HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Packet 9-16-14
NOTICE OF MEETING
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, September 16, 2014 7:00 P.M.
City of Lake Elmo | 3800 Laverne Avenue North
AGENDA
A. Call to Order B. Pledge of Allegiance
C. Roll Call
D. Order of Business
E. Approval of Agenda
F. Accept Minutes
1. Accept September 2, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes
G. Council Reports
• Mayor
• Council H. Presentations/Public Comments/Inquiries
• 36th & 37th Street Improvements
I. Proclamation
2. Constitution Week
3. Volksmarch
J. Finance Consent Agenda
4. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll
5. Accept Financial Report dated August 31, 2014
6. Accept Building Report dated August 31, 2014
7. Accept City Assessor Report dated August 31, 2014
8. Pumphouse No. 4 Improvements – Pay Request No. 4
9. Lake Elmo Avenue Watermain Improvements – Pay Request No. 2
10. 2014 Street Improvements – Pay Request No. 2
11. Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements – Call for Final Assessment Hearing; Resolution No. 2014-68
12. Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements – Call for Final Assessment Hearing; Resolution No. 2014-69
13. Special Assessment Abatement Request – MN DNR Land; Resolution No. 2014-70
K. Other Consent Agenda
14. Authorize John Schiltz to dispense Beer and Wine Coolers at the Volksmarch Event on October 11, 2014
L. Regular Agenda
15. Gateway Corridor LPA Resolution; Resolution No. 2014-71
16. Inwood PUD Concept Plan; Resolution No. 2014-72
17. Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan; Resolution No. 2014-73
18. Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat; Resolution No. 2014-74
19. Hunters Crossing Final Plat; Resolution No. 2014-75
20. Savona 2nd Addition Final Plat; Resolution No. 2014-76
21. Savona 2nd Addition Developers Agreement; Resolution No. 2014-77
22. Wildflower at Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 2014-46
23. 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements – Change Order No. 1
24. Discover Crossing Repairs – TA Schifsky quote – 21.9K
M. Staff Reports and Announcements
• City Administrator
• City Attorney
• Planning Director
• City Engineer
• Finance Director
• City Clerk N. Adjourn
Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible
Manner While Preserving the City’s Open Space Character
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 Mayor Pearson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
PRESENT: Mayor Mike Pearson and Council Members Wally Nelson, Justin Bloyer, and Mike Reeves
Absent: Council Member Anne Smith
Staff present: City Administrator Zuleger, City Attorney Snyder, Community Development Director Klatt, Finance Director Bendel, and City Clerk Bell.
PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Item 10 was postponed.
MOTION: Council Member Reeves moved TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 19, 2014 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AS AMENDED. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0.
ITEM 1: ACCEPT MINUTES
THE AUGUST 19, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES WERE APPROVED AS AMENDED BY CONSENSUS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
COUNCIL REPORTS:
Mayor Pearson: attended Human Resources Committee Meeting, EDA Meeting Council Member Bloyer: attended library board meeting
Council Member Reeves: attended Human Resources Committee Meeting. The group worked on performance reviews and salary pool. Council Member Nelson: no report.
PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES
Paul Ryberg introduced Nate Deprey the new library director. Mr. Deprey expressed he is looking forward to working with the Council and the City.
STATUS OF 100% DEVELOPER INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT POLICY
City Administrator Zuleger provided status presentation of the developer paid infrastructure. The policy of “growth pays for growth” was implemented in 2013. This has resulted in two positive bond ratings, including
an increase from S&P. Council Member Reeves asked what the reaction has been from the developers.
National and regional builders have understood the policy. Many have appreciated the discipline. There have been some who are not willing to come to Lake Elmo. Mayor Pearson recognized that the policy and staff’s
efforts are doing as much as possible to minimize the risk to the City.
ITEM 2: PROCLAMATION COMMUNITY MEDIA WEEK
Mayor Pearson read the proclamation recognizing the week of September 15th 2014 as Community Media
Week.
FINANCE CONSENT AGENDA
3. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll
4. Approving the TNT Public Hearing Date for the 2015 Budget and Tax Levy; Resolution No. 2014-65
MOTION: Council Member Nelson moved TO APPROVE THE FINANCE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. Mayor Pearson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0.
OTHER CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member Bloyer pulled Item 8 for discussion.
Page 1 of 4
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2014
5. Encroachment Agreement – 1668 Ivy Ave N
6. Encroachment Agreement – 1650 Ivy Ave N
7. Encroachment Agreement – 10938 57th Street N
8. Library Board Appointment – Margo Sieleni
MOTION: Council Member Reeves moved TO APPROVE THE OTHER CONSENT AGENDA AS
AMENDED. Mayor Pearson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0.
ITEM 8: LIBRARY BOARD APPOINTMENT – MARGO SIELENI
It was explained that Mayor Pearson appointed Ms. Sieleni during his report last meeting, but Clerk Bell
prefers to have a formal vote with background documentation included for record purposes. Council
Member Bloyer thanked Ms. Sieleni for volunteering to serve.
MOTION: Council Member Bloyer moved TO APPOINT MARGO SIELENI TO THE LAKE ELMO
LIBRARY BOARD. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0.
REGULAR AGENDA
ITEM 9: SAVONA SUBDIVISION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; RES. NO. 2014-66
Community Development Director Klatt provided summary explaining the reason for the CUP application.
Townhome units on a private street require a CUP, which the part of the next phase of Savona will include.
The requirement is to make sure that the City’s needs are met in regards to the private street. The area that is
involved was explained.
MOTION: Council Member Reeves moved TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-66, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE
FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLINGS WITHIN THE SAVONA SUBDIVISION THAT DO NOT
HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. MOTION
PASSED 4-0.
ITEM 11: APPROVE PROPOSED GENERAL LEVY AND PROPOSED 2015 BUDGET; RES.
NO. 2014-67
Finance Director Bendel presented the proposed 2015 budget.
Council Member Bloyer left at 7:30 pm.
The general fund budget was explained. It was noted that the street maintenance expenses were now a
permanent line item in budget. Ms. Bendel explained that the tax levy is staying level and the rate is actually
decreasing.
Ms. Bendel summarized the library fund. The end year cash reserves were explained.
Council Member Bloyer returned at 7:34 pm.
Council Member Reeves asked about part-time staffing at library for 2014. There was none in 2014, but it is
budgeted in 2015.
Mayor Pearson asked about Sanctuary neighborhood road. City Administrator Zuleger explained the steps
that the City has taken. The road needs to be approved by MnDOT. It is believed that the developer funds
are available to pay for some of it.
Ms. Bendel read letter from Roger Johnson requesting city contribution of minimum of $20k for invasive
species management on Olson/Demontreville Lakes. Council Member Bloyer noted that the previous June
Page 2 of 4
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2014
request was only $25K. He would be in favor of city contributing 1/3 if all the lakes were evenly supported.
He would like to have place holder in budget. Mr. Bloyer noted that recent letter from DNR found no natural
erosion occur this past spring.
Mr. Reeves believes the City should be engaged in treating the lakes, but he supports addressing all the lakes.
He also wants to know more info about the VBWD study. The outflow of the water was discussed.
It was noted that O/D levels are anticipated to increase. VBWD does not believe that increasing the outflow
can be achieved.
Mr. Zuleger explained the VBWD study. The consensus is to have a placeholder, but wait to hear study
findings. Mr. Zuleger suggested that the Council commit funds from the storm water fund as the lake is a
repository for storm water. Mr. Nelson wants to know if the watershed cities causing impact can be
approached for contribution. Mr. Zuleger said the City can ask the DNR.
Mr. Reeves asked if signage was sufficient. Mr. Zuleger said it was. It was noted that too much signage can
cause confusion. It was explained that the City has not participated in the past.
The Council discussed what the appropriate funding level and appropriate parties to pay. Council direction is
that the lake property owners need to propose a plan where the City can collaborate. The consequences of
using storm water funds were discussed. Future storm water expenses and needs are ahead for the Village
drainage. The Council wants to make sure that the expenses are effective and the results are measurable.
Ms. Bendel summarized the proposed debt service fund levy.
MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO APPROVE GENERAL FUND LEVY OF $2,421,588.00. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion.
The council acknowledged the tight budget that staff developed and the introduction of zero-based
budgeting.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO APPROVE DEBT SERVICE LEVY OF $484,814.00. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0.
The Council discussed how the library has done a good job of being frugal. Even with the 10% statutory
reduction, the library levy is still more than the requested budget. A 10% percent reduction results in a
$231,261.00. This is actually a 20% increase over the 2014 budget.
MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO APPROVE LIBRARY FUND BUDGET AND LEVY AT AMOUNT OF $231,261.00. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Mr. Zuleger clarified the resulting levy components – General Fund Levy: $2,421,588.00; G.O. Debt Levy:
$484,814.00; Library Levy: $231,261.00; total levy: $3,137,663.00.
MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2014-67 ADOPTING THE
PRELIMINARY 2015 GENERAL FUND AND LIBRARY FUND ANNUAL BUDGET’S AND LEVIES. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0.
ITEM 12: DISCUSSION ITEM: COUNCIL/STAFF INTERACTIONS
Mayor Pearson explained the reason for this item. Concerns about interactions with Council Member Smith
have been brought to the Council’s attention. Mayor Pearson noted that conversations were had and commitments to improve were made, but the incidents complained about allegedly have continued. The
immediate concerns are exposing the City to potential legal liability and the non-recognition of staff chain of command. The Mayor asked Council for their suggestions.
Page 3 of 4
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2014
It was noted that the discussion needs to be in an open meeting despite the desire to have it in private. The council wants there to be improvement. There have been demands for correction in the past, but there needs
to be more improvement. There is concern about potential liability to the City. The Council also wants staff to have a healthy, productive, and safe work environment. The recent adoption of the civility initiative needs to be carried out, especially by council members. The Council wants things to be better.
MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved “WHEN COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH WISHES TO CONTACT A CITY STAFF MEMBER, SHE IS TO ARRANGE FOR ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER TO BE IN ATTENDANCE. STAFF IS DIRECTED TO CONFORM TO THIS PARAMETER AS
WELL.” Council Member Reeves seconded the motion.
The Mayor hopes that this action improves the situation as everyone desires and they would not have to
address this any further. The Council discussed the logistics and the effectiveness of proposed motion. The consensus was the City has an obligation to do something. Whether to include phone calls and adding a timeframe on the restriction were considered, but the original motion was not modified.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
STAFF REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Zuleger: Staff is working on completing several final plats; Planning Commission will
be touring a Hans Hagen development in Blaine; working on 2015 CIP budget. Goal is to have workshop in late September; meeting with Washington County Sheriff Hutton next week; Working with Gateway Corridor
group involving a Bus Rapid Transit route through Lake Elmo; EDA will be submitting the Planning Commission a resolution for an EDA zoning area.
City Attorney Snyder: handling routine matters with staff; reviewed lease for new city administrative space
at 3880 Laverne.
Community Development Director Klatt: Planning Commission is busy reviewing development
applications.
City Clerk Bell: reported that Lake Elmo Precinct 1 was randomly selected by the County Canvass Board for review. The precinct passed with no issues. Clerk Bell also announced that additional election judges are
being sought for the general election.
Finance Director Bendel: working on August financials, certification of levy, and storm water assessments.
Mayor Pearson adjourned meeting at 8:34 pm.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
ATTEST:
______________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
_______________________________
Adam R. Bell, City Clerk
Page 4 of 4
September 9, 2014
Mayor Mike Pearson & City Council Members
City of Lake Elmo 3600 Laverne Avenue
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Dear Mayor Pearson and City Council Members,
As the date nears for the completion and vote by the city council on the Feasibility Report
for the 36th/37th Street Project, we would like to reiterate our position and ask that this
letter be filed with our Petition dated July 1, 2014.
We respectfully request that the city council vote against any type of road for our neighborhood. We do not feel at this time that we need new roads. We live in the rural
section of town. It is not necessary structurally or financially to upgrade our roads to the
level proposed to the residents on May 15, 2014.
There have been discussions at the financial committee meetings about possibly putting the project off until 2017, due in part to the large amount of development coming to Lake
Elmo. If a date of 2017 is chosen, at that time we would like to again be notified before
any decisions are made, so that we may be a part of the discussion. In 2017, if all parties
agree the streets need improvement, at that time we would request:
There be NO:
* 4” water mains upgraded to 8”
* curbs and gutters
* a pavement subdrain system
* roads widened to 12’
We oppose paying additional funds for unnecessary items at the cost of the residents and
city, regardless of what year the roads are done. The two roads we have been using have
provided us sufficient service for 45 years. A similar road would provide the same
service, whenever the city makes the decision to redo the roads.
In the meantime, we do request that the city patch and/or repair the west end of 36th
Street and as needed in the future to both streets, just as any other road in the city would
be repaired.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Residents 36th & 37th Street
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
CONSTITUTION WEEK PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS: our Founding Fathers, in order to secure the blessings of liberty for
themselves and their posterity, did ordain and establish a Constitution
for the United States; and,
WHEREAS: it is important that all citizens fully understand the provisions and
principles contained in the Constitution in order to effectively support,
preserve, and defend against all enemies; and,
WHEREAS: September 17, 2014, marks the two hundred twenty-seventh anniversary
of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America by the
Constitutional Convention; and,
WHEREAS: it is fitting and proper to accord official recognition of this magnificent
document and its memorable anniversary; and,
WHEREAS: the independence guaranteed to American citizens, whether by birth or
naturalization, should be celebrated during Constitution Week,
September 17 through 23, 2014, as designated by proclamation of the
President of the United States of America in accordance with Public
Law 915;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Mike Pearson, Mayor of Lake Elmo, do
hereby proclaim Wednesday, September 17th through Tuesday, September 23rd, 2014 as
Constitution Week.
SIGNED THIS SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN.
_____________________________ BY: Mike Pearson Mayor
CITY OF LAKE ELMO VOLKSMARCH PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS: The City recognizes the value and benefits to a healthy park system and
recreational opportunities in our community WHEREAS: The City wishes to express appreciation for the commitment and dedication
to the local service organizations, volunteers, and businesses who have
contributed time and resources to make the City of Lake Elmo a better
place to live and work,
WHEREAS: The City also celebrates "Community" by bringing families, friends, and
neighbors together to enjoy many festivities,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Mike Pearson, Mayor of Lake Elmo, do hereby proclaim Saturday, October 11, 2014 the first annual Lake Elmo Volksmarch to distinguish Lake
Elmo from surrounding cities, and to uphold the City’s commitment to community and observance
of open space. SIGNED THIS SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN
________________________________ BY: Mike Pearson Mayor
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
CONSENT
ITEM# 4
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Disbursements in the amount of $1,314,950.07
SUBMITTED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
THROUGH: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
REVIEWED BY: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator
- Report/Presentation…………………………………………City Administrator
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Finance
FISCAL IMPACT: $1,314,950.07
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council
is asked to approve disbursements in the amount of $1,314,950.07. No specific motion is needed
as this is recommended to be part of the Consent Agenda.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: NA
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 4]
September 16, 2014
BACKGROUND INFORMATION/STAFF REPORT: The City of Lake Elmo has the
fiduciary responsibility to conduct normal business operations. Below is a summary of current
claims to be disbursed and paid in accordance with State law and City policies and procedures.
Claim # Amount Description
ACH $ 10,824.99 Payroll Taxes to IRS & MN Dept of Revenue 9/4/14
ACH $ 5,636.87 Payroll Retirement to PERA 9/4/14
DD5758-DD5787 $ 28,199.00 Payroll Dated (Direct Deposits) 9/4/14
41796 $ 623.36 Payroll (Check) 9/4/14
41797-41873 $ 1,269,161.44 Accounts Payable 9/16/14
2478-2485 $ 480.00 Library Card Reimbursement 9/16/14
TOTAL $ 1,314,950.07
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council approve as part of the Consent Agenda the aforementioned disbursements in the amount of
$1,314,950.07.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Accounts Payable – check registers
-- page 2 --
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
CONSENT
ITEM# 5
AGENDA ITEM: August 2014 Financial Reporting
SUBMITTED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
THROUGH: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
REVIEWED BY: Finance Committee
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator
- Report/Presentation…………………………………………City Administrator
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Finance
FISCAL IMPACT: NA
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to accept the August 2014 Financial Reporting Packet. No specific motion is needed as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Lake Elmo has fiduciary authority and
responsibility to conduct normal business operations and report the financial (unaudited) statement to the City Council. City guidelines suggest the Council be updated on a regular basis. STAFF REPORT: Attached please find the comparative financial statements for the month of
August 2014 reflecting the monthly and year to date detail, comparing the actual results to the
2014 Budget.
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 5]
September 16, 2014
The most significant budget to actual variances are highlighted below:
Revenues:
• Building Permit revenue for the month was 3% below budget and the year to date results
are 9% better than budget. There was one new home started in August bringing the year
to date new home starts to 17 compared to 23 in 2013 and 20 in 2012. Although fewer
homes, the valuation amount to date is very close to 2013 due to the average home values
being greater than the values used to estimate revenues in the 2014 budget. In addition, a
new commercial building permit was issued in August which was valued at $1.4M.
• Zoning and subdivision fees are well above budget for the month due to the budget
assuming there would be very few zoning exceptions requested. This has not been the
case, resulting in $6.7k in revenue for the month and $14.4k on a year to date basis.
• Plan check fees for the month are 24% better than budget and the year to date results are
30% better than budget. As mentioned previously, the valuations are higher than
projected resulting in the revenue also being higher than budgeted.
• Miscellaneous permits for August includes a special fuel tank permit for $7.5k. Due to
the unusual nature of this permit, it has been broken out.
Expenses:
Most departments were at or below budget for the month due to diligently managing
expenditures to the bottom line. A few items to note:
• Administration – In August a temporary employee was utilized to cover the front desk in
the absence of the full-time employee. This expense shows up in contract services
expense.
• Elections – In August the election judge expenses were paid out and are reflected under part-time salaries. The expense was split between August and September in the budget
resulting in the variance being a timing issue. It is anticipated that the full year expense
will come in below budget.
• Police – As mentioned in July, the cost for policing services is billed each year in two installments. The amounts were budgeted in June and December. The bill for the first
half of the year was billed and paid 8/19/14 resulting in the timing related variance.
• Public Works – The part time salaries are $3k higher than budget for the month due to all
salaries being budgeted in the full time salary line item. On a year to date basis, the sum of the two salary expense lines are above budget due to the extra costs for snow removal as well as the summer focus on street repairs.
• Streets – Due to the summer focus on street repairs, the street maintenance expenses are
higher than budgeted for the month but within the full year budgeted amount. New signs were purchased and installed throughout the City resulting in the majority of the expense. Contract services for August included the cost of $4.5k to rent the spray-
patcher for street repairs for a second month due to the good results in July.
-- page 2 --
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 5]
September 16, 2014
• Tree Program – In August the City Right of Way’s were trimmed. This was budgeted to
be done earlier in the summer. On a year to date basis the expense is 7% more than
budgeted.
• Parks & Recreation – As mentioned with Public Works, all salary costs were budgeted under full-time salaries. In total, the salaries are $1.8k more than budget for the month
and $4k below budget on a year to date basis. Landscaping materials for the month
were $1.4k higher than budget due to having the resources available to focus on the parks initiative.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council
accept the attached August Financial Report.
ATTACHMENT: 1. August Financial Reports
-- page 3 --
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
CONSENT
ITEM 6
AGENDA ITEM: New Single Family Home Permit Report
SUBMITTED BY: Rick Chase, Building Official
THROUGH: Rick Chase, Building Official
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator
- Report/Presentation…………………………………………City Administrator
- Questions from Council to Staff .............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion ..................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to accept the monthly new single family home permit report for through August, 2014. No
specific motion is needed as this is recommended as part of the Consent Agenda.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 2014 2013 2012
New Homes 17 23 20
Total valuation $10,018,471 $10,553,454 $9,351,112 Average home value 589,321 458,845 467,000
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council
accept the August, 2014 monthly building permit report.
-- page 1 --
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
CONSENT
ITEM# 7
AGENDA ITEM: Monthly Assessor Report
SUBMITTED BY: Dan Raboin, City Assessor
THROUGH: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
REVIEWED BY: Finance Committee
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator
- Report/Presentation…………………………………………City Administrator
- Questions from Council to Staff .............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion ..................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to accept the monthly assessor report for through August 2014 outlining work performed on
behalf of the City of Lake Elmo. No specific motion is needed as this is recommended as part of the
Consent Agenda.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Property splits/plats – 0
Sales collected and viewed – 16
Taxpayer inquiries – 3 Miscellaneous inquiries - 7 Inspections – Residential – 0; Commercial – 16 (No residential inspections in August as they were
completed early for 2015 quintile reviews)
Building permit reviews – 62
Pictures taken – 21 Other work performed included:
• Completed 2015 residential quintile
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 7]
September 16, 2014
• Monthly meeting with County residential and commercial supervisors
• Input of all inspection and permit work
• Perform sales verifications and land value analysis using MLS and other resources
• Field telephone inquiries
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council accept the August 2014 monthly assessor report.
-- page 2 --
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
CONSENT
ITEM # 8
AGENDA ITEM: Pumphouse No. 4 – Pay Request No. 4
SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer
THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Cathy Bendel, Finance Director SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Agenda):
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Public Input, if Appropriate………………………………….Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. Partial payment is proposed in accordance with the Contract for the project. Payment
remains within the authorized scope and budget.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving Pay Request No. 4 for the
Pumphouse No. 4 project. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for the
action is as follows:
“Move to approve Pay Request No. 4 to Total Mechanical Services, Inc. in the amount of $57,028.50 for Pumphouse No. 4”.
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 8]
September 16, 2014
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Total Mechanical Services Inc., the Contractor for the project, has submitted Partial Pay Estimate
No. 4 in the amount of $57,028.50. The request has been reviewed and payment is recommended in the amount requested. In accordance with the contract documents, the City has retained 5% of
the total work completed. The amount retained is $12,573.30.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council consider approving, as part of the Consent Agenda, Pay Request No. 4 for the Pumphouse No. 4 project. If removed from the consent agenda, the
recommended motion for the action is as follows:
“Move to approve Pay Request No. 4 to Total Mechanical Services, Inc. in the amount of $57,028.50, for Pumphouse No. 4”. ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Partial Pay Estimate No. 4
-- page 2 --
PARTIAL PAY ESTIMATE NO. 4
PUMPHOUSE NO. 4
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
PROJECT NO. 2013.132
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT
1 LS 1 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 0.17 $10,200.00 0.68 $40,800.00
2 LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 ‐$0.00 1.00 $10,000.00
3 LS 1 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 ‐$0.00 0.96 $43,200.00
4 LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 0.25 $7,500.00 0.92 $27,600.00
5 LS 1 $59,000.00 $59,000.00 0.25 $14,750.00 1.00 $59,000.00
6 LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 ‐$0.00 0.17 $510.00
7 LS 1 $19,000.00 $19,000.00 ‐$0.00 0.80 $15,200.00
8 LS 1 $13,000.00 $13,000.00 ‐$0.00 0.23 $2,990.00
9 LS 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 ‐$0.00 0.34 $4,080.00
10 LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 ‐$0.00 ‐$0.00
11 LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 ‐$0.00 ‐$0.00
12 LS 1 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 ‐$0.00 ‐$0.00
13 LS 1 $137,900.00 $137,900.00 0.20 $27,580.00 0.34 $46,886.00
14 LS 1 $243,000.00 $243,000.00 ‐$0.00 ‐$0.00
15 CY 350 $11.00 $3,850.00 ‐$0.00 ‐$0.00
16 TN 130 $108.00 $14,040.00 ‐$0.00 ‐$0.00
17 GAL 35 $6.00 $210.00 ‐$0.00 ‐$0.00
18 TN 190 $20.00 $3,800.00 ‐$0.00 ‐$0.00
19 TN 380 $13.50 $5,130.00 ‐$0.00 ‐$0.00
20 SF 235 $5.00 $1,175.00 ‐$0.00 ‐$0.00
21 SF 8 $40.00 $320.00 ‐$0.00 ‐$0.00
22 CY 15 $65.00 $975.00 ‐$0.00 ‐$0.00
23 EA 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 ‐$0.00 ‐$0.00
24 LF 400 $3.00 $1,200.00 ‐$0.00 400.0 $1,200.00
25 HR 4 $110.00 $440.00 ‐$0.00 ‐$0.00
26 SY 2,400 $4.00 $9,600.00 ‐$0.00 ‐$0.00
TOTALS ‐ BASE CONTRACT $748,640.00 $60,030.00 $251,466.00
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT
CONTRACT THIS PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE
SOD
STREET SWEEPER
DIV 1 ‐ GENERAL CONDITIONS
COMMON EXCAVATION (P)
TYPE SP. 12.5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B)
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5, 100% CRUSHED
SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (MODIFIED)
5" CONCRETE SIDEWALK
TRUNCATED DOME PANELS
TOPSOIL BORROW (CV)
TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
SILT FENCE, MACHINE SLICED
DIV 1 ‐ MOBILIZATION
DIV 2 ‐ SITE WORK
DIV 3 ‐ CONCRETE
DIV 4 ‐ MASONRY
DIV 5 ‐ METALS
DIV 6 ‐ CARPENTRY
DIV 7 ‐ THERMAL PROTECTION
DIV 8 ‐ DOORS AND WINDOWS
DIV 9 ‐ FINISHES
DIV 10 ‐ SAFETY AND SIGNS
DIV 11 ‐ PROCESS EQUIPMENT
DIV 15 ‐ MECHANICAL
DIV 16 ‐ ELECTRICAL
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
CONSENT
ITEM # 9
AGENDA ITEM: Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements – Pay Request No. 2
SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer
THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Cathy Bendel, Finance Director SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS if removed from the Consent Agenda):
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Public Input, if Appropriate………………………………….Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. Partial payment is proposed in accordance with the Contract for the project. Payment
remains within the authorized scope and budget.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving Pay Request No. 2 for the Lake
Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements project. If removed from the consent agenda, the
recommended motion for the action is as follows:
“Move to approve Pay Request No. 2 to GM Contracting Inc in the amount of $395,509.31, for the Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements Project”
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 9]
September 16, 2014
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
GM Contracting Inc., the Contractor for the project, has submitted Partial Pay Estimate No. 2 in
the amount of $395,509.31. The request has been reviewed and payment is recommended in the amount requested. In accordance with the contract documents, the City has retained 5% of the
total work completed. The amount retained is $61,494.05.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council consider approving, as part of the Consent Agenda, Pay Request No. 2 for the Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements project. If
removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for the action is as follows:
“Move to approve Pay Request No. 2 to GM Contracting Inc. in the amount of $395,509.31, for the Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements Project” ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Partial Pay Estimate No. 2
-- page 2 --
PARTIAL PAY ESTIMATE NO. 2
LAKE ELMO AVENUE TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
PROJECT NO. 2013.133
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT
1 LS 1 $85,000.00 $85,000.00 0.25 $21,250.00 0.75 $63,750.00
2 LS 1 $53,951.69 $53,951.69 0.25 $13,487.92 0.75 $40,463.77
3 LF 461 $2.50 $1,152.50 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
4 EA 20 $400.00 $8,000.00 6.00 $2,400.00 6 $2,400.00
5 EA 3 $152.58 $457.74 3.00 $457.74 3 $457.74
6 SY 267 $6.30 $1,682.10 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
7 LS 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 0.75 $3,375.00 1 $3,375.00
$154,744.03 $40,970.66 $110,446.51
1 LF 416 $2.85 $1,185.60 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
2 LF 970 $2.85 $2,764.50 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
3 EA 2 $350.00 $700.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
4 EA 15 $150.00 $2,250.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
5 EA 1 $1,448.16 $1,448.16 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
6 EA 27 $2,036.85 $54,994.95 1 $2,036.85 1 $2,036.85
7 EA 4 $2,530.54 $10,122.16 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
8 EA 1 $3,508.66 $3,508.66 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
9 EA 17 $3,489.56 $59,322.52 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
10 EA 27 $4,182.48 $112,926.96 1 $4,182.48 1 $4,182.48
11 EA 6 $425.90 $2,555.40 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
12 EA 38 $550.20 $20,907.60 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
13 EA 2 $647.35 $1,294.70 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
14 EA 6 $463.58 $2,781.48 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
15 EA 38 $600.53 $22,820.14 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
16 EA 2 $746.85 $1,493.70 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
17 LF 204 $28.59 $5,832.36 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
18 LF 1,586 $32.06 $50,847.16 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
19 LF 52 $37.35 $1,942.20 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
20 EA 15 $500.00 $7,500.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
21 LF 379 $29.50 $11,180.50 39 $1,150.50 39 $1,150.50
22 LF 387 $74.63 $28,881.81 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
23 LF 174 $70.93 $12,341.82 45 $3,191.85 45 $3,191.85
24 LF 74 $81.80 $6,053.20 74 $6,053.20 74 $6,053.20
25 LF 11,152 $89.00 $992,528.00 6,124 $545,036.00 10,452 $930,228.00
26 LF 2,200 $89.00 $195,800.00 550 $48,950.00 1,125 $100,125.00
27 EA 32 $362.03 $11,584.96 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
28 EA 1 $1,325.00 $1,325.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
29 EA 2 $1,337.00 $2,674.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
30 EA 3 $543.52 $1,630.56 1 $543.52 1 $543.52
31 EA 23 $1,498.00 $34,454.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
32 EA 4 $1,520.00 $6,080.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
33 EA 1 $1,589.00 $1,589.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
34 EA 2 $1,657.77 $3,315.54 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
35 EA 1 $588.10 $588.10 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
36 EA 1 $762.51 $762.51 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
37 EA 4 $268.40 $1,073.60 1 $268.40 1 $268.40
38 EA 4 $322.24 $1,288.96 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
39 EA 1 $506.18 $506.18 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
40 LS 1 $70,092.00 $70,092.00 0 $7,009.20 0 $7,009.20
41 LS 1 $55,577.00 $55,577.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
42 EA 27 $57.70 $1,557.90 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
43 SF 96 $7.37 $707.52 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
$1,808,790.41 $618,422.00 $1,054,789.00
1 LF 1,020 $3.92 $3,998.40 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
2 SY 1,125 $5.67 $6,378.75 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
3 TN 410 $29.93 $12,271.30 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
4 SY 62 $39.21 $2,431.02 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
5 TN 134 $128.96 $17,280.64 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
6 TN 67 $144.44 $9,677.48 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
7 GA 56 $2.06 $115.36 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
$52,152.95 $0.00 $0.00
TOTALS $2,015,687.39 $659,392.66 $1,165,235.51
OFF ROAD STRUCTURE MARKER
4" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION
SUBTOTAL ‐ DIVISION 2
SUBTOTAL ‐ DIVISION 3
DRIVEWAY RESTORATION
DIVISION 3 ‐ STREETS
SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXIST. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT, ALL TYPES
CL.5 AGGREGATE BASE
SPWEA240B BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE, STREETS
16"X45° BEND MJ DUCTILE IRON COMPACT FITTING
8"X6" TEE MJ DUCTILE IRON COMPACT FITTING
16"X6" TEE MJ DUCTILE IRON COMPACT FITTING
HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILLING BORE PITS
WATER SERVICE CONNECTION PITS
16"X8" TEE MJ DUCTILE IRON COMPACT FITTING
16"X12" TEE MJ DUCTILE IRON COMPACT FITTING
16"X12" CROSS MJ DUCTILE IRON COMPACT FITTING
12"X6" REDUCER MJ DUCTILE IRON COMPACT FITTING
16"X8" REDUCER MJ DUCTILE IRON COMPACT FITTING
2" CURB STOP AND BOX
8" PLUG MJ DUCTILE IRON COMPACT FITTING
12" PLUG MJ DUCTILE IRON COMPACT FITTING
16" PLUG MJ DUCTILE IRON COMPACT FITTING
1" TYPE K COPPER WATER SERVICE PIPE
1.5" TYPE K COPPER WATER SERVICE PIPE
2" TYPE K COPPER WATER SERVICE PIPE
CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER SERVCIE ‐ALL SIZES AND TYPES
6" DIP CL. 52 WATERMAIN
16" DIP CL. 52 WATERMAIN
8" HDPE DR 11 WATERMAIN
12" HDPE DR 11 WATERMAIN
16" HDPE DR 11 WATERMAIN
16" HDPE DR11 WATERMAIN, EXTRA DEPTH (P)
6"X45° BEND MJ DUCTILE IRON COMPACT FITTING
16"X11‐1/4° BEND MJ DUCTILE IRON COMPACT FITTING
1" CORPORATION STOP
1.5" CORPORATION STOP
2" CORPORATION STOP
1" CURB STOP AND BOX
1.5" CURB STOP AND BOX
DIVISION 1 ‐ GENERAL
MOBILIZATION
TRAFFIC CONTROL
SILT FENCE
REMOVE/ABANDON EXISTING WATER SERVICE ‐ ALL SIZES AND TYPES
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT
CONTRACT THIS PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE
HYDRANT ‐ 8'‐6" BURY
TREE REMOVAL
INLET PROTECTION
6" TOPSOIL AND SOD
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE
SUBTOTAL ‐ DIVISION 1
DIVISION 2 ‐ WATERMAIN
REMOVE EXISTING WATERMAIN ‐ ALL SIZES AND TYPES
ABANDON EXISTING WATERMAIN IN PLACE ‐ ALL SIZES AND TYPES
8" GATE VALVE & BOX
16" BUTTERFLY VALVE & BOX
SALVAGE EXISTING HYDRANT, LEAD, AND VALVE
CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN
6" GATE VALVE & BOX
12" GATE VALVE & BOX
SPNWB230B BITUMINOUS NON‐WEAR COURSE, STREETS
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
CONSENT
ITEM # 10
AGENDA ITEM: 2014 Street Improvements – Pay Request No. 2
SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stempski, Project Engineer
THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Cathy Bendel, Finance Director SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Agenda):
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Public Input, if Appropriate………………………………….Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. Partial payment is proposed in accordance with the Contract for the project. Payment
remains within the authorized scope and budget.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving Pay Request No. 2 for the 2014
Street Improvements project. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for
the action is as follows:
“Move to approve Pay Request No. 2 to Hardrives, Inc. in the amount of $427,922.74, for the 2014 Street Improvements”.
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 10]
September 16, 2014
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Hardrives, Inc., the Contractor for the project, has submitted Partial Pay Estimate No. 2 in the
amount of $427,922.74. The request has been reviewed and payment is recommended in the amount requested. In accordance with the contract documents, the City has retained 5% of the
total work completed. The amount retained is $28,680.09.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council consider approving, as part of the Consent Agenda, Pay Request No. 2 for the 2014 Street Improvements. If removed from the consent agenda, the
recommended motion for the action is as follows:
“Move to approve Pay Request No. 2 to Hardrives, Inc. in the amount of $427,922.74, for the 2014 Street Improvements”. ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Partial Pay Estimate No. 2
-- page 2 --
PARTIAL PAY ESTIMATE NO. 2
2014 STREET IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
PROJECT NO. 2013.135
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT
1 LS 1 $34,750.00 $34,750.00 0.50 $17,375.00 1 $34,750.00
2 LS 1 $2,162.47 $2,162.47 0.40 $864.99 0.50 $1,081.24
3 LS 3,188 $2.03 $6,471.64 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
4 EA 14 $74.93 $1,049.02 14.00 $1,049.02 14.00 $1,049.02
5 EA 14 $80.28 $1,123.92 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
6 HR 35 $151.26 $5,294.10 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
7 LS 1 $5,352.13 $5,352.13 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
8 EA 24 $32.44 $778.56 0.00 $0.00 22.00 $713.68
9 EA 24 $37.84 $908.16 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
10 LF 720 $2.12 $1,526.40 261.00 $553.32 261.00 $553.32
11 LF 130 $3.13 $406.90 130.00 $406.90 130.00 $406.90
12 SY 410 $5.35 $2,193.50 230.00 $1,230.50 230.00 $1,230.50
13 SY 150 $8.56 $1,284.00 85.00 $727.60 85.00 $727.60
14 SY 10 $32.11 $321.10 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
15 LF 230 $10.81 $2,486.30 73.00 $789.13 230.00 $2,486.30
16 CY 1,000 $9.10 $9,100.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
17 CY 250 $14.13 $3,532.50 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
18 SY 21,500 $0.91 $19,565.00 21,500.00 $19,565.00 21,500.00 $19,565.00
19 CY 300 $8.62 $2,586.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
20 RS 61 $324.76 $19,690.20 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
21 TN 1,905 $60.76 $115,747.80 1,667.00 $101,286.92 1,667.00 $101,286.92
22 TN 1,905 $62.64 $119,329.20 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
23 GAL 1,350 $1.96 $2,646.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
24 SY 410 $20.11 $8,245.10 294.00 $5,912.34 294.00 $5,912.34
25 SY 150 $46.03 $6,904.50 113.00 $5,201.39 113.00 $5,201.39
26 LF 2,900 $2.61 $7,569.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
27 LF 7,660 $9.63 $73,765.80 7,642.00 $73,592.46 7,642.00 $73,592.46
28 LF 530 $14.50 $7,685.00 485.00 $7,032.50 485.00 $7,032.50
29 SF 500 $6.74 $3,370.00 370.00 $2,493.80 370.00 $2,493.80
30 EA 12 $83.68 $1,004.16 12.00 $1,004.16 13.00 $1,087.84
31 EA 12 $779.82 $9,357.84 11.00 $8,578.02 11.00 $8,578.02
32 EA 1 $1,838.10 $1,838.10 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
33 EA 1 $2,811.21 $2,811.21 1.00 $2,811.21 2.00 $5,622.42
34 EA 2 $1,946.23 $3,892.46 0.00 $0.00 2.00 $3,892.46
35 LF 208 $44.33 $9,220.64 58.00 $2,571.14 209.00 $9,264.97
36 EA 4 $1,243.42 $4,973.68 2.00 $2,486.84 3.00 $3,730.26
37 CY 8 $162.19 $1,297.52 5.00 $810.95 5.00 $810.95
38 LF 180 $10.70 $1,926.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
39 CY 70 $21.41 $1,498.70 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
40 LF 135 $15.14 $2,043.90 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
41 CY 800 $15.00 $12,000.00 182.00 $2,730.00 182.00 $2,730.00
42 SY 1,500 $2.94 $4,410.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
43 SY 8,800 $4.28 $37,664.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
44 EA 10 $27.03 $270.30 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $27.03
45 EA 10 $124.34 $1,243.40 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
$561,296.21 $259,073.19 $293,826.92
46 LS 0 $15,172.98 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
47 LS 0 $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
48 SY 0 $20.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
49 SY 0 $20.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
50 SY 0 $38.64 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
51 LF 0 $0.65 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
52 TN 0 $68.06 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
53 SY 0 $3.21 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
54 TN 0 $21.39 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
55 LF 0 $0.22 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
56 LF 0 $0.11 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAYS)
SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV)
HAUL EXCESS RECLAIMED MATERIAL OFF SITE (LV)
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAYS)
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPE
SUBGRADE EXCAVATION ‐ RECLAIM AREAS (CV)
RECLAIM EXISTING BITUMINOUS AND BASE MATERIALS, 8" DEPTH
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT
REVISED CONTRACT THIS PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE
DIVISION 1 ‐ PACKARD PARK AREA
MOBILIZATION
15" RCP FLARED END SECTION INCL TRASH GUARD
CLASS 3 RIP RAP WITH FABRIC
DITCH GRADING
POND EXCAVATION (CV)
JET AND CLEAN STORM SEWER
IMPORT AND PLACE TOPSOIL BORROW (LV)
TRAFFIC CONTROL
SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT
TYPE SP 9.5 BITUMINOUS NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) [SPNWA230B]
TYPE SP 9.5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) [SPWEA240B]
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
PATCH BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY
PATCH CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
SAW & SEAL STREET (40' INTERVALS)
SUBGRADE PREPARATION OF RECLAIMED SURFACE
INLET PROTECTION
BIOROLL DITCH CHECK
STREET SWEEPING
TREE TRIMMING
SALVAGE MAILBOX
INSTALL SALVAGED MAILBOX
SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SAWCUT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
B418 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
CONCRETE RIBBON CURB
6" CONCRETE FLUME
REMOVE CB CASTING
R‐3250‐1 CASTING
2' X 3' CATCH BASIN WITH CASTING PER DETAIL 404
4' DIA CBMH WITH SUMP AND CASTING PER DETAIL 405
4' DIA MH WITH CASTING PER DETAIL 407
15" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5
TRAFFIC CONTROL
JOINT REPAIR
SEEDING, FERTILIZER, AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
SODDING
SALVAGE SIGN
INSTALL SALVAGED SIGN
SUBTOTAL ‐ DIVISION 1
PATCH BITUMINOUS STREET (PARTIAL DEPTH)
PATCH BITUMINOUS STREET (FULL DEPTH)
DIVISION 2 ‐ 20TH STREET NORTH
MOBILIZATION
REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKINGS ‐ 4" LINES
3/4" OVERLAY
SUBTOTAL ‐ DIVISION 2
3/8" MICROSURFACE
CLASS 2 AGGREGATE SHOULDERING ‐ 100% CRUSHED LIMEROCK
4" DOUBLE SOLID YELLOW LINE ‐ LATEX
4" SOLID WHITE LINE ‐ LATEX
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT
REVISED CONTRACT THIS PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE
57 LS 1 $21,000.00 $21,000.00 0.25 $5,250.00 1 $15,750.00
58 LS 1 $1,621.85 $1,621.85 0.40 $648.74 1 $1,054.20
59 LF 2,150 $2.03 $4,364.50 0.00 $0.00 225 $456.75
60 EA 12 $74.93 $899.16 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
61 HR 10 $151.26 $1,512.60 1.00 $151.26 1 $151.26
62 EA 5 $80.28 $401.40 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
63 EA 6 $588.73 $3,532.38 0.00 $0.00 7 $4,121.11
64 EA 5 $214.09 $1,070.45 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
65 EA 22 $32.44 $713.68 0.00 $0.00 22 $713.68
66 EA 22 $37.84 $832.48 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
67 LF 375 $2.17 $813.75 269.00 $583.73 269 $583.73
68 LF 100 $4.07 $407.00 89.00 $362.23 89 $362.23
69 SY 6,680 $2.91 $19,438.80 4,180.00 $12,163.80 6,680 $19,438.80
70 SY 250 $5.35 $1,337.50 166.00 $888.10 266 $1,423.10
71 SY 110 $8.56 $941.60 37.00 $316.72 37 $316.72
72 LF 190 $10.81 $2,053.90 0.00 $0.00 190 $2,053.90
73 EA 2 $432.50 $865.00 0.00 $0.00 2 $865.00
74 CY 3,575 $8.56 $30,602.00 3,575.00 $30,602.00 3,575 $30,602.00
75 CY 325 $8.56 $2,782.00 76.00 $650.56 76 $650.56
76 CY 2,390 $12.31 $29,420.90 2,227.00 $27,414.37 2,227 $27,414.37
77 TN 2,600 $10.17 $26,442.00 2,600.00 $26,442.00 2,600 $26,442.00
78 TN 690 $62.38 $43,042.20 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
79 TN 520 $63.49 $33,014.80 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
80 GAL 405 $1.96 $793.80 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
81 SY 250 $20.55 $5,137.50 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
82 SY 110 $46.03 $5,063.30 60.00 $2,761.80 60 $2,761.80
83 TN 20 $27.54 $550.80 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
84 LF 1,300
$2.61 $3,393.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
85 EA 2 $584.98 $1,169.96 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
86 LF 4,500
$9.10 $40,950.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
87 SF 2 $42.82 $85.64 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
88 LF 1,155
$9.10 $10,510.50 1,155.00 $10,510.50 1,155 $10,510.50
89 EA 12 $160.56 $1,926.72 2.00 $321.12 12 $1,926.72
90 EA 2
$540.62 $1,081.24 0.00 $0.00 2 $1,081.24
91 EA 2 $1,838.10 $3,676.20 1.00 $1,838.10 2 $3,676.20
92 EA 1 $1,838.10 $1,838.10 0.00 $0.00 1 $1,838.10
93 EA 6 $2,108.41 $12,650.46 0.00 $0.00 6 $12,650.46
94 EA 3 $2,919.34 $8,758.02 0.00 $0.00 3 $8,758.02
95 LF 382
$42.17 $16,108.94 0.00 $0.00 382 $16,108.94
96 LF 235 $45.41 $10,671.35 0.00 $0.00 240 $10,898.40
97 EA 2
$1,243.42 $2,486.84 0.00 $0.00 2 $2,486.84
98 EA 1 $1,297.48 $1,297.48 0.00 $0.00 1 $1,297.48
99 CY 15
$162.19 $2,432.85 0.00 $0.00 11 $1,848.97
100 LF 100 $10.70 $1,070.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
101 CY 300 $15.00 $4,500.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
102 SY 5,000
$4.28 $21,400.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
103 SY 400 $2.94 $1,176.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
104 LF 1,440
$0.79 $1,137.60 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
105 EA 1 $27.03 $27.03 0.00 $0.00 1 $27.03
106 SF 9
$54.06 $486.54 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
107 EA 6 $27.03 $162.18 0.00 $0.00 5 $135.15
108 EA 6 $124.34 $746.04 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
$388,398.04 $120,905.03 $208,405.26
109 LS 1 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 0.50 $1,750.00 0.50 $1,750.00
110 LS 1 $2,324.66
$2,324.66 0.20 $464.93 0.20 $464.93
111 LF 6,600 $2.03 $13,398.00 1,620.00 $3,288.60 1,620.00 $3,288.60
112 HR 25 $151.26
$3,781.50 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
113 EA 20 $80.28 $1,605.60 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
114 EA 15 $588.73 $8,830.95 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
115 EA 12 $32.44 $389.28 0.00 $0.00 12.00 $389.28
116 EA 12 $37.84 $454.08 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
117 LF 375 $2.17
$813.75 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
118 SY 8,970 $2.71 $24,308.70 4,500.00 $12,195.00 4,500.00 $12,195.00
119 SY 130 $5.35
$695.50 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
SALVAGE MAILBOX
INSTALL SALVAGED MAILBOX
SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAYS)
TRAFFIC CONTROL
SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED
STREET SWEEPING
BIOROLL DITCH CHECK
CLEAR AND GRUB TREE
INSTALL SALVAGED SIGN
SUBTOTAL ‐ DIVISION 3
DIVISION 4 ‐ MANNING TRAIL NORTH
MOBILIZATION
2' X 3' CATCH BASIN WITH CASTING PER DETAIL 404
4' DIA CBMH WITH CASTING PER DETAIL 402
SEEDING, FERTILIZER, AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
4" DOUBLE SOLID YELLOW LINE ‐ EPOXY
REMOVE SIGN
SIGN PANEL, TYPE C
SALVAGE SIGN
18" RCP FLARED END SECTION INCL TRASH GUARD
CLASS 3 RIP RAP WITH FABRIC
DITCH GRADING
IMPORT AND PLACE TOPSOIL BORROW (LV)
SODDING
PATCH GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
SAW & SEAL STREET (40' INTERVALS)
PATCH CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
PATCH BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY
MOBILIZATION
SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED
INLET PROTECTION
GRUB EXISTING STUMP
BIOROLL DITCH CHECK
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM SEWER STRUCTURE
COMMON EXCAVATION (P)
SUBGRADE EXCAVATION ‐ RECONSTRUCT AREAS (CV)
SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV)
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
TYPE SP 9.5 BITUMINOUS NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) [SPNWA230B]
TYPE SP 9.5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) [SPWEA240B]
TRAFFIC CONTROL
DIVISION 3 ‐ DEER POND TRAIL & COURT
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPE
STREET SWEEPING
SALVAGE MAILBOX
INSTALL SALVAGED MAILBOX
SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SAWCUT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
CLEAR AND GRUB TREE
ADJUST EXISTING MANHOLE CASTING
B612 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
6" CONCRETE FLUME
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAYS)
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAYS)
4' DIA CBMH WITH CASTING PER DETAIL 406
4' DIA CBMH WITH SUMP AND CASTING PER DETAIL 405
15" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5
18" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5
15" RCP FLARED END SECTION INCL TRASH GUARD
4" PVC PERF EDGE DRAIN W/BACKFILL & WRAP
CONNECT DRAIN TILE TO STRUCTURE
CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER MH
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT
REVISED CONTRACT THIS PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE
120 LF 53 $10.81 $572.93 53.00 $572.93 53.00 $572.93
121 CY 5,205 $8.56 $44,554.80 1,381.00 $11,821.36 1,381.00 $11,821.36
122 CY 500 $8.56
$4,280.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
123 CY 3,290 $12.31 $40,499.90 1,231.00 $15,153.61 1,231.00 $15,153.61
124 TN 4,820 $10.17
$49,019.40 1,849.00 $18,804.33 1,849.00 $18,804.33
125 TN 1,360 $55.64 $75,670.40 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
126 TN 820 $61.67
$50,569.40 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
127 GAL 640 $1.96 $1,254.40 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
128 SY 130 $20.27 $2,635.10 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
129 TN 30 $27.02 $810.60 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
130 TN 345 $20.84 $7,189.80 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
131 LF 3,000 $11.77
$35,310.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
132 EA 8 $535.21 $4,281.68 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
133 LF 48 $62.71
$3,010.08 48.00 $3,010.08 48.00 $3,010.08
134 EA 2 $1,297.49 $2,594.98 2.00 $2,594.98 2.00 $2,594.98
135 CY 5 $162.19
$810.95 5.00 $810.95 5.00 $810.95
136 CY 500 $15.00 $7,500.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
137 SY 7,850 $2.94 $23,079.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
138 LF 3,300 $0.79
$2,607.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
139 LF 6,600 $0.48 $3,168.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
140 EA 5 $27.03
$135.15 0.00 $0.00 5.00 $135.15
141 SF 21 $54.06 $1,108.23 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
142 EA 14 $27.03
$378.42 0.00 $0.00 14.00 $378.42
143 EA 14 $124.34 $1,740.76 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
$422,883.00 $70,466.77 $71,369.62
TOTALS ‐ BASE CONTRACT $1,372,577.25 $450,444.99 $573,601.80
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
CO1‐1 LS 1.0 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 0.0 $0.00
CO1‐2 LS 1.0 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 0.0 $0.00
CO1‐3 TN 300.0 $68.06 $20,418.00 0.0 $0.00
CO1‐4 TN 1,065.0 $60.67 $64,613.55 0.0 $0.00
CO1‐5 GAL 865.0 $1.96 $1,695.40 0.0 $0.00
CO1‐6 TN 260.0 $21.39 $5,561.40 0.0 $0.00
CO1‐7 LF 4,860.0 $0.22 $1,069.20 0.0 $0.00
CO1‐8 LF 9,720.0 $0.11
$1,069.20 0.0 $0.00
TOTALS ‐ CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 $104,426.75 $0.00 $0.00
TOTALS ‐ REVISED CONTRACT $1,477,004.00 $450,444.99 $573,601.80
REMOVE SIGN
SIGN PANEL, TYPE C
SALVAGE SIGN
INSTALL SALVAGED SIGN
SUBTOTAL ‐ DIVISION 4
CLASS 3 RIP RAP WITH FABRIC
IMPORT AND PLACE TOPSOIL BORROW (LV)
SEEDING, FERTILIZER, AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
4" DOUBLE SOLID YELLOW LINE ‐ EPOXY
4" SOLID WHITE LINE ‐ EPOXY
TYPE SP 9.5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) [SPWEA2408] ‐LEVELING
COURSE
TYPE SP 9.5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) [SPWEA240B]
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
CLASS 2 AGGREGATE SHOULDERING ‐ 100% CRUSHED LIMEROCK
4" DOUBLE SOLID YELLOW LINE ‐ LATEX
4" SOLID WHITE LINE ‐ LATEX
CLASS 2 AGGREGATE SHOULDERING ‐ 100% CRUSHED LIMEROCK
4" PVC PERF EDGE DRAIN W/BACKFILL & WRAP
PRECAST CONCRETE HEADWALL (DRAIN TILE)
18" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5
18" RCP FLARED END SECTION INCL TRASH GUARD
TYPE SP 12.5 BITUMINOUS NON‐WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) [SPNWB230B]
TYPE SP 9.5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) [SPWEA240B]
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
PATCH BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY
PATCH GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPE
COMMON EXCAVATION (P)
SUBGRADE EXCAVATION ‐ RECONSTRUCT AREAS (CV)
SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV)
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
MOBILIZATION
TRAFFIC CONTROL
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
CONSENT
ITEM # 11
AGENDA ITEM: Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements – Resolution Declaring
Costs to be Assessed, Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessments, and
Calling for Hearing on Proposed Assessment
SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer
THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
Dave Snyder, City Attorney SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS if removed from the Consent Agenda):
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Public Input, if Appropriate…………………………… ........ Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Calling a final assessment hearing follows state statute for assessing benefitting properties for the improvements constructed in 2014 following the City’s Special Assessment Policy.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is respectfully requested to consider declaring costs to be assessed and calling for the
final assessment hearing for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements. If removed from the
consent agenda, the recommended motion for this action is as follows:
“Move to approve Resolution No. 2014-68; A Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed, Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment, and Calling for the Hearing on the Proposed Assessment for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements.”
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 11]
September 16, 2014
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvement Project is near completion and the final
project costs remain within the authorized project budget. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429 the council must declare the amount to be assessed against the benefiting properties
and Call the Hearing on the Proposed Assessment for these improvements. The Assessment
Hearing is proposed for October 21, 2014. The Final Assessment Roll must be certified to the
County Auditor by November 30, 2014. Special assessments for this project were established as
fixed amounts for a Trunk Watermain. Therefore the unit assessments remain unchanged with the final project costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the city council approve, as part of the Consent Agenda, Resolution No. 2014-68, thereby declaring the costs to be assessed to be $29,000; ordering the preparation of the proposed assessments with the unit assessments to be $2,900 for each benefitting property;
and Calling for the Hearing on the proposed Assessments for October 21, 2014 at or around 7:00
PM. The recommended motion is as follows:
“Move to approve Resolution No. 2014-68; A Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed, Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment, and Calling for the Hearing on the Proposed Assessment for the
Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements.” ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Resolution No. 2014-68; Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed, Ordering Preparation
of Proposed Assessment, and Calling for Hearing on Proposed Assessment 2. Notice of Hearing on Proposed Assessment
3. Final Assessment Roll
-- page 2 --
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-68
A RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED, ORDERING
PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT, AND CALLING FOR
HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE
WELL NO 4 CONNECTING WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements
including trunk watermain improvements along 50th Street between the Well 4 site and Lake Elmo Avenue and along Lake Elmo Avenue from 50th Street to 43rd Street; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the water improvements will be $550,000; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk and City Engineer have prepared the proposed assessment roll and
will maintain said assessment roll on file in the City offices for public inspection.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED,
1. The portion of the cost of such water improvement to be paid by the City is hereby declared to be
$521,000, and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared
to be $29,000.
2. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer, has calculated the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvements against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land to be benefited by the improvements, and the Clerk has filed a copy of such proposed assessment in
the City offices for public inspection. 3. Assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years,
the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2015, and shall bear interest at the rate of 4.61 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution.
4. A public hearing shall be held on the 21st day of October, 2014, in the Council Chambers of the
City Hall at or approximately after 7:00 P.M. to pass upon such proposed assessment. All persons
owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment.
5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall
state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given
to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings.
6. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the entire assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of
payment, to the City Clerk. No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of the assessment. A property owner may at any time thereafter, pay to
Resolution No. 2014-68 1
the City Clerk the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to
December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before
November 21 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year
ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF
SEPTEMBER 2014. CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By: __________________________
Mike Pearson Mayor (Seal)
ATTEST:
_________________________ Adam Bell City Clerk
Resolution No. 2014-68 2
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
WELL NO. 4 CONNECTING WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Lake Elmo will meet in the Council
Chambers of the City Hall at or approximately after 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, October 21,
2014, to consider, and possibly adopt, the proposed assessment against abutting property
for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements. Adoption by the Council of the
proposed assessment may occur at the hearing. The following describes the area proposed
to be assessed:
The amount to be specially assessed against each particular lot, piece, or parcel of
land receiving an individual service stub located along 50th Street, from the Well 4
site to Lake Elmo Avenue, and along Lake Elmo Avenue, from 50th Street to 43rd
Street, is $2,900.
You may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor on
November 21, 2014, pay the entire assessment on such property to the City Clerk with
interest accrued to the date of payment. No interest shall be charged if the entire
assessment is paid to the City Clerk 30 days from the adoption of this assessment. You
may at any time thereafter, pay to the City Clerk the entire amount of the assessment
remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such
payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 (date assessment
certified to County Auditor) or interest will be charged through December 31 of the
succeeding year. If you decide not to prepay the assessment before the date given above
the rate of interest that will apply is 4.61 percent per year.
Once assessments are certified to the County, the assessments are payable in equal annual
installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be
payable on or before the first Monday in January 2015, and will bear interest at the rate of
4.61 percent per annum from the date of adoption of the assessment resolution. To the
first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of the
assessment resolution until December 31, 2014. To each subsequent installment when
due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments.
The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk’s office.
The total amount of the proposed watermain improvement assessment is $29,000. The
City contribution for the watermain improvement project is $521,000. Written or oral
objections will be considered at the meeting. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of
an assessment unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is filed
with the municipal clerk prior to the assessment hearing or presented to the presiding
officer at the hearing. The Council may upon such notice consider any objection to the
amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further
notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable.
An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or Clerk within 30 days
after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within
ten days after service upon the Mayor or Clerk.
The City Council is authorized in its discretion to defer the payment of an assessment for
any homestead property owned by a person for whom it would be a hardship to make
payment if the owner is 65 years of age or older and/or the owner is a person retired by
virtue of a permanent and total disability or by a person who is a member of the
Minnesota National Guard or other military reserves who is ordered into active military
service, as defined in section 190.05 subdivision 5b or 5c, as stated in the person’s
military orders, for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. The owner must
request a deferment of the assessment at or before the public hearing at which the
assessment is adopted and make application on forms prescribed by the City Clerk within
30 days after the adoption.
Notwithstanding the standards and guidelines established by the City for determining a
hardship, a deferment of an assessment may be obtained pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 435.193.
DATED: September 16, 2014
BY ORDER OF THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
Mike Pearson, Mayor
(Published in the Oakdale-Lake Elmo Review on September 24, 2014)
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MN.SEPTEMBER 2014WELL NO. 4 CONNECTING WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTSFINAL ASSESSMENT ROLLPAGE 1 of 1NO. NAMEPID UNITS AMOUNT1ROBERTS SAXE G & B CHRISTINA 11165 50TH ST N 11165 50TH ST NLAKE ELMO 55042 1202921220002 1 $2,9002GLCJ PROPERTIES LLC 11050 50TH ST N 1870 RICE ST ROSEVILLE 55113 0102921330003 1 $2,9003BREADY MARY B & KATHRYN M FLICEK 4890 LAKE ELMO AVE N 4890 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 1102921110005 1 $2,9004DAY JACQUELYN L & KEVIN K 4779 LAKE ELMO AVE N 4779 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 1202921220005 1 $2,9005REINHARDT MICHAEL C & AMY L 4690 LAKE ELMO AVE N 4690 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 1102921140005 1 $2,9006 SLINGER DONALD L & JERELYN J 4620 LAKE ELMO AVE N 4620 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 1102921140004 1 $2,9007 WILLIAMS DOUGLAS C & MARY F COUNTRYMAN‐WILLIAMS 4596 LAKE ELMO AVE N 4596 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 1102921140001 1 $2,9008 HOFFMAN RICHARD J & NANCY L 4550 LAKE ELMO AVE N 4550 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 1102921140006 1 $2,9009SCHMIDT MARGARET ANN TRS 4525 LAKE ELMO AVE N 4525 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 1202921230005 1 $2,90010 ABBOTT ROY E & LAURA A 4455 LAKE ELMO AVE N 4455 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 1202921320002 1 $2,900TOTAL 10 $29,000ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
CONSENT
ITEM # 12
AGENDA ITEM: Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements – Resolution
Declaring Costs to be Assessed, Ordering Preparation of Proposed
Assessments, and Calling for Hearing on Proposed Assessment
SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer
THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
Dave Snyder, City Attorney SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS if removed from the Consent Agenda):
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Public Input, if Appropriate…………………………… ........ Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Calling a final assessment hearing follows state statute for assessing benefitting properties for the improvements constructed in 2014 following the City’s Special Assessment Policy.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is respectfully requested to consider declaring costs to be assessed and calling for the final assessment hearing for the Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements. If
removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for this action is as follows:
“Move to approve Resolution No. 2014-69; A Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed, Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment, and Calling for the Hearing on the Proposed Assessment for the Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements.”
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 12]
September 16, 2014
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Improvement Project is currently under construction and the final project costs remain within the authorized project budget. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429 the council must declare the amount to be assessed against the benefiting properties
and Call the Hearing on the Proposed Assessment for these improvements. The Assessment
Hearing is proposed for October 21, 2014. The Final Assessment Roll must be certified to the
County Auditor by November 30, 2014. Special assessments for this project were established as fixed amounts for a Trunk Watermain. Therefore the unit assessments remain unchanged with the final project costs.
There are additional properties along the project corridor that have requested to connect to City
water and have therefore been provided a service stub as part of the project. These properties are not included on the final assessment roll because they will be assessed separately from the public improvement process. These properties are being required to sign an agreement to waive the
right to appeal the assessment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the city council approve, as part of the Consent Agenda, Resolution
No. 2014-69, thereby declaring the costs to be assessed to be $92,800; ordering the preparation
of the proposed assessments with the unit assessments to be $2,900 for each benefitting property;
and Calling for the Hearing on the proposed Assessments for October 21, 2014 at or around 7:00 PM. The recommended motion is as follows:
“Move to approve Resolution No. 2014-69; A Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed,
Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment, and Calling for the Hearing on the Proposed
Assessment for the Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements.” ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Resolution No. 2014-69; Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed, Ordering Preparation
of Proposed Assessment, and Calling for Hearing on Proposed Assessment. 2. Notice of Hearing on Proposed Assessment.
3. Final Assessment Roll.
-- page 2 --
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-69
A RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED, ORDERING
PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT, AND CALLING FOR
HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE
LAKE ELMO AVENUE TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements
including trunk watermain improvements along Lake Elmo Avenue from 30th Street south to future 5th Street; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the water improvements will be $2,498,800 and WHEREAS, the City Clerk and City Engineer have prepared the proposed assessment roll and
will maintain said assessment roll on file in the City offices for public inspection.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED,
1. The portion of the cost of such water improvement to be paid by the City is hereby declared to be
$2,406,000, and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is
declared to be $92,800.
2. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer, has calculated the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvements against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land to be benefited by the improvements, and the Clerk has filed a copy of such proposed assessment in
the City offices for public inspection. 3. Assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years,
the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2015, and shall bear interest at the rate of 4.61 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution.
4. A public hearing shall be held on the 21st day of October, 2014, in the Council Chambers of the
City Hall at or approximately after 7:00 P.M. to pass upon such proposed assessment. All persons
owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment.
5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall
state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given
to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings.
6. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the entire assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of
payment, to the City Clerk. No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of the assessment. A property owner may at any time thereafter, pay to
Resolution No. 2014-69 1
the City Clerk the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to
December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before
November 21 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year
ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF
SEPTEMBER 2014. CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By: __________________________
Mike Pearson Mayor (Seal)
ATTEST:
________________________________ Adam Bell City Clerk
Resolution No. 2014-69 2
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
LAKE ELMO AVENUE TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Lake Elmo will meet in the Council
Chambers of the City Hall at or approximately after 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, October 21,
2014, to consider, and possibly adopt, the proposed assessment against abutting property
for the Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements. Adoption by the Council of
the proposed assessment may occur at the hearing. The following describes the area
proposed to be assessed:
The amount to be specially assessed against each particular lot, piece, or parcel of
land receiving a new individual service stub located along Lake Elmo Avenue
North from 30th Street to future 5th Street is $2,900.
You may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor on
November 21, 2014, pay the entire assessment on such property to the City Clerk with
interest accrued to the date of payment. No interest shall be charged if the entire
assessment is paid to the City Clerk 30 days from the adoption of this assessment. You
may at any time thereafter, pay to the City Clerk the entire amount of the assessment
remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such
payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 (date assessment
certified to County Auditor) or interest will be charged through December 31 of the
succeeding year. If you decide not to prepay the assessment before the date given above
the rate of interest that will apply is 4.61 percent per year.
Once assessments are certified to the County, the assessments are payable in equal annual
installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be
payable on or before the first Monday in January 2015, and will bear interest at the rate of
4.61 percent per annum from the date of adoption of the assessment resolution. To the
first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of the
assessment resolution until December 31, 2014. To each subsequent installment when
due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments.
The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk’s office.
The total amount of the proposed watermain improvement assessment is $92,800. The
City contribution for the watermain improvement project is $2,406,000. Written or oral
objections will be considered at the meeting. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of
an assessment unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is filed
with the municipal clerk prior to the assessment hearing or presented to the presiding
officer at the hearing. The Council may upon such notice consider any objection to the
amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further
notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable.
An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or Clerk within 30 days
after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within
ten days after service upon the Mayor or Clerk.
The City Council is authorized in its discretion to defer the payment of an assessment for
any homestead property owned by a person for whom it would be a hardship to make
payment if the owner is 65 years of age or older and/or the owner is a person retired by
virtue of a permanent and total disability or by a person who is a member of the
Minnesota National Guard or other military reserves who is ordered into active military
service, as defined in section 190.05 subdivision 5b or 5c, as stated in the person’s
military orders, for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. The owner must
request a deferment of the assessment at or before the public hearing at which the
assessment is adopted and make application on forms prescribed by the City Clerk within
30 days after the adoption.
Notwithstanding the standards and guidelines established by the City for determining a
hardship, a deferment of an assessment may be obtained pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 435.193.
DATED: September 16, 2014
BY ORDER OF THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
Mike Pearson, Mayor
(Published in the Oakdale-Lake Elmo Review on September 24, 2014)
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MN.SEPTEMBER 2014LAKE ELMO AVENUE TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTSFINAL ASSESSMENT ROLLPAGE 1 of 1NO. NAMEPID UNITS UNITS1 GRIFFIN WENDY L 2835 LAKE ELMO AVE N 2835 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2402921220004 1 $2,900.002RALEIGH DANIEL D & DEBORAH C 2737 LAKE ELMO AVE N 2737 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2402921230009 1 $2,900.003TREML DENNIS F & BARBARA J 2715 LAKE ELMO AVE N 2715 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2402921230010 1 $2,900.004KEMPF GUST JR TRS 2685 LAKE ELMO AVE NPO BOX 311 LAKE ELMO 55042 2402921240004 1 $2,900.005NOVAK CAROL JEANNE TRS 2641 LAKE ELMO AVE N 2925 KLONDIKE AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2402921240002 1 $2,900.006LEITE JAN A 2575 LAKE ELMO AVE N 2575 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2402921230004 1 $2,900.007HYNDMAN MARTIN V 2543 LAKE ELMO AVE N 2543 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2402921230003 1 $2,900.008HOPKINS STEPHEN L & OLSON GAIL 2525 LAKE ELMO AVE N 2525 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2402921230006 1 $2,900.009WASKO MICHAEL & KATHRYN A 2491 LAKE ELMO AVE N 2491 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2402921320001 1 $2,900.0010 TAIT GEORGE R & JULIE A 2443 LAKE ELMO AVE NPO BOX 116 LAKE ELMO 55042 2402921320013 1 $2,900.0011 FULLER SUSAN A TRS 2337 LAKE ELMO AVE N 4058 DEERWOOD TRL EAGAN 55122 2402921320005 1 $2,900.0012 GARDNER ROBERT L 2315 LAKE ELMO AVE N 2315 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2402921320003 1 $2,900.0013 JOHNSON JAY A & CHRISTIAN 2269 LAKE ELMO AVE N 2269 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2402921320006 1 $2,900.0014 CLIFFORD N ADKINS FAMILY TRS 10/30/07 2227 LAKE ELMO AVE N 1017 PARK AVE ST PAUL 55115 2402921330004 1 $2,900.0015 NACHTWEY LAWRENCE J 2211 LAKE ELMO AVE N 2211 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2402921330003 1 $2,900.0016 BANISTER JAMES R & MARY G BANISTER 2197 LAKE ELMO AVE N 2197 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2402921330002 1 $2,900.0017 TRAVERS NORRINE 2151 LAKE ELMO AVE N 2151 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2402921330005 1 $2,900.0018 THOMPSON JOHN R & ROSALINDA C 2119 LAKE ELMO AVE N 2119 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2402921330006 1 $2,900.0019 WRIGHT DONALD A & ARDIS R 2069 LAKE ELMO AVE N 2069 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2402921330014 1 $2,900.0020 LARSON PAUL J & JOANN 2041 LAKE ELMO AVE N 2041 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2402921330013 1 $2,900.0021 KRONGARD ELIZABETH 1796 LAKE ELMO AVE NPO BOX 882 LAKE ELMO 55042 2602921110001 1 $2,900.0022 REARDON VICKY A 1756 LAKE ELMO AVE N 1756 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2602921110002 1 $2,900.0023 WEEKS BRUCE W 1446 LAKE ELMO AVE N 1446 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2602921410002 1 $2,900.0024 PETERSON FRANCES 1326 LAKE ELMO AVE N 1326 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 2602921410005 1 $2,900.0025 HOLMGREN TERI & STEVEN MOST 978 LAKE ELMO AVE N 978 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 3502921110003 1 $2,900.0026 HER KOU & NENG V 928 LAKE ELMO AVE N 928 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 3502921110004 1 $2,900.0027 VUE DOUA 872 LAKE ELMO AVE N 872 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 3502921110005 1 $2,900.0028 ADKINS TRACY J 814 LAKE ELMO AVE N 814 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 3502921110006 1 $2,900.0029 MILLER RANDY L & JANE C 760 LAKE ELMO AVE N 760 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 3502921140003 1 $2,900.0030 OLIVEIRA MARCIO R S & JULAINE 704 LAKE ELMO AVE N 704 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 3502921140004 1 $2,900.0031 ANNETTE L KASPERSON REV TRS 616 LAKE ELMO AVE N 616 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 3502921130001 1 $2,900.0032 BRADLEY FLORENCE L TRS & GILLIS M LINDBERG TRS 520 LAKE ELMO AVE N 520 LAKE ELMO AVE NLAKE ELMO 55042 3502921140001 1 $2,900.00TOTAL 32 $92,800.00ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
CONSENT
ITEM# 13
AGENDA ITEM: Request for approval to abate interest on two street assessments levied in
2014 (Interest only)
SUBMITTED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
THROUGH: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
REVIEWED BY: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator
- Report/Presentation……………………………………....…City Administrator
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Washington County/Finance
FISCAL IMPACT: $270
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of the Consent Agenda, the City Council is respectfully requested to consider approval to remove the interest assessed to parcels
05.029.21.41.0005 and 05.029.21.41.0006 from the 2014 assessment roll with Washington
County.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION/STAFF REPORT: Washington County recently notified the Finance Director that the State of Minnesota does not pay penalties, interest or costs unless
specifically provided for by law. The mentioned parcels are owned by the Minnesota DNR.
Since the Finance Director was unaware of this exception for state of Minnesota parcels, the assessments were filed with interest to be calculated by the County, as for all other assessments. As a result, an abatement form needs to be filed with the County in order to remove the interest
from their account. This will also update their file going forward so that no interest is calculated
on the remaining installments due on this assessment.
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 13]
September 16, 2014
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the fact that the State of Minnesota does not pay interest on
assessments, it is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution 2014-70 so that an
abatement of the assessments can be filed with Washington County.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. DNR Letter to Washington County requesting an abatement
2. Email from Washington County requesting an abatement form 3. Resolution 2014-70
4. WA Cty abatement form for 05.029.21.41.0005
5. WA Cty abatement form for 05.029.21.41.0006
-- page 2 --
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-70
A RESOLUTION RELATED TO 2014 ASSESSMENTS
TO WASHINGTON COUNTY
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota,
that the 2014 interest certified to PID #05.029.21.41.0005 and PID #05.029.21.41.0006 may be removed from the 2014 assessment roll due per the attached Washington County abatement forms.
APPROVED by the Lake Elmo City Council on this 16th day of September, 2014. .
By: __________________________ Mike Pearson
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Adam Bell
City Clerk
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
CONSENT
ITEM # 14
AGENDA ITEM: Authorization for John Schiltz to dispense beer and wine coolers at the
Lake Elmo Volksmarch event on October 11, 2014
SUBMITTED BY: Beckie Gumatz, Deputy Clerk
THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Adam Bell, City Clerk
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator
- Report/Presentation…………………………………………City Administrator
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: City Staff
FISCAL IMPACT: NA
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is requested to consider authorization for John
Schiltz, owner and operator of Lake Elmo Inn, a municipal retail on-sale liquor license holder to
dispense beer and wine coolers off premises and allow for consumption within the parameters set for the City’s Volksmarch event on October 11, 2014. As part of the Consent Agenda, no formal motion is required. If Council wishes to further discuss this authorization, they can remove this
item from the Consent Agenda and approve the authorization by taking the following action:
“Move to authorize John Schiltz, owner and operator of Lake Elmo Inn, a municipal retail on-sale liquor license holder, to dispense beer and wine coolers off premises and allow for consumption within the parameters set for the City’s Volksmarch event being held October 11, 2014.”
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 14]
September 16, 2014
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
Pursuant to MN State Statute 340A.404 Subd. 4(b), under Special provisions; sports,
conventions, or cultural facilities; community festivals, the governing body of a municipality may authorize a holder of a retail on-sale intoxicating liquor license issued by the municipality to
dispense intoxicating liquor off premises at a community festival held within the municipality.
The authorization shall specify the area in which the intoxicating liquor must be dispensed and
consumed, and shall not be issued unless the licensee demonstrates that it has liability insurance
as prescribed by Section 340A.409 to cover the event. The City of Lake Elmo, in conjunction with local businesses and the community, will hold the Lake Elmo Volksmarch event on October
11, 2014. Authorization is necessary for the safe sale of alcohol at the event and to confirm that
requirement of liability insurance for the municipal on-sale license holder.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council authorize, as part of its Consent Agenda, for John Schiltz,
owner and operator of Lake Elmo Inn, a municipal retail on-sale liquor license holder, to
dispense beer and wine coolers off premises and allow for consumption within the parameters set
for the City’s Volksmarch event being held October 11, 2014. As part of the consent agenda, no formal motion is required. If Council wishes to further discuss the authorization, they can
remove this item from the Consent Agenda and approve the authorization by taking the
following action:
“Move to authorize John Schiltz, owner and operator of Lake Elmo Inn, a municipal retail on-sale liquor license holder, to dispense beer and wine coolers off premises and allow for consumption within the parameters set for the City’s Volksmarch event being held October 11, 2014.”
AUTHORITY:
2013 Minnesota Statutes:
§340A.404 INTOXICATING LIQUOR; ON-SALE LICENSES.
Subd. 4. Special provisions; sports, conventions, or cultural facilities; community festivals.
(b) The governing body of a municipality may authorize a holder of a retail on-sale intoxicating
liquor license issued by the municipality to dispense intoxicating liquor off premises at a
community festival held within the municipality. The authorization shall specify the area in
which the intoxicating liquor must be dispensed and consumed, and shall not be issued unless the licensee demonstrates that it has liability insurance as prescribed by section 340A.409 to cover
the event.
-- page 2 --
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
REGULAR
ITEM #: 15 MOTION $$
AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of Resolution to Affirm the Local Preferred Alternative (LPA)
For the Bus Rapid Transit Route of the Gateway Corridor
SUBMITTED BY: Dean Zuleger / Nick Johnson
THROUGH: Mayor Mike Pearson, Council Member Mike Reeves,
REVIEWED BY: Washington County Public Works, Lake Elmo EDA , Met Council
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator
- Report/Presentation…………………………………………City Administrator
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECCOMENDER: Mayor Mike Pearson & Council Member Mike Reeves,
Members of the Policy Advisory Committee of the Gateway Commission FISCAL IMPACT: Up to $40,000 in planning support for Transportation Oriented
Development from Washington County and $30,000-$50,000 in economic development analysis
for the Bus Rapid Transit route along Hudson Boulevard.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City of Lake Elmo Council is asked to adopt Resolution No. 2014-71 recommending the evaluation of a bus rapid transit corridor that may be
located in the right of way of Hudson Boulevard from Inwood Avenue to possibly as far as
Manning Avenue. This alignment is known as the (A-B-C-D2 (Lake Elmo) – E2) cordior that
runs from St. Paul to Lake Elmo / Woodbury. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: For 5+ plus years the Gateway Commission has explored mass
transit strategies meant to create better efficiencies in moving commuter back and forth from St.
Paul to the east end of Washington County. For the most part, the study has concentrated on a
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 15]
September 16, 2014
east-west transit line through the City of Woodbury (D1) with Lake Elmo resident access to the
system being the Guardian Angels Church Park N Ride. Earlier this year, due to traffic
management difficulties and ingress-egress conflicts, the Woodbury corridor was deferred to the
Lake Elmo side of I-94 due to the green field nature of the community, less congestion, and a better opportunity to work with landowners on ingress-egress issues. So Lake Elmo went from
an interested bystander in the Gateway process to a catalyst in the ability to extend the transit
route past Oakdale. Earlier this year, the Gateway Commission chose bus rapid transit over light
rail as the mode of transportation for costs savings, construction efficiency, and practicality.
In the process of reviewing the impact of bus rapid transit in Lake Elmo, the City conducted
meetings with landowners, its economic development authority, County/Met Council/ state
officials, and other communities as part of its due diligence. On September 9, 2104 the City
conducted a workshop with members of the Washington County Board to determine items of
concern or need to approve the local Preferred Alternative needed to advance the project to the next level. Each City must adopt an LPA resolution prior to October 7, 2014 for the
gateway project to be included in the Met Council’s Transportation Project Plan. Adoption in to this plan will allow for the access of federal planning dollars to continue the analysis.
In this due diligence, the City has come to the conclusion that (5) major items need to be addressed between the approval of the LPA resolution and the City’s final approval – called
municipal consent – that would be the final binding approval before transit route construction
can take place. These items are:
1. That the County assumed jurisdictional control of Hudson Boulevard from Inwood Avenue to Manning Avenue which would could save Lake Elmo $10 million to $15
million over a 20 year period.
2. That Lake Elmo and the County agree to an access plan for Hudson Boulevard that
would maintain current ingress-egress access for landowners to avoid business
disruption. 3. The Gateway Commission consider an easterly station in the proximity of the NW
corner of Manning Avenue and I-94 to support economic development.
4. That due to infrastructure constraints, an interchange is never built at the crossroads
of I-94 and Lake Elmo Avenue.
5. That a safety and security plan be developed for the Gateway Corridor that insures Lake Elmo residents will not be adversely affect by the BRT.
These concerns were incorporated into the attached resolution and have been communicated to
both the Gateway Commission and Washington County technical staff.
Failure to pass this LPA would force the Gateway Commission into a 180 day proving process for the need of the BRT with the Met Council and eliminate federal funding for future analysis.
-- page 2 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 15]
September 16, 2014
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT):
Strengths Passage of the LPA will allow the City to access planning dollars and support PLUS an independent economic development study (funded by East Metro Strong) to help in the commercial
development of Lake Elmo. The value of this service is $70,000-
$90,000 of program revenue. Lake Elmo can still veto the
process at municipal consent. Weaknesses Lake Elmo has not had the sufficient time to fully analyze the ramifications of Gateway and the E2 terminus without regard to a
station on Manning Ave. could hamstring development efforts.
Opportunities A complete economic development analysis would help in the
recruitment of business and proper planning of the I94 corridor. Threats BRT could cause traffic congestion, increased density and other safety issues that could affect the community’s character.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends and appropriate
guiding motion.
“Adoption of Resolution 2014-71 Transmitting the City of Lake Elmo’s support of
the locally preferred alternative (LPA) to the Ramsey County Regional Railroad
Authority, Washington County Regional Railroad Authority, and the Metropolitan
Council.”
-- page 3 --
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: 9/16/14
REGULAR
ITEM #16 RESOLUTION 2014-072
AGENDA ITEM: Inwood Planned Unit Development – General Concept Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
Nick M. Johnson, City Planner
THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Superintendent
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director
- Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECCOMENDER: The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval
of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) General Concept Plan for a mixed-used planned
development to be named Inwood, located in Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. In
recommending approval of the PUD Concept Plan, the Planning Commission made several findings of fact and recommended 25 conditions of approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: TBD – All costs incurred to the City through the review of the application
are reimbursed by land use application fees and a development escrow. The project covers 157
acres of land, and will include the extension of public services (water and sewer) into the site. The developer will be required to prepare a developer’s agreement for all phases of the project, at which point all public and private improvements will be identified. The developer is
proposing to construct 5th Street as privately as part of the overall improvements.
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16]
September 16, 2014
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a
request from Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10, LLC for a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Concept Plan for a new mixed-use development on 157 acres of land located at the southeast
corner of Inwood Avenue and 10th Street in Lake Elmo. The concept plan as submitted includes 273 single-family residential lots, 144 townhouses, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse
units, and approximately 68,814 square feet of commercial/office uses. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing and considered the PUD at its August 25th meeting, and
postponed taking action on the concept plan until its September 8th meeting. After further
discussion at is September 8th meeting, the Commission is recommending approval of the PUD General Concept Plan with 25 conditions of approval, some of which will require modifications to the plans as presented.
The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows:
“Move to adopt Resolution 2014-072, approving the Inwood PUD General Concept Plan.”
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The Planning
Commission considered the PUD plans at its August 25th meeting and conducted a public hearing on the request at this time. There were several comments received from the public at this meeting, and in addition to these statements, Staff also received written communication from the
Department of Natural Resources and from a neighboring property owner. Rather than
summarizing the public comments in this memorandum, Staff has attached an excerpt of the
minutes from the Commission’s meeting concerning the PUD for review by the Council. The letter from the DNR and neighboring property owner is likewise attached. After discussing various aspects of the project suggesting several modifications to the conditions of approval, the
Commission ultimately postponed taking action on the PUD.
As part of its ongoing review of the proposed project, the Commission conducted a site visit to a similar development that the applicant is building in Blaine, Minnesota on September 3, 2014. In addition, as a follow-up to the public hearing, the developer submitted a revised site plan in
order to address the initial comments and recommendations of the Planning Commission. Staff
has included the revised site plan with this report.
The Commission continued its discussion on the PUD Concept Plan (and reviewed the updated concept plan) at its September 8, 2014 meeting, and received additional testimony from members
of the public at this time. The City Council has been provided with the draft minutes from this
meeting as part of its meeting agenda packet, which includes a summary of the comments that
were received. As part of its discussion, the Commission recommending the inclusion of eight additional conditions of approval beyond those drafted by Staff, which included the requirements/conditions as follows:
1) All multi-family housing is to be located south of 5th Street.
2) Sidewalks will be provided on one side of every street with cul-de-sacs except 9th Street. 3) The trail along the Stonegate boundary will be located as far west as possible.
-- page 2 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16]
September 16, 2014
4) The lots at the end of cul-de-sacs in neighborhoods E, F, and H will be designed as
designer (larger) lots.
5) The developer will consider adding a small park to the northwest portion of the site
subject to review by the Park Commission. 6) The high density housing area will be limited to a maximum of 15 units per acre.
7) The design for the commercial and multi-family areas will be consistent with the single-
family housing and throughout the development.
8) All cul-de-sac will meet the City’s maximum length requirements.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, Staff has received comments from the Chair expressing
concern that the issues associated with the lot sizes within the development did not receive much
discussion at the meeting. As noted in the development plans, the developer is proposing a mix
of different lot sizes within the “lifestyle housing” portion of the development, and these lots
would be allocated as follows:
• 20% 38 foot wide lots
• 60% 50 foot wide lots
• 20% 58 foot wide lots
It is Staff’s expectation, that should the project be approved, that the final development plans
will need to follow this general allocation of lots throughout the project. While there was no
specific motion at the Planning Commission meeting to regulate the number of each type of lot permitted, at least two Commissioners have indicated that they would prefer a higher percentage
of larger lots within the development. At this time, Staff is asking that the Council review this
aspect of the project plans as it considers the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and
would need to request changes to the development plans if it finds the allocation of lot sizes to be
unacceptable to the City. Staff is on record as supporting the proposed lot size mix as proposed by the developer.
In order to provide the City Council with a complete description of the information considered
by the Planning Commission, Staff has attached the detailed reports submitted for both the
meetings at which the Planning Commission considered the PUD. These reports include detailed information concerning the concept plan in addition to the staff review and analysis of the
request. As noted earlier, any updated plans that were submitted by the applicant in between
Commission meetings have been integrated into the plans attached to this report.
After a lengthy discussion concerning the PUD Concept Plan and the recommended conditions of approval, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval of the Inwood
PUD General Concept Plan with conditions of approval. The complete list of recommended
conditions may be found in Resolution 2014-072 (Attachment #1). The motion passed with a
vote of 5 ayes and 2 nays. The dissenting Commissioners did not agree that that the PUD plans
were consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and noted that these plans did not meet the minimum standards of the LDR zoning district.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT):
-- page 3 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16]
September 16, 2014
Strengths • Approval of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan allows the
applicants to move forward with the preparation of a PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat application.
• The Planning Commission and Staff both determined that the
proposed Concept Plan is consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
• The proposed planned development offers unique design that is consistent with the City’s desire to promote walkable single
family neighborhoods with common open space.
Weaknesses • The project includes several conditions of approval that will need to be met by the applicant. Opportunities • The PUD will add users to the City’s public water and sanitary
sewer system (with connection fees).
• The project includes a major piece of the planned 5th Street minor collector road.
Threats • The City of Oakdale has raised concerns about transportation
access issues along Inwood Avenue. Washington County has
agreed to assist in the development of an access spacing plan for Inwood Avenue in the near future.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above report, background information, and related
attachments, the Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the City Council
approve the Inwood PUD Concept Plan with 25 conditions of approval. The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows:
“Move to adopt Resolution 2014-072, approving the Inwood PUD General Concept Plan.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 2014-072
2. Planning Commission Staff Report – 9/8/14
3. Planning Commission Staff Report – 8/25/14
4. Location Map 5. Application Form
6. Project Narrative (Revised/Supplement)
7. Project Narrative (Original)
8. Inwood PUD Concept Plan w/Details (Revised)
9. Inwood PUD Concept Planning & Design Booklet (Color Copies) 10. City Engineer’s Review Memorandum, dated 8/13/14
11. Fire Chief’s Review Memorandum, dated 8/19/14
12. Washington County Review Memorandum, dated 8/20/14
13. Minnesota DNR Review Comments 8/25/14
14. City of Oakdale Review Comments 8/29/14
-- page 4 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16]
September 16, 2014
15. City of Oakdale Email Comments 9/8/14
16. Tom FitzGerald, Email Comments 8/25/14
17. Stonegate Neighborhood Petition 9/8/14
18. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Excerpt) 8/25/14
-- page 5 --
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-072
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INWOOD PUD GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN
WHEREAS, Hans Hagen Homes, 941 NE Hillwind Road, Suite 300, Fridley, MN and
Inwood 10, LCC, 95 South Owasso Boulevard West, St. Paul, MN (“Applicants”) have submitted
an application to the City of Lake Elmo (“City”) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept
Plan for a proposed planned development to be called Inwood, copies of which are on file in the City Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Concept Plan is for a mixed-use Planned Unit Development
development on 157 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Inwood Avenue and 10th Street
in Lake Elmo and that the Concept Plan includes 273 single-family residential lots, 144 townhouses, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse units, and approximately 68,814 square
feet of commercial/office uses; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on August 25,
2014 to consider the request and continued its discussion concerning the request at its September 8, 2014 meeting; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2014 the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion
to recommend that the City Council approve the Inwood PUD Concept Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and
recommendation concerning the Inwood PUD Concept Plan to the City Council as part of a
memorandum from the Planning Department dated September 16, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the proposed Inwood PUD Concept Plan at a meeting on September 16, 2014.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the testimony elicited and information received, the City
Council makes the following:
FINDINGS
1) That the procedure for obtaining approval of said PUD Concept Plan is found in the Lake Elmo City Code, Section 154.800.
Resolution 2014-072
2
2) That all the requirements of said City Code Section 154.800 related to the PUD Concept
Plan have been met by the Applicant.
3) That the proposed PUD Concept Plan is for a mixed-use Planned Unit Development on 157 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Inwood Avenue and 10th Street in Lake Elmo
and that the Concept Plan includes 273 single-family residential lots, 144 townhouses, 150
multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse units, and approximately 68,814 square feet of
commercial/office uses.
4) That the PUD Concept Plan will be located on property legally described on the attached
Exhibit “A”.
5) That the proposed PUD Concept Plan includes exceptions to the City’s underlying Zoning
District requirements that will be more fully described as part of the Applicant’s Preliminary PUD Development Plans.
6) That the proposed General Concept Plan for a PUD is consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and that the uses proposed are consistent with the
LDR – Urban Low Density Residential, C – Commercial, and HDR – High Density Residential land use designations shown for the area on the official Comprehensive Land
Use Plan.
7) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan complies with the general intent of the City’s Urban
Low Density Residential, Urban High Density Residential and Commercial zoning districts with the exception of the issues identified in the Staff Reports.
8) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan complies with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.
9) That the Inwood PUD complies with the City’s PUD Ordinance, and specifically the
identified objectives for the consideration of a Planned Development.
10) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the City’s engineering standards with exceptions as noted by the City Engineer in his review comments to the City dated August
13, 2014.
11) That the master-planning technique utilized in the Inwood PUD Concept Plan provides
thoughtful integration of multiple land uses, a variety of housing types and an effective and
connected transportation system, allowing for different modes of travel throughout the site.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the foregoing, the Applicants’ application for a PUD Concept Plan is granted, provided the following conditions are met:
1) The applicant must obtain permission and consent from the adjoining property owner,
Bremer Bank, related to the right-of-way and alignment of the 5th Street minor collector road
in the southeast corner of the site. The final alignment must be determined prior to the
Resolution 2014-072
3
submittal of PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat applications.
2) Request for flexibility related to lot size, width, setbacks and all other requirements per the
City’s Zoning Ordinance or Design Standards must be clarified and documented as part of
the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat submission.
3) The application for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan approval will include an
overall PUD planning document that addresses the flexibility requests noted in the preceding
condition and that also specifies the specific design considerations to be used throughout the
project area.
4) The Preliminary PUD plans will include a phasing plan for all portions of the development.
5) The Preliminary Development Plans shall include a water tower within the project
development area in a location that is deemed acceptable by the City Engineer. As an
alternative, the developer may identify an alternate location off-site for the water tower in a
location deemed acceptable by the City Engineer provided the ownership of the site is
transferred to the City and all required utility connections are constructed in conjunction with the platting of the Inwood PUD.
6) The Preliminary PUD plans shall be updated to include additional park land in the
southeastern portion of the site. A larger park area of 5 to 10 acres adjacent to the existing
Stonegate Park and with access to 5th Street is the preferred location. The location and size
of this park will be subject to review by the Lake Elmo Park Commission.
7) All street and median geometrics must accommodate emergency vehicle access and
maintenance. Applicants must demonstrate acceptable turning radii for all uniquely shaped
landscape medians and cul-de-sacs.
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 the appropriate watershed district prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site.
9) Any land under which public trails are located will be accepted as park land provided the
developer constructs said trails as part of the public improvements for the subdivision, and
the land is located outside of any restrictive easements.
10) The applicant shall observe all comments and recommendations from the City Engineer documented on the Engineer’s report dated August 13, 2014.
11) The Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans will address review comments and issues
that are identified within the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Inwood planned
development site.
12) The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City clarifying responsibility for all median landscaping and stormwater facilities internal to the single
family residential streets.
13) The applicants must work with the City to determine fair and equitable cost share for City
costs related to the future signalization of the intersection at 5th Street and Inwood Avenue
(CSAH 13).
14) The applicant must work with Washington County to address all review comments documented in the attached report dated 8/20/14 pertaining to access and intersection design
Resolution 2014-072
4
for Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) and 10th Street (CSAH 10).
15) The applicant must provide sidewalks on both sides of Street B to better serve the single
family residential area.
16) Additional trail segments along the east side of Inwood Avenue from 5th Street to 10th Street and along 10th Street from Inwood Avenue to the Greenbelt Buffer Trail must be
incorporated into the plans.
17) The applicant must work with the City to ensure compliance with the City’s shoreland
provisions and the standards of the SWWD and MN DNR related to shoreland areas of
designated public waters.
18) The development plans must be updated so that all multi-family housing is located south of
5th Street. No multi-family residential development will be allowed north of 5th Street.
19) Sidewalks shall be provided on one side of every street, including all cul-de-sacs and loop
roads within the development with the exception of 9th Street.
20) The trail within the eastern buffer area near the property boundary with the Stonegate subdivision shall be located as far west as possible on the site.
21) The lots at the far eastern cul-de-sacs in neighborhoods E, F, and H shall be platted as
designer (larger) lots in accordance with the lot so designated on the PUD Concept Plan.
22) The developer shall consider adding a small park to the northwest portion of the site subject
to review and comment by the Park Commission.
23) The high density housing area shall be limited to a maximum of 15 units per acre.
24) The design for structures within the commercial and multi-family areas shall be consistent
with the overall design throughout the development, including the single-family
neighborhoods.
25) All cul-de-sac streets shall meet the City’s maximum length requirements as specified in the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.
Passed and duly adopted this 16th day of September 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
__________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Adam Bell, City Clerk
Resolution 2014-072
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 9/8/14
AGENDA ITEM: 5B – BUSINESS ITEM
CASE # 2014-42
ITEM: Inwood Planned Unit Development (PUD) – General Concept Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief Ann Pung-Terwedo, Washington County Matt Moore, South Washington Watershed District
Molly Shodeen, MN DNR
Emily Shively, City of Oakdale
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request from Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10, LLC for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a new mixed-use
development on 157 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Inwood Avenue and 10th
Street in Lake Elmo. The concept plan includes 273 single-family residential lots, 144
townhouses, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse units, and approximately 68,814 square feet of commercial/office uses. Staff is recommending approval of the PUD Concept Plan with 17 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. The Planning Commission held a
public hearing on at their meeting on 8/25/14 and postponed consideration of the planned
development.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Hans Hagen Homes (John Rask), 941 NE Hillwind Rd. Suite 300, Fridley,
MN 55432 and Inwood 10 (Tom Scheutte), LLC, 95 S Owasso Blvd. W., St. Paul, MN 55117-7830
Property Owners: Inwood 10, LLC (Tom Scheutte), 95 S Owasso Blvd. W., St. Paul, MN
55117-7830
Location: Part of Section 33 in Lake Elmo, immediately south of 10th Street (CSAH 10),
immediately north of Eagle Point Business Park, immediately east of Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) and immediately west of Stonegate residential
subdivision. PIDs: 33.029.21.12.0001, 33.029.21.12.0003, 33.029.21.11.0002
and 33.029.21.11.0001.
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
2
Request: Application for Concept Plan approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
containing 281 single family lots, 144 townhome units, 150 multi-family
units, 120 senior living townhome units and multiple sites intended for
commercial uses to be named Inwood of Lake Elmo.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant land used for agricultural purposes. Current Zoning:
RT – Rural Transitional Zoning District; Proposed Zoning:
LDR – Low Density Residential, HDR – High Density
Residential and C – Commercial (all with PUD overlay)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Vacant agricultural land and two residential homes – RR and PF zoning; West: Oak Marsh Golf Course, urban
single family subdivision, commercial – City of Oakdale
jurisdiction;
South: Offices in Eagle Point Business Park (including
Bremer Bank facility) – BP zoning; East: Stonegate residential estates subdivision – RE zoning.
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 – 4 units per acre),
Urban High Density Residential/Mixed Use (7.5 – 15 units
per acre) and Commercial.
History: The site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. The applicants have submitted a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for
publication to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) on September 15th,
commencing the 30-day comment period.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 8/12/14
60 Day Deadline – 10/10/14 Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 12/9/14
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (§154.450) Article 12 – Commercial Districts (§154.550)
Article 16 – Planned Unit Development (§154.800)
Article 17 – Shoreland Management Overlay District
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received an application from Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10,
LLC for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a mixed-use project that will be located on 157 acres of land located south of 10th Street (CSAH 10) and east of Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) in Lake Elmo. The proposed project will include 273 single-family residential lots,
144 townhouses, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse units, and approximately 68,814
square feet of commercial/office uses, in addition to storm water facilities, trails, and park areas
as depicted on the attached site development plan. While the planned uses for the site generally match those shown on the City’s future land use map for the property, the applicant is proposing a slightly different configuration of the various land uses. Most notably, the developer is asking
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
3
that the commercial area be moved further south along Inwood Avenue to the intersection of 5th
Street and that a small area of multi-family development be allowed at the intersection of Inwood
Avenue and 10th Street.
The Planning Commission reviewed the request and held a public hearing on 8/25/14. At the public hearing, testimony was received from Nancy Andert (697 Julep Ave. N.), Mike Lancette (832 Jasmine Ave. N.) and Curt Montieth (331 Julep Ave. N.). In addition, the City received
letters from MN DNR and Tom Fitzgerald (877 Jasmine Ave. N.), both of which were entered
into the public record. For further detail on the content of the testimony during the public
hearing, please refer to the draft minutes for the 8/25/14 Planning Commission meeting, which is attached to the 9/8/14 Planning Commission Agenda Packet. In addition to holding the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed many different elements of the proposed planned
development. Over the course of discussion, the Planning Commission made several motions
related to review of the Concept Plan. The summary of the Planning Commission review on
8/25/14 can be found in the Planning Commission Review, Analysis and Recommendations Section. After significant discussion of the proposed planned development, the Planning Commission postponed consideration of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan until the next meeting to
allow the Planning Commissioners to visit a similar Hans Hagen development containing
Lifestyle Homes, The Lakes in Blaine, MN. The site visit was useful in becoming familiar with
the requested residential product (Lifestyle Homes) and the requested setbacks.
In response to many of the questions and discussion items at the Planning Commission meeting on 8/25/14, the applicant has submitted an updated Concept Plan and cover letter (Attachment
#2) to address many of the questions/discussion. The updated Concept Plan is generally
consistent with the original version submitted to the Planning Commission with a couple
modifications. The modifications are noted in the Planning and Zoning Issues Section.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
Staff provided a complete analysis of the proposed planned development from a planning and zoning perspective in a Staff Report dated 8/25/14. The previous Staff Report is attached
electronically to this report for reference. In the original Staff Report, staff recommended 18
conditions of approval related to the Inwood PUD Concept Plan. For the purposes of the
Planning Commission’s second review of the proposed development, it should be noted that staff still supports the originally recommended conditions of approval with one exception. Original Condition # 12 required the applicant to remove two residential lots that encroached on the
required 100-foot greenbelt buffer. With the submittal of an updated Concept Plan, no
residential lots encroach on the required buffer area. Therefore, Original Condition #12 has been
removed as a recommended condition of approval, leaving 17 recommended conditions, all of which are referenced in this Staff Report.
To address some of the questions and discussion topics from the 1st review of the Inwood PUD
Concept Plan, the applicants have submitted an updated Concept Plan, an Open Space Plan and a
response letter detailing some of the changes and responding to some of the discussion topics. These materials can be found in Attachment #2. Many of the changes or discussion items are identified in the response or cover letter provided with the updated plans. The changes in the
updated Concept Plan include the following:
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
4
• The updated Concept Plan includes increased park area in the area adjacent to Stonegate
Park. The applicants acknowledge that the plan must be reviewed by the Park Commission in advance of solidifying an acceptable design and location of the park areas.
• The single family lot count has been reduced from 281 to 273 to account for additional
park space and protection of existing man-made wetlands on the site.
• The updated net density calculation is 3.14 units/acre, as opposed to 3.22 units/acre in the previous plan. As noted in the cover letter, this density calculation does not include
any of the larger ponding areas associated with the development. These areas would
typically be included according to the City’s net density definition, as has been the case
in other single family subdivisions. Staff is extremely confident that the single family area proposed in the Inwood PUD Concept Plan is well within the acceptable range
required under the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
• The applicant provided three notes with regards to lot area, lot width and setbacks that
relate to the allowed variations or flexibilities from the Zoning Code that can be achieved through the PUD Ordinance. After reviewing the comments pertaining to the lot area, lot width and setbacks, staff finds that the applicant’s analysis of the City’s PUD
Ordinance is accurate. Therefore, applicants are permitted to request such variations
from the Zoning Code as long as they are meeting one or more of the identified
objectives for planned developments per the ordinance.
• The applicants have provided an Open Space Plan to demonstrate that they are meeting the 20% open space requirement for PUDs. The Open Space Plan is included in
Attachment #2.
• The length of Cul-De-Sac L has been reduced to provide more park area adjacent to Stonegate Park. Staff still has some concern that it may exceed 600 feet in length, the
maximum allowed length of cul-de-sac for an urban subdivision. Staff will continue to
work with the applicant to ensure conformance to the rules of the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance.
• The original Concept Plan included two residential lots that encroached on the required 100-foot greenbelt buffer. The updated Concept Plan has corrected this issue,
maintaining, and in many cases far exceeding, the 100-foot buffer requirement. As a
result, staff would recommend removing the condition related to removing Lots 27 and
28, Block 7 from the greenbelt buffer area (Condition #12 on the 8/25/14 Staff Report).
It should be noted that although the applicant is providing an updated Concept Plan, the
recommended conditions of approval in the original Staff Report still apply (with the exception
of Original Condition #12). The applicant is providing the updated Concept Plan to be
responsive to questions and discussion items posed by the Planning Commission. In addition,
the updated plan includes a concept of increased park area adjacent to Stonegate Park. Staff is still recommending that the applicant present these plans to the Park Commission on September
15th. Overall, the updated plan is consistent with the previous plan with the exceptions noted.
Given the limited scope of the changes in the updated plan, the previous Staff Report, dated
8/25/14, and conditions (with exception of Condition #12) still apply.
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
5
In addition to the planning and zoning issues that were outlined in the previous Staff Report, it
should be noted that the City of Oakdale submitted a comment letter noting opposition to
potential future restrictions of access at Oak Marsh Drive and 9th Street North. As indicate in the
letter, staff is meeting with both the City of Oakdale and Washington County on September 12th to continue to work through access related concerns on Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13). As Inwood Avenue is a Washington County facility, the County will continue to take the lead on working
with the applicant and both communities on proper access spacing and design. As a condition of
approval (Condition #14), staff is recommending that the applicants work with Washington
County to address all issues pertaining to street and intersection design for the County roads (CSAH 13 and CSAH 10). In addition, City staff will continue to work with the applicant, Washington County and the City of Oakdale related to access considerations on Inwood Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to holding a public hearing on the proposed Inwood PUD Concept Plan, the Planning
Commission discussed the planned development at great length, making multiple motions to add
or amend conditions of approval for the development. As these additional or amended conditions were never included in a broader recommendation to the City Council, staff is asking the Planning Commission to reaffirm the following motions:
1. M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to include Condition #19 to require a 5-foot sideyard
setback for all of the single family detached housing, Vote: 4-2, motion carried, with
Larson and Dodson voting no.
The applicants have noted that the requested 4-foot sideyard setbacks are important to making the Lifestyle Home single family product work. Staff is confident that the
reduced setback will work from a land use perspective, as long as the site is carefully
engineered to properly account for storm water management.
2. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to add to Condition #6 “the location, size and design of the park will be subject to review by the Park Commission. It is recommended that the Park Commission consider the inclusion of a small park area or gathering space in the
northwest portion of the development”, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
If affirmed, planning staff will present the Planning Commission’s recommendation to
the Park Commission at the 9/15/14 meeting.
3. M/S/P: Dodson/Lundgren, move to include Condition #20 that the applicant must work with the City to submit their residential design standards to the City as part of the
Preliminary PUD Plan application for the City’s use in reviewing building permits,
Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
Staff would note that Hans Hagen has identified themselves and the sole builder of the Lifestyle Homes, which is the product that raised greater concern over garage-dominated front elevations.
4. M/S/P: Kreimer/Lundgren (with friendly amendment from Haggard), move to include
Condition #20 to change the proposed land use of the area in the northwest corner to
Commercial or multi-family with a maximum net density of 15 units per acre, Vote: 5-1, motion carried, with Dodson voting no.
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
6
In addition to the above approved motions, there was discussion and/or failed motions pertaining
to requiring typical single family lots on the east side of the development and incorporating
theming elements into the development. There was also discussion about requiring the greenbelt
buffer trail to be located within the western portion of the buffer. However, no formal motion was made related to the trail location. Finally, there was general discussion about the proposed
findings listed in the 8/25/14 Staff Report. As no formal motions were made, staff has included
the same draft findings that were listed in the previous report. However, staff did include
recommended language proposed by Chairman Williams to note that the Concept Plan complies
with the general intent of the applicable zoning districts “with the exception of the issues identified in the Staff Report.”
Based on the above Staff Report and analysis, as well as the analysis completed on 8/25/14, Staff
is recommending approval of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan with 17 conditions intended to
address future considerations related to the submission of a PUD Preliminary Plan and
Preliminary Plat application. The recommended conditions are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) The applicant must obtain permission and consent from the adjoining property owner,
Bremer Bank, related to the right-of-way and alignment of the 5th Street minor collector
road in the southeast corner of the site. The final alignment must be determined prior to
the submittal of PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat applications.
2) Request for flexibility related to lot size, width, setbacks and all other requirements per the City’s Zoning Ordinance or Design Standards must be clarified and documented as
part of the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat submission.
3) The application for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan approval will include an
overall PUD planning document that addresses the flexibility requests noted in the preceding condition and that also specifies the specific design considerations to be used throughout the project area.
4) The Preliminary PUD plans will include a phasing plan for all portions of the
development.
5) The Preliminary Development Plans shall include a water tower within the project development area in a location that is deemed acceptable by the City Engineer. As an alternative, the developer may identify an alternate location off-site for the water tower in
a location deemed acceptable by the City Engineer provided the ownership of the site is
transferred to the City and all required utility connections are constructed in conjunction
with the platting of the Inwood PUD.
6) The Preliminary PUD plans shall be updated to include additional park land in the southeastern portion of the site. A larger park area of 5 to 10 acres adjacent to the
existing Stonegate Park and with access to 5th Street is the preferred location. The
location and size of this park will be subject to review by the Lake Elmo Park
Commission.
7) All street and median geometrics must accommodate emergency vehicle access and maintenance. Applicants must demonstrate acceptable turning radii for all uniquely
shaped landscape medians and cul-de-sacs.
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
7
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 the appropriate watershed
district prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site.
9) Any land under which public trails are located will be accepted as park land provided the developer constructs said trails as part of the public improvements for the subdivision,
and the land is located outside of any restrictive easements.
10) The applicant shall observe all comments and recommendations from the City Engineer
documented on the Engineer’s report dated August 13, 2014.
11) The Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans will address review comments and issues that are identified within the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Inwood
planned development site.
12) The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City clarifying
responsibility for all median landscaping and stormwater facilities internal to the single
family residential streets.
13) The applicants must work with the City to determine fair and equitable cost share for City
costs related to the future signalization of the intersection at 5th Street and Inwood
Avenue (CSAH 13).
14) The applicant must work with Washington County to address all review comments
documented in the attached report dated 8/20/14 pertaining to access and intersection design for Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) and 10th Street (CSAH 10).
15) The applicant must provide sidewalks on both sides of Street B to better serve the single
family residential area.
16) Additional trail segments along the east side of Inwood Avenue from 5th Street to 10th
Street and along 10th Street from Inwood Avenue to the Greenbelt Buffer Trail must be incorporated into the plans.
17) The applicant must work with the City to ensure compliance with the City’s shoreland
provisions and the standards of the SWWD and MN DNR related to shoreland areas of
designated public waters.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed Inwood PUD Concept Plan:
1) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the intent of the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
2) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan complies with the general intent of the City’s Urban
Low Density Residential, Urban High Density Residential and Commercial zoning districts with the exception of the issues identified in the Staff Reports.
3) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan complies with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
8
4) That the Inwood PUD complies with the City’s PUD Ordinance, and specifically the
identified objectives for the consideration of a Planned Development.
5) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the City’s engineering standards
with exceptions as noted by the City Engineer in his review comments to the City dated August 13, 2014.
6) That the master-planning technique utilized in the Inwood PUD Concept Plan provides
thoughtful integration of multiple land uses, a variety of housing types and an effective
and connected transportation system, allowing for different modes of travel throughout
the site.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan with the 17 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff Report. Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan with the findings of fact and
17 conditions of approval as drafted in the Staff Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report, dated 8/25/14 (hard copy not included)
2. Updated Inwood PUD Concept Plan, Open Space Plan and Cover Letter
3. City of Oakdale Review memorandum
ATTACHMENTS FOUND IN 8/25/14 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKET: 1. Location Map
2. Application Form and Project Narrative
3. Inwood Concept Planning & Design Booklet 4. City Engineer’s Review Memorandum, dated 8/13/14 5. Washington County Review Memorandum
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 5B
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 8/25/14
AGENDA ITEM: 4B – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2014-42
ITEM: Inwood Planned Unit Development (PUD) – General Concept Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief Ann Pung-Terwedo, Washington County
Matt Moore, South Washington Watershed District
Molly Shodeen, MN DNR
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing for a request from Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10, LLC for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a new mixed-
use development on 157 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Inwood Avenue and 10th
Street in Lake Elmo. The concept plan includes 281 single-family residential lots, 144 townhouses,
150 multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse units, and approximately 68,814 square feet of commercial/office uses. Staff is recommending approval of the PUD Concept Plan with 18 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Hans Hagen Homes (John Rask), 941 NE Hillwind Rd. Suite 300, Fridley, MN
55432 and Inwood 10 (Tom Scheutte), LLC, 95 S Owasso Blvd. W., St. Paul,
MN 55117-7830
Property Owners: Inwood 10, LLC (Tom Scheutte), 95 S Owasso Blvd. W., St. Paul, MN 55117-7830
Location: Part of Section 33 in Lake Elmo, immediately south of 10th Street (CSAH 10),
immediately north of Eagle Point Business Park, immediately east of Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) and immediately west of Stonegate residential subdivision. PIDs: 33.029.21.12.0001, 33.029.21.12.0003, 33.029.21.11.0002 and
33.029.21.11.0001.
Request: Application for Concept Plan approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) containing 281 single family lots, 144 townhome units, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior living townhome units and multiple sites intended for commercial uses
to be named Inwood of Lake Elmo.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant land used for agricultural purposes. Current Zoning: RT
– Rural Transitional Zoning District; Proposed Zoning: LDR –
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
2
Low Density Residential, HDR – High Density Residential and
C – Commercial (all with PUD overlay)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Vacant agricultural land and two residential homes – RR
and PF zoning; West: Oak Marsh Golf Course, urban single family subdivision, commercial – City of Oakdale jurisdiction; South: Offices in Eagle Point Business Park (including Bremer
Bank facility) – BP zoning; East: Stonegate residential estates
subdivision – RE zoning.
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 – 4 units per acre), Urban High Density Residential/Mixed Use (7.5 – 15 units per acre)
and Commercial.
History: The site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. The applicants have
submitted a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for publication to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) on September 2nd, commencing the 30-
day comment period.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 8/12/14
60 Day Deadline – 10/10/14 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 12/9/14
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (§154.450) Article 12 – Commercial Districts (§154.550)
Article 16 – Planned Unit Development (§154.800)
Article 17 – Shoreland Management Overlay District
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received an application from Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10, LLC for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a mixed-use project that will be located on 157 acres of land located on south of 10th Street and east of Inwood Avenue in Lake Elmo. The
proposed project will include 281 single-family residential lots, 144 townhouses, 150 multi-family
units, 120 senior townhouse units, and approximately 68,814 square feet of commercial/office uses,
in addition to storm water facilities, trails, and park areas as depicted on the attached site development plan. While the planned uses for the site generally match those shown on the City’s future land use map for the property, the applicant is proposing a slightly different configuration of
the various land uses. Most notably, the developer is asking that the commercial area be moved
further south along Inwood Avenue to the intersection of 5th Street and that a small area of multi-family development be allowed at the intersection of Inwood Avenue and 10th Street.
The overall project can be divided up into three distinct areas on the plans, which includes a multi-
family area south of 5th Street, a single-family “lifestyle housing” neighborhood north of 5th Street,
and commercial areas with frontage along Inwood Avenue. Within the residential areas, the
developer plans a mix of different housing options, including single-family detached housing, townhouses, senior townhomes, senior multi-family, and standard multi-family housing. The planned single-family areas differ from typical residential neighborhoods in that the lots are smaller
than otherwise allowed in the LDR zoning district, with reduced setbacks from the LDR standards as
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
3
well. The homes to be built in these areas are intended to appeal to a different market then a typical
neighborhood by incorporating common open areas, association-maintained lawns and driveways,
and other services, and with amenities that are more typical in a townhouse type of development.
As indicated in the application narrative, the developer does not have detailed plans for any of the multi-family portions of the site, and the plans as submitted depict a general development concept for these areas. These structures planned for much of these areas are intended to serve seniors, including
a proposed 120-unit senior building that would be located in the southern portion of the site. All of
the planned commercial areas are located along Inwood Avenue, and would be separated from the
residential development by the internal road system or storm water ponds. At this time, the plans do not call for any vertical mixing of uses; however, the proposed multi-family buildings would be
located adjacent to commercial activities, allowing for easy access to goods and services.
As opposed to following the City’s normal subdivision procedures, the applicants have determined
that a planned development approach offers the best method to achieve their development vision for their property. The purpose of the City’s PUD ordinance is to provide flexibility in development and
zoning standards for large parcels under unified control with the goal of achieving higher quality
development. More specifically, the General Concept Plan phase of the PUD procedure allows the
applicant to submit a general plan to the City demonstrating his or her basic intent of the development, including general density ranges, location of residential and nonresidential land uses, and location of streets, paths and open space. The purpose of approving the Concept Plan is to
provide the applicant with conceptual approval related to the requested flexibilities or variations from
the City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, or other City standards, before incurring substantial
costs related to submitting a full Preliminary Plat application. In terms of procedure, the planned development path is similar to the normal subdivision process in that Preliminary and Final PUD
Plan approvals must follow parallel track to Preliminary and Final Plat. However, one critical
difference between the planned development process and standard subdivision process is that the
PUD Concept Plan phase requires a public hearing and the approval of the City Council.
The applicant is proposing to develop the site as a large Planned Unit Development, and is requesting flexibility from the underlying zoning in a number of areas including the following:
• The lot sizes and setbacks for the “lifestyle housing” that is planned for most of the single-
family detached houses.
• The construction of multi-family buildings on a portion of the site that is presently guided for
commercial development. It should be noted that the zoning ordinance does allow multi-family buildings in commercial zoning districts as a conditional use.
• Moving certain land uses and densities across the entire site. The overall densities that are planned, and the overall size of the commercial, multi-family, and single family areas follow
closely to the amount indicated in the Comprehensive Plan; however, the applicant is
proposing to move the specific locations of these uses in accordance with the submitted plans. For instance, the City’s future land use plan depicts approximately 13 acres of commercial land uses at the intersection of Inwood and 10th Street. The developer is
proposing to keep the overall size of the commercial area the same but extending it further
south along Inwood Avenue as opposed to locating single family residential directly adjacent
to the County arterial roadway.
• Allocating the allowed densities across the entire site instead of reviewing densities on a project-by-project basis. This allows the developer to plan for storm water management, parks, and roadways in the appropriate locations, even though a smaller project within the
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
4
planning area may exceed underlying zoning. The density projections for the site are
reviewed in greater detail in the latter sections of this report.
The flexibility that being requested by the developer is allowed under the City’s PUD Ordinance, and
the developer has provided a response to the PUD objectives as listed in the Zoning Ordinance as part of the project narrative. The appendix of the submitted Concept Planning & Design Booklet (Attachment #5) also addresses how the proposed planned development is meeting the objectives of
the City’s PUD Ordinance.
Because the project is located at the intersection of two major roadways in Lake Elmo and includes
the proposed construction of another, access issues will play a major role in how the site is able to develop. Internal to the site, the developer intends to connect to the planned extension of the 5th
Street minor collector road that will extend through the Boulder Ponds development in the
southeastern portion of the site. This road will then turn quickly to the west and eventually intersect
Inwood Avenue about 500 feet north of the Eagle Point Business Park. While most of the internal traffic will be accessed via 5th Street, there are multiple planned connections along both Inwood
Avenue and 10th Street, which includes a new north/south connection road that will provide a
connection between Eagle Point Boulevard and 10th Street. While all of the roads have been
designed to comply with City and County requirements, they will be subject to further review and analysis as more detailed plans are prepared for the site.
One of the other major features of the project includes the preservation of the wooded area along the
eastern project boundary. This area is guided for a green belt/buffer area between the Stonegate
neighborhood and denser urban development on the applicant’s site. The developer is also proposing
a series of trails within the project, including a trail in the eastern green belt/buffer running north and south along a linear park, an east-west trail running across the entire segment of the development
connecting the residential area to the commercial areas, as well as the City’s planned regional trail
section along 5th Street. In addition to the multiple trail systems, smaller park areas are shown in the
southeastern part of the site near the existing Stonegate Park, which are proposed as a logical extension of the existing park area. The other open space areas within the development are predominately being used for storm water management purposes, with larger ponds being located
south and east of the commercial area near the intersection of 5th Street and Inwood Avenue.
Regarding next steps, the applicant is proposing to bring forward a Preliminary Plan and Preliminary
Plat application upon approval of the Concept Plan. Per the PUD Ordinance, the final approval of the proposed planned unit development will result in a zoning change to a specific PUD zoning district, with specific requirements and standards that are specific to the development. If the application
moves forward, the change in the base zoning (LDR, HDR, C) of the property would occur at the
time of Preliminary Plan approval, and the final PUD zoning with approved flexibility that is specific to the development would be established at Final Plan approval.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
The Inwood site is guided for Urban Low Density Residential, Urban High Density Residential and
Commercial land uses in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. As noted above, the developer is planning
to keep the same general mix of uses on the property, but will be moving the specific location of
certain elements to better suit the unique circumstances of this property. The most important consideration in this regard is the location of the commercial area, which is shown in the extreme northwest portion of the site in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. While the location of this
commercial area at the intersection of two major roadways makes sense from a planning perspective,
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
5
in reality access to this area is limited due to spacing requirements along and adjacent to a County
road. The developer’s plans create a new commercial intersection at Inwood and 5th Street, which
allows these areas to be accessed via a back road system while avoiding any driveways with direct
access to either Inwood or 10th Street. The subsequent arrangement of uses makes logical sense given the access restrictions in place. In addition, it may be problematic to locate single family residential land uses directly adjacent to Inwood Ave. (CSAH 13) as guided by the Comprehensive
Plan. Inwood Ave is a County arterial roadway that is anticipated to serve a substantial volume of
traffic in the future. From a land use compatibility and noise mitigation standpoint, it makes sense to
narrow and extend the commercial uses along Inwood Avenue.
The other major break from the underlying Comprehensive Plan is the siting of two multi-family
structures at the intersection of 10th Street and Inwood Avenue. Essentially, the developer is
proposing to swap a portion of the high density/mixed use area north of Eagle Point Business Park with commercial development at this intersection. The overall balance of uses is therefore not being
changed from the Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed reconfiguration appears to work well given
the other site constraints, including storm water retention and infiltration requirements, that need to
be addressed on the site. In addition, it should be noted that multi-family housing is allowed in the Commercial zoning district as a conditional use. The applicant is proposing to site the multi-family use in this location through the planned development process as opposed to the Conditional Use
Permit process. Staff has reviewed the requested variations from the Comprehensive Plan and found
that the master-planning of the 157-acre parcel as proposed in the Inwood PUD represents thoughtful
planning and siting of the various uses proposed. After evaluating the master-planned development, Staff finds that the development is meeting the overall intent of the land use guidance of the
Comprehensive Plan when considering the overall land use goals for the parcel.
Regarding the density calculations of the Inwood planned development, the developer has provided
density calculations at the request of Staff for the entire site using the City’s recently adopted net density definition. These calculations are summarized as follows:
Use Area (in acres) Units Net Density (units per acre)
Single Family Detached 87.17 281 3.22
Multi-family (south of 5th Street) 23.2 264 11.38
Multi-family (corner of 10th and Inwood) 5.16 150 29.1
The overall net density for all of the residential areas is 6 units per acre, while on a gross basis this number is 4.9 units per acre. However, all of these numbers are misleading because most of the
ponding for the development is located on the outlots adjacent to the commercial parcels, which
would add additional open space to the residential calculations. The developer has noted that by utilizing the density ranges permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the maximum number of residential units that could be built on the site would be 812 units, compared to the planned number
of 695 included in the Inwood development. On an overall site development basis, the proposed
Inwood PUD would be consistent with the overall range of planned growth according to the
Comprehensive Plan.
In addition to the requested variation related to the Comprehensive Plan, the other flexibilities requested by the applicant include reduced setback requirements for the single family “lifestyle”
housing product offered in the residential neighborhood of the development. The standards for the
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
6
LDR zoning district and the requested flexibilities for the Inwood PUD single family lots are as
follows:
Setback LDR Zoning District Inwood PUD Front Yard 25 Feet 18 Feet to Principal Structure / 20 Feet to Garage
Interior Side Yard 10 Feet Principal Structure
Side / 5 Feet Garage Side
4 Feet
Rear Yard 20 Feet 20 Feet
In addition to setback requirements, the applicants will be requesting flexibility from minimum lot
size requirements and lot width requirements, particularly for the Village/Carriage residential
product. The Inwood Concept Plan noted that 20% of these homes are slightly under 40 feet in width, while 60% are 50 feet in width and the final 20% are 58 feet in width. The LDR zoning
district requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet. By pursuing the PUD process, the applicants are
requesting reduced lot sizes, which is allowed under the ordinance. They have noted that the unique
housing type, which is completely maintenance free (HOA maintained), requires different design considerations and setbacks. The lot width of the designer product (46 lots in the southeastern potion of the development) are 65 to 85 feet in width, meeting the minimum standards of the LDR district.
As an area tabulation of individual lots is not required at Concept Plan level review for a planned
development, the applicant has not submitted an area calculation. However, given the size of some
of the proposed lots, it is anticipated that many of the lots will be under the LDR zoning district standard of 8,000 square feet. As part of any preliminary PUD plan submittal, staff would require
the applicant to submit a complete area tabulation of all the lots proposed in the planned
development. Once again, the applicants have noted that in order to achieve a completely HOA
maintained neighborhood with a single level product type, flexibility from standard lot width, size and setback requirements are necessary. Based on the residential product presented in the planned development, Staff would offer that the residential product proposed offers a residential product or
type that is not currently represented in the Lake Elmo housing market.
With regards to the proposed uses in the Inwood PUD, it should be noted that the master-planned development proposes to integrate low density residential, high density residential and commercial uses all within one development effort. Master-planning the entire development as part of a broad,
single effort allows for much greater integration of street and pedestrian networks, providing greater
connectivity within the development. In addition, planning the entire site allows for improved planning and utilization of storm water facilities for the area. In reviewing the proposed commercial uses included in the Concept Plan, it should be noted that all are allowed in the Commercial zoning
district. However, it is anticipated that these uses may change according to market conditions and
demand. It would be Staff’s expectation that the uses proposed in the Commercial areas of the development would be allowed under the Commercial zoning district.
Finally, as the Inwood development is utilizing the PUD process, it is the burden of the applicant to
explain how the proposed development meets one or more of the City’s identified objectives
(§154.801) related to planned developments. In order to address this question, the applicant has provided a thorough explanation of which objectives are met within the back section of the Project Narrative (Attachment #3 – Also found in PUD Design Planning & Concepts Booklet). In the
judgment of Staff, the proposed development meets the criteria for the following identified
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
7
objectives: A) Innovation in land techniques, B) Promotion of integrated land uses, D)
Accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to employment and/or commercial
facilities and H) Creation of more efficient provision of public utilities and services, lessened demand
on transportation, etc. Arguments could be made for additional objectives being achieved. Staff was most confident in the aforementioned objectives being met.
Per the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant is required to provide parkland dedication in an
amount equal to 10% of land developed residentially, fees equal to the market value of 10% of the
land, or some combination thereof. The acceptable parkland solution is at the discretion of the City. Based on the submitted area calculations on the Inwood PUD Concept Plan, there is 78.1 acres of
single family residential area and 29.5 acres of multi-family residential area, totaling 107.6 acres.
Therefore, the required land dedication for the residential areas would be 10.7 acres. The applicants
have noted that 12.2 acres of public parkland is provided, going above the required dedication amount. However, the outlots containing area labeled park also contain storm water facilities and
one smaller wetland. In advance of preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan, it is recommended
that the applicant work with Staff to clarify the correct amount of parkland provided given the City’s
criteria for eligible parkland. In addition to the land dedication requirements for the residential areas of the Inwood planned development, the applicant would be required to submit a fee of $4,500 per acre of land developed for commercial purposes. Based on the area calculations, there is currently
27.7 acres of land being developed commercially, which would result in a parkland fee of $124,650.
In developing more detailed plans for the Inwood development in the future, staff will work with the
applicant to determine the correct parkland dedication amounts.
In terms of the parkland provided in the Inwood planned development, the majority of the park areas
are found in the southeast corner of the site adjacent to existing Stonegate Park and on the east side
of the development with the linear greenbelt park. It should be noted that there is park proposed on both sides of the 5th Street minor collector road. The smaller park area on the southern side of the collector is intended to serve the townhome area immediately to the west. The park area north of the
collector, along with the linear greenbelt park, could easily serve the single family residential portion
of the development. While at this time it appears that the total required parkland dedication amount
has been met by the applicant, Staff would recommend enlarging the park area north of 5th Street adjacent to existing Stonegate Park to an overall size of 5-10 acres. Increased park area in this location would give the City the ability to design more usable recreation space where organized
recreation activities, such as baseball or soccer, could be held. Given the number of residential units
proposed in the development, Staff believes that a larger park area is appropriate in this case. In addition, it is likely that the park should be served by an access off of 5th Street with a small parking area to serve the overall park. If the applicants have indeed met their land dedication requirements,
Staff would recommend that the applicants be given credit or compensated for any parkland provided
above the dedication amount. Credit and compensation could be achieved by reducing the parkland dedication fees due related to commercial development on the site by the equal market value of the land the City receives above the dedication amount. In order to get further direction regarding the
appropriate park area for the development, Staff is recommending that the applicant present their
plans to the Park Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which is on September 15th,
2014. It should also be noted that two portions of the site are subject to shoreland rules. The northwest
corner of the site is located within the shoreland district of Armstrong Lake, which is located in the
jurisdictions of both Oakdale and Lake Elmo. In addition, an unnamed stream or tributary exists in
the southwest corner of the site running towards Eagle Point Business Park. To review the proposed
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
8
development in and around these areas, Staff completed a review of the Concept Plan against the
City’s Shoreland Management Overlay District (Article 17 of Zoning Code). Regarding the
northwest potion of the site, the proposed structures are not in close proximity to the Ordinary High
Water Level (OHWL) of Armstrong Lake. In terms of impervious surface, sewered lots without riparian dedication are subject to a maximum amount of impervious surface of 30% of lot area. This standard would apply to the commercial and multi-family residential uses proposed in the northwest
and western portion of the site, as the shoreland district boundary is depicted on the Concept Plan
with a bold dashed black line. In addition, Staff does have some concern about the amount of
impervious coverage in Lots 7-14, Block 11. These lots may need to be revised to comply with the City’s shoreland standards. In addition to Armstrong Lake, the unnamed tributary flowing through
the southeastern portion of the site, which travels to Wilmes Lake in Woodbury, is considered a
protected water under DNR classification. The applicants have provided a significant buffer around
the unnamed tributary. The City’s shoreland provisions require a structure setback of 75 feet from tributaries for sewered lots with no riparian buffering requirement. However, the MN DNR and
South Washington Watershed District may provide additional review on this area. There may be a
concern about the proximity of the commercial use labeled “pharmacy”. Regarding all the shoreland
issues, Staff would recommend that the applicant work with the City to ensure compliance with the City’s shoreland provisions and the standards of the SWWD and MN DNR as a condition of approval (Condition #18).
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
City Staff has reviewed the proposed Inwood PUD Concept Plan, which has gone through multiple
iterations in advance of the formal application being made to the City. In general, the proposed plan
will meet all applicable City requirements for PUD Concept Plan approval, and any deficiencies or additional work that is needed is noted for the purpose of inclusion in the review record. In addition there are several things happening in and around the Inwood planned development that will have an
impact on the project, including the construction of 5th Street with appropriate access spacing and
alignment, as well as the potential siting of a future water tower on the site. Given that some of these efforts are still underway, Staff recognizes that some modifications will be necessary from PUD Concept Plan phase to PUD Preliminary Plan phase.
The City has received a detailed list of comments from the City Engineer and Fire Chief, in addition
to comments by the Washington County Public Works, 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. In the judgment of Staff, the proposed planned development is
consistent with the land use categories guided for this site as planned in the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amount of residential growth is consistent with the range of residential development as guided by the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the land uses
as proposed are generally consistent with the Urban Low Density Residential - LDR and
Urban High Density Residential - HDR zoning districts. Finally, the total area intended for commercial uses on the site matches the amount planned under the Comprehensive Plan, with the locational changes noted as an acceptable variation through the PUD process. Other
aspects of the Comprehensive Plan relate to the Inwood PUD Concept Plan as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
9
o Transportation. The City’s transportation plan calls for the construction of a minor
collector road (5th Street) that will connect the eastern and western portions of the I-
94 Corridor. Staff views this road as a critical piece of the transportation
infrastructure that is needed to serve the densities that have been planned for this area. The applicant has incorporated the right-of-way at the width necessary to construct the minor collector as part of its PUD Concept Plan. As proposed, the
provided segment of 5th Street will connect from Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) to the
Boulder Ponds development southeast of the site, eventually leading through the
Savona subdivision to Keats Avenue (CSAH 19). Completion of this segment of the minor collector road will provide the infrastructure needed to properly distribute
automobile traffic throughout Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area.
o Parks. The City’s Park Plan identifies the subject property as a needed location for a
neighborhood park. Given the amount of residential growth proposed for the site, it makes sense to provide enough parkland to adequately serve this portion of the I-94
Corridor Planning Area. In addition to a neighborhood park as guided by the
Comprehensive Plan, it should also be noted that the eastern portion of the site is
guided for a 100-foot linear park known as the greenbelt buffer. The greenbelt trail provided on the eastern portion of the development is consistent with the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan.
o Water. Water will eventually be provided to this area via a future extension of the
municipal system along Inwood Avenue. The Inwood planned development will be
able to be served under the City’s current agreement with the City of Oakdale until the Inwood watermain extension is completed in 2015. It also must be noted that the
subject property is identified as a future location for one of the two water towers
needed to serve the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. As a condition of approval
(Condition #5), Staff recommends that the applicant provide a location that meets the approval of the City Engineer within the development to site the necessary water tower. As an alternative, the applicant can provide the City with an alternative site,
as long as the location works from a hydrological standpoint and meets the approval
of the City Engineer.
o Sanitary Sewer. The Inwood planned development will be able to connect into the existing sanitary sewer system within the Eagle Point Business Park. While this area is presently served via an interconnected system with the City of Oakdale, all of
Section 34 will eventually be connected to the regional interceptor located
immediately south of the business park. As noted in the City Engineer’s memo, the proposed sanitary sewer connection will need to be evaluated for capacity and overall system design.
o Phasing. The Inwood planned development is located within the Stage 1 phasing
area of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. Therefore, the proposed development is consistent with the City’s anticipated phasing of growth.
• Zoning. The proposed base zoning for the Inwood site will be split between the Urban Low Density Residential – LDR, the Urban High Density Residential – HDR, and Commercial –
C zoning districts. However, approval of PUD Final Plan will result in a zoning change to a
specific PUD Zoning District, recording all of the permitted variations, such as minimum lot
size and setbacks, from the Zoning requirements of the base zoning district.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
10
• 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. The City will work with the
applicant to ensure that all standards specified in the Subdivision Ordinance are met, or that the appropriate variation is requested through the PUD Preliminary Plan.
• Concept Phasing. The developer has indicated that the first phases of the project will be the
single-family areas, with the multi-family and commercial areas proceeding based on market
conditions. The narrative notes that Hans Hagen Homes will be the exclusive builder of the
single family area, while Inwood 10, LLC will develop the commercial and multi-family areas as the market permits. In addition, Staff is requesting that the developer will be asked to provide a more specific phasing plan with the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD
submissions (Condition #4).
• Infrastructure. The developer will be required to construct all streets, sewer, water, storm
water ponds, and other infrastructure necessary to serve the development. Storm water facilities should be platted as outlots and deeded to the city for maintenance purposes. Adequate access to public storm water facilities must be provided.
• Tree Preservation and Protection. Based upon the limited tree cover of the site, it is
possible that the applicant may not be required to complete a Tree Preservation Plan. If the
applicant can demonstrate that significant trees on the site will not be negatively impacted by
development activity, they would be allowed to submit a Woodland Evaluation Report in lieu of a Tree Preservation Plan. In addition to the trees along the eastern boundary, there are
only two relatively small stands of trees on the site, located in the southwest and southeast
corners of the site respectively. The Inwood PUD Concept Plan does not show development
activity over these areas. However, potential impacts to existing trees will be better understood at the preliminary plat level with the submission of a grading plan for the
development. Overall, the details at the preliminary plat stage will require a greater level of
detail concerning trees on the site.
• Green Belt/Buffer. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the area on the east side of the
Inwood planned development adjacent to the Stonegate residential subdivision as a green belt/buffer space with a minimum width of 100 feet. As proposed in the Inwood PUD
Concept Plan, the applicant is utilizing this space for the continuation of trail corridor from
the Boulder Ponds planned development in the south. As proposed, the design of the
greenbelt trail is consistent with City planning efforts to date. In addition, it should be noted that the applicants are proposing to maintain a significant amount of existing trees along the eastern boundary of the site, adding to the value and aesthetic of the proposed linear park
area. The existing trees include a significant amount of evergreen species, which should
provide ample year round screening to many portions of the development. It should be noted
that the distance maintained between private lots and the Stonegate neighborhood exceeds 100 feet in many areas, where separation distances of 140 to over 200 feet are common. However, it should be noted that Lots 27 and 28, Block 7 do encroach on the minimum 100-
foot buffer area. As a condition of approval (Condition #12), Staff would recommend that
the two lots noted be revised to maintain the 100-foot buffer requirement. With the exception of the two lots noted, Staff believes that that green belt/buffer requirements of the Comprehensive Plan have been met, and often exceeded, by the applicant.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
11
• Streets and Transportation. The Inwood PUD Concept Plan includes a substantial portion of the 5th Street minor collector road, as well as an extensive internal street network proposed to
serve the mixed-use development. From a conceptual level review of the street system, it
appears that the proposed internal public streets meet the City’s baseline subdivision
requirements and City engineering standards. The right-of-way of local streets are 60 feet in width and local roads are 28 feet in width from curb to curb. In addition to the local road
provided, the Inwood planned development includes a series of private streets and driveways
to serve multi-family and commercial properties. The private streets and driveways as
proposed are primarily accessed off 5th Street and Street D. Significant information regarding
the proposed transportation network can be found in the City Engineer’s memo (Attachment #6). In addition to the Engineer’s review comments, staff offers the following additional
comments related to streets:
o 5th Street. The City Engineer presents a significant amount of design requirements
related to the 5th Street minor collector road in his review memorandum. In addition to his comments, Staff would highlight the following:
Alignment. The proposed alignment should meet Washington County’s
specifications for the touchdown on Inwood Ave. (CSAH 13). However, the
alignment at the Boulder Ponds development includes slight additional impact to the Bremer Bank property, necessitating an additional 2,967 square feet of right-of-way from the Bremer site. In order to proceed with the alignment as
shown, the applicant will need written permission from Bremer Bank
(Condition #1).
5th Street and Inwood Avenue Signalization. Washington County will require signalization for the 5th Street and Inwood Ave. intersection at some
point in the future. Given the anticipated traffic volumes generated by the
Inwood planned development, Staff would recommend that the City require
the applicant to participate financially in the City’s share of the traffic signal costs. As a condition of approval (Condition #14), Staff is recommending that the applicant work with the City to determine a fair and reasonable cost share
for the City’s portion of the costs to signalize the 5th Street and Inwood
intersection.
o Residential Streets. For the single family neighborhood, the applicant is proposing unique street designs. The streets of the single family areas include Low Impact
Development (LID) techniques of utilizing center islands and medians to incorporate
infiltration and storm water management facilities allowing for enhanced and
innovative storm water management within close proximity to streets and residential lots. The center medians will also allow for additional landscaping and pedestrian spaces, as demonstrated in the Concept Planning and Design Booklet (Attachment
#5). It should also be noted that the islands would include a one way street design,
requiring vehicle traffic to move in circular direction around the island. Due to the unique design of these streets, the City will require additional geometric details and exhibits demonstrating successful turning movements throughout the neighborhood
streets. As a condition of approval (Condition #7), Staff is recommending that these
details be submitted as part of the Preliminary PUD Plan. Additional details needed
for review must address the review comments from the City Engineer documented in the review memorandum dated 8/13/14 (Attachment #6). Finally, it should be noted that Street C and Cul-De-Sac L exceed the maximum length of cul-de-sac for
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
12
sewered developments (600 feet) per the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. The Engineer
has recommended that this road section be revised to connect interior to the
development. This could most likely be accomplished by connecting Street C to
Neighborhood Street E.
• Sidewalks and Trails. The proposed Inwood planned development offers a substantial amount and variety of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the form of sidewalks and trails,
offering alternative modes of transport throughout the development. Staff has the following
comments pertaining to sidewalks and trails:
o Sidewalks. All of the major streets serving the single family residential area have sidewalks on at least one side of the streets, and in some case both sides. In addition, the applicant is planning unique street design with center medians. The Concept
Planning and Design Booklet note that these median areas include additional
pedestrian facilities to access residential homes. However, this level of detail is not
currently provided for all the individual islands and medians at the Concept Plan stage. Staff would recommend that this detail be provided to better understand how
these residential areas are being served. In addition, one recommendation (Condition
#16) that Staff would make is to include sidewalks on both sides of Street B, as this
street is serving as a neighborhood collector for the single family residential neighborhood. Finally, the mutli-family and commercial areas often have direct sidewalk access to the streets. Staff would recommend that the applicant provide
pedestrian access to the best extent possible to both mutli-family and commercial
uses, as one of the benefits of a master-planned development is to ensure broad
connectivity in between the various land uses included in the plan.
o Trails. The applicants are proposing an effective system of trails to serve the planned
development. In addition to the greenbelt linear park trail on the east side of the
development, the applicant is planning a central east-west trail contained mostly in
open space areas across the entire development. This should allow the development to achieve residential neighborhoods with easy access to employment and commercial services, resulting in an integrated development with a mix of uses. In
order to augment the proposed trails provided in the Concept Plat, staff recommends
that additional trail segments be provided within the Inwood Avenue and 10th Street
right-of-ways (Condition #17). Staff recommends that the Inwood Avenue trail segment on the east side of the road extend from 5th Street to 10th Street (CSAH 10).
In addition, the 10th Street (CSAH 10) trail segment should connect from Inwood
Avenue (CSAH 13) to the Greenbelt Buffer Trail at the northeast corner of the
development. These trail segments would ensure proper connection of the proposed trails and offer increased connectivity and access.
• City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has provided the Planning Department with a detailed comment letter (Attachment #6) dated August 13, 2014 as a summary of his review
of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan. 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 (Condition #10) that all issues identified by the City Engineer must be addressed by the applicant prior to approval of a the PUD Preliminary Plan and
Preliminary Plat.
• Washington County Public Works Review. Ann Pung-Terwedo of Washington County
Public Works has submitted a review memorandum that focuses on the proposed street
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
13
connections of the Inwood PUD to the surrounding arterial street network. Given that both
Inwood avenue (CSAH 13) and 10th Street (CSAH 10) are County arterial roadways that will
directly serve the development, there are many considerations related to access management
and intersection design that the applicants must consider in planning out the internal street system. The review memorandum from Washington County is found in Attachment #8. Staff is recommending that the applicants work with Washington County to address all
review comments in the memo as a condition of approval (Condition #15). Finally, it should
be noted that the Inwood planned development site is within proximity to one of the planned
stations for the planned Gateway Corridor transit facility. In the judgment of Staff, the development as proposed would be compatible with elements or characteristics of transit-
oriented development (TOD), offering further support for the Inwood Concept Plan.
• Fire Chief Review. The Lake Elmo Fire Chief, Greg Malmquist, submitted a review letter for
the proposed planned development. In the letter, he highlights the importance of an effective
street naming system that follows the County system and has been utilized by the City. In addition, there are comments submitted on the proper location of fire hydrants and proper
street design to allow for effective turning movements for fire apparatus and other emergency
vehicles. Finally, he notes that many of the structures included in the plan may be subject to
fire sprinkling requirements per State Building and Fire Codes.
• Watershed Districts. The project area lies within the South Washington Watershed District. The applicants have started working with Matt Moore, the SWWD engineer, on preparing a
stormwater management plan that will meet the treatment, rate and volume requirements for
the proposed development. As a condition of approval (Condition #8), all specific
development projects will need to comply with applicable watershed district requirements. As proposed, the project will impact man-made constructed wetlands on the site that were created related to agricultural activity. The applicant is currently working through the
mitigation requirements for these impacts with the watershed district (which is the
responsible government unit for wetland issues).
• Environmental Review. Based upon the proposed scope of the Concept Plan, the project will
meet the threshold for a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), as the proposed development will exceed the threshold of 300 residential units. The developer has
prepared a draft EAW that will be distributed for public comment starting on September 2,
2014. No subdivision of land can occur until this review is complete; however, the developer
may proceed with simultaneous reviews at its own risk.
• Design Review. Based on the proposed uses within the PUD Concept Plan, multiple structures within the Inwood Development will be subject to design and architectural review, including all multi-family residential (apartments, condos, senior living) and commercial
buildings. Design and architectural review will be performed at Preliminary and Final PUD
Plan stage for all applicable structures.
• Theming. Staff has distributed the Branding and Theming Study completed by Damon Farber and Associates to the applicants previously. In completing a preliminary landscape plan for the site, staff would recommend that the applicants consider the inclusion of various
theming elements and amenities identified in the plan for various locations within the
development. For example, the 5th Street and Inwood Avenue Intersection presents a gateway
opportunity for the City. Utilizing some of the elements described in the theming study would help the development and City achieve unique design that is consistent with the theme
that the City is attempting to augment and achieve as private development moves forward.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
14
Based on the above Staff Report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the Inwood PUD
Concept Plan with multiple conditions intended to address future considerations related to the
submission of a PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat application. The recommended
conditions are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) The applicant must obtain permission and consent from the adjoining property owner,
Bremer Bank, related to the right-of-way and alignment of the 5th Street minor collector road
in the southeast corner of the site. The final alignment must be determined prior to the
submittal of PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat applications.
2) Request for flexibility related to lot size, width, setbacks and all other requirements per the
City’s Zoning Ordinance or Design Standards must be clarified and documented as part of
the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat submission.
3) The application for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan approval will include an overall PUD planning document that addresses the flexibility requests noted in the preceding
condition and that also specifies the specific design considerations to be used throughout the
project area.
4) The Preliminary PUD plans will include a phasing plan for all portions of the development.
5) The Preliminary Development Plans shall include a water tower within the project development area in a location that is deemed acceptable by the City Engineer. As an
alternative, the developer may identify an alternate location off-site for the water tower in a
location deemed acceptable by the City Engineer provided the ownership of the site is
transferred to the City and all required utility connections are constructed in conjunction with the platting of the Inwood PUD.
6) The Preliminary PUD plans shall be updated to include additional park land in the
southeastern portion of the site. A larger park area of 5 to 10 acres adjacent to the existing
Stonegate Park and with access to 5th Street is the preferred location. The location and size of this park will be subject to review by the Lake Elmo Park Commission.
7) All street and median geometrics must accommodate emergency vehicle access and
maintenance. Applicants must demonstrate acceptable turning radii for all uniquely shaped
landscape medians and cul-de-sacs.
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 the appropriate watershed district prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site.
9) Any land under which public trails are located will be accepted as park land provided the
developer constructs said trails as part of the public improvements for the subdivision, and the land is located outside of any restrictive easements.
10) The applicant shall observe all comments and recommendations from the City Engineer
documented on the Engineer’s report dated August 13, 2014.
11) The Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans will address review comments and issues that are identified within the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Inwood planned development site.
12) Lots 27 and 28, Block 7 must be revised to maintain the minimum 100-foot greenbelt buffer
requirement along the eastern portion of the planned development.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
15
13) The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City clarifying responsibility
for all median landscaping and stormwater facilities internal to the single family residential
streets.
14) The applicants must work with the City to determine fair and equitable cost share for City costs related to the future signalization of the intersection at 5th Street and Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13).
15) The applicant must work with Washington County to address all review comments
documented in the attached report dated 8/20/14 pertaining to access and intersection design
for Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) and 10th Street (CSAH 10).
16) The applicant must provide sidewalks on both sides of Street B to better serve the single
family residential area.
17) Additional trail segments along the east side of Inwood Avenue from 5th Street to 10th Street
and along 10th Street from Inwood Avenue to the Greenbelt Buffer Trail must be incorporated into the plans.
18) The applicant must work with the City to ensure compliance with the City’s shoreland
provisions and the standards of the SWWD and MN DNR related to shoreland areas of
designated public waters.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed Inwood PUD Concept Plan:
1) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the intent of the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
2) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan complies with the general intent of the City’s Urban Low Density Residential, Urban High Density Residential and Commercial zoning districts.
3) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan complies with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.
4) That the Inwood PUD complies with the City’s PUD Ordinance, and specifically the
identified objectives for the consideration of a Planned Development.
5) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the City’s engineering standards with exceptions as noted by the City Engineer in his review comments to the City dated August
13, 2014.
6) That the master-planning technique utilized in the Inwood PUD Concept Plan provides
thoughtful integration of multiple land uses, a variety of housing types and an effective and connected transportation system, allowing for different modes of travel throughout the site.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Inwood PUD Concept
Plan with the 18 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff Report. Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan with the findings of fact and conditions of approval as drafted in the Staff Report.”
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
16
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Application Form 3. Project Narrative 4. Inwood PUD Concept Plan w/Details
5. Inwood PUD Concept Planning & Design Booklet
6. City Engineer’s Review Memorandum, dated 8/13/14
7. Fire Chief’s Review Memorandum, dated 8/19/14 8. Washington County Review Memorandum, dated 8/20/14
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 4B
Oak MarshGolf Course
StonegatePark
Bremer Bank
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Data Scource: Washington County, MN8-15-2014
Location Map: Inwood 10 PUD
KInwood Ave. N.10th St. N.
0 500 1,000250 Feet
1"=500'
Inwood 10 PUDEagle Point Blvd. N.456710
456713
InWood10LLCINWOOD VILLAGE: SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES WOOD BUFFER, TRAIL SYSTEM & GREEN SPACESINWOOD PLACE: MULTIFAMILYINWOOD SHOPS: RETAIL & SERVICESINWOOD MARKET: RETAIL & SERVICESINWOOD COVE: SENIOR HOUSINGINWOOD SOUTH: TOWNHOMES• CONTACT: JOHN RASK •• Hans Hagen Homes • • ph. 763.586.7202 •August 21st, 2014CONCEPT PLANNING & DESIGN
TABLE OF CONTENTSIntroductory Letter pg. 1Master Site Plan pg. 3-5Streetscape & Home Designs pg. 6-7 Island Greenspace Example Concepts pg. 8-10Coordinated Rear Yards Privacy Screening pg. 11Homes & Master Plan Amenities pg. 12-17Appendix: Letter to Mayor; Conformance to City Regulations pg 18-21
pg.1
pg.2
INWOOD AERIAL PERSPECTIVE LOOKING NORTH WESTNINTERSTATE 94INWOOD AVENUE N.........10TH STREET N...MASTMASTMASTMAER PER PER PERLANLANLANLAABBYBY HBY HBYANSANSANSNSHAGEHHAGEGEGEN HON HON HONHOHON HOHHMMESMESESMESMESMECOMCOMCOMCOMMERCMERCMERCMERCMERRCMERCIAL IALIAIAIAL& RE& RERNTALNTALALNTALHOUHOHOUOSINGSINGSPLAPLALAPLAALALAAN BYN BYN BYN BYN BYN BNN BCOLCOLOLLLAGELAGEALAGELAGEARCARARCRCARCARCARCCHITEHITEHITHITHITTECTURCTURCTUREEEINWOINWOINWOINOD VOD VOD VILLAILLALLAGE:GE:GSINSINGSINGLE FLE FE FAMILAMILAMMY DEY DEY DEEDETACHTACHTTAED ED HOMEHOMEHOMEMHOHOS NES NESNESNIGHBIGHBIGHBIGHBORHOORHORHOORHOORHORODODOOINWOINWOWONWONWNWONWOOD SOD SOOOOOHOPSHOPSHOPHOPS& MA& MAMA& MA& MA& MA& MA& MARKERKETRKETRKETRKETRKETTRKRININWONWOODOD SOD SSOUTHOUOUTHTH: TOWNTOWNHOMEHOMEOMESSINWOINWOINWNWININNNNWIOD CODD CD COD CDCCDCOOVOVE:OVE:OO SSENISENISENISENOR LOR LOR LOR LOR LOR OIVINVIIVINIVIVIVINNVNGGGINWOINWOINWONWOOWOINWOOD POD POD POD POD POD LACELACLACELACECEA::::MULTMULTMULTLTLTI-FAI-FAFFIFAI-FAMILYMILYILYLYMILYMILYILYRRESRESRESRESRESSIDENDENIDENIDENIDENIIDENCESCESCESCESSEXEXEXISEEXXISISXXTINGNGNGNGNGTIOAOAOAK K MARSMAARSARSMARSARSMARSAMAHHH GOHHH GOOHLLFLFFLFLFLCOURCOCOURCOURSESESEEEEXISEXISTINGTINGEAGEAGLE LE POINPOINT BUT BUSINESINESS SS CAMPCAMPUSUSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE & ILLUSTRATION BY PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGNpg.3
IAERIAL PERSPECTIVE LOOKING SOUTHNINTERSTATE 94INWO
O
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
N .........10TH STREET N..NOTENOTEOTE: EX: EXEX: EXEISTIISTING TNG TREESREESREESPREPREPRREPRER-SERVSERVVED BEDED BY 10Y 100’ +0’ +PREPRERSERVSERVSERVEEAAA-TIONTIONONBUFBUFFERFER (EXC(EXCEEDSEEDSEEORDIORDINANCNANCE REE REE REEEQUIRQUIRQQQUQEMENEMENTS))MASTMASTMASTMASTMASTER PER PER PERER PRLAN LAN LANLAN LANBY HBY HBY HBY HY HANSANS ANS ANSNANHAGEHAHAGAGEAGEHAGN HON HONNNNMESMESCOMCOMCOMCOMMERCMERCMERCMERCMERCIALIALIALIALI& RE& RE& RE& RE&NTALNTALNTANTALTTALHOUHOUHOHOUOUSINGSINGSINGSINGINPLAPLAALALALAPLAN BYNN BYBYN BYBCOLCOLCCCLLLAGELAGELELAGEARCARCARCRCRCHITEHITEHITEHITECTURCTURCTURUEEEEEINWOINWONWNWOOWWOOD VOD VOD VD VD VODVODDD VILLAILLAILLAILLAAILLAILLAALAAAAGGE:GGEGE:GE:GE:GEGEGSINGSININNGGSINLELE FLE FE FE FE FFAMILAMILAAMILAMILAMILAMILAMIMMY DEY DEY DDY DEDEEEY DETACHTACHTACHTACTACTACHTACHCCEDEDEDEDEDDDHOMEHOMEOMEMEHOMEOMEMEMMS NES NS NS NES NEEEIGHBIGHIGHBIGHBIGHBIGHIGHBGHBORHOORHOORHOORRHHORHOORORHOHHOORHORHOODODODODODOOINWOINWOINWININWINWONOD SOD SOD SOD SOD SOD SOD SSOHOPHOPSP& MA& MA& MAMA& MAM& MA&MA&&MARKETRKETRKETRINWOINWOOOOOD SOD SOOOOUTHOH:TOWNTOWNWHOMEHOMEMEESSSSINWOINWOOD COD COVE:OVE: SENISENIOR LOR LIVINIVININVIVINVIGGINWOINWOINWOINWOINWOIINWINOD POD POD POD PDPLACELACELACELACELA: : : :MULTMULTMULTMULMUMULTMULTTI-FAI-FAI-FAIFAFMILYMILYMILYMILYRESRESRESRIDENIDENIDENDENCESCESCESIINWOINWINWOINWOINWONWONWWOOD SODODOD SOD SOD SD SSHOPHOPHOPHOPSHOPSOPSSOP& MA&MA& MAMAMAMA& & MAMRKETRKETRKETRKETRKKETTLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE & ILLUSTRATION BY PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGNININWOINWONWONWINWONWONOD VOD VOD VOODVODILLAILLAILLALLAGE:GE:GE:GGE:ESINGSINGSINGSINNGNGSINGNGNGNNGLE FLE FLE FEE FLE FFFAMILAMILAMIAMILMILAMMMY DEY DEY DEDEYDEYTACHTACHTACTACHTACHED EDED DEDDDDHOMEHOMHOMEHOMEHOMEEMS NES NENES NES SNEIGHBGHBIGHBIGHBBGHBORHOORHOORHOORHOOOODODODODOpg.4
NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD LLLAAAAAAKKKKKKEEE EEEEEEELLLLLLMMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOO,,,,,,,, MMMMMMMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTAAAAAAAAAAAAASCALEIN FEET0 100 200400NLANDLANDLANDLANDNDDNSCAPSCAPSCASCAPSCASCAPCAAPSCPAPAPPE ARE ARE AREAE AARAE AECHITCHITCHCHCHECTUECTUECTUURE &RE &RRILLILLLLUSTRUSTRUSTRATIOATIOATATN BYBYPUTPUTUUTTMAN MANMMAMAANMAN NNAPLANPLANPLANPLANPLANLALAAPLANINGNINGINGINGNGNNGNGGGNINGNINGNING&D&D&&&&D&D& DD&&D&& D&&DDESIGESIGESIGESIGEEEEEESIGESIGESGGESIGESIESINNNNNNNNNNNNNNINWOINWOINWOINWONWNWNWOD VOD VOD VODOD OD VOD VOD VOD VOOOILLALLAILLALLILLALLALLALGE:GGGGSINGSISINGINGSINGSINGINGLELE FLE FLE E FLE FE FFLLEAMAMAMAMAMILAMILMILAMMIMILMIY DEY DEDDDY DEY DDDTACHTACHTACHTACHTACHACHACCCEDEDDDHOMEHOMHOMEHOMEOMHOMEHOMEOMHS NES NS NENEENES NNS NNSNIGHIGHBGHBGHBGHBBIIGHBGHHORHORHOORHORHOORHOOORORHORHOOODOOODOODODDDDODININWOWWOWOINOD SDOD SOHOPSHOPSHOPOPSPS& M& MAMAMAMAAAAARKETRKETRKRKRKRKRINWOINWOOD SODD SD DOUTHOUTH:TOWNTOWNHOMEHOMEHOMEOMOMSSEXISEXISEXISEXISEXEXEXISSISEXEEXTINGTINGTINGTINTINTINGTINTINGTINGTINGINEIGNEIGNEINEIGNEIGNEIGNNENHBORHBORHBORHBORBORBORBOHOODHOODHOODHOODHOODOOHOOHOOHOHOODOOOOOOODEXISEXISEXISEETINGINGINGTINGGTINGNEIGNEIGNEIGNEIGNEIEIGGGHBORHBORHBORHBORHBORHBORHBHOODHOODHOODHOODHOODDDEXISXISTINGTINGGGGNGGGGGOAOAK OAKOAKOAOOOOAOAK OOMARMARSH H GOGOGOOHOLF LFLLLFLLLCOURCOURCCCCSSSEEEEEXISEXEXEXISITINGTINGGINGNGEAGEAGEAGAGLE LE EPOINPOINPOINNT BUT BUTBUSINESINEISS SS SCAMPCAMPMMPMUSUSSAEAGLAGLEAGLEAGLEAGLEAGLEAGLEAGLEAGLLGLLLLLEAGLEAGLLAGLEAGLEAGAEAEAE POE POE POE POE POE POE PEPE POE POE POE POE POOEPOE PE POEEINT INT INT INT TININTINT INTINTINTININBLVLVDDVDVDDDVDVDDDVDDDLVDBLVDLVDBLVDBLVDDDBLVDBLVDBLVDBLVDVDDVVDBLVDVVDVDBLVDBLVBLVDVDVDBLLLBLBLBLVBLBL....MASTER PLAN BY HANS HAGEN HOOMESMESMMCOMCCCOMMERCMEIAL & RENTAL HOUSING PLAN BY COLLAGELAGEGARARCARAHITEHITEEECTURCTURCEEENOTENOTENOTE: EX: EX:ISTISTISTISTSTSTNG TNG TTGTTG TREESRREREREESREESRERERPREPREPREPRPREREPP--SERVSERVRVRSERVERVERVVEDED BED BED BED BEDY10Y10Y10Y 10Y10Y11000’ +0’ +0’ ++’+0’ +0’ PREPREEPREPRPREPRRSESERVSERSERVSERVSERVSEREAAAA---TIONTIONOTIONIONONOOONBUFBUFBUFBUFBUBUBUFER FER FERFER FER R(EXC(EXCEXCCEXCEXCEXCEXCEEEEDSEEDSEEDSEEDSEEDSEEDSORDIOORDIOORDIORDORDIONANANNANCNANCNANCCCNANCE REEREEREERE RE REQUIRQUIRQUIRQQQUIRQUIREMENEMENEMEEMENEMEMENMENNTS)TS)TS)TSTS)S)TINWOINWOINWOINWOINWOINWOOWOWWONWONWOONOD ODOD COD COD COD COD COD CCODCOVE:OVE:OVE:OVV SSSESSENSENSENINSSEOR LORRLRRORR OR LIVINIVIIVININVGGGINWOINWOINWOINWOINWOINWONWOOD POD POD POD POD PPPLACELACELACELACEE: :MULTMULTMULTMULTMULTMULTUI-FAI-FAI-FA-FAI-FAI-FAIMILYMILYMILYMILYMILYRESRESRESRESRRIIDENDENIDENDENIDIDEIDENCCCECECESCESCExtenExtenExtenExtentenExteneesivesive sive sivesivesive sivesieparkwarkwparkwparkwrkwparkwparkwwrkwparkwwpaparkarkwaay boay bay boay ay boay boay boay boaulevaulevaulevalevaulevavard plrd prdrdlrdllllantintintinantntinantanananng. Phg. PhPhhg. oto fotooto foto fo fo fo fo fo fofofo ffrromrom rom rom romran exan exan exan exan exexan exan ex exexanxexaistinistinistiistinistinistinstistinistinisiigHag HanHg Hang HanHag HanHg Hg Hg Hang Hans Has Hagss Has ss en Hooooomes nmesmesmes mes s mes nmmmssmeeigboeigboeigbogbogboerhoodrhoodrhoodddrhood....TrailTrailTrailiTrailillilsystsystsystsystsyystsyssystysyem adem adem adem admammmmdiding dingdingg new tnew tnew tew tew tnew twnerees reereerees esreeesesesessreessto anto antto ato ato ano antto anexisexisexisexisexisexiseeting inginggting gting gting gpresepresepresepresepreseesesppprved rved edrved rvedrvedrvedewoodswooddwoodswoodwoodswodswoowoods. Mas. MasMasMasMaMasMasMasMasMasMter Pter Per Per Pter Pter Pteter Pterer llalalanlan sn sn sn salalashows hohohows hows howshohows howshoowshohowhpreseppresepresereseresepreseprervatirvatrvativatirvatrvon ofon ofon ofnooon oon ofnoof 100 f100 f100 f000f0100 f01100t.+ wt.+ w.+ w++t.+ wwwt.+ t.+ ide pide pide pipde pireserresereserresereseresereserresersererrsereserved wved wed wed wved wved wved wved wvveved wveveoodedoodedoodeoodedodeoodedeoodeodeddddoodebuffbuffbuffffffffffffbuererer. Per. Per. Perr. Peerhoto hoto hotootooto frofrom from rom fromfrm mman exan ean exan exan exan eistinistinististinistinng Hang HaHg Hang Hang HanHg Hang HanHHHs Hags Hags Hags Hags HagagHs Hagggggen Hoen Hoen Hoen Hoen Hen Hon Hoen Hnen Honn HooHHoomemmesmes nmes mes nsnmes neighbeighbeighbeighbeigghbbeighborhooorhooorhooorhooorhooorhohhrhrhordd.d.dd.dBermBermBermermat leat leat leat leleeft prprft prrovideovideovidevideodededs adds adds adds adds addddds adddsads adds addssitionitionitionnttionitionitiontitiontioniitional scal sclscal scaaal scl scl sceniceneniceniceniceniceniccnicniccbeautbeautbeautbeautbeautbeautabeabeauteauteauteay to y to ytoytoytoyy toy to y to y toy toy todriveivdrivedriv, whe, whe, wheheheere thethre thre thrrre tru stru stu stttsttttreetsreerereetsreetsreetsreetsetsetsetreetetstaareaaraaradjacadjacdjjadjadjacadjacdadjacadjacadjacadjacjacdjadjajjent tentent entntttnt tentent tent tent teo homo homo homo hommmo hoeses.es.eesPhotoPhotoPhotofromfromfromomfroman ean ean eenn xisxistixististiiixing Hng Hang Hng Hg HHng Hng Hg HHHHns Has HasHas Has HaHaHnsnsHaHaHaHsgen Hgen gegegen gen Hn HHgenen gegen Hen Hn Hgengegeeomesomomomes meses neighneighiggghgggg--borhoborhoborhorhood.od.od.odPhoto bPhoto bPhoto bPhoto bobPhoto bPhoto bootoPhotoPhotoPhotoy Hans y Hans Hansy Hany HayyyHagen HHagen HHagen Hen Hn genes oromes ores oromes orss moo by Johy Johby JoyJbbbbbn Raskn RaskRasRRRPhoto boto bPhoto bPhoto bPhPHans y Hans y Hans y Hans y HansansHansanHaHagen HHagen HHagen HnHHagen HHagen HagengeHaggaggHagHroromes orromes oomes oomes oooo by Johby Joh by Johy JohJohhby Johy Joby Joby JbyJbyn Raskn Raskn Raskaskn RaskRaskRasaRanRnRnPhoto bPhoto boto bo bPhPPy Hans y Hans y Hans Hansy Hansyy HanHHagen HHagen HHagen HHHagen HHagen Hagen Hagaoromes oromes oromesoromes ororrromes oohoh by Joh by Johy Johby Joh by JohhhJoby Jobn Raskkkn RasnRn RnRnpg.5
INWOOD STREETSCAPE EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATION & PHOTOGRAPHY BY PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGN• Home - dominant streetscapes • traffic calmed... • with homes of high quality design, detail and materials pg.6
INWOOD STREETSCAPE EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATION & PHOTOGRAPHY BY PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGN• with extensive greenspace & boulevard planting • augmented by home-owner landscapingpg.7
ISLAND GREEN SPACE: EXAMPLE I (NHD.E) CONCEPT DESIGNLANDLANDLANDLLLLANDLAALAAAAAAAAALANDLANDLANDDDDLLANDAANDAAALAAANDDLLLANDAADLLANDDDLLANDLANDDDLLDDLANDLDDLANDLLLLLLLLLLSCAPE ARCHITTTTTTTTTTTTTEEEEECTUEEEEEEEEEERAL DESIGN & ILLUSTRTRTTRTTTRTRTRTRTRTRTRRRRTRTRTTTRTRTRTRTRTRTTRTTRTTRRRTTTTRTRTRRTRTRTRRRTRTTRTTRTTTRTRRTRTRTTRRTRRTAAATIOAAAAN BY PUTMAN PLANAANNNAANNANNNNNNAAAAANAANNNING& DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEESIGEENThe landscape concepts illustrate the general planting and screening plans for the neighborhood. Hans Hagen Homes will provide a base landscape package witheach home, install boulevard trees, infiltration islands, and establish berming and screening. Homeowners will be responsible for the final design and planting plans of individual lots. Homeowners will have the option of working with a professional landscape designer to install the landscape options identified in this booklet. A homeowners as-sociation will be responsible for the maintenance of the landscape plantings. The Association will have easements over each lot and common areas for the purpose of maintaining the yards and landscape planting.*AMENITY LOCATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODCENTRAL ISLAND GREEN SPACE: Concept above shows traffic calming one way traffic + parallel parking & central greens-pace that integrates rain gardens, mail stations, neighborhood sitting area & gatheringplace, overstory canopy trees, or-namental trees, flowers and ground covers.Car traffic speeds are “calmed” by use of one way travel, signage, parallel parking, paving texture changes, and classic boulevard tree plantingONE WAY, TRAFFIC-CALMING COURT-DRIVEPARALLEL PARKING & BLVD. TREESGATHERING PLACEPEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE & NARROW AUTO LOOP-THRUMAIL STATIONSPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPh t b P t Pl i & D ipg.8
ISLAND GREEN SPACE: EXAMPLE II (NHD.F) CONCEPT DESIGNThe landscape concepts illustrate the general planting and screening plans for the neighborhood. Hans Ha-gen Homes will provide a base landscape package with each home, install boulevard trees, infiltration islands, and establish berming and screening. Homeowners willbe responsible for the final design and planting plans of individual lots. Homeowners will have the option of working with aprofessional landscape designer to install the landscape options identified in this booklet. A homeowners asso-ciation will be responsible for the maintenance of the landscape plantings. The Association will have ease-ments over each lot and common areas for the purpose of maintaining the yards and landscape planting.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUCTUCTUTTUTUTUUUUUUUUTUUUUTUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURALRALRALARARARALRARALRAALALRRARAL RAL ALRAL RAL RRRARRRARALRRRRARARRRARRRARRRRARADEDDDEDEDDDDEDEDDEDESIDDEDDEDDDDEDDDDEDDDDDDDDDDDGN &ILLUSTRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTATIOAATIATIAATIIIATIATIAATIATIIATIIATIIIIATIATIATIIIAATIAAIIN BYPUTMAN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNPLANNING& DESIGN*AMENITY LOCATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODCENTRAL ISLAND GREEN SPACE: Concept above shows traffic calming one way traffic + parallel park-ing & central greenspace that integrates rain gardens, turf trails, mail stations, neighborhood sitting area &gathering place, overstory canopy trees, ornamental trees, flowers and ground covers.Car traffic speeds are “calmed” by use of one way travel, signage, parallel parking, paving texture changes, and classic boulevard tree plantingONE WAY, TRAFFIC-CALMING COURT-DRIVEPARALLEL PARKING & BLVD. TREESGATHERING PLACEPEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE & NARROW AUTO LOOP-THRUMAIL STATIONSTURF TRAILPEDESTRIAN - FRIENDLYSTREETSCAPESTRAFFIC CALMING BY DESIGNMAKES STREETSCAPES MORE IN-VITING FOR WALKINGFRONT YARD STREET TREES AUGMENTED BY OWNER-SE-LECTED ADDITIONAL PLANTINGRAIN GARDENPAVING TEXTURE CHANGEPARALLEL PARKINGPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPh b P Pl i & D ipg.9
IISLAND GREEN SPACE: EXAMPLE III (NHD.A) CONCEPT DESIGNLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL ALALALALAALALALALADESIGN & ILLUSTRATION BY PUTMAN AAAAAANNAAANANAAANAANANAANAANANAAPLANNING & DESIGNThe landscape concepts illustrate the general plant-ing and screening plans for the neighborhood. HansHagen Homes will provide a base landscape pack-age with each home, install boulevard trees, infil-tration islands, and establish berming and screen-ing. Homeowners will be responsible for the finaldesign and planting plans of individual lots.Homeowners will have the option of working with a professional landscape designer to install thelandscape options identified in this booklet. A ho-meowners association will be responsible for themaintenance of the landscape plantings. The Asso-ciation will have easements over each lot and com-mon areas for the purpose of maintaining the yards and landscape planting.*Car traffic speeds are “calmed” by use of one way travel, signage, parallel parking to the island sideof the street, paving texture changes, and classic boulevard tree plantingONE WAY, TRAFFIC-CALMING COURT-DRIVESTREET / NEIGHBORHOOOD NAMEGATHERING PLACEMAIL STATIONSTURF WALKRAIN GARDENPEDESTRIAN - FRIENDLY STREETSCAPESTRAFFIC CALMING BY DESIGN MAKES STREETSCAPES MORE IN-VITING FOR WALKINGFRONT YARD STREET TREES AUG-MENTED BY OWNER-SELECTEDADDITIONAL PLANTINGPRIVACY IS ENHANCED BY A MULTI-PURPOSE AMENITY FEATURE THAT ENCOURAG-ES NEIGHBORING AND HELPSCALM TRAFFICTURF WALKAMENITY LOCATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODCENTRAL ISLAND GREEN SPACE: Concept above shows traffic calming one way traffic + parallel parking & central greenspace that integrates rain gardens, turf trails, mail stations, neighborhood sitting area & gathering place, overstory canopy trees, ornamental trees, flowers and ground covers.obbPhoto bPhoto bhoto bhoto bbPhoto boto bbbPhoto bPhoto boto bhoto bPhoto bhoto bPhoto bbPhoto bPhotohotootoPhoPhohhPhPy Putmay Putmay Putmamay PutmaPutmay Putmay Putmay Putmay Putmay Putmay Putmaay Putmay Putmamay Putmautmaay Putmy Putmy Putmy PuPPy yy yy y y y y yyyyyyyn Plannn Plannn Plannn Plannn Plannn Plannn Plannn Plannn Plannnn Plannn Plannn Plannn Plannnn Plannn Plannn Plannn PlannPlann Plann Plan PlnPlPln PPnPnPPning & Ding & Ding & Ding & Ding & Dg&DDDg&DDng & DDDDDDDDng & Dng & DDing & Ding & Ding & Ding & Ding & Ding & Ding & D&ing && & &ing & ing & ing &ing ininnsignsignesignesignnnsignnenignesignesignesignesignesignesignesignesignesignesignesignesignesignesignsignesignesignesignesignesignnesignesigesigesigesigesigiesesseeePRIVACY IS ENHANCED BY A MULTI-PURPOSE AMENITY FEATURE THAT ENCOURAG-ES NEIGHBORING AND HELPSCALM TRAFFICpg.10
CCOORDINATED REAR YARD PRIVACY SCREENING & “MENU” OF PATIO + PLANTING CONCEPT DESIGNSThe landscape concepts illustrate the generalplanting and screening plans for the neigh-borhood. Hans Hagen Homes will provide a base landscape package with each home, in-stall boulevard trees, infiltration islands, andestablish berming and screening. Homeown-ers will be responsible for the final design andplanting plans of individual lots.Homeowners will have the option of work-ing with a professional landscape designer toinstall the landscape options identified in thisbooklet. A homeowners association will be responsible for the maintenance of the land-scape plantings. The Association will haveeasements over each lot and common areasfor the purpose of maintaining the yards andlandscape planting.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN & ILLUSTRATION BY PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGNFENCE INTERRUPTED BY CONIFER TREESPLAN: ELEELELLELELELELELELELELEELELELLELLLLLEEVATVATVATVATVATVATVAVVAVAAATTVAATIONIONIONIONONNNIONOONONONNONPATIO SHAPE SELEC-TION CHOICESPRIVACY SCREEN VIADEVELOPER PLANT-TTING AND BUYER SE-LECTED SCREENINGRETAINING WALL ELEMENTSSIDISIDISIDISIDISIDISSIDISIDSSIDISSSSIDISISISISSIDISSSSSISIDIDISSSIDISSIDIDISIDSIDDSIDDSISIDDDDSIDIIDIDISIDDSIDSIDDDDSIDDIIIDSIDDDSIDIISSSSSSSNG ING ING ING ING INNG IING ING IIGIIIGINGINGNG IGNG INGNGNG INGNGGNGNGNGGGNGNGGGGGNNNNFILNFNFINFNFNFNFNFNFNFNFINFINFINFINFINNFINFNFINFINNFININFFINFNFNFNFFFNNLTRELLISCABLE TRELLISw/VINESSCURVEDSCREENOWNER OPTION PRIVACY FEATURESRear privacy accomplisheed wid with eth evergvergreenn&d& decidecidu-ous tree and shrub plantinngngs. Photo is from an eexistxist-ing Hans Hagen Homes nneeighboorhoorhd.d privacy accomplished by fencing and planting. Photo rdRearReaRRee yarexisting Hans Hagen Homes neighborhoodefromromfromfromfromfromfromfromfrorofrofromfrofrorofrooan patio with extensive deciduous & coniferous plantingd Rear yardcreening. Photo from an existing Hans Hagen Homes scused for hoodrhneighborPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPh t b P t Pl i & D iPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPh t b P t a Pla i & D iPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John Raskpg.11
EXAMPLE HOMES & MASTER PLAN AMENITIESPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John Raskpg.12
EXAMPLE HOMES & MASTER PLAN AMENITIESPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & Designpg.13
EXAMPLE HOMES & MASTER PLAN AMENITIESPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Putman Planning & Designpg.14
EXAMPLE HOMES & MASTER PLAN AMENITIESPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & Designpg.15
EXAMPLE HOMES & MASTER PLAN AMENITIESPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & Designpg.16
EXAMPLE HOMES & MASTER PLAN AMENITIESPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or John Raskpg.17
APPENDIXpg.18
pg.19
pg.20
pg.21
• COMMERCIAL, SENIOR & TOWNHOME SITE PLANNING• SURVEYING, GRADING DESIGN• CIVIL ENGINEERING• LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • AMENITY DESIGN & PLANTING• IDENTITY & GRAPHIC DESIGN• PHOTO GRAPHICS• REPRESENTATION ILLUSTRATION• ph. 877.381.8291•DEVELOPMENT • DETACHED HOMES MASTER PLANNING•CONTACT: JOHN RASK •ph. 763.586.7202DEVInWood10LLC
PAGE 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 13, 2014
To: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Re: Inwood – PUD Concept Plan Review
Cc: Nick Johnson, City Planner
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Hans Hagen Homes Inwood PUD Concept Plan. A PUD Concept
Plan was received on August 12, 2014. The submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by E.G.
Rud & Sons, Inc.:
Inwood PUD Concept Plan dated August 11, 2014.
Graphic Illustration, not dated.
We have the following review comments:
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
Municipal water service is readily available for the Inwood development proposal. The applicant is
responsible to extend the municipal water to the development site at developer’s cost and to extend
future connection stubs to all adjacent properties as directed by the City.
The Comprehensive Water System Plan, dated April 2009 requires the placement of Water Tower No. 4
within the area planned as Inwood PUD. The specific site for Water Tower No. 4 must be addressed as
part of this development proposal, either reserving the appropriate property dedicated for the Water
Tower or the City must verify that an alternative site has been acquired prior to excluding the Water
Tower from this development plan.
Multiple watermain connection points and stubs must be incorporated as part of the development. At
least two connections will be required along the south edge of the development; either two connections
to the Eagle Point Business Park water system or one connection to Eagle Point Business Park and one
connection to Boulder Ponds at 5th Street.
A trunk watermain stub shall be installed to the northeast corner of the development for potential future
extension along 10th Street.
The City will be constructing trunk watermain along Inwood Avenue in 2015, from 10th Street to Eagle
Point Blvd. This main could be incorporated interior to this development if the development application
has progressed sufficiently to accommodate the Inwood Trunk Watermain project schedule. The design of
the Inwood Trunk Watermain Improvements is already complete. Project bidding for the final alignment
will occur no later than January 2015.
Watermain stubs to adjacent property and pipe oversizing will continue to be reviewed by City staff as the
development progresses forward and oversizing routes may need to be changed as part of the final
construction plans, in particular to oversize pipe to and from the Water Tower site. Watermain oversizing
is paid by the City as a reimbursement addressed within the development agreement.
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. 651.300.4283
PAGE 2 of 4
MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER
Municipal sanitary sewer service is readily available for the Inwood development proposal. The applicant
is responsible to extend the municipal sanitary sewer to the development site at developers cost.
The applicant must provide a total estimated number of residential equivalent units to be located within
the plat so that staff may review the downstream sewer capacity limits. The Inwood development may
need to connect at multiple sewer service locations to divide the flow to separate downstream sewer
mains. The City is in the process of evaluating the downstream sewer capacity limitations.
Sanitary sewer pipe stubs to adjacent property and pipe oversizing will continue to be reviewed by City
staff as the development progresses forward. Revisions may need to be incorporated as part of the final
construction plans. Sewer main oversizing is paid by the City as a reimbursement addressed within the
development agreement.
No lift station has been planned for this area. It appears that the area can be served without a lift station.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The site plan is dependent upon and subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, SWWD
and City rules and regulations. Storm water facilities proposed as part of the site plan to meet SWWD
permitting requirements must be constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards
Manual available on the City website.
The general drainage system should mimic the natural topography of the site in order to ensure a
drainage system that provides positive storm water drainage across the development. Overland
emergency overflows or outlets will need to be incorporated as part of the site plan.
The ultimate discharge rate and location will be an important consideration to avoid negative impacts to
downstream properties. The storm water management plan will need to address changes to the
downstream drainage system to the extent alterations are proposed. To the extent adjacent properties
are impacted, written permission from those properties must be submitted as part of the development
applications.
Per City requirements, all storm water facilities, including infiltration basins, must be placed in Outlots
deeded to the City for maintenance purposes. The Stormwater Facility Outlots must fully incorporate the
100‐year HWL and maintenance access roads. It is unclear from the concept plan submitted if all the
proposed ponding and infiltration is on Outlots that will be dedicated to the City.
The storm sewer system shall be designed to maintain the City standard minimum pipe cover of 3.5 feet.
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 at low points.
Per City requirements all storm sewer pipe easements must be a minimum 30‐feet in width.
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
Access along Inwood Avenue and 10th Street must be reviewed and approved by Washington County. This
approval should be pursued prior to preliminary plat submittal to avoid significant rework. It appears that
the proposed access is consistent with Washington County guidelines with the exception of the additional
access proposed south of 5th Street. This access should ne eliminated.
Improvements required by Washington County at the intersections along Inwood Avenue and 10th Street
should be the responsibility of the applicant and should be incorporated as part of the preliminary plat
submittal documents.
5TH STREET NORTH: 5th Street North seeks to become the backbone of future development along the I94
corridor, essentially becoming the primary access in and out of the future neighborhoods. The street is
required for the sole purpose to support the growth and development within the corridor. The quality of the
street and its connections are critically important. The purpose of the proposed street standards are to 1)
PAGE 3 of 4
improve the function and appearance of the street, 2) encourage pedestrian and bicycle use, and 3) reduce the
potential for speeding.
The plan indicates a minimum 100 foot R/W as required.
The proposed 2‐lane collector parkway street (5th Street) design and geometrics must meet all Municipal
State Aid design standards for urban streets (8820.9936) for ADT > 10,000; 40 mph design speed; and
must be consistent with the detailed parkway cross section installed throughout the remaining corridor
segments and as outlined in the 5th Street Collector Design Guidelines as prepared by City staff.
The proposed alignment appears to be consistent with this design intent. However, the proposed plan
indicates additional impacts to the adjacent Bremer Financial Services property as noted on the Concept
Plan. The proposed alignment requires permission and R/W acquisition from Bremer Financial Services.
Access spacing to 5th Street is allowed at 1/8 mile intervals for non‐continuous local streets, at ¼ mile
intervals for continuous local streets and collector streets, and at ½ mile intervals for streets with higher
classification.
The intersection with Street B/D (a minor collector) is currently shown at 575 feet from the
westerly commercial driveway access. This intersection should be moved approximately 85 feet to
the east.
Street D accesses 5th Street as a RI/RO only with a commercial property access located just 300
feet to the east. Street D should be realigned to meet the full access guidelines of 660 feet to
avoid cut through traffic through the commercial property.
The private RI/RO driveway along the south of 5th Street should be moved further east to
maintain a minimum 330 feet from Inwood Avenue.
Right and left turn lanes must be incorporated along 5th Street North per the City design standards to
maintain mobility along the Parkway since there is only one travel lane in each direction.
Additional streetscape amenities are required along 5th Street consistent with the remaining corridor
segments and the preliminary design that was provided to the City by Damon Farber. 5th Street Amenities
include a north side off‐road bituminous trail, minimum 10 foot width with 5 foot clear zone; a south side
concrete sidewalk, minimum 6 foot width with 2 foot clear zone; landscaping elements including a center
landscape median; and theming elements including street and ornamental lighting, banner poles at
primary gateway intersections, and white post & rail fencing.
RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Turn lanes must be added on all interior development streets at the intersections with 10th Street, Inwood
Avenue, and 5th Street.
Street C is a proposed cul‐de‐sac extending over 1100 feet in length with an additional street cul‐de‐sac
extension of another 560 feet. This exceeds the maximum allowable cul‐de‐sac length. This street must be
revised to connect interior to the development.
9th Street and Neighborhood Street E should align to create a full intersection rather than offset
intersections along a minor collector road. As proposed, the intersections do not meet the minimum 330
foot access spacing for a minor neighborhood collector road.
Staff has preliminarily reviewed the unique street layout for the “Neighborhood” street segments
proposed in this concept plan and believes the general concept is a workable design. However, there are
several design details that must be addressed as the development progresses through the process. Some
revisions should be expected.
All R/W widths, pavement widths and turning radii need to be further detailed to allow staff to review the
proposed street geometrics. The turning radii shown in Neighborhood C and A do not appear to meet
acceptable standards.
The R/W Boulevard along the “Neighborhood” street segments appears insufficient including a proposed
reduced house setback. It is unclear where the private utilities will be installed.
Ten (10) foot utility easements are required on either side of all right‐of‐ways.
PAGE 4 of 4
Six (6) foot sidewalks must be provided along all continuous residential streets and along other streets as
may be required for connectivity. Sidewalk and Trail locations should be jointly addressed with the
applicant since the proposed sidewalk layouts vary from the City standard requirements.
All streets must be designed to meet the City’s Engineering Design Standards including R/W width, street
width and cul‐de‐sac radii. Surmountable concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in single family
residential areas and B618 curb in commercial and multi‐family areas. All street intersections must be at
90 degrees and maintain 100 feet of tangent with maximum slopes of 2% for first 100 feet. Residential
maximum longitudinal grade is 8% with no sidewalks, 6% where there are sidewalks.
For any street and R/W design variance from the City Standard residential street section, additional detail
must be submitted for staff review and consideration. This review should be completed prior to
preliminary plat submission to avoid significant rework.
COMMERCIAL AND MULTI‐FAMILY AREA STREETS/DRIVEWAYS
Turn lanes must be added on all interior development streets at the intersections with 10th Street, Inwood
Avenue, and 5th Street.
The commercial and multi‐family area access roads and driveways require more detail to facilitate staff
review including all R/W widths, pavement widths and turning radii. Additional clarification is requested
to delineate public street R/W from proposed commercial or multi‐family private driveway access. If
private streets are proposed, staff should review to determine where private streets will and will not be
allowed.
1
Nick Johnson
From:Tom FitzGerald <tfitzgerald@carbonair.com>
Sent:Monday, August 25, 2014 6:24 PM
To:Nick Johnson
Subject:Fwd: Hans Hagen Homes proposed PUD on 157 acres of land on the SE Corner of
Inwood and 10th Street
Attachments:image001.jpg
Please see below
Thanks
Tom Fitzgerald
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tom FitzGerald <tfitzgerald@carbonair.com <mailto:tfitzgerald@carbonair.com> >
Date: August 25, 2014 at 5:07:59 PM CDT
To: "'kklatt@lakeelmo.org <mailto:kklatt@lakeelmo.org> '" <kklatt@lakeelmo.org
<mailto:kklatt@lakeelmo.org> >
Subject: Hans Hagen Homes proposed PUD on 157 acres of land on the SE Corner of Inwood and 10th Street
Mr Klatt,
I am going to try to make the planning commission meeting this evening but may not be able to attend. I am a
resident of Stone Gate. I live at 877 Jasmine Ave Place North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042.
I am opposed to this planned development based on the density being requested, the types of dwellings
proposed (town homes and apartments) and the requested reduced set backs. I think we all realize that this land will be
developed and we have accepted that. However, I don’t feel that we should accept any developments that are more
dense than the density specified in the memorandum of understanding with the Met Council. The homes in Stone Gate
are mid to upper level homes with large lots and a development of any kind adjacent to it with lower valued properties
will negatively effect the property values in Stone Gate. A development with apartments, which I assume will be rentals,
will have a particularly negative effect on our homes’ values. I also don’t feel a development of this type is consistent
with Lake Elmo’s traditional rural feel.
2
Those of us that live in Stone Gate have accepted that the bulk of the new development required by the Met
Council was going to happen on land directly adjacent to our development. We are in effect bearing the burden of all
this new development for all the residents of the city. I do not think that it is unreasonable to ensure that these
developments are no more dense than they have to be and that the planning commission only approve those
developments that will not negatively effect the values of already existing homes in Stone Gate.
I hope to see you at the meeting this evening. If I can’t make it, I wanted you to know my thoughts.
Thanks
Thomas M. FitzGerald
President and CEO
Carbonair Environmental Systems, Inc.
1480 County Road C West
Roseville, MN 55113
(651) 202‐2953 Direct
(612) 599‐3752 Mobile
tfitzgerald@carbonair.com <mailto:tfitzgerald@carbonair.com>
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
REGULAR
ITEM# 17
AGENDA ITEM: Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Nick M. Johnson, City Planner
THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission
Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
South Washington Watershed District
Stephen Mastey, Landscape Consultant
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director
- Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECCOMENDER: The Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the City Council approve a request by Boulder Ponds OP3, LLC for a Preliminary Plat and
Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for a planned residential development with
98 single family lots. The proposed residential development is part of a broader PUD on
approximately 58 acres of land that includes outlots planned for a 64-unit senior living multi-family building and commercial uses.
FISCAL IMPACT: TBD – The City will require that the applicant enter into a developer’s
agreement with the City to specify the financial responsibilities for various aspects of the
subdivision and related public improvements.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Boulder Ponds OP3, LLC has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan for a proposed 98-unit single family
residential subdivision in Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. The proposed planned
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17]
September 16, 2014
development includes outlots planned for a future 64-unit multi-family residential building and
commercial uses. The proposed Boulder Ponds development is located on 58.3 acres of land
immediately east of Eagle Point Business Park, immediately north of Hudson Boulevard North
and immediately south of the Stonegate residential estates residential subdivision. Approval of the request would allow the applicant to proceed with preparation of a final plat and final PUD
plan.
The Planning Commission and Staff and are recommending that the City Council approve the
Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan with 12 conditions of approval through the following motion:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-73, approving the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan subject to 12 conditions of approval.”
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Attached is the original detailed Staff Report that was provided to the Planning Commission on 7/28/14 regarding the applicant’s request for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan for 98
single family lots in the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. The Staff Report includes general
information about the application, a summary of the relevant planning and zoning issues, a
thorough review of the proposed plat and public improvements, draft findings, and the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission. It should be noted that the City approved the Boulder Ponds General Concept Plan in December of 2013 (Resolution 2013-109). Approval of
the concept plan allows the applicant to prepare a preliminary PUD plan and preliminary plat.
Finally, it should be noted that the Boulder Pounds Preliminary Plat would have been presented
to the City Council at an earlier date (early August), but the applicant requested additional time to address some of the discussion items that arose at the Planning Commission meeting. To address these discussion items, which are identified in the Planning Commission Report section,
the applicant has submitted updated materials (Attachment #4) to respond to the Planning
Commission’s questions/requests. More specifically, the updated materials address the following
discussion items:
• Flag Lots. Flag lots were eliminated by making some adjustments to the Preliminary
Plat. The PUD will still include lots that do not meet the width requirement of the LDR
district, but this type of dimensional flexibility is permitted under the City’s PUD
Ordinance. The modifications to the Preliminary Plat give staff more confidence that the narrower lots will work from a utility and access standpoint.
• Lot Areas. The modifications to the plat also allowed for all of the lots to meet the area
requirement (8,000 sq. ft.) with the exception of 2 lots. With the previous plat, 8 lots did
not meet the minimum threshold.
• Community Gathering Space. In response to the Planning Commission’s desire for increased community gathering space in the development, the applicants have submitted
exhibits showing plans for community gathering locations, Outlot H most notable among
them.
-- page 2 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17]
September 16, 2014
• Trail Connection. The applicants have added a sidewalk connection to the 5th Street
Trail from the western cul-de-sac in the single family area. This will provide greater
connectivity to the neighborhood.
• Theming. The applicants have noted that they intend to incorporate elements of the City’s Branding and Theming Study into the signage/monuments for the Boulder Ponds
development.
From Staff’s perspective, the updated plans and Preliminary Plat (Attachment #4) provided by the applicants demonstrates responsiveness to the Planning Commission discussion items. The modifications and additions address many of the concerns that were discussed, and should make
the site function better with regards to access and utilities.
In reviewing the broader application for the Boulder Ponds residential planned development,
staff focused their review on the proposed design elements that are unique to the proposed subdivision and relate to the applicant’s request to follow the planned unit development (PUD) process as opposed to the standards subdivision process. In requesting a PUD, the applicants are
requesting flexibility in some areas with regard to minimum lot and building standards as
determined by the City’s urban residential zoning districts. For example, the applicants are
proposing that 2 of the 98 total lots be allowed under the City’s minimum size threshold (8,000 square feet) for urban low density residential (LDR). In addition, they are requesting a reduced side-yard structure setback of 5 feet to allow for Rick Harrison’s coving design principal. Coving
is a design technique utilizing curvilinear patterns in streets, setbacks and building pad
orientation in order to provide greater visual interest and variation between residential homes. In
reviewing the PUD, staff has identified all of the areas that require minor flexibility for the Boulder Ponds planned development to proceed as proposed. In addition, the Planning Commission also identified the inclusion of reduced lot widths during their, sometimes resulting
in what is known as flag lots, particularly located in the cul-de-sac in the eastern portion.
However, the widths of the proposed “flag lots” have been increased to address the concern over
public and private utilities. It is important to note that by applying for a planned unit development, the applicant is presenting a plan that includes requested flexibility in the identified areas. By approving the Preliminary PUD Plan, the City would be granting approval of the
requested flexibilities.
As part of the Boulder Ponds residential development, the applicants are proposing two product
types: traditional single family homes and “Villas”. Villas are detached residential product, typically one-story ramblers with walkout, lookout or full basements that are marketed towards the empty-nester demographic. As opposed to the traditional single family homes, the Villa
properties would be maintained by the Home Owners Association (HOA).
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT:
The Planning Commission reviewed the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD
Plan request at its July 28, 2014 meeting and conducted a public hearing at this time. Before the
public hearing was opened, several members of the Boulder Ponds OP3 development team made
presentations and answered questions. The members of the Boulder Ponds team included Deb Ridgeway of the Excelsior Group, Steve Sletner of SEH and Rick Harrison of Rick Harrison Site
-- page 3 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17]
September 16, 2014
Design. The team provided additional background information regarding the intent and function
of the coving design. After the applicants spoke and answered questions, the public hearing was
opened. During the public hearing, the City received the following testimony:
• Curt Montieth, 331 Julep Ave. N., noted that he lives adjacent to the proposed Boulder Ponds development. He asked what park facilities could be incorporated into Stonegate
Park as part of the adjacent land proposed for parkland dedication. In addition, he noted
that he will likely contact the Park Commission to get involved in any future changes or
additions to Stonegate Park. Mr. Montieth also suggested adding additional plantings north of the proposed buffer greenbelt trail, noting that the Stonegate residents would appreciate it. He stated that he supported the design of the proposed subdivision.
In addition to the public testimony received, the City did receive two letters regarding the
Boulder Ponds development:
• Lampert Lumber submitted a letter (Attachment #14a) to inquire about the proposed grades of the 5th Street minor collector road adjacent to their property. The Planning
Commission asked the City Engineer how the City could address their concern regarding
access to 5th Street. The City Engineer noted that due to access spacing guidelines, it
would be difficult to access the Lampert Lumber site from 5th Street. In addition, the site slopes downward in that area, and it would be difficult to set 5th Street in a way that was perfectly at grade at the Lampert site.
• John Jaros, 429 Julep Ave. N., submitted a letter (Attachment #14b) requesting that the
eastern segment of the northern greenbelt buffer trail be moved to the south. The
applicants noted that it is difficult to move the entirety of the trail south due to a retaining wall and infiltration basin. However, they noted that it would be possible to move the
trail segment further to the south in the northeast corner. The Planning Commission
added a condition of approval that they move the trail south to the best extent possible.
The Planning Commission then closed the public hearing.
In discussing the proposed Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan, the Planning Commission identified some concerns or issues needing clarification. These issues
included the following:
• Theming: The Planning Commission noted that the proposed subdivision did not include
any design elements from the Theming Study completed by Damon Farber and Associates. It should be noted that developers are not required to incorporate theming
elements into their projects. Nevertheless, some members of the Planning Commission
noted that the theming elements would be a nice addition.
• Reduced Side-Yard Setbacks: The Planning Commission noted some reservation
regarding the request to allow reduced side-yard setbacks. The applicants responded to note that the not all homes would be reduced to the minimum 5 feet. In addition, due to
the coving design that turns building pads, there are many instances where one corner of
the home is setback 5 feet to the property line, and the other corner is setback 15 to 20
feet. In other words, utilizing the reduced setback allows for the increased dimension of openness in other areas of the subdivision.
-- page 4 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17]
September 16, 2014
• Flag Lots: The Planning Commission noted that the instances of flag lots are concerning.
Staff noted that flag lots are typically discouraged due to the difficulty of providing sewer
and water service in between tight spaces for driveway access. Staff requested that the applicant submit additional detail regarding the flag lots to ensure they function properly. In response to this request, the applicant amended the Preliminary Plat to eliminate the
occurrence of flag lots, providing greater confidence that narrower lots will work from a
sewer, water and private utility standpoint in addition to the required driveways.
• Ensuring that the Development is Constructed as Proposed: Many members of the Planning Commission expressed support for many design elements of the proposed
subdivision. However, there was some concern that if the builder of the project was not
informed as to the proper location for each home, many of the benefits of the Rick
Harrison design would could be lost by building homes in not ideal locations. The applicants responded to this point by explaining that they complete a development lot book that shows the proper location for each home on all the lots in the subdivision. In
addition, the grading plan is completed in such a way that there are fewer options of
where to locate the home. To ensure that the development is constructed as proposed, the
Planning Commission recommended that the City be party to the development lot book, and can therefore use it as a reference in approving building permits (Condition #12).
• Identified Objectives for PUDs: There was a discussion about the required objectives for
planned development per the City’s PUD Ordinance. Per §154.801, there are objectives
that must be met for the City to consider a planned development. In reviewing the
application, staff determined the multiple objectives had been met, warranting consideration. However, there was a discussion whether or not the proposed
development met one or more of the identified objectives according to the Planning
Commission. After discussion, the majority of the Planning Commission determined that
the proposed development includes the promotion of integrated land uses, allowing for a
mixture of residential, commercial, and public facilities (Objective B).
After discussing the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan, the Planning
Commission recommended approval subject to 12 conditions (Vote 5-2). Commissioners
Lundgren and Haggard voted against the motion to recommend approval of the Boulder Ponds
Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan.
STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS:
Strengths: Approval of the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan
will allow for the applicants to proceed to Final Plat and Final PUD Plan. Approval of the
Boulder Ponds subdivision will provide for a residential subdivision that incorporates unique design elements, including varied setbacks, meandering sidewalks, no double
frontage lots, and other features. In addition, construction of the proposed neighborhood
would allow for the construction of the 5th Street minor collector road, a critical piece of
infrastructure needed to serve the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. Also, inclusion of the
recommended conditions of approval will better ensure that the subdivision is constructed per the vision of the Boulder Ponds development. Finally, it should be noted that the
-- page 5 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17]
September 16, 2014
applicants have obtained their watershed district permit (Attachment #13). Having
received conditional approval from the watershed greatly supports staff confidence of the
constructability of the plan.
Weaknesses: The Boulder Ponds development does include alternative designs that are different than the City’s typical sections and right-of-way. This may present challenges from a maintenance standpoint. At the same time, the proposed design does provide a
subdivision with different design features than some of the other recent subdivisions,
offering variety in subdivision design and product type (Villa homes).
Opportunities: Approval of the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan allows for the extension of infrastructure needed to serve Stage 1 of the I-94
Corridor Planning Area. In addition to the 5th Street minor collector road, the applicants
are proposing to construct a north-south local road that could distribute traffic to the
proposed future commercial areas, as well as any future redevelopment on the Cranky Ape and Lampert Lumber sites. In addition, the northern greenbelt trail will be
completed from the proposed Savona single family subdivision to Stonegate Park, adding
to the overall network of trails.
Threats: Should the lots be sold to builders that are unfamiliar with the Rick Harrison design or vision for Boulder Ponds, it is possible that the homes will not be constructed in
the intended locations per the PUD Plan. However, the Planning Commission
recommended a condition to alleviate this concern, requiring a development lot book at
time of Final PUD Plan. The City would be able to utilize this document to give builders
direction on the ideal locations for proposed homes. The applicants noted that the Architectural Control Committee of the HOA will enforce the same standards, but giving
the City the opportunity provides greater assurance that the vision for the planned
development will be followed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the aforementioned, the Planning Commission and Staff and are recommending that
the City Council approve the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan with 12 conditions of approval through the following motion:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-73, approving the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan subject to 12 conditions of approval.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 2014-73
2. Staff Report to the Planning Commission, 7/28/14
3. Location Map
-- page 6 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17]
September 16, 2014
4. Updated Boulder Ponds Materials w/Cover Letter (Includes Updated Preliminary Plat)
5. Updated Lot Summary
6. Application Forms and Project Narrative
7. Site Survey
8. Preliminary Plans (49 sheets)
9. Turning Radius Exhibits
10. City Engineer Review Memorandum, dated 7/24/14
11. Fire Chief Review Memorandum, dated 7/23/14
12. Landscape Consultant Review Memorandum, dated 7/23/14
13. South Washington Watershed District Permit, dated 7/8/14
14. Letters Submitted to the City
a. Lampert Lumber, 7/22/14
b. John Jaros, 429 Julep Ave. N., 7/28/14
15. Not Included in Packet – Available Upon Request
a. Street Cross Section Details
b. Plan Details
-- page 7 --
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-73 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BOULDER PONDS PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Boulder Ponds OP3, LLC, 11455 Viking Drive, Suite 350, Eden Prairie,
MN has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (“City”) for a Preliminary Plat and
Preliminary PUD Plan for Boulder Ponds, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo
Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the City approved the Boulder Ponds PUD General Concept Plan on
December 17, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan
include 98 single family residential lots within a planned development on three parcels of land (PIDs: 34.029.21.33.0001, 34.029.21.32.0001 and 34.029.21.33.0002) totaling approximately 58
acres in Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held public hearing on July 28, 2014
to consider the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan request; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending
approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to 12 conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation concerning the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan as part of a
memorandum to the City Council from City Planner Nick Johnson for the September 16, 2014
Council Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan at its meeting held on September 16, 2014 and made the following
findings of fact:
1) That the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan are consistent with the
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
2) That the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan generally comply with
the City’s LDR- Urban Low Density Residential and MDR – Urban Medium Density Residential zoning districts.
1 Resolution 2014-73
3) That the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan comply with the City’s
Subdivision Ordinance.
4) That the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan comply with the City’s
Planned Unit Development Regulations.
5) That the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan comply with the City’s Engineering Standards, except where noted in the review memorandum from the City
Engineer dated 7/24/14.
6) That the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan comply with other City
zoning ordinances, such as landscaping, tree preservation, and erosion and sediment control.
7) That the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan includes the promotion
of integrated land uses, allowing for a mixture of residential, commercial, and public
facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan subject to the following conditions:
Pending Review and Approvals
1) 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.
2) The developer shall be required to submit an updated parkland dedication calculation in
advance of Final Plat. Upon submission of the calculation, the applicant must work with the
City to achieve the required parkland dedication amount per the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. The developer shall be required to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication equivalent to the fair market value for the amount of land that is required to be dedicated for such
purposes in the City’s Subdivision Ordinance less the amount of land that is accepted for
park purposes by the City. Any cash in lieu of land dedication shall be paid by the applicant
prior to the release of the Final Plat for recording.
3) The developer shall follow all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act and
adhere to the conditions of approval for the South Washington Watershed District Permit.
4) The applicant will work with the Planning Staff to name all streets in the subdivision in a
manner acceptable to the City prior to the submission of Final Plat.
Modifications to the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans
5) The applicant will work with staff to address the comments in the City Engineer's review
memo dated 7/24/14 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer as part of the Final Plat and Final
PUD Plan.
2 Resolution 2014-73
6) In addition to standard easements required by the Subdivision Ordinance, additional drainage
and utility easements must be provided extending 10 feet from meandering sidewalks, as well
as all of the portion of private lots between meandering sidewalks and the public right-of-
way.
7) The landscape plan shall be updated to locate all boulevard trees in between the public street and sidewalk to not interfere with private utilities.
8) All islands and medians internal to the Boulder Ponds development 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.
9) The design of the northern buffer trail shall be modified to a width of 8 feet as opposed to the
regional trail standard of 10 feet.
10) The eastern segment of the northern buffer trail shall be moved to the south to the greatest
extent possible with plantings to screen the trail on the north side.
Plat Restrictions
11) Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat, the Developer shall enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of public
improvements.
12) The Final PUD Plan will include a development lot book to clarify proper building placement
for use in granting building permits for the development.
Passed and duly adopted this 16th day of September, 2014 by the City Council of the City of
Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
___________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Adam Bell, City Clerk
3 Resolution 2014-73
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 7/28/14
AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2014-30
ITEM: Boulder Ponds – Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
South Washington 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 and Preliminary PUD Plan
application from OP3 Boulder Ponds, LLC for a 162-unit planned residential development to be located on 58.3 acres of land within Stage 1 of the City’s I-94 Corridor Planning Area. The proposed
residential project is located immediately north of Hudson Blvd. N., immediately east of the Eagle
Point Business Park and immediately south of the Stonegate residential estates (RE) subdivision.
Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to compliance with 11 conditions as noted in this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: OP3 Boulder Ponds, LLC (Deb Ridgeway), 11455 Viking Drive, Suite 350, Eden
Prairie, MN 55344.
Property Owners: Timothy Montgomery, 6211 Upper 51st St. N., Oakdale, MN; Louis J. Damiani
Revocable Trust (William Kuhlmann – Security Bank and Trust Co), 2202 11th St. E., Glencoe, MN; DPS – Lake Elmo, LLC (Alan Dale), 6007 Culligan Way, Minnetonka, MN; Lennar Corporation (Steve Ach), 16305 36th Ave. N., Suite
600, Plymouth, MN; and Bremer Bank (Kathleen Tucci) 8555 Eagle Point Blvd.,
PO Box 1000, Lake Elmo.
Location: Part of Section 34 in Lake Elmo, immediately north of Hudson Boulevard North, immediately east of the Eagle Point Business Park, and immediately south of the
Stonegate subdivision. PID Numbers 34.029.21.32.0001, 34.029.21.33.0001, and
34.029.21.33.0002.
Request: Application for preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development (PUD) plan approval of a 162-unit residential planned development to be named
Boulder Ponds.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Agricultural land. Current Zoning: RT – Rural Development
Transitional Zoning District; Proposed Zoning: LDR (PUD) -
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
2
Urban Low Density Residential, MDR (PUD) – Medium
Density Residential and C – Commercial.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North –Stonegate Residential Estates (RE) subdivision; west –
Eagle Point Business Park (Bremer Bank, Eagle Point Town Office Condos, High Pointe Medical Campus, vacant land) BP; east – Lennar Savona Urban Low Density Residential (LDR)
subdivision; south – vacant land guided for Commercial and
Interstate Highway 94.
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 – 3.99 units per acre), Urban Medium Density Residential (4.0 – 7.49 units per acre)
and Commercial
History: Boulder Ponds General Concept Plan review by Planning Commission on 12/9/13
and approved by the City Council on 12/17/13.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 6/19/2014
60 Day Deadline – 8/17/14
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 10/16/14
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (LDR and MDR)
Article 16 – Planned Unit Development Regulations
§150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from OP3 Boulder Ponds, LLC for a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan to subdivide approximately 58 acres of land located within Stage 1 of the
I-94 Corridor Planning Area into 98 detached residential lots. The proposed plat would be located on
property primarily owned by the Louis Damiani Revocable Trust (represented by William Kuhlmann) and Timothy Montgomery, and would be located immediately north of Hudson Boulevard, immediately east of Eagle Point Business Park, and immediately south of the Stonegate
subdivision. The 78 acre parcel has historically been used for agricultural purposes.
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, urban medium density residential and commercial. The proposed planned development includes 98 detached residential lots, located both north and south of the City’s planned 5th Street minor collector road. In addition to the proposed
detached residential lots, the plat includes an outlot (Outlot K) planned for a 64-unit senior housing
facility or apartment. While approval is not being sought at this time, it is worth noting that the proposed senior housing is consistent with the approved General PUD Concept Plan approved by the City in December of 2013.
In terms of access, the preliminary plat and PUD plan shows a north-south connection to Hudson
Boulevard in the southern portion of the plat. In addition to the Hudson Blvd. connection, the
proposed plat includes a significant portion of the 5th Street minor collector road. As part of the total public improvements of the Boulder Ponds planned development, the 5th Street minor collector road will be constructed from the Savona (Lennar) urban low density subdivision in the east to the
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
3
approximately 160-acre parcel owned by Azure Properties to the northwest. Along with the
connection to Hudson Blvd., the 5th Street minor collector road will ultimately serve as the primary
access to the Boulder Ponds development.
The Boulder Ponds planned development is the City’s third proposed subdivision in Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area that will receive public sanitary sewer service, which has been made available to the site via the completed Section 34 Public Utility Project. At present, the water for this
area is provided by the City of Oakdale. However, the City plans to execute a trunk watermain
extension down Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) in the next year or two to connect existing facilities in
the western I-94 Corridor to the City water system. At present, there is enough capacity in the Oakdale system to provide water to a significant portion of Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning
Area until Lake Elmo makes the needed connections to its system. Sewer and water for the Boulder
Ponds site is accessible along Hudson Blvd. as a result of the Section 34 Utility Project. The
applicants are proposing to extend sewer and water throughout their site from the facilities located in Hudson Boulevard.
One of the other major features of the proposed subdivision is a continuation of the northern buffer
greenbelt along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the Stonegate subdivision. The greenbelt
is required under the guidance of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. As proposed, the greenbelt includes a trail segment from the proposed Savona single family development in the east across the northern boundary of the site to Stonegate Park in the west. In addition to connection to Stonegate
Park, the northern buffer trail as proposed also provides connection to the City’s planned minor
collector road, 5th Street. It should also be noted that a significant portion of the greenbelt buffer area
includes a Northern States Power (Xcel Energy) easement for overhead utilities.
As currently proposed, the single family or detached residential portion of the Boulder Ponds
development will be constructed in two phases. The initial phase of the project includes construction
of the access road to Hudson Blvd., as well as the eastern portion of the 5th Street minor collector
road. In addition, Phase I as proposed includes 47 residential lots, both of the traditional single family and “Villa” type. The second phase of the residential development includes the construction of the remaining residential lots and local roads, as well as the western portion of the 5th Street minor
collector road.
Finally, it should be noted that the Boulder Ponds development is proceeding through the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) process. By proceeding through the PUD process, the City may allow for flexibility in the use of land or the base standards of the zoning code with the intent of achieving higher quality development. The City’s PUD process has three phases: 1) General Concept Plan, 2)
Preliminary Plan, and 3) Final Plan. It should be noted that the City reviewed the Boulder Ponds
General Concept Plan (12/9/13 - Planning Commission, 12/17/13 – City Council), which was approved by the City Council (Resolution #2013-109). Approval of the General Concept Plan allows the applicant to proceed with preparation of preliminary plans, which the applicant has now
submitted. Staff has reviewed the approved General Concept Plan and all the conditions associated
with the approval. The most critical conditions, relating to the alignment of the 5th Street minor
collector road, have been resolved by the applicant. In addition to the issues related to the alignment of 5th Street, the submitted preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans have generally addressed the
other conditions of approval related to the review of the General Concept Plan. It should also be
noted that the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan does contain 5 additional
residential lots than the General Concept Plan. The additional lots created in the subdivision directly relate to a change in product type, as the applicants are proposing “Villa” homes, a detached townhome on HOA maintained land. Staff reviewed the proposed increase and units and found it to
be consistent with the general intent of the approved General Concept Plan. The minimal number of
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
4
increased lots are being accommodated within the same street and utility network, not leading to
significant changes to the proposed public improvements.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
The Boulder Ponds site is guided for urban low density, urban medium density and commercial
development in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the applicant will be required to zone the site to the appropriate zoning designation as part of Final PUD Plan approval. The overall subdivision plan has therefore been prepared in order to generally comply with the district standards for the LDR and
MDR zoning districts. However, as part of the request for a planned development, the applicant is
permitted to request reductions in lot size, building setbacks, and other requirements of the base
zoning district. Therefore, it should be noted that four of the proposed lots (Lots 4, 7, 8 and 10, Block 3, 2nd Addition) are slightly under the minimum requirements for lot size. In addition, the applicants
are requesting reduced side-yard and front-yard setbacks. These requests were established at the
General Concept Plan phase of the PUD process and were supported through the approval of the
General Concept Plan. In terms of the general design of the subdivision, the northern and southern portions are split between
the City’s planned minor collector road, 5th Street. The southern portion is accessed off the north-
south access road, called Cobblestone Plaza, connecting to Hudson Blvd. and contains 20 proposed
“Villa” units, which is a detached single family product with HOA maintained grounds. In addition, according to the General Concept Plan, the southern portion of the planned development will also
include a 64-unit senior living multi-family building to be located on Outlot K at some point in the
future. The proposed senior living building is not currently included in the present application. The
design of the northern portion of the subdivision primarily follows one through street, Boulder Ponds Parkway, which connects to the planned 5th Street in both the central and northwestern areas of the plat. In addition to the main through street, three cul-de-sacs are proposed off of Boulder Ponds
Pkwy. The northern portion of the proposed subdivision is comprised of all single family residential
land uses, with 60 traditional single family homes and 18 Villa units. The proposed design of the subdivision does allow for a significant amount of open space, allowing all the residential lots to back up to some form of open space as opposed to additional lots. In addition, the overall design
(streets, sidewalks, building pads, etc.) is intended to provide a curvilinear aesthetic and pattern.
Along with varied setbacks and meandering sidewalks, the applicant has noted that creating visual
interest within the development is a critical component to the overall vision. 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 ten feet in width and constructed of bituminous asphalt, which is consistent with the City standard for a regional trail. In addition to the buffer/greenway trail, the proposed subdivision includes a linking trail
segment to the northeastern cul-de-sac, Pebblestone Ridge Cove. Finally, the proposed minor
collector road 5th Street includes a regional trail on the north side of the road, which is consistent with
the City’s typical section. The Boulder Ponds subdivision includes two general types of residential lots: traditional single
family and Villa. As proposed, there are 60 traditional single family lots. The average size of the
traditional single family lots is 9,735 square feet. In addition, the largest traditional lot (Lot 1, Block
2, 1st Addition) is 15,832 sq. ft., while the smallest proposed traditional lot (Lot 8, Block 3, 1st
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
5
Addition) is 7,206 sq. ft. in size. Regarding the Villa lots, this lot type is intended to serve a different
residential product than the traditional single family lots, allowing for a detached townhome type
product. According to the applicant narrative, the Villa lots are intended to serve an empty-nester
demographic, and the grounds of the Villa lots would be HOA maintained. As proposed, the Boulder Ponds subdivision includes 38 Villa lots, which are located within Block 1, 1st Addition and Block 1, 2nd Addition. The average size of the Villa lots is 10,116 square feet. The largest Villa lot is 18,906
sq. ft., while the smallest Villa lot is 7,347 sq. ft. in size. It should be noted that the lot sizes of the
traditional single family and Villa homes are comparable in size. The main differences between the
lot types are the product type (single family home vs. detached townhome) and maintenance (owner maintained vs. HOA maintained). In order facilitate the review of the proposed lots and lot types, the
applicants have submitted an updated lot summary that identifies the lot type (single family vs.
Villa). The updated lot summary is found in Attachment #3.
The following is a general summary of the subdivision design elements that have proposed as part of
the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and plans:
Zoning and Site Information:
• Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional District
• Proposed Zoning: LDR, MDR and C
• Total Site Area: 58.3 acres
• Total Residential Units: 98
• Proposed Density (Net): Northern - 2.69 units/acre, Southern – 8.05 units/acre* (*Note: includes future planned 64-unit senior living multi family building)
Proposed Lot Dimensional Standards through Planned Unit Development Process:
• Lot Area: 9,882 sq. ft. average (7,206 sq. ft. min.)
• Front Yard Setback: 20 ft. (25 feet for garage)
• Side Yard Setback: 5 ft.
• Rear Yard Setback: 25 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 either in compliance with the applicable requirements from the City’s zoning and subdivision regulations, or are consistent with requested modifications through the
proposed planned unit development (PUD). Based on Staff’s review of the Preliminary Plat and
Preliminary PUD Plan, the applicant has generally demonstrated compliance with the majority of the
applicable codes, and the requested modifications or flexibilities as allowed under the City’s PUD Ordinance represent a reasonable request given the various design goals the applicant it trying to achieve.
The applicant is requesting some additional flexibility through the PUD process to receive advance
approval for an alternate design for certain portions of the development. The proposed alternative
designs are detailed in the attached document titled “Boulder Ponds – Alternative Site Plan” (Attachment #8) and detailed on the site plans labeled Exhibit “A, B and C” – Alternative Single
Family Detached Townhouses. As specified in these plans, the applicant has asked for flexibility to
build houses consistent with the proposed preliminary plat, or to change the housing type for certain
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
6
portions of the development to a single-family detached townhouse-type building, or Villa, on
smaller lots. There are three specific portions of the development that are identified for this
alternative layout, and in total, the proposed flexibility would add nine additional lots to the plat
beyond the base conditions. The addition of these lots would not increase the net density for any portion of the project so that it exceeds the underlying density in the Comprehensive Plan.
Because the requested alternative plans would not alter the layout of any proposed streets or
significantly alter the grading and utility plans for the site, Staff is recommending that the
preliminary PUD plans be structured in a way that allows the applicant to move forward with either
option. Please note that should the developer move forward with one of these alternatives, the preliminary plans will need to be updated in their entirety to reflect the updated plans. Under such a
scenario, the developer would be able to submit revised preliminary plan simultaneously with a final
PUD and final plat. The comments from Staff included in the latter portions of this report address
the plat as submitted; any future plans that incorporate the alternative plans would be subject to a complete plan review.
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 the northern outlot area, labeled Park, will be
dedicated to the City for this purpose. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance requires 10% of the land in urban residential districts to be set aside as parkland, which according to the applicant’s calculation would represent 4.09 acres of land. On the submitted narrative for the Boulder Ponds project (Item
D), the applicant has noted that 3.85 acres of land within or adjacent to the greenbelt/buffer have
been dedicated as park. However, City staff is unclear if this calculation includes the area within the
Xcel Energy easement, which would not be eligible to be counted towards the required parkland amount. Related to this requirement, the Subdivision Ordinance states the following:
(C) Land acceptability. The city must approve the location and configuration of any park
land which is proposed for dedication and shall take into consideration the suitability of the
land and for its intended purpose; the future needs of the city for parks, playgrounds, trails,
or open space; and the recommendations of the city’s Parks Commission. The following properties shall not be accepted for park land dedications:
(1) Land dedicated or obtained as easements for streets, sewer, electrical, gas, storm
water drainage and retention areas, or other similar utilities and improvements;
Given that a significant portion (approximately 75 feet x 1300 feet) of the land proposed to be dedicated is subject to a Xcel Energy overhead utility easement, the portion of the parkland within
the easement would not be eligible for parkland dedication credit.
In addition to the eligibility the land provided, it should also be noted that the applicant has removed
the area of the 5th Street right-of-way and the area of the required northern greenbelt buffer from the land calculation for parkland. While staff agrees that the right-of-way for the 5th St. minor collector road should not be included in this calculation, the northern greenbelt is considered part of the gross
area being subdivided for development. For this reason, the greenbelt area, 2.83 acres according to
the applicant’s narrative, should be included in the gross land calculation in determining the amount
of required parkland dedication. Inclusion of the greenbelt area in the total land calculation for parkland dedication would be consistent with other subdivisions (Savona and Hammes Estates) that
have incorporated portions of the greenbelt buffer around the Stonegate subdivision.
In order to address the issues related to the correct level of parkland dedication, Staff would
recommend that as a condition of approval (Condition #2) the applicant submit an updated parkland dedication calculation in advance of Final Plat. Upon review of the updated calculation, if any gap
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
7
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 should also be noted that in the submitted
narrative, the applicant has requested that the City consider some parkland credit for the construction of park related improvements that do not receive credit for land dedication. Staff would support that some credit be considered, as a significant stretch of trail is proposed over land that is not eligible for
parkland dedication credit due to the overhead utility easement. Staff will continue to work with the
applicant on how to properly achieve the required parkland dedication amount, whether it be through
land, improvements, or fees in lieu of land dedication.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
City Staff has reviewed the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan. In general,
the proposed plat will meet all applicable City requirements for conditional approval, and any
deficiencies or additional modifications that are needed are noted as part of the review record. In
addition, the City has received a detailed list of comments from the City Engineer, the 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 following review comments as well:
• Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map for this area. The net densities for the development generally comply with the range allowed for the Urban Low Density and Urban
Medium Density land use categories. In addition, other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan
that relate to the Boulder Ponds subdivision are as follows:
o Density Calculation. The subject property is guided Urban Low Density Residential, Urban Medium Density Residential and Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. In
order to demonstrate compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan with regards to
proposed density, the applicant has submitted two density exhibits in the project
narrative. The exhibits demonstrate that the overall number of proposed residential units fall well within the amount of planned growth under the Comprehensive Plan. While the net density calculation of the medium density area, 8.05 units/acre, is
technically higher that the allowed range for MDR (4.0-7.49 units/acre), the overall
planned growth for the area was greatly reduced by the realignment of the 5th Street
minor collector road to the south, increasing the amount of land planned for Urban Low Density Residential. In addition, the density of the proposed project was reviewed along with the General Concept Plan. In reviewing the General Concept
Plan, the City found that the proposed subdivision was consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. With the addition of 5 residential lots since the approval of the General Concept Plan, the proposed subdivision remains in conformance with the planned growth as guided by 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 Park Plan does not call for additional parks in the vicinity of the Boulder Ponds subdivision, as it is located immediately adjacent to Stonegate Park. However, as part
of the required greenbelt buffer, the land dedicated to the City as parkland will
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
8
include areas adjacent to Stonegate Park. This should allow opportunities to integrate
trail and other facilities into Stonegate Park. However, any improvements will need
to conform to the conditions of the Xcel Energy power line easement.
o Water. Water will be provided to this area via existing watermain along Hudson Boulevard. The Boulder Ponds subdivision will be able to be served under the City’s current agreement with the City of Oakdale until the Inwood Ave. watermain
extension project is completed. Staff anticipate that this project will be completed
next year (2015).
o Sanitary Sewer. The Boulder Ponds subdivision will be served by sanitary sewer that will connect to trunk gravity sewer in the Hudson Boulevard right-of-way. All of
the wastewater will flow to the W.O.N.E. MCES regional wastewater interceptor.
o Phasing. The Boulder Ponds subdivision is located within Stage 1 of the I-94
Corridor Planning Area. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City’s Staging Plan, as the proposed development has access to both public sanitary sewer
and water.
• Zoning. The applicant has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development, and
has previously received approval of the General Concept Plan for Boulder Ponds. Consistent
with the City’s PUD Ordinance, preliminary PUD plans have been submitted along with the preliminary plat. The final step in this process is submission of final PUD plans with a final plat. The underlying zoning for the PUD still needs to be established, and staff is
recommending that the zoning be addressed at the final plan stage. In this case, the
Comprehensive Plan guides the applicant’s site for several different land use categories,
including low density residential, medium density residential, and commercial. Staff will be recommending that the zoning for the subdivision be established to match the Comprehensive
Plan in the following manner:
o LDR - All portions of the subdivision north (and east) of 5th Street.
o MDR – All lots on Cobblestone Path and Outlots N and K.
o C – Outlots J, M, and L
At the time a final development plan is submitted, the official zoning map will be updated to
reflect both the underlying zoning as noted above and will include a special designation
marking the project area as a Planned Unit Development.
• Planned Unit Development. The applicant has applied for a PUD, and therefore is seeking to take advantage of the flexibility allowed with this type of application. The specific aspects of the project that will be permitted through the PUD ordinance include the following:
o Exceptions to the City’s minimum lot size requirements for LDR zoning to allow
certain lots to be platted with less than the minimum of 8,000 square feet of area
required in this zoning district.
o Exceptions to the City’s setback requirements in LDR and MDR zoning districts to establish a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet (25 feet for garage) and side yard
setback of 5 feet for all residential lots in the subdivision.
o Exceptions to the City’s development standards for garages in urban residential zoning districts. The applicant has stated that a small number of the standard residential lots and a larger number of the proposed “Villa” homes will not be able to
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
9
meet the City’s 60% requirement concerning the width of garages on these site.
Given the unique aspects of the “coving” subdivision design concept, Staff is
recommending that the PUD plans be structured to eliminate this requirement in its
entirety.
o The ability to mix different types of uses as part of a larger development proposal that is connected as one development. The project will include single family detached
homes, multi-family units, and commercial buildings, and has been designed to
function as one unified development.
o The applicant is proposing to meander sidewalks throughout the development both inside and outside of the street right-of-way. The City’s right-of-way standards
depict sidewalks within a specific portion of the right-of-way.
o Certain connecting trails are depicted within 20-foot easements; Staff has been asking
that trails be dedicated to the City on Outlots of no less than 30 feet in width.
o The proposed roads include several medians and landscape islands that are not
otherwise included in the City’s street specifications.
• 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. Many of these requirements have been addressed as part of the City Engineer’s review memo (which is summarized below).
After reviewing the proposed plat and PUD plan, Staff has not found any aspect of the plat
that conflict with these requirements.
• Infrastructure. The developer will be required to construct all streets, sewer, water, storm water ponds, and other infrastructure necessary to serve the development, including all portions of 5th Street that cut through the development. Also, Staff has reviewed the proposed
phasing of construction for the public improvements and finds it to be acceptable.
• Wetlands. The applicants have prepared a wetland delineation for the site, which identifies an
existing wetland on Outlot O. The applicant is proposing to incorporate this wetland as part
of the storm water management plan for the site, and will therefore need to comply with all applicable requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act for this work. The South
Washington Watershed District is the responsible government unit for determining such
compliance issues.
• Trails. The developer is proposing to build a series of trails as part of the development,
including a 10-foot bituminous trail along the northern portion of the subdivision through the required 100-foot open space buffer and a similar trail within the 5th Street right-of-way. The applicant is seeking park land dedication credit for all of the land within the open space
buffer area and other adjacent portions of the site that are used for general open space or
storm water facilities. Given the circumstances associated with the northern portion of the site, Staff is not recommending that the City accept all of the land shown as park along the northern boundary of the plat for the following reasons: 1) this portion of the site lies under a
75-foot power line easement and nearly all portions of the trail are located within this
easement, 2) the area shown as park includes storm water ponding area, and 3) the
Subdivision ordinance specifically prohibits using areas under a power line easement and within a storm water pond for park dedication requirements.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
10
Because the trail does serve a public purpose, and because the City has previously allowed
the buffer area to be used for park dedication purposes with the construction of a trail, Staff is
recommending that the developer received credit for park land dedication as follows:
o The equivalent land dedication equal to a 30-foot trail segment under all portions of the power line easement.
o Land that is deeded to the City surrounding trails and located outside of the power
line easement and storm water facilities.
o Land within the 100-foot buffer in the northern portion of the site that is located
outside of the power line easement and outside of storm water facilities.
As noted earlier in this report, the exact calculations for park land dedications should be
completed as part of the final plat submissions (Condition #2).
Finally, although the northern greenbelt buffer trail is depicted as a 10-foot trail, Staff is
recommending that the design of this trail segment be reduced to eight-feet in width to be consistent with the trail design approved in the adjacent subdivisions to the east (Condition
#9).
• Meandering Sidewalks. The proposed development plans include a series of sidewalks that
meander into and out of the street right-of-way for the subdivision. Because this was a
design element that was approved as part of the General Concept Plan review, Staff is recommending that the preliminary plans be approved with this design feature. Please note, however, that the City Engineer is not recommending the construction of any sidewalks
outside of the right-of-way, and that additional requirements should be included as part of the
City’s review in order to address the City Engineer’s concerns. Specifically, Staff is
recommending that the developer provide a 10-foot drainage and utility easement over all private lots adjacent to sidewalks outside of the public right-of-way, and that any land located
between the sidewalk and the street right-of-way be covered under a similar easement as well
(Condition #6).
• Landscaping and Tree Preservation. The landscape and tree preservation plans have been
reviewed by the City’s consulting landscape architect, Stephen Mastey. The review memorandum submitted by the Landscape Consultant is found in Attachment #11. In the
review memo, Mastey notes that the submitted Landscape Plan (L1-L6) and Tree Inventory
and Preservation Plan comply with the City’s ordinances related to landscaping and tree
preservation/replacement. It should be noted that the Landscape Plan as proposed includes street tree plantings on the outside of the sidewalk, as opposed to in between the street and sidewalk. As this location is typically reserved for private utilities, staff would recommend
that the Landscape Plan be revised to locate all boulevard trees in between the street and the
sidewalk (Condition #7). The requested modifications pertaining to plant location, as well as the identification of plant species, can be incorporated into the Final Landscape Plan.
• Green Belt/Buffer. The Comprehensive Plan identifies an area north of the Boulder Ponds plat as a greenway/buffer space with a minimum width of 100 feet. Throughout the Boulder
Ponds subdivision, the provided greenbelt complies with, and in many locations exceeds, the
100-foot greenbelt requirement. Consistent with City planning efforts, the applicant has
included a trail improvement within the greenbelt to act as a linear park amenity. In addition, trail connections through this area will provide access to the Savona subdivision and beyond to the east and Stonegate Park in the west. It should also be noted that a large portion of the
provided greenbelt is subject to a Northern States Power (Xcel Energy) easement.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
11
• Streets. The proposed street system has been designed to comply with all applicable subdivision requirements and City engineering standards. The general street system of the
Boulder Ponds development is designed to have a curvilinear aesthetic. As part of the
subdivision, three cul-de-sacs are proposed. All of the proposed cul-de-sacs comply with the
maximum length (600 feet) for cul-de-sacs in sewered residential subdivisions per the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, it should be noted that the applicants are proposing tear-
drop or enlarged cul-de-sac with inner islands to provide additional visual interest and
improved sightlines. In reviewing the design of the proposed cul-de-sacs, the Fire Chief and
public works staff have voiced concern over the function and maintenance of the proposed design. However, the applicants have submitted turning radius exhibits (Attachment #7) demonstrating that emergency service vehicles are able to navigate the proposed islands. It
should also be noted that the designs of the cul-de-sacs were discussed as part of the approval
of the General Concept Plan. At that time, the Planning Commission and City Council
supported the design of the proposed cul-de-sacs. Other comments from Staff concerning streets are as follows:
o Secondary Access. The proposed development includes a new access to Hudson
Boulevard that will be constructed as part of the first project phase, and will include
the construction of a portion of 5th Street as well. Because there have been no approvals to date for any additional extensions of 5th Street, there is no set timeline for the creation of a secondary access point to the site. Because 5th Street will be
built with adjacent subdivisions, Staff is not recommending any restrictions
concerning the timing of project phases within Boulder Ponds.
o 5th Street. The development plans have been prepared to comply with the City’s approved design for 5th Street with the exceptions listed in the City Engineer’s
memorandum. The developer will be responsible to construct this minor collector
road as part of the initial development plans, and in accordance with the phasing
depicted in the attached plans. The final construction plans will need to include all lighting, landscaping, and other details as required by the City.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for the future extension of 5th Street further to the west
of the applicant’s property; however, in order to make this connection the owner of
the property immediately to the west of the site (Bremer Financial Services) will need
to give its consent to the proposed layout for 5th Street since it crosses through the extreme northeastern portion of its property in the Eagle Point Business Park. The
attached application materials have been signed by Bremer Bank, which satisfactorily
addresses this concern.
• Street Names. Along with the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan, the applicants
have submitted proposed street names that relate to the proposed name of the subdivision, Boulder Ponds. In developing the street names for the newly platted or developing areas of Lake Elmo, Staff has been utilizing the Washington County street naming system. The
purpose of utilizing the County system is to provide emergency services and public works
personnel knowledge of the general location of a property in cases of emergency or general public projects. While staff is sensitive to the applicant’s wish or desire to provide street names that reflect the theme of the proposed development, staff is recommending that the
proposed subdivision adhere to the County street naming system to the best extent possible.
As a condition of approval (Condition #4), 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.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
12
• City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has submitted a detailed list of comments concerning the preliminary plat and plans as part of a memorandum to the City dated July 24,
2014, which includes a separate review of the 5th Street plans conducted by a transportation
engineer from TKDA. While the report itself is quite lengthy, many of the comments pertain
to relatively minor plan revisions or construction details that should not result in any significant changes to the preliminary plat document. For example, some of the comments
concerning grading may impact the ability to build a home with a walkout basement (as
opposed to a lookout basement), but would not otherwise alter the lots as proposed. Rather
than restating all issues and concerns as identified by the City Engineer, Staff is recommending a condition of approval (Condition #5) that will require the applicant to address all comment from the City Engineer in subsequent plan reviews.
• Fire Department Review. The Fire Chief has reviewed the plat and has submitted a review
memorandum (Attachment #10) dated 7/23/14. Included in the Fire Chief’s comments is
concern over the design of the enlarged “teardrop” cul-de-sacs. It should be noted that the
applicants have submitted a turning radius exhibit to demonstrate that a ladder truck can effectively navigate the proposed cul-de-sacs. In addition to the concern over the cul-de-sacs,
the Fire Chief has noted that the proposed street names for the subdivision do not comply
with the Washington County street naming system, which the City has been utilizing for
recently approved plats. Staff would recommend that the applicants work with City to determine appropriate street names for the subdivision in advance of Final Plat approval
(Condition #4).
• Watershed Districts. The project area lies within the South Washington Watershed District
(SWWD). The Boulder Ponds project has already submitted a watershed district permit, and
the permit has been conditionally approved. The conditions related to the watershed district approval include compliance with NPDES permitting requirement and verification of soil conditions rough on-site testing. Staff is recommending that adherence to the SWWD permit
requirement be included as a condition of approval (Condition #3).
Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat
and preliminary PUD plan with 11 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 and final PUD plan. The recommended conditions are divided into two categories to better
communicate the purpose and intent of the conditions. The recommended conditions are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Pending Review and Approvals
1) 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.
2) The developer shall be required to submit an updated parkland dedication calculation in
advance of Final Plat. Upon submission of the calculation, the applicant must work with the
City to achieve the required parkland dedication amount per the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance. The developer shall be required to pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication equivalent to the fair market value for the amount of land that is required to be dedicated for such purposes in the City’s Subdivision Ordinance less the amount of land that is accepted
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
13
for park purposes by the City. Any cash payment in lieu of land dedication shall be paid by
the applicant prior to the release of the final plat for recording.
3) The developer must follow all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act, and adhere to the conditions of approval for the South Washington Watershed District Permit.
4) The applicant shall work with the Planning Staff to name all streets in the subdivision in a
manner acceptable to the City prior to the submission of final plat.
Modifications to the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans
5) The Final Plat and Plans must include the requested modifications outlined in the City Engineer’s review memorandum dated 7/24/14.
6) In addition to standard easements require by the Subdivision Ordinance, additional drainage
and utility easements must be provided extending 10 feet from meandering sidewalks, as well
as all of the portion of private lots between meandering sidewalks and the public right-of-way.
7) The landscape plan shall be updated to locate all boulevards trees in between the public street
and sidewalk to not interfere with private utilities.
8) All islands and medians 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.
9) The design of the northern buffer trail shall be modified to a width of 8 feet as opposed to the
regional trail standard of 10 feet.
10) The plan and profile for the eastern limits of 5th Street shall match the preliminary
development plans for the Savona Subdivision or will otherwise be revised in a manner to
meet the requirements of the City Engineer.
Plat Restrictions
11) Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat, the Developer shall enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that
delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of public
improvements.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan:
• That the Boulder Ponds PUD General Concept Plan was approved by the City on December 17, 2013, and the submitted Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan is consistent with the
approved General Concept Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
14
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan are consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan generally comply with
the City’s LDR- Urban Low Density Residential and MDR – Urban Medium Density
Residential zoning districts.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with the City’s Planned Unit Development Regulations.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with City’s
Engineering Standards, except where noted in the review memorandum from the City
Engineer dated 7/24/14.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with other City zoning ordinances, such as landscaping, tree preservation, and erosion and sediment control.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan achieve multiple identified objectives for planned developments within Lake Elmo.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Boulder Ponds
Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan with the 11 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan
with the 11 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. Updated Lot Summary
4. Site Survey
5. Preliminary Plat (4 sheets)
6. Preliminary Plans (49 sheets)
7. Turning Radius Exhibits
8. Alternative Site Plans w/Narrative
9. City Engineer Review Memorandum, dated 7/24/14
10. Fire Chief Review Memorandum, dated 7/24/14
11. Landscape Consultant Review Memorandum, dated 7/23/14
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
15
12. South Washington Watershed District Permit, dated 7/8/14
13. Not Included in Packet – Available Upon Request:
a. Street Cross Section Details
b. Plan Details
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 Scource: Washington County, MN
12-4-2013
Location Map: Boulder Ponds PUD
K
STONEGATEPARK
STONEGATE
EAGLE POINT BUSINESS PARK
BREMERBANK
EAGLE POINT BLVD.
H
U
D
S
O
N
B
L
V
D
.
0 500 1,000250 Feet
1"=500'
Boulder Ponds Site
BOULDER PONDS
OF LAKE ELMO, MN
N
0
100’ 200’ 300’I-94
HUDSON BLVD
Adjacent
Property
Improvements
Outlot for
Future
Development
Outlot for
Future
Development
Regional Trail
Connection
Regional Trail
Connection
Stormwater
Management:
Pond & Infiltration
Mesic Prairie
Plantings
Upland Prairie
Plantings
10’ Bituminous Trail
Plantings for
Screening
Cul-de-Sac Island
Plantings &
Landscape Treatment
Neighborhood
Concrete Walkway
New Collector Street
with Median Plantings
Ornamental Trees
& Perennial Plantings
Special Concrete/
Pavers at Median Ends
Ribbon Curb at Both
Sides of Median
25’ Street Light
‘Evans’ Lamp
Special Features at Entry:
Plantings, Stone Signage, &
Decorative Fencing
Cul-de-Sac Island
Plantings &
Landscape Treatment
Stormwater
Infiltration Area with
Mesic Prairie Plantings
Wet Prairie Plantings
at Edge of Ponds
Native Shrub
Plantings
Landscape
Boulder Groupings
Neighborhood
Concrete Walkway
Outlot for
Future
Development
15’ Ornamental Light
‘Acorn’ Lamp
6’ Concrete Walkway
Landscape
Boulder Groupings
Stormwater
Management:
Pond & Infiltration
10’ Bituminous Trail
Special Features
at Entry: Plantings,
Stone Signage, &
Decorative Fencing
Conifer Tree
Canopy Tree
Ornamental Tree
Stormwater
Management:
Pond, Infiltration
& Mesic Prairie
SEPTEMBER 2014
Potential Community
Gathering Space
Walkway & Trail
Connection
Upland Prairie
Plantings
*MMVTUSBUJWF1MBOTVCKFDUUPDIBOHFT
OVERALL SITE PLAN
N
0
15’ 30’ 45’
BOULDER PONDS
OF LAKE ELMO, MN
DESIGN CONCEPT: CENTRAL COMMUNITY GATHERING SPACE
CENTRAL COMMUNITY
GATHERING SPACE
LOCATION
POTENTIAL PROGRAM ELEMENTS
eìGAZEBO OR PICNIC SHELTER
eìPICNIC TABLES
eìGRILLS
eìBENCH SEATING
eìWALKWAYS/ TRAIL CONNECTIONS
eìTREES & PLANTINGS
OVERALL SITE PLAN
N
0
15’ 30’ 45’
NORTHEAST ISLAND
COMMUNITY SPACE
LOCATION
DESIGN CONCEPT: NORTHEAST ISLAND COMMUNITY SPACE
BOULDER PONDS
OF LAKE ELMO, MN
POTENTIAL PROGRAM ELEMENTS
eìBENCH SEATING
eìWALKWAY/ TRAIL CONNECTIONS
eìTREES & PLANTINGS
OVERALL SITE PLAN
BOULDER PONDS
OF LAKE ELMO, MN
DESIGN CONCEPT: SOUTHWEST ISLAND COMMUNITY SPACE
N
0
15’ 30’ 45’
SOUTHWEST ISLAND
COMMUNITY SPACE
LOCATION
POTENTIAL PROGRAM ELEMENTS
eìPERGOLA OR SMALL GAZEBO
eìBENCH SEATING
eìWALKWAY/ TRAIL CONNECTIONS
eìTREES & PLANTINGS
1
BOULDER PONDS, Lake Elmo
Preliminary Plat Lot Summary
9/8/2014
Lot Block Sq. Ft. Acres Use Zoning
Min Required
Lot Size (SF)
per Zoning
Meets Underlying
Zoning
Requirements?
1ST PHASE AREA
1 1 17,447 0.40 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
2 1 11,604 0.27 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
3 1 12,822 0.29 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
4 1 10,190 0.23 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
5 1 11,353 0.26 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes6 1 8,584 0.20 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
7 1 8,587 0.20 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
8 1 8,112 0.19 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
9 1 8,410 0.19 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
10 1 8,400 0.19 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
11 1 10,631 0.24 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
12 1 8,909 0.20 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes13 1 8,180 0.19 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
14 1 9,736 0.22 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
15 1 10,982 0.25 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
16 1 8,042 0.18 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
17 1 7,625 0.18 Villa LDR 8,000 No
18 1 10,443 0.24 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
19 1 9,005 0.21 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes20 1 8,717 0.20 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
1 2 15,836 0.36 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
2 2 9,873 0.23 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
3 2 8,620 0.20 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
4 2 8,005 0.18 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
5 2 9,105 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes6 2 11,483 0.26 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
1 3 11,788 0.27 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes2 3 8,428 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
3 3 8,338 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
4 3 8,078 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
5 3 8,159 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
6 3 9,788 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
7 3 8,004 0.18 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
8 3 7,450 0.17 Single Family LDR 8,000 No9 3 8,229 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
10 3 8,112 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
11 3 9,100 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
1 4 8,716 0.20 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
2 4 9,510 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
3 4 9,309 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes4 4 9,199 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
5 4 8,532 0.20 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
6 4 8,480 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
7 4 8,172 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
8 4 10,194 0.23 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
9 4 8,255 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
10 4 8,280 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
2
BOULDER PONDS, Lake Elmo
Preliminary Plat Lot Summary
9/8/2014
Lot Block Sq. Ft. Acres Use Zoning
Min Required
Lot Size (SF)
per Zoning
Meets Underlying
Zoning
Requirements?
2ND PHASE AREA
1 1 9,057 0.21 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
2 1 8,001 0.18 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes3 1 8,012 0.18 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
4 1 9,582 0.22 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
5 1 9,959 0.23 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
6 1 8,783 0.20 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
7 1 8,455 0.19 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
8 1 9,080 0.21 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
9 1 12,793 0.29 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes10 1 21,111 0.48 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
11 1 10,190 0.23 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
12 1 9,331 0.21 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
13 1 8,270 0.19 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
14 1 8,973 0.21 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
15 1 8,644 0.20 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
16 1 10,923 0.25 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes17 1 10,413 0.24 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
18 1 9,677 0.22 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
1 2 17,402 0.40 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
2 2 12,514 0.29 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
3 2 9,526 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
4 2 9,327 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes5 2 9,190 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
6 2 9,336 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
7 2 9,636 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
8 2 8,346 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
9 2 8,334 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
10 2 8,399 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
11 2 8,251 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes12 2 8,173 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
1 3 12,072 0.28 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
2 3 12,282 0.28 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
3 3 10,377 0.24 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
4 3 12,142 0.28 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
5 3 10,547 0.24 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes6 3 11,689 0.27 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
7 3 11,463 0.26 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
8 3 9,598 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
9 3 9,748 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
10 3 8,443 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
11 3 8,019 0.18 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
12 3 8,064 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes13 3 8,839 0.20 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
14 3 10,171 0.23 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
15 3 9,960 0.23 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes16 3 9,552 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
17 3 10,732 0.25 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
18 3 9,720 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
19 3 8,964 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes20 3 10,649 0.24 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
21 3 15,226 0.35 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
3
BOULDER PONDS, Lake Elmo
Preliminary Plat Lot Summary
9/8/2014
Lot Block Sq. Ft. Acres Use Zoning
Min Required
Lot Size (SF)
per Zoning
Meets Underlying
Zoning
Requirements?
Outlot A 152,517 3.50 Comercial
Outlot B 107,367 2.46 Senior Housing - 64 UnitsOutlot C 109,350 2.51 Ponding
Outlot D 64,584 1.48 Ponding
Outlot E 183,233 4.21 Commercial
Outlot F 104,051 2.39 Ponding
Outlot G 44,646 1.02 Ponding
Outlot H 69,606 1.60 Pond & Wetland
PARK 168,635 3.87 Park
45.15 TOTAL SITE ACREAGE (net of ROW)
Total
Single Family Lots
Total
Villa Lots
#60 38
Acreage 13.40 8.70
DUA 4.5 4.4
Total Units 162
Total Site Acreage 45.15
Units/Acre 3.6
N
N
N
120 DEG.120 DEG.120 DEG.NOTES:1) CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE WITH PIN THE ROOT FLARE OF EACH TREE PRIOR TO DIGGINGTHE PLANTING PIT. (THE FLARE IS THE TRANSITION ZONE BETWEEN THE MAIN STEM AND THEROOT SYSTEM.)2) REMOVE SOIL FROM TOP OF ROOTBALL TO EXPOSE TOP OF FLARE. TREES WITH MORE THAN2" OF EXCESS SOIL ABOVE THE FLARE WILL BE REJECTED. MEASURE DISTANCE BETWEEN FLAREAND BOTTOM OF ROOTBALL. SUBTRACT 10% TO DETERMINE DEPTH OF PLANTING PIT.3) DIG PIT TO DEPTH DETERMINED ABOVE. PIT SHALL BE DISHED WITH SIDEWALLS AS SHOWNBELOW. SCARIFY WALLS AND BOTTOM OF PIT.4.) SET TREE IN PIT SO THAT FLARE IS ONE TO TWO INCHES ABOVE SURROUNDING GRADE.5) IN ALL AREAS WITH HEAVY CLAY OR POORLY DRAINED SOILS (MOTTLING), CONTACT THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. TREE MAY BE RELOCATED OR ROOTBALL FURTHER ELEVATED.STAKING DIAGRAMGENERAL NOTES:
”
PAGE 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 24, 2014
To: Nick Johnson, City Planner Re: Bolder Ponds
Cc: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Preliminary Plat Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Bolder Ponds development. A Preliminary Plan submittal was
received consisting of the following documentation prepared by Evolution Engineering and Design or as noted:
Preliminary Site and Construction Plans dated June 2, 2014.
Project Manual for Grading, Roadway and Utility Improvements dated June 2, 2014.
Preliminary Plat dated June 2, 2014 prepared by E.G.Rud and Sons, Inc.
Hydrology Report, no date.
Wetland Delineation Report dated May 29, 2014 prepared by SEH, Inc.
Turning Templates dated May 30, 2014 prepared by SEH, Inc.
Xcel Energy Transmission Easement Agreement dated July 21, 2014.
STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering review comments have been limited for the purpose of Preliminary Plat issues.
Additional Final Construction Plan review and comments will be provided once Preliminary Plat approval is
granted for the development. Engineering review comments are as outlined below.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The construction of 5th Street North is required as part of the Bolder Ponds development. The construction
plans include 5th Street North as part of the Plan set. The Preliminary Plat must be revised to include the full
R/W area to accommodate the construction of 5th Street North, including the added R/W required from the
Bremer Financial Services property. This added area needs to be Platted as R/W.
The street median Outlots should be Platted as public R/W. The City should use maintenance agreements
with the HOA to facilitate the landscape maintenance of the median areas. The Preliminary Plat should be
revised accordingly.
Additional R/W must be obtained along the east side of Cobblestone Plaza such that the R/W extends an
additional 80 feet, well past the Cobblestone Path intersection.
Additional easement is required to provide a minimum 30‐foot utility easement for the storm sewer pipe
run from CS‐600 to FES‐600C. Part of this easement must be acquired from the adjacent Eagle Point Town
Office property.
Additional easement is required to provide a minimum 30‐foot utility easement for the storm sewer pipe
run from CBMH 806 to CBMH 801.
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 6
WATERMAIN AND SANITARY SEWER PLANS
Sanitary sewer and watermain stubs to adjacent property and pipe oversizing will continue to be reviewed
by City staff as the development progresses forward and oversizing routes may need to be changed as part
of the final construction plans. Sewer and watermain oversizing is paid by the City as a reimbursement
addressed within the development agreement.
Sewer oversizing may be required from Hudson Boulevard to the Azur property or an 8‐inch sewer
may need to be stubbed north on 5th Street to the Azur property.
The 12‐inch watermain oversize is appropriate as shown on the proposed plans. Additional
oversizing may need to be extended to the site of Well No. 3, pending further staff review.
The 12‐inch watermain stub location at Outlot Q must be coordinated with Lennar to verify that
the stub is placed in the appropriate location.
Sewer and water stubs may be needed to the north edge of the Lampert Lumber and or Cranky Ape
properties.
Sewer and water stubs may be needed from 5th Street to Outlot N for service to the property south
of Bremer Financial Services.
Sanitary sewer and watermain stubs have been proposed along Cobblestone Plaza to serve future
commercial developments at Outlots K, J and M. The size and location of these stubs require further review
with the applicant.
Detailed Sanitary Sewer and Watermain construction plans were submitted as part of the Preliminary Plat
application. A detailed construction plan review will be completed upon Preliminary Plat approval.
However, comments below have been provided for the applicant’s use and information:
Hydrant and system valve placement will be made per City standards and as laid out by City staff.
Applicant shall submit an overall watermain plan for staff redlines.
Utility alignments will be necessary to better maintain the sewer and water within the street
section, in particular in areas where the street meanders or divides. Sanitary sewer MH’s must be
moved to centerline or center of drive lanes (i.e. MH 10, MH 23 and MH 36).
Utility alignments will be necessary to eliminate or minimize the use of watermain insulation.
Watermain insulation will only be allowed when alignment alternatives are not available.
Watermain shall be placed to maintain appropriate storm sewer pipe separation.
Sanitary sewer along Boulder Ponds Parkway may terminate after the service stub to Lot 11, Block
4, eliminating roughly 60 feet of sewer pipe.
Sanitary sewer along Pebblestone Place may terminate after the service stub to Lot 8, Block 4,
eliminating roughly 70 feet of sewer pipe.
Sewer and water service stubs should be revised to eliminate bends and shall be perpendicular to
the street whenever feasible.
Stationing must be added to all profiles.
Profile elevation labels must be corrected for accuracy.
The existing watermain must be shown in plan and profile along Hudson Boulevard.
Correct “Existing Ground” and “Proposed Grade” call‐outs on Sheet 9, Pebblestone Ridge Cove –
12” Watermain Loop Profile.
Add hydrant at 12” plug on 5th Street (at approximate STA 21+90) for flushing purposes.
Add vertical bends to accommodate severe grade changes at the Pebblestone Place watermain
loop.
GRADING, STORM WATER MANGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL AND STORM SEWER SYSTEM
Preliminary Plat approval should be contingent upon additional plan revisions needed to provide a grading
plan, storm water management plan and storm sewer system that complies with the requirements of the
City of Lake Elmo Engineering Design Standards Manual.
PAGE 3 of 6
Grading plans must be resubmitted to include existing and proposed contours for a distance of 150 feet
from all edges of the proposed Plat. Staff review can continue upon receipt.
Relocate Outlot L retaining wall to Outlot M. This should be owned privately, not by the City.
Outlot M retaining wall requires greater separation from the proposed storm sewer pipe.
Permission to grade and install storm sewer pipe is required from the adjacent Eagle Point Town Office Park
for infrastructure behind Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, First Addition and potentially for the storm sewer run from
this location to Hudson Blvd.
There are three new proposed storm water discharge points to Hudson Boulevard:
Two new discharges to the south side of Hudson Blvd requires MnDOT permission. This permission
is required before plan approval can be provided and any grading work can begin.
One discharge point is along the north side of Hudson Blvd. owned by the City. Additional detail is
needed before the City can determine acceptance of this new storm water discharge.
Lot 1, Block 1, Second Addition does not conform to City requirements for flood protection from Infiltration
Basin 3C. The lot building type or grading for this lot and adjacent Outlot must be revised accordingly.
Storm sewer pipe alignments must be revised to better maintain the storm sewer within the street
footprint. Areas include:
Bolder Ponds Parkway, between Outlot F and 5th Street.
Pebblestone Place, from Bolder Ponds Parkway to cul‐de‐sac.
Pebblestone Terrace, near the cul‐de‐sac.
Storm sewer must be a minimum of 15 feet from proposed retaining walls (near MH 1004).
Storm sewer catch basins should be relocated from corners per the City standard details.
All proposed pipe crossings must be perpendicular to street alignment (i.e. CB 516A and CB 515A).
Infiltration basin 2A Retaining Wall should be eliminated or relocated onto the adjacent private property.
It appears that the wall can be eliminated if the adjacent lot is not a walk out. It is not recommended that
the City take on ownership of this retaining wall.
The double retaining walls located in the Xcel Transmission easement area should be eliminated or
relocated onto the adjacent private property. It appears that the walls can be eliminated if the adjacent lots
are not walk out lots. It is not recommended that the City take on ownership of these retaining walls.
The HWL must be provided for Infiltration Basin 1B.
The storm sewer system or grading plans must be revised to provide the City standard minimum pipe cover
of 3.5 feet. Changes must be made as part of the final construction plans. Several structures or pipe runs
do not meet this minimum, but it appears these changes can be made without impact to the Plat.
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 at low points.
Storm sewer castings must comply with City of Lake Elmo Design Standards (i.e. proposed beehive castings).
The watershed has indicated that additional testing is required to verify the assumed infiltration rates at
each basin. The City standard is to require multiple tests at each location and not allowing tests taken in
the vicinity. Plan revisions may be required if rates do not support the design assumptions.
The plan must be updated to indicate wetland buffers for staff review.
STREET, SIDEWALK AND TRAIL PLANS
5TH STREET NORTH:
5th Street seeks to become the backbone of future development along the I94 corridor, essentially
becoming the primary access in and out of the future neighborhoods. The street is required for the sole
purpose to provide mobility to support the growth and development within the corridor. The quality of the
street and its connections are critically important. The purpose of the proposed street standards are to 1)
improve the function, mobility and appearance of the street, 2) encourage pedestrian and bicycle use, and
3) reduce the potential for speeding.
PAGE 4 of 6
The plan indicates a minimum 100 foot R/W as required, except for the additional R/W to be acquired from
Bremer Financial Services. This area must be Platted as public R/W.
The proposed 2‐lane collector Parkway street (5th Street) design and geometrics must meet all Municipal
State Aid design standards for urban streets (8820.9936) for ADT > 10,000; 40 mph design speed; and must
be consistent with the detailed Parkway cross section installed throughout the remaining corridor
segments.
The plans must include the City standard typical cross sections for 5th Street to ensure construction details
are followed accordingly, including turn lane configurations.
The proposed alignment is consistent with the State Aid design intent. However, the proposed plan
indicates impacts to adjacent properties. The applicant must coordinate the design of 5th Street with each
adjacent property and must show the proposed plan and profile for a distance of 150 feet beyond the Plat
for both Azur properties/Bremer and Lennar/Alan Dale. The matching profiles must be agreed to by all
impacted properties.
Access spacing to 5th Street meets the guidelines for the Cities Transportation Plan. A full access is proposed
at Boulder Ponds Parkway near the middle of the Plat and a partial access with Boulder Ponds Parkway at
the north end. Additional access to 5th Street is not recommended throughout the remaining corridor. It is
recommended that potential future access by Lampert Lumber and/or Cranky Ape properties be through
Boulder Ponds Parkway or a future street to the east, then to 5th Street as part of a full access.
The signing and striping plan for 5th Street, Sheet SS1, must be updated to meet state aid standards and the
5th Street typical section detail for turn lanes. Signage and pavement markings for cross walks should meet
the City standard for cross walk markings.
It is recommended that the 5th Street trail and sidewalks maintain the consistent boulevard alignment and
layout per the City approved 5th Street typical section.
The trail and sidewalk intersection crossings should occur within the R/W at the corners (see
attached TKDA Traffic Engineering review memo). 5th Street does not have a stop condition and
therefore the safer pedestrian crossing locations will be at the intersection corners.
The sidewalk along the south of 5th Street should connect the median walk to the west boulevard
walk.
The second crosswalk should be provided along the east side of the 5th Street/Boulder Ponds
Parkway and the signing and striping plan updated accordingly.
Pavement marking crosswalks should also be added for east‐west crossings.
A second 5th Street pedestrian crossing location should be considered near the north end of the
Plat at the Xcel Transmission easement area before 5th Street begins the next horizontal curve into
Azur properties.
Per the TKDA Traffic engineering review memo, the 5th Street and cross street medians must be adjusted
so that they do not extend into the intersection. Medians should terminate at the cross street curb line.
The proposed medians interfere with left turn movements and plowing operations.
Revise the 5th Street vertical sag curve to K=64 at STA 14+50. Minimum sag curve for 40 mph road is 64.
Corner curb radius must be 25 feet at 5th Street and must be shown on the plans.
Additional streetscape amenities are required along 5th Street consistent with the remaining corridor
segments and the City design standard for 5th Street.
A detailed review of these plans are completed by the City’s Landscape Architect.
The plans must be detailed and dimensioned to indicate the specific locations for all trees, light
poles, signs and utilities. This R/W corridor is very tight and specific spacing between amenities is
critical to a successful design. A 2‐foot clear zone must be maintained on each side of the trail and
sidewalk at all locations to meet state aid design standards.
HUDSON BOULEVARD TURN LANE:
Dedicated turn lanes are being provided along Hudson Boulevard to access the development at
Cobblestone Plaza. The signing and striping plan for Hudson Blvd, Sheet TL1, must be updated to meet the
current posted 50 mph design speed.
PAGE 5 of 6
RESIDENTIAL STREETS
The applicant is proposing a roadway configuration that is generally acceptable and in accordance with City
standard requirements. Primary and secondary access appears adequate for the site.
The plan indicates that residential streets are being proposed to a 28 foot width from back of curb to back
of curb. Surmountable concrete curb and gutter are proposed in single family residential areas and B618
curb is proposed in commercial and multi‐family areas.
The plan indicates a minimum 60 foot R/W as required.
The residential streets propose several medians that spilt the traffic into 2‐one way drive lanes. It is
recommended that plans be revised such that each lane is a minimum of 20 feet from face of curb to face
of curb to meet minimum fire lane requirements.
The intersection of Pebblestone Terrace and Pebblestone Place create a very unique and unfamiliar
intersection.
Turning templates must be submitted to verify appropriate curb radius at all median curb corners
and curb radius lengthened when required (i.e T‐S and H‐I).
The sidewalk crossing(s) at this intersection must be reviewed and relocated to provide safe
crossing(s) with snow storage considerations. The proposed crossing at Outlot F is not
recommended.
The intersection of Cobblestone Path should be moved south as far as possible to provide added separation
from the median at Outlot I. This becomes more important if a full access is contemplated in the future to
serve the Cranky Ape and Lampert Lumber properties.
Consideration should be given to shortening the Outlot I median.
The R/W along the east side of Boulder Ponds Parkway, across from Cobblestone Path, should be
extended further south at least 80 feet to facilitate a potential future road connection.
Corner curb radius must be indicated on the plans. For local streets a 20‐foot radius must be used.
Minimum K‐value for sag curves is 37. Revise sag curves along Pebblestone Place, Pebblestone Terrace, and
Pebblestone Ridge Cove. Grades between 1+00 and 3+50 along Pebblestone Terrace should be revised to
create a smoother transition and lesson the 5.45% grade, in particular since this road grade is a result of
the area being filled.
Minimum K‐value for crest curves is 19. Revise crest curve along Pebblestone Ridge Cove. Grades along this
road should be somewhat reduced, in particular since the area is being filled.
The Pebbelstone Ridge Cove Plan View on sheet 24 must be revised to plan scale to facilitate plan review.
Cul‐de‐sac geometry must be revised as follows:
The pavement width must be a minimum of 20 feet from face of curb to face of curb around cul‐
de‐sacs to accommodate emergency vehicle access.
With a 20 foot minimum pavement width, all cul‐de‐sacs must be signed as “No Parking Any Time”.
The proposed cul‐de‐sac medians show a tear drop design at the cul‐de‐sac entrance. The tear drop
must be revised to create a more rounded median to better facilitate snow plowing and emergency
access.
BOULEVARD LAYOUT ALONG RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Applicant is proposing a non‐standard boulevard layout which is not consistent with several City design
standards. It should be the applicant’s responsibility to submit proposed alternative design details as part
of the plan set that replaces the City standard design details that are not being met. This is required to detail
the proposed design both for City review and for construction purposes. Multiple details will be required
for the various boulevard layouts.
Construction plans must also be completely detailed for each varying condition because it cannot be left to
the various contractors to field locate all the different infrastructure components that must be closely
coordinated within the R/W corridor. Additional plan details must be submitted for staff review.
Meandering sidewalks and trails are proposed throughout the development. Sidewalks and trails outside
of the R/W create on‐going operation and maintenance difficulties. The following is strongly recommended
if the sidewalks are allowed to meander outside of the R/W:
PAGE 6 of 6
Sidewalk and trail easements shall be in a form created by the City.
The easements shall extend from the R/W to the sidewalk/trail and extend an additional 10 feet
past the sidewalk/trail to accommodate the utility corridor.
A plan must be submitted showing the sidewalk/trail setback from each garage front demonstrating
a minimum of 25 feet clearance to accommodate driveway parking without obstructing the
walkway.
Sidewalks along cul‐de‐sacs should extend around the outside of the cul‐de‐sac paved areas as
shown along Pebblestone Terrace to keep the sidewalk available for snow removal. Sidewalks
should not pass across the cul‐de‐sac island. This area must be preserved for significant snow
storage.
The plans must provide a detailed small utility corridor plan for City review and consideration which
addresses small utility installation when crossing/interfering with sidewalks.
On Sheet 28 the trail must be revised to maintain a maximum trail grade at 6%. Location to edge of Plat
must be coordinated with the Lennar development.
PROJECT MANUAL / SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD DETAILS
A detailed Project Manual / Specifications were submitted as part of the Preliminary Plat application. A
detailed review will be completed upon Preliminary Plat approval. However, comments below have been
provided for the applicant’s use and information:
The governing specifications shall be the City Standard Specifications. These specifications,
currently placed in the back of the project manual in Section 8, shall be placed near the front of
the manual.
The general requirements shall state the following: “The City Standard Specifications shall apply to
the work performed under this contract. Any supplemental specifications are intended to
supplement the City Standard Specifications; however they do NOT supersede the City Standard
Specifications, Details, Design Standards, or ordinances unless specific written approval has been
provided by the City.”
Any additional specifications for the project shall be clearly identified as “Supplemental
Provisions” not "Special Provisions".
Geotechnical Report. The report must be resubmitted so that exhibits are legible. A plan must be submitted
showing the soil boring locations with respect to the proposed improvements. Once received, additional
borings may be requested to support the proposed pavement designs (i.e. along 5th Street or other local
roadways).
Retaining Walls must be designed by a Professional Registered Engineer licensed in Minnesota. The design
engineer of record will be required to certify that the walls were constructed in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications.
Standard Details:
Water Services to be extended to edge of utility easement, at least 10 feet beyond property line.
Applicant’s standard detail must be corrected.
Sign details to be per City standards. Add City standard sign details and plan notes.
Memorandum
To: Ryan Stempski Reference:Boulder Ponds Development
Copies To: Traffic Review
City of Lake Elmo
From: Bryant Ficek Project No.:15545.000
Date: June 27, 2014 Routing:
Geometric plans and cross sections for the proposed 5th Street corridor of the Boulder Ponds development were sent for our review on June 18. In addition to the plans, the City’s desired
typical sections and design guidelines were provided. Per your request, this information was
reviewed in terms of conformance to State Aid standards. The design of the medians at intersections and the locations of crosswalks were additional issues raised for our review. The
provided information is attached to this memorandum for reference.
The proposed development is located on the north side of I-94 and the Hudson Boulevard frontage road, between Inwood Avenue and Keats Avenue. As identified in the City’s
Transportation Plan of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, a future collector roadway is expected to
be located about halfway between 10th Street N and Hudson Boulevard. This new road is expected to provide for east-west travel between Inwood Avenue and Keats Avenue and
beyond. The projected daily volume for this new roadway is 5,000 vehicles. The proposed
development’s 5th Street is anticipated to become part of that new collector roadway.
State Aid Standards
The MnDOT State Aid office provides design guidance in terms of lane widths and other roadway design details. Satisfaction of these guidelines means that a roadway is eligible to become a State Aid route, which then makes the road eligible for future maintenance and
improvement funding.
Based upon the information provided, the design of 5th Street meets the City’s desired
standards, which also satisfy the State Aid standards. The provided right-of-way, lane widths,
and median widths meet or exceed the State Aid minimums, assuming a posted speed limit of 40 mph or less. Horizontal and vertical curves also meet the minimum standards for a 40 mph
roadway. Pavement sections were not provided to check against the State Aid standard of a
9-ton roadway. However, the City’s desired standards call for a 10-ton roadway. Assuming that 5th Street continues to match the City’s desired standards, this detail would also satisfy the
State Aid standards.
Memo Page 2 June 27, 2014 Boulder Ponds Development Traffic Review
City of Lake Elmo
Pedestrian Movements
The design shows a 10-foot trail on one side of 5th Street and a 6-foot sidewalk on the other. A
wide boulevard separates the trail and sidewalk from the road except where right-turn lanes are introduced. Based on our review of the layout of the trail and sidewalk, our comments are:
• The trail moves away from 5th Street at intersections, providing approximately 30 feet between the pedestrian crossing area and the vehicle stopping point. This is similar to
pedestrian crossing treatments at roundabouts, allowing vehicles to focus on pedestrian
movements first, followed by a focus on other vehicle movements. At stop controlled intersections, this approach is acceptable. Appropriate signing and striping should be
used to notify drivers of the pedestrian crossing area.
• Only one crossing of 5th Street is shown, on the west side of the Boulder Ponds
Parkway intersection. Assuming that this intersection is under side-street stop control,
with 5th Street traffic not stopping, the crossing should be located at the intersection rather than set back approximately 30 feet as shown. When traffic will not stop or slow at
the intersection, setting the pedestrian crossing back in this manner does not offer
benefits to the driver or the pedestrian.
• Additional crossings of 5th Street should be considered, including mid-block crossings.
Connections to and from development outlots not at intersections could also be considered. For instance, a sidewalk/trail connection linking outlot C to the trail on the
north side of 5th Street with a mid-block crossing to the sidewalk on the south side of 5th Street may provide additional benefits for those residents. Proper signing and striping should be used for all crossings to improve safety.
• At all crossings, the ramp to and from the roadway should be properly designed using the latest ADA standards. The provided plans do not uniformly identify pedestrian ramps
at each crossing point, nor do they provide information regarding the pedestrian ramp
design for those that are identified.
• The south crossing of Boulder Ponds Parkway is not continuous across the intersection. Pedestrian routes should be reviewed to ensure that the routes are continuous and do not strand a pedestrian in a potentially dangerous situation, such as the middle of an
intersection.
Medians
As mentioned, the raised median on 5th Street meets the City’s desired standards in addition to
the minimum State Aid standards. At the intersections, the minimum 4-foot width (face-of-curb to face-of-curb) is sufficient for those standards. However, a minimum width of 6 feet is desired
if the median is to be used as a pedestrian refuge at crossing locations. A minimum width of
6 feet is also better in terms of space for sign mounting. The minimum 6-foot width could be achieved by reducing the left-turn lane and through lane to 11-foot widths at the intersections.
This change in lane width would still satisfy State Aid standards.
Memo Page 3 June 27, 2014 Boulder Ponds Development Traffic Review
City of Lake Elmo
Vehicle turning movements should be considered at the intersections in regard to the median
design as well. As currently shown in the plans, the median on 5th Street extends too far into
the intersection and would interfere with left turn and through movements from the side streets.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the information presented in this
memorandum, please contact me at 651.726.7944 or bryant.ficek@tkda.com.
1
Nick Johnson
From:Bob Egan <began@lampertlumber.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:57 PM
To:Nick Johnson
Cc:Kevin Tauer
Subject:Lampert Lumber & Boulder Ponds
Nick,
In follow‐up to our phone conversation earlier today, I would like to reiterate a concern that Lamperts would like to
have considered as the Boulder Ponds Development plan is under review.
As indicated on the Preliminary Plat the north end of Lamperts’ property abuts the future 5th Street.
It is our belief that sometime in the future part of our property will be best suited for residential development.
We would like the possibility of future residential development of that property taken into consideration as the
elevations for 5th street are being established.
It would be beneficial if the elevation of 5th Street was such that minimal elevation change on our property will be
necessary to develop a residential area that would be accessed from 5th Street in the future.
Thanks for your consideration. We look forward to a response addressing the concerns expressed in this email.
Bob Egan
President & COO
(651) 695‐3671
1
Nick Johnson
From:Kyle Klatt
Sent:Monday, December 09, 2013 2:24 PM
To:Nick Johnson
Subject:FW: Planning Commission Agenda Packet for 12-9-13
From: jjjaros@mmm.com [mailto:jjjaros@mmm.com]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 2:20 PM
To: Kyle Klatt
Subject: Fw: Planning Commission Agenda Packet for 12‐9‐13
Hi Kyle,
I had a chance to look at the materials for Boulder Ponds. Thanks for posting this on the web site.
I understand the need to develop the property south of 10th street. From the public hearing on the Lennar site
proposals, I understood that the greenway walk way path was going to be put on the southern 1/3 of the greenway
buffer.
The Boulder Ponds plans show the greeway buffer path it to be directly adjacent to the stonegate property and right
next to my land. If we have a 100' buffer, don't put the path directly adjacent to my property. Is there a reason it can't
be put on the south 1/3 of the greenway buffer like the Lennar properties agreement? If not in the south 1/3 of the
greenway, why not down the middle of the buffer? Because of the power line easement, I can't put a fence on the
property line so I would like to see the path away from my property.
I was not vocal at the Lennar hearing on the pathway because I was OK with the placement in the southern 1/3rd of the
greenway. I will be much more vocal with the placement of the Boulder Ponds path placement.
On the Lennar proposal, I didn't like the lack of park area, but I am not an expert in the management of parks.
Stonegate park will need to be larger with other amenities to support the population in these new developments if they
don't have a park in their area.
Thanks,
John Jaros
‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded by John J Jaros/EG‐Engrg/3M/US on 12/09/2013 01:55 PM ‐‐‐‐‐
From: Tom Kreimer <tkreimer@comcast.net <mailto:tkreimer@comcast.net> >
To: John Jaros <jjjaros@mmm.com <mailto:jjjaros@mmm.com> >
Date: 12/07/2013 07:45 PM
Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Agenda Packet for 12‐9‐13
2
________________________________
Hi John‐
Your email address wouldn't allow the attachment, so I am just sending the email. You can obtain the information from
the Lake Elmo website under planning commission agendas.
Tom Kreimer
________________________________
From: "Tom Kreimer" <tkreimer@comcast.net <mailto:tkreimer@comcast.net> >
To: "Curt Monteith" <cmonteith@comcast.net <mailto:cmonteith@comcast.net> >, "Amy Betz" <ambetz@mmm.com
<mailto:ambetz@mmm.com> >, "Family Betz" <betzfamily5@comcast.net <mailto:betzfamily5@comcast.net> >, "John
Jaros" <jjjaros@mmm.com <mailto:jjjaros@mmm.com> >, "Craig Rossow" <craig@comfortbus.net
<mailto:craig@comfortbus.net> >
Cc: "Jay Morreale" <jay.morreale@sprint.com <mailto:jay.morreale@sprint.com> >
Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2013 1:33:32 PM
Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Packet for 12‐9‐13
Hi Neighbors‐
I just wanted to make sure you were aware of a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission meeting Monday night
regarding the land behind your home (Boulder Ponds). You may want to review the attached materials. If you have any
issues with anything, I suggest you attend the meeting ‐ Monday night at 7pm. If you can't attend, you can always send
written comments to Kyle Klatt (kklatt@lakeelmo.org <mailto:kklatt@lakeelmo.org> ). Also, you can let me know your
thoughts as well ‐ but that isn't as good as attending or sending your comments in.
Based on what we're forced to have, the plan looks pretty good. Personally, I would like to see a bit larger lots against
our neighborhood, but I don't think we'll get that. My biggest problem with the plan is that they are showing the new
trail directly adjacent to Stonegate. In prior meetings, it was agreed that the trail would be adjacent to the new
neighborhoods. The council did not follow this on the Lennar development, so we need to be a bit more vocal about this
aspect if it is something you care about. Craig, it looks like they are completely ignoring a buffer around your new land.
Please consider attending the meeting if you have concerns. The further these things go, the harder they are to change.
Now is the time to act if you care.
Thank you!
Tom Kreimer
________________________________
From: "Kyle Klatt" <KKlatt@lakeelmo.org <mailto:KKlatt@lakeelmo.org> >
To: "Sara Yocum (yocumrealestategroup@edinarealty.com <mailto:yocumrealestategroup@edinarealty.com> )"
<yocumrealestategroup@edinarealty.com <mailto:yocumrealestategroup@edinarealty.com> >,
daledorschner@comcast.net <mailto:daledorschner@comcast.net> , "Dean dodson" <Dean.dodson@gmail.com
<mailto:Dean.dodson@gmail.com> >, "Jay Morreale (jay.morreale@sprint.com <mailto:jay.morreale@sprint.com> )"
<jay.morreale@sprint.com <mailto:jay.morreale@sprint.com> >, "Jill Lundgren (pottingshedpottery@gmail.com
3
<mailto:pottingshedpottery@gmail.com> )" <pottingshedpottery@gmail.com <mailto:pottingshedpottery@gmail.com>
>, "Kathy Haggard (haggardfive@hotmail.com <mailto:haggardfive@hotmail.com> )" <haggardfive@hotmail.com
<mailto:haggardfive@hotmail.com> >, "Rolf Larson (halver@mac.com <mailto:halver@mac.com> )" <halver@mac.com
<mailto:halver@mac.com> >, toddwilli@comcast.net <mailto:toddwilli@comcast.net> , "Tom Kreimer
(tkreimer@comcast.net <mailto:tkreimer@comcast.net> )" <tkreimer@comcast.net <mailto:tkreimer@comcast.net> >
Cc: "Dean Zuleger" <DZuleger@lakeelmo.org <mailto:DZuleger@lakeelmo.org> >, "Nick Johnson"
<NJohnson@lakeelmo.org <mailto:NJohnson@lakeelmo.org> >, "Alyssa MacLeod" <AMacLeod@lakeelmo.org
<mailto:AMacLeod@lakeelmo.org> >, "Adam Bell" <ABell@lakeelmo.org <mailto:ABell@lakeelmo.org> >, "Beckie
Gumatz" <BGumatz@lakeelmo.org <mailto:BGumatz@lakeelmo.org> >
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2013 4:48:05 PM
Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Packet for 12‐9‐13
Members of the Planning Commission:
Please find attached a copy of the Agenda and Packet for the Planning Commission’s December 9, 2013 meeting. Staff
will be bringing materials to the meeting concerning agenda item 5b (the 2014 work plan). If you need to reference the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance in regards to item 4a, these materials can be accessed on the City’s website.
Stay warm and have a great weekend!
Kyle Klatt
Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo
(651) 747‐3911
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
REGULAR
ITEM # 18
AGENDA ITEM: Village Preserve Residential Subdivision - Preliminary Plat
SUBMITTED BY: Nick M. Johnson, City Planner
THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission
Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Brett Emmons, Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
Ann Pung-Terwedo, Washington County Public Works
Neil Ralston, Metropolitan Airports Commission Stephen Mastey, Landscape Architecture, Inc.
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director
- Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECCOMENDER: The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council approve a request by GWSA Land Development, LLC for a preliminary plat for a
104-unit single family residential subdivision in the southern portion of the Village Planning
Area.
FISCAL IMPACT: TBD – The City will require that the applicant enter into a developer’s
agreement with the City to specify the financial responsibilities for various aspects of the subdivision and related public improvements.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a
preliminary plat request from GWSA Land Development, LLC for a 104-unit single family
residential subdivision to be located on approximately 64 acres of land within the southern
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 18]
September 16, 2014
portion of the Village Planning Area. The proposed plat would be located on property owned by
Schiltgen Farms, Inc. and Mark Holliday. The parcels are located immediately west of Manning
Avenue (CSAH 15) and immediately north of 30th Street North. The preliminary plat has been
prepared in response to the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan, which guides the subject properties as Village Urban Low Density Residential – V-LDR (Schiltgen Farms parcel) and Rural Area Development – RAD (Holliday parcel). It should be noted that the City approved a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use guidance of the Holliday parcel from
RAD to V-LDR on July 15, 2014 (Resolution 2014-60). Prior to City consideration of a Final
Plat for the development, the Metropolitan Council must formally approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment before any residential development can occur on the Holliday property.
The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council approve the Village
Park Preserve Preliminary Plat with 13 conditions of approval through the following motion:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-74, approving the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat
subject to 13 conditions of approval.”
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Attached is the original detailed Staff Report and all the applicable attachments that were
provided to the Planning Commission regarding the applicant’s request for a Preliminary Plat. The Staff Report includes general information about the application, a summary of the relevant planning and zoning issues, a thorough review and analysis of the Preliminary Plat, a draft list of
recommended conditions of approval, draft findings and the Staff recommendation to the
Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary Plat application at its September 8, 2014
meeting and conducted a public hearing on the request at this time. During the public hearing,
the Planning Commission received the following public testimony:
• James Mcleod, 11580 30th Street North, noted concern about the intersection of 30th
Street and Manning Avenue. He stated that a street light should be installed in addition
to signalization. He also noted concern over the drainage in the area. Finally, Mr.
Mcleod requested that a sewer be stubbed to his property.
• Vonnie Mcleod, 11580 30th Street North, shared her feeling that there are too many lots
in the proposed subdivision. In addition, the proposed lots are too small in size.
• Sue Dunn, 11018 Upper 33rd Street North, noted her concern over the proposed storm
water management plan. In addition, she requested that a moratorium on development be put in place until the design of the regional stormwater system is completed.
At that time, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. Additional details of the
Planning Commission discussion can be found in the minutes dated 9/8/14 (DRAFT).
-- page 2 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 18]
September 16, 2014
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat as submitted with 13
conditions of approval. To better clarify expectations regarding the review of the proposed
stormwater management facilities by the Lake Elmo Airport, the Planning Commission
recommended to amend Condition #13 to require the developer to submit a letter from the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) agreeing to the design of the proposed stormwater
facilities. The vote to recommend approval of the Village Preserve Preliminary Plat was 6-1,
with Commissioner Haggard dissenting. Commissioner Haggard stated that the plat is not
consistent with the vision of the Village Land Use Plan due to the lack of a median in the Village
Parkway minor collector road. In addition, the greenbelt area is not landscaped to the standards she anticipated.
STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS:
Strengths: Approval of the Preliminary Plat with the 13 conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff allows the applicant to move forward with the preparation of a Final Plat application and final construction documents for a new single
family residential subdivision in the southern portion of the Village Planning Area. The
improvements of the proposed subdivision will include a critical segment of the Village
Parkway minor collector road from 30th Street to the Easton Village residential subdivision. In addition, the proposed plat will include the dedication of approximately 15 acres of parkland adjacent to Reid Park, allowing for a significant expansion.
Weaknesses: None
Opportunities: Approval of the plat will allow for the construction of the Village Parkway minor collector road, a critical transportation improvement needed for the growing portions of the Village Planning Area. In addition, the proposed addition to
Reid Park will allow for a significant expansion of the largest recreational amenity in the
Village Planning Area.
Threats: The current stormwater management plan directs stormwater to the south of 30th Street immediately west of Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) via a new culvert. The
location of the stormwater facilities are intended to be contained within the future
expanded right-of-way for Manning Avenue. As a condition of approval (Condition #6),
the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the applicant get written consent from all affected property owners for the location, rate and volume of water
being directed south. If the applicant and affected property owners are unable to reach an
agreement, the stormwater management system will likely need to be redesigned. This
change would likely require an amendment to the preliminary plat. In addition, the design
of the stormwater system also requires the approval of the Valley Branch Watershed District (Condition #5). Finally, the applicant must get approval of the proposed
stormwater design from the Metropolitan Airports Commission as well (Condition #13).
RECOMMENDATION:
-- page 3 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 18]
September 16, 2014
Based on the aforementioned, the Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the
City Council approve the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat subject to 13 conditions of
approval through the following motion:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-74, approving the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat subject to 13 conditions of approval.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 2014-74
2. Staff Report to the Planning Commission, 9/8/14
3. Location Map
4. Application Forms and Project Narrative
5. Village Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans (34 sheets)
6. Resolution 2014-60
7. City Engineer Review Memorandum, dated 9/4/14
8. Fire Chief Review Memorandum, dated 8/27/14
9. Washington County Review Memorandum, dated 9/3/14
10. Metropolitan Airports Commission Review Letter, dated 9/3/14
11. City Landscape Consultant Review Memorandum, dated 9/4/14
-- page 4 --
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-74 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VILLAGE PARK PRESERVE WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, GWSA Land Development, LLC, 10850 Old County Road 15,
Suite 200, Plymouth, MN, has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (City) for a
Preliminary Plat for a 104-unit single family subdivision on an approximately 64 acre parcel in
the Village Planning Area (PIDs: 13.029.21.43.0004 and 13.029.21.44.0002) to be called Village
Park Preserve, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Community Development
Department; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held public hearing on September 8,
2014 to consider the Preliminary Plat request; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to 13 conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and
recommendation concerning the Preliminary Plat as part of a memorandum to the City Council
from City Planner Nick Johnson for the September 16, 2014 Council Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Preliminary Plat at its meeting held on
September 16, 2014 and made the following findings of fact:
1) That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area conditioned upon
receiving final approval for the Metropolitan Council for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Holliday parcel.
2) That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat complies with the City’s LDR- Urban
Low Density Residential zoning district.
3) That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat complies with the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance.
4) That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat meets other City zoning ordinances, such
as landscaping, tree preservation, erosion and sediment control, and other ordinances,
except where noted in the conditions of approval or the attachments to this report.
1 Resolution 2014-74
5) That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat is consistent with the City’s engineering
standards provided the plans are updated to address the City Engineer’s comments
documented in a letter dated September 4, 2014.
6) That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat provides effective and safe pedestrian facilities, providing access to Reid Park and a future connection to downtown Lake Elmo, contributing to a walkable community as guided by the Village Land Use Plan.
7) That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat provides a significant expansion of Reid
Park, as recommended by the Village Land Use Plan.
8) That the Village Park Preserve residential subdivision will allow for the completion of the Village Parkway minor collector road from 30th Street to Easton Village, providing a
critical transportation improvement needed for the Village Planning Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby
approve the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions:
1) The Metropolitan Council must approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the
Holliday parcel in advance of the City’s consideration of an application for Final Plat for
the Village Park Preserve Subdivision.
2) In advance of Final Plat application, the applicant shall provide adequate title evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney.
3) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review
memorandum dated September 4, 2014 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to
consideration of a Final Plat.
4) The Preliminary Plat approval is conditioned upon the applicant meeting all minimum City standards and design requirements.
5) 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.
6) Related to the proposed storm water discharge to the south, the applicant must provide written permission from all property owners of the affected parcels located south of the
proposed 30th Street culvert consenting to the discharge location, volume and rate(s) in
advance of submitting Final Plat.
7) The applicant shall be responsible for the submission of final plans and the construction
of all improvements within the 30th Street right-of-way as required by the City and further described in the review memorandum from the City Engineer dated September 4,
2014.
8) The applicant shall observe all right-of-way and other requirements included in a review
memorandum from Washington County dated September 3, 2014.
2 Resolution 2014-74
9) The Landscape Plan shall be updated per the recommendations of the City’s Landscape
Consultant, describe in a memo dated September 4, 2014. Tree protection measures for
trees intended to be saved according to the submitted Tree Survey must be included in the
Final Landscape Plan.
10) 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.
11) The applicant shall install an additional row of trees in the rear of Lots 1-3, Block 1 to provide additional screening for the eastern boundary of the Mcleod property to satisfy
the condition of approval related to the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
12) The developer shall obtain all required permits from Northern Natural Gas to perform construction work over the gas line that runs from north to south across this site.
13) The developer shall submit a letter from the Metropolitan Airports Commission agreeing to design of stormwater facilities acceptable to the City prior to submitting Final Plat
application.
Passed and duly adopted this 16th day of September 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
___________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST:
____________________________________
Adam Bell, City Clerk
3 Resolution 2014-74
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 9/8/14
AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
CASE # 2014-43
ITEM: Village Park Preserve Residential Subdivision – Preliminary Plat
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Brett Emmons, Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
Stephen Mastey, Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Ann Pung-Terwedo, Washington County
John Hanson, Valley Branch Watershed District Neil Ralston, Metropolitan Airports Commission
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing to consider a Preliminary Plat
request from GWSA Land Development, LLC for a 104-unit single family residential subdivision to be located on approximately 64 acres immediately west of Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) and immediately north of 30th Street within the southern portion of the Village Planning Area. Staff is
recommending approval of the request subject to compliance with 13 conditions as noted in this
report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: GWSA Land Development, LLC (Craig Allen); 10850 Old County Road 15, Suite 200, Plymouth, MN 55441
Property Owners: Schiltgen Farms, Inc.; 10880 Stillwater Blvd. N., Lake Elmo, MN 55042 and
Mark Holliday; PO Box 243, Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Location: Part of Sections 13, Township 29 North, Range 21 West in Lake Elmo, north of 30th Street and immediately west of Manning Avenue (CSAH 15). PID Numbers: 13.029.21.43.0004 and 13.029.21.44.0002.
Request: Application for preliminary plat approval of a 104-unit single family residential
subdivision to be named Village Park Preserve.
Existing Land Use: Agriculture
Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional Zoning
Surrounding Land Use: North – vacant/agricultural land, planned for Easton Village single
family residential subdivision; west – Reid Park and Rural Single Family
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
2
parcels; south – Heritage Farm open space preservation (OP)
subdivision; east – Lake Elmo Airport.
Surrounding Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional; OP – Open Space Preservation;
PF – Public Facilities
Comprehensive Plan: Village Urban Low Density Residential (1.5 – 2.49 units per acre) and Rural Area Development – City has submitted a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to the Metropolitan Council to change the land use guidance
of the Holliday parcel from Rural Area Development to Village Urban
Low Density Residential.
Proposed Zoning: LDR – Urban Low Density Residential
History: The subject properties are included in Village Planning Area boundary and municipal
sewer service area as defined in the 2013 Village Land Use Plan. Site has historically
been used for faming activities, including the growing of agricultural crops. The Sketch Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on 6/30/14. The
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Holliday parcel was reviewed by the
Planning Commission on 6/30/14. Both Land Use Applications were reviewed by the
City Council on 7/15/14, where the CPA was approved (Resolution 2014-60)
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 8/14/2014 60 Day Deadline – 10/12/2014
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 12/11/14
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 GWSA Land Development, LLC for a preliminary plat to subdivide approximately 64 acres of land located within the Village Planning Area into 104 single family lots. The proposed plat would be located on property currently owned by
Schiltgen Farms, Inc. and Mark Holliday, and would be located immediately west of Manning
Avenue North (CSAH 15) and immediately north of 30th Street North. The two subject parcels have
historically been used for agricultural purposes.
The preliminary plat has been developed in response to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which guides the property owned by Schiltgen Farms, Inc. for Village Urban Low Density Residential (V-LDR)
development. It should be noted that the Holliday parcel is currently guided Rural Area
Development (RAD). However, the City approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request to change the Holliday parcel from RAD to V-LDR on July 15, 2014 (Resolution 2014-60). The Comprehensive Plan Amendment request has progressed through adjacent jurisdiction review period,
and the CPA application has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council. If approved, the proposed
plat would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The plat is designed to incorporate 104
single family lots, all of which are designed with minimum widths of 65 feet.
In terms of access, the preliminary plat shows a connection to 30th Street via the Village Parkway minor collector road in the southern portion of the plat. As shown on the proposed plat, the Village
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
3
Parkway minor collector road will serve as the primary access and circulation route for the
development, extending from 30th Street in the south to the Easton Village residential subdivision in
the north. In addition to the 30th Street connection, the proposed neighborhood would also benefit
from temporary access to Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) through the southeast portion of Easton Village. However, this access will be closed off at some point the future. Therefore, Village Parkway, with connection to 30th Street and eventually Trunk Highway 5 (TH 5) to the north will
serve as the primary access.
The proposed Village Park Preserve subdivision is the third subdivision in the Village Planning Area
to submit Preliminary Plans. In terms of utilities, the subject parcels have access to City watermain within the 30th Street right-of-way north of Heritage Farms, as well as at the sanitary sewer lift
station site immediately east of Reid Park. Existing sanitary sewer facilities are also located at the lift
station site and will need to be extended to the subdivision to serve the residential development. As
proposed, both the sewer and water services enter the subdivision in the southwestern portion of the development. Watermain is also extended to the existing watermain in 30th Street, providing a
hydrological loop.
The proposed subdivision also includes a series of outlots that will provide for storm water
management, open space, trails and a significant expansion of Reid Park. It should be noted that all of the outlots that are planned for parkland or storm water use will be deeded to the City.
According to the project narrative, the applicant is proposing to construct homes within the
subdivision in two phases, with each phase consisting of 50+ residential lots. In addition, the
narrative notes that the site will be mass graded during the first phase of construction. The mass
grading would include preparation of the streets and storm water facilities. As the site is relatively flat, it is the goal of the applicant to balance the site with as much on-site material as possible.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
According to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Village Park Preserve site is guided for Village
Urban Low Density (Schiltgen Farms parcel) and Rural Area Development (Holliday parcel). While
presenting a Sketch Plan for the proposed development, the applicant applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Holliday parcel to change the land use guidance from Rural Area Development (RAD) to Village Urban Low Density (V-LDR). The Comprehensive Plan
Amendment was unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on 6/30/14
and unanimously approved by the City Council on 7/15/14. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment
has since been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for consideration after undergoing adjacent jurisdictional review. In order for the applicant to apply for a Final Plat, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be approved by the Metropolitan Council in advance of any Final approvals by the
City. In addition, the site will be required to be zoned LDR – Low Density Residential prior to Final
Plat approval. The overall subdivision plan has therefore been prepared in order to comply with the standards for the LDR zoning district in terms of lot size, lot widths, building setbacks, and other design criteria. The applicant notes in the project narrative that no variances are being sought for the
proposed subdivision.
The arrangement of lots and blocks generally follow a grid-like pattern with the Village Parkway minor collector road running north-south through the center of the subdivision. The eastern half of the subdivision has three east-west streets, while the western half has two east-west streets. The
proposed spacing of the local roads that intersect with the minor collector road generally meet the
recommended spacing of 330 feet for neighborhood collector roads. It should also be noted that the
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
4
proposed subdivision includes three “eyebrow” or mini cul-de-sacs, two of which are located in the
northeast and northwest corners of the subdivision, while the third is located in the southern portion
of the development with direct access to the minor collector road. All local streets have been
designed to comply with the City’s current street standard with a 60-foot right-of-way and 28-foot wide street.
Sidewalks are planned on one side of all residential streets within the subdivision per the City
standard. In addition, the Village Parkway minor collector road includes a 6-foot walk on the west
side and an 8-foot bituminous trail on east side, which is consistent with the City’s typical section for the collector. Finally, a trail connection to the proposed expansion of Reid Park is planned in the
southwest corner of the subdivision, providing direct access to recreational facilities.
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.
All of the lots proposed meet the City’s minimum area requirement of 8,000 for single family lots in
a LDR district, with the smallest lot (Lot 4, Block 3) proposed at 8,342 square feet. The largest lot in
the development (Lot 7, Block 2) is proposed at 27,055 sq. ft. in size. The Project Narrative notes that the lots will average 11,421 square feet in size, which exceeds the minimum requirements by a fairly wide margin. As an overview of the proposed lots, 60 lots are designed at 65 feet in width with
the rest designed at widths of 75 or 81 feet. Generally speaking, the smaller lots of the subdivision
are located on the eastern side of the development, and the larger lots are located west of the collector
within closer proximity to the proposed park area adjacent to Reid Park.
The following is a general summary of the subdivision design elements that have been proposed as
part of the Village Park Preserve 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: 63.6 acres
• Total Residential Units: 104
• Proposed Density (Net): 2.20 units/acre
Proposed Lot Dimensional Standards:
• Min. Lot Width: 65 ft.
• Lot Depth: 130 ft. typical
• Lot Area: 8,000 sq. ft. (8,342 min. proposed)
• Front Yard Setback: 25 ft.
• Side Yard Setback: 5 ft.to garage, 10 ft. to living space
• 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
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
5
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 the western portion of the subdivision adjacent to Reid Park will be dedicated to the City for this purpose. Dedication of the proposed parkland is supported by the Village Land Use Plan, as the land offers a significant expansion of Reid Park and
is identified as ecologically sensitive land in the Village Alternative Urban Area-wide Review
(AUAR), the adopted environmental review document for the Village Planning Area. As proposed,
access to the park area will be provided via a trail connection in the southwestern portion of the development. As the internal trail connections to Reid Park have not yet been determined, additional
work with the Park Commission to determine trail routing will be necessary once plans for the
expansion area are further developed.
The Subdivision Ordinance requires 10% of the land in urban residential districts to be set aside as parkland, which in this case amount to 6.36 acres (10% of 63.6 acres of total land). The Preliminary
Plat (PP-6) indicates that Outlot 2, the proposed park area adjacent to Reid Park, is 686,961 square
feet, or 15.77 acres, which is 9.41 acres above the required amount. However, it should be noted that
two wetland areas exist in the proposed parkland, the area of which would not be eligible to count toward dedication. Removing the wetland areas from the calculation results in a dedication amount of 15.37 acres. Based on the level of proposed dedication, it is clear that the amount of land provided
would far exceed the required amount of dedication required under the Subdivision Ordinance.
When the amount of parkland provided exceeds the amount required under the ordinance, it is not
uncommon for the applicant to receive a credit for the amount above what is required. It should be noted that the applicant is working on two other residential subdivision in the Village Area. The
first, Village Preserve, is a 97-unit single family residential subdivision on approximately 40 acres of
land in the northern portion of the Village Planning Area that has received Preliminary Plat approval.
The second planned residential subdivision is on land owned by Schiltgen Farms, Inc. across Lake Elmo Ave. (CSAH 17) from the Village Preserve residential subdivision. If provided with a credit for land dedication above and beyond the required amount, it stands to reason that the credit could be
utilized for the other two residential projects in which the applicant is engaged. Staff has contacted
the City Attorney to confirm that this type of credit can be utilized off-site and can be granted via an
approved developers agreement with the City, and the City Attorney confirmed that it is possible and legal under state statutes. In this case, the parkland credit amount would result in 9.01 acres (15.37 acres provided – 6.36 acres required = 9.01 acres of credit).
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
City Staff has reviewed the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat. In general, the proposed plat will meet all applicable City requirements for conditional approval, and any deficiencies or additional
modifications that are needed are noted as part of the review record. In addition, the City has
received a detailed list of comments from the City Engineer, the Fire Chief, the City’s Landscape Consultant, Washington County and the Metropolitan Airports Commission, 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 following review comments as well:
• Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the City’s approval of the requested Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for the Holliday parcel, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
6
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan for this area. The net density proposed for the
development fall within the range allowed for the Village Urban Low Density (V-LDR)
land use category (1.5-2.49 units/acre). However, before proceeding to Final Plat, the
applicant must receive formal approval of the Comp Plan Amendment from the Metropolitan Council (Condition #1). Other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan relate to
the Village Park Preserve subdivision as follows:
o Density Calculation. The subject property is guided Village Urban Low Density
Residential (V-LDR) in the Comprehensive Plan, which allows for a density
range of 1.5-2.49 units/acre (net). The applicants have completed the density calculation using the methodology consistent with the City’s adopted practice.
The resulting net density calculation resulted in a net density of 2.20 units/acre
(104 units/47.38 net developable acres). Therefore, the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the density requirements of the Village Urban Low Density
Residential land use category.
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
location of existing City parks and areas that are currently underserved. Given the
proximity of the subject parcels to Reid Park, the Park Plan does not call for a
neighborhood park in this portion of the Village Planning Area. However, it should be noted that the Village Land Use Plan encourages the dedication of the
land east of Reid Park as a park expansion. In March of 2014, Gonyea
Development presented plans for the Village Preserve subdivision in the northern
portion of the Village Planning Area to the Park Commission. As part of the
broader review of the area, Gonyea presented their plan to expand Reid Park as part of the Village Park Preserve subdivision. The Park Commission was
supportive of this approach, as it would allow for the creation of a destination
park in the Village. As part of the Village Park Preserve subdivision, the
applicants are proposing to dedicate 15.77 acres of land for the expansion of Reid
Park. Therefore, the Reid Park expansion would be consistent with the Village Land Use Plan and has been supported by the City’s Park Commission.
o Water. Water will be provided to this area via existing watermain along 30th
Street. In addition, the applicant proposes to pull watermain from the lift station,
creating a hydrological loop of the system. It should be noted that the City has
more than adequate capacity to serve the future subdivision on the subject property as a result of the construction of Well #4. Well #4 was recently
connected to the broader water system as a result of a recent watermain extension
north of the Village Planning Area.
o Sanitary Sewer. The Village Preserve subdivision will be served by the sanitary
sewer extension from the existing facilities located at the Village lift station site to the west of the proposed development. All wastewater for the proposed
development would be directed via forcemain to the Cottage Grove Ravine
Interceptor located to the east of Lake Elmo Ave near Interstate-94, which is part
of the regional wastewater treatment system administered by the Metropolitan
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
7
Council. It should be noted that there is adequate capacity of the wastewater
system to serve the proposed residential development.
o Phasing/Staging Plan. According to the City’s Wastewater Plan, the Village
Planning Area is in Stage 1 of the City’s planned service areas. Therefore, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City’s Staging Plan.
• Zoning. The proposed zoning for the Village Preserve 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.
• 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. Staff, as well as the City Engineer, have not identified any existing conflicts with the City’s
Subdivision Ordinance.
• Infrastructure. The developer will be required to construct all streets, sewer, water,
storm water facilities, and other infrastructure necessary to serve the development.
• Phasing – Grading and Construction. The applicant noted in the submitted Project
Narrative (Attachment #2) that the subdivision will be split into two phases of
construction with regards to residential. However, the applicant intends to mass grade
the site as part of the first phase of construction. As part of Final Plat and final construction documents, more detailed plans with regards to phasing of all improvements will be required. The City Engineer has also requested additional detail related to the
phasing of improvement for the next stage of City approval.
• Wetlands. The submitted narrative indicates that there are three wetland on the site. Two
of the identified wetland are located within the proposed park area and will not be impacted by development activity. The third wetland, 782 square feet in size, is located
on the Holliday parcel. The applicant has noted that this wetland is eligible for a de
minimis exemption. The applicant is proposing to mitigate this smaller wetland through
the Valley Branch Watershed District permitting process. Typical for any preliminary
plat approval, the applicant will be required to meet all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act and Valley Branch Watershed District (Condition #5).
• Trails. The applicants are proposing two segments of trails within the development. The
first trail is contained within the Village Parkway minor collector road and is consistent
with the City’s approved typical section. The north-south trail segment will eventually provide direct pedestrian connection through Easton Village to the downtown area to the
north and west. The second trail segment proposed is in the southwest portion of the
development to provide connection to the proposed park expansion area next to Reid
Park. Ultimately, staff would recommend that the Park Commission engage in a broader
planning effort for the future use and design of Reid Park. Once a broader plan is
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
8
established, effective trail connections can be made to the existing park area to the west
of the proposed development. In addition to the sidewalks proposed for the residential
subdivision, there should be ample facilities and for walking, biking, and other
recreational activities, offering effective connections to Reid Park and the broader Village Area.
• 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 #9. Mastey has requested additional calculations pertaining to street trees. In addition, he makes several recommendations related to native ground cover and
other plant selections. Staff is recommending that the Final Landscape Plan be updated
per the recommendations of the landscape consultant (Condition #9). In addition, it
should be noted that the Tree Preservation information is located on the provided Tree Survey (TS1). As noted in the tree survey, the proposed removal amount of significant trees is 22.6%, which is under the 30% removal threshold permitted under the City’s Tree
Preservation Ordinance. Finally, with regards to tree preservation, the submitted
landscape plans do not include tree protective fencing or other measures around the trees
to be saved on the site. As part of the Final Landscape Plan, staff would recommend that tree protection measures be included.
• Buffering. Buffering for the proposed subdivision is applicable in two areas:
o Village Greenbelt. As part of the Village Land Use Plan, the southern and eastern
portions of the development are guided for a greenbelt to create separation of residential lots from 30th Street and Manning Avenue. As proposed in the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat, this area is currently being utilized for stormwater
management purposes, which is allowed under the City’s Land Use Plan. In
addition, the Village Land Use Plan does not specify a set distance for the
greenbelt. As shown in the plans, the separation between residential lots and 30th Street right-of-way ranges from 40 feet up to 130 feet. The separation between residential lots and Manning Avenue is greater. In addition, the Landscape Plan
includes a more robust planting schedule along the greenbelt area for both
Manning Avenue and 30th Street, including coniferous and evergreen trees for
year-round screening. A cross section of the proposed plantings is also provided.
o Mcleod Property. In addition to the recommended buffering along 30th Street and Manning Avenue, buffering and screening around the Mcleod property in the
southwest portion of the development, particularly the east boundary, is required
as a condition of approval for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Resolution
2014-60 – Attachment #4). Once again, a more aggressive planting schedule has been provided around the east and north boundary of the Mcleod property, providing year round screening. In addition, the lots on the east side of the
Mcleod parcel are of greater size and depth than most of the lots in the
development. Nevertheless, staff would recommend that the applicant install an
additional row of trees in the rear of 1-3, Block 1 to provide additional screening.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
9
Staff is recommending that this requirement be included as a condition of
approval (Condition #11).
• Streets. The proposed street system has been designed to comply with all applicable subdivision requirements and City engineering standards. All of the proposed cul-de-sacs meeting the minimum turning radii specified under the Subdivision Ordinance. It should
be noted that the City Engineer has recommended some modest changes related to the
southernmost intersection of Street 2 and the minor collector road. This recommendation
is included in as a requested modification in his report, to which staff is recommending be included as a condition of approval (Condition #3).
• Secondary Access. The primary access to the site will be provided from 30th Street via
the Village Parkway minor collector road. Temporary secondary access may be achieved
through the temporary connection to Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) through Easton Village. However, as this access is planned to be temporary, the permanent secondary access will be the connection of the Village Parkway minor collector road to Trunk
Highway 5. The City must consider the timing of the closure of the temporary access on
Manning Avenue with the broader interest of secondary access in mind. Coordination
with both property owners/developers will continue in this regard.
• Street Names. Staff is recommending that the street names for the proposed subdivision follow the Washington County street naming system. Staff has provided the applicant
with proposed street names that are consistent with the Washington County system. In
conversation with the applicant, they are amenable to the provided street names. Staff
will work with the applicant to incorporate the correct street names in advance of Final Plat.
• City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has provided the Planning Department with a
detailed comment letter (Attachment #5) as a summary of his review of the Village Park
Preserve Preliminary Plat. In addition, the City Engineer obtained additional review of the proposed storm water system through Brett Emmons of Emmons & Olivier
Resources, Inc. In the memorandum, the Engineer highlights several of the critical path
issues or modifications that must be resolved for the proposed design to move forward.
One of these issues remains the discharge of storm water to a new location within a new
culvert to the south of 30th Street. As a condition of approval (Condition #6), staff is recommending that the necessary permissions related to this stormwater discharge be
provided in advance of Final Plat application. In addition, the other necessary revisions
and modifications identified in the City Engineer’s memorandum must also be made in
advance of Final Plat (Condition #3).
• Washington County Review. County Staff has reviewed the Village Park Preserve plat and provided specific comments to the City in a letter dated September 3, 2014
(Attachment #7). The most significant of the County’s comments relate to the need for
additional right-of-way for both Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) and the Manning-30th
Street intersection. As a condition of approval (Condition #8), staff is recommending that the applicants observe all requirements in the review memorandum submitted by
Washington County.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
10
• Watershed Districts. The project area lies within the Valley Branch Watershed District
(VBWD). The Valley Branch Watershed District has not provided any formal comments
for the proposed plat at this time. It should be noted that the developer must meet all the rules of the Wetland Conservation Act and VBWD and will need to secure permits from the VBWD in order to proceed with the development as planned (Condition #5).
• Fire Department Review. The Fire Chief has reviewed the plat (Attachment #6) and
found the hydrant locations to be sufficient in terms of spacing and operation effectiveness. In addition, the Fire Chief is requesting that the street names follow the Washington County street naming system. Staff will work with the applicant to update
the street names per the input of the Fire Chief in advance of Final Plat.
• Metropolitan Airports Commission Review. Neil Ralston of the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) has submitted a review memorandum documenting the concerns and requests for additional work related to the subdivision’s location adjacent to the Lake
Elmo Airport. The memorandum is found in Attachment #8. The most critical issues
relate to the design of the stormwater management facilities on the site. In addition,
MAC is recommending that an aeronautical study be filed with the FAA for any
structures over 35 feet in height utilized in the construction of the subdivision. Staff is recommending that the applicant address all review comments in the memorandum
submitted by MAC as part of any final plat submittal (Condition #13).
Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary
plat with 13 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) The Metropolitan Council must approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the
Holliday parcel in advance of the City’s consideration of an application for Final Plat for
the Village Park Preserve Subdivision.
2) In advance of Final Plat application, the applicant shall provide adequate title evidence
satisfactory to the City Attorney.
3) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review
memorandum dated September 4, 2014 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to
consideration of a Final Plat.
4) The Preliminary Plat approval is conditioned upon the applicant meeting all minimum
City standards and design requirements.
5) 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.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
11
6) Related to the proposed storm water discharge to the south, the applicant must provide
written permission from all property owners of the affected parcels located south of the
proposed 30th Street culvert consenting to the discharge location, volume and rate(s) in
advance of submitting Final Plat.
7) The applicant shall be responsible for the submission of final plans and the construction of all improvements within the 30th Street right-of-way as required by the City and
further described in the review memorandum from the City Engineer dated September 4,
2014.
8) The applicant shall observe all right-of-way and other requirements included in a review memorandum from Washington County dated September 3, 2014.
9) The Landscape Plan shall be updated per the recommendations of the City’s Landscape
Consultant, describe in a memo dated September 4, 2014. Tree protection measures for
trees intended to be saved according to the submitted Tree Survey must be included in the
Final Landscape Plan.
10) 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.
11) The applicant shall install an additional row of trees in the rear of Lots 1-3, Block 1 to provide additional screening for the eastern boundary of the Mcleod property to satisfy
the condition of approval related to the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
12) The developer shall obtain all required permits from Northern Natural Gas to perform construction work over the gas line that runs from north to south across this site.
13) The developer shall address any comments from Metropolitan Airport Commission documented in a review memorandum dated September 3, 2014 as part of a final plat submission for any portion of Village Park Preserve.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat:
• That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area conditioned upon
receiving final approval for the Metropolitan Council for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Holliday parcel.
• That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat complies with the City’s LDR- Urban
Low Density Residential zoning district.
• That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat complies with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
12
• That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat meets other City zoning ordinances, such
as landscaping, tree preservation, erosion and sediment control, and other ordinances,
except where noted in the conditions of approval or the attachments to this report.
• That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat is consistent with the City’s engineering
standards provided the plans are updated to address the City Engineer’s comments
documented in a letter dated September 4, 2014.
• That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat provides effective and safe pedestrian facilities, providing access to Reid Park and a future connection to downtown Lake Elmo,
contributing to a walkable community as guided by the Village Land Use Plan.
• That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat provides a significant expansion of Reid
Park, as recommended by the Village Land Use Plan.
• That the Village Park Preserve residential subdivision will allow for the completion of the Village Parkway minor collector road from 30th Street to Easton Village, providing a
critical transportation improvement needed for the Village Planning Area.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat with the 13 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report.
Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Village Park Preserve preliminary plat with the 13
conditions of approval as drafted by Staff based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff
Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Application Form and Project Narrative
3. Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans (34 Sheets) 4. Resolution 2014-60
5. City Engineer Review Memorandum, dated 9/4/14
6. Fire Chief Review Memorandum, dated 8/27/14
7. Washington County Review Letter, dated 9/3/14
8. Metropolitan Airports Commission Review Letter, dated 9/3/14 9. City’s Landscape Consultant Review Memo, dated 9/4/14.
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ..................................................Community Development Director
- Report by Staff ................................................................................ City Planner
- Questions from the Commission ....................... Chair & Commission Members
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
13
- 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
- 1 –
9/5/2014
VILLAGE PARK PRESERVE Development Narrative
September 2, 2014
Developer Introduction:
GWSA LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC. Craig Allen
10850 Old County Road 15
Suite 200 Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55441
Telephone: 952-270-4473 Email: craig@gonyeacompany.com
The developer is proposing a community of 104 single family homes on +/- 63.6 acres of land located on the west side of Manning Avenue North (CASH15), north of 30th Street North. The Schiltgen parcel and the Holliday parcel comprise the 63.6 acres of land. This proposed
residential development will consist of higher end single family homes. It is anticipated that these homes will range in price from $400,000 to $650,000. The development is located in an area of Lake Elmo with easy access to the transportation system. This will provide the future
home owners a secluded place to live that is located within minutes of all the amenities Lake Elmo has to offer with the regional facilities of the larger metropolitan area.
- 2 –
9/5/2014
“VILLAGE PARK PRESERVE”
The project is anticipated to be constructed in two phases, of 50-60 lots per phase. The primary
access is the proposed Village Parkway from 30th Street North. Over 15.7 acres of land is
proposed to be dedicated as parkland to add to the existing Reid Park. A trail connection to the park area is proposed in the southwest corner. Over seventy five percent of the homes in the
community will have a walkout basement. The project is located within the Stillwater School
District #834.
Development Team: Civil Engineering, Surveying & Land Planning
Sathre-Bergquist, Inc. Robert S. Molstad, P.E. David B. Pemberton, P.L.S.
150 South Broadway Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Telephone: 952-476-6000
Facsimile: 952-476-0104 Email: molstad@sathre.com
Email: pemberton@sathre.com
Wetland & Biological Sciences
Kjolhaug Environmental Services
Melissa Barrett 26105 Wild Rose Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
Telephone: 952-401-8757 Email: Melissa@kjolhaugenv.com
Soil Sciences Haugo GeoTechnical Services Paul Haugo 13570 Grove Drive #278 Maple Grove, MN 55311
Telephone: (612) 554-4829 Email: p.haugo@gmail.com Property Ownership:
Per Schedule A of Title Commitment No. HB-26627A (northerly property)
The North 50 acres of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota, except that part which lies easterly of the
following described line:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 88 degrees 45
minutes 30 seconds West along the South line of said Southeast Quarter, 159.73 feet (bearings are based on the Washington County Coordinate System); thence North 01 degree 14 minutes 30
- 3 –
9/5/2014
seconds West, 33 feet, thence North 43 degrees 59 minutes 50 seconds East, 142.10 feet to the
point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 00 degrees 45 minutes 51 seconds
West, 1188.14 feet to said North line of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter and said line there terminating.
Abstract Property.
Per Schedule A of Title Commitment No. HB-26880 (southerly property)
The South 498.6 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter (S1/2 of SE1/4); Section Thirteen (13),Township Twenty Nine North (29N.), Range Twenty-one West (21W.); except the West 1273.0 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section Thirteen (13). And
excepting therefrom that portion of the above tract conveyed to the County of Washington by that certain Quit Claim Deed dated March 30,1987, and filed of record in the Office of the Washington County Recorder on April 2, 1987 as Document No. 535377.
Abstract Property.
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, Density, & Variances:
The site consists of the Schiltgen parcel +/- 49 acres and the Holliday parcel +/- 14.8 acres. The
Existing Land Use is classified as Rural Area Development. On the Village Land Use Plan, the planned Land Use for the Schiltgen parcel is Village Urban Low Density (V-LDR) and Rural
Area Development (RAD) for the Holliday parcel.
The attached preliminary plat shows 104 single family lots that are a minimum width of 65 feet.
There are 60 lots that are in the 65’ lot width, 4 lots in the 75’ lot width, and 40 lots that are 81’ in
width. The smallest lot area is L4B3 (65’) – 8,342 sf and the largest lot area is L7B2 (81’) at 27,055 sf, with an average lot area of 11,421 for the entire project.
Lake Elmo Zoning:
Both parcels are currently zoned RT. The Schiltgen parcel is currently planned as Village Urban Low Density (V-LDR) and the Holliday parcel is currently planned as Rural Area Development (RAD). A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Holliday parcel from RAD to V-LDR
was approved by City Council and is currently being reviewed by the MET Council. The V-LDR district has the following requirements:
V-LDR District
1.5 – 2.5 units per acre
Minimum Lot Area – 8,000 square feet Minimum Width – 60 feet
Front Yard Setback – 25 feet Side Yard Setback – 5 feet to garage and 10 feet to living space
Corner Yard Setback – 15 feet
Rear Yard Setback – 20 feet
- 4 –
9/5/2014
Density:
Gross Site Area: 63.55 acres
Gross Density = 104/63.55 = 1.64 units per acre
Wetland Area: 0.40 acres
Proposed Park Area: 15.77 acres
Net Area: 63.55-0.40-15.77 = 47.38 acres Net Density = 104/47.38 = 2.2 units per acre
Variances – No variances are proposed.
A preliminary plat lot area tabulation sheet is in Appendix A of this narrative. Site Analysis:
The site is currently being used for agricultural purposes. Please refer to the ALTA Survey and the aerial photos. Utility service, sanitary sewer will be provided to the site as part of the
proposed Trunk Sanitary Sewer project that will extend sewer service from the new lift station at Reid Park, north to the Site, the current plan is to provide sanitary sewer from the stub in the
proposed Village Parkway, from the Easton Village project. A 12” trunk watermain will be
installed with the proposed trunk sanitary sewer system, that will provide a watermain connection for the proposed development. Storm water will be managed and outlet from the site in
accordance with the City and Watershed requirements. The proposed stormwater plan would
outlet with a new storm sewer pipe down the west side of Manning Avenue North to the culvert about 850 feet south of 30th Street North. The site is within the Valley Branch Watershed
District. Minor utilities (gas, electric, phone, and TV) will need to be extended to service the site.
The topography of the site is relatively flat on most of the site, 914 to 926 for the proposed
development area. The proposed park area drops in elevation from 926 to +/- 892.
There are three existing wetlands on the site, two wetlands are within the proposed park area and
no impacts are proposed by the residential development. The third wetland qualifies for a de minimis exemption and an application has been filed with Valley Branch Watershed District. Once approved the de minimis classification would allow us to fill without replacing.
The USDA Soil Survey of the project site indicates Antigo Silt Loams, Campia Silt Loams, and Mahtomedi Loamy Sand. The soils that are present consist of mostly moderately well drained
loams and sandy loams with a moderate permeability. Street Design:
“Village Park Preserve” proposes a north south parkway (Village Parkway), the parkway will be 32’ B-B within an 80’ ROW. The other public streets within the project would be 28’ B-B, with
a sidewalk along one side of the street, within a 60’ ROW. The cul-de-sacs will have a 44’ Radius to the back of curb. All streets will be constructed to the City of Lake Elmo standard
street section.
- 5 –
9/5/2014
Utility Services: City sanitary sewer and watermain will need to be extended to the site, please see the notes
above.
Site Grading: The site grading is planned to begin in the fall of 2014. The project will be graded in one phase.
The overall graded area is +/- 45.5 acres. We are proposing to grade all streets to the proposed hold downs and prepare corrected building pads for all home sites. We are creating five stormwater ponding areas and one infiltration area to meet the stormwater treatment requirements
of the City and the Watershed. The excavation of on-site material is estimated at +/- 180,000 cy. It is our design objective to balance the site with on-site material, some import of suitable structural fill material may be necessary for building pad, street, and retaining wall construction.
As the final design analysis is completed we will provide detailed construction plans for the project to the City of Lake Elmo.
Stormwater: The stormwater facilities proposed in “Village Park Preserve” are illustrated on the enclosed
preliminary plans. Runoff from the site will be directed to storm sewer inlet locations, collected and conveyed to the proposed treatment pond(s) and filtration area(s). The ponds and filtration
areas will provide temporary storage of stormwater runoff, treatment of stormwater and sediment
removal. The stormwater plan will provide adequate treatment and storage to meet the City of Lake Elmo and the Valley Branch Watershed District requirements.
Traffic:
“Village Park Preserve” proposes one primary access point (Village Parkway) off of 30th Street North.
Traffic Generation – (anticipate 10 trips per day per home site) 104 Lots = 1,040 trips per day
Trail System:
Six-foot concrete sidewalks are proposed along residential streets within the site. In addition,
there are 8.5 foot trails proposed to promote neighborhood connectivity.
Woodland Areas & Protection:
I. Introduction
A current tree survey in accordance with City of Lake Elmo requirements has been completed for
this site and is included in the submittal. The tree inventory plan is shown on the Erosion Control Plan. 25 trees were identified, per the City requirements.
- 6 –
9/5/2014
II. Tree Species, Distribution and Size:
The site has 467.5 caliper inches of significant trees, with 100.0 caliper inches of exempt trees for
a net total of 367.5 caliper inches. The trees located throughout the site. The species include
Cherry, Box Elder, Hackberry, Ash, and a few others. A table containing data on the trees, as well as a map which shows tree location, species, size and condition, are shown in the
preliminary plans, please see the Erosion Control Plan. Tree Removal & Restitution: The “Village Park Preserve” development will impact approximately 22.6% of the significant trees on the site. The development is under the 30% threshold.
Landscape Plan, Monuments, & Entrance:
This development will have a parkway access from 30th Street North. Many of the lots will have pond views or overlook views, due to the site topography. The stormwater ponds and treatment areas will have landscaping to create unique water treatment facilities for the proposed project. A
custom entry monument may be designed and constructed at the proposed entrance. This will create a sense of luxury and livability for the new single family residents, while providing safer
access to the site. Landscaping, monuments and other furnishings will be designed to conform to
the Lake Elmo Branding and Theming Study. Homeowner’s Association and Restrictive Covenants:
The developer will prepare restrictive covenants and standards that will apply to this 104 lot
project. The restrictive covenants will be tailored to the developer’s vision of the project. Each
home will be required to meet the specifics of building types, landscaping, and overall goals of the development.
A master HOA will be created for the “Village Park Preserve” project. This association will be in charge of the monumentation, entrance, landscaping, and infiltration basins. The HOA will also
be responsible for maintenance issues within the subdivision. These may include special landscaping, mailboxes, signage, and other common elements.
APPENDIX A: Village Park Preserve– Preliminary Plat Lot Area Summary
BLOCK
1 GROSS AREA WETLAND
AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK
Lot 1 22,997 s.f. 0.53 acres 0 s.f. 22,997 s.f. 0.53 acres 86.9 +/- l.f.
Lot 2 15,466 s.f. 0.36 acres 0 s.f. 15,466 s.f. 0.36 acres 74.8 +/- l.f.
Lot 3 16,238 s.f. 0.37 acres 0 s.f. 16,238 s.f. 0.37 acres 74.8 +/- l.f.
Lot 4 21,309 s.f. 0.49 acres 0 s.f. 21,309 s.f. 0.49 acres 86.6 +/- l.f.
- 7 –
9/5/2014
Lot 5 15,634 s.f. 0.36 acres 0 s.f. 15,634 s.f. 0.36 acres 120.1 +/- l.f.
Lot 6 14,347 s.f. 0.33 acres 0 s.f. 14,347 s.f. 0.33 acres 95.1 +/- l.f.
Lot 7 12,999 s.f. 0.30 acres 0 s.f. 12,999 s.f. 0.30 acres 82.1 +/- l.f.
Lot 8 12,034 s.f. 0.28 acres 0 s.f. 12,034 s.f. 0.28 acres 80.9 +/- l.f.
Lot 9 11,518 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,518 s.f. 0.26 acres 81.8 +/- l.f.
Lot 10 10,677 s.f. 0.25 acres 0 s.f. 10,677 s.f. 0.25 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 11 13,329 s.f. 0.31 acres 0 s.f. 13,329 s.f. 0.31 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 12 14,784 s.f. 0.34 acres 0 s.f. 14,784 s.f. 0.34 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Total 362,664 s.f. 8.33 acres 0 s.f. 362,664 s.f. 8.33 acres
BLOCK
2 GROSS AREA WETLAND
AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK
Lot 1 18,200 s.f. 0.42 acres 0 s.f. 18,200 s.f. 0.42 acres 81.5 +/- l.f.
Lot 2 21,102 s.f. 0.48 acres 0 s.f. 21,102 s.f. 0.48 acres 82.1 +/- l.f.
Lot 3 16,406 s.f. 0.38 acres 0 s.f. 16,406 s.f. 0.38 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 4 16,691 s.f. 0.38 acres 0 s.f. 16,691 s.f. 0.38 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 5 18,012 s.f. 0.41 acres 0 s.f. 18,012 s.f. 0.41 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 6 26,509 s.f. 0.61 acres 0 s.f. 26,509 s.f. 0.61 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 7 27,055 s.f. 0.62 acres 0 s.f. 27,055 s.f. 0.62 acres 80.7 +/- l.f.
Lot 8 12,112 s.f. 0.28 acres 0 s.f. 12,112 s.f. 0.28 acres 80.7 +/- l.f.
Lot 9 12,164 s.f. 0.28 acres 0 s.f. 12,164 s.f. 0.28 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 10 11,894 s.f. 0.27 acres 0 s.f. 11,894 s.f. 0.27 acres 81.2 +/- l.f.
Lot 11 10,988 s.f. 0.25 acres 0 s.f. 10,988 s.f. 0.25 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 12 10,988 s.f. 0.25 acres 0 s.f. 10,988 s.f. 0.25 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 13 10,988 s.f. 0.25 acres 0 s.f. 10,988 s.f. 0.25 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 14 10,988 s.f. 0.25 acres 0 s.f. 10,988 s.f. 0.25 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 15 13,012 s.f. 0.30 acres 0 s.f. 13,012 s.f. 0.30 acres 96 +/- l.f.
Total 474,218 s.f. 10.89 acres 0 s.f. 474,218 s.f. 10.89 acres
BLOCK 3 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK
Lot 1 10,852 s.f. 0.25 acres 0 s.f. 10,852 s.f. 0.25 acres 80 +/- l.f.
Lot 2 8,813 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,813 s.f. 0.20 acres 65 +/- l.f.
Lot 3 8,680 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,680 s.f. 0.20 acres 65 +/- l.f.
Lot 4 8,342 s.f. 0.19 acres 0 s.f. 8,342 s.f. 0.19 acres 65 +/- l.f.
- 8 –
9/5/2014
Lot 5 10,457 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,457 s.f. 0.24 acres 66.9 +/- l.f.
Lot 6 10,407 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,407 s.f. 0.24 acres 72.9 +/- l.f.
Lot 7 11,345 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,345 s.f. 0.26 acres 77.8 +/- l.f.
Lot 8 13,467 s.f. 0.31 acres 0 s.f. 13,467 s.f. 0.31 acres 68.9 +/- l.f.
Lot 9 11,462 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,462 s.f. 0.26 acres 71 +/- l.f.
Lot 10 10,266 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,266 s.f. 0.24 acres 72.9 +/- l.f.
Lot 11 10,042 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 10,042 s.f. 0.23 acres 69.5 +/- l.f.
Lot 12 8,862 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,862 s.f. 0.20 acres 66 +/- l.f.
Lot 13 8,630 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,630 s.f. 0.20 acres 65.1 +/- l.f.
Lot 14 8,450 s.f. 0.19 acres 0 s.f. 8,450 s.f. 0.19 acres 65 +/- l.f.
Lot 15 8,450 s.f. 0.19 acres 0 s.f. 8,450 s.f. 0.19 acres 65 +/- l.f.
Lot 16 8,450 s.f. 0.19 acres 0 s.f. 8,450 s.f. 0.19 acres 65 +/- l.f.
Total 313,950 s.f. 7.21 acres 0 s.f. 313,950 s.f. 7.21 acres
BLOCK 4 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK
Lot 1 8,450 s.f. 0.19 acres 0 s.f. 8,450 s.f. 0.19 acres 65 +/- l.f.
Lot 2 8,827 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,827 s.f. 0.20 acres 72.7 +/- l.f.
Lot 3 9,883 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 9,883 s.f. 0.23 acres 77 +/- l.f.
Lot 4 11,251 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,251 s.f. 0.26 acres 74.8 +/- l.f.
Lot 5 9,903 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 9,903 s.f. 0.23 acres 64.9 +/- l.f.
Lot 6 10,166 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 10,166 s.f. 0.23 acres 64.9 +/- l.f.
Lot 7 10,196 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 10,196 s.f. 0.23 acres 64.9 +/- l.f.
Lot 8 9,903 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 9,903 s.f. 0.23 acres 64.9 +/- l.f.
Lot 9 9,577 s.f. 0.22 acres 0 s.f. 9,577 s.f. 0.22 acres 78.1 +/- l.f.
Lot 10 8,915 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,915 s.f. 0.20 acres 77 +/- l.f.
Lot 11 8,547 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,547 s.f. 0.20 acres 67.3 +/- l.f.
Lot 12 8,999 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 8,999 s.f. 0.21 acres 65.2 +/- l.f.
Lot 13 9,135 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,135 s.f. 0.21 acres 65.4 +/- l.f.
Lot 14 9,135 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,135 s.f. 0.21 acres 65.4 +/- l.f.
Lot 15 9,135 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,135 s.f. 0.21 acres 65.4 +/- l.f.
Lot 16 9,135 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,135 s.f. 0.21 acres 65.4 +/- l.f.
Total 302,314 s.f. 6.94 acres 0 s.f. 302,314 s.f. 6.94 acres
BLOCK GROSS AREA WETLAND NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK
- 9 –
9/5/2014
5 AREA
Lot 1 9,240 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,240 s.f. 0.21 acres 78.7 +/- l.f.
Lot 2 9,108 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,108 s.f. 0.21 acres 78.7 +/- l.f.
Lot 3 9,020 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,020 s.f. 0.21 acres 76.7 +/- l.f.
Lot 4 9,020 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,020 s.f. 0.21 acres 65 +/- l.f.
Lot 5 9,262 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,262 s.f. 0.21 acres 64.9 +/- l.f.
Lot 6 9,262 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,262 s.f. 0.21 acres 64.9 +/- l.f.
Lot 7 8,675 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,675 s.f. 0.20 acres 65 +/- l.f.
Lot 8 11,717 s.f. 0.27 acres 0 s.f. 11,717 s.f. 0.27 acres 77.1 +/- l.f.
Total 150,608 s.f. 3.46 acres 0 s.f. 150,608 s.f. 3.46 acres
BLOCK
6 GROSS AREA WETLAND
AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK
Lot 1 11,333 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,333 s.f. 0.26 acres 96.7 +/- l.f.
Lot 2 8,509 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,509 s.f. 0.20 acres 66.4 +/- l.f.
Lot 3 9,388 s.f. 0.22 acres 0 s.f. 9,388 s.f. 0.22 acres 65 +/- l.f.
Lot 4 10,729 s.f. 0.25 acres 0 s.f. 10,729 s.f. 0.25 acres 74.4 +/- l.f.
Lot 5 9,749 s.f. 0.22 acres 0 s.f. 9,749 s.f. 0.22 acres 75 +/- l.f.
Lot 6 11,229 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,229 s.f. 0.26 acres 85 +/- l.f.
Total 121,874 s.f. 2.80 acres 0 s.f. 121,874 s.f. 2.80 acres
BLOCK
7 GROSS AREA WETLAND
AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK
Lot 1 11,671 s.f. 0.27 acres 0 s.f. 11,671 s.f. 0.27 acres 80.1 +/- l.f.
Lot 2 9,380 s.f. 0.22 acres 0 s.f. 9,380 s.f. 0.22 acres 64.9 +/- l.f.
Lot 3 9,270 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,270 s.f. 0.21 acres 74.1 +/- l.f.
Lot 4 9,925 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 9,925 s.f. 0.23 acres 84.9 +/- l.f.
Lot 5 9,342 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,342 s.f. 0.21 acres 74.9 +/- l.f.
Lot 6 10,430 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,430 s.f. 0.24 acres 80 +/- l.f.
Lot 7 9,667 s.f. 0.22 acres 0 s.f. 9,667 s.f. 0.22 acres 70 +/- l.f.
Lot 8 10,140 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 10,140 s.f. 0.23 acres 86.9 +/- l.f.
Lot 9 11,087 s.f. 0.25 acres 0 s.f. 11,087 s.f. 0.25 acres 100.8 +/- l.f.
Lot 10 11,343 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,343 s.f. 0.26 acres 97.7 +/- l.f.
Lot 11 9,609 s.f. 0.22 acres 0 s.f. 9,609 s.f. 0.22 acres 80.7 +/- l.f.
Lot 12 8,579 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,579 s.f. 0.20 acres 65 +/- l.f.
Lot 13 8,454 s.f. 0.19 acres 0 s.f. 8,454 s.f. 0.19 acres 65 +/- l.f.
Lot 14 10,400 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,400 s.f. 0.24 acres 80 +/- l.f.
Total 278,594 s.f. 6.40 acres 0 s.f. 278,594 s.f. 6.40 acres
- 10 –
9/5/2014
BLOCK 8 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK
Lot 1 12,831 s.f. 0.29 acres 0 s.f. 12,831 s.f. 0.29 acres 96 +/- l.f.
Lot 2 11,279 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,279 s.f. 0.26 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 3 11,279 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,279 s.f. 0.26 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 4 11,189 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,189 s.f. 0.26 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 5 10,164 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 10,164 s.f. 0.23 acres 91.8 +/- l.f.
Lot 6 9,736 s.f. 0.22 acres 0 s.f. 9,736 s.f. 0.22 acres 84.3 +/- l.f.
Lot 7 11,407 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,407 s.f. 0.26 acres 109.1 +/- l.f.
Lot 8 11,408 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,408 s.f. 0.26 acres 101.4 +/- l.f.
Lot 9 10,606 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,606 s.f. 0.24 acres 83.8 +/- l.f.
Lot 10 10,632 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,632 s.f. 0.24 acres 99.4 +/- l.f.
Lot 11 10,546 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,546 s.f. 0.24 acres 98.7 +/- l.f.
Lot 12 9,965 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 9,965 s.f. 0.23 acres 85.3 +/- l.f.
Lot 13 10,530 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,530 s.f. 0.24 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 14 10,530 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,530 s.f. 0.24 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 15 10,530 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,530 s.f. 0.24 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 16 10,530 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,530 s.f. 0.24 acres 81 +/- l.f.
Lot 17 12,481 s.f. 0.29 acres 0 s.f. 12,481 s.f. 0.29 acres 96 +/- l.f.
Total 371,286 s.f. 8.52 acres 0 s.f. 371,286 s.f. 8.52 acres
OUTLOT GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK
1 14,417 s.f. 0.33 acres 0 s.f. 14,417 s.f. 0.33 acres 0 +/- l.f.
2 686,961 s.f. 15.77 acres 0 s.f. 686,961 s.f. 15.77 acres 0 +/- l.f.
3 50,900 s.f. 1.17 acres 0 s.f. 50,900 s.f. 1.17 acres 0 +/- l.f.
4 32,677 s.f. 0.75 acres 0 s.f. 32,677 s.f. 0.75 acres 0 +/- l.f.
5 45,019 s.f. 1.03 acres 0 s.f. 45,019 s.f. 1.03 acres 0 +/- l.f.
6 262,419 s.f. 6.02 acres 0 s.f. 262,419 s.f. 6.02 acres 0 +/- l.f.
Total 2,184,786 s.f. 50.16 acres 0 s.f. 2,184,786 s.f. 50.16 acres
R/W GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK
473,313 s.f. 10.87 acres 0 s.f. 473,313 s.f. 10.87 acres 0 +/- l.f.
TOTAL GROSS AREA WETLAND
AREA NET AREA
4,730,142 s.f. 108.59 acres 0 s.f. 4,730,142 s.f. acres
- 11 –
9/5/2014
PAGE 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 4, 2014
To: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Re: Village Park Preserve
Cc: Nick Johnson, City Planner Preliminary Plat Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Village Park Preserve. A Preliminary Plan submittal was
received on August 27, 2014. The submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by Sathre‐
Bergquist, Inc.:
Village Park Preserve Site Plans, Preliminary Plat, and Preliminary Plans August 14, 2014.
Stormwater Management Plan, dated August 7, 2014.
STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering review comments are as outlined below.
AGENCY AND THIRD PARTY APPROVALS
The proposed drainage plan indicates the direct discharge of storm water runoff from the site to the
property to the south, including the installation of a storm sewer outfall pipe. The applicant must submit
written permission from the impacted property owner acknowledging and consenting to this discharge
location, volume and rate(s).
A permanent utility easement must be provided in the City standard easement form for the outfall storm
sewer pipe. The easement should be a condition of final plat approval.
The site plan is dependent upon and subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD
and City rules and regulations.
The City must receive written approvals from Washington County to verify the proposed work along
Manning Avenue.
The City must receive copies of the written approvals from Northern Natural Gas for the proposed utility
and trail crossings. Any conditions of approval must be provided.
Plan revisions are necessary to fully incorporate and comply with the Lake Elmo engineering design
standards.
Easement widths appear to provide the 30 foot minimum utility width. Additional easements and
amendments may be required as the plan continues to evolve through the process.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED
No phasing plan was submitted. A phasing plan must be submitted for staff review to verify feasibility of
working infrastructure at each phase.
Existing conditions are incomplete. The Plans do not provide existing conditions in sufficient detail to
allow staff to review the proposed grading and infrastructure as it relates to existing conditions at the Plat
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. 651.300.4283
PAGE 2 of 4
perimeters, including the storm sewer outfall pipe south of 30th Street and the existing watermain along
30th street.
Grading contours must be fully completed at all Plat perimeters.
Overland Emergency Overflows (EOFs) must be provided throughout the grading plan to facilitate a
complete review of the grading plan and storm water flood protection for storm water ponds and
localized low points.
Stormwater facility maintenance access roads are not shown on the plans.
GRADING PLAN
The grading plan is substantially complete however some contours remain incomplete near the plat
perimeter. All contours must be completed to demonstrate a drainage design that does not negatively
impact adjacent properties.
Additional plan review is necessary once EOFs are provided to review for adequate flood protection for
each adjacent lot. It appears that 8‐10 lots have low floor elevations that do not meet the 2 feet of
freeboard above the pond HWLs or 1 foot above an adjacent EOF.
The HWL for Infiltration Area 1SE encroaches into Lot 1, Block 1. The HWL area must be fully contained
within an Outlot dedicated to the City.
The HWL for Stormwater Pond 1SE encroaches into the 30th Street R/W. The HWL area must be fully
contained within an Outlot dedicated to the City and may not encroach the existing City R/W.
Maintenance access roads meeting City Standards must be provided to each Stormwater pond and
infiltration basin. Plan revisions are needed to provide adequate maintenance access to all storm water
facilities. Access must be accommodated without impacts to the proposed infiltration benches.
Stormwater Pond designs do not meet the City requirements, exceeding the maximum depth allowed of
10 feet. Additional design configuration concerns include maximum side slopes, maintenance of the
infiltration bench, narrow constrictions within the ponds, and long term water levels.
Additional catch basins are needed along Road 3 to meet maximum curb runs of 350 feet.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The site plan is dependent upon and subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD
and City 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 available on the City website.
The Stormwater model should be revised as documented in the attached EOR review memorandum and
the Stormwater facilities revised accordingly.
Adjust assumed CN runoff coefficients and account for on‐site depressional areas.
Provide additional supporting documentation for assumed infiltration rates and adjust to lower
rates as needed.
Provide additional documentation to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed new outlet and
lowering of the outlet invert along Manning Avenue.
Update the model to include turn lanes improvements.
Update water quality value in table.
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
Municipal water supply is available at the Reid Park lift station site and along 30th Street N. Connections to
both locations will be required and have been shown on the Preliminary Plans.
Watermain alignment will need to be revised as part of the final construction plans to better align within
the paved street surfaces.
Watermain stubs to adjacent property and pipe oversizing will continue to be reviewed by City staff as the
development progresses forward and oversizing routes may need to be changed as part of the final
PAGE 3 of 4
construction plans. Watermain oversizing is paid by the City as a reimbursement addressed within the
development agreement.
Hydrant and system valve locations will be reviewed with the Fire Chief and Public Works as part of the
final construction plans.
MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER
Municipal sanitary sewer is available at the Reid Park lift station site. The applicant is responsible to
extend the municipal sanitary sewer to the development site at developers cost.
To serve the property to the south, the invert at the 30th Street location must be at 905. This is required
to remain responsive to future private ISTS system failures.
A review of alternative sewer alignments and pipe oversizing was previously completed by City staff and
provided to the applicant for input. The preliminary plans show a pipe configuration that is not consistent
with the staff plan recommendation.
Additional manholes will need to be incorporated in the plans to improve the street centerline alignment
for the sanitary sewer and allow watermain at a 10 foot offset to remain within the paved street surface.
Sanitary sewer pipe stubs to adjacent property and pipe oversizing will continue to be reviewed by City
staff as the development progresses forward. Revisions may need to be incorporated as part of the final
construction plans. Sewer pipe oversizing has been accounted for through the Village East Trunk Sanitary
Sewer project. Therefore, the sewer pipe oversizing must be installed at no cost to the City.
RESIDENTIAL STREETS
All streets must be designed to meet the City’s Engineering Design Standards including R/W width, street
width and cul‐de‐sac radii. The plans appear to substantially conform to this requirement.
The street grades and profiles must be adjusted to meet the minimum K‐value of 37 for vertical sag
curves.
The eyebrow designs for Roads 5, 6 and 7 propose a unique design. The roadway geometry requires
additional review to ensure adequate pavement width and turning radius for emergency and
maintenance vehicles. Turning templates must be submitted.
The geometry for Road 5 requires particular attention to avoid conflicts along the higher volume roadway
of Village Parkway. Road 5 should be shifter further north to align the south curb with Road 2. This would
provide additional southbound left turn lane length for Village Parkway.
VILLAGE PARKWAY (NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR STREET)
Village Parkway will serve as a neighborhood collector for the new development in the southeastern
Village area, essentially becoming the primary access in and out of the future neighborhoods. Obtaining
increased mobility from a typical residential street will be necessary to accommodate the new growth
while providing additional access and circulation into and out of the Village Downtown. Between State
Highway 5 and the UP Railroad, Village Parkway will provide parking along one or both sides of the street
to accommodate the mixed use development planned for the west side of the collector road. South of the
UP Railroad the street will be posted as “No Parking”.
Village Parkway must be constructed according to the Village Parkway design standards and typical
section as prepared by City staff. The street design must also meet Municipal State Aid design standards
for an urban collector with ADT < 10,000; 35 mph design speed. The projected 2030 ADT is 5,800. The City
typical section must be placed on the Preliminary Street Plans.
The access management guidelines for Village Parkway must be established by the City and carefully
planned out along its entire corridor from 30th Street to State Highway 5. Road 5 has been placed roughly
300 feet from 30th Street. A 330 foot access spacing is recommended. The additional 30 feet would help to
provide additional turn lane length along Village Parkway.
Right and left turn lanes are required along 30th Street when the Village Parkway intersection is
constructed. The Preliminary Plans should be revised to provide a turn lane Plan Sheet to detail the turn
PAGE 4 of 4
lane dimensions, including pavement widths, lane widths, turn lane lengths and tapers for staff review. It
appears that the proposed turn lanes will need to be lengthened to meet typical turn lane design
standards.
The street grades and profiles must be adjusted along Village Parkway to meet the minimum K‐value of 49
for vertical sag curves and minimum K‐value of 29 for vertical crest curves. In addition, street grade
changes along Village Parkway should be minimized and softened (not using minimum standards with
every adjustment). The proposed profile must be revised to reduce the vertical curves to avoid a roller
coaster effect along this high volume roadway. Street alignment transitions must be revised to rely on
minimums only when necessary.
The minimum horizontal curve radius for Village Parkway is 375 feet. C1 is currently proposed with a 250
foot radius.
651 Hale Avenue North Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 telephone: 651.770.8448 facsimile: 651.770.2552 www.eorinc.com
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. water | ecology | community
memo
Date | 9/3/2014
To | Jack Griffin Contact info |Lake Elmo
cc | Contact info |
cc | Contact info |
From | Brett H. Emmons, Jay Hill Contact info |EOR
Contact info |
Regarding | Lake Elmo, Village Park Preserve Development – Respond to City’s List of
Stormwater Review Issues
The information in these review comments are based on review of the following stormwater
issues, per the city’s request:
Stormwater model input assumptions.
Upstream runoff properly accounted for, including the pond discharge from Easton
Village.
Stormwater routing management is a workable plan for the area. The system must be able
to accommodate the Downtown Village drainage.
Flood protection (HWLs and Emergency overflows), including recommendations.
Pond configurations and depths from the city’s long term ownership and maintenance
perspective (i.e. the deep storm water pond along Manning).
Documents submitted for the development review include:
Preliminary Plan Set for Street, Utility, Grading, Landscape, and Drainage Area Plans, by
Sathre-Bergquist, dated 8/8/14
Stormwater Management Plan including 3 soil borings, by Sathre-Bergquist, dated 8/7/14
Stormwater Management and Stormwater BMPs:
1. CN and Runoff Assumptions – Proposed existing conditions (predevelopment) CNs
appear too high and on-site depressional storage is not accounted for, thus providing a
less conservative standard/target for their postdevelopment design.
Discussion: Predevelopment CNs are listed at 69 for agricultural areas (compared to
post-development CNs of 74). The CN of 69 for existing conditions is high for the low
runoff character of the existing lands. Also, observed runoff during rain events indicates
that there is not much runoff until large events are experienced and/or snowmelt.
Assuming higher predevelopment CNs leads to less conservative assumptions and
reduced standards for peak rate control. For example, note that compacted yard/urban
lawns are listed as CN 61 in post-development (much lower than existing CN of 69).
Typically we would require a CN of 58 for predevelopment conditions to ensure
memo
2 of 4
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
651 Hale Ave N, Oakdale, MN 55128 p: 651.770.8448 f: 651.770.2552 www.eorinc.com
conservative assumptions for hydrologic routing and flood control. Areas in the model
subcatchments for the open water pond with CNs of 100 do not appear in the model and
should be included. On-site depressional storage is not accounted for in existing
conditions and should be included.
2. Infiltration Assumptions – The assumed infiltration rate of 0.5 in/hr may be too high and
is inconsistently applied and presented in the report and models.
Discussion: The assumed infiltration rates do not appear to be consistent between the
models (HydroCAD and P8) and the narrative (Report Summary) of the Stormwater
Management Plan. The narrative mentions using 0.5 in/hr in one pond, #1SE (only pond
where infiltration bench is shown), and states this rate is assumed as a “conservative”
rate. The P8 model uses 1.0 in/hr instead of 0.5 in/hr. The HydroCAD modeling has
infiltration in all the ponds in the development instead of just pond #1SE. The rate of 0.5
in/hr is not very conservative especially for the soils in the upper 24 ft – 29 ft (boring ST-
2 and ST-3, within the basin). Water table readings indicate a high water table may exist,
although the readings between borings are inconsistent (possibly perched system). There
is one (1) point infiltration testing result showing 4.32 in/hr. One reading alone is not
sufficient for accurate infiltration estimating nor is it good practice (more samples are
needed) and the infiltration method and results need additional review.
3. Stormwater Routing Using New Outlet – The new outlet is lower than the existing outlet
under 30th St., but it is not clear what the downstream elevations and capacities are to
ensure the new outlet is feasible, nor are details of the connection given.
Discussion: The most downstream pond and one influencing HWLs on the other
development ponds is pond 1SE. Pond 1SE has a listed NWL of 911.0, which is almost
two feet below the existing culvert invert of 912.8 under 30th St. Details are needed on
the new outlet for pond 1SE shown in the southeast corner (invert, size, type of pipe,
permissions off-site, downstream conveyance elevations and capacity, etc.). No tailwater
is used in the model for pond 1SE and this assumption should be verified. Provide
information on the downstream conveyance to ensure that elevation and capacity exists
for the proposed flows (186 or 331 cfs-? for 100-yr rainfall event) and associated
calculated HWLs.
4. Stormwater Modeling – The information provided in the summary and modeling are
inconsistent and details on where the upstream flow values originate from are lacking,
making evaluation of flow routing difficult.
Discussion: The model should be updated to better represent what is happening
hydrologically in the system. Provide information on where the Existing Conditions peak
flow rates come from and how they were derived. Comparing proposed peak flow rates
to existing conditions is difficult without context on the existing flow rates – and the
capacity of the system downstream to convey that flow. Show how and where upstream
flows (2-yr 100 cfs, 10-yr 172 cfs, and 100-yr 331 cfs per Report Summary) will come
into the site. Which values for incoming flows is correct, the Runoff Comparison table or
the HydroCAD modeling, since they are factor of ~2X different (e.g., table 2-yr = 100
cfs, model 2-yr = 54 cfs)? The only inlet to pond 1SE is a 15” storm sewer in the
northeast corner. Pipe size and inverts need to be shown for the proposed new outlet for
pond 1SE (the regional flow path). Pipe sizes and inverts should also be labeled on the
memo
3 of 4
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
651 Hale Ave N, Oakdale, MN 55128 p: 651.770.8448 f: 651.770.2552 www.eorinc.com
grading plans. As noted above, no tailwater is shown in the model for pond 1SE and this
assumption should be verified with downstream information.
5. Include Associated Improvements – Accounting for localized road improvements are not
included.
Discussion: If there are road improvements planned (development-specific) on city or
county roads for access to the development (e.g., turn lanes, by-pass lanes, etc.), that
additional runoff should also be accounted for in the analysis and sizing.
6. Flood protection – Surface Emergency Overflows (EOFs) are not shown or provided
below critical building/home elevations.
Discussion: All building lowest floors should be 2 feet above the 100-yr high water level
or 1 foot above the overland emergency overflows (EOFs), whichever is greater. Show
all EOFs on the plans and show the potential inundated areas if the pipes were blocked,
since it appears many of the home elevations do not satisfy 1 foot above the emergency
overflow. Emergency overflows should be provided for all low points and ponds. The
lowest building opening should be set at a minimum of 1’ above the EOF. The
preference is to adjust some of the grading to provide an overland overflow, but as an
alternative we would consider installing a secondary (separate) EOF pipe from the ponds.
The pipe would be set at or slightly higher than the HWL of the pond and should be sized
adequately large enough to be considered non-clogging (36” minimum). Street low
points should have an EOF that limits ponding/flooding depth to a maximum of 2’ in
order to allow emergency access to all properties. With EOFs issue addressed, there are
still proposed homes with their lowest floor not meeting the 100-yr HWL + 2’ freeboard
standard, including: Block 1 lot 1; Block 7 lot 1; and Block 8 lots 1, 15, 16, 17.
7. Pond Configurations – Various aspects of pond configurations (maintenance access and
relation to infiltration bench, infiltration design, and narrow portion for conveyance) need
to be addressed and could impact future city maintenance.
Discussion: Pond access for maintenance (20’ minimum width and maximum grade of
10%) should be shown for all facilities including access to inlet and outlet structures on
the grading plans. For pond 1SE with the infiltration bench, how would access and
maintenance be accomplished without impacting or destroying the infiltration BMP?
Provide infiltration bench and infiltration area construction details for how the BMPs will
connect to porous materials at depth. There is a narrow, shallow spot in pond1SE, which
conveys regional flows, that could be susceptible to filling with cattails and obstructing
flow and should be modified to avoid a restriction. Pond configuration should be
reviewed by a city maintenance staff.
8. Pond Water Depths and Long-Term Levels – Pond depths exceed the city standard of 10’
maximum and uncertainty about water levels in pond 1SE along Manning Ave. raise
some concerns.
Discussion: Details on the pond configuration and construction are needed before the
ponds can be accepted. Ponds 1SE and 2SE are proposed to be 13’ and 12’ deep
respectively, exceeding the maximum depth of 10’ and should be reduced. A water
budget should be performed for pond 1SE to determine if the proposed water levels will
be acceptable for the city (safety, maintenance, aesthetics, etc.).
memo
4 of 4
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
651 Hale Ave N, Oakdale, MN 55128 p: 651.770.8448 f: 651.770.2552 www.eorinc.com
9. Pond Side Slopes – Review pond side slopes for maintenance.
Discussion: State the maximum slopes on ponds, specifically 1SE, on the grading plans.
Notes on sheet GP1 mention maximum of 4:1 slopes, but grading plans appear steeper
than that. Slopes greater than 3:1 typically are not allowed, and depending on where
water levels stabilize, this also impacts the appropriate slopes and where 10:1 safety
benches are appropriate.
10. Spring Runoff – Review if spring snowmelt would impact the design.
Discussion: Depending on the final configuration of the regional flow system, determine
if a spring snowmelt critical event should be evaluated in the design.
11. Drawdown Time – Demonstrate 48 hour drawdown is accomplished with regional flows.
Discussion: Provide draw down time analysis in the infiltration basins. The drawdown
requirement is 48 hours. These facilities appear to be on-line and would be subject to the
regional flows from upstream, potentially impacting the draw down time.
12. Water Quality Report – Correct water quality value in table.
Discussion: The Stormwater Report table Provided TP Removal Efficiencies (%) lists a
value of 97.9% removal of TP which does not appear to match the model output so it
should be updated.
13. Landscaping Plan – The provided landscape plan is incomplete for infiltration areas.
Discussion: Provide landscaping plan and details for the infiltration areas. Seeding only
of infiltration areas should be avoided; use at least 50% coverage of plugs for the
plantings to enhance establishment. An alternative to seed mix 250, with invasive
species such as smooth brome, should be used, except possibly in roadside areas.
Other Considerations:
14. The VBWD should quantify and address the downstream flooding and/or water quality
implications of the proposed development and increased runoff.
15. Coordination with VBWD on maximum bounce in the infiltration BMPs should be
addressed since pond and infiltration area 1SE show a bounce of 4.5 feet for 100-yr
event, exceeding VBWD’s maximum bounce of 1.5 feet.
16. Erosion and sediment control, once planning/design approach has been finalized, should
be reviewed for protection of ponding and infiltration areas and downstream areas.
Not all aspects of the submittal were reviewed. Additional items may arise as final design is
reviewed. Please let us know if you have questions regarding the comments.
2350 BAYLESS PLACE• ST. PAUL, MN • 55114
PHONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LAN D ARCINC.COM
VILLAGE PARK PRESERVE (PARCEL E) DESIGN REVIEW REPORT
LAKE ELMO, MN
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW DATED SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2014 REVIEWED PLAN SET DATED AUGUST 8TH, 2014 Required Action Items by Village Park Preserve Project Landscape Architect 1. Provide your calculations for street frontage trees on sheet LP1. 2. Please represent planting areas within centers of Cul-de-sacs. 3. Provide temporary and permanent groundcover vegetation utilizing 100% native landscape plants for all lots, commonly held HOA & City R.O.W. areas with the exception of the areas noted to be sodded, irrigated and managed as traditional turf bed areas. Suggested native cover for proposed home lots could be Little Bluestem with the addition of some (10+ species) native wildflowers depending on aesthetic look desired (all blue flowers, mix of flowering times, etc…). Suggested permanent native cover should provide the most appropriate ecologically correct mixes. A suggested example would be to reference the seed mixes offered by MN Native Landscapes (http://www.mnnativelandscapes.com/). Please provide the appropriate mix for each specific proposed landscape situation. For example the short dry upland mix for a non-irrigated upland outlot area where shorter grasses are desired adjacent to paths or streets. 4. Provide landscape irrigation plans for all commonly held HOA & City R.O.W. areas. 5. We would encourage the use of some native understory shrubs & flowering trees (clump or single stem) to add aesthetic interest and promote pollinator & wildlife food/habitat. Also, other native trees such as quaking aspen and tamarack would also be encouraged in a variety of sizes to replicate a natural planting pattern.
SINCERELY,
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC.
STEPHEN MASTEY, ASLA, CLARB, LEED AP BD+C
DIRECTOR OF DESIGN
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
REGULAR
ITEM# 19
AGENDA ITEM: Hunter’s Crossing – Final Plat (Phase 1)
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Nick Johnson, City Planner
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director
- Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: The Planning Commission is recommending that the City
Council approve a final plat request from The Ryland Group for the first phase of a planned 55
unit residential development to be located on 23.1 acres immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue approximately ¼ mile north of Interstate 94. The final plat will include 22 single-family lots
located within the northern portion of the subdivision.
The Planning Commission considered the final plat at its September 8, 2014 meeting and a
summary of the Commission’s report and recommendation are included below.
FISCAL IMPACT: TBD – the City will be asked to review a developer’s agreement
concerning the final plat at an upcoming meeting. The agreement will include a detailed
accounting of any development costs that will be the responsibility of the developer and/or the
City. Ryland has committed to paying the Water Availability Charge (WAC) for the entire development before the final plat is recorded with the County.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a
final plat request from Ryland Homes for approval of a final plat for the first phase of the
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 19]
September 16, 2014
Hunter’s Crossing residential development. The final plat includes 22 single-family residential
lots, and the related construction plans for the improvements necessary to serve these homes.
The City Council approved the Hunter’s Crossing Preliminary Plat on July 1, 2014, which
covered approximately 23 acres of land within the I-94 Corridor planning area. There are 55 single-family residential units planned within the entire subdivision, and the final plat covers
approximately half of the overall total of units that will eventually be platted.
The Planning Commission considered this matter at its September 8, 2014 meeting and
recommended approval of the final plat as presented and subject to conditions of approval.
The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-75 approving the final plat for Savona”
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The attached Staff
report to the Planning Commission includes detailed information concerning the final plat in
addition to the staff review and analysis of the request. The preliminary plat was approved by
the City Council on July 1, 2014, and this approval included a series of conditions that must be
met by the applicant. Included in the Staff analysis is a line-by-line review of the conditions attached to the preliminary plat.
The Planning Commission considered the proposed final plat at its September 8, 2014 meeting
and recommended approval with one additional condition of approval to more clearly describe
the City’s requirement for a temporary access easement into the site. The additional conditions is recommended as follows:
• The final plat shall include an access easement, in a location deemed satisfactory by the
City Engineer, across the temporary access road into the subdivision. The Commission generally discussed the issues associated with future construction of the 5th
Street minor collector road and the applicant’s plans for a homeowner’s association within the
subdivision. The Commission also recommended that the findings be updated to reflect that
compliance with certain issues identified by Staff in its written report to the Planning Commission were necessary for the plat to comply with all applicable City standards and ordinances.
The Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval of the final plat consistent
with the findings as noted in the attached Resolution No. 2014-075 and including all conditions of approval as listed in the resolution. The vote on the motion was unanimous (7 ayes, 0 nays). The Commission did state as part of its discussion that it expected the applicant to update the
final landscaping plan to address the comments from the City’s landscape architect consultant.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT):
-- page 2 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 19]
September 16, 2014
Strengths • The proposed plat is consistent with preliminary plat subject to
the conditions being recommended by Staff and the Planning
Commission.
Weaknesses • Several conditions of approval must be met by the applicant,
including revisions to the final construction plans to address
comments from the City Engineer.
Opportunities • The plat includes the City’s first sanitary sewer connections into the Cottage Grove Sewer Interceptor.
• The plat will connect to the water main presently being
constructed by the City within Lake Elmo Avenue.
Threats • In order to complete 5th Street, the adjacent property owner or City will need to bring a project forward. No adjacent property
will be able to develop without constructing the northern half of
5th Street in this area.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the City Council approve the final plat for Hunter’s Crossing with 12 conditions of approval. The
suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-075 approving the final plat for Hunter’s Crossing”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 2014-75
2. Planning Commission Staff Report – 9/8/14
3. Application Form
4. Application Narrative 5. Lot Information Summary
6. Tree Inventory
7. City Engineer Review Letter
8. Landscape Architecture Review Letter
9. Washington County Review Comments 10. Valley Branch Watershed District Permit
11. Fire Department Review Comments
12. Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat
13. Construction Plans: Final Grading Plan
14. Construction Plans: Utility and Street Construction 15. Final Landscape Plans
-- page 3 --
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-75
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT FOR HUNTER’S CROSSING
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, The Ryland Group, 7599 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie, MN (Applicant)
has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (City) for a Final Plat for Hunter’s
Crossing, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23,
2014 to consider the Hunter’s Crossing Preliminary Plat; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission submitted its report and
recommendation concerning the Preliminary Plat as part of a memorandum to the City Council
for the July 1, 2014 City Council Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Preliminary Plat request at its July 1, 2014
meeting and adopted Resolution No. 2014-053 approving the Preliminary Plat; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission met on September 8, 2014 to review
the Final Plat for Hunter’s Crossing consisting of 22 single-family detached residential lots; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2014 the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a
motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Final Plat for Hunter’s Crossing with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and the Final Plat for Hunter’s Crossing at a meeting held on September 16, 2014; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the testimony elicited and information received, the
City Council makes the following:
FINDINGS
1) That the procedure for obtaining approval of said Final Plat is found in the Lake Elmo City
Code, Section 153.08.
2) That all the requirements of said City Code Section 153.07 related to the Final Plan and Final Plat have been met by the Applicant.
1
Resolution No. 2014-75
3) That the proposed Final Plat for Hunter’s Crossing consists of the creation of 22 single-
family detached residential structures.
4) That the Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat and Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on July 1, 2014.
5) That the Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan
and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
6) That the Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat complies with the City’s Urban Low Density
Residential zoning district regulations.
7) That the Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat complies with all other applicable zoning requirements,
including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control and other ordinances with the exception of issues identified in the September 8, 2014 Staff report to the
Planning Commission.
8) That the Savona Final Plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
9) That the Savona preliminary plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards with the
plan revisions as requested by the City Engineer in his review comments to the City dated
September 3, 2014.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve
the Final Plat for Hunter’s Crossing subject to the following conditions:
1) Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, utility plans, sanitary and storm water management plans, and street and utility construction plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to the recording of the Final Plat. All changes and
modifications to the plans requested by the City Engineer in review memo dated 9/3/14
shall be incorporated into these documents before they are approved.
2) The developer shall provide evidence in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney that
warrants it has fee interest in area included in the Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat.
3) Prior to the execution of the Final Plat by City officials, the Developer shall enter into a
Developer’s Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Council that delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of
the required improvements with financial guarantees therefore.
4) All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works Department shall be
documented on the Final Plat prior to the execution of the final plat by City Officials.
5) The final plat shall include an access easement, in a location deemed satisfactory by the
City Engineer, across the temporary access road into the subdivision.
2
Resolution No. 2014-75
6) A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of
Hunter’s Crossing and establishing a homeowner’s association shall be submitted in final
form to the Community Development Director before a building permit may be issued for
any structure within this subdivision. The applicant shall also 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
7) The final landscape plan shall be updated to address the comments from the City’s
consulting landscape architect in a review letter to the City dated 9/5/14.
8) The developer shall provide written authorization from the property owner to the east of
Hunter’s Crossing to allow the proposed drainage improvements and discharge of storm
water on to their property. A utility easement across the affected property is one option
for compliance with this condition.
9) The final construction plans for any additional final plat within Hunter’s Crossing shall
include, at a minimum, the southern portion of 5th Street. At this time these plans are
prepared they shall include the construction of all improvements within the Lake Elmo
Avenue (CSAH 17) right-of-way as required by Washington County and further described in the review letter received from the County dated September 2, 2014.
10) The developer is encouraged to incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study
into the final design of the community mailboxes within Hunter’s Crossing.
11) The developer shall pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication equivalent to the fair market value for the amount of land that is required to be dedicated for such purposes in the
City's Subdivision Ordinance less the amount of land that is accepted for park purposes
(or trails) by the City. Any cash payment in lieu of land dedication shall be pro-rated
based on the percentage of the overall lots to be platted within the subdivision and shall be paid by the applicant prior to the release of the final plat for recording.
12) The applicant shall deed Outlots A, B, and E to the City upon recording of the final plat.
Passed and duly adopted this 16th day of September 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
__________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Adam Bell, City Clerk
3
Resolution No. 2014-75
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 9/8/14
AGENDA ITEM: 5C – BUSINESS ITEM
CASE # 2014-46
ITEM: Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a Final Plat request from The Ryland Group for the first phase of a planned 51 unit residential development to be called Hunter’s Crossing. The
proposed subdivision will be located on 23.10 acres immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue and
approximately ¼ mile north of Interstate 94. The final plat includes 22 single-family lots located
within the northern portion of the overall subdivision area. Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions listed in this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: The Ryland Group (Tracey Rust), 7599 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie, MN
Property Owners: Nathan Landucci, 404 Lake Elmo Avenue North, Lake Elmo, MN
Location: Part of Section 36 in Lake Elmo, north of I-94, east of Lake Elmo Avenue, and south of the Cimarron Golf Course property. South of 404 Lake Elmo Avenue North. PID Number 36.029.21.32.0008
Request: Application for final plat approval of a 22 unit residential subdivision to be
named Hunter’s Crossing.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Golf driving range and instruction and practice facility, including small nine-hole practice course. Current Zoning: LDR – Low Density Residential
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North – vacant land and Cimarron Manufactured Home Park;
East – Trans-City industrial building; West – The Forest residential subdivision; South – currently vacant/agricultural but future site of proposed Air Lake Development business park;
also two existing home sites located adjacent to development
along Lake Elmo Avenue
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 – 3.99 units per acre)
History: Sketch Plan reviewed by Planning Commission on 9/23/13. The site has historically
been used for a golf driving range and practice facility. The City approved a
Conditional Use Permit for the driving range in 1990, and this permit, which is still
BUSINESS ITEM 5C
2
active, has been amended at least twice since this date. At some point in the past, the
home in the extreme northwestern portion of the site (and outside the area to be
platted) was split off from the larger parcel. The preliminary plat was approved by
the City Council on July 1, 2014.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 8/8/14 60 Day Deadline – 10/8/14
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 12/8/14
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (LDR)
§150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment Control
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from The Ryland Group for final plat approval of the initial phase of the Hunter’s Crossing residential subdivision. The area to be platted represents approximately half of the lots that were approved with the preliminary plat, and will include 22
single-family lots, outlots for storm water management facilities, and a larger outlot to be platted as
part of the second addition. The City approved the Hunter’s Crossing Preliminary Plat on July 1,
2014, and the final plat represents the northern portion of the overall area to be subdivided. The applicant has provided a detailed project narrative (attached) that provides summary of the request
with information updated from the preliminary plat review where appropriate.
Hunter’s Crossing will be located along the planned 5th Street minor collector route, and the
preliminary plat indicated that the sole access into the development would be located off of 5th Street. One of the unique aspects of this project is that the planned location of 5th Street along the northern property line of the subdivision straddles the property line between the applicant’s site and the
adjacent property to the north. At this time, there has been no agreement reached between these two
property owners to build 5th Street as a private improvement, therefore, the applicant is proposing to
construct the southern half of this road as part of Hunter’s Crossing, while leaving the northern portion to be constructed either when the northern property develops or when and if the City decides
to complete this road as a public improvement project.
The final construction documents do include plans for 5th Street, but these plans note that it will be
built as a future City project. Based on recent conversations with the City, the applicant has agreed to build the southern half of the road as noted above, but is proposing to complete this work as part of the second addition. This proposed phasing plan would result on the construction of a road of
sufficient width to allow two-way traffic, but that would later be expanded to the City’s full
specifications for the road with one-lane of travel in each direction with turn lanes at full intersections. Because the applicant’s portion of 5th Street would not be constructed until the second phase of the project, the applicant is proposing to use the existing access to the site as a temporary
access for the first addition. The City’s preliminary plat approval authorized the use of this
temporary access to serve up to 25 lots, which falls within the number being proposed for the final
plat. Washington County will also allow the temporary access provided this access is eliminated once 5th Street is in place.
There are a few issues that the City is working to address concerning the construction of 5th Street in
two phases, and most importantly, is asking the applicant and northern property owner to enter into
BUSINESS ITEM 5C
3
an agreement to identify an area to handle storm water runoff from the road. The City will otherwise
maintain control over the future platting in this area so that no further platting will be allowed either
on the applicant’s property or on the site to the north without at least half of the road being
completed. As part of the planned improvements for 5th Street, the applicant will need to comply with the comments from Washington County, and will need to incorporate improvements to Lake Elmo Avenue as part of this work.
Consistent with the approved preliminary plat, the final plat does not include two exception parcels
along Lake Elmo Avenue, both of which will be provided with potential future connections to the
streets internal to Hunter’s Crossing. As depicted in the attached plans, the northeast exception parcel will have access to 4th Street via Outlot B; access to the other exception parcel will be platted
as part of the second addition. In both cases, these parcels will still be allowed to access Lake Elmo
Avenue until they are redeveloped at some point in the future (both are guided for Medium Density
Residential development).
The applicant has provided an updated landscape plan with all of the other required plans, and this
plan has been reviewed by the City’s consulting landscape architect. In his review he notes that the
applicant will need to either provide more trees with the project or increase the size of the ones that
have been proposed. These changes will be fairly straight forward to make as the developer prepares final revisions to the construction plans. In terms of public park land dedication, the preliminary plat was approved without a specific land dedication, and instead, the developer is expected to pay a fee
in lieu of land dedication. Consistent with recent City approvals, the applicant may request a
reduction in these fees in exchange for the construction of public trails within the project.
Please note that the grading and utility plans do cover the entire preliminary plat area, and that the developer will be mass grading the entire site as part of these plans. The other street and utility plans
also depict the entire site, and the City Engineer has asked for further clarification concerning which
aspects of these plans will be constructed as part of the phase one improvements. The applicant has
submitted detailed construction plans for related to sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, grading, drainage, erosion control, landscaping, and other details that have been reviewed by the City Engineer.
The City’s subdivision ordinance establishes the procedure for obtaining final subdivision approval,
in which case a final plat may only be reviewed after the City takes action on a preliminary plat. As
long as the final plat is consistent with the preliminary approval, it must be approved by the City. Please note that the City’s approval of the Hunter’s Crossing Preliminary Plat did include a series of conditions that must be met by the applicant, which are addressed in the “Review and Analysis”
section below. There are no public hearing requirements for a final plat.
The City’s zoning map for all of the area included in the preliminary plat for Hunter’s Crossing has previously been updated to be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. All of the site is zone LDR – Urban Low Density Residential, and the proposed lots, setbacks, streets, and other plan
elements have been found to be consistent with the LDR district requirements.
Staff has reviewed the final plat and found that it is consistent with the preliminary plat that was approved by the City. Please note that the final plat now includes proposed street names as recommended by the Planning Department. The City Engineer, Landscape Architect, and County
Engineer have reviewed the final plat, and these comments are attached to this report. Although
there are some additional revisions to the final construction plans that will need to be addressed by
the applicant, the majority of these revisions can be made before the City releases the final plat for recording.
BUSINESS ITEM 5C
4
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The preliminary plat for Hunter’s Crossing was approved with several conditions, which are
indicated below along with Staff’s comments on the status of each. The applicant has also provided
a response to these conditions as part of the attached application narrative. Staff is recommending
approval of the final plat with conditions intended to address the outstanding issues that will require additional review and/or documentation. In order to assist the Planning Commission with its review, Staff is also including a summary the critical issues that need to be resolved for the subdivision to
move forward.
Critical Issues Summary:
1) The developer is proposing to construct half of 5th Street with their project, leaving the northern half to be constructed by another private party or of the City in the future. Staff has
agreed that this is be best option for moving forward with development in this area given the
unique site ownership and property boundaries that exist around the applicant’s site. There is
minimal risk to the City in taking this approach since it will be relatively straight-forward to demonstrate benefit to the northern property owner if the City decides to build the road and asses the costs back to the abutting property owner.
2) 5th Street will be constructed with the second addition, at which time the applicant will need
to prepare plans for the southern portion of this road that comply with City standards and also comply with Washington County requirements for the intersection of 5th Street and Lake
Elmo Avenue. The City is working with both the applicant and property owner to the north
to secure an agreement concerning the storm water facilities needed to build the road. This
agreement will be completed prior to a final plat for second addition. 3) The applicant will need to secure an easement from the property owner to the east related to
storm water discharge in the southwest portion of the site. This property owner has not
objected to the proposed easement, and this is an issue that can be finalized prior to release of the final plat for recording.
4) All other recommended conditions of approval relate to final details that must be addressed
by the applicant and can be handled prior to release of the final plat for recording.
Preliminary Plat Conditions – With Staff Update Comments (updated information in bold italics):
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; and b) the
applicant shall pay all fees associated with the preliminary plat. 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. Comments: a) all title work will need to be submitted and reviewed
by the City Attorney before City officials sign the final plat; b) the applicant has submitted an
escrow payment related to the preliminary plat application that is being used to cover Staff and consultant expenses related to the City’s review. 2) The landscape plan and tree preservation plan shall be reviewed and approved by an independent
forester or landscape architect in advance of the approval of a final plat and final construction
plans. Comment: the plans have been reviewed by the City’s landscape architecture consultant
BUSINESS ITEM 5C
5
and his review is included as an attachment to this report. The applicant will need to further revise the landscape plan to comply with the City’s landscape ordinance by either adding more
trees or increasing the size of the proposed trees. Staff has found that the proposed plan is generally acceptable and complies with the City’s expectations and requirements for street trees, and screening and buffering of adjacent properties. This is an issue that can be resolved through further discussions between the City and developer.
3) The final landscape plan shall incorporate additional planting where feasible adjacent to the
shared property lines with the parcels at 404 and 275 Lake Elmo Avenue North. Comments: The final landscape plan includes additional plantings along the southwestern property boundary.
The number of plantings along the northwestern property boundary is similar to the
preliminary plat; however, the location of the future access in this location (Outlot B) limits the developer’s ability to add substantially more plantings along this boundary.
4) The applicant shall be responsible for updating the final construction plans to include the
construction of all improvements within the Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) right-of-way as
required by Washington County and further described in the review letter received from the County dated June 17, 2014. The required improvements shall include, but not be limited to the construction of a northbound right turn lane and southbound center tum lane. Comments:
Because the plans for 5th Street will be more fully developed as part of the second addition, this
condition will be revised to note the most recent County review comments and to further clarify that the Lake Elmo Avenue improvements will be constructed with the 5th Street project in the future.
5) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland
Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site. Comments: The applicant has received a permit from the Valley Branch Watershed District
(attached) for the grading work proposed in the final plans. This permit includes conditions that must be met prior to the commencement of any grading work on the site. 6) 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. Comments: The applicant has indicated that there will be
a homeowner’s association created for this development; the declarations and HOA documents should be recorded with the final plat. A maintenance agreement and evidence that the HOA has been established should be retained as a condition of approval for the final
plat.
7) The developer shall be required to pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication equivalent to the fair market value for the amount of land that is required to be dedicated for such purposes in the
City's Subdivision Ordinance less the amount of land that is accepted for park purposes by the
City. Any cash payment in lieu of land dedication shall be paid by the applicant prior to the
release of the final plat for recording. Comments: The applicant will be required to pay the required fee in lieu of land dedication to recording the final plat. Because the project is being split into at least two final plats, the park fees will be pro-rated based on the percentage of lots
being platted within the overall development.
BUSINESS ITEM 5C
6
8) Any land under which paved public trails are located will be accepted as park land provided the
developer constructs said paved trails as part of the public improvements for the subdivision.
Comments: Staff is recommending that this condition be merged with the above condition for the final plat. 9) The temporary access to Lake Elmo A venue must be eliminated when access to 5th Street is
provided. The City will not issue building permits for more than 25 lots within Hunter's Crossing
until such time that the temporary access is closed. Comments: this condition will allow the
developer to plat the requested 22 homes as part of the first edition before 5th Street is constructed. Only three additional lots may be platted and built upon before 5th Street is
constructed.
10) 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. Comments: the applicant is seeking
approval to commence grading consistent with this condition; the City will likely be issuing a permit for this work prior to the City Council action on the final plat.
11) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review letter dated
May 23, 2014 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to consideration of a final plat.
Comments: Revised plans have been submitted for review, and the attached comments from the City Engineer provide a response to the updated plans. All final revisions and
modifications as requested by the City Engineer must be addressed by the applicant before the
plat will be released for recording. The majority of the Engineer’s comments will require minor modifications to the plans and specifications and are not unusual at this detailed level of review.
12) The applicant is encouraged to preserve or re-use as many trees as possible that are currently
located on the property and to incorporate these trees as part of the landscape plan for the
subdivision. Comments: Given the tight confines of the project area and the need to meet City and watershed district storm water requirements, there are relatively few opportunities to incorporate existing trees into the development. The applicant has stated that they will
preserve or re-use trees if possible. 13) The applicant shall provide written consent from the adjacent property owner to the north agreeing to the grading and storm sewer work depicted on this property. Comments: The
applicant has stated that they will work with this property owner if any grading is necessary to
construct the 5th Street improvements. The City is also working to complete a separate agreement with these property owners to address this issue.
14) Water improvements must be available to serve the subdivision. Comments: The City Council
has ordered these improvements as part of the Lake Elmo Avenue water project, which satisfies this condition. Ryland has agreed to pay the Water Availability Charge for the entire development prior to recording the final plat.
15) The applicant shall pay a Water Availability Charge consistent with the Lake Elmo Fee Schedule
for the entire development prior to the release of the final plat for recording, regardless of project
phasing. Comments: Please see note above.
BUSINESS ITEM 5C
7
Staff is recommending that the conditions noted above that pertain to the final plat and that have not
yet been addressed by the applicant should be adopted with the final plat. The City Engineer’s
review letter does identify several issues that need to be addressed by the developer in order for the
City to deem the final plans complete; however, all of these concerns are related to the construction plans and should not have any bearing on the final plat. Staff is recommending that City Officials not sign the final plat mylars until the City’s construction plan review is finalized and all necessary
easements are documented on the final plat.
Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the final plat with
several conditions intended to address the outstanding issues noted above and to further clarify the City’s expectations in order for the developer to proceed with the recording of the final plat.
The recommended conditions are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, utility plans, sanitary and storm water management plans, and street and utility construction plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Engineer prior to the recording of the Final Plat. All changes and modifications
to the plans requested by the City Engineer in review memo dated 9/3/14 shall be
incorporated into these documents before they are approved. 2) The developer shall provide evidence in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney that warrants
it has fee interest in area included in the Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat.
3) Prior to the execution of the Final Plat by City officials, the Developer shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Council
that delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of the required
improvements with financial guarantees therefore.
4) All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works Department shall be documented on the Final Plat prior to the execution of the final plat by City Officials.
5) A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of Hunter’s
Crossing and establishing a homeowner’s association shall be submitted in final form to the Community Development Director before a building permit may be issued for any structure
within this subdivision. The applicant shall also 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 6) The final landscape plan shall be updated to address the comments from the City’s consulting
landscape architect in a review letter to the City dated 9/5/14.
7) The developer shall provide written authorization from the property owner to the east of Hunter’s Crossing to allow the proposed drainage improvements and discharge of storm
water on to their property. A utility easement across the affected property is one option for
compliance with this condition.
8) The final construction plans for any additional final plat within Hunter’s Crossing shall include, at a minimum, the southern portion of 5th Street. At this time these plans are
BUSINESS ITEM 5C
8
prepared they shall include the construction of all improvements within the Lake Elmo
Avenue (CSAH 17) right-of-way as required by Washington County and further described in
the review letter received from the County dated September 2, 2014.
9) The developer is encouraged to incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study into the final design of the community mailboxes within Hunter’s Crossing.
10) The developer shall pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication equivalent to the fair market
value for the amount of land that is required to be dedicated for such purposes in the City's Subdivision Ordinance less the amount of land that is accepted for park purposes (or trails)
by the City. Any cash payment in lieu of land dedication shall be pro-rated based on the
percentage of the overall lots to be platted within the subdivision and shall be paid by the
applicant prior to the release of the final plat for recording.
11) The applicant shall deed Outlots A, B, and E to the City upon recording of the final plat.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the proposed Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat:
• That the Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat and Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on July 1, 2014.
• That the Final Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future
Land Use Map for this area.
• That the Final Plat complies with the City’s Urban Low Density Residential zoning district.
• That the Final Plat complies with all other applicable zoning requirements, including the
City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control and other ordinances.
• That the Final Plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
• That the Final Plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards with the plan revisions as requested by the City Engineer.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final Plat for Hunter’s
Crossing with the 11 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat with the 11 conditions of approval as drafted by Staff”
BUSINESS ITEM 5C
9
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application Form
2. Application Narrative
3. Lot Information Summary 4. Tree Inventory 5. City Engineer Review Letter
6. Landscape Architecture Review Letter
7. Washington County Review Comments
8. Valley Branch Watershed District Permit 9. Fire Department Review Comments
10. Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat
11. Construction Plans: Final Grading Plan
12. Construction Plans: Utility and Street Construction 13. Final Landscape Plans
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
BUSINESS ITEM 5C
TWIN CITIES DIVISION 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 952.229.6000 Tel 952.229.6024 Fax www.ryland.com
August 8, 2014
Kyle Klatt
Planning Director City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Ave. N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: Hunters Crossing – Final Plat Application Dear Mr. Klatt:
Ryland Homes is pleased to submit to the City of Lake Elmo a Final Plat application for Hunters
Crossing located on the east side of Lake Elmo Ave. N. approximately ¼ mile north of Intestate
Hwy 94. The following written statements are being provided as part of the submittal requirements for the development:
A. Contact Information a. Property Owner/Seller: Nathan Landucci
404 Lake Elmo Ave. N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (651) 894-2582
b. Developer/Buyer/Applicant: The Ryland Group – Tracey Rust 7599 Anagram Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (952) 229-6063
c. Engineer/Surveyor: Pioneer Engineering – Paul Cherne 2422 Enterprise Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(651) 251-0630
B. Site Data
a. Address: 404 Lake Elmo Ave. N., Lake Elmo, MN 55042 b. Zoning: On October 1, 2013 the City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment request from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Existing zoning RT-Rural Transitional with proposed zoning of LDR-Urban Low Density Residential.
c. Parcel Size: 23.10 Acres (1,006,236 SF) d. PID: 36.029.21.32.0008 e. Legal Description: See attached-Per Title Commitment
C. Final Subdivision and Lot Information: i. Proposed Development Name: Hunters Crossing
ii. See attached table for lot and block number, size and width and depth of lot. iii. See attached table with the Public Open Space area of 0.6265 Acres.
iv. There will be no wetlands remaining for this development. v. See attached table with the proposed Right-of-Way area of 4.5671 Acres.
vi. See Final Plat for Easement locations.
D. Preliminary Plat Conditions: 1. Title and Fees: Title will be submitted under separate cover. All fees have been
paid for Preliminary Plat. 2. Landscape plan is attached for review.
3. Additional landscaping has been added along adjacent property lines.
4. Final construction plans will include the necessary improvements for 5th Street and Lake Elmo Avenue. Further coordination with the City and County is
necessary prior to final plans.
5. Valley Branch Watershed District granted approval for the wetland impacts on July 10, 2014.
6. Landscaping outside of public areas will be the responsibility of individual homeowners or the Home Owner’s Association depending on the planting locations.
7. Park fee will be paid in lieu of park land dedication prior to final plat recording. 8. A public trail will be constructed with this development. 9. The temporary access from Lake Elmo Avenue will be eliminated when access to
5th Street is provided. 10. A grading permit application has been submitted to the City for approval. 11. Please see attached plans addressing the City Engineers comments.
12. Ryland will preserve or re-use trees if possible. 13. Ryland will work with the property owner to the north should grading be
necessary to construct 5th Street improvements.
14. Ryland will pay the Water Availability Charge for the entire development prior to Final Plat recording.
E. Density: The net density for the overall site is 3.93 lots/acre. This calculation is based on the number of lots divided by the acreage excluding outlots and right of way (51 lots /
(23.10 -3.84-6.27) Acres = 3.93 lots/acre.)
F. Infrastructure Improvements: Hunters Crossing will ultimately have access from the
future 5th Street corridor. The temporary access point for the site will be via the existing driveway entrance off of Lake Elmo Avenue. The internal streets with sidewalks parallel Lake Elmo Avenue and 5th Street with 2 cul-de-sacs on the east side of the property
adjacent to the proposed stormwater basin. The stormwater basin located on the east side of the property has been designed in this location due to the low area of the site as well as allowing a natural buffer between the residential and future business park use. A trail is
proposed along the south and east side of the basin to provide a connection from the development to 5th Street. Sanitary sewer service will be provided within the internal roadway system with connection to the 24” sanitary sewer service that the City recently
installed to service this and other sites. Watermain service will also be provided within the internal roadway and connect to the watermain trunk service that is currently being
installed along Lake Elmo Avenue by the City with an expected completion date of
September 2015.
Phase I of Hunters Crossing will consist of 22 lots with necessary streets and utilities.
G. Neighbor Concerns:
a. Neighbor at Southwest corner - Ryland has discussed this project with the neighbors directly adjacent to the site. The neighbor at the southwest corner of the site mentioned concern for future grading and drainage entering their
property and if Lake Elmo Avenue improvements would affect their property and/or driveway. Ryland’s grading plan addresses the grading by matching
existing grades at the property line. The current Lake Elmo Avenue & 5th Street
intersection improvements do not extend south past the development therefore those improvements will not affect the current property owner at the southwest corner. Additional landscaping was added to increase screening along the
properties lines. b. Neighbor to the East – Ryland has met with the adjacent neighbor to the east to
discuss the development and to acquire a grading easement on their property.
Discussions with them have been favorable regarding the location of 5th Street and the need for a grading easement for Ryland to do some minor grading to
ensure proper flow from the stormwater basin’s ultimate outlet.
H. Conflicts with nearby land uses: Ryland believes that not only is this development not
creating conflicts with nearby land uses or future uses but that it is encouraging future uses with it being the first development in the area and contributing to utility trunk service extensions and roadway improvements. There is one wetland area on the site that
will be disturbed during the development and has been approved by Valley Branch Watershed District. Ryland will be paying into a wetland bank in lieu of wetland mitigation.
I. No excessive burden on the City: With the City of Lake Elmo’s plan to expand and create developments in Lake Elmo and given the size of this first development into the
area, we do not anticipate any burdens on roadways, utilities, parks, schools, fire, police, or other services in the area.
J. Proposed lakeshore access: Not applicable.
K. Parks and/or open space: The City staff has recommended that a park is not necessary
within the proposed development and that Ryland will pay a parkland dedication fee to contribute to a future regional park within the area.
L. Development Schedule: The development will be constructed in two (2) phases with the first phase utilizing the existing access off of Lake Elmo Avenue until 5th Street is
constructed and complete. Phase I will consist of 22 lots along the north side of the site with necessary streets, utilities and the stormwater basins. The following is a preliminary schedule for design/approvals and construction.
a. Begin Site Grading – August 2014 b. Phase I Final Plat Approval – September 16, 2014
c. Phase I Site Construction (Streets & Utilities) – September – November 2014 d. City Watermain Extension – June – October 2014 e. 5th Street Construction – Spring 2015
f. Phase II Final Plat Approval – April 2015 g. Phase II Site Construction – June – August 2015
h. Home Construction - November 2014 – December 2016
Ryland Homes has appreciated City Staff’s comments and direction so far with this project and we look forward to continuing to work with City Staff to make this a successful new
neighborhood for the City of Lake Elmo. Please feel free to contact Tracey Rust at 952.229.6063 with any questions.
Sincerely,
THE RYLAND GROUP, INC.
Tracey Rust, PE Entitlement Manager
Attachment: Legal Description
Hunters Crossing Information Table
Tree Inventory by:
Ken Arndt
Forest Ecologist/Wetland Specialist
Midwest Natural Resources, Inc.
1032 West Seventh St. #150
St. Paul, MN 55102
(651)-788-0641
Tree Preservation Plans provided by:
2422 Enterprise Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
651-681-1914
Tag #Size Common Name Scientific Name Native/Non-Native Notes Status
1225 24/16 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1226 17/12/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1227 20 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Off-Site
1228 14/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1229 14/10/10 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1230 10/10/7 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1231 10/9/6/6 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1232 13/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1233 14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1234 18 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Off-Site
1235 22 Boxelder Acer negundo native Remove
1236 22 Boxelder Acer negundo native Remove
1237 14/10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1238 19 American Elm Ulmus americana native Remove
1239 20/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1240 16 Northern Pin Oak Quercus ellipsoidalis native Not shown on plan, Hardwood Remove
1241 34 Cottonwood Populus deltoides native Remove
1242 30 Cottonwood Populus deltoides native Remove
1243 19 Cottonwood Populus deltoides native Remove
1244 20 Boxelder Acer negundo native Remove
1245 14/14/14 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica native 1 of 3 has internal decay along stem Remove
1246 15/14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1247 10/10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1248 11 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1249 16/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1250 18/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1251 24 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1252 20 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1253 26 Black Willow Salix nigra native Remove
1254 18 Black Willow Salix nigra native Remove
1255 19 Black Willow Salix nigra native Remove
1256 24 Black Willow Salix nigra native Remove
1257 18 Black Willow Salix nigra native Remove
1258 8 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica native Remove
1259 17 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1260 8 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica native Remove
1261 6/6 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1262 6/6 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1263 7 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica native Remove
1264 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1265 15 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila native Remove
1266 12/8 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1267 13/8 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1268 16/12/8 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1269 13 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1270 22/22/20/14 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1271 13 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1272 14 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1273 11 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1274 10 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1275 7 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1276 10 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1277 10 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1278 8 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1279 17 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1280 17 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1281 28/19 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1282 25 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1283 29 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native 40% top dead, internal decay @ base Remove
1284 12 Jack Pine Pinus banksiana native Coniferous Remove
1285 18/17/16/16/16 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1286 28 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1287 14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1288 16 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica native Remove
1289 16/10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1290 9 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1291 25 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Not shown on plan Remove
1292 14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Not shown on plan Remove
1293 7 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1294 20/16/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1295 8/7 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1296 14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1297 11 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
Tag #Size Common Name Scientific Name Native/Non-Native Notes Status
1298 16 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1299 13/10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1300 12/8 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1301 13/7 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1302 11 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1303 10/10/8 Boxelder Acer negundo native Save
1304 10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1305 10 American Elm Ulmus americana native Save
1306 8 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1307 10/6 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1308 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1309 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1310 12/12/10/8 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1311 10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1312 14 American Elm Ulmus americana native Save
1313 18 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1314 10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1315 15 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1316 14/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1317 10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1318 14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1319 13 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica native Save
1320 14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Off-Site
1321 16/15 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save
1322 9 Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides native Remove
1323 16/10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove
1324 20/15/10 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1325 16/10 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1326 15 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1327 12/10 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1328 16 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1329 12/6/6 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1330 12 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
1331 9 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove
Total Inches: 2,106"
Allowed 30% Removal: 631"
Total Inches Removed: 1,677"
Total Inches to Mitigate: 1,046"
Common Tree Removal: 1,018"
Coniferous Tree Removal: 12"
Hardwood Tree Removal: 16"
Common Tree Removal: 1,018"
Replace at a rate of 1/4: 1,018"/4=255"
Conifersous Tree Removal: 12"
Replace at a rate of 1/2: 12"/2=6"
Hardwood Tree Removal: 16"
Replace at a rate of 1/2: 16"/2=8"
Total Inches Required: 269"
PAGE 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 3, 2014
To: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Re: Hunters Crossing – Ryland Homes
Cc: Nick Johnson, City Planner Final Plat and Construction Plan Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Hunters Crossing development by Ryland Homes. A Final Plat
and Grading Plan submittal was received on August 15, 2014. The submittal consisted of the following
documentation prepared by Pioneer Engineering:
Final Plat Application dated August 8, 2014.
Final Plat, unsigned and undated.
Final Grading Plan, dated July 28, 2014.
Utility and Street Construction Plans, dated August 6, 2014.
Project Manual for Utility and Street Construction, dated August 6, 2014.
Stormwater Management Report, revised July 25, 2014.
STATUS/FINDINGS: The grading plans are of sufficient quality to allow grading operations to begin. A
preconstruction meeting may be scheduled to initiate grading work. At the preconstruction meeting the
applicant must submit all necessary permits including the VBWD permit, Project SWPPP, County R/W approvals,
and adjacent property owner permissions and easements as outlined below.
Final Grading Plans and Utility and Street Construction Plans must be revised and resubmitted for final review
and approval by the City prior to street and utility construction work.
FINAL PLAT:
The Final Plat and Construction Plans should both be updated to include the Outlot ownership information.
Outlots A, B and E must be dedicated to the City.
Note: City utilities will be constructed within Outlot C as part of the first addition. All drainage and utility
easements shown on the Plat must be dedicated to the City of Lake Elmo and recorded at Washington County
as part of the First Addition Final Plat, including the drainage and utility easements over Outlot C.
The Plat proposes a temporary roadway access to CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue) through a portion of Outlot
C. A 50 foot temporary road easement should be provided to the City of Lake Elmo as part of the Final Plat
to include the temporary access road.
The Plat requires future access to 5th Street North with the temporary access road to be removed. Approval
of the Final Plat should be contingent upon a fully executed development agreement securing the property
and cost for the future construction of 5th Street.
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 3
PROJECT EASEMENTS:
Provide written documentation from the adjacent property owner to the north agreeing to the grading and
erosion control work to be completed on the property.
Provide written documentation from the adjacent property owner to the east agreeing to the grading and
storm sewer construction work and the direct storm water discharge onto the property at FES 1A. Permanent
drainage and utility easements in the City standard form must be provided for the proposed storm pond
outfall from Basin 1P.
A 20 foot permanent drainage and utility easement in the City standard form should be provided along the
southern plat line to accommodate the grading and storm sewer pipe proposed on the south property line.
GRADING, STORM WATER MANGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL
Add Note to see Standard Plan Notes for Grading and Erosion Control, Details 600A, 600B and 600C, on
Erosion Control Detail Sheet.
Add Note to see Standard Plan Notes for Site Restoration, Detail 600D, on Erosion Control Detail Sheet.
Spot elevations need to be placed along the west side of Basin 601P to fully contain the 932.5 HWL contour
on Outlot A. Based on contours only the HWL appears to extend into County R/W.
The maintenance access to Basin 601P Basin must be changed to 15 feet in width. The City must receive
documentation indicating County approval for permanent access to this facility.
The Temporary Sediment Basins 401P, 101P and within the 3rd Street Cul‐de‐sac, should be relocated outside
of future street areas to avoid temporary soil saturation in these areas.
Grading revisions should be made along the south side of Outlot B to improve drainage and grade from the
localized low area within the 932 contour. Consider a second drainage outlet to CSAH 17 R/W.
Additional swale grade appears necessary along the rear property lines of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 4.
The Grading Detail plan sheet must be updated to include the City Standard Typical Sections for 5th Street
and Residential Streets and the custom typical sections removed to avoid conflicting section details.
The Temporary Access Road Section should be updated to reflect a minimum 22 foot pavement width with
2 foot gravel shoulders.
See EOR review memorandum regarding design and construction of the iron enhanced sand filters.
STORM SEWER SYSTEM
City Standard Plan Notes for Storm Sewer, from Detail 400A, must be included on each Storm Sewer
Construction Plan Sheet.
Storm sewer design calculations must be submitted as part of the construction plans to verify compliance
with minimum and maximum pipe velocities and discharges.
A localized low point is created on Laverne Avenue. Additional catch basin inlets should be considered to
enhance drainage in this area above typical 10‐year event inlet capacity.
Increase the pipe size to 15‐inch diameter from CBMH‐124 to CBMH‐123.
Remove “Inspector” from Note 2.
The plans must be revised to better clarify between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 storm sewer plans.
SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN
Watermain oversizing will be required to meet City wide distribution system demands. Watermain must be
increased to 12‐inch pipe diameter along 5th Street, then south along Laverne Avenue, then east along 3rd
Street, then south along the stub to the south property line. A 12” x 12” cross should be installed at the
intersection of 5th Street and Laverne Avenue. Watermain oversizing is paid by the City as a reimbursement
addressed within the development agreement.
Rename the “Sanitary Sewer Construction” Plan Sheets to include Watermain.
City Standard Plan Notes for Watermain, from Detail 200A, and Sanitary Sewer, from Detail 300A, must be
included on each Utility Plan Sheet.
PAGE 3 of 3
The plans must be revised to better clarify between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 sanitary sewer and watermain.
Add a temporary hydrant at each watermain end point for system maintenance.
Replace the air bleed valve on Sheet 2 with a temporary hydrant on the watermain stub to the southern
property line.
Insert an 12” x 8” Tee fitting with a bend fitting on Sheet 2 along the 3rd Street watermain as the watermain
turns south along the trail.
STREET CONSTRUCTION
Replace the Typical 60‐foot ROW Street Section on Sheets 12‐14 with the City Standard Typical Section to
remove all discrepancies from City Standards.
Provide Typical ROW Street Section for Laverne Avenue from 4th Street to 5th Street.
The Temporary Access road must be a minimum 22‐feet in width for the bituminous and signed “No Parking”
along both sides of the road.
Replace the Typical 100‐foot ROW Street Section on Sheet 16 with the City Standard Typical Section to
remove all discrepancies from City Standards. Adjust all other plan documents as necessary to conform with
the City typical section for 5th Street.
City Standard Plan Notes for Sidewalks and Trails, from Detail 500A, must be included on each Street and
Trail Plan Sheet.
A Signing, Pavement Marking and Lighting Plan must be completed and incorporated as part of the Street
and Utility Construction Plans. City Standard Plan Notes for Signing, Pavement Marking and Lighting, from
Detail 700A, must be included on each Street and Trail Plan Sheet.
PROJECT MANUAL / SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD DETAILS
The City Standard Specifications must be included in the Project Manual as the governing specifications for
the Improvements. The general requirements shall state the following: “The City Standard Specifications
shall apply to the work performed under this contract. Any supplemental specifications are intended to
supplement the City Standard Specifications; however they do NOT supersede the City Standard
Specifications, Details, Design Standards, or ordinances unless specific written approval has been provided
by the City.”
Any additional specifications for the project shall be clearly identified as “Supplemental Provisions” not
"Special Provisions".
The General Project Requirements shall be revised to be consistent with the City Standard Specifications
for general project requirements, and the project requirements as specified in the Development
Agreement.
The Project Manual shall include City standard grading and erosion control specifications and be issued and
used as part of the grading operations for the Project.
Standard Plan Note Details 200A, 300A, 400A, 500A, 600A‐600D, and 700A are to be placed on each
applicable plan sheet and removed from the detail plan sheets.
Add Standard Details 101, 102, 103, 105, 201, 203, 204, and 402 to the Detail Plan Sheets.
2350 BAYLESS PLACE• ST. PAUL, MN • 55114
PHONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LAN D ARCINC.COM
HUNTER’S CROSSING – DESIGN REVIEW REPORT
LAKE ELMO, MN
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW DATED SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2014 REVIEWED PLAN SET DATED AUGUST 8TH, 2014 Required Action Items by Hunter’s Crossing Project Landscape Architect 1. The plan is NOT in compliance with the landscape requirements. Current drawing represents 575 caliper inches, required caliper inches is 784 assuming the street frontage, trees to be planted per acre as well as mitigation calculations provided are correct. City requirements are fair and reasonable therefore, one or a combination of the following recommendations must be met. Recommendations: Revise design to preserve more existing trees. Therefore, reducing tree replacement requirements. Add more landscape materials on-site to meet landscape requirements. Increase caliper inches or height of trees already specified to comply with aggregate landscape requirements. Plant remaining required plant materials in a nearby City Park per City staff direction to meet landscape requirements. (per tree preservation ordinance 154.257 8 a-d & landscape requirements 154.258) 2. 6 foot Evergreen Tree conversion to caliper inches = 2.5 inch deciduous shade tree if converted NOT 3 inch caliper inches as assumed on sheet L1. 3. Project Landscape Architect to provide landscape irrigation plans for all commonly held HOA & City R.O.W. areas.
SINCERELY,
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC.
STEPHEN MASTEY, ASLA, CLARB, LEED AP BD+C
DIRECTOR OF DESIGN
%+8+.'0)+0''45.#0&2.#00'45 .#0&5748';145 .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65“”“”“”
%+8+.'0)+0''45.#0&2.#00'45 .#0&5748';145 .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65
%+8+.'0)+0''45.#0&2.#00'45 .#0&5748';145 .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65
.1%#6+10/#2
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä%184Ä)4#&
5''&+0)2.#0'415+10%10641.2.#0)4#&+0)#0&&4#+0#)'2.#0%18'45*''65*''6+0&':Ä
*706'45%4155+0)
(+0#.)4#&+0)2.#0
.#-''./1/+00'516#
.')'0&
%18'45*''6+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
&'6#+.5Ä
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä)4#&
)4#&+0)#0&&4#+0#)'2.#0+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä)4#&
)4#&+0)#0&&4#+0#)'2.#0+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä)4#&
)4#&+0)#0&&4#+0#)'2.#0+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä)4#&
)4#&+0)#0&&4#+0#)'2.#0+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
.')'0&
••
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä'415
'415+10%10641.2.#0+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä5''&
5''&+0)2.#0+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
ȭȭȭÄ'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5Ä)4
)4#&+0)&'6#+.5+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5Ä)4
'415+10%10641.&'6#+.5+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5Ä)4
'415+10%10641.&'6#+.5+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
.1%#6+10/#2
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä%184Ä76+.
5#0+6#4;5'9'4 9#6'4/#+0%18'45*''65*''6+0&':Ä
*706'45%4155+0)
76+.+6;#0&564''6%105647%6+10
.#-''./1/+00'516#
.')'0&
%18'45*''6+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
5614/5'9'4%105647%6+10Ä564''6%105647%6+10Ä
6*564''64'('4'0%'5*''6
6*564''69#6'4/#+0
%+6;&'6#+.5Ä
$+67/+017564#+.%105647%6+10
+410'0*#0%'&5#0&(+.6'42.#0
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä
5#0+6#4;5'9'4%105647%6+10+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä
5#0+6#4;5'9'4%105647%6+10+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
.#8'40'#8'0
(+456#&&+6+10 5'%10&#&&+6+10
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä
5#0+6#4;5'9'4%105647%6+10+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
6*564''60
(+456#&&+6+10
.#0).;#8'05''5*''6
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä
5#0+6#4;5'9'4%105647%6+10+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
4&564''60
(+456#&&+6+10 5'%10&#&&+6+10
.#0).;#8'0
(+456#&&+6+10
5''5*''6
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä
6*564''69#6'4/#+0+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
6*564''60146*9#6'4/#+0
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä
5614/5'9'4%105647%6+10+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä
5614/5'9'4%105647%6+10+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä
5614/5'9'4%105647%6+10+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä
5614/5'9'4%105647%6+10+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä
5614/5'9'4%105647%6+10+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
5VTGGV#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä
564''6%105647%6+10+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
.#8'40'#8'0
5VTGGV$
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä
564''6%105647%6+10+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
.#0).;#8'06*564''60
5VTGGV$
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä
564''6%105647%6+10+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
.#0).;#8'04&564''60
$KV6TCKN
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä
$+67/+017564#+.%105647%6+10
2*#5'
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
$+67/+017564#+.
VJ5VTGGV0
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä
564''62.#0#0&241(+.'+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
6*564''60146*
(7674'%+6;241,'%6
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5
%+6;&'6#+.5+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5
%+6;&'6#+.5+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5
%+6;&'6#+.5+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5
%+6;&'6#+.5+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5
%+6;&'6#+.5+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5
%+6;&'6#+.5+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5Ä(+.6
+410'0*#0%'&5#0&(+.6'42.#0
2*#5'Ä5+6'%.15'176
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
ÄÄ
2,%-#9
-#9#,4
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
Ä2.#0ÄÄ5*''6Ä.#0&
..#0&5%#2'2.#0
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEV
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQP
6/.LNV
6/.LNV
ÄÄ
Ä2.#0ÄÄ5*''6Ä64''
664''24'5'48#6+102.#0
E
1(*706'45%4155+0)
.#-''./1/+00'516#
4;.#0&*1/'5
#0#)4#/&4+8'
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
4GXKUKQPU &CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
'&'024#+4+'/+00'516#
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEV
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQP ÄÄ
6/.
6/.
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
REGULAR
ITEM# 20
AGENDA ITEM: Savona 2nd Addition Residential Subdivision – Final Plat
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Nick Johnson, City Planner
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director
- Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: The Planning Commission is recommending that the City
Council approve a final plat request from Lennar Corporation for the second phase of a planned
310 unit residential development to be located on 112.6 acres west of Keats Avenue and within the City’s I-94 corridor planning area. The final plat will include 47 single-family lots and 22
single-family attached units (townhouses) all of which will be accessed via an initial extension of
the 5th Street Parkway off of Keats Avenue.
The Planning Commission considered the final plat at its September 8, 2014 meeting and a summary of the Commission’s report and recommendation are included below.
FISCAL IMPACT: TBD – the City will be asked to review a developer’s agreement
concerning the final plat at its September 8, 2014 meeting. The agreement will include a detailed
accounting of any development costs that will be the responsibility of the City. The subdivision is included in the Section 34 utility project area, and therefore the developer is being assessed for
the costs of the project to bring sewer and water to the site.
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 20]
September 16, 2014
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a
final plat request from Lennar Corporation for approval of a final plat for the second phase of the
Savona residential development. The final plat includes 47 single-family residential lots, 22
single-family attached townhouse units, and the related construction plans for the improvements necessary to serve these homes. The City Council approved the Savona Preliminary Plat on
August 6, 2013, which covered approximately 113 acres of land within the I-94 Corridor
planning area. There are 310 single family and multi-family residential units planned within the
entire subdivision, and the final plat covers only a portion of the overall total of units that will
eventually be platted. The Planning Commission considered this matter at its August 25th and September 8th meetings
and recommended approval of the final plat as presented and subject to conditions of approval.
The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-76 approving the final plat for Savona 2nd Addition”
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The Planning
Commission considered the final plat at its August 25th meeting, and postponed taking action on the final plan at this time in order to give the developer additional time to address some of the more significant outstanding issues associated with the plat. In particular, the Commission
requested that the developer address deficiencies with the landscape plan and the required buffer
around the adjacent subdivision. The developer updated the plat and subdivision plans and
resubmitted this information for Planning Commission review at its September 8th Meeting. The Commission did make a recommendation to the City Council concerning an associated request for a Conditional Use Permit (to allow the use of private roads within the townhouse area), and
the CUP was approved by the City Council at its last meeting.
In order to provide the City Council with a complete description of the information considered by the Planning Commission, Staff has attached the detailed reports submitted for both the meetings at which the Planning Commission considered the final plat. These reports include
detailed information concerning the final plat in addition to the staff review and analysis of the
request. Any updated plans that were submitted by the applicant in between Commission
meetings have been integrated into the final plan set as attached to this report. The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on August 6, 2013, and this approval
included a series of conditions that must be met by the applicant. In response to these
conditions, the applicant prepared a revised set of preliminary development plans that addressed
the outstanding issues and changes that were requested by the City. Included in the Staff analysis is a line-by-line review of the conditions attached to the preliminary plat.
At its September 8, 2014 meeting the Planning Commission recommended approval of the final
plat for Savona 2nd Addition with some modifications to one of the conditions as drafted by
Staff. On particular, the Commission wanted to make sure that the future townhouse area was managed by a separate homeowner’s association and that any such associations complied with
-- page 2 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 20]
September 16, 2014
all applicable state legal requirements. The Commission’s revisions are included in the attached
resolution of approval.
The Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval of the final plat consistent with the findings as noted in the attached Resolution No. 2014-076 and including all conditions
of approval as listed in the resolution. The motion passed unanimously (7 ayes and 0 nays).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT):
Strengths • The proposed plat is consistent with preliminary plat subject to
the conditions being recommended by Staff and the Planning
Commission.
Weaknesses • Several conditions of approval must be met by the applicant, including revisions to the final construction plans to address
comments from the City Engineer.
Opportunities • The developer has indicated that sales in the first addition have
exceeded their expectations, and that the 2nd Addition final plat will allow them to respond to the current market conditions.
Threats • The developer is still working with the adjacent property owner
to determine the most appropriate mechanism for dedicating and
building the necessary extension of 5th Street.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the City
Council approve the final plat for Savona 2nd Addition with 8 conditions of approval. The
suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-76 approving the final plat for Savona 2nd Addition”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 2014-76
2. Planning Commission Staff Report – 9/8/14 3. Planning Commission Staff Report – 8/25/14
4. Application Forms
5. City Engineer Review Letter
6. Landscape Architecture Review Comments
7. Savona 2nd Addition Final Plat (Revised) 8. Construction Plans: Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control
9. Construction Plans: Sanitary Sewer, Water Main, Storm Sewer and Streets (Revised)
10. Savona 2nd Addition Landscape Plans (Revised)
11. Final Site Plan – Townhome Area
12. Townhouse Area Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan 13. Proposed Drainage and Utility Easement
14. Proposed Permanent Public Street Easement Agreement
-- page 3 --
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-76
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT FOR SAVONA 2ND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, U.S. Home Corporation (d/b/a Lennar), 16305 36th Avenue North, Suite
600, Plymouth, MN (Applicant) has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (City) for a Final Plat for Savona 2nd Addition, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo
Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 22,
2013 to consider the Savona Preliminary Plat and continued discussion on the Preliminary Plat until its July 29, 2013 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and
recommendation concerning the Preliminary Plat as part of a memorandum to the City Council
for the August 6, 2013 City Council Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending
approval of the Preliminary Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Preliminary Plat request at its August 6, 2013 meeting and adopted Resolution No. 2013-064 approving the Preliminary Plat; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission met on August 25, 2014 and
September 8, 2014 to review the Final Plat for Savona 2nd Addition consisting of 45 single-
family detached residential lots and 22 single family attached residential units; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2014 the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a
motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Final Plat for Savona 2nd Addition with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Final Plat for Savona 2nd Addition at a meeting held on September 16,
2014; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following:
Resolution No. 2014-76
FINDINGS
1) That the procedure for obtaining approval of said Final Plat is found in the Lake Elmo City
Code, Section 153.08.
2) That all the requirements of said City Code Section 153.07 related to the Final Plat have been
met by the Applicant.
3) That the proposed Final Plat for Savona 2nd Addition consists of the creation of 45 single-family detached residential lots and 22 single-family attached residential units.
4) That the Savona 2nd Addition Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat and Plans as
approved by the City of Lake Elmo on August 8, 2013 and revised on November 25, 2013.
5) That the Savona 2nd Addition Final Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive
Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
6) That the Savona 2nd Addition Final Plat complies with the City’s Urban Low Density
Residential (LDR) and Urban Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning district regulations.
7) That the Savona 2nd Addition Final Plat complies with all other applicable zoning
requirements, including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control
and other ordinances, with the exception of the items identified in the August 25, 2014 and September 8, 2014 Staff reports to the Planning Commission.
8) That the Savona 2nd Addition Final Plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
9) That the Savona 2nd Addition Final Plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards with the plan revisions requested by the City Engineer in his review comments to the City dated August 21, 2014.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve
the Final Plat for Savona 2nd Addition subject to the following conditions:
1) Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, utility plans, sanitary and storm water
management plans, and street and utility construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the recording of the Final Plat. All changes and modifications to the plans requested by the City Engineer in review memo dated 8/21/14 shall be
incorporated into these documents before they are approved.
2) Prior to the execution of the Final Plat by City officials, the Developer shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Council
Resolution No. 2014-76
that delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of the required
improvements with financial guarantees therefore.
3) All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works Department shall be documented on the Final Plat prior to the execution of the final plat by City Officials.
4) A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of Savona and
establishing a homeowner’s association shall be submitted in final form to the Community
Development Director before a building permit may be issued for any structure within this subdivision. The applicant must create a separate agreement for the single-family attached
lots. Said agreements shall comply with Minnesota Statues 515B-103, and specifically the
provisions concerning the transfer of control to the future property owners. The applicant
shall also 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
5) Any final plat for future townhouses will take into account land previously credited as parkland, and will not reduce the size of any area that was depicted for park land on the preliminary plat.
6) The developer shall revise the final landscape plan to address comments from the City’s
landscape architect dated September 4, 2014.
7) The developer shall provide written authorization from the property owner to the south of
Savona 2nd Addition to allow the proposed drainage improvements and discharge of storm
water on to their property. In conjunction with this permission, the proposed drainage and utility easement across this site shall be recorded with the Washington County Recorder’s office. As an alternative, the final plat maybe updated to include a drainage and utility
easement across this property.
8) The construction plans must be updated to include all portions of 5th Street adjacent to the subdivision that will, at a minimum, extend the current limits of 5th Street west beyond Junco Road North. The developer shall update the final plat to include the portion of the 5th Street
right-of-way necessary to meet the associated construction limits for Savona 2nd Addition
west of Junco Road North.
Passed and duly adopted this 16th day of September 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
__________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST:
________________________________
Adam Bell, City Clerk
Resolution No. 2014-76
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 9/8/14
AGENDA ITEM: 5A – BUSINESS ITEM
CASE # 2014-41
ITEM: Savona 2nd Addition Residential Subdivision – Final Plat
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to continue its discussion concerning a Final Plat request from Lennar Corporation for the second phase of a planned 310 unit residential development to be
located on 112.6 acres west of Keats Avenue and within Stage 1 of the City’s I-94 Corridor Planning
Area. Based on feedback from the Planning Commission at its last meeting, the developer has
updated certain aspects of the final plat and final construction plans to address specific comments from the Commission. The plat now includes 45 single-family lots (down from 47) and 22 single-
family attached units, all of which will be accessed via an initial extension of the 5th Street Parkway
off of Keats Avenue. Upon receipt of the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the City Council
approved the Conditional Use Permit to allow single-family attached units that are accessed via a private road at its September 2, 2014 meeting.
In the interest of conserving paper, Staff is not reproducing any materials from the last meeting that
have not been updated for the September 8th meeting. The following report notes the specific
changes that have been provided by the applicant, but does not restate previous Staff review comments included with the previous packet. A complete copy of the previous packet is available upon request.
Staff is recommending approval of the Final Plat subject to compliance with a series of conditions as
listed in this report. The list of conditions has been updated and reduced in number to reflect the
revised plans and submission of additional information by the applicant.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS (UPDATE)
Since the last Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has prepared a revised final plat, updated landscape plan, and revised sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, and streets plan. In addition,
the City’s landscape architecture consultant has been able to review the landscape plan for Savona
2nd Addition and had drafted review comments for consideration by the Planning Commission. The
changes that have been made include the following:
1) The City Attorney has reviewed the title work for the site and has found that the developer
has fee interest in the project and the plat can be recorded as submitted. Condition #2 as
previously recommended is no longer needed with this action.
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
2
2) The final plat has been revised to eliminate two lots in the extreme northwestern portion of
the site that were previously located within the 100-foot buffer from the adjacent residential
development. These lots are now platted as “Outlot Q”, and could be replatted in the future
into two buildable lots provided the applicant secures a trail/open space easement from the adjoining property owner. This action eliminates the need for Condition #7 in the previous Staff report.
3) The partial trail improvements within Outlot A have not been included in the final
construction plans based on a mutual agreement between City Staff and the developer that this trail segment should be built as part of future additions. In addition, leaving this trail off
of the plans is also appropriate due to the creation of Outlot Q, since any homes within the
Outlot will not be constructed (if at all) until a later addition. This update to the plans
addresses Condition #8.
4) The street and utility plans have been updated to add a sidewalk along the eastern side of
James Avenue, which will connect to a planned sidewalk with the Hammes West
subdivision. The addition of this sidewalk to the plans addresses Condition #9 from the previous meeting.
5) The landscape plans have been revised to reflect the additional sidewalk and to add tree
protective fencing to the plan. The updated plans will allow Condition #10 from the previous
Staff report to be eliminated.
6) The City’s landscape architect has reviewed the landscape plans and submitted the attached
review comments for consideration by the Planning Commission. With this review
completed, Condition #11 can be revised.
In addition to the revisions listed above, the applicant has indicated that the new single-family lots will be annexed into the Homeowner’s Association for the first addition, which has been previously
reviewed by the City. The townhouses will be subject to a separate association in order to deal with
issues unique to this portion of the plat (i.e. private roads). At the request of a member of the
Commission, the City Attorney has been asked to address additional questions regarding the structure and provisions of the HOA documents. Staff will provide an update concerning these questions if it is available prior to the meeting. The previous condition related to this matter is a very standard
condition for these types of developments, and ensures that the appropriate HOA documents are filed
with the County once the plat has been recorded.
Based on the above Staff report and analysis, including all staff review comments and materials concerning the Savona 2nd Addition final plat submitted to the Commission as part of the
Commission’s August 25, 2014 meeting, Staff is recommending approval of the final plat with a
revised list of conditions consistent with the comments noted above. The conditions are intended to
address any outstanding issues and to further clarify the City’s expectations in order for the developer to proceed with the recording of the final plat. The recommended conditions are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, utility plans, sanitary and storm water
management plans, and street and utility construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the recording of the Final Plat. All changes and modifications
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
3
to the plans requested by the City Engineer in review memo dated 8/21/14 shall be
incorporated into these documents before they are approved.
2) Prior to the execution of the Final Plat by City officials, the Developer shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Council that delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of the required
improvements with financial guarantees therefore.
3) All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works Department shall be documented on the Final Plat prior to the execution of the final plat by City Officials.
4) A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of Savona and
establishing a homeowner’s association shall be submitted in final form to the Community Development Director before a building permit may be issued for any structure within this
subdivision. The applicant shall also 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 5) Any final plat for future townhouses will take into account land previously credited as
parkland, and will not reduce the size of any area that was depicted for park land on the
preliminary plat.
6) The developer shall revise the final landscape plan to address comments from the City’s
landscape architect dated September 4, 2014.
7) The developer shall provide written authorization from the property owner to the south of Savona 2nd Addition to allow the proposed drainage improvements and discharge of storm water on to their property. In conjunction with this permission, the proposed drainage and
utility easement across this site shall be recorded with the Washington County Recorder’s
office. As an alternative, the final plat maybe updated to include a drainage and utility
easement across this property. 8) The construction plans must be updated to include all portions of 5th Street adjacent to the
subdivision that will, at a minimum, extend the current limits of 5th Street west beyond Junco
Road North. The developer shall update the final plat to include the portion of the 5th Street right-of-way necessary to meet the associated construction limits for Savona 2nd Addition west of Junco Road North.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the proposed Savona 2nd Addition Final Plat:
• That the Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat and Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on August 8, 2013 and revised on November 25, 2013.
• That the Final Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future
Land Use Map for this area.
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
4
• That the Final Plat complies with the City’s Urban Low Density Residential and Medium
Density Residential zoning districts.
• That the Final Plat complies with all other applicable zoning requirements, including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control and other ordinances, with the exception of the items identified in the Staff report.
• That the Final Plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
• That the Final Plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards with the plan revisions as requested by the City Engineer.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final Plat for Savona
2nd Addition with the 8 conditions of approval as listed above. Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Savona Final Plat with the 8 conditions of approval as drafted by Staff”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. REVISED – Savona 2nd Addition Final Plat
2. REVISED – Construction Plans: Sanitary Sewer, Water Main, Storm Sewer and Streets 3. REVISED – Savona 2nd Addition Landscape Plans
4. Review Comments – Landscape Architecture, Inc. 9-4-14
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
2350 BAYLESS PLACE • ST. PAUL, MN • 55114
PHONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LAN D ARCINC.COM
SAVONA 2nd ADDITION – DESIGN REVIEW REPORT
LAKE ELMO, MN
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW DATED SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2014 REVIEWED PLAN SET DATED AUGUST 28TH, 2014 Required Action Items by Savona 2nd Addition Project Team Where Colorado Green Spruce is specified please replace with Norway Spruce. The colonial foundation planting plan templates and colonial row home plan templates need to designed to match this specific site with current landscape and horticultural standards and practices and resubmitted for review. Alternate Mailbox Monument, Sub Monument and Column Monuments with Thin NATURAL STONE veneer to be specified on all entry elements and included in mailbox design to match geology of specified natural boulder outcroppings adjacent to same elements. Manufactured (fake) stone veneer not allowed. Please remove the “OR” reference on these details on sheet 2 of 3. Additionally, the post mount Mailbox Unit is not approved, only the Alternate Mailbox Monument will be allowed. (per signage ordinance 154.212.A.4 purpose & 154.212.E.2 gen. design) Savona Project Landscape Architect to provide landscape irrigation plans for all commonly held HOA & City R.O.W. areas.
SINCERELY,
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC.
STEPHEN MASTEY, ASLA, CLARB, LEED AP BD+C
DIRECTOR OF DESIGN
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
x
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
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
REGULAR
ITEM # 21
AGENDA ITEM: Savona 2nd Addition Developer’s Agreement
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Dave Synder, City Attorney Nick Johnson, City Planner
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director
- Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: Staff is recommending that the City Council approve a
developer’s agreement associated with the Savona 2nd Addition residential development. The
agreement has been drafted based on a model agreement previously reviewed by the Council and the agreement that was executed for the first phase of Savona.
FISCAL IMPACT: Direct Payments to Developer – None: there are no City payments for
oversizing of utilities or for other reasons included in the agreement. Future financial impacts
include maintenance of streets, trails, sanitary sewer mains, watermains and other public infrastructure, maintenance of storm water ponding areas (after three years), maintenance of the 5th Street boulevard landscaping, monthly lease payments for street lights (estimated at $111 for
16 lights), future park land improvements, and other public financial responsibilities typically
associated with a new development.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to authorize execution of a developer’s agreement related to the Savona 2nd Addition final plat. The attached
agreement has been previously reviewed by the City Attorney and City Engineer, and all
recommend changes specific to the Savona project have been incorporated into the document as
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 21]
September 16, 2014
drafted. There are a few items in the list of construction cost estimates that need to be provided
by the developer, but these can easily be incorporated into the document before it is signed by
the City. This agreement must be executed before any construction activity, outside of the
previously authorized grading work, may proceed on the site. The recommended motion to take action on the request is as follows:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-77 approving the developer’s agreement for Savona 2nd
Addition”
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/STAFF REPORT: One of the conditions included as part of the
Planning Commission recommendation to the Council concerning the Savona 2nd Addition Final
Plat specifies that the developer enter into a Developer’s Agreement prior to the execution of the
plat by City officials. Staff has drafted such an agreement consistent with the City’s developer’s
agreement template, and this document is attached for consideration by the City Council. Please note that the document as drafted contains some modifications to the original template based on
some of the unique aspects of the Savona development. The key aspects of the agreement
include the following components:
• That all improvements to be completed by October 31, 2015.
• That the developer provide a letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the total cost of the
proposed improvements. The developer needs to submit cost estimates for a few additional improvements, the estimates provided to date indicate that the letter of credit will be a at least $2,056,614.25 for the project.
• That the developer provide a cash deposit of $461,032 for SAC and WAC charges, engineering administration, one year of street light operating costs, and other City fees,
but not including park land dedication fees, which were paid as part of the first addition).
The proposed project does not include any specific City payments for utility oversizing or other reasons. The City Engineer has not approved the final construction plans for the project, and no work will be allowed to commence on the site until these plans are approved by the City.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT):
Strengths: The developer’s agreement has been drafted to guarantee that the improvements associated with Savona 2nd Addition plans will installed in accordance
with City specifications.
Execution of the developer’s agreement and compliance with all conditions in the
agreement will allow the developer to record the Savona 2nd Addition Final Plat.
Weaknesses: The City will assume responsibility for future maintenance of the public improvements.
Opportunities: The proposed improvements will extend the road system and public
utilities presently being constructed in the first phase of Savona.
-- page 2 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 21]
September 16, 2014
Threats: The City will need to provide construction observation throughout the course
of the project (these costs will be covered under an Engineering Administration Escrow).
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above Staff report, Staff is recommending that the City
Council approve the Developer’s Agreement for Savona 2nd Addition and that the Council direct the Mayor and Staff to execute this document once the final construction cost estimates have been provided. The suggested motion to adopt the Staff recommendation is as follows:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-77 approving the developer’s agreement for Savona 2nd
Addition” ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 2014-77
2. Savona Developer’s Agreement – Final Draft
-- page 3 --
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-77
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT FOR SAVONA 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, U.S. Home Corporation (d/b/a Lennar), 16305 36th Avenue North, Suite
600, Plymouth, MN (“Applicant”) has previously submitted an application to the City of Lake
Elmo (“City”) for a Final Plat for Savona 2nd Addition; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo City Council considered and approved the Preliminary Plat request for Savona at a meeting held on August 6, 2013; and
WHEREAS, The Lake Elmo City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-076 on
September 16, 2014 approving the Final Plat for Savona; and
WHEREAS, Condition (2) of said Resolution No. 2014-076 establishes that, prior to the execution of the Final Plat by City officials, the Applicant is to enter into a Developer’s
Agreement with the City; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant and City have agreed to enter into such a contract, and a copy of the Developer’s Agreement was submitted to the City Council for consideration at its September 16, 2014 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the information received, the City Council of the City
of Lake Elmo does hereby approve the Developer’s Agreement for Savona 2nd Addition and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the document.
Passed and duly adopted this 16th day of September 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
__________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Adam Bell, City Clerk
Resolution No. 2014-77
1
(reserved for recording information)
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Public sewer and water) Savona 2nd Addition
AGREEMENT dated , 2014, by and between the CITY OF LAKE
ELMO a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and U.S. Home Corporation, d/b/a Lennar
(the “Developer”).
1. REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL. The Developer has asked the City to approve the
plat for Savona 2nd Addition (referred to in this Contract as the "plat"). The land is situated in the County of
Washington, State of Minnesota, and is legally described as:
2. CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL. The City hereby approves the plat on condition
that the Developer enter into this Contract, furnish the security required by it, and record the plat with the
County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within (180) days after the City Council approves the final plat.
3. RIGHT TO PROCEED. Unless separate written approval has been given by the City,
within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove
trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public or private improvements, or any buildings
until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this agreement has been fully executed by both
2
parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary security has been received by the City, 3) the plat and
required homeowner’s association documents have been recorded with the Washington County
Recorder's Office, and 4) the City’s Community Development Director has issued a letter that all
conditions have been satisfied, a preconstruction conference has been held, and that the Developer may
proceed.
4. PHASED DEVELOPMENT. This plat is a phase of a multi-phased preliminary plat, the
City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached this Contract
and the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until
Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City. Park charges and area charges for
sewer and water referred to in this Contract are not being imposed on outlots, if any, in the plat that are
designated in an approved preliminary plat for future subdivision into lots and blocks. Such charges will be
calculated and imposed when the outlots are final platted into lots and blocks unless previously paid as part
of an earlier development phase.
5. PRELIMINARY PLAT STATUS. The plat is a phase of a multi-phased preliminary plat,
the preliminary plat approval for all phases not final platted shall lapse and be void unless final platted into
lots and blocks, not outlots, within five (5) years after preliminary plat approval.
6. CHANGES IN OFFICIAL CONTROLS. For two (2) years from the date of this
Contract, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan or official controls shall apply to or affect the
residential use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved final plat unless
required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter,
notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law, the
City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls,
platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Contract.
7. DEVELOPMENT PLANS. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following
plans and at the Developer’s sole expense. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. If the plans
vary from the written terms of this Contract, the written terms shall control. The plans are:
Comment [L1]: Given the size of the development and the nature of phasing, we will
need more then 2 years to final plat and subdivide
the entire community.
3
Plan A – Final Plat
Plan B – Final Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plans
Plan C – Final Sanitary Sewer, Water Main, Storm Sewer, and Street Plans
Plan D – Final Landscape Plan
8. IMPROVEMENTS. The Developer shall install and pay for the following: A. Streets B. Sanitary Sewer C. Watermain
D. Surface Water Facilities (pipe, ponds, rain gardens, etc.)
E. Grading and Erosion Control F. Sidewalks/Trails G. Street Lighting H. Underground Utilities
I. Street Signs and Traffic Control Signs
J. Landscaping and Street Trees K. Tree Preservation and Reforestation L. Wetland Mitigation and Buffers M. Monuments Required by Minnesota Statutes
The improvements shall be installed in accordance with the City subdivision ordinance and the City’s
Engineering Design and Construction Standards Manual and pursuant to the direction of the City Engineer.
The Developer shall submit plans and specifications which have been prepared by a competent registered
professional engineer to the City for approval by the City Engineer. The Developer shall instruct its
engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control to
the extent that the Developer's engineer will be able to certify that the construction work meets the
approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. In addition, the City may, at the City's discretion
and at the Developer's expense, have one or more City inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the work on
a full or part-time basis. The Developer's engineer shall provide for on-site project management. The
Developer's engineer is responsible for design changes and contract administration between the Developer
4
and the Developer's contractor. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a pre-construction meeting
at a mutually agreeable time at the City Hall with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the
program for the construction work.
All labor and work shall be done and performed in the best and most workmanlike manner and in
strict conformance with the approved plans and specifications. No deviations from the approved plans and
specifications will be permitted unless approved in writing by the City Engineer. The Developer agrees to
furnish to the City a list of contractors being considered for retention by the Developer for the performance
of the work required by the Contract. The Developer shall not do any work or furnish any materials not
covered by the plans and specifications and special conditions of this Contract, for which reimbursement is
expected from the City, unless such work is first ordered in writing by the City Engineer as provided in the
specifications.
9. CITY ENGINEERING ADMINISTRATION AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION. Prior to the commencement of any construction activity authorized under this agreement,
the Developer shall submit an escrow for City Engineering Administration and Construction Observation
in an amount provided under paragraph 36. Summary of Cash Requirements. Thereafter, the
Developer shall reimburse the City each month, within 30 days of receiving an invoice, for all
engineering administration and construction observation performed during the construction of the plat.
After 30 days of the invoice, the City may draw upon the escrow and stop the work on site until said escrow
has been replenished in its full amount. City engineering administration will include monitoring of
construction progress and construction observation, consultation with Developer and his engineer on
status or problems regarding the project, coordination for testing, final inspection and acceptance, project
monitoring during the warranty period, and processing of requests for reduction in security.
Construction observation may be performed by the City's in-house staff or consulting engineer.
Construction observation shall include, at the discretion of the city, part or full time inspection of proposed
public utilities and street construction. Services will be billed on an hourly basis.
5
The direction and review provided through the inspection of the improvements should not be
considered a substitute for the Developer required management of the development. Developer will cause
the contractor(s) to furnish the City with a schedule of proposed operations at least five (5) days prior to the
commencement of construction of each type of Improvement. City shall inspect all Developer Installed
Improvements during and after construction for compliance with approved plans and specifications.
Developer will notify the City Engineer at such times during construction as the City Engineer requires for
inspection purposes. Such inspection is pursuant to the City’s governmental authority, and no agency or
joint venture relationship between the City and Developer is thereby created.
10. CONTRACTORS/SUBCONTRACTORS. City Council members, City employees, and
City Planning Commission members, and corporations, partnerships, and other entities in which such
individuals have greater than a 25% ownership interest or in which they are an officer or director may not
act as contractors or subcontractors for the public improvements identified in Paragraph 8 above.
11. PERMITS. The Developer shall obtain or require its contractors and subcontractors to
obtain all necessary permits, including but not limited to:
A. Right-of-Way Excavations and Obstructions:
• City of Lake Elmo, Right-of-Way Utility Installation(s) • City of Lake Elmo, Right-of-Way Obstruction(s)
• Washington County, Utility Installations(s)
• Washington County, Street or Driveway Access(s)
• Minnesota Department of Transportation, Utility Installation
• Minnesota Department of Transportation, Right-of-Way Permit B. Watermain Extensions: • Minnesota Department of Health C. Sanitary Sewer Extensions:
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
• Metropolitan Council Environmental Services D. Stormwater Management:
• Valley Branch, Brown’s Creek or South Washington Watershed District Permit E. Erosion, Sedimentation Control: • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, General NPDES Stormwater Permit
• SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan)
6
F. Wetland Mitigation:
• Board of Water and Soil Resources, WCA
G. Construction Dewatering:
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 12. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The Developer shall install all required public
improvements by October 31, 2015, with the exception of the final wear course of asphalt on streets.
The Developer shall have the option of installing the wearing course of streets within one (1) year following
initial commencement of work on the required basic improvements or installing it after the first course has
weathered a winter season, consistent with warranty requirements, however final acceptance of the
improvements will not be granted until all work is completed including the final wear course. The Developer
may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned
upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and amending this agreement
to reflect the extended completion date. Final wear course placement outside of this time frame must have
the written approval of the City Engineer.
13. LICENSE. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and
contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in
conjunction with plat development.
14. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS. Construction traffic access and egress for grading, public
utility construction, and street construction is restricted to access the subdivision via
the planned construction access off of Keats Avenue. No construction traffic is permitted on other
adjacent local streets.
15. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND COMPLIANCE. The City will require the
developer to construct the improvements in a sequence which will allow progress and compliance points
to be measured and evaluated. The Developer and/or their representatives are required to supervise
and coordinate all construction activities for all improvements and must notify the City in writing stating
7
when the work is ready for the inspection at each of the measurable points defined in the following
paragraphs 16., 17. and 18. For the purpose of this paragraph, Electronic message (email) shall be
deemed an acceptable method of notification provided it is captioned “Notice pursuant to Development
Agreement”.
16. EROSION CONTROL. Prior to initiating site grading, the erosion control plan, Plan B,
shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. Erosion control practices
must comply with the approved plans and specifications for the plat, with all watershed district permits and
with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Best Management Practices. The City may impose additional
erosion control requirements as deemed necessary. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in
controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or
supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to
control erosion. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but
failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the
Developer does not reimburse the City for any cost the City incurred for such work within ten (10) days, the
City may draw down the security to pay any costs. No development, utility or street construction will be
allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the approved
erosion control plan.
If building permits are issued prior to the acceptance of public improvements, the developer
assumes all responsibility for erosion control compliance throughout the plat and the City may take such
action as allowed by this agreement against the Developer for any noncompliant issue as stated above.
Erosion control plans for individual lots will be required in accordance with the City’s building permit
requirements, or as required by the City or City Engineer.
17. GRADING PLAN. The plat shall be graded in accordance with the approved grading
drainage and erosion control plan, Plan "B". The plan shall conform to Engineering Design and
Construction Standards Manual. All grading shall be completed within the Subdivision prior to the
preparation and submittal of the as-constructed grading plan.
8
Within thirty (30) days after completion of the grading, the Developer shall provide the City with a
"record" grading plan certified by a registered land surveyor or engineer that all trails, ponds, swales, and
ditches have been constructed on public easements or land owned by the City. The "record" plan shall
contain site grades and field verified elevations of the following: a) cross sections of ponds; b) location and
elevations along all swales, emergency overflows, wetlands, wetland mitigation areas if any, ditches,
locations and dimensions of borrow areas/stockpiles; c) lot corner elevations and house pads; and d) top
and bottom of retaining walls. The City will not issue any building permits until the approved certified
record grading plan is on file with the City.
18. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS. All storm sewers, sanitary sewers, watermain,
and streets shall be installed in accordance with the approved Plans and Specifications for Public
Improvements, Plan "D". The plan shall conform to the City’s Engineering Design and Construction
Standards Manual. Curb and gutter and the first lift of the bituminous streets, sidewalks, the boulevards
graded, street signs installed, and all restoration work on the site shall be completed in accordance with the
approved plans. Once the work is completed, the developer or its representative shall submit a written
request to the City asking for an inspection of the initial improvements. The City will then schedule a walk-
through to create a punch list of outstanding items to be completed. Upon receipt of the written punch list
provided by the City, the punch list items must be completed by the Developer and the City notified to re-
inspect the improvements. The final bituminous wear course may be installed in accordance with
paragraph 12. above.
19. STREET MAINTENANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance until the streets are accepted by the City in writing. Warning signs
shall be placed when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on same and
to direct attention to detours. If and when streets become impassable, such streets shall be
barricaded and closed. In the event residences are occupied prior to completing streets, the Developer
shall maintain a smooth surface and provide proper surface drainage to insure that the streets are
passable to traffic and emergency vehicles. The Developer shall be responsible for keeping streets
9
within and without the subdivision clean of dirt and debris that may spill, track, or wash onto the
street from Developer’s operation. The Developer may request, in writing, that the City keep the streets
open during the winter months by plowing snow from the streets prior to final acceptance of said
streets. The City shall not be responsible for repairing the streets because of snow plowing
operations. Providing snow plowing service does not constitute final acceptance of the streets by the
City. The Developer shall contract for street cleaning within and immediately adjacent to the
development. At a minimum, scraping and sweeping shall take place on a weekly basis. A copy of
this contract shall be approved by the City before grading is started. The contract shall provide that
the City may direct the contractor to clean the streets and the contractor will bill the Developer.
20. OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS. Upon completion of the work and construction
required by this Contract, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property.
Prior to acceptance of the improvements by the City, the Developer must furnish the City with a complete
set of reproducible "record" plans, an electronic file of the "record" plans in accordance with the City’s
Engineering Design and Construction Standards Manual together with the following affidavits:
- Developer/Developer Engineer’s Certificate - Land Surveyor’s Certificate certifying that all construction has been completed in accordance with the terms of this Contract. All
necessary forms will be furnished by the City. Upon receipt of “record plans” and affidavits, and upon
review and verification by the City Engineer, the City Engineer will accept the completed public
improvements.
21. PARK DEDICATION. The Developer has previously submitted a payment for park
dedication requirements for all the areas to be platted within the Savona Preliminary Plat and paid said
fee as part of the Savona Development Contract. No additional fees in lieu of land dedication are
required for the plat.
22. SANITARY SEWER AND WATER UTILITY AVAILABILITY CHARGES (SAC
AND WAC). The Developer shall be responsible for the payment of all sewer availability charges (SAC)
10
and all water availability charges (WAC) with respect to the Improvements required by the City and any
state or metropolitan government agency.
The sewer availability charge (SAC) in the amount of $3,000.00 per REU shall be paid by the
Developer prior to the City recording the final plat. The total amount to be paid by the Developer is
$204,000.
The water availability charge (WAC) in the amount of $3,000.00 per REU shall be paid by the
Developer prior to the City recording the final plat. The total amount to be paid by the Developer is
$204,000. In addition, a sewer connection charge in the current amount of $1,000.00 per REU, a Met
Council sewer availability charge in the current amount of $2,435.00 per REU, and a water connection
charge in the current amount of $1,000.00 per REU will be collected by the City at the time the building
permit is issued for each lot. These amounts are charged at the time of building permit in accordance with
the latest City fee schedule.
23. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS. Traffic control signs shall be included as part of the
public street improvements, and the installation costs shall be included in the street construction
calculations.
24. STREET LIGHTS. The Developer is responsible for the installation of street lights
consistent with a street lighting plan approved by the City. The Developer shall coordinate the
installation of street lights with Xcel Energy in conjunction with the other improvements, and agrees to
pay Xcel Energy for all upfront costs associated with the street lighting system, including underground
cables, posts, lamps, ballasts, starters, photocells, and glassware. All street lights will be leased by the
City upon final acceptance of the system. The Developer shall also pay $1,332 in payment for the first
year operating costs for street lights.
11
25. WETLAND MITIGATION. The Developer shall complete wetland mitigation/restoration
in accordance with the approved Plans and Specifications and in accordance with any applicable
Watershed or agency Permits. If the mitigation work is found to be incomplete or restoration is
unsuccessful the City may draw down the security at any time during the warranty period if the Developer
fails to take corrective measures to be used by the City to perform the work.
26. BUILDING PERMITS/CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY.
A. Public sewer and water, curbing, and one lift of asphalt shall be installed on all
public and private streets prior to issuance of any building permits, except two model homes on lots
acceptable to the Community Development Director.
B. Prior to issuance of building permits, wetland buffer monuments shall be placed in
accordance with the City’s zoning ordinance. The monument design shall be approved by the
Community Development Department.
C. Written certification of the as-constructed grading must be on file at the City for the
block where the building is to be located.
D. Breach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer, including nonpayment of
billings from the City, shall be grounds for denial of building permits and/or withholding of other permits,
inspection or actions, including lots sold to third parties, and the halting of all work in the plat.
E. If building permits are issued prior to the acceptance of public improvements, the
Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and
damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer, their contractors, subcontractors,
materialmen, employees, agents, or third parties.
F. No sewer and water connection permits may be issued until the streets needed for
access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the utilities are tested and approved by the City
Engineer.
G. The City will not issue a certificate of occupancy for any building constructed on
any lot or parcel in the Plat, including any model homes authorized under this agreement, until Public
12
sewer and water, curbing, and one lift of asphalt is installed on all public and private streets; all utilities
are tested and approved by the City Engineer; and the as- constructed grading must be on file at
the City for the block where the building is to be located.
27. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS.
A. In the event that the City receives claims from labor, materialmen, or others that
work required by this Contract has been performed, the sums due them have not been paid, and the
laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment from the City, the Developer hereby authorizes the
City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the
District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125 percent of the claim(s) and deposit
the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and
dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District
Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine payment of attorneys' fees pursuant to this
Contract.
B. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it
or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat, including but not limited to legal, planning,
engineering and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the plat, the
preparation of this Contract, review of construction plans and documents, and all costs and expenses
incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting development of the plat. All amounts incurred and due at
the time, must be fully paid prior to execution and release of the final plat for recording.
C. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless
from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat
approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers, employees, and agents
for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims,
including attorneys' fees.
D. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this
Contract, including reasonable engineering and attorneys' fees.
13
E. The Developer shall pay, or cause to be paid when due, and in any event before any
penalty is attached, all special assessments referred to in this Contract. This is a personal obligation of the
Developer and shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire
plat, or any part of it.
F. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations
incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall
be assessed a late fee per the City of Lake Elmo adopted Fee Schedule. Upon request, the City will
provide copies of detailed invoices of the work performed.
28. SPECIAL PROVISIONS. The following special provisions shall apply to plat
development:
A. Implementation of the recommendations listed in the _______________,
2014 Engineering memorandum.
B. Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall convey Outlot D and
Outlot J to the City by warranty deed, free and clear of any and all encumbrances.
C. The Developer shall install a temporary turnaround on any streets that will be
extended into adjacent developments in the future as directed by the City Engineer.
D. The Developer must obtain a sign permit from the City Building
Official prior to installation of any permanent subdivision identification signs.
F. The Developer shall provide for a minimum green belt/buffer of 100 feet around all
of the adjacent Stonegate subdivision. This buffer shall be secured by a covenant running in favor of the
City.
G. All trails shall be located within the easements or dedicated to the City of Lake
Elmo. Title commitments shall be provided for all land so dedicated.
J. The Developer 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.
14
K. Any land under which public trails are located will be accepted as park land
provided the Developer constructs said trails within the dedicated areas as part of the public
improvements for the subdivision and easements are provided where required by the City.
L. No more than half of the residential units depicted on the preliminary plat (155) may
be approved as part of a final plat until a second access is provided to the subdivision, either via a
connection to Hudson Boulevard to the south, Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) to the west, or back to Keats
Avenue (CSAH 19) through the property to the north of Savona.
N. The Developer shall secure any necessary permits for the multi-family area,
including but not limited to a conditional use permit to allow for single family detached residences that do
not have frontage on a public street, at the time a final plat is submitted for this area.
O. (Other requirements). 29. MISCELLANEOUS. A. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the
City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the
Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it.
B. Retaining walls that require a building permit shall be constructed in accordance with
plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of
Minnesota. Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the City
Engineer evidencing that the retaining wall was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications. All retaining walls identified on the development plans or by special conditions referred to in
this Contract shall be constructed before any other building permit is issued for a lot on which a retaining
wall is required to be built.
C. Appropriate legal documents regarding Homeowner Association documents,
covenants and restrictions relating to the plat approval and outlots and conveyances, as approved by
the City Attorney, shall be filed with the final plat. No third- party beneficiary status is hereby conferred.
All outlots and common areas, including Outlots B, C, E, F, K, L, N, O, and P, shall be maintained in
15
good order and repair by a homeowner’s association, and, if it does not do so, then the City may perform
the work and assess the costs against the individual lots within the plat of Savona 2nd Addition and
without regard to the formalities or requirements of Minn. Stat. § 429.
D. Developer shall take out and maintain or cause to be taken out and maintained until
six (6) months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage
insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of
Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them.
Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than $500,000 for one person and $1,000,000 for each
occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than $200,000 for each occurrence; or a
combination single limit policy of $1,000,000 or more. The City shall be named as an additional insured on
the policy, and the Developer shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior to the City
signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given thirty (30) days advance written
notice of the cancellation of the insurance.
E. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Contract. F. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this
Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of
this Contract.
G. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the
provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties
and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to
enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release.
H. This Contract shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the
property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer has fee
title to the property being final platted and/or has obtained consents to this Contract, in the form attached
hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the
property being final platted; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any
breach of the foregoing covenants.
16
I. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in
addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to
City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein
set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be
deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any
other right, power or remedy.
J. The Developer represents to the City that the plat complies with all city, county,
metropolitan, state, and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances,
zoning ordinances, and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the
City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or development work in the plat until the Developer does
comply. Upon the City’s demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance.
30. EVENTS OF DEFAULT. The following shall be "Events of Default" under this Agreement
and the term "Event of Default" shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement, any one or more of the
following events:
A. Subject to unavoidable delays, failure by Developers to commence and complete
construction of the Public Improvements pursuant to the terms, conditions and limitations of this Agreement.
B. Failure by Developers to substantially observe or perform any material covenant,
condition, obligation or agreement on their part to be observed or performed under this Agreement.
31. REMEDIES ON DEFAULT. Whenever any Event of Default occurs, the City, subject to
any rights of third parties agreed to by the City pursuant to this Agreement, or otherwise by written, executed
instrument of the City, may take any one or more of the following:
A. The City may suspend its performance under the Agreement until it receives
assurances from Developers, deemed adequate by the City, that Developers will cure their default and
continue their performance under the Agreement. Suspension of performance includes the right of the City
to withhold permits including, but not limited to, building permits.
B. The City may initiate such action, including legal or administrative action, as is
17
necessary for the City to secure performance of any provision of this agreement or recover any amounts
due under this Agreement from Developers, or immediately draw on the Letter of Credit, as set forth in this
Agreement. In the event of any uncorrected failure to maintain any common area or landscape areas, the City
may undertake to do the work and assess the costs to the individual lots within the plat without regard to the
formalities or requirements of Minn. Stat. § 429..
32. ENFORCEMENT BY CITY; DAMAGES. The Developers acknowledge the right of the
City to enforce the terms of this Agreement against the Developers, by action for specific performance or
damages, or both, or by any other legally authorized means. The Developers also acknowledge that their
failure to perform any or all of their obligations under this Agreement may result in substantial damages to
the City; that in the event of default by the Developers, the City may commence legal action to recover all
damages, losses and expenses sustained by the City; and that such expenses may include, but are not
limited to, the reasonable fees of legal counsel employed with respect to the enforcement of this Agreement.
33. WARRANTY. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it
pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The Developer shall submit either
a letter of credit for twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the original cost of the improvements.
A. The required warranty period for materials and workmanship for the utility contractor
installing public sewer and water mains shall be two (2) years from the date of final written City acceptance
of the work.
B. The required warranty period for all work relating to street construction, including
concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and trails, materials and equipment shall be subject to one (1) year
from the date of final written acceptance, unless the wearing course is placed during the same construction
season as the bituminous base course. In those instances, the Developer shall guarantee all work,
including street construction, concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and trails, material and equipment for a
period of two (2) years from the date of final written City acceptance of the work.
C. The required warranty period for sod, trees, and landscaping is two growing seasons
following installation.
18
D. The required warranty for landscaping within storm water infiltration areas (Outlot D
and Outlot J) shall be three (3) years following installation. The developer shall also enter into a
maintenance agreement with the City for a period of three (3) years prior to acceptance of the landscaping
for within these storm water infiltration areas. Said maintenance agreement shall include requirements for
the proper care of native plantings and the elimination of weeds and invasive species.
34. SUMMARY OF SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. To guarantee compliance with the
terms of this agreement, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements,
and construction of all public improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with an irrevocable letter of
credit, in the form attached hereto, from a bank, cash escrow or a combination cash escrow and Letter of
Credit ("security") for $________________. The amount of the security was calculated as follows:
CONSTRUCTION COSTS:
Streets
$510,516.15
Sanitary Sewer
$325,134.00
Watermain
$322,151.25
Surface Water Facilities (pipe, ponds, rain gardens, etc.)
$429,404.00
Grading $_______
Erosion Control $55,586.00
Sidewalks/Trails $_______
Street Lighting
Xcel to Install, to be pre-paid directly by developer
Street Signs and Traffic Control Signs $______
Landscaping $______
Tree Preservation and Restoration N/A
Wetland Mitigation and Buffers
Separate letter of credit through Watershed District
Monuments $_____
Miscellaneous Facilities N/A
19
Developer’s Record Drawings
$2,500
Construction Sub-Total $_______ Total Project Securities (at 125% Construction Costs) $_______
This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. The bank shall be
subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for
any violation of the terms of this Contract or if the security is allowed to lapse prior to the end of the
required term. If the required public improvements are not completed at least thirty (30) days prior to the
expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the security is drawn down, the proceeds shall
be used to cure the default.
35. REDUCTION OF SECURITY. Upon written request by the Developer and upon receipt of
proof satisfactory to the City Engineer that work has been completed and financial obligations to the City
have been satisfied, with City Engineer approval the security may be reduced as follows:
A. Up to 50%, or $_________ of the security provided in accordance with paragraph
32. above may be released when: (1) Developer’s obligations under this Agreement have been completed
and the Public Improvements have been found to be complete to the satisfaction of the City including
all corrective work for any identified punch list items, but not including the final wear course; and
(2) completion of the Improvements is done to the satisfaction of the City and evidence of such is provided
by the City in writing and satisfactory evidence of payment, such as lien waivers are provided.
B. Up to an additional 25%, or $_________ of the security provided in
accordance with paragraph 32. above may be released when: (1) Developer’s obligations under this
Agreement have been completed and the Improvements have been found to be complete to the
satisfaction of the City including all corrective work for any identified punch list items and including the final
wear course; and (2) Improvements are accepted by the City in writing and satisfactory evidence of
payment, such as lien waivers, are provided.
C. Twenty percent (25%) of the amounts certified by the Developer's engineer shall be
20
retained as security until: (1) all improvements have been completed, (2) iron monuments for lot corners
have been installed, (3) all financial obligations to the City satisfied, (4) the required "record" plans have
been received and approved by the City, (5) a warranty security is provided, and (6) the public
improvements are accepted by the City.
36. SUMMARY OF CASH REQUIREMENTS. The following is a summary of the cash
requirements under this Contract which must be furnished to the City at the time of final plat approval:
Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) $204,000
Water Availability Charge (WAC)
$204,000
Park Dedication
N/A
Street Light Operating Fee $1,332
City Base Map Upgrading $1,700
City Engineering Administration
Escrow
$50,000 (Based on two months of
administration/observation)
Total Cash Requirements $461,032
37. NOTICES. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand
delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified mail at the
following address: 16305 36th Ave N, Suite 600. Plymouth, MN 55446. Notices to the City shall be in
writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by certified mail in
care of the City Administrator at the following address: Lake Elmo City Hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042.
38. EVIDENCE OF TITLE. Developer shall furnish the City with evidence of its fee ownership
of the property being platted by way of an attorney’s title opinion or title insurance policy dated not earlier
than thirty (30) days prior to the execution of the plat.
21
CITY OF LAKE ELMO (SEAL)
BY: , Mayor
AND , City Clerk DEVELOPER:
BY: Its
22
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2 , by and by , the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Lake Elmo, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2 , by the
of .
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY: City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (651) 747-3901
23
FEE OWNER CONSENT
TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
, fee owners of all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, affirm
and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to
that portion of the subject property owned by them. Dated this day of , 2 .
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2 ,
by .
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY: City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (651) 747-3901
24
MORTGAGE CONSENT
TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
, which holds a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, agrees
that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this day of , 2 .
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of _, 2 , by .
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY: City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (651) 747-3901
25
EXHIBIT “A” TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT Legal Description of Property Being Final Platted as Savona 2nd Addition
Outlot A and F, Savona, according to the recorded plat thereof, Washington County, Minnesota
26
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT
No. Date:
TO: City of Lake Elmo
Dear Sir or Madam:
We hereby issue, for the account of (Name of Developer) and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $_ , available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the undersigned bank at its offices in Minnesota. The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. , dated , 2 , of (Name of Bank) ";
b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Administrator of the City of Lake Elmo. c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , on or before 4:00 p.m. on November 30, 2_ _. This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each year), the Bank delivers written notice to the Lake Elmo City Administrator that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: City Administrator, City Hall, 3800 Laverne Ave. N. Lake
Elmo Minnesota 55042 and is actually received by the City Administrator at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit.
This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for
Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 500. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored
upon presentation.
BY:
Its
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
REGULAR
ITEM #22 RESOLUTION 2014-046
AGENDA ITEM: Wildflower at Lake Elmo (Robert Engstrom Companies) Comprehensive Plan Amendment
SUBMITTED BY: Nick M. Johnson, City Planner
THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission
Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
David Snyder, City Attorney
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director
- Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECCOMENDER: The Planning Commission reviewed a PUD Concept Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) related to the proposed Wildflower at Lake Elmo
development at its June 9, 2014 meeting and recommended approval of both requests with
conditions. The City Council approved the PUD Concept Plan at its June 17th meeting, but
tabled discussion concerning the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment due the absence of two Council members. In addition, the City Council reviewed the CPA request at the July 1, 2014 City Council meeting and postponed consideration of the item pending further progress on
the legal effort to amend the existing conservation easement and additional information about the
proposed conservancy.
FISCAL IMPACT: TBD – The Comprehensive Plan Amendment is necessary for the development project to move forward as proposed. If the amendment is not approved, the
applicant will need to submit a revised concept plan.
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 22]
September 16, 2014
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow residential development to occur on two small areas
within the proposed Wildflower at Lake Elmo subdivision that are currently guided for RAD –
Rural Area Development and Open Space. The City Council approved the PUD Concept Plan for this development at on June 17th, but could not take action on the related Comprehensive
Plan amendment because the proposed amendment requires a 4/5ths majority of the Council to
pass and two Council members were absent from this meeting. Additional review was
completed at the July 1st meeting, however the item was postponed for consideration pending
additional requested information. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-46 approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of two areas within the Wildflower at Lake Elmo development from RAD and OP to V-LDR and V-MDR.”
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The information attached to the June 17th Council agenda packet for this item included detailed plans, reports,
and other information concerning the Wildflower at Lake Elmo Development. In the interest of
avoiding additional copying for the September 16th Council meeting, Staff has not provided
information included in the June 17th packet except for the proposed resolution of approval and
related map. All of the previous information is available upon request (and still available on-line).
As part of its approval of the Wildflower Concept Plan on June 17th, the City Council added two
conditions to the Planning Commission recommendation based on feedback form the
surrounding property owners, include the Fields of St. Croix Homeowner’s Association. These conditions requested the following:
• That prior to approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment the Fields of St. Croix
Association and Robert Engstrom Companies would submit their written agreement to the City concerning the proposed development on Outlot P and proposed amendments to the conservation easement over Outlot P.
• That prior to approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment the three property owners to the east of Wildflower that have submitted written statements to the City concerning the development (Eischen, Dupuis, and Smith) would work out an agreement with the
developer concerning buffering and screening of their properties.
Since the Council meeting, Staff has received the written agreement between Robert Engstrom Companies and the Fields Association. This agreement is attached for consideration by the Council. In addition, the developer has met on site with the three eastern property owners and
also participated in a meeting at City Hall with Staff and the Mayor present to further discuss
-- page 2 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 22]
September 16, 2014
their concerns. The result of this meeting is the attached landscape plan that documents the types
of planting and location for the plantings that was deemed acceptable to all parties. Furthermore,
the developer has agreed to the following actions to further address neighbor concerns:
• To conduct a further investigation of wooded area to the east of the Eischen’s home that
extends into Outlot P. This investigation is intended to identify any work needed
(removal of dead trees, removal of invasive species, additional plantings) to allow this
area to provide an effective screen and keep the area in a natural state.
• To revise the parcel layout in front of the Smith property to remove one buildable lot and
to reconfigure the adjacent parcels so that they only about Smith’s land at one point. All
land between the Smith property and public roadway would be platted as an outlot to be owned and maintained by the future HOA. This revised layout is depicted in the attached updated landscape plan for this area.
With the submission of this information, the relevant conditions of approval attached to the
concept plan appear to have been addressed. The developer was still reviewing some of the details of the updated plan with the property owners, any further updates will be discussed at the City Council meeting.
In addition to the aforementioned requested conditions, the City Council requested additional
information be provided at its July 1st meeting before taking action of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request. The additional information includes the necessary amendments to the conservations easements where the Comp Plan Amendment would apply, as well as additional
detail concerning the management and maintenance of the proposed conservancy area. To
address these outstanding items, the applicant’s attorney has been working with the City
Attorney on drafting the necessary amendments to the Conservation Easement. This agreement has now been finalized, and the version signed by the Fields of St. Croix Homeowner’s Association is attached for consideration by the City Council. Please note that because the
agreements reference lots that will be created via a future subdivision, all parties have agreed that
the documents will be held in escrow pending the approval of the Wildflower plat. If the plat is
not approved by the City, the agreements will never be executed. In addition, the applicant has provided a preliminary management plan for the conservation area
in the northern portion of the Wildflower development. This preliminary plan can be found in an
email to the Community Development Director (Attachment #8).
As noted in the previous Staff report on this item, the Planning Commission discussed the request, and unanimously recommended approval of the comprehensive plan amendment as
presented with the one condition as recommended by Staff.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT) FROM PREVIOUS RERPOT:
Strengths • The PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the City’s
-- page 3 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 22]
September 16, 2014
Comprehensive Plan for the Village Planning Area (with the
exception of the plan amendments requested by the developer).
• The project has been designed to comply with the City’s zoning regulations and development standards for the Village Medium Density district.
• The project addresses several of the Village Planning Principles
adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Weaknesses • The concept plan will require the removal of a portion of the existing conservation easement over Outlot P of the Fields of St.
Croix Second Addition.
Opportunities • The development will include 145 REC units and will pay connection fees for sewer and water service.
• The project includes a large conservation area that will ensure
the permanent protection of a large portion of the planned
Village Open Space/Buffer area.
• The development will bring sewer to the extreme northeastern portion of the Village Planning Area and will be designed to
allow for future connections in this part of the City.
Threats • The developer will need to work with the City on establishing a plan for management and oversight of the conservation area in a
manner that will not overburden the City.
RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above report and analysis, Staff and the Planning
Commission are recommending that the City Council approve the request from Robert Engstrom Companies for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment related to a residential subdivision to be called Wildflower at Lake Elmo. The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission
recommendation are as follows:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-46 approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of two areas within the Wildflower at Lake Elmo development from RAD and OP to V-LDR and V-MDR.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 2014-46 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment)
2. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
3. Updated Landscaping Sketch Plan – Wildflower at Lake Elmo
4. Planting List and Details
5. Aerial Photograph – Smith, Eischen, and Dupuis Property 6. Eischen Letter
7. Fields of St. Croix and Engstrom Written Agreement
8. Preliminary Management Plan for Wildflower Conservation Area
9. Draft Easement Agreements (2)
-- page 4 --
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-046
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo has established a Comprehensive Plan that provides a
compilation of background data, policy statements, standards, and maps, which help to guide the
future physical, social, and economic development of the City; and
WHEREAS, Robert Engstrom Companies, 4801 West 81st Street, #101, Bloomington, MN, (“Applicant”) has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (“City”) to amend the Lake
Elmo Comprehensive Plan, a copy of which is on file in the City Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan was submitted along with a Planned Unit Development concept plan for a proposed single-family residential subdivision to be called Wildflower at Lake Elmo; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 9, 2014 to
consider the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2014 the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion to
recommend that the City Council approve the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan at meetings on June 17, 2014, July 1, 2014 and September 2, 2014 and September 16, 2014; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the testimony elicited and information received, the City
Council makes the following:
FINDINGS
1) That the Applicant has submitted a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the procedures as established by the Lake Elmo Planning Department and Lake Elmo Planning Commission.
2) That the request to is to amend the Future Land Use Map (Map 3-3 in Chapter III – Land
Use Plan) and Village Planned Land Use Map (Map 3-5 in Chapter III – Land Use Plan) in
the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan, and to specifically change the future land use
designation of a portion of two parcels of land located within the Wildflower at Lake Elmo development as depicted in the attached Exhibit A and described as follows:
a) To change the western portion of Outlot P of the Fields of St. Croix Second Addition
from RAD – Rural Area Development to V-MDR Village Urban Medium Density
Residential (a portion of PID 12.029.21.43.0013).
b) To change the approximately eight acres immediately east of the intersection of 43rd
Street North and Lake Elmo Avenue (the area depicted for the westernmost single family
residential lots on the Wildflower at Lake Elmo PUD Concept Plan approved by the City
Council on June 9, 2014) from RAD – Rural Area Development and Village Open Space Overlay to V-LDR Village Urban Low Density Residential (a portion of PID
12.029.21.32.0001).
3) That the proposed area impacted by the proposed amendment is relatively small and will not
have a significant impact on the City’s 2030 household and population forecasts.
4) That the proposed amendments are consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the
Village Land Use Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the foregoing, the Lake Elmo
City Council hereby approves the Applicant’s request to amend the Lake Elmo Comprehensive
Plan, subject to and contingent upon the following:
1) Submission of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council and the receipt of formal notification from the Metropolitan Council that its review has been
completed and approved.
Passed and duly adopted this 16th day of September 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
__________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST:
________________________________
Adam Bell, City Clerk
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
REGULAR
ITEM # 23
AGENDA ITEM: 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements - Change
Order No. 1
SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer
THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction/Staff Presentation ..................................................... City Engineer
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Public Input, if Appropriate………………………………….Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering
FISCAL IMPACT: Cost impacts to be presented at Council Meeting
This change order will increase the scope of the contractor improvements and therefore the contract amount by a final amount to be presented at the Council meeting. Staff will present a brief water system planning update at the council meeting to update the council in regards to the overall water system
infrastructure plan and the need for the improvements.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving Change Order No. 1 for the 39th Street
North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements, thereby increasing the contract amount by an amount to
be presented at the Council meeting. The recommended motion for the action is as follows:
“Move to approve Change Order No. 1 for the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer
Improvements in the amount of $________________.”
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 23]
September 16, 2014
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Concurrently with the design of the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements project, engineering has been working with the City’s water system consultant, AE2S, to identify and configure
the City’s comprehensive water system as needed to support the proposed growth and development.
Reconfiguration and verification of pipe sizing, storage requirements, and other infrastructure needs is necessary to provide a functional system as the proposed development plans and subsequent phasing of
the infrastructure becomes known. Through this process, staff has identified an opportunity to increase the size of the Village trunk
watermain, together with redefining the pressure zone boundaries in and around the Village area, in a manner that will eliminate the future need for an elevated storage tank in the Village. The pipe upsizing may also result in the ability to defer the need to construct the low pressure system water tower south of
10th Street for 1-2 additional years. The overall water system savings could be significant but will result in the increased cost to upsize the Village trunk watermain. The water system modeling work has identified that a 16-inch trunk watermain through the Old Village Area would enable these overall system
changes and would increase the municipal water service and fire protection to the low pressure system along the I-94 corridor.
With the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements project currently in construction, there is an opportunity to complete one segment of this trunk watermain by adding the replacement of the
watermain to the scope of this project through a change order. Engineering has prepared a change order
and received contractor pricing for the work. The change order details would be as follows:
1. Remove existing 8-inch watermain along 39th Street from Lake Elmo Avenue to Laverne Avenue.
2. Install 16-inch watermain along 39th Street from Lake Elmo Avenue to Laverne Avenue including all necessary fittings, valves, and appurtenances required.
The remainder of the 16-inch trunk line would be included with future projects such as the CSAH 17 Lake Elmo Avenue Street and Utility Improvements project scheduled for construction in 2015 and 2016.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council consider approving Change Order No. 1 for the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements, thereby increasing the Contract Amount by an amount to be presented at the council meeting. The recommended motion for this action is as follows:
“Move to approve Change Order No. 1 for the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements in the amount of $________________.”
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. N/A (Change Order No. 1 to be presented at the Council meeting).
-- page 2 --
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
REGULAR
ITEM #25 MOTION $$ - $21,900
AGENDA ITEM: Approve corrective action to be taken to resolve the Discover Crossing
cul-de-sac storm water drainage issue
SUBMITTED BY: Dean Zuleger / Cathy Bendel
THROUGH: Ryan Stempski, Mike Bouthilet, Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
REVIEWED BY: Finance Committee
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator
- Report/Presentation…………….…………………………..City Administrator
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Council Member Wally Nelson & City Administrator Dean
Zuleger
FISCAL IMPACT: Not to exceed $21,900 / Surface Water Account SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Direct staff to proceed with having repairs done
in the Discover Crossing circle related to the poor turn around and storm water drainage designs.
This would include obtaining the required second estimate to be sure the work is being performed at the lowest cost available.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: When the Discover Crossing development was designed,
there were design flaws. They included the design of a cul-de-sac with a turn-around radius
which is insufficient for larger vehicles (school buses and fire trucks) as well as the placement of the storm water drain in a location which is resulting in erosion and standing water issues that are affecting the infrastructure of the street..
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 25]
September 16, 2014
STAFF REPORT: For the last six years the City staff have received numerous
complaints/issues from the Discover Crossing residents related to design flaws by the developer
related to the turnaround circle and the storm water drain in that turn around. As a result of the
Developer no longer being in business, there is no one to bring these issues to for resolution/correction. Staff has had numerous on-site meetings with the HOA to outline the
issues and determine the best corrective action to be taken.
Attached is a proposal from TA Schifsky to make the suggested repairs at a cost of $21,900. A
second quote will be obtained and the work will be completed by the vendor with the lowest quote, not to exceed $21,900.
100% of the costs would be charged to the Storm Water Fund since all necessary repairs are a
result of the issues with the storm water drain.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the repairs to be
made on the Discover Crossing turnaround at an amount not to exceed $21,900:
“Move to approve an amount not to exceed $21,900 to do the repairs needed at the Discover
Crossing circle”
-- page 2 --
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2014
Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Dodson, Kreimer, Larson, Lundgren, Dorschner
and Haggard
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt and City Administrator Zuleger
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Haggard/Lundgren, move that no new items are brought up after 10:30 pm;
Vote: 0-7, motion fails.
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Approve Minutes: August 25, 2014
M/S/P: Williams/Lundgren, move to approve the minutes as amended; Vote: 6-0,
motion carried, with Dorschner not voting.
Public Hearing: Village Park Preserve – Preliminary Plat
Klatt started his presentation on the application for Village Park Preserve which is a
follow through from the concept plan. There are 104 single family residential units
located on 64 acres immediately west of Manning Avenue and north of 30th Street
within the Southern portion of the Village Planning Area.
One critical issue that needs to be addressed is storm water management. This plan
pulls water away from 30th street to a spot that is much better to be managed. A
condition of approval is written approval of affected property owners. There is also
watershed district approval required. Another item would be the formal approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Metropolitan Council. There should be
additional buffering for the McLeod property. The MAC would also like some input into
the storm water areas so that there is no problem with attracting waterfowl.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
2
Klatt presented draft findings to the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending
approval with 13 conditions of approval.
Klatt stated that there is a 3 year growing period that the developer is responsible for
maintaining the storm water ponds.
Dave Gonyea with Gonyea Company stated that they are planning to put additional
screening in for the McLeod property. He stated that they will eliminate 2 lots in the
South West corner and put in 2 more infiltration basins.
Dodson asked Dave Gonyea if he sees any problems with getting approvals from all the
agencies before the final plat. Gonyea said he does not see any problems with that.
Public Hearing opened at 8:42 p.m.
No written comments were received.
James McLeod, 11580 30th Street, concerned about the intersection of 30th street and
Manning. There have been numerous accidents there because it is so difficult to see on
30th Street, especially at night. He feels it is imperative that a street light be there as
well as potentially a stop light. He also feels that drainage will be a huge problem. He
also asked where the sewer line is on the map. Gonyea explained that on the map. Mr.
Mcleod would like to have a sewer line stubbed up to his property.
Vonnie McLeod, 11580 30th Street, concerned that there are too many homes on too
small of lots.
Sue Dunn, 11018 Upper 33rd Street, is concerned with all of the conditions of approval
and is very concerned with the surface water plan. She would like to see a moratorium
on development until a comprehensive surface water plan is in place.
Public Hearing closed at 8:57 pm.
There was a general discussion about a traffic light at 30th and Manning and that in the
future that would probably take place. There was also a general discussion about the
railroad crossing.
Zuleger stated that the work on Manning is going to commence in 2016 with a
roundabout at 10th street and Manning. Probably the installation of the 30th street
traffic lights would be more in 2017-2018.
Kreimer asked about the 1% watershed district requirement for rate and volume control
and was wondering if that was incorporated into this plan. Klatt stated that they will
need to meet that and additional work needs to be done on the plans.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
3
Williams stated the plan meets zoning requirements and net density. The only problem
he sees is storm water management.
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move that condition number 13 be changed to state that the
developer submit a letter from the MAC agreeing to the design of storm water facilities
acceptable to the City prior to submitting Final Plat application, Vote:7 -0, motion
carried Unanimously.
Haggard does not agree with giving a credit for parkland for a piece of land that is not
connected. Dodson agrees that it seems that it is wooded and might not be
developable. Gonyea stated that it was developable and was what the City asked for.
Dodson was wondering how many of these conditions would be resolved prior to Final
Plat. He is concerned about the Storm water getting ironed out before Final Plat.
Williams pointed out that a number of the conditions specifically state that they must
be done before final plat.
M/S/P: Larson/Dorschner, move to recommend approval of the Village Park Preserve
preliminary plat with the 13 conditions of approval as drafted by staff based on the
findings of fact listed in the staff report, including the amendment to number 13 Vote:6
-1, motion carried, with Haggard voting no.
Lundgren asked about the feasibility to get a stub sewer line down to the McLeod
property. Dave Gonyea expressed his willingness to work with the McLeods to get a
stub sewer line down to their property.
Business Item: Savona Second Addition – Final Plat
Klatt began his presentation regarding the continuation of the discussion of the Final
Plat for Savona 2nd addition that was reviewed at the 8/25/14 Planning Commission
meeting. First addition has 2 model homes currently under construction. The Planning
Commission wanted to see more of the items resolved before Final Plat approval was
given. The developer has removed 2 lots to comply with some of the requests of the
Planning Commission. Six conditions of approval have been met. There are now 8
conditions of approval which are more Final Plat checklist items before the plat is
recorded.
M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, motion to reword condition #4 to state that a common
interest agreement concerning the management for both the single family and multi-
family areas within Savona, and establishing a homeowners association for both these
areas shall be submitted in final form to the Community Development Director. The
Declaration shall comply with Minnesota Statute 515B for transfer of control to the
Homeowners. Vote: 7-0, motion carried, unanimously.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
4
M/S/P: Dodson/Larson, move to recommend approval of the Savona 2nd Addition Final
Plat with the 8 conditions of approval as drafted by staff and amended by the
Commission and findings of fact in the staff report, Vote: 7-0, motion carried,
unanimously.
Business Item: Inwood Planned Unit Development (PUD) – General Concept Plan
Klatt began his presentation regarding the continuation of the discussion of the PUD
Concept plan for the Inwood Plan. Klatt mentioned that although the public hearing
was closed, generally the Planning Commission will let the public make comments. He
noted that some of the Planning Commission members did go and visit the Lakes
Development in Blaine. The developer has made a number of updates. Cul-de-sac L has
been reduced, no lots encroach into the greenbelt buffer, there is increased area
adjacent to Stonegate Park. Single family lots were reduced from 281 to 273. There is
an updated net density calculation and an open space plan. Staff is recommending
approval based on 17 conditions of approval. Staff would also like clarification of 5
previous motions made at the previous meeting to see if they are still valid.
John Rask, Hans Hagen, spoke regarding some of the changes. They are working with
the watershed to preserve a couple of wetlands. They are working with the Park
Commission regarding the Park and one cu-de-sac was made a pass through. The buffer
was extended to the edge of the trees, so the buffer is over the 100 feet required. Rask
talked about the PUD ordinance and the requirements that relate to the Comprehensive
Plan. Rask stated that a third of the site is open space. He spoke to the density of the
development which is within the density range required by the Comprehensive Plan.
Rask spoke about what they were trying to accomplish with this development.
Haggard asked about outlot G in the commercial area and asked if it would be
developed in the future. Rask responded that it is regulated by the Watershed District
and there can be no more than 30% impervious. Each island is an Infiltration basis.
They don’t have specific users for the commercial, so at this point it is just a concept.
Haggard also asked about the buffering between different uses.
Todd Ptacek, 812 Julep Ave, feels that things are moving too quickly and there should
have been a moratorium until the numbers were refigured. Just because the numbers
are met doesn’t mean that it is a good development. With a PUD ordinance, it also gives
the City flexibility. It seems wrong to count filtration basins as open space. Also was
wondering about the 300 foot property notification. Klatt clarified it is 350 feet.
John Olfelt, 914 Jewel Ave, disappointed that this is such a dense development.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
5
Randy Hederson, 820 Jasmine Ave, totally against having such small width of lots. Also
asked about the buffer and how many trees are going to be removed. There will be
trees removed to put in the trail in the wooded area. Also feels that the park might be
too far away for people in the development.
Tom Fitzgerald, 877 Jasmine Ave Place, has been asked by neighbors to present a
petition stating their opposition of this development. Fitzgerald read the petition. The
petition had 95 signatures and was submitted for the record.
Mark Enright, 724 Julep Ave, objects to what he considers high density going in next to
Stonegate. Feels that the City is moving too quickly. Feels that it would have been
respectful if all Stonegate residents would have been notified regardless of the 350 foot
rule. Has traffic concerns regarding 10th Street as there are already issues without this
development. Asked about definition of open space. Klatt talked about what it is and
will see if there is a definition.
Nancy Andert, 697 Julep Ave, appalled by all of this development. Feels there should be
a smooth transition as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Feels we should slow down
on all the development. Feels that whatever the developer wants, the City has been
changing the code or issuing variances. Why should a PUD be different from any other
development?
Michael Lancette, 832 Jasmine Ave, seems that the developer is asking for a lot with the
PUD and the City is asking for very little. Would like the motion to include single family
homes on the east side of the development. This is a PUD and there should be
concessions on both sides.
Curt Monteith, 331 Julep Ave, a number of years ago there was a 55 year and older
proposal to the West of Stonegate. He supported it at that time because he felt it was
much less dense than what they could end up with.
Wayne Prowse, 697 Julep Ave, against the variances, especially the small lot sizes. Feels
that there is enough development surrounding Stonegate and feels that the area cannot
absorb the additional traffic along 10th Street. Hans Hagen told him that the City
requested the money instead of more parkland. He feels that there is not enough
parkland to support the area. He feels that the City is representing the wishes of
developers vs. the wishes of the residents.
Sue Dunn, 11018 Upper 33rd Street, what has happened to this City when a home is
called a product. What about the school district, parkland, roads. It is time to hit the
pause button. The word moratorium doesn’t have to scare people and we should be
able to develop in a thoughtful and sensitive way that is compatible with Lake Elmo.
The City hasn’t made adjustments to the Comprehensive Plan, even though the rec units
have been reduced.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
6
An email was received from Bob Streeter, the Community Development Director of
Oakdale, which was read into the record. Oakdale is concerned with the reduced
access to 9th Street and Oak Marsh drive. They would like to work with City of Lake
Elmo and County staff to find a mutually agreeable solution.
Greg Milner, was wondering how many people signed the petition. 95 people signed.
Dodson would like to have the benefit to the City of the PUD in this case. Klatt stated
that there are 3 things that are needed to be done for a PUD and the City feels they
have met those things. The other things are a little more subjective. It is a different
product than other developers are doing. The PUD is used as a tool when a developer
wants to do something that isn’t strictly allowed. In this case they are trying to provide
a more unified development.
Williams stated that in this case it allows for a better storm water plan when multiple
parcels are rolled together and one plan is brought forward.
Haggard asked if the staff or Council have been looking at lowering the densities now
that the forecast has been decreased. Zuleger stated that staff and Council have been
looking at rebalancing those numbers, especially in higher density areas such as along
Manning. They are looking at possibly more office park and other options.
Lundgren asked what the original rec units were that were mandated. Zuleger
responded that we were mandated 6600 total rec units. Zuleger stated that we did not
specifically deal with rec units, but dealt with population numbers. Lundgren asked how
many rec units have been approved already. Savona has approved a little over 100 rec
units. Zuleger stated that with the plats in process including this one would put us up
around 1700 rec units.
Williams stated that one thing he sees as making a big difference is extensive
landscaping. He would like to see more spruce trees along the buffer of Stonegate.
Kreimer agrees that we do not have anything else like this and the HOA maintained
yards are very nice. However, the 38 foot lots are not acceptable and he is not in favor
of granting variances for such small lots. Feels that even if you can’t see the
development from Stonegate, there are other impacts to consider such as light, noise,
traffic, etc.
M/S/P: Kreimer/Lundgren, move to recommend denial of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan
because it does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the City’s
PUD Ordinance, Vote: 2-5, motion fails, with Haggard, Dorschner, Williams, Dodson and
Larson voting no.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
7
Larson spoke in favor of the development. He feels it is a quality development and is a
unique product where people will be proud to live. Dodson also struggles with what
else could go here instead of this development.
Kreimer stated that the land use plan was designed to put the traffic between 5th street
and Hudson. Dodson asked about the traffic study by the County. Kreimer stated that
he read someone’s comment that there may be a need for a signal there, so clearly
there is concern about the traffic.
Dodson stated that after the tour of the Lakes, they have a good idea of what it will look
like and there are a lot of positives with the mix of products and the HOA maintained
area. Dodson stated that sewered lots are by nature going to be higher density. On the
negative, he wasn’t all that comfortable with the back yards, but that is not what he
would be in the market for.
Kreimer stated he is not comfortable with the apartments because it will add a lot more
traffic.
Haggard feels that the density numbers that are created by the multi family is way out
of line. She also feels that the commercial land should not be counted in. She feels that
with a PUD, the City is able to ask for a reduction.
Dorschner is very uncomfortable with the 36 foot wide lot. He feels that Stonegate
won’t be happy with any development on that property. Feels we need to decide what
is the lesser evil.
Lundgren thinks the density is too high. Klatt stated that they do have the authority to
make recommendations.
The Planning Commission came up with a list of conditions and voted on each one
individually.
1. All Multi-family housing, including senior housing should be south of 5th street to
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Vote: 5-2, motion carried, with
Larson and Dodson voting no.
2. Add Sidewalks on one side to all roads in the residential areas, except for 9th
Street. Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
3. Situate the trail in the east buffer area as far west as possible. Vote: 7-0, motion
carried unanimously.
4. Lots in neighborhoods E (lots 9-14) F (lots 7-11) and H (lots 7-12) be made
designer lots. Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
5. Require a 5 foot side yard setback. Vote: 2-5, motion failed, with Larson,
Dodson, Haggard, Williams and Kreimer voting no.
6. Park Commission should consider a park to be located toward the end of
neighborhood G. Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
8
7. The maximum density of the high density residential remain at 15 units per acre.
Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
8. All Cul-de-sacs must meet the City standard for maximum length. Vote: 6-1,
motion carried, with Dodson voting no.
9. Applicant must work with the City to submit design standards to the City as part
of the Preliminary PUD Plan application for the City’s use in reviewing building
permits. Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Larson/Dorschner, move to recommend approval of the Inwood PUD Concept
Plan with the findings of fact and 17 conditions of approval as drafted in the staff report,
along with the 8 additional conditions voted on by the Planning Commission, for a total
of 25 conditions Vote: 5-2, motion carried, with Kreimer and Lundgren voting no.
Business Item: Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat
Klatt began his presentation for a Final plat for Hunter’s Crossing. The Final plat is
consistent with the preliminary plat. The final plat for phase I is for 22 single family
homes. The critical issues with this development are 5th street construction and phasing,
5th street final construction plans, storm water easement on eastern property, and final
checklist for plat approval.
Dodson was wondering why an HOA was required. Klatt said that there is some
common area that needs to be maintained.
Williams is wondering why the temporary access road is not shown on the plat. Klatt
stated that the engineer is requesting an easement for the access road.
Larson asked why there is no trail shown on the plat. Klatt stated that there is a trail
plan that will circle the development and there is a sidewalk on 5th street once it is built.
Haggard is wondering where the safe pedestrian cross walk will be. Klatt stated that
when the plans for 5th street come forward, that will be part of the plan.
Dorschner asked why this is phased for a temporary access. Klatt stated that the
northern property owner is not interested in building the road and does not want to be
assessed for it. Zuleger stated that they are working on an agreement with the northern
property owner that the road will be built within 5 years.
Lundgren asked what happens if second addition never materializes. Klatt stated that
there will not be over 25 homes built until the road goes in. The road will need to be
addressed before any other activity can take place there.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
9
Williams asked about the grading. Currently there is an existing berm going into the
driving range. Will that be kept?
Dodson asked Rust what the HOA will do. Rust responded that it will maintain
landscaping, monument, mailboxes, architectural standards, protected lands, etc.
Dodson feels that it isn’t a lot of benefit for the conflict that it can create.
M/S/P: Williams/Lungren, move to require an easement for the temporary access road
shown on the final plat. Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
There was more discussion regarding the HOA and Klatt stated that it might go beyond
the authority the Planning Commission has for land use planning.
M/S/P: Williams/Dorschner, move to have at the beginning of the draft findings the
blanket statement “with the exception of the items noted in the staff report”, Vote: 7-0,
motion carried unanimously.
Haggard stated that she is disappointed that the landscape requirements have not been
met. She would like to make sure that we hold true to the landscape standards.
Lundgren stated that the words “generally acceptable” is too vague.
M/S/P: Haggard/Kreimer, move to recommend approval of the Hunter’s Crossing Final
Plat with the 12 conditions as drafted by staff and the Planning Commission and would
like to have the landscape plan be in full compliance before going to City Council, Vote:
7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Updates and Concerns
Council Updates 1. Savona Conditional Use permit passed.
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. September 22, 2014
b. October 13, 2014
Commission Concerns –
Haggard brought up the timing of the packet. 1 business day is not enough time to
review.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
10
Dorschner mentioned that we are moving too fast and it is too much for the staff. If we
need more staff, we need to get more staff. Zuleger stated that we might bring in a
Planning Consultant just to work on Hans Hagen. Fees and escrows will be used against
Planning and Building staff. Dorschner also asked about the school district. Zuleger
responded that he is working with Planner Johnson and the school district on these
concerns. They are also meeting with sheriff Hutton to talk about the impact to police
services.
Haggard would like to have a joint meeting with Council to talk more about the recs and
what we are on pace for.
Dodson asked about the deadline requirements for developments. Klatt stated that the
deadlines are already included in the staff report. Zuleger stated that the developers
are going to be told that if a complete submittal isn’t received 2 weeks before the
meeting, it won’t hit the meeting. Klatt stated that we are trying to move to electronic,
but that may be a ways out yet.
Meeting adjourned at 12:30 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14