Lake Elmo City Council — Transcript
Tuesday, June 9, 2026
Consent Agenda Approval
Future Land Use - Open Space Low Density Residential (OPLDDR)
Summergate Assemblage Sketch Plan Review
Street Light Banners on Lake Elmo Avenue
Votes (8)
Old Village Gardens improvements phase two
Dissent: Council Member Hearn
Moved by Council Member · Seconded by Council Member
The presentation covered Phase 2 of the Old Village Gardens improvements, focusing on tree planting (Patriot elm, Triumph elm) and replacement along Lake Elmo Avenue. The project aims to enhance downtown beautification, building on Phase 1. Costs for the HKGI proposal were presented at $16,470 for design and administration, funded from street funds. A council member raised concerns about previous spending ($21,400 for plantings plus $4,000 annual maintenance) and a damaged tulip bed (hit by a county snow vehicle). The discussion also covered the timing of tree planting (late summer/early fall 2026) and irrigation (bags). Council members debated the city's role in funding beautification vs. businesses, ultimately supporting it as an investment in the community's downtown character.
Lions Park master plan
Dissent: Initial motion faced opposition regarding timing, leading to an amendment.
Moved by Council Member Craigness · Seconded by Council Member
Staff presented a proposal to initiate a master plan for Lions Park, identified in the 2024 Parks Master Plan as a destination community park. The estimated cost for the master plan is $15,000, budgeted for 2026. Options included approving the scope, amending it, or waiting until the 76-acre parcel proposal is completed, given potential amenity redundancies. Council members discussed the timing, with some advocating for proceeding now (citing public understanding and potential delays), while others preferred waiting for the 76-acre parcel plan to avoid confusion, ensure effective resource use, and prevent amenity duplication. The motion was amended to approve the scope but defer action until the 76-acre parcel proposal's completion.
Water transfer station, also referred to as booster station
Dissent: None
Moved by Council Member · Seconded by Council Member
Staff reported on the failure of one of the two large pumps at the water transfer (booster) station, which is crucial for serving the city's southern community. The failed pump was installed in 2016 and had internal component damage. Two repair options were presented: replacing guts with stainless steel ($52,000, 12-week wait) or using a bronze-fitted rotating assembly ($20,000, 1-2 week wait). Given the urgency due to high irrigation demand, the bronze option was recommended. The total repair cost was estimated not to exceed $30,000, which was unbudgeted but could be covered by existing contracted services funds ($58,000 remaining). Council members inquired about the budget contingency and the lifespan/performance of the different materials. They also discussed evaluating the secondary pump after this repair and the long-term relevance of the booster station with future well developments (Wells 6 and 7).
9960 57th Street front yard setback variance
Dissent: None
Moved by Council Member · Seconded by Council Member
The council considered a variance request for 9960 57th Street North to reduce the front yard setback for a proposed 1,156 sq ft accessory building. The property's Residential Estate zoning requires accessory structures to be behind the primary structure (143.7 ft setback), but the proposal places it at 98.7 ft. Unique site constraints, including proximity to Clawwater Pond (elevation restrictions) and septic system location, significantly reduce the buildable area otherwise compliant with setback. The applicant also proposed removing a gravel driveway to reduce impervious surface coverage from over 15% to 13.4%. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval based on four variance criteria being met, citing practical difficulties due to unique circumstances not created by the landowner. One public comment was received in support. Conditions of approval included material aesthetics, impervious cover removal, and a 12-month commencement timeline.
Lake Elmo Medical Center conditional use permit and variance 8650 Hudson Boulevard North
Dissent: None
Moved by Council Member · Seconded by Council Member
The council reviewed a conditional use permit (CUP) and variance request from Lake Elmo Medical Center for an expansion at 8650 Hudson Boulevard North (Highpoint Health Campus). The proposal involves adding 49,100 sq ft of medical facility/office space to the existing 65,000 sq ft building, expanding parking, and requesting flexibility for eight wall signs. A key variance request was for a reduced side yard setback (to 27 ft from 150 ft) due to the recent rezoning of the adjacent Amamira Apartments property from commercial to high-density residential. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval, citing that strict enforcement of the setback would cause practical difficulties given site constraints (wetlands, existing layout) and that the unique circumstances were not landowner-created. Agency reviews noted required revisions for stormwater and landscaping plans. The council approved both the CUP and the variance.
Lake Elmo Medical Center conditional use permit and variance 8650 Hudson Boulevard North (Variance)
Dissent: None
Moved by Council Member · Seconded by Council Member
Following the approval of the Conditional Use Permit, the council considered the related variance request for a reduced west side yard setback. The discussion reinforced the unique circumstances created by the adjacent property's rezoning, which drastically increased the required setback. Council members reiterated that the proposal was well-vetted and represented a reasonable accommodation given the site's history and constraints. The expansion was viewed as a valuable investment in the community.
Authorize preliminary design geotechnical services and feasibility report for the 2027 street utility improvements
Dissent: None
Moved by Council Member · Seconded by Council Member
Mr. Stanley presented a request to authorize preliminary design, geotechnical services, and a feasibility report for the 2027 street utility improvements in the O acres neighborhood. The existing street conditions are generally poor, and the project scope includes geotechnical investigation, concrete curb and gutter installation (where none exists), review of drainage, and improvements to geometrics. The area is outside the city's MUSA, so public sewer/water main construction is not proposed. The project timeline aims for plans by winter and bids by mid-winter 2027. The estimated preliminary design fiscal impact is $131,000, which is higher than similar past projects due to the 'O acres' neighborhood's heavily wooded, topographical, and curvilinear nature requiring more extensive fieldwork. The council approved both motions.
Authorize geotechnical services agreement for 2027 street utility improvements
Dissent: None
Moved by Council Member · Seconded by Council Member
This was a separate motion following the approval of the preliminary design and feasibility report for the 2027 street utility improvements. The motion specifically authorized the City Administrator to sign an agreement for geotechnical services, not to exceed $25,000. This is a standard component of street improvement projects to inform design decisions regarding pavement reconstruction. No additional discussion beyond the prior item occurred.
Notable Quotes (15)
I I I guess I am opposed to this. I I don't think we need to spend any more money on it. I think if the businesses in that area want to see this beautifification, I think they need to step up a little more in the the the property owners in this area.
I fully support this on the standpoint of um it is beautifification of an area that requires beautifification. Um we've done it in similar areas... while this is a county road, it is our downtown. And I if we were in the $200,000 range, if we're in the half million, I think that's a vastly different story. But I consider this an investment in the community.
I appreciate uh council member Hearn's concern as much as the businesses are there. Uh and and but I but I also think as a city we we want to support those businesses because those businesses are good for the city and what what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
I have concern that if we do these at the same time, we get community engagement with both at the same time. We're going to get community members who are assuming that maybe stuff that will happen at the 76 acres isn't coming... And then there's uh doubling of items or redundancies that we don't need.
I don't want to go down that road of there are possible amenities to start looking into when it turns out some of those amenities might be more advantageous to go at the 76 acres. And I want to make sure we're using our resources effectively and that we're being held accountable for our for our resources.
I appreciate your concern about the confusion, but I think if it's explained correctly to the public, they'll understand this is Lion's Park and not the 180 acres, not the 76 acres... I just give the public a little more credit than being able to distinguish between those.
Our second option is to go with the exact same thing that was in there. It's a bronze fitted rotating assembly. Uh we should have that within one to two weeks costing approximately $20,000. um talked a little bit about the rebuild of that pump and what's recommended with that secondary pump after that.
With regard to the 58,000 in the budget, you have other funds available in the water utility if we need to make additional repairs that we can move at any time. That fund is not broke. I think it's like memory is like5 or $6 million in cash and investments in that fund.
I mean, like you said, if we can get Wells five and six, hopefully, you know, this will be well into the life. And I think we need it sooner than 12 weeks. I know what that's about. So, I can appreciate the urgency by which this is, so I'm all for uh what you've got here in front of us.
Building in a location which complies with the city setback requirement and valley branch regulations would require substantial grading which would disturb wetlands, cause significant tree removal, disturb the septic area and restrict access to the septic manhole.
I did visit uh his property and he showed me where I was going to be and I agree with removing the the gravel there. Brings down the impervious surface. Um I think you drive by there, you hardly know that building's there unless he puts a neon light, Bud Light, neon light in the window or something.
A variance is needed due to the recent reszoning of the adjacent property on the west side which is Amamira Apartments that was reszoned from mixeduse business park to highdensity residential on November 1st, 2022. and the new residential zoning designation increased the setback on that side from 30 feet to 150 ft.
Due diligence due diligence occurred here. The staff report I think is valid. I think the planning commission did it correct as well. I all four findings are agreeable and I think this is not only good variance but also going back to the cup. I thank you property owners for investing in the community for doing this expansion. Uh it's greatly appreciated that you want to do this and uh you are a valued member of the community.
Due diligence due diligence occurred here. The staff report I think is valid. I think the planning commission did it correct as well. I all four findings are agreeable and I think this is not only good variance but also going back to the cup. I thank you property owners for investing in the community for doing this expansion. Uh it's greatly appreciated that you want to do this and uh you are a valued member of the community.
The Ores neighborhood is an old small lot neighborhood um wedged into um the woods essentially. Um it's it's heavily wooded, heavily treed, a lot of topography, um a lot of curve linear nature to the streets. Um so our our survey uh folks when they were putting together their estimate went out and visited the site and took a look and there's it's just going to involve a lot more field work and that's where that increased cost is coming from.
Ordinances & Resolutions (10)
Proposal for coordination, construction drawings, contractor selection, bidding, and construction administration for Old Village Gardens Phase 2.
Approving a variance for reduced accessory structure front yard setback at 9960 57th Street North.
Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a medical facility at 8650 Hudson Boulevard North.
Approving a variance request for reduced west side yard setback at 8650 Hudson Boulevard North.
Ordering preparation of preliminary design and feasibility report for 2027 street utility improvements.
Governing document for land use, density, and development phasing.
Identified Lions Park as needing an individual master plan.
Budget line item for Lions Park master plan funding.
Mandatory environmental review required for Summergate Assemblage project.
Upcoming Met Council comprehensive plan cycle with new density requirements.