HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-16-18 meeting packet 2 of 2BUSINESS ITEM 4D – Public Hearing
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 1/16/18 REGULAR
AGENDA ITEM: #17 TO: City Council FROM: Emily Becker, Planning Director ITEM: Wyndham Village Subdivision Sketch Plan Review and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
REVIEWED BY: Ben Gozola, Consultant City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer
BACKGROUND:
The Council considered a proposed Subdivision Sketch Plan Review and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide the development area from Rural Single Family to Village Low Density Residential for the proposed development Wyndham Village at its November 21, 2017 meeting. The
Council did not feel comfortable with allowing the proposed density increase because it was felt that the sketch plan did not propose sufficient backyards.
REVIEW/ANALYSIS: Usable Backyard Issue. The developer has revised the proposed sketch plan that was previously
submitted to the Council for review. The previous sketch plan did not provide backyards that the City had felt were usable, as a 66 foot wide Northern Natural Gas Easement ran along the majority of the backyards of the lots to the west of Liberty Court North. The revised plan reduces the number of proposed lots from 13 to 10, reducing the proposed density from 2.17 units per acre to 1.67 units per
acre. Additionally, the developer has provided an exhibit which shows proposed building pad locations that show a 20 foot rear yard principal building setback from the Northern Natural Gas Easement. This exhibit shows that a pool and play set could reasonably fit within these backyards. The standard setback for properties located within the Village Low Density Residential Zoning District is 20 feet, and so Staff believes that so long as the lots in which the Northern Natural Gas
Easement is located maintain a 20 foot principal building rear yard setback from the easement that these proposed lots will provide a sufficient rear yard. Increased Density Issue. As mentioned above, the revised sketch plan reduces the proposed density
from 2.17 units per acre to 1.67 units per acre. The allowed density within the Village Urban Low Density Residential land use is 1.5-2.49 units per acre, and the allowed density within the Rural Single Family Sewered land use category is 0.66-2 units per acre. Greenbelt Buffer. The updated sketch plan increases the greenbelt buffer to the south of the development. The previously-provided buffer was only approximately 40 feet in width, and the applicant has increased the buffer to approximately 80 feet.
2
MUSA and Rural Single Family Sewered Land Use Option. The proposed development is
within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), and sewer will be made available through
Northport, the development to the north and east of the proposed development. Areas within the City that are included in the MUSA must be developed at an average of three units per acre. In 2016, the City created a new land use that is called Rural Single Family – Sewered. This land use is intended for properties that were platted for conventional subdivision prior to 2005 that have
been (and will continue to be) serviced by private on-site well and septic systems, unless within
the MUSA area. If within a MUSA, the City Council may consider connection to the sanitary sewer system where practical. While the property does have the option of being re-guided to this land use category, this option is not recommended by Staff for the following reasons:
• Lot Size Variances Needed. The smallest the lot sizes allowed would be 24,000 square
feet, and the smallest lot size proposed in the revised plan is 11,184 square feet, with only one lot meeting the required minimum lot size. Therefore, variances would be required for most of the lots within the proposed subdivision.
• Spot Zoning. Additionally, Northport (the development to the north and east of the
proposed development) is guided for Village Urban Low Density. This proposal would essentially be an extension of the Village Urban Low Density land use that currently exists. There are no properties adjacent to the proposed development that are guided for Rural Single Family Sewered, and therefore re-guiding the proposed development to
Rural Single Family Sewered could be considered spot zoning.
If the Council does feel that the development should instead be re-guided to Rural Single Family Sewered, the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment should be denied, as the public hearing advertised was specifically to re-guide the proposed development to Village Urban Low Density Residential. A new public hearing notice would need to be advertised. Staff has prepared a
Resolution denying the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment that the Council may adopt if
it so chooses.
Recommended Findings. Staff recommends the following findings in regards to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
1. That the Applicant has submitted a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan in
accordance with the procedures as established by the Lake Elmo Planning Department and
Lake Elmo Planning Commission; and
2. That the request is to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan:
a. On page III-11, updating Table 3-B to reflect proposed increased acreage of Village
Urban Low Density Residential and decreased acreage of Rural Single Family.
b. Updating Map 3-3 – the planned land use map.
3. That the proposed amendments are consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in that the Property is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area.
Recommended Conditions of Approval. Staff recommends the following conditions in regards
to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
3
1. Submission of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council and the
receipt of formal notification from the Metropolitan Council that its review has been
completed and approved.
2. That the Applicant obtain Preliminary Plat approval from the City that meets the following:
a. Required densities of the Village Urban Low Density land use category.
b. Provides a sufficient Greenbelt Corridor as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan and
approved by the City.
c. Provides usable rear yards for lots in which the Northern Natural Gas Company
Easement (Document 384029) (“Northern Easement”) is located, as determined by the
City by maintaining a 20 foot principal building rear yard setback from the Northern
Natural Gas Company Easement.
d. All other applicable standards including but not limited to City Engineer Design
Standards, Valley Branch Watershed District requirements, and zoning standards.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There would be no fiscal impact to the City at this time, as the developer would be required to pay for any amendments needed to accommodate the increase in REC units. Concept Plan approval does not afford the applicant development rights. When the property develops, it will have urban
services and will pay sewer and water connection charges, building permit fees and the like.
OPTIONS:
• Approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment re-guiding the proposed development to Village Urban Low Density Residential with Staff-recommended findings and conditions of approval.
• Amend Staff-recommended findings and conditions of approval for the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment re-guiding the proposed development to Village Urban Low Density Residential and approve with amended findings and conditions.
• Deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment with Staff-recommended findings.
• Amend Staff-recommended findings and conditions for denial of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment re-guiding the proposed development to Village Urban Low Density Residential and deny with amended findings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and Planning Commission are recommending approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide PID# 13.029.21.43.0001 from Rural Single Family to Village Urban Low Density, based on the recommended findings and conditions of approval.
“Move to adopt Resolution 2018-006 approving the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide PID# 13.029.21.43.0001 from Rural Single Family to Village Urban Low Density, based on the recommended findings and conditions of approval.”
Alternatively, if the Council feels that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment should be denied, Staff
has prepared a Resolution for denial with recommended findings.
4
“Move to adopt Resolution 2018-006 denying the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide PID# 13.029.21.43.0001 from Rural Single Family to Village Urban Low Density, based on
the recommended findings.”
Staff is recommending that the Council accept the revised Sketch Plan provided by JP Bush Homes for a 10 unit single family detached residential development of PID#13.029.21.43.0001.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Revised Subdivision Sketch Plan 2. Building Pad Location Exhibit
3. Previous Council Packet Item from 11/21/2017 4. Resolution 2018-006 approving the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 5. Resolution 2018-006 denying the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
BUSINESS ITEM 4D – Public Hearing
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 11/21/17 REGULAR
AGENDA ITEM: 15 TO: City Council FROM: Emily Becker, Planning Director ITEM: Wyndham Village Subdivision Sketch Plan Review and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
REVIEWED BY: Ben Gozola, Consultant City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer
BACKGROUND:
The Council is being asked to review a Sketch Plan for a proposed residential subdivision to the southwest of Northport (formerly known as Village Park Preserve) and immediately north of the Heritage Farm. The sketch plan includes 13 single-family residential detached homes on a total site
area of 5.97 acres. A Sketch Plan review requires no formal action by the Planning Commission. The applicant is also requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide the proposed development area from Rural Single Family to Urban Low Density. The aforementioned request requires review, a public hearing and recommendation to the Council.
General Information
Applicant: JP Bush Homes, 1980 Quasar Ave S, Lakeland, MN 55043
Property Owners: James McLeod, 11580 30th St N, Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Location: Part of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 13, Township 29 North, Range 21West
PID: 13-029-21-43-0001
Request: Sketch Plan Review
Existing Land Use: Vacant
Existing Zoning: RS – Rural Single Family
Surrounding Area: North – Northport (Urban Low Density Residential); East – Northport
(Urban Low Density Residential); West – Rural Single Family Residential; South – the Homestead (Open Space Preservation Development)
Comprehensive Plan: Rural Single Family Density Residential (0.66-2 units per acre)
Proposed Zoning: LDR – Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 - 4 units per acre)
History: The property has long been used as a single family detached dwelling unit
2
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 10/20/2017 60 Day Timeline – 12/19/2017 Extension Sent – N/A
Applicable Regulations: Article XII – Urban Residential Districts (LDR) Chapter 153: Subdivision Regulations
REVIEW/ANALYSIS:
SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
Sketch Plan Review Process. The Lake Elmo Subdivision Ordinance specifies that as part of the pre-application process for a new subdivision, the applicant must first submit a Sketch Plan for review by the City. The Ordinance notes that the purpose of the Sketch Plan review is as follows:
Sketch plan. In order to ensure that all applicants are informed of the procedural
requirements and minimum standards of this chapter and the requirements or limitations imposed by other city ordinances or plans, prior to the development of a preliminary plat, the subdivider shall meet with the Planning Commission and prepare a sketch plan which
explains or illustrates the proposed subdivision and its purpose. The Planning Commission
shall accept the information received, but take no formal or informal action which could be construed as approval or denial of the proposed plat.
Based on this wording, the Council is not being asked to take any formal action as part of the Sketch Plan Review other than to accept the information received. Staff has completed an internal review of the Sketch Plan, and general comments from Staff are included in this memorandum and applicable
attachment.
Sketch Plan Review. The Staff review comments that follow are all based on conducting a very high level review of the Sketch Plan since there is not a lot of detailed information that is required at this stage in the subdivision process. Staff has instead focused on the bigger picture items and those
things that would otherwise not allow the development to move forward if they contrasted with elements from the Comprehensive Plan or the City Code.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Required. The Property is currently guided for the Rural Single Family land use, which allows a density of 0.66-2 units per acre. Because the Applicant is proposing
a density of 2.17 units per acre, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be required in order to
allow for a higher density. The Applicant has submitted a formal application, and this request is discussed later in this report.
Zoning Map Amendment. If the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved, the property will need to be rezoned during Preliminary Plat approval. The properties to the north and
east of the subject parcel are guided for Village Urban Low Density (V-LDR) and have been re-zoned to Urban Low Density Residential. This was because when these properties received Preliminary Plat approval, there did not exist a Village Urban Low Density zoning district. The V-LDR ordinance was created on 5/26/17, and so while this property could be rezoned to V-LDR, Staff
would recommend that the property be re-zoned similarly to those of adjacent properties in order to avoid spot zoning. The Zoning Code states that densities within the Urban Low Density Zoning District shall range from two 2 to 4 units per acre; however, the overall density for a specific development area must be consistent with the net densities specified in the Comprehensive Plan.
3
Because the proposed density of the development is consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and is within 2 to 4 units per acre, it would be appropriate to rezone the development area to Urban Low Density Residential.
Land Use. The proposed land use within the development are single family detached homes, which are a permitted use within the Urban Low Density Residential zoning district.
Greenbelt Corridor. As previously mentioned, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that a greenbelt corridor should be established on the southern border of the proposed development. The greenbelt corridor is meant to serve as a transitional area between future sewered growth within the Village and
existing rural development. The Comprehensive Plan states the following in regards to the greenbelt corridor.
“Greenbelt Corridors. Greenbelt Corridors run along the perimeter of proposed
development and serve as transitional areas between future sewered growth within the
Village and existing rural development. The corridor may be reduced if the design of the development includes the following: (1) a design that is mindful of the landscape features of the site, providing enhanced environmental benefit, (2) a design that is consistent with
overall goals for the Village Land Use Plan, and (3) a design that meets the requirements of
the underlying land use category of the parcel. At a minimum, the corridor shall be established and provided for by performance standards within the Zoning Code based upon the locations of the existing Village Boundary and area guided for commercial use in the northeastern portion of the Village. Not only will this provide a significant physical and
visual amenity, but it will also encourage more residential development closer to the Village
Center. Uses within the Greenbelt Corridor may include trails, passive recreation, public gathering spaces, natural areas, storm water management systems, natural water courses, small-scale or community oriented agricultural activities and other amenities intended for
aesthetic enjoyment.”
The above language does not indicate an exact width requirement for the corridor, though it appears through using a scale on the land use map that the width of the corridor is 200 feet. The proposed width of the buffer at its narrowest for this development is 40 feet. The proposed buffer’s proposed use consists of a water treatment swale, which is an approved use as outlined above. Northport, to the
east of the proposed development, had a buffer width of approximately 125 feet from the southern
edge of the plat. The exhibit below shows how the lots within the proposed development extend further south than the Northport development.
4
It should be noted, however, that the Urban Residential Districts Article of the Zoning Code indicates the following in regards to required setbacks for lots within this area:
“C. Lots Adjacent to Public Greenway Corridors. On any lot that abuts a public greenway as depicted in the Comprehensive Plan the minimum setback for all structures, including
accessory buildings, shall be the required rear yard setback for the district in which said structure is located.”
Additional Buffer/Screening Recommended. Because the buffer appears to encroach half way up the development as shown below, this requirement would not be able to be met with the proposed design. The southern boundary of the subdivision is along the north boulevard of 30th Street North
and proposes two storm water ponds connected by a drainage swale. It is recommended that additional space be allocated at elevations higher than 30th Street to create a vegetative buffer between the lots and this collector street.
5
Lake Elmo Theming Study. The proposed development is within the Old Village Area. As the applicant prepares Preliminary Plans for the proposed subdivision, staff would recommend that various elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study be included in the proposed plans.
Park Dedication. The proposed development is to the east of Reid Park. With recording of the
Northport plat, the City received approximately an additional 12.5 acres of parkland for an extension of Reid Park. The Neighborhood Park Search Area map of the Comprehensive Plan’s Parks and Recreation Plan does not identify this area for a neighborhood park. Therefore, Staff would not recommend that parkland be dedicated within this development and that the City accept fees in lieu of parkland dedication. Per the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, 10% of the fair market value of the
land will need to be paid as the parkland dedication fee. The fair market value of the land is determined by current market data, if available, or by obtaining an appraisal from a licensed real estate appraiser, and the subdivider is required to pay for the appraisal. In this case, if the owner of the property will be selling the land to the Applicant to be developed, there will be current market
data available. If the owner is not selling the land, an appraisal to determine the fair market value will likely be required in order to determine the amount of parkland dedication the City will receive. The Parks Commission will review the proposed sketch plan on November 20, 2017.
Trails. No trails are being proposed within the development, only a sidewalk on the west side of
Liberty Court North. There is already a trail along the south of 30th Street, and the developers of
Northport will be constructing a segment of a trail from the southern edge of that development off Liberty Court North. This trail segment will not connect to the existing trails in Reid Park, however, as approved by Council. The City may extend this trail through to the existing trails in Reid Park in
Subject property
6
the future. The City’s trail plan indicates a trail along 30th Street North, which already exists on the south side of the street.
Access. Access to the proposed lots will be provided from Lower 31st Street North to the north of the subject property (part of the Northport development). Access to this parcel was pre-planned with the adjacent subdivision in order to preserve the proper access management along 30th Street North. The existing driveway will be eliminated as suggested by Staff. Access to the new Lot 8 is proposed to be
provided via a 20 foot wide driveway easement off the cul-de-sac of Liberty Court North. The City Engineer is recommending this be changed to a 30 foot wide Outlot to be owned by Lot 8. This change will impact the configuration of Lots 7 and 9.
Streets. The proposed streets appear to be meeting the City’s minimum standards:
• Liberty Court is proposed to be 28-feet wide within a 60-foot right-of-way;
Trail Plan
Existing Trail
Proposed sidewalk
7
• A 60 foot cul-de-sac right-of-way width is provided with a 45 foot pavement radius;
• The cul-de-sac length is proposed to be 510 feet long;
• There is a proposed sidewalk to the west of this street. The residential maximum longitudinal grade is 6% with a sidewalk which appears to be feasible. Potential connections to this sidewalk should be considered moving forward.
• Surmountable concrete curb and gutter needs to be installed in single family areas with future
driveways.
The biggest issue of concern regarding streets is the fact that additional right-of-way must be dedicated along 30th Street North to ensure a minimum boulevard width of 16 feet is provided along the entire length of the plat. In addition to the right-of-way, a 10 foot utility corridor must also be
reserved for small utilities. The proposed stormwater facilities cannot encroach into this utility corridor.
Utilities – Municipal Water Supply and Municipal Sanitary Sewer. Public water and sanitary sewer service will be extended to the site with the development of Northport. The preliminary plans will need to include detailed utility construction plans that meet City engineering standards.
Environmental Review. The proposed development is within the Village Alternative Urban Area Wide Review (AUAR), which was completed in order to address the expected cumulative environmental impacts associated with the anticipated growth and development within the Village.
Storm Water Management. The general drainage system should mimic the natural topography of the site in order to ensure a drainage system that provides positive stormwater drainage across the
development. The proposed development area resides within the Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD). City staff recommends early planning/coordination meetings with VBWD. The design of the storm water management systems must be compliant with the requirements of the State, VBWD, the City of Lake Elmo Storm Water Management Ordinance, and the City of Lake Elmo design
standards manual. The applicant is advised to fully read and comprehend the City’s storm water and erosion control ordinance since these standards are different, and in some cases more stringent, than the watershed district.
The storm water facilities must be platted as Outlots and deeded to the City for maintenance purposes
and must fully incorporate the 100-year High Water Level, 10 foot maintenance bench and all maintenance access roads. The storm water ponds will not be allowed to encroach on to adjacent private lots. The storm sewer system shall be designed to maintain the City standard minimum pipe cover of 3.0 feet, and drain tile is required as part of the City standard street section at all localized low points in the street. All storm sewer pipe easements must be a minimum of 30 feet in width. No
drainage and utility easement is shown for the storm sewer pipe along the Lot 5 and Lot 6 property line. It is likely that more land will need to be allocated for stormwater management. The preliminary grading plan shows pond encroachment on Lots 6 and 7, and additional pond depth will be required to meet City standards.
Grading restrictions along the Northern Natural Gas easement must be adhered to, and it is unclear how drainage within the Northern Natural Gas easement will be captured and conveyed to stormwater facilities. Additionally, Liberty Court drainage must be captured and treated on-site. Currently, a significant portion of the drainage is shown to be draining to the Northport subdivision,
8
and the stormwater management plan of this subdivision does not account for this additional impervious surface.
The ultimate discharge rate and location will be an important consideration. The stormwater
management plan will need to address changes to the downstream drainage system to the extent alterations are proposed. Written permission from properties that are impacted and submitted will be required as part of the development application.
City Engineer Review. The City Engineer’s review comments are found as part of the attachments to this report and are incorporated throughout the report.
Airport. The proposed development is not within the Lake Elmo Airport Existing Runway Protection Zones; however, the Metropolitan Airports Commission will be given the opportunity to review the proposed development with the Preliminary Plat application. Staff has distributed adjacent review to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) as part of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment request, but has not yet heard back from the MAC.
Lot Dimensions and Bulk Requirements. The proposed sketch plan appears to the meet the lot dimensions and bulk requirements for the Urban Low Density Residential zoning district, as shown below:
Standard Required Proposed
Minimum Lot Area 8,000 square feet 9,600 square feet – 36,460 square feet (average of 13,225 square feet)
Minimum Lot Width 60 feet 60-205.5 feet*, **
*See the Access portion of this report – lot widths of
Lots 7 and 9 may need to be reduced, possibly not meeting the 60 foot minimum standard.
** Lot 8 will have a lot width of approximately 205.5 feet of street frontage as the lot abuts 30th Street North, even though access will be
provided through the cul-de-sac of Liberty Court North.
Maximum Impervious Surface
40% Unknown
Minimum Front Yard Setback
25 feet Appears to be 25 feet
(grading plan scale not provided)
9
Minimum Interior Sideyard Setback (principal buildings)
10 feet Appears to be 8 feet on both
sides in northerly lots (grading plan scale not provided); sideyard setback averaging has been allowed in
the past
Minimum Interior Sideyard Setback (accessory structures)
5 feet N/A
Minimum Corner Sideyard Setback
15 feet N/A
Minimum Rear Yard Setback
20 feet All required rear yard
setbacks appear to be met (grading plan scale not provided)
Lot Easements. Lot easements (front, rear and side yard) need to be shown on the plan meeting
City requirements.
Northern Natural Gas Easement. A Northern Natural Gas easement runs along the western side of lots 9 through 13, and bisects lot 8 before getting to 30th Street North. As two large diameter gas mains are located in the easement, there are heavy restrictions on what can be done in this area (i.e. no building, creating, constructing, or allowing to be built any hard surface road,
building, or other structure; and no grading or other work without the written consent of
Northern). The City has no ordinance that requires a buildable or even usable backyard, but it is a fact that should be disclosed to future buyers should this development move forward. Owners of these lots will likely not be able to have decks, pools, accessory structures, or even landscaping without prior written consent of Northern. The Applicant should consider the value
of these lots and how they will communicate these restrictions, and will need to demonstrate how
the easement will be delineated within the yards to prevent homeowners from encroaching into the easement.
Landscaping. The applicant has not provided any details concerning landscaping for the site, which must be submitted at the time of Preliminary Plat submission and will need to adhere to
the City’s Landscape Requirements. There are a number of existing trees on the property, and the
project will be subject to the City’s tree protection and replacement ordinance. Additionally, it is recommended that the Applicant provide sufficient landscaping along 30th Street North to provide a sufficient buffer
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Current Land Use. The property is currently used as a single family detached dwelling and is currently guided for Rural Single Family Zoning with a Village Open Space Overlay greenbelt
corridor on the southern border of the parcel. This land use has a guided density of 0.66-2 units
10
per acre. The Applicant and owner of the property would like to move the existing house to a lot
to the west of the proposed development, and subdivide the remaining portion of the parcel in to
12 additional parcels.
Proposed Land Use and Density. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposes to re-guide the property to Village Urban Low Density, which will allow a density of 1.5-2-49 units per acre. The development site is 5.97 acres, and a total of 13 residential lots are being proposed, totaling
a gross density of 2.17 units per acre. There are no wetlands, wetland buffers, public waters, or
other areas that are protected from development by local ordinance on the property, and because there is no public parkland or protected open space proposed nor arterial road right-of-way, the net density of the development is expected to also be 2.17 units per acre.
MUSA and Rural Single Family Sewered Land Use Option. The proposed development is
within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), and sewer will be made available through
Northport, the development to the north and east of the proposed development. Areas within the City that are included in the MUSA must be developed at an average of three units per acre. In 2016, the City created a new land use that is called Rural Single Family – Sewered. This land use is intended for properties that were platted for conventional subdivision prior to 2005 that have
been (and will continue to be) serviced by private on-site well and septic systems, unless within
the MUSA area. If within a MUSA, the City Council may consider connection to the sanitary sewer system where practical. While the property does have the option of being re-guided to this land use category, the density of the proposed development is higher than the allowed density within the Rural Single Family land use category (0.66-2 units per acre), and so this land use
would be inappropriate for this proposed development. If the property were to re-guide to Rural
Single Family Sewered, the smallest the lot sizes allowed would be 24,000 square feet, which equates to a density of 1.8 units per acre.
Adjacent Land Use. Northport (the development to the north and east of the proposed development) is guided for Village Urban Low Density. This proposal would essentially be an
extension of the Village Urban Low Density land use that currently exists. Properties to the west
of the proposed development would remain guided for Rural Single Family and are also within the greenbelt buffer.
Recommended Findings. Staff recommends the following findings in regards to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
1. That the Applicant has submitted a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan in
accordance with the procedures as established by the Lake Elmo Planning Department and Lake Elmo Planning Commission; and
2. That the request is to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan:
a. On page III-11, updating Table 3-B to reflect proposed increased acreage of Village
Urban Low Density Residential and decreased acreage of Rural Single Family.
b. Updating Map 3-3 – the planned land use map.
3. That the proposed amendments are consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan in that the Property is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area.
11
Recommended Conditions of Approval. Staff recommends the following conditions in regards
to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
1. Submission of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council and the receipt of formal notification from the Metropolitan Council that its review has been completed and approved.
2. That the Applicant obtain Preliminary Plat approval from the City that meets the following:
a. Required densities of the Village Urban Low Density land use category.
b. Provides a sufficient Greenbelt Corridor as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan and
approved by the City.
c. Provides a usable rear yard for lots in which the Northern Natural Gas Company
Easement (Document 384029) (“Northern Easement”) is located, as determined by the
City; or receives approval from the City for required rear yards for lots in which the
Northern Easement is located, in which building, creating, constructing, or allowing to
be built any hard surface road, building, or other structure as well as altering the grade
or permitting such alteration upon which Northern Natural Gas Company has reserved
its Easement rights without the written consent of Northern.
d. All other applicable standards including but not limited to City Engineer Design
Standards, Valley Branch Watershed District requirements, and zoning standards.
Planning Commission Review. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Subdivision Sketch Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendment at its meeting on November 13, 2017 and had the following comments in regards to the proposed subdivision sketch plan:
• They saw issues with the proposed greenbelt corridor and felt that additional width or
extensive landscaping was needed for the proposed subdivision.
• They saw definite issues with proposed location of the lots on the west of Liberty Court that are in conflict with the Northern Natural Gas Easement. They wished to see these lots have a usable backyard.
• The Comprehensive Plan Amendment made sense in that the subject property is adjacent to the V-LDR district and in the MUSA.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment with a vote of 7-0.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There would be no fiscal impact to the City at this time, as the developer would be required to pay for any amendments needed to accommodate the increase in REC units. Concept Plan approval
does not afford the applicant development rights. When the property develops, it will have urban
services and will pay sewer and water connection charges, building permit fees and the like.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide PID# 13.029.21.43.0001 from Rural Single Family to Village Urban Low Density, based on the recommended findings and conditions of approval.
12
“Move to recommend approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide PID# 13.029.21.43.0001 from Rural Single Family to Village Urban Low Density, based on the
recommended findings and conditions of approval.”
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission accept the Sketch Plan provided by JP Bush Homes for a 13 unit single family detached residential development of PID#13.029.21.43.0001.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application Forms 2. Narrative
3. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan 4. Subdivision Sketch Plan 5. City Engineer Review Memorandum 10/20/2017 6. Resolution 2017- Approving the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
PAGE 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 20, 2017
To: Emily Becker, Planning Director Re: McLeod Residential Subdivision
Cc: Chad Isakson, Assistant City Engineer Concept Plan Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the McLeod Residential Subdivision Concept Plan. The submittal
consisted of the following documentation received on October 13, 2017.
Residential Concept Subdivision dated October 11, 2017 and prepared by Landmark Surveying, Inc.
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan dated October 13, 2017 and prepared by PLOWE Engineering.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Narrative dated September 15, 2017.
We have the following review comments:
All public improvements constructed to support the development must be designed and constructed in accordance
with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual available on the City website dated March, 2017.
SITE PLAN AND TRANSPORTATION
Access Management. The Concept plan shows access to the plat from the Northport subdivision along
Liberty Court. This access was pre‐planned with the adjacent subdivision and preserves the proper access
management along 30th Street North.
Right‐of‐way dedication. The Plat must dedicate additional right‐of‐way along 30th Street North to ensure
a minimum 30th Street boulevard of 16 ft. along the entire length of the plat. In addition a 10 ft. utility
corridor must be reserved (at boulevard grades) for small utilities. The proposed Stormwater facilities
(including the 100‐year HWL) cannot encroach the 10 ft. utility corridor.
Screening along 30th Street is recommended. The south boundary of the subdivision is along the north
boulevard of 30th Street North and proposes two storm water ponds connected by a drainage swale. It is
recommended that additional space be allocated at elevations higher than 30th Street to create a
vegetative buffer between the lots and this collector street.
More land area is likely needed to be allocated for storm water management. The preliminary grading plan
already shows pond encroachment onto Lots 6 and 7. Also, additional pond depth must be provided to
meet City pond construction requirements.
Lots 9‐13 include large areas of gas main easement with 2 large diameter gas mains. There is no useable
rear yard along these lots.
Lot Easements (front, rear and side yard) should be shown on the plans meeting City requirements.
RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Lot 8 is proposed to access Liberty Court with a 20 ft. driveway easement on Lots 7 and 9. It is recommended
that this easement be revised as a 30 ft. minimum width Outlot to be owned by Lot 8.
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 2
Public street standards. Liberty Court must be designed to meet the City’s Engineering Design Standards. A
60 ft. right‐of‐way width with 28 ft. wide street has been shown as required; and a 60 ft. cul‐de‐sac R/W
radius with 45 ft. cul‐de‐sac pavement radius has been shown as required.
Liberty Court will result in a 510 ft. long cul‐de‐sac, meeting City standards.
The residential maximum longitudinal grade is 6% with a sidewalk.
Surmountable concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in single family residential areas with future
driveways.
Pedestrian facilities: A 6 ft. wide sidewalk has been shown along Liberty Court as required. The City should
review any potential connections to this sidewalk.
Ten (10) foot utility easements are required on either side of all right‐of‐ways.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
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.
The general drainage system should mimic the natural topography of the site in order to ensure a drainage
system that provides positive storm water drainage across the development.
Overland emergency overflows or outlets will be required as part of the site plan.
Grading restrictions along the Northern Natural Gas easement must be adhered to as part of the
development plans. It is unclear how drainage within the NNG easement will be captured and conveyed to
the storm water facilities.
Liberty Court drainage must be captured and treated on‐site. A significant portion of the street is shown
draining to the Northport subdivision. The Northport storm water management plan does not account for
this additional impervious areas.
The ultimate discharge rate and location will be an important consideration. The storm water management
plan will need to address changes to the downstream drainage system to the extent alterations are
proposed. To the extent adjacent properties are impacted, written permission from those properties must
be submitted as part of the development applications.
It appears that all storm water facilities (ponds and infiltration basins) have been placed in Outlots. These
Outlots will be 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.
Maintenance access roads meeting City standards must be provided for all storm water facilities and must
be within Outlots dedicated to the City.
The storm sewer system shall be designed to maintain the City standard minimum pipe cover of 3.0 feet.
Drain tile is required as part of the City standard street section at all localized low points in the street. Drain
tile considerations may impact the storm sewer design and depth requirements at low points.
Per City requirements all storm sewer pipe easements must be a minimum 30‐feet in width. No drainage
and utility easement is shown for the storm sewer pipe along the Lot 5 and Lot 6 property line.
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
Municipal water supply is available immediately adjacent to the proposed development along Liberty Court.
The applicant is responsible to extend the municipal water into the development site at developer’s cost.
No trunk watermain oversizing is anticipated for this development.
MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER
Municipal sanitary sewer is available immediately adjacent to the proposed development along Liberty
Court. The applicant is responsible to extend sanitary sewer into the development site at developer’s cost.
No trunk sewer oversizing is anticipated.
City Council Resolution 2018-006
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-006
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PID# 13.029.21.43.0001 FROM RURAL SINGLE FAMILY TO
VILLAGE URBAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SUBMIT
A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SAME TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo (the “City”) has established a Comprehensive Plan that
provides a compilation of background data, policy statements, standards, and maps, which help to
guide the future physical, social, and economic development of the City; and
WHEREAS, JP Bush Homes, 1980 Quasar Avenue South, Lakeland, MN 55043 (the
“Applicant”) has submitted an application to the City to amend the Comprehensive Plan, a copy
of which is on file in the City Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan was submitted by the Applicant
along with a Subdivision Sketch Plan Review which includes 10 single-family residential detached
homes on 5.97 acres, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 13, 2017 to
consider the Applicant’s requests; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval to the City
Council on the Applicant’s requests; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Planning Commission and public comments
regarding the Applicant’s requests at its meetings on November 21, 2017 and January 16, 2018;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan amendment and
believes that it is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED based upon the testimony elicited and information
received, the City Council makes the following findings of fact:
FINDINGS
City Council Resolution 2018-006
1. That the Applicant has submitted a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan in accordance
with the procedures as established by the Lake Elmo Planning Department and Lake Elmo
Planning Commission; and
2. That the request is to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan:
a. On page III-11, updating Table 3-B to reflect proposed increased acreage of Village
Urban Low Density Residential and decreased acreage of Rural Single Family.
b. Updating Map 3-3 – the planned land use map.
3. That the proposed amendments are consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan in that the Property is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings of fact, the
Lake Elmo City Council hereby approves the Applicant’s request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan as follows:
1. Submission of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council and the receipt
of formal notification from the Metropolitan Council that its review has been completed and
approved.
2. That the Applicant obtain Preliminary Plat approval from the City that meets the following:
a. Required densities of the Village Urban Low Density land use category.
b. Provides a sufficient Greenbelt Corridor as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan and
approved by the City.
c. Provides usable rear yards for lots in which the Northern Natural Gas Company
Easement (Document 384029) (“Northern Easement”) is located, as determined by the City by maintaining a 20 foot principal building rear yard setback from the Northern Natural Gas Company Easement.
d. All other applicable standards including but not limited to City Engineer Design
Standards, Valley Branch Watershed District requirements, and zoning standards.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Lake Elmo City Council
hereby authorizes and directs staff to submit a Comprehensive Plan amendment and MUSA
expansion request consistent herewith to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval,
contingent upon the City’s preliminary approval of the plat based on the Subdivision Sketch Plan
as proposed by the Applicant with Revision Date November 20, 2017.
Passed and duly adopted this 16th day of January 2018, by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
______________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
City Council Resolution 2018-006
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
City Council Resolution 2018-
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-
A RESOLUTION DENYING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PID# 13.029.21.43.0001 FROM RURAL SINGLE FAMILY TO
VILLAGE URBAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo (the “City”) has established a Comprehensive Plan that
provides a compilation of background data, policy statements, standards, and maps, which help to
guide the future physical, social, and economic development of the City; and
WHEREAS, JP Bush Homes, 1980 Quasar Avenue South, Lakeland, MN 55043 (the
“Applicant”) has submitted an application to the City to amend the Comprehensive Plan, a copy
of which is on file in the City Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan was submitted by the Applicant
along with a Subdivision Sketch Plan Review which includes 10 single-family residential detached
homes on 5.97 acres with a proposed density of 1.67 units per acre, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 13, 2017 to
consider the Applicant’s requests; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval to the City
Council on the Applicant’s requests; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Planning Commission and public comments
regarding the Applicant’s requests at its meetings on November 21, 2017 and January 16, 2018;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan amendment and
believes that it would not be in the best interest of the City to allow a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to Village Urban Low Density Residential, as the proposed development should not
exceed a density of 1.67 units per acre.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED based upon the testimony elicited and information
received, the City Council makes the following findings of fact:
FINDINGS
City Council Resolution 2018-
1. That the Applicant has submitted a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan in accordance
with the procedures as established by the Lake Elmo Planning Department and Lake Elmo
Planning Commission; and
2. That the request is to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan:
a. On page III-11, updating Table 3-B to reflect proposed increased acreage of Village
Urban Low Density Residential and decreased acreage of Rural Single Family.
b. Updating Map 3-3 – the planned land use map.
3. That the proposed amendment would allow a density of 1.5-2.49 units per acre.
4. That the Applicant has also submitted a Subdivision Sketch Plan Review.
5. That the proposed Subdivision Sketch Plan should not exceed a density of 1.67 units per acre,
and the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would allow this density to be exceeded.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings of fact, the
Lake Elmo City Council hereby denies the Applicant’s request to amend the Comprehensive Plan
by re-guiding PID# 13.029.21.43.0001 from Rural Single Family to Village Urban Low Density.
Passed and duly adopted this 16th day of January 2018, by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
______________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
PUBLIC 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 30th 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 9
5
1
.
0
SecondaryEOFx 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 TREESCONT QTYDeciduous Screen Tree2.5" BB 42Ornamental Screen Tree2.5" BB 39Coniferous Screen Tree6` BB 143STREET TREESCONT QTYDeciduous Street Tree2.5" BB 284GROUND 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.
514065v1 SJS LA515-1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 16, 2018
REGULAR
ITEM #: 19
MOTION
TO: City Council
FROM: Emily Becker, Planning Director
AGENDA ITEM: 2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Moratorium
REVIEWED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator Sarah Sonsalla, City Attorney
BACKGROUND: The City is currently undergoing a 2040 Comprehensive Plan update, as the Metropolitan Land
Planning Act requires all cities and counties in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area to adopt a
Comprehensive Plan (“Plan”) and to update the Plan on a decennial basis. The Plan is required to comply with the Metropolitan Council’s regional system plans that include transportation, wastewater services, airports, parks and open space. The Plan update must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by December 31, 2018.
Any requested 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendments prior to submission of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update may not take in to consideration the process involved and progress made in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
Does the City Council wish to adopt an interim ordinance (moratorium) on 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendments in order to facilitate the process of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
The process of updating the 2040 Comprehensive Plan generally involves review of the existing 2030 Comprehensive Plan; background report preparation, issue identification, visioning and goal setting; identification of specific issues and plan components that need updating; facilitation
of a working group, community review and input opportunities; a comprehensive update of the
Plan; and Plan review and adoption by the City’s Planning Commission and City Council. As previously mentioned, updates to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan changes background report information and data; and may not take in to consideration community input that has been
provided thus far and will be provided during the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update.
514065v1 SJS LA515-1
Exemptions. The proposed interim ordinance exempts the following from the moratorium:
a) any Comprehensive Plan Amendment request for which the City has already received
application;
b) any plan amendment that is necessary for a project that would address environmental
threats through the installation of essential services such as sewer, water, storm
sewer, or other public safety mechanisms and that would extend these services into
areas that are planned for public infrastructure; or
The interim ordinance would be in effect for a one year period, but could be repealed earlier if
the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update is complete.
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council has three options:
1. Hold a public hearing and adopt Interim Ord. 08- 195 declaring a moratorium for a one year period on 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendments along with Resolution 2018-007 approving Summary Publication of Interim Ord. 08-195. 2. Hold a public hearing on Interim Ord. 08-195, make amendments to Interim Ord. 08-195 and adopt Interim Ord. 08-195 declaring a moratorium for a one year period on 2030
Comprehensive Plan amendments as amended along with Resolution 2018-007 approving Summary Publication of Ord. 08-195. 3. Hold a public hearing on Interim Ord. 08-195 and do not adopt Interim Ord. 08-195 declaring a moratorium for a one year period on 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendments.
It is recommended that the City Council choose either Option 1 or Option 2.
1
514047v1 SJS LA515-1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-195 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON 2030
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS The City of Lake Elmo City Council ordains:
Section 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this interim ordinance (this
“Ordinance”) is to impose, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355, subdivision 4, a moratorium within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Lake Elmo (the “City”) on amendments to the City’s comprehensive plan during the period of this Ordinance in order to protect the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City.
Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council hereby finds and determines as follows: (a) The City has established a 2030 Comprehensive Plan (“2030 Plan”) that provides a compilation of background data, policy statements, standards, and maps, which
help to guide the future physical, social, and economic development of the City;
and (b) The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires all cities and counties in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area to adopt a Comprehensive Plan (“Plan”) and to update
the Plan on a decennial basis; and
(c) The Plan is required to comply with the Metropolitan Council’s regional system plans that include transportation, wastewater services, airports, parks, and open space; and
(d) The 2040 Comprehensive Plan update must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by December 31, 2018; and (e) The process of updating the Plan generally involves review and study of the
existing 2030 Plan; background report preparation, issue identification, visioning
and goal setting; identification of specific issues and Plan components that need updating; facilitation of a working group, community review and input opportunities; a comprehensive update of the Plan; and Plan review and adoption by the City’s Planning Commission and the City Council; and
(f) The City is currently in the process of undergoing the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update; and
2
514047v1 SJS LA515-1
(g) Requested amendments to the 2030 Plan prior to the City’s submission of the
2040 Comprehensive Plan update may not take in to consideration the process
involved and progress made in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update; and (h) The City determines that it is in the best interests of the City to impose a moratorium on amendments to the 2030 Plan until the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
update is complete in order to ensure that any amendments to the Plan are
consistent with the future vision of the Plan and to allow the City sufficient time to properly consider the update of the Plan. Section 3. Study Authorized. The City has initiated a study of its 2030 Comprehensive Plan in
order to determine changes that may be needed in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update.
Section 4. Moratorium Imposed; Exceptions. A moratorium is hereby imposed within the City on Plan amendments. No application for an amendment to the Plan will be accepted by the City during the term of this Ordinance. Plan amendments for which the City has already received an
application are exempt from this moratorium. Plan amendments that are necessary for a project
that would address environmental threats through the installation of essential services such as sewer, water, storm sewer, or other public safety mechanisms and that would extend these services into areas that are planned for public infrastructure are exempted from this moratorium.
Section 5. Duration. This Ordinance shall be remain in effect for one year from the date that it
is effective unless it is expressly repealed earlier by the City Council. Section 6. Severability. Every section, provision, and part of this Ordinance is declared severable from every other section, provision, and part thereof. If any section, provision, or part
of this Ordinance is adjudged to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment
shall not invalidate any other section, provision, or part of this Ordinance. Section 7. Enforcement. The City may enforce any provision of this Ordinance by mandamaus, injunction, or any other appropriate remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its legal passage and publication.
3
514047v1 SJS LA515-1
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo on this 16th day of January, 2018, by a
vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
_________________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
This Ordinance 08-195 was published on the ____ day of ___________________, 2018.
514063v1 SJS LA515-1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-007
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE 08-195 BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-An Interim Ordinance Imposing a Moratorium on 2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance is lengthy; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subd. 4, allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo,
that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. 08-195 to be published in
the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance: Public Notice
The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-195, An Interim
Ordinance Imposing a Moratorium on 2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendments which declares a
moratorium for a one year period on all 2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendments as the City
prepares for its 2040 Comprehensive Plan update.
The full text of Ordinance No. 08-195 is available for inspection at Lake Elmo City Hall during
regular business hours.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that the City Administrator keep a copy of the ordinance at City Hall for public inspection and that a full
copy of the ordinance be placed in a public location within the City.
Dated: January 16, 2018 ___________________________________
Mayor Mike Pearson
ATTEST: ____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
(SEAL)
514063v1 SJS LA515-1
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
_________________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof:____________________________________and the following voted against
same:________________________________________
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 16, 2018 REGULAR #20
AGENDA ITEM: Assessor Services
SUBMITTED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Brian Swanson, Finance Director
BACKGROUND: The City currently has a contract with Raboin Inc for City Assessor services. Dan Raboin has provided notice that he will be terminating the agreement and plans to stay only through the Local Board of Appeals and Equalization (LBAE) in April. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Who should the council select for providing assessor services? PROPOSAL: Upon receiving Mr. Raboin’s notice, staff obtained quotes from Washington County and Chase Peloquin for assessor services. Washington County provided a sample billing based upon 2017 parcel numbers and an agreement. Mr. Peloquin provided a written proposal. Copies of both are included in your packet.
Staff discussed the two proposals with the Finance Committee at their January 9th meeting. They suggested looking into having the assessor send notices to those residents who will have their property visited every
year. The city is on a rotation to have each parcel visited once in a five year period. Chase Peloquin was willing to add that to his proposal for an additional $1,500.
Mr. Peloquin’s base charge is $48,500 with additional charges per parcel for newly created parcels and for building permits issued beginning in 2018. Washington County’s estimate includes the number of 2017 parcels and their fee schedule which is adopted by the County Board each year. Their estimate for the base is $56,154.19. Mobile Homes and Personal Property (2018 est $4,989.05) are required to be covered by Washington County regardless of who provides general assessing services for the city. Even after subtracting for these services, Peloquin’s base is still less by a couple thousand dollars. Therefore staff would recommend Council provide direction to staff to bring back a contract for assessing services for the next three years with Peloquin. FISCAL IMPACT: The 2018 budget for assessing services is $53,350. Assuming the same level of growth and permits as 2017,
assessing services in 2018 will exceed budget by about $14,500. Of that amount $3,700 is the retainer the city will be holding until Dan Raboin completes the LBAE. OPTIONS: 1) Direct staff to prepare a contract for assessing services with Chase Peloquin 2) Direct staff to work on a contract for assessing services with Washington County
RECOMMENDATION: “Motion to direct staff to prepare a contract for assessing services with Chase Peloquin.” ATTACHMENTS:
• Chase Peloquin Proposal
• Washington County Billing Sample and Agreement
Prepared For:
Lake Elmo City Council
City Administrator - Kristina Handt
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Proposal for
Assessing Services
City of Lake Elmo, MN
Prepared By: Chase Peloquin, SAMA
Date of Proposal:
Friday, January 5, 2018
1 | P a g e
Table of Contents
Proposal for Assessing Services
Letter to the Council………………………................…………….………………. 2
Description of Services…...…………………..……………………………….…… 3
Parcel Counts…………….……………..……………..………..……………….…. 4
Pricing…………………………………..……………..………..……………….…. 5
Payment & Key Date Schedule.………...……...……………….………………… 6
Resume ……………..………………………………………………………………. 7
Qualifications of the Assessor……………………………………………………. 8
MN State Assessor License..………………..………………………………..……. 10
Professional References …………….………………………..…………………… 11
Please send all Correspondence to:
Chase Peloquin
29067 Machmeier Ct
Lindstrom, MN 55045
Email: ScandiaAssessor@outloook.com
Phone: (651) 538-6383
2 | P a g e
Letter to the Council
Friday, January 5, 2018
Lake Elmo City Council
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Dear Council Members & Administrator Handt,
I believe that I am a well-qualified candidate for the City Assessor position because
of my extensive background in property tax assessment. As a Senior Accredited
Minnesota Assessor (SAMA) I have attained the highest licensure level of MN real
estate assessment and property tax administration.
Working as the City Assessor for Scandia over the past several years has given me
firsthand experience of the specific needs of City Administration as well as the
ability to successfully address important issues that arise with the citizens.
As the Commercial Appraiser for Chisago County I have gained the essential skills
and talents that are vital in delivering a quality commercial and residential
assessment.
With an excellent understanding of computer applications such as Microsoft
Office, Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) systems, and a comprehensive
knowledge of Microsoft Excel; I possess the technical skills required to keep up
with the information age. My abilities to work well with others, learn new things
quickly, and maintain a positive work environment also qualify me for this
position.
Please contact me at (651) 538-6383 to set up an interview. I believe my experience
and enthusiasm will make me a valuable team member at the City of Lake Elmo.
Sincerely,
Chase Peloquin, SAMA
3 | P a g e
Description of Services
Annual Valuation & Classification
Annually value and classify all real property parcels within the City of Lake Elmo
per State and County guidelines.
Quintile
Inspect and verify data characteristics of all real property parcels per State and County
guidelines. Mail notification post cards to residential properties prior to visiting.
New Construction
Coordinate with the City Building Official to view, value and classify all new
construction projects.
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Staff an Annual Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting.
Splits, Combinations & Plats
Coordinate with the County to process parcel splits, parcel combinations and
administration of new plats.
Sales Verification and Ratio Study
Process, verify and analyze Certificates of Real Estate Value. Compile and provide
sale information to the MN Department of Revenue for State Sales Ratio Studies.
Taxpayer Relations & Communication
A dedicated phone line and email address will be provided and constantly
monitored. All taxpayer calls and emails will be returned within a timely manner.
Provide information to citizens, land developers, contractors and government
officials to keep them informed of assessment policies and procedures. Serve as an
expert resource to city staff and citizens regarding all aspects of real property
appraisal and property tax assessment.
4 | P a g e
Parcel Counts
The following parcel count information was obtained from the 2017 Washington
County Assessment Report and the current City Assessor.
Agricultural
There are 113 parcels classified as agricultural.
Apartment
There are 6 parcels classified as apartment.
Commercial/Industrial
There are 201 parcels classified as commercial/industrial.
Residential & Season Residential
There are 3,642 parcels classified as residential or seasonal residential.
Exempt
There are 494 parcels classified as exempt.
Total Parcels
Included in this proposal are a total of 4,377 parcels.
* Mobile Homes & Other Personal Property are not included in this proposal
5 | P a g e
Pricing
This proposal is based on the parcel count and classification information in the
preceding section. Changes for the 2018 Assessment will be billed per the Parcel
Additions section of this proposal.
Annual Assessment Cost
The proposed annual cost for Assessment Services will be:
Forty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars & 0/100
$48,500.00
New Construction & Building Permits
The annual cost for Building Permits will be based on the following schedule:
Type Rate per Permit
Apartment $30.00
Commercial/Industrial $50.00
Exempt $50.00
Single-Family Homes $20.00
Single-Family Attached (per unit) $10.00
Other Permits $2.00
- Windows, Roofing, Siding, Remodels, Decks, Porches, Additions,
Accessory Buildings, Basement Finish, Foundation or Structure
Alterations.
* The City will provide copies of all building permits, building plans, and building
permit reports including PID’s electronically, via email, at a minimum of a
monthly basis.
Parcel Additions
The annual cost increase for newly created parcels will be based on the following
schedule:
Classification Annual Rate Increase per Parcel
Agricultural $12.00
Apartment $20.00
Commercial/Industrial $30.00
Residential/Seasonal Residential $12.00
Exempt $5.00
6 | P a g e
Payment & Key Date Schedule
While payment and key date schedules are flexible to meet the requirements of the
City, the following progression is being proposed for the 2019 Assessment.
Start Date
Services are available to commence on May 1st, 2018.
Monthly Payment Schedule
Beginning May 1st, 2018 monthly payments in the amount of $3,500.00 will ensue
and be due on the 1st day of every month.
May 2018 $3,500.00
June 2018 $3,500.00
July 2018 $3,500.00
August 2018 $3,500.00
September 2018 $3,500.00
October 2018 $3,500.00
November 2018 $3,500.00
December 2018 $3,500.00
January 2019 $3,500.00
February 2019 $3,500.00
March 2019 $3,500.00
April 2019 $3,500.00
Monthly Payment Total $42,000.00
Final Payment
Within five business days of the adjournment of the Lake Elmo Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization Meeting the balance of the Annual Assessment Cost,
including any new construction and parcel addition charges, will be due. The final
invoice will be provided to the City on or before February 10th each year.
End Date
The annual assessment will be considered complete upon the adjournment of the
Lake Elmo Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting.
7 | P a g e
Chase B. Peloquin, SAMA
29067 Machmeier Ct Lindstrom, MN 55045 651-538-6383
ScandiaAssessor@outlook.com
Employment: City Assessor Scandia, MN
City of Scandia May 2015 - Present
Serve as an expert resource to staff and citizens regarding all aspects of real property appraisal and
property tax assessment
Perform market research by gathering data including actual income information, occupancy levels,
rental rates, and capitalization rates to determine potential market performance of properties
Effectively identify and evaluate economic trends, market conditions and real estate investments
Provide information to citizens, land developers, contractors, government officials and county
departments to keep them informed of assessment policies and procedures
Commercial Appraiser Center City, MN
Chisago County Assessor’s Office June 2012 – Present
Interview, train, supervise and evaluate Sr. Deputy Assessors and Assessment Assistants
Appraise commercial, industrial, apartment, and complex special use properties using mass appraisal
statistical modeling techniques, direct capitalization and discounted cash flow analysis
Negotiate favorable settlements and manage all aspects of countywide tax court petitions
Field Appraiser Scandia, MN
Frank Langer – Scandia City Assessor June 2009 – May 2015
Review residential property, collect data on building measurements, cost, building features and
neighborhood characteristics
Inspect real estate and record characteristics such as type of property, physical condition, structural
component, size, nature and type of improvements to establish the value and classification of property
Sr. Deputy Assessor Center City, MN
Chisago County Assessor’s Office June 2009 – June 2012
Review residential property, collect data on building measurements, cost, building features and
neighborhood characteristics
Inspect real estate and record characteristics such as type of property, physical condition, structural
component, size, nature and type of improvements to establish the value and classification of property
Receive and respond to inquiries and complaints from property owners by explaining how property
values were established and informing property owners of appeal procedures
Compile and analyze market sales data to allow reliable estimates of property values
Field Engineer Winterhaven, CA
Kiewit Pacific Company – Northwest Division June 2008 – March 2009
Plan, schedule, supervise and approve work done by contractor and company crews
Prepare material takeoffs, estimate costs and purchase materials
Coordinate daily construction activities and develop schedules for crews, equipment and materials
Project Manager Lindstrom, MN
Custom Fit Homes Inc. December 2005 – June 2008
Effectively work with contractors, surveyors, architects, engineers and building officials
Estimate, contract, manage, budget and supervise all aspects of construction
Schedule, coordinate, inspect and approve work done by subcontractor crews
Education: Bachelor of Science Degree Mankato, MN
Major: Business Finance December 2005
Minor: Business Administration Cum Laude
Minnesota State University, Mankato College of Business AACSB Accredited
8 | P a g e
Qualifications of the Assessor
Designation:
Senior Accredited Minnesota Assessor License #3336
Appraisal Education:
Minnesota Association of Assessing Officers:
Residential Appraisal Principles July 2009
Residential Appraisal Procedures August 2009
Mass Appraisal Basics August 2009
Assessment Laws & Procedures January 2010
Assessment Administration October 2011
Basic Income Approach to Valuation October 2011
Minnesota Residential Case Study April 2012
Oral Interview – MN State Board of Assessors May 2012
Valuation of Big Box Retail May 2016
Tax Court – Big Box Symposium May 2016
Minnesota Income Property Case Study October 2016
International Association of Assessing Officers:
Income Approach to Valuation September 2011
Minnesota Department of Revenue:
Professional Assessment Certification & Education March 2012
Minnesota Tax Calculation Course December 2012
Ethics for MN Assessors August 2015
Professional Assessment Certification & Education September 2015
Minnesota Tax Calculation Course December 2016
Kaplan Professional Schools:
National USPAP Update Course May 2012
McKissock
Appraisal of Fast Food Facilities May 2016
Appraisal of Self Storage Facilities June 2016
Appraisal Institute
A little Value for Everyone (Rounded) November 2017
9 | P a g e
Qualifications of the Assessor (Cont.)
Professional Affiliation:
Member of Minnesota Association of Assessing Officers (MAAO)
Region 3 Tax Court Committee Member November 2014
Region 3 Commercial Industrial Committee Member November 2014
Experience:
City Assessor – City of Scandia, MN May 2015 - Present
Commercial Assessor for Chisago County June 2012 - Present
Field Appraiser for FXL, Inc. June 2009 - May 2015
Senior Deputy Assessor for Chisago County June 2010 - June 2012
Deputy Assessor for Chisago County June 2009 - June 2010
Education:
Minnesota State University, Mankato
Bachelor of Science – Business Finance December 2005
Minor Business Administration December 2005
Chisago Lakes High School
High School Diploma June 2001
10 | P a g e
MN State Assessor License
As of November 2017, I have held an Senior Accredited Minnesota Assessor
designation. This is the highest licensure level of MN real estate assessment and
property tax administration granted by the Minnesota State Board of Assessors.
11 | P a g e
Professional References
The following individuals are available to the City for professional reference
purposes.
Dan Raboin
City Assessor
27697 Woodland Dr
Chisago City, MN 55013
(651) 213-6705
I worked with Mr. Raboin at Chisago County for six years prior to his leaving for
full time work as a Local City Assessor.
Neil Soltis
City of Scandia Administrator
14727 209th Street
Scandia, MN 55073
(651) 433-2274
For the past three years I have contracted with the City of Scandia for its Assessing
Services.
Frank Langer
Former City Assessor
21870 Olinda Lane
Scandia, MN 55073
(651) 433-3059
For six years I worked for Mr. Langer performing appraisal and assessment
services in the City of Scandia, City of Lake Elmo, City of Hugo, City of Marine on
St. Croix, and City of Dellwood.
LAKE ELMO
2018
#
parcels Rate Total
Agriculture 32 $16.88 $540.16
Vacant Land 1,354 $1,871.27
C&I 63 $2.41 $151.83
Ag 81 $2.41 $195.21
Res 753 $1.83 $1,377.99
Exempt 457 $0.32 $146.24
Multi-Family (Townhome/Condo/Duplex)79 $6.04 $477.16
Not included in Residential count
Residential 2,557 $39,377.28
<$500,000 2,695 $13.88 $37,406.60
> or equal to $500,000 76 $25.93 $1,970.68
Manufactured Homes 508 $9.66 $4,907.28
Personal Property & PILT 17 $4.81 $81.77
C&I 140 $8,500.90
<$999,999 115 $54.26 $6,239.90
> or equal to $1,000,000 25 $90.44 $2,261.00
Exempt Improved 39 $235.56
<$999,999 20 $6.04 $120.80
> or equal to $1,000,000 19 $6.04 $114.76
Apartments 5 $162.81
<$999,999 4 $30.15 $120.60
> or equal to $1,000,000 1 $42.21 $42.21 Cost per parcel
2018 Base Fee 4,731 $56,154.19 $11.87
New Construction (count taken out of the lower tier base fee calc)
Residential ESTIMATED
Single Family 214 $31.19 $6,674.66 Start 2017
Townhome/Condo 51 $12.06 $615.06 Start 2017
C&I
New 1 $138.70 $138.70 Start 2017
Apartments
New 1 $66.33 $66.33 Start 2017
Exempt
New 3 $120.58 $361.74 Start 2017
New Construction Fee 270 $7,856.49
2018 Billing 5,001 $64,010.68 $12.80
AGREEMENT FOR ASSESSMENT SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ____ day of _________, 2018 by and between the City of Lake Elmo, a Minnesota municipal corporation, herein referred to as the “City”, and
Washington County, a body politic and corporate, herein referred to as “Washington County” pursuant
to the authority contained in Minnesota Statutes 471.59, which authorizes the joint and cooperative exercise of powers common to contracting parties and Minnesota Statute 273.072 Subd. 1, which provides that a county and city or town may, by agreement entered into under 471.59 provide for the assessment of property in the municipality or town by the county assessor.
WITNESS: WHEREAS, the City desires to retain Washington County and the Washington County Assessor to perform assessment services for the City; and
WHEREAS, Washington County desires to perform assessment services required by the City; and WHEREAS, the City and Washington County deem it mutually advantageous to set forth the
terms and conditions of their relationship in writing;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree that the following shall constitute joint agreement for assessment services:
SECTION ONE-PARTIES The City hereby contracts with Washington County to perform, and Washington County hereby agrees to perform, the assessment services hereinafter described.
SECTION TWO-SERVICES Washington County Assessor shall perform all assessment services required by State statute and
the City. Such services shall include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Appraisal of all real and personal property located within the City. b. Interprets regulations, rules and legislative changes to the City Council, Realtors,
bankers, citizens and civic groups as necessary or upon request.
c. Answers questions/concerns regarding property values and classifications.
d. Draws and calculates “splits” of real estate sales reflective of joint ownership of land parcels.
e. Maintains a listing of the assessment of each and every parcel of property within the City.
f. Each parcel of property within the City shall be reviewed at least once every five years. It is the intention of the parties that the Washington County Assessor shall make every effort to view and revalue approximately one-fifth of the parcels during each year that
this Agreement remains in force.
g. Holds and staffs an annual Board of Appeal or Open Book Meeting. The format of this
appeals meeting will be at the discretion of the City and guided by Minn. Stat. § 274.01, subd. 1. h. Interprets and applies regulations, rules and legislative changes to other appraisers, real estate professionals, citizens and civic groups, other governmental bodies and personnel
as necessary and upon request. i. Answers property owner questions/concerns regarding appraisal practices, property values and classifications. Draws and interprets maps, charts and other descriptions to assist property owners in understanding the process.
j. Develops land and building valuation schedules; conducts statistical analysis to support appraisal decisions, and oversees Computer Aided Mass Appraisal system (CAMA) table
adjustments; and draws and calculates “splits” of real estate and new plats of property, including land areas, classes and valuations. Conducts statistical surveys to support appraisal decision e.g., current sales study using the CAMA system.
k. Coordinates research of complex appraisal issues, reviews, investigates and makes
recommendations on applications for abatement or other reduction of assessed value. l. Coordinates collection of sales information and annual assessment activities in apartment, commercial, industrial, residential and personal property markets.
m. Coordinates the valuation and classification of exempt properties, including interpreting laws applying to exempt organizations and processing exemption requests. n. Manages state tax court petitions and coordinates TIF assessment functions with the city.
Provides values to city for various projects in which there may be an assessment
agreement. o. Investigates and handles all applications for abatement or reduction of assessed value.
p. Provides a report of assessment activities (Assessment Report) each year prior to the
appeals period.
SECTION THREE-AGREEMENT PRICE
The City shall pay a fee to the County each year for assessment services based on the parcel mix located within each community. The assessment fee schedule is approved by the County Board each year and establishes the fee associated with each property use. The County will utilize the same fee schedule for all of its contract communities. The City will be billed for assessing services upon the
completion of the assessment cycle. The County will provide an invoice to the City no later than June 1
of each year payable on or around July 1. SECTION FOUR-INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
It is understood and agreed between the parties that the Assessor is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. The Assessor shall be responsible for furnishing its own transportation, books and any other documents or items of personal property required to perform the services. The City shall not be required to maintain any insurance coverage needed in connection with
the performance of the Assessor’s services, including but not limited to automobile liability insurance,
workers compensation insurance and public liability insurance. SECTION FIVE-DURATION AND TERMINATION
This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2018 and remain in force until terminated by either party giving the other party a six-month written notice of its intent to terminate the Agreement per Minnesota Statute 273.072 Subd. 4.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Agreement the day
and year first above written.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY
By_______________________ By________________________ Mayor County Board Chair
Attest________________________ By________________________
City Clerk County Administrator
Recommended By:
__________________________
Jennifer Wagenius Director, Property Records and Taxpayer Services
Approved as to form by:
_______________________________ George Kuprian Assistant Washington County Attorney
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 16, 2018 REGULAR #21 AGENDA ITEM: Purchase Agreement for 3880 Laverne Ave SUBMITTED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Brian Swanson, Finance Director
BACKGROUND: The City began a space needs study for a new city hall, fire station and updates to public works in 2017. One of the options examined in that report was the Brookfield building, 3880 Laverne Ave N. At the December 19th meeting, the Council held a closed session to discuss an offer for the property. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should the City Council approve the purchase agreement for 3880 Laverne Ave N? PROPOSAL: The City Attorney has drafted a purchase agreement for 3880 Laverne Ave N and the .58 acre adjacent parcel at the corner of 39th St and Laverne Ave N. The proposed purchase price is $875,000. In addition, the City would assume the pending street assessment (Laverne Ave N) estimated at $71,750. Earnest money of $40,000 is proposed.
The purchase agreement includes five contingencies:
• Title of the property is acceptable to the city
• Environmental condition of the property is acceptable to the city
• The physical condition of the property is acceptable to the city
• Building analysis/fit test results acceptable to the city
• A financing contingency Staff has contacted two firms to do the environmental and physical condition inspections. CEG Assessments fee for both is $3,300. Leo Daly’s fee is $2,500 for each the property condition assessment and the environmental review for a total of $5,000. Given that it is uncertain if the property will be used for a city
hall and/or fire station at this time, staff is not recommending the building fit test be completed. If council would like to identify which option we can obtain quotes for that study.
The City will have 90 days to perform its due diligence in these areas. The closing will then be 30 days after the due diligence period.
The cost of obtaining a Title Commitment will be paid by the sellers. Real estate taxes (est $23,330) will be prorated from the date of the closing. Other closing fees will be split as is customary along with the seller paying the broker fee.
The purchase agreement allows the city to assign it to the Economic Development Authority (EDA) which may be necessary for financing reasons discussed later. The Sellers would like for the City to decide if they would like to have the Financing Contingency or the EDA Assignment language but not both. They don’t feel it is clear what will happen. Staff left both sections in the agreement and Council can decide which, if any, to remove. A decision on the financing of the purchase will help in determining which removal is in the City’s best interest.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff has been meeting with bond counsel and our municipal financial advisor Tammy Omdal from
Northland to discuss financing options. Having the city issue General Obligation Capital Improvements Bonds is not an option since tenants will remain initially in the building. Therefore, any bonding would need to be done through the Economic Development Authority with taxable lease revenue bonds. Three
options include: 1) Using City Fund Balance. This could be fund balance in the general fund as well as the utility funds, likely split 80/10/10 (general/water/sewer). Staff would not recommend this option as
drawing down the general fund balance that significantly may impact the city’s bond rating and trigger the need to levy to increase the fund balance to be within policy guidelines of 50-60%. 2) Have the EDA issue lease revenue bonds as the EDA is currently organized. This would then lead to a lease agreement between the City and EDA which would cover the debt payments and possibly operating costs, property taxes, property insurance, etc. 3) Have the EDA issue lease revenue bonds after granting HRA powers. The EDA could then pledge the HRA levy as a backup if future Councils decide not to levy for the lease bond payment amounts. This could result in the interest rate being as much as 1% lower than option 2 above. A lease agreement would still be needed as described in option 2. In the near term, as long as all tenants remain at their current rates, staff estimates the city will net funds
after paying bond payments, operating costs, property taxes and insurance. This is due to the city not having to make the current lease payments once ownership changes as well as reduced taxes for the portion that is tax-exempt.
General fund balance can be used in the interim for the purchase of the property and then once bond proceeds are received the City can be reimbursed for the purchase. The EDA will need to approve a
reimbursement resolution within 60 days of the purchase. Then they would reimburse the City. If the Council decides to use fund balance and not have the EDA issue bonds, the unrestricted unassigned fund balance in the General Fund is projected to be at about 51% by 12/31/18. Council could impact that percentage by having the utility funds pay their fair portion of the building costs. OPTIONS: Regarding Purchase Agreement: 1) Approve the Purchase Agreement for 3880 Laverne Ave N 2) Amend and then Approve the Purchase Agreement for 3880 Laverne Ave N 3) Do not Approve a Purchase Agreement for 3880 Laverne Ave N Regarding the contingencies: 1) Approve $3,300 for CEG to complete a property conditions assessment and Phase 1 Environmental
2) Approve $5,000 for Leo Daly to complete a property conditions assessment and Phase 1 Environmental 3) Direct staff to obtain quotes for a building fit test (Council identify the use)
Regarding Financing: 1) Use fund balance
2) EDA taxable lease revenue bonds 3) Use HRA powers of EDA, taxable lease revenue bonds
RECOMMENDATION:
“Motion to Amend and then Approve the Purchase Agreement for 3880 Laverne Ave N.”
AND “Motion to approve $3,300 for CEG to complete a property conditions assessment and Phase 1
Environmental Assessment.”
AND
“Motion to direct staff to begin securing financing via the EDA using HRA powers.” ATTACHMENTS:
• Purchase Agreement
• CEG Proposal
1 514609v3 SJS LA515-1
PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the ____ day of _____________________, 2018 (which shall be the reference date only of this Agreement) by and
between LAKE ELMO ASSOCIATES LLP, a Minnesota limited liability partnership (“Seller”) and the CITY OF LAKE ELMO, a public body corporate and politic in the State of Minnesota (“Purchaser”). RECITALS A. Seller is the owner of certain real property located at 3880 Laverne Avenue North, in the City of Lake Elmo (“City”), County of Washington, and State of Minnesota, which is legally described on the attached Exhibit A (the “Land”). B. Seller desires to sell the Land and any and all improvements located thereon to Purchaser, and Purchaser desires to purchase such Land and improvements under the terms and conditions provided herein. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the following terms and conditions, the parties agree as follows:
1. SALE AND PURCHASE. Seller hereby agrees to sell to Purchaser, and Purchaser hereby agrees to purchase from Seller, upon the terms and conditions set forth below, the following:
a. Fee simple title to the Land together with improvements constructed on the Land (the “Improvements”); and
b. Seller’s interest, if any, in: (i) all easements, air rights, and other rights benefiting or appurtenant to the Land; and (ii) all neighboring or contiguous alleys, streets, roads, and utilities servicing, pertaining, or relating to the Land; and c. All personal property and fixtures located in the building that cannot be removed without causing damage to the Improvements including, but not limited to, affixed equipment and appliances (the “Personal Property”). All items described in subsections 1(a) through 1(c) above are collectively referred to in this Agreement as the “Property.”
2. PURCHASE PRICE. The total purchase price to be paid by Purchaser to Seller for the Property (the “Purchase Price”) shall be Eight Hundred and Seventy-Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars
($875,000.00). The Purchase Price shall be payable as follows:
a. Upon execution of this Agreement by both parties, Purchaser shall deposit with St. Croix Title with an address of 10390 39th Street N., Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (the “Title Company”) via cash or wire transfer, Forty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($40,000.00) (the “Earnest Money”). At the Closing, as defined in Section 9 hereof, the Earnest Money and any interest accrued thereon shall be paid to Seller and credited against the Purchase Price. The Title Company shall act as escrow agent with respect to the Earnest Money pursuant to the
2 514609v3 SJS LA515-1
terms of this Agreement, shall deposit such Earnest Money in a noninterest-bearing
account, and all costs of Title Company, if any, with respect to such escrow shall be borne by Purchaser. If the Purchaser fails to Close for any reason, other than i) properly terminating this Agreement pursuant to the terms of Paragraphs 3 or 6; or ii) the default of
Seller, the Earnest Money and any interest accrued thereon shall be retained by the Seller. b. The “Effective Date” shall be the last date upon which this Agreement is executed by
both Purchaser and Seller. c. The balance of the Purchase Price, plus or minus the prorations and credits provided in this Agreement, shall be paid to Seller in immediately available funds via certified check or wire transfer at the Closing (as defined in Section 9 hereof). If there is a dispute between Seller and Purchaser regarding whether the Earnest Money shall be returned to Purchaser or delivered to Seller, Title Company shall have no obligation to either Seller or Purchaser except to interplead the proceeds into an appropriate court of competent jurisdiction. Title Company may act upon any instrument or other writing believed by Title Company in good faith to be genuine and to be signed and presented by the proper person. Title Company shall not
be liable in connection with the performance by Title Company of its duties hereunder, except for Title Company’s own fraudulent misconduct or negligence. Title Company shall be under no obligation to institute or defend any action, suit, or legal proceeding in connection herewith or to
take any other action likely to involve an expense to Title Company (except to interplead the Earnest Money as aforesaid and within respect to its own wrongful conduct or negligence) unless first indemnified to its reasonable satisfaction by Seller and Purchaser.
3. CONTINGENCIES. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement to the contrary, the parties agree that the purchase of the Property is subject to the following contingencies (collectively, the “Purchaser Contingencies”) which must be accepted or waived on or before the expiration of the Due Diligence Period hereafter defined, unless a different period is expressly provided herein: a. Title to the Property shall be acceptable to Purchaser, in its sole discretion (the “Title Contingency”) within the time frames and terms and conditions contained in Paragraph 6. b. The Property’s environmental condition shall be acceptable to Purchaser, in its sole discretion. Copies of such environmental assessments shall be provided at no cost to Seller for its use (the “Environmental Contingency”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Purchaser must conduct such review and other matters during the Due
Diligence Period and this Environmental Contingency shall expire on the expiration of the Due Diligence Period. c. Purchaser shall have the right during the Due Diligence Period to conduct such soil tests/geotechnical analyses, building and property inspections, reviews, environmental assessments (collectively, the “Physical Reports”), if any, as Purchaser deems
necessary and such Physical Reports and the testing/review required therefore shall be subject to the terms and conditions contained in Paragraph 7. The results of the same shall be satisfactory to Purchaser in its sole discretion (the “Inspection Contingency”). Copies of any Physical Reports obtained or commissioned by Purchaser with respect to the Property shall be provided at no cost to Seller, but without any representation as to their accuracy or how the same may be used. To facilitate Purchaser’s due diligence efforts, Seller agrees to deliver copies of all records it has of
3 514609v3 SJS LA515-1
the Property in its possession, if any, to Purchaser within 10 days after the Effective
Date hereof.
d. Purchaser may conduct a building analysis test fit plan for the Property during the Due Diligence Period. The results of the same shall be satisfactory to Purchaser in its sole
discretion (the “Building Analysis Contingency”).
e. Purchaser obtaining financing acceptable to Purchaser in its sole discretion during the Due Diligence Period (the “Financing Contingency”).
Purchaser shall satisfy or waive the Environmental Contingency, the Inspection Contingency, the Building Analysis Contingency, and the Financing Contingency on or before the expiration of the Due Diligence Period and the Title Contingency in the time prescribed in Paragraph 6 or said Contingencies shall be waived. On or before that date which is 90 days after the Effective Date hereof (the “Due Diligence Period”), Purchaser shall, by giving written notice to Seller, either: (i) Terminate this Agreement if any one or more of the Purchaser Contingencies above have not been satisfied; or
(ii) Waive the Contingencies and proceed to closing. If Purchaser elects to terminate this Agreement under clause (i) above, then upon Seller’s receipt
of Purchaser’s written notice of termination, this Agreement shall be null and void, all Earnest Money shall be returned by Title Company to Purchaser, and neither party shall have any further obligation to the other.
If Purchaser elects to waive any of the Purchaser Contingencies and proceed under clause (ii) above, then the Earnest Money shall become non-refundable to Purchaser except in the event of: (a) Seller’s default; or (b) termination pursuant to Section 8 below and the parties shall proceed to Closing as provided in Section 9 below. 4. REPRESENTATIONS. The following representations are being made by Seller: (i) that Seller owns fee simple marketable title to the Property; (ii) Seller has no knowledge of any “Hazardous Substance,” “pollutant” or “contaminant” ever being released from any “facility” or “vessel” located on or used in connection with the Property, and has not taken any action in “response” to a “release” in connection with the Property (the terms set within quotation marks shall have the meanings given to them in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Compensation and Liability Act); (iii) as of the Closing, there will be no obligations or liabilities of any kind or nature whatsoever, including but not limited to any tax liabilities, contract liabilities, or tort liabilities for
which or to which Purchaser or the Property will be liable or subject except for non-delinquent real estate tax obligations; (iv) there are no storage tanks, underground storage tanks, wells or abandoned wells, or septic systems upon the Property, with the exception of an abandoned septic
system that was emptied, crushed, and filled with sand; (v) subject to matters beyond the control of the Seller and reasonable wear and tear, the Property shall be substantially in the same condition at Closing as it is as of the date first written above; and (vi) Seller has not filed, voluntarily or
involuntarily for bankruptcy relief within the last year under the United States Bankruptcy Code or has any petition for bankruptcy or receivership been filed against Seller within the last year. These representations shall survive Closing indefinitely.
4 514609v3 SJS LA515-1
Except as expressly set forth herein, Seller makes no warranty or representations whatsoever,
express or implied, regarding the condition, merchantability, habitability, tenantability, environmental condition, or the fitness for any particular purpose or use, of the Property purchased and sold hereunder. Purchaser acknowledges that it is purchasing the Property “AS IS, WHERE
IS, AND WITH ALL FAULTS” and Purchaser for itself and for its successors and assigns hereby waives, releases, and discharges Seller from any and all claims, demands, liabilities, damages, obligations, fines, penalties, costs, and expenses, including (without limitation) reasonable
attorneys’ fees and disbursements (collectively, the “Liabilities”), and covenants not to sue Seller for any Liabilities caused by, arising out of, or related to the condition of the Property or any matters related to the Property. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the provisions of this paragraph shall survive Closing indefinitely. 5. SURVEY. Purchaser may survey the Property at its cost (the “Survey”). The Survey must be obtained within 30 days of the date of receipt of the Title Commitment (“Outside Survey Date”). Seller shall be provided with a copy of the Survey at no cost for its own use. 6. EVIDENCE OF TITLE. Purchaser shall obtain a commitment for an owner’s policy of title insurance (“Title Commitment”) from Title Company for the Property within 30 days of the
Effective Date. The cost of obtaining such Title Commitment shall be paid by Seller. Purchaser shall be allowed 15 days after the date of receipt of the latter of the Title Commitment or the Survey to examine the same and the making of any objections (the “Title Objections”); such
objections are to be made to Seller in writing or shall be deemed to have been waived. The Title Objections may include requests for deletion of the survey, mechanic’s liens, and possession standard exceptions and the request for special endorsements for such matters as Purchaser may
request. If any Title Objections are so made, Seller shall have 10 days from the date of Seller’s receipt of the Title Objections (“Outside Seller Response Date”) to confirm in writing to Purchaser whether it will be able to remove the Title Objections on or prior to the Closing Date, and if not, which of the Title Objections Seller is unwilling to remove; provided, however, that Seller must satisfy any mortgages, monetary liens, or other monetary encumbrances on or prior to the Closing Date. Purchaser shall then have the right to either waive those Title Objections which Seller is unwilling to remove, or to terminate this Agreement on or before the earlier of i) five days after the Outside Seller Response Date; or ii) the end of the Due Diligence Period pursuant to the Title Contingency described in Section 3(a) above. If Seller fails to remove those Title Objections which Seller agrees to remove on or prior to the Closing Date, Purchaser shall have the option of:
a. Declaring this Agreement null and void by written notice to Seller, and, in such event, receiving a refund from Seller of all Earnest Money; or
b. Waiving any defect in title and, in such event, proceeding to close the transaction contemplated by this Agreement on the Closing Date as defined in Section 9 hereof.
As used in this Agreement, the term “Permitted Exceptions” shall mean (i) all matters either shown on the Survey or listed in the Title Commitment to which Purchaser does not
raise a Title Objection within the Title Review Period or, having objected, waives as provided above; (ii) ad valorem real estate taxes for the calendar year in which the Closing occurs and subsequent calendar years, not yet due and payable; and (iii) municipal or other governmental zoning laws, regulations and ordinances. 7. ACCESS TO LAND. Seller hereby grants to Purchaser and its agents the right of ingress and egress over, under, and through the Property for the purpose of surveying, inspecting, and
5 514609v3 SJS LA515-1
testing of the same and making other observations as Purchaser deems necessary, all however,
at Purchaser’s expense. This includes the right of Seller and its agents to perform soil borings and an environmental assessment of the Property. Purchaser shall reasonably repair any damage caused to the Property as a result of Purchaser’s activities such that the Property is
returned to substantially the same condition as it existed prior to Purchaser’s activities. Purchaser shall ensure that any individual or entity conducting examination of the Property on behalf of Purchaser is licensed and insured. Purchaser agrees to indemnify and hold Seller
harmless from all injury, death, or property damage or claim, loss, expense, or lien of any kind whatsoever arising out of or in any way incidental to Purchaser’s or its employees, contractors, agents and representatives presence on the Property, however that in no event shall Purchaser be responsible for any conditions discovered by Purchaser. Seller shall reasonably cooperate with Purchaser and its due diligence efforts. 8. DESTRUCTION OR EMINENT DOMAIN. If, prior to the Closing Date, all or any substantial part of the improvements on the Property should be destroyed by fire or any other cause, or any insubstantial part of the Property shall be taken by eminent domain, either party shall have the option of canceling this Agreement. If, prior to the Closing Date, all or any substantial part of the Land should be taken, or proceedings are commenced in condemnation
with respect thereto, Purchaser shall have the option to terminate this Agreement. Said options provided in this Paragraph, if exercised by Purchaser, must be exercised in writing and delivered to Seller within the earlier of: (i) 10 days after a request by Seller as to whether
Purchaser intends to exercise this option; or (ii) the Closing Date. If Purchaser so elects to cancel this Agreement in accordance herewith, this Agreement shall thereafter be of no further force and effect.
9. CLOSING AND POST-CLOSING. The consummation of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement (“Closing”) shall be held at St. Croix Title, 10390 39th Street North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 (or at such other location as the parties shall agree), on the “Closing Date” which shall be a date mutually agreed upon by Seller and Purchaser which is within 30 days after Purchaser has satisfied or waived all contingencies listed in Section 3 above. 9.1 On the Closing Date, Seller shall deliver to Purchaser a warranty deed for the Property, subject to only the Permitted Exceptions (the “Deed”); a FIRPTA affidavit; a customary Seller’s affidavit; an assignment and assumption of vendor and service contracts (to the extent Purchaser decides to assume any such contracts and they are not terminated), warranties and intangible property in form and substance reasonably required by Seller and Purchaser (“Assignment and Assumption Agreement”); assignment and assumptions of all leases; an “as is” Quit Claim bill of sale conveying the Personal Property to Seller; a bring down
certificate reaffirming the representations made in Section 4 hereof; an IRS Form 1099-S; and a closing settlement statement reflecting the economic provisions of the Closing as provided in this Purchase Agreement, all in exchange for the payment of the Purchase Price by
Purchaser. On the Closing Date, Purchaser shall deliver to Seller and Title Company the funds required
hereunder to satisfy the Purchase Price and as required under the closing statement agreed to among Seller, Purchaser and the Title Company, a customary form Buyer’s Affidavit in form and substance reasonably required by the Title Company; the executed Assignment and Assumption Agreement; executed assignments and assumptions of all leases; evidence reasonably satisfactory to Seller and the Title Company that the signatory has the full right, power, and authority to sign on behalf of Purchaser, a closing statement pursuant to the terms
6 514609v3 SJS LA515-1
and conditions of this Agreement, and such other documents as may be reasonably required
by the Title Company. General real estate taxes applicable to the Property due and payable in the year of Closing shall
be prorated between Seller and Purchaser on a daily basis with Seller paying those allocable to the period prior to the date of Closing and Purchaser being responsible for those allocable to the date of Closing and thereafter. Any real estate taxes due and payable in the years prior
to Closing, including any deferred real estate taxes, penalties or interest shall be paid by Seller. Seller shall pay all special assessments levied against the Property in the year 2017 or prior years. Purchaser shall pay all special assessments pending or levied in the year 2018 or future years. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at the Closing, Seller shall pay all state or local transfer, conservation fees, or deed taxes in connection with the Deed to be delivered by Seller to Purchaser. Seller shall pay recording fees of instruments required to establish marketable title in Seller. Seller shall pay the cost for preparation of the Commitment. Purchaser shall pay recording charges in connection with the Deed, as well as the costs of any due diligence reports which Purchaser may have ordered regarding environmental conditions, soils conditions, building analysis test fit plan, or other aspects of the Property. Purchaser shall pay the cost of its title insurance premium and any policy endorsements it desires. Purchaser and Seller shall
equally split any closing charges. Seller shall be responsible for satisfying, out of the Purchase Price or otherwise, all mortgages and liens against the Property as of Closing. Each party shall be responsible for its own legal counsel fees.
10. OPERATION PRIOR TO CLOSING. During the period from the date of Seller’s acceptance of this Agreement through the Closing Date (the “Executory Period”), Seller shall
operate and maintain the Property in the ordinary course of business in accordance with commercially reasonable business practices and standards, including but not limited to maintaining adequate liability insurance and insurance against loss by fire, windstorm, and other hazards, casualties, and contingencies, including vandalism and malicious mischief. Seller shall bear the risk of loss or damage caused by any perils through the Executory Period. 11. AUTHORITY. Each person executing this Agreement, by his or her execution hereof, represents and warrants that he or she is fully authorized to do so, and that no further action or consent on the part of the party for whom he or she is acting is required for the effectiveness and enforceability of this Agreement against such party following such execution. 12. BROKER’S FEES. Seller has engaged Eric King of Cushman & Wakefield as its broker in this transaction. Seller shall be responsible for paying its broker’s fees. Seller and Purchaser hereby represent and warrant to the other party that, in connection with this transaction, no
other third-party broker or finder has been engaged or consulted by it or through such party’s actions (or claiming through such party) and is entitled to compensation as a consequence of this transaction. Seller and Purchaser agree to indemnify, defend, and hold the other party
harmless against any and all claims of brokers, finders, or the like, and against the claims of all third parties, claiming any right to commission or compensation by or through acts of the indemnifying party or its partners, agents, or affiliates in connection with this Agreement. The
indemnifying party’s indemnity obligations shall include all damages, losses, costs, liabilities, and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, which may be incurred by the other party. 13. RELOCATION BENEFITS; INDEMNIFICATION. Seller acknowledges that it is being displaced from the Property as a result of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement and that Seller may be eligible for relocation assistance and benefits and that the Purchase Price includes
7 514609v3 SJS LA515-1
compensation for any and all relocation assistance and benefits for which Seller may be eligible
and Seller agrees to waive any and all further relocation assistance benefits. The provisions of this paragraph shall survive closing of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement.
14. NOTICES. Any notice or election herein required or permitted to be given or served by either party hereto upon the other shall be deemed given or served in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, if personally served; sent via telephonic facsimile; delivered by nationally
recognized overnight courier (Fed Ex, UPS, DHL, etc.); or if mailed by United States registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, properly addressed as follows: If to Seller: Lake Elmo Associates LLP 3880 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Attn: John Zignego with a copy to: Cushman & Wakefield 3500 American Boulevard W, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55431
Attn: Eric King, Senior Director – Brokerage Services
If to Purchaser: City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Attn: City Administrator with a copy to: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Attn: Sarah J. Sonsalla
Each mailed notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given to, or served upon, the party to which it is addressed on the third date after the same is deposited in the United States registered or certified mail, if postage prepaid, properly addressed in the manner above
provided, if sent by overnight mail it shall be deemed delivered the day after deposit with the overnight courier, or on the date of delivery if by other means as allowed above, and if by telephonic facsimile, with confirmation of successful transmission. The addresses to which notices are to be mailed to either party hereto may be changed by such party by giving written notice thereof to the other party in the manner above provided. 15. DEFAULT. In the event of a default by Seller hereunder, Purchaser may terminate this Purchase Agreement, and receive from Seller a return of all Earnest Money, or, bring an action to compel the specific performance of this Agreement in a court of law or equity. In the event of a default by Purchaser hereunder, Seller may terminate this Agreement by providing 30 days written notice as provided by Minnesota Statutes, and subsequent to such termination, retain the Earnest Money, and any interest accrued thereon, paid by Purchaser hereunder as its sole and exclusive remedy. 16. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which will, for all purposes, be deemed to be an original, and all of which are identical. This Agreement may further be evidenced by facsimile and email scanned signature pages.
8 514609v3 SJS LA515-1
17. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state where the Property is located.
18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and there are no other covenants, agreements, promises, terms, provisions, conditions, undertakings, understandings either oral or written, between them concerning the Property. No
subsequent alteration, amendment, change, deletion, or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon any of the parties hereto unless in writing and signed by both the party against whom enforcement thereof is sought. 19. FURTHER ASSURANCES. Each party agrees that it will without further consideration execute and deliver such other documents and take such other action, whether prior or subsequent to Closing, as may be reasonably requested by the other party to consummate more effectively the purposes or subject matter of this Agreement. 20. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. The provisions of this Agreement and of the documents to be executed and delivered at Closing are and will be for the benefit of Seller and Purchaser only
and are not for the benefit of any third party, and accordingly, no third party shall have the right to enforce the provisions of this Agreement or of the documents to be executed and delivered at Closing.
21. SECTION 1031 EXCHANGE. If either party desires to have this transaction constitute a like-kind exchange of properties utilizing the provisions of Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as amended, each party agrees to cooperate with the other party in order to effectuate and facilitate such an exchange, provided that: (a) the exchange does not delay the Closing under this Agreement, (b) the non-exchanging party does not incur any additional liability as a result of its cooperation, and (c) the non-exchanging party is not required to enter into any contract to purchase any other property, or take title to any property other than the Real Property. In particular, either party may assign its rights under this Agreement prior to Closing to a “Qualified Intermediary,” as that term is defined in applicable Treasury Regulations; and Purchaser will, upon request of Seller, pay the balance of the Purchase Price to the Qualified Intermediary designated by Seller. 22. ASSIGNS. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on the parties hereto and their respective legal representatives, successors, and permitted assigns. Purchaser may assign this Agreement to the Lake Elmo Economic Development Authority (the “EDA”) if Purchaser determines that the EDA is able to obtain more favorable financing. Purchaser shall obtain the prior written consent of Seller for any other assignment.
23. SEVERABILITY. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity,
illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein.
24. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. The parties acknowledge that each party and its counsel has reviewed and revised this Agreement, and the parties hereby agree that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendments or exhibits hereto. 25. MISCELLANEOUS. All times specified in this Agreement shall be of the essence of this Agreement. If any date set forth for the performance of any obligations by Seller or Purchaser or
9 514609v3 SJS LA515-1
for the delivery of any instrument or notice should be on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the
compliance with such obligations or delivery shall be deemed acceptable on the next business day following such Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. The term “legal holiday” means any state or federal holiday on which financial institutions or post offices are generally closed in the state of
Minnesota. 26. WAIVER. The waiver by any party of a breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be
deemed a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach whether of the same or another provision of this Agreement.
10 514609v3 SJS LA515-1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into and executed this Agreement the day
and year first above written. SELLER: PURCHASER: LAKE ELMO ASSOCIATES LLP CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: By: Mike Pearson Its: ____________ Its: Mayor Date: _____________________ Date: _______________
By: Julie Johnson Its: City Clerk
Date: _______________
11 514609v3 SJS LA515-1
The undersigned agrees to act as Title Company and hold in trust the Earnest Money pursuant
to the terms of this Agreement. Receipt of the Earnest Money of $40,000.00 is hereby acknowledged.
ST. CROIX TITLE By:
Its:
A-1 514609v3 SJS LA515-1
EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Land The North 126.89 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Brookman Addition, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota, lying easterly of the West 199.91 feet thereof.
(PIN: 13.029.21.22.0025) (.58 acre parcel) AND The North 350.18 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Brookman Addition, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota, except the West 199.91 feet of the North 126.89 feet of said Lot 1, Block 2, Brookman Addition; also except the North 126.89 feet of said Lot 1, Block 2, Brookman Addition, lying easterly of the West 199.91 feet thereof.
(PIN: 13.029.21.22.0026) (2.06 acre parcel)
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
P.O. Box 3750, St. Francisville, LA 70775
office 866 557 6564 | eFax 800 650 8984
www.CEGassessments.com
January 5, 2018
Kristina Handt
The City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Subject: Proposal for Property Condition and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Dear Ms. Handt,
Coastal Ecology Group, LLC (DBA CEG Assessments and henceforth referred to as CEG) is pleased to provide
the City of Lake Elmo (“the Client”) with the following proposal to provide a Property Condition Assessment
(PCA) and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 3880 Laverne Ave North, Lake Elmo, MN (“the Project”).
Project Information
Based on information provided by the Client, CEG understands the property consists of one parcel improved with an
18,000 SF building located at 3880 Laverne Ave North, Lake Elmo, MN.
Scope of Work- ESA
CEG will perform the ESA in general accordance with ASTM E1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Site Assessment Process, consistent with a level of care and skill ordinarily practiced by the
environmental consulting profession currently providing similar services under similar circumstances. The scope of
work will include an evaluation of:
The Project history in an attempt to identify any possible ownership(s) and/or uses that would suggest an impact to the
environmental integrity of the Project as identified through review of reasonably ascertainable standard historical
sources.
Physical characteristics of the Project as identified through review of reasonably ascertainable topographic maps.
Current Project conditions (as applicable), including compliance with appropriate regulations as they pertain to the
presence or absence of:
Facility storage tanks, drums, containers (above or below ground), etc.
Transformers and other electrical equipment which utilize fluid which may potentially contain polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs)
The use of hazardous materials/chemicals and petroleum products, and/or the generation, treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous, regulated, or medical wastes
An evaluation of information contained in programs such as the NPL, CERCLIS, SHWS, RCRIS, SWF, LUST, and other
governmental information systems within specific search distances of the Project. This evaluation will be performed to
identify any sites that may have the potential to impact the environmental integrity of the Project. The regulatory
agency report provided is based on an evaluation of the data collected and compiled by a contracted data research
company. The report is based on a radius search which focuses on both the Project and neighboring sites that may
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
P.O. Box 3750, St. Francisville, LA 70775
office 866 557 6564 | eFax 800 650 8984
www.CEGassessments.com
impact the Project. Neighboring sites listed in governmental environmental records are identified within a specific
search distance. The search distance varies depending upon the particular government record being checked. The
search is designed to meet the requirements of ASTM Standard E 1527-13. The information provided is assumed to be
correct and complete.
Visual observation of the Project and adjacent properties and review of readily available historical
and regulatory information to identify the potential for known or suspected migration of hazardous substances or
petroleum products in any form, including solid and liquid at the surface or subsurface, and vapor in the subsurface.
Note: This assessment is not intended to comply with E2600 Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property
Involved in Real Estate Transactions.
In addition, at the Client’s request, the assessment will include the following non-scope items:
A review of the physical characteristics of the Project as identified through review of reasonably ascertainable wetlands,
floodplain, soils, geology, and groundwater data.
A screening approach for the potential existence of:
Asbestos, including the identification of all suspect materials in accessible areas (interior and exterior). These materials
are considered suspect, until tested and proven otherwise. Friable materials are those that can be easily crumbled or
pulverized by hand pressure. This screening approach is not a comprehensive (i.e., AHERA-Style) asbestos survey, nor
is it intended to fulfill the NESHAP requirements for demolition/renovation purposes, but it is intended to identify the
potential for an asbestos hazard in accessible areas. This screening is not intended to be used for demolition,
abatement, renovation, or repair work. The basis for "suspect" determination is taken from the materials listed in
Appendix G of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) publication Managing Asbestos in Place
(the "Green Book"). Therefore, all materials listed in the Green Book that were installed prior to 1981 are considered
suspect with the exception of resilient floor tile, asbestos-cement board (transite), and roofing felt, which are
considered suspect, regardless of installation date (these materials continue to be manufactured and installed in the
United States). Sampling will not be performed as a part of this assessment.
Radon gas propensity, through the review of the USEPA's Map of Radon Zones for all properties. Sampling will not be
performed as a part of this assessment.
Lead-based paint for all properties constructed prior to 1978. The basis for this determination is taken from the Lead
Paint Poisoning Act passed by the Congress of the United States that banned the use of lead paint starting January 1,
1978. Therefore, all paint applied prior to 1978 is considered suspect. Sampling will not be performed as a part of this
assessment.
Lead in water, based on information provided by the municipal water provider. Sampling will not be performed as a
part of this assessment.
Mold, including the identification of visible mold growth, conditions conducive for mold growth, and evidence of
moisture in accessible areas of the Project. In addition, CEG will interview Project personnel regarding any known or
suspected mold contamination, water intrusion, or mildew like odor problems. Sampling will not performed as a part
of this assessment. CEG notes that this assessment does not constitute a comprehensive mold survey of the Project,
and the conclusions made will be based solely on observable conditions in readily accessible interior areas of the
Project on the assessment date.
Scope of Work- PCA
CEG will perform the PCA in general accordance with ASTM E2018-15 Standard Guide for Property Condition
Assessments: Baseline Property Condition Assessment Process, consistent with a level of care and skill ordinarily
practiced by the building science consulting profession currently providing similar services under similar
circumstances. The scope of work will include:
Reconnaissance of the Project to evaluate the general condition of the building and site improvements, review
available construction documents relevant to in-place construction systems, life safety, mechanical, electrical,
and plumbing systems, and the general built environment.
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
P.O. Box 3750, St. Francisville, LA 70775
office 866 557 6564 | eFax 800 650 8984
www.CEGassessments.com
Identification of items/systems representative of deferred maintenance and provide cost estimates based on
observed conditions, maintenance history and industry standard useful life estimates.
Review of documented capital improvements completed within the last five-year period and work currently
contracted for, if applicable.
Provide a full description of the Project with descriptions of in-place systems and commentary on observed
conditions.
Provide a Limited Tier 1 Survey of the Project's compliance to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
This will not constitute a full ADA survey.
Perform a limited assessment of accessible areas of the building(s) for the presence of mold, conditions
conducive to mold growth, and/or evidence of moisture. Interviews with Project personnel regarding the
presence of any known or suspected mold, elevated relative humidity, water intrusion, or mildew-like odors
will similarly be performed. Potentially affected areas will be photographed. Sampling will not be considered in
routine assessments.
Review maintenance procedures with the in-place maintenance personnel.
Observe a representative sample of the interior tenant spaces/units, including vacant spaces/units, in order to
gain a clear understanding of the Project's overall condition. Other areas to be observed include the exterior
of the Project, the roofs, interior common areas, and mechanical, electrical and elevator equipment rooms.
Appropriate inquiries of municipal officials regarding the existence of pending unresolved building, zoning or
fire code violations on file, and a determination of the current zoning category, flood plain zone, and seismic
zone for the Project.
Provide recommendations for additional studies, if required, with related budgetary information.
In addition, the assessment will include the following non-scope items:
Project disclosure information is obtained from CEG's Pre-survey Questionnaire (copy included in the
Appendices)
Preparation of the Modified Capital Reserves Schedule based upon a 7 year reserve term
Provide a statement on the Project's Remaining Useful Life
Determination of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Plain Zone and geographic Uniform
Building Code Seismic Zone
The following items are excluded from ASTM 2018-15, and are considered outside the scope of a PCA:
Utilities: Operating conditions of any systems or accessing manholes or utility pits.
Entering of crawl or confined space areas, determination of previous substructure flooding or water
penetration unless easily visible or if such information is provided.
Walking on pitched roofs, or any roof areas that appear to be unsafe, or roofs with no built-in access, or
determining any roofing design criteria.
Determining adequate pressure and flow rate, fixture-unit values and counts, or verifying pipe sizes and
verifying the point of discharge for underground systems.
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
P.O. Box 3750, St. Francisville, LA 70775
office 866 557 6564 | eFax 800 650 8984
www.CEGassessments.com
Observation of flue connections, interiors of chimneys, flues or boiler stacks, or tenant-owned or maintained
equipment.
Evaluation of process related equipment or condition of tenant owned/maintained equipment.
Removing of electrical panel covers, except if removed by building staff, EMF issues, electrical testing, or
operating of any electrical devices. Process related equipment or tenant owned equipment.
Examining of cables, sheaves, controllers, motors, inspection tags, or entering elevator/escalator pits or shafts.
Determining NFPA hazard classifications, classifying, or testing fire rating of assemblies.
Operating appliances or fixtures, determining or reporting STC (Sound Transmission Class) ratings, and
flammability issues/regulations.
Testing, measuring, or preparing calculations for any system or component to determine adequacy, or
compliance with any standard.
Removing or relocating materials, furniture, storage containers, personal effects, debris material or finishes;
conducting exploratory probing or testing; dismantling or operating of equipment or appliances; or disturbing
personal items or Project which obstructs access or visibility.
Preparing engineering calculations (civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, etc.) to determine any system's,
component's, or equipment's adequacy or compliance with any specific or commonly accepted design
requirements or building codes, or preparing designs or specifications to remedy any physical deficiency.
Taking measurements or quantities to establish or confirm any information or representations provided by the
owner or user such as: size and dimensions of the subject Project or subject building, any legal encumbrances
such as easements, dwelling unit count and mix, building Project line setbacks or elevations, number and size
of parking spaces, etc.
Reporting on the presence or absence of pests such as wood damaging organisms, rodents, or insects unless
evidence of such presence is readily apparent during the course of the field observer's walk-through survey or
such information is provided to the consultant by the owner, user, Project manager, etc. The consultant is
not required to provide a suggested remedy for treatment or remediation, determine the extent of
infestation, nor provide opinions of probable costs for treatment or remediation of any deterioration that may
have resulted.
Reporting on the condition of subterranean conditions such as underground utilities, separate sewage disposal
systems, wells; systems that are either considered process-related or peculiar to a specific tenancy or use;
waste water treatment plants; or items or systems that are not permanently installed.
Entering or accessing any area of the premises deemed to pose a threat of dangerous or adverse conditions
with respect to the field observer or to perform any procedure, which may damage or impair the physical
integrity of the Project, any system, or component.
Providing an opinion on the condition of any system or component, which is shutdown, or whose operation
by the field observer may significantly increase the registered electrical demand-load.
Evaluating acoustical or insulating characteristics of systems or components.
Providing an opinion on matters regarding security of the subject Project and protection of its occupants or
users from unauthorized access.
Operating or witnessing the operation of lighting or other systems typically controlled by time clocks or that
are normally operated by the building's operation staff or service companies.
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
P.O. Box 3750, St. Francisville, LA 70775
office 866 557 6564 | eFax 800 650 8984
www.CEGassessments.com
Providing an environmental assessment or opinion on the presence of any environmental issues such as
asbestos, hazardous wastes, toxic materials, the location and presence of designated wetlands, IAQ, etc.
CEG is merely providing an opinion. The PCA may not be construed as either a warranty or guarantee of any of
the following:
Any system's or component's physical condition or use, nor is a PCA to be construed as substituting for any
system's or equipment's warranty transfer inspection.
Compliance with any federal, state, or local statute, ordinance, rule or regulation including, but not limited to,
building codes, safety codes, environmental regulations, health codes or zoning ordinances or compliance with
trade/design standards or the standards developed by the insurance industry. However, should there be any
conspicuous material present violations observed or reported based upon actual knowledge of the field
observer or the PCA reviewer, they should be identified in the PCA.
Compliance of any material, equipment, or system with any certification or actuation rate program, vendor's
or manufacturer's warranty provisions, or provisions established by any standards that are related to insurance
industry acceptance/approval such as FM, State Board of Fire Underwriters, etc.
Fees, Schedule and Deliverable
CEG will perform the above scope of work based on a fee of $3,300.00. This fee is considered lump-sum and will
not be exceeded without prior authorization from the Client. CEG will prepare and furnish one electronic copy of
a final report of investigation, which will include an executive summary and recommendations section in
accordance with industry standards. Submittal of the final deliverable is anticipated within 15 business days of
receipt of this executed proposal.
Client Responsibilities and Authorization
The proposed fee and schedule are based on Client responsibilities that include, but are not limited to, providing
timely access to the entire Project, providing accurate Project location information, providing access to
knowledgeable building maintenance and engineering staff, and providing available documentation.
CEG appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal. If this proposal is deemed acceptable, please provide an
executed copy of the attached Property Condition Services Assessment Agreement to the undersigned. Should
you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at
866.557.6564 Ext. 140 or 480.652.5773.
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert A. Tootle
Director of National Sales
CEG Assessments, LLC
Attachments: Combo Services Assessment Agreement
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
P.O. Box 3750, St. Francisville, LA 70775
office 866 557 6564 | eFax 800 650 8984
www.CEGassessments.com
SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 5th day of January, 2018, by and between The City of Elmo
Lake having offices at 3800 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042, hereinafter referred to as the
“CLIENT” and Coastal Ecology Group, LLC, hereinafter referred to as “CEG.” CEG Assessments is a registered
“doing business as” name of Coastal Ecology Group, LLC.
WHEREAS, the CLIENT desires to have certain services and/or tasks performed as set forth below requiring
specialized skills and other supportive capabilities; and
WHEREAS, CEG represents that CEG is qualified and possesses sufficient skills and the necessary capabilities,
including technical and professional expertise, where required, to perform the services and/or tasks set forth in
this agreement.
NOW, THERFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants, and performance contained herein,
the parties agree as follows:
1. Scope of Services: CEG shall perform such services and accomplish such tasks, including furnishing of
all materials and equipment necessary for full performance thereof, as are identified and designated as
CEG responsibilities throughout this agreement and incorporated herein as the “Project.”
2. Delivery Schedule: CEG will provide a report within 15 business days of execution of this contract.
3. Project Address: CEG is conducting the Assessment on a property located at: 3880 Laverne Avenue
North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042.
4. “Project”: CEG agrees to provide the CLIENT with a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed
to ASTM E1527-13 standards and Property Condition Assessment performed to ASTM 2018-08
standards.
5. Limitation of Liability: Client agrees to limit CEG‘s liability to the maximum value of this agreement.
6. Report Format: CEG will prepare and furnish one (1) electronic copy of each final report of
investigation, which will include an executive summary and recommendations section in accordance with
industry standards.
7. Fees: Costs are based on a per unit/site cost.
Number of Sites: One (1) Price Per Site: $3,300.00 Project Total: $3,300.00
8. Payment: CLIENT agrees and understands that payment is due upon receipt of report.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first
hereinabove written.
CLIENT: CEG:
________________________________ ___________________________________
Date: Date: