HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda packet 9-9-19, 1 of 2 THE CITY OF
LAKE ELMO 3800 Laverne Avenue North (651) 747-3900
Lake Elmo, MN 55042 www.lakeelmo.org
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday September 9, 2019
at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. August 26,2019
4. Public Hearings
a. Variance Requests—Mercil Residence(8126 Hill Trail)
b. PUD Concept Plan Review-Applewood Pointe Senior Housing (Hudson Blvd and Eagle
Pointe Blvd)
c. Final Plat and Final PUD - Springs Apartments(Hudson Boulevard and Julia Avenue)
5. New Business
6. Communications/Updates
a. City Council Update 9-03-2019 Meeting
Union Park First Addition Final Plat
b. Staff Updates
October 8, 2019 City Council Workshop—Urban Land Institute
c. Upcoming PC Meetings:
1. September 23,2019
2. October 7,2019
7. Adjourn
***Note:Every effort will be made to accommodate person or persons that need special considerations to attend this
meeting due to a health condition or disability.Please contact the Lake Elmo City Clerk if you are in need of special
accommodations.
1
THE CITY OF STAFF REPORT
LAKE ELMO DATE: 9/9/19
REGULAR
ITEM#: 4A—PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Variance Requests for 8126 Hill Trl. N
REVIEWED BY: Ken Roberts, Planning Director
BACKGROUND:
The City has received several variance requests from Tim and Lacey Mercil (Applicant), for the property
located at 09.029.21.22.0008 (addressed as 8126), owned by Mike and Ruth Schrantz. They are requesting
City approval of the variances in order to construct a new home on the property. They are seeking relief
from the City Code's minimum setback from the top of bluff,the setback from the ordinary highwater line
(OHWL), the maximum amount of impervious surface, minimum lot size in the riparian zone, and the
20,000 sqft. septic field requirement. The applicant had previously submitted their variance application in
April of 2019. After discussing the project with the applicant, they decided to pull their application due to
complications on determining a viable drainfield. Since April the applicants have been working with
Washington County to get an approved septic permit for the property, which they now have. Please know
that Staff has been working with the applicant and the numbers in the narrative do not match the survey that
is under review.
ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION:
The Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing, review and make recommendation on the above
mentioned variance requests.
REVIEW/ANALYSIS:
PID 09.029.21.22.0008
Existing Land Use/Zoning: Single-family detached residential home guided for Rural Single
Family.
Surrounding Land Use/ Surrounded by single family homes guided for Rural Single
Zoning: Family/Rural Single Family
History: The property is part of the Lane's on Demontreville development
and has been vacant for many years. The plat for the development
was signed in 1927/28.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete—8/9/2019
60 Day Deadline— 10/8/2019
Extension Letter Mailed—N/A
120 Day Deadline—N/A
Applicable Regulations: • Article V-Zoning Administration and Enforcement
• Article XVIII—Shoreland Management Overlay District
• Table V, Section 16, Chapter Four of the Washington
County Development Code
• Article XI—Rural Districts
•� 2
t.f 13
PROPOSED VARIANCES
Variance Requests. The applicant is requesting to build a single family home with a foundation size
of 44 feet wide by 29.75 feet long which is 1,309 sqft. The following table outlines the code
requirement and the proposed figure for the variance request.
Standard Required Proposed Variance
from Code
Structure setback from OHWL of 66.5 ft. average 64 ft. 2.5 ft.
Recreational Development (RD) Lake, (100 ft.)
-Averaging is allowed
Structure setback from Top of Bluff on 30 ft. 24 ft. 6 ft.
a Recreational Development Lake
Minimum septic area 20,000 sqft. 3,000 sqft. (Mound 17,000 sqft.
system,County
approved)
Impervious surface 15% 20.5% 5.5%
Lot Width 125 ft. 99.99 ft. 25.01 ft.
RS
Minimum lot area 1.5 acres 0.48 acres 1.01 acres
RS District
Riparian Lot .91 acres .43 acres
3
Standards Met. The following table outlines the standards that are met on the property.
The Applicant has an approved septic permit from Washington County. Beyond that, City Staff is only
looking to ensure that the septic is located an appropriate distance from the water and review the sizing
requirement.
Standard Required Proposed
All septic related setbacks have been approved via the septic permit County Standard
issued by Washington County. Enforced Met
Standards that are met are outlined below
Sewage tank setback from water supply wells 50 ft. 50 ft.
Drainfield setback from occupied structure 20 ft. 24 ft.
Sewage tank setback from occupied structure 10 ft. 32 ft.
Drainfield setback from property lines 10 ft. 10 ft. or
more
Sewage system setback from the OHWL of Recreational (RD) Lake 75 ft. 120 ft.
Side yard setback 10 ft. 11/54 ft.
Front yard setback 30 ft. 94 ft.
Rear Yard setback 40 ft. 64 ft.
Reason for Variance Requests. These variance requests are mostly due to the lot size of the property.
The lot was established prior to current zoning criteria and prior to the ownership by the applicant's
family. The initial establishment of the Lanes Demontreville Country Club subdivision was
established in 1925. The lots are very small by today's standards, which has caused issues for
homeowners in the area. The small lots coupled with the shoreland standards has added an additional
burden for new and existing home owners in the area.
Setback from High Water Line and Bluff.
Highwater Line Setback 154.800 table 17-3
As previously mentioned in the above table, the proposed house is setback 64 feet from the OHWL of
Lake Demontreville. The code requires a 100 ft. setback for structures from Recreational Development
lakes. However, Section 154.800 12. of the Shoreland Management Overlay District allows some relief
and states the following:
154.80012 c. Setback averaging. Where structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed
building site, structure setbacks may be altered without a
variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks from the
OHWL,provided the proposed structure is not located in
a shore impact zone or in a bluff impact zone;
The proposed home would be outside the impact
zone by 11 ft. but the setback from the OHWL of the
houses on the adjacent lots averages to 66.5 ft.
Unfortunately, the proposed home would be setback
64 ft. which is 2.5 ft. shy of being allowed without a
variance. Because the proposed design cannot meet
the average setback, a variance is required. With
setback averaging being a possibility Staff likes to
consider sightline impacts to the neighboring homes.
The location of the home as compared to homes to
the north and south is shown below and will likely
not inhibit lake views for neighboring properties.
4
Top of Bluff 154.800 table 17-3
The shoreland management section of the code requires that structures maintain a setback of 30 ft.
from the top of a bluff. The applicant is proposing a setback of 24 ft. which is 6 ft. shy of the required
30 ft. mark. They are showing an impact zone of 20 ft. which the home is clear of but the proposed
patio is not. The patio is outside of the shoreland impact zone by 4 ft. but is clearly not outside of the
bluff impact zone.
Minimum Septic Size. Section 154.404
The Zoning Code requires that all lots within the rural districts maintain at least 20,000 square feet of
land suitable for septic drainfields and area sufficient for two separate distinct drainfield sites. This is
an impossible expectation for this lot because it is 19,712 sqft. in size. Because the City does not
involve themselves with the permitting of septic systems an approved septic permit from Washington
County is be required for this property. Fortunately the applicant has been proactive in working with
Washington County and has received an approved permit. Staff spoke with Washington County Staff,
who permits septic, systems and it was relayed that the proposed system will be able to function and
meet their setback requirements.
\'d x
T E eTA/Re
G BF1 BELGN£D�
and a 3/9 itch \ �',� er Or!/fB5
en top 1—
--,-
'• `b N `� SEV ONDARY
SECOND S :� Pt _- DRAIAA D
D TIE i \
� — „ s
P2�''e'wM •
� BS
oR. ron Pipe T.A Vie, `• $ \ V F
n ,f\
i @ surJey de -83 B4
1 9 c•. 7
Impervious Surface. 154.800 Table 17-3
The RS district has a maximum impervious surface percentage set at 25% (154.401 table 9-1). The lot
easily meets this standard. However,the impervious surface standard for a un-sewered lot abutting an RD
lake is 15% (154.800 table 17-3),which is why there is a need for a variance. The applicant is requesting a
variance of 5.5%to have an impervious surface area of 20.5% on the property.
Lot Size and Width 154.402 and 154.800
Both the RS district and the shoreland management codes require larger lots than what the applicant is
working with. The RS district requires a minimum lot of 1.5 acres and the shoreland code requires a
minimum lot of.91 acres. The lot is 19,712 sqft. and was established well before the zoning code was put
into place, which is a common theme amongst homes in the development.
Rural District 154.402
The minimum lot size within the Rural Single Family zoning district is 1.5 acres. There is a provision
within the Zoning Code that states that"...any such lot or parcel of land which is in a residential district
may be used for single-family detached dwelling purposes,provided the area and width of the lot are within
60% of the minimum requirements of this chapter; provided, it can be demonstrated safe and adequate
sewage treatment systems can be installed to serve the permanent dwelling..."The subject lot does not
5
meet this requirement as it is 0.48 acres (20,706 sqft.), which is only 32%of 1.5 acres. Therefore, a
variance is required to use the lot for a single family detached dwelling. However,being that Washington
County has issued the lot a septic permit, safe sewage treatment is deemed to be present.
The design of the home is capable of meeting the setback requirements of"this section"which is 154.402
of the code and outlines the setbacks to the front, side, and rear lot lines.
Shoreland Standard 154.800 12.
The minimum lot size for an unsewered single family detached dwelling within the shoreland district is
40,000 square feet. The lot size of the subject parcel is 20,706 square feet. The lot also does not meet the
minimum shoreland district standards in Subdivision 12 of the shoreland ordinance which states that"All
legally established nonconformities as of the date of this ordinance may continue,but will be managed
according to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357 Subd. le and other regulations of this community for
alterations and additions; repair after damage; discontinuance of use; and intensification of use."
Additionally, MN Statute 462.357 subd 1(e) subdivisions (d)through 0) specifically deal with shoreland
lots of record that do not meet the requirements for lot size or lot width.
Subdivision 1(e)states that a nonconforming single lot of record located within a shoreland area may
be allowed as a building site without variances from lot size requirements,provided that:
(1) all structure and septic system setback distance requirements can be met;
(2) a Type I sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can be
installed or the lot is connected to a public sewer; and
(3) the impervious surface coverage does not exceed 25 percent of the lot.
The lot is very close to meeting the requirement of the Statute but still falls short.
The map shows acreage of surrounding
properties and more specifically shows
the average (mean) of all the lots along '0 o.14 0.25 .,`°.s Field
0.72
the peninsula. k0.6 o g1 Acres—Poly
'r
Statistics:
Count 30
Minimum: 0.14
0.38 Maximum:2.54
Sum: 20.59
Fb p E Mean: 0.686333
Standard Deviation: 0.500956
Nulls: 0
,•� 2:5� 0.18
Lot shown as red.
0�3
0.3 p1.
Q.33"i
0.58
0.87 p.gq
0.63 0.72 1.37 0.94 0.8 ZVI
6
AGENCY REVIEW
Engineering Review.The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed variances. Some of the Engineering
comments are incorporated below.
1. Septic System. I am concerned with the accuracy of the submittal in regards to the proposed
primary and secondary septic systems. The survey shows a primary system and two secondary
drain-field areas. However, the septic design document shows the proposed mound system
needing to be 75 feet x 40 feet. These dimensions would allow for only a primary system with
no secondary system being available.
This is relevant information and the City should consider primary and secondary sites for residential
lots. However, the City does not perform permitting, inspection, or site review for septic systems.
Washington County has determined that the site with the approved septic system is adequate for single
family use.
2. Driveway. The driveway exceeds the City maximum grade of 10.0% (proposed at 10.4%). The
proposed grades are improved over previous design submittals but should a driveway grade
variance be part of the application?
93.26 G)Driveway grade. Driveways exceeding a grade of 10%must be approved by the City
Engineer. Exceptions must demonstrate an inability to meet the 10%maximum grade due to
extenuating circumstances. Staff does not believe a variance is required for the proposed driveway.
3. Impervious Surfaces. The narrative presents impervious surface as 3,735 SF. When I scale the
proposed survey I get over 2,500 SF for the driveway and it appears that they did not include
the proposed entry and stoop (at approx. 220 SF). In short my calculations are approx. 4,420 SF
impervious or 22.4%. You should have the applicant update the application or revise the survey
to conform with the impervious surfaces.
The figures used in the narrative do not match the most recent survey for the request. Though the
numbers may not the intent in the narrative remains the same. Furthermore, the engineering numbers
are very close to the ones on the most recent survey.
4. Drainage. The driveway drains a significant area directly to the public street(Hill Trail)with no
real drainage provisions at the street. However this is consistent with what is happening with
adjacent properties in the area. Also, the new impervious surface does not exceed 6,000 SF and
does not require a VBWD permit for rate and volume control.
Review by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). The application was sent to the
MNDNR and their comments are attached. They are also recommending the City apply some conditions to
the approval.
• Modify existing construction design(to minimize variance to percent impervious and other requested
variances).
• Direct rain gutter discharges into a rain garden(infiltration basin designed to capture and infiltrate runoff).
• Include a condition that requires that the shoreline remain in a natural state and that no future
development is allowed in the Shore Impact Zone on this property(no patio, water-oriented accessory
structure,beach, fire pit, stairs, etc).
These seem to be fairly standard comments. It is their responsibility to look out for the shoreline and
do their best to protect the lakes, which means limiting the amount of impervious surface within the
shoreland district(s).
ADJACENT VARIANCES
8114 Hill Trail. (2013)—Received a variance to build a house on a lot that was sub-standard in size
with a septic system that also did not meet the City sizing requirements. The variance was for the
following:
- The construction of a single family home on a lot not considered a buildable lot of record per the Lake Elmo
Zoning Ordinance; and
- The installation of a subsurface sewage treatment system on a lot that does not contain the necessary area
suitable for a septic system as required by the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance.
7
8130 Hill Trail. (2017)—The applicant was seeking approval to expand a non-conforming structure
and modify the septic area. The septic site also needed a variance because setbacks could not be met.
The details are listed below:
- Septic dispersal area 10 from the property line (variance to allow 4 feet from the southern property
line).
- Septic dispersal area 20 feet from the shoreland bluffline (variance to allow 15 feet).
- Septic dispersal area 75 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level (variance to allow 50 feet).
- Septic dispersal area 10 feet from a non-occupied structure (variance to allow 6 feet).
- A variance to allow expansion of a non-conforming structure not meeting the minimum required
structure setback from the Ordinary High Water Level on a lot not meeting minimum lot size
requirements of the Rural Single Family zoning district. The expansion includes an expansion to an
existing deck; frost footings to the northwest comer of the house; an addition to the house to match
the current house width; an entry roof adjacent to an existing deck attached to the garage; a walkway
connecting the garage and house; and a screened porch, as indicated in the site plan dated 7/24/17.
8114 Hill Trail 22.1% impervious surface
7972 Hill Trail 17% impervious surface
8130 Hill Trail Was for septic and structure setbacks, impervious surface dropped from 27 to 25%
8056 Hill Trail 25.4% impervious (variance for setbacks, connected to City 201 system)
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo
City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to City Code requirements can be granted.
These criteria are listed below, along with comments from Staff regarding applicability of these criteria to
the applicant's request.
1) Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of
Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict enforcement of
this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual
property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping
with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical difficulties - "Practical difficulties" as
used in connection with the granting of a variance,means that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control.
FINDINGS:
• Variance from Minimum Structure Setback from OHWL: The property was platted and
established prior to current development standards and has a short depth, and so half the lot is
within the required setback for a structure from the Ordinary High Water Level. Therefore, a
structure and its utilities could not be constructed on the subject lot without a variance. The
Applicant is proposing to construct a single family detached dwelling on the property, which is a
permitted use within the Rural Single Family Zoning District and is not uncommon in the area. The
standard is met.
• Variance Setback from Top of Bluff: The property was platted and established prior to current
standards and because the existing code was not in place the lot has a short depth, and so adequate
spacing was not provided during the subdivision process. Geographical features were not taken
into account and so the top of bluff is now posing as an issue. The proposed home will still have a
24 ft. buffer from the top. The situation of the home does seem reasonable when factoring in all
other conditions with the bluff. The septic area would support a single family detached dwelling
on the property, which is a permitted use within the Rural Single Family Zoning District. The
standard is met.
• Variance for Maximum Impervious Surface: The applicant does not appear to have
intentionally gone over the allotted impervious surface allocation. Regardless of intent the
proposal still does exceed the allowed percentage of 15%. However, repositioning the home would
cause setback issues with the septic system. There can be conditions applied to the approval that
8
would help mitigate the impervious surface on the lot. The request is reasonable. The standard is
met.
• Variance from Minimum Septic Area: The required 20,000 square feet of septic is larger than
the lot itself. The Applicant is proposing to construct a mound system, which will not require as
large of a drainfield area as would a Type I System. Provided the Applicant obtains the required
permits, the proposed septic area will suffice for a mound system to support a single family home,
which is a permitted use in the Rural Single Family Zoning District. The request fora decrease in
needed septic area is reasonable and is supported by the fact that the system can support the home.
The standard is met.
• Variance from Minimum Lot Size:Again the property was platted and purchased by the
Applicant's family prior to the current development standards. Because of this, there was no
influence over the size of the lot. Furthermore, the thought of 100 ft. setbacks from the lakes did
not seem to be present when the lake shore lots were created, making compliance difficult for today
and the future. The Applicant is proposing to construct a single family detached dwelling on the
property, which is a permitted use within the Rural Single Family Zoning District. The standard is
met.
2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property
not created by the landowner.
FINDINGS:
• Variance from Minimum _
Structure Setback from OHWL: Blue-Neither home nor septic can be placed here.
The property was platted and Green-Home cannot be placed here.
purchased by the Applicant's Grey-Septic cannot be placed here. (Reasonably Scaled)
family prior to current standards. ��- !;' ;,':.`•':: ;:': `'..
As with many lake lots they are ROP.
typically smaller in size and did
not leave enough space to meet ,s; _ _ - _ �' '\ r` ,.• :
the required 100 ft. setback. To =-
reasonably place and design the
home around this standard would �. ; ..
have created a burden in itself.
NCO B.
Furthermore, septic systems are
required to maintain a 75ft.
setbackfrom the OHWL.
Variance Setback from Top of ,� :w� CLUB
Bluff: The property was platted , �T ""
and purchased by the Applicant's V�sor; MUM
anvil prior to current standards. ".-
Again, . .e
f Yp �
because o the topography,
f � � y, .��.� Wanvnty,rRa,Uorvmevt\v.HJ86]H
limited size, and septic
\t �S n.,� � , vnh OYpotot;ne.v:e:>f Drnanveifs&v.n!Y�e W.crn
requirements the development
elsewhere on the parcel becomes
difficult.
• Variance for Maximum Impervious Surface: Because the area has developed in an organic manner the
wells for the surrounding properties were justifiably placed in a location that was advantageous for them.
With that said septic systems must be at least 50 ft. away from a well. because of the wells to the south the
septic is required to be on the northern side. This then leaves a limited area for the home which must also
be 20 ft.from that system. Because the septic system must be located on the eastern side of the lot a longer
driveway is required which helps push the property over the allowed 15%. The standard is met.
• Variance from Minimum Septic Area: The expectation for this standard is impossible as the required size
is more than the property itself. To that, the City does not permit, inspect, or perform compliant inspections.
9
If the permitting authority has granted approval through their process, the expectation to maintain 20,000
sqft. would appear unnecessary. The standard is met.
• Variance from Minimum Lot Size: The property is below the 60%threshold for being considered as a
buildable lot. However, the lots that were created with the original development were very small and over
the years, though very minimally, have become more conforming than their original state. Concerns can be
generated from not meeting setback requirements but the home does not conflict with the RS district
setbacks and septic system has been permitted and is issued as being safe. Although the lot is small the
home can be safely built. The standard is met.
3) Character of Locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in
which the property in question is located.
FINDINGS:
• Variance from Minimum Structure Setback from OHWL: Some homes meet the setbackfrom
the HOWL but many neighboring homes do not meet the required setback. Using averaging the
home it is only 1.5 ft. closer to the OHWL than what is allowed. It seems unreasonable to think a
difference of 1.5 ft. could be sensibly noticed. For better or worse the setback is not unusual to the
area. The standard is met.
• Variance Setback from Top of Bluff: The neighboring homes will have a geographically different
situation on their lot but again, setback averaging would have been an option for the property and
the home in its proposed location would not appear to be substantially different than the
neighboring properties. The standard is met.
• Variance from Impervious Surface: The requested 5 °'3°
m .s e.e3
e
increase in impervious surface is also not unique to the 0.72 0.67 %O.H �,y,y
area. Again, due to the sizes of the lots and shoreland °'°� °,, �,
°.» aue b
requirements many properties exceed the impervious °0. 1.6 a."
requirements. The standard is met. 0.8
& ��
5W.%W0.'.ft.MOM
• Variance from Minimum Septic Area: The size of the 0."
septic area will not visually alter the essential character 0.93 ,
of the locality. The standard is met. 130
e.s
• Variance from Minimum Lot Size: Very few lots 0.01
affiliated with the Lanes Demontreville Country Club are ,
capable of meeting the sizing requirement. Although not 01, 0�
ideal to the code, lots that are smaller in size are more . 0�
likely to fit in with the character. The standard is met.
e.w
4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance
will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to properties adjacent to the property in question or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood.
FINDINGS.
• Variance from Minimum Structure Setback from OHWL: The proposed location of the home will not
impair an adequate supply of light or inhibit lake views of adjacent properties. The proposed home is a two
bedroom home and therefore will not significantly increase congestion. The proposed home will not
substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The standard is met.
• Variance Setback from Top of Bluff: The location of the home on the bluff will not impair an adequate
supply of light or inhibit lake views of adjacent properties. The proposed home is a two bedroom home and
therefore will not significantly increase congestion. The proposed home will not substantially diminish or
impair property values within the neighborhood. The standard is met.
• Variance from Minimum Septic Area: The size of the septic area will have no effect on the supply of
light and air to adjacent properties, increase congestion, or diminish or impairproperty values within the
neighborhood. The standard is met.
10
• Variance from Minimum Lot Size: The size of a lot would not seem to have a direct impact on the supply
of light or wind that a neighboring property would obtain. It is unknown how the size of the lot would have
a financially negative impact on neighboring properties. The standard is met.
• Variance from Impervious Surface: A correlation between light and wind and impervious surface has
not been established. Furthermore the requested amount of impervious surface would not seem to decrease
neighboring properties. The standard is met.
SUMMARY
The applicants are requesting several variance approvals to build a single family home on an existing lot of
record. While the number of requested variances may appear large,this report outlines all the limiting
factors affecting the construction of a house on this property. The applicant has worked closely with City
Staff and Washington County to design a home, septic system and a driveway for this property that
minimizes the proposed variances wile meeting all other development standards. The proposed plans fit
the character of the neighborhood while maximizing compliance with City, County, and State development
standards.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1. That the Applicant obtain all applicable permits including but not limited to a City building permit
including a grading, erosion control, and storm water management plan approved by the City Engineer.
2. The Applicant must reach out to the Valley Branch Watershed District regarding the project prior to
grading or construction to confirm that a permit is not required for their requirements.
3. That the Applicant obtain a Washington County Subsurface Sewage Treatment System(SSTS)permit prior
to issuance of a building permit.
4. Direct rain gutter discharges away from the lake or into a rain garden(infiltration basin designed to capture
and infiltrate runoff)located on site.
5. The shoreline shall remain in a natural state and that no future development is allowed in the Shore Impact
Zone on this property(no patio,water-oriented accessory structure,beach, fire pit, stairs, etc within 50 ft.
from the OHWL).
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed variance is not expected to have fiscal impact to the City.
OPTIONS:
The Commission may:
• Recommend approval of the proposed variances, subject to recommended findings and conditions
of approval.
• Amend recommended findings and conditions of approval and recommend approval of the
variances, subject to amended findings and conditions of approval.
• Move to recommend denial of all variances, citing findings for denial.
11
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the requested
variances:
"Move to recommend approval of the request from Tim and Lacey Mercil for variances to construct a
new home on the property located at 8126 Hill Trail. The variances are for:Minimum Structure
Setback Requirement from the OHWL;Minimum Structure Setback from the Top of Bluff;Minimum
Impervious Surface,Minimum Septic Area, and Minimum Lot Size; and shall be subject to
recommended conditions of approval as outlined in the Staff report."
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Application and Survey
2) MN DNR Comments
3) Location Map
4) City Engineer Comments (Incorporated into the Report)
5) Septic Permit
6) Neighboring Comments
RECEiVED
Land Use Application Information MAR 2 9 2019
8126 Hill Trail N Lake Elmo
Prepared by Tim &Lacey Mercil CITY OF LAKE ELMO
a. A list of all current property owners
Mike &Ruth Schrantz—Current Owners/Sellers
Tim & Lacey Mercil-Buyers
b. Legal description of the property:
Lots 519,520,521,522,523,616,617,618,619 and 620 Part of vacated Beach lane,lane's
Demontreville County Club Section 9,Township 29 North,Range 21 West,City of Lake
Elmo,Washington County,Minnesota
Parcel ID: 09.029.21.22.0008
Parcel Size: .452 Acres/19,712 sq.ft
c. State the provision(s) of the Lake Elmo City Code for which you seek a
variance. (For example, Section 300.07 Zoning Districts, Subd(4b3)—Minimum
District Requirements)
Build home on .452 acres rather than 1.5 acres
Build home with impervious surface area of:
House & Entry = 1,360/6.9%
Driveway = 2,076/ 10.5%
Retaining Walls = 299/ 1.5%
Totals = 3,735 s.f and/or 18.9%
d. A specific written description of the proposal and how it varies from the
applicable provisions of Lake Elmo Code.
Request for construction of a single-family home with a foundation size of. 1,360 on a lot
that is.452 acres-which is below the 20,000 s.f minimum lot size
e. A narrative regarding any pre-application discussions with staff,and an
explanation of how the issue was addressed leading up to the application for a
variance.
Prior to submission of the application owners Ruth &Mike Schrantz &Tim Mercil met
with Planning director: Ben Prchal on January 4th &March 22nd 2019 to gain guidance
on the variant procedure to initiate a new build on the property.
f
f. Explain why the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical
difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration.
Need to purchase land from current owners. Purchase is contingent on getting a variance.
All adjacent lots already have homes so no adjacent vacant land
g. Explain why the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property and not created by the landowner.
The lot will not be marketable if a house cannot be built on it.
h.Justify that the granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood.
Granting the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as one
adjacent house(8130 Hill Trail N)is on.38 acres while the other adjacent house(8120 Hill
Trail N) is on .76 acres. The subject lot of.452 acres is comparable in size to all other
homes in the immediate area. A new septic of more current design would probably exceed
the performance of the older neighboring systems.
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY BOUNDARY, SITE PLAN,
NOTE LOTS 51q 520 521 522 523 616 617 618 —
t t t t t t t 61q AND 620 � and
PART OF VACATED BEACH LANE, Found a 1/2 inch iron pipe TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY
This survey used the found I marked with a plastic ca ` 1 Irrt
monuments as shown and also LANES DEMONTREVILLE COUNTRY CLUB, P P
inscribed ANEZ RLS 13775
information from a previous boundary SCALE IN FEET
and topogrphy survey for John J. SECTION 9, TOWNSI-IIP 201 NORTH, RANGE 21 WEST, Set by me7oelT.Anez �..,b sw � �', �t ,�`�` SURVEY PREPARED FOR :
Flanagan and Steve Grobski bs Lake in a survey dated 7-7-83, - \•`
Elmo Sand surveyors Inc. and signed o 5 10 zo CITY OF LAKE ELMO, WASNINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A - -_ TIMOTHY C. MERCIL
by me, Joel T. Anez, on July 7, 1983. ^n _ - \ �\
Scale:1 inch=10 feet \ - 6'da4
THE HOUSE ON THIS ADJOINING J/� __- ,�� \10�`�y, `\\;' `\` ���bosses m 3246 Twin Lakes Road'
PARCEL IS 85 FEET FROM THE ;\ Little Canada, MN 55127
O.H.W.LINE AND APPROXIMATELY iB 1 qoI ,`1,,1�I`,
85 FEET FROM THIS LINE.----,"".,
SITE ADDRESS
k 8„el it 1 II
AREA / `II 8126 Hill Trail North
ABOVE O. H. W. PROPOSED ]�A \ E9i� \�P EO WO Lake Elmo, Mn 55042
Q� B"cherry.
A HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS ��
0.452 acres_ House and Entry 1381 S.F. 003 y / \, 1\I \t p(e i4" ad 1` j PID OF SURVEYED PARCEL: 09.029.21.22.0008
{{ Hard surfaces 2403 S.F.
(19,712 sq. 11.� Walls and steps 267 S.F. (\ o} `\` \\ `, O
5 a OP`,h \: \`
Total 4051 S.F. �`,.. ''1 29• / / •.\ \ ``\�""` \�\ \N
(20.5%COVERAGE)
RE r,, ;`, \ LAKE NOTES
\\
24 oak
diseased �' / `q`\� wi6�\�1 `�\�\�\ Ordinary High Water elevation is 929.3 feet.
✓ \ 2�"basswood `� �..•.
\ �• / , \ �'; O.H.W.LINE 100 year flood elevation is 931.0 feet
5 O 26`I ttonwood \ 2 Q %6 bass�ood` _4 (929.3 CONTOUR) 11
', 1$ 1' '\ ``\ '\ ocated 10-15-2016
i0 \ 1`F'P n)1 eh',op op'dron,p el
RECREATION DEVELOPMENT LAKE
-PROPOSED o >leweh n is 957. 6 eh
HOUSE ' \ MN Protected Waters 82-101
S`e$b 4 Joti T. ez',
.ep- �'ina�s e� aMe -• 8 \ 1
\ o Water surface elevation on 10-15-2018
LO T'a OF �' PROPOSED MAIN FLOOk %� t,, \ \ �I\ may' W0S 929.2 feet
^� Bl',A�. Wi]L SNEAR Amur ELEVATION=963.5 /�` \\\wI vI A A ����
O PRO OS
ED N X 955`4 £{ 1 I ` ` ` '�
O A STAIRS PROPOSED Datum is NGVD 1929 (feet)
_ /`, 6"twin cherry \ TO GNEO�
_ m SURFACE ELEVATION OF
\ Found a 3/8 itich \ / 1 \`\ ai' s GARAGE,FLOOR=952.5 X
opentopiron d• \ "i�llll���s' LEGEND
PROPOSED O ie"ask \` ,\
\ �' 16"'oak ✓ PRIMARY, 5Z� a j� B'ask
1 o `, 1B" k \ ____ • \�� Orientation of the bearing system is
\ D INFIELD` /' \ o \`, , _ 9 ys
\ \ \ ROPOSED JI° `• cj®� �]r` , ha$ng a bearing ed on the uof N23 5721 W thwest line of of 579
SEVONDARY
q ` Distances are in feet and decimals of a foot.
/ SECONDA Y`, o' \� / D �INIIELD v K ��`` %
/ FOun 3/8 inch �., Pi y X .r `,`,� / �, �t}$ \\ Elevations ore based on National Geodetic
open t0 'ran pipe DpgNa1FIEL �� N' / 5a \ ,' v \ �� �, \��` A vertical Datum 1929 adjustment.
\ ,�'• / � 60 1P '\� � \ ooV ,\��`,` 1\ ,�\ Contours are at one foot intervals.
\ 9p' ' \
r'n ROPO 22"oak B„'aok
Q Denotes a 112 inch inside diameter
20'oak - - �.\O w / `� \ \ ms `°. '---_ `. iron pipe monument set,marked by
found a 3/8 inch a plastic cop inscribed ANEZ LS 13775.
/ i l,.�\\ 18 ash tioQr!\ �` spike 0.28 feet south .Qa•.
�, r - B o �` of this set monument. Denotes a found monument,
\\`1, \ described as shown.
yZl
�j {0pe -, , / , • t `\ •\ - \, ® a, I/" \ /lV��� (plot) Denotes the dimension on the recorded
'ram (\�1/ plot of LANE'S DEMONTREVILLE COUNTRY CLUB.
n vel`�tBUY \ Y �1� 8'"twrh basswood P2 6'"ellm s 'p' J pa
�7 \ f0 B6 � o i inch diameter
v 9 - - > f, i ,p OHW Denotes ordinary high water
I ✓ '� ' / \�, i 1 v� steel post
B line.\ � �� GK � / feet north of line. � Denotes utility pole
.*-Found a 2 inch �q P
opent ran pipe 4..�` • j \\ Paa StS '�/ 9X Denotes existing spot elevation.
/ ? ! �2 Sgt-b}c me J 1 T.Anez `Q �.�\ Q\ ,\10. 1' nv`• x
Denotes proposed elewtion.
o \ 11rg survey date -83 B4. �` ` I HOUSE 952.5 P P
\ \ 'Ci_ V8"'oo � � �j�,� Y proposed new well location
O '\ \N -- a` �3/ according to owner. Denotes location o/soil boring.
0i� ,p`, Fj .�\� O • Denotes location of percolation hole.
aNV' �� V� existing well P2
m A u Denotes proposed contour.
/ tnc v z
/ G �\ it 1pe \ Denotes proposed 48 inch high maximum
�`� ,Ia `r �—Proposed silt fence near this line. retaining wail,unless otherwise noted.
21,inch diameter \ Warranty Deed,Document No.3438678
-0--p Denotes proposed slit fence.
`,steel post 0.5 0 \
p `• feet north of line.
I✓�� O \ \` n y \ Lots 519,520,521,522,523,616,617,618,619 and 620,together ❑Denotes 20 foot wide bluff impact zone.
\ s4s , g0 �5• r\v n\ with that part of the vacated Demontreville Beach lying adjacent
thereto and above the high water mark,all in Lane's Demontreville
■Denotes proposed hard surface.
Proposed silt fence near this line. rt\ Country Club,Washington County,MN.
/ \ 941.4
DIRECTION OF X 941.2 I Found a 3/8 inch open \
T �\ WATERFLOW top iron pipe at this
\ corner and found a 3/8 \ Official copies of this map are crimp sealed.
SURVEY PREPARED BY: 1 inch s ike0.06feet \ REVISED: y survey, plan or d b e or
P I hereby certify that this
\ O \ ,-south of this corner July 29, 2019 added 12 by 20 foot under direct and that I am ao dulwaLicen Licensed prepared
Su rve
y permeable paver patio to drawing. my supervision or
Landmark Surveying, Inc. '` 3 , \
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
21070 Olindo Trail North -P.O. Box 65 Landmark Surveying Inc.
Scandia, Minnesota 55073 �/�Q_J(/n�
Office number 651-433-3421 Jul\ 940.81� y 11, 2019
E-mod address intheridd®frontienetnet Joel T. Anez Minnesota License No. 13775 Date
Job Number 2018-53
200 DEPARTMENT O F CENTRAL REGION
�� NATURAL RESOURCES 1INTPARNERROAD
SAINT PAUL,MN 55106
651-259-5800
4/17/2019
Ben Prchal
City Planner
3880 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE:Shoreland Variance Requests at 8126 Hill Trail North, Lake Elmo (Lake DeMontreville-82010100)
Ben—
The primary goal of limiting impervious surfaces within shoreland districts is to reduce the amount of runoff directed into
Minnesota waters. Runoff from impervious surfaces travels over the land and carries pollutants such as nutrients, sediment,
bacteria, pesticides, heavy metals, and organic wastes.Studies have consistently shown a strong, direct connection between
the percentage of impervious surface in a watershed and water quality degradation.As impervious surface area expands, so
does the volume of runoff, phosphorus, and sediment entering waters, causing nuisance algae blooms, reducing public
enjoyment, and harming aquatic plants and animals.
This project would increase impervious surface to 18.9%,where the maximum impervious surface allowed for unsewered lots
is 15% under the City's shoreland ordinance. Please use the attached MNDNR guidance on variances to maximum impervious
surface in shoreland districts when evaluating this variance request against statutory criteria and developing a findings of fact.
If findings support granting the variance, impacts to Lake DeMontreville should be considered in developing appropriate
conditions to mitigate those impacts.
If a variance is granted for this project, MNDNR recommends that the City of Lake Elmo include conditions on the variance
that mitigate for an increase in percent impervious surface. Examples of appropriate mitigation conditions include:
• Modify existing construction design (to minimize variance to percent impervious and other requested variances).
• Direct rain gutter discharges into a rain garden (infiltration basin designed to capture and infiltrate runoff).
• Include a condition that requires that the shoreline remain in a natural state and that no future development is
allowed in the Shore Impact Zone on this property(no patio,water-oriented accessory structure, beach,fire pit,
stairs, etc).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this variance request.
Sincerely,
( � cyI.D�Aiv�Osv��
Jenifer Sorensen
MNDNR
East Metro Area Hydrologist
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
651-259-5754 lenifer.sorensen@state.mn.us
Page 1
Minnesota
Shoreland & Floodplain Impervious Surfaces
Variance Guidance Series
This is one of a series of examples developed as guidance for considering variance requests along
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES lakes and rivers. Consult your local shoreland and floodplain ordinances.
Why are impervious surface coverage limits important?
In the protection of water quality,the management of rainwater on individual lots is one of our most
important tasks. Rainwater that does not infiltrate into the ground or evaporate runs downhill to lakes,
wetlands, or rivers.As impervious surface coverage increases,the
rate and amount of runoff and pollutants entering public waters
increases. When runoff from impervious surface coverage is not
addressed,pollution increases and the diversity of aquatic life is
reduced. Local governments have limited discretion to deviate
from- or grant a variance to- impervious surface limits. They may
do so only if all of the variance criteria established in state statutes
and their local ordinances are met. In evaluating such requests,
local governments must examine the facts, determine whether all
statutory and local criteria are satisfied, and develop findings to =
support the decision. If granted, local governments may impose
conditions to protect resources. An example impervious surface -�
variance request,with considerations, is provided below. Sotba--k
Example Impervious Surface Variance Request
A property owner wishes to build a large lakehome on a conforming lot. =Corr
The lake lot includes a private driveway with a spur to the neighbor's lot,
which was placed to avoid an adjacent wetland.The building plans for
the new construction plus the existing private road spur to the
neighbor's property would exceed the impervious surface limit provision
in the local ordinance.
Considerations for Findings
A good record and findings help keep communities out of lawsuits and help them prevail if they find
themselves in one. In evaluating the facts and developing findings for this variance request,all of the
following statutory criteria must be satisfied, in addition to any local criteria:
• Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance?
Considering a variance request is a balancing test that requires weighing the need of an individual
property owner against the purposes of the shoreland regulations for protecting the public interest.
These purposes are derived from Minnesota Shoreland Rules,which established impervious surface
caps to prevent excessive runoff from constructed surfaces. Such excessive runoff causes erosion,
transport of pollutants to public waters thereby degrading water quality. Considerations: Will
deviating from the required limit on this property undermine the purposes and intent of the
ordinance? Why or why not?Is it possible to mitigate the consequences of additional impervious
surface on-site such that additional runoff will not be produced? Would this mitigation be in harmony
with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? Why or why not?
• Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
The local comprehensive plan establishes a framework for achieving a community's vision for the
future. Most plans contain goals and policies for protecting natural resources and shorelands, as well
as maps that identify areas of high risk or with high ecological value where development should be
avoided. The variance request must be considered with these goals and policies in mind. Maps should
be consulted to determine if the property is within any areas identified for protection. Considerations:
Which goals andpolicies apply?Is allowing additional impervious surface and runoff consistent with
these goals and policies? Why or why not?
Page 1 of 2 Variance Guidance Series—ISC, Updated 1011012012
• Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner?
Unique circumstances relate to physical characteristics of the land- such as lot dimensions, steep
slopes,poor soils,wetlands, and trees. These do not include physical limitations or personal
circumstances created by the property owner that prevent compliance with the impervious surface
provision, such as size of home or design preferences. Consider what distinguishes this property from
other shoreland properties to justify why the applicant should be able to deviate from the provision
when others must comply. Considerations: What physical characteristics are unique to this property
that prevent compliance with the requirement? Were any difficulties in meeting the impervious
surface limit created by some action of the applicant?Has the applicant demonstrated no other
feasible alternatives exist that would not require a variance, such as increasing the setback to reduce
driveway length or reducing the lakehome's footprint?
• Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
Consider the size of the proposed structure,the extent of encroachment, and how it relates to the
shoreline and hydrology of the riparian area. A large addition located close to the shoreline can
detract from the natural appearance and character of the lake and its riparian areas and degrade water
quality by altering topography,drainage, and vegetation in the riparian area,negatively affecting
recreational,natural, and economic values. Considerations:Does the variance provide minimal relief
or a substantial deviation from the required setback?Does it affect the natural appearance of the
shore from the lake?Does it affect the hydrology of the riparian area?
• Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
Examine the reasons that the variance is requested and evaluate them in light of the purposes of the
local shoreland ordinance and the public water resource at stake. Since the impervious surface cap is
generally intended to reduce runoff to public waters,it may not be appropriate to allow large areas of
constructed surfaces so close to the water. Considerations:Has the applicant demonstrated that the
proposed construction is reasonable in this location given the sensitive nature of the area and the
purposes of the regulations? Why or why not?
Note:The last three criteria address practical difficulties.Economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties
Range of Outcomes
Based on the findings,several outcomes can occur:
• If the applicant fails to prove that all criteria above are met,then the variance must be denied. For example,
the local government could find that the building plans itself created the circumstances necessary for a
variance rather than the any unique physical characteristics of the property.
• If the applicant demonstrates that all criteria are met,then the variance may be granted. For example,the
local government could find that the construction footprint is reasonable,the circumstances are unique given
the adjacent wetland,and the minor deviation in the impervious surface coverage does not alter the
hydrology of the area(as determined through runoff calculations).
• If the variance is granted and the impervious surface in any way alters the hydrology of the area,then
conditions may be imposed,such as to increase the structure setback from the lake by 15 feet to reduce the
extent of the driveway and minimize the amount of impervious surface coverage over the limit.
Conditions on Variances
If findings support granting the variance, consideration must be given to the impacts on the public water
and the riparian area and appropriate conditions to mitigate them. Conditions must be directly related and
roughly proportional to the impacts created by the variance. Several examples are provided below:
• Modify construction designs (to minimize impact);
• Use permeable pavement systems for walkways,driveways, or parking areas (to reduce effective
impervious surface area and infiltrate runoff);
• Direct rain gutter discharges away from the public waters and into infiltration basins (to reduce
connected impervious coverage to allow additional areas for infiltration);
• Preserve and restore shoreline vegetation in a natural state (to intercept and filter runoff coming
from structures and driveways); and/or
• Increase setbacks from the ordinary high water level(to provide infiltration near public waters).
More information at:www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt section/shoreland/variances.html
Page 2 of 2 Variance Guidance Series—ISC, Updated 1011012012
L ke
Demontrevi
La
Olson
f Lake Jane
8/28/2019 Issued Permit
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Wash-'Pgton 14949 62nd Street North P.O. Box 6
Josom"%0=00 County Stillwater, MN 55082-0006
Office: 651-430-6655 TTY: 651-430-6246 Fax: 651-430-6730
Community City Of Lake Elmo
Permit Number 2019-1243
Owner Schrantz Michael G &Ruth G
Owner Address 5831 Hytrail Ave , Lake Elmo Mn 55042
Applicant Timothy Mercil
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED
To execute the work specified in this permit on the following identified property upon express condition that said persons and
their agents,and employees shall conform in all respects to the provisions of Ordinance#206,Washington county Development
Code, Chapter Four, Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations.This permit may be revoked at any time upon violation
of any of the provisions of said ordinance.
Project Address
Geo Code 0902921220008
Designer David R. Brown
Type of System: New Installation Mound
Design Criteria Mound Sizing Pressure Distribution
Percolation Rate: 40.00 MPI Rock Bed Width: 10.00 Feet Number of Laterals: 3
Depth to Restriction: 14 Inches Rock bed Length:45.00 Feet Perforation Spacing: 3.0 Feet
Land Slope 9.00 % Absorption Width: 24.00 Feet Perforation Diameter: 7/32 Inch
Flow Rate:450.00 GPD Depth of Clean Sand: 1.80 Feet Lateral Diameter: 1-1/2 Inches
Downslope Dike Width:20.50 Feet Total Dynamic Head: 15 Feet
Upslope Dike: 9.60 Feet Pump 1: 26 GPM
Tank Sizes Length of Dike: 74.90 Feet
Tank 1: 1000 Gallons
Tank 2: 1000 Gallons
Pump Tank 1: 1000 Gallons
Authorized Work/Special Conditions
The granting of this permit does not alleviate the applicant from obtaining any other Federal,State, or local permits required by
law forth is project.
https://washingtonseptic.onegov.rtvision.com/admst/viewcard.php?card=1&app=20231 1/2
8/28/2019 Issued Permit
Back-up area for second future on-site system must be protected from all traffic., Building sewer can be no closer than 20 feet from well
and must be pressure tested Schedule 40 within 50 feet., Call at least 24 hours before the time you need an inspection., Domestic strength
waste only. Industrial waste and hazardous wastes cannot enter the septic system., Effluent Filter&Alarm Required on outlet of last tank in
series, Establish a vegetative cover over the soil treatment area within 30 days of the installation. Protect the soil treatment area from
erosion until the vegetative cover is established., Install a meter to monitor wastewater flow., Installer must verify head and elevation so the
proper pump size is used., Install individual sewage treatment system as per approved design in area tested and shown on the site plan.,
Install only when soil is below the plastic limit(dry soil conditions)., Insulate tank lids to a value of R-10 if tanks are 2 feet or less from the
surface., Pressurized laterals can be no further apart than 36 inches and require accessible cleanouts at the end of each lateral., Rope off
and protect tested area from all vehicle traffic.,This system must be installed by a certified/licensed sewage treatment system installer
holding a current license with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. , Use of tanks registered with the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency required.
Required Inspections: Final, Rough-Up, Soil Treatment Area,Tank Inspection
Permit Issuance Date: 08/06/2019 bce191b19fa8c23965c034c2eaac6805
Permit Expiration Date: 08/05/2020 e21d10750ee723ce86cff7cdfdlb0775
Joe Sanders 08/06/2019- Issued
https://washingtonseptic.onegov.rtvision.com/admst/viewcard.php?card=1&app=20231 2/2
Tanya Nuss
From: Gayle Dworak <gayledworak@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 2:54 PM
To: Ben Prchal
Subject: Variance Request
Caution:This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hi Ben,
Dean and I just received the variance request for a new build on the vacant property between 8120 and 8130 Hill Tr.
N.
We will be out of the country vacationing on Sept, 9th, but we would like to give our support to both the sellers and
the buyers on this variance request.
Dean and I went through a similar process in purchasing our lot. It was not an easy process for us, and we know that
it has not been an easy process for this transaction either. We were most fortunate to have the support of the present
Mayor and the majority of City Council members.
We are extremely grateful that we persevered as we are very happy with our home, living on Lake Demontreville,
and with the many wonderful neighbors on our street.
We offer our full support for this variance request and would heartily welcome our new neighbors.
Warmest Regards,
Gayle and Dean Dworak
8114 Hill Tr. N
Lake Elmo, Mn 56042
Sent from my iPad
i
THE CITY OF
LAKE ELMO
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 09/09/19
PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM#: 4B
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Ken Roberts, Planning Director
AGENDA ITEM: Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Review for Applewood
Senior Housing—Eagle Pointe Business Park
REVIEWED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner
BACKGROUND:
The City has received a request from United Properties for a review of a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Concept Plan for a 100-unit senior housing development on an 11.7-acre parcel on the corner of
Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Pointe Boulevard. This request also would involve amending an existing
PUD and a Comprehensive Plan amendment from BP (business park)to HDR(high density residential)
for the site.
ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing, review the concept plan, provide
feedback and make a recommendation to the City Council on the above-mentioned requests.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
General Information.
• Property Owner: United Properties,Minneapolis,Minnesota
• Applicant: United Properties(Jennifer Mason)
• Location: Outlot C,Eagle Point Business Park Second Addition PID Number
33.029.21.44.0009
• Requests: Planned Unit Development Revision and Concept Plan Review
• Existing Land Use: Platted but vacant parcel within Eagle Point Business Park
• Site Area: 11.7 acres
• Existing Zoning: BP—Business Park
• Surrounding Land Use: Business Park Office Buildings,High Pointe Medical Center
• Surrounding Zoning: BP—Business Park
• Comprehensive Plan: Existing: Business Park Proposed: High Density Residential(HDR)
• Proposed Zoning: HDR(Urban High Density Residential)
• History: The preliminary development plans for the Eagle Point Business Park were
approved in 1999 by the City of Lake Elmo. The 71h Addition was platted in 2006 which allowed
for the development of two lots near the intersection of Eagle Point Boulevard and Inwood
Avenue and created a larger outlot on which Intermediate School District 916 had proposed to
build a new school facility.
1
• Deadline for Action: Application Complete—8/05/2019
• 60 Day Deadline— 10/04/2019
• Extension Letter Mailed—No
• 120 Day Deadline— 10/5/14
• Applicable Regulations: 154.051 —BP Business Park Zoning District
• 154.800—Planned Unit Development(PUD)Regulations
• City of Lake Elmo Design Standards Manual
BACKGROUND
The Eagle Point Business Park was initially conceived as part of the City's 1992 Comprehensive Plan
update in 1992,and the official Business Park zoning for this area was adopted in 1997. Over the next
three years,United Properties submitted applications for a general concept plan for a business park, a
general development stage plan,and a final plat and final plans for what is now called the Eagle Point
Business Park. Overall,the business park occupies approximately 120 acres in the extreme southwestern
portion of Lake Elmo both north and south of Hudson Boulevard. Since approving the overall plans for
the park,the City has been reviewing final development plans for each of the buildings/phases that have
been constructed since then.
Reason for PUD Amendment/PUD History
Eagle Point Business Park was approved as a Planned Unit Development(PUD) in the early 2000's, and
the City approved a concept plan and preliminary development plan for the entire site at that time. This
approval included the adoption of development standards and regulations for the entire park, and all
subsequent building is expected to conform to these standards. In terms of new building requests,the
City has been requiring applicants to submit an updated preliminary plat and preliminary plans for each
site,which is then followed by consideration of a final plat and plans. Since this lot is now platted as an
outlot it will need City approval of a preliminary and final plat before construction may start. All the
public roads, easements,utilities, and other infrastructure necessary to serve the site have been installed.
In this case,however,the applicant is asking for City approval of a land use that the City has not
approved the Eagle Pointe PUD—senior housing. This requires city-approval of a PUD amendment and
to start the process,the applicant has submitted a request for concept approval before proceeding with the
development of more detailed project plans or with a Comprehensive Plan amendment application.
A more detailed description of the proposed use, including a site development summary,has been
provided by the applicant and is included as an attachment to this report. The primary use of the site(on
the corner of Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Pointe Boulevard)would be a 4-story, 100-unit senior
cooperative building(with underground parking for 100 vehicles). The units would range in size from
about 1,300 to 1,800 square feet and would for sale as part of the cooperative. The building would be
located in the center of the site wrapping around the existing wetland and on the northern portion of the
site near Eagle Point Boulevard. The plans show two driveways connecting to Eagle Pointe Boulevard
with 72 surface parking spaces and access driveways wrapping around 3 sides of the building. The
concept plan includes a total of 172 parking spaces.
The attached plans provided by the applicant include a site map/aerial photo, a site survey, an existing
conditions/wetlands map, a site survey analysis and a concept site plan. Because the public and private
infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed building is already in place,the project will not include the
2
construction of any new public utilities on or off of the site. All required utilities are already stubbed to
the site, and all utilities,including the proposed storm water management facilities,will be private.
CONCEPT PUD PLAN REVIEW
PUD Review Process. The City Code for PUD's requires several steps in the project review and
approval process. Section 154.758 of the City Code(below)provides all the details about the review
process and steps. As noted subsection in E2,the Planning Commission is to hold a public hearing about
the concept plan and report its findings and recommendations to the City Council.
§ 154.758 PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
There are four stages to the PUD process: application conference, general concept plan,preliminary plan
and final plan, as described below.
A. Application Conference. Upon filing of an application for PUD,the applicant of the proposed
PUD shall arrange for and attend a conference with the Planning Director. The primary purpose
of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and
obtain guidance as to the general suitability of his or her proposal for the area for which it is
proposed and its conformity to the provisions of this subchapter before incurring substantial
expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other data.
B. General Concept Plan. The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to
submit a plan to the city showing his or her basic intent and the general nature of the entire
development without incurring substantial cost. The plan should include the following: overall
density ranges, general location of residential and nonresidential land uses,their types and
intensities, general location of streets,paths and open space,and approximate phasing of the
development.
C. Preliminary Plan. Following approval of the general concept plan,the applicant shall submit a
preliminary plan application and preliminary plat,in accordance with the requirements described
in§ 153.07. The application shall proceed and be acted upon in accordance with the procedures in
this subchapter for zoning changes.
D. Final Plan.Following approval of the preliminary plan,the applicant shall submit a final plan
application and final plat, in accordance with the requirements described in§ 153.08. The
application shall proceed and be acted upon in accordance with the procedures in this ordinance
for zoning changes. If appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal,the preliminary
plan and final plan may proceed simultaneously.
E. Schedule for Plan Approval
1. Developer presents the general concept plan to the Planning Commission for their review
and comment.
2. After verification by the Planning Director that the required plan and supporting data are
adequate,the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing with public notice.
3. The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and its findings and make
recommendations to the City Council.
4. The City may request additional information from the applicant concerning operational
factors or retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant concerning operational
factors.
5. The Council may hold a public hearing after the receipt of the report and
recommendations from the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission fails to
make a report within 60 days after receipt of the application,then the City Council may
3
proceed without the report. The Council may approve the general concept plan and attach
such conditions as it deems reasonable.
6. Following approval of the General Concept Plan,the application may proceed to the
preliminary plan phase.
Concept Plan Review: The Staff review comments that follow are all based on conducting a high level
review of the Concept Plan since the City does not require a lot of detailed information at this stage in the
PUD review process. Staff has focused on the bigger picture items for general compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and the City Code and on those things that could be a concern or would otherwise
not allow the development to move forward as proposed.
Site Plan.The concept site plan includes one 4-story building with 100 residential units, 100 below grade
parking spaces and 72 on-grade(surface)parking spaces. This plan also shows areas for community
gardens,bocce ball, a deck over-looking the wetland and a gazebo for the residents of the building.
Site Character. The site is rolling with an elevation change of about 36 feet across the site—from an
elevation of 962 near the sanitary sewer lift station along Hudson Boulevard to a high point of 998 in the
north center of the site. There is a small wetland(0.15 acre)near Eagle Pointe Boulevard and a larger
wetland(1.36 acres)that the eastern property line of the site runs through. There areas of trees on the
slope facing Hudson Boulevard and around the edges of the larger wetland.
Vehicular Access. The proposed concept plan shows two access driveways into the site from Eagle
Pointe Boulevard. The spacing of the proposed driveways in relation the existing driveway to the north of
site do not meet City standards. The City Engineer's review memo (attached)provides more details about
streets,driveways and access for this site.
Trails and Pedestrian Access. There are currently no trails or sidewalks adjacent to this site. The City's
long-term plan for Hudson Boulevard is to have an 8-foot-wide trail along the north side of street from
Inwood Avenue to Manning Avenue. It has been the practice of the City to have developers install the
segments of this trail along their respective project sites as part of the development of their projects. In
this case,that would be about 1000 feet of trail along Hudson Boulevard running from Eagle Pointe
Boulevard past the City's sanitary sewer lift station to the existing driveway serving the High Pointe
Health Campus.
There also may be a need to have the developer install a 6-foot-wide sidewalk along Eagle Pointe Blvd to
provide an off-street pedestrian access to the trail along Hudson Boulevard serve the new senior housing.
Setbacks.The concept site plan shows a site setback line around the perimeter of the property. The
proposed location of the building should meet or exceed all City-required setbacks from the street rights-
of-ways and the wetlands. The City will need to verify that the proposed parking spaces near Eagle
Pointe Boulevard will meet the required setback of 10 feet from the street right-of-way.
Building Height. The concept plans submitted by the applicant do not show the building exterior or
height. However, a four-story building typically is no taller than 50 feet. In this location,with no other
residential buildings nearby,the 4 story building would fit the character of the area and should not cause
any negative affects to adjacent properties.
Storm Water and Erosion Control. The grading,drainage,and erosion control plans will need to
conform to City of Lake Elmo and South Washington Watershed District(SWWD)requirements. A
SWWD district permit also will be required. In order to comply with the City's standards,the developer
may need to include storm water infiltration area on the site plan that will be connected to the larger storm
water system previously installed within the business park. These infiltration facilities are intended to be
privately owned and managed, and therefore will not need to meet the same level of requirements for
public systems. The City Engineer is recommending that the applicant enter into a maintenance
4
agreement for these facilities to ensure that future property owners keep these infiltration areas
functioning properly.
Park Land Dedication. The City established an overall fee in lieu of land dedication for the business
park at the time of general concept plan approval and in conjunction with the final plat for the initial
construction phase within the park. It appears that a portion of this fee is being paid with each building
permit that is issued within the Eagle Point Business Park, and that this fee is proportional to the area
being platted/developed.
The Parks Commission will need to review the proposed development to make a recommendation about
park dedication requirements. The proposed development does not propose a public park but does provide
recreation for its residents through the gardens,play areas and open space. The proposed development
consists of 11.7 acres, and the required parkland dedication for the Business Park zoning district is 10%.
The required amount of fees would be 10%of the purchase price or current market value of the property,
which has yet to be determined.
Proposed Design.The proposed design of the development is a 4-story, 100-unit senior cooperative
building with a mix of two bedroom units with sunrooms or dens with below grade parking for 100
vehicles. The applicant has not yet provided the City elevations of the building,but staff expects it to have
an exterior with a mix of brick, stone, cementitious siding(Hardi-plank)and stucco with a sloping asphalt
shingle roof. The building design will need to meet the Lake Elmo Design Guidelines and Standards for
materials and colors.
Proposed Uses. The applicant's project information dated July 31,2019 indicates they would be
including several elements and features in the common spaces of the building for use by the residents.
These include a club room, community gardens, craft studio, conference room, fitness center, library and
a great room. Staff is not aware if the building will have an office for management.
Parking.The City's Zoning Code requires one parking space per studio and 1 bedroom unit,two parking
spaces per 2 and 3 bedroom unit and at least one visitor space per four units. With the proposed mix of
100 units,the City Zoning Code requires the developer to provide at least 225 parking spaces on site(2
per unit(200 total) and 25 visitor parking spaces). In this case,the developer is proposing a total of 172
parking spaces—including 100 parking spaces in the proposed building and 72 surface parking spaces
spread throughout the site.
If the applicant wants to move forward with development plans that have fewer parking spaces on site
than the code requires,they should request City approval of a parking reduction as part of their
preliminary PUD application. With such a request,the applicant would need to demonstrate to the City
the amount of proposed parking would be adequate for the number of residents, staff and visitors.
The proposed width and length of parking stalls appear compliant with code, and the proposed width
(shown to be 24')is adequate for a 2-way vehicle movement on the driveways on the site, according to
the Zoning Code.
Engineering Comments.The City Engineer has provided a detailed review memo (dated September 3,
2019)regarding the proposed General Concept PUD. This memo is attached for reference. Staff would
like to highlight the following comments in summary:
• Streets and Transportation
o The applicant should complete a traffic impact study and submit it with the preliminary
PUD/preliminary plat application to review the traffic impacts that this development
would place on the local roadways (including the possible needs for turn lanes and
additional right-of-way) and to determine the better and safer access to this site. (See next
note).
o The site plan must be revised to show revised driveway access to this property that meets
City spacing guidelines. This usually means that new driveways are at least 300 feet
from existing driveways. If the applicant could share the existing driveway to the
5
business condominiums,that would be preferable than having 2 new driveways onto
Eagle Pointe Boulevard.
o No parking and construction staging, including the loading and unloading of materials
and equipment will be allowed at any time on Hudson Boulevard or on Eagle Pointe
Boulevard during the construction of the site improvements and building.
o The City should require the applicant/developer to make improvements to Hudson
Boulevard in accordance with the Hudson Boulevard design Standards. This includes
having an Urban section(with curb and gutter and storm sewer) and installing an 8-foot-
wide bituminous trail along the length of the property.
• Municipal Sanitary Sewer
o Sanitary sewer is available to the site. The applicant or developer will be responsible for
connecting to the City sanitary sewer system and extending sanitary sewer in to the
property at the applicant's sole cost.
o The applicant will be required to connect to the existing sanitary sewer along Hudson
Boulevard, connecting to an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer pipe extending northwest
form the existing I-94 lift station.
o Any sanitary sewer main lines placed in the development will require minimum 30-foot-
wide easements centered over the pipe(or wider depending on the depth of the pipe)that
are dedicated to the City and in the form of the City's Utility Easement Agreement.
• Municipal Water Supply
o The existing City water system is available to this site. The applicant will be required to
extend municipal water into the development at its sole cost and will be required to
construct a looped watermain network internal to the site with, at least a second
connection point to the City watermain system.
o The existing water system will need to be reviewed to determine if there is sufficient
capacity for the proposed high-density residential development without additional
improvements to the water system. During this planning the applicant must provide the
City domestic and fire suppression demand information for the facility so staff may
verify the capacity and needs of the water system.
o The applicant will be responsible to place fire hydrants throughout the property at the
direction of the Fire Department. All fire hydrants shall be owned and maintained by the
City.
o Any watermain lines and fire hydrants placed within the development will require 30-
foot-wide utility easements centered over the pipe. These easements must be dedicated to
the City and provided in the City's standard form of easement agreement.
• Stormwater Management
o The concept plan does not address storm water management. The proposed development
is subject the construction of a storm water management plan and system that meets
State, South Washington Watershed District(SWWD)and City rules. All stormwater
facilities need to be designed and installed in accordance with City and South
Washington Watershed District(VBWD)requirements.
o Permitting requirement will require rate control from all points of discharge from the site
and will require volume control(or infiltration. Overland emergency overflows or outlets
are required as part of the site plan for flood protection. The site plan will likely require
the installation of additional storm water ponding or infiltration to satisfy all storm water
regulations.
o All stormwater facilities constructed for this development are to remain privately owned
and maintained. The city will require the applicant or developer to execute and record of
a Stormwater Maintenance and Easement Agreement with the City in its standard form.
o Even as privately owned and maintained facilities,the City requires the developer to
provide maintenance access roads or drives that meet City engineering design standards
for all storm water facilities.
6
Tree Removal and Preservation. The applicant has not yet submitted a proposed tree and landscaping
plan for this site. As shown on the aerial photos and on site map,there are two areas on the property that
may have significant large trees—on the slope along Hudson Boulevard and around the larger wetland.
The City will require the applicant to provide a complete tree inventory and tree preservation/replanting
and landscaping plans as part of any site development applications going forward. The City's tree
preservation ordinance allows for 30%removal of significant trees on a site and the City requires a tree
mitigation plan showing how the developer will replace any removed trees.
Landscaping/Screening: As noted above,there appears to be two areas on the property with possibly
significant large trees on the site. As shown on the Concept site plan,the developer/architect has
designed the project to preserve as many of the existing trees on the property as possible. The City Code
requires a screening/landscape barrier between a less intense land use and a more intense land use that is
at least 90 percent opaque. This standard does not apply for the proposal as the surrounding land uses are
commercial and not residential.
The applicant has not yet provided the City with any details about landscaping for the site(nor are they
required to at this point of the review). The City will require the applicant to submit detailed landscape
plans with their preliminary PUD application and those plans will need to meet or exceed the City's
Landscape Requirements for the replanting of trees and for screening.
The landscape ordinance requirements are as follows:
1 tree per 50 lineal feet of street frontage,plus
5 trees for every 1 acre of development.
The required trees must be 25% deciduous, and 25%coniferous.
Landscape requirements for the site are as follows:
1,640 lin. Ft. of street frontage/50= 33 trees+11.7 acres x 5= 59 trees=for a total of 92 trees
plus those required for tree replacement
All tree removal, screening and landscape plans will subject to review by the City's Landscape Architect.
Building Official and Fire Chief Review. The Building Official and Fire Chief have reviewed the
proposed concept plan and have provided several comments. Specifically,the Fire Chief noted:
The following comments are very high level at this time as this is a concept review. More specific,
detailed comments will be provided as necessary as this project progresses.
• Ensure proper access to building, and second apparatus access road,per 2015 MN State Fire
Code,more specifically, Section 503,FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS, Section 504
ACCESS TO BUILDING OPENINGS NAD ROOFS. The City of Lake Elmo has adopted
Appendix D,FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS.With the proposed 4 story building height,
Section D105 may be applicable.
• Ensure proper access throughout site and turning radius's per review of City Engineer.
• FIRE LANES and NO PARKING areas to be reviewed and determined by the Fire Chief and
City Engineer.
• Fire hydrant placement will be reviewed by the Fire Chief, City Engineer and Public Works
Director.
• FDC location to be approved by Fire Chief.
7
• Lockbox location to be approved by Fire Chief
• Provide final layout drawing of building to fire department for the purpose of Pre-Planning.
• Project will be subject to all additional applicable fire codes in the 2015 MN State Fire Code.
The City Building Official(Kevin Murphy)also provided me with comments about the concept plan. He
noted the following:
• Plans shall be prepared an Architect, Structural Engineer and Mechanical Engineer.
• The plumbing plans shall be submitted to the State for review.
• The elevator requires a permit issued by DOLI(Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry)
• All fire suppression plans shall be submitted to the State Fire Marshall's Division for review.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan has designated this site
Business Park(BP)in the land use plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies BP as"providing for a wide
variety of professional businesses such as medical and research facilities, offices and corporate
headquarters. Retail sales of goods and services are allowable uses by conditional use permit provided
such uses are goods and services for employees of the permitted business use. This land use designatio
excludes any residential use."
For this development to proceed,the City would need to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment for
the site to change the land use designation from BP to HDR(high density residential). The HDR land
use is for higher density residential development ranging from 8 to 15 units per acre. As an 11 acre
property,this site could have up to 165 units—they are proposing 100 units (about 9 units per acre).
The City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan is now under review at the Metropolitan Council. City staff is
expecting the Met Council to complete their review and approval process by the end of October. Staff
would not recommend proposing an amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan until after the Met
Council has given it final approval later this year.
Before submitting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request to the Met Council for approval, a City
must first submit the amendment for review by the Planning Commission, obtain local governing body
(City Council) authorization for the amendment to be submitted to the Met Council for review, and give
adjacent governmental units, affected special districts and affected school districts an opportunity to
review the proposed amendment. Once they receive a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request,the Met
Council has 15 days to determine if a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is complete for review and 60
days to approve or deny the request. They also may extend the review period for an additional 60 days if
needed and beyond 120 days if agreed to by the local government. The City will require the applicant to
wait to submit a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request and the final plat and PUD plans for this
project until after the City has given the 2040 Comprehensive Plan final approval.
The decision to change or amend the Comprehensive Plan is a policy matter for the Planning Commission
to make a recommendation on to the City Council. Any change to the Comprehensive Plan should be
based on findings and criteria to show that the change would be consistent with the goals and policies of
the City. Such criteria may include that proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would be consistent
with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and would be beneficial by providing a location for a
housing option not currently available in the City.
As a condition of approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment,the City should require the
submission of the necessary Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council and the City
receiving formal notification from the Metropolitan Council that they have completed their review and
that they have approved the proposed plan amendment.
8
Consistency with High Density Residential(HDR) Zoning District.
For comparison, staff reviewed the proposed General PUD Concept Site Plan against the standards
including setbacks, impervious coverage, etc. of the HDR zoning district, as shown below.
Standard Required Pro osed
Impervious Surface Maximum 75% 40%(estimated)
Minimum Lot Width 60 feet 638 feet on Eagle Pointe Blvd.
Front Yard Setback 20 feet 50 feet(estimated)
Interior Side Yard 15 feet 100 feet(estimated)
Corner Side Yard 10 feet 100 feet(estimated)
Rear Yard Setback 20 feet 100 feet(estimated)
Maximum Building Height 45 feet(by PUD) 40-45 feet(estimated)
Parking Not to be located in the front Parking is located in front of and
yard or between the front fagade around the proposed building,
and public street. though much of the parking lot
would be screened from the
street by grades and landscaping
Open space 200 square feet of common open It appears there is at least
space provided per unit. In this 300,000 square feet of open
case,at least 20,000 square feet space provided on site with the
of common open space for the community garden areas,bocce
100 proposed units. ball and the open spaces along
Hudson Boulevard and around
the existing wetlands.
Adherence to Lake Elmo Design Guidelines and Standards.
The proposed development will need to meet the standards of the Lake Elmo design guidelines. It
appears that the project will meet the Lake Elmo Design Guidelines and Standards in that:
• The proposed structure are located and oriented in a manner that allows for pedestrian
accessibility and provides visual interest from the public right-of-way.
• The building is located as close to the public street as possible, easily accessible from the street;
setbacks are varied slightly;recreational and common spaces are located at the interior or rear of
the site.
• Streetscapes provide for pedestrian accessibility and safety while offering aesthetically pleasing
environments. With this proposed development,the City may want to require the developer to
install a trail along Hudson Boulevard and a sidewalk along Eagle Pointe Boulevard to meet this
City design standard.
• The parking areas do not account for more than 50% of street frontage.
• Examples of past developments adhere to building design requirements. It is a recommended
condition of approval that the applicant include a detailed architectural plan proposal for the
development.
Consistency with Planned Unit Development Regulations.The applicant has requested City approval
of a PUD amendment for this development because it would be a residential land use in previously
approved business park PUD. Since this would be a new land use in an established PUD, staff has
reviewed the proposed plan for its consistency with requirements of Article XVII: Planned Unit
Development(PUD)Regulations and has found the following:
9
• Intent.The intent of a PUD is to provide for flexibility in the use of land and the placement and
size of buildings in order to better utilize site features and obtain a higher quality of development.
A PUD amendment is required because the senior housing would be a land use not approved by
the City for the original PUD.
• Identified Objectives.When reviewing requests for PUDs,the City is to consider whether one or
more objectives as outlined in Section 154.751: Identified Objectives of the Zoning Code will be
served or is achieved. Staff has found that the proposed development would meet the following
objectives:
A. Innovation inland development techniques that maybe more suitable for a given parcel than
conventional approaches.
• The proposed development is not a typical,multi-story apartment building and instead
proposes a design that fits the site while preserving the important natural features
including slopes,trees and wetlands.
B. Promotion of integrated land use, allowing a mixture of residential, commercial and public
facilities.
• The proposed senior housing development would add a residential land use to an area
with offices, clinics and other commercial land uses.
C. Provision of a more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space, recreational
amenities and other public facilities than would otherwise be provided under conventional
land development techniques.
• The proposed development is proposing a number of recreational amenities to residents
within the PUD including gardens,gazebos and bocce ball.
D. Accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to employment opportunities
and/or commercial facilities; and especially to create additional opportunities for senior and
affordable housing.
• The proposed senior housing development would provide additional housing
opportunities within the City that would have convenient access to employment and
commercial facilities. In addition there are currently very few multi-family residential
buildings within the City.
E. Preservation and enhancement of important environmental features through careful and
sensitive placement of buildings and facilities.
• The proposed site plan for the senior housing building shows careful placement of the
proposed building in that it will preserve many of the existing trees on the site and would
keep the proposed building well away from the existing wetlands on the site
G. Coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility
within the development and surrounding land uses.
• The design of the building should be compatible with those of the adjacent commercial
properties to the north and east of the site.
J. Higher standards of site and building design than would otherwise be provided under
conventional land development technique.
• The City may impose design guidelines and standards on high density residential
development such as this proposal.
10
a. Minimum Requirements.PUDs must meet the following minimum requirements:
A. Lot Area.A PUD must include a minimum of 5 acres for undeveloped land or 2 acres for
developed land within the approved development.
• The proposed development meets this requirement as it is an 11.7-acre development.
B. Open Space: For all PUDs, at least 20%of the project area not within street rights-of-way
to be preserved as protected open space. Other public or site amenities may be approved as
an alternative to this requirement. Any required open space must be available to the
residents, tenants, or customers of the PUD for recreational purposes or similar benefit.
Land reserved for storm water detention facilities and other required site improvements may
be applied to this requirement. Open space shall be designed to meet the needs of residents
of the PUD and the surrounding neighborhoods, to the extent practicable,for parks,
playgrounds,playing fields and other recreational facilities.
• The applicant indicated in the application letter that about 75 %of the proposed
development area would be devoted to common open space(including the garden
areas,green spaces,wetlands,bocce ball courts and landscaped areas).
C. Street Layout... In newly developing areas, streets shall be designed to maximize
connectivity in each cardinal direction, except where environmental or physical constraints
make this infeasible.All streets shall terminate at other streets, at public land, or at a park
or other community facility, except that local streets may terminate in stub streets when
those will be connected to other streets in future phases of the development or adjacent
developments.
• The proposed development site is an existing lot of record with about 638 feet of
frontage on Eagle Pointe Boulevard and about 1000 feet of frontage on Hudson
Boulevard. The applicant is not proposing any new public streets but rather two
private driveways from Eagle Pointe Boulevard to serve the development. The City
Engineer,however,is recommending that the City only allow one driveway onto
Eagle Pointe Boulevard for this site because of spacing and access management
concerns. It is a recommended condition of approval that the developer address all
the comments outlined in the Engineering memo dated September 3, 2019 before
submitting plans for a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans for this site.
Density. The proposed density for this development is 9 residential units per acre— 100 proposed units
on a 11.7 acre site. The proposed HDR land use designation allow up to 15 residential units per acre. For
this site,the maximum allowed density,without amenity points,would be 165 residential units.
Zoning Map Amendment. If the City approves the proposed Concept Plan and the applicant applies for
City approval of Preliminary Plat and PUD plans,the City also will require a Zoning Map Amendment
(along with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment) for this site. This rezoning would be from BP
(business park)to HDR(Urban High Density Residential).
Recommended Findings. Staff recommends approval of the Concept PUD Plan for the proposed
Applewood Pointe Senior Living development as proposed by United Properties based on the following
findings:
1. That if the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map is amended to re-guide the site of
this PUD from BP(business park)to HDR(urban high density residential),the PUD concept plan
would be consistent with the intent of the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use
Map for the area.
11
2. That the PUD Concept Plan will meet the general intent of the High Density Residential Land
Use designation in the Comprehensive Plan(with a Comprehensive Plan amendment)and the
High Density Residential zoning district with PUD modifications.
3. That the PUD Concept Plan generally complies with the City's Subdivision regulations.
4. That the PUD Concept Plan is generally consistent with the City's engineering standards with
exceptions as noted in the City Engineer's memorandum dated September 3,2019.
5. The PUD Concept Plan meets the minimum requirement for a PUD including minimum lot area,
open space and street layout.
6. The PUD Concept Plan meets the allowed density requirement provided the Comprehensive Plan's
Land Use Map is amended to re-guide this site from Business Park to Urban High Density
Residential.
7. The PUD Concept Plan meets more than one of the required PUD objectives identified in Section
154.751 including providing:innovation in land development techniques that may be more suitable
for a given parcel than conventional approaches; provision of a more adequate,usable,and suitably
located open space, recreational amenities and other public facilities than would otherwise be
provided under conventional land development techniques;accommodation of housing of all types
with convenient access to employment opportunities and/or commercial facilities; and especially
to create additional opportunities for senior and affordable housing; coordination of architectural
styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility within the development and surrounding
land uses;and higher standards of site and building design than would otherwise be provided under
conventional land development technique.
Recommended Conditions of Approval. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council approval of the Concept PUD for the Applewood Pointe Senior Living Development as
proposed by United Properties with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant request and the City approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the
City's Land Use Plan to re-guide the property from BP (business park)to HDR(high density
residential).
2. That the future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans would be for the parcel with the PID
#33.029.21.44.0009.
3. That the applicant prepare any future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans showing all of
the site perimeter property lines -including any revisions for any additional right-of-way or
easements that may be needed for Hudson Boulevard.
4. That the future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans submittal identify all requests for
flexibility from the Zoning Code including having fewer off-street parking spaces on the site than
required by the City Code.
5. That the applicant address all comments in the City Engineer's Memorandum dated September 3,
2019 with the future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans submittal. These include
completing a traffic impact study,having only one driveway for the site, installing a public trail
along Hudson Boulevard and managing all storm water on the site.
6. That the Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans submittal include a complete tree inventory and tree
preservation/replanting and landscape plans to be reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape
Architect.
7. That the Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans submittal include accurate open space and impervious
surface calculations.
8. That the applicant/developer provide the City fees in lieu of park land dedication as required by
153.14 with future final plat.
9. That the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans submittal include detailed architectural plans
for all the proposed buildings.
12
10. The applicant receive a permit from the South Washington Watershed District for the construction
of the proposed development.
11. That all comments of the Fire Chief be addressed with any future preliminary plat plans and
preliminary PUD plan submittal.
12. That all comments of the Building Official be addressed with any future preliminary plat plans and
preliminary PUD plan submittal.
13. That the applicant/developer install a 8-foot-wide trail along Hudson Boulevard and a 6-foot-wide
concrete sidewalk along Eagle Pointe Boulevard as a part of the improvement of the site.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There would be no fiscal impact to the City at this time. Concept Plan approval does not afford the applicant
development rights. When the property develops, it will have urban services and will pay sewer and water
connection charges,building permit fees and the like that the developer and/or contractors will pay.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the
proposed PUD Concept Plan for the proposed Applewood Pointe Senior Living development as proposed
by United Properties to be located on the southeast corner of Eagle Pointe Boulevard and Hudson
Boulevard with the recommended conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report.
"Motion to recommend approval of the PUD Concept Plan as requested by Jennifer Mason (of United
Properties)for PID#33.029.21.44.0009 for the project to be known as Applewood Pointe Senior Living
located on the southeast corner of Eagle Pointe Boulevard and Hudson Boulevard subject to
recommended conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report."
ATTACHMENTS:
• Applicant's Letter dated August 19,2019
• Project Information dated July 31,2019(12 pages)
• 2040 Land Use Plan Map
• Location Map
• Address Map
• Aerial Photo
• Applicant's Site Map/Aerial Photo
• Site Survey
• Site Survey—Existing Conditions
• Site Survey Analysis
• Concept Site Plan
• City Engineer review memo dated September 3, 2019(3 pages)
13
I '01,
`,� Min eiapoilis Minnesota5 5402 Denver,Colorado 80202
ors UNITEDMall,Ste
1 PROPERTIES 952-835-5300 720-898-8866
August 19, 2019
Ken Roberts
Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo
3880 Laverne Avenue North
Suite 100
Lake Elmo,MN 55042
Dear Mr. Roberts,
United Properties is requesting a PUD concept plan review with the City of Lake Elmo
Planning Department. We are proposing a 4-story approximate 100-unit senior cooperative
on Outlot C of the Eagle Pointe Business Park along Eagle Point Blvd &Hudson Blvd. To date,
we have built 15 Applewood Pointe cooperative communities around the Twin Cities with a
sixteenth scheduled to break ground later this year. The following is a link to our Applewood
Pointe website: hops://www.aPplewoodpointe.com/. This would be a"for sale" residential
product with homes ranging in size from approximately 1,300 to 1,800 sq.ft. All homes have at
least two bedrooms and two baths,with many having a sunroom or den.
As you are probably aware, the office market has changed significantly from when the PUD
was originally approved. Although we have tried to market this site for many years for an
office use, we have come to the conclusion that due to the reduced demand for office space, and
the attributes of this specific site,that this particular location is much better suited for
residential. The same attributes including the existing wetlands and grades that make for a
challenging office location,represent positive attributes for an Applewood Pointe community.
We have worked closely with our architect to respect the existing wetlands and corresponding
setbacks as well as the grades to create a plan that we feel is ideal for this site. As discussed in a
previous meeting,it appears that Comprehensive Plan and existing PUD will need to be
amended to allow for high density residential. We firmly believe that this would provide an
opportunity to incorporate a low traffic generating residential use that is in high demand. Five
of our last six senior cooperatives have been sold out prior to construction completion. We are
confident that Lake Elmo's reputation along with the local amenities and retail options will
make this a very popular location.
A
kkjs,
651 Nicollet Mall,Ste 450 1331 17th Street,Ste 604
�s UNITED
Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 Denver,Colorado 80202
� ' P R O P E R'11' 16-; 952-835-5300 720-898-8866
We have included information along with a survey and site plans which should help
give a basic understanding of our communities. Please let us know if there is any
additional information that you feel would be helpful. The following is a video link to
our most recent community in Champlin which opened this past April.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XetbQF62aHI&feature=youtu.be
Below please fund the requested tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use
expressed as percentages of the total project area for the following:
• Area devoted to the common open space=75%
• Area devoted to the public open space and public amenities=0%
I look forward to hearing from you and having an opportunity to discuss the project further
with the Planning Department.
Best Regards,
Jennifer Mason
Development Manager
Ill! ice.:'-'• �
Lu
W
p. —
�' F-
F-
��/ W O
OW
W
It
/ 0 a
i
W
W z
Z 0 -
Gw W cj
CD
LU v
wZ �C cy')
at
U W
LIM
a o
a
6
...mil L'!ADI f>•m�: &MM! �• __ - -
�� goo 1:911 r Fit_
ftl� !t Ali
-
on in FBI 4 1
_
■� ,yin �,�i � �� i �. �� -
'lilt t I1' �Yi■ l
fY
1�-lit=1���=1��'� 1 �► ` ;�
OA
W
y_ W s a C�
of
o:
g W`
1 t
t
2
7
z 2 •_ f
Ah
m .
a
&0' •vac tl" �R~iy$e��FVs 2X�du_5�t�f
RS ! Co Yi•pill 11
1 S
S 5
Gl
V
C
f6
a
a
LA
v
t
Q W T
F V'
0 O Q r—
W, Q
to
Z C4
IU a _
c
j r h
N
O
_CO
a W
co
uj +-
Y cu
Q 0)
/ J
W �/ u_ J
O
u.i .o
a
�/► O c
a
w oQ
F-
z
°-
N _j �
W � ^,
F V�J
�a
W, a� c
a u Q
W ^
Z rC
W
a�
A-�,4
O
� p roO 00
°
U1 L O
ro 110
c E E +�
° a) o
E �- +�
}, o ro
o -0 c �:
a. c ra o
O O m N
V 4-1 Z) _
E I C -0
4- N 0) p CL °
Q O +-1
-p = 0- O
O
0 M m 4J >- ro
c U) p. ru }' u
O D - L O UJ
> i CT
-pi
i a1 a.
ca 41 i Xcm
d
Q _� 41 ro
° ro a1 w
°o c °
v v 0 X ON
ro N t c o
O O z° N
41
• • • • • • 1
Q)
p U
` c co
• J
< L.LJ
co
d s LU 4�
co
LL
u L
0 J
C_." Lg C 43�• w .O
3
tz -'� • z N
at Q� ' i iCO
co
CD
fU �.
a �;• W
J _0
a.
N
r Q �
r � zQ K
� y
U)
w
i=
w 8
a�
Cc
s z
`a
a
T � �
g
a -
0
t� o
o z:c x
�c y
n°
o c
N � T
3
- d
3
K
y
8 �
w Q1
$ Fa N
8 8 B 9 8 S 6 8 Z¢
S 8 8 8 S 8 8 3 �a m
CD
a� d
Y �
0) D w Ca
4-J m V W +�
oQ ro0) Y c�
> Q
Ln
0 � LO V LL J
V1 .�..r V �
roVl L O O
Q 0) v u +-1 LV O
ro v m w v) Z Q)
ro C
O 5 l7 1
Q
p L
c O a)
E � o
0
ro O LV
l7 -�
o a� E a Q)
w E V O +,
o c C v 0 a
a O +� I- Ln W Q
Ln
E E `°-' a ro ro Wa -
O L to
E V V V V iL
W
w
ix
F-
Q.
=\ C
o t"
ro ro
ro
Q Q
L 0 Ln
111 C Q
Q Q •CL •L
4� Qco
°
E + U� o
Q N E
ro c 'E E
ru v
r Q v ro
o N t -°°
ro c 0)
i ro v Q LnQ o
+' Ln
Q. L D
Op � a + O
V L N E c
V t O
o Q rB v1 O ,
ro i w
L Q rcs v ro o
4-1 Q ro E Fa o CD
o r\ O N O za
m J M N Q V CY)
AR
Q�
p U
a� a) 2 c
Ln Ul
E I-- �, Q, a J c�
t s ° c E W
>'v °n � � t WUl
+�
>; 4° v o° o E J .�
V a1 Fn o IV v N J
Ln Lnp
a� >Ln Ln (V c W O
>. O>. � E c L ro v 'Ln
o +Ln � ° v Z v � z Cn
4- u°i > E c E
*' o ° cn
o v o E a L
v c c E L>n L c> O a)
4-J Ln
O O Ln �
Ln
E >. o c s o - c W o'
O) E — >, >- x ro0 Ln
J �
2 O
ro
o O O n Ln > 0 4! ° ° °w -O Q Ln w
L v c +� L Q- E � '0 > Zo Q �
O N > N O t aJ �a �',
Ln — U.) +-+ l!1 t v Q 'O
In • • • • r ! ��"p
c�.
V)
Lu
U,
or
`i imm J LA w
�I w
CC
LU
ma
ON
l�1,�I�I�auw+!11 S N
� B
= Lu E
W x
.�i t-u
f W O
CO
is N
17
W
^
w
J �
J Y
_ IJ O U
- U
1
.� w
Ix
i
r W=
f r �
CN
kuLCD
- cY)
co
Y w
-- Q
�? LJL >
C/)
IL
fist 1llp!�:— p
M,;%. yam W CL
z
1 "
ui
r I
Z"
c
g -.g• '- 0�
CD
r �
cD
cy')
1
i •
W
W
LL
LU
1
z
o
p
W
I`
Q w
j v4 i
A4 .
r
��� b � ��-��•7 }..°gyp' +�• ,. �
at.
t �� h
- t
.R
1 �
i
i
i
r
i
.. F - •
Sri `s�' :�- , G. � '� •
�'�. ;r mot,_•� r.
{ er�yr _ fq •
b t
•
'�fy ,!, - • by �
U
ti
Ln
ul
IX
wCL
e
,�
w
�r
4 �
ON
O
N
c')
_T
y
L1�
LL.I
N m LL
O
r
1 LLJ
Z_
O o
n O
co
W CD)
J �
Q w
co !•
N M. M
F-
U
w
2
U
W
H
A„ — wo
vt a
c�
a�
o<
wa
_t
Z
Z
O►
O
N
co
A
O
t
- J
W
Y
Q
J
M et LL
- \ O
I O o
o
O OL
O
Lu
J �
, r 4—
X
w
�oE
1
_ I
1
.y
� I
t3D �
_
.�� � • _ `�' ter►. a '��. �
Nee
IQTH
TI
2040 Future ..and Use LDR v-MDR � I Closed Landfill PFa#I
AP MDR V-HDR Institutional
�M RAD HDR 111-N1U Park
RS F
fA EAU-BP LB PSP
RSFS �. MU-C j BP ROW
GC V-LDR �..._� .,+� C �� MUSA 2040 (Revised)
e Uric 6 mou-) (3 k - po-� ( �R A-pNNWAL)
8/8/2019 Washington County Property Viewer
xMCISIlingt(ml aign in
Property Viewer
+
113
3TH ST N
ST
r
--Fful
__Wwvo -DBUf?Y LAKES RD
ILI
maps.co.washington.mn.us/propertyviewer/ 1/1
8/8/2019 Washington County Property Viewer
Signin
------- ou nth
Property Viewer
85, 8568
VO
�55
8550
£AO £ P t6
co
CC
6�1 9
a
v
4 ��o
co
ril 8910
Jill
MRS
WOODBUR_Y LAKES RC
maps.co.washington.mn.us/propertyviewer/ 1/1
'u O
cc
F
2
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
-for-UNITED PROPERTIES 'z• ' �1 ::.
-of- XXX EAGLE POINT BLVD.
LAKE ELMO,MN 55042 W
-A-44W,
00117
LU
Ok—
Nf
CD
�� \� 1 \l l�t� � 1 "j �,,r,�f�, 1• atl � N
`: \ �A .J.
.,
,�
NORTH
1.A;
_his `; LU
LEGEND % l I W
-T• .
o�b�,;�;��:,E.:�.fo„"..,J„ . ,. •�• Llfif'-� • � ' y:� yQ. 1 �_ � � Y
e'a'ans oaw�m. n'o /v \ \\j�\,```•\�Y —' _. •_• I 'Oy ._. ? I '
VICINITY W
V.
S.
LL
Q)
Ljj
' 'ka.SM:IX+CGnYr,�trJLr..Cia 9a•roa,�r�n..a-!e°h� 4`�' .�w+anay.nw"x �\ I � �f�
v`o xa,� .ew .f.:�+•..a > .w.'r a awyyr..,,r�yy.��rwrrQm�. - aea tENC8_MA®R /1 W
+3. °ws"�Wn�i'wt�4iM3h�Maifoea,M !�1� J p�'in�`wry a'm'�'i Tree ��*m+..moa�lrv�a� LL }�
E.C. Run s SRNS, INC. ,
m Professional Land Surveyors v r-^^ —_^"• A Q
6776 Lake Drive NE Suite 110 PQIPFATTBESCfiIPT'MN — -t—�
,....ems.. _
Lino Lakes,MN iMl4
iN.(65l)0e14100 FY(011MA 701
`---- Jrwnvv l7 I
5/10/2019 Washington County Property Viewer
Signin
��ashington
county
Property Viewer
711
N►a _ low,y.o
,e r r.' gip• - - - ! -
�pGLE. PO1N"3 L:
NMI .
1 F
+u
`T
titPA
E I—, 1NWoo()
194
maps.co.washington.mn.us/propertyviewer/ 1/1
M U
sa N I 6
to
r
` � w
W.
' wa
-4. r lkF .?�
CD
C-I
I �
CY)
• h
a1
k�. . r 1�•
W
Lu
LL
Az
LLJ
� 6 P�r .JA � ,1• _P_ O
!L,
. � w l.` r� �• 4• :b � + ty Q
LU
r.
Ut-
Urn
W
H
U
iY
t_ Q
to
W
F
K=
W'<
w:
990
Z
Wetland 2
0.1 Sac
Stormpond In
upland
i
SP2-wet,
002
ad
SP2•upl
DNR Watercourse
USACE Tributary Wetland 1 ` 01
5201inear feet onsite 1.36•ac \•���` [--
Flows south onsite Q
SPtitpl D
SoO
W
A
Legend W
It
sn-•eawdary -' , Y
® SamPle Po'nl It1'1 - '-• - - � fj�
wetland 1 1 FiV,i'°�• 1�..Jt � ..
Rock Swale _ O
——Pubrc flitch/Pltered Helural Welerror r,E ���/,� �•` �3 /t Y Y �7��'••" LL +J
E p
P,b Welercouru t^ _ j ,r A
WasM1 ng;an CourAy lidar y
Figure 2-Existing Conditions z 0)
C
N 0 150 Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo(KES 2019-092) O
��Feet Lake Elmo,Minnesota
'
Note.Boundanes md—wd Q X
j(' r� on This figure are app—mate O W
1 LJOLH W N an
AUG EIROMENTU-SERVICES COMPANY and do not constitute
`1^^' ofFcial survey product.
Y� Suurce:MNCEO SpntiW Caaamuoa O
>
W
Q V�
I�
i
,' C I J U
= O
LLI
Z
2
w
tA
N � Q
W
/-
co
Ln
7Z.
17
.wpAAJ�/ rr= .�. CO
is-
CD
CAI
r I6 CY)
o� u w
� _ J
L Q
`w
O CO r x 1
O N
i� ,'- �CAN r O � _• of�/' O
00
cc C w W 2 a $ ^
Do K W co
Q
�°°Ln a
1
(n o
Q = 2 2 w L
w F. w ram^N s .. .. ; - n vl
} aay am ..�
w W p U W
.. J
Qam <O
Zc4w2 � Nf _l � i--r
F C W W co O a
co �- \ 1
N 6
2 p N
� K
O
w
2 �
O U
O �
� w
arc
it w
_ W �
� r N
\� . O
W II m
1
•-\� 1, a W, fr I I �
y
W s v
O Y y n
0
3 J \ II
IL u
J LL 2 w Z
o I J
C <o
W
m W
♦ W I
` u
\ u
o I:
m
SI �
o '.♦ LV
O
W
o m \ Z
N o " '_ -- -' 0
\
wcz� _Ja~ \ \ J I..� co
L Q G y N N O O F N ' !�W LL O
a'n O O M w
Z
W Q
\ �' N
J
CL
<s:N Z < N
H e o w a o m N
cc L4
Q U
a LL J a
W 6' z z -
N Z Z a V> > y
U
FOCUSENGINEERING, inc.
MEMORANDUM
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
Date: September 3, 2019
To: Ken Roberts, Planner Director Re: Applewood Pointe at Lake Elmo (United Properties)
Cc: Chad Isakson, Assistant City Engineer Concept Site Plan Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
We have reviewed the Applewood Pointe Concept PUD Plans. The Concept Site Plans consisted of the following
documentation received on August 12, 2019:
• Narrative dated August 1, 2019, prepared by United Properties.
• Concept Site Plan dated July 31, 2019.
• Site Survey Analysis dated July 31, 2019.
• Certificate of Survey dated July 17, 2019.
• Wetland Delineations, not dated.
Engineering has the following review comments:
STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION
• Eagle Point Boulevard Improvements. A Traffic Impact Study should be required to review the traffic
impacts that would be placed on the adjacent local roadway system from the higher density use of the
property.This review should include, but not be limited to:
➢ Consideration for extending the right-turn lane on Eagle Point Boulevard (at Hudson Boulevard) for an
additional 300-400 feet. It has been reported that the peak hour traffic currently exceeds the turn
lane capacity.
➢ Consideration for left and right turn lanes at the Applepointe Subdivision access locations.
• Eagle Point Boulevard Right-of-way Dedication. Additional right-of-way may need to be dedicated to the
City along Eagle Point Boulevard to accommodate any proposed or potential future improvements for the
roadway corridor.
• Hudson Boulevard Improvements. Hudson Boulevard Improvements should be required as part of the
Subdivision in accordance with the Hudson Boulevard Design Standards, with an Urban section along the
north boulevard and bituminous trail.
• Hudson Boulevard Right-of-Way Dedication. Additional right-of-way dedication to the City along Hudson
Boulevard may be required to accommodate the Hudson Boulevard Improvements.
• Site Access. The concept plan proposes two access locations along Eagle Point Boulevard, approximately
200 feet apart. The north access is proposed only 80 feet from the existing Eagle Point business
condominiums. These access locations do not meet City access spacing guidelines along Collector
Roadways and are not recommended as presented. A transportation review should be completed to
determine better Subdivision Access.
• Pedestrian Connectivity. The City should review the site plan to determine pedestrian connectivity
surrounding the proposed Subdivision.
• Private Streets. The streets interior to the development are proposed to remain privately owned and
maintained. Interior street design may require revisions to provide adequate fire lanes and safety access.
PAGE 1 of 3
MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER
• The proposed site is guided in the City's Comprehensive Plan for Phase I of the Regional Sewer Staging
Plan and would discharge to the MCES WONE Interceptor.
• Sanitary sewer service is available to the site. The applicant will be responsible to connect to the City
sanitary sewer system and extend sanitary sewer into the property at applicant's sole cost.
• The concept plan does not include a sanitary sewer utility plan for review but is proposing 100 REC units
plus additional potential facilities and amenities.The site was originally planned for up to 50 REC units.
• The applicant will be required to connect to the existing sanitary sewer along Hudson Boulevard,
connecting to an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer pipe extending northwest from the 194 Lift Station site.
Capacity is not available for this facility to connect to the existing 15-inch sanitary main extending
southeast of this manhole.
• A review of the impacts to the sanitary sewer system and adjacent 194 Lift Station will be required to
identify any improvements necessary to accommodate the added sewer flows.
• Existing Utility Easements. The existing sanitary sewer utility easements along Hudson Boulevard and the
new commercial street corridor must be shown with any preliminary plan submittal and plan revisions
must be made to avoid encroachments/conflicts with these easements.
• Any sanitary sewer main lines placed within the development will require minimum 30-foot easements
centered over the pipe (or wider dependent upon the sewer depths) dedicated to the City and in the form
of the City's Utility Easement Agreement.
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
• The concept plan does not include a watermain utility plan for review but is proposing 100 REC units plus
additional potential facilities and amenities. The site was originally planned for up to 50 REC units. A
review of the impacts to the water system will be required to identify any improvements necessary to
accommodate the added water demands.
• Municipal Water service is available to the site. The applicant will be responsible to extend municipal
water into the development at its cost and will be required to construct a looped watermain network
internal to the site with, at least, a second City watermain connection point.
• Watermain is available to be extended to the property from an existing 12-inch trunk watermain located
along three sides of the proposed site, including Hudson Boulevard, Eagle Point Boulevard and the
commercial driveway to the adjacent property.
• The existing water system will need to be reviewed to determine if sufficient capacity for the proposed
high-density development is available without additional improvements to the water system. During
preliminary planning the applicant must provide domestic and fire suppression demands for the facility so
that staff may verify adequate water system capacity.
• No watermain pipe oversizing is anticipated at this time. Further review will be completed as the
application moves forward through the process.
• The applicant will be responsible to place hydrants throughout the property at the direction of the Fire
Department. All fire hydrants shall be owned and maintained by the City.
• Any watermain lines and hydrants placed within the development will require minimum 30-foot
easements centered over the pipe. Easements must be dedicated to the City and be provided in the City's
standard form of easement agreement.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
• The concept plan does not address storm water management. The proposed development is subject to a
storm water management plan meeting State, South Washington Watershed District (SWWD) and City
rules. A permit will be required from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and SWWD.
• Storm water facilities proposed as part of the site plan to meet State and SWWD permitting requirements
must be constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual.
PAGE 2 of 3
• Permitting requirements will require rate control from all points of discharge from the site and will
require volume control (or infiltration). Overland emergency overflows or outlets are required as part of
the site plan for flood protection. The site plan will likely require additional storm water ponding or
infiltration to satisfy all storm water regulations.
• If storm water ponds (detention) and infiltration basins are proposed, the 100-year high water flood level
(HWL)for each basin must be fully contained within private property.
• The storm water facilities constructed for this development should remain privately owned and
maintained. The applicant will be required to execute and record a Stormwater Maintenance and
Easement Agreement in the City's standard form of agreement.
• Even as privately owned and maintain facilities, maintenance access roads meeting the City engineering
design standards must be provided for all storm water facilities.
PAGE 3 of 3