This is the transcribed and formatted text for the City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission meeting held on April 22, 2024. **Note on Speaker Names:** While the prompt provided City Council names, this is a **Planning Commission** meeting. Based on the dialogue, the commissioners present are **Commissioner Bullock, Commissioner Breeze, Commissioner Ray Camp,** and **Commissioner Style**. The staff presentation is led by **Nate Stanley** (City Engineer). *** **[00:00] Chair:** Okay, I have nothing. Thank you. Do we have monitors, Sophia, or is it a button you have to push over there? You will? Yeah, oh there we go. Thank you very much. There they go. All right. **[00:13] Chair:** It is now 7:00. I call to order the City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission meeting for Monday, April 22nd, 2024. First item is to please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. **[00:25] (All):** I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. **[00:43] Chair:** Thank you very much. Second item on here is a notification indication here that Commissioner Geffre has resigned from the Planning Commission. So we do have an open seat for those in the public that are looking to join the Planning Commission. We’d love to have you on board, and we thank Commissioner Geffre for his time served. **[01:05] Chair:** Third item is to approve this evening's agenda, which includes approval of the previous meeting minutes, a single public hearing, as well as some communication updates. **[01:15] Commissioner Bullock:** I move to approve the agenda of April 22nd, 2024. **[01:19] Commissioner Breeze:** Second. **[01:20] Chair:** Motion by Commissioner Bullock, second by Commissioner Breeze to approve the agenda. All in favor please say aye. **[01:25] (All):** Aye. **[01:26] Chair:** Opposed? Hearing none, motion passes unanimously. Fourth item then is to approve the minutes from our previous meeting of April 8th, 2024. Any edits, alterations, or clarifications needed? Hearing none, we'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. **[01:38] Commissioner Breeze:** Move to approve the minutes of April 8th, 2024. **[01:42] Commissioner Ray Camp:** Second. **[01:43] Chair:** Motion by Commissioner Breeze, second by Commissioner Ray Camp to approve the minutes of April 8th, 2024. All in favor please say aye. **[01:50] (All):** Aye. **[01:51] Chair:** Opposed? Hearing none, the motion passes unanimously. That brings us to our fifth item, which is a public hearing: The Kramer Lake Comprehensive Plan Amendment. We'll hear from City Staff first, then I believe the applicant as well. Is that correct? And then at that point, then we'll open up for the public hearing. **[02:08] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning Commission. We're just working through some items here on the PowerPoint. Looks like it's up and running, thank you Sophia. So hello everyone. We are tonight looking at a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request for a project called The Kramer Lake Overlook. This is by Tamarack Land Development. This is a public hearing. **[02:30] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** As an overview for everyone, this site is on the southern extent of the city's limits, just north of Interstate 94. The site is around 57 gross acres with a decent amount of wetlands on it—at least 2.39 acres, but possibly more. There is an existing home on the northeast corner of this parcel; it's in red on the screen for the collection of parcels, I should say. **[03:00] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** The developer is proposing 399 residential units, likely through a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Part of the units that are being proposed—there is at least one building as I understand it that would be proposed to be affordable housing—and that does have some implications as far as the Comprehensive Plan Amendment goes; we can talk about that. The developer is also proposing three commercial lots within the subdivision, and we'll look at the site plan in a moment. **[03:30] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** In terms of the city's infrastructure requirements in this area, City water and sewer connections would be required, and those utilities would be brought in through extensions to and through the sites. There would be an internal public street network and a required reconstruction of Hudson Boulevard, which is on the southern extent of this proposed development. Having trouble advancing my slides... one second... there we go. **[04:08] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Okay, so a little bit about the review process to date. The applicant provided a complete application on November 3rd of last year. The city did go through the review process. Ultimately, the applicant did request an extension for 90 days from the March 2nd 120-day deadline. That leaves us with a new deadline for a city review of May 31st, 2024. I wanted to make sure to mention that to you because that is beyond the 120-day typical window. As a point of process for plan amendments, a 60-day adjacent comment period is required. The city has identified those adjacent jurisdictions and did reach out for comments, and we'll talk about that. **[05:00] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Okay, so here's the site plan. This was provided in the staff report, but just to summarize what we're looking at here: moving from right (East) to left (West), we're looking at the commercial lots on the east side, then you've got two proposed multi-family buildings, followed by—on the far west side—Twin Homes proposed along that public roadway. On the far west of this site, that is where Kramer Lake is. **[05:30] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** A little bit of a land use analysis: the future land use guidance for this property is Mixed Use Commercial, and that allows residential densities of between 10 to 15 units per acre. Mixed Use Commercial doesn't always have just residential, obviously; commercial is in the name, so there is expected to be some amount of commercial land in this area. The zoning district is currently Rural Transition; it would be Mixed Use Commercial as well for the zoning. The city's zoning district actually requires a minimum of 20% of the area be commercial. **[06:05] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** The important thing we're here for this evening is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. I will remind you, in the amendment the developer is requesting, it is to Map 3-7, which is the phasing plan for the MUSA area (Metropolitan Urban Service Area). I'll talk about that a little bit more, but you'll see that generally speaking, the MUSA is in this thick black boundary between that boundary and I-94. **[06:35] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** The entitlements that this development would ultimately require include this Comp Plan Amendment. If it's approved and the development moves forward, an EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) would be necessary. That is a formal environmental review required by State statutes. The developer would provide a subdivision request in addition to a rezoning request to change the zoning to the correct zoning to comply with the Comp Plan. Based on the site plan we have right now, we do expect that Shoreland variances will be required in addition to a PUD to allow for flexibility of the design. **[07:15] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Again, the site is on the south side of this map. To talk a little bit about Map 3-7: that's the city's MUSA growth and phasing plan. It's got a lot of different colored boundaries within the areas that are served by MUSA, which is the city's sewered area. The Comprehensive Plan and the Met Council require cities to articulate phasing for different areas. In bold, the city acknowledges that market conditions as well as other external impacts may influence exactly where and when development occurs, and this map is intended to signal to the city that it must evaluate its infrastructure with respect to timing and development approvals. **[08:00] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** The area that this property is in is phased by this map to develop between 2030 and 2040. I think the primary reason for that is really the challenge that the city will have ultimately in getting utilities into this section of the community. The reason that it's challenging is because we have Kramer Lake, which creates an obstacle, but also when we're connecting all the units that will ultimately be in this area, we need to have looped connections. From Lake Elmo Avenue to Keats, we need to be connecting those utilities through. In terms of water, that's a pressure issue. In terms of sewer, it's making sure we've got sewers connected to the right location. This is an important piece of this grand scheme of things in the utility system, and that's why this area was really intended to develop in that period—just because it's complicated and we think development will get there eventually, but it might take a lot of coordination to make it happen. **[09:05] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** This is just another zoomed-in map just to show you exactly what we're looking at with Map 3-7. You can see that 2030 to 2040 boundary with the site being the one that has the star on it. The applicant provided a timeline in their narrative: starting basically this spring/summer and moving through the development timeline, the applicant would expect final occupancy by 2029. That gives you an idea of how long the development process takes. **[09:40] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** A little bit about the zoning: it's in the Shoreland Overlay specifically. Again, we're looking at a mix of units—between the Twin Homes (92) and the multi-family units (307), that's where you get 399. **[10:05] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** I want to talk now about the implications of this property being in the Shoreland Overlay. An analysis was done back in December for a Concept Plan review to understand the challenges. First and foremost, the Shoreland Overlay is established as a 1,000-foot buffer from the ordinary high water level of Kramer Lake. There are limitations in terms of density, unit locations, structure height, setbacks, and impervious surface limitations. Looking at the concept plan, flexibility is going to be needed. I want to make sure I mention again that flexibility to Shoreland Overlay standards must be approved through variances. This is a requirement communicated by the Minnesota DNR because there's really no other statutory tool to permit flexibility to State rules. **[11:00] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Flexibility requested: number one, there is a tiered review where we look at fixed distances from the water level (Tiers 1, 2, and 3). What we're seeing is that according to city code, we're seeing a few too many units of those Twin Homes in those tiers. Another is the setback for twin home units, established at 250 feet from the high water level. Lastly, impervious surface—it is possible with the way these twin home lots are platted that there could be an issue meeting the 30% maximum. **[11:35] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** I do want to mention that this is not a terribly easy property to develop because of the way it's zoned and guided. There are ways we could maybe meet standards: considering the type of units proposed, making them more compact, or moving the commercial actually within the Shoreland Overlay since that's not a density conformance issue. **[12:00] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** I wanted to briefly mention the impacts that affordable housing has on Comp Plan amendments. Affordable housing projects do have a lower vote threshold for the City Council to approve them. We go from a supermajority vote to a simple majority at the City Council level. **[12:20] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Review comments: the city engineer and fire chief provided comments in 2022 regarding utility connections. The Valley Branch Watershed District provided a comment regarding concern on The Hardscape proposed and the soils. Vertical construction was suggested as a way to remove Hardscape and keep the density necessary. **[12:45] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** We had a public hearing noticed in January, continued it, and re-noticed it for tonight. We received one written comment from a resident today, which is available on the city's website. Given that staff have reviewed the conformance with the Shoreland ordinance and the fact that things could be done to get it more compliant, we have written findings for a denial. **[13:10] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Planning Commission options: you can recommend denial with staff findings, amend the findings for denial, or recommend approval. If you recommend approval, you should work through proposed findings of fact. Staff recommendation is to recommend denial. The developer is here and has prepared slides, so I'd encourage you to hear from them and hold the public hearing. I'm happy to take your questions. **[13:40] Commissioner Style:** Can you go back to the tearing slide? It had a table in the bottom left corner—the Tier 1, 2, 3. Just to make sure I'm visualizing it, assuming West is Tier 1? **[13:51] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Correct. **[13:52] Commissioner Style:** Why do we allow fewer units in Two versus Three? **[13:55] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Based on the developable area within each tier. We take the net buildable area and divide that by the minimum area for a sewered lot in the Shoreland of that type. **[14:05] Commissioner Style:** Gotcha. That makes more sense. Thank you. **[14:07] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** And just to build on this, the city's ordinance allows PUDs to have an additional 20% bonus density. The State model actually allows a little bit more bonus in further tiers to pull development away from the water. **[14:23] Commissioner Style:** And is that 20% density bonus based off the proposal or the max bonus? **[14:28] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** That would be the max bonus that could be received. **[14:40] Commissioner Style:** And what's the units per acre being proposed here? **[14:43] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Using the concept—it’s not particularly clear—but I came up with somewhere over 10 units per acre. **[15:00] Chair:** Nathan, ideally, how would utilities come in to this parcel? And exit, because we're looking for two entrances or locations? **[15:08] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** I don't have a full answer, but utilities should be available along Lake Elmo Boulevard. Generally, they'll be extended from East to West. **[15:20] Chair:** And right now the existing business, you're saying the business parcel owner—Pet Images? **[15:26] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Yes, Pet Images is the business right here on the screen. This development would basically surround that one. We do have to have Hudson Boulevard reconstructed all the way from East to West. **[15:40] Commissioner Bullock:** What would need to be done between now and late 2030 to get this to be—because right now we're not thinking this is going to develop until the 2030-2040 period, correct? **[15:52] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** That's exactly why we're here. The developer has requested this Comp Plan Amendment to change this particular parcel on the map from 2030-2040 to 2020-2030. The line surrounding this parcel would change to pink. **[16:15] Commissioner Bullock:** And it's going to change to pink because final occupancy is going to be 2029? **[16:20] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** That was the timeline provided by the applicant. Any project in the 2030-2040 phase will not be allowed to be approved because it won't be consistent with the Comp Plan. We figured this out through the Northstar development—the Met Council rejected the sewer permit because it was in the incorrect MUSA phase. **[16:45] Commissioner Style:** Do we have to give one if we're taking one? If we pulled something forward like this, would something marked pink have to get pushed back out? **[16:55] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** The short answer is no. It’s not as though we’re doing additions or subtractions to the actual MUSA area. We've already planned for this; it’s just not in the right decade. **[17:15] Chair:** Thank you. We'll hear from the applicants. If you don't mind, just name and address. **[17:25] Dan Willenbring (Tamarack Land Development):** Good evening. My name is Dan Willenbring with Tamarack Land Development. My address is 400 Tanglewood Lane, Marine on St. Croix. I’m a resident of the valley like everyone else here. Thank you for entertaining this project tonight. **[17:45] Dan Willenbring:** Our request tonight is just to get the Comprehensive Plan Amendment approved to include this project into the current MUSA growth period. That allows the design team to continue through the approval process—EAW, technical design, agency reviews, and determination of variances through a PUD or preliminary platting. **[18:15] Dan Willenbring:** Here is the concept plan: 399 units, density of around 10.15 units per acre. 92 single-family Twin Homes, 307 multi-family units. 20% of the land is dedicated to commercial use, about 11 acres. Residential comprises about 38 acres. The project site is currently zoned Rural Transition, guided for Mixed Use Residential. **[19:00] Dan Willenbring:** Regarding the MUSA growth period, the growth plan is just a guide; the city has flexibility. Examples are the Northstar development and the recent elementary school approval. I've been involved in this project since 2021. We've gone through four different planners and a couple of City Administrators. We’ve seen a lot of inconsistency with knowledge transfer. We’ve adapted our plan—we're up to version 11 or 12. **[19:45] Dan Willenbring:** In September, the city said since we were providing the infrastructure, moving it forward into the current period would likely not be an issue. The landowners, the Peltier Family Trust, sold the city the area for the water tower. Without that tower, development was limited. The moratorium was put in place one month after the city purchased the land for the tower. **[20:30] Dan Willenbring:** Our schedule: if things get approved tonight, we start the EAW process this summer. Preliminary plat in December, construction late 2025, and occupancy between 2026 and 2029. **[21:15] Dan Willenbring:** Regarding the Shoreland Overlay, Lake Elmo applies a factor of 1.2 to transfer densities. We used the DNR’s bonus transfer when we did our site plan. The site is very complex. Moving the retail along Hudson Boulevard would require variances for impervious surface. We can’t get the density required under Mixed Use Commercial and comply with Shoreland requirements easily—we’re stuck between two and three units per acre for density requirements in Shoreland tiers. **[22:30] Dan Willenbring:** Addressing the staff memo: utilities are available. Sewer would run along Hudson Boulevard. We will oversize utilities to service anything to the West. Regarding the Watershed, the soils aren’t conducive for infiltration, but our engineers think they have a solution. Our plan is to recycle 55,000 yards of buried concrete on the site from when Highway 94 was developed. **[23:45] Commissioner Style:** Is it the intent of Tamarack Land Development to purchase the land if the Comp Plan goes through? **[23:55] Dan Willenbring:** Yes, Tamarack will buy the land once we are entitled to build. **[24:10] Commissioner Style:** Why, if you already knew the restrictions in the Shoreland District, did you not design to those restrictions? **[24:18] Dan Willenbring:** We can’t get the density if we follow the Shoreland requirements. We are only nine units over on the Shoreland density—nine out of 400. We're looking for the minimum variances. **[24:45] Chair:** I was rereading the comments from the Watershed District regarding storm water runoff volumes. Do you want to pull back up that image? **[24:55] Dan Willenbring:** The soils aren't conducive for infiltration, and the Watershed is hung up on that. We have the best engineers working on it—your Mayor just happens to work for that company also. They know what they're doing. **[25:30] Commissioner Style:** The Twin Homes are intended to be privately owned? **[25:34] Dan Willenbring:** Yes. **[25:35] Commissioner Style:** Have you met with Pet Images or the neighbors to the north? **[25:38] Dan Willenbring:** I’ve met with Pet Images. We tried to get them as part of our application, but they opted not to. We have not talked to anybody to the north. One clarification: Nathan mentioned a house on the property; that’s a separate parcel and not part of our purchase. **[26:15] Chair:** Any other questions? Perfect. Thank you, Dan. **[26:20] Chair:** This is scheduled for a public hearing. We'll need a motion to open. **[26:24] Commissioner Style:** Move to open the public hearing. **[26:26] Commissioner Bullock:** Second. **[26:27] Chair:** Motion by Commissioner Style, second by Commissioner Bullock. All in favor please say aye. **[26:33] (All):** Aye. **[26:34] Chair:** Opposed? Motion passes. Public hearing is now open at 8:00 p.m. I have three listed here. As a reminder, you'll have up to six minutes to speak. Susan? **[26:55] Susan (Resident):** Thank you, fellow Commissioners. I appreciate your time. I've been in your seat before. Developers always come with this "great deal," but sometimes they're gone and we get left with the challenges. We have Comp Plans with phasing so our city can work with the progress and not get surprised by a development with 2,000 people thrown at you unexpectedly. Our staff did an outstanding job outlining the issues. I concur 100% with the staff's recommendation for denial at this time. **[27:45] Chair:** Thanks, Susan. Next, I have Ben Roth. **[27:50] Ben Roth (Resident):** Good evening. Ben Roth, 10819 Third Street Place. I did not hear a compelling reason why we should accelerate this development. I was a planning commissioner from 2005 to 2009. This segment of the community is complex. Also, the water issue is real—my property flooded in 2005. I don't think 1,000 potential residents living on a six-lane interstate without a sound barrier fits the aesthetic of Lake Elmo. I’d ask you to think about the 2050 Comprehensive Plan instead. We haven't heard from the developer in the three years they've been working on this. Thank you. **[28:45] Chair:** Thank you, Ben. Linda? (Linda declines to speak). Okay, that gets us through our list. Motion to close the public hearing? **[28:55] Commissioner Ray Camp:** Motion to close the public hearing. **[28:57] Commissioner Breeze:** Second. **[28:58] Chair:** All in favor? Aye. Hearing none, motion passes. Public hearing is closed at 8:08 p.m. Taking this back to the Commissioners. There is a recommended motion on page six of the staff report. **[29:15] Commissioner Breeze:** Motion to recommend the City Council deny the request of Tamarack Land Development for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment with the findings proposed by staff. **[29:35] Commissioner Style:** Second. **[29:37] Chair:** Discussion? Commissioner Breeze, if you would like to start. **[29:39] Commissioner Breeze:** I appreciate hearing from former planning commissioners. I’ve heard from a lot of people that the Comp Plan is not just a guide; it’s our plan and we should adhere to it. Feedback has told me we should stop messing with the Comp Plan. I am against this at this time. **[30:19] Commissioner Style:** I'm against this too. I worry we're rushing that timeline and with utilities not there, it would create too many problems. **[30:35] Commissioner Bullock:** I have some sympathy for the developer based on their conversations with the city, but overall I’m in agreement that this is a 2030 development. **[31:02] Chair:** Agreed. It's a challenging site. I pull pretty heavily on what our Watershed District is saying. We need to determine how we actually develop that area first before rushing ahead to move things. **[31:40] Commissioner Style:** A quick question for Nathan—you wouldn’t ever apply for a variance before there’s been a Comp Plan Amendment, would you? **[31:51] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** No, we wouldn’t see a variance typically before we would approve something like this. **[32:25] Commissioner Ray Camp:** We need to make sure we're providing future developers consistent information before they commit a lot of capital. We need to be clear in our communication that we're looking for adherence to the plan. **[32:51] Chair:** All those in favor of the motion to recommend denial, please say aye. **[32:58] (All):** Aye. **[33:00] Chair:** Opposed? Hearing none, the motion passes unanimously. This will move to City Council on May 7th. **[33:24] Dan Willenbring:** Can I just make one comment? I appreciate Tom Ray Camp's comments about consistency. We were led down a path where we thought it wouldn't be an issue. But you're going to have the same challenges in 2030. I encourage you to figure out the best zoning for this property. **[34:03] Chair:** Dan, I’m going to have to cut you off there because we have concluded the item. **[34:12] Chair:** Item seven: communication updates. **[34:17] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Thank you, Mr. Chair. On April 9th, the City Council discussed the Old Village moratorium and the crosswalk policy. On April 16th, they approved a variance for 32nd Street and the Animal Inn Pet Resort. Upcoming meetings: May 13th is your annual Planning Commission training. **[35:12] Commissioner Style:** Did we have any results from the survey for the time of the meeting? **[35:19] Sophia (City Staff):** We’ll be working on a text amendment to move meetings up to 6:30. **[35:26] Chair:** With that, we have gotten through our agenda. Meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Thank you much.