HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-27-20 Packet
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Wednesday May 27, 2020
at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
Please note:
Due to the Corona Virus pandemic and the State of Emergency, the City will be the conducting Planning
Commission meeting and public hearings telephonically or by other electronic means. The City Council Chambers
will not be open to the public. The City will be broadcasting the meeting via our normal link on the City website -
www.lakeelmo.org.
To access the meeting via GoToWebinar:
Use www.gotomeeting.com and select “join”. Enter webinar ID 672-360-331
To access the meeting via telephone:
Call (562) 247-8321 and when prompted enter access code 420-206-093
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
4. Public Hearings
a. FINAL PLAT AND FINAL PUD AMENDMENT APPROVAL – BOULDER PONDS 5TH ADDITION
(7th Street North at 5th Street North)
b. CONCEPT OP PUD REVIEW – BRUGGEMAN BUILDERS (2500 Manning Avenue North)
5. New/Unfinished Business
None
6. Communications/Updates
a. City Council Update
05-19-20 Meeting:
b. Staff Updates
c. Upcoming PC Meetings:
1. June 8, 2020
2. June 22, 2020
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.
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 747-3900
www.lakeelmo.org
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 27, 2020
PUBLIC HEARING
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner
ITEM: Boulder Ponds 5th Addition – Final Plat, Final PUD Plan
REVIEWED BY: Ken Roberts, Planning Director
BACKGROUND:
The City is being asked to consider an application for a Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan
amendment submitted by OP4 Boulder Ponds, LLC c/o The Excelsior Group, LLC. The Final Plat application
represents a 5th phase in the Boulder Ponds residential development and consists of the division of one lot into 3.
This request would increase the total number of lots within the development by 2 which moves the previously
approved lot count from 98 to 100. The proposed project is located at the property currently addressed as 9010 7th
St. During the platting of phases 1-3 the developer was able to place all approved lots (98) within the development.
To keep the construction of the approved lots on schedule the developer opted not to amend the PUD during the 3rd
addition and instead decided to come forward now with the PUD Amendment request now. It is unknown to Staff
why the developer deviated from the original plans but the City must react to the information that is present today.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: OP4 Boulder Ponds, LLC c/o The Excelsior Group, LLC, 1660 Highway 100
South, Ste 400, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Property Owners: OP4 Boulder Ponds, LLC11455 Viking Drive, Suite 350, Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Location: 9010 7th St. PID # 34.029.21.32.00087
Request: Application for Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan
Amendment for a 5th Addition of the Boulder Ponds planned development
consisting of 3 single family lots.
Existing Land Use/Zoning: LDR (PUD) - Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development.
Surrounding Land Use: North –Stonegate Estates (RE) subdivision; west – Eagle Point Business Park (BP);
east –Savona Development, Low Density Residential (LDR) subdivision;
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5-4 units per acre)
History: Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan approved by the City on
9/16/14 (Res. 2014-73). The first phase Boulder Ponds Final Plat and Final PUD
was approved on April 21, 2015 (Res. 2016-041), the second phase was approved
on May 17, 2016 (Res. 2018-065), and the 3rd phase approved June 19, 2018 (Res.
2018-065)
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 5/19/2020
60 Day Deadline –7/7/2020
Extension Letter Mailed – N/A
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (LDR)
Article 16 – Planned Unit Development Regulations
§153 Subdivision Regulations
2
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS:
The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from OP4 Boulder Ponds, LLC for a Final Plat and Final PUD Plan to
subdivide 9010 7th St, .74 acres, into 3 single family lots. The preliminary plat approved 98 single family lots. 1st
Addition approved 47 single family lots, and the 2nd Addition approved 18 single family lots, and the 3rd Addition
with a total of 33 lots.
Final Plat Approval Process. The City’s
subdivision ordinance establishes the procedure
for obtaining final plat approval, in which case a
final plat may only be reviewed after the City
takes action on a preliminary plat. As long as the
final plat is consistent with the preliminary
approval, it must be approved by the City. In this
instance the developer does have preliminary plat
approval. However, it was for the development of
98 lots. Although the Developer would like to
add additional lots the City is not obligated to
approve the request. However, the proposal is
generally consistent with the preliminary plan that
was approved by the City in 2014.
5th Addition Discussion
Changes to Final Plat from Preliminary Plat. Lot 17, Block 2 is much larger than originally approved with
Preliminary Plat, (Lots 20 and 21 of the preliminary plat). The City Code requires amendment reviews to follow the
process outlined in section 154.105. Although the intent of this section is to address zoning code and text
amendments the process for amending other land use requests, such as a PUD amendment can still apply. It can be
seen that lot 17 from the 3rd addition
is different from lots 20 and 21 from
the preliminary plan.
3rd Addition Final Plat
Preliminary Plat
Proposed 5th Addition
3
• Density. The density of the single family lot area within the preliminary plat approved approximately 2.5
dwelling units per acre over 39 acres, which is a net acreage calculation of (98/39=2.51). The addition of 2 more
lots would adjust the calculation to 100/39=2.56. The density change is small and does not drastically adjust the
density. It results with an increase of .04 units per acre. If the PUD amendment is allowed the comprehensive
plan within Urban Low Density Residential Land Use category would not be affected as the Land Use
Designation in the comprehensive plan (LDR) calls for a density of 2.5-4 units per acre. The zoning code for the
LDR district calls for a density range of 2 to 4 units which is also met.
• Decreased Lot Widths. The minimum lot width
of the Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning
district is 60 feet. Only one of the three lots is
capable of meeting the lot width requirement
(See 5th addition plans for reference). For a
reference there were fifteen lots within the 3rd
Addition that did not meet this minimum lot
width of 60 ft.
• Lot Sizes. The LDR district requires a minimum
lot size of 8,000 sq ft. (.18 acres). The average
lot size of the approved preliminary plat was
9,882 square feet, and the smallest lot size was
7,206 square feet. For reference the smallest lot
size within the 3rd Addition was 7,224 sq ft. Of
the three lots for the 5th addition the smallest lot
is 7,873 sq ft. while the largest is 14,645 sq ft.
and the average lot size for the three comes to
10,789 sq ft. (14,645+9,850+7,873)/3=10,789
• Landscape Plan. The applicant has provided
the City with a landscape plan which has been
reviewed by the City landscape architect.
Please see the attached memo for more details.
• Trails/Parks. Because these lots are an addition
to an existing development the infrastructure is
already in place or will be installed to meet the
conditions of the previous approvals. The
number of lots that are being created would
require a cash contribution and does not qualify
for the ability to dedicate land. However, because funds/land was provided in previous additions the City cannot
require dedication funds for this phase.
11
12
21
20
18
10
6
Lot Count
21
12
10
6
18
11
+ 20
98 Lots
4
City Engineer Review. Comments have not yet been provided.
Fire Chief and Building Official Review. Comments were not submitted.
Outlots. Outlots are not being created with this subdivision.
Landscape Architect. The landscape architect did provide a review memo and recommends approval of the plan as
provided, assuming there are no revisions to the plan.
PUD Flexibility. Boulder Ponds was provided PUD flexibility for the following with approval of the Preliminary
Plat and PUD. The 5th Addition Final Plat and PUD should adhere to this PUD flexibility:
Proposed Lot Dimensional Standards through Planned Unit Development Process:
• Lot Area: 9,882 sq. ft. average (7,206 sq. ft. min.)
• Front Yard Setback: 20 ft. (25 feet for garage)
• Side Yard Setback: 5 ft.
• Side Corner Setback: 15 ft.
• Rear Yard Setback: 25 ft.20 ft. Staff recommends adjusting this figure to 20 as this is
what is established in the current zoning code and is the number that has been used for review since
the beginning of home permitting.
• Additionally, during the Preliminary review there was a discussion of flag lots in the development.
The PUD did allow some lots within the Boulder Ponds development flexibility. The only lot that
stood out as a flag lot is the lot identified as lot 1 in the 5th addition. Although, being that the lot is
on a corner perhaps the issues created by flag lots become less relevant. (For clarity, the driveway
access for lot 1 will not be onto 5th St.)
3rd Addition
5
With all of the information provided Staff would like
to insert additional comments before the 5th addition
recommendation. Strictly comparing the request to
prior additions it certainly appears to blend in to the
development. There is nothing drastically different
about the sizes or width of the lots. The lots may
look “tight” on their own but compared to past
additions there did not appear to be anything unique
about these three lots. One thing that is worth noting
is the island that sits at the end of the driveways.
Given that the island creates a one way the property
owners would be forced to arrive from the south
(within the development) or perform a U-turn around
the island to access the lots.
Setting aside the driveway consideration the
preliminary plat did show 98 lots and the developer is
now requesting 100 lots. From a numbers stand point
the adjustment does not appear to be worth much of a
discussion but it may be worth discussing in terms of
creating more “convenient” lots in the development.
At some point the development has a limit in terms of
what is can sustain. With that said if there were only
two lots instead of three as proposed the average lot size would come to 16,184 sq ft. which would be double the size
that is required for the district and is probably less fitting for the development.
Preliminary Plat Conditions
The preliminary plat for Boulder Ponds was approved with several conditions, which are indicated below along with
Staff’s comments on the status of each. Staff is recommending approval of the final plat for Boulder Ponds 5th
Addition, but with additional conditions intended to address the outstanding issues that will require additional review
and/or documentation.
Please also note that the applicant has also provided a response to the preliminary plat conditions as part of the
project narrative.
1) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the commencement of any
grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City Engineer shall review any grading plan
that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on
the site. Comments: The site was mass graded in phase 1 and becomes less relevant for 2 additional lots.
2) The developer shall be required to submit an updated parkland dedication calculation in advance of Final
Plat. Upon submission of the calculation, the applicant must work with the City to achieve the required
parkland dedication amount per the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. The developer shall be required to pay a
fee in lieu of land dedication equivalent to the fair market value for the amount of land that is required to be
dedicated for such purposes in the City’s Subdivision Ordinance less the amount of land that is accepted for
park purposes by the City. Any cash in lieu of land dedication shall be paid by the applicant prior to the
release of the Final Plat for recording. Comments: The park land dedication requirements have been
satisfied.
3) The developer shall follow all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act and adhere to the
conditions of approval for the South Washington Watershed District Permit. Comments: The permit was
received with the first phase of the development.
4) The applicant will work with the Planning Staff to name all streets in the subdivision in a manner acceptable
to the City prior to the submission of Final Plat. Comments: Streets do not need to be named or renamed
with this phase.
6
5) The applicant will work with staff to address the comments in the City Engineer's review memo dated
7/24/14 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer as part of the Final Plat and Final PUD Plan. Comments:
These were completed for the 1st phase. It is a recommended condition of approval that the Applicant
address comments that are outlined in the City Engineer’s review memo. (memo not yet provided)
6) In addition to standard easements required by the Subdivision Ordinance, additional drainage and utility
easements must be provided extending 10 feet from meandering sidewalks, as well as all of the portion of
private lots between meandering sidewalks and the public right-of-way. Comments: This condition
remained throughout all phases and will again apply to the 5th addition.
7) The landscape plan shall be updated to locate all boulevard trees in between the public street and sidewalk to
not interfere with private utilities. It is a recommended condition of approval that the final landscape and
irrigation plans be approved prior to release of building permits.
8) All islands and medians internal to the Boulder Ponds development shall be platted as part of the right-of-
way and shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance
agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in
areas outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the Final Plat. Comments: The islands and
median except those in 5th Street are the responsibility of the HOA into perpetuity. This condition will not
necessarily need to be applied with these lots as it was addressed in other additions.
9) The design of the northern buffer trail shall be modified to a width of 8 feet as opposed to the regional trail
standard of 10 feet. Comments: This requirement has been met.
10) The eastern segment of the northern buffer trail shall be moved to the south to the greatest extent possible
with plantings to screen the trail on the north side. Comments: This is not a relevant condition for the 5th
addition.
11) Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat, the Developer shall
enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that delineates who is responsible for the
design, construction, and payment of public improvements. Comments: All public improvements have
already been installed or are in the process of being installed due to previous development phases.
12) The Final PUD Plan will include a development lot book to clarify proper building placement for use in
granting building permits for the development. Comments: This has been added as a recommended
condition of approval.
Staff is recommending that the relevant conditions noted above become the conditions of approval for the Boulder
Ponds 5th addition. The City Engineer has not yet provided a review memo for the development. However, the
expected comments and recommendations provided by the City Engineer will be included as conditions of approval.
Draft Findings. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards
to the proposed Boulder Ponds 5th Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Amendment:
1) That the Boulder Ponds 5th Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is generally consistent with the standards
approved for the Preliminary Plat and Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on September 16, 2014.
2) That the Boulder Ponds 5th Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent with the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
3) That the Boulder Ponds 5th Addition Final Plat does not comply with the City’s Urban Low Density
Residential zoning district. However, the exceptions approved through the PUD process as noted in the
approved Preliminary PUD Plans allow for decreased front and rear yard lot widths, lot sizes, and seatbacks.
4) That the Boulder Ponds 5th Addition Final Plat complies with all other applicable zoning requirements,
including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control and other ordinances, except as
noted in this report or attachments thereof.
5) That the Boulder Ponds 5th Addition Final Plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
6) That the Boulder Ponds 5th Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan complies with the City’s Planned Unit
Development Ordinance.
7
Recommended Conditions of Approval. The recommended conditions are as follows:
1) Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, utility plans, sanitary and storm water management plans,
and street and utility construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the
recording of the Final Plat. All changes and modifications to the plat and plans requested by the City
Engineer in memo for the 5th addition shall be incorporated into these documents before prior to signing the
Plat for recording.
2) The setbacks shall adhere to the requiremtens established during Preliminary PUD approval.
• Lot Area: 9,882 sq. ft. average (7,206 sq. ft. min.)
• Front Yard Setback: 20 ft. (25 feet for garage)
• Side Yard Setback: 5 ft.
• Side Corner Setback: 15 ft.
• Rear Yard Setback: 20 ft.
3) All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works Department shall be documented on the
Final Plat prior to recording. Easements may need to be revised pending review by the City of a detailed
right-of-way boulevard plan and updated grading plans showing the storm water high water levels.
4) The Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Landscape
Architect Consultant prior to the release of building permits.
5) Plantings to sufficiently screen the northern portion of the northern buffer trail shall be provided on the Final
Landscape Plan to be approved by the City’s Landscape Architect.
6) The applicant shall provide evidence that all conditions attached to the South Washington Watershed District
permit for the Final Plat and associated grading work have been met prior to the release of the Final Plat for
recording.
7) Final Plat shall be contingent upon receipt and City Attorney review of any agreements between the
Developer and the BP Pipeline easement area and the Xcel Energy Transmission Easement area,
demonstrating that said agreements in no way unacceptably encumbers the City.
8) The applicant shall provide a complete development lot book for all lots in Phase 3 of the Boulder Ponds
development clarifying proper building placement for use in granting building permits prior to the release of
Final Plat for recording.
9) That a License and Maintenance Agreement for Landscaping Improvements be executed for the
maintenance of commonly held Common Interest Community (CIC) and City outlots and rights-of-ways
prior to release of the final plat for recording. The agreement shall state that the Jade Cove North center
island shall be maintained by the Homeowners’ Association.
10) The eastbound left turn lane and westbound right turn lane on to Jade Trail North as shown on the approved
Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plans must be constructed and accepted by the City prior to the City releasing
building permits for Boulder Ponds 5th Addition.
OPTIONS:
The Planning Commission may:
• Recommend approval of Boulder Ponds 5th Addition Final Plat and PUD Amendment Plans with findings
and conditions as recommended by Staff.
• Amend Staff recommended findings and conditions and approve Boulder Ponds 5th Addition Final Plat and
PUD Amendment Plans.
• Direct Staff to draft findings for denial of Boulder Ponds 5th Addition Final Plat and PUD Amendment Plans
8
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Boulder Ponds 5th Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan with conditions of
approval as listed in the Staff report. The suggested motion is the following:
“Move to recommend approval of Boulder Ponds 5th Addition Final Plat and PUD Amendment Plans as
presented”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application Forms and Project Narrative
2. Final Plat
3. Landscape Plans
4. Landscape Consultant Review Memorandum, dated May 22, 2020
5. Public Comments
Boulder Ponds 5th Addition PUD Application May 2020
1
NARRATIVE
Boulder Ponds 5th Addition
PUD Final Application
Written Description
The Boulder Ponds development received general concept approval December 2013 by the City of Lake Elmo. In September 2014, the preliminary plat/PUD was approved for 98 single family lots and outlots for future development. In April 2015, the Boulder Ponds 1st Addition Final Plat was approved for 47 single family lots. In May 2016, the Boulder Ponds 2nd Addition Final Plat was approved for 18 single family lots. In August 2018, the Boulder Ponds 3rd Addition Final Plat was approved for 33 lots. This most recent final plat approval was to accommodate smaller lots, with the potential for Lot 17 to be divided into two additional lots in the future. At this time, The Excelsior Group is requesting to divide Lot 17 from the Boulder Ponds 3rd Addition Final Plat from one large lot into three lots, for a gain of two additional lots. This would increase the overall single family lots in the development from 98 to 100. As a result, we will need to amend the PUD to allow for two additional single family lots and replat lot 17.
Property Address, Zoning, Parcel Size, PID and Legal Description
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 9010 7th St N, St Elmo, MN 55042 PID: 34.029.21.32.0087 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Boulder Ponds Third Addition Block 2, Lot 17 ZONING: LDR-PUD LOT SIZE: 32,384 sq.ft. (.74 acres)
Project Representatives and Contact Information LANDOWNER/ OP4 Boulder Ponds, LLC DEVELOPER c/o The Excelsior Group, LLC 1660 Highway 100 South, Suite 400 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Ben Schmidt, President 952.525.3225
Ben.Schmidt@ExcelsiorLLC.com
Boulder Ponds 5th Addition PUD Application May 2020
2
ENGINEER SEH Dave Blommel 320.229.4349 dblommel@sehinc.com SURVEYOR EG Rud Jason Rud 651.361.8200 jrud@egrud.com LANDSCAPE Westwood Professional Services ARCHITECT Cory Meyer 952.906.7437 cory.meyer@westwoodps.com
Attachments 1. Application 2. PUD / Final Plat
Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming
Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com
To: Ken Roberts, City of Lake Elmo Planning Director
From: Lucius Jonett, Wenck Landscape Architect
Date: May 22, 2020
Subject: City of Lake Elmo Landscape Plan Review
Boulder Ponds 5th Addition, Review #1
Submittals
▪ 5th Addition Final Plat, dated 5-6-2020, received 5-14-2020.
▪ Certificate of Survey, dated 3-24-2018, received 5-14-2020.
▪ 5th Addition Plans, dated 5-4-2020, received 5-14-2020.
▪ Final Landscape Plans, dated 5-4-2020, received 5-14-2020.
Location: Intersection of 5th Street North and 7th Street North
Land Use Category: Low Density Residential
Surrounding Land Use Concerns: None
Special landscape provisions in addition to the zoning code: None
Findings:
1. The submitted materials show that a single lot has been split into three (3) to provide
two (2) more homes within the Boulder Ponds development. When doing so, the
developer has preserved boulevard trees and the overall, previously approved tree count
remains the same.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Boulder Ponds 5th Addition landscape plans be approved pending
no site design revisions.
Sincerely,
Lucius Jonett, PLA (MN)
Wenck Associates, Inc.
City of Lake Elmo Municipal Landscape Architect
1
Sa
v
e
:
4/
3
/
2
0
2
0
1
1
:
2
7
A
M
rh
a
e
h
n
P
l
o
t
:
4/
1
5
/
2
0
2
0
3
:
1
0
P
M
P:
\
A
E
\
E
\
E
X
C
E
G
\
1
4
3
6
6
1
\
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
-
d
s
g
n
\
5
1
-
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
1
0
-
C
i
v
i
l
\
c
a
d
\
d
w
g
\
s
h
e
e
t
\
5
T
H
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
S
\
E
X
C
E
G
_
5
T
H
_
T
L
.
d
w
g
DAVID BLOMMEL, PE
04/15/2020 46725
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
4
NOTE:
THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY QUALITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN IS LEVEL D.
THIS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE
GUIDELINES OF CI/ASCE 38-02 ENTITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE
COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA."
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL THE GOPHER STATE ONE CALL SYSTEM AT
811 BEFORE COMMENCING EXCAVATION.
FILE NO.
Signature
Date:Lic. No.
APPROVED:
DATECITY ENGINEER OF
APPROVED:
DATE COUNTY ENGINEER
CITY OF
N.T.S.
PROJECT LOCATION
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
TITLE SHEET
SITE PLAN
GRADING PLAN
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
1
2
3
4
THIS PLAN CONTAINS 4 SHEETS.
INDEX
SHEET NO.DESCRIPTION
GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS
THE 2018 EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION"
SHALL GOVERN EXCEPT AS MODIFIED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT.
ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST EDITION OF THE
MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, INCLUDING THE LATEST
FIELD MANUAL FOR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS.
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
EXCEG143661
CITY OF LAKE ELMO,
WASHINGTON COUNTY
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
BOULDER PONDS 5TH ADDITION
CONSTRUCTION
PLANS FOR
SITE PLAN, EROSION CONTROL, GRADING
PHONE: 651.490.2000
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE
ST. PAUL, MN 55110-5196
www.sehinc.com
SIGN (NON STREET NAME)
EDGE OF WOODED AREA
BUSH / SHRUB AND STUMP
DECIDUOUS AND CONIFEROUS TREE
BUILDING
RAILROAD TRACKS
STREET NAME SIGN
FENCE (UNIDENTIFIED)
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE & CLEANOUT
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
WATER SERVICE AND CURB STOP BOX
WATER MAIN, HYDRANT, VALVE AND MANHOLE
STORM SEWER, MANHOLE AND CATCH BASIN
SANITARY SEWER AND MANHOLE
PERMANENT EASEMENT
SOIL BORING
LIGHT POLE
OVERHEAD WIRE, POLE AND GUY WIRE
GAS MAIN, VALVE, VENT AND METER
BURIED TV CABLE, PEDESTAL AND MANHOLE
II
FM
>
CULVERT AND APRON ENDWALL
FORCE MAIN AND LIFT STATION
RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING
P-BURE
T T
G
G
#
X
6"6"
CO
BURIED PHONE CABLE, PEDESTAL AND MANHOLE
BURIED FIBER OPTIC CABLE AND MANHOLEFO
P-OH P-OH
TV-BUR
TV
G
X BARBED WIRE FENCE
XC CHAIN LINK FENCE
XE ELECTRIC WIRE FENCE
XWD WOOD FENCE
XWW WOVEN WIRE FENCE
PLATE BEAM GUARDRAIL
CABLE GUARDRAIL
T-BUR
WETLANDWET
HH
PROPERTY LINE
>>
HANDHOLE
POST / BOLLARD
RETAINING WALL
HORIZONTAL CONTROL POINT
BENCHMARK
SURVEY MARKER
XX"
G
LIFT
TV
P
E
XX
E BURIED ELECTRIC CABLE, PEDESTAL, MANHOLE,
TRANSFORMER AND METER
ST
W
S
6+00
>>>
I
PROPOSED
FM
STORM SEWER, MANHOLE AND CATCH BASIN
DRAIN TILE
CULVERT AND APRON ENDWALL
DITCH / SWALE
SANITARY SERVICE AND CLEANOUT
RIGHT-OF-WAY
TEMPORARY EASEMENT
PERMANENT EASEMENT
WATER SERVICE AND CURB STOP BOX
SANITARY SEWER, BULKHEAD AND MANHOLE
WATER MAIN, TEE, HYDRANT, BULKHEAD AND VALVE
FORCE MAIN
CO
STREET CENTERLINE
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
WATER VALVE MANHOLE, REDUCER, BEND AND CROSS
RIPRAP
STREET NAME SIGN
SIGN (NON STREET NAME)
RETAINING WALL
>>>
S
ST
W
PROJECT LOCATION
2
SITE PLAN
Sa
v
e
:
4/
3
/
2
0
2
0
8
:
4
5
A
M
rh
a
e
h
n
P
l
o
t
:
4/
1
5
/
2
0
2
0
3
:
1
0
P
M
P:
\
A
E
\
E
\
E
X
C
E
G
\
1
4
3
6
6
1
\
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
-
d
s
g
n
\
5
1
-
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
1
0
-
C
i
v
i
l
\
c
a
d
\
d
w
g
\
s
h
e
e
t
\
5
T
H
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
S
\
E
X
C
E
G
_
5
T
H
_
S
P
.
d
w
g
RVH
RVH
DMB
04/15/2020 46725
DAVID BLOMMEL, PE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
0
feetscale
30 6030
15
4
PHONE: 320.229.4300
1200 25TH AVENUE SOUTH
P.O. BOX 1717
ST. CLOUD, MN 56302-1717
www.sehinc.comDESIGN TEAM NO.BY
DESIGNER:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NO.
Date:Lic. No.REVISIONSDATE
EXCEG143661
LAKE ELMO,
MINNESOTA BOULDER PONDS 5TH ADDITION
SITE PLAN
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
_
HOUSE PAD (TYP)
SEWER SERVICE EXISTING (TYP)
WATER SERVICE EXISTING (TYP)
PROPOSED 3RD ADDITION LOT 17
SPLIT LINES
5
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
7TH STR
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
EXISTING USE - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(STONEGATE AND STONEGATE 2ND ADDITION
EXISTING USE - BREMER BANK
(EAGLE POINT BUSINESS PARK 3RD)
DENSITY SUMMARY - BOULDER PONDS ORIGINAL PUD
99 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON 43.75 ACRES OR 2.26 LOTS / ACRE
- BOULDER PONDS PROPOSED
101 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON 43.75 ACRES OR 2.31 LOTS / ACRE
101
6
.
5
102
4
.
5
(102
4
.
5
)
R
BASI
N
1
A
WET/
I
N
F
I
L
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
101
5
.
0
102
3
.
0
(102
3
.
0
)
R
1
0
1
4
.
5
1
0
2
2
.
5
(
1
0
2
2
.
5
)
R
1020.42
1020.90
1020.29
1019.861020.94
1021.30
1022.49
102
2
10
2
0
102
2
1021
1022.50
1023.67
1023.75
1020.081019.28
3
GRADING PLAN
Sa
v
e
:
4/
1
5
/
2
0
2
0
3
:
0
5
P
M
rh
a
e
h
n
P
l
o
t
:
4/
1
5
/
2
0
2
0
3
:
1
0
P
M
P:
\
A
E
\
E
\
E
X
C
E
G
\
1
4
3
6
6
1
\
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
-
d
s
g
n
\
5
1
-
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
1
0
-
C
i
v
i
l
\
c
a
d
\
d
w
g
\
s
h
e
e
t
\
5
T
H
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
S
\
E
X
C
E
G
_
5
T
H
_
G
P
.
d
w
g
RVH
RVH
DMB
04/15/2020 46725
DAVID BLOMMEL, PE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
0
feetscale
30 6030
15
4
PHONE: 320.229.4300
1200 25TH AVENUE SOUTH
P.O. BOX 1717
ST. CLOUD, MN 56302-1717
www.sehinc.comDESIGN TEAM NO.BY
DESIGNER:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NO.
Date:Lic. No.REVISIONSDATE
EXCEG143661
LAKE ELMO,
MINNESOTA BOULDER PONDS 5TH ADDITION
GRADING PLAN
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
_
XXXX.X
XXXX.X
(XXXX.X)
LO HOUSE TYPE
R - RAMBLER
RE -REVEAL
LO - LOOK OUT
WO - WALK OUT
SOG - SLAB ON GRADE
LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION
FINISHED GROUND ELEVATION
@ BUILDING (BACK)
GARAGE FLOOR /
FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION
SWALE FLOW LOCATION
GRADING DEFINITIONS
EV = EXCAVATED VOLUME
LV = LOOSE VOLUME
GRADING MATERIAL = MATERIAL NOT CLASSIFIED HEREIN AS TOPSOIL
CV = COMPACTED VOLUME
TOPSOIL = SOIL CONSIDERED NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR USE
AS FILL IN ROADWAYS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, STORM WATER PONDS,
AND BUILDING PADS AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER IN THE FIELD
CY = CUBIC YARDS
UA = UNADJUSTED VOLUME
GENERAL NOTES
BUILDING PADS WILL BE HELD DOWN LOWER THAN FINISHED GRADE 3 FEET.
HOLD DOWN DISTANCES SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE BETWEEN THE FINISHED GRADE
AND GRADING GRADE AS SHOWN ON THE HOUSEPAD DETAILS.
ALL TOPSOIL MUST BE REMOVED FROM STREET SUBGRADES & BUILDING PAD & DRIVEWAY FILL AREAS.
PROPOSED CONTOURS & HOUSEPAD ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE GRADING PLAN ARE TO FINISHED GRADE.
REAR SWALES, PROPERTY LINES, & BOULEVARDS ARE TO BE GRADED TO FINISHED GRADE.
ALL AREAS MUST DRAIN, EVEN WITH THE PADS HELD DOWN.
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ROADWAY, ALL AREAS DISTURBED MUST BE RESTORED W/ A
MINIMUM OF 6-INCHES OF TOPSOIL, SEED, FERTILIZER & MULCH. TURF ESTABLISHMENT SHALL
BE COMPLETED WITHIN 7-DAYS OF GRADING COMPLETION. (SEE EROSION CONTROL/TURF
ESTABLISHMENT PLAN)
THE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES WERE ACHIEVED BY USING THE HOUSE STYLES AS SHOWN ON
THE GRADING PLAN. ANY VARIATION IN HOUSE STYLES WILL CHANGE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES AND
IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW & APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.
BASI
N
1
A
WET/
I
N
F
I
L
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
1023
1021
1017
1015
1
0
2
4
10
2
2
10
2
0
1
0
1
8
4
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
Sa
v
e
:
4/
1
5
/
2
0
2
0
3
:
0
8
P
M
rh
a
e
h
n
P
l
o
t
:
4/
1
5
/
2
0
2
0
3
:
1
1
P
M
P:
\
A
E
\
E
\
E
X
C
E
G
\
1
4
3
6
6
1
\
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
-
d
s
g
n
\
5
1
-
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
1
0
-
C
i
v
i
l
\
c
a
d
\
d
w
g
\
s
h
e
e
t
\
5
T
H
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
S
\
E
X
C
E
G
_
5
T
H
_
E
C
.
d
w
g
RVH
RVH
DMB
04/15/2020 46725
DAVID BLOMMEL, PE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
0
feetscale
30 6030
15
4
PHONE: 320.229.4300
1200 25TH AVENUE SOUTH
P.O. BOX 1717
ST. CLOUD, MN 56302-1717
www.sehinc.comDESIGN TEAM NO.BY
DESIGNER:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NO.
Date:Lic. No.REVISIONSDATE
EXCEG143661
LAKE ELMO,
MINNESOTA BOULDER PONDS 5TH ADDITION
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
_
1
Ben Prchal
From:Todd Gunderson <todd.gunderson@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 17, 2020 4:00 PM
To:Ben Prchal
Subject:Final plat and PUD review - Boulder Ponds
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
I am a resident of Boulder Ponds - 9100 Jade Court North and my wife and I have no issues or concerns with
this request of the Developer for final platting.
Thanks
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1
Ben Prchal
From:Dave Hein <dhein@nexengroup.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 10:49 AM
To:Ben Prchal
Subject:Boulder Ponds: Final Plat And PUD Review & Water Pond
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Ben,
Thanks for taking my call earlier today.
1. Regarding dividing 9010 7th street from one lot into 3. Our vote (9036 7th street north) would be a “no” vote. The
specific reason is safety of vehicles/pedestrians turning to/from 5th street and 7th street north. Adding additional
driveways so close to the corner does not seem to be the better plan. I recognize the addition of homes would
reduce our overall maintenance costs, however, we feel the safety concerns override the cost savings to the
individual homeowners in the association.
2. Regarding the pond located south of Stonegate Park, North of 7th street, and east of 5th street‐ the outstanding
question is how much water will remain in the pond after the drainage reworking. The current pond is
constructed with 5 feet (approximately) of depth, which is a very acceptable depth level. Muskrats, ducks, and
geese were all present and raising offspring in the pond this springs. Making the surface footprint smaller, or the
depth of the pond shallower, would be a disservice to the wildlife and homeowners. Please do not create a
shallow drainage area that would move from dry to wet with storms. It is a pond, not a drainage overflow. Let
me know what you find out.
Regards.
Dave Hein
Nexen Group
Senior Vice President, Engineering & Chief Technology Officer
651.286.1021 Work
651.335.9550 Mobile
dhein@nexengroup.com
560 Oak Grove Parkway
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
www.nexengroup.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail (including any attachments, files, and links) is intended only for
the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. It is not intended for transmission
to, or receipt by, any unauthorized person. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete it
from your system without copying it and notify the above sender so that our e-mail address may be corrected.
The use, distribution, copying, or transmittal of this e-mail by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM __
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 05/27/2020
AGENDA ITEM: __– PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Ken Roberts, Planning Director
AGENDA ITEM: Bruggeman Builders Open Space PUD – 2500 Manning Avenue –
Concept PUD Review
REVIEWED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Lucius Jonett, City Landscape Architect
Ann Pung-Terwedo, Senior Planner, Washington County
INTRODUCTION:
Mr. Paul Bruggeman, representing Bruggeman Builders, is requesting City approval of a concept open
space planned unit development (OP - PUD) for the property located at 2500 Manning Avenue. The City
Code requires the City to hold a public hearing as part of the Concept PUD review.
The proposed concept plan for the OP PUD is for a 14 single family residential subdivision on 32.3 gross
acres with a density of +/- 0.45 dwelling units per acre (D.U.A). Much of the property is within the
Shoreland Management Area of Downs Lake. The Shoreland Ordinance has provisions for the
development of PUD’s in the areas near lakes, subject to additional design and performance standards.
In addition, the developer is proposing an OP PUD that would not meet all the City requirements for an
OP PUD and those for a residential development within a shoreland district. Such requested exceptions or
modifications include having lots that do not meet the lot width, lot area and impervious requirements for
new development near Natural Environment lakes such as Downs Lake. I will discuss these requests in
more detail later in this report.
ISSUE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission is respectfully being requested to review, hold a public hearing, provide
feedback to the developer and make a recommendation to the City Council for the concept OP
planned unit development (OP - PUD) proposed by Bruggeman Builders for the property located
2500 Manning Avenue.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Paul Bruggeman, Bruggeman Builders, Stillwater, MN 55042
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2020 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
Property Owner: Gary and Meg Johnson, 2500 Manning Avenue
Location: 2500 Manning Avenue, Lake Elmo.
PID#: 24-029-21-13-0002
Request: Concept PUD Plan approval
Site Area: 32.3 acres (gross)
Existing Land Use: Single-family home and accessory buildings, agriculture
Land Use Guidance: Rural Area Development (RAD)
Current Zoning: RR – Rural Residential District
Proposed Zoning: Open Space PUD
Surrounding Zoning: OP (Heritage Farms to the north), West Lakeland Township across
Manning Avenue (east), Rural Residential (RR) and Small lot residential
(RS) (south), RR (west).
History: The owners have used the property for hobby farming and the growing of
pumpkins. There is one single family dwelling and accessory building
on the property.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 4/28/2020
60 Day Deadline – 6/26/2020
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 8-24-2020
Applicable Code:
Article 15 - Open Space Planned Unit Development Regulations
Article 18 – Shoreland Management Overlay District
Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
§150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment Control
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Overview. The proposed Open Space (OP) PUD development will be located on a 32.3 acre property
located at 2500 Manning Avenue, just south of the Heritage Farms OP PUD development. The proposed
development is proposed as an OP PUD because the developer is proposing a rural-style residential
development and is requesting flexibility from the strict zoning regulations of the Shoreland Ordinance and
the rural zoning regulations.
The applicant’s submission to the City includes the following components:
• Concept Plan Overview. The attached project narrative includes a general overview of the
project with additional details concerning some of the unique aspects of the proposed
development.
• Existing Conditions. The applicant has provided an aerial photo and site plan depicting the
existing conditions in and around the project area.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2020 Page 3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
• Concept Plan. The PUD Concept Plan includes a proposed configuration of roads, lots, and
other public spaces on the applicant’s site. While the plan provides initial dimensions for
many of the various lots and streets, some details are still missing and will need to be further
reviewed for compliance with the City’s standards and regulations.
Land Use and Zoning Flexibility. Proposed lot layouts and street widths in some cases do not meet
minimum zoning or shoreland ordinance requirements. The City’s OP PUD Ordinance allows for some
flexibility from zoning and subdivision requirements, subject to City Council approval. Single family
homes are a permitted use in the underlying RR zoning district
Land Use: The proposed residential development is consistent with the future land use map, which
guides this area RAD (rural area development).
OP PUD Ordinance Regulations:
The following OP PUD Code sections are relevant to this proposal:
Section154.657.B.7.a Open Space
1. The total preserved open space area within an open space PUD development shall be no less than
50 percent of the total gross land area
2. Land needed for storm water facilities . . . may count toward required open space for the purposes
of open space PUD design, but must ultimately be placed in outlots to be dedicated to the City.
3. Excluding land needed for storm water facilities, not less than 60 percent of the remaining
preserved open space shall be in contiguous parcels which are five acres of more in size.
Section 154.657.B.3 Required Buffer zones. No build zones as follows:
a. 200 feet buffer from all adjacent property lines that about an existing residential development
or parcel of land not eligible for future development as an open space planned unit
development (Applicable to the south side-west end)
b. If the development site is adjacent to an existing or approved OP development, the required
buffer shall be equivalent to the buffer that was required of the adjacent development
(Applicable to the north side)
Shoreland Regulations
Most of the development site is in the Shoreland Boundary area of Downs Lake. The City has adopted a
shoreland management overlay district (Article 18 of the City Code) that regulates land uses and the
intensity of land uses within the shoreland boundaries of the lakes in Lake Elmo. The purpose of the
Shoreland Overlay District is to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters and conserve the
economic and natural environmental values of shorelands. This is accomplished by regulating the
placement of improvements and structures and regulating the amount of land alterations and the intensity
of development that may occur in the shoreland management area. The shoreland boundary area and
management overlay district generally extends 1000 feet out from the ordinary high water mark of a
public lake, as determined by the Minnesota DNR.
The following is a listing of the most relevant shoreland regulations for this proposal:
For Unsewered lots – the minimum lot size is 80,000 square feet, the minimum lot width is 200 feet,
maximum impervious surface area allowed on each lot 15 percent
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2020 Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
PUD’s – 154.800 C 11 Planned Unit Developments. (for PUD’s in a Shoreland Zone)
c. Density: Deviation from the minimum lot size standards of Table 17-3 of this ordinance (for
lot size and lot width) is allowed if the Standards in this section are met.
d. Application for a PUD. The applicant for a PUD must submit the following documents prior
to final action on the request:
1. Property owner’s association agreement with mandatory membership.
2. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements or other instruments that:
a. Address future vegetative and topographic alterations, construction of additional
buildings
b. Ensure preservation and maintenance of open space in perpetuity in accordance with
the criteria and analysis specified in this ordinance.
e. Design Criteria
General Design Standards.
1. Dwelling units must be clustered into one or more groups and located on suitable areas of
the development.
3. At least 50 percent of the total project acre shall be preserved as open space an meet the
standards in the ordinance.
4. PUDs shall be connected to public water supply and sewer systems. When sewer is not
available, individual septic systems are not allowed; community sewage treatment
systems are required.
h. Open Space Maintenance and Administration Requirements.
Before final approval of a PUD is granted, the development/owner shall provide for the
preservation and maintenance, in perpetuity, of open space and the continuation of the
development as a community.
Development organization and functioning. All planned unit development must use an
owners association with the following features:
1. Membership must be mandatory for each dwelling unit owner and successive owner;
2. Each member must pay a pro rata share of the association’s expenses and unpaid
assessments can become liens on units or dwelling site;
3. Assessments must be adjustable to accommodate changing conditions; and
4. The association must be responsible for insurance, taxes and maintenance of all
commonly owned property and facilities.
Proposed Exceptions and Modifications
One of the reasons the applicant has elected to pursue an OP Planned Unit Development is that the
development proposal includes certain elements that do not conform to City requirements, including the
following:
• The proposed street within the project area is shown at 24-feet of width in a 50-foot-wide right-
of-way. As per the City Engineer’s comments, the City should require a 60-foot-wide right-of-
way and a standard width street with concrete curb and gutter.
• The applicant is requesting City approval of several exceptions or modifications to the OP-PUD
code or City shoreland standards with this development; These include:
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2020 Page 5
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
1. Not having a home-owners association (HOA) for the 14 lots as they are not proposing to
have any commonly owner property.
2. Allowing each home to have its own on-site septic system and drainfields rather than having
a community septic system or systems that would serve several homes. Communal drainfields
also are a requirement of the shoreland ordinance for PUD’s. The applicant also wants the
City to allow drainfields in the open space areas on each lot.
3. Not having community-owned open space. As an alternative, they are requesting the City
allow them to plat or dedicate conservation easements on each lot that would protect the
natural features on each lot to meet the open space requirements.
4. Having the storm water ponding area(s) on individual lots rather than in a separate outlot that
would become the responsibility of the HOA or City to maintain.
5. Having a reduced buffer from the south property line for construction on the development
site (100 feet instead of 200 feet).
6. Having a rural section road with gravel shoulders and ditches.
7. Having street right-of-way width of 50 feet instead of 60 feet.
8. Having lots with less than 80,000 square feet of lot area and lot widths less than 200 feet as
required by the Shoreland Ordinance.
9. Not showing the exiting wetland and wetland buffer area in a separate outlot.
By recommending approval of the PUD Concept Plan as prepared by the applicant, the Planning
Commission also would be recommending approval of all the exceptions and modifications described
above. As noted in the recommendations, staff is not recommending approval of all the applicant’s
requested exceptions or modifications. Such exceptions or modifications to the standards in the OP
Ordinance are only possible with a super majority vote (4/5) of the City Council per Section 154.657 of
the OP Code. The Code also notes that “Authorization of such modifications resulting from a PUD
concept review shall not be construed as approvals for the changes, but rather as an authorization to
present such modifications as a component of the (PUD) plan during the PUD Preliminary Plan review.”
Staff is suggesting that the developer include all requested exceptions and modifications to the shoreland
and OP PUD standards and any other variations to City development requirements in a separate PUD
planning document at the preliminary platting/PUD stage of the project.
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS:
Members of the Planning Staff, Public Works and Fire Departments have reviewed the PUD concept
plan, while the City Engineer and the City’s Landscape Architect have provided additional reviews of the
PUD Concept Plans. Staff has completed an internal review of the concept plan, and general comments
from Staff and recommended conditions of approval are included in this memorandum.
The Staff review comments that follow are all based on conducting a high level review of the concept
plan since there is not a lot of detailed information that is required at this stage in the development
process. Staff has instead focused on the bigger picture items and those things that would otherwise not
allow the development to move forward if they contrasted with elements from the Comprehensive Plan,
the Zoning Code, the Shoreland Regulations, City Engineering Standards or the OP- PUD Code.
There are several issues and details that will need to be resolved for the proposed project to move
forward. As noted below, Staff is recommending approval of the OP PUD concept plan with several
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2020 Page 6
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
conditions of approval to address the most significant outstanding issues. Staff has provided comments in
following section to identify elements of the plan that need to be further addressed by the applicant before
proceeding with an application for preliminary PUD/plat approval.
The Staff comments for this project are as follows:
Site Data and Density Analysis. The proposed development includes lots for 14 dwelling units. The
applicant’s data shows the site with a total of 32.3 acres (including right-of-way for the new street with no
proposed parkland or any arterial street (Manning Avenue) right-of-way.
The City calculates the site density in this case as follows: Site – 32.3 gross acres – 0.19 acres (wetland)
= 32.11 net acres. 14 units divided by 32.11 net acres = 0.44 units per net acre which is the maximum
density allowed in an OP PUD.
PUD Minimum Requirements. Most of the proposed development is within the shoreland of Downs
Lake and is therefore subject to Shoreland regulations. Within a shoreland, development lots must
conform to the shoreland standards contained in the Zoning Code, Section 154.800, Table 17-3, or
develop as a Planned Unit Development with a Conditional Use Permit. A PUD is a negotiated zoning
district, and according to the Lake Elmo Zoning Code Article 19, Planned Unit Development Regulations,
or Article 15, Open Space Planned Unit Developments. Through the PUD review and approval process
the City may grant development and zoning flexibility can in order to better protect and use site features
and to obtain a higher quality of development.
When the City evaluates an OP-PUD proposal, the City must determine if the OP-PUD meets the purpose
and intent of open space PUD’s as listed in Sections 154.650 and 154.651. These include providing
greater development flexibility within the rural portions of the community while maintaining the rural
character by preserving agricultural land, woodlands, wildlife or natural corridors and other significant
natural features consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 154.651 outlines the City’s intent for OP-PUDs. It states “that open space PUD’s will offer
needed development flexibility within the Agricultural, Rural residential and Rural Estate zoning districts
to provide for:
1. A variety of lot configurations and housing styles that may not otherwise exist with the City’s
rural areas;
2. An avenue to provide a development density equal to or greater than what could be achieved via
the underlying zoning;
3. A reduction in the costs to construct and maintain public facilities and infrastructure in a rural
setting;
4. Protected open space to enhance and preserve the natural character of the community; and
5. The creation of distinct neighborhoods that are interconnected within rural areas; and
6. To preserve large contiguous open spaces.”
Minimum Requirements for OP-PUD:
a. Lot Area: The site area exceeds the minimum lot area and potentially achieves the following OP
PUD purpose and intent as identified in Sections 154.650 and 154.651:
b. OP-PUD Purpose. Providing greater development flexibility within the rural portions of the
community while maintaining the rural character by preserving agricultural land, woodlands,
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2020 Page 7
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
wildlife or natural corridors and other significant natural features consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: The proposed Concept Plan meets the purpose of an OP-PUD by maintaining
the rural character of the area with a site-sensitive design that will preserve many trees, the
woodlands and the natural corridors on the property.
c. OP-PUD Intent. “Open space PUD’s will offer needed development flexibility within the
Agricultural, Rural residential and Rural Estate zoning districts to provide for:
1. A variety of lot configurations and housing styles that may not otherwise exist with the
City’s rural areas;
2. An avenue to provide a development density equal to or greater than what could be
achieved via the underlying zoning;
3. A reduction in the costs to construct and maintain public facilities and infrastructure in a
rural setting;
4. Protected open space to enhance and preserve the natural character of the community;
and
5. The creation of distinct neighborhoods that are interconnected within rural areas;
Staff Comment: The proposed Concept Plan meets the intent of the OP-PUD ordinance by
having a variety of lot configurations while protecting open space to enhance and preserve
the natural character of the area.
Open Space. The OP-PUD ordinance requires that at least 50 percent of the total gross land area in an
OP-PUD be preserved as open space. The ordinance also requires that not less than 60 percent of the
remaining preserved open space shall be in contiguous parcels that are five acres of more in size and
that the preserved open space parcels be contiguous with preserved open space or public park land on
adjacent parcels. The Shoreland Ordinance also requires PUD’s in the shoreland district of a lake to
have at least 50 percent of the total project area be preserved as open space. For the 32.3 acre site, the
minimum amount of open space the developer shall preserve is 16.15 acres.
The intent of these regulations is to preserve the appearance and function of open space area, including
the topography and vegetation within those areas. The Shoreland Ordinance also requires the
developer/owner to provide for the preservation and maintenance, in perpetuity, open space and the
continuation of the development as a community. These requirements are usually met by the formation
of a homeowners association (HOA) with documents that define the roles and responsibilities of the
HOA for all properties in the development including open space area.
The Concept Plan submitted by the developer is proposing to preserve about 15.6 acres of open space
in this development (0.55 acres less than the required 16.15 acres) by dedicating conservation
easements on parts of each lots for the areas that would be preserved as open space. They are
proposing this rather than having the open space in separate commonly-owned parcels within the
development. Some of this land also would be used for some of the subdivision’s storm water
facilities and possibly for septic system drainfields. Since these areas would be privately owned they
would not be available for public use and enjoyment, this proposal appears contrary to the concept of
preserving open space for the public to use enjoy.
Natural Resource Areas. Preservation of the most sensitive ecological areas is one of the goals of
this development. The Concept Plan shows one new street through the site that generally follows the
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2020 Page 8
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
existing contours and allows for the placement of new houses on lots that would minimize the need
for site grading and would preserve many of the existing trees on the property.
Street Layout: The OP-PUD ordinance places importance in street design that minimizes site
disruption and is respectful of the existing conditions. The ordinance requires a design that locates
streets in a manner that maintains and preserves natural topography and trees, minimizes cut and fill,
provides adequate access for fire and rescue vehicles and assures adequate vehicular circulation both
within the development and with adjacent neighborhoods. The OP-PUD ordinance also requires the
design of streets and the dedication of right-of-way to be in compliance with the City’s standard
plates and specifications.
Staff Comment: The site of the proposed PUD development has limited options for street
connections and street layout. The proposed street plan connects a new street running through the site
between Manning Avenue and the south end of Lisbon Avenue and includes a street stub to the south
where future subdivision may occur. This street design is respectful of the existing site conditions
while providing adequate access for emergency services vehicles and vehicular circulation within the
PUD and for existing and future neighborhoods.
Shoreland Tier Analysis. Most of the development site is within the shoreland of Downs Lake.
Because the proposed development does not conform to the base dimensional standards of the
shoreland district, a PUD is required and a shoreland tier analysis is required. This will be required
with any future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans submittal. Furthermore, the shoreland
ordinance requires that 50% of the shoreland area be preserved as open space with a conservation
easement. This will be a recommended condition of approval. City staff provided the MnDNR the
Concept Plan and project narrative for comment, but the City has not yet received any comments
from the DNR. As part of the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans, the developer will be
required to provide the City a shoreland tiering analysis.
Lot Sizes and Widths. The minimum lot width for an unsewered lot in the shoreland of Downs Lake
is 200 feet, and in the OP-PUD the minimum width is 200 feet. The minimum lot size for an unsewered
lot in the shoreland of Downs Lake is 80,000 sq. ft. and in the RR District, 10 acres. The developer is
proposing the following deviations from setbacks and lot area:
RR Proposed
Minimum lot width 300 feet 110 - 515 feet
Minimum lot area 10 acres 1-4 acres
The Concept PUD plans identify a range of 110 feet to 515 feet for the proposed lot widths and lots
sizes between 1.26 acres to 4.32 acres for the 14 lots.
Setbacks. The setbacks for single-family homes in the OP-PUD District are:
Front – 30 feet
House side – 15 feet or 10% of the lot width
Garage side – 15 feet
Corner side-30 feet
Rear – 20 feet
Setback from County Roads – 50 feet
The developer is proposing the following setbacks:
Front yard – 30 feet
Front yard/Side loaded garages – 15 feet
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2020 Page 9
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
Side yard -15 feet
Rear yard -20 feet
Side yard corner lot - 30 feet
Setback from Manning Avenue - 100 feet (estimated)
The typical side yard setback in the RR and RS rural zoning districts is 10 feet for the principle building
and for the garage. The typical front yard setback in the rural zoning districts is 30-100 feet.
The current proposal shows generalized house pads on each lot. The City will want to ensure there is
enough room for utilities (with room for two septic systems), drainage, parking, landscaping and other
requirements on each lot. The City Engineer has indicated that the City would need a detailed right-of-
way/utility easement design layout that shows/demonstrates that all infrastructure is being adequately
accommodated, and in addition other City requirements are being met.
Impervious Surfaces. The maximum allowed impervious surface on an unsewered lot within the shoreland
of Downs Lake is 15 percent and in an OP PUD the maximum impervious limit is 20 percent of the land
area not dedicated as preserved open space. The developer has not yet calculated or estimated the amount
of impervious surface within the development or on each lot. The City should require these calculations
with an application for preliminary PUD/plat for this site.
Easements. The City requires 10-foot-wide drainage and utility easements along all public rights-of-ways
and rear property lines, 5-foot-wide easements along the side property lines and easements for stormwater
management and public utilities as needed. The City should require the applicant to show all required and
necessary easement on the preliminary and final PUD plans.
Parks. The Comprehensive Park Plan has not identified any future park facilities in the area of this
development. The Developer is not proposing any publicly-owned park facilities with this PUD. The park
dedication requirement for a 32.3 acre development is 3.23 acres of parkland, or a combination of parkland
or fees in lieu of parkland. The developer, in his narrative, suggests that the City would prefer a cash in
lieu payment instead a land dedication to meet this requirement. The Parks Commission, on June 15th, 2020
is expected to vote on accepting fees in lieu of parkland dedication.
Sidewalks and Trails. The City’s standard street detail requires a 6 foot wide public sidewalk be
constructed on one side of any public street and to accommodate a sidewalk and the standard right-of-way
width is 60 feet wide. The developer has shown on the concept plans an eight-foot-wide trail along the north
side of the street running through the development. The plans also show a 50-foot-wide right-of-way for
the new street. This is 10 feet narrower than the current City standard of 60 feet.
Trails. The Lake Elmo Comprehensive Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan identifies Manning Avenue as
the location for an on-street bike route. This type of trail or route is often accomplished by striping the
paved shoulder of the road to designate the travel area available for pedestrians and bikers. Washington
County noted in their project review comments that their long-range plans for Manning Avenue include a
pedestrian trail along the west side of the road. The City Engineer is recommending that the City require
the developer to install a 10-foot-wide trail in the frontage along Manning Avenue as part of the
development of this site.
The Planning Commission also should consider the need for a trail along Manning Avenue to provide safe
pedestrian connectivity from this development to developments north and to the area to the south. At its
June 15, 2020 meeting, the Parks Commission will review the parks and trails needs with this development.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2020 Page 10
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
Subdivision Signs. Section 154.212 allows one sign per entrance of a residential development with a
maximum sign area of 32 square feet for the main entrance and 24 sq. ft. for all other signs. No signs have
been proposed.
Streets. The developer is proposing 50-foot-wide public street rights-of-ways with 24-foot-wide wide
streets (back to back) with no curbing and ditches for drainage and storm water management. As part of
this development, the developer should provide right-of-way and a constructed street stub to allow for
vehicle connectivity to the property south of this development (see Engineer’s memorandum dated May
20, 2020) to accommodate potential future development.
• City Street Standards. The streets as proposed do not meet the minimum requirements and
standards for residential streets, and in particular, the City’s typical cross section for such streets.
The streets as depicted on the concept plan range are shown at 24 feet wide with no curbs and
ditches for drainage and storm water management. The City’s typical section calls for a 28 foot
wide street with concrete curb and gutter or at a minimum a concrete edge.
• Manning Avenue - State Highway 95 Access. The project includes a new road access to
Manning Avenue near the center of the property. This location has been approved by
Washington County. The concept plan does eliminate an existing access driveway that connects
directly to Manning Avenue (old Highway 95). This driveway would be rerouted to the new
local street within the proposed PUD. As condition of their approval, Washington County will be
requiring the developer to construct a right turn lane for southbound traffic and center left turn
lane for northbound traffic for the intersection with the new street.
• Lisbon Avenue Access. The developer will need to construct the new road connecting the
development with the Heritage Farms neighborhood to the north as part of the public
improvements associated with the project. This connection will include reconstructing part of
Lisbon Avenue to meet current City standards for a divided one-way street.
• Stub Street to South. Then concept plans show a stub street right-of-way going from the new
street in the development to the southern property line of the site. This future street is intended to
provide public street access to the property to south. The developer is proposing to plat this street
right-of-way but not construct the street. It is City policy for a developer to build all streets and
public infrastructure within their project site with their development and not leave those
improvements for someone else to construct in the future.
• Manning Avenue right-of-way. Washington County is requesting the City require the developer
to dedicate 30 feet of additional right-of-way for Manning Avenue and to provide turn lanes
according to County requirements. The Manning Avenue right-of-way requirement is 90 feet
from the centerline and according to the County, there is now 60 feet of right of way. Developer
will need to dedicate an additional 30 feet of right-of-way for Manning Avenue with the final plat
to meet this requirement.
Tree Preservation. There are three primary areas of trees on the property including a double row of trees
along Manning Avenue and a row of trees along the east side of the pipeline easement. The developer has
not yet provided the City with a tree preservation plan for the site. He has designed the project to preserve
most of these trees by minimizing areas of grading and street construction and he wants to allow custom
home placement and grading on each lot to maximize the number of trees that will be preserved.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2020 Page 11
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
Landscaping. The applicant has not provided any details concerning landscaping for the site, which
must be submitted at the time of preliminary plat/PUD submission. The Concept Plan notes that the
developer proposes to plant boulevard trees as required by the City Code but wants to place them in
clusters rather placing one tree for every 30 feet along the new street. The City’s Landscape Architect
Lucius Jonett has reviewed the Concept Plan and provide the City with a review memo dated May 6,
2020. In his memo he noted several concerns and changes to the plans that he would recommend. These
include:
1. That the applicant submit a landscape plan for the PUD showing the 10 proposed trees per
building site. The Open Space PUD standards do not state that any preserved trees will account
for the required trees per building site.
2. That the PUD code requires the 200 foot buffer to the south property line and not the 100 feet as
proposed by the applicant. He recommends the City require the developer to meet the 200 foot
buffer requirement.
The applicant also will need to submit a landscape plan that shows 10 existing or proposed trees per
building lot, with the intension of providing the required trees per City standards, and a landscape plan
showing the 64 required boulevard trees. These required boulevard trees are in addition to any trees
required to meet the 10 tree per lot requirements.
Wetlands/Buffers. There is an existing 0.19 acre wetland in the northern center of the development area
shown to be partially within three of the proposed residential lots. The proposed concept plan shows several
lots (Lots 1, 2 and 4, Block 1) that would impact or encroach into the wetland and wetland buffer. The City
requires wetlands and wetland buffers to be fully contained within outlots, outside of lot areas. It has been
the City’s policy to not allow wetland within platted lots.
In addition, the Valley Branch Watershed District has buffering requirements for the wetland depending on
the wetland type and size. It has been the City’s policy to keep wetland buffers out of platted lots, as they
are not properly maintained when on individual properties. When considering the Concept Plan, it is critical
for the developer to plan the site in a manner that accounts for the wetland and the required buffers. Staff
suggests engaging with the Watershed District about the buffering requirements and including these in any
future plan revisions.
City Engineer Review. The City Engineer’s has submitted comments as outlined in the attached letter.
The Engineer is recommending the developer submit revised concept plans for additional City review
before the City accepts an application for preliminary PUD/plat due to extensive changes that are needed
to address the requirements of Washington County and to meet City design standards and requirements.
Stormwater Management. The developer has not yet prepared a stormwater management plan for the
project but the concept plans do show an area for stormwater ponding near the center of the site near the
south property line and to the east of the stub street. The City Engineer’s memorandum addresses general
stormwater management considerations that will be required as part of this development. The storm
water management plan for this PUD will need to meet City ordinances and Valley Branch Watershed
District standards. He noted that he would need to see additional details before commenting on any
proposed storm water management plan, and in particular, questioned how storm water runoff would be
directed and controlled by applicant.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2020 Page 12
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
Storm Water Ponds. In accordance with the City’s Engineering and Design Standards, all storm water
basins and facilities must be located on an outlot dedicated to the City. The developer will need to design
the pond to City standards including having access to these ponds to allow for future maintenance.
Individual Septic Systems. The proposed Concept OP PUD would have a septic system and drainfield
on each lot rather than having a community septic system. The applicant also wants the City to allow
drainfields in the open space areas on each lot. They have made this request to give them flexibility in
siting the drainfields on each property. Locating individual treatment systems on the open space calls into
to question the purpose of the open space. Is the open space to be preserved and enjoyed by all or is it
serve at least in part as a large drainfield area? The Shoreland Ordinance requires drainfields and
treatment systems in PUD’s in shoreland areas to communal.
If the City approves the use of individual on-site septic systems in this development, the developer must
show on the future project plans a primary and a secondary site for the septic system for each lot and both
systems must be fully located on the lot it serves (not in common areas).
Municipal Sewer and Water. The City Engineer’s memorandum provides a review of municipal sewer
and water considerations. Municipal sewer is not available to the site and the developer is requesting to
have on-site septic systems on each property. The OP-PUD Code, however, requires OP development to
have a shared community septic system.
The developer is proposing to extend City water through the property along the new street from the south
end of Lisbon Avenue to Manning Avenue. The City Engineer is recommending this development have
two connection points to the existing watermain system to prevent a long dead end pipe for the
watermain. The second watermain connection should be made to Lisbon Court North of the east side of
the Heritage Farms subdivision. He also is recommending that the developer install a watermain lateral
stub to the south plat limits in the stub street and another lateral stub be installed to the south plat limits
for future extension of City water along Lisbon Avenue. In addition, the City Engineer is recommending
the developer complete a water service study to analyze system capacity and pressures for serving the
subdivision.
Fire Chief Review. The Fire Chief has asked that the roads within the development be designed in
accordance with Minnesota Fire Code standards and City standards.
Street Name. The City should require the new street to be called 26th Street North to be consistent with
the street naming pattern in this area.
Subdivision Review Process. In order to proceed with the subdivision of the land included in the
concept plan, the applicant will need to prepare a preliminary plat/PUD application and plans. At this
stage there is much more information required as part of that submission process, which also requires a
public hearing.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the OP PUD Concept Plan
proposed by Bruggeman Builders based on the above comments and analysis and the following findings:
(154.660 of Code)
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2020 Page 13
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
1. That the proposed OP PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan.
2. That the proposed OP PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the purpose and intent of OP PUD’s
in Lake Elmo by:
a. Providing greater development flexibility while maintaining the rural character by preserving
agricultural land, woodlands, wildlife or natural corridors and other significant natural
features.
b. Providing for:
1. An avenue to provide a development density equal to or greater than what could be
achieved via the underlying zoning;
2. A reduction in the costs to construct and maintain public facilities and infrastructure in a
rural setting;
3. Protecting open space to enhance and preserve the natural character of the community;
4. The creation of distinct neighborhoods that are interconnected within rural areas;
5. The preservation large contiguous open spaces.
3. That the proposed OP PUD concept plan meets the prerequisites for open space PUDs as outlined
in Section 154.655 of the City Code (existing zoning, 20 acre minimum site and the sites in single
ownership or control).
4. That all open space PUD design standards and all open space development standards (as outlined
in Section 154.660 of the City Code) are met; or if deviations are proposed, that all such
deviations are supported because they achieve the following three goals:
The deviations allow for a higher quality building and site design that will enhance aesthetics of
the site.
The deviations help to create a more unified environment within the project boundaries by
ensuring one of more of the following: architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient
vehicular and pedestrian circulation, enhanced landscaping and site features and/or efficient use
of utilities;
The overall design provides appropriate solutions to eliminate adverse impacts that propose
deviations may impose on surrounding lands.
5. That the OP PUD Concept Plan generally complies with the City’s Subdivision regulations.
6. That the OP PUD Concept Plan is generally consistent with the City’s engineering standards with
exceptions as noted in the City Engineer’s memorandum dated May 20, 2020.
7. That the OP PUD Concept Plan meets the minimum requirements for an OP PUD including
minimum lot area and street layout.
8. That the OP PUD Concept Plan will preserve and enhance important environmental features
through careful and sensitive placement of buildings and facilities.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2020 Page 14
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the OP PUD Concept Plan as
proposed by Bruggeman Builders for the property located at 2500 Manning Avenue, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the future preliminary plat and preliminary OP PUD Plans includes the parcel with the PID#
24-029-21-13-0002
2. That the future preliminary plat and preliminary OP PUD Plans submittal identify all requests for
flexibility or modifications from the OP PUD Development and Shoreland PUD standards.
3. That before submitting an application to the City for preliminary PUD/plat approval the
developer revise the concept plans to address the recommended changes and to allow for
additional City review.
4. That any future Preliminary PUD/Plat submittal shall address all comments from the City
Engineer in the letter to the City dated May 20, 2020. In particular, the preliminary development
plans shall address the street right-of-way width, street and trail design standards and storm water
management in the subdivision.
5. That any future Preliminary PUD/Plat submittal shall address all comments from the City
Landscape Architect in the letter to the City dated May 6, 2020. In particular, the preliminary
development plans shall address the preservation and planting of trees and the required screening
within the development.
6. That the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans submittal include a landscape and buffering
plan to address the requirements of the City Landscape Architect and City open space overlay
area requirements.
7. The proposed street providing a connection to the property to the south shall be included as part
of the improvement and construction plans for the PUD.
8. The developer shall work with the property owner immediately to the south of the proposed
subdivision concerning the alignment of the proposed future street to their property.
9. That a shoreland tier analysis be provided with the future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD
Plans submittal with the required 50% protected open space.
10. That any preliminary PUD approval be contingent on complying with Washington County’s
requirements and requests regarding the need for additional right-of-way, turn lanes and trails in
and along Manning Avenue.
11. That the applicant shall secure all necessary permits from Washington County for the proposed
access off of Manning Avenue North and for any work occurring in the Manning Avenue right-
of-way.
12. That the developer provide trails and sidewalks as recommended by the City Engineer and the
Parks Commission.
13. That all public trails and sidewalks must be located outside of storm water ponding areas and
wetland buffer zones.
14. That wetlands and wetland buffer areas be contained on outlots outside of lot areas.
15. All storm water retention and infiltration areas must be dedicated to the City and platted as outlots
on the preliminary plat unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer.
16. That all open space areas be platted in separate outlots to be commonly owned and managed by a
homeowners association.
17. That the developer provide fees in lieu of park land dedication as required by Section 153.14 with
future final plat.
18. That the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans shall comply with any comments or
requirements provided by the MnDNR.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2020 Page 15
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A
19. The developer shall submit a detailed PUD plan as part of any future preliminary PUD
development plans. The PUD Plan shall include a detailed listing of all requested departures or
modifications from City ordinances, shoreland regulations and development standards.
20. The developer shall prepare a plan for ownership and management of the proposed open space
and conservation areas as part of preliminary PUD plans.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application Narrative dated April 28, 2020
2. Location Map
3. Property Line Map
4. Contour/Address Map
5. Wetland Delineation Map
6. Area Map around Downs Lake with Concept PUD Plan
7. Concept PUD Plan
8. City Engineer’s Report dated May 20, 2020
9. Washington County review memo dated May 15, 2020
10. Lucius Jonett review comments dated May 6, 2020
11. May 21, 2020 e-mail from Brian Alwin
12445 55th Street North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 * Phone: 651-439-8833 * Website: FFSurveying.com
Bruce A. Folz, LS Timothy J. Freeman, LS
1939 – 2001 Principal
April 28, 2020
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Concept Plan
OPEN SPACE PUD
The subject property is located in the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24. Bounded on the
north by the Heritage Farm open space development; on the east by Manning Avenue North (CSAH 15)
with West Lakeland Township east of Manning; on the south (east portion) by a single family Rural
Residential parcel; on the south (west portion) by a single family RE zoned project EDEN PARK; and on
the west by a single family Rural Residential parcel.
The property is 32.27 acres and is mostly open, rolling and used for agricultural with one single family
home occupied presently by the property owners Gary and Meg Johnson. For years their small farm has
grown vegetables for sale at a local stand at the end of their driveway. The land also features two
drainageways for water from the north to drain southerly toward Downs Lake. There is one small wetland
area (0.19 acres) in the northern part of the easterly drainageway that is shown on the plan and it has been
delineated and verified by Valley Branch Watershed District.
There is a heavy stand of pine trees providing screening from Manning Avenue. There are several rows of
trees that have been planted by the property owners to provide screening along the pipeline route and the
southerly property line. There is a nearly continuous row of screening trees along the north line, the
westerly line and southerly line of the property. The screening of mature existing trees is proposed to be
preserved with the new conservation easements. This should more that cover the 10 trees per lot required
in the Open Space PUD ordinance.
The architecture of the neighborhood will be controlled by City Code as well as in the PUD overlay
ordinance for this development. Similar building components, materials and roof pitches should be
maintained. The architectural styles should extend to the outbuildings on each lot, requiring them to look
similar with similar colors and materials to compliment the main home.
The land is guided RAD in the Lake Elmo Comprehensive plan. The zoning is RR Rural Residential.
The property is also in the Shoreland District. The Valley Branch Watershed district regulates the surface
water, wetland and runoff for this area. The property is served by the Stillwater Area School District 834.
Manning Avenue North (CSAH 15) is a major traffic route from the eastern portion of Lake Elmo and
various other communities to the north and east of the site.
Traffic on Manning Avenue is connected from Highway 36 on the north to Interstate Highway 94 on the
south, and beyond down to Hastings. The Washington County Highway Department regulates traffic,
entrances and upgrades on Manning Avenue. The Highway Department has been consulted extensively
on the concept layout and street access point. They are supportive of the street access and location, with
some conditions. The first condition is that the existing driveway on Manning Avenue would be removed
and changed to access the new street. The second condition is to provide access to the property to the
4/28/2020
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Page 2 of 4
south to insure there will not be another request to access Manning Avenue when that property is
developed. They also require that turn lanes and bypass be provided for safety of the intersection. This
new street connection to Manning Avenue will provide a much needed second access for the Heritage
Farm neighborhood, as it was proposed and was a requirement of that development when it was built.
Currently there are 36 homes that only have one access point. When Heritage Farm was platted there was
an alternate access for Lisbon Avenue to be connected on the south side of this property to the street
platted in Eden Park. The north end of the street in Eden Park was vacated by petition of the adjoining
property owners to the City Council. The access to Manning is now the only alternative outlet at this
point.
This property is eligible for and proposed as an Open Space Planned Unit Development. This project
features 14 single family home sites as allowed in the Open Space PUD ordinance. Lot sizes range from
1.26 acres up to 4.32 acres. The new street right of way is proposed as a 50-foot-wide right of way with
additional 10-foot-wide Drainage and Utility Easements on each side. There is just over 1900 lineal feet
of new street to be built as a 24-foot-wide rural section street with gravel shoulders and an 8-feet-wide
bituminous trail on the north side of the street. The property is served with City water from the north in
Heritage Farm. The new homes sites will all have individual on-site septic tanks with individual drain-
fields. The proposed impervious surface is at just under 10% with homes, driveways and street/trail.
As was allowed in almost all the Open Space Preservation developments of the past, we request that the
individual drainfield portion of the septic systems be allowed in the open space areas. We are looking for
maximum flexibility in siting the drainfields, seeing as the adjoining properties have had some troubles
with soil suitability for drainfields. The drainfields are not an above ground feature of the lot and will
grow to be nearly invisible once the vegetation is established. The Shoreland Ordinance requires that
drainfields be communal… and we are asking to vary from this requirement to allow individual
drainfields.
The property will have over 50% of the lot area reserved as open space, covered with conservation
easements proposed to be held by the City of Lake Elmo. The open space will be owned and maintained
by the individual lot owners, subject to the conservation easement for the City. The City will not have any
responsibility for the open space areas… other than to be the entity that holds the easements. The
easements will run with the land and be recorded against the lots in perpetuity. The purpose of the open
space will be to preserve the land as passive open space with wildlife habitat. A plan will be submitted
which will indicate how he land will be maintained. The individual homeowners will be responsible for
the plan implementation on their area of the open space. There will not be a CIC declaration nor
Homeowners Association for the development. The open space is contiguous with the open space and
City Park created in the Heritage Farm open space development f rom the late 1990s. The open space in
this project surrounds the entire property and includes the areas of the drainageways. The open space
areas are contiguous throughout the project, except for the street/trail crossings. The open space area
protects the existing trees that are crucial to screening this development from Manning Avenue and the
adjoining properties.
The existing mature trees more than account for the required 10 trees per lot. We will encourage the new
lot owners to plant trees as a part of their individual landscaping plans. They can select their own tree
4/28/2020
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Page 3 of 4
species and plant them in the preferred locations on their lots. Trees planted by the property owners have
a better chance of thriving… as the owners will have a heightened sense of ownership because they
planted them. We anticipate planting the required boulevard trees, one every 30 lineal feet in clusters that
make the most sense. That is 1917 lineal feet of street divided by 30 feet spacing is 64 trees. This will be
a nice beginning compliment to the landscape plans of the new homeowners in this neighborhood.
It is envisioned that the only area of storm water ponding would be at the very south end of th e main
drainageway, before it exits towards Downs Lake to the south, as it always has. We propose to cover this
drainageway and ponding area with easements instead of creating an Outlot for the pond. This will keep
the property on the tax roll and the individual lot owner would maintain the vegetation while allowing the
City and Watershed District access to the pond.
There will be a 50 foot wide street right of way dedicated to the property south of this project. This street
right of way will be adjacent to the ponding area. The property to the south is also eligible for an Open
Space PUD development. This will provide a street access, as opposed to having another street entrance
on Manning Avenue. This is one of the conditions required by the Washington County Highway
Department. The property owners to the south have been consulted… and they have no interest in
developing their property at this time. The street would not be built until such time as the property to the
south is developed.
The buffers are as follows: The east property line is the right of way of Manning Avenue North, no buffer
required. The north line is a border with Heritage Farm, no buffer required because Heritage Farm did not
have a buffer when it was built. The west line adjoins a single family home zoned RR. There is a pipeline
easement that is east of the property line about 250 feet to the east line of the easement. No additional
buffer is required. On the south property line, we are adjoining both Eden Park neighborhood and on the
easterly portion is an RR parcel that is eligible to be an Open Space PUD. The buffer is 100 feet from
property that could be Open Space PUD. The portion that is bordered by Eden Park should technically be
a 200 foot buffer. We are asking for a modification from this buffer due to the fact that the lots in Eden
Park are wooded lots as well as the distance from the existing homes to the homes proposed in this
development is in excess of 300 feet. The ordinance does provide for buffer mitigation by vegetative
planting… if the buffer is modified. There is a half street, labeled 25th Street that was platted along with
Eden Park. That street will never be opened. With a street… there would have been even less buffer
required.
This project will feature minimum grading to the site. The street layout and lot configuration were
designed to be in harmony with the land. The existing trees and rolling nature of the site make for a
beautiful landscape for this new neighborhood. The grading will be limited to grading for the street and
the storm water ponding features along the south line. There will not be any mass grading of the site, nor
any graded “house pads” in this project. The home sites will be individually located to follow the land.
With the streets being proposed as rural section streets with gravel shoulders, this will feel like another
one of the many desired rural neighborhoods in Lake Elmo.
The park plan for the City of Lake Elmo does not designate a park on this property. A larger parcel was
dedicated as a park just to the north of this project in Heritage Farm. That park land is currently being
4/28/2020
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Page 4 of 4
used as passive open space, instead of a typical developed park. We would anticipate that the City would
prefer to have a “cash in lieu” payment instead of land dedication.
We are hoping to get feedback from the City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council during this
Concept Phase. We have outlined some items that need a 4/5th majority vote to vary from the strict
language of the Open Space PUD requirements and the Shoreland Overlay requirements. They include
using a rural street section without the concrete ribbon curb in favor of gravel shoulders. This would
create a more rural street image while saving the costs of the concrete areas. We also ask to use individual
drainfields instead of communal drainfields, along with the flexibility to site the drainfields in the open
space area of the lots. We ask that the required Homeowners Association be waived for this project.
There will be no commonly owned lands or features that require cost sharing and maintenance. We also
ask for modification to the buffer in one area along the south line (west portion) from 200 feet to 100 feet,
adjacent to the Eden Park neighborhood. Another modification we are asking for is regarding the
stormwater ponding area. It will be created adjacent to the dedicated public street access for the property
to the south and we would prefer to have the lot owner own the area covered by the pond instead of
creating an Outlot. We feel that with the Drainage and Utility Easement covering it, it would be protected
and still allow for City access to the ponds. The adjoining lot owner would be charged with maintaining
the area around the ponds. The Shoreland Ordinance suggests that lot area should be 80,000 square feet
(1.83 acres) and lot with of 200 feet. While many of the lots in this development are within the 1000 foot
area of Downs Lake… but there is NO frontage on the lake and there is NO view of the lake. The
ordinance allows for varying from these two standards. They are created to protect the views from the
lake, as well as the intensity of development on the lake. Included on the “Area Map Around Downs
Lake” you can see the existing homes around the lake are not compliant with either of these two
standards. Also, included on the map there is a cross section line. This helps to illustrate that the new
development doesn’t have any view lines to or from the lake… as well as it being completely screened by
mature trees from the lake. Those mature trees are being preserved by the open space easements.
The open space design elements of the ordinance have been met, or modifications have been requested in
the previous areas of this narrative. We have strived to outline how these deviations or modifications are
supported by achieving the goals of the ordinance. They will allow for a higher quality building and site
design, create a more unified environment for the development by minimizing streets, grading and
disruption of the natural landscape. We look forward to working with the City on creating a harmonious
new neighborhood with this project.
PAGE 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 20, 2020
To: Ken Roberts, Planning Director Re: Bruggeman Open Space PUD (2500 Manning Ave)
Cc: Chad Isakson, PE, Assistant City Engineer Concept Plan Review
From: Jack Griffin, PE, City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Bruggeman Open Space (2500 Manning Avenue) Concept Plans
received on April 30, 2020. The submittal consisted of the following documentation:
Concept Plan Narrative dated April 28, 2020.
Concept Plan Open Space Neighborhood, dated April 17, 2020.
STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering review comments and recommendations should be considered preliminary.
Concept plan changes will be significant to adequately address the requirements from Washington County, and to
make the necessary plan changes to meet city design standards and requirements. It is therefore recommended
that revised concept plans be submitted for additional city review prior to accepting Preliminary Plan submittal.
When submitting revised concept plans, the application should be deemed complete unless the submittal meets
the minimum city ordinance requirements, including a 1” = 100’ scaled existing conditions plan; labeled 2‐ft.
contours; and a 1” = 100’ scaled proposed site plan.
STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION
Manning Avenue right‐of‐way. Additional right‐of‐way must be dedicated along Manning Avenue to provide
90‐feet of right‐of‐way from the Manning Avenue centerline. The proposed plan only shows 60‐feet.
Access Management. Washington County has reviewed and approved the access point to Manning Avenue.
Based on County improvement plans for Manning Avenue, this access will likely become a right‐in right‐out
access with a center median preventing full access to the neighborhood. With the approval of this access,
a local street right‐of‐way must be provided (as shown) to the property to the south as an additional access
to Manning Avenue will not be permitted by the County for development of this southerly property.
Manning Avenue Improvements. The development will be responsible to make improvements to Manning
Avenue, at developer’s sole cost, with all improvements installed per Washington County requirements.
Improvements include right and center left turn lanes at the intersection of the new local street.
Local Street Access Improvements. The local street connection at Manning Avenue should include a short
length of wider street to provide dedicated right and left turn lanes onto Manning Avenue.
Manning Avenue Trail. The developer will be responsible to construct a 10‐ft. wide bituminous trail along
the frontage of Manning Avenue consistent with the Washington County trail plans.
Secondary Access. A residential street connection is required to Lisbon Avenue in the Heritage Farms
development, as shown, connecting to Lisbon Avenue where there is existing right‐of‐way. Parts of Lisbon
Avenue will need to be reconstructed into the Heritage Farms neighborhood to convert the existing cul‐de‐
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283
PAGE 2 of 3
sac to a future through street meeting current city street design standards. Updating to current standard is
necessary as the street is converted from a dead end to a through street.
A residential street stub will be required to the southerly plat limits as shown. The stub location must be
coordinated with the property owner, and both the right‐of‐way must be platted and the street constructed
as part of this development. If the street is not required to be constructed as part of this development, this
street connection is likely to not be completed as planned.
All streets must be designed to meet the City Engineering Design Standards including R/W width, street
width and cul‐de‐sac radii. Surmountable concrete curb and gutter should be installed in single family
residential areas with future driveways and B618 curb installed along entrance roadways.
The application requests 24‐foot wide rural section streets, no ribbon curb, and within 50‐foot right‐
of‐way. Rural section streets are prohibited by the Open Space ordinance and are not
recommended.
Rural section streets with property constructed roadway drainage ditches would not fit within a 60‐
foot right‐of‐way, in particular with a trail or sidewalk.
If rural roadways are permitted, concrete ribbon curb in accordance with city standards should be
required to protect the roadway from premature failure.
The minimum development right‐of‐way must be determined based on roadway design specifications and
proposed roadway use.
An 8‐foot bituminous trail with 2‐foot clear zones is recommended to be constructed along the
entire length of all proposed streets, as shown. The proposed right‐of‐way of 50‐feet is not
sufficient to accommodate the city standard urban roadway with 8‐foot bituminous trail. A
minimum of 60‐feet is required.
Street widths should be constructed consistent with the revised city standards dated April 2019 to
address adequate emergency access along all city streets.
On‐street parking needs should be considered and street widths adjusted accordingly in areas
where parking is deemed needed and to meet city design standards.
Parkway or divided roadways must be a minimum of 19 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb.
The divided roadway segment of Lisbon Avenue must be reconstructed to meet current city
standard for divided one‐way streets.
The proposed public street appears to cross a significant drainage way. The preliminary plans will need
include a detailed drainage design to identify adequate culvert capacity while meeting city design standards.
An emergency overflow will be required as part of the street design and supporting hydraulic modeling
provided.
Ten (10) foot utility easements are required on either side of all right‐of‐way.
The new local street must intersect Manning Avenue at 90‐degrees and maintain a minimum 100‐tangent
prior to any curvature. The maximum street slope in the first 50 feet cannot exceed 2.5%.
Residential maximum longitudinal grade is 6% with sidewalks/trails.
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
Municipal water service is readily available within the Heritage Farms development located north of the
proposed subdivision. The applicant is responsible to extend municipal water into the development to serve
the proposed properties. Use of private wells is not recommended due to the ongoing groundwater
contamination issues in the area.
Two connection points to the existing watermain system is recommended. The subdivision should connect
to the existing 6‐inch watermain located in Lisbon Avenue and extend along the length of the proposed
public roadway. City design standards only permit a maximum length for dead end pipe of 1,000 feet. A
second connection should be made to Lisbon Court North on the east side of the Heritage Farms
subdivision.
Extension of city water to serve this development may pose circulation and service pressure concerns.
Should the development proceed forward, it is recommended that a water service study be completed to
analyze system capacity and pressures for serving the proposed subdivision.
PAGE 3 of 3
A watermain lateral stub will be required to the south plat limits for future extension of city water along
Lisbon Avenue within the Eden Park subdivision.
A watermain lateral stub will be required to the south plat limits along the proposed stub street.
Trunk watermain oversizing will need to be evaluated upon receipt of preliminary plat/plans.
MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER / WATEWATER MANAGEMENT
The development property is located outside of the City designated Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA)
for sanitary sewer service. The developer is proposing individual on‐site wastewater treatment systems for
each lot to address wastewater management within the development.
Individual on‐site wastewater treatment systems (ISTS) are regulated by Washington County and
would be required to meet the permitting requirements of the County. City ordinances also
requires all ISTS to conform to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Standard Chapter 7080.
The application should be revised to show both a primary and secondary ISTS system for each lot
and both systems must be fully located on the lot it serves (no common areas).
The Concept plan must be revised to show all septic systems meeting all setback requirements,
including 10‐feet from all property lines and 20‐feet from all structures. Setbacks should be
dimensioned and labeled on the revised plans.
All septic systems must be shown to not encroach any part of a lot easement or drainage and utility
easement, including all 100‐year HWL from adjacent storm water ponds and from the stormwater
drainage pathway.
At the time of Preliminary Plat submittal, the application should be deemed incomplete unless the applicant
has demonstrated sufficient available land for the use of individual on‐site wastewater treatment systems
for each lot, with each ISTS meeting or exceeding all applicabl e City rules and MPCA Chapter 7080. Submittal
documents must include documentation from field investigations and soil borings taken at the proposed
ISTS locations demonstrating suitable soils for each site.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The site plan is subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD and City rules and
regulations. No proposed storm water management plan was provided as part of the Concept Plan.
Storm water facilities proposed for the site plan,meeting State and VBWD permitting requirements, must
be constructed in accordance with the all City Engineering Design Standards.
The general drainage system should mimic the natural topography of the site in order to ensure a drainage
system that provides positive storm water drainage across the development. Overland emergency
overflows or outlets will be required as part of the site plan.
The site plan shows one storm water pond area located on Lot 1, Block 3. The Site plans must be revised to
show all storm water basins to be located on dedicated Outlots. The Stormwater Facility Outlots must fully
incorporate the 100‐year HWL, 10‐foot maintenance bench and all maintenance access roads. Preliminary
drainage calculations should be performed as part of revising the concept plans for resubmittal to allow for
adequate storm water basin site planning.
The site plan shows one storm water pond area located within an existing storm water drainage path. It is
likely that the storm water pond will need to be located to allow for the continuation for the existing
drainage path.
The storm sewer system shall be designed to maintain the City standard minimum pipe cover of 3 feet.
Drain tile is required as part of the City standard street section at all localized low points in the street. Drain
tile considerations may impact the storm sewer design and depth requirements at low points.
Per City requirements all storm sewer pipe easements must be a minimum 30‐feet in width.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
All public improvements constructed to support the development must be designed and constructed in
accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual available on the City website.
11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573
Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 • TTY: 651-430-6246
www.co.washington.mn.us
Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action
S
May 15, 2020
Ken Roberts
Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo
3600 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN. 55042
Re: Washington County comments on the Concept Plan, Open Space Neighborhood
4/17/2020 in the City of Lake Elmo
Dear Mr. Roberts,
We have reviewed the Concept Plan, Open Space Neighborhood dated 4/17/2020 in the City of
Lake Elmo. The property is located in Section 24, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, along
County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 15 (Manning Avenue), north of Manning Trail North and
south of 30th Street North. Development on the 32.27 acre parcel will consist of 14 single
family homes. The project will involve grading, installation of public and private infrastructure,
open space preservation, street and home construction, and stormwater ponding. Based on
the plans submitted, we offer the following comments:
• The preliminary and final plat will need to reflect future right-of way along CSAH 15 as
identified in the Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2040, Transportation Plan,
Minimum Right-of-Way Widths for County Roads. The identified future right-of-way
width along CSAH 15/Manning Avenue is 180 feet (90 feet from the centerline of the
roadway). The current concept plan, dated 4/17/2020, identifies only 60 feet from the
centerline of CSAH 15/Manning Avenue. The preliminary and final plat plan should be
updated to reflect an additional 30 feet of right-of-way.
• The access point is acceptable to the county. The developer will need to submit plans
for right and center left turn-lane improvements along CSAH15/Manning Avenue for the
intersection at the new local street. The timing of these improvements should be
discussed further with the City of Lake Elmo based on the phasing of the development.
• The concept plan should be revised to identify a local street right-of-way to provide
future access to the parcels west of the development.
• A County trail is shown on the west side of CSAH 15/Manning Avenue, Future Trail
System Map in the Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This trail is a long
range plan to be implemented as development occurs, or as part of a planned larger
Public Works Department
Donald J. Theisen, P.E.
Director
Wayne H. Sandberg, P.E.
Deputy Director/County Engineer
Page 2
May 10, 2020
Concept Plan
Open Space Neighborhood
11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573
Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 • TTY: 651-430-6246
www.co.washington.mn.us
Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action
roadway project. Any trail should be planned as part of a larger project and will be
evaluated at that time.
• Any work in the county right-of-way will require a right-of-way permit, including:
grading for the installation of culverts, installation of water and sewer services, turn lane
modifications, road improvements, trails, Americans with Disability Act (ADA) ramp
improvements.
• Although the county has not reviewed a stormwater plan to date, the developer, city or
watershed district must submit the drainage report and calculations for review of any
downstream impacts to the county drainage system. Along with the drainage
calculations, there must be written conclusions that the volume and rate of stormwater
run-off into any county right-of-way will not increase as part of the project.
• Washington County's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility
between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often
result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from adjacent highways could
exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA),
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for
taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise
Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in
violations of established noise standards. Minnesota Statute 116.07, Subpart 2a
exempts County Roads and County State Aid Highways from noise thresholds.
• County policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the
expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The
developer should assess the noise situation and take any action outside of County right-
of-way deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise.
If you have any questions or comments to the responses on the Concept Plan, Open Space
Neighborhood, please contact me at Ann.pung-terwedo@co.washington.mn.us.
Sincerely,
Ann Pung-Terwedo, Senior Planner
Cc: Joe Gustafson, Traffic Engineer
Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming
Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com
To: Ken Roberts, City of Lake Elmo Planning Director
From: Lucius Jonett, Wenck Landscape Architect
Date: May 6, 2020
Subject: City of Lake Elmo Concept Plan Review
Bruggemen Open Space PUD, Review #1
Submittals
Land Use Review Form and Maps, dated April 30, 2020, received May 5, 2020.
Bruggemen Development Concept, dated April 17, 2020, received May 5, 2020.
Location: Southern half of the northeast quarter of Section 24, west of Manning Avenue
North
Land Use Category: Rural Residential
Surrounding Land Use Concerns: None
Special landscape provisions in addition to the zoning code: Open Space PUD
standards require 10 trees per building site. There must be a boulevard tree to account for
every 30 linear feet of public street. A 200-foot buffer is required from all adjacent property
lines that abut an existing residential development, as well as a 100-foot buffer from all
adjacent property lines that abut land that is eligible for future development as an open
space planned unit development.
Findings:
1. The applicant is preserving a large majority of all the existing trees onsite and is asking
that these trees make up for the 10 required trees for each building site. They are also
proposing that future landowners be responsible for purchasing and planting these 10
required trees. Open Space PUD standards do not state that any preserved trees will
account for the required 10 trees per building site. A landscape plan for the development
is required, showing the 10 proposed trees per building site.
2. The applicant is proposing planting the 64 required boulevard trees, one for every 30
lineal feet.
3. The preserved trees on site may count towards the required screening buffers the Open
Space PUD call for. The applicant is asking that the area that borders Eden Park be
revised from a required 200-foot buffer to a 100-foot buffer due to the lots in Eden Park
being wooded. Standards require a 200-foot buffer no matter what is being provided on
the abutting Rural Residential lots. There is also a road that was platted that will not be
built, meaning the buffer will not need to be modified, so buffer requirements remain the
same.
Ken Roberts
Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo May 6, 2020
2
\\wenck.local\wenckspace\Vol1\6443 Lake Elmo\28 Bruggemen Open Space PUD\01 Preliminary Plat\01 Plan Review\2020-05-06 Initial Review\2020-05-06 Bruggemen Concept Plan
Review.docx
Recommendation:
It is recommended that conditions of approval include:
1. The applicant provides a landscape plan showing 10 existing or proposed trees per
building lot, with the intention of providing the required trees per Open Space PUD
standards.
a. Existing trees meeting the City ordinance definition for significant tree can be
counted. A healthy tree measuring a minimum of six (6) inches in diameter for
hardwood deciduous trees, 19 ft. in height or eight (8) inches in diameter for
coniferous/evergreen trees, or twelve (12) inches in diameter for common trees.
b. If 10 or more significant, existing trees are located on a proposed lot, 10 new
trees do not need to be planted.
c. If less than 10 significant, existing trees are located on a proposed lot, additional
new trees do need to be planted to make the number of new and existing
significant trees at least 10.
d. If no significant, existing trees are located on a proposed lot, 10 new trees do
need to be planted.
2. The applicant provides a landscape plan showing the 64 required boulevard trees. These
required boulevard trees are in addition to any trees required to meet the 10 tree per lot
requirements above.
3. The applicant provides all required 100-foot and 200-foot buffers required with the Open
Space PUD standards.
Sincerely,
Lucius Jonett, PLA (MN)
Wenck Associates, Inc.
City of Lake Elmo Municipal Landscape Architect
1
Ben Prchal
From:Brian Alwin <brian@asmoothmove.biz>
Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:26 AM
To:Ken Roberts
Subject:Public Hearing on Bruggeman Builders PUD
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Mr. Roberts: I just received the subject notice last Saturday which didn’t leave enough time to
review, consider and make comments before the May 18th deadline, but we hope exceptions
can be made. My wife Kimberly and I live at 2470 Lisbon Ave North – Eden Park, Lake Elmo
and our property borders the proposed development to the south.
We have no material objections to the plan as given but do have two requests.
1) What covenants will be in place regarding homeowner’s use of the 100’ buffer zone?
Will they be allowed to store belongings in this zone? An extreme example would be
the homeowner storing or dumping rarely-used or unwanted items along my north
property line – in our line of sight.
2) In the plan there is a reference to trees along the south boundary – and there are some
trees there, but they are very widely-spaced and do not provide a very good barrier.
We request developer plant evergreen trees along this south boundary to provide an
extra sight view buffer.
Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions. I plan to be on
the call on the 27th.
Brian J. Alwin
2470 Lisbon Ave N
Lake Elmo, MN
(507) 250-3775