HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-01-14 CC Packet 2Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Site Plan: Pebble Park
Data Scource: Washington County, MN
5-20-2014
0 100 20050 Feet
1"=100'
SSooouurrrcccceee:::EEssrrrii,DDDiigggiittttaaalGGlooobbbeee,GGeeeoooEEyyyeeee,ii-ccuubbbeeeddd,UUSSDDDDAAAA,UUSSGGSS,AAAAEEXX,GGeeettmmaaaappppppiinnggg,AAAAAAeeeeeerrrooooooggggggrriiiddddd,IGGGGGNNNNNNN,IGGGGGPPPPP,sssssssswwwwwiiissssssssssssssttttoooooppppooooo,aaaaaannddddd ttttthheeeee GGGGGISSSSS UUUUssssssseeeeerr CCCCooooommmmmmuuunnniiiitttttyyyyy
12 pt
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
City of Lake Elmo
6-10-2014
Data Scource:
Washington County, MN
Site Plan: Sanctuary Park
K
Lily A
v
e
.
N
.
0 100 20050 Feet
1"=100'
Utility Easement
Sanctuary Park
55 Ft. Buffer Line
Soourrcccee::Esrii,DDiiggiiitaalGloobbee,GeeooEyyeee,ii-cubbeedd,USDDDAAA,USGS,AAEX,Geetmaappppiingg,AAAeeerroooggrriidd,IGN,IGPPP,swisstopo,and tthe GIS User Community
LilyAvAAe.N.
Sanctuary Park
10' wide ADA compliant paved trail to playset $15,900.00
Playstructure & Swingset $40,000.00
Gravel Connecting Trail $3,000.00
Tetherball Equipment $250.00
6' Bench $450.00
$59,600.00
Pebble Park
Zipkrooz $12,630.00
Rocks Playstructure $40,124.00
Picnic Shelter $11,000.00
$63,754.00
Curb & Mulch (Both Parks)$30,000.00
Total $153,354.00
Sanctuary & Pebble Improvement Estimate
Zipkrooz (Pebble Park)
Themed Playground Structure (Pebble Park)
Playground Structure (Sanctuary Park)
Pebble & Sanctuary Park Improvements - Proposed Play Equipment
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 6/23/14
AGENDA ITEM: 4C – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2014-33
ITEM: Hammes Estates Shoreland Variance – PID 34.029.21.13.0001
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
MN DNR
Stephen Mastey, Landscape Architecture, Inc.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request from Hammes West, LLC for a
variance that would allow for a reduced riparian dedication and setback to the southern channel of
Goose Lake. This request is connected to the review of a proposed 163-unit single family
subdivision on the Hammes property in the I-94 Corridor Planning Area.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Hammes West, LLC, 36 Moonlight Bay, Stillwater, MN
Property Owners: Ellie Hammes, 1187 Forest Ave., Maplewood, MN 55109, and Dorothy Lyons,
10105 10th Street North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042.
Location: Part of Section 34 in Lake Elmo, immediately west of Keats Avenue (CSAH
19), approximately 1,300 feet south of 10th Street (CSAH 10), and
immediately south of Goose Lake. PID Number 34.029.21.13.0001.
Request: Variance – Shoreland Ordinance- Request for reduced riparian dedication.
Existing Land Use: Active mining and gravel operation and other vacant land.
Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional District
Surrounding Land Use: North –Goose Lake and Stonegate Residential Estates (RE) subdivision;
west – Stonegate RE subdivision; south – Lennar Savona Urban Low
Density Residential (LDR) subdivision.
Surrounding Zoning: Residential Estates (RE), Urban Low Density Residential (LDR)
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 - less than 4 units/acre)
Proposed Zoning: Urban Low Density Residential (LDR)
History: The site has been historically used as a gravel mining operation. The City received a
Preliminary Plat application for a proposed 163-unit single family subdivision. The
Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat and held a public hearing on
5/12/14. Consideration of the preliminary plat was postponed until
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM
2
additional/updated plans were submitted. The applicants have submitted updated
plans, which will be reviewed at the meeting on 6/23/14.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 6/6/14
60 Day Deadline – 8/5/14
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 10/4/14
Applicable Regulations: 154.450 – Urban Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning District
154.109 – Variances (Administration and Enforcement)
154.800 – Shoreland Management Overlay District
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Hammes West, LLC for a variance to allow for
reduced riparian dedication around the southern channel or finger (Wetland G) of Goose Lake. The
man-made extension of Goose Lake appears to have been dredged in connection with the historic use
of the site as a gravel mine. Whereas the applicants and the City originally determined that Wetland
G was a man-made incidental wetland, governed under the jurisdiction of the Wetland Conservation
Act (WCA), the DNR has submitted a review letter to the City requesting that the 150-foot required
riparian dedication apply to the southern channel of Goose Lake. Due to this change in course and
jurisdiction, the landowner and applicants have now requested a variance to allow for a reduced
riparian dedication around the man-made channel portion of Goose Lake, as shown on the Hammes
Estates Preliminary Plat.
BACKGROUND
Hammes West, LLC has submitted a Preliminary Plat application for a proposed 163-unit single
family residential subdivision for an approximately 80 acre site in Section 34 of the I-94 Corridor
Planning Area. As part of preparing a plat application for this site, the applicants have completed a
wetland delineation and report, identifying all the wetlands by size, type, vegetation and other
characteristics. In relation to the requested variance, the wetland of consequence in this case is
Wetland G, the man-made southern channel of Goose Lake. In the preliminary plans submitted, the
applicants have provided the required amount of wetland buffering as determined under the Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) and Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) rules. However, the
change in jurisdiction from the WCA and VBWD to the Shoreland Ordinance would significantly
impact the Preliminary Plat as submitted, as the required riparian dedication would extend around the
southern channel of Goose Lake. As shown in the Riparian Dedication Sketch (Attachment #5),
riparian dedication around the southern channel would impact 13 lots (Lots 1-6, Block 10 and Lots 1-
5 and 11-12, Block 9) of the proposed Hammes Estates Preliminary Plat. In requesting the variance,
the applicants are proposing to proceed with the proposed buffering as determined under the WCA
and Valley Branch Watershed District rules.
It should be noted that the City updated its shoreland ordinance (Ord. 08-111) on 5/20/14. As part of
the shoreland ordinance update, the concept of riparian dedication was introduced. In areas where
cities are accommodating sewered growth within shoreland areas, riparian dedications or buffers
have been used to ensure natural vegetative buffers for the water body while at the same time
allowing for sewered growth with the minimum standards of the base zoning district. As part of the
shoreland ordinance update, Goose Lake was identified as a lake requiring riparian dedication for the
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM
3
previously stated purpose. Providing a riparian dedication will allow the applicant to proceed with
planned development, but at the same time provide the protection to protect the natural resource. As
part of the Preliminary Plat, riparian dedication is being provided for the southern shore of Goose
Lake, but not the southern channel. The applicants are proposing wetland buffering that is consistent
with the Valley Branch rules and WCA.
Regarding the historical use of the site as a gravel mining operation, it should be noted that there are
challenges, mostly related to depressions and wetlands, present on the subject property that are
unique compared to other properties guided for development. In terms of how the channel was
created, based on historical aerial photography and submitted testimony and evidence, it appears that
the channel was originally created to support the mining activities on the site sometime in the late
1960s or early 70s. Over time, it also appears that the channel was likely expanded. For the purpose
of reviewing the variance, the important characteristic to consider regarding the channel (Wetland G)
is that it is man-made and not a natural part of the original water body. In addition, it should be noted
that in staff’s judgment there are positive benefits in transitioning this property from a mining
operation to single family residential development.
It should be noted that the proposed variance was sent out for review to the DNR and Valley Branch
Watershed District (VBWD). While the VBWD did not provide review comments, the DNR has
reviewed the variance request and recommended denial of the variance. The DNR’s review letter and
follow-up email are found in Attachment #10. According to the DNR letter and email, the southern
channel of Goose Lake is now considered part of the water body and therefore is subject to the same
shoreland rules as the rest of the lake. According to the applicant, this decision represents a change
in direction or guidance from the DNR as they were working to prepare their plat application. The
applicant has provided email correspondence between their environmental consultant, Kelly Bopray,
and the Area Hydrologist, Molly Shodeen to provide background information regarding these
discussions. The applicant has consistently stated to staff that the DNR originally indicated that they
would waive their jurisdiction of the southern channel to the local watershed district. While the email
correspondence does provide background of these discussion, it should be noted that it is difficult to
make conclusive determinations on this point based upon the correspondence. Finally, it should be
highlighted that in the DNR’s email to the City, they suggest that as an alternative to the variance, the
southern channel could be blocked off via a berm to restore Goose Lake to its original boundary. As
the DNR indicates, this process would require a DNR permit and would be considered a restoration.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
In reviewing the applicable codes that apply to the subject property, Staff would like the Planning
Commission to consider the following as it reviews this request:
• Comprehensive Plan. The City’s Comprehensive Plan guides the Hammes site (PID
34.029.21.13.0001) as Urban Low Density Residential. Within this district, single family
residential land uses are permitted at a density of 2.5 to less than 4 units per acre. One of the
key arguments presented by the applicant is that if the area surrounding the channel is set
aside for riparian dedication, the proposed subdivision would fall below the required density
level of 2.5 units per net acre. If the proposed subdivision were reduced by 13 lots, as 13 lots
are impacted by the riparian dedication as demonstrated by the applicant, and the net
developable acreage remained the same, the density would be reduced to 2.37 units per acre.
When removing the acreage of land in the riparian dedication that is considered unbuildable
in addition to the land already in wetland buffers, the resulting net density calculation is 2.46
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM
4
units per acre. No matter how it is calculated, the applicants are correct in that the proposed
project would no longer be technically consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
• Access to Keats Ave. N. (CSAH 19). As the applicants prepared multiple iterations of the
Sketch Plan for Hammes Estates, one of the critical points of review was the location of the
proposed access to Keats Ave. N. (CSAH 19). In reviewing the various iterations of the
Sketch Plan, Washington County required the applicants to move the proposed access to
Keats Ave. to the north to account for access spacing considerations from the future minor
collector road 5th Street. In addition, when the access was proposed more to the south, the
increased grade in that area also presented a concern for the County, necessitating the
northern access location near the northern property boundary. The reason that this component
of the development review is critical in the consideration of the variance request is that the
northern access location requires that the nearby street (Street 1 in the Preliminary Plat) be
located within proximity or parallel to the southern channel of Goose Lake. The applicant
notes in the provided narrative that shifting the entrance street further to the south would
have significant impacts on the plat, either leading to a long stretches of roads (Street 1 and
Street 4) with lots on only one side of the road, or likely lot loss in other areas of the
proposed plat. The applicants have presented access road location as a unique circumstance
not created by the landowner. In reviewing this aspect of the variance application, staff has
found merit in the access location fulfilling the requirement of unique circumstances for the
granting of a variance.
• Wetland Buffering. As shown on the plat and described in the wetland delineation report,
Wetland G requires an average buffer of 75 feet per Valley Branch Watershed District rules.
Per the Preliminary Wetland Buffer Plan (Attachment #2), the applicants are proposing to
increase the existing wetland buffer from 92,054 square feet to 95,313 square feet, with an
average buffer width of 85.3 linear feet. While not meeting the 150-foot riparian dedication,
it should be noted that the applicants are providing buffering that meets the watershed’s
requirements per wetland type/classification. In addition, if the variance is granted, staff is
recommending that the applicants install and maintain additional vegetation and/or prairie
mix to prevent or mitigate any potential erosion or surface runoff into the southern channel.
The recommended planting schedule is outlined in the memorandum from the City’s
landscape architect consultant (Attachment #9). Staff would recommend that if the variance
moves forward, the recommendations of the City’s landscape architect consultant are
incorporated into the updated Landscape Plan for the Hammes Estates development.
• Shoreland Setbacks. The newly adopted shoreland ordinance requires a 200-foot structure
setback for areas subject to riparian dedication requirements. Given the request for a reduced
riparian dedication, a request for a reduced structure setback would also be included. Per the
newly adopted ordinance, the structure setback for a sewered property without riparian
dedication would be 100 feet. In reviewing the 13 lots impacted by riparian dedication, 8
would be able to meet a 100-foot structure setback in staff’s judgment, while the other 5
(Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 10 and Lot 3, Block 9) may have difficulty meeting a 100-foot
setback to Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). However, it should be noted that without a
riparian dedication, the minimum lot sizes would need to be larger to be eligible for the
reduced setback.
• Infrastructure and Planning Efforts. One additional aspect for consideration of the
variance application relates to the significant efforts of the City to plan and install the current
infrastructure that will serve the site. Currently, water and sewer has already been extended
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM
5
to the northeast corner of the site just to the north of the access road (Street 1), and a lift
station has been installed in this location as well. In addition to the City expending
significant resources planning and bonding for these improvements, the landowners are being
assessed for the sewer and water improvements. Staff offers these points of consideration to
highlight the fact that significant efforts have been made to plan for these improvements, the
location of which was selected to serve the proposed development on the Hammes site,
including the areas around the southern channel. Finally, it should be noted that the City has
planned for growth on this site since the adoption of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. Staff
offers these considerations to the Planning Commission as they weigh their recommended
action.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake
Elmo City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to city code requirements can
be granted. These criteria are listed below, along with comments from Staff regarding applicability
of these criteria to the applicant’s request.
1) Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board
of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict
enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to
the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such
actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical
difficulties - “Practical difficulties” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means
that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an
official control.
Under this standard, the City would need to find that allowance for a reduced riparian dedication or
buffering around the man-made channel of Goose Lake is a reasonable use of the property not
otherwise permitted under an official control. Proposed findings related to this criterion are as
follows:
FINDINGS: That the proposed use of thirteen single family residential lots with a reduced riparian dedication and structure setback to Ordinary High Water Level around the southern channel is reasonable because the applicants are planning for a significant riparian dedication along the
southern shore of Goose Lake to meet the intent of the City’s shoreland ordinance. In addition, the
access location to Keats Ave. N. as required by Washington County represents a unique circumstance to the individual property. Finally, the Comprehensive Plan guides the Hammes site as Urban Low Density Residential, and the variance would meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner.
In order to demonstrate compliance with this standard, the Planning Commission would need to
identify those aspects of the applicant’s property that are unique and not created by the landowner. In
this case, staff has identified two circumstances related to the required location of the access road to
Keats Ave. N. (CSAH 19) that are not created by the landowner. Again, Staff is suggesting some
findings that could be considered by the Planning Commission as follows:
FINDINGS: That the applicant’s property is unique in that the required access road to Keats Ave. N. needed to serve the proposed development must be located at the northern boundary of the
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM
6
property. The access location circumstance is not created by the landowners, as 1) the access must meet County access spacing guidelines to 5th Street, the location of which was not selected by the
landowner, and 2) the steeper grades along Keats Ave. N. to the south of the proposed access also
prevents a more southerly access location. The access location to Keats Ave. N. has been directed and approved by Washington County.
3) Character of Locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the
locality in which the property in question is located.
Compared to other water bodies in urban sections of other communities, the vast majority of the land
uses around Goose Lake are a residential estates subdivision, an Open Space Preservation (OP)
subdivision, and other open/agricultural land. If the City were to grant the variance application, the
vast majority of the land around Goose Lake will remain low impact rural land uses. In the judgment
of staff, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Proposed findings
related to this standard is suggested as follows:
FINDINGS: As the subject parcel is planned for Urban Low Density Residential (LDR) development, and the provided wetland buffering consistent with Valley Branch Watershed District
rules should protect the southern made-man channel of Goose Lake, the proposed variance will not
alter the essential character of the locality.
4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the
congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
Proposed findings for this criterion are as follows:
FINDINGS. No impacts to the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties would be expected should the variance be granted. In addition, the proposed variance would not substantially
increase congestion of public streets or substantially diminish property values within the
neighborhood.
Please note that the applicant has also provided a set of findings as part of the attached narrative and
supporting documentation included with the application.
Considering the potential findings of fact as suggested in the preceding section, Staff is
recommending approval of the variance request based on the findings noted in items 1-4 above and
with conditions of approval related to the continued protection, preservation and maintenance of the
southern man-made channel (Wetland G).
DRAFT FINDINGS
Please refer to the comments in the previous section. Staff will be reviewing these findings with the
Commission at its meeting.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request from Hammes
West, LLC for a variance to allow a reduced riparian dedication and reduced structure setback from
the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) around the southern channel of Goose Lake for Lots 1-6,
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM
7
Block 10 and Lots 1-5 and 11-12, Block 9 of the Hammes Plat. This recommendation includes the
following conditions of approval:
1) The applicant shall provide the required wetland buffering for the southern channel (Wetland
G) per the rules Valley Branch Watershed District and Wetland Conservation Act.
2) Any and all buffering around the southern channel of Goose Lake shall be marked and
monumented to prevent encroachment of the channel (Wetland G), as recommended by the
DNR.
3) The applicant shall landscape the buffer area around the southern channel as specified in the
review memorandum by the City’s landscape architect consultant (Attachment #9). The
recommended treatments and plantings for the southern channel buffer area shall be
incorporated into the updated Landscape Plan for the Hammes Estates development.
The suggestion motion for taking action on the Staff recommendation is as follows:
“Move to recommend approval of the request for a variance to allow a reduced riparian dedication around the southern channel of Goose Lake and reduced structure setbacks from OHWL for Lots
1-6, Block 10 and Lots 1-5 and 11-12, Block 9 of the Hammes Estates Plat based on the findings of fact outlined in the Staff Report, and subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by Staff.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Application and Project Narrative
3. Wetland Delineation Report
4. Historical Aerial Photography
5. Riparian Dedication Sketch
6. Applicant Email Correspondence w/DNR
7. Hammes Estates Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Wetland Buffer Plan
8. Site Visit Photos, 6/18/14
9. Landscape Architect Review Memorandum
10. DNR Review Letter and Email
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director
- Report by Staff .................................................. Community Development Director
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Data Source: Washington County, MN
5-9-2014
Location Map: Hammes Estates Plat (PID: 34.029.21.13.0001)
KHammes Property 0 500 1,000250 Feet
1"=500'
Savona
Stonegate
Keats Ave N.10th St. N.
Goose Lake
HAMMES ESTATES VARIANCE NARRATIVE
a. Contact Information:
Owner: Hammes West, LLC
c/o Brian McGoldrick
36 Moonlight Bay
Stillwater, MN 55082
651-387-1000
Owner: Eleanor Hammes
1187 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, MN 55109
With Copy to:
The Afton Law Office
3121 St. Croix Trail South
Afton, MN 55001
651-436-8656
Owner: Dorothy Lyons
10105 – 10th Street
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
With Copy to:
Brian D. Chmielewski
6043 Hudson Road, Suite 340
Woodbury, MN 55125
651-330-7191
Engineer: Westwood Professional Services
Attention: Ryan Bluhm, PE, LEED, AP
7699 Anagram Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
952-906-7432
b. Site Data.
Parcel Size: The parcel size is 78 acres (3,397,680 square feet)
PID: 34.029.21.13.0001
Zoning: Rural Development Transitional District and guided
Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan,
Planned Use section
Legal Description: South ½ of the Northeast Quarter, Section 34, Township 29,
Range 21, except the East 60 feet of the North 967 feet, and
except Parcel 3 of Washington County Highway Right of
Way Plat 49-19B, Washington County, Minnesota.
c. Variance Request: Hammes Estates would like a variance to the Shoreland Ordinance,
and the DNR request, of a 150-foot buffer around the manmade channel (wetland G) off
the southern portion of Goose Lake.
d. Proposal. To provide a 75-foot average buffer around the manmade channel in Goose
Lake as required by Valley Branch watershed.
e. Pre-Application Discussions with Staff. On June 3rd, 2014, we met with staff to discuss
the 150-foot buffer requested by the DNR, and how it would impact the project. Our site
plan has always intended a buffer from the existing southern shoreline of the lake, but
the channel, being as it is manmade (see attached Wetland Delineation report), was
believed to be held to alternate buffer requirements. After reviewing the impact of the
150-foot buffer to the proposed site plan (see attached DNR buffer sketch), and based on
our discussions with city staff, it was agreed that a variance of shoreland ordinance would
be appropriate in this case.
f and g. Practical Difficulties of this site/Circumstances Unique to the property
The buffer would impact approximately 13 lots, which will limit the overall density of the
project to levels below what was required by the Met Council. Due to the presence of
additional onsite wetlands, required wetland buffers, and a 100-foot green space buffer,
the additional density cannot be made up onsite. Additionally, the location of the project
entrance along Keats Avenue was required by Washington County. The proximity of this
entrance location to that of the proposed buffer creates further difficulties. Street 1
would need to be redesigned to be shifted further south, and a number of streets would
no longer have lots on both sides of the street. The resulting design would no longer have
the neighborhood feel that was intended. Please refer to the attached DNR Setback
sketch shows the proposed impact of the 150’ foot buffer for additional information.
h. Granting of this Variance. By granting this variance, we would be able to design this
project to the concept plan supported by city staff. The project would not change from
what has previously been reviewed.
i. The proposed project does not conflict with any of the nearby land uses. Significant
efforts have been made to minimize disturbance to the adjoining development to the
north and west. By granting this variance, we would be able to comply with the density
requirements of the city and met council of this parcel. We are only hoping to preserve
our project density, not increase it beyond what has been previously proposed. A 75’ foot
average buffer would be placed around the man-made channel. The buffer would be
planted with native grasses, and would comply with Valley Branch watershed district. Our
project would provide a 150-foot buffer from the southern shoreline of Goose Lake,
excluding the man made channel.
7699 Anagram DriveEden Prairie, MN 55344
PHONE 952-937-5150FAX952-937-5822TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150
From:Kelly Bopray
To:Ryan M. Bluhm
Subject:Fw: Hammes Sand & Gravel Site wetland delineation
Date:Friday, May 30, 2014 3:28:30 PM
1 of 5
Kelly Bopray
Bopray Environmental Services, LLC
kjbopray@yahoo.com
715-307-4577
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Shodeen, Molly (DNR)" <molly.shodeen@state.mn.us>
To: Kelly Bopray <kjbopray@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 3:05 PM
Subject: RE: Hammes Sand & Gravel Site wetland delineation
Kelly, do we have any idea when the channel was excavated? I can’t believe we would issue a permit for it
From: Kelly Bopray [mailto:kjbopray@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 8:16 PM
To: Shodeen, Molly (DNR)
Cc: Kevin Wold
Subject: Fw: Hammes Sand & Gravel Site wetland delineation
Molly,
Karen Wold copied you on the NOA for the Hammes site in Lake Elmo that I'm working on. Karen's email includes
a link to where you can down load the whole wetland report if you want it. I've attached a couple of the pertinent
documents for you to review.
Wetland G on the site includes a man-made channel that connects Goose Lake to a preexisting wetland in a gravel
mined area of the site. For WCA purposes wetlands created by mining are not regulated. But the channel area was
created below the OHW of Goose Lake so that would be under DNR regulations unless you are inclined to defer
jurisdiction to the LGU. The engineer is starting to work on site designs and one thought was to cut the channel off
from the lake again as one way to improve water quality of the lake by protecting it from stormwater run off the
development of the site. I'd like to have a discussion with you at your earliest convenience about how you like to
proceed with jurisdiction and and if the DNR keeps jurisdiction how this man-made channel might be treated in the
permitting process.
When you can could you give me a call or respond to this email?
Thanks
Kelly Bopray
Bopray Environmental Services, LLC
kjbopray@yahoo.com <mailto:kjbopray@yahoo.com>
715-307-4577
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Karen Wold <KWold@barr.com <mailto:KWold@barr.com> >
To: 'Jed Chesnut' <jchesnut@mnwcd.org <mailto:jchesnut@mnwcd.org> >; "'Rodacker, Dennis (BWSR)'"
<Dennis.Rodacker@state.mn.us <mailto:Dennis.Rodacker@state.mn.us> >; "Kelly Bopray (kjbopray@yahoo.com
<mailto:kjbopray@yahoo.com> )" <kjbopray@yahoo.com <mailto:kjbopray@yahoo.com> >; "'Shodeen, Molly
(DNR)'" <molly.shodeen@state.mn.us <mailto:molly.shodeen@state.mn.us> >; "'Hingsberger, Thomas J MVP'"
<thomas.j.hingsberger@usace.army.mil <mailto:thomas.j.hingsberger@usace.army.mil> >
Cc: John P. Hanson <JHanson@barr.com <mailto:JHanson@barr.com> >; "'jbg@aftonlaw.net'" <jbg@aftonlaw.net
<mailto:jbg@aftonlaw.net> >
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:28 PM
Subject: Hammes Sand & Gravel Site wetland delineation
Attached is the Notice of Application for the Hammes Sand & Gravel Site wetland delineation within Valley Branch
Watershed District in Lake Elmo, Washington County. The site location map is also attached. The wetland
delineation report is too large to send through email. It is available on my ftp site at:
ftp://user.barr.com/
user name: ksw
password: ftpksw
in the Hammes Site wetland delineation folder
If you would like a paper copy of the report, please contact Kelly Bopray at kjbopray@yahoo.com
<mailto:kjbopray@yahoo.com>
Please contact me if you are interested in participating in a site review of the delineation. Let me know when you are
available within the next couple of weeks.
Karen Wold
Senior Environmental Scientist
Barr Engineering Co.
4700 West 77th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55435
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
office: 952.832.2707
toll-free: 800.632.2277
cell: 651.307.4394
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
kwold@barr.com <mailto:kwold@barr.com>
www.barr.com <http://www.barr.com/>
From:Kelly Bopray
To:Ryan M. Bluhm
Subject:Fw: Hammes sand and gravel
Date:Friday, May 30, 2014 3:28:48 PM
2 of 5
Kelly Bopray
Bopray Environmental Services, LLC
kjbopray@yahoo.com
715-307-4577
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Kelly Bopray <kjbopray@yahoo.com>
To: molly.shodeen@state.mn.us
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 4:03 PM
Subject: Hammes sand and gravel
Molly,
I'm not sure on when the channel was excavated. I think in the mid to late 60's. I included some historical aerials in
my last email, and you can clearly see it's not there in 57 and 64. I 'm in the field and don't recall what year the
channel shows up.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
From:Kelly Bopray
To:Ryan M. Bluhm
Subject:Fw: Hammes gravell mine
Date:Friday, May 30, 2014 3:26:17 PM
Attachments:3 figure 1.doc
7 figure 5.doc
3 of 5
Kelly Bopray
Bopray Environmental Services, LLC
kjbopray@yahoo.com
715-307-4577
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Kelly Bopray <kjbopray@yahoo.com>
To: "molly.shodeen@state.mn.us" <molly.shodeen@state.mn.us>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 1:56 PM
Subject: Hammes gravell mine
Molly,
Aattached are a couple more maps. The Figure 1 shows the general location of the site and Goose lake to the north
in Lake Elmo, just north of I94 and near the intersection of Keats Ave and 10th St. The DNR number is 113w.
At this point they are beginning concept planning for the development of the site. They would like to separate the
excavated channel from Goose lake so that stormwater ponding could be done in the area before the water
discharges to Goose Lake. If the DNR retaines jurisdiction and takes the position that fill can not be placed below
the OHW obviously the property owner will have to make other plans. If the DNR waves jurisdiction of the
channel to the LGU then part of the channel would be incidental and a berm could be built across the channel and
the surrounding uplands would be excavated for ponding purposes.
I'll try to call you tomorrow morning.
Kelly Bopray
Bopray Environmental Services, LLC
kjbopray@yahoo.com
715-307-4577
From:Kelly Bopray
To:Ryan M. Bluhm
Subject:Fw: Hammes gravell mine
Date:Friday, May 30, 2014 3:31:04 PM
4 of 5
Kelly Bopray
Bopray Environmental Services, LLC
kjbopray@yahoo.com
715-307-4577
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Shodeen, Molly (DNR)" <molly.shodeen@state.mn.us>
To: Kelly Bopray <kjbopray@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 2:02 PM
Subject: RE: Hammes gravell mine
Let’s talk tomorrow, I have a meeting now
From: Kelly Bopray [mailto:kjbopray@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 1:56 PM
To: Shodeen, Molly (DNR)
Subject: Hammes gravell mine
Molly,
Aattached are a couple more maps. The Figure 1 shows the general location of the site and Goose lake to the north
in Lake Elmo, just north of I94 and near the intersection of Keats Ave and 10th St. The DNR number is 113w.
At this point they are beginning concept planning for the development of the site. They would like to separate the
excavated channel from Goose lake so that stormwater ponding could be done in the area before the water
discharges to Goose Lake. If the DNR retaines jurisdiction and takes the position that fill can not be placed below
the OHW obviously the property owner will have to make other plans. If the DNR waves jurisdiction of the
channel to the LGU then part of the channel would be incidental and a berm could be built across the channel and
the surrounding uplands would be excavated for ponding purposes.
I'll try to call you tomorrow morning.
Kelly Bopray
Bopray Environmental Services, LLC
kjbopray@yahoo.com <mailto:kjbopray@yahoo.com>
715-307-4577
From:Kelly Bopray
To:Ryan M. Bluhm
Subject:Fw: Hammes Gravel Site
Date:Friday, May 30, 2014 3:31:13 PM
5 of 5
Kelly Bopray
Bopray Environmental Services, LLC
kjbopray@yahoo.com
715-307-4577
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Kelly Bopray <kjbopray@yahoo.com>
To: "jbg@aftonlaw.net" <jbg@aftonlaw.net>; Todd Erickson <terickson@ffe-inc.com>
Cc: "kwold@barr.com" <kwold@barr.com>; "molly.shodeen@state.mn.us" <molly.shodeen@state.mn.us>
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 1:20 PM
Subject: Hammes Gravel Site
Jim, Todd,
After playing phone tag for a week or so, I was finally able to talk to Molly Shodeen (DNR Area Hydrologist) about
the Hammes site and specifically the excavated channel from Goose Lake to Wetland G. I said we did not have any
firm plans yet but we were forming our development strategy for the site. Ideally we would like to isolate the
channel from Goose Lake for as part of the stormwater management when the site is developed. We believe this
will help improve water qualtity for the lake as opposed to preserving the channel and it's direct discharge to the
lake.
As we discussed, Molly indicated the DNR would likely waive their jurisdiction over the channel to the WCA
LGU. That would allow the opportunity to impact the incidental portions of Wetland G (the excavated channel) to
achieve the site development water management goals.
Kelly Bopray
Bopray Environmental Services, LLC
kjbopray@yahoo.com
715-307-4577
7699 Anagram Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
PHONE 952-937-5150
FAX 952-937-5822
TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150
7699 Anagram Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
PHONE 952-937-5150
FAX 952-937-5822
TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150
Looking west across southern channel Looking south down southern channel
Looking north up southern channel into towards Goose Lake Southern tip of southern channel (Wetland G)
Goose Lake Southern Channel: Site Visit, 6/18/14
From:Shodeen, Molly (DNR)
To:Nick Johnson
Cc:Kyle Klatt; Dean Zuleger; Petrik, Daniel (DNR)
Subject:RE: June Land Use Review
Date:Monday, June 16, 2014 12:07:19 PM
Attachments:image002.jpg
Thanks Nick, as I said in my last letter, we believe that the 150’ riparian dedication must be applied to the manmade
channel/southern extension of the lake. DNR permit rules consider anything that is dredged and attached to the lake
to be part of the lake, and as such must meet any setback requirements, as well as in this case, the 150’ buffer
requirement. We do not see that there are practical difficulties beyond financial for issuing the variance and we
recommend that the variance be denied. We consider the Met Council argument to be a bit weak as there are other
developments coming up that will get you to your projections.
As an alternative, we would request that a berm be placed across the access channel to restore the Goose Lake basin
to what it was. The photos show that it was excavated sometime between the 60’s and 90’s without any DNR
permits. A permit would be needed to close it off, but we would consider it to be a restoration. The photos also
show that originally in 1991 there was a very narrow connection which was again illegally widened since 1991 to
its current configuration.
As far as the ordinance goes, we need to meet to discuss any and all changes that you have made unless you have a
strike through version to show the changes. I need to discuss your reaction to my suggested changes that were not
made in the final ordinance. For any buffer implementation, we request that it be marked and monumented to
prevent encroachment over time. As previously stated, we would like to see that right in the ordinance.
You also need to request implementation flexibility as part of the request to approve the ordinance. It is a letter
asking that we consider allowing flexibility for the city to deviate from the statewide standards. The letter needs to
detail what the request is, and how it will afford additional protection for the resources to justify the flexibility.
From: Nick Johnson [mailto:NJohnson@lakeelmo.org <mailto:NJohnson@lakeelmo.org> ]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:07 PM
To: Shodeen, Molly (DNR); John Hanson (jhanson@barr.com <mailto:jhanson@barr.com> )
Cc: Kyle Klatt; Dean Zuleger
Subject: June Land Use Review
Molly and John,
Please see the attached land use review for the June 23rd Planning Commission meeting. If possible, please send
review comments by Wednesday, June 18th. Hard copies are being placed in the mail today to your office.
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Nick M. Johnson | City Planner
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
njohnson@lakeelmo.org <mailto:njohnson@lakeelmo.org>
(w) 651-747-3912 | (f) 651-747-3901
www.lakeelmo.org <http://www.lakeelmo.org>
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 6/23/2014
AGENDA ITEM: 5A – BUSINESS ITEM
CASE # 2014-14
ITEM: Hammes Estates Residential Subdivision – Preliminary Plat cont.
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a Preliminary Plat application from Hammes
West, LLC for a 163-unit single family residential development to be located on 78.1 acres
immediately west of Keats Avenue (CSAH 19) and within Stage 1 of the City’s I-94 Corridor
Planning Area. The Planning Commission previously reviewed the application and held a public
hearing on 5/12/14, at which time consideration of the plat application was postponed. The
applicant has since resubmitted preliminary plans to address outstanding issues identified in the
review on 5/12/14. Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to compliance with 15
conditions as noted in this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Hammes West, LLC, 36 Moonlight Bay, Stillwater, MN 55082.
Property Owners: Ellie Hammes, 1187 Forest Ave., Maplewood, MN 55109, and Dorothy Lyons,
10105 10th Street North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042.
Location: Part of Section 34 in Lake Elmo, immediately west of Keats Avenue (CSAH 19),
approximately 1,300 feet south of 10th Street (CSAH 10), and immediately south
of Goose Lake. PID Number 34.029.21.13.0001.
Request: Application for preliminary plat approval of a 163-unit single family residential
subdivision to be named Hammes Estates.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Active mining and gravel operation and other vacant land.
Current Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional Zoning
District; Proposed Zoning: LDR - Urban Low Density
Residential
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North –Goose Lake and Stonegate Residential Estates (RE)
subdivision; west – Stonegate RE subdivision; south – Lennar
Savona Urban Low Density Residential (LDR) subdivision.
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 – 4 units per acre).
BUSINESS ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
2
History: Preliminary Plat review and public hearing on 5/12/14. Sketch Plan review by
Planning Commission on 6/24/13. Sketch Plan review by the Park Commission on
7/15/13 and 1/30/14.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 5/2/2014
60 Day Deadline – 6/30/14
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 8/29/14
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (LDR)
§150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment
Article 17 – Shoreland Management Overlay District
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Hammes West, LLC for a preliminary plat to
subdivide approximately 78 acres of land located within the I-94 Corridor planning area into 163
single family lots. The proposed plat would be located on property currently owned by the Hammes
family, and would be located immediately west of Keats Avenue (CSAH 19), approximately 1,300
feet south of 10th Street (CSAH 10), and approximately ½ of a mile north of the I-94 right-of-way.
The Planning Commission previously reviewed the Hammes Estates Preliminary Plat on 5/12/14, at
which time a public hearing was held. At the meeting, the Planning Commission postponed
consideration of the plat application until revised plans were submitted to address critical outstanding
issues. The applicant resubmitted Preliminary Plans (Sheets 1-18) on 6/6/14 to address the concerns
identified by the Planning Commission. Staff has found that the resubmitted plans address many of
the more glaring concerns of the previous plat submission. Based upon review of the plat, the
resubmitted plans will meet all applicable City requirements for conditional approval, and any
deficiencies or additional work that is needed is noted as part of the review record. It is staff’s
expectation that all the deficiencies and requested revisions will be resolved in advance of Final Plat.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
In order to clearly present how the applicant has addressed the issues identified by the Planning
Commission, as well as the other conditions of approval identified in the Staff Report dated 5/12/14,
staff has provided the below table to identify how the various issues have been resolved. In order to
review the previous Staff Report, dated 5/12/14, the materials for the May 12th meeting our posted on
the City’s website under Planning Commission agendas. In addition to the staff explanation, the
applicant has also identified how the previously recommended conditions of approval have been
addressed with a response letter dated 6/11/14 (Attachment #2). The resubmitted plat has addressed
the several of the conditions of approval in the following manner:
Condition (Staff Report dated 5/12/14) Response/Result
Condition #4: The approval of the
Preliminary Plat is contingent upon the
City approving a revised shoreland
ordinance that would allow for the lot
The City of Lake Elmo adopted a new shoreland
ordinance (Ord. 08-111) on 5/20/14, allowing for use
of base zoning district standards with riparian
dedication. However, the DNR has submitted a letter
BUSINESS ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
3
sizes proposed in the portion of the
Hammes Estates subdivision located
within the shoreland district.
requesting riparian dedication around the southern
man-made channel of Goose Lake. The applicant has
applied for a variance to allow reduced riparian
dedication around the southern channel. If the City
grants the variance, this issue will be resolved. If the
City does not grant the variance, the plat can be
recommended for approval conditioned upon the
southern channel being closed off from Goose Lake
via a berm as recommended by the DNR.
Condition #5: The applicant shall
submit evidence that a Phase I
Environmental Review if the site has
been completed and that further
environmental review is not necessary.
The applicant has provided a City with a certified copy
of the Phase I Environmental Review for the Hammes
site. The report was produced by Element Materials
Technology on March 10, 2014. The conclusions of
the environmental assessment identify no recognized,
controlled or historical environmental conditions of
the property. The Assessment concludes that no
additional investigation or evaluation is warranted
based on the findings of the Phase I Environmental
Review.
Condition #7: The applicant shall
provide for a minimum green belt/buffer
of 100 feet around all of the adjacent
Stonegate subdivision, and must either
revise the preliminary plat in the vicinity
of Lot 16, Block 1 to properly account
for this buffer or provide evidence to the
City of any acquired open space
easements from the adjacent property in
the Stonegate subdivision.
The applicant has revised the preliminary plat in the
southwest corner of the plat to provide a continuous
100-foot green belt, as specified in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Condition #9: The utility plan shall be
updated to relocate/add fire hydrants to
meet spacing requirements and ensure
ideal operational effectiveness per the
direction of the Lake Elmo Fire Chief.
The utility plans have been revised to add and relocate
fire hydrants per the specifications of the Fire Chief.
Condition #13: The developer shall be
required to submit an updated parkland
dedication calculation in advance of
Final Plat.
The applicant has submitted an updated parkland
dedication calculation (Attachment #4), resulting in an
eligible dedication of approximately 5.7 acres. With
this level of eligible dedication, the developer would
be responsible to pay fees in lieu of land dedication in
an amount equal to the fair market value of the
remaining required dedication of 2.1 acres (7.8 acres
(required dedication) – 5.7 acres (provided) = 2.1 acres
remaining)
Condition #14: Any land under which
trails are located will be accepted as park
land provided the trail is located within a
This condition is no longer necessary as the applicant
has submitted an updated parkland dedication
calculation documenting the areas that will be
BUSINESS ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
4
dedicated outlot and the developer
constructs the said trails as part of the
public improvements for the subdivision.
accepted as parkland dedication. For trails that are
constructed by the developer but not located within
dedicated outlots, staff would recommend the City
consider some parkland credit for the construction and
dedication of these trails to the City’s public trail
system.
Condition 16a: For trails in wetland
buffers, the applicant must present a
suitable design that is acceptable to the
City and Valley Branch Watershed
District.
The applicants are currently showing the limited trail
segment in wetland buffer as a mowed or woodchip
trail, which would meet VBWD rules. The City would
recommend that this design is finalized in advance of
Final Plat (Condition #12).
Condition 16b: The trail segment
aligned to the north of Wetland A must
be revised to be aligned to the south of
the wetland due to concerns of the High
Water Level.
The applicant has revised this segment of the trail to be
located to the south of Wetland A.
Condition 16c: The trail segment
between Lots 14 and 15, Block 2 shall be
located on a 30-foot outlot dedicated to
the City.
The applicant has provided the requested outlot
(Outlot E) for the trail in between Lot 14, Block 2 and
Lot 11, Block 3 at the end of Street 9.
Condition 18a: The Preliminary Plat
must be revised to meet City standard
requirements for utility easements.
The applicant has revised the Preliminary Plat to
provide the requested utility easements.
Condition 18c: The Preliminary Plat
must be revised to remove the Street 1
right-of-way from the minimum 25-foot
Wetland Buffer of Wetland B. The
entire street right-of-way must be
relocated outside of the minimum
wetland buffer.
The applicant has revised the Preliminary Plat to shift
Street 1 to the north to maintain a 25-foot minimum
wetland buffer outside of the Street 1 right-of-way.
Condition 18e: The Grading and Storm
Water Management Plan must be revised
so that the subgrade of Street 1 is above
the HWL for infiltration basin 5A on
Outlot D.
The applicant states in his narrative that they will work
with the City Engineer on a suitable design to
effectively protect the road subgrade. Staff is
comfortable making this a conditional approval
through addressing the review comments found in the
City Engineer’s review memo dated 6/16/14 in
advance of Final Plat.
Condition 18f: Maintenance access
roads must be relocated or improved to
meet City standard requirements.
The applicants has revised the Preliminary Plat to
provide maintenance access roads that meet City
standards.
Condition 18g: The Preliminary Plat
must be revised to provide additional
details for the proposed improvements to
the City park property at Goose Lake.
The applicants have provided an illustrative park plan
to show their desired vision for the park property. The
proposed park still does not contain a play structure.
Staff would recommend that a play structure is
BUSINESS ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
5
somehow incorporated into the design in advance of
Final Plat to be consistent with the recommendation of
the Park Commission. In addition, the Engineer has
requested additional information for the park property
related to grading and 100-year flood elevations. Staff
is recommending that an agreed upon park design be
approved in advance of Final Plat.
The conditions and their status outlined in the above table highlight the key revisions to the plat that
were included as part of the resubmitted Preliminary Plans. In Staff’s judgment, the applicants have
met the City’s request for updated Preliminary Plans. However, it is important to note that some of
the original conditions that were recommended as part of the Staff Report dated 5/12/14 still apply,
while others may need to be slightly modified. In order to further explain some key issues and
review items that inform the recommended conditions of approval, staff would offer the following
review comments:
• Goose Lake Southern Channel - Shoreland Variance. In the previous review of the
Preliminary Plat, staff recommended that approval of the preliminary plat be conditioned on
the City adopting a new shoreland ordinance. Since that time, the City adopted new shoreland
regulations (Ord. 08-111) that include provisions requiring riparian dedication around lakes
within close proximity to urban planning areas in Lake Elmo. By dedicating more than 150’
of riparian area on the southern shore of Goose Lake, staff determined that the riparian
dedication requirement had been met. However, the City received a review letter from the
DNR stating that the shoreland provisions would apply to the southern man-made channel of
Goose Lake in addition to the southern shoreline. According to the applicant, previous
discussion with the DNR led them to believe that the Wetland Conservation Act and Valley
Branch Watershed District would have jurisdiction over the southern channel, necessitating
the rules of the WCA and VBWD. However, the DNR is recommending that the shoreland
provisions apply to the southern channel. In order to address this request, the applicants have
submitted a variance application citing practical difficulties and unique circumstances. Staff
is recommending approval of the variance. If the City grants a variance to the applicant to
allow reduced riparian dedication around the southern channel, then the shoreland issue will
be resolved. However, if the City recommends denial of the variance, then an alternative
design or mitigation strategy will be required. In the DNR’s review letters (Attachment #7),
they recommend as an alternative to the variance that a berm be used to close off the channel
from Goose Lake. This action would be considered a restoration and would need permitting
from the DNR. If the variance application related to the shoreland provisions around the
southern channel is recommended for denial, Staff would recommend to the Planning
Commission to add a 16th condition requiring the applicant to restore original shoreline of
Goose Lake per the recommendation of the DNR. This path should allow the preliminary
plat to move forward as it is currently designed with the condition of completing the
restoration of Goose Lake.
• Landscaping and Tree Preservation. As part of the effort to resubmit Preliminary Plans, the
applicant did not resubmit new Landscaping and Tree Preservation Plans. In reviewing these
plans as part of the previous Preliminary Plat submittal that was reviewed on 5/12/14, the
City’s landscape consultant noted that the provided landscape material did not meet the
requirements of the City’s ordinance (landscape consultant’s memo is Attachment #6). At
BUSINESS ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
6
the meeting on 5/12/14, staff recommended a condition of approval that the Landscape Plan
shall be updated per the recommendations of the City’s landscape consultant. As the
landscape plans have not been resubmitted, it should be noted that staff is recommending that
this condition (#6) remain in place per the review of the City’s landscape consultant.
• City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has provided the Planning Department with a
detailed review memorandum (Attachment #5), dated 6/16/14, as a summary of his review of
the Preliminary Plans. The vast majority of the issues identified are technical in nature,
mostly relating to storm sewer and storm water management. Staff is confident that these
issues can be resolved in advance of Final Plat. To resolve these issues in advance of Final
Plat, Staff has included a general condition (Condition #4) that all issues identified in the City
Engineer’s memo dated 6/16/14 must be addressed by the applicant prior to approval of a
final plat for any portion of the Hammes Estates subdivision. In addition, in regards to storm
water management, the applicants still are required to meet the rules and regulations of the
Wetland Conservation Act and Valley Branch Watershed District (Condition #8)
• Improvements to Keats Ave. N. (CSAH 19). Washington County previously submitted a
memo, dated May 6, 2014, detailing the required improvements to Keats Ave. at the access
location for the Hammes Estates neighborhood. Staff is recommending that the Preliminary
Plat approval is conditioned upon the applicant completing the requested improvements to
Keats Ave. (Condition #7)
Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat
with 15 conditions intended to address the outstanding issues noted above and to further clarify the
City’s expectations in order for the developer to move forward with a Final Plat. The recommended
conditions are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) Within six months of preliminary plat approval, the applicant shall complete the following:
a. The applicant shall provide adequate title evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney.
b. The applicant shall submit a revised Preliminary Plat and plans meeting all conditions
of approval. All of the above conditions shall be met prior to the City accepting an
application for Final Plat and prior to the commencement of any grading activity on
the site.
2) The City Engineer shall review and approve all revised Preliminary Plans that are submitted
to the City in advance of Final Plat to satisfy Condition #1.
3) The Preliminary Plat approval is conditioned upon the applicant meeting all minimum City
standards and design requirements.
4) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review letter
dated June 16, 2014 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to consideration of a Final Plat.
5) Prior to the acceptance of the public improvements for the Hammes Estates plat, all wetland
buffers shall be delineated and identified via staking or signage that is acceptable to the City.
BUSINESS ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
7
6) The landscape plan shall be updated per the recommendations of the City’s landscape
consultant in a review memo dated 5/7/14.
7) The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of all improvements within the Keats
Avenue (CSAH 19) right-of-way as required by Washington County and further described in
the review letter received from the County dated May 6, 2014. The required improvements
shall include, but not be limited to: construction of a modified median crossing, construction
of a trail/sidewalk to the south side of the median, turn lanes, and other improvements as
required by the County.
8) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland
Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from Valley Branch Watershed
District prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site.
9) Landscape islands shall be platted as part of the right-of-way and shall be maintained by the
Home Owners Association. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the
City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in areas
outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the final plat.
10) With an eligible parkland dedication of 5.7 acres provided, the applicant is responsible to pay
a fee in lieu of land dedication for the equal market value amount of 2.1 acres of land at the
time of the Final Developers Agreement. The City will work with the developer to clarify any
and all park fee payments at the time of the Final Developers Agreement.
11) No more than 100 units may be approved as part of a final plat until secondary access is
provided to the subdivision via a connection to 5th Street through the Savona subdivision.
12) For trails proposed to be located in any wetland buffer, the applicant must present a suitable
design or material that is acceptable to the City and Valley Branch Watershed District.
13) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the
commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City
Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said
plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site.
14) The applicant must incorporate a play structure into the proposed park at Goose Lake per the
request of the Lake Elmo Park Commission. Furthermore, the applicant must submit an
updated design of the park property that meets City approval in advance of Final Plat.
15) The applicant shall work with the Planning Staff to name all streets in the subdivision prior to
submission of a Final Plat.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the proposed Hammes Estates preliminary plat:
• That the Hammes Estates Preliminary Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive
Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
BUSINESS ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
8
• That the Hammes Estates Preliminary Plat complies with the City’s LDR- Urban Low
Density Residential zoning district.
• That the Hammes Estates Preliminary Plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Hammes Estates
Preliminary Plat with the 15 conditions recommended in the Staff Report. Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Hammes Estates Preliminary Plat with the 15 conditions of approval as drafted by Staff based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Westwood Response Letter, dated 6/11/14
2. Updated Preliminary Plat and Plans (18 sheets)
3. Illustrative Park Plan
4. Land Credit Exhibit w/Area Calculation
5. City Engineer Review Memorandum, dated 6/16/14
6. Landscape Consultant Memorandum, dated 5/7/14
7. DNR Review Letters
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
BUSINESS ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 5/12/2014
AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2014-14
ITEM: Hammes Estates Residential Subdivision – Preliminary Plat
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Ann Pung-Terwedo, Washington County
John Hanson, Valley Branch Watershed District
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
Stephen Mastey, Landscape Architecture, Inc.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a Preliminary Plat request from Hammes West,
LLC for a 164-unit single family residential development to be located on 78.1 acres immediately
west of Keats Avenue (CSAH 19) and within Stage 1 of the City’s I-94 Corridor Planning Area.
Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to compliance with 19 conditions as noted in
this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Hammes West, LLC, 36 Moonlight Bay, Stillwater, MN 55082.
Property Owners: Ellie Hammes, 1187 Forest Ave., Maplewood, MN 55109, and Dorothy Lyons,
10105 10th Street North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042.
Location: Part of Section 34 in Lake Elmo, immediately west of Keats Avenue (CSAH 19),
approximately 1,300 feet south of 10th Street (CSAH 10), and immediately south
of Goose Lake. PID Number 34.029.21.13.0001.
Request: Application for preliminary plat approval of a 164-unit single family residential
subdivision to be named Hammes Estates.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Active mining and gravel operation and other vacant land.
Current Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional Zoning
District; Proposed Zoning: LDR - Urban Low Density
Residential
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North –Goose Lake and Stonegate Residential Estates (RE)
subdivision; west – Stonegate RE subdivision; south – Lennar
Savona Urban Low Density Residential (LDR) subdivision.
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 – 4 units per acre).
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
2
History: Sketch Plan review by Planning Commission on 6/24/13. Sketch Plan review by the
Park Commission on 7/15/13 and 1/30/14.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 5/2/2014
60 Day Deadline – 6/30/14
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 8/29/14
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (LDR)
§150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Hammes West, LLC for a preliminary plat to
subdivide approximately 78 acres of land located within the I-94 Corridor planning area into 164
single family lots. The proposed plat would be located on property currently owned by the Hammes
family, and would be located immediately west of Keats Avenue (CSAH 19), approximately 1,300
feet south of 10th Street (CSAH 10), and approximately ½ of a mile north of the I-94 right-of-way.
The 78 acre parcel has historically been used as a gravel mining operation. Activity has recently
ceased and the landowner has proceeded with reclamation work related to rebalancing and grading
the site. This work is permitted under the active mining permit for the Hammes properties.
The preliminary plat has been developed in response to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which
identifies the applicant’s property for urban low density residential development. The plat
incorporates 164 single family lots, most of which are designed with widths of 75 or 81 feet.
In terms of access, the preliminary plat shows a connection to Keats Avenue in the northeastern
portion of the plat. In addition to the Keats Ave. connection, the proposed plat on the Hammes site
will be connected to the approved Savona single family subdivision via two north-south local roads
(Streets 1 and 5), which ultimately connect to the 5th Street minor collector road.
This subdivision is the City’s second subdivision that will receive public sanitary sewer service,
which has been made available to the site via the nearly completed Section 34 429 Public Utility
Project. The improvements constructed as part of the Section 34 Utility Project include a new sewer
lift station that is sited on the property adjacent to Goose Lake just north of the eastern portion of the
Hammes property. The utility project also includes the construction of a sewer main that will
connect to the regional sewer interceptor within the Eagle Point Business Park, and the extension of
water lines that will provide a connection to the City’s water system. At present, the City’s water for
this area is provided by the City of Oakdale. However, Lake Elmo’s long-range water plans call for
an eventual connection to the City’s water system via a new trunk line along Inwood Avenue. There
is enough capacity in the Oakdale system to provide water to the Hammes development and a
significant portion of the Stage 1 portion of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area until Lake Elmo can
make the needed connections to its system. Sewer for the Hammes site is accessible near the location
of the lift station in the northeastern potion of the property, and water main is accessible along the
Keats Ave right-of-way in the southeastern portion of the site.
One of the other major features of the proposed subdivision is a series of outlots that will provide for
open space, trails, and storm water management throughout the development area. Based on multiple
reviews of the proposed parkland dedication with the Lake Elmo Park Commission, the applicant is
proposing an extensive system of trails within the development, with the main trail being sited within
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
3
the 100-foot buffer/greenway area along the border of the Stonegate subdivision in the western and
northern portions of the property. This buffer/greenway is consistent with the land use guidance of
the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the applicant is proposing park related improvements at the
City owned parcel on Goose Lake, including a shelter and a fishing pier. All outlots that are planned
for park land or storm water use will be deeded to the City, while the future home owner’s
association will retain ownership of the remaining outlots.
Due to the former use of the site as a gravel mining operation, the applicants have stated that a Phase
1 environmental review of the site has been completed. The purpose of such review is to test the site
and soils for any hazardous or harmful materials related to the previous use of the site as a sand and
gravel mine. In order to ensure that the site complies with all pertinent environmental requirements
and regulations of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Washington County Health
Department, staff would recommend that the applicants submit evidence that a Phase 1
Environmental Review has been completed and that further environmental review is not necessary.
Evidence of environmental review must be provided in advance of Final Plat.
The applicant is proposing to bring forward a final plat for the Hammes Estates development in
stages, starting in the northeast corner of the site. The applicants have identified the area in the
southeast portion of the plat as a future phase project due to necessary settling of the soils that must
occur in that location.
In addition, the applicant has noted that the proposed builders of the residential homes in the
subdivision will consist of a mix of one national builder, Ryland Homes, and other custom or local
builders. In the narrative, the applicants have noted that the custom and local builders will build on
lots closer to the Stonegate subdivision. The intent of this strategy is to offer greater variety and
transition from the existing rural subdivision of Stonegate to the urban low density site to the south
being developed by Lennar Homes.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
The Hammes site is guided for urban low density development in the City’s Comprehensive Plan,
and the applicant will be required to zone the site LDR – Low Density Residential at some point in
the future (prior to Final Plat approval). The overall subdivision plan has therefore been prepared in
order to comply with the district standards for the LDR zoning district in terms of lot size, lot widths,
building setbacks, and other design criteria.
The arrangement of lots and blocks loosely follows two primary streets (Street 1 and Street 2), both
of which follow curvilinear alignments. The proposed plat also includes three cul-de-sacs (Streets 4,
8 and 9), all of which meet the City’s maximum length of 600 feet for lots less than 2.5 acres in size.
It should be noted that two of the three cul-de-sacs within the plat are connected to the greater
trail/sidewalk system through trail connections at the end of the streets. All other streets have been
designed to comply with the City’s current street standards. In terms of the overall design of the
proposed subdivision, the location of the streets and lots are strongly guided by the 7 existing
wetland on the site. Per Valley Branch Watershed District rules, the applicant is required to provide
buffering of various sizes around the wetlands depending on wetland size, and type. The location of
the wetlands and the required buffers have a large impact on the design of the subdivision.
Sidewalks and trails are planned throughout the subdivision. The proposed plans provide for
sidewalks on one side of all streets, which is consistent with the Staff recommendation for sewered
single family residential subdivisions. In terms of proposed trails, all are designed to be eight feet in
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
4
width and constructed of bituminous asphalt, which is consistent with City standard. In addition to
the buffer/greenway trail, the proposed subdivision includes trails connecting cul-de-sacs on Streets 9
and 4, as well as a trail along the Keats Ave. corridor that is consistent with the same planned
improvement as part of the Savona subdivision to the south. Finally, there is also a linkage trail
provided between Lots 12 and 13, Block 11 to provide internal access to the subdivision from the
Keats Ave. trail.
A typical lot building plan (detail) is included as part of the attached subdivision packet, and each lot
as depicted in the plans includes a description of the lot size, dimensions, and all required setbacks.
There are three general lot sizes proposed for the single family area with average dimensions of 75
by 140 feet, 81 by 140 feet and 85 feet by 140 feet. All of the lots meet the City’s minimum area
requirement of 8,000 for single family lots in a LDR district, with the smallest lot (Lot 15, Block 1)
proposed at 9,836 square feet. The site plans further illustrate that throughout the single family area
the lots will average 12,285 square feet, which exceeds the minimum requirements by a fairly wide
margin. The median lot size within the development is 11,736 sq. ft. and the largest lot in the
development (Lot 13, Block 11) is 21,941 sq. ft.
The following is a general summary of the subdivision design elements that have proposed as part of
the Hammes preliminary plat and plans:
Zoning and Site Information:
• Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional District
• Proposed Zoning: LDR - Urban Low Density Residential
• Total Site Area: 78.1 acres
• Total Residential Units: 164
• Proposed Density (Net): 2.60 units/acre
Proposed Lot Dimensional Standards:
• Min. Lot Width: 75 ft.
• Lot Depth: 140 ft. typical
• Lot Area: 8,000 sq. ft. (9,836 min.)
• Front Yard Setback: 25 ft.
• Side Yard Setback: 7.5 ft. (average)
• Rear Yard Setback: 20 ft.
Proposed Street Standards:
• ROW Width – Local 60 ft. (per Subdivision Ordinance)
• Street Widths – Local: 28 ft.(per City standard)
The standards listed above are all in compliance with the applicable requirements from the City’s
zoning and subdivision regulations. Based on Staff’s review of the preliminary plat, the applicant
has demonstrated compliance with all applicable code requirements at the level of detail that is
required for a preliminary plat.
As with any new subdivision the City Code requires that a portion of the plat be set aside for public
park use. In this case, the applicant has indicated that certain outlot areas will be dedicated to the
City for this purpose, including portions of Outlots A and B. Since a large portion these areas
represent green belt or trail corridors and are not suitable for other types of active recreation usage, it
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
5
is Staff’s recommendation that the City only accept the trail corridors as part of the park land
dedication requirements if the developer constructs the planned trail over these areas in conjunction
with other required infrastructure improvements. As a general policy, Staff is recommending that the
City consider accepting smaller land dedications in exchange for a more robust and connected trail
system that will provide access to the City’s numerous parks (including the regional park preserve).
This recommendation is consistent with the general policy direction of the Park Commission and
results of the 2013 City Park Survey.
The Subdivision Ordinance requires 10% of the land in urban residential districts to be set aside as
open space, which totals 7.8 acres. On the plans (sheet 3), the applicant has noted that 8.15 acres of
land associated with the greenbelt/buffer have been dedicated as park. If this calculation is accurate,
then the required land dedication has been satisfied. However, sufficient detail regarding the
calculation for public land dedication has not been provided. Staff would recommend that the
applicant must submit a detailed and updated parkland dedication calculation in advance of Final
Plat. Upon review of the updated calculation, if any gap exists between the eligible land dedication
provided and the required land dedication amount, the applicant will be required to submit a fee in
lieu of land dedication to satisfy the total land dedication requirement (10%) per the Subdivision
Ordinance.
It is also important to note that a large portion of the Hammes property is currently in the shoreland
district due to its proximity to Goose Lake. As the City’s existing shoreland ordinance does not
include standards for subdivision of properties in shoreland districts to be served by sanitary sewer,
the existing ordinance does not provide solid guidance in this case. In an effort to update the City’s
shoreland standards, staff presented a draft shoreland ordinance to the Planning Commission on April
28, 2014. One of the key features of the draft ordinance was the provision of 150’ riparian buffers
for surface waters, including Goose Lake, located within the City’s urban planning areas (I-94
Corridor and Village). Seeking additional guidance and feedback on the draft ordinance, City staff
met with Molly Shodeen, the Area Hydrologist for the DNR, on April 29, 2014. Ms. Shodeen was
familiar with the provision of riparian buffers in urban areas, a strategy that has been used
successfully in Woodbury and other cities. In addition to reviewing the draft ordinance, staff also
shared the Hammes Estates preliminary plat with the DNR. When reviewing the Hammes plat, it is
clear that a 150-foot riparian buffer would be maintained with the current configuration of lots and
outlots. City staff requested review comments for the plat from the DNR and have not received any
review or feedback at this time. Moving forward, staff intend to hold a public hearing on the draft
shoreland ordinance on May 28th, 2014. In order to ensure conformance to the City’s shoreland
rules, staff would recommend that the approval of the Preliminary Plat is contingent upon the City
approving a revised shoreland ordinance to allow for the lot sizes proposed in the portion of the
Hammes Estates subdivision that is in the shoreland district.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
City Staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat, which has gone through several versions in
advance of the formal application being accepted as complete by the City. During the course of these
reviews, several of the issues and concerns that were pointed out by Staff have been addressed by the
applicant with updated submission documents. However, there are other elements of the plat that
remain in conflict with City or Valley Branch Watershed District standards, which must still be
addressed or corrected by the applicant. In general, the proposed plat will meet all applicable City
requirements for conditional approval, and any deficiencies or additional work that is needed is noted
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
6
as part of the review record. Staff recognizes that this plat requires a number of revisions that will
need to be resolved in advance of Final Plat.
The City has received a detailed list of comments from the City Engineer and the Washington
County concerning the proposed subdivision, in addition to general comments from the Valley
Branch Watershed District, Fire Chief, and the City’s landscape consultant, Stephen Mastey, all of
which are attached for consideration by the Commission.
In addition to the general comments that have been provided in the preceding sections of this report,
Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the issues and comments related to the
following discussion areas as well:
• Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan for this area and with the densities that were approved as part of this
plan. The net densities for the development fall within the range allowed for the urban low
density land use category. Other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan relate to the Hammes
Estates subdivision as follows:
o Density Calculation. The subject property is guided Urban Low Density Residential
in the Comprehensive Plan, which allows for a density range of 2.5-4.0 units/acre
(net). The applicants have completed the density calculation using the methodology
consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s practice. The resulting net density
calculation resulted in a net density of 2.60 units/acre (164 units/63.03 net
developable acres). Therefore, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
guidance of the Comprehensive Plan.
o Parks. The City’s park plan identifies proposed location for neighborhood parks
based on the anticipated population that should be served by each park. The plan
calls for one additional parks in the vicinity of the Hammes Estates Plat. As noted
earlier by Staff, the Park Commission did review the Hammes Estates Sketch Plan on
two occasions and unanimously approved the proposed park facilities to be included
in the plat contingent upon construction of a shelter, fishing pier, various trail
connections, and playground equipment on the site adjacent to Goose Lake.
o Water. Water will be provided to this area via existing watermain along Inwood
Avenue. The Hammes Estates subdivision will be able to be served under the City’s
current agreement with the City of Oakdale until the Inwood extension is completed.
o Sanitary Sewer. The Hammes Estates subdivision will be served by sanitary sewer
that will connect to the lift station constructed as part of the Section 34 utility project.
All of the wastewater will flow to the lift station in the northeast boundary of the site
via gravity sewer main.
o Phasing. The Hammes Estates subdivision is located within the Stage 1 phasing area
for the I-94 Corridor and therefore the proposed development is acceptable as the
second development within the planned urban residential areas.
• Zoning. The proposed zoning for the Hammes Estates site will be LDR – Low Density
Residential. The submitted development plans demonstrate compliance with the City’s urban
residential zoning requirements. Single family detached housing is a permitted use within the
LDR zoning district.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
7
• Subdivision Requirements. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance includes a fairly lengthy list
of standards that must be met by all new subdivisions, and include requirements for blocks,
lots, easements, erosion and sediment control, drainage systems, monuments, sanitary sewer
and water facilities, streets, and other aspects of the plans. For instance, the Ordinance
includes limitations on the maximum length of a block (1,800 feet), and based on the spacing
of the proposed streets, the Hammes Estates plat complies with this requirement. The
majority of these requirements have been addressed as part of the City Engineer’s comments
(which are summarized below) or have been reviewed as part of Staff’s ongoing
communications with the applicant regarding the project.
• Infrastructure. The developer will be required to construct all streets, sewer, water, storm
water ponds, and other infrastructure necessary to serve the development.
• Wetlands and Wetland Buffers. Due to the existence of 7 wetlands (A-G) on the site, the
applicant is required to provide substantial buffering around these wetlands to comply with
watershed district rules concerning wetland buffering. In order to demonstrate that adequate
buffering has been achieved, the applicant has submitted a preliminary wetland buffer plan
(sheets 11-12). This plan documents the proposed buffers intended to meet the VBWD rules.
In addition, the applicant is proposing to include minimal portions of wetland buffers on a
small number of private lots. As a broad policy, City staff are opposed to allowing substantial
buffering on private lots. However, if done on a very limited amount of lots and restrained to
the typical drainage and utility easement areas, staff has been willing to accept minimal
wetland buffering on a limited number of properties. To illustrate where the proposed
buffers encroach on private lots, the applicants have submitted a Wetland Buffer
Encroachment Sketch (Attachment #4). This exhibit documents that wetland buffers
encroach only within the normal drainage and utility easements of 16 total lots (Lot 3, Block
6, Lots 2 and 3, Block 5, Lots 17 and 16, Block 2, Lots 8-11, Block 6 and Lost 1-7, Block 7).
In order to protect these areas within private lots, staff required these areas to be located
within the normal drainage and utility easements. In addition, staff would recommend that
prior to the acceptance of the public improvements for the Hammes Estates plat, all wetland
buffers shall be delineated and identified via some form of staking or signage that is
acceptable to the City. In addition, it should be noted that the minimum 25’ wetland buffer
for Wetland B encroached on the City’s public right-of-way of Street 1. The encroachment
of the minimum buffer does not comply with City standards, and staff is recommending that
Street 1 be shifted north/revised. Further details on this specific encroachment are found the
review comments of the City Engineer.
• Trails. The applicants are proposing an extensive system of trails throughout the
development. Staff reviewed the proposed trails and has the following comments:
o The proposed buffer trail that aligns to the north of Wetland A appears to encroach
into the High Water Level (HWL) of Wetland A. Staff is recommending that the trail
be aligned to the south of Wetland A within an outlot dedicated to the City.
o In several instances, trail are proposed to encroach on wetland buffer areas. Per
Valley Branch Watershed District rules, no impervious surface is allowed within
required wetland buffers. In order to allow for trails in any wetland buffer, the
applicant must present a suitable design or material for proposed multi-purpose trails
in buffer areas that is acceptable to the City and VBWD. In addition, staff
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
8
recommends that the applicant limit the encroachment of trails into buffer areas to the
greatest extent possible.
o The proposed trail that connects the cul-de-sac on Street 9 to Street 1 is currently
shown is being located within dedicated easements to the City. In meeting with the
applicant, staff agreed to allow the trail to be located on dedicated easements between
Lots 6-9 on Block 5. However, City staff did request that the trail segment between
Lots 14 and 15, Block 2 be located on a dedicated 30-foot outlot. Staff would
recommend that this revision be completed to ensure maximum amount of trail are in
dedicated outlots to the City as per staff recommendation.
o In terms of the buffer/greenway trail, staff recognizes that the City has received
requests in the past from Stonegate residents to keep the trail located in the southern
portion of the greenway/buffer. However, in the instance of the trail north of
Wetland F, the trail has been located on the City-owned park property in the northern
portion of the greenway due to the required wetland buffers surrounding Wetlands F
and G. If the trails were to be located in the southern portion of the greenway in this
area, the trails would not be allowed to be constructed of bituminous or any other
type of impervious surface. In other words, some type of boardwalk trail or other
design would be required. From a maintenance perspective, this design is not ideal
for the City, as maintenance activity is also restricted within wetland buffers. For
these reasons, staff is recommending that the greenway trail be located on the City
owned property.
• Landscaping and Tree Preservation. The landscape and tree preservation plans have been
reviewed by the City’s consulting landscape architect, Stephen Mastey. Mr. Mastey’s review
memorandum related to the landscape and tree preservation plans is found in Attachment
#6e. The most critical component of Mr. Mastey’s review relates to the fact that the total
amount of trees/plant material proposed for the subdivision does not currently meet the
requirements of the City’s Landscape and Tree Preservation Ordinances. More specifically,
the landscape plan as proposed is 149 trees short of the City’s requirements. In the narrative,
the applicants request some flexibility from total number of plantings due to the City’s
ordinances being amended since the last subdivision (Savona) was approved. It is accurate
that the City has adopted new landscaping standards and tree preservation requirements since
the Savona development was approved. However, in the professional judgment of Mr.
Mastey, the City’s requirements are fair and reasonable compared to other metro
communities. For this reason, staff is recommending that the applicant revise the landscape
plan through one of the following methods outlined in Mr. Mastey’s review memo to make
up the difference for the required trees/plant materials. In addition, any updates to the
landscape plan should identify location of species of various plant material, landscape
irrigation plans, as well as seed or planting plans around storm water facilities, all of these
recommendations per Mr. Mastey. The applicants’ consultant is advised to contact Mr.
Mastey with any questions and/or recommendations.
• Green Belt/Buffer. The Comprehensive Plan identifies an area north and west of the
Hammes Estates plat as a greenway/buffer space with a minimum width of 100 feet. The
Hammes subdivision includes an area that has been design to comply with this aspect of the
Comprehensive Plan. However, there is one lot (Lot 16, Block 1) where the green belt as
shown does not appear to meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff would
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
9
recommend that the plans are revised in advance of final plat to meet the requirement of the
Comprehensive Plan. As an alternative to this requirement, the applicant could submit
evidence of an open space easement acquired from the adjacent property owner in the
Stonegate subdivision to fulfill the 100’ required greenbelt dimension next to Lot 16, Block 1
of the Hammes plat.
• Streets. The proposed street system has been designed to comply with all applicable
subdivision requirements and City engineering standards. It should be noted that the
applicants are planning a temporary cul-de-sac or turn around on Street 2 to the north of the
Future Phase boundary (see sheet 4). Staff would recommend that the design of the
temporary cul-de-sac meet the approval of the City Engineer, Public Works Superintendent
and Fire Chief.
• Secondary Access. In order to ensure effective traffic circulation and appropriate access for
emergency services, staff recommends providing secondary access to the site at the earliest
convenience/phasing possible. As part of the Savon Final Plat, a connection to Street 5
within the Hammes plat was provided. This connection will likely be the best opportunity to
provide secondary access to the site, as the connection through the Savona development
provides access to the 5th Street minor collector road. Staff would recommend that only a
certain threshold or number of units are platted before secondary access is provided.
• Street Names. Staff is recommending that the street names for the proposed subdivision
follow the Washington County street naming system. As a condition of approval, Staff is
asking that the applicant continue to work with the City at developing street names for the
project, and that these names be included with the final plat submission.
• City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has provided the Planning Department with a
detailed comment letter (Attachment #6a) as a summary of his preliminary plat review. Staff
has incorporated the more significant issues identified by the Engineer as part of the
recommended conditions of approval, and has also included a general condition that all issues
identified by the City Engineer must be addressed by the applicant prior to approval of a final
plat for any portion of the Hammes Estates subdivision. The Engineer notes that several of
the City’s standards are not currently met, and the necessary revisions and corrections must
be made in advance of Final Plat.
• Fire Department Review. The Fire Chief has reviewed the plat and has requested that the
locations of the proposed fire hydrants be revised to comply with the City’s requirements.
More specifically, the Fire Chief has identified multiple hydrant locations that do not meet
the criteria for required spacing or are in locations that are not ideal for operation
effectiveness. The Fire Chief’s review memo is Attachment #6d. Staff is recommending that
the applicant revise the location of the proposed hydrants at the direction of the Fire Chief.
• Washington County Review. County Staff has reviewed the Hammes Estates plat and
provided specific comments to the City in a letter dated May 6, 2014. The most significant
of the County’s concerns is that the applicant will need to make improvements to the County
road system in order to provide the necessary access to Hammes Estates. As a condition of
approval, Staff has noted that the applicant will be responsible for including all
improvements to Keats Ave. (CSAH 19) as required by the County as part of the construction
plans for the development, and that the developer will be responsible for constructing these
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
10
improvements, which will include the modification of the median crossing within the CSAH
19 right-of-way, the installation of turn lanes into the development, and construction of a
trail/sidewalk into the south side of the median.
• Watershed Districts. The project area lies within the Valley Branch Watershed District
(VBWD). John Hanson, the VBWD Engineer, has provided informal comments and emails
to staff regarding the project (Attachment #6c). Per VBWD’s informal comments, the
proposed plat conflicts with required standards and VBWD rules. The developer must meet
all VBWD rules and will need to secure permits from the VBWD in order to proceed with the
development as planned.
Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat
with 19 conditions intended to address the outstanding issues noted above and to further clarify the
City’s expectations in order for the developer to move forward with a final plat. The recommended
conditions are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) Within six months of preliminary plat approval, the applicant shall complete the following:
a. The applicant shall provide adequate title evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney.
b. The applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat and plans meeting all conditions
of approval. All of the above conditions shall be met prior to the City accepting an
application for final plat and prior to the commencement of any grading activity on
the site.
2) The City Engineer shall review and approve all revised Preliminary Plans that are submitted
to the City in advance of Final Plat to satisfy Condition #1.
3) The Preliminary Plat approval is conditioned upon the applicant meeting all minimum City
standards and design requirements.
4) The approval of the Preliminary Plat is contingent upon the City approving a revised
shoreland ordinance that would allow for the lot sizes proposed in the portion of the Hammes
Estates subdivision located within a shoreland district.
5) The applicants shall submit evidence that a Phase 1 Environmental Review of the site has
been completed and that further environmental review is not necessary. Evidence of
environmental review must be provided in advance of Final Plat.
6) Prior to the acceptance of the public improvements for the Hammes Estates plat, all wetland
buffers shall be delineated and identified via staking or signage that is acceptable to the City.
7) The applicant shall provide for a minimum green belt/buffer of 100 feet around all of the
adjacent Stonegate subdivision, and must either revise the preliminary plat in the vicinity of
Lot 16, Block 1 to properly account for this buffer or provide evidence to the City of any
acquired open space easements from the adjacent property in the Stonegate subdivision.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
11
8) The landscape plan shall be updated per the recommendations of the City’s Landscape
consultant.
9) The utility plan shall be updated to relocate/add fire hydrants to meet spacing requirements
and ensure ideal operational effectiveness per the direction of the Lake Elmo Fire Chief.
10) The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of all improvements within the Keats
Avenue (CSAH 19) right-of-way as required by Washington County and further described in
the review letter received from the County dated May 6, 2014. The required improvements
shall include, but not be limited to: construction of a modified median crossing, construction
of a trail/sidewalk to the south side of the median, turn lanes, and other improvements as
required by the County.
11) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland
Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from Valley Branch Watershed
District prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site.
12) Landscape islands shall be platted as part of the right-of-way and shall be maintained by the
Home Owners Association. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the
City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in areas
outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the final plat.
13) The developer shall be required to submit an updated parkland dedication calculation in
advance of Final Plat. Upon submission of the calculation, if the amount of eligible parkland
that is dedicated does not equal the required total land dedication of 7.8 acres, the applicant
will be required to pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication equivalent to the fair market value
for the amount of land required to meet the total dedication requirements less the eligible
land dedicated for park purposes. Any cash payment in lieu of land dedication shall be paid
by the applicant prior to the release of the final plat for recording.
14) Any land under which public trails are located will be accepted as park land provided the trail
is located within a dedicated outlot and the developer constructs said trails as part of the
public improvements for the subdivision.
15) No more than 100 units may be approved as part of a final plat until secondary access is
provided to the subdivision via a connection to 5th Street through the Savona subdivision.
16) Modifications to the proposed trails in the subdivision shall include the following:
a. For trails proposed to be located in any wetland buffer, the applicant must present a
suitable design or material that is acceptable to the City and Valley Branch
Watershed District. In addition, staff recommends that the applicant limit the
encroachment of trails into buffer areas to the greatest extent possible.
b. The trail segment aligned to the north of Wetland A must be revised to be aligned to
the south of the wetland due to concerns of the High Water Level. The trail shall be
located within an outlot dedicated to the City.
c. The trail segment between Lots 14 and 15, Block 2 shall be located on a 30-foot
outlot dedicated to the City.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
12
17) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the
commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City
Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said
plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site.
18) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review letter
dated May 8, 2014 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to consideration of a final plat.
Specific requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. The Preliminary Plat must be revised to meet City standard requirements for utility
easements.
b. The Preliminary Plat must be revised to incorporate the necessary improvements to
Keats Ave. (CSAH 19) as required by Washington County
c. The Preliminary Plat must be revised remove the Street 1 right-of-way from the
minimum 25-foot buffer for Wetland A. The entire street right-of-way must be
relocated outside of the minimum wetland buffer.
d. The grading plan must be revised to meet the Valley Branch Watershed District
standards for grading within wetland buffers.
e. The Grading and Storm Water Management Plan must be revised so that the subgrade
of Street 1 is above the HWL for infiltration basin 5A on Outlot D.
f. Maintenance access roads must be relocated or improved to meet City standard
requirements.
g. The Preliminary Plat must be revised to provide additional details for the proposed
improvements to the City park property adjacent to Goose Lake and the City’s lift
station to demonstrate that the improvements can be completed as shown.
19) The applicant shall work with the Planning Staff to name all streets in the subdivision prior to
submission of a final plat.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the proposed Hammes Estates preliminary plat:
• That the Hammes Estates preliminary plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive
Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
• That the Hammes Estates preliminary plat complies with the City’s LDR- Urban Low
Density Residential zoning district.
• That the Hammes Estates preliminary plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
13
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Hammes Estates
preliminary plat with the 19 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Hammes Estates preliminary plat with the 19 conditions of approval as drafted by Staff based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Application Forms and Project Narrative
3. Preliminary Plat and Plans (25 sheets)
4. Wetland Buffer Encroachment Sketch
5. Hammes Wetland Report
6. Review Comments:
a. City Engineer
b. Washington County
c. Valley Branch Watershed District
d. Fire Chief
e. Landscape Consultant
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Data Source: Washington County, MN
5-9-2014
Location Map: Hammes Estates Plat (PID: 34.029.21.13.0001)
KHammes Property 0 500 1,000250 Feet
1"=500'
Savona
Stonegate
Keats Ave N.10th St. N.
Goose Lake
HAMMES ESTATES NARRATIVE
a. Contact Information:
Owner: Hammes West, LLC
c/o Brian McGoldrick
36 Moonlight Bay
Stillwater, MN 55082
651-387-1000
Owner: Eleanor Hammes
1187 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, MN 55109
With Copy to:
The Afton Law Office
3121 St. Croix Trail South
Afton, MN 55001
651-436-8656
Owner: Dorothy Lyons
10105 – 10th Street
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
With Copy to:
Brian D. Chmielewski
6043 Hudson Road, Suite 340
Woodbury, MN 55125
651-330-7191
Engineer: Westwood Professional Services
Attention: Ryan Bluhm, PE, LEED, AP
7699 Anagram Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
952-906-7432
b. Site Data.
Parcel Size: The parcel size is 78 acres (3,397,680 square feet)
PID: 34.029.21.13.0001
Zoning: Rural Development Transitional District and guided
Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan,
Planned Use section. It is anticipated the zoning will be
changed to LDR, Low Density Residential in conjunction
with the preliminary plat process.
Legal Description: South ½ of the Northeast Quarter, Section 34, Township
29,
Range 21, except the East 60 feet of the North 967 feet,
and
except Parcel 3 of Washington County Highway Right of
Way Plat 49-19B, Washington County, Minnesota.
c. General Information:
Proposed Name: Hammes Estates
Proposed Lots: 165
Open Space: 20+ acres
d. Issues since Sketch Plan. At the sketch plan stage, Lake Elmo Planning staff
requested a buffer for the Stonegate neighborhood on the north and west as well as a
small playground, such as a “tot lot”, for use by residence in the existing
neighborhood. The current plan has extensive trails throughout a linear park and
encompasses a 20+ acre buffer between the Hammes and Stonegate developments. A
small community play area with fishing pier is planned on the northeast corner of the
property along the city-owned parcel.
e. Intent of Project. The intent of the project is to convert a prior mining operation into a
progressive, thriving community encompassing a broad range of home with varying
values. The project is structured to utilize various lot sizes and designs together with a
buffer zone to enhance the open space between the new lots and the adjoining
neighborhood.
f. Proposed Density. All of the lots will meet or exceed the minimum standards of the LDR
Low Density Residential zoning district. The density of the project is 2.11 units per gross
area and 2.67 units per net area. These are within the density allowed in the
Comprehensive Plan (2.5 per 4 units of net density allowed.) The average lot width for
the custom lots are approximately 82 feet and the average lot width for the national
builder lots is 75 feet. The minimum lot area within the LDR is 8,000 square feet;
therefore, no variance or exceptions are anticipated.
g. Proposed Infrastructure Improvements and Phasing.
The project intends to use sanitary sewer and water which have been installed by the
City of Lake Elmo on the east side of the 78-acre parcel.
The owners plan to begin reclamation of the mining site in mid-March, which shall
encompass moving and testing of approximately 500,000 yards of fill that have been
brought into the site.
The homes will be accessed by streets designed with the new standard urban street
section. This will feature concrete curb and gutter sections where appropriate with
bituminous surfacing and sections built to the depth and thickness appropriate for the
traffic anticipated.
The storm water facilities will be designed in accordance with the requirements of the
Valley Branch Watershed District.
The project shall include walking/hiking trails proposed to be bituminous surface 8 feet
wide.
The first phase will include 50 custom lots and 70 national builder lots, primarily in the
northern one half of the 78-acre site.
The project includes extensive efforts to save and replenish as many trees as possible
under the following guidelines:
Tree Replacement requirements (based on current plans – efforts to save more trees
will continue to be refined):
· 958 caliper inches of plantings need to be replaced
· Equivalent amount of tree plantings = 383 trees (at minimum size of 2-1/2”)
Landscape Requirements:
· 5 trees per disturbed acre = 336 trees (minimum size of 2-1/2”)
· 1 street tree every 50’ of street frontage = 328 trees (minimum size of 2-1/2”)
· TOTAL = 664 trees
Landscape and Tree Replacement Proposed:
· Street Trees: 348trees (approx. 50’ on center)
· Other overstory trees: 51 trees (green & open space areas)
· Future Yard trees (2 per lot, by builder): 330 trees (in either front or back yards)
· Evergreen Trees: 129 trees (mostly buffer trees)
· Ornamental Trees: 40 trees (accent trees)
· TOTAL TREES PROVIDED: 898 Trees Total
The current proposal is 149 trees short of the new requirements, however, the
applicant is requesting some flexibility in meeting these guidelines due to the
following factors:
The old code required 6 trees per disturbed acre and one boulevard tree for
every 50 feet utilizing 1” to 1½” trees. The new code requires minimum size of 2½””
trees and does not allow any of the tree replacement planting to satisfy the
landscape requirements. The new tree requirements result in the applicant
being forced to plant double the amount of trees than the adjoining development.
h. Neighboring Property Issues. The only issue raised in response to the original proposal
was the impact on the Stonegate development to the north and west. In order to
address these concerns, the plan includes a transitional area along the 20 acre buffer
with custom builder lots that are substantially larger than the lots in the southern
portion of the development. This transition approach is designed to accentuate the
buffering that was envisioned by the City to keep the newer projects from creating
negative impacts on the existing homes.
i. Conflicts with Nearby Land Uses. The proposed project does not conflict with any of
the nearby land uses. The development to the south is a higher density development
than what this development. Significant efforts have been made to minimize
disturbance to the adjoining development to the north and west.
A wetland delineation has been completed, and the project will meet all requirements
of the Valley Branch Watershed District to minimize disturbances to and protect the
existing wetlands and natural areas.
j. No Excess Burden. The phasing of the project and build-out of the infrastructure should
not place any excessive burden on the Lake Elmo facilities and services since Lake Elmo
has been mandated and anticipated the increase in residents to the community.
k. Proposed Lakeshore Access. The proposed project includes a small park in the
northeast corner which shall include a small parking area, picnic tables and kayak/canoe
racks and a small dock for use by the residents of the development. Access to this park
will be from a short driveway immediately entering the development in the northeast
corner - (lift station in on the south side of our entrance.
l. Proposed Parks and/or Open Space. The project includes approximately 20 acres of
open space with 13.6 acres for parks, comprised of the outlot areas less any wetland
and infiltration/ponding acres below the normal water level. In addition, there is other
open space of 2.16 acres of ponding and infiltration areas below the normal water level.
m. Proposed Development Schedule.
x Preliminary Plat Submittal – March 7, 2014
x Valley Branch Submittal – March 7, 2014
x Planning Commission/City Council Meeting – Early to Mid-April, 2014
x Submit Final Plat for Initial Phase – May 5, 2014
x Complete Site Grading for the Initial Phase – June 15, 2014
x Final Plat Review Planning Commission/City Council Meetings – mid-June, 2014
x Start utilities/street work – June 15, 2014
x Street work complete – August 31, 2014
Hammes PropertyLake Elmo, MN6/03/2014Illustrative Park Plan0002905Westwood Professional Services7699 Anagram DriveEden Prairie, MN 55344PHONE 952-937-5150FAX 952-937-5822TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150www.westwoodps.com0‘50‘ 100‘ 150‘NKEATS AVE NPark(City Property)Goose LakeInfiltrationInfiltrationPondTRAILBufferFishing PierBoardwalkCanoe RackGrill StationPicnic Table16x24 ShelterParking(18 stalls)8’ BituminousTrailExisting Lift StationWeWWstwoodProfessional ServicesiBBBBBBBBBooooooaaaaaarrrrrrddddddddddwwwwwwaaaaaallllllllllkkkkkkkkkkInfiltration50‘100‘150‘NBufferFishing PierCanoe RackWetland BoardwalkWoodland TrailPark ShelterGrillPicnic Table
Westwood Professional Services
7699 Anagram Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
PHONE 952-937-5150
FAX 952-937-5822
TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150
www.westwoodps.com
NHammes Property
Lake Elmo, MN
06-17-2014
Land Credit Exhibit
0002905 0‘200‘400‘600‘
100’ Greenway
Buffer (TYP.)
100’ Greenway
Buffer (TYP.)
30’ Trail Outlot
(TYP.)
100’ Greenway
Buffer (TYP.)
Pond
Wet. Buffer
Wet. Buffer
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wet. Buffer
From:Ryan M. Bluhm
To:Nick Johnson
Subject:FW: 0002905 Land Credit Exhibit Update
Date:Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:35:29 PM
Attachments:0002905 Land Credit Exhibit 200sc 14-06-17.pdf
Attached is the revised plan. Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Eggert
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 3:26 PM
To: Ryan M. Bluhm
Subject: RE: 0002905 Land Credit Exhibit Update
Total Area: 250,100 sf
5.7 ac
Steven Eggert
Project Planner
Landscape Architecture
Westwood Professional Services
Serving clients across the Nation
DIRECT 952-906-7458
MAIN 952-937-5150
FAX 952-937-5822
WEB www.westwoodps.com
EMAIL steven.eggert@westwoodps.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan M. Bluhm
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:57 PM
To: Steven Eggert
Subject: FW: 0002905 Land Credit Exhibit Update
FYI, can you make the changes
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Johnson [mailto:NJohnson@lakeelmo.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:38 PM
To: Ryan M. Bluhm
Cc: Kyle Klatt
Subject: RE: 0002905 Land Credit Exhibit Update
Ryan,
Attached is a sketch of what I think is appropriate. Near the cul-de-sac trail, the portion of the trail that is on private
lots is not eligible for land dedication credit. In addition, along the northern greenway, areas that are within
wetland buffers do not qualify, as it is encumbered land that the City could not do improvements on. The same
applies for land that is dedicated within a utility easement for example. If the land is encumbered, it is not eligible
per our ordinance.
Does this make sense? Hopefully we can square this figure away so we are all on the same page.
PAGE 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 16, 2014
To: Nick Johnson, City Planner Re: Hammes Estates
Cc: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Preliminary Plat Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Hammes Estates development. Preliminary Plans were
received on June 11, 2014. The submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by Westwood
Professional Services, Inc.:
Revised Preliminary Plans dated 06.06.2014.
Revised preliminary Storm Water Runoff Narrative, dated 06.11.2014.
Plan revision response letter dated 06.11.2014.
STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering review comments are as outlined below. Comments that are underlined
indicate potential site plan changes that may impact the preliminary or final plat:
UTILITY PLANS AND EASEMENTS
A 12‐inch watermain stub should be extended east along Street 1 to the intersection and County R/W of
Keats Avenue for future extension to the east side of CSAH 19.
The 8‐inch watermain line from the Street 8 cul‐de‐sac to the Street 9 cul‐de‐sac passes directly under
infiltration basin 1 and does not maintain the state required 10‐foot offset from storm sewer pipe. An
alternate alignment or alternate loop connection will need to be determined as part of the final
construction plans.
The sanitary sewer segment along the east side of Lot 6, Block 6 needs to move further east to maintain
additional offset from the Lot 6 property line.
Additional plan information is needed to evaluate impacts to the City’s sewer, forcemain and lift station
infrastructure by the proposed Park improvements.
A few additional easements or pipe alignment adjustments will be needed. These adjustments do not
appear to create site plan difficulties and can be completed as part of the final construction plans.
Along the 42‐inch storm sewer pipe behind Lots 2‐6, Block 10.
At the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 10.
Along the rear yard of Lot 17, Block 11.
STORM SEWER SYSTEM
The storm sewer system or grading plans must be revised to provide the City standard minimum pipe
cover of 3.5 feet. Throughout the site plan the storm sewer minimum cover has not been provided. It
appears that additional cover can be easily accomplished in most areas. However a few areas will require
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4285
PAGE 2 of 2
site plan design changes to provide an acceptable storm sewer system design that integrates properly
with the street section, drain tile connections and other utilities.
Drain tile is required as part of the City standard street section at all localized low points in the street.
Drain tile considerations may impact the storm sewer design and depth requirements.
CSAH 19 (KEATS AVENUE) IMRPOVEMENTS
Written documentation is required to demonstrate Washington County approval for the proposed access
to Keats Avenue together with any County requirements. Turn lane, by‐pass lane and other improvements
on CSAH 19 as required by Washington County must be identified and incorporated into the plans.
Street 1 improvements must extend into the County Road R/W and connect to CSAH 19 including turning
radii and drainage provisions.
WETLANDS AND WETLAND BUFFERS
VBWD requires a minimum 25‐foot buffer when buffer averaging is used. In addition, the VBWD does not
allow impervious surfaces to be placed on wetlands or wetland buffers.
The wetland buffer for Wetland G encroaches over the proposed trail between Lot 6, Block 10 and Lot 12,
Block 9.
GRADING AND STORM WATER MANGEMENT
Erosion Control Plans were not reviewed at this time. A detailed review will be completed with the review
of the Final Construction Plans.
The site plan is dependent upon and subject to the storm water management plan meeting the VBWD
rules and regulations. Storm water facilities proposed as part of the site plan to meet VBWD permitting
requirements must be constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual.
Plan modifications may be necessary to meet these requirements and standards and must be completed
prior to grading operations or start of construction.
Additional information is needed to complete a review of the proposed storm water management plan
and to verify the proposed grading.
Wetland A area: The existing HWL for Wetland A appears to extend north over the entire existing
adjacent property. More information is needed to describe and verify the existing conditions in this
area including the existing elevation of the adjacent home.
Wetland A / Pond 2, Treatment Basin and Infiltration Basin 2 area: The proposed storm water plan
does not identify a system EOF. More information is needed to describe and verify the proposed
flood condition and emergency overflow path to ensure that flood conditions are not increased for
adjacent properties.
Outlot A area including all wetlands, ponds and infiltration basins: More information is needed to
describe and identify the proposed flood condition and emergency overflow path. All proposed
ponds, treatment and infiltration basins appear to be connected to Goose Lake during flood
conditions. If there is no emergency outlet, back to back storm events may need to be evaluated.
Infiltration basin 5 and 5A on Outlot D: The HWL for these facilities (932.0) are above the adjacent Street 1
sudgrade elevation. The infiltration basin HWL must be below the street subgrade and the
interconnecting storm sewer pipes must be lowered to provide additional pipe cover. This will require
additional horizontal and vertical separation from the street and infiltration basins.
Storm water pond, infiltration basin, and wetland HWLs must be fully contained within Outlots. The 100‐
year HWL for Wetland G encroaches proposed Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 10, and Lots 2 and 3, Block 9; and the
100‐year HWL for Wetland F encroaches proposed Lots 1 and 2, Block 8.
No HWL has been provided as required for Wetland E.
The grading plans need to be extended to include the Park Improvements proposed near Goose Lake.
From:Shodeen, Molly (DNR)
To:Nick Johnson
Cc:Kyle Klatt; Dean Zuleger; Petrik, Daniel (DNR)
Subject:RE: June Land Use Review
Date:Monday, June 16, 2014 12:07:19 PM
Attachments:image002.jpg
Thanks Nick, as I said in my last letter, we believe that the 150’ riparian dedication must be applied to the manmade
channel/southern extension of the lake. DNR permit rules consider anything that is dredged and attached to the lake
to be part of the lake, and as such must meet any setback requirements, as well as in this case, the 150’ buffer
requirement. We do not see that there are practical difficulties beyond financial for issuing the variance and we
recommend that the variance be denied. We consider the Met Council argument to be a bit weak as there are other
developments coming up that will get you to your projections.
As an alternative, we would request that a berm be placed across the access channel to restore the Goose Lake basin
to what it was. The photos show that it was excavated sometime between the 60’s and 90’s without any DNR
permits. A permit would be needed to close it off, but we would consider it to be a restoration. The photos also
show that originally in 1991 there was a very narrow connection which was again illegally widened since 1991 to
its current configuration.
As far as the ordinance goes, we need to meet to discuss any and all changes that you have made unless you have a
strike through version to show the changes. I need to discuss your reaction to my suggested changes that were not
made in the final ordinance. For any buffer implementation, we request that it be marked and monumented to
prevent encroachment over time. As previously stated, we would like to see that right in the ordinance.
You also need to request implementation flexibility as part of the request to approve the ordinance. It is a letter
asking that we consider allowing flexibility for the city to deviate from the statewide standards. The letter needs to
detail what the request is, and how it will afford additional protection for the resources to justify the flexibility.
From: Nick Johnson [mailto:NJohnson@lakeelmo.org <mailto:NJohnson@lakeelmo.org> ]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:07 PM
To: Shodeen, Molly (DNR); John Hanson (jhanson@barr.com <mailto:jhanson@barr.com> )
Cc: Kyle Klatt; Dean Zuleger
Subject: June Land Use Review
Molly and John,
Please see the attached land use review for the June 23rd Planning Commission meeting. If possible, please send
review comments by Wednesday, June 18th. Hard copies are being placed in the mail today to your office.
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Nick M. Johnson | City Planner
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
njohnson@lakeelmo.org <mailto:njohnson@lakeelmo.org>
(w) 651-747-3912 | (f) 651-747-3901
www.lakeelmo.org <http://www.lakeelmo.org>
DOWNSLAKE
LAKE JANEHILL PARK
LAKE ELMOREGIONALPARK RESERVE
TARTANPARKGOLF CLUB
LAKE ELMO
LAKE JANE
SUNFISH LAKE
OLSONLAKE
LAKE DEMONTREVILLE
CLEARLAKE
HORSESHOELAKE
ROSELAKE
REIDPARK
VFWPARK
LIONS PARK
31ST ST N
32ND ST N
LAVERNECT NLAYTONCT N30TH ST CIR N
30TH ST N
TANA RIDGEPARK
LEGION AVE NLISBON AVE NLISB
O
N
CT N
LISBON
AVE NLANSINGAVE N24TH ST N24TH STCT NLAKE ELMO AVE N20TH STCT N20TH ST NLEGION AVE NLEGIONLN CIR N LEGIONLN CT N 21STST NLEGIONAVE NMANNINGTRL N12TH ST N
LAYTONAVE NLAVERNEAVE NLEEWARDAVE N11THST N
14TH ST N MANNING AVE NCity of Woodbury
STONEGATEPARK
KRAMERLAKE
GOOSELAKEARMSTRONGLAKE
RIDGEPARK
EAGLE POINT BLVD
HUDSON BLVD
JULEP AVE N
9TH ST N
JULEPCT N
JEW
E
LAVE
N
JA
S
M
I
N
E
A
V
E
P
L
N 10TH STLN N10TH ST N
WHISTLINGVALLEY RD
WHISTLINGVALLEY TRL
10TH STCT NKEATS AVE NLAKE ELMO AVE N3RD STREETPL N
15TH ST N
15TH ST
C
T
IVORY CT
16THST NIVORY AVE N21TH ST N
22ND ST N
21STST N
22NDCT N EAGLE POINTLAKE
TABLYNPARK
HEIGHTSPARK
26TH ST N
27TH ST N
IMPERIALAVE NINNSDALEAVE NIRONWOODTRL N
28THST N27THST NIRISH AVE N2
7
T
H
S
T
C
T
N
STILLWATER BLVD N
INNSDALEAVE N31ST ST N
JAMLEY AVE N28THST N
JONQUILTRL NJONQUILAVE NJAMACA CT NIDEAL AVE N38TH ST N
39TH ST N
INNSDALEAVE N36TH ST N
37TH ST N
IRWINAVE N35TH ST N
IRISAVE N
37TH AVE
35THST NIRISHCT NIRVINECIR NISLE AVE NLAKE JANETRL NJAMACA AVE NLAKEJANEHILLSPARK
PEBBLEPARK
LAKE JANETRL N
IRVINECT NIVYCT N
42NDST NDEER PONDTRL NJACK PINETRL NDEERPOND CTNWINDBREAK TRL N
HIDDENBAY TRL NHIDDEN BAYTRL N BIRCHBARKTRL NCity of Oakdale
West LakelandTownship
Baytown Township
City ofOak ParkHeights
City of GrantCity ofPine Springs
59th ST N
HIGHLAND
S
TRL N
HILLTO
PAVE
N
53RDST N
DEMONT
RE
VILLE
TRL CIR N
HILL TRL N
50TH ST N
HI
L
L
T
R
L
N HIGHLANDSTRL NHIG
H
L
A
NDSCT
NHYTRAILAVE NDEMONTREVILLEWILDLIFE PARK
DEMONTREVILLEPARK
55TH S
T
N
JAMACAAVE NISLE AVE NJAMACA AVE NJANERD N
49THST
JASPER AVE NJAMACA
BLVD N
JEROMEAVE NKLEISPARK CARRIAGESTATIONPARK
39TH ST N
LAYTONAVE NLAVERNE36TH ST
35TH ST
34TH ST
UPPER 33R
D
S
T
N
33RD ST N
32ND ST NKRAFTCIR NLAMPERTAVE NLANGLYCT N33RDST LN N
KLONDIKE AVE NSTILLWATER LN NKELVINAVE N43RD ST N
KIRKWOODAVEKINDRED
WAY
KINDREDCTTAPESTRYHILLTAPESTRYBEND
TAPESTRY TRL
47TH ST N
KIMBRO AVE NLAKE ELMO AVE N50TH ST NKIRKWOOD AVE NKEATS AVE N58TH ST N
56TH ST N58TH CT NMANNINGAVE NLINDENAVE NLILYAVE NMARQUESSLN N
MA
R
Q
U
ES
STR
L
NMARQUESSTRL CT NMARQUESSTRL CIR N55TH ST N
LINDEN TRL NLAR
K
S
P
U
R
LN N
LILAC LN N44TH STLN N44TH ST N
BLUESTEM LN NLILY AVE NLILY AVE NLILAC PL N
LILAC WAY N
51ST ST S
55TH ST
53RD ST N
57TH ST N
JULEPWAYJULEPAVE NJANECIR NISLECT NBLUE-STEM TRL NMARQUESS LN CV NMARQUESS WAY NKINDREDWAYJE
R
O
M
E
AV
E
C
T
N
OL
SON
L
AK
E
TR
L
N
HUDSON BLVDHUDSON BLVD
10TH ST N
HUDSONBLVDINWOOD AVE NINWOOD AVE NSUNFISH LAKEPARK
HID
D
E
N
BA
YCT
N CHERRY-WOODTRL N
JANERD NDEMONTREVILLETRL N59th ST N
55TH ST NJA
N
E
C
T
N
47TH ST N
50TH ST N
STILLWATER BLVD NLAKE ELMO AVE NAVEBLUESTEM
CIR NLITTLELITTLEBLUESTEMCIR N
LINDENTRL NSTILLWATERBLVD N50TH ST N
60TH ST N
LAKE ELMO AVE N57TH STCIR57TH ST57TH ST CV N60TH ST N
59TH ST CT
N
59TH ST N
KELVINAVE N60TH ST N
DEMONTREVILLETRL N50TH ST N
LIBSONAVE N30TH ST N
10TH ST N
MANNING AVE N10TH ST N
15TH ST N IVORYAVE NCity ofOak ParkHeights
City ofStillwaterStillwaterTownship
City ofAfton
34TH ST N
KlondikeAve NSTILLWATER BLVD N
TAPESTRY TRL
TA
P
E
S
T
R
Y
T
R
L
TAPESTRYGRJULEPAVE NSTILLWATER BLVD N
HOMESTEDPARKHELMO AVE N
M
A
N
N
I
N
G
A
V
E
N
40TH ST N
N1 62
121110
13
1415
22 23 24
34
98
5
17 16
2120
29 28 27 26
33 34 35 36
25
7
18
19
30
3132
HERITAGEPARK
VERONICAPOND
GOETSCHEL'SPOND
Union Pacific Railroad
Union Pacific
R
ail
r
o
a
d
TablynPark
Eagle PointCreek Estates
Lake ElmoHeights
Torre Pines
Farms ofLake Elmo
ParkviewEstates
WildflowersShores
HuppertAdd
BeautCrest Estates FriedrichHghts
KenridgeAdd
Prairie RidgeOffice Park
Eagle PointBusiness Park
Stonegate
Hammes CountryVista
WhistlingValley
Midland Meadows
DavidNelson Est
TheHomestead
TartanMeadows
The Forest
Schwartz-Martinco Add
PackardPark
EdenPark
Heritage
Farm
LonesomePine Add
DownsLake Est
MyronEllman
Elmo View
LISBONAVE NCty AudPlat No. 8
Lake ElmoPark
Brookman Add
Sunfish Ponds
Hamlet OnSunfish LakeParkMeadows
Tapestry AtCharlottes' Grove
Berschen's Shores
DawcinAcres
LakeJaneHighlands
TealPass Est
Fox FireEstates
Meyer'sPineridge
KrausesAdd
Springborn'sGreen Acres
Arabian Hills
JudithMaryManor
Lake Elmo Vista
Rolling Hills Est
Prairie Hamlet
HiddenMeadowsOf Lake Elmo
Jesse'sHideaway
DiscoverCrossing
Arvold'sAcres
St. Croix'sSanctuary
TamarackFarm Est
CarriageStation
TanaRidge
John M DayFarm Add
The Fields ofSt. Croix2nd Add
The Fieldsof St. Croix
BluestemAt The Fieldsof St. Croix
BurrwoodEstBergmannAdd
DemontrevilleHighlands Add
Lane's DemontrevilleCountry ClubDemontrevilleHighlands Add
Olson Lake Add
Oace AcresAdd
LakeJaneHills
Lake JaneManor No. 1
ThreeLakesFarm Add
Bordners Garner
Farmettes
M
A
N
N
I
N
G
T
R
L
Union Pacific Railroad
å
2014 - 2018 RESIDENTIAL STREET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
å
;
¤
Ì
Parcels
City Parks
Golf Course
Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve
Subdivisions
Lakes
Park Office651/430-8368
;City Hall3800 Laverne Avenue N651/777-5510www.lakeelmo.orgÌPublic Works Building3445 Ideal Ave N651/233-5414
n Schools
¤Fire Stations
Station No. 13510 Laverne Ave N651/770-5006
Station No. 24259 Jamaca Ave N651/779-8882
¤
Map Date: October 2013
Created By:
0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
Improvement Year
2014
2015
2016
2018
2017
K
Sources: Washington County & Metro GIS6-6-2014
Proposed ComprehensivePlan AmendmentWldflower at Lake Elmo Concept Plan
Map 3-3
TH 5Lake Elmo Ave39th St
Proposed Amendment: RAD to V-LDR
Proposed Amendment: RAD to V-MDR
Planned Land Uses
Residential Estate
Rural Area Development
Rural Area Development Alt
Rural Single Family
Public/Park
Urban High DensityUrban Medium Density
Commercial
Limited Business
Business Park
Urban Low Density
Village Mixed Use
Village Urban Low Density
Village Urban Medium Density
WILDFLOWER
PLANT LIST
( Dry mesic soils )
A.Sugar Maple – 1” – 1 ½”
B.American Basswood - #2
C.Swamp Oak
D.Crab Apple
Donald Wyman
Spring Snow
Red Splendor
E.Japanese Lilac
F.Black Hills Spruce and/or Colorado Spruce – 5’-6’
G.Shrubs
1.Chokecherry
2.Highbush Cranberry
3.Dogwood
4.Lilac
5.Service Berry (multi-stem) - #2
6.Fragrant Sumac - #2
7.Grow Low Sumac ( ground cover ) - #1
8.Arrowwood Viburnum - #2
9.Nannyberry Viburnum - #2
10.Big Bluestem ( grass )
WILDFLOWER
Plant Quantities & Layout
Note:
Plans as shown are illustrated with plant materials deemed appropriate for
soil conditions existing at sites (dry mesic soils). The attached list names
these materials. The developer would like to have the flexibility to substitute
within this group if better or larger selections are available at time of
planting. The homeowner will be asked for substitution approval. Planting
schedule will occur at such time when the site is in final graded condition
and weather is cooperative. Actual tree planting locations will be done in the
field with property owner’s input.
Dupuis Property:
Developer will plant a screen grouping at NE corner of property to screen an
existing sitting area. Plant screen will wrap lot corner west and north.
Recommended plant materials will be spruce trees 5'-6' ht and sugar maple 1
1/2” cal. An additional understory plant screen will be planted in front of
existing norway pines to screen approx. 6'-8' of open area between ground
and existing top mass of trees. Plant material selection will be selected from
group G.
Eischen Property:
Developer will plant spruce evergreen trees at SW corner of lot to provide
screening of car head lights. Screen will wrap corner as shown on site plan.
Other plantings along west property line will be determined after an
assessment of existing trees is made and determined what plants will be
appropriate.
Smith Property:
Developer has provided a south buffer area along the total south line of
property. Exact berming and plantings along with a new road easement is in
the process of final negotiations.