HomeMy WebLinkAbout#18 - Legacy at North Star Preliminary Plat & PUDPUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 1/16/18
REGULAR ITEM #: 18
TO: City Council
FROM: Emily Becker, Planning Director
AGENDA ITEM: The Legacy at North Star Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Plans
REVIEWED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Ann Pung-Terwedo, Senior Planner, Washington County
BACKGROUND: GWSA Land Development is requesting Preliminary Plat and Development Stage (Preliminary)
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plans for a 276 single family residential development on +/-
98.93 acres acres. A portion of the development in the southwest corner of the site is within the Shoreland of Sunfish Lake which triggers the need for a Planned Unit Development because the proposed lots do not meet the lot width and impervious requirements for Natural Environment lakes; because the density exceeds the allowable density with the Village Urban Low Density
Residential land use category, and because the Applicant is proposing various other deviations
from some zoning standards.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL:
The Council is respectfully being requested to review the Preliminary Plat and Development Stage
(Preliminary) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plans to be called Legacy at North Star.
GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: GWSA Land Development , 10850 Old County Road 15, Suite 200, Plymouth, MN 55441
Property Owner: Schiltgen Farms Inc. 10880 Stillwater Boulevard
Location: 10880 Stillwater Blvd, Lake Elmo/ Parcel 1 – The South 658.02 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 11, Township 29 North,
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 2
ITEM #
Range 21 West; and Parcel 2- The South 20 acres of the East Half of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 11, Township 29 North, Range 21 West; and a portion of Parcel 3- The Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota.
PID#s: 1402921110001, 1102921430001, and 1102921440001
Request: Preliminary Plat and Development Stage (Preliminary) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plans
Site Area: 192.44 acres (all PIDs)
Res. Dev. Area: 98.93 acres (Parcel 1, Parcel 2, and a portion of Parcel 3)
Land Use: Village Urban Low Density
Current Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional District
Proposed Zoning: V-LDR/PUD
Surrounding: RR(north)/ LDR and VMX (east)/Agriculture (south)/ OP and RR (west).
History: The parcels are part of the Schiltgen Farm property and are currently zoned RT. The City approved the PUD Concept Plan on June 6, 2017.
Deadline: Application Complete – 11/21/17 60 Day Deadline – 1/20/18 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline –
Applicable Code: Article 12 – Urban Residential Districts Article 18 – Planned Unit Development Regulations Article 19 – Shoreland Management Overlay District Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
§150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment Control
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: The proposed Village-Urban Low Density/PUD development will be located on the northern portion of the Schiltgen Farm at the northwest corner of CSAH 14 and CSAH 17. The proposed
development is proposed as a PUD because the developer is requesting flexibility from the zoning regulations of the Shoreland Ordinance and the V-LDR zoning regulations, adopted on 5/16/2017. Environmental Review. The entire Village Area was subject to an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) when the area was brought into the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA).
The AUAR was updated in early 2017 as required. No further environmental review is required.
Zoning Map Amendment. In order to develop the site, the developer will be required to subdivide Parcel 3 and re-zone Parcels 1, 2 and the northern portion of Parcel 3 to V-LDR/PUD, consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan guidance for the area. The comprehensive plan
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 3
ITEM #
and the V-LDR zoning district allow for a density of 1.5-2.49. This will be the first area on the Zoning Map that is designated as V-LDR zoning.
Subdivision Schiltgen Farms. When the developer subdivides the property for development, one of the development lots will contain the Schiltgen Farm property. Site Data. The entire subdivision area is 192.44 acres which includes all of Parcels 1, 2 and 3. Of the 192.44, the developer is proposing to develop 98.93 acres into a 276 unit (previously
proposed to be 279 units during the Concept PUD Plan phase) single family residential PUD development with a net density of 2.82 or 2.95 du/acre (see explanation in the calculation of net density table), in excess of the allowed V-LDR density. Total Site Area 192.44 acres
Residential Site Area 98.93 acres
Outlot & Recreation Areas 17.87 acres (4.24 acre park open green and 4.85 acre pool/clubhouse/play
lot)
Right-of-Way (R/W) 18.20 acres Wetland Area 0.90 acres Wetland Buffer 0.26 acres Residential Lot Area 58.77 acres
The calculation of net density is as follows. The Metropolitan Council determines net density through netting out wetlands and water bodies, wetland buffers, public parks and preserved open space (must be preserved through an open space easement).
Development Area 98.93 acres
Wetlands 0.90 acres Wetland Buffers 0.26 acres Open Space within Southwest Portion of the Site 4.24 acres
Net Residential Area (if park area on the southwest portion of the site is not designated as public parkland or preserved through an open space easement)
97.77 acres
Net Residential Area (if park area on the
southwest portion of the site is not designated as public parkland or preserved through an open space easement)
93.53 acres
Total Number of Lots 276 units Gross Density 2.78 du/acre
Net Density (if park area on the southwest
portion of the site is not designated as public
2.82 du/acre
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 4
ITEM #
parkland or preserved through an open space easement) Net Density (if park area on the southwest
portion of the site is not designed as public
parkland or preserved through an open space easement)
2.95 du/acre
PUD Minimum Requirements. The development is being proposed as a PUD because a higher
density than that allowed within the Village Urban Low Density zoning district is being proposed
and because a portion of the proposed development is within a shoreland, and any deviance from the minimum lot size requirements of the shoreland district requires that an area be developed through the PUD process. A PUD is a negotiated zoning district, and according to the Lake Elmo Zoning Code Article 19, Planned Unit Development Regulations, zoning flexibility can be
granted in order to better utilize site features and to obtain a higher quality of development.
When evaluating a PUD proposal, a PUD must meet one or more objectives contained in Section 154.751 and meet the minimum requirements of Section 154.753.
• Identified Objectives. Staff has found that the following objectives are met with the
proposed PUD:
C. Provision of more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space and recreational amenities and other public facility than would otherwise be provided under conventional development techniques. Staff comment: The developer is providing more than required for recreational amenities within the development area. G. Coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility within the development and surrounding land uses. Staff
comment: Various architectural styles are being proposed in the development including a 55’ detached villa product with single level living, a 55’ single family home with open floor plan, and a 65’ single family home (two story or rambler). I. Allowing the development to operate in concern with a redevelopment plan in certain areas of the City and to ensure the redevelopment goas and objective will be achieved. Staff comment: The development will be phased in a way to
provide sanitary sewer to the Hamlet development, which has a failed
community septic and is required by the MPCA to be hooked up to the City
sewer.
• Minimum Requirements for PUD. Staff has found that the proposed development meets
the following minimum requirements of a PUD:
a. Lot Area: The site area exceeds the minimum lot area for of five acres for a PUD development. b. Open Space: The PUD ordinance indicates that at least 20% of the development area not within rights-of-way is to be dedicated to open space. The developer has provided approximately 22% open space as part of this development which
will encompass landscape buffer areas, stormwater management areas in outlots and recreation areas. (98.93 acres – 18.20 acres within rights-of-way=80.73 acres. 17.87 acres of space/80.73 acres of development not in rights-of-way=
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 5
ITEM #
22%). The narrative indicates that 30% open space is being proposed, but this calculation includes land dedicated toward Reid Park, for which the development received park land dedication credit. This land should not be
counted towards the open space requirement for this development, as open
space is to serve residents of the PUD, and Reid Park is not adjacent to this development. c. Street Layout: The PUD ordinance appears to place a preference for a street grid to compliment the older portions of the City. The proposed PUD
development does incorporate a modified street grid.
V-LDR/PUD Density. The V-LDR zoning district allows a maximum density of 2.49 du/acre.
The PUD ordinance provides the ability increase density by up to 20% by meeting amenity point
thresholds per Section 154.754 Table 16-1 and Table 16-2. The developer is seeking 2.82 du/acre, 13.25% over the allowed base density with PUD amenity points (2.82-2.49=0.33, 0.33/2.49=13.25%). If the park on the southwest corner of the development is a public park, the developer will be seeking 2.95 du/acre (2.95-2.49=0.46, 0.55/2.49=18.47%). From the
developer’s narrative, the developer is seeking amenity points for:
• Providing additional open space. The Applicant proposes 17.87 acres of open space, which equals 22% of the proposed development area, less areas within the
rights-of-way. The narrative indicates that that parkland dedicated as an extension
of Reid Park is included in the Open Space calculations. This, should not be included, however, as the PUD ordinance indicates that open space shall be designed to meet the needs of residents of the PUD and the surrounding neighborhoods. The land dedicated for Reid Park does not meet the needs of the
proposed development. A significant amount of this open space contains
stormwater ponding, which is allowed per the PUD ordinance.
o Staff-recommended amenity points: 2
• Providing pedestrian improvements. The applicant proposes that an additional 5
points = 5% increase in density is justified because of the pedestrian
improvements on site. Trails are proposed that run from the east side of the development at Lake Elmo Avenue to the far west side of the development in an effort to connect existing trail networks in the City. Additional walking paths and trails are shown within the development. Staff does not recommend, however, that
warrant all five additional amenity points, as required trails are shown on the
Comprehensive Plan on the northern and southern portion of the development, and the developer only proposes one trail going east west to connect to Hamlet on Sunfish Lake, which, as mentioned previously in this report, still has private trails. It should be awarded some amenity points, however, as the development does
provide good interconnectivity and a combination of trails, landscaping,
decorative materials, access control and lighting to create a safe, clear, and aesthetically pleasing pedestrian facility through and around the site are provided, as indicated in the PUD ordinance. o Staff-recommended amenity points: 2
• Providing theming. 1-3 points = 1-3% increase in density is being requested for theming within the development. It is a recommended condition of approval that
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 6
ITEM #
the applicant provide specific examples of proposed development signage, fencing, landscaping, lighting and site furnishings, including the clubhouse, that will adhere to the Lake Elmo Branding and Theming Study.
o Staff recommended amenity points: 3
• Plaza. The applicant states in the narrative that density bonus should be provided for the pool, clubhouse, and tot lot in the neighborhood park. The neighborhood park provides a plaza, as the PUD ordinance indicates that plazas are landscaped
or paved open areas of a minimum of 1,000 square feet or less and wholly or
partially enclosed by a building or buildings. While the neighborhood park is an amenity for the neighborhood, not for the public, the PUD ordinance only requires that plazas within commercial or mixed-use development shall be open to the public during daylight hours. It does not require that plazas within residential
PUDs be open to the public. It should also be noted that the proposed
development is providing two parks, which Staff believes in and of itself warrants amenity points o Staff recommended amenity points: 5
• Enhanced Stormwater Management. The Applicant indicates that the
development will utilize stormwater reuse. The stormwater captured in ponds will be recycled for irrigation throughout part of the development. This practice will reduce demand on higher quality water sources while allowing stormwater runoff a second chance to infiltrate into the ground to be treated by landscape vegetation
and soils. The PUD ordinance articulates that PUD amenity points shall be
rewarded specifically for infiltrating stormwater generated onsite with artful rain garden design that serves as a visible amenity. The Planning Commission may wish, however, to grant additional amenity points for the uniqueness of the proposed stormwater reuse.
o Staff recommended amenity points: 3
• Additional/Alternative Amenities?
• Extending sewer to Sunfish Lake? Consideration of amenity points could also be given for the extension of sewer to the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake
development by a specific time period.
o Staff recommended amenity points: 5
• Possible Points - Public Right-of-Way Dedication. The Planning Commission may not agree with some or quantity of the proposed amenity points listed above. The PUD Ordinance indicates that ten amenity points may be granted for
dedication of land and construction of a public road, trail, pathway, or greenway that is part of an approved city plan but outside the scope of the immediate project area. Right-of-way improvements should be designed per the specification of the City Engineer. The report, in the last bullet point under “Washington County”
comments, explains the need for connectivity of the development to schools,
which may include the need for construction of a trail off-site on the Schiltgen property. The Planning Commission may wish to recommend that ten amenity points be granted for construction of this trail along with a pedestrian crossing if it finds other proposed amenities do not warrant the requested increase in density.
o Possible Alternative Amenity Points = 10
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 7
ITEM #
• Public Park for free? If the City wishes to accept the park in the southwest corner of the development as public park land and if the developer is willing to donate
the land without receiving parkland dedication, the development could be
awarded an additional 5 amenity points. It should be reiterated, however, that the dedication of this park as public park will increase the density of the development. o Possible Alternative Amenity Points = 5
Total potential amenity points = 20
The Planning Commission may wish to debate that less or more density points should be awarded than Staff recommends. However, if the City finds that the proposed development amenities should earn the Staff-recommended 20 amenity points, then the proposed development
can provide an increased density of up to 20%. This would get the development to over the
density that is being proposed. The Planning Commission should review the proposal and determine whether the project warrants an increase in density and the specific amenity points that will be granted. The
Commission should recommend additional conditions that would allow the development to
proceed with the density as proposed, or to provide a condition that would reduce the density to match the density points as granted. Lot Sizes and Widths. The minimum lot width for the shoreland of Sunfish Lake is 125 feet, and
in the V-LDR District 70 feet. The minimum lot size for the shoreland of Sunfish Lake is 40,000
sq. ft. and in the V-LDR District, 9,000 sq. ft. The developer is proposing the following deviations from setbacks and lot area: V-LDR Proposed Minimum lot width 70 feet 55-65 feet
Minimum lot area 9,000 sq. ft. 6,770-16,099 sq. ft.
Average lot area 9,280 sq. ft. Setbacks. The setbacks in the V-LDR District are: Front – 25 feet
House side – 10 feet
Garage side – 5 feet Corner side-15 feet Rear – 20 feet Setback from County Roads – 50 feet
The developer is proposing the following setbacks: Front yard – 15-25 feet (15 feet for sideloaded Villa product) Front yard/Side loaded garages – 15 feet Side yard -7’/8’ feet
Rear yard -25 feet
Side yard corner lot - 15 feet Setback from the CSAH 17 -= 80 feet
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 8
ITEM #
Setbacks. The typical side yard setback in all the urban districts is 10’ for the principle building and 5’ for the garage, however in practice we allow a 7.5’/7.5’ setback provided that there are no encroachments into side yard drainage and utility easements. Often on such lots, the developer will
finish off basements and propose egress windows to provide light and an emergency exit and with
a 7.5’ side yard setback, the egress window wells become a problem by encroaching into easements. Staff prefers the V-LDR side yard setbacks (5’/10’), to provide for the option of having egress windows. The Applicant proposes that the 8’ setback will accommodate 3’ egress windows without encroaching easements.
The typical front yard setback in all urban districts is 25’, but the City has allowed 20’ front yard setbacks in some instances. Most recently, the Royal Golf Club at Lake Elmo Planned Unit Development was allowed 20’ front yards setbacks where the garages were side loaded. The current proposal for 15’ front yard setbacks raises concerns related to parking, landscaping and
other requirements. During the Concept PUD Plan review, the Planning Commission raised
concerns about the 15 foot front yard setback. The Planning Commission added the finding that they were open to reducing the front yard setback for side loaded garages to 20 feet provided there is sufficient architectural detail on the street-facing wall. It is a recommended condition of approval that the HOA documents include architectural requirements that require 4-sided architecture and
garages facing the public right-of-ways to have windows and/or other architectural features. 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. The applicant has not provided such requested detail, but has provided a rendering of what the 15 foot setback would look like.
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 9
ITEM #
Impervious Surfaces. The allowed impervious surface within the shoreland of Sunfish Lake is 30% and in the V-LDR 35%. The developer has requested a maximum impervious surface coverage of 50% for the villa lots and interior single family homes.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) Comments. The application has been sent to the MNDNR. They confirmed that the Ordinary High Water Level of Sunfish Lake (896.4 feet) and asked the City to require that the developer provide a tiering analysis to show that the proposed density meets the City’s shoreland PUD requirements and that the development
adhere to the City’s shoreland PUD standards.
Shoreland Tier Analysis. The southwest portion of the development site is within the shoreland
of Sunfish 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.
• Shoreland Tier Analysis. A total of 8.26 acres of the development is within a shoreland, and the developer has provided 4.24 acres of open space. The steps to determine allowed PUD Density are as follows: o Determine total buildable area of each tier (tier depth for a Natural Environment
Lake for a sewered development is 320 feet) within the development. (Tier 2:
42,852 sf, Tier 3: 268,516 sf and Tier 4: 48,688 sf)
o Divide buildable area of each tier by the minimum lot size allowed (20,000 square feet is the minimum lot size allowed for non-riparian sewered lots within the shoreland) to determine the base density allowed: (Tier 2: 42,852 sf/ 20,000= 2.14
lots and Tier 3: 268,516/20,000= 13.42 lots and Tier 4: 48,688/20,000=2.43 lots)
o Determine allowed increased density (up to 20%) Tier 2: 1.2*2.14=2.568 Tier 3: 1.2*13.42=16.1 and Tier 4: 1.2*2.43=2.916)
• Open Space Maintenance and Administration Requirements. Deed restrictions,
covenants, permanent easements or other instruments are required for open space that
prohibit future vegetative and topographic alterations other than routine maintenance, construction of buildings or storage of vehicles and other materials, and ensure preservation and maintenance of open space must be provided.
• Park Proposed as Open Space. As indicated in the “Park” section of this report, the
developer has proposed a public park as open space. If the City takes on this park, it will need to provide instruments as outlined above. If the park is HOA-maintained, the developer will have to provide these instruments. Architecture. The developer has proposed three housing types, a 55’ detached villa product with
single level living, a 55’ single family home with open floor plan, and a 65’ single family home (two story or rambler). The Traditional Villa product will provide single level living with up to 4 bedrooms at 1,700 to 3,000 square feet. Floor plans include a side-loaded 3 car garage or a tandem 3 car garage. 2-4 bedrooms with finished basement. Yard maintenance and snow removal are inclusive of the homeowners association maintenance. The 55’ Single family home
includes an open floor plan with spacious kitchen on main level. Upper level with 4 bedrooms, laundry room and owners’ suite with walk-in closet. Lower level with option of 5th bedroom, open space for entertaining. +/- 2,500 to 3,500 Square Feet. 2-3 car garage. The 65’ Single Family will be a two story or rambler. Open floor plans with spacious kitchens and flex rooms.
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 10
ITEM #
Upper level with large owner’s suite, 4 bedrooms, laundry. Lower level with optional 5th bedroom, family room for entertaining, optional wet bar. +/- 3,000 to 3,700 Square Feet. 2-3 car garage.
Village Open Space Overlay. The City’s Comprehensive Plan shows the Village Open Space Overlay over the outer edges of the development area. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following suggestion as to how the overlay is intended to be implemented:
For all parcels that are designated with urban land use categories (V-LDR, V-MDR, VMX and C),
the open space overlay shall act as a zoning or subdivision restriction. Through restrictions via
zoning or the subdivision process, the City will have multiple tools to provide for the open space
areas in the urban districts in the Village. For example, the City can utilize zoning to enforce
various setbacks from the existing Village Boundary. Another option would be to dedicate
outlots in the open space areas through the subdivision process. As long as the end result is
achieved, the City would like to take a flexible approach so that the private market can select
the best solution for achieving the intent of the Village Open Space Plan.
After the open space areas have been established, it is important to pursue strategies that will
provide for the long-term preservation of these areas. To accomplish preservation, the City will
either pursue conservation easements with the MN Land Trust or other partners, or investigate
the acquisition of land that is determined to be a significant natural asset to the community.
Through a combination of both strategies, the Village Open Space Plan is more likely to succeed.
The recently approved V-LDR Zoning Ordinance restricts residential lots from encroaching on the Village Open Space Overlay unless berming or screening protected by a landscape easement is provided as an alternative approved by the Council.
Although the overlay in the Comprehensive Plan is not dimensioned, it appears as though the width of the overlay is around 200 feet. There is no buffer provided in the proposed Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans on the northern edge of the development, and there are six lots on the west side of the development that do not provide a buffer. There is open space provided on the northwest and southwest portion of the proposed development.
The Concept PUD Plan did provide a 20 foot buffer on the north edge of the development and 10 foot buffer on the west edge of the development. It was Staff’s recommendation for the PUD Concept Plan that the buffer areas be enlarged such that they are more easily maintained and do not become a dumping area for leaf litter, sticks, or other debris, or are incorporated into the surrounding lot area with significant berming, landscaping and a landscape easement as required
by the V-LDR Zoning Code and protected by an easement such that individual homeowners cannot remove the required landscaping. This has been an issue in other developments where required landscaping is later removed by homeowners to make room for private amenities or simply because they do not like the landscaping. It is a recommended condition of approval that the Applicant provide a sufficient buffer.
Landscaping and Tree Preservation.
• Tree Preservation. There are approximately eight trees proposed per acre. There are only
25 trees currently on the site. The landscape plan includes 784 trees, approximately 8 per
developed acre.
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 11
ITEM #
• Parking Lot Screening. The parking lot within the proposed HOA park will need additional screening. As per the City’s Perimeter Parking Lot and Landscaping standards, parking
areas shall be screened from public streets, sidewalks, public open space, and residential
properties. While sufficient screening from the residential lots is provided through a line of coniferous screen trees, these trees should be removed so that they are completely within Outlot B so that it is clear within the Landscape License and Maintenance Agreement that these are to be maintained by the HOA. Additionally, a the parking lot should be screened
on west side (facing Lake Elmo Avenue) and on the small area facing the entrance street
through a masonry wall, fence, berm, or hedge or other form of screening that provides a minimum of three and a half and a maximum of four feet in height and not less than 50% opaque year-round.
• Stormwater Ponds. The stormwater ponds will have landscaping to create unique water
treatment facilities.
• Landscape Berms. Landscaping berms are proposed along Lake Elmo Avenue North.
• Landscape Review. The City’s Consultant Landscape Architect has reviewed the proposed
Landscape Plans and provides the following comments:
o Provide documentation as to Existing Tree Inventory & Tree Preservation Calculations. o Utilize Most Current City Standard Landscape Specifications. o Utilize Most Current (April of 2017) City Standard Planting Details including Tree Protection Detail for all applicable applications. o All required Tree Plantings including Street Trees should be represented on Plan and be Developer’s responsibility. o On Sheet LP2 omit notes 1, 2 & 3 as they conflict with City Approved Planting Details and Specifications. o Per City Landscape Requirements 154.258 F. Screening - please provide more intensive screening utilizing for example: Landform (berms), Structure (fences & stone walls) and Plants (evergreen trees) or combination of the above or similar landscape elements on all sides of the perimeter of the develop to the enhance the quality of the residential lots within the development as well as preserving and enhancing the rural character of the community as people view the development from adjacent properties and Lake Elmo Avenue North. Parks.
• Park Dedication Requirement. The park dedication requirements for a 98.93 acre development is 9.893 acres of parkland, or a combination of parkland or fees in lieu of
parkland.
• Park Dedication Partially Satisfied. With the recording of the Northport plat, the developer will deed over Outlot D of that plat. The City entered in to a Memorandum of Understanding that allowed the developer to receive park dedication in the amount of 6.51
acres (the net acreage of Outlot D) for the subject development. Therefore, the developer
is still responsible for 3.383 acres of park dedication.
• Neighborhood Park Search Area. The Comprehensive Park Plan identifies a neighborhood park search area over the proposed development area.
• Parks Commission Review of Concept PUD Plan. The Parks Commission reviewed the Concept PUD Plan on May 15, 2017, and while knowing that the proposed development is within a Neighborhood Park Search area (see below), voted 6-1 to recommend that the City accept fees in lieu of parkland dedication for the development. The Parks Commission
was in favor of the proposed park as presented with the Concept PUD Plan (as shown below
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 12
ITEM #
the map of the Neighborhood Park Search area) but was concerned about the number of neighborhood parks the City already has and the increased maintenance the addition of another neighborhood park would create. They recommended that the park proposed in the
Concept PUD Plan be a private park and HOA-maintained.
• Changes since Concept Plan. With the Preliminary Plat and PUD Plan application, the applicant has removed the park that was near the center of the development and replaced a previously 3.3 acre proposed public park area in the southwest corner. Additionally, the previously 0.9 acre totlot area has been moved from the northeastern area of the
development to the southeastern corner. The sizes of the proposed park areas have also
increased as explained below.
Neighborhood Park Search Area
Concept PUD Plan
Formerly proposed 0.9 acre totlot
Formerly Proposed
3.3 acre park
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 13
ITEM #
• HOA Park. With the Preliminary Plat and PUD Plan, the developer is proposing a 4.85 acre
site with a small playground, swimming pool, sport court, and clubhouse near the
northeastern entrance to the development to be Homeowners’ Association (HOA) owned and maintained. The park is screened with a landscaping berm but is near a stormwater pond. The applicant should provide some sort of fencing or something of that nature to protect children from wandering in to this pond. There is parking proposed within the park,
as this was a condition of approval of the Concept PUD Plan. However, this parking lot
will need to be screened as explained further in the Landscaping and Tree Preservation section of this report. Additionally, Staff would recommend that the proposed tot lot be moved closer to the parking area for convenience of parents with small children.
• Proposed Public Park. The developer is also proposing a 4.24 acre park/open space area
on the southwest portion of the site. This land includes stormwater ponding for the development. The stormwater pond shown in the park will need to be contained in a separate outlot and dedicated to the City, and the developer will not receive credit for the area of this outlot. Additionally, this park is located in the shoreland district and would
need to adhere to the open space maintenance and administration requirements as outlined
in the section of this report that addresses Open Space Maintenance and Administration requirements. City’s shoreland ordinance does indicate that open space may include outdoor recreational facilities for use by owners of lots in the subdivision and general public, but it may not include road rights-of-way, or land covered by roads, structures, or
parking surfaces. Overall, Staff feels that the park proposed in the Concept Plan was much
more desirable for the development because of its central location. If the City wishes to accept this park as parkland, Staff recommends that the developer still not receive credit for parkland dedication and provide the parkland as an amenity in exchange for PUD flexibility. Additionally, the stormwater pond should be fenced for safety.
•
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 14
ITEM #
Trails. The Comprehensive Trails Plan identifies a needed trail along the north edge of the development to connect to the private Sunfish Ponds HOA trail and an east-west trail connecting Lake Elmo Avenue near 39th Street east to the private Hamlet on Sunfish Lake HOA trails on the
north side of Sunfish Lake.
Note: According to City records, the Hamlet HOA trails were paid for by the City and were
supposed to have been dedicated to the City when the plat was recorded. The Hamlet HOA currently maintains the trails.
• Parks Commission Review of Concept PUD Plan. At its May 15, 2017 meeting, the Parks
Commission stated (with a vote of 7-0) that they would like to see the trails connecting to
the private Sunfish Ponds trail and to the private Hamlet on Sunfish Lake trail, provided the City is able to obtain ownership and maintenance responsibility for those trails. The Parks Commission indicated they would put forth an effort in helping obtain this ownership.
• Trail to Hamlet on Sunfish Lake. The developer has proposed a trail that will connect to the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake Development trail, however, approval has not been obtained from the Homeowners’ Association as of yet. If this trail is still desired and if the City does not wish to accept the southwest corner park as park land dedication and still desires the
trail connection to Hamlet, park dedication credit would be given for the value of the land
under which the trail is located (30-foot wide corridor) and the construction of the trail, unless the developer is willing to provide this as an amenity.
• Trail Along CSAH 17. The Planning Commission should also consider the need for a trail
along CSAH 17 to provide safe pedestrian connectivity from this development to
developments north and to the Village area to the south. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2030, Planned Trail System, does not identify a trail along this section of CSAH 17; however, future plans and county road projects may incorporate trails.
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 15
ITEM #
Parks Commission Review. The Parks Commission reviewed the proposed subdivision at its meeting on November 20, 2017. They had recommended that the public park be dedicated to the city for free and that the developer still be required to pay the remaining parkland dedication
requirements not satisfied through the dedication of the land dedicated to Reid Park. They did not
feel that the proposed trail connecting to the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake development should be constructed by the development, as there has not yet been determination that the trails within Hamlet on Sunfish Lake will be dedicated to the City or remain private. If they are to remain private, it would not make sense to have such a connection. If the park is not dedicated to the City,
it is a recommended condition of approval that a 30-foot wide trail corridor easement or outlot be
dedicated to the City so that the City may construct a trail at a later time. HOA recreation area parking. The proposed pool and playground near the south entrance drive is in a prominent location that will make for an attractive entrance to the development. With 28’
wide streets, parking will be allowed on both sides of the street, but the parking will potentially
create significant congestion. The applicant has provided a parking area with ten spaces within this recreation area. Subdivision Signs. Section 154.212 allows a maximum of 2 subdivisions signs per residential
development with a maximum sign area of 24 sq. ft. per sign. No additional signs have been
proposed. Streets and Access. The developer is proposing a modified street grid and is proposing 60 foot wide public rights-of-ways with 28’ wide streets (back to back), allowing parking on both sides of
the street, except where center island exist, such as at the entrance roads off of Lake Elmo Avenue.
The developer has provided right-of-way and street stubs to allow for vehicle connectivity to the north and south of this development. Two access points were provided to the Schiltgen parcel to the south of the development in the event this property develops in the future and also to accommodate the land locked Chavez parcel (to be discussed later in this report). A third street
stub is provided to the north of the development to accommodate future development.
Village Parkway Design. When reviewing the Concept Plan, the Planning Commission recommended and the Council adopted a condition of approval that the Village Parkway design carry through in the development with the southern road to at least to the first street stub providing
access to the south. The Applicant has amended the design so that the southern entrance
(continuation of 39th Street North) to be the primary entrance. However, there are some differences in the Village Parkway design as indicated below:
• Right-of-way and Street Width. The new Village Parkway design for north of the railroad
tracks requires 100 foot right-of-way and a 44 foot street width for parking on both sides
and 90 foot right-of-way and 38 foot street width for parking on one side. The proposed street that will extend from 39th Street North only provides a 60 foot right-of-way and 28 foot street width. Although it does not meet these width requirements, the street within this development is not meant to be a collector or arterial street.
• Trail and Sidewalk. The design requires an 8-foot bituminous trail on one side and a 6-foot concrete sidewalk on the other. The Applicant is only proposing a trail on the south side of this street, except for the entrance.
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 16
ITEM #
• Landscaping Elements. Trees are spaced 75 feet apart and deciduous as required with this design. The landscape plan does not indicate salt tolerant sod within the boulevard. The
trees are proposed between curb and trail as indicated in the design.
• Access Spacing. Residential driveways are not proposed to access any portion of this street. Street Names. The proposed street names will need to be updated to adhere to the City’s Street
Naming Policy as shown below. Existing 39th Street North will directly connect to the
development, and the street name should continue. The east-west streets in between 39th Street North and 41st Street North will need to be relabeled accordingly. Additionally, Klayton Avenue should be renamed, as the City already has a Layton Avenue North, and there is potential for confusion in an emergency response situation that these two street names will be confused.
Fire Chief and Building Official Comments.
• Comments on street names are addressed above.
• A fire hydrant should be extended to the parking lot area of the proposed pool house. The hydrant should be on the east side of the parking area to serve both the parking lot and pool house.
• A hydrant should be added to the development to the development entry on the south end in a similar location as the one located at the north entrance.
• The hydrant on Klayton Avenue to the east of Lots 141 and 142 be moved toward the south
so it is centered between the intersection to the north and the intersection to the south.
• The two street terminations on the south side may need to be revised as cul-de-sacs due to the lengths. Kolton Avenue in particular will need a turn-around at the south end. Washington County Review. The County had provided comments on the Concept PUD Plan and
has stated that there are no changes in their recommendations. The following summarizes their comments from the Concept PUD Plan:
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 17
ITEM #
• The County has indicated that they are currently updating the County Traffic Model and will provide new forecasts to the City of Lake Elmo.
• Sufficient right-of-way for CSAH 17 has not been provided. The County requires 75 feet from the centerline.
• Access points provided at 41st Street North and 39th Street North are acceptable.
• A southbound right turn lane and center left turn lane are proposed to be constructed as
required.
• A drainage report and calculations for review of any downstream impacts will be required as well as conclusions that the volume and rate of stormwater runoff into the county right-of-way will not increase as part of the project.
• Access control must be dedicated to Washington County along CSAH 17/Lake Elmo Avenue frontage except for the opening corresponding to the City’s right-of-way for the local street.
• A County Right Of Way permit will be required for any work in the CSAH 17 right-of-
way as it relates to the development. A plan set with all requirements is required with the application.
• There needs to be safe access from the development across Lake Elmo Avenue down to
the school. Staff had met with Washington County to explore possible options for this,
three of which are highlighted below. The development will connect to 39th Street, which would loop across and connect to Stillwater Blvd. This is the preferred crossing for adults. However, it is not an ideal crossing for children because it is not recommended by Washington County to place a pedestrian crossing signal at an intersection. Washington
County’s preferred option is construction of a trail along the west side of Lake Elmo
Avenue that would be extended down through the Schiltgen property with a pedestrian signal as indicated below (the circled crossing is the preferred option) in order to get kids safely across to the school. Staff would like to further explore these options. If the Planning Commission finds that the proposed amenities within the development do not warrant the
proposed increased density, perhaps construction of the offsite trail and pedestrian crossing
would.
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 18
ITEM #
Chavez Land Locked Parcel. To the southwest of the residential development and on the west side of the Schiltgen Farm, is the Chavez property. For some time, Mr. Chavez has been seeking access to his landlocked parcel. It is unclear to Staff if the Chavez property is buildable. The property is subject to shoreland and Rural Residential setback requirements, septic area and
setback requirements. Mr. Chavez is requesting access through the subdivision of the Schiltgen
Farm Property. Staff has suggested two stubs from the proposed residential property to the
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 19
ITEM #
Schiltgen parcel, one which might provide future access to the Chavez parcel. However, the property owner of this parcel will still need to gain access through the Schiltgen Farm parcel as outlined below. In order to gain this access, the owner of this parcel does have the right to petition
to the City for a cartway under the cartway statute (Minnesota Statutes Section 453.37, Subd. 1
(a)). If this is done, the City Council will need to determine whether he is eligible under the statute.
City Engineer Comments. The City Engineer memo dated December 5, 2017 is attached to this report, and significant issues are highlighted below and also throughout the report.
• Preliminary Plat
o All public improvements to be constructed in accordance with City Engineering and Design Standards Manual dated March 2017. o Lot easement information must be shown on the grading plans. o Written landowner permission must be submitted as part of the final plat
development applications for any off-site grading work and stormwater discharges to adjacent properties. o Comments on outlots and stormwater ponds are illustrated below.
Residential
Development
Schiltgen
Farm
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 20
ITEM #
• Transportation Improvements o Sufficient right-of-way dedication must be provided along Lake Elmo Ave. Right-
of-way is currently not delineated.
o Access from Lake Elmo Avenue are acceptable to both the City and County.
o Comments on pedestrian facilities are illustrated below.
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 21
ITEM #
• Residential Streets
o The connection of street stubs to the property to the north should be located to allow the northerly property to be able to plat along a 2-sided street as part of any future development of the site. Insufficient information has been provided to show that this condition has been met.
o Parkways or divided roadways must be a minimum of 19 feet in width.
o The proposed 276 lots will generate approximately 2,760 trips a day, and so the 30th Way segment as identified below (Lake Elmo Avenue to Kirby Avenue) should be designed to meet the City design standards for a collector street and intersections realigned as shown below.
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 22
ITEM #
o Six foot sidewalks must be provided along all residential streets and as may be required by the City for connectivity and amended as illustrated below.
o Typical street sections must be revised on the Preliminary Plans as outlined in the review memo.
o The ten parking spaces along 28th Street should be moved south a sufficient distance
to allow a standard perpendicular cross walk configuration.
• Grading Plan, Stormwater Management, and Storm Sewer System
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 23
ITEM #
o Site plan subject to stormwater management plan meeting State, VBWD, and City rules. o Stormwater management plan proposes stormwater re-use through lawn irrigation
in lieu of infiltration basins. It is a recommended condition of approval that
Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans approval be contingent on the applicant submitting additional details on the proposed stormwater reuse system and ongoing operations for City review and consideration.
The City Engineer states in his memo that stormwater reuse can be an
effective method to reduce reliance of potable water use while reducing
stormwater discharges. However, the City does not have design standards or guidelines for implementation of stormwater reuse, and the ongoing operation and maintenance details must be developed for successful implementation.
o Stormwater ponds must be constructed meeting City standards, and designated
maintenance access roads must be provided for all stormwater facilities.
o Storm sewer pipe easements at least 30 feet in width must be provided. o 100-year High Water Level and all Emergency Overflow elevations must be shown on the grading plans and fully protected by drainage easement or outlot.
• Municipal Water Supply
o Municipal water supply is available immediately adjacent to the development o The watermain stub to the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake development should be relocated further south to extend from the street near the south side of Lot 149.
• Municipal Sanitary Sewer.
o Municipal sanitary sewer is available immediately adjacent to the proposed development at Lake Elmo Avenue and 39th Street North. o A detailed sanitary sewer phasing plan must be provided with Final Plat 1st Addition
application to address timely connection to sewer for the wastewater treatment
system that includes, at a minimum, dedicated right-of-way or utility easement extended to the westerly side of the plat. Phasing Plan/Sewer Expansion to the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake – Condition of Approval of Concept PUD Plan. Staff has requested that the developer provide a phasing plan in order to get
an understanding of when sewer can be expanded to serve the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake development. The Hamlet development presently has a failed wastewater system that the MPCA wanted to be remedied by the end of 2016. The developer’s narrative states that phasing is difficult to predict and will hinge on a lot of different factors. If they gain the necessary approvals by spring,
the goal is to begin construction as soon as weather permits. Phasing will be easier to determine
once spring nears. The applicant has met with Hamlet on Sunfish Lake HOA and the City and plans to continue to partner with them and assist as weather permits. It was a condition of approval of the Concept PUD Plan that the Applicant provide a detailed phasing plan which includes a timeline for providing sanitary sewer to the Hamlet Development. The applicant has provided a
phasing plan, attached, and it appears that sewer would be provided to Hamlet during the second
phase. It is a recommended condition of approval that the applicant include a sewer easement extending to Hamlet with the Final Plat of 1st Addition.
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 24
ITEM #
Wetlands/Buffers. There is an existing wetland on the northwest corner of the development area shown to be partially within proposed residential lots. The City requires wetlands and wetland buffers to be fully contained within outlots, outside of lot areas.
Conditions of Concept PUD Plan Approval. The following indicates how conditions of Concept PUD Plan Approval have been met. While Concept PUD Plan approval does not afford the applicant development rights, understanding how these conditions have been met may be helpful.
1. That the future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans submittal identify all requests for flexibility from the V-LDR zoning district. The Applicant indicates in the narrative that PUD Flexibility is being requested on minimum
lot width, lot area, front yard setback, side yard setback, and maximum impervious coverage. 2. That all comments of the City Engineer’s Memorandum dated May 8, 2017 be addressed with the future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans submittal.
It is a recommended condition of approval that the applicant address all items outlined in the City Engineer’s memo dated December 5, 2017. 3. That a shoreland tier analysis be provided with the future preliminary plat and preliminary
PUD Plans submittal with the required 50% protected open space.
A sufficient shoreland tier analysis has been done per City’s shoreland ordinance and completed by the Developer as part of the application submittal.
4. That the developer provide trails as recommended by the Parks Commission.
The Parks Commission reviewed the Concept PUD at its meeting on May 15, 2017 and will review the Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans at its November 20, 2017 meeting. The Parks Commission recommended that a trail connection to the trails within the Hamlet on
Sunfish Lake be provided if the developments to the west would open up their trails to the public. The City was not granted easements for the trails within the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake and Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove, and so the City would need to work with the Homeowners’ Association of these two developments in order for these trails to become public trails.
5. That any approval be contingent on complying with Washington County’s requirements and requests pertaining to right-of-way, turn lanes and trail needs. The Preliminary Plans do not indicate sufficient right-of-way. This has been added as a
condition of approval.
6. That the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans submittal include a landscape and buffering plan to address open space overlay area requirements.
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 25
ITEM #
The Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans include a landscape submittal, but Staff does not believe it provides an adequate buffer. The landscaping is within residential lots, and there is no way to prohibit a single family homeowner to remove these trees (tree
preservation requirement). As per the Village Urban Low Density Residential standards,
development of areas within the Village Open Space Overlay District, as designated by the Comprehensive Plan, is not allowed. Residential lots shall not encroach on the areas designated as open space per this overlay district, unless berming or screening protected by a landscape easement is provided as an alternative approved by Council. Lots on the
north side and some lots on the west side of the development enchroach this buffer, and
no landscape easement is proposed.
7. That 6 ft. sidewalks be provided on one side of all city streets.
Sidewalks or trails have been provided on one side of all city streets.
8. That wetlands and wetland buffer areas be contained on outlots outside of lot areas. Wetland buffers are not completely contained in outlots outside of lot areas on the
northwest portion of the site.
9. That fees in lieu of park land dedication be provided as required by 153.14 with future final plat.
The Parks Commission recommended and the Council adopted the condition that fees be
provided in lieu of parkland, even though the proposed development is within a neighborhood park search area as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. The Developer has already satisfied 6.51 acres of the 9.893 acres of parkland. The developer is proposing that the 4.24 acre park on the southwest corner of the site be public parkland. Staff would
recommend that fees still be paid in lieu of park land dedication.
10. That the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans submittal include a detailed subdivision phasing plan which includes a timeline for providing sanitary sewer to the Hamlet development.
The Applicant has not provided a phasing plan indicating when sewer will be extended to the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake development. The developer’s narrative states that phasing is difficult to predict and will hinge on a lot of different factors. It also indicates that if the applicant gains the necessary approvals by spring of 2018, the goal is to begin construction
as soon as weather permits.
11. That the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans submittal include a parking area for the HOA pool/playground recreation area.
A parking area with ten spaces has been provided but does not provide handicap parking
and needs to provide at least one handicap accessible space with appropriate aisle widths. The Commission should consider if this is adequate parking for the park. The street widths
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 26
ITEM #
of the southern east-west street are sufficient for parking on both sides. Even though the Village Parkway design requires a much wider street width for parking on both sides, the street within the proposed development is not meant to be a collector or arterial street.
12. That the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans submittal include a detailed
architectural plan and clearly identify the various architecture styles and locations for them on the plans.
The Applicant has provided this as indicated in this report.
13. That the developer comply with any comments to be provided by the MnDNR. A shoreland tier analysis has been provided, and the Applicant has indicated the OHWL
of Sunfish Lake to be 896.4 feet as requested by the MNDNR.
14. That the side yard setbacks be 10 ft./5 ft. consistent with the V-LDR zoning district or as an alternate, 7.5 ft./7.5 ft on each side, including window wells being outside of utility easements.
The Applicant has requested a 7 or 8 foot setback.
15. That the Village Parkway design be carried throughout in this development with the southern road at least to the first street stub providing access to the south.
There are some deviations from the Village Parkway design as indicated in this report.
16. That the density shown in the concept plan is not presently justified, but may be considered with the preliminary plat submittal.
The Planning Commission should decide whether or not to recommend that the proposed density is justified.
Planning Commission Review. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the proposed Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans at its meeting on December 11, 2017. The Planning
Commission had the following comments in regards to the proposal:
• Concern that the proposed development did not provide a sufficient greenbelt corridor/open space overlay district.
• Disagreement with Staff-proposed amenity points.
• Concern about lack of standards for and provided detail on stormwater reuse.
• Concern about there only being two entrances to the development given the proposed number of homes. A motion was made that it be a condition of approval that the applicant obtain an easement to access 43rd Street in order to provide a third access to the development in case of
emergency, but the motion failed.
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 27
ITEM #
Public Hearing Comments. Three people spoke during the public hearing, and concern was
expressed about the lack of buffer on the proposed development, as well as the density and number of homes proposed.
Developer Comments. The Developer spoke at the meeting and explained that the City and Hamlet on Sunfish Lake had approached GWSA to develop the subject parcel as soon as possible in order to bring sewer to Hamlet on Sunfish Lake as soon as possible, as connection of sewer to
this development must take place by the end of 2020 or it would trigger fines or a requirement to replace the current system at a great expense. The developer further explained that because GWSA’s other development, Village Preserve, still has about fifty lots that have not yet been built on, that the proposed density of the subject development is necessary in order to go forth at
this time.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, the Developer has provided a response memo, attached as The Legacy at North Star Planning Commission Review Memo Dated 12.21.2017, along with an exhibit that shows perimeter distances from adjacent parcels and a landscape rendering.
Amenity Points. The Planning Commission determined that the following amenity points should be granted for the proposed development:
• Public Right-of-Way Dedication. If the Applicant constructs a trail along the Schiltgen Property along with a pedestrian crossing at the location that the County and City deem appropriate, the Planning Commission stated that ten (10) amenity points should be
granted for the proposed development. Staff has discussed this with the applicant, who
has expressed concern in receiving permission from the property owner of the Schiltgen parcel to be able to do this. Staff would like to note that if the applicant were to construct this trail and crossing, there is no trail that will bring pedestrians directly to the school on the east side of Lake Elmo Avenue.
• Stormwater Re-Use. While the Planning Commission, as mentioned above, expressed
concern in the lack of standards for and detail on the proposed stormwater reuse, they did state that if the City Engineer approves the proposed stormwater reuse plan, that three (3) amenity points should be awarded for stormwater reuse.
• Theming. The Planning Commission believed that only one (1) amenity point should be awarded for theming, as they really only saw fencing as a proposed theming element and
so believed that not all three amenity points as Staff proposed should be granted.
Conditions. The Planning Commission recommended the following amendments to Staff-proposed conditions of approval:
10. That the Applicant provide adequate a minimum 100 foot buffer from property lines of adjacent parcels to structures within the proposed development through outlots protected by
an open space easement or other instrument as approved by the City or sufficient landscaping or berming within residential lots protected by a landscape easement and approved by the City to adequately buffer the northern and western portions of the development as indicated by the Village Open Space greenbelt corridor of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan.
16. That the proposed 15 foot front yard setback be approved provided That the HOA
documents include architectural requirements that require 4-sided architecture and garages facing the public right-of-ways to have windows and/or other architectural features.
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 28
ITEM #
The addition of the following condition:
24. The proposed 7’/8’sideyard setbacks shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Hamlet on Sunfish Lake HOA Input. Since the Planning Commission, the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake HOA has provided a written memo to the Council, attached. The memo indicates the following:
• Their interest in connecting to City sewer by the MPCA-amended deadline of 2020 (see attached Schedule of Compliance (SOC)).
• That only 50% of the HOA is interested in making their trails public and connecting to
Legacy at North Star’s trails. They would instead support the option of accepting a trail easement so that the City may construct the trail if/when the majority of the HOA is in agreement to make the trails public.
• Their desire for there to be a 100 foot buffer on the west edge of the Legacy at Northstar development.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans based on the following
findings: 1. That the Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans are consistent with the intent of the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area with the exception of the
Village Open Space Overlay District Greenbelt Corridor.
2. That the Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans comply with the general intent of the Village-Urban Low Density Residential zoning districts with PUD modifications.
3. That the PUD Concept Plan generally complies with the City’s Subdivision regulations.
4. That the PUD Concept Plan is generally consistent with the City’s engineering standards with exceptions as noted in the City Engineer’s memorandum dated December 5, 2017.
5. The PUD Concept Plan meets the minimum requirement for a PUD including minimum
lot area, open space and street layout.
6. The PUD Concept Plan meets more than one of the required PUD objectives identified in Section 154.751 including providing: 1) more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space and recreational amenities and other public facility than would otherwise be provided under conventional development techniques. 2) Preservation and enhancement of
important environmental features through careful and sensitive placement of buildings and
facilities, and 3) Allowing the development to operate in concern with a redevelopment plan in certain areas of the City and to ensure the redevelopment goas and objective will be achieved. 7. The PUD Concept Plan meets the allowed density requirements allowed with PUD
flexibility.
8. That the Applicant is providing the following amenities, for which the City shall award amenity points (one point equal to one percent allowed increase in density):
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 29
ITEM #
a. Construction of a trail to the south of the plat and grading along the right-of-way of the property to the south along with construction of a pedestrian crossing at a location approved by the City and County (10 points).
b. Stormwater reuse if approved by the City Engineer (3 points).
c. Theming elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study (1 point). d. Dedication of the 4.24 acre park in the southwest corner of the development (5 points). 9. That the proposed PUD will allow a more flexible, creative, and efficient approach to the
use of the land, and will specifically relate to existing zoning district standards in the
following manner (with exceptions as noted): a. Lot Dimensions and Bulk Building Requirements
Villa Lots Interior Single Family
Exterior Single Family
Minimum Lot Width 55 ft. 55 ft. 66 ft.
Minimum Lot Area 7,900 sq. ft. 6,900 sq. ft. 8,500 sq. ft.
Minimum Front Yard Setback
15 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.
Minimum Side Yard Setback 7 ft./8 ft. 7 ft./8 ft. 10 ft./5 ft. or 7.5 ft./7.5 ft.
Maximum
Impervious Surface
50% 40% 45%
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that Council adopted Resolution 2017- approving the requested Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans with the following conditions:
1. That PID# 1102921440001 is subdivided to create Parcel 3 as indicated on the Preliminary Plat and that a Zoning Map Amendment is approved to rezone Parcels 1, 2, and 3 from Rural
Development Transitional to Village Urban Low Density Residential. 2. That the future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans includes parcels with the
PID#s 1402921110001, 1102921430001, and a portion of 1102921440001. 3. That the future Final Plat and PUD Plans submittal identify all requests for flexibility from
the V-LDR zoning district. 4. That all comments of the City Engineer’s Memorandum dated December 5, 2017 be
addressed.
5. That the Applicant submit additional details on the propose stormwater reuse system and ongoing operations for City review and consideration. Ownership, maintenance and ongoing operational responsibilities must be clearly defined, and City acceptance of stormwater reuse must be contingent upon the City agreeing to the ongoing ownership,
maintenance and operation plan, including the execution of a stormwater maintenance and
easement agreement that addresses stormwater reuse.
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 30
ITEM #
6. That the Applicant provide a detailed phasing plan with the Final Plat 1st Addition application that clearly indicates the phasing of the construction for each public infrastructure component and addresses both construction access to the site and public
access for new residents. Temporary cul-de-sacs should be part of the phasing plans and
are required for any street with a platted lot with driveway access. 7. That the developer provide a trail connecting the trail in the middle of the development to Hamlet on Sunfish Lake only if the trails in Hamlet on Sunfish Lake are made public, or, as an alternative, provide a 30-foot wide trail corridor easement or outlot for future
connection if Hamlet on Sunfish Lake trails are made public. The Applicant shall not
receive parkland dedication credit for the trail outlot or easement or construction of the trial. 8. That any approval be contingent on complying with Washington County’s requirements and requests pertaining to right-of-way, turn lanes and trail needs as noted in the
Washington County Memo dated June 1, 2017. Verification from Washington County that
sufficient right-of-way along Lake Elm Avenue N (CSAH-17) has been provided must be received by the City. 9. The Applicant shall be solely responsible for all construction costs associated with the intersection improvements as recommended by Washington County.
10. That the Applicant provide a minimum 100 foot buffer from property lines of adjacent
parcels to structures within the proposed development through outlots protected by an open space easement or other instrument as approved by the City or sufficient landscaping or berming within residential lots protected by a landscape easement and approved by the City to adequately buffer the northern and western portions of the development as indicated
by the Village Open Space greenbelt corridor of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan.
11. That the Landscape Plans receive approval from the City’s Landscape Architect and include revisions as mentioned in the Staff Report dated to the Planning Commission dated December 11, 2017. 12. That wetlands and wetland buffer areas be contained within outlots outside of lot areas and
dedicated to the City.
13. That the Applicant dedicate the park to the City without receiving parkland dedication credit and that the Applicant pay parkland dedication fees as required by 153.14 with future final plat. 14. That the Applicant provide a detailed sanitary sewer phasing plan must be provided with
Final Plat 1st Addition application to address timely connection to sewer for the
wastewater treatment system that includes, at a minimum, dedicated right-of-way or utility easement extended to the westerly side of the plat. 15. That the Final Plat and PUD Plans include a parking area for the HOA pool/playground recreation area that meets all applicable standards.
16. That the proposed 15 foot front yard setback be approved provided the HOA documents
include architectural requirements that require 4-sided architecture and garages facing the public right-of-ways to have windows and/or other architectural features. That the Landscape Plans receive approval from the City’s Landscape Architect and include revisions as mentioned in the Staff Report dated to the Planning Commission dated
December 11, 2017.
17. That the developer comply with any comments to be provided by the MnDNR.
City Council Meeting
January 16, 2018 Page 31
ITEM #
18. That if the park/open space within the southwest corner of the development is HOA-owned, that the developer provide deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements or other instruments for open space that prohibit future vegetative and topographic alterations
other than routine maintenance, construction of buildings or storage of vehicles and other
materials; and ensure preservation and maintenance of open space. 19. That the Applicant provide fencing around the stormwater ponds adjacent to the parks on the southeastern and southwestern portions of the site for the protection of park goers. 20. That all Fire Chief and Building Official comments be addressed.
21. That street names comply with City’s Street Naming Policy.
22. That the Applicant provide specific examples of proposed development signage, fencing, landscaping, lighting and site furnishings, including the clubhouse, that will adhere to the Lake Elmo Branding and Theming Study with the Final Plat and PUD Plans submittal. 23. That the Applicant submit and the City approve updated Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans
prior to submission of Final Plat and PUD Plans.
24. The proposed 7’/8’sideyard setbacks shall be approved by the City Engineer. 25. That the Applicant construct a bituminous trail extending south along the County right-of-way from 30th Way to the southerly plat limits (along the east side of Outlot C) and the County right-of-way should be graded for a future bituminous trail extension (grade ready
trail)/ a bituminous trail shall be constructed within the County right-of-way along the
storm sewer outfall pipe location. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application Narrative
2. Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans 3. Landscape Plans 4. Sewer Phasing Plan 5. Lot Exhibit
6. Shoreland Tier Analysis
7. Fire Chief and Building Official Comments 8. City Engineer Report 9. Washington County Memo 10. MNDNR Memo
11. Planning Commission Comments Memo from GWSA
12. Perimeter Distance Exhibit 13. Landscape Rendering 14. Hamlet on Sunfish Lake HOA Memo 15. MPCA SOC Amendment
north 00 45 18090
ISSUE
11-22-17
DRAWN BY
MKTYPE Preliminary Landscape PlanNorby & Associates
Landscape Architects
Inc.
200 East Second St
Chaska, MN 55318
(952) 361-0644
L.01
11/22/17Signed:
Date:Registration #:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly registered Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota
20144
USE (INCLUDING COPYING,DISTRIBUTION, AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT NORBY & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THERBY INDEMNIFY NORBY & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. OF ALL RESPONDSIBILITY. NORBY & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITMATE USEthe legacy at north star
north 00 50 200 100
1 & 2
L3
3 & 4
L3
1
L4
3
L4
2
L4
4
L4
ISSUE
11-22-17
DRAWN BY
MKTYPE Preliminary Landscape PlanNorby & Associates
Landscape Architects
Inc.
200 East Second St
Chaska, MN 55318
(952) 361-0644
L.02
11/22/17Signed:
Date:Registration #:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly registered Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota
20144
USE (INCLUDING COPYING,DISTRIBUTION, AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT NORBY & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THERBY INDEMNIFY NORBY & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. OF ALL RESPONDSIBILITY. NORBY & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITMATE USEthe legacy at north star
MAIN ENTARNCE PLAN
SCALE: 1'=10"
L3
1
MAIN ENTRANCE PERSPECTIVE
NO SCALE
L3
2
SECONDARY ENTARNCE PLAN
SCALE: 1'=10"
L3
3
SECONDARY ENTRANCE PERSPECTIVE
NO SCALE
L3
4
ISSUE
11-22-17
DRAWN BY
MKTYPE Preliminary Landscape PlanNorby & Associates
Landscape Architects
Inc.
200 East Second St
Chaska, MN 55318
(952) 361-0644
L.03
11/22/17Signed:
Date:Registration #:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly registered Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota
20144
USE (INCLUDING COPYING,DISTRIBUTION, AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT NORBY & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THERBY INDEMNIFY NORBY & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. OF ALL RESPONDSIBILITY. NORBY & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITMATE USEthe legacy at north star
NW GREEN SPACE PERSPECTIVE
NO SCALE
L4
1
PARK AREA PERSPECTIVE
NO SCALE
L4
2
SW GREEN SPACE PERSPECTIVE
NO SCALE
L4
3
LAKE ELMO AVE PERIMETER FENCE PERSPECTIVE
NO SCALE
L4
4
ISSUE
11-22-17
DRAWN BY
MKTYPE Preliminary Landscape PlanNorby & Associates
Landscape Architects
Inc.
200 East Second St
Chaska, MN 55318
(952) 361-0644
L.04
11/22/17Signed:
Date:Registration #:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly registered Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota
20144
USE (INCLUDING COPYING,DISTRIBUTION, AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT NORBY & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THERBY INDEMNIFY NORBY & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. OF ALL RESPONDSIBILITY. NORBY & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITMATE USEthe legacy at north star
From:Michael Bent
To:Emily Becker
Cc:Greg Malmquist
Subject:The Legacy at North Star - Development Review Comments
Date:Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:26:21 AM
The Legacy at North Star Development
Review Comments
Street Names:
The street numbers listed in various locations, 28th Way, 30th LN and 39th Way are not appropriate.
The street coming into of the NE corner of the development currently labeled 30th Way aligns with
39th St N across Lake Elmo Ave so this is the starting point for the numbering. This east/west street is
a continuation of 39th ST N.
The street coming into the development at the NE corner of the development labeled as 41 ST
should be 41st ST N. This aligns with the street into Village Preserve development east of Lake Elmo
Ave with the same name. This street is a continuation of 41st St N.
The east/west streets in between 39th ST N and 41st ST N will need to be relabeled and numbered
accordingly. Whether an ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ configuration is necessary is subject to review once
revised street names have been assigned.
There is a North/South street labeled as ‘Klayton Ave’. This street should be renamed, the City of
Lake Elmo already has a ‘Layton Ave’ and there is a large potential for confusion in an emergency
response situation to confuse addresses/streets with such similar names.
Fire Hydrants:
Hydrant locations throughout the development look adequate with the following exceptions:
A fire hydrant should be extended to the parking lot area of the proposed pool house. The hydrant
should be on the east side of the parking area to serve bothe the parking lot and the pool house.
A hydrant should be added to the development entry on the south end in a similar location as the
one located at the north entrance.
The hydrant on the street currently named Layton Ave, just to the east of Lot 141/142, should be
moved toward the south so it is centered between the intersection to the north and the intersection
to the south.
Street Terminations:
The two street terminations on the south side of the property intended as ‘future
extensions’ may need to be revised as cul de sacs due to the length of the extensions. The extension
on Kolten has lots on the extension and is long enough to need a turn-around at the south end.
Michael BentBuilding Official
City of Lake Elmo651-747-3910
mbent@lakeelmo.org
PAGE 1 of 7
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 5, 2017
To: Emily Becker, City Planner Re: Legacy at North Star
Cc: Chad Isakson, Assistant City Engineer Preliminary Plan Engineering Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Legacy at North Start Preliminary Plat/Plans received on
November 21, 2017. The submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by Sathre Bergquist, Inc.
unless otherwise noted:
Preliminary Plat Narrative dated September 29, 2017 and prepared by Gonyea Company.
Preliminary Plat, Sheets 1‐2, dated October 6, 2017.
ALTA Survey dated December 12, 2016.
Preliminary Plans dated October 5, 2017.
Stormwater Management Plan dated October 6, 2017 and prepared by AE2S.
Landscape Plans, Sheet LP1‐LP2, dated September 29, 2017 and prepared by Norby & Associates.
STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering has prepared the following review comments:
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Preliminary plat approval should be contingent upon all public improvements that support the development
being designed and constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual dated
March 2017.
Preliminary plat approval should also be contingent upon the preliminary plans being revised and approved
by the City prior to the City accepting an application or plans for final plat.
The preliminary plans must be revised so that Outlot naming is consistent throughout the Preliminary Plat
and Preliminary Plans. Since they differ throughout the submittal documents, these review comments
reference the Outlot names used from the Preliminary Plat.
Outlot A drainage and utility easement must be provided over all of Outlot A to incorporate all storm sewer,
the low area 100‐year HWL and over the entire emergency overland flow path. The drainage and utility
easement has been shown on the Preliminary Plat, but must also be shown on the utility and grading plans.
Outlot B includes a storm water pond that must be dedicated to the City as part of the Plat, including the
100‐year HWL and maintenance access road. Outlot ownership must be identified on the Preliminary Plat,
utility and grading plans. The pond maintenance road must be moved from the County right‐of‐way and
placed entirely within Outlot B. Grading must be provided to maintain a maximum grade of 10% throughout
the length of the maintenance access road. All emergency overflows and flow paths and storm sewer piping
must be protected by easement meeting City standard widths if not located in the City Outlot.
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 7
Outlot C includes a storm water pond that must be dedicated to the City as part of the Plat, including the
100‐year HWL and maintenance access road. The Outlot must be divided into 2 Outlots to provide City
ownership for the storm water system and private ownership for the Park facilities. Outlot ownership must
be identified on the Preliminary Plat, utility and grading plans. All emergency overflows and flow paths and
storm sewer piping must be protected by easement meeting City standard widths if not located in a City
Outlot. The pond maintenance access road must be included in the City owned Outlot and must extend
from the public right‐of‐way to the pond maintenance bench.
Outlot D includes a storm water pond that must be dedicated to the City as part of the Plat, including the
100‐year HWL and maintenance access road. Outlot ownership must be identified on the Preliminary Plat,
utility and grading plans. The pond maintenance road must be revised to provide more direct access and to
meet the maximum allowable grades of 10%, from the public right‐of‐way to the pond maintenance bench.
All emergency overflows and flow paths and storm sewer piping must be protected by easement meeting
City standard widths if not located in the City Outlot.
Outlot E includes a storm water pond that must be dedicated to the City as part of the Plat, including the
100‐year HWL and maintenance access road. Outlot E also includes a trail connecting to Hamlet on Sunfish
Lake. This Outlot must be divided into 3 Outlots to provide City ownership for the storm water system, City
ownership for the trail corridor (minimum 30 feet in width centered over the trail), and private ownership
for the open space. Outlot ownership must be identified on the Preliminary Plat, utility and grading plans.
All emergency overflows and flow paths and all utilities, including sanitary sewer and watermain extensions,
must be protected by easement meeting City standard widths if not located in a City Outlot.
Outlot F should be HOA owned and maintained. Outlot ownership must be identified on the Preliminary
Plat, utility and grading plans.
A drainage and utility easement meeting City minimum standards must be provided over the storm sewer
outfall pipe south of the plat. The permanent drainage and utility easement must be shown on the utility
and grading plans.
The street name must be corrected on the Preliminary Plat to Kolton Avenue for the portion of Kolton
Avenue that extends north of 39th Way.
All emergency overflow elevations must be fully protected by drainage easement. See grading plan
comments.
Drainage and utility easements are required over all storm sewer, sanitary sewer and watermain not located
on City Outlots and right‐of‐way, minimum 30‐feet in width centered on the pipe/structure. Easements
must be shown on the Preliminary Plat, Utility Plans and Grading Plans. Grading plans must be resubmitted
with lot easement information shown for City review.
Written landowner permission must be submitted as part of the final plat development applications for any
off‐site grading work and storm water discharges to adjacent properties.
Grading is proposed off‐site along several locations of the southern plat boundary, including
three storm water emergency overflow discharge locations.
Two storm water emergency overflow locations are proposed along the northern plat boundary.
Grading is proposed off‐site within the Washington County right‐of‐way, including construction
of the storm sewer outfall pipe and ditch grading.
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
Right‐of‐way dedication. The Plat must dedicate sufficient right‐of‐way along CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue)
as required by Washington County. The preliminary plat/plans show right‐of‐way being dedicated but do not
provide dimensions. In addition, the applicant does not indicate the right‐of‐way that is being required by
Washington County. Preliminary plat approval must be contingent upon the right‐of‐way dedication being
fully detailed and annotated on revised preliminary plat and plans and County correspondence must be
submitted to verify that Washington County is satisfied with the right‐of‐way dedication being proposed.
Access Management. The Preliminary Plat/Plans shows two access locations to Lake Elmo Avenue, one at
39th Street North and one at 41st Street North, approximately 1,160 feet apart. Both locations have been
PAGE 3 of 7
previously accepted by the City and Washington County and should be acceptable access locations for the
development.
Washington County Intersection Improvements. Preliminary Plat approval must be contingent upon the
developer constructing as part of the development project and at its sole cost all intersection improvements
recommended by Washington County. The preliminary plans show a left turn lane being constructed at the
30th Way/39th Street intersection. Additional improvements may need to be incorporated into the plans as
these intersections are further evaluated by Washington County and the City of Lake Elmo.
Pedestrian facilities. The Preliminary Plat should be contingent upon the plans including the necessary
pedestrian facilities and safety improvements as identified by Washington County and the City of Lake Elmo.
To accommodate pedestrian crossing at 39th Way and Village Preserve, the sidewalk along the south
side of 30th Way must be extended east to Lake Elmo Avenue with ADA pedestrian ramps. In
addition, the sidewalk should be extended on the west side of Lake Elmo Avenue along with
pedestrian ramps to complete the crossing improvement.
To accommodate pedestrian crossing at the 30th Way and 39th Street intersection, the sidewalk and
trail along 30th Way must be extended east to Lake Elmo Avenue with ADA pedestrian ramps. In
addition, the sidewalk and trail should be extended on the west side of Lake Elmo Avenue along
with pedestrian ramps to complete the crossing improvement.
A bituminous trail should be extended south along County right‐of‐way from 30th Way to the
southerly plat limits (along the east side of Outlot C) and the County right‐of‐way should be graded
for a future bituminous trail extension (grade ready trail) along the storm sewer Outfall pipe
location. This improvement is to initiate the construction of a trail connection to the preferred
pedestrian crossing location to the Lake Elmo Elementary School. The pedestrian crossing location
has been identified by Washington County.
RESIDENTIAL STREETS
All streets are proposed to be publicly owned and maintained. Public streets must be designed to meet the
City’s Engineering Design Standards including R/W width (60‐feet), street width (28‐feet) and cul‐de‐sac radii
(60‐foot radius R/W / 45‐foot radius pavement).
The proposed internal street network is well interconnected creating multiple access routes into and out of
the development. Only three cul‐de‐sacs have been proposed, each less than the maximum allowed length
of 600 feet.
Right‐of‐way and street stubs have been shown as part of this development to plan for connectivity to
adjacent properties with two connections to the south and one connection to the north.
The north right‐of‐way and street stub should be located to allow the northerly property to be able
to plat along a 2‐sided street as part of any future development of that site. The proposed plans
do not provide sufficient information to demonstrate that this condition has been satisfied.
Parkway or divided roadways must be a minimum of 19 feet wide each way from face of curb to face of curb.
The street plan proposes landscaped medians at the entrance points at 41st Street and 30th Way. The
entrance at 41st Street must be revised from 16‐foot street widths to the City minimum 19‐feet.
The proposed 276 lots will generate approximately 2,760 average vehicle trips per day. The development
layout will result in a greater distribution of this traffic to use 30th Way (easily exceeding 1,500 ADT). Due to
this traffic volume the segment of 30th Way from Lake Elmo Avenue to Kirby Avenue results on this street
meeting the criteria of a residential collector roadway. Accordingly, this segment of 30th Way should be
designed to meet the City design standards for a collector street.
It is therefore recommended that the intersection of Kolton Avenue and Kuzey Avenue, with 30th
Way, be aligned as single four way intersection to remove two intersections that are within close
proximity along a high volume residential street. If the proposed two intersections are allowed to
remain it is recommended that the minimum intersection offset distance be increased from 165‐
feet to 250‐feet as measured from the street centerlines, meeting collector street design standards.
PAGE 4 of 7
All street intersections must be at 90 degrees and maintain 50 feet of tangent with maximum slopes of 2.5%.
Tangents must be at least 100‐feet as they intersect Lake Elmo Avenue. Residential maximum longitudinal
grade is 6% where there are sidewalks.
The City standard minimum horizontal curve radius is 90.
Surmountable concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in single family residential areas with future
driveways and B618 curb installed along entrance roadways and roadway stretches with no lots or driveway
accesses.
Six (6) foot sidewalks must be provided along all residential streets and as may be required by the City for
connectivity.
The sidewalk along 30
th Way should be extended the full length of the street, rather than
terminating at Kolton Avenue.
The sidewalk along 30th Way should be moved to the south side of the street and the trail moved
to the north side to align with the existing conditions along 39th Street North.
The sidewalk along 39th Way changes from the south to the north side of the street at Kolton Avenue
requiring a pedestrian crossing at this full intersection. The sidewalk between Kolton Avenue and
Kirby Avenue should be moved to the south side of the street, thereby relocating the pedestrian
crossing to the “T” intersection” at Kirby Avenue.
Ten (10) foot utility easements are required on either side of all right‐of‐ways including along all Outlots.
Typical Street Sections must be revised on the Preliminary Plans as follows:
Typical sections must include all information consistent with City standard detail 805 including
street centerline location, right‐of‐way widths, 10‐foot utility easement corridors, boulevard trees
with City standard setbacks, and must show positive 4% boulevard grades to the street.
All typical sections must show boulevard trees on both sides of the street. Boulevard trees shall be
set back 5 feet from back of curb with trail/sidewalk and set back 8 feet from back of curb without
trail/sidewalk, unless otherwise noted below.
Trails and sidewalks shall be shown as 0.5 feet from the right‐of‐way.
When applicable the typical sections should show boulevard trees in the center median areas.
Proposed pavement sections must be clearly indicated for each street. 30th Way should be considered a
residential collector street with a minimum 9‐ton pavement section.
The ten parking spaces (bump outs) along 28th Street should be moved south a sufficient distance to allow
a standard perpendicular cross walk configuration.
GRADING PLAN, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND STORM SEWER SYSTEM
The site plan is subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD and City rules.
Storm water facilities proposed as part of the site plan to meet State and VBWD permitting requirements
must be constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual dated March 2017.
Preliminary Plan revisions are required to comply.
All plan revisions necessary to comply with VBWD and State permits must be resubmitted for City
review and approval.
The applicant’s Stormwater Management Plan incorporates storm water re‐use through lawn irrigation. The
applicant is proposing storm water re‐use to meet State and Watershed permit requirements for water
quality treatment (volume control). The practice is proposed in lieu of infiltration basins. Preliminary Plat
approval should be contingent upon the applicant submitting additional details on the proposed storm water
reuse system and ongoing operations for City review and consideration. Ownership, maintenance and
ongoing operational responsibilities must be clearly defined, and City acceptance of storm water reuse must
be contingent upon the City agreeing to the ongoing ownership, maintenance and operation plan, including
the execution of a storm water maintenance and easement agreement that addresses storm water reuse.
Stormwater re‐use, when implemented correctly can be an effective method to reduce reliance of
potable water use while reducing storm water discharges. It would help to reduce peak demands
PAGE 5 of 7
on the potable water system that typically occurs during the summer irrigation and landscape
watering season. These benefits make storm water re‐use worth consideration and pursuit.
However, the City currently has no design standards or guidelines for implementation of storm
water reuse and the ongoing operation and maintenance details must be developed for successful
implementation.
If storm water reuse is allowed, the storm water pond 100‐year HWL (pond hydraulic capacity) must be
determined without accounting for any water reuse from the system to ensure adequate flood protection
should the irrigation system be inoperable at the time of the flood event.
All storm water facilities, including infiltration basins, wetlands and wetland buffers, must be placed in
Outlots deeded to the City for maintenance purposes. The Stormwater Facility Outlots must fully incorporate
the 100‐year HWL, 10‐foot maintenance bench and all maintenance access roads. The NWL and 100‐year
HWL elevations, and 100‐year HWL contour must be shown for each storm water pond. This information is
not complete and must be revised for further review.
Stormwater Ponds must be constructed meeting City standards. Stormwater Wet Ponds are required to have
a minimum of 3 feet in depth to the NWL, constructed with 3:1 side slopes and both a 10:1 aquatic bench
and a 10:1 maintenance bench. All lots must have the minimum floor elevation at least 2 feet above any
BMP 100‐year HWL and at the 100‐year HWL shall not encroach onto any lot. These conditions appear to
have been met with the proposed preliminary plans.
Designated maintenance access roads, 20 feet in width, must be provided for all storm water facilities with
slope no greater than 10%.
Pond A maintenance access road must extend from the public right‐of‐way to the maintenance
bench with grades not exceeding 10%.
Pond B maintenance access road must be relocated so that it is not between to lots. The
maintenance access road must also extend from the public right‐of‐way to the maintenance bench
with grades not exceeding 10%.
Pond C maintenance access road must be relocated out of the County right‐of‐way and be placed
within the City Outlot.
Pond D maintenance access road must extend from the public right‐of‐way to the maintenance
bench with grades not exceeding 10%.
Per City requirements all storm sewer pipe easements must be a minimum 30‐feet in width. The grading
plans must be resubmitted showing lot easements for City review.
The 100‐year HWL must be calculated and placed on the plans for all rear yard catch basin areas. This
information is not shown for all catch basins. The grading plans must be resubmitted showing localized 100‐
year HWL contours for all rear yard catch basins and showing all lot easements for City review. The drainage
and utility easements must be sufficient to fully incorporate the localized 100‐year HWL.
All emergency overflow elevations must be fully protected by drainage easement or Outlot. The grading
plans must be revised and resubmitted to clearly identify all emergency overflow elevations and to clearly
distinguish the EOFs from all other spot elevations.
There are three locations where the controlling EOF appears to be located along Kirby Way or 30th
Way after the rear yard areas discharge to the adjacent street. Each lot low opening elevation must
be adjusted to the controlling EOF in the street.
The EOF located between Lots 268‐269 and the EOF located between Lots 210‐211 should be placed
on Outlots to protect the overflow points from future obstruction. These EOFs provide critical flood
protection for many lots.
The EOF at Lot 245 must be clarified.
The EOF path along the rear lot lines of Lots 60‐64 and Lots 113‐119 requires a more defined
drainage path for better protection against future obstruction.
The EOF path along the west side of the berm in Outlot B requires a more defined drainage patch
for better protection against future obstruction.
The maximum curb run prior to a catch basin is 350 feet. The preliminary plans appear to use 400 feet as the
maximum run. Therefore, additional catch basins will be required as follows:
PAGE 6 of 7
39th Way: Add CBs at STA 4+00.
39th Way: Add CB on south side of street at STA 10+30 (end of radius).
39th Way: Add CB on north side from H25.
39th Way: Relocate H26‐H30 to STA 17+00.
39th Way: Relocate H28‐H29 to STA 20+50.
37th Court: Relocate K4‐K5 to STA 3+30.
Kolton Avenue: Add CB on west side from D15.
Kirby Avenue: Add CB on west side from H31.
30th Way: Relocate H50‐H51 to STA 17+00.
30th Way: Add CBs at STA 15+00 (end of radius).
30th Lane: Add CBs at STA 2+00.
28th Way: Relocate I18 along with moving the parking spaces to keep trail cross walk clear of CB.
28th Way: Relocate B23‐B24 to STA 40+50.
28th Way: Add CBs at STA 43+50 (end of radius).
The grading must be revised to replace FES‐I14 with a beehive structure. Flared end section structures are
not allowed in rear yards.
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.
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
Municipal water supply is available immediately adjacent to the proposed development along Lake Elmo
Avenue. The developer is responsible to extend the municipal water supply into the site to support the
proposed development. All water system infrastructure must be designed to meet City standards and
constructed at the developer’s cost.
Watermain connections will be required at 39th Street North and Lake Elmo Avenue and at 41st Street
North and Lake Elmo Avenue. The watermain distribution lines have been looped within the subdivision
wherever reasonably possible.
Watermain stubs have been provided as required to the adjacent properties to the north, south and west
of the development. The watermain stub to the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake development should be relocated
further south to extend from the street near the south side of Lot 149.
Hydrant and system valve requirements and placement will be addressed as part of final plat and
construction plan review.
No trunk watermain oversizing is anticipated for this development. All watermains should be 8‐inch
diameter pipe.
MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER
Municipal sanitary sewer is available immediately adjacent to the proposed development at Lake Elmo
Avenue and 39th Street North. The developer is responsible to extend sanitary sewer into the site to support
the proposed development. All sewer infrastructure must be designed to meet City standards and
constructed at the developer’s cost.
The extension of sanitary sewer to the westerly plat boundaries is required to make a sanitary sewer
connection available to the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake (HOSL) private community wastewater treatment
system in an expedited manner. The applicant’s PUD narrative acknowledges this need.
A detailed sanitary sewer phasing plan must be provided with the Final Plat 1st Addition application to
address timely connection to sewer for the HOSL wastewater treatment system that includes, at a
minimum, dedicated right‐of‐way or utility easement extended to the easterly side of the plat.
Sanitary sewer pipe stubs have been provided as required to the adjacent properties to the north, south
and west of the development. The sanitary sewer stub to the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake development should
be relocated further south extending west from manhole 65.
PAGE 7 of 7
The sanitary sewer plan includes 10‐inch diameter sewer pipe oversizing along 30th Way from 39th Street
North to Hamlet on Sunfish Lake. Oversize pipe costs should be addressed as part of the development
agreements.
GENERAL PLAN COMMENTS
A detailed phasing plan must be provided with the Final Plat 1st Addition application that clearly indicates
the phasing of the construction for each public infrastructure component and addresses both construction
access to the site and public access for new residents. Temporary cul‐de‐sacs should be part of the phasing
plans and are required for any street with a platted lot with driveway access.
Landscape Plans should be reviewed and revised to avoid planting conflicts. Tree plantings must remain
outside of utility easements, including the small utility corridor, and clear from all storm water maintenance
benches and access roads. Tree plantings must be offset a minimum of 10 feet from watermains, sanitary
sewer mains, and storm sewers, and offset a minimum of 5 feet from water/sewer services.
CENTRAL REGION 1200 WARNER ROAD SAINT PAUL, MN 55106 651-259-5800
10/13/2017
Emily Becker
City Planner
3800 Laverne Ave N
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: North Star PUD Preliminary Plat Review, Located Partially in Shoreland District of Sunfish Lake (82010700)
Emily –
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced preliminary plat and PUD, located partially
in the shoreland district of Sunfish Lake (location: UTM X:508482; Y:4983522). Please forward this comment
letter to the Lake Elmo Planning Commission for consideration at the upcoming public hearing.
MNDNR has the following comments:
• The ordinary high water (OHW) elevation of Sunfish Lake is 896.4 feet (vertical datum NGVD 1929). This
is the elevation that should be used around the shore of Sunfish Lake to determine the location of the
shoreland district boundary. Please ensure that this elevation has been used to determine the shoreland
district boundary on the preliminary plat.
• Per the City’s shoreland ordinance and residential PUD standards, please require that a tiering analysis is
done by the developer to show that the proposed density meets the City’s shoreland PUD requirements.
• Prior to final approval, please ensure that the open space in the shoreland district is preserved and
maintained through the use of deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements, public dedication,
or other equally effective and permanent means (as required under the City’s shoreland PUD standards).
• Please ensure that all of the City’s shoreland PUD standards are met for the part of this development
that is within the shoreland district of Sunfish Lake.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Jenifer Sorensen
MN Department of Natural Resources
East Metro Area Hydrologist
1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106
651-259-5754; jenifer.sorensen@state.mn.us
Page 1
The Legacy at North Star – Planning Commission Review Memo
12.21.17
This is to help address some of the Planning Commission comments and concerns stated at
the 12/11/17 Meeting. The Planning Commission recommended our PUD variances to the V-LDR
district zoning for impervious surface, side yard setbacks, density and shortened front yard setback
for the villa product. Although the amenity points they calculate to justify our density increase
were enough, the amount of points allotted for one of the amenities was high and not entirely in our
control. There was also a lot of discussion about buffering. I stated some of my points below in the
meeting, but I wanted to give additional background where appropriate and expand on a few of the
points that I tried to make in the meeting. In reality, four to five residents showed up and three
voiced their concerns – all from the closest two neighborhoods that have a total of over 50 homes
combined. I acknowledge this development is quite different from their neighborhoods, but
compared to the guided land use, it isn’t much different. It does however provide a lot of amenities
that otherwise wouldn’t be possible under straight zoning and allows us to move forward ahead of
schedule in an effort to extend sewer to Hamlet. As mentioned in the Planning Commission
meeting, this development will fill a niche in Lake Elmo that currently isn’t available with the
amenities provided and variety of housing choices.
We believe that we have appropriately addressed all of the Conditions for Approval of the
Concept PUD based on feedback from Staff and comments received at the June 6, 2017 City Council
Meeting.
Exhibits
- Pictures of existing screening on the North of our project
- Development Map with distances to neighbors and open space areas (In Link)
- Landscape Plan (In Link)
- Rendering (In Link)
Buffer
- Buffering was mentioned at the June 6, 2017 City Council meeting but a distance barrier wasn’t
quantified. Staff recommended a landscape buffering in the presentation and based on the
comments received by Council Members, I wasn’t led to believe that anything other than what
was recommended by staff would be required. One resident and board member from Hamlet,
Mark Skeie, spoke and he only expressed a desire for a distance barrier in the southwest
portion of the western border to add space between our neighborhood and the closest
neighbor in the cul-de-sac. He went on to reference their septic pond north of there and the
buffering space provided in their development as adequate. Our preliminary plans provide a
minimum 150’ buffer in the southwest portion and the only homes located on the western
border are opposite their septic pond.
- In our initial meeting with City staff prior to putting the Schiltgen property under contract, we
were told that the buffer requirements were not expected to be 100’, much less 200’. The
understanding was that landscape screening would be required. Since that meeting, we have
made a significant investment in the City of Lake Elmo including the Village East Sanitary Sewer
project and Village Preserve to get into a position to develop The Legacy at North Star.
- The V-LDR ordinance allows encroachment on the overlay district if screening protected by
landscape easement is approved by Council.
- Prior to Preliminary Plat submittal, a Hamlet at Sunfish Lake board member indicated that a
100’ buffer wouldn’t be necessary, but a year round visual buffer would be helpful.
- The current landscape plan shows 224 trees around the edges of the property. 90% are on the
west and north. Trees are planted as thick as possible without jeopardizing the health and long
term growth of the trees.
- Berming – The site and stormwater management do not allow for a lot of berming. Berming on
the west and north of the property will not have the desired impact with the current
landscaping in place (heavy trees on the north) and lower elevation of our project on the west
compared to the neighboring homes.
- There is currently large, mature, evergreen trees on the north between our project and the
neighbor on the northeast as well as the neighborhood on the northwest. The neighbor in the
middle is on the other side of a hill and we have heavy trees along the property line in this
section shown on the landscape plan.
- The elevation of the homes located in the development to the west that back up to our property
is significantly higher. They currently look down on the Schiltgen property so any amount of
berming or screening (landscape or fence) to alter their view is difficult, if not impossible. We
have heavy trees planned, but whether a distance buffer is 0 or 100 feet, the view is going to be
the same. There are six homes on the west property line with 22 back yard screening trees
shown on the landscape plan. The six homes take up approximately 400’ of the 1,650’ western
border of our property; the remaining 1,250’ will have a minimum 149’ buffer. In comparison,
our concept plan had 22 homes along the west property line. Our current buffer is
approximately 250’ in the southwest corner where the closest neighbor is located and it should
be noted that Hamlet’s buffer in that portion of their development is only 69’.
- Per the development map with dimensions, our closest neighbor (structure to structure) is
269’ to the north where there is the most existing screening (see pictures). The closest
neighbor on the west is 353’ away (structure to structure).
Amenity Points
- Staff recommended 20 amenity points, more than enough to justify the extra density. The Lake
Elmo Elementary School crossing wasn’t included in their total.
- Staff explained in the Planning Commission meeting that PUD regulations has a section for
“Amenity Points Not Listed”. The majority of the amenity points listed as options in the
regulations are more applicable to commercial development and would provide little benefit to
a residential development. We feel we are utilizing all of the amenity points that are applicable
and most beneficial to a residential development plus many more that aren’t listed. The pool,
clubhouse and playground area, Lake Elmo themed fencing and monuments, stormwater re-use
irrigation system, and landscaping combined, conservatively amount to over $1.5M. That
doesn’t include the trail, land given up for park/open space and other Lake Elmo theming
elements.
- It was debated whether or not extending sewer to Hamlet is worth Amenity Points. One of the
main reasons this project is coming forward at this time is to get sewer extended to Hamlet
prior to the MPCA 2020 deadline. I have been very honest with Mr. Narum and Hamlet as well
as the City that due to the amount of V-LDR lots that have been platted in Lake Elmo, it would
be very hard to move forward with a plan requiring that zoning. I have been in constant
contact with Mr. Narum for the last two years and have met with Hamlet representatives and
the City about timing and alternatives. Not until I was contacted by City staff in February 2017
indicating that there is some support for higher density in the Village, did we start to come up
with the concept of smaller lots and more density to make this a viable project. The plan that is
put forward should allow for higher absorption that ideally will get sewer extended to Hamlet
by their deadline. If we fall short of anticipated absorption rates, we will provide an easement
with Final Plat that will allow for the extension per the engineer’s comments. A concept with V-
LDR lots will never get there in time. We are experiencing a .5 absorption rate per month in
Village Preserve on lots that fit the V-LDR zoning and +/- 4 times that rate on the smaller 66’
lots that are proposed as part of North Star. We feel the smaller 55’ single family and villa lots
will match or exceed that absorption. With an absorption of .5 lots per month, we will never be
able to build through our first phase fast enough to meet the December 2020 deadline. As
mentioned, the inventory of V-LDR lots in Lake Elmo is very high and the market isn’t willing to
pay what is needed to sell the home package that will fit on that lot size (at least custom
homebuilder packages). Not to mention, the market in general is moving away from that lot
size, type and product. Buyers aren’t willing to pay the land premium for the extra space in
their yard, they would rather invest in upgrades to the home. People also don’t want to
maintain the extra space with their busy schedules as long as there is park and open space
provided in the neighborhood.
- Planning Commission did come up with enough points to justify the density, but they weighed
heavily on a trail and crossing to Lake Elmo Elementary that is completely out of our control. I
haven’t approached the subject with Mr. Schiltgen recently, but I know originally he and Molly
didn’t have a desire for a trail due to potential liability issues. We would be happy to try and
approach the subject again with Mr. Schiltgen, but we don’t feel that is a condition that should
factor into our Amenity Point calculation.
Lake Elmo Avenue Traffic and Development Access
- To the best of my knowledge, Washington County has reviewed and traffic on Lake Elmo
Avenue isn’t a concern.
- The two access points are what’s required for a development of this size plus the extra stubs
recommended by City staff and engineering. The two stubs to the south were questioned by
Planning Commission but these were recommended changes from Concept.
Park
- We would like to either dedicate the park to the City and receive credit, or if the City would like
fees, we would prefer to keep it as an HOA owned park. I originally stated that we would
dedicate to the City and maintain, but there are liability concerns associated with the HOA that
make that difficult. If the City wants the park, we would be open to negotiating something
where we would build it, donate the funds to build it, or only get credit for the land minus the
estimated improvements. If the park isn’t dedicated, we will dedicate an area for a potential
trail connection as recommended by staff.
Open Space Calculations
- The amount of open space was questioned by Planning Commission. The areas are shown on
the development map along with the distances to neighboring structures and widths of open
space areas.
Staff and Engineering recommendations
After reviewing staff and engineering recommendations with my engineering firm, Sathre-
Bergquist, two safety concerns were brought up that I would like to mention. I will bring these up
with staff.
- Pond Fencing in park areas – I understand that the intent of this recommendation is to provide
more safety, but it is often argued that fencing ponds is less safe. Fencing might discourage
toddlers and other people from accessing ponds, but can be viewed as a challenge to some
adventurous children and older youth. If an accident occurs, the fence may hamper rescue
efforts. Cities have design standards and practices for slopes and benches that generally make
fencing unnecessary. In addition to the safety concern, fencing hampers mowing and
maintenance while collecting debris. In Village Preserve we were required to leave a gap in our
fencing on each end of the development for maintenance access. Village Preserve was also
approved with a pond without fencing next to the dedicated City owned park.
- Lake Elmo Elementary Crossing – As mentioned, this was listed as a way to gain Amenity Points
by Planning Commission. We are certainly open to discussing with Mr. Schiltgen, but based on
previous discussions, it’s likely not an option. When reviewing with my engineer, he noted that
Washington County and staff identified a preferred location, but he asked if the Stillwater
School District had reviewed and given their approval. We have built two developments in
Plymouth adjacent to elementary schools and our engineer stated that Wayzata School District
would most definitely be against a school crossing on a County Road – they would not want to
promote or encourage kids crossing such a heavily travelled road.
Pictures of Existing Screening on following page.
Northeast Property Line:
Northwest Property Line:
SITTINGAREAVIEWINGAREAGATHERINGAREAVIEWINGAREAENTRYMONUMENTDECORATIVEFENCEDECORATIVEFENCEENTRYMONUMENT8' BIT. TRAIL
8' BIT. TRAIL8' BIT. TRAIL8' BIT. TRAIL
6' CONC. WALK 6' CONC. WALK 6' CONC. WALK6' CONC. WALK6' CONC. WALK6' CONC. WALK6' CONC. WALK6' CONC. WALK
6' CONC. WALK
6' CONC. WALK6' CONC. WALK6' CON
C
.
W
A
L
K
6' CONC. WALK
6' CONC. WALK 6' CONC. WALK
6' CONC. WALK
6' CONC. WALK 6' CONC. WALK6' CONC. WALK
6' CONC. WALK6' CONC. WALK6' CONC. WALK6' CONC. WALK
6' CONC. WALK
6' CONC. WALK 6' CONC. WALK6' CONC. WALK6'
CONC
.
WALK6' CONC. WALK6' CONC. WALK
6' CONC. WALK
6' CO
N
C
.
W
A
L
K6' CONC. WALK8' BIT. TRAIL8' BIT. TRAIL8' BIT. TRAIL8' BIT. TRAIL8' BIT. TRAIL6' CONC. WALK
6' CONC. WALK6' CONC
.
WALK
41
S
T
S
T
10:
1
MA
INTENANCE10:1
AQUAT
IC
10
:
1
M
A
I
N
T
EN
A
NCE
1
0
:
1
AQ
U
A
T
IC10:1 MAINTENANCE10:1 AQUATIC10:1
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
10:1
A
Q
U
A
T
I
C10:1 MAINTENANCE10:1 AQUATIC
OUTLOT FOUTLOT AOUTLOT BOUTLOT COUTLOT DOUTLOT EOUTLOT C 39TH WAY39TH WAY39TH WAY39TH WAY39TH WAY28TH WAY28TH WAY28TH WAYKIERAN AVEKUZEY AVE
KUZE
Y
A
V
E29TH COURT30TH WAY30TH WAY30TH WAY30TH WAY30TH WAY30TH WAY30TH LN30TH LN 30TH WAY37TH WAY
37TH WAYKIRBY AVE KIRBY AV
E
KLAYTON AVE KLAYTON AVE
KOLTON
A
V
E KOLTON AVE
33RD COURT37TH COURT30TH LNLAKE ELMO AVE C.S.A.H. No. 17 LAKE ELMO AVE C.S.A.H. No. 17x 945.93x 945.78x 945.47x 945.22x 944.63x 944.29x 943.78x 943.85EOF HWL: 955.5HWL: 954.2HWL: 951.4HWL: 951.4HWL: 954.6HWL: 951.4HWL: 946.2HWL: 948.0HWL: 947.4HWL: 945.3HWL: 945.3HWL: 945.3HWL: 945.2HWL: 946.4
HWL: 9
43
.
5
FUTURE ROWKOLTON AVEx 944.5EOFx 945.0x 946.0x 949.0EOFx 947.0x 948.5x 948.0x 947.0x 946.0x 945.0x 946
.0x 94
6
.
0x 945.0x 941.0EOFx 942.0x 948.0x 94
7
.
0
L
P
x 949.
0
H
P
EOFX 949.0x 941.0EOFx 952.0x 953.0x 954.0x 955.0x 957.0x 956.0x 955.0x 954.0x 955.0 x 957.0x 961.0x 960.0x 958.0x 956.0x 952.0x 953.5EOFx 949.0x 950.0x 951.0x 952.0x 953.0x 954
.0x 953.0x 951.0x 953.0x 954.0x 953.0x 952.0x 951.0x 950.0x 954.0x 955.0x 956.0x 955.0x 956.0x 957.0x 958.0x 959.0x 960.0x 961.0
x 949.0EOFx 949.0x 950.0 HPx 949.0x 950.0x 949.0x 950.0 HPx 949.0x 948.0 LPx 949.0 HPx 948.0x 946.0 LPx 947
.0x 948.0x 953.0x 951.0x 950.0 LPx 951.0 HPx 950.0x 949.0x 946.0 LPx 947.0 HPx 946.0 LPx 947.0x 945.5 LPx 946.0x 947.0x
9
4
8
.0x 949.0x 948.0x 949.0x 951.0x 945.5EOFx 946.0x 947.0x 948.0x 951.0x 957.0x 958.0x 954.0x 954.0x 956.0x 957.0x 958.0 HPx 955.0x 948
.
0
x 949
.
0
H
P x 952.0x 949.0 LPx 951.0x 948.
0
x 947.
0
L
P
x 947.
5
H
P
x 947
.
0
x 946.
5
x 950
.0
x
9
5
0
.
0
x 951
.0SecondaryEOFx 943.0x 944.0HPx 943.0 LPx 943.0x 942.0 LPx 943.0x 944.0x 946.0EOFx 946.0 HPx 945.0x 945.0x 946.0 HPx 945.0 LPx 946.0x 947.0EOFx 946.5x 946.0x 947.0x 947.0x 948.0 HPx 947.0x 946.0 LPx 948.0x 948.0 HPx 947.0 LPx 943.0x 942.0x 44
x
46x 942.0x 944.0x 947.0x 948.0x 948.0x 956.0x
9
4
3
.
0
x 944.0x 945.0x 951.0x 950.0x 944.0x 942.0x 943.0x 952.0x 942.0x 943.0x 944.0x 945.0-HPx 942.0x 943.0x 944.0x 943.0 EOFx
9
4
8
.
0x 947.0EOFx 947.0EOFx 947
.
0
L
P
x 948
.
0
x 948.
0
x 948.5x 944.0x
9
4
5
.
0
x 943.0x 943.0L.P.x 943.0L.P.x 944.0x 9
4
4
.
0
x 9
4
8
.
0
x 943.0x 946.0x 944.0 LPx 947.0x 947.0x 946.0x 946.0L.P.x 947.0x 953.0x 952.0x 953.0x 954.0x 953.5x 939.0x 942.0x 947.0x 943.0x 944.0x 943.0L.P.x 944.0H.P.x 943.0L.P.x 942.5L.P.x 944.0H.P.x 946.0x 947.0x 945.0x 949.0x 949.0x 947
.0EOFx 947.5H.P.x 947.0x 945
.0x 944.0 LPx 943.0x 943.0 EOFx 950.0x 948.0x 949.0x 948.0x 944.0x 943.0 HPx 944.5x 948.5x 945.5x 945.0x 949
.
0
x
954
.0
x
9
5
2
.
0
x 941.0EOFx 941.0x 942.0x 941.5x 942.0x 941.0L.P.x 943.0H.P.x 950.0x 944.0x 943.0x 942.0x 942.0x 943.0H.P.x 942.0L.P.x 944.0L.P.x 945.0H.P.x 945.0x 946.0x 944.0x 948.0x 949.0x 945.0H.P.x 949.5-HPx 949.0x 943.5x 944.0WO 1' dropx 941.0x 942.0943.0 xx 949.0x 947.0x 948.0 LPx 948.0x 949.0x 948.5 LPx 948.0 LPx 955.0x 948.
0
x 948
.
0
L
P
x 949
.
0
x 950.
0
H
P
x 949.0 x 949.0x 950.0x 950.0x 948.0 LPx 950.0x
9
4
8
.
0
x
9
4
7
.
0
x
9
4
5
.
0
x
9
4
4
.
0
x
9
4
3
.
0
x
9
4
4
.
0
x 94
9
.
0
H
P
x 948
.
0
x 946.
0
L
P
x 946.
0
x 945.
0
L
P
x 946.
0
x 947.
0
x 950.
0
x 94
7
.
5
x 94
7
.
0
L
P
x 951.0 HP
x
9
4
5
.
0
x
9
4
4
.
0x 944.0EOFx
44
x 4643 x
x 946.0
INV: 933.5INV
:
932
.015" DIP2.40.31.32.00.70.90.40.90.6BUFFER TREESCONTQTYDeciduous Screen Tree2.5" BB42Ornamental Screen Tree2.5" BB39Coniferous Screen Tree6` BB143STREET TREESCONTQTYDeciduous Street Tree2.5" BB284GROUND COVERSQTYPrairie Upland Dry Mix73,688 sfPrairie Wet Mesic Mix59,690 sfPLANT SCHEDULELP2FILE NO.CITY PROJECT NO.DRAWING NAMEREVISIONSDATEBYNO.DRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATE11/20/17KNMKLandscape PlanPROJECT NAME AND NUMBERNORTHLP2---LAKE ELMO,MINNESOTAI hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared byme or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registeredLandscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Signed: _________________________________________Date: _______________ Registration #: ______________USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND/OR CONVEYANCE OFINFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT NORBY& ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTENAUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES ANILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY NORBY & ASSOCIATESLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC. OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. NORBY &ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLDANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGESOR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITMATE USE.20050100050100SCALE IN FEETPRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANTHE LEGACY AT NORTH STAR
To: Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission and City Planner
From: Hamlet of Sunfish Lake HOA Board
Date: 1/10/2018
Subject: Northstar Development
We would like to clarify our position on several topics –
Connection to city sewer –
Our current system is functioning adequately as a Class II system. Due to a rule change on how
the amount of treatment capacity is calculated our system must now meet the levels of a Class I
system. The HOA wants to connect to the city sewer system rather than going to the expense
of upgrading our sewer to meet the Class I designation. Based on that decision we have
entered a Schedule of Compliance (Schedule) between the MPCA and the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake
Homeowners Association, Inc. The initial agreement was that the HOA be connected by 2016. We were
granted an extension to the end of 2020. This document is attached. If we are not on schedule to be
connected by the end of 2020 we would need to start the permitting process to upgrade our current
system.
We are extremely interested in connecting to the city sewer system before the end of 2020 dead line.
Connect to City Walking Paths –
The HOA is interested in connecting to Tapestry. However about 50% of our members have voiced
concerns with connecting to the Northstar development. We have a gazebo and dock that are
connected to our trails. These are of concern to us. This will take some time to work through.
We would accept the suggestion of the city planner to set up an easement for connection of the paths
in the future when we have the majority of our members in agreement to connect and make the path
public.
Buffering between Hamlet on Sunfish Lake and Northstar –
The east side of our development where the proposed development would be has very few trees to
buffer the view. The proposed buffer area on the 6 homes backing up to the HOA is too small.
We would accept the suggestion of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to maintain a 100
foot buffer on the west edge of the Northstar development.