HomeMy WebLinkAbout#14 - Bruggeman Open Space PUD Concept Plan STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 07/21/2020
TO: City Council
FROM: Ken Roberts, Planning Director
AGENDA ITEM: Bruggeman Builders Open Space PUD – 2500 Manning Avenue –
Concept PUD Review
REVIEWED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Sarah Sonsalla, City Attorney
Lucius Jonett, City Landscape Architect
Ann Pung-Terwedo, Senior Planner, Washington County
INTRODUCTION:
Mr. Paul Bruggeman, representing Bruggeman Builders, is requesting City approval of a concept plan for
an open space planned unit development (OP PUD) for the property located at 2500 Manning Avenue.
The proposed concept plan for the OP PUD is for a 14 single family residential subdivision on 32.3 gross
acres with a density of +/- 0.45 dwelling units per acre (D.U.A). Much of the property is within the
Shoreland Management Area of Downs Lake. The Shoreland Ordinance has provisions for the
development of PUD’s in the areas near lakes, subject to additional design and performance standards.
In addition, the developer is proposing an OP PUD that would not meet all the City requirements for an
OP PUD and those for a residential development within a shoreland district. Such requested exceptions or
modifications include having lots that do not meet the lot width, lot area and impervious requirements for
new development near Natural Environment lakes such as Downs Lake. I will discuss these requests in
more detail later in this report.
On May 27, 2020, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed OP PUD concept plan for this
property. The Commission had a lengthy discussion about the merits of many of the Code standards for a
PUD within the shoreland of lake such as this site and the recommended conditions of approval. The
Planning Commission ultimately recommended approval of the OP PUD concept plan with a 5-1 vote.
This recommendation was subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and with an added condition
about having an HOA (for the care of the community-owned properties).
On July 7, 2020, the City Council reviewed the proposed OP PUD Concept Plan for the property located
at 2500 Manning Avenue North. After much review and discussion, the Council directed staff to bring
back to the City Council an updated resolution of approval for the OP PUD Concept Plan with revised
conditions of approval.
ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL:
City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020 Page 2
The City Council is respectfully being requested to review and provide feedback to the developer
about the open space planned unit development (OP PUD) concept plan proposed by Bruggeman
Builders for the property located 2500 Manning Avenue North.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Paul Bruggeman, Bruggeman Builders, Stillwater, MN 55042
Property Owner: Gary and Meg Johnson, 2500 Manning Avenue North
Location: 2500 Manning Avenue, Lake Elmo.
PID#: 24-029-21-13-0002
Request: OP PUD Concept Plan approval
Site Area: 32.3 acres (gross)
Existing Land Use: Single-family home and accessory buildings, agriculture
Land Use Guidance: Rural Area Development (RAD)
Current Zoning: RR – Rural Residential District
Proposed Zoning: Open Space PUD
Surrounding Zoning: OP PUD (Heritage Farms to the north), West Lakeland Township across
Manning Avenue (east), Rural Residential (RR) and Small lot residential
(RS) (south), RR (west).
History: The owners have used the property for hobby farming and the growing of
pumpkins. There is one single family dwelling and accessory building
on the property.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 4/28/2020
60 Day Deadline – 6/26/2020
Extension Letter Mailed – yes
120 Day Deadline – 8/24/2020
Applicable Code:
Article 15 - Open Space Planned Unit Development Regulations
Article 18 – Shoreland Management Overlay District
Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
§150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment Control
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Overview. The proposed Open Space (OP) PUD development will be located on a 32.3 acre property
located at 2500 Manning Avenue, just south of the Heritage Farms OP PUD development. The proposed
development is proposed as an OP PUD because the developer is proposing a rural-style residential
development and is requesting flexibility from the strict zoning regulations of the Shoreland Ordinance and
the rural zoning regulations.
The applicant’s submission to the City includes the following components:
City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020 Page 3
• Concept Plan Overview. The attached project narrative includes a general overview of the
project with additional details concerning some of the unique aspects of the proposed
development.
• Existing Conditions. The applicant has provided an aerial photo and site plan depicting the
existing conditions in and around the project area.
• Concept Plan. The OP PUD Concept Plan includes a proposed configuration of roads, lots,
and other public spaces on the applicant’s site. While the plan provides initial dimensions for
many of the various lots and streets, some details are still missing and will need to be further
reviewed for compliance with the City’s standards and regulations.
Land Use and Zoning Flexibility. Proposed lot layouts and street widths in some cases do not meet
minimum zoning or shoreland ordinance requirements. The City’s OP PUD Ordinance allows for some
flexibility from zoning and subdivision requirements, subject to City Council approval. Single family
homes are a permitted use in the underlying RR zoning district
Land Use: The proposed residential development is consistent with the future land use map, which
guides this area RAD (rural area development).
OP PUD Ordinance Regulations:
The following OP PUD Code sections are relevant to this proposal:
Section 154.657.B.7.a Open Space
1. The total preserved open space area within an open space PUD development shall be no less than
50 percent of the total gross land area
2. Land needed for storm water facilities . . . may count toward required open space for the purposes
of open space PUD design, but must ultimately be placed in outlots to be dedicated to the City.
3. Excluding land needed for storm water facilities, not less than 60 percent of the remaining
preserved open space shall be in contiguous parcels which are five acres of more in size.
Section 154.657.B.3 Required Buffer zones. No build zones as follows:
a. 200 feet buffer from all adjacent property lines that about an existing residential development
or parcel of land not eligible for future development as an open space planned unit
development (Applicable to the south side-west end)
b. If the development site is adjacent to an existing or approved OP development, the required
buffer shall be equivalent to the buffer that was required of the adjacent development
(Applicable to the north side of the site)
Shoreland Regulations
Most of the development site is in the Shoreland Boundary area of Downs Lake. The City has adopted a
shoreland management overlay district (Article 18 of the City Code) that regulates land uses and the
intensity of land uses within the shoreland boundaries of the lakes in Lake Elmo. The purpose of the
Shoreland Overlay District is to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters and conserve the
economic and natural environmental values of shorelands. This is accomplished by regulating the
placement of improvements and structures and regulating the amount of land alterations and the intensity
City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020 Page 4
of development that may occur in the shoreland management area. The shoreland boundary area and
management overlay district generally extends 1000 feet out from the ordinary high water mark of a
public lake, as determined by the Minnesota DNR.
The following is a listing of the most relevant shoreland regulations for this proposal:
For Unsewered lots – the minimum lot size is 80,000 square feet, the minimum lot width is 200 feet,
maximum impervious surface area allowed on each lot 15 percent
PUD’s – Section 154.800 C 11 Planned Unit Developments. (for PUD’s in a Shoreland Zone)
c. Density: Deviation from the minimum lot size standards of Table 17-3 of this ordinance (for
lot size and lot width) is allowed if the Standards in this section are met.
d. Application for a PUD. The applicant for a PUD must submit the following documents prior
to final action on the request:
1. Property owner’s association agreement with mandatory membership.
2. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements or other instruments that:
a. Address future vegetative and topographic alterations, construction of additional
buildings
b. Ensure preservation and maintenance of open space in perpetuity in accordance with
the criteria and analysis specified in this ordinance.
e. Design Criteria
General Design Standards.
1. Dwelling units must be clustered into one or more groups and located on suitable areas of
the development.
3. At least 50 percent of the total project acre shall be preserved as open space an meet the
standards in the ordinance.
4. PUDs shall be connected to public water supply and sewer systems. When sewer is not
available, individual septic systems are not allowed; community sewage treatment
systems are required.
h. Open Space Maintenance and Administration Requirements.
Before final approval of a PUD is granted, the development/owner shall provide for the
preservation and maintenance, in perpetuity, of open space and the continuation of the
development as a community.
Development organization and functioning. All planned unit development must use an
owners association with the following features:
1. Membership must be mandatory for each dwelling unit owner and successive owner;
2. Each member must pay a pro rata share of the association’s expenses and unpaid
assessments can become liens on units or dwelling site;
3. Assessments must be adjustable to accommodate changing conditions; and
4. The association must be responsible for insurance, taxes and maintenance of all
commonly owned property and facilities.
City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020 Page 5
Update - Proposed Exceptions and Modifications
Much of the discussion and review of the proposed OP PUD concept plan during the City Council
meeting on July 7, 2020 focused on the proposed exceptions and modifications the developer is
requesting that the City approve. The City Code allows the City Council to approve exceptions and
modifications to the OP PUD standards as part of their consideration and review of a Concept OP PUD.
Such exceptions or modifications to the standards in the OP Ordinance are only possible with a super
majority vote (4/5) of the City Council per Section 154.657 of the OP Code. The Code also notes that
“[a]uthorization of such modifications resulting from a PUD concept review shall not be construed as
approvals for the changes, but rather as an authorization to present such modifications as a component of
the [PUD] plan during the PUD Preliminary Plan review.”
As noted in the staff report for the July 7, 2020 City Council meeting, City staff was not recommending
approval of all the applicant’s requested exceptions or modifications.
The following is a list of the proposed exceptions and modifications for the OP PUD and the feedback
and direction the City Council gave for each during the July 7, 2020 meeting:
• The proposed street within the project area is shown at 24-feet of width in a 50-foot-wide right-
of-way. As per the City Engineer’s comments, the City should require a 60-foot-wide right-of-
way and a standard width street with concrete curb and gutter. (Not approved – they said they
will build a 28-foot-wide street – probably in a 60-foot-wide right-of-way – final ROW width to
be determined).
• The applicant is requesting City approval of several exceptions or modifications to the OP PUD
code or City shoreland standards with this development; These include:
1. Not having a homeowners’ association (HOA) for the 14 lots because the developer is not
proposing to have any commonly owned property with the development. (Not approved –
they agreed to have an HOA).
2. Allowing each home to have its own on-site septic system and drainfields rather than having
a community septic system or systems that would serve several homes. Communal drainfields
also are a requirement of the shoreland ordinance for PUD’s. The applicant also wants the
City to allow drainfields in the open space areas on each lot. (Approved)
3. Not having commonly owned open space. As an alternative, the developer is requesting the
City allow them to place conservation easements on each lot that would protect the natural
features on the lot in order to meet the open space requirements.
Staff Note: It appeared to City staff that the City Council was supportive of this request. The
question with this method of open space protection is who will be the holder of the
conservation easement? The Land Trust most likely will not take it (especially if it is not in
an outlot) and the City Attorney has advised me that the HOA would not be authorized under
the conservation easement statute to be a holder of a conservation easement. This would
probably leave the City as the organization as the holder of the easement and the City would
be responsible for enforcing it. The City Council should be aware of this responsibility as
they decide whether to approve this exception or not. During the meeting on July 7, the City
Council and the developer’s representative discussed the idea of placing signs at the boundary
of the conservation easement area to notify the property owners to not disturb the area and to
no put anything in the easement area. The City Council should make it a condition of
approval that the design and location of such signs be subject to City approval.
City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020 Page 6
4. Having the storm water ponding area(s) placed on individual lots rather than in a separate
outlot that would become the responsibility of the HOA or City to maintain. (Not approved –
must place storm water ponding areas in separate outlots)
5. Having a reduced buffer from the south property line for construction on the development
site (100 feet instead of 200 feet). (Approved – with the planting of landscaping and trees for
screening).
6. Having a rural section road with gravel shoulders and ditches. (Not approved)
7. Having street right-of-way width of 50 feet instead of 60 feet. (Not approved – see note
above).
8. Having lots with less than 80,000 square feet of lot area and lot widths less than 200 feet as
required by the Shoreland Ordinance. (Approved)
9. Not having the existing wetland and wetland buffer area in a separate outlot. (Not approved)
Staff has updated the recommended conditions of approval and the proposed resolution of approval for
the OP PUD concept plan based on the City Council discussion and direction from the July 7, 2020
meeting. City staff is asking the City Council to affirm their approval of proposed exceptions 2, 3, 5 and 8
from the list above as part of the approval of the OP PUD concept plan.
For more information about the proposed OP PUD concept plan, please refer to the City staff report for
the July 7, 2020 City Council meeting.
OPTIONS:
The City Council is asked to examine the proposed OP PUD Concept Plan and provide guidance to the
applicant on if and how to proceed. Keep in mind that a conditional approval at this point simply allows
the applicant to proceed to the preliminary PUD plan stage, and does NOT carry with it any assurances of
future success or approvals. Denial of the concept plan at this point will require the applicant to reassess
the development approach and return with a revised/new concept plan for City review and approval
before proceeding to a preliminary PUD plan.
The City Council has the following options:
A) APPROVAL of the requested OP PUD Concept Plan based on the applicant’s submission, the
contents of this report, public testimony and other evidence available to the City Council. This
approval would require the City Council to approve by a 4/5 vote some or all of the modifications
as requested by the developer. (See Number 2 below).
B) DENIAL of the requested OP PUD Concept Plan based on the applicant's submission, the contents of
this report, public testimony and other evidence available to the Council.
C) TABLE the request for further study.
Per the City Code, the concept plan is simply an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan showing the
basic intent and general nature of the entire development, and there are no specific criteria to guide approval or
denial of a concept plan. Staff would recommend using the following as a guide for discussion.
City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020 Page 7
(1) Has the applicant demonstrated that the proposal fulfills the intent for OP PUDs and at least one
of the identified reasons listed in Section 154.651 to permit development as an OP PUD?
a. If NO, deny the PUD concept plan and provide findings to support the denial. Further review of the
plan details would become unnecessary, so the City would not need to take any further action on this
application.
b. If YES, proceed to the next review point.
(2) What exceptions or modifications from the City Code are acceptable to the City Council with this
OP PUD and what changes to the plans would applicant need to make with any future
preliminary PUD submittal before the City could accept it for review and possible approval?
Approval to proceed should be conditioned upon the applicant addressing the issues and conditions as
documented in the staff report, and other items or matters as listed by the City Council. The approval of
exceptions or modifications to the City Code for this OP PUD requires City Council approval by a 4/5
vote for each exception or modification.
Based on the discussion during the July 7, 2020 City Council meeting, the following items are the
exceptions and modifications from the list-above the City Council is approving for this OP PUD
concept plan:
• Allowing each home to have its own on-site septic system and drainfields rather than having a
community septic system or systems that would serve several homes. Communal drainfields
also are a requirement of the shoreland ordinance for PUD’s. The applicant also wants the City
to allow drainfields in the open space areas on each lot. (Approved)
• Having a reduced buffer from the south property line for construction on the development site
(100 feet instead of 200 feet). (Approved – subject to the developer planting landscaping and
trees for screening).
• Having lots with less than 80,000 square feet of lot area and lot widths less than 200 feet as
required by the Shoreland Ordinance. (Approved)
• Not having commonly owned open space. As an alternative, the developer is requesting the
City allow them to place conservation easements on each lot that would protect the natural
features on the lot in order to meet the open space requirements. (Approved – subject to the
developer installing signs at the border of the conservation easement areas that notify the
property owners to not disturb the conservation area and to no put anything in the conservation
easement area.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the OP PUD Concept Plan proposed by
Bruggeman Builders based on the above comments and analysis and the following review criteria and
findings (from Section 154.660 of the City Code):
1. That the proposed OP PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan.
2. That the proposed OP PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the purpose and intent of OP PUDs in
Lake Elmo by:
City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020 Page 8
a. Providing greater development flexibility while maintaining the rural character by preserving
agricultural land, woodlands, wildlife or natural corridors and other significant natural
features.
b. Providing for:
1. An avenue to provide a development density equal to or greater than what could be
achieved via the underlying zoning;
2. A reduction in the costs to construct and maintain public facilities and infrastructure in a
rural setting;
3. Protecting open space to enhance and preserve the natural character of the community;
4. The creation of distinct neighborhoods that are interconnected within rural areas;
5. The preservation of large contiguous open spaces.
3. That the proposed OP PUD concept plan meets the prerequisites for open space PUDs as outlined
in Section 154.655 of the City Code (existing zoning, 20 acre minimum site and the sites in single
ownership or control).
4. That all open space PUD design standards and all open space development standards (as outlined
in Section 154.660 of the City Code) are met; or if deviations are proposed, that all such
deviations are supported because they achieve the following three goals:
The deviations allow for a higher quality building and site design that will enhance aesthetics of
the site.
The deviations help to create a more unified environment within the project boundaries by
ensuring one of more of the following: architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient
vehicular and pedestrian circulation, enhanced landscaping and site features and/or efficient use
of utilities;
The overall design provides appropriate solutions to eliminate adverse impacts that propose
deviations may impose on surrounding lands.
5. That the OP PUD Concept Plan generally complies with the City’s Subdivision regulations.
6. That the OP PUD Concept Plan is generally consistent with the City’s engineering standards with
exceptions as noted in the City Engineer’s memorandum dated May 20, 2020.
7. That the OP PUD Concept Plan meets the minimum requirements for an OP PUD including
minimum lot area and street layout.
8. That the OP PUD Concept Plan will preserve and enhance important environmental features
through careful and sensitive placement of buildings and facilities.
Recommended Conditions of Approval. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the OP PUD Concept Plan as proposed by Bruggeman Builders for the property located at 2500
Manning Avenue, subject to the following conditions: (Comments and changes based on City Council
discussion on July 7, 2020 noted in yellow)
1. That the future preliminary plat and preliminary OP PUD Plans includes the parcel with the PID#
24-029-21-13-0002.
2. That the future preliminary plat and preliminary OP PUD Plans submittal identify all requests for
flexibility or modifications from the OP PUD Development and Shoreland PUD standards.
City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020 Page 9
3. That before submitting an application to the City for preliminary PUD plan/plat approval, the
developer revise the OP PUD concept plans to address the recommended changes and to allow
for additional City review.
4. That any future preliminary PUD plan/plat submittal address all relevant comments from the City
Engineer in the letter to the City dated May 20, 2020. In particular, the preliminary development
plans must address the street right-of-way width, street and trail design standards and storm water
management in the subdivision.
5. That any future preliminary PUD plan/plat submittal address all Council-required comments from
the City Landscape Architect in the letter to the City dated May 6, 2020. In particular, the
preliminary PUD landscaping plans must address the preservation and planting of trees and the
required screening within the development – especially to the properties to the south.
6. That the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans submittal include a landscape, screening and
buffering plan to address the requirements of the City Landscape Architect.
7. The proposed street providing a connection to the property to the south must be included as part
of the improvement and construction plans for the PUD.
8. The developer must work with the property owner immediately to the south of the proposed
subdivision concerning the alignment of the proposed future street to their property.
9. That a shoreland tier analysis be provided with the future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD
plans submittal.
10. That the preliminary PUD plans show at least 50 percent of the gross acreage of the development
site as protected open space.
11. That any preliminary PUD/plat approval be contingent on complying with Washington County’s
requirements and requests regarding the need for additional right-of-way, turn lanes and/or trails
in and along Manning Avenue.
12. That the applicant shall secure all necessary permits from Washington County for the proposed
access off of Manning Avenue North and for any work occurring in the Manning Avenue right-
of-way.
13. That the developer provide trails or sidewalks as recommended by the City Engineer and the
Parks Commission.
14. That all public trails and sidewalks must be located outside of storm water ponding areas and
wetland buffer zones.
15. That all wetlands and wetland buffer areas be contained on outlots outside of lot areas. (No
change)
16. That all storm water retention and infiltration areas must be dedicated to the City and platted as
outlots on the preliminary and final plat unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer. (No
change)
17. That all open space areas be platted in separate outlots to be commonly owned and managed by a
homeowners’ association (HOA). Condition not needed assuming the City Council approves the
developer’s request to have conservation easements on each lot to serve as the open space areas in
the development. This approval should be subject to the developer installing signs at the border of
the conservation easement areas that notify property owners to not disturb the conservation area
and to no put anything in the conservation easement area.
18. That the developer provide fees in lieu of park land dedication as required by Section 153.14 with
future final plat.
19. That the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans comply with any comments or requirements
provided by the DNR.
20. The developer must submit a detailed PUD plan as part of any future preliminary PUD
development plans. The PUD plan shall include a detailed listing of all requested departures or
modifications from City ordinances, shoreland regulations and development standards.
City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020 Page 10
21. The developer must prepare a plan for ownership and management of the proposed open space
and conservation areas with a homeowner’s association and as part of preliminary PUD plans.
22. That the developer revise the PUD plans to show the location of a community septic system as
required by the Shoreland Ordinance. (Condition not needed assuming City Council approves the
use of individual on-site septic systems for each house).
RECOMMENDATION:
City staff and the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the proposed OP
PUD Concept Plan for the property located 2500 Manning Avenue as proposed by Bruggeman
Builders with the following motion and the recommended conditions of approval as outlined in
the staff report.
“Motion to adopt Resolution 2020 – 074 approving the OP PUD Concept Plan as requested by
Paul Bruggeman of Bruggeman Builders for PID# 24-029-21-13-0002 for the property located
at 2500 Manning Avenue North. This approval includes City Council approval of the four
exceptions and modifications noted herein and shall subject to recommended conditions of
approval as outlined in the staff report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application Narrative dated April 28, 2020
2. Location Map
3. Property Line Map
4. Contour/Address Map
5. Wetland Delineation Map
6. Area Map around Downs Lake with Concept PUD Plan
7. Concept PUD Plan
8. City Engineer’s Report dated May 20, 2020
9. Washington County review memo dated May 15, 2020
10. Lucius Jonett review comments dated May 6, 2020
11. Clarification Narrative from Tim Freeman dated June 8, 2020
12. City Council Resolution 2020 - 074
12445 55th Street North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 * Phone: 651-439-8833 * Website: FFSurveying.com
Bruce A. Folz, LS Timothy J. Freeman, LS
1939 – 2001 Principal
April 28, 2020
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Concept Plan
OPEN SPACE PUD
The subject property is located in the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24. Bounded on the
north by the Heritage Farm open space development; on the east by Manning Avenue North (CSAH 15)
with West Lakeland Township east of Manning; on the south (east portion) by a single family Rural
Residential parcel; on the south (west portion) by a single family RE zoned project EDEN PARK; and on
the west by a single family Rural Residential parcel.
The property is 32.27 acres and is mostly open, rolling and used for agricultural with one single family
home occupied presently by the property owners Gary and Meg Johnson. For years their small farm has
grown vegetables for sale at a local stand at the end of their driveway. The land also features two
drainageways for water from the north to drain southerly toward Downs Lake. There is one small wetland
area (0.19 acres) in the northern part of the easterly drainageway that is shown on the plan and it has been
delineated and verified by Valley Branch Watershed District.
There is a heavy stand of pine trees providing screening from Manning Avenue. There are several rows of
trees that have been planted by the property owners to provide screening along the pipeline route and the
southerly property line. There is a nearly continuous row of screening trees along the north line, the
westerly line and southerly line of the property. The screening of mature existing trees is proposed to be
preserved with the new conservation easements. This should more that cover the 10 trees per lot required
in the Open Space PUD ordinance.
The architecture of the neighborhood will be controlled by City Code as well as in the PUD overlay
ordinance for this development. Similar building components, materials and roof pitches should be
maintained. The architectural styles should extend to the outbuildings on each lot, requiring them to look
similar with similar colors and materials to compliment the main home.
The land is guided RAD in the Lake Elmo Comprehensive plan. The zoning is RR Rural Residential.
The property is also in the Shoreland District. The Valley Branch Watershed district regulates the surface
water, wetland and runoff for this area. The property is served by the Stillwater Area School District 834.
Manning Avenue North (CSAH 15) is a major traffic route from the eastern portion of Lake Elmo and
various other communities to the north and east of the site.
Traffic on Manning Avenue is connected from Highway 36 on the north to Interstate Highway 94 on the
south, and beyond down to Hastings. The Washington County Highway Department regulates traffic,
entrances and upgrades on Manning Avenue. The Highway Department has been consulted extensively
on the concept layout and street access point. They are supportive of the street access and location, with
some conditions. The first condition is that the existing driveway on Manning Avenue would be removed
and changed to access the new street. The second condition is to provide access to the property to the
4/28/2020
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Page 2 of 4
south to insure there will not be another request to access Manning Avenue when that property is
developed. They also require that turn lanes and bypass be provided for safety of the intersection. This
new street connection to Manning Avenue will provide a much needed second access for the Heritage
Farm neighborhood, as it was proposed and was a requirement of that development when it was built.
Currently there are 36 homes that only have one access point. When Heritage Farm was platted there was
an alternate access for Lisbon Avenue to be connected on the south side of this property to the street
platted in Eden Park. The north end of the street in Eden Park was vacated by petition of the adjoining
property owners to the City Council. The access to Manning is now the only alternative outlet at this
point.
This property is eligible for and proposed as an Open Space Planned Unit Development. This project
features 14 single family home sites as allowed in the Open Space PUD ordinance. Lot sizes range from
1.26 acres up to 4.32 acres. The new street right of way is proposed as a 50-foot-wide right of way with
additional 10-foot-wide Drainage and Utility Easements on each side. There is just over 1900 lineal feet
of new street to be built as a 24-foot-wide rural section street with gravel shoulders and an 8-feet-wide
bituminous trail on the north side of the street. The property is served with City water from the north in
Heritage Farm. The new homes sites will all have individual on-site septic tanks with individual drain-
fields. The proposed impervious surface is at just under 10% with homes, driveways and street/trail.
As was allowed in almost all the Open Space Preservation developments of the past, we request that the
individual drainfield portion of the septic systems be allowed in the open space areas. We are looking for
maximum flexibility in siting the drainfields, seeing as the adjoining properties have had some troubles
with soil suitability for drainfields. The drainfields are not an above ground feature of the lot and will
grow to be nearly invisible once the vegetation is established. The Shoreland Ordinance requires that
drainfields be communal… and we are asking to vary from this requirement to allow individual
drainfields.
The property will have over 50% of the lot area reserved as open space, covered with conservation
easements proposed to be held by the City of Lake Elmo. The open space will be owned and maintained
by the individual lot owners, subject to the conservation easement for the City. The City will not have any
responsibility for the open space areas… other than to be the entity that holds the easements. The
easements will run with the land and be recorded against the lots in perpetuity. The purpose of the open
space will be to preserve the land as passive open space with wildlife habitat. A plan will be submitted
which will indicate how he land will be maintained. The individual homeowners will be responsible for
the plan implementation on their area of the open space. There will not be a CIC declaration nor
Homeowners Association for the development. The open space is contiguous with the open space and
City Park created in the Heritage Farm open space development f rom the late 1990s. The open space in
this project surrounds the entire property and includes the areas of the drainageways. The open space
areas are contiguous throughout the project, except for the street/trail crossings. The open space area
protects the existing trees that are crucial to screening this development from Manning Avenue and the
adjoining properties.
The existing mature trees more than account for the required 10 trees per lot. We will encourage the new
lot owners to plant trees as a part of their individual landscaping plans. They can select their own tree
4/28/2020
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Page 3 of 4
species and plant them in the preferred locations on their lots. Trees planted by the property owners have
a better chance of thriving… as the owners will have a heightened sense of ownership because they
planted them. We anticipate planting the required boulevard trees, one every 30 lineal feet in clusters that
make the most sense. That is 1917 lineal feet of street divided by 30 feet spacing is 64 trees. This will be
a nice beginning compliment to the landscape plans of the new homeowners in this neighborhood.
It is envisioned that the only area of storm water ponding would be at the very south end of th e main
drainageway, before it exits towards Downs Lake to the south, as it always has. We propose to cover this
drainageway and ponding area with easements instead of creating an Outlot for the pond. This will keep
the property on the tax roll and the individual lot owner would maintain the vegetation while allowing the
City and Watershed District access to the pond.
There will be a 50 foot wide street right of way dedicated to the property south of this project. This street
right of way will be adjacent to the ponding area. The property to the south is also eligible for an Open
Space PUD development. This will provide a street access, as opposed to having another street entrance
on Manning Avenue. This is one of the conditions required by the Washington County Highway
Department. The property owners to the south have been consulted… and they have no interest in
developing their property at this time. The street would not be built until such time as the property to the
south is developed.
The buffers are as follows: The east property line is the right of way of Manning Avenue North, no buffer
required. The north line is a border with Heritage Farm, no buffer required because Heritage Farm did not
have a buffer when it was built. The west line adjoins a single family home zoned RR. There is a pipeline
easement that is east of the property line about 250 feet to the east line of the easement. No additional
buffer is required. On the south property line, we are adjoining both Eden Park neighborhood and on the
easterly portion is an RR parcel that is eligible to be an Open Space PUD. The buffer is 100 feet from
property that could be Open Space PUD. The portion that is bordered by Eden Park should technically be
a 200 foot buffer. We are asking for a modification from this buffer due to the fact that the lots in Eden
Park are wooded lots as well as the distance from the existing homes to the homes proposed in this
development is in excess of 300 feet. The ordinance does provide for buffer mitigation by vegetative
planting… if the buffer is modified. There is a half street, labeled 25th Street that was platted along with
Eden Park. That street will never be opened. With a street… there would have been even less buffer
required.
This project will feature minimum grading to the site. The street layout and lot configuration were
designed to be in harmony with the land. The existing trees and rolling nature of the site make for a
beautiful landscape for this new neighborhood. The grading will be limited to grading for the street and
the storm water ponding features along the south line. There will not be any mass grading of the site, nor
any graded “house pads” in this project. The home sites will be individually located to follow the land.
With the streets being proposed as rural section streets with gravel shoulders, this will feel like another
one of the many desired rural neighborhoods in Lake Elmo.
The park plan for the City of Lake Elmo does not designate a park on this property. A larger parcel was
dedicated as a park just to the north of this project in Heritage Farm. That park land is currently being
4/28/2020
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Page 4 of 4
used as passive open space, instead of a typical developed park. We would anticipate that the City would
prefer to have a “cash in lieu” payment instead of land dedication.
We are hoping to get feedback from the City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council during this
Concept Phase. We have outlined some items that need a 4/5th majority vote to vary from the strict
language of the Open Space PUD requirements and the Shoreland Overlay requirements. They include
using a rural street section without the concrete ribbon curb in favor of gravel shoulders. This would
create a more rural street image while saving the costs of the concrete areas. We also ask to use individual
drainfields instead of communal drainfields, along with the flexibility to site the drainfields in the open
space area of the lots. We ask that the required Homeowners Association be waived for this project.
There will be no commonly owned lands or features that require cost sharing and maintenance. We also
ask for modification to the buffer in one area along the south line (west portion) from 200 feet to 100 feet,
adjacent to the Eden Park neighborhood. Another modification we are asking for is regarding the
stormwater ponding area. It will be created adjacent to the dedicated public street access for the property
to the south and we would prefer to have the lot owner own the area covered by the pond instead of
creating an Outlot. We feel that with the Drainage and Utility Easement covering it, it would be protected
and still allow for City access to the ponds. The adjoining lot owner would be charged with maintaining
the area around the ponds. The Shoreland Ordinance suggests that lot area should be 80,000 square feet
(1.83 acres) and lot with of 200 feet. While many of the lots in this development are within the 1000 foot
area of Downs Lake… but there is NO frontage on the lake and there is NO view of the lake. The
ordinance allows for varying from these two standards. They are created to protect the views from the
lake, as well as the intensity of development on the lake. Included on the “Area Map Around Downs
Lake” you can see the existing homes around the lake are not compliant with either of these two
standards. Also, included on the map there is a cross section line. This helps to illustrate that the new
development doesn’t have any view lines to or from the lake… as well as it being completely screened by
mature trees from the lake. Those mature trees are being preserved by the open space easements.
The open space design elements of the ordinance have been met, or modifications have been requested in
the previous areas of this narrative. We have strived to outline how these deviations or modifications are
supported by achieving the goals of the ordinance. They will allow for a higher quality building and site
design, create a more unified environment for the development by minimizing streets, grading and
disruption of the natural landscape. We look forward to working with the City on creating a harmonious
new neighborhood with this project.
PAGE 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 20, 2020
To: Ken Roberts, Planning Director Re: Bruggeman Open Space PUD (2500 Manning Ave)
Cc: Chad Isakson, PE, Assistant City Engineer Concept Plan Review
From: Jack Griffin, PE, City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Bruggeman Open Space (2500 Manning Avenue) Concept Plans
received on April 30, 2020. The submittal consisted of the following documentation:
Concept Plan Narrative dated April 28, 2020.
Concept Plan Open Space Neighborhood, dated April 17, 2020.
STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering review comments and recommendations should be considered preliminary.
Concept plan changes will be significant to adequately address the requirements from Washington County, and to
make the necessary plan changes to meet city design standards and requirements. It is therefore recommended
that revised concept plans be submitted for additional city review prior to accepting Preliminary Plan submittal.
When submitting revised concept plans, the application should be deemed complete unless the submittal meets
the minimum city ordinance requirements, including a 1” = 100’ scaled existing conditions plan; labeled 2‐ft.
contours; and a 1” = 100’ scaled proposed site plan.
STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION
Manning Avenue right‐of‐way. Additional right‐of‐way must be dedicated along Manning Avenue to provide
90‐feet of right‐of‐way from the Manning Avenue centerline. The proposed plan only shows 60‐feet.
Access Management. Washington County has reviewed and approved the access point to Manning Avenue.
Based on County improvement plans for Manning Avenue, this access will likely become a right‐in right‐out
access with a center median preventing full access to the neighborhood. With the approval of this access,
a local street right‐of‐way must be provided (as shown) to the property to the south as an additional access
to Manning Avenue will not be permitted by the County for development of this southerly property.
Manning Avenue Improvements. The development will be responsible to make improvements to Manning
Avenue, at developer’s sole cost, with all improvements installed per Washington County requirements.
Improvements include right and center left turn lanes at the intersection of the new local street.
Local Street Access Improvements. The local street connection at Manning Avenue should include a short
length of wider street to provide dedicated right and left turn lanes onto Manning Avenue.
Manning Avenue Trail. The developer will be responsible to construct a 10‐ft. wide bituminous trail along
the frontage of Manning Avenue consistent with the Washington County trail plans.
Secondary Access. A residential street connection is required to Lisbon Avenue in the Heritage Farms
development, as shown, connecting to Lisbon Avenue where there is existing right‐of‐way. Parts of Lisbon
Avenue will need to be reconstructed into the Heritage Farms neighborhood to convert the existing cul‐de‐
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283
PAGE 2 of 3
sac to a future through street meeting current city street design standards. Updating to current standard is
necessary as the street is converted from a dead end to a through street.
A residential street stub will be required to the southerly plat limits as shown. The stub location must be
coordinated with the property owner, and both the right‐of‐way must be platted and the street constructed
as part of this development. If the street is not required to be constructed as part of this development, this
street connection is likely to not be completed as planned.
All streets must be designed to meet the City Engineering Design Standards including R/W width, street
width and cul‐de‐sac radii. Surmountable concrete curb and gutter should be installed in single family
residential areas with future driveways and B618 curb installed along entrance roadways.
The application requests 24‐foot wide rural section streets, no ribbon curb, and within 50‐foot right‐
of‐way. Rural section streets are prohibited by the Open Space ordinance and are not
recommended.
Rural section streets with property constructed roadway drainage ditches would not fit within a 60‐
foot right‐of‐way, in particular with a trail or sidewalk.
If rural roadways are permitted, concrete ribbon curb in accordance with city standards should be
required to protect the roadway from premature failure.
The minimum development right‐of‐way must be determined based on roadway design specifications and
proposed roadway use.
An 8‐foot bituminous trail with 2‐foot clear zones is recommended to be constructed along the
entire length of all proposed streets, as shown. The proposed right‐of‐way of 50‐feet is not
sufficient to accommodate the city standard urban roadway with 8‐foot bituminous trail. A
minimum of 60‐feet is required.
Street widths should be constructed consistent with the revised city standards dated April 2019 to
address adequate emergency access along all city streets.
On‐street parking needs should be considered and street widths adjusted accordingly in areas
where parking is deemed needed and to meet city design standards.
Parkway or divided roadways must be a minimum of 19 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb.
The divided roadway segment of Lisbon Avenue must be reconstructed to meet current city
standard for divided one‐way streets.
The proposed public street appears to cross a significant drainage way. The preliminary plans will need
include a detailed drainage design to identify adequate culvert capacity while meeting city design standards.
An emergency overflow will be required as part of the street design and supporting hydraulic modeling
provided.
Ten (10) foot utility easements are required on either side of all right‐of‐way.
The new local street must intersect Manning Avenue at 90‐degrees and maintain a minimum 100‐tangent
prior to any curvature. The maximum street slope in the first 50 feet cannot exceed 2.5%.
Residential maximum longitudinal grade is 6% with sidewalks/trails.
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
Municipal water service is readily available within the Heritage Farms development located north of the
proposed subdivision. The applicant is responsible to extend municipal water into the development to serve
the proposed properties. Use of private wells is not recommended due to the ongoing groundwater
contamination issues in the area.
Two connection points to the existing watermain system is recommended. The subdivision should connect
to the existing 6‐inch watermain located in Lisbon Avenue and extend along the length of the proposed
public roadway. City design standards only permit a maximum length for dead end pipe of 1,000 feet. A
second connection should be made to Lisbon Court North on the east side of the Heritage Farms
subdivision.
Extension of city water to serve this development may pose circulation and service pressure concerns.
Should the development proceed forward, it is recommended that a water service study be completed to
analyze system capacity and pressures for serving the proposed subdivision.
PAGE 3 of 3
A watermain lateral stub will be required to the south plat limits for future extension of city water along
Lisbon Avenue within the Eden Park subdivision.
A watermain lateral stub will be required to the south plat limits along the proposed stub street.
Trunk watermain oversizing will need to be evaluated upon receipt of preliminary plat/plans.
MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER / WATEWATER MANAGEMENT
The development property is located outside of the City designated Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA)
for sanitary sewer service. The developer is proposing individual on‐site wastewater treatment systems for
each lot to address wastewater management within the development.
Individual on‐site wastewater treatment systems (ISTS) are regulated by Washington County and
would be required to meet the permitting requirements of the County. City ordinances also
requires all ISTS to conform to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Standard Chapter 7080.
The application should be revised to show both a primary and secondary ISTS system for each lot
and both systems must be fully located on the lot it serves (no common areas).
The Concept plan must be revised to show all septic systems meeting all setback requirements,
including 10‐feet from all property lines and 20‐feet from all structures. Setbacks should be
dimensioned and labeled on the revised plans.
All septic systems must be shown to not encroach any part of a lot easement or drainage and utility
easement, including all 100‐year HWL from adjacent storm water ponds and from the stormwater
drainage pathway.
At the time of Preliminary Plat submittal, the application should be deemed incomplete unless the applicant
has demonstrated sufficient available land for the use of individual on‐site wastewater treatment systems
for each lot, with each ISTS meeting or exceeding all applicabl e City rules and MPCA Chapter 7080. Submittal
documents must include documentation from field investigations and soil borings taken at the proposed
ISTS locations demonstrating suitable soils for each site.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The site plan is subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD and City rules and
regulations. No proposed storm water management plan was provided as part of the Concept Plan.
Storm water facilities proposed for the site plan,meeting State and VBWD permitting requirements, must
be constructed in accordance with the all City Engineering Design Standards.
The general drainage system should mimic the natural topography of the site in order to ensure a drainage
system that provides positive storm water drainage across the development. Overland emergency
overflows or outlets will be required as part of the site plan.
The site plan shows one storm water pond area located on Lot 1, Block 3. The Site plans must be revised to
show all storm water basins to be located on dedicated Outlots. The Stormwater Facility Outlots must fully
incorporate the 100‐year HWL, 10‐foot maintenance bench and all maintenance access roads. Preliminary
drainage calculations should be performed as part of revising the concept plans for resubmittal to allow for
adequate storm water basin site planning.
The site plan shows one storm water pond area located within an existing storm water drainage path. It is
likely that the storm water pond will need to be located to allow for the continuation for the existing
drainage path.
The storm sewer system shall be designed to maintain the City standard minimum pipe cover of 3 feet.
Drain tile is required as part of the City standard street section at all localized low points in the street. Drain
tile considerations may impact the storm sewer design and depth requirements at low points.
Per City requirements all storm sewer pipe easements must be a minimum 30‐feet in width.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
All public improvements constructed to support the development must be designed and constructed in
accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual available on the City website.
11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573
Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 • TTY: 651-430-6246
www.co.washington.mn.us
Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action
S
May 15, 2020
Ken Roberts
Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo
3600 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN. 55042
Re: Washington County comments on the Concept Plan, Open Space Neighborhood
4/17/2020 in the City of Lake Elmo
Dear Mr. Roberts,
We have reviewed the Concept Plan, Open Space Neighborhood dated 4/17/2020 in the City of
Lake Elmo. The property is located in Section 24, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, along
County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 15 (Manning Avenue), north of Manning Trail North and
south of 30th Street North. Development on the 32.27 acre parcel will consist of 14 single
family homes. The project will involve grading, installation of public and private infrastructure,
open space preservation, street and home construction, and stormwater ponding. Based on
the plans submitted, we offer the following comments:
• The preliminary and final plat will need to reflect future right-of way along CSAH 15 as
identified in the Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2040, Transportation Plan,
Minimum Right-of-Way Widths for County Roads. The identified future right-of-way
width along CSAH 15/Manning Avenue is 180 feet (90 feet from the centerline of the
roadway). The current concept plan, dated 4/17/2020, identifies only 60 feet from the
centerline of CSAH 15/Manning Avenue. The preliminary and final plat plan should be
updated to reflect an additional 30 feet of right-of-way.
• The access point is acceptable to the county. The developer will need to submit plans
for right and center left turn-lane improvements along CSAH15/Manning Avenue for the
intersection at the new local street. The timing of these improvements should be
discussed further with the City of Lake Elmo based on the phasing of the development.
• The concept plan should be revised to identify a local street right-of-way to provide
future access to the parcels west of the development.
• A County trail is shown on the west side of CSAH 15/Manning Avenue, Future Trail
System Map in the Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This trail is a long
range plan to be implemented as development occurs, or as part of a planned larger
Public Works Department
Donald J. Theisen, P.E.
Director
Wayne H. Sandberg, P.E.
Deputy Director/County Engineer
Page 2
May 10, 2020
Concept Plan
Open Space Neighborhood
11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573
Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 • TTY: 651-430-6246
www.co.washington.mn.us
Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action
roadway project. Any trail should be planned as part of a larger project and will be
evaluated at that time.
• Any work in the county right-of-way will require a right-of-way permit, including:
grading for the installation of culverts, installation of water and sewer services, turn lane
modifications, road improvements, trails, Americans with Disability Act (ADA) ramp
improvements.
• Although the county has not reviewed a stormwater plan to date, the developer, city or
watershed district must submit the drainage report and calculations for review of any
downstream impacts to the county drainage system. Along with the drainage
calculations, there must be written conclusions that the volume and rate of stormwater
run-off into any county right-of-way will not increase as part of the project.
• Washington County's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility
between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often
result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from adjacent highways could
exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA),
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for
taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise
Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in
violations of established noise standards. Minnesota Statute 116.07, Subpart 2a
exempts County Roads and County State Aid Highways from noise thresholds.
• County policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the
expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The
developer should assess the noise situation and take any action outside of County right-
of-way deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise.
If you have any questions or comments to the responses on the Concept Plan, Open Space
Neighborhood, please contact me at Ann.pung-terwedo@co.washington.mn.us.
Sincerely,
Ann Pung-Terwedo, Senior Planner
Cc: Joe Gustafson, Traffic Engineer
Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming
Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com
To: Ken Roberts, City of Lake Elmo Planning Director
From: Lucius Jonett, Wenck Landscape Architect
Date: May 6, 2020
Subject: City of Lake Elmo Concept Plan Review
Bruggemen Open Space PUD, Review #1
Submittals
Land Use Review Form and Maps, dated April 30, 2020, received May 5, 2020.
Bruggemen Development Concept, dated April 17, 2020, received May 5, 2020.
Location: Southern half of the northeast quarter of Section 24, west of Manning Avenue
North
Land Use Category: Rural Residential
Surrounding Land Use Concerns: None
Special landscape provisions in addition to the zoning code: Open Space PUD
standards require 10 trees per building site. There must be a boulevard tree to account for
every 30 linear feet of public street. A 200-foot buffer is required from all adjacent property
lines that abut an existing residential development, as well as a 100-foot buffer from all
adjacent property lines that abut land that is eligible for future development as an open
space planned unit development.
Findings:
1. The applicant is preserving a large majority of all the existing trees onsite and is asking
that these trees make up for the 10 required trees for each building site. They are also
proposing that future landowners be responsible for purchasing and planting these 10
required trees. Open Space PUD standards do not state that any preserved trees will
account for the required 10 trees per building site. A landscape plan for the development
is required, showing the 10 proposed trees per building site.
2. The applicant is proposing planting the 64 required boulevard trees, one for every 30
lineal feet.
3. The preserved trees on site may count towards the required screening buffers the Open
Space PUD call for. The applicant is asking that the area that borders Eden Park be
revised from a required 200-foot buffer to a 100-foot buffer due to the lots in Eden Park
being wooded. Standards require a 200-foot buffer no matter what is being provided on
the abutting Rural Residential lots. There is also a road that was platted that will not be
built, meaning the buffer will not need to be modified, so buffer requirements remain the
same.
Ken Roberts
Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo May 6, 2020
2
\\wenck.local\wenckspace\Vol1\6443 Lake Elmo\28 Bruggemen Open Space PUD\01 Preliminary Plat\01 Plan Review\2020-05-06 Initial Review\2020-05-06 Bruggemen Concept Plan
Review.docx
Recommendation:
It is recommended that conditions of approval include:
1. The applicant provides a landscape plan showing 10 existing or proposed trees per
building lot, with the intention of providing the required trees per Open Space PUD
standards.
a. Existing trees meeting the City ordinance definition for significant tree can be
counted. A healthy tree measuring a minimum of six (6) inches in diameter for
hardwood deciduous trees, 19 ft. in height or eight (8) inches in diameter for
coniferous/evergreen trees, or twelve (12) inches in diameter for common trees.
b. If 10 or more significant, existing trees are located on a proposed lot, 10 new
trees do not need to be planted.
c. If less than 10 significant, existing trees are located on a proposed lot, additional
new trees do need to be planted to make the number of new and existing
significant trees at least 10.
d. If no significant, existing trees are located on a proposed lot, 10 new trees do
need to be planted.
2. The applicant provides a landscape plan showing the 64 required boulevard trees. These
required boulevard trees are in addition to any trees required to meet the 10 tree per lot
requirements above.
3. The applicant provides all required 100-foot and 200-foot buffers required with the Open
Space PUD standards.
Sincerely,
Lucius Jonett, PLA (MN)
Wenck Associates, Inc.
City of Lake Elmo Municipal Landscape Architect
12445 55th Street North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 * Phone: 651-439-8833 * Website: FFSurveying.com
Bruce A. Folz, LS Timothy J. Freeman, LS
1939 – 2001 Principal
June 8, 2020
Additional clarification of items surrounding the proposed
Concept Plan for Open Space PUD for Bruggeman
on Johnson Land south of Heritage Farm
At the Planning Commission meeting on May 27, 2020 there seemed to be some confusion about how
many items were being requested to vary from the OP PUD Ordinance. We would like a chance to outline
the specific requests we are asking for… and discuss some of the items in the staff reports.
1) Easements versus Outlots for Open Space Conservation as well as for Ponding and Drainage.
There is no difference in the protection of the lands utilizing Easements versus Outlots. Outlots to
the City will take the land off the tax roll… and they still need a declaration or easement to outline
the intended restrictions and allowed uses, much the same as an easement would do. Taking these
lands as Outlots will effectively kill the project because of density.
2) DNR and Shoreland Standards. These requirements are typically made to preserve and protect the
shorelands of public waterbodies. The cross section drawing shows that this project cannot be
seen from the shoreline of Downs Lake, even without the existing trees along the southerly
property line. These additional requirements would cause a severe reduction in density… which
cannot support the improvements that are required for this project.
3) The request for a reduced buffer from 200 feet to 100 feet. The reason for having buffers is to
keep some additional space between neighborhoods of differing densities. The area that we are
requesting is next to the Eden Park neighborhood. That neighborhood has smaller lots that the lots
proposed in this OP PUD. We would suggest that our project plant some evergreen trees between
those existing homes and the new homes to help screen the two from each other.
4) The trees that are required by the ordinance are fine with this development. We intend to plant the
street trees required at clustering locations as allowed by the ordinance. We ask that the 10 trees
pre lot (where there are not 10 existing trees) be planted along with the home construction instead
of prior to that. This would allow the new homeowners to choose their tree species and plant them
along with their Individual landscape design… instead of placing trees that might just be in the
way of the home or septic systems. There could be a restriction on those lots that they can’t get
their Certificate of Occupancy until the required trees are planted.
5) The Engineers Report is far more comprehensive than we are used to seeing with a Concept Plan.
We do agree with most of the items in his three-page report. This includes the right of way being
60 feet, the rural section roadway being 28 feet wide with concrete strips along the edges and
building a concrete sidewalk 6 feet wide. There are just a few items that are policy issues that we
are asking the City Council to decide on. I would like to explain further.
a. The road access to the south has been reviewed by the owners to the south. They do not
have any plans to develop in the near future. We ask that we dedicate a City Street right of
way, build the road subgrade, install the watermain and cap it, install gravel base and then
instead of paving it… we put down some black dirt and seed it. This would only require
6/5/2020
Concept Plan-Addl. Items
Page 2 of 2
the curbs and pavement to be installed if it is developed in the future. No sense paving a
street that won’t be used. It may even need updating before it is ever used. The road and
utility connection to the property west of our project is a single homesite parcel. It is only
11.23 acres and cannot be an OP PUD and cannot be further subdivided. It also appears to
be completely covered by a Drainage and Utility Easement. A street and watermain stub
do not seem to make much sense in this case.
b. The watermain loop connection for Lisbon Court. This connection was not required when
the Heritage Farm project was built. We feel that we should be required to build a stub to
our north property line, to be used for a loop connection. It is nearly impossible for this
private property owner to request a violation of the Conservation Easement that is hel d by
the Minnesota Land Trust. They have not been very receptive to ANY changes to the
easement they were granted originally. The watermain stub for the Eden Park
neighborhood doesn’t seem to make much sense. It would require the City to condemn and
pay for the right of way for Lisbon Avenue. It was vacated years ago at the request of the
adjoining property owners.
c. We feel that it is not too much to ask the City Council to consider allowing the septic drain-
fields in the Conservation Easement areas. They were allowed that way in the past. The
ordinance has evolved and changed over time. Communal Septic Systems are allowed
currently in the Conservation Easements, but not individual septic systems. We can do it
either way… but, I don’t think very many people like the Communal Systems these days.
d. A trail along Manning Avenue was mentioned in the Washington County review letter.
We understand that an additional 30 feet of right of way is required… but, it did state that
the trail should be built when the Highway is upgraded. My discussions with the Highway
Department revealed that they have no design plans ready at this time.
e. The last item is going into the Heritage Farm streets and upgrading them because this will
change from a dead end to a through street. This doesn’t seem fair to us. The street was
always thought of as a through street. The right of way was required and platted when
Heritage Farm was created. The recent plan for upgrading the streets as a part of installing
sewer to the Heritage Farm neighborhood didn’t require any street size upgrades. Why
should this project be required to make upgrades to streets that were built according to the
City Street standards of the day?
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-074
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BRUGGEMANN BUILDERS OP PUD CONCEPT PLAN
WITH EXCEPTION AND MODIFICATIONS TO CITY STANDARDS FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED 2500 MANNING AVENUE NORTH
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Tim Freeman, representing Paul Bruggeman and Bruggeman Builders,
submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the “City”) for an OP PUD Concept Plan for a
14-lot residential open space planned unit development (“OP PUD”) on a 32 acre property located
at 2500 Manning Avenue North, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Planning
Department; and
WHEREAS, notice was published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning
Ordinance, Section 154.102; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 27, 2020
to review and consider the OP PUD Concept Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending to the
City Council approval of the OP PUD Concept Plan subject to 22 conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Director submitted a report and recommendation with
respect to the OP PUD Concept Plan as part of memorandums to the City Council for the July 7,
2020 and July 21, 2020 City Council meetings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the OP PUD Concept Plan application for the
property at its meetings held on July 7, 2020 and July 21, 2020 and made the following findings of
fact:
1. That the proposed OP PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the goals, objectives and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. That the proposed OP PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the purpose and intent of OP
PUDs in Lake Elmo by:
a. Providing greater development flexibility while maintaining the rural character by
preserving agricultural land, woodlands, wildlife or natural corridors and other
significant natural features.
b. Providing for:
i. An avenue to provide a development density equal to or greater than what could be
achieved via the underlying zoning;
ii. A reduction in the costs to construct and maintain public facilities and infrastructure
in a rural setting;
iii. Protecting open space to enhance and preserve the natural character of the
community;
iv. The creation of distinct neighborhoods that are interconnected within rural areas; and
v. The preservation large contiguous open spaces.
3. That the proposed OP PUD Concept Plan meets the prerequisites for open space PUDs as
outlined in Section 154.655 of the City Code (existing zoning, 20 acre minimum site and the
site being in single ownership or control).
4. That all open space PUD design standards and all open space development standards (as
outlined in Section 154.660 of the City Code) are met; or if deviations are proposed, that
certain such proposed deviations are supported because they achieve the following three
goals:
a. The deviations allow for a higher quality building and site design that will enhance
aesthetics of the site;
b. The deviations help to create a more unified environment within the project boundaries
by ensuring one of more of the following: architectural compatibility of all structures,
efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, enhanced landscaping and site features
and/or efficient use of utilities; and
c. The overall design provides appropriate solutions to eliminate adverse impacts that
propose deviations may impose on surrounding lands.
5. That the OP PUD Concept Plan generally complies with the City’s subdivision regulations.
6. That the OP PUD Concept Plan is generally consistent with the City’s engineering standards
with exceptions as noted in the City Engineer’s memorandum dated May 20, 2020.
7. That the OP PUD Concept Plan meets the minimum requirements for an OP PUD including
minimum lot area and street layout.
8. That the OP PUD Concept Plan will preserve and enhance important environmental features
through careful and sensitive placement of buildings and facilities.
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and supported approval of the OP PUD Concept
Plan at its meetings held on July 7, 2020 and July 21, 2020 and allowed for the following four
deviations to the City’s open space PUD design and development standards:
1. Allowing each home to have its own on-site septic system and drainfields
rather than having a community septic system or systems that would serve
several homes (communal drainfields are a requirement of the Shoreland
Ordinance for PUDs).
2. Having a reduced buffer from the south property line for construction on the
development site (100 feet instead of 200 feet). This approval is subject to the
developer planting landscaping and trees for screening that are satisfactory to
the City.
3. Having lots with less than 80,000 square feet of lot area and lot widths less
than 200 feet as required by the Shoreland Ordinance.
4. Not having commonly owned open space. As an alternative, the developer is
requesting the City allow it to place conservation easements on each lot that
would protect the natural features on the lot in order to meet the open space
requirements. This approval is subject to the developer installing signs at the
border of the conservation easement areas that notify the property owners to
not disturb the conservation area and to not put anything in the conservation
easement area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve
the OP PUD Concept Plan for the property located at 2500 Manning Avenue North as prepared by
Folz, Freeman Surveying for Bruggeman Builders with the four deviations noted above and
modifications to City standards as noted herein and subject to the following conditions:
1. That the developer’s future preliminary plat and preliminary OP PUD plans submittal
include the parcel with the PID# 24-029-21-13-0002.
2. That the developer’s future preliminary plat and preliminary OP PUD plans submittal
identify all requests for flexibility or modifications from the OP PUD Development and
Shoreland PUD standards.
3. That before submitting an application to the City for preliminary plat and preliminary
OP PUD approval, the developer revise the OP PUD Concept Plan to address the
recommended changes and to allow for additional City review.
4. That any future preliminary plat and preliminary OP PUD submittal address all relevant
comments from the City Engineer that are stated in the letter to the City dated May 20,
2020. In particular, the plans must address the street right-of-way width, street and trail
design standards and storm water management in the subdivision.
5. That any future preliminary plat and preliminary OP PUD submittal address all Council-
required comments from the City Landscape Architect in the letter to the City dated May
6, 2020. In particular, the preliminary PUD landscaping plans must address the
preservation and planting of trees and the required screening within the development –
especially to the properties to the south.
6. That the preliminary plat and preliminary OP PUD plans submittal include a landscape,
screening and buffering plan to address the requirements of the City Landscape
Architect.
7. That the preliminary plat and preliminary OP PUD improvement and construction plans
must show that the proposed street providing a connection to the property to the south.
8. The developer must work with the property owner immediately to the south of the
proposed subdivision concerning the alignment of the proposed future street to their
property.
9. That a shoreland tier analysis be provided with the future preliminary plat and
preliminary OP PUD plans submittal.
10. That the preliminary OP PUD plans show at least 50 percent of the gross acreage of the
development site as protected open space.
11. That any preliminary OP PUD/plat approval be contingent on complying with
Washington County’s requirements and requests regarding the need for additional right-
of-way, turn lanes and/or trails in and along Manning Avenue.
12. That the developer shall secure all necessary permits from Washington County for the
proposed access off of Manning Avenue North and for any work occurring in the
Manning Avenue right-of-way.
13. That the developer provide trails or sidewalks on the property as recommended by the
City Engineer and the Parks Commission.
14. That all public trails and sidewalks must be located outside of storm water ponding areas
and wetland buffer zones.
15. That all wetlands and wetland buffer areas must be located within outlots and outside of
lot areas.
16. That all storm water retention and infiltration areas must be either deeded or dedicated to
the City and platted as outlots on the preliminary and final plat unless otherwise directed
by the City Engineer.
17. That the developer provide fees in lieu of park land dedication as required by Section
153.14 of the City Code that will be payable upon approval of the future final plat/OP
PUD.
18. That the preliminary plat and preliminary OP PUD plans comply with any comments or
requirements provided by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
19. The developer must submit a detailed PUD plan as part of any future preliminary OP
PUD development plans. The PUD plan shall include a detailed listing of all requested
departures or modifications from City ordinances, shoreland regulations and
development standards.
20. The developer must prepare a plan for ownership and management of the proposed open
space and conservation areas with a homeowner’s association and as part of preliminary
PUD plans.
Passed and duly adopted this 21st day of July, 2020 by the Lake Elmo City Council.
____________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk