mal..."•PIPPillli . 1 . ii 1 ___A� i i . / i 1 jai -.wok ililfp• Aid. 1 In e441 L i ,,,, A, ......0 1141RV4hLIN44.�ti ;AI®1e tkil Jjt! iá!iIIi1IItI11 �w'>es��', limilS11 ..? �� 1.11 .41: r► �tE i' •==■ F I_ • iEir7kllIlll-----_ ,, 1, ,,,,.., iitri-1.1r/at‘11,k AviiiiiiPP\NO41.1 -- ,;1 ., !pm.1 Nialic.i.11 I Ail. /111111111.1 ,,,,,„ r 1 , 1, 111 iiii. ti Ti? -iiAi;IIi-- .�i, .i.• � ,�, ..:,„.. CD € 'r z0ir + .., c h tt 10,w 1,1,`11 1 %�l 1t il`I,/� 1s1/111 la saw e .a,`,me 1 .? rq Job; �.:-.4s a r ,(en i % s _ "j-_____-0_,7_4,1" I alt® i 'r„"„li ,c71!P i, . ""`fig, rAi sr rill - !'.^ 1,0vm 1111" t ,k's ,.'!�-•' {;Q " t4 ` JtC i/� � '',�'^, �3-� �-' ,>� u'» ®.i/i \IIII „�1hv1.t®6 ark' x, .'6 4 w es -R 1'/// %11111 t S7\V �� K I � 111 ■ 11111 �e nn __ i_.� ' I z .1 A l 5 3 I�t P:i ? ;d 3 deeee111/ COw, Illlllel► `4 x a e ,. s; se�..rof® . ��1����I "1 y ,°6'r ,`}w. rofi`r � ®iv�44®j¢a pL�.1®e9:c�� ��t =� 1 r.r v i*. r 4 s} 4 S o'IA 0 w ra in i-– ®®L_ 1 CD °S ',i ^, a �m®`a iee® rl I�-II,10111 IN § k,'}l �,` roc.. d” r }r- xg;a Be�C1 ® ''� x ��I s r, .<�,3.�` tfis� r .� ,3' �Y s eao® �J� rlU1/11111/�, .....,,..„.„„, ,,,, :„:„.., .„,.:..,,,,.......1. , ,, , .... i. ...1, ,\,,, o " 4,..,,. „,,... ,,.,,,.,,„, ,..,,,,.,,,,,,,„ ..,,, .,,,,,g mr,.;;.1 .1 mai 1P41+ Nor ''. e2411\6.ii , 411Liffi V0,00V6A1 A,44.ity"g'-'7' n '11°61-4*L•sei �I II\ ®'� n a $J ' i "dm� �� Rio r 111 �® `e iariy� r, o I ,1 mo 111111 ® I p�eals14 �'� ICI 1®5■I ` '1111:��II■®11111• qq' �a saes I YIII'a mil N ,!_�_� - z` -.,:,`-Ali. 1::.',i,‘-:,-.:-, ;.,..',1,:-4....:s; �Y '<. III E. a L_'i Etrz ei;,:.. '"_ - LJ'i Y'� F Srit d E i 1 t i- 1 7- 714 oi®mq'=I r r a� .rj® ®lee ail �� �� ., 4F IL '� �Ii. e■11VI1 � �`N N \\ a�^ 7 ➢ '� �, Yn ''����1���°�106�1�0b lii fir' ��� s z, 4 >_ &''. -r. f F 1®le 'x 41■ } o / Nu..,l'111, 6 1 z ,..-_ 1 rya t.r y 4 1A�` `" "I Eli E® a �� lei I t IAII /1111 ►/`■ FA —, cg° l r s11111� ,111111 j' :el,- is I, tH ®Ili®"111 ,_!,..11:1111 1 T %� AZ. a ; �"; ,/�i= 49V ,goo o er�� ' K. to . ..313E'' '- '?".‘ I gt,„1-,4., _-, ',,,,-N, ,, a 1 1A4 i r' E yn ,;%.',--. ,',S } 111111 /W I ' �A d•111111 114 ��;'� . immilli X111 11111 -I////.i f o 11` °.°.s�'I,-' :.,+'y ' 141 / c ;. gv'qy 3d �. , of X.'n z i°s,'rs` z .P, ,:i'2,*&:...— LoW14741V I ': 744' ,:4:14- 4.::4-; .'''1,^44.',Yt.!`r,;Wflf 3 1=t >4.4-' r. . !, a t.:,4a g`,,,—-k 4 a iN^ ,yJ,""`'ems” .S t'xy4 ..y��•v '4"§3'a . r `�.x,X Y �4 Y=t"} i - 4.' y1' r F1'` x € 4 .4, g a. S'„y� ',Ng tt, 3 a "r nK r. 'r e av 3 ''i }� zp ,,�' a`�`. }o"''tipx S �, ti a y iv£+ �a I # a / a t r i c , ' z,t d b ^r +, � "ti R s �a §r,' / z+t „d' � l''....'$ to 1111 ., ,,, ; ., F r_ t .. r4 t s . 1� Fz.l �'!'� 101 .� ,s , '.8 E v §gA; a z�`8 f'S 1 +• 4 a Y U r y ,v� Sq a .t .4 -,6-..'t„' "y.�( .I eft ,-,„ y,+, r Fw^i c ,+14ze S ,e 1 ,+ + , . c xy s :F �1 \K" ;�, i F y `�.lY F r x t'`.Ii� PI ifi' < 4 d tiiii "",-k�c°. a x'"f � �r, 6 Ir a , s r 3-a , s tia f e g ' ' ' x .� - r Y ,�' t r a Fr{� '� s xj. �, {'�'�,Zx^� 5 ax,s �,�v �'��„�afi�.,tF. :'rb '41"x1 x'�"`'Y tt 1 n t xd, ° r a tt it ,zY ,! 5-4(� '�'�*' dOct, �`�,' ., r. 7 m �,:;:..tf. d r �, a �''''3, g fr 3, F3 t5 t E i r rz 9d M st ? )�Y.-`-4z 4'y i n t �, 1 £" z Y t� zD K 4:C a 'Ac p i•Ak r. ; ;,,x� �, ! r >* --x"�au z "I,� y r � � �: � �.�1 c Fp �� tilt x ,?V 'z "'fs rhv } TI4 r.6 lam kl s i Ft s, ,it.: 'u� W y '*" •w 443 }r 1 'y., ma=r i.ti r ;, t e r" " ' t,�t'- ,a y,r +a .1 4�ro S,t +s £to E?4,:pAtt i a x rN y' „£4`,x " . t''x ,N°r ri4? �d• e F 3 "5 D' r V2 t, w{ z Y�' r : f kr,� "buy. - .. 1,,,.....i-,.1 5�...x. ' r;Z. .l_...tt.,o ,t 17`'.. i.,....,•-»;'c q'E`c'J� r S z?�t q ", ar . "' '` *''i _ I f r • . . . . 4 k. R `) , .111, 11 -8- 11 8 n r; ..1 . it ia 2 , , .i I • , , g -. ' g 1 i.. 1 , i , ! . 1g II 1 1 i . 1 1 1 ,,, .............7.............. „ ,..4.4 .....:2i pt 'i "4112"'" '"'''''hh—illi _,,,,- 1 ymmor mom ., 1 L__ ,,„,,t,°,1-.4. 181 L I . ° rni:-.3 ,,lit,0 ,- .-- ... .......—:' ' L 0 * ; ,.,--- fror-71-Non &WWII , •-■ -"44 441. • ,...444 .---.444 . ,,..... 1,,,,,,, , — —..4.4 — s IN11■11■111.7.1 3 r ; 7- ' IP i . . , r _. _........,..ff: I 1 1 i ,`-§: t 1 2.... Ki I 1 I 1 1441iiikkkokimmoott tkm3 ., ' . I Jr , ,i,, , , - g ,., 1 , ,r I. . I 11 II H I g ' t ' I , „ 4 • 1 i I . I 1 1 1 ' I I i I I I II II APOCIP .1 i [§ . ',.:,,,,$0,, 110.10 7 I i 11 \ • 1 ; 'L I .- i ,'I ■ 1 i i 1 , I 1 1 I 1"1 •:„ ' All y , --1 (-) I 1 ' ..,,,t PO 1011 1 111 IR 1 I 'Mk i I 701 1 !f 73 co 1 1 gig g-, 'r c c f L ,,,,,,-. 1 -4t u - OR WI ' h ..:1. 1. $ . I 8 8 9 , . , 1411 1 A . ‘341 II 1 ,,, ... 1 , r. ,• _W- •-• 0 i ,i - i,.. ) aly OF LAKE ELO , 0 ii ti i , > 0 .."7_+' III MAE OAK'ARK HEIGHTS 1 \ ‘ t i ; p 1 zi 1 m , . 1 1 :,I _ E 1 IOU ; 0 ej) 1 r I I ,1 \ R/ i Rq i .. ... _ ... . i z x Jar 1 - l- 1 -1-'• 4, ° 1.0‘ 'II' 8 ..4 . 4 V ■,. .44 „.....14/. ,, RA.011 '44••-•"III--.a- - r Amor I I sy ,. , -;,,tia I, / , I i N 1'. D,e), ,/e/ -4,' , . . I M m .. - .1 — .,,, 4 ,,..., s, 44,/ ± , 1 i ,i 1/44 , i-41/ 'i i7 ' 1, i ' '''. . 4...,... I %, e I 1 I 3 i • 1 11444) ...' 4Y/ ,„ e . ,,, , ,. '' 9 d, 1 I 1 , * // 4 0 ;1 1 4 I //.- 0,, 1. _,'4t I/7:l////' i 11 E4 po I I . CAm - ,* 1 I .N i $ r8 1 Val - 104,,,` I -'3 Fri z i•J iR e C64.7 NI%o., ..: ix o‘c, ' , x. 44-. --, .0 -o i. S / a . l'r‘D T e , . ..... i - ' 1 1 „,,e,64.-, I 4 i'.ezep st,„ ' l 44 't MCI ts.1 3i lo 4# 4- • .. I ..., I • ''S'.''' ,.:10,1, . ".,%, t % . . N. ' % t'..., N ,‘ 1 t " I. riok N, ,, - , ', --1-, 7 ; i; 1 i'l 1141 .0.1 4, ='" .._ .AK PA'K HT" IN, 4 ,N N N 44 *4 4 ke Y''' I q'' t".7 NI = I 1 , ■ . '''''. i 1 i i ,...,1 . 1 . I , 44; *"'* .- •1 " '- •-, " ; ..t..A.11--4 0 i 11 1,i. .• 1 ... .. , r ..... _ _s___ _ _l_k__ _ _ _ * ;,- „ —t 1- -iSi%p,„, ' -* -F1- , T.1 ----7- F" \‘4T. \ 1 111.111 \ , .$44,‘ " I I 1 'w4lt• $4. / i'.. 01 , • $ 'or4t., -,4V y. tA g. i . 4 1 . - .-, I '. ''',, \`` % ' '' -' ‘a'N440'a II 1 I i 1 '''04, i ,a1 i a ., a,. . I ' i i ii i 1 • i I i 1 `4Z, op_ l'i:/Pc?// 4;4 , ''.,..64,4 .in '....,.....:/, . , ''''-' I' . , rs) ii I 1 1 '1 V3IP g / ''''.N.. ..'. 4.'' '1:41: 1 1 1 ' ti rot% q- 04, V4 ; .,, <4„ W S 40 ; i 1 4, ,i;e8 iv Eg 1 i ' -..,,, ,,.„ Y- ?....i..' n ig 1 1 Nts, N 4t14, .„, II Xi C i e Is I 1 1, i' I ..IN % illg 1g g 1 i '4•k*., ' ■-•3 ' g V n 1 '-1-. :13 iii>p a 1 1 , '''''' ,- f ,.,'"0 I P , 4? 4,,,,„ / a __-_1"-_.....e__\..__ ii I 1 hi i.1,-1 4 I '.# .,a,, 4,,, t 1 ----IOWAN! , I I I 1 ft I ! I\ I 1 IN3 I :'1 I II . I ( CA. till I/ ii " II‘ IrZ I reg 11 t R- -..0- • <n r- „ 4 .--. 444 I 4 <'44/ I: ''''-, 1411 1. •4.- 1 i . I I ,1 I r. ' •OV 1 '! 44' s ,,,,„, ,,4"- 0 '4*N' . . , i •te I col , • e, 0 .-11 I i I 1 I 11 i 1 I I lt ii ' I slit ./ S ;X i 1*1.4 '.- , -',,,,-*Z it&. It tii — — 1, __. __.k_______:..\___/ .,t- , - ,-— —--—- 4q. 4 i i I r TiO ''''' 1 f2 / i 1 1'e• \- s\ a. -1 * . ■ 6, II/ ; f ‘ f. tv sli 1 / I i \ . 1 i . ,1 / / .‘,.. / ?. ,-, , ^Ps t 4. s. ■i 1 i v>...,, ,--, * ., 40:N4% t 1 / ,4,, s 1 .....,i .g-. . 1 --- ■ 0 0 ...... ..... 8 t r, , , 1 f , 4 g• • q' C:;1 / -' ' A 4 9s4ki,- / , .-.4,• \ MI6 k 1 i 1 1 /11 I I - •.'I -- ;, ' . •• 0 0:i1/4, , ,,,, ito c:7, 1,.. '''•< .-.1 ..., t I -.91 i , &,, l_1‘31. \k_i_dl..... :,,,,,. \ 0 0 - vs ' ''' -, - f-,1 "AZ/ lilt 3'1 N -rl -rt ---' g' u, -.1. .9. MI! 0 t a /1 M 'T' L '.. -,,,,, ---I I kt 1 4, • a , ', ._C) tt NI ' 1 4 I q li I , I ',A, ,..t.4 II 8 :i \ N. A 2 I -o ■ , \ A 1 c:, 1 1 '- ‘ 'C ,. 1 M kK 1 \ \ " f, !;-e, '1, \ c,' A•4 \ ti - 0 i 0-...•-•<„ ,.....-4-...,4-C4'''''---1 0 •MI.P■ p i i r.4.4 1 1 v %, t g if , Y.. _ A 1 - -, 1 ...,. ,. I ' .. ' ' , 1 — 111111IN g 1 i ..i ii %r...., i t , 1 JACOB AD bJAC _o.I.ON 4' 1 I- -i- - Z ""--1 C/) I s. > Nilli.,- ' % - ' - . - - - !, g "14 t'i . . 2 $ - 1 - -$.. . 4PP .% ..,. A :..: . 1 ‘ S I ■%. ,, 0.9 i I.) cs) 6' 1 1 1 1 . , I 1 1 1 I . __Iy ,� _ • _-__J L-_ IFL _ - ___-- -—— .•g- — L' ai__i= ._.,. .-t._- �+am _ ,—_ ll-- L i - 1 f4—i t € I • t I i; t I -I I 11 I/ t t I ' i t� I i ■1 11 'I f I „ � ■e i — i - - 1'' 1 it 1 r • l r _�_t w { s I� s il 1 IA f • 1,1 .1._..,0 _.L_....__ .. _ _--- --- I -_ - - 1 I l 114• 1 I III. t LI I. , - - iii ii 4 .._L..... 1 I �� ill II 1I1, ilk f , 1 ',I'I IN I x I _ 1.41k I k . • o . ,.' 0 • Z� m f z —1 =? "=� _— Mill_ • - -- — RI ii T 1 _ -..... MANNING AVENUE_'°s" it ^r i— a ,I t III `t T•_ � ,I,1,� ,.r c• • m a ti• , �� �. Gt- _ � Q°D 1r : � t ri: I\ 1•:','..:•..m 13 t ill M. cri rn /• 4'. '— ;e��.!%rn I --t�.-�. 3_..y:. t.._.._‘ k 1 1 r D 4 i I• 1 7...eVirrf r . • x ,r ; 1 { 1, " , , 11,> ,I t' 4 a,. z iirr I 9 ♦ 1. •%^ i. I t p rill (o ....oil!e K �.y ! ! I . y' Ill.i ...x ,. le ,poi ttl;C 1 I :-i!,01,. n. 41�;� �9 •i. fl f la{ v+: III ill .. .....,t,11 11 ^ �1 r1 R `4∎i'• r �. A( / �, • . ) T' �M1• n ! i[' ���iw t . to � - s I• _=� ,; II / .1! [ Jik �� W D - 1 ,, `; • 1• 'r 1% 4.. .,91 Ii'I' � � � I- ._•/ I I1 ,' `,� a no 17, $ "1 .,2� . „•, 1 Y I ` I t Ie I 1 °° m , 6� , v 6'A I '1 II II'I �' 1• o n GAL f�`� e.� I'',I tlfi f(' 1 t, t a goo k` �'i q� ' ' ' t I{ ` '` 41'1 1 - -� :r l 'JI II = �a..,, • t 4 \, ' it 11 L ii-,�-- I ; F ,� t, ...„..._, ' • - • . .// •...7-,,,s. \... .,, ,,,,, ---,..\\ _ II ' ' Oat ,- jut a I Iii! °X� '�l ii' ` t�1 , '1. 1 I' N1r ( 1710. lii"ir,ii-;71141. 4 • . . ,.,.,L., pl•w... , 1,,-,1 1 Ad . .,•„,!.... ' 201 A OA 1 I . •• h e, 1j _ �.. ,ar,W,C;r. h,.,.r til I '7� em, ' C....›.7. ,. . • .,: „. • , „ca cA City Council Meeting Minutes August 13,2002 Page 5 of 7 E. NSP/Xcel Energy Conditional Use Permit Compliance Issues Community Development Director Danielson reported that City staff has reviewed the Conditional Use Pemit issued to NSP/Xcel Energy to address concerns raised by neighbors regarding the operation of the fly ash facility. Danielson noted steps taken to ensure compliance with the CUP. Mayor Beaudet, seconded by Councilmember McComber,moved to accept the report. Carried 5—0. F. Request for Petition to Detach from Lake Elmo and Annex to Oak Park Heights Neal Blanchett, attorney for property owner Mr.Nass,provided an overview of the request and documentation submitted in support of the request. Mayor Beaudet noted that the City has an annexation policy and has not solicited the request. Beaudet suggested a worksession to hear ideas and ask questions and also suggested a meeting with the Lake Elmo City Council. Councilmember Susan Dunn of Lake Elmo was present and stated that it would be nice to have a discussion between the two cities,the DNR and MNDOT due to the location of a wetland on the property. Councilmember Swenson, seconded by McComber,moved to set a worksession for August 29, 2002, 4:30 p.m. to discuss the request with the applicant. Carried 5-0. Councilmember McComber, seconded by Mayor Beaudet,moved to set a joint worksession with the Lake Elmo city council and representatives from Brown's Creek Watershed District at 5:00 p.m. September 17,2002 at the Lake Elmo City Hall. Carried 5—0. G. Set 2003 Council Goal Session Councilmember McComber, seconded by Mayor Beaudet,moved to set the 2003 Council goal setting session for 5:00 p.m. September 24, 2002. Carried 5—0. H. 2003 Budget Worksession Councilmember Swenson, seconded by McComber,moved to remove the lawsuit fee from the utility bills as of January 1, 2003. Carried 5—0. ROBERTL HOFFMAN LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. DOUGLAS N GERALD H.PRIEDELL LYNN M.STARKOVICJ EDWARD J.DRlS LL ATTORNEYS AT LAW KENNETH COREY-EDSTROM < JOHN D.PLKLMER ANN M.MEYER CHARLES 8.MOD STEPHEN J.KAABESM CHARLES 8.NODDLE CHRISTOPHER J.DIET/EN F.ALEXANDER 1500 WELLS FARGO PLAZA DANIEL T.KADLEC UNDA H.FISHER ADAM 8.HUHTA• THOMAS El P.JA STOLTMAN 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH JAMES M.SU$A0• JOHN E.DI JACWMW DANIEL J.BALUNTINE JON&SWtERZGNSKI BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431-1194 JEFFREY D.CAHILL SEAN D.KELLY JAMES P J.FLYNN JOSEPH J.FITTANTE,JR..OUINN TELEPHONE(952)835-3800 THOMAS J.OPP=•• TODD I.FREEMAN JONATHAN J.FOGEL GERALD 1.BECK FAX(952)898-3333 CYNTHIA M.KLAUS JOHN B.LUNDOUIST MAPoC D.CHRISTOPHERSON JOHN N A A.OH ' NEALJ.BLANCHETT A.correct*TER' TAMARA O'NEILL MOREL ND PAUL 0.N M.PITT JAMES A.MCGREEVY,III KATHLEEN E.PICOTTE NEWMAN V E 1J L r THOMAS A.GIMP• GREGORY E.CLEVE•D TODD A.TAYLOR GARY H.VAN EANEE• ',i CHRISTOPHER J.DES E MICHAELW SCHL 1 GENEVIEVE A.BECK TERRENCE ESd&CE� y� 1 t I MARLA M.ZACK_ GARY A.PHER RENNEKE �.� - 7 2002 };I, ! JEREMY C.STIER CHRISTOPHER J.HARRISTHAL PIE I i JOAN C.MOBERG BRUCEL J. O DOUGLAS E ;� CHRISM.HEFFEU3OWER BRUCE J.DOUGLAS - MICHAEL.ESSIEN WWAM C.GRIFFITH.JR. OF JOHN R.HILL COUNSEL LARRY J.CHYLE JAMES P.LARKIN• LARRY.S MARTIN JACK F.DALY JOHN N J.STEFFENE JANE J. E HAGEN D.KENNETH UNOGREN MICHAEL J.SMITH ANDREW F. • ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN NIEBUHR W.MERICK W. " ONLY ADMITTED IN IOWA July 29,2002 Mayor and City Council City of Oak Park Heights P. O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082-3007 Re: Petition to Detach From Lake Elmo and Annex to Oak Park Heights; Our File 25,358-00 Dear Mayor and Council Members: This letter accompanies our petition request, on behalf of all the affected property owners, for detachment from the City of Lake Elmo (Lake Elmo) and attachment to the City of Oak Park Heights (Oak Park Heights) of 49 acres in the southeast quadrant of State Highway 36 and Manning Avenue(the Property). Oak Park Heights supported annexation of this area with Kern Center in 1998. The annexation was delayed at that time to provide an opportunity for Lake Elmo to plan for growth in accordance with regional policies. Lake Elmo has instead planned for low-density rural estates on this freeway frontage, and has rejected landowners' recent requests to allow suitable commercial development. We therefore request detachment from that community and annexation to Oak Park Heights,with extension of utilities from Oak Park Heights. In support of this petition,we have enclosed a Sanitary Sewer Extension Analysis prepared by Alliant Engineering in consultation with the Oak Park Heights City Engineer. The Analysis concludes that an extension of sewer is feasible to construct, and is the least costly means of serving the Property. Existing capacity is more than sufficient to serve the Property, and annexation allows Oak Park Heights to recapture a greater return on its previous utility investment. In fact,the Metropolitan Council, in reviewing Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan,has taken the position that greater development must occur LARKIN,HOFFMAN,DALY&LINDGREN,LTD. Mayor and City Council • July 29, 2002 Page 2 on land currently within Lake Elmo to compensate for regional investmentsl. Annexation would ensure benefits to Oak Park Heights from this development. The annexation benefits all the parties involved. The Property owners will be able to plan for development that maximizes value. Oak Park Heights gains room to expand,possible expansion of its tax base, and will be able to recoup costs already expended for utilities serving the Property. Annexation will reduce the conflict between Lake Elmo's plan and regional planning. We therefore ask your support for the petition. incer , J ------- Peter J. Coyle, and .., .--‘,f,,,:, --2::5.) Neal J. Blanchett, for LARKIN,HOFFMAN, DALY &LINDGREN, Ltd. cc: Bernie Nass • Pat Cropsey Clark Wicklund Robert and Jolene Buberl Tom Bidon 780033.1 III 1 The Metropolitan Council's Staff Report stated"In Lake Elmo's' case, it could choose the staging and p P �g location of where urbanization will occur but not whether or when it will occur." BEFORE THE OFFICE OF STRATEGIC AND LONG-RANGE PLANNING • OF THE STATE OF NIINNESOTA. PETITION FOR CONCURRENT DETACHMENT AND ANNEXATION PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES § 414.061, SUBD. 5 1. This is a petition brought by property owners pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 414.061, subdivision 5 for the concurrent detachment of land from the City of Lake Elmo (Lake Elmo) and annexation to the City of Oak Park Heights (Oak Park Heights). 2. The real property subject to this petition(the Property) is described in Exhibit A. It is approximately 49 acres, adjacent to the west edge of Oak Park Heights and forming a triangular peninsula from an otherwise-straight side of Lake Elmo. It is adjacent to and south of Highway 36 a major regional transportation corridor, and across Highway 36 from the Cities of Grant and Stillwater. 3. The owners of the Property are Bernie and Louella Nass, Tom Bidon, and Robert and Jolene Buberl. They are 100% owners of the parcels which comprise the Property. 4. The Property is part of an area that was the subject of an annexation petition and proceeding in 1998 (the 1998 Annexation). The 1998 Annexation detached from Lake Elmo land east and adjacent to the Property(the Kern Center), and annexed the Kern II) Center to Oak Park Heights. 5. In the 1998 Annexation,the Municipal Board of the State of Minnesota concluded that the Kern Center was, and was about to become,urban or suburban in character. The Kern Center has since been developed with commercial, industrial, and government buildings served by municipal utilities and improved roadways. 6. The 1998 Annexation included consideration of an Agreement for Orderly Annexation between Lake Elmo and Baytown Township,requesting that both Kern Center and the Property be annexed to Oak Park Heights. In annexing the Kern Center but not the Property to Oak Park Heights,the Municipal Board cited regional planning and policies of the Metropolitan Council and gave Lake Elmo an opportunity to conform with the policies and planning in regulating development of the Property: In reducing the area proposed for annexation [to Oak Park Heights] . . . the Municipal Board is cognizant of the policies of the Metropolitan Council growth strategy and is confident Lake Elmo will, through the comprehensive plan revision process, reconcile its own development policies and philosophy with those of the Metropolitan Council. 7. The Metropolitan Council's growth strategy, to which Lake Elmo has been directed to conform, identifies Lake Elmo as a community that should have urban services, including • sewer services,provided to it by 2010. Exh. B (Metropolitan Council Review of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan),p. 3. • 8. The Metropolitan Council's staff review of Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan identifies Lake Elmo's Plan as inconsistent with the following regional plans: Regional Growth Strategy; the regional system plan for recreation open space; the Regional Transportation Policy Plan; and the Water Resources Management system plan. The Metropolitan Council's review concludes that Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan would require the region's taxpayers to fund duplicate infrastructure elsewhere in the region, and notes that "the least costly and most efficient means to accommodate the region's growth is to provide urban services for urban density development to areas such as Lake Elmo." Exh. B,p. 6, 24. 9. The owners propose to develop the Property into commercial or similar medium-intensity uses appropriate for its location on an at-grade intersection to Highway 36, a major regional transportation corridor. This development will require urban services such as municipal sewer and water, and urban/suburban street improvements. Exh. C (Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment). 10. The Property owners requested that Lake Elmo adopt a Comprehensive Plan that would allow commercial development on the freeway frontage portions of the Property. Lake Elmo rejected this request and has proposed Rural Agricultural Density(one unit per ten acres) for the Property. 11. The Property owners applied for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow commercial development. Lake Elmo denied this application. • extension urban services to the Property. Lake Elmo has taken 12. Lake Elmo opposes the ext nsi n of steps to lower the level of service to the area,by barricading Manning Avenue to prevent a possible connection to 55th Street. 13. Metropolitan Council policies appear in the Regional Blueprint. The Regional Blueprint entails developing freeway corridors and other areas served by regional infrastructure. The Blueprint specifically calls for higher-density development along regional transportation corridors,within the 2020 MUSA, such as Highway 36 in Lake Elmo. The Blueprint states that future planning must: Recognize that the cumulative impact of small-scale development inconsistent with Council rural area policies may have a substantial negative impact on the Council's transportation policy plan or constitute a substantial departure from the plan. Similarly, in the urban area the cumulative effect of very low densities and inefficient land uses may lead to underutilization of regional facilities and may constitute a substantial negative impact on the system or a substantial departure from system plans. Blueprint,p.67 (emphasis added). The Metropolitan Council's regional planning policy is to • Make more efficient use of local and regional infrastructure by working with local governments and the private sector to 2. selectively increase the density of development- for example • intensifying development along certain transportation corridors or filling in vacant land parcels. (Blueprint p. 46 (emphasis added)). 14.Lake Elmo's Plan blocks efficient provision of utilities from the east,where public funds have already been invested in utility lines with adequate capacity to serve the Property and the immediate neighbors. 15.Lake Elmo has indicated it is unwilling to provide municipal services to the Property. The urban utility services can be provided by Oak Park Heights. Therefore, the most efficient way to provide the necessary services is through concurrent detachment from Lake Elmo and annexation to Oak Park Heights. 16.A Sanitary Sewer Extension Analysis for the Property, attached as Exhibit D, concludes that adequate utility capacity exists to serve the Property, and that provision of services to the Property after annexation would generate $129,010 in sewer system fees to Oak Park Heights at current rates of$2,660 per acre. It is unlikely that capacity built to serve the Property can serve any other property, since land to the north, east, and south is already served by private or public utilities. 17. The parties entitled to mailed notice from Minnesota Planning pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 414.09, subd. 1 are: The Metropolitan Council Washington County • The City of Lake Elmo The City of Oak Park Heights The City of Stillwater The City of Grant Brown's Creek Watershed District 18. Lake Elmo has indicated that it opposed the location of freeways on its north and south borders. Therefore, detaching these corridors from Lake Elmo and annexing to neighboring communities serves Lake Elmo's goal to remove portions of these roads from its borders. 19. Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan is under extended review by the Metropolitan Council. Exh. B. Council staff has noted that Lake Elmo's plan to minimize development conflicts with regional plans and policies to promote full and efficient use of existing infrastructure. The Petitioners propose development that furthers full and efficient use of regional infrastructure,but conflicts in that respect with Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan. Detachment from Lake Elmo therefore eliminates conflict between Lake Elmo and the Metropolitan Council with regard to the Property, and would therefore reduce conflict between Lake Elmo's Plan and regional policies. 20. The detachment and annexation is in the best interest of the municipalities and the • Property owners. Among other reasons, detachment and annexation will allow Oak Park Heights to realize a return on funds it invested in utilities planned to serve the area. It 3. will allow the Property owners to develop the land in a way that better serves regional • needs, and realizes the public investment in infrastructure serving the Property. It will reduce conflict between Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Council's regional planning. WHEREFORE,the Petitioners pray that the Minnesota Office of Strategic and Long Range � P Y � Planning assume jurisdiction of the proceeding pursuant to Minnesota State Statute § 414.061, subd. 5, conduct hearings, and issue its order pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 414.09 detaching the Property from Lake Elmo and annexing it to Oak Park Heights. e&eati)4044.- Bernie Nass 1,ouella Nass Robert Buberl Jolene:u•erl om Bidon • RESOLUTION Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights as follows: 1. The City of Oak Park Heights supports the petition for concurrent detachment and annexation for the Property described in this petition and requests that the Minnesota Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning assume jurisdiction over the petition, conduct hearings and issue an order, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 414.09, detaching the Property from Lake Elmo and annexing it to Oak Park Heights. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS Mayor City Administrator ATTEST Clerk • 770989.1 4. EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A Legal Description Parcel 0001: All that part of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 6, Township 29,Range 20 West,that lies Southerly and Westerly of the Southerly right of way line of Minnesota Trunk Highway NO. 36 and Northerly and Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of said NW 1/4 that is 923.00 feet, as measured along said West line, Southerly of the Northwest corner of said Section 6;thence Northeasterly by a deflection angle to the right of 73° for a distance of 336.41 feet;thence Southerly,parallel to the West line of said NW 1/4, for a distance of 148.5 feet; thence Easterly,parallel to the North line of said NW 1/4 for a distance of 784.70 feet more or less to the East line of said NW 1/4 of NW V4 and there terminating. Subject to Manning Avenue and N.S.P. easement across said property. Parcel 0002: All that part of the North 1341.01 feet of the W %2 of Section 6, Township 29, Range 20, lying Southerly of the following described line: Southerly of the Northwest corner,thence Northeasterly by a deflection angle to the right of 73 degrees for a distance of 330.0 feet; thence Easterly,parallel to the North line of said NW 1/4 for 795 feet, more or less, to the East line of • said W %2 and there terminating. Subject to Manning Avenue across said property except the South 104.5 feet of said W 1/2 of said NW 1/4. Parcel 06-29-20-23-0001: All that part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest V4 of Section 6, Township 29,Range 20 that lies northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 6; thence North 1° 14' 50"East, along the West line of said Northwest 1/4, for 969.67 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described;thence South 87°25' 34"East for 1120.72 feet more or less, to the East line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Northwest 1/4, and there terminating, except the North 1236.51 feet thereof and also excepting therefrom all that portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 6,lying West of the Town Road as it now traverses said Section 6. Together with all that part of Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6, Township 29, Range 20 except the North 1341 feet thereof subject to Manning Avenue. • Parcel 06-029-20-21-0001: That part of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 29 North, Range 20 West, Washington County,Minnesota lying Westerly and Northerly of KERN CENTER and KERN CENTER 2ND ADDITION, according to the plats of record and on file in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County,Minnesota containing 22.99 acres,more or less. Subject to a highway easement along the Northerly line thereof for Trunk Highway 36 as described in Book 275 of Deeds, Page 497, of record and on file in said Office of the County Recorder. Also subject to a transmission line easement in favor of Northern States Power Company as described in Book 297,Page 288, of record and on file in said Office of the County Recorder. 745257.1 • 2. EXHIBIT - B • • • Executive Summary O Presentation Agenda Item: 2002-156 Meetin• date: June 26, 2002 ADVISORY INFORMATION Date: June 3,2002, Subject: Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Comprehensive Plan--Referral File No. 18608-1 District(s), Member(s): Metropolitan Council District 12(Marc Hugunin,651-430-3515) Policy/Legal Reference: Minn.Stat. §473.864,Subd.2 and§473.175, Subd. 1 Staff Prepared/Presented: Jim Uttley,AICP,Planning Analyst(651-602-1361) Eli Cooper,Director,Planning and Growth Management Dept(651-602-1521); Caren Dewar,Deputy Regional Administrator,Policy Alignment and Development Division(651-602-1306) Division/Department: Policy Alignment and Development/Planning and Growth Management OVERVIEW The Regional Growth Strategy contained in the Metropolitan Council's 1996 Regional Blueprint identifies Lake Elmo as being in three policy areas:permanent rural,urban reserve and illustrative 2020 MUSA. The regional system plans for aviation,transportation and water resources management are based on and designed specifically to support the Regional Growth Strategy. In 1996,after an extensive public participation process,the Council adopted a 2020 Regional Blueprint and regional system plan chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide for aviation,transportation and water • resources. The Regional Blueprint is part of the comprehensive development guide prepared and adopted by the Council in conjunction with its implementation of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. As part of its Blueprint,the Council established a new regional vision for the metropolitan area called the Regional Growth Strategy which outlines an urban growth and development pattern for the seven-county metropolitan area and identifies wide-ranging policies and actions needed to implement that development pattern. The Regional Growth Strategy recognizes that regional services like highways,transit,wastewater treatment and airports play key roles in supporting new development and that regional investments must be provided in an efficient and effective manner. The Regional Growth Strategy was incorporated by reference into the regional system plans for transportation and water resources in such a way that any local plan that is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy automatically is inconsistent with and therefore not in conformity with the Council's regional system plans. According to the Council's Regional Growth Strate gy,communities identified as"permanent rural"should plan to support a rural lifestyle and have a rural residential density of one dwelling per 10 acres. Clustering on small lots with individual sewage treatment systems(ISTS)or smaller lots with community sewage treatment system and drainfield is permitted as long as the overall density is maintained. Council policy with respect to"urban reserve"says that communities identified as urban reserve should protect such areas for future urbanization that is expected to occur before 2040. Such areas are not intended to support a rural residential life-style,and the overall density should be one dwelling per 40 acres. Clustering on small lots with ISTS or smaller lots with a community sewage treatment system and drainfields is permitted as long as the overall density is maintained. The principal policy concern is to preserve such areas for future urbanization. Short-term open space protection related to cluster platting is acceptable,but long-term or permanent open space protection is not acceptable for areas that should be designated"urban reserve." Communities may plan for limited,interim rural residential uses for areas designated as"urban reserve,"as long as such development reflects Council density guidelines and will not have the effect of making future urbanization difficult. • 1 • In conjunction with the implementation of its Regional Blueprint,the Council established an"illustrative 2020 MUSA"which is best described as an overlay district. It overlays portions of the region's urban reserve area and identifies those areas of urban reserve that may be needed to begin to urbanize before 2020. The"Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy"map,which was adopted as part of the 1996 Regional Blueprint, identifies a large area of illustrative 2020 MUSA in Lake Elmo.This is the area within which the city is expected to plan for urbanization to help accommodate regional growth and development that is anticipated to occur within the near future. However,the map does not show the extent of expected urbanization in Lake Elmo by 2020. The amount of urbanization for which local communities are expected to plan is identified in the Council's system statement. The regional system plans for transportation (generally)and water resources management(specifically)establish the Council's plans for infrastructure needed to support the Regional Growth Strategy and identify how much urbanization(affecting regional sewer flow and transportation systems)a community should plan to accommodate by 2020. Individual community system statements were sent to communities in early 1997,as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act(Minn. Stat. §473.856). The system statements identified specifically how much urbanization local communities should plan to accommodate and provide information about the location,size and timing of regional infrastructure that the Council will have in place to support that growth. Under the Act(Minn. Stat. §473.857),communities have 60 days to request a hearing to resolve disagreements over the content of the system statement. The content of the 1997 system statement was not disputed or challenged by the city. Lake Elmo did not request a hearing or contact the Council to advise that it had a disagreement with its system statement. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires communities to plan for development as outlined in the system statement,a reflection of regional system plans as they pertain to individual communities. Local • communities have flexibility in determining the most suitable locations and mix of uses so long as they plan reflective of regional systems policies and directions. What this means in practice is that some communities, with several possible locations to urbanize,can decide the most appropriate areas to begin their urbanization. ' choose the staging and location of where urbanization will occur but not Lake Elmo's case,it could c o e In La 8�g whether or when it will occur. It could choose to trade some permanent rural residential area in one part of the city for urban reserve elsewhere,if the net results of the"trading"remains approximately the same in overall acreage. Lake Elmo is currently a rural,mostly unsewered community. The city is approximately 8 miles(10 minutes on I-94)east of Council offices at Mears Park Centre. It is immediately adjacent to the fastest growing city in the region in the 1990's,the city of Woodbury. The Council's Regional Growth Strategy,as identified in its Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy map and 1997 system statement,as it pertains to Lake Elmo,calls for substantial urbanization of the community by 2040. The Council based its decision on several factors: • the region's(then forecasted)need to accommodate 320,000 new households and 380,000 new jobs in the region between 1995 and 2020 (2000 Census data suggest the estimated number of new households and new jobs in this metropolitan area by 2020 will be substantially more than previously estimated) • the close proximity of Lake Elmo to one of the core cities(St.Paul)in the region • the availability of the highest level(principal arterials) of regional transportation infrastructure immediately adjacent to the city on both the north and south sides • the potential for transit services to the community • the availability of an existing and as yet under-used regional park preserve within the city • the availability of regional wastewater services to serve the community in a cost-effective manner The city is very well served by regional systems(Figure 3)that reflect major regional,state and federal • infrastructure investments. The city is bounded on the south by 1-94 and on the north by State Highway 36, 2 • both of which are principal arterials(the highest class of regional highway). I-694,also a principal arterial highway,is one mile west of the city. State Highway 5,an A-minor arterial(the second highest class of regional highway),runs through the center of the city. In the three and one-half mile section of I-94 along the southern edge of the city,three interchanges serve residents of Lake Elmo and nearby communities. Two I-694 interchanges serve Lake Elmo residents. One hundred twenty acres of Lake Elmo in the southwest corner of the city is presently served by regional wastewater services(Figures 3 and 5). Additional sewer capacity has been planned and programmed for the city. A$10 million Lake Elmo-Metro Interceptor sewer is scheduled for construction in 2006-2007 and currently is included in the Council's Environmental Services Capital Improvement Program. The 2,065- acre Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve lies in the center of Lake Elmo. The regional investment in the park reserves totals$7.6 million,including$5.6 million for land acquisition.The city also received tax- equivalency payments when the regional park reserve originally was established. The Minnesota State Legislature,in 1967,established the Council to plan and coordinate development in the seven-county metropolitan area. The legislature directed the Council to develop a development plan (framework)and regional system plans for aviation,parks and open space,transportation and wastewater. In 1976,the Legislature passed the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requiring the Council to issue system statements to local communities and for local communities to prepare comprehensive plans based on those system statements. In 1995,the Legislature amended the Metropolitan Land Planning Act to require all communities in the metropolitan area to review,and if necessary,amend their entire comprehensive plans and fiscal devices and official controls by December 31, 1998 and at least once every ten years thereafter. In conjunction with the 1995 amendments,the Council updated its policies and regional system plans to serve as a basis for the new • round of comprehensive plans. The Council undertook an 18-month process with extensive public meetings and participation by local government officials and other stakeholders,and after a series of public hearings, adopted the 2020 Regional Blueprint and three extensively updated regional system plans(aviation, transportation and water resources),as well as less extensive modification to the regional system plan for recreation open space in December 1996. The Regional Blueprint contains a preface,executive summary,overview,and five strategy chapters: regional economic strategy,regional reinvestment strategy,regional strategy for building strong communities,regional environmental strategy,and a regional growth strategy. Each chapter contains policies and action statements. The Regional Growth Strategy sets the urban growth and development pattern for the seven-county metropolitan area as well as the identification of wide-ranging policies and actions needed to carry it out. The intended result is to accommodate 330,000 additional households and 650,000 more people by 2020. In this review report,the term Regional Growth Strategy refers to the policies,action statements,maps and text found in the Regional Growth Strategy chapter of the Regional Blueprint,pages 43 through 65. The Council's adopted forecasts and their relationship to the Regional Growth Strategy are discussed generally on pages 74 through 77 and in Appendix J in the Regional Blueprint. The Regional Growth Strategy and other chapters of the Regional Blueprint set the overall policy direction of the Council and serve as the framework or basis for each of the regional system plans. In 1996,the Council adopted the Regional Growth Strategy chapter as part of the regional system plans for transportation and water resources management,making it an integral part of those system plans. A discussion about the relationship of the Regional Blueprint to the regional system plans is found in Appendix A,pages 66 though 69. The Regional Growth Strategy identifies Lake Elmo as a community within the region that should plan to • have urban services i.e.sewer services,provided to it by 2010. The Council made a preliminary projection 3 of 200 sewered households and 600 sewered employees in 2010 and 1,500 sewered households and 1,000 • employees by 2020.These projections were approved by the Council as part of the Water Resources Management Policy Plan and sent to the city as part of the Council's 1997 systems statement. The projections were made on assumptions of when metropolitan sewer services could be made available to the city and how long it would take the city to extend sewer services to a MUSA boundary to be designated by the city. The projections were to be revisited at the time the city's comprehensive plan was reviewed by the Council. It was anticipated that the Council would have completed its facility plan for the new Southeast Regional WWTP and Interceptor with a schedule for the sewer services by that time. On August 24,2001,Lake Elmo submitted its 2000--2020 comprehensive plan to the Council and adjacent communities for review and comment. The Council review could not begin until after a 60-day period for adjacent local government review and comment. On October 21,2001,the Council began its formal review of the Lake Elmo plan. The plan was found incomplete and the review suspended until additional information was received. On February 8,2002,Council staff completed an evaluation of supplemental materials submitted by the city and determined that the city's 2000—2020 comprehensive plan was complete for review and the review was restarted. Under state law(Minn. Stat. §473.175),the Council has up to 120 days to complete its review once a plan is determined to be complete. A local community and the Council may mutually agree to extend the review period. The Council completed the facility plan for the new Southeast Regional WWTP and Interceptor in 2000. Representatives of the city of Lake Elmo were members of the task force that reviewed the various alternatives studied and agreed that the proposed alternative of providing regional wastewater services to the city starting at the city's southwestern corporate limits was the city's desired alternative. The facility plan provides sewer service to Lake Elmo through the proposed Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor that is scheduled for construction in 2006-2007 in coordination with expansion of I-94. Coordinating the construction of the • regional sewer interceptor with MnDOT's planned expansion of I-94 in 2006-2007 will permit the Council to realize substantial cost savings. If the Council is required to construct the interceptor at some unspecified future date after MnDOT's I-94 expansion project is completed,the cost of constructing the Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor will escalate significantly. However,the proposed comprehensive plan for the city does not include the phasing of sanitary sewer services to this area of the city that would show an orderly progression of urban growth,consistent with the Council's planned extension of regional sewer service to the city,nor does the comprehensive plan preserve the Urban Reserve for future urban development. While Lake Elmo's plan proposes only 200 fewer households overall(4,500)than the Council's 2020 household forecast of 4,700 households(March 1997),the plan fails to provide for any of the 1,500 sewered households identified in the regional system plan for water resources management. While the Regional Growth Strategy map(Figure 2)anticipates urban development in Lake Elmo in the 2000—2020 planning period and calls for the maintenance of a substantial urban reserve area of 8,188 acres,Lake Elmo's plan fails to plan for any urban reserve. While the Regional Growth Strategy calls on Lake Elmo to plan to keep a portion of the city in permanent rural land use at an overall density of 1 unit per 10 acres,the Lake Elmo plan (Figure 5)proposes to allow rural residential development that is four times more dense than Council guidelines for the permanent rural area. Looking ahead,by 2030,Lake Elmo is now forecasted to grow to a total of 6,000 households by 2020(versus 4,700 household in 2020 included in the Council's Regional Blueprint in 1996)and 9,500 households by 2030,according to the Council's new preliminary forecasts. Lake Elmo's neighboring city of Woodbury has been supportive of the Council's Regional Growth Strategy taking 3,000 additional households by 2020 according to its comprehensive plan reviewed by the Council. Neighboring Oakdale has also been supportive of the Regional Growth Strategy,although its available land supply caused the city to come in short of Council household forecasts. Lake Elmo's failure to plan for 4 • future urbanization,to protect lands for future urbanization,and to plan for lower densities in its rural area are contrary to the planning of its neighbors as well as the Regional Growth Strategy. In light of the foregoing,it appears clear that Lake Elmo's 2000- 2020 com p rehensive plan is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and does not conform to metropolitan system plans. The plan proposes a substantial rural residential area,but it does not establish an area of urban reserve and does not propose to urbanize a portion of the community consistent with Council plans and the system statement. The city's plan proposes that the community remain permanently rural. This is inconsistent with the Council's Regional Growth Strategy calling for future urbanization of the community beginning by 2010. The plan does not establish an urban reserve in the community,and fails to protect land for any future urbanization. The city does not plan for 1,500 sewered households by 2020 as envisioned in the Regional Growth Strategy and the Council's regional system plan for Water Resources Management. The city's plan is,therefore,not in conformity with and represents a substantial departure from the regional system plans for recreation open space,transportation and water resources. If the Council agrees with staff's fmdings and conclusions,the Council may require Lake Elmo to modify its plan to bring it into conformity with regional system plans. BACKGROUND Lake Elmo is ranked 33`d among metropolitan communities in anticipated growth to 2020 based on the Council's 1997 forecasts. In 2000,Lake Elmo had 6,863 people in 2,347 households and 1,635 jobs. According to Council forecasts(March 1997),Lake Elmo should plan to accommodate 12,500 people in 4,700 households and 2,650 jobs in 2020. While this plan is not expected to address them,the preliminary new Council forecasts for Lake Elmo,based on the region's need to accommodate over 900,000 new people by 2030,shows 6,000 households for 2020 and 9,500 households for 2030. Lake Elmo is easily accessible to east metro employment centers(Figure 8). Nearly 40,000 jobs are within five miles and nearly 200,000 jobs are within ten miles of Lake Elmo. Those jobs represent 2.5 percent and • 13 percent of the region's jobs,respectively. According to the city's plan,the majority of land in Lake Elmo is planned for development as Rural Agricultural Density(RAD). RAD development normally occurs at a density of 16 units per 40 acres or one unit per 2.5 acres on cluster-platted lots with the undeveloped portion of the property placed in"permanent" easement. Lake Elmo is one of the foremost practitioners of rural cluster platting and is recognized as a regional leader in its approach to incorporation of permanent rural residential with permanent open space protection. The Council staff accepts this aspect of the city's plan,as long as it is applied in the area of permanent rural identified in the Regional Growth Strategy. This approach may be acceptable in the urban reserve and future urban areas but only if the undeveloped land is not set aside in"permanent"open space, new home-buyers are fully informed of the planned urbanization and of the requirement that unsewered residences must hook up to public sewer within two years from the time local sewer service becomes available,and current development does not prevent future efficient and cost-effective urbanization in the community. • 5 LINKAGE TO COUNCIL STRATEGIES • Q Infrastructure:The city's plan is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and not in conformance with and is a substantial departure from the regional system plans for recreation open space,transportation,and water resources. As proposed,the plan would cause the Council to spend additional regional tax dollars to build duplicate infrastructure to accommodate future urban growth elsewhere in the region that otherwise would have occurred in Lake Elmo. Q Quality of life: Implementation of the city's plan as proposed could divert to other metropolitan-area communities current and future urban growth that otherwise would occur within the city,which likely would result in additional local public infrastructure investments and unnecessary duplicative regional infrastructure investments. Q Communication/constituency building: The city should modified its plan to reflect future urbanization consistent with the existing and planned regional systems for this area of the region and to incorporate medium- and high-density housing elements into its plan to help provide adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional housing needs and promote the availability of land for the development of low- and moderate-income housing. l l Alignment: The city's plan is not consistent with regional policies and until the plan is found to be consistent,the Council will apply its alignment policy to the city of Lake Elmo. This means that the city will receive no priority for funding of grants and loans over which the Council has advisory or discretionary approval authority and the city may be ineligible to qualify for other funding and for certain regional system improvements. ATTACHMENTS Comprehensive Plan Policy Matrix Review Record—Review of the City of Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Comprehensive Plan Figure 1 -Location Map,City of Lake Elmo • Figure 2-Regional Growth Strategy Policy Areas,City of Lake Elmo Figure 3-Regional Systems,City of Lake Elmo Figure 4-Existing Land Use,2000,City of Lake Elmo Figure 5-Land Use Plan,City of Lake Elmo Figure 6-2000 Aerial Photography,City of Lake Elmo Figure 7-Properties Seeking Sewer Service,City of Lake Elmo, 1998 Figure 8-Employment Within 5 and 10 Miles of Lake Elmo Figure 9—Regional Recreation Open Space System,December 1996(1997 system statement) Appendix A-Land Use Plan,excerpt from the Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Comprehensive Plan Appendix B -Intergovernmental Comments Appendix C-Public/Property Owner Comments Appendix D— 1997 System Statement—Lake Elmo Appendix E—Adoption of Amended Regional Blueprint, Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan, Water Resources Management Policy Plan,Aviation Development Guide/Policy Plan and Regional Recreation Open Space System Plan. Report of the Committee of the Whole,December 19, 1996 V:\Library\CoinDevRp\Lake Elmo CPU 18608-1 • 6 _ y O . 3 y L, -0 -0 ° v-.4 o 0 �: o 0 51 • b 0 •; -fl s 0 r .-. C) a 0 0 . g c g 61 o ' � a C7 0 b A 0 4° 0 ° t� ° 4� ,« °d ,sp N a) ... 1.. ° cal a o al • i ° U c ,-. CI V U W073 ."0 O � bA O o U 4+.) a) ON re, 4-. bDir- a) ^ d • a a -7 0 g g ) O b F . 45 0 — c 0 .,, c a) a) ,� -I s.g b ' O p tll D )4 cn O Q0 2 p a0 0 aN m 6, . i o 0.+ O +.0 Q a d 0 0 c."' O 0 N O ) b O ) 'U b tg fl.4 ° -- i; r a t 1,1 b +r b tIH2 y a) • g ) y E P. :s g >, 3 '3 0 ti N a) Q' aC. N Q♦.O @ G, S d dD U a) c4 c4 Ud 'd U 8 rc�. -c4 b . M L 0 0 -5 , a) H Q. O 0 b >, e, O y c 2, 0 o a) o ° ' a O .. - .1 - am, -, ci 'd + ° .50 R, a) 'd q til '0 p,� ai f , t1 0 y 0, d ° 0 Q) . V tu . .� Z7 y0ap ° g N H O ° W � ti O ,--I s-• 4� MI . 1 i< bD y 'is' cn. 0 a) n �7 8 49 ) �• F), cal � m .O 2 M ^d � O v� , R, N -2.4 ) U U Fj U ._V. ° � ' = v U cc QU c) 0 , . O cC 5 ti • 4O n 0 .0 0 • ,j N N b w E D a g U ++ 51 ) U 3 U ND Q szi • 0 a > y .0 -d > mg ° 0a '� O 0 › � ; U v g •5 w . .� rn A.. •d = 0100 rcc) b •4.., •0 b b 0 0 -d .0 ' 0 0Un 0 '° to rn a) W Z1 ,G.. N a) iIi ci a 4 cil "E PI G aa) aa) • v O 0 0 b � ,..Z p"' c 'd c 0 0 CO 0i m o w ° *.1 :64 zz — 0w . ., I, z W o0 O N&))d • • • • • • V3 - rn U _ U O0 N "' '_0 00 0�N 1.1 .- N N 0 CI) Phi rA .0 F, H Tw 3 it • O O Li a) d.) N O C O ti y " •� i . I.c 0 O ra, a N$-, . S U 0 v IN a � ..i -o cc ll bbD U U P � .5g�0 . � 0 ^O 0 O y ) c- 30 0 ,. r, CA 0 a) a. ai C .4 a) - - 4� ono U .-. U o ai . Q 0 P,-- r v�cis •af cn N • • • • • • 74..y a) co A ; o • at v) 44 b � '° a b c ." O.( o N y Cat N g • • • 14 Y cd 0 .•—I ch d 0 O 0 ,. O g H� 2• ! HI1H �� .., o a - te 'o • o " ° o y aU ° o o 8 . ❑ 'G ao ° E Q A g p A S°• ° a O 0.� t3c � o �, b000 � � o � .� �, � aoi � F .,., p. t+, o 0ba - • 40 °0x5'8 •,' od 03o �' oq ° y 0 04 2 ' o c " a) a) " > 0 o 0 " a: 0 0 4+, V •5 cd co '55.2. 0 cn iY 'a,5 i 8U Q m,.5 o b b �O o r.1 a w 74 . • 0 0 64 4:1 o 0 O o p„ 'b 0 43 4 °O P4 -a ZZZZ co a E-+ Z • • • • • Q • • • a) 4-, a) o •d �' a ° b g 0 a, bA Va' ry o �t ,.' o y cl .2 .a; 4 5),5 �'S N IcQ 0 c0 c 'd 0 c� w 0 0 5.5. a 'six 0 • • • • a • • • a. r,f0 Co 0 O co o 0 wi • CD Q •y 0 •5 a Q, a '5, .4 ark x a • • • 0 a" o b 0 ' ci. . -0,,, 0 > ° .O ct1 5 g r v, 0 • b a' .0 O rn 0 0 0 . Y O 44 o o°n 0 'v b �° 4+0 '� H 0 3 0 .u. h w a� `" c7 ,,,id •y y. o rn cd U c�C a) ', 0 $ g O g .r V ate' N 44 3 m "4 g -• o 3 0 b •o w `4 0 11 0i o ,_ 0 `, `� c ao � 0 .§ c� O cc/ ❑ �bD •'' Q•, 02 .O y .9 a) ❑ a) H O Co a ,ti .b . Leg'+ o ,�. cd °� co } 74 ,, O 5 �' .cad O 0 0 cA�i i+ x a cg w ti a '"O 4 a s E b a) •-r a° _, 0 U 0 ,, `n m . gcne, oa8 0 �. mow, aogo ° , •syo .� 0a0 a`° CD › r--. aqi a0i ° y" -j b y I." Vim] i i 101 73° 0 • O 0 bA' ..0 .0 0 0 0 21 0 o 0 0 0 0 • h a - 30 �• ate' 0 8 A ' ° . o o 5io t i t U b .o ••° o cv > z ca .0 � b ca -, 3 4; o ° 0• 0 -d icy o r••+46 G7 0 Q O .0 3 41 •� 5 aJ �„ O . 4. ._. .. SgA "0 g 'oa g of0a ° a co aA O � 0 ..0 0 °` a F ° a 2z 4 E; a -a Z 4 jai g 0 . . . • • • • o c. °' o v o a) • y cs, o s, ° a.1-. g i .> ca ""4 4 b v, g a0i b 2 G c3 A.5 so '° VS sa ,° +.' vn O N bAi ybN O ,_ a s, 0 •0 1, g v 3 0 '• o O ▪U o c" 0 � O 4-, O .22 0 0 Fr $O a 4O, ° 4O, 4r O O 4r 0 O E., a s arx a a al a) a, .s a) • • • to • • a4) O 0 o 0 a 44 0 a ata cs ca al • • • PUBLIC POLICY QUESTIONS Overall System Questions 1. Regional Parks. Does the proposed Lake Elmo comprehensive plan update conform to the regional system plan for Recreation Open Space? If not,will the plan have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from the metropolitan system plan? 2. Transportation. Does the proposed Lake Elmo comprehensive plan update conform to the regional system plan for Transportation? If not,will the plan have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from the metropolitan system plan? 3. Wastewater Treatment. Does the proposed Lake Elmo comprehensive plan update conform to the regional system plan for Water Resources?If not,will the plan have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from the metropolitan system plan? 4. Aviation. Does the proposed Lake Elmo comprehensive plan update conform to the regional system plan for Aviation? If not, will the plan have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure form the metropolitan system plan? 5. Subregional and Regional Interests. Does Lake Elmo's proposal not to designate an urban reserve area or plan for higher density development within the next twenty years: (a)affect other communities in that area of the Region who must consider regional growth issues and the availability of regional systems when they engage in their own local planning efforts, or(b) effectively require other metropolitan-area communities to accommodate urbanization that would have been expected to occur in Lake Elmo given • the regional systems and infrastructure investments that either now serve the City or are planned to serve the City within the next few years? 6. Housing Needs. If Lake Elmo fails to designate an urban reserve area to accommodate a reasonable amount of urbanization or encourage higher-density residential development within the relatively near future,how will Lake Elmo fulfill its statutory obligation to adopt a land use plan that provides adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional housing needs, particularly in light of the increases in population, household and employment that are projected to occur within the next twenty years in this metropolitan area? 7. Efficient Infrastructure Investment Decisions. If Lake Elmo fails to designate an urban reserve area to accommodate a reasonable amount of urbanization within the reasonable period of time, will the Council be required to make substantial additional (i.e., duplicative) investments for regional infrastructure in other areas of the metropolitan area? 8. Other Interests. Have neighboring municipalities or other interested persons in the region questioned the sufficiency of Lake Elmo's proposed Comprehensive Plan Update or recommended that the Council find Lake Elmo's proposed Plan Update inconsistent with regional system plans,and what weight should be given to this factor? • 10 • Regional Water Resources System 9. Policy 12a of the Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan states: The timing and density of development which is inconsistent with the growth management strategy adopted as part of the Regional Blueprint and which would affect the cost of providing metropolitan sewer service will be viewed as a departure from or having a substantial impact on the metropolitan wastewater system, requiring modifications to the local comprehensive plan. 10. Is it significant that if the $10 million interceptor project does not occur in 2006-2007 as planned to coincide with MnDOT's I-94 improvement project along the southern border of Lake Elmo, the cost of constructing the Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor will be both more costly and more technically challenging? 11. If the Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor is not built as planned,what are the consequences to property owners in the southwestern area of the City,residents of surrounding communities and taxpayers of the Region if on-site sewage systems are installed in the City in lieu of public sewer systems and those on-site systems fail in the future? 12. Is there a financial advantage to the region as a whole to provide regional interceptor sewer service to communities like Lake Elmo that are well-served by regional systems, rather than constructing regional interceptor sewer facilities elsewhere in the region to serve a similar number of residential and non- residential hook-ups? 41111 13. Is it significant that the City actively participated in the Council's process to develop the South Washington County Interceptor Facility Plan and that the $10 million interceptor project currently programmed in the Council's Environmental Services Capital Improvement Program is planned primarily for the purposes of serving the City of Lake Elmo? Regional Recreation Open Space System 14. What are the consequences of implementing the proposed Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Update in light of the Council's 1996 Regional Blueprint which, at page 68, states guidelines affecting the location and operation of regional park facilities? Set regional objectives for the open space system consistent with the Regional Blueprint...Develop regional recreation facilities that attract large numbers of users generally in the urban area... If it is necessary to develop such facilities in the rural area, adequate support services such as roads and sewers must be provided. 15. Is the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Update consistent with the Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy map, adopted as part of the Council's 1996 Regional Blueprint, which identifies a significant portion of Lake Elmo,including the area of the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve as urban reserve? 16. Would the partial urbanization of Lake Elmo proposed in the Regional Blueprint 2020 allow better access to and utilization of Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve? Would it improve access to the park on local roads and by bike and walking? Would it make improved transit services to the park reserve more feasible? 0 11 17. Does Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan Update constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan • system plans because it fails to provide for the development of 1,500 sewered households and 1,000 employees served by regional wastewater services by 2020? 18. Is it significant that the Council supported the establishment of the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve and invested $7.6 million for its acquisition and development in part as a response to active encouragement from the City regarding the establishment of a regional park facility within its jurisdiction and in response to the City's concerns regarding urbanization at that time? Regional Transportation System 19. Does Lake Elmo's proposal not to accommodate higher density development and designate an urban reserve area have a significant impact on or constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans because the City has exceptional regional highway (principal arterial) access via I-94 and TH 36 along its northern and southern borders and by I-694, and excellent regional north/south highway (principal arterial)located approximately 1 mile west of Lake Elmo? 20. Does Lake Elmo's proposal not to accommodate higher density development and designate an urban reserve area have a significant impact on or constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans because"A" minor arterials in the City—including TH5, County Road(CR) 13, CR 10 and CR19 (all "expanders") and CR 15 (a "connector")—provide excellent interconnections to the regional transportation system? 21. Will the development of the City at higher density levels make the provision of regional transit service more economically feasible than in other urbanizing communities in the region because transportation • infrastructure exists in or near the City and Lake Elmo is located near the urban core and major employment centers? 22. Would urbanization of western Lake Elmo allow greater utilization of Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve so as to avoid use of the regional highway system? 23. If transportation funding continues to be a major public policy issue, is it likely the region as a whole can provide as good or better regional highway access to other areas of the region in support of urbanization if Lake Elmo does not urbanize? • 12 • REVIEW RECORD CITY OF LAKE ELMO 2000 - 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BACKGROUND The city of Lake Elmo is a developing suburban and rural community located nine miles from downtown Saint Paul. It is surround by the cities of Oakdale,Pine Springs,Grant, Stillwater/Stillwater Township,Oak Park Heights,Baytown Township,West Lakeland Township,Afton,and Woodbury.(Figure 1). The city is 15,341 acres(24 square miles)in area. In 2000,Lake Elmo had 6,863 people in 2,347 households,and an estimated 1,635 jobs. According to Council 1997 forecasts,Lake Elmo should plan to accommodate a total of 12,500 people in 4,700 households and 2,650 jobs by 2020. Although Lake Elmo's plan is being reviewed using 1997 Council forecasts,data from the 2000 Census suggest that it would be reasonable to expect Lake Elmo to plan for and accommodate even more additional household and jobs by 2020. Lake Elmo ranks 33rdth among communities in the region in forecasted household growth for the period 2000 to 2020. The Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Comprehensive Plan,hereafter referenced as the"plan,"establishes policies to guide growth to the year 2020 and,when adopted,will replace the former comprehensive plan,adopted in 1991. Lake Elmo,in 1997,received a grant from the Council for preparation of its comprehensive plan,Grant No. SG-97-244,in the amount of$10,530. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires local units of government to submit comprehensive plans and plan amendments to the Council for review and comment(Minn.Stat. §473.864,Subd.2). The Council reviews the plans to determine their conformity with metropolitan system plans,apparent consistency with other adopted plans of the Council,and compatibility with the plans of other local jurisdictions in the . metropolitan area. The Council may require a local governmental unit to modify any comprehensive plan or part thereof,which may have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans(Minn. Stat. §473.175,Subd. 1). HISTORY/PREVIOUS ACTIONS The Lake Elmo Park Reserve and Growth Pressures In 1967,the Twin Cities Metropolitan Planning Commission(soon to become the Metropolitan Council)sent a memo to Washington County concerning an acquisition program for parkland in Washington County. The purposed parks were based on the principle of locating parks close to population concentrations and rapidly growing communities. A 1,005-acre park adjacent to Lake Elmo and Eagle Point Lake was identified as a possible inclusion into the"Joint Program of the Metropolitan Open Space System." This plan was included as part of the 1967 Washington County Comprehensive Plan. In the early 1970's,the Council divided the region into 10 sectors for purposes of determining the number, size and locations of regional parks and park reserves. Lake Elmo was within Sector 4,which encompassed the northern half of Washington County and a small portion of the northeastern part of Ramsey County. The acquisition standard use by the Council was 7 acres of regional park land and 18 acres of regional park reserve land per 1000 people. Washington County,the then Village of Lake Elmo,and the Council continued to jointly support the idea and requested federal and state monies to initiate an acquisition program. Lake Elmo Village Council passed a resolution on March 3, 1970 establishing a Metropolitan Park in the Village of Lake Elmo expressing concern about possible private development in the area. It reads in part... "Whereas,said[Village]Council...is of the opinion that such private development,inconsistent with the proposed park plan,is an immediate possibility." "...[T]hat such action as may be necessary for the acquisition of lands be taken at the earliest possible date because of the immediate possibility of • conflicting private development." 13 r - On August 3, 1971,the Lake Elmo Village Council again stated in a resolution the following: • "Whereas,the Village Council is of the opinion that the land for said Park should be acquired at the earliest possible time so that it may be secured before it becomes the subject of urban development and is,thereby,lost forever for park purposes." The original 1973 park acquisition plan considered population density near the regional park and the forecasted population in the sector in which the Lake Elmo Park Reserve is located. The acquisition plan projected more population growth than actually occurred by 1990,although the actual population was within 10 percent of the projected growth. On May 21, 1974,the Village Council urged the Metropolitan Council in cooperation with Washington County to promptly acquire the"Lake Elmo Metropolitan Park"with the statement: "Resolved,that the Village Council of the Village of Lake Elmo... does hereby reaffirm its expressions of approval of the concept of a Metropolitan Park of regional significance...." The 1974 Legislature enacted the 1974 Metropolitan Parks Act,which states that: "the pressure of urbanization and development threatens the most valuable remaining large recreational open space areas in the Metropolitan Area at the same time as the need for such areas is increased." This act provided an initial$40 million appropriation to the Council to provide grants to"implementing agencies"to acquire what were defined as"immediate action sites." The sites were part of what was called the Immediate Action Program. The implementing agencies were responsible for the planning,acquiring, developing,operations and maintenance for the regional facilities. The Council developed the Long Range system policy plan for Regional Recreation Open Space as part of the Council's Development Guide. Lake Elmo Park was earmarked for immediate acquisition. At this time,Dayton Hudson Properties was holding 1,250 acres in the city of Lake Elmo"for the purpose of • developing a major diversified center." The Lake Elmo City Council passed a resolution stating: "It is essential the Dayton Hudson property be acquired under the first priority acquisition before the Dayton Hudson development plan is submitted to the City of Lake Elmo."(July 16, 1974) As part of a memorandum to the Council dated July 16, 1974,Washington County stated: "...the purpose of the Legislative Act,which provided this 40 million dollars...was so that acquisition could take place and preserve these twelve regional sites that were in immediate danger of being lost to development. As far as this one(Lake Elmo)is concerned,if we do not take immediate steps to acquire the entire park,those parcels not provided for under this funding will be lost to developers within the next two to three years." Lake Elmo was originally identified as a regional Park for active recreation purposes. In a report dated July 16, 1974,to the Chair of the Council's Environmental and Transportation Committee the Chairman of Metro East stated... "Since our primary concerns lie with the eastern suburbs,we have spent a considerable amount of time studying growth patterns as they affect the east metropolitan area. From these studies we have found that growth is moving eastward into western and central Washington County. Development pressures are real in this area. Because of these growth pressures and the need for a regional park facility in this area, Metro East does endorse and support the establishment of the Washington County Lake Elmo Regional Park." The Metropolitan Council authorized a grant in July 1974 and executed a contract in October 1974 with Washington for$4,650,000 to secure a major portion of the park. When the County submitted the master plan for Washington County Regional Parks,the staff report stated that: "Lake Elmo Regional Park will be affected by several major proposed developments including Interstate • 94,3M,Dayton Hudson with housing development adjacent to the park on the south and southwest." 14 1111 The 1977 Washington County Regional Recreation Open Space 5 Year Capital Improvement Program included Lake Elmo as a park reserve with first priority including the need to purchase the remainin g parcels in the park"...because of intense development pressure and the proposed higher density of new residences in the area...." During the last 25 years,capital improvements totaling$7.6 million have been spent on the park for acquisition and development. The Council paid tax equivalency payments to the city of Lake Elmo for a period of time after parcels were acquired. The Council makes annual operations and maintenance payments to Washington County as a partial reimbursement. Today,Lake Elmo Park Reserve encompasses 2,165 acres with 1,995 acres of land and 170 acres of water. It sees fairly good use with an estimated 398,000 visits in 2000. Approximately 45%of visitors live within Washington County. Comprehensive Planning The Lake Elmo 1990-2010 Comprehensive Plan was submitted to the Council in 1990 and reviewed in 1991. In its review,the Council found the city's rural density of three units per ten acres,with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres,inconsistent with rural policies. In 1992,the city proposed a 440-acre MUSA expansion in the southwest corner of the city. The proposed land use designation for all 440 acres was Business Park. At the time there was not adequate sewer capacity allocated to Lake Elmo to accommodate the expected sewer flow. In a resolution sent to the Council,the city of Woodbury outlined 11 "negative findings." Woodbury expressed concerns regarding sewer planning, transportation,storm drainage,septic systems and long range planning. Four of Woodbury's long-range planning findings follow. The Comprehensive Plan does not review development and growth for a long-term period. The plan is ' • very short term oriented and only for a specific development. The plan should deal(with)overall community needs. The proposal involves land only for commercial development. The market area has a sufficient supply p p Y p pP of commercial land,which is already in the MUSA. The proposed uses to be allowed outside the MUSA are almost identical to those allowed inside the MUSA. Some of the uses,such as restaurants,are very difficult to operate on septic systems. The plan made no representation of this being a temporary short-term situation. It appears they intend these commercial businesses to operate on private systems on a permanent basis. Allowing such development is not consistent with Rural Development Policies. The Council review resulted in required plan modifications,and removal of the 440 acres form the MUSA. In 1994,Lake Elmo addressed the modifications and a 120-acre MUSA expansion was approved. Since 1994,the city has submitted 11 comprehensive plan amendments. A 1996 amendment established an open space development concept providing for the clustering of rural housing and the dedication of substantial open space. The Rural Agricultural Density(RAD)land use designation in the proposed comprehensive plan is a further evolved version of the open space development concept. The amendment proposed to change the land use designation of 4,460 acres(30 percent of the city) to Open Space Development. Development was permitted at six units per 20 acres(3 per 10 or 1 dwelling per 3.3 acres)with performance bonuses up to ten units per 20 acres(16 units per 20 acres or 1 dwelling per 1.25 acres). Permanent dedication of 50 percent of the site for open space was required. The Open Space development category was not applied to the area between I—94 and 10th Street,sometimes called the I-94 corridor area(Figure 7). The Council review included the following three recommendations: 1. Inform the city of Lake Elmo that it may put the proposed plan amendment into effect and that no plan • modification is required. 15 2. Recommend that the city of Lake Elmo monitor the open space development and forward annual reports • to the Council. The reports should include information on on-site systems,water supply,housing affordability and whether the new development meets the city's intended open space development goals and objectives. 3. Recommend that the city of Lake Elmo coordinate planning with the Council and with Washington County as the growth options analysis develops. The growth options analysis was part of the 1996 Regional Blueprint process. The Council has not received annual reports monitoring open space development in the city. From 1996 through 1998,a city-appointed I-94 task force including the Chairmen of the Planning Commission and property owners met to develop and evaluate alternative development options for the I-94 Corridor Study Area(Figure 7). The task force,with assistance from the City Planner and a consulting planner,developed three options. The I-94 Economic Development Option featured sewered research and development/business park sites,rural estate development,open space development,and a large area designated post 2015 development. The I-94 Livable Community Option was similar except that it substituted urban sewered residential development for open space development. The I-94 Existing/Future Land Use Option called for both sewered and unsewered research and development office park sites,open space development,rural estate development,and a large post 2015 development area. A fiscal impact assessment of the three options was prepared;however,the city did not end up selecting any of the three land use options. ANALYSIS Staff reviewed the plan update for conformity with regional system plans for aviation,recreation open space, transportation and water resources management,for consistency with the Regional Blueprint and other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide,and for compatibility with the plans of adjacent • governmental units and school districts. Materials received for review included: • The Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Comprehensive Plan,submitted initially on August 24,2001,and found complete for review on February 8,2002. • Other supplementary materials received on November 16,2001;November 28,2001;December 21, 2001;December 27,2001;and April 11,2002. REGIONAL BLUEPRINT(Michael R.King,AICP, 651-602-1438 and Jim Uttley,AICP,Planning and Growth Management Department,651-602-1361) Lake Elmo is a substantially rural community with two small urban areas. One is the old village where there is a mix of commercial development and urban-density residential on individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS). The other is an area of 120 acres of commercial development in the southwest corner of the city, adjacent to Oakdale,which is served by public sewer and is connected to the regional water resources management system. The Regional Growth Strategy shows Lake Elmo as beginning to urbanize in the 2000—2020 planning period. The Regional Growth Strategy map(Figure 2)shows the city of Lake Elmo immediately adjacent to the region's"urban area." Oakdale is located to the west. Woodbury is located to the south. Stillwater and Oak Park Heights are located to the northeast. The Regional Growth Strategy proposes that a substantial portion in the east and northeast sections of Lake Elmo should plan remain in"permanent rural"land uses. Much of the remainder is proposed by the Council to be preserved for future urbanization through 2040,with a small area of approximately 525 acres proposed to urbanize before 2020. The Regional Growth Strategy policy areas as shown in Figure 2 as applied to Lake Elmo show 120 acres of existing Urban Area(all commercial); 9,846 acres of Urban Reserve of which 3,907 acres are shown as Illustrative 2020 MUSA;and 5,375 acres of Permanent Rural. The Illustrative 2020 MUSA was not intended to show the expected extent of urbanization by 2020. Rather,it shows the general area within • which the city should plan for urbanization to expand in the city consistent with its regional growth forecasts 16 • and the regional water resources management system plan for sewer households and sewered employment through 2020. Another way to look at the Regional Growth Strategy guide for Lake Elmo is as follows. Lake Elmo should plan for 5,275 acres(35 percent of the city)to continue in permanent rural uses through the planning period to 2040. It should plan for its existing 127 acres of urban development(0.1 percent of the city)to remain urban. It should plan to urbanize enough land to accommodate 1,500 sewered households and a sewered employment of 1,000 by 2020. And,it should protect the remainder of 9,846 acres(64 percent of the city)of undeveloped urban reserve for future urbanization through 2040. The Council did not tell Lake Elmo how to urbanize or at what density or how much land to use,beyond applying a minimum density of three units per acre. If the city planned for the minimum urban density,it would be expected to urbanize approximately 500 additional acres for residential purposes by 2020. With respect to land demand for jobs,the Council uses an average of 40 employees per acre for its general sewer flow forecasting. The 1,000 sewered employees reflect a demand for approximately 25 acres of sewered commercial/industrial land by 2020. Thus,if the city planned to urbanize 525 acres of land by 2020,it should be able to accommodate all of the sewered households and sewered employees forecasted for the city to 2020. Lake Elmo's comprehensive plan does identify and propose to continue the existing urban area in the southwest corner of the city(Figure 5). It proposed no expansion of the urban area and does not plan to accommodate the sewered households and employment as directed in the regional system plan for water resources management. The plan does not identify an area of urban reserve or adequately protect the 9,846 acres of land identified by the Council for future urbanization. Council guidelines suggest that cities should plan for rural residential densities not to exceed one dwelling per 40 acres as a way to protect rural lands for future urbanization. Instead,the city plans for the vast majority of the city—areas that the Council shows as both urban reserve and permanent rural,to be rural residential. However,it does not follow the Council's 0 density guidelines for permanent rural areas(an average of one dwelling per 10 acres). The city's land use acreage table identifies four residential land use categories:urban residential,suburban residential,rural estates and rural agricultural development. The"urban residential"category is applied to the existing Cimarron manufactured housing development of 505 Units,approximately 189 acres in 2000. No new"Urban Residential"is proposed in the city's plan. The"suburban residential"category is applied to the existing residential development in the Old Village and elsewhere. Most suburban residential development took place in the early to mid 20th Century when the city was 700 acres in size(before annexing East Oakdale Township).The City Planner advises that few parcels remain unbuilt within these old(suburban residential)plats; and no unplatted land has been proposed for the SRD designation as yet,total 2000 land use in this category was approximately 1,780 acres. The effective densities in these old plats range up to three units per acre. According to Chuck Dillerud,the Lake Elmo City Planner: The focus of the soon-to-be-started Old Village Neighborhood Design Study(Thorbeck Architects are under contract)is to address limited Old Village expansion at this elevated density(not unlike the ideas that Calthorpe gave us a couple years ago for this area)using the engineered wetland wastewater treatment systems like those now serving several of our OP plats-up to 200 units on a single combined system.The "trick"that Thorbeck must overcome is to retain the ambiance and character of the Old Village with 21st Century housing and layout-as well as the wastewater solution.... The only contemporary plat that is guided SRD is Carriage Station at 55th and Stillwater Blvd.We added an SRD definition to the 1990 Plan @1.4 units per acre,with specific locational criteria,to accommodate SRI)there-as a measure to "step down" density from Oak Park Heights scale to • Lake Elmo scale from north to south across that neighborhood. 17 The residential estates development(RED)is conventional platting,which at approximately three units per • 10 acres. According to the City Planner,nearly every RED guided area on the Plan is existing-with a couple of minor exceptions,based on statements made to adjacent homeowners. Since 1996 only one RED plat has been proposed and approved. All the rest(except Carriage Station)have been cluster developments - 11 in all;with an area of approximately 811 acres in 2000. The majority of the land in Lake Elmo is proposed for development as Rural Agricultural Development (RAD)(see Figure 5). RAD permits development of a density of one unit per 10 acres,but is normally developed at 16 units per 40 acres,with 50 percent of the land area to be dedicated as permanent open space. The resulting density is 0.4 units per acre or an average of one unit per 2.5 acres of land. This land use plan category is planned throughout the city,including the southern section of the city. (Figure 5) This density is four times higher than the Council recommended density for permanent rural areas and sixteen times higher than the Council's recommended density for areas of urban reserve. In 2000,RAD land use category accounted for 7,622 acres. Most review reports contain a table that compares city and Council forecasts. The table has been omitted from this review report in place of a more extensive analysis and commentary found in the policy matrix section of the report immediately following the executive summary. There are a few areas in the city with compact intensively developed lands,which are of a village or small town scale. These areas include the Old Village area south of state trunk highway(STH)5 and County Road 17,the adjacent commercial strip along STH 5 and the Cimarron modular home community south east of County Road 17 and 10th Street(Figure 5). Two areas are proposed for new intensive development. The comprehensive plan calls for the expansion of the Old Village with new"village scale"residential and commercial development and a surrounding greenbelt(Appendix A:pages 34—37 and Map 2). This smart growth concept was developed in part through the Council funded Saint Croix Valley Design Study. The • comprehensive plan also proposes a"limited business"district along the I-94 frontage road. That district would extend west one mile from the MUSA line to Keats Avenue(County Road 17). This commercial development area is smaller than that called for in the Lake Elmo 1990—2010 Comprehensive Plan. Both areas are proposed for development without connection to the regional water resources management system. Sub-Regional Analysis —Comparing Lake Elmo to Grant Lake Elmo is a community at the crossroads. It is a community with some of the best transportation access in the region,with principal arterial highways on two borders(with existing interchanges),and a third located a mile from one of its remaining borders. It has relatively large parcels of land and may have one of the best urban development potentials of any city in the region,because it is located near the core cities and other employment centers and because regional transportation,sewer and park facilities are located within the city or immediately next to the city. Unlike its urban neighbors to the west,south and northeast,it seeks a quasi-rural lifestyle like its neighboring townships to the east. All of its neighboring communities except West Lakeland Township have had their comprehensive plans reviewed by the Council. West Lakeland Township has not yet been submitted for Council review. The city of Grant,located immediately north of Lake Elmo was shown in the Regional Growth Strategy as mostly permanent rural,but with substantial areas in the western part of the community proposed by the Council for urban reserve. Grant's plan proposed that the entire city remain in permanent rural at densities consistent with Council policies for permanent rural areas. The Council's reviewed Grant's plan on January 28, 1999. In its review,the Council said: The[city of Grant's]plan does not identify any future sewered areas,but indicates that the city will reconsider identifying potential sewered areas in the year 2008,during the next plan update. More importantly,the city will continue to vigorously enforce its 1/10 density policy,which will not preclude future urban development. Therefore,while the plan is not consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and represents a departure from the Water Resources Management Policy Plan,Council staff fords that the plan does not constitute a substantial departure. 18 • How is Lake Elmo's plan different from Grant's? The regional water resources management system plan did not propose any sewered residential households or employment in Grant through 2020,while it does propose 1,500 sewered households and 1,000 sewered employment in Lake Elmo by 2020. While the Regional Growth Strategy shows both Urban Reserve and Illustrative 2020 MUSA in Grant,the city was not expected to plan for urbanization before 2020. It was only expected to protect land for future urbanization. Grant proposes to do this by vigorously applying its 1/10 permanent rural density standard. Further, Grant agreed to revisit the question of future urbanization in its 2008 update of its comprehensive plan. Lake Elmo is also shown with both Urban Reserve and Illustrative 2020 MUSA,but in this case Lake Elmo was expected to plan for urbanization to begin before 2020. Its plan proposes to permit rural densities four times higher,and therefore inconsistent with future urbanization. Further,although Lake Elmo's plan proposes to encourage clustering in the rural area(generally an acceptable practice),it requires the undeveloped open space in each development to be set aside as"permanent"open space(through easements, dedications and fee title transfers). This practice,if allowed,would make future urbanization considerable more difficult if not virtually impossible. Sand,Gravel and Dolostone Deposits The Council's study of aggregate resources in the Twin Cities area,Aggregate Resources Inventory of Seven- County Metropolitan Area,Minnesota(May 9,2000),identified sand and grave deposits in Lake Elmo,one area in the northwestern area of the city to the south and west of Lake Jane,Olson Lake and Lake De Montreville and the other south and east of Goose Lake. Much of the area identified in northwestern Lake Elmo is considered urbanized or mined out.There are two existing sand and gravel mines;new mines are not permitted. The plan indicates that by 2020 there will be no more extraction activities in the community. • Historic Site Preservation; Solar Access Protection The comprehensive plan does not include a historic protection element or provide an element for solar access protection. These protection elements as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act(Minn. Stat. § 473.859,subdivision 2). The city should prepare and submit these elements to the Council for review as required by law. Plan Implementation The city has approved the following 2000—2020 Comprehensive Plan implementation work projects:the Community Facilities/Staffing forecast,Zoning Ordinance Redraft,Old Village Neighborhood Design Study and the Cimarron Neighborhood Analysis. The city has adopted a 2002—2006 Capital Improvements Program. Land Use Summary Lake Elmo's plan is inconsistent with Council's Regional Growth Strategy policies contained in the Regional Blueprint,adopted by the Council in December 1996. It is inconsistent with the Council's 2020 household and employment forecasts. In the present context,the variance particularly in employment forecasts raises concerns because they are reflected in significantly lower forecasts from the city for sewered households and employment,which are found later in this review to be substantial departures from the regional system plan for water resources management. The city does not plan for future urbanization in the city beyond an existing 127-acre urbanized area in the southwest corner of the city. The city does not establish an Urban Reserve area in the community as directed by the Regional Growth Strategy and does not attempt to protect land in the city for future urbanization through 2040 by establishing densities approaching one dwelling per 40 acres as Council guidelines suggest. The city does have an area of"permanent rural"but its densities of one dwelling per 2.5 acres are four times • more dense that the Council's guidelines of one dwelling per 10 acres. The city's plan proposes densities four times denser than Council guidelines in the permanent rural area and 16 times denser than Council 19 N O N M l" S. N VO \O t+3 M t-.. 00 • 1-- 0 ~ N N ON .-e o ^ • u, 00 00 O .--I 00 as WI t--- 10 00 iO iO 00 et c I .--, i0 00 ' O N .--1 00 el ' v 00 M rr N O M . . 'Ct et IA - - - _4 N G Q C M N 0C ss a c F > a as y ,., g g A A F; '' !! Ul Cil c Q� F as zO I cLe .— '""' _ QY... 0. a 0 ,.' CA CZ 0 •.0 A A 0 co.-, .w. ..-„, g ,. .6) , ..▪ . pi. a s ..-7.,,'-' n 0. o • N it e; oo � .. O co N - N N eV `� 00 N O -, a, co — O co O O - N d N N IA ON ry M 4 ∎p N O ~ co, 0�0 000 000 ..-. O M N M et G M M •-� -- .- N ^ M N et IA � N N N M 'O � M i rH rl "d b Ti C Q 0. +' ed a a .d 0 v > > .a, F d A o G A A a F O 0 F" U 4 . 'a o co W 74 1 .0 cn a ti. a on cn o N V] 0 cd • L U • _ � • day � -1 w1 E w a .. o F 0 obtic.) U3 Wn �wa ‹ w ( w Q ,S . 7I d> O . • guidelines for areas of urban reserve. Additionally,Lake Elmo's plan allows rural clusters where substantial land is placed into"permanent"open space. This technique is permitted in the Council's permanent rural area when associated with lower density rural residential development(1 per 10 not 1 per 2.5). However,it is inconsistent in areas that the Council has designated as urban reserve,where such permanent open space would significantly add to the costs for extending urban infrastructure,perhaps making urbanization financially infeasible. REGIONAL SYSTEMS Aviation(Chauncey Case,Transportation and Transit Development,651-602-1724) The city of Lake Elmo is within the airport influence area of the Lake Elmo Airport and involves airport- planning considerations. The comprehensive plan includes an aviation element. This city's plan adequately addresses the airspace protection requirements and is in conformance with the Aviation Policy Plan. Recreation Open Space(Arne Stefferud,Parks,Phyllis Hanson,Manager,Planning and Technical Assistance Office,651-602-1566,Michael McDonough,Planning and Growth Management Department, 651-602-1054) The Lake Elmo 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan is not in conformance with and represents a substantial departure from the Regional Recreation Open Space System Plan. The 2,165-acre Lake Elmo Park Reserve lies in the center of Lake Elmo. The regional investment in the park reserve totals$7.6 million,including $5.6 million for land acquisition. Lake Elmo received tax equivalency payments for a period of time after parcels were acquired. In addition,Washington County,as the Implementing Agency,receives partial reimbursement annually for operations and maintenance costs for the regional system,including Lake Elmo Park Reserve. The Lake Elmo Park Reserve had an estimated 398,000 visits in 2000. Approximately 45% of the visitors live within Washington County. The Lake Elmo Park Reserve is a regional amenity and an substantial infrastructure investment that was invited and welcomed by the city of Lake Elmo. • While the principal considerations in establishing regional parks and park reserves have more to do with protection of regionally significant open space more than locating them for ease of access to regional park users,park users are a consideration. Urban level development would allow more access to the park by alternative transportation,such as biking,walking,and using the transit system. It also permits more people to access the park without using the regional highway system,thereby reducing demands on that system. The 1996 Regional Blueprint in Appendix A,pages 66-72,establishes guidelines affecting regional systems. In its first section,entitled,"Directions for Regional Systems,"it says... "The Blueprint will be used to help interpret policies in the Council's system plans and its other regional plans. All of the Council's regional plans need to reflect the policies of the Blueprint...which is the keystone chapter(of the Metropolitan Development Guide)." On page 68,the Blueprint says"... Set regional objectives for the open space system consistent with the Regional Blueprint...Develop regional recreation facilities that attract large numbers of users generally in the urban area...If it is necessary to develop such facilities in the rural area,adequate support services such as roads and sewers must be provided. The Lake Elmo Park Reserve is located within the area that the Regional Growth Strategy identifies as urban reserve(future urban),which is consistent with the concept expressed above of developing regional recreation facilities that attract large numbers of users generally in an urban area. Lake Elmo's plan to keep the area rural and prevent it from urbanizing in the future is not in conformity with Council policy and • represents a substantial departure from the regional system plan for Regional Recreation Open Space. The city should be required to modify its plan to make it consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. 21 I - • Lake Elmo's Park Plan is generally very comprehensive. However,the trail plan includes a proposed regional trail intended to connect the Big Marine Regional Park Reserve in northern Washington County with the Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park in southern Washington County. A combination of the proposed community and neighborhood trails could make this connection. The city's plan is not in conformity with and is a departure from the regional system plan because it does not show the regional trail as described above and included in the 1996 Re g ional Recreation Open Space System statement The city should modify its plan map show the connection as a future regional trail. Transportation(Ann Braden,Planning and Growth Management Department,651-602-1705) The city's plan is not in conformity with and represents a departure from the regional system plan for transportation(Transportation Policy Plan[TPP]). The plan recommends traffic calming for TH 5 through the Old Village area of Lake Elmo. TH 5 is currently carries about 12,000 vehicles per day. Strategy 11H of the regional Transportation Policy Plan states that traffic-calming measures are not appropriate on principal or minor arterials because they inhibit the highway from fulfilling its regional role of providing mobility. Traffic calming measures on TH 5 that would impair mobility along TH 5 would be inconsistent with Council policy. The city should revise the language in its plan regarding traffic-calming measures on TH 5. In addition,the city's plan is not in conformity with and represents a substantial departure from the regional system plan for transportation. In its adoption of the Transportation Policy Plan on December 19, 1996,the Council incorporated its Regional Growth Strategy into the TPP(page 10),which says... The Metropolitan Council's regional growth strategy was adopted as part of its Regional Blueprint. `...to ensure that this regional growth strategy is implemented,the Council's regional growth strategy is hereby incorporated into the Council's system plan for transportation. Local government plans will be reviewed by the Council for their consistency[sic]with the Council's metropolitan system plans. The Council's metropolitan system plans including the regional growth strategy,will serve as the basis for • the Council's determination to require a local plan modification if a local plan or any part of a local plan has a substantial impact on or contains a substantial departure from the Council's metropolitan system plans. Lake Elmo has some of the best transportation access of any community in the region. Lake Elmo is bordered by two principal arterials:I-94 on the south and state trunk highway(TH)36 on the north. "A" minor arterials in the city include TH 5,County Road(CR) 13,CR 10,and CR 19(all"expanders")and CR 15(a"connector"). Since the plan was drafted,Metro Transit Route 63 service between downtown St.Paul and the Cimarron Neighborhood in southeastern Lake Elmo has been eliminated. In addition to Metro Transit express Route 294 service,Washington County's Human Services,Inc.provides ADA paratransit service to Lake Elmo from 5:00 am to 7:00 p.m. The city's plan,as was noted earlier,is inconsistent with the Council's Regional Growth Strategy with respect to forecasts,sewered households and employment,lack of future urbanization, lack of urban reserve, inconsistent density policies needed to protect urban reserve and permanent rural areas. The Regional Blueprint,on page 67,states... Recognize that the cumulative impact of small-scale development inconsistent with the Council rural area policies may have a substantial negative impact of the Council's transportation policy plan or constitute a substantial departure from the plan. Similarly,in the urban area the cumulative effect of very low densities and inefficient land uses may lead to underutilization of regional facilities and may constitute a substantial negative impact on the system or constitute a substantial departure from the system plans. Lake Elmo's plan for city-wide low-density rural residential development and permanent open space makes it economically infeasible to provide the citizens of Lake Elmo and some adjacent communities with cost effective transit services. The Regional Blueprint,on page 68, states that the Transportation Policy Plan shall • "emphasize and promote transit services...and which reduce automobile dependence to improve air 22 • quality...decreasing congestion,promoting community character, and devoting less land to transportation facilities." Wastewater Services(Bryce Pickart,Assistant General Manager,MCES and Donald Bluhm,Manager, Municipal Services,MCES,651-602-1116) History In 1992,Lake Elmo submitted a request to the Council to add 440 acres in southwest Lake Elmo to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area(MUSA). The request was not permitted because there was not sufficient capacity within the interceptor system to provide for the requested service. Another consideration was embodied by comments from the city of Woodbury,which objected to Lake Elmo's MUSA request because no housing was included,only commercial land use. In 1994,the city requested that 120 acres be added to their MUSA. The Council approved 120 acres for inclusion in MUSA,based on projections of available capacity in the WONE Interceptor. In 1994,the Council's Environmental Services Division completed a long-range wastewater system planning study entitled the Centralization/Decentralization Study. This plan included the implementation of the Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant to serve Cottage Grove,Woodbury,and Lake Elmo. The 1996 Water Resources Management Policy Plan,based on the 2020 Regional Blueprint,programmed the expansion of the Metropolitan Disposal System to provide wastewater services to the city of Lake Elmo.The 1997 systems statement that was sent to the city of Lake Elmo to initiate their comprehensive plan update stated that regional sanitary sewer service would be provided for 1,500 housing units by 2020. The content of the 1997 system statement was not disputed or challenged by the city. In 1996,the Council began the siting process for the Southeast Regional WWTP. In 1998,the Council completed the siting process with the decision to re-use the existing Cottage Grove WWTP site,which cannot accommodate a plant as large as originally envisioned for the Southeast Regional WWTP(renamed • the South Washington County WWTP). The plant siting decision resulted in a re-evaluation of the plant's sewer service area and options to provide capacity at other locations as part of the interceptor system facility planning,which was initiated in 1998. In April 2000,the Council adopted the South Washington County Interceptor Facility Plan. The facility plan provides sewer service to Lake Elmo through the proposed Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor,with capacity for up to 3.7 mgd wastewater flow from Lake Elmo,and with construction scheduled for 2006 to coincide with a planned MnDOT project to widen and improve I-94 east of St.Paul. The objective is to achieve efficient construction of public infrastructure and consistency of regional transportation and wastewater system capacities. Interim wastewater service for the previously mentioned 440-acre area of Lake Elmo would be provided by the WONE Interceptor,which will have capacity available upon Woodbury's diversion of wastewater flow to the new South Washington County interceptor and wastewater treatment plant in 2003. In addition,the facility plan allocates 1.4 mgd of reserve capacity for the I-94 corridor east of Woodbury and the four St. Croix communities in the South Washington County Interceptor. The 3.7-mgd of wastewater flow planned for Lake Elmo equates to 13,500 residential equivalent connections and to an urban service area of approximately 5,000 to 8,000 acres. This area encompasses the entire area between I-94 and 10th Street that is available for development,plus some of the developable area north of 10th Street,plus the larger existing developments(Cimarron,Old Village); an area consistent in size with the entire area shown as"urban reserve"in the Regional Growth Strategy minus the 1,995 acre Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve,which is undifferentiated within the area shown as urban reserve. The 2002-2007 MCES Capital Improvement Program includes the$10 million Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor with construction scheduled for 2006-2007. III 23 Public Comments • Public participation played an important role in shaping the plans for the South Washington County Interceptor. Early in the process of preparing the facility plan,an interceptor community advisory committee (ICAC)was formed consisting of representatives of Lake Elmo,Afton,Cottage Grove,Woodbury, Washington County,South Washington Watershed District,Department of Natural Resources and the Council. Committee members included citizens,elected officials,and local government staff. Five meetings were held between January 1998 and January 1999. Mayor Wyn John,Todd Williams,and City Engineer Tom Prew officially represented Lake Elmo. Other participants included Lake Elmo city council member Susan Dunn,property owner Dorothy Lyons and Bruce Miller of MFC Properties Corporation. Throughout the one-year span of the ICAC meetings,MCES consultants and staff presented information on the various alignment alternatives for the interceptor as they were gradually narrowed to the final recommended plan. Lake Elmo's representatives preferred alignments oriented towards the western side of the city. This conformed better to the city's plan to stage development in the area adjacent to I-94 from west to east. City of Afton representatives vigorously opposed the eastern-most interceptor alignment along their shared border with Woodbury. They were concerned that this would bring undesirable pressure to urbanize their northwestern sector.At the fourth ICAC meeting,the Council proposed a new interceptor alternative for future service to Lake Elmo,the Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor,which responded to both cities' concerns. The Council district representative and staff met with the Lake Elmo city council on July 7, 1998,and again on September 1, 1998,to discuss the means of providing interceptor service to the city. At the request of the ICAC members,a narrative evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the remaining interceptor alternatives was provided in January 1999. The Facility Plan was published in March 2000,and an official public hearing on the South Washington County Facility Plan was held on April 6,2000. The Council officially adopted the facility plan on April 26,2000,and Lake Elmo officials were informed and consulted • during the planning for the interceptor,but their comments influenced changes in that plan. System Impacts The Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan provides interceptor service capacity for 13,500 residential equivalent connections in Lake Elmo in the long-term,which would require approximately 5,000 to 8,000 acres of developable land. The system statement provided for 1,500 housing units to be served by 2020. The Regional Growth Strategy anticipated approximately 8,200 acres of MUSA and Urban Reserve. The city's comprehensive plan projects a need for 482 residential equivalent connections by 2020. The city's comprehensive plan projects no need to expand its current 120-acre MUSA. The city's comprehensive plan provides for development of most of its land at the rural density of one unit per 2.5 acres(16 units per 40 acres). This development pattern would make it impossible to achieve urban densities appropriate for MUSA in the future. These city proposals are a substantial systems departure from the Wastewater System Plan and Policy 12a of the Water Resources Management Policy Plan,which states: ...The timing and density of development which is inconsistent with the growth management strategy adopted as part of the Regional Blueprint and which would affect the cost of providing metropolitan sewer service will be viewed as a departure from or having a substantial impact on the metropolitan wastewater system,requiring modifications to the local comprehensive plan. Lake Elmo is the closest community to the Metropolitan WWTP in St.Paul that has significant developable land that is not already within the MUSA or Urban Reserve. The least costly and most efficient means to accommodate the region's growth is to provide urban services for urban density development to areas such as Lake Elmo,as described in the 1996 Regional Blueprint. • 24 • OTHER METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMEN T G UIDE CHAPTERS Housing(Guy Peterson,Livable Communities Department,651-602-1418) Based on the 2020 Blueprint and its Regional Growth Strategy,the Lake Elmo plan,as submitted,is inconsistent with regional housing policy and the housing planning requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The Regional Growth Strategy identifies areas of urbanization in the city through 2020. The framework established for implementing the housing planning requirements of the Metropolitan Land g Planning Act calls for Lake Elmo to adopt affordable housing goals through 2010 consistent with the regional goal-setting framework. This goal-setting structure with benchmarks and goals identifies some range parameters within which the city is asked to plan for its share of affordable and life-cycle housing through 2010. Using the Council's forecasted sewered residential growth in the city through 2010,and the goals accepted by Lake Elmo when it was a participant in the Livable Communities Local Housing Incentives Program (numbers which are actually lower than the benchmark range accepted by other suburbs east of St.Paul),the city would be expected to permit development of some new affordable ownership units—townhomes and rental housing—before 2011. Using the goal Lake Elmo adopted,it would be expected to add 20 rental units (high density)and 79 affordable ownership units(medium density townhomes). If the more ambitious benchmark range numbers were used for goals,the low end of the actual goal ranges for eastern suburbs would yield numbers that would represent the addition of 46 rental units and 106 affordable ownership units. These goals when viewed as units then require the city to fulfill the second major affordable housing requirement of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act—guiding sufficient land to permit this development to occur should the market choose to build it. These modest goals would mean the need for two to five acres available for high density rental housing(10 or more units per acre),and 13 to 18 acres available for medium density residential development(at least six units per acre)through 2010. • With the systems statement indicating the expectation to sewer 1,500 homes in the city by 2020,perhaps as many as 120 acres of additional land in the city would need to be"reserved"at one unit per 10 acres through 2010,to permit additional affordable and life-cycle housing to be developed after 2010. The city's plan to grow without any sewered residential development creates a rationale for not having new affordable housing goals and not permitting the development of medium-and high-density residential development. The comprehensive plan is inconsistent with regional housing policy and the Metropolitan Land Planning Act housing planning requirements if the Council requires the comprehensive plan to be consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy,with sewered residential growth to begin in the city before 2010. A failure to provide or protect more land to facilitate life cycle and affordable housing development between 2010 and 2020 exacerbates the plan's deficiencies. Water Resources Management(James Larsen,Planning&Growth Management Dept. 651-602-1159) Sanitary Sewer Element—Individual Sewage Treatment Systems(ISTS) The city's ISTS management program is consistent with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)and Council requirements. Sanitary Sewer Element—Private Wastewater Treatment Systems Nine clustered housing neighborhoods in the city are currently being served by seven engineered-wetland wastewater treatment systems. The systems are permitted by the MPCA. Surface Water Management The majority of the city is located within the Valley Branch Watershed,but portions also lie within the Browns Creek and South Washington Watersheds. Council staff encourages the city to work closely with all • three of these watershed management Districts having jurisdiction over surface water management issues in portions of the city. 25 II The city's plan includes policy language requiring utilization of MPCA's best management practices and • Nationwide Urban Runoff Program wet detention basin design criteria,consistent with the Council's Interim Strategy to Reduce Non point Source Pollution to all Metropolitan Water Bodies. The plan also the need to incorporate these standards and requirements into the city's land use controls to acknowledges rp q tY implement these policies. The city should amend its land use controls to incorporate these standards and requirements within nine months of final Council action on the plan. Water Supply The city submitted as a part of the plan,an update of its original 1996 water supply plan element. The update has been reviewed and comments have been provided to the city under separate cover. The city's water supply plan element is consistent with Council guidelines. At such time as the city expands its present public water system to serve urbanizing part of the community,it will need to revise its Water Supply plan and resubmit it to the Council for review. COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS The plan was forwarded to the adjacent jurisdictions,Washington County,and watershed districts for review li and comment. The cities of Oakdale and Woodbury,the South Washington Watershed District,and the Valley Branch Watershed District all have commented on the Lake Elmo 2000—2020 Plan. The comment letters are attached in Appendix B. Intergovernmental and Public Comments Intergovernmental comments have been received from the city of Oakdale,the city of Woodbury,the South Washington County Watershed District,and the Valley Branch Watershed District, (Appendix B). The city of Oakdale writes in part,the following. We respect the acknowledgement in the plan of the City's continued strategy of preserving natural • amenities and agricultural heritage. At the same time, we caution the City not to overlook proper planning for the inevitable development based on projected growth for Washington County. This will require making investments in the necessary infrastructure. The plan seems to recognize that Lake Elmo, "faces the march of urbanization,"but it could go further with discussion on strategies for how increasing growth pressures will be managed. The city of Woodbury letter expresses concerns about the extent of the proposed unsewered housing and its potential impact on the ground water system that flows towards Woodbury,the traffic impacts of the rural clustered housing development,and the impacts of surface water flowing from Lake Elmo into Woodbury. The city also made the following land use comments. The proposed land use element does not address issues in the Metropolitan Council Regional Blueprint as it relates to providing an expanded MUSA in a logical outward eastern expansion from the City of Oakdale. The Regional Blueprint shows the MUSA being expanded into Lake Elmo generally extending to Washington County Road #13. The Lake Elmo plan proposes no MUSA for housing in the entire city. The Council also received letters from four property owners or their representatives,(Appendix C). Bruce Miller of MFC properties sent a copy of a 1998 petition from property owners requesting sewer service from the city of Lake Elmo. Mr.Miller indicates that the property owners represent approximately 1,500 acres along I—94. Attorney Christopher Dietzen,wrote concerning the 34-acre Reco Real Estate property near I—94 and County Road 17(Lake Elmo Avenue). They would like their land to continue to be designated commercial. 26 • Attorney John Lang wrote to the Council concerning the Dale Properties 90 acre parcel north east of County Road 13 (Inwood Avenue)and 10th street,indicating an intent to develop sewered housing. He points out their proximity to employment centers,sewer service and sewered housing development in Oakdale. Thomas Schulte,of the North Suburban Company wrote concerning their 150 acre parcel at the southeast corner of County Road 13 (Inwood Avenue)and 10th street. They object to the plan's Rural Agricultural Density designation of their property,and ask the Council to,"take measures necessary to accommodate a more appropriate use of our property." At the May 6,2002,Livable Communities Committee meeting two property-owner representatives spoke. Joe Fogerty,Edina Realty,addressed the committee on behalf of Dale Properties,owners of land on the northeast corner of County Road 13(Inwood Avenue)and 10`s Street. He urged committee members to visit the site to understand the location and level of infrastructure that is in place. Mr.Fogerty,noted that as a Cottage Grove City Council Member,active in the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities,he had participated in the debate leading up to the adoption of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. He said,it was clearly contemplated at the time of adoption that"substantial impact on or substantial departure form a metropolitan system plan,"could result from the underutilization of public infrastructure investments. Attorney Neal Blanchett,spoke on behalf of two clients,including the RECO Real Estate property discussed above. He also addressed the committee concerning the Nass/Bubery/Bidon property in the northeast corner of the city on state highway 36 and Manning. He said the property was essentially on freeway frontage and it was not appropriate for the Rural Agricultural Density land use designation. • • 27 . 8 a r NASS PROPERTY SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION ANALYSIS CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS re for: Prepared Mr. Bernie Nass July 23, 2002 Prepared by: • Alliant Engineering, Inc. 233 Park Avenue South Suite 200 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55414 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under My direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota at."4 Signature 7— 3 -01- • Date Registration City of Oak Park Heights 411 Sanitary Sewer Extension Analysis Nass Property Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Existing Conditions 2 3.0 Proposed Development 3 4.0 Existing Sanitary Sewer Improvements 4 5.0 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Improvements 6 6.0 Cost Estimate 7 7.0 Conclusion 8 List of Appendices Appendix A Washington County Aerial with Topographic Overlay • Appendix B ..Conceptual Site Plan . Appendix C .Existing Sanitary Sewer Exhibit Appendix D Kern Center Utility Improvements As-built Plan Appendix E Proposed Sanitary Sewer Routing Plan Appendix F Construction Cost Estimate Appendix G Kern Center Feasibility Study Appendix H ..Oak Park Heights Sanitary Sewer System Map • 41110 • 1.0 Introduction At the request of the Land Owner,Alliant Engineering has prepared the following analysis in order to determine the feasibility of extending a sanitary sewer lateral line and associated sanitary services to a 48.5 acre parcel of land located in the City of Lake Elmo. Potential issues have been raised by representatives of the City of Oak Park Heights and City of Lake Elmo regarding the cost of constructing a sanitary sewer system. In addition,the capacity of the Oak Park Heights system located immediately east of the subject property is in question and will most likely be subject to receiving wastewater from the subject property should it be feasible to connect. • The analysis contained within is based on our review of the following documents: • City of Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kem Annexation Study prepared by Northwest Consultants, dated July 1997 • Preliminary Report on Kern Center Improvements for Oak Park Heights prepared.by Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik&Associates(BRAA) dated May 29, 1998 and amended July 1, 1998 • Kern Center Utility Improvements as-built drawings prepared by BRAA,dated February 16, 2000 • City of Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan,prepared by BRAA, dated July, 1999. • Washington County Department of Transportation and Physical Development Aerial Photographs with Topographic Overlay,dated April 2000. • • Conceptual Site Plan prepared by Brodsho Consulting, dated January.16,2002. • • 1 r } 2.0 Existin g Conditions The subject property is approximately 48.5 acres and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Highway 36 and Manning Avenue North in the City of Lake Elmo. The parcel is currently undeveloped and occupied by Mr.Bernie Nass,the land Owner.. The City of Oak Park Heights currently identifies this area as Business/Residential Transitional and Low Density Estate Residential in their Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan prepared by Bonestroo,Roselle, Anderlik&Associates,dated July, 1999. The property is bound by Highway 36 to the north,the Kern Center,a commercial/industrial development located in the City of Oak Park Heights to the east,residential property to the south and Manning Avenue North to the west. A 225 foot wide easement currently exists for Northern States Power Company(a.k.a Xcel Energy)overhead transmission lines,which parallel Highway 36 and extend from Manning Trail to the Kern Center and are located in the northern third of the property. Any reference to the Kern Center development hereby refers to that area bound by Highway 36 to the north,Highway 5 to the east, 55th Street North to the south and the subject property to the west. The subject property has an approximate mean elevation of 950 feet,though elevations vary from 990 feet near Highway 36 to 930 feet near the south and is approximately 10 feet higher than the Kern Center,which has an approximate mean elevation of 940 feet. A large regional retention facility is located near the southeast corner of the property at an elevation of approximately 928 feet. The pond outlets to the north via a significant drainage ravine,which provides a physical boundary between the subject property and the Kern Center to the east except for a crude hauling • road which connects the two properties. Three contiguous wetland areas are located off-site and adjacent to the south property line,which will most likely hinder any infrastructure improvements to the south through that area. Refer to Appendix A of this report for a copy of the Washington County Aerial'Photograph with a topographic overlay dated April, 2000. • 2 , • • 3.0 Proposed Development On behalf of the Land Owner,Ms.Debra Brodsho has prepared a Conceptual Site Plan, which is the basis of our analysis. The plan consists of seven commercial/retail buildings and associated parking fields,which surround the buildings perimeter. A roadway is proposed to be located within the NSP easement,which will connect Manning Trail North to the west and the Kern Center development to the east. The proposed roadway is the natural and westerly continuation of 58th Street,which currently serves the Kem Development and also serves the existing• commercial/retail development east of State Highway 5. It should be noted that the proposed roadway alignment is conceptual and it location will need to be coordinated with the Kern Center development property. owners. In order to determine the feasibility of providing a gravity flow system, finished floor elevations have been determined for the seven buildings,which are assumed to be a slab-on-grade construction type. The finished floor elevations are approximate and may be subject to change during development of the mass grading plan. Refer to Appendix B for a copy of the Conceptual Site Plan prepared by Debra Brodsho, dated January 16,2002 and Appendix E for a copy of the Proposed Sanitary Sewer Plan prepared by Alliant Engineering, dated July 15, 2002 which depicts the finished floor elevations. 4 • • . 3 411 4.0 Existing Sanitary Sewer Improvements v e ent s The City of Oak Park Heights is currently provided with sanitary sewer service by the Stillwater Wastewater Treatment Plant via the MCES Bayport Interceptor. A trunk line owned by the City of Oak Park Heights is located immediately south of State Highway 36 and conveys sewage easterly from numerous lateral lines located to the west. The entire system flows easterly towards the river,which is consistent with the topography of the area. The trunk line system has an ultimate design capacity of 4.42 MGD(million gallons per day)at the point were it enters the MCES Interceptor line. . In 1999 the City of Oak Park Heights extended utilities further to the west and sized the systems to accommodate future development for an area of approximately 249 acres. The area is comprised of three sub-areas referred to as the Kern Development(103 acres),the Screaton property(92 acres)and a rural residential property(54 acres) located immediately west of the Kern Development. The land area was part of Baytown Township until it was recently annexed into the Cities of Oak Park Heights and Lake Elmo. The Screaton property has since been developed in the City of Lake Elmo and a community sewage treatment facility has been constructed specifically for the Screaton property. Therefore,approximately 92 acres has been removed from contributing waste to the City of Oak Park Heights sanitary sewer system. A total- project cost of approximately$833,000.00 was calculated for the Kern Center Improvements in a feasibility study prepared by Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik&Associates, dated July 1, 1998. As part of the 1998 Kern Center Utility Improvements Project,approximately 6100 feet of sanitary sewer lateral line and a lift station were installed in order to provide for future • development of the area. Lateral line improvements consisted of approximately 2500 feet of 8 inch PVC pipe in Memorial Avenue North,approximately 500 feet of 8 inch PVC in 55th Avenue, a 300 GPM lift station located near the intersection of State Highway 5 and 55th Avenue and approximately 3100 feet of 6 inch force main located within Highway 5 right-of-way. Sewage generated within.the Kern Center development and beyond is routed southwesterly in Memorial Avenue,east in 55th Avenue and northwesterly via the 6 inch force main where it enters the existing system via a manhole in Neal Avenue North and continues by gravity in a 10 inch diameter line towards the east. The connection to the manhole in Neal Avenue North is required in order to bypass an existing 8 inch diameter line located in 58th Street North in the area of the High School which is currently at capacity. A detailed description of the line and issues related to capacity of the system in that area is described in detail in the City of Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kem Annexation Study prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, dated July 1997. The Memorial Avenue North 8 inch diameter lateral line has a hydraulic capacity of approximately 0.619 MGD based on a.roughness coefficient of 0.01 and a slope of 0.4%as depicted in the as-built drawings prepared by Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik&Associates, dated February 16,2000. Appendix E in the City of Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan has calculated an ultimate design flow in that line of approximately 0.23 MGD. Therefore, approximately 0.389 MGD of capacity is available for future development. The invert of the line is at an elevation of 925.5 feet near the intersection of Memorial Avenue North and 58th Street North. Refer to Appendix C for a copy of the existing sanitary sewer routing plan prepared by Alliant 11111 Engineering,Appendix D for a copy of drawing sheet 2 taken for the Kern Center Utility Improvements plans dated February 16,2000 which depicts utility improvements in the Kern Development,Appendix G for a copy of the Feasibility Report prepared for theKern Center 4 . Utility Improvements project and Appendix H for a copy of the.Oak Park Heights Sanitary Sewer Systems Map. • 5 • - 5.0 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Improvements • In order to determine the feasibility of providing the subject property with a gravity flow sanitary sewer system, a Conceptual Routing plan has been prepared based on the Concept Site plan prepared by Linda Brodsho and the proximity and depth of existing sanitary sewer available for connection. Finished floor elevations have been established for individual buildings with the understanding of working towards no import or export of soil. It is our assumption that 58th Street will be continued westerly through the Kern Center site and that right-of-way will be available for future sewer installation in that area. The Conceptual Routing plan will require approximately.3,250 feet of 8 inch diameter lateral line. improvements and 11 manhole structures. The system will flow easterly by gravity towards the Kern Center sanitary sewer system and ultimately connect to an existing manhole located near the intersection of Memorial Avenue North and 58th Street North at an elevation of approximately 932.2 which is 6.7 feet above the invert of the existing manhole. Therefore,the entire subject property could be lowered by that amount if necessary. Rim elevations for manhole structures depicted on the Conceptual Routing plan are assumed to be future roadway elevations in those locations. It should be noted that constructing 58th Street through the existing ravine and atop the existing hauling road connecting the subject property and the Kern Center will have an impact on the linear pond immediately south of the crossing. Approximately seven feet of fill will be required in this area to provide adequate.cover atop the proposed sewer line and will have an impact on the area. Approximately 0.20 MGD of wastewater will be generated on the subject property based on a tributary area of 48.5 acres. This assumes a peak flow factor of 4.0 and a wastewater generation • rate of 1000 gal-acre-day for commercial/retail land and is consistent with the methodology used. in development of the City of Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan. Review of record drawings for the City of Oak Park Heights and the surrounding communities did not indicate the existence of any other sanitary lateral lines available for use. An alternate routing which extended southerly from the south boundary of the subject property and continued to 55`h Street North was briefly considered. However,it was determined that the depth of cover in the wetland areas would be minimal thereby requiring fill in that area which would have a significant impact to the existing wetlands. In addition,the depth of cover would be excessive immediately south of the wetland areas as the elevations rise to a height 950 feet and the sewer would be at an approximate depth of.925 feet,which would be costly to construct. Therefore, further consideration of this as an alternate routing was discontinued. Refer to Appendix E for a copy of the Conceptual Routing Plan prepared by Alliant Engineering dated July 15, 2002. • 6 ■ • 6.0 . Cost Estimate A cost estimate for the extension of sanitary sewer onto and within the subject property has been prepared in addition to identifying any pending assessments required by the City of Oak Park Heights for future sewer connections. The construction estimate is based on the Conceptual Routing plan prepared by our office and accounts for service extensions to each of the seven buildings. It should be noted that the cost for acquisition of that area impacted by the. continuation of 158th Street North through the Kern Center has not been accounted for in our estimate and amounts to approximately.1.83 acres assuming a future right-of-way width of eighty feet. A sanitary sewer cost of approximately$149,220.00 has been determined assuming soft costs of 28 percent for design,administration and legal fees. In addition, a sanitary sewer systems charge of$129,010.00 will be required by the City of Oak Park Heights based on$2,660.00 per acre. Therefore,approximately$278,230.00 is anticipated as a result of providing sanitary sewer to the subject property. It should be noted that the continuation of sanitary sewer into the subject property will allow the City of Oak Park Heights to capture some portion of those cost associated with providing sanitary sewer to that area west of Highway 5. The sanitary sewer system downstream and east of that area was designed and constructed to provide service for the area depicted in the Screaton/Kern Annexation Study(250 acres+/-)as annexation of those areas had not yet occurred. 0 Refer to Appendix F for a copy of the sanitary sewer improvements cost estimate. • 0 . . 7 • 7.0 Conclusion • The extension of sanitary sewer as depicted in the Conceptual Routing plan is feasible to construct and is the least costly means of providing continued sanitary sewer service to the subject property based on our review of as-built records for the City of Oak Park Heights and the surrounding communities. The existing sanitary sewer system located immediately downstream from the subject property will have approximately 0.389 MGD of available capacity upon the ultimate completion of the Kern Center of which 0.20 MGD will be required for the subject property. Approximately 0.189 MGD of capacity will remain for any future developments beyond the scope of our analysis. • • • • • ,. • • • 8 . • i 1 ... . • 11.11 pup 1 . _ .. 11 . . , :4- f r 1 I1 1 . lim ,,...•,;:„..._.,....._. ..,( _,,,t;."..4.„..4,:,,,i4„;__. , 7{ 1, -----,------------ _, -,-, ,:.,,,,,,,,,,,44 t���� -°I x� �F l It ..�1 s 1 „ , t { 1 Rill 1 -„,,„.. r _r # ��2, ti f l 'a 1 i! f 'y�'� �� rrr�yr ',�^a ) t f✓✓, v,-- �1 - i � ' jt�� , 1 1 Z \ , t, t /0 1/ /(1(r ', ""\,';' 1T r r _ ' r t t ! I i �„tar`,m , r s '' �( / /I(ali :.-::.'7,:r7.,'; ''I, :..t J4�• �! �i �7•i�� il Y�r � �2 `� � �/ / i � r /�i r , 1 7 31 "a6 i.�rtp �4 § ,f,/i."./.y ' iII ,14.,., -,, ,•;, -.� ��r �k, 1 0 !! j lI OM/d 4S 1.e1.,c,,,-...,,, ` i' v! i i ., -".*.,',,-4,, S 1,;! !41 r1�!dt j (2 f � ,r tip Y ( ��� t ,• vx f- 1. �a .� s )t a lAitil €0 i! 1 }•1•' '�`,,$4-, ,t,)„.-'•":`-\ -s,'„,,,,,`' \ V'Al I VV�` 3'4,1 l/ .t �,TVl ,4,', ( r � u I, r V `"' ! Vt° .z / ' %.r- D 1,�,I. Z ac' a { 1 i )l{ S��; \51 t �a�`�x t �7 �� 7∎ 1 :'''''('14,1-,,Y� A -, t \,',,,f/e !fir 0 , ,` tl 1 i 1.S i j. �� {r! 1� ” r��{ �'� ��� ,� °vat �7 �'� R, '.`1 s t ....,t2/11?'7li t IL TIT q :1 tr `....'P y / a f irk ,r . , a., ''1; {/ {{ 1 } I I l 1 � '1���1 .� 1Af 1L�.:• 1 4 �.� 'II � I pp � �0 1 '),,-,7 3' k "',,,. v .t,3s -q a i'tf L �� � `" `�• ,`�...�' a 7-- .ce , 3 i ,�' 7 r { 9 f RI► Y abr ! ty a A j y Aa Jl J44��++ { ,� 1, S. C',,, 1 Ii r „ , C t,•.,�� j� '�''' '(,4e � �Y'.I7,,4 �-. � 1,E gill F, Ng 4� r 3 / ; ,,y, 11 VAVt �{ a, n!N!1ljq / :..e, { ,�� o+ / "�.., y1 f :`- t tl�\\�\�Irra —'l"tl-—F— q' �4 ' 'ae■ u 1 %/d S'.'w °�. '''',./1',/,- �" i l V �0`d',t s d. J/y �ilii�l ci�i� + �\\ 2 y1�t// �� �J t`l � � t l I s I� \\ — ' ' \ . ' ''.' t i a. ` •:::;:',- v ; it � n qtr ,- a 'a i i. 2 i ).1',:3---- — �y�� ''+. '' F .,, p ��, �'- ' 'i '7 it{ t 11= 1: w� I � t �y 1yt; cV?/ _"'—�.,, ♦ti t` �: /� r `' )fi II; !t; ) t__ }! ,, r'1 ; • • Iiiii 11.1 )a 1, a S I, il ,9'N a E I t gA I I F , . • . .y t s ;�' .1�4.•. a � 14� . Y --1-am' 1 it r"`- I �` „,i,,,,,..,"';7?,,,,..:'.'!: • I �` ''' J I I IEr +al JE l� VIII t d -;',t4' ■ II t!f:Y r ;�, � � � r�..,� I !! ! N, 181.” � 1�I r���E_ ry ! rf \:„.V-1`,,,,1 1i•71 1`1,' �, 1 ;1. , p iq '1' iI■ ! �' ,� I� �I� � 1 ra� a1,H. � , .��j I 4 �r ( 1.. f ri, r.t.. � :1 m Z ; r l.4 1„ i x l 6 i l 1 1i ,t '4'{‘t ;. Y 1. { l I 1 pi n'' n l I \- 1 ! I,I pp 7 �, t .‘V. i vaiS' �{ �I�1 �. ! !� -, 'III i ,1 ;: to rli 11. i� Y '8`-. fig �.( , I _ II r 'I� !••./ 9!m �a c � 1 7 1 i ', k e 11 ' E 1 i r �, 8 .A/ ' Ilii . I ' ' , o' b , tilt ' 11 (4.,''' ,''.(:1?)--, I.t, s 1 y- 1'419 1. 111/ , I' b t 1 '1.1;2 �1, r .; I 1� O.X .0 Zrn 1 it (, ' ' ',- - ,,, '...-.,—. it � l G7 Z i il . , _ : i , . ,,, . , ,'r r T � 1 : I 8 m m N • o C'1 • r _ HilMANNING AVENUE NORTH . • J1 'r L, V� r I I 1 4)1 G� 1∎ I.. �� J ` 1 %1 �1 j i � i m I i i it I ,17^. � i' _ - r , }'I mo % ,; I (' \ -- IFS , . _mot; 4 ,N-^ 1 )�� �� , t '`�`\( , ,!-i. j'? try f i f CITY OF LAKE aMO ,, , \' �� " c 1 I 1 ,1 t ,) \_,.;i Az: .J D� I / ,.D/, �. I� ! •• ,tit ``. y I 111. 2 / {{f03,1//s/ ,.. Iwe./ '^ � 11,'01'\∎' ` 1A 11;2 vQ f by\�`1F !�i /I /`D ' 1 t ! '::_i•l 1 11 a I / ,� eF i l 11 TI ' ''',. / A ',,,'"Ns 47 1/' g / Is / ''1,,,,,,,,t -il 1 i i i imi ' : 624, le e___ ,042) ,./ .....',N,,,,N, 1 /= // L. ,AI 1, 1 iR . s3 L— I I a .t. ". 'N, //9,/ * / - ....4...46,P il I IM ,� N j ^ II , ' I 'III I 1 1 m Y . k\ $ I n ,�✓.sa .tST d I r > x 1 a dee,,,,,f)fry 1 r,-,„-,,?!...., ,/,,,lis. . / ,! E ! / / _ , b,...17,4-,I _N` _L.-- — ..4—I t !i ; 1 ii...*44, nrIA-miL,,,A, I. /1'....st; "4 .61 1 / /7.-F.,\ ) , ...N. i \rill ,,,,, L I f - -' rw' A I \ °[4,. a 1- A ,8i Appendix C • • • • • • li'i' t'a' 71 . a1 111\ ' 0 ii K n AU A,„,..,,„ , . K QJ 1.z' rn 1/ IK 8 mm 4 ... (. Z ' • N fa 'Q v 1 �111 I 1 • .1 P 1 • .5 v . m • . _ „ _ 0 �1 I I — • . . `� I z i / , L .. • . • 17-&.-1,.... .:, ,e, ,/,27/,147, ,. ..4.,...,/, .,, .All . . ) ii. , 4. 17. • . 1 i : , 4", 7 ......, ,, *,F , .% , .. , L......,,........... . „, i . i 4. .„ /(i. .vrk' 4'4', 4 /1 r,. u Z l!', .1.-----_,4__—.:\. . ... • o Ns Z • I O NV G ue\ Z •fry) 1[3.7.7••• . ' a . - J *\ • to - I \.... + +~`�.F - ti vt _...:i 1 e 0$--r-\, { . 22) . •______I (\:),/, 1 ,Q [.., . q b a, • • i f, - 'N, (.''./ i w rovxmxie uiuoaxncr ws OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA �/ Ros�e oo al °^ '"°° —f KERN CENTER IMPROVEMENTS ' aw wig ABderak& • .., 0 �,^LOCA ON PLAN^.^ Associates . .. MYNAS x. I 0. _ . . . . . . . . • Appendix D • . . • . . . . . . . . • . .. . • A 3 3 i MANN! G AVENUE NORTH•••• e • -LI_I.' - --------%,:*- - .„ ,�-- �� %am ® _ " ' ----z7:::.-- '.,.. s.'.='-'-'... sti, k:.-------•viaA414,'-- iVe. w , \ ,if, 1 r4 t 11 1. %ir � ,J v V I , i— -4 I Jilt- tit 4' '''' IL: 'Pr , ,1 ()I, i I, 'r, E'... ,.' r, =;,- .likni' I j.___. i / ti / _, /..,:- ,....,...--, •• 4/11,11 1111.19F- ;;,..--,.. Li,•:1 I i i 1 kk, i 7-' s. !ell IP"' "1 . i GI • ';k: "(U 00 r-O•7: .M._A 104'7' I ' r+; i • 1 p V f:� it,,,__, .., a 1 I , ..., 1 i '! '''''''CV OF LAKE flA10 m .mQ rlttl z. , „I �I�;j,�� I• • an OF OAK ARK HQI:K75 Y1Y "� Y r t' �-�1't ;;�� ` \M, AI1r�\, :1,1,,,,,.,1,'II i :::. - - Jf l \\� /--...,nnn:�� i .I�11 1 � , JJl I'1 I1I(I� I' Ill *.:-. .40,1„,t„,„_,.;,;,,,,..„..,. ,„ ,../A„:10,...„4. •4 `` 1 X0.1' �. .l\•• ,,, IN lii 1-• I 1. ip,i, '-,),./..., _...,,,,3,4„,..,.„ , .i_,,,, ., ,r,..„-4,,..„.. , ,',,,, pg5,2rt P c I rJ�p �r, * 1r ,J ,g5,ZC _ rjy • / 1�Gy rf�L� j% iw �Aisni,+ / ' �` I �7it� 1 r1 `�■ CAF 17 i /r ^` \(fir f�a 3 1'p �; t • �� ��/,% p ..,� I” / FEZ ;� / pfl� ,ik IX "'�� y`'� . \`'� �, .�I ' r " id'1;lilt :�� 1 It�1 \ \ 'rf/�J r" y (� M 8 1r` N d• 1 '. ' . xit .„.- -,.„,.._%,,,,,,t_.....v _i__ __.„.• .1; _, —\-- - �,. y 4: . :_ , : 0, i - i --N,_ fte: -sti.---.. --,F.s„ . . .., . §... 14 '., d.47 P i i 1..I \ wR `i 1 ' 1 ♦e N., �\'I 1 'aim p•(�A. T_–= –_t_-- II \\ x\1, �. '1 Y. , ,I I g :) r1r? .� . N� $' • I Z O r ,19, r f 1 S 1- rr J•::C....„,..../, // .71 13> N • '�'r/ ./ I «i ■ ,r --_�' _1.___ '^ A. _ —ter o t- Co e)''''•s S.a.- ..... .'N. 1 N t! "/ . En ill ,�( [ \'4a` G�r � t \ate' 1 fri Z I 1 . I ,/ / / k1/4..14,. ... i• I it."'•.. •''..(1:44.k*k ''''' '''* '`,.. 1 Z N g Ii �ct a7 ` ��/!r ro°v rr'I `t -,,t.' "+ri,/ I rk I § 1 >,^ £ r /( j r ( J� I , "`ij'+''k l I I 'i/r/�` 1, \�}5 , 1 ,`I 1 4 3511. a. 1 ,1,4 \il` ba, 1 € -- T.n. fM4 \ J!fli .'-T•- Z I � • • Appendix E • • • Estimated Costs Sanitary Sewer Improvements Item No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 Core, Drill, and Connect EA 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 2 8"PVC SDR-35, 6'-8'Deep LF 1595 $ 18.00 $ 28,710.00 3 8" PVC SDR-35, 8'-10'Deep LF 1345 $ 20.00 $ 26,900.00 4 8" PVC SDR-35, 10'-12' Deep LF 390 $ 22.00 $ 8,580.00 5 6" PVC SDR-35, Service Line LF 210 $ 16.00 $ 3,360.00 6 6" PVC End Cap EA 6 $ 50.00 $ 300.00 7 48" Dia. Manhole w/Casting EA 11 $ 2,500.00 $ 27,500.00 8 8"x6" PVC Wye EA 6 $ 50.00 $ 300.00 9 Patch Exisiting Street Crossing LS 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 10 Televised Inspection LF 3330 $ 1.00 $ 3,330.00 11 Erosion Control LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Subtotal $ 105,980.00 10% Contingency $ 10,600.00 Total Construction Cost $ 116,580.00 • 0 28/o Indirect Costs $ 32,640.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 149,220.00 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS • •-• Appendix F I • ' r • - - -Qe} Bonestroo,Rosene.Anderl:k and Associates.4 an Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer • Bonestroo P Principals:Otto G.Bonestroo.P.E.• lose Joseph C.Anderlik,RE.• Marvin L Sorvala.PE.• • Richard E.Turner.P.E.•Glenn R.Cook.P.E.•Robert G.Schunicht.P.E.• Jerry A.Bourdon.PE. Rosette Robert W.Rosene.P.E.and Susan M.Eberlin,C.P.A.,Senior Consultants Atlder�- Associate Principals:Howard A.Sanford.P.E.•Keith A.Gordon.R.E.•Robert R Pfetferie.RE.•- • Richard W.Foster.RE.•David O.Loskota.P.E.•Robert C.Russek.A.I.A • Mark A.Hanson.PE.• {• Michael T.Raurmann.PE •Ted K.Field.RE.•Kenneth P.Anderson.P.E.•Mark R.Rolls,P.E.• • AssoCta 6es - Sidney P.Williamson.RE..LS.•Robert F.Kotsmith-Agnes M.Ring•Michael P.Rau.P.E.• i• Allan Rick Schmidt.P.E. & Engineers Architects Offices:St.Paul.Rochester,Willmar and Sr.Cloud.MN-Milwaukee.WI Website:www.bonestroo.com • • • PRELIMINARY REPORT • ON . • • KERN CENTER IMPROVEMENTS • OAK PARK HEIGHTS,M NNESOTA • File No. 55-98-802. • May 29, 1998 Amended July 1, 1998 . • • • INTRODUCi'tON A commercial subdivision known as Kern Center has recently been annexed into the City of Oak Park Heights. This plat is located west of and adjacent to Highway No. 5 and is between Highway 36 and 55th Street The existing buildings within the development are served with individual wells and on-site septic sewage systems. In accordance with City policy and the • desire of the.vacant landowners, there is a need to consider extending public utilities to this area so that"future,development will not be required to install on-site water and sewer systems. The installation of public utilities will also make these facilities available to the developed lots in the event of system failures or to enhance fire protection for the buildings. The purpose of this report is to define the improvements required to serve the development and to provide cost estimates and a method of cost allocation to determine project • feasibility. The general layout of the subdivision and the required improvements to' serve the area is shown on the drawing attached to this report and designates as Figure 2. 411• l 2335 West Highway 36 Si. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 ■ Fax: 612-636-1311 . . • . . . Appendix G • • • The project would also include connection of Memorial Avenue to 55d1 Street and the improvement of 55th Street from Memorial Avenue to Highway No. 5 to provide for an additional point of access for public safety and other. purposes. The surface would be constructed to a width of 24 feet with minimal gravel shoulders to a section similar to Memorial Avenue. Kern Center currently has very shallow ditches along the roadways to convey storm water runoff to existing ponding areas. These ditches will become inadequate as further development creates additional runoff from the area. It is anticipated that eventually Iateral storm sewer will be installed to replace the ditch system and the streets expanded to an urban section. A large storm water detention area will be required in the future in the ravine along the west edge of Kern Center with a flow control structure to reduce the rate of flow under.Highway 36 and to Long Lake. This work would be coordinated with the Browns Creek Watershed District and may have to be implemented by the District because the proposed pond and outlet would serve two municipal jurisdictions. • In addition to the utilities noted above, this newly annexed area does not receive coverage from the existing warning sirens in the City. Therefore, as a part of this utility project it is proposed that an additional warning siren be installed. PERMITS AND EASEMENTS REQUIRED There are no wetlands which will be disturbed as a part of the proposed improvements,so no wetland permits will be required. While it is proposed to continue restriction of storm water runoff rates to those which currently exist, the plans will be submitted to the Browns Creek Watershed District and the City of Stillwater for review and comments. All work to be done will be within public land or rights-of-way except for a small parcel which must be obtained for the site of the sewage pumping station. It will also be necessary to obtain construction easements along the utility routes. . 3 • REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS Very little of the Kern Center can be served by gravity from the existing sanitary sewer mains on 58th Street and Neal Avenue. Therefore, it is proposed that all sewage generated and collected be pumped to the 10 inch diameter main on Neal Avenue which is located just north of the'Rainbow/Oppidan site. It is proposed that a sewage pumping station be constructed at the northwest corner of Highway No. 5 and 55th Street with discharge through a force main parallel to Highway No. 5 and then easterly along an easement on the north edge of the Brackey West plat to the existing sanitary sewer at Neal Avenue. Sanitary sewer would be installed along the east side of Memorial Avenue to serve each of the lots in the subdivision and be connected to the pumping station. A 12 inch diameter water main exists on 58th Street on the east side of Highway No. 5. This main has sufficient capacity to serve Kern Center and can be extended westerly by jacking under the highway and extending it to Memorial Avenue. Because of the long dead end • condition and potential for high fire demands it is proposed that the water main continue along the west side of Memorial Avenue as a 12 inch diameter pipe to 55th Street. Water main on 55th Street and north of 58th Street would be 8 inches in diameter. The water system would be equipped with the necessary valves and hydrants for operation. control and fire protection. At some future date, consideration could be given to providing a looped system in the vicinity of Highway 36 which is about the only opportunity available for looping. Four inch diameter sewer stubs and 6 inch diameter valved water services would be extended to each of the lots in the subdivision for future service to the lots and/or buildings. This will require crossings of the existing street surfacing. As a part of this project it is assumed that the gravel base and bituminous surfacing will be restored and patched at each of the utility crossings and that a 1-1/2 inch thick bituminous overlay will be installed over all bituminous streets to cover the patches and to increase the load bearing capacity of these roadways. • 2 • - A permit must be secured from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for all work within the Highway No. 5 right-of-way. Standard construction permits are required and will be obtained from the Minnesota Department of Health and Pollution Control Agency for the water main and sanitary sewer construction. A General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activities must also be obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. COST ESTIMATES Detailed cost estimates have been prepared for the construction of public utilities and street improvements to provide utility service to Kern Center and are included in the Appendix to this report. All costs are based on unit prices anticipated for the 1998 construction season and include a twenty-five (25) percent allowance for engineering, administrative fees and financing. No costs are included for capitali7ed interest during the construction period and before assessments are levied. An overall summary of these costs is shown below: Item Estimated Cost /• Sanitary Sewer $165,700.00 Lift Station&Force Main 184,700.00 Water Main 137,000.00 Building Services 77,700.00 Warning Siren 21,900.00 Street Improvements 60,900.00 Subtotal $647,900.00 Trunk&Oversized Water Main 73,600.00 Trunk Storm Sewer 111,500.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $833,000.00. All costs shown above except for the trunk water and storm sewer are proposed to be assigned to the Kern Center. All trunk costs would be recovered from the area or connection charges. • 4 COST ALLOCATION • The Kern Center development contains 22 platted lots on 84.40 acres of land which does not include the lot purchased by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for storm water ponding purposes. These parcels contain 5,309 feet of frontage'on Memorial Avenue where the utilities are being installed. It is_further noted that 47.20 acres of the land is developed which also represents 2,531 feet of frontage on Memorial Avenue. Because the land which has been developed has incurred the cost of drilling private wells and installing individual on-site sewer systems, the City of Oak Park Heights has developed a policy where existing buildings will not have to connect to the water or sewer system until six (6)years after the systems are available or if a failure in the individual on-site system occurs. At that time, the individual parcels would have to pay the equivalent amount equal to those charges defined herein which are to be assigned to the vacant parcels. For the purpose of this report it is assumed that the lateral sanitary sewer, water main, siren and street assessment rate would be computed on a front footage basis by dividing the cost • by the total front footage on Memorial Avenue and that the services cost would be on a per lot basis. These rates are shown in the following computations: • Item Computation Assessment Rate Sanitary Sewer $165,700.00=5,309 ft. $31.20/front foot Water Main' 137,000.00_5,309 ft. 25.80/front foot Warning Siren 21,900.00_5,309 ft. 4.10/front foot • Street Improvements 60,900.00-5,309 ft. 11.50/front foot Building Services 77,700.00=22 lots 3,530.00/lot It is further assumed that the current area charge or connection charge rates which have been adopted by the City of Oak Park Heights would be assigned to the developing parcels. • 5 IIIThese charges are as shown below: Charge Rate Trunk Sanitary Sewer $2,310.00/acre Trunk Waterworks 4,010.00/acre Trunk Storm Sewer 5,080.00/acre Storm Water Ponding 3,200.00/acre It is recommended that the storm water ponding charge not be applied until that work is , undertaken by Browns Creek Watershed District or as a joint project by the two municipalities. If the rates established above are applied to the vacant property in the Kern Addition, the City will obtain the following revenue: Item Computation Revenue Lateral Improvements 2,778 ft x$72.60/ft. $201,682.80 Building Services 11 lots x 3,530.00/lot 38,830.00 Trunk Sanitary Sewer 37.20 ac x 2,310.00/ac 85,932.00 Trunk Waterworks 37.20 ac x 4,010.00/ac 149,172.00 Trunk Storm Sewer 37.20 ac x 4,650.00/ac 188.976.00 TOTAL REVENUE $664,592.80 It should be noted that the revenue to be collected by the method shown above will be approximately $168,000.00 less than the estimated cost of the project. This will be recovered in the future when the existing buildings are connected to the system and pay their equivalent share for service. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of the study undertaken, it can be concluded that construction of utilities and • streets to serve Kern Center west of Highway No. 5 is feasible with costs being similar to other developing areas in the City of Oak Park Heights. However, because of City policy to allow 6 • existing businesses to further utilize their on-site sewer and water systems, a P onion of the cost • will have to be carried by the City for a period of time. The project is necessary to allow for the continuation of development in the Kern Center • in a manner which better protects the environment as it relates to wastewater disposal. Because of the proximity of the existing utilities and other public facilities which are in place, the improvements are cost effective. It is recommended that this report be used as a guide for the layout and design of the public improvements to provide public utility service to Kern Center. To further evaluate the project and the cost allocation method, it is recommended that a public hearing be held to receive comments from the property owners so as to determine the further action to be taken. For hearing purposes, the following information should be utilized: f Estimated Project Cost: $833,000.00 • Benefited Area: All lots and parcels in Kern Center and Kern Center 2nd Addition located in the City of Oak Park Heights,County of Washington, and State of Minnesota. I hereby certify that this plan,specification, or report was po prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Joseph C. Anderlik,P.E. Date: July 1, 1998 Registration No. 6971 410 • 7 • - APPENDIX A KERN CENTER COST ESTIMATES SANITARY SEWER • 1,700 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C. SDR-35,.10'-12'deep in pl. @ 16.00 $27,200.00 240 Lin.ft. 8" P.V.C. SDR-35, 12'-14'deep in pl. @ 18.00 4,320.00 60 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C. SDR-26, 12'-14'deep in pL @ 20.00 1,200.00 140 Lin. ft. 8"P.V.C. SDR-26, 14'-16'deep in pl. @ 22.00 3,080.00 140 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C. SDR-26, 16'-18'deep in p1. @ 24.00 3,360.00 200 Lin.ft. 8"P.V.C. SDR-26, 18'-20' deep in p1. @ 26.00 5,200.00 820 Lin.ft. 8"P.V.C. SDR:26,20'-22'deep in p1. 0 28.00 22,960.00 11 Each Std 4'diam.MH., 8'deep w/cstg in pl. @ 1,200.00 13,200.00 70 Lin.ft. Manhole depth greater than 8'dp @ 100.00 7,000.00 16 Each 8"x4"PVC,SDR-35 wye branch in pL @ 50.00 800.00 7 Each 8"x4" PVC,SDR-26 wye branch in pl. @ 60.00 420.00 50 Lin.ft. 8"PVC,schedule 40 riser in pL @ 15.00 750.00 3,300 Lin. ft. Television inspection of 8"sewer @ 1.00 3,300.00 • • 3,300 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtl.,6"thick in pl. @ 2.00 6,600.00 80 Lin.ft. Remove and replace driveway culverts @ 10.00 800.00 2 Each Patch existing driveway @ 750.00 1,500.00 Lump Sum Clear&grub trees 1,500.00 1 Each Patch existing street crossing @ 1,000.00 1,000.00 Lump Sum Cross end of existing triple culvert 1,000.00 500 Cu.yd. Core excavation @ 4.50 2,250.00 900 Ton Class 5 gravel base in pl. @ 6.00 5,400.00 5,000 Sq.yd. Sodding of drainage ditch @ 2.50 12,500.00 2.5 Acres Seeding w/mulch anchored in pL @ 2,400.00 6,000.00 400 Lin. ft. _ Hay bale diversions in pl. 003.00 1.200.00 Estimated Construction Cost $132,540.00 25%Eng.,Fiscal&Admin. 33 160.00 TOTAL SANITARY SEWER $165,700.00 • • A-1 LIFT STATION&FORCE MAIN • 1 Each 300 GPM duplex submersible lift sta. in pl. @ 85,000.00 $85,000.00 2 Each 150 GPM impellers for sewage pumps @ 150.00 300.00 2,960 Lin. ft. 6" D.I.P. Class 52,7-1/2'cover in pL @ 13.00 38,480.00 100 Lin. ft. 6" D.I.P.jacked in pl. w/steel carrier @ 150.00' 15,000.00 545 Lbs. D.I. fittings in pL @ 1.00 545.00 I Each Cut-in to existing manhole @ 200.00 200.00 1 Each Patch existing street crossing @ 1,000.00 1,000.00 3.0 Acres Seeding w/mulch anchored in pL @ 2,400.00 7,200.00 Estimated Construction Cost $147,725.00 25%Engr.,Fiscal&Admin. 36,975.00 TOTAL LIFT STA.&FORCE MAIN $184,700.00 WATER MAIN 2,890 Lin. ft. 12"D.I.P.,Class 52,7 1/2'cover in pl. @ 25.00 $72,250.00 100 Lin. ft. 12"D.I.P.jacked in pL w/steel carrier @ 160.00 16,000.00 1,140 Lin.ft. 8" D.I.P.,Class 52,7 1/2'cover in pl. @ 17.00 19,380.00 160 Lin. ft. 6" D.LP., Class 52,7 1/2'cover in pl. @ 13.00 2,080.00 6 Each 12" gate valve&box in p1. @ 1,000.00 6,000.00 • 2 Each 8" gate valve&box in pL @ 600.00 1,200.00 8 Each 6" gate valve&box in pl. @ 400.00 3,200.00 8 Each 5"valve hydrant in pl. @ 1,200.00 9,600.00 5,745 Lbs. D.I.fittings in pl. @ 1.00 5,745.00 1 Each Cut-in to existing 12"plug @ 500.00 500.00 4,200 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtl.,6".thick in pL @ 1.00 4,200.00 240 Lin.ft. Remove and replace driveway culverts @ 10.00 6 Each Patch existing driveways @ 500.00 3,000.00 1 Each Patch existing street crossings @ 1,000.00 1,000.00 Lump Sum Cross end of existing triple culvert 1,000.00 5,000 Sq. yd. Sodding of drainage ditch @ 2.50 • 12,500.00 3.0 Acres Seeding w/mulch anchored in pl. @ 2,400.00 7,200.00 400 Lin. ft. Hay bale diversion in pl. @ 3.00 1200.00 Estimated Construction Cost $168,455.00 25% Engr.,Fiscal &Admin. 42,145.00 TOTAL WATER MAIN $210,600.00 • A-2 • • • IIITRUNK STORM SEWER 940 Lin.ft. 42" RCP, Class 2,0'=.10'deep in pl. @ 70.00 . $65,800.00 1 Each Std 6'diam.MB w/cstg in pl. @ 2,400.00 2,400.00 2 Each 42"RCP flared end w/trash guard @ 2,500.00 5,000.00 40 Ton Rock rip rap,Class 3 in pl. @ 50.00 2,000.00 1 Each Repair existing street crossing @ 750.00 750.00 940 Lin.ft. Remove existing 18" storm sewer @ 10.00 9,400.00 1 Each 12"diam_ orifice plate in pl. @ 250.00 250.00 1.5 Acres Seeding w/mulch anchored in pl. @ 2,400.00 3,600.00 Estimated Construction.Cost $89,200.00 25%Engr.,Fiscal&Admin. 22 300-.00 TOTAL TRUNK STORM SEWER $111,500.00 TRUNK WATER MAIN 800 Lin.ft. 12"D.I.P.,Class 52, 7 1/2'cover in p1. @ 25.00 20,000.00 100 Lin.ft. 12"D.I.P.jacked in pL w/steel carrier @ 160.00 16,000.00 1 Each 12" gate valve&box in pl. @ 1,000.00 1,000.00 590 Lbs D.I. fittings in pl. @ 1.00 590.00 0 1 Each Cut-in to existing 12" plug @ 500.00 500.00 Estimated Construction Cost $38,090.00 25%Engr.,Fiscal &Admin. 9,510.00 TOTAL TRUNK WATER MAIN $47,600.00 WATER MAIN OVERSIZING 2,090 Lin.ft. 12"D.LP. in lieu of 8"D.I.P. @ 8.00 $16,720.00 5 Each 12" gate valve in lieu of 8" gate valve @ 400.00 2,000.00 2,095 Lbs. Extra D.I.fittings in pl. @ 1.00 2,095.00 Estimated Construction Cost $20,815.00 25%Engr.,Fiscal&Admin. 5,185.00 TOTAL WATER MAIN OVERSIZING $26,000.00 • A-3 V. • SERVICE LINES • 23 Each 6"gate valve&box in pl. @ 400.00 $9,200.00 9,975 Lbs. D.I. fittings in pl. @ 1.00 9,975.00 1,050 Lin. ft 6" D.LP. water service in pl. @ 15.00 15,750.00 1,510 Lin.ft. 4"PVC,Schedule 40 sewer service in pl. @ 10.00 15,100.00 22 Each Patch existing street crossing @ 500.00 11,000.00 46 Each Install service marker in pl. @ 25.00 1.150.00' Estimated Construction Cost $62,175.00 25%Engr.,Fiscal&Admin. 15 525.00 TOTAL SERVICE LINES $77,700.00 STREET IMPROVEMENTS 7,000 Sq.yd. Surface preparation @ 4.20 $1,400.00 2,700 Sq.yd Sub preparation @ 0.50 1,350.00 q Y e Prep 600 Ton Type 31 bituminous base w/AC-1 in pl.@ 25.00 15,000.00 200 Ton Type 41 bituminous base w/AC-1 in pL @ 27.00 5,400.00 700 Ton Type 41 bituminous overlay w/AC-1 in pL @ 30.00 21,000.00 400 Ton Class 2 crushed aggregate for shoulders @ 10.00 4,000.00 •550 Gal. Bituminous mtl.for tack coat in pl. @ 1.00 550.00 • Estimated Construction Cost $48,700.00 25%Engr.,Fiscal&Admin. 12,200.00 TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS $60,900.00 • 1110 A-4 0 . c v ' -,--q -N • I • �` r,� L t 1 /i> I ` `* ,♦♦��♦♦V� ♦ !,• •- `� i STATE OF j v� I ,• s '.0 ♦�J,�'� WISCONSIN ' [ I I I ' -7 i r— . i air o t' pip f STATE HIGHWAY 3, ! �� 1 ' '7/4,4111dr ''‘x. \\N" •ill.c.-1_04. -4mw 11,\--411 iy o , ' se' ni sal `IS ALAI:. NIII■ . /44121thr.-- Apl4P A vs Vim . - ,m,t.k.,:e. -Ilt- ‘, ---- c3 I, .1- I --kWrilmi Ilil .L-I _. _ Ni .k. e I S 411/1. I1 �o=� 0 ' 1 "."‘-•41\monE LI / .. ri 1 I I :111 &WAlli\ \ • • i / /-•\,:s.Q.j 'WI. 11.j„NsirrellINIIII II FOIL_MIL t iin■ - . /..__. , • ' I `i•`�. '`- i %. ', is t\ 4 I ., -`s __........ . L, ::: illb...■,- .,-----i 1 • LOCATION PLAN fil Bonestroo Rosen ill - ri OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA FIGURE 1 Anderlik & .Associates KERN CENTER IMPROVEMENTS AA /5511AStn)icrsgrrlorin c Plea /no , ... ',e ; ‘ - 1 I , --_____, ., _ . STATE NOWAY 36 • ICEm+ CDOER 2 j ' Ili 4 4 - .4 0 r 5 / 4 1 i I I I I 0 0 oh . ti 1 e 421)," FORCE WW1 1/4p4p4Z* o '9 4 7 • IIP SAMTARY SEINER \ ' 6 WA � ♦ wry U R a:.r. n KERN .a a ti 5 EDI770N o ,A S ..M6.�" 4 Di& 3 .3L•' SE1rER ♦ it 42 APS 3 ille slow wATER _pi" Air POND 4, ## ? 2 0 r y � 2 1 ' SMUAU►TE7t HY:I1 SL>~ICOC STA • I r---"--.-- .S- I 55TH STREET NORTH /O ( r\ 0 = i rTh E-1 1 I i- i 1 • SITE PLAN • JjljBonestroo Rosen • il OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA FIGURE 2 Anderlfic & ASSOCrates KERN CENTER IMPROVEMENTS Engineers &Architects /5598802/55802R01 5/28/98 5598802 • Appendix H • • •r :. ,.Jira.:t..., ,ix ... �,.t.• ll.`}a::•j.' ~b!•. .:jtrd,:i f � {; :f , 4 vii ,T': :.; 1 t+ :•.„w. w k r. ia,'i''t 4•r 4. `'Y:�'O^r� i.3.••• �}•.`''jaF,: }'.:-e'4� .� k� ?:a}�,`a''' .�}..t t:'i`::iP-`r:i. :+.)f�:,i�.• ky� i \. • .2 111111. 1 ii IN F.,,,....,:..-,4A;;;;,.-ii.:,',:,.';;A:cdol.,aftki Ni-- i sal' .:::::t",,;',,,l'i:,'” of p r I -i 1.9 imifii-;2::Arrilililloit .,4;,,,„,,,, .1: 74it"....,07411411§pip.,7,■,---lilt Ile, (‘'' '''N,' A', IIIIIIII! 1111,,,,l''':: • 3 ` �� `�� b �.:,_._ ��— „,elan as lirglij„,1C41111 ^A_ ! QII�§ Mn tI ``C L�- d} . 11 • i il\L11!1r 111�,�11:%�%`�1'� .a.5"1 ;1 1 ^ua I 10 �1• ID,ii _ ,ism.=sou tt ^ s ��� �w m <'i \�, t e 1 - a! „�� � .pill /� \", t if.e vi a ri 1■�■; . •//���/ W g\,4rA} yQY ,e 1iN1 f C 1 1-.R'! Cam, En ,��,pc. � SJ • 5 l..,,n.,:,°,4:',, .�� lqiP C \ S$ t J! ` r ^ �: :n/fww J ➢ ~tj Y . ; cog; 4,1)3 �,aggp t 1 oil; em Hfi931�6.1a1 11011. ` I �.:..-.. I r ■1.-. < ..... ..,,...,4/4 r i..:11...t.:. 10 ' .,.;,'„-:.':.,.:::,::::: ....:,-;-,, ,.-'q:e';',,,7,1.!;;.; ,4 I, al..E Asa� a � , ■ t� ■ 1 nC`fi p,� p� i0 11 I 1r;> 1 ' Tr A I'--_•J__'� p`�z , roa r �' r9 E, � ,I j/ li I+� „ vt ' roan a o � - � ------*47-77./z''i ice- :f / f Illgil_.�T,a. x . ' it 1 1.�-��, •• t x y � ,Ilia L Y � i, �- O is} 4"1 ? � �„1 a f[ . i f � i rti t r n x:. 7 EXHIBIT c • • • EXHIBIT • G k LAIL ;, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGRL LTD. VNIJAM G.SKENTOR RAISER EDWARD J.DWSCOU. LYNN M.STAWWNICN JOHN D• ATTORNEYS AT LAW KENNETH COREY-EDsTnoM FRMN C I.HARVEY ANN M.MEYER CHARLES S.MODELL STEPHEN J.KAI INSW CHRISTOPHERJ,wETzEN 1500 WELLS FARGO-PLAZA THOMAS F.ALEXANDER T�T.ICADLEC LINDA H.FlSHER • MICHAEL C..aooAAN 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH ws H.ra =m JOHN E MBA. JAMES M.SU JON S.sMERZEWSa BLOOMINGTON.MINNESOTA 55431-1194 DANIEL J.BAUJNINE THOMASJ.FLYNN. JEFFREY 0.CAHILL J SP QUINN TELEPHONE(952)835-3800 SEAN D. WEIG GERALD SEX FAX 952 896-3333 - JOSEPH J.FTTTANTE,Jt. JOHN B.LUNDQUIST I. 1 THOMASJ.OPPOND" DAYLE NOIAN• .-JONATHAN J.FOGEL JOHN A.COTTER• - - CYNTHIA M.KLAUS PAUL B.PLUNIETT MARIE O.CHRISTOPHEiSON ALAN L I01.DOW - NEAL J.BIANCHETT KA7HLEN Al.PICOTTE NEWMAN TAMARA OMEILL MORELAND GREGORY E.)DRSTAD JAMES A.MCGREEVY,II GARY A.VAN CLEVE• THOMAS A.GUMP• TIMOTHY J.KENJE TODD A.TAYLOR MICHAG.W.SCHLEY • OHRISTOPHERJ.DEKE TERRENCE E BISHOP - GECEVIEVEA BECK GARY A.RENNEKE MANIA M.ZACC OHRJSTOPHERJ.HARRIS HAL DIONNE M.BENSON KENWELJ.OALR000E JEREMY C.SUER BRUCE J.DOUGLAS - CHRIS M.MEFFE..BCWER WILLIAM C.GRIFFITH,JR. JOHN R HILL . OF COUNSEL PETERJ.OOYLE JAMES P.LAREN' LARRY D.MARTIN JACKF.DALY JANE E.BREMER 0.ICENNETH L NDGREN JOHNJ.STEFFENHAGEN MICAAELJ.SETH - ALSO ADMITTED INK SCO NSIN ANDREW F.PE7RIN - •• ONLY ADMITTED INIONNA FREDERICK W.ME UHR March 25, 2002 Ms.Mary Kueffner Lake Elmo City Administrator 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo,MN 55042 Re: Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment • • Dear Ms.Kueffner: On behalf of Mr.Bernie Nass,please consider our request to change the City of Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan Designation for a parcel Mr.Nass owns(the Site) southeast of the intersection of State Highway 36 and Maiming Avenue. We understand that Mr.Nass's site is now guided for Rural Agricultural Density(RAD)development, i.e. large residential estates or small hobby farms of 10 acres. The attached exhibits illustrate why a change to guide the area for Commercial use, and allow the extension of utilities from the east, is appropriate. Exhibit 1 shows the Site as it currently exists,including the physical development constraints. Exhibit 2 shows surrounding development. The Site is at the.intersection of four communities. To the east and south, Oak Park Heights is developing with commercial and industrial uses. To the north, Stillwater is developing with commercial uses that depend heavily on Highway 36 as a transportation corridor. To the northeast,the City of Grant will remain large-scale commercial,to preserve the possibility of development when utilities are extended. These three communities recognize the importance of the Highway 36 corridor to serve the commercial needs of area residents, and consequently have enacted Comprehensive Planning and zoning controls to foster and allow this continued commercial development. Our proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would allow Lake Elmo to join its neighbors in this regard. Exhibit 3 shows a conceptual proposal of development that could occur on site under the appropriate Comprehensive Plan designation. • Mr.Nass's neighboring property owners,Mr.Robert Buberl to the east, and Mr. Tom Bidon,who owns the property between the two parcels Mr:Nass owns,have joined in our application. The terrain and easement challenges on these parcels make Rural Agricultural Development infeasible. The properties LAR HOFFMAN,DALY&LINDGREN,L Lake Elmo, MN 55042 March 25, 2002 III Page 2 slope toward Highway 36, combined with the power line easement would either force residences intended to be rural too close to a major highway,or would force oversize lots that would idle most of the properties. The site constraints,high traffic counts, and growth in the area combine to make the properties appropriate for commercial, and inappropriate for residential development. Please review these materials and notify us when this matter is scheduled for a hearing by the City Council or Planning Commission. In the meantime,you may contact me with any questions at 952-896- 3214. t ) ••e rely, -i i Peter J. Coyl) for LARION,HOFFMAN, DALY &LINDGREN, Ltd. 737670.1 • • LAKE City of Lake. Elms _ '•a00U Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo.ttrwthapota 55042 DEVELQPMENT APPLICATION FORM Tn-5510 .))C COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT . MINOR SUBDIVISION• ZONING DISTRICT AMENDMENT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION SO. CH/CONCEPT PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION : CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (C.U.P.) PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT 1-10 LOTS • C.U.P. AMENDMENT 11-20 LOTS 21 LOTS OR MORE APPEALS EXCAVATION & GRADING SITE & BLDG. PLAN REVIEW PERMIT , VARIANCE* (see below) FLOOD PLAIN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Bernie Nass 5651 Manning Ave. No. Stillwater, MN 55082 • (Name) (Address) (Zip) • TELEPHONE: Work:. Nip' • Home: 651-439-7589 FEE OSIER: Same (Name) (Address) (Zip) TELEPHONE: Work: Home: PROPERTY LOCATION (Street Address and Complete (Long) Legal Description) : See attached Exhibit A • . DETAILED REASOfl FOR REQUEST: • To allow commercial development with utilities as planned in regional planning. • * VARIANCE REQUESTS: • As outlined in Section 301_060 C. of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code the applicant must demonstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related to this application is as follows: • In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have-read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision . Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledae the fee explanation as outlined in the application procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the City pertaining to additionaa,• application expense.•1111 &-------71F.Z.S1.4.0. -4...- ".Signature of plicant Date s . 4_-a/ Signature o Fee Owner Date ; a 1 ii q ,,, Fi _#���S P "?frI Alt . i J111j • I PI- , 8 1 1 1 i LI y_• R & 1 I• E i --.- I 8 ,,, 44 :_—_ e i I I ;, 1 II 'ilea I 1 ' F _I I E _ - 0 a 1 a a Ili i - �jri FA I -.0 I RL. �i a 1 19N 0 wc , IMVURIUC _ 8z m� s '1 Zi E '. �I O= N -i.�O `K ��� i JI 1 m ' 1 �I � Cls� '��D „$ 's N mM Q ,' —��`\ , y1. tI ' 91 Ca I ��� �Y I 1 ' .1OOj O ' -.' -!A Ili 11 N,--i = it i, I- _ t_-..,-, _vii __ ....--1r: -13r-, ' 1 °I w , i,>* 1. , ':*I_ — . ii • � Mil I I} i NN›.. I I° I I N. XI I II I ir E 4' I S * r,—..........,__ ,I s . A., A., '''I L I\ ' • �` I / 1q, _._ v .E, ,, Npi 4/ Ill 44, dig + ell � ,-� ,. Y, :, I I 1111[111111 i 111 l i - !a o0 - y :' ,,, SAN` VII ' i °No i gg :%d 1 7mC ql F f I s E• Y � I b i ' i ' Rl 19 I z `�- _ I -- - i^lIi°i / �a I lir 1 — Ill t2 1 104MIElir 1 a / ii 1 m X 5 - 1 No D H Il' , I 1E1 • r' • r 41(..� :.,_ . lir Ii' I' %E' T I ', I I I, II t. ' I 1 iI i ', I i Q I ? i a 11? ;. II . s 2 t NC. i '1T: -ail. I i — _ !! cmvrox MIIl - I I 1 *A�pg'- I ; • 1 I Alit.CI rli�m I ;w� 1 .4 ro ,Ci.A . • '— , ff, I f : viz' 44 g, 4i; t"y •;'v t N,\ i I , r� �' iii` Vic. ,. - 4— I 1 0 . • ,,.,!I b ni Ill ii N r ma„..:...,__,__ // I..,� I. �► 11! llhI 1.... .1 { - •�' � ----i — ----1--- 1-- - _IJ� '�!,t.. 1 -- --� 1 Ilk 1111. I * C ' 1 �..*��:,.? � l �;.� ` 111 / jhrilion.L; .4, --_,1 . /• I- \ ' - . I 1 Ili! ' I , Illniet i, 1 in 1.'. JJi. 1 — __. 1 ‘IIMV11010* ' 1 , I , / t' 1 ,,I. . a.. • 40 1 • • 1 ---4-- . I I '� u. 3 it ? c. ...3 t, .wiL , '4 ' ±`•. •��_ 1 1 ' S 3 I�t,,���JJ. IF ,-.7:E=4:7:11...*-}41.,..' 1----=-=.7.7---47,fr-74;71-7----77:4--------' -.) • 1 , 'I L tt Y ob rl ' .' ,k"ri.5,. J t1 j �.• yr Y--.''t3 Jd' P-1zip 3 "}4 4. 0 i iii i bgq t .::-,:' I., 4 '`.,‘i'„ ;',, ,:.. . • :- o i .� o rill Yy1I��yy -I 1 —m-s NG AYEN— --- ;„7.0...-7'St . ,'s C T 1 - :gam 'I'. --- f ax q.: 1 I 1 19 a..' �r e a/ll= 3f F' ` r 1 t j I I gi, i r7 xxll'Safy l ; aa T y,,1� am' o" ' ,', 4. y.— 'w tlAxil i y p it-0 $ ke � e a @ i7 ' g3' 1'4.1 li , i ,1/41 _� ��� i, i LI f � S d{y �„,,, ,‘,,,e.,...,„.„4„,tiLui .,toil I EI�' `�'tr +"a��f vx1II ' i�.'�. �.` ' I ,' '' a 1 =`- ' " —w.— _2`lill'''''.1-11.i b': I”- : .l 14�iI, ,i , airy } ,, lIji p !:h ,.^ ` u,{f. , i R.7�: 1 0 a�1 pi! ysk t1 ,,• A� w4 �1� ,0- `o' Off' Ei� flit `'I ''" i)'� � , , ? i � �,„,;, b r;'PIP. )4 fi t • • • • • • III ill - . . • ,. � ` • • • .il il 1 . a j i(iy ;i • ;' l� pr • •.....:..,, ...,,............. 1... . _ ,. . . . . . . . . __. , , . ... �. 7�Y � � a �. i .,i' �j�El i.• ,,.11,1 . - . . , _ . 1 .. ...,. - ... ., , , y l� a,.. . . . ., . ,•,•.: , .. .,:,.:,,:s,. ,_, pt l rt i Qw yl , -,,,,,.--•=1 d .I f, • 1 . • •_________________, . I;I! r° 7 r F �. '.j1 N, ,:!.. 1.,.,::...,...,..,,....,,,•:„ j r — i:i e ( • n .. 1 , P• I ' l'',',''''''''''''.;..t'' / t if�l '�'. 1 4 1.111 ,.' CIi� ,N,�s, ' (,, i slit !)•• ��I IV t �' �q� f, • � -ti • a i � II . • ■ 0 :� A�A '/� 1'1 I� S ','?1,,:,,,,1 • _@ ry' ( . 1 ��1 ; �• • 1 1 1 illii . '4 ,''• .� �<` `. j,, r � it Sri r,- : I f ✓ � ,,r,.';?' , 0 EZ 111 I(, A ,.Yc: I , � I , f�+ ` y 4.1 / r ');',,.'c, f 1 ii' p� Y,, y V1't r r: r � I t: , ! ti �i �z I � ;, I II \N i u� W l . ti •1 1 m q i.i . fi :1 p • ,11 ! ,,,I p '•� �11-; .fl''.r 4:::'.; E ,E i` Y . '._ 1 ' a'>z_ ,, • • • • • • • • • FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (9521896-'3265 (l'H1) b. 9 U1 d:4j/b1. clan/Lilo r L • • LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 7, 2002 . 1. AGENDA 2. MINUTES: April 16,2002 3. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL: A. Public Inquiries B. Request from Lake Elmo Jaycees C. Recommendation from Environmental Commission for City Participation in the Shoreland Stabilization Project to take place on the DNR Public Access on Lake DeMontreville 4. FINANCE: A. Claims 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. CONSENT AGENDA: 7. NiAIlVTENANC E/PARK/FIREBUILDING: A. Update on Fire Department Activities: Fire Chief Greg Malmquist— Appointment of Captains,Boots, Sirens B. Set date for workshop with Council C. Lights for Pebble Park • 8. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT: 9. PLANNING,LAND USE&ZONING: A. Accessory Structure Location—Joan and Steve Ziertman B. Amendment to Section 1340—Outside Storage of Boats and Trailers C. Zoning Variance—Daniel Rude,Kraft Circle D. Commercial Exterior Surface Standard—Amend LB, CB, GB and BP Districts E. Section 520 Site Plan—Hiner Development 0 Comprehensive Plan Amendment—Nass/Buberl/Bidon G. Sunfish Ponds Open Space Concept Plan H. Extend Zoning Variance Review—Patrick Kinney I. Escrow Reduction—Eagle Point Business Park 2"d Addition J. Final Plat—Eagle Point Town Office Park 10. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: 11. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: A. Resolution adopting Policy for the Sale of City Owned Land B. Summary of Ordinance 97-106 Charitable Gambling C. Unfinished Business D. $500,000 Internal Loan to Water Fund 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: • LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7, 2002 1 - FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952)896-3265 (FRIT 8. 9' 02 8:45/ST. 8:42/NO. 4260872745 P 9 S high grade sand/gravel that could be removed from the site is an issue that will be handled administratively-"reining". The Council received a letter from Ray Salus,Country Air Driving Range indicating his concerns with the proposal. Rich Hiner explained he will lease out the golf school to a golf pro and lease the pro shop and coffee shop The County has given approval to road. Parking lot is planned for 210 cars and additional 40 cars with 175 parking spaces plus parking for employees. Because of special promotions,they will need the additional parking area. M/S/P Armstrong/Siedow—to approve the section 520 site plan of Hiner Development for a golf practice facility,subject to the following conditions: 1.A 50 foot parking setback to Keats Avenue shall be maintained. 2. Enlargement of the parking lot landscape islands to comply with Code standards. 3. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer. (Motion passed 5-0.) • F. Comprehensive Plan Amendment—Nass/BuberLlBidon Peter Coyle,Larkin,Hoffman,Daly&Lindgren,representing Mr. Nass stated Mr.Buberl to the east and Mr. Bidon,who owns property between the two parcels Mr.Nass owns,have-joined in the application. Mr. Coyle summarized his letter dated March 25,2002. Attorney Filla provided additional language to the Resolution if the Council was planning on denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The language is as follows: WHEREAS, at its May 7, 2002 meeting, zhe lake Elmo City Council reviewed the application of Nass/Buberl/Bidon for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; the City Planner's memo ofApril 17, 2002; and the recommendations of the City's Planning Commission. WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo City Council has reviewed its records regarding the adoption of the City's 2000 Comprehensive Plan (See City Planner memo dated April 17, 2002) and has determined that the City's 2000 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations for this site were not the result of error and that the conditions relating to the site and its • surroundings have not changed signifzcantly since the adoption of the City's 2000 Comprehensive Plan. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7, 2002 8 FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (FRI) 8. 9' 02 8:45/ST. 8:42/NO. 4260872745 P 10 M/S/P DeLapp/Dunn—to adopt Resolution No.2002-037,as amended by the City Attorney,A Resolution Denying the Application of NassBuberyl/Bidon for Land Use Plan reclassification from RAD to C based on the recommendation of the Planning ommission and the Findings contained in g 8 the Resolution. (Motion passed 5-0). G. Sunfish Ponds Open Space Concept Plan Planner Dillerud reported the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this Open Space Preservation Concept Plan application to develop a combined site of 40 acres with 16 single family detached building sites. The Commission recommended approval of the OP Concept Plan; subject to design modification as follows: I. Those conditions recommended by the April 2 Planning Staf Report (Wetlands Evaluation, MN Land Trust comments, and outlot redesign) 2. Relocation of some building lots to more northerly portions of the site —at a minimum reversing Outlot B with Blocks 2 and 3. 3. Reduce the length of the cul-de-sac streets to increase the continuing of the Preserved Open Space on the south periphery of the site. 1111 The notices for the April 8,2002 public hearing were sent out on a 10 day cycle rather than a 14 day cycle.Attorney Filla recommended the Council conduct a public hearing on this application. Mayor Hunt opened up the Public Hearing at 9:20 p.m. Neal Krueger,4452 Lake Elmo Avenue N., explained when the MN Design Team visited Lake Elmo,the message from the residents were"Listen to The Land". This residential proposal takes 40 acres of farmland for which the highest and best use is Ag. He pointed out the outlots do not give contiguous open space and the scenic vista is severely interrupted by the high homes on the berm. He felt this residential concept plan did not meet the intent and spirit of the Open Space Ordinance. Doug Olson, 3834 Kindred Way,stated his concern with wetlandsew wetland and water runoff from that area. He asked why they are not having a common septic system. We do not have an inspection system when the systems are being built. He wants to retain our ponding. The ponding area in Hamlet of Sunfish Lake is with the MN conservation land trust and would like to see Sunfish Ponds property also owned by the Land Trust. • LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7,2002 9 'FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (FRI) 8. 9' 02 8:43/ST. 8:42/NO. 4260872745 P 1 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET LARKIN,HOFFMAN,DALY dr LINDGREN,LTD. Attorneys at Law 1500 Norwest Financial Center • 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington,Minnesota 55431 TO: Kimberly Kampen Telephone: (612)835-3800 Total Transmitted Pages FAX NUMBER: 651-439-0574 15 (Including Cover Shea): FROM: Peter Coyle Copy to follow by U.S.Mail: ❑ Yes ❑ No PHONE NUMBER: (952) 896-3214 Respond to FAX No. (952) 896-3278 DATE: August 9, 2002 FILE NUMBER: MESSAGE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THE COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S.POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. Fax Operator's Initials: Time Transmitted: FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (FRI) 8. 9' 02 8:43/ST. 8:42/NO. 4260872745 P 3 Mayor Hunt called the Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in t he Council chambers. it members: �Armstrong,DeLapp, Dunn and PRESENT: Council , Siedow,City Attorney,Jerry Filla, City Engineer,Tom Prew,City Planner, Chuck Dillerud,Fire Chief,Greg Malmquist and Administrator,Mary Kueffner. 1. AGENDA M/S/P-Dunn/DeLapp—to approve the May 7,2002 City Council agenda, as amended. (Motion passed 5-0). 2. MINUTES: April 16,2002 City Council minutes until May DeLapp/Dunn—to postpone the April 16, 2002 Ci y Y 21,2002 Council meeting. (Motion passed 5-0.) 3. IN PUBLIC UIRIES/INFORMATIONAL: 4 A. Public Inquiries (None) B. Request from Lake Elmo Jaycees The Lake Elmo Jaycees intend to pay for new bleachers for Lions Park(between $10,000 and$15,000),but want to have them before Huff'N Puff Days, August 8- 11.) These bleachers must be replaced or cut down so they don't exceed 3 tiers later than January 1,2003.:On behalf of the Lake Elmo Jaycees, Linda no l , rJ' Wagner asked that this expenditure be credited toward the ten percent they are required by ordinance to donate to the City for 2002. MIS/P DeLapp/Dunn-to accept the donation of$10,000 to $15,000 from the Lake Elmo Jaycees for the purchase of new bleachers for Lions Park, and allow ten-percent the final dollar amount to be credited to the Jaycee s en-p ercent contribution to the City for 2002.: (Motion passed 5-0). li E: Recommendation from Environmental Commission for City participation in the Shoreland Stabilization Project at the DNR public access on Lake DeMontreville C. Dean Johnston, Chairman of the Environmental Commission, reported that Jeff Berg,Washington County Water and Soil Conservation, gave a presentation on "B est Management Practices"for protecting our natural resources. During this presentation,Jeff Berg told the Commission about an upcoming Shore land Stabilization Project proposed for the DNR access on Lake DeMontreville. Assisting in this project will be the DNP.(labor and supervision,plant material, LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7,2002 2 FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (FRI) 8. 9' 02 8:43/ST. 8:42/NO. 4260872745 P 4 signage),the VBWD(Project review,supervision,plant materials, signage), the SWCD (project design,coordination, supervision), and the Tri-Lakes Association (labor). Jeff asked if the City was interested in participatinpetien, such; as providing some of the chips we have stored, as well as delivery. Mr. Johnson indicated the Environmental Commission supported thet#at request-. M/S/P Dunn/Siedow-to direct the City to participate in the Shoreland Stabilization Project proposed for the DNR access on Lake DeMontreville by providing and delivering ground woodchips at a cost of approximately$400, which will be taken out of the solid waste grant fund. (Motion passed 5-0.) 4. FINANCE: A. Claims M/S/P Siedow/Armstrong—to adopt Resolution 2002-033, approving claim numbers 21531-21548 used for the April 18,2002 payroll and claim numbers 21549 through 21565 were used for the May 2,2002 payroll and that claim numbers 21566 through 21632 in the amount of$98,780.09 are hereby approved. (Motion passed 5-0.) 5. NEW BUSINESS! 6. CONSENT AGENDA 7. MAINTENANCE/PARK/FIRE/BUILDING A. Update on Fire Dept,Activities: Fire Chief Gree Malmquist— (1) Appointment of Captains. Taeettiroils Fire Chief Malmquist asked that the Council endorse his and the two assistant chief's recommendation to appoint the following fire department members to the rank of captain: Mike Tremain,Chad Sonmor and Rich Springbom. M/S/P Dunn/Armstrong-to appoint to the rank of-Captain: Rich Springbom, Mike Tremain,and Chad Sonmor. (Motion passed 5-0). (2) Boots -During the budget process,the Council was opposed to purchasing special boots for fire department members. Fire Chief Malmquist explained the boots would be worn for medical and rescue response and would protect them from pin pricks and bodily fluids. The boots have been planned in the budget and will stay at the fire station. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7,2002 3 FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (FRI) 8. 9102 8:44/ST. 8:42/NO. 4260872745 P 5 M/S/P Siedow/Dunn—to approve purchase of safety boots for all 24 members of the Fire Department at$150/pair with money already planned for in the budget. (Motion passed 5-0.) (3) Sirens Administrator Kuefluer noted that previously the Council directed staff to proceed with the installation of a warning siren atop the maintenance building. The Fire Chief is opposed to this location and would like to meet with MAC to further study and formulate a recommendation for a city-wide siren program. Planner Dillerud gave the Fire Chief criteria from City of Ramsey for locations of sirens. Council member DeLapp thought this should be a County issue and not a City issue. The Fire Chief will check with Washington County as to the status of their plan. M/S/P Dunn/Siedow -to direct MAC, staff, and the Fire Chief to formulae a plan for a City-wide siren placement by studying all available information to make this recommendation. This will supercede the motion to install a warning siren atop of the maintenance building. (Motion passed 5-0.) (4) Set date for Workshop with Council M/S/P Siedow/Armstrong—to set up a workshop on mss-Saturday,May 11, at 9 a.m. at Station 1. (Motion passed 5-0.) B. Parks Department- Lights for Pebble Park Mike Bouthilet, Parks Supervisor,reported the tennis court light fixtures at Pebble p Park need replacement.to-be-replaeof The bulbs and ballast are burning out frequently because of age and condition. The Lake Elmo Parks Commission discussed having no lights at all,but determined that it was worthy to keep the lighting on the courts. Council member DeLapp suggested we take the bids,but asked that hood packages be placed on lights as in surrounding complexes. Three quotes for the fixture replacements were received. Arcade Electric $6,877.00 Retrofit Companies $7,013.00 Lipner Electric $7,595.00 M/S/P Dunn/DeLapp—to approve the bid from Arcade Electric for lights at Pebble Park with stipulation that enough money be added to pay for hood packages. (Motion passed 5-0.) LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7,2002 4 FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (FRI) 8. 9' 02 8:44/ST. 8:42/NO. 4260872745 P 6 8. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT None 9. PLANNING, LAND USE & ZONING: A. Accessory Structure Location—Joan &Steve Ziertman Planner Dillerud reported that the Ziertmans have applied for a building permit to construct an addition to their existing accessory structure. While the addition that is proposed to the south end of the structure does not itself appear to conflict with Zoning Ordinance standards, a review of the site from 2000 air photos reveals that the existing accessory structure extend nearly 20 feet nearer the front lot line than the home,using the correct definitions from Section 150. Section 300.13 Subd.3l. prohibits accessory structures nearer the front property line than the principal structure, except detached garages, and then only when a resolution of the City Council specifically approves that encroachment. M/S/P Siedow/Dunn—to adopt Resolution No. 2002-034 A resolution approving the location of an addition to an accessory structure at 5761 Keats Avenue 20 feet nearer the front lot lien than the principal structure, as said principal structure existed on May 1, 2002. (Motion passed 5-0.) Rod Sessing,Planning Commission member and adjacent neighbor, stated he had a problem with the ordinance. This is a variance without going through the variance process because it's a legal non conforming structure. The Planning Commission has recommended dumping this entire section. Attorney Filla explained the applicant received a permit to construct a building. The property owner spent money based on approval by the city. The new addition is not violating the terms of the code. B. Amendment to Section 1340—Outside Storage of Boats &Trailers The Council suggested asked-that the definition of rear yard needs redefining. The Council was looking for reasonably screened and placed in the rear yard. Council member DeLapp stated if we cannot enforce the regulations, then we shouldn't adopt these ordinances. What we have in the code now is unattainable. DeLapp asked if the Planning Commission could eeii-suggest how the City can enforce this ordinance. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7, 2002 5 FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (FRI) 8. 9' 02 8:44/ST. 8:42/N0. 4260872745 P 7 M/S/P Dunn/DeLapp •to send this amendment to Section 1340—Outside Storage of Boats and Trailers bock to the Planning Commission for review and comments. (Motion passed 5-0.) C. Zoning Variance—Daniel Rude,Kraft Circle Planner Dillerud reported the Planning Commission recommended denial of this application for variance from several Zoning Ordinance standards to construct a new residence on a parcel of approximately 24,000 square feet.: : This 2002 application assumes the applicant is permitted to acquire approximately 12,000 sq.ft. of the City owned parcel to the west—one of the 3 parties with remaining interest in that City owned land. That would double the size of their house site from the 2001 application. Dillerud explained the Commission conducted the public hearing on this application on March 11, 2002.202. The application was then tabled twice;= first to secure the Engineer's opinion as to whether successful septic treatment could be accomplished on the enlarged site; and, second to await the Council's action regarding sale of city-owned land sales-policy. The Council extended the 60 day application review period to June 8,2002 at its April 2, 2002 meeting. Even though the Council had not made a decision regarding sale of the remaining City owned land related to Kraft Circle. Mr. Rude requested his variances be placed on the April 22, 2002 Planning Commission Agenda. The Council decided to address at this time the Resolution adopting the Policy for the Sale of City owned land that was prepared for consideration. M/S/P DeLapp/Armstrong—to postpone 9C to discuss agenda item 11A. Policy for the Sale of City Owned Land. (Motion passed 5-0). M/S/P Armstrong/DeLapp—to adopt Resolution No. 2002-035 setting forth the policy for the sale and use of city owned land. (Motion passed 5-0.) Attorney Filla suggested Finding No. 8 if the Council was to deny the application. 8. Application assumes ownership of property not controlled by the applicant and if this property is subtracted from area described in the first Whereas clause hereof; the degree of variance compared to the City code requirement becomes ever more severe, especially in regard to limited lot area. M/S/P Dunn/Armstrong- to adopt 2002-036 denying the application by Daniel Rude for zoning ordinance variances to allow construction of a new LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7,2002 6 FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (FRI) 8. 9' 02 8:45/ST. 8:42/N0. 4260872745 P 8 home on Kraft Circle with the added Finding No. 8 suggested by Attorney Filla. (Motion passed 4-1: Siedow–The lot size-fits the neighborhood.) D. Commercial Exterior Surface Standards–Amend LB, CB,CB, and BP Districts City Planner Dillerud reported the Planning Commission considered amendment to the standards of the several commercial coning district that would introduce new language regarding the exterior surface of buildings to replace the previously deleted terms"or equivalent". The Commission recommended approval of the ordinances necessary to accomplish the amendments. Council member DeLapp suggested the following changes: Delete: (Exterior Surfacing Accents): ii. EFTS and replace with Cement Fiber Board Change:g. Performance Standards–HVAC Units and Exterior Appurtenances–All exterior equipment, HVAC and trash/recycling and dock areas shall be screened from view of the Public with the primary, exterior material used on the principal structure. Change: h. Performance Standard– Visible Roofing Materials–Any roofing material that are visible from ground level shall be standing seam metal fire treated cedar shakes. ceramic tile, clay tile, concrete or slate. M/S/P Dunn/Armstrong-to adopt 97-108, 97-109, 97-110, 97-111 amending the LB,BP, GB and CB zoning districts texts to establish additional performance standards for exterior surfacing of structures,with changes discussed. (Motion 4-1: Siedow–these standards are more restrictive than what it should be.) -Section 520 Site Plan–Hiner Development E. Planner Dillerud reported the Planning Commission recommended approval of this Section 520 site plan to construct a golf practice facility on a 40 acre site west of Keats Avenue and North of Hudson Blvd. The Council had previously approved a Conditional Use Permit and Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezoning to establish the AG zoning required for the Commercial Recreation CUP. Dillerud indicated the City is aware the site plan proposed extensive grading of the site,primarily grading within the Keats rightRight of-way,and private septic capabilities of the sitc once all the grading is accomplished. City Engineer Prew has advised that his concerns have been addressed by the applicant without the need to modify the site plan. Staging of the site grading, as it relates to a large quantity of LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7, 2002 7 FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (FRI) 8. 9' 02 8:46/ST. 8:42/NO. 4260872745 P 11 Jim Broich, 4207 Kindred Way,voiced his concern with the trees being preserved and drainage to the pond close to his property. The design of this development is not within the spirit of the Open Space code when you ask a farmer to meet the developer as a partner and partner can use the land as he wants. Tim Freeman,representing Mr.Krongard,stated the concept plan meets the intent and letter of the OP Ordinance. By including the surrounding property, you are trying to create the maximum amount of open space. He thought this was what the Council wanted to accomplish. The 6 acres owned by Mr. Wier will be set aside for agricultural purposes. The Wier piece will not be owned by the HOA,but there will be an easement. The berm on south end was to screen from adjoining property. Deb Krueger,4452 Lake Elmo Avenue N., stated this plan is taking the best Ag land to buildae bailding houses on it. She is concern on increasing density. Shel)eb pointed out berms don't work especially on a flat farm field. Trees will not grow on the berms. There is no process to come back and correct landscaping. She asked that the developer take out berms and plant trees. She didn't want to combine surrounding acreage and felt it was not in the Spirit of having joint ownership. Mark Dczicl,Planning Commission member, stated this is a good example of how a increasing to 3/a acre lot from a'/,acre lot is squishing the lots within the area. The 6 acres could be across the city as they are not included within the development. Mayor Hunt closed the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. The 3 conditions the Planning Commission recommended were not reflected on the plat shown by Mr. Freeman. Mr. Freeman responded they are in favor of the 3 conditions. Council member Armstrong stated the intent of the Open Space Ordinance requirement for 40 acres was not to create wings out of the development. She did not agree that the 3 acre lot requirement was too large,but that there are too many lots proposed. Council member Dunn thoughtiteated the plan looked like a wishbone and was the ugliest plan she had seen. SheDunn added that not all land can be used for Op and suggested looking at different zoning for development. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7, 2002 10 FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (FRI) 8. 9' 02 8:46/ST. 8:42/NO. 4260872745 P 12 Council member DeLapp thought the plan was a series of lots taking advantage of the most dollars. The appendage on the right doesn't reflect the rest of the developments: He believes in transfer of density,but not in this area. The City does take easements,but has nothevetr't seen the city monitor the easements. The trail can be extended. The MN land trust should look at the outlots first. Mayor Hunt indicated the concept plan seems to appear to alter the wetlands. There is a concern on the extension of road to adjacent property. The Appendage on the east is irrelevant to the cluster development and is not integrated within the development. MIS/P Dunn/DeLapp-to table and ask City staff to prepare resolution for denial for Council consideration based on comments at the meeting. (Motion passed 4-1 Siedow stated with the inclusion of the 3 conditions this concept plan meets the letter of the OP Ordinance.) H. Extend Zoning Variance Review—Patrick Kinney Planner Dillerud reported that Mr.Kinney requested that April 22 Planning Commission consideration of the matter be deferred by his April 19,2002 E- Mail. The next available Planning Commission meeting at which this application can be considered is May 13; and that will result in City Council consideration no earlier than May 21. The Council was requested to extend the review period for the Kinney application 60 days to July 18, as permitted by State Statute. M/S/P DeLapp/Armstrong—to extend the City review period for the Kinney Zoning Variance application 60 days to July 18,2002. (Motion passed 4-0 Council member Dunn had stepped out of the meeting during the vote.) I. Escrow Reduction—Eagle Point Business Park 2°d Addition City Engineer Prew reported United Properties has completed most of the 2"d Addition public improvements under the Development Agreement covering those improvements. In his memo dated April 26, 2002,the City Engineer described the work completed and remaining; and, escrow reduction accordingly. M/S/P SiedowfDeLa PP—to approve reduction of the escrow for Eagle Point Business Park 2id Addition from$800,000 to$250,000,as recommended by the City Engineer. (Motion passed 4-0 Council member Dunn had stepped out of the meeting during the vote.) LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7,2002 11 FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (FRI) 8. 9' 02 8:46/ST. 8:42/NO. 4260872745 P 13 J. Final Plat—Eatle Point Town Office Park Planner Dillerud reported the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat of Eagle Point Town Office Park. This plat is to further divide Lot 1,Block 1 of the Eagle Point Business Park 2"d Addition to create 24 individual condo offices and a common lot service area for all owners. The Final Plat differs from the preliminary only, to the extentextcnd that a 4 foot`jog"has been added in lots 18-24 to overcome a"slab" appearance to the north wall of the structure. City Attorney Filla advised that since no public improvements are being constructed,no Development Agreement will be necessary. The access easement to the City from Eagle Point Blvd.to the future well site has been prepared by the City Attorney,but must be recorded after the Final Plat is recorded. M/S/P DeLapp/Hunt-to adopt Resolution No 2002-038, A Resolution approving the Preliminary Plat of Eagle Point Town Offlcc Park, as rccommcndcd by the Planning Commission and subject to conditions. (Motion passed 3-2: Dunn, Armstrong). M/S/P DeLapp/IIunt—to adopt Resolution No. 2002-039, A Resolution approving the Final Nat of Eagle Point Town Office Park on a finding of general consistency of the Final Plat to the applicable standards of Section 400,and the approved Preliminary Plat. (Motion passed 3-2: Dunn, Armstrong.) Administrator Kueffner provided Summaries of Ordinance Nos. 97-108, 97- 109, 98-110, 97-111 relating to Performance Standards in the General Business, Convenience Business,Limited Business and Business Park Zoning Districts. M/S/P DeLapp/Dunn-to adopt the summary ordinances of 97-108, 97-109, 97-110, and 97-111 relating to Performance Standards inf the General Business, Convenience Business, Limited Business and Business Park Zoning Districts. (Motion passed 4-1: Siedow stated the performance standards are too restrictive.) K Old Village Commission Meetlne: City Planner Dillerud asked the Council to set a date for a joint meeting with the Old Village Commission to discuss the execution of the Old Village down town plan,streetscape,and sidewalks. M/S/P Armstrong/Siedow—to schedule a joint meeting with the Old Village/Pianning Special Projects Commission to discuss the execution of the LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7,2002 12 FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (FRI) 8. 9' 02 8:47/ST. 8:42/NO. 4260872745 P 14 Old Village downtown plan,streetscapc and sidewalks on Monday,June 10, at 7 pan. (Motion passed 5-0). 10. -ATTORNEY'S REPORT None 11.-CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: A. Resolution adopting policy for the sale of city owned land—ADOPTED under Item 9C. B. Summary of Ordinance 97-106 Charitable Gambling Administrator Kueffner provided a summary for the Charitable Gambling ordinance. Since the ordinance is seven pages long, it would save the City money to print a summary of the ordinance. M/S/P Dunn/DeLapp—to approve the publication of the Summary of Ordinance 97-106, adopted by the City Council on April 16, 2002. (Motion passed 5-0). C. Unfinished Business-None A. $500,000 Internal Loan to Water Fund At the April 30th Special meeting,bnmtc were issued in the amount of $730,000 with an interfund transfer from the General Fluid in the amount of$500,000. The resolution was reviewed with direction to amend Section 2.04 and insert an end date. A resolution was provided with the end date left open for Council determination. M/S/P Armstrong/Siedow—to adopt Resolution 2002-031 approving and ratifying the terms of a$5000,000 Internal Loan in Connection with the City's Water Fund-with the end date of December 31, 2017. (Motion passed 5-0.) 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: Mayor Hunt indicated since it was already 11 o'clock,the Sand Creek Proposal will be discussed after the hoard of Review on Wednesday. Planner Dillerud reported that the METC wouldwill need to make a decision on our Comprehensive Plan at its May 22nd meeting,which leaves city staff little preparation time. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7, 2002 13 . FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (952) 896-3265 (FRI) 8. 9' 02 8:47/ST. 8:42/N0. 4260872745 P 15 Council member DeLapp indicates the Supreme Court has made a ruling on the "taking issue". Council member Dunn pointed out she has seenbeen resident place brush by streets, evidently-rwidently residents are not getting our information that City is not picking up brush. Council member DeLapp stated he noticed that Washington County has cut down 120' strip of trees on CSAH17,and he'll notify our County Commissioner. Council member Siedow commented that the Fire Dept. Captains are not meeting the required criteria to serve as Captain and should be discussed with the-Council and Fire Dept. The Council adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7,2002 14