HomeMy WebLinkAbout#15 - Schiltgen Farm PUDSTAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 07/27/2020
TO:
FROM:
City Council
Ken Roberts, Planning Director
AGENDA ITEM: Schiltgen Farms PUD Concept Plan (10880 Stillwater Boulevard)
REVIEWED BY: Ken Roberts, Planning Director
Ben Prchal, City Planner
Sarah Sonsalla, City Attorney
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Ann Pung-Terwedo, Senior Planner, Washington County
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Ben Schmidt, representing the Excelsior Group, is requesting City Council approval of a PUD concept
plan for the Schiltgen Farm property located 10880 Stillwater Boulevard.
The proposed PUD concept plan has a total of 318 housing units – 200 single family home sites and 118
townhouse or row home units on 105.3 acres (net) with an overall density of about 3.0 dwelling units per
acre (D.U.A). A western portion of the development site is within the Shoreland Management Area of
Sunfish Lake. The Shoreland Ordinance has provisions for the development of PUD’s in the areas near
lakes, subject to additional design and performance standards. This triggers the need for a planned unit
development because the proposed lots do not meet the lot area, lot width and impervious requirements
listed in the City’s Shoreland Code for Natural Environment lakes.
On June 8, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing about the proposed PUD concept plan for
this site. The Commission heard from the developer and took testimony from eight nearby property owners
and their representatives about the proposed PUD concept plan. They expressed concerns about increased
traffic, having townhouses as part of the development (with the proposed increased density south of
Stillwater Boulevard), the need to protect Sunfish Lake and stormwater management. After review and
discussion, the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the PUD concept plan, subject
to the conditions listed in the staff report. It also had been determined by City staff that in the event this
development moves forward, an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan from V-LDR to V-MDR would be
required for the site (but is not being requested at this time). Even though an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan is not being requested at this time, the Planning Commission did discuss it. The
Planning Commission was not in favor of the Comprehensive Plan amendment (2 members were in favor
of it and 4 were against).
ISSUES BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL:
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 2
The City Council is respectfully being requested to review and provide feedback to the developer for the
PUD concept plan for the Schiltgen Farms property.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Excelsior Group (Ben Schmidt), 1660 Highway 100 South, Suite 400, Saint Louis
Park, MN 55416
Property Owner: Schiltgen Farms Inc., 10880 Stillwater Boulevard, Lake Elmo
Location: 10880 Stillwater Blvd, Lake Elmo
Four Parcels all in Section 14, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington
County, Minnesota.
PID#s: 1402921140001, 1402921410003, 1402921410001 and 1402921410002
Requests: PUD Concept Plan approval, Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Site Area: 123.4 acres (all PIDs)
Residential Development Area: 105.3 acres 102.45 acres
Existing Land Use Designation: V-LDR (Village Low Density Residential)
Proposed Land Use Designation: V-MDR (Village Medium Density Residential)
Current Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional District
Proposed Zoning: VMX/PUD (Village Mixed Use/PUD)
Surrounding Zoning: V-LDR/PUD (north)/ PF – Public Facilities (east)/ RS across railroad
tracks (south)/ RT and RR (west).
History: The four parcels are part of the Schiltgen Farm property and are currently
zoned RT.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 5/07/2020
60 Day Deadline – 7/05/2020
Extension Letter Mailed – Yes
120 Day Deadline 9/03/2020
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
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 3
PUD CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW
PUD Concept Plan Review Process. The City Code for PUDs requires several steps in the project review
and approval process. Section 154.758 of the City Code (below) provides all the details about the review
process and steps. As noted subsection in E2, the Planning Commission held a public hearing about the
concept plan and reported its findings and recommendations to the City Council. The Council may approve
the general PUD concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable.
§ 154.758 PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
There are four stages to the PUD process: application conference, general concept plan, preliminary plan
and final plan, as described below:
A. Application Conference. Upon filing of an application for PUD, the applicant of the proposed PUD
shall arrange for and attend a conference with the Planning Director. The primary purpose of the
conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain
guidance as to the general suitability of his or her proposal for the area for which it is proposed and
its conformity to the provisions of this subchapter before incurring substantial expense in the
preparation of plans, surveys and other data.
B. General Concept Plan. The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to
submit a plan to the city showing his or her basic intent and the general nature of the entire
development without incurring substantial cost. The plan should include the following: overall
density ranges, general location of residential and nonresidential land uses, their types and
intensities, general location of streets, paths and open space, and approximate phasing of the
development.
C. Preliminary Plan. Following approval of the general concept plan, the applicant shall submit a
preliminary plan application and preliminary plat, in accordance with the requirements described in
§ 153.07. The application shall proceed and be acted upon in accordance with the procedures in
this subchapter for zoning changes.
D. Final Plan. Following approval of the preliminary plan, the applicant shall submit a final plan
application and final plat, in accordance with the requirements described in § 153.08. The
application shall proceed and be acted upon in accordance with the procedures in this ordinance for
zoning changes. If appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal, the preliminary plan
and final plan may proceed simultaneously.
E. Schedule for Plan Approval
1. Developer presents the general concept plan to the Planning Commission for their review
and comment.
2. After verification by the Planning Director that the required plan and supporting data are
adequate, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing, with public notice.
3. The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and make
recommendations to the City Council.
4. The City may request additional information from the applicant concerning operational
factors or retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant concerning operational
factors.
5. The Council may hold a public hearing after the receipt of the report and recommendations
from the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission fails to make a report within
60 days after receipt of the application, then the City Council may proceed without the
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 4
report. The Council may approve the general concept plan and attach such conditions as it
deems reasonable.
6. Following approval of the General Concept Plan, the application may proceed to the
preliminary plan phase.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
The proposed residential development will be located on the southern portion of the Schiltgen Farm property
located at the intersection of CSAH 14 (Stillwater Boulevard) and CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue). As
proposed, the development would have a mix of single-family homes, villa style homes and attached single-
family homes (townhouses) with overall average density of 3 units per acre. The subdivision is proposed as
a PUD because the developer is requesting flexibility from the strict zoning regulations of the Shoreland
Ordinance and the VMX zoning regulations.
A critical element the City will need to consider at a later point should the development move forward is an
amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The current land use designation for the site of proposed
development is V-LDR (village low-density residential). This designation is intended for only single-family
residential uses. To have the mix of housing types as proposed within this development, the City would need
to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use designation of the development site or
the designation of the proposed townhouse area south of Stillwater Boulevard to V-MDR (village medium
density). The City intends this land use designation for a variety of residential land uses including detached
single-family homes and attached single-family homes (townhouses).
The applicant’s submission to the City includes the following components:
PUD Concept Plan Overview. The attached narrative includes a general overview of the project
with additional details concerning some of the unique aspects of the proposed PUD.
PUD Concept Plan. The PUD Concept Plan includes a proposed configuration of roads, lots and
other public spaces on the applicant’s site. While the PUD Concept 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.
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS:
Members of the Planning, Public Works, Engineering, and Fire Departments have reviewed the PUD
concept plan, while the City Engineer has provided an additional review of it and the plans submitted with
it.
City staff have completed an internal review of the PUD concept plan, and general comments from City
staff and recommended conditions of approval are included in this memorandum. The City staff review
comments that follow are all based on conducting a high-level review of the PUD concept plan since there
is not a lot of detailed information that is required at this stage in the development review process. City
staff has instead focused on the bigger picture items and those things that would otherwise not allow the
development to move forward if they contrasted with elements from the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning
Code, the Shoreland Regulations, or the City Code.
There are several issues and details that will need to be resolved for the proposed project to move forward.
As noted below, City staff are not recommending approval of the PUD concept plan because of the
expected and necessary revisions the developer will need to make to the project plans. Staff has provided
comments in following sections to identify elements of the plan that need to be further addressed by the
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 5
applicant before proceeding with another application for PUD concept plan approval or for an application
for preliminary PUD/plat approval. I have included several conditions of approval to address the most
significant outstanding issues if the City Council wishes to approve the PUD concept plan.
If the project moves forward, the following land use requests that will need to be made by the applicant.
Also included are City staff’s comments on these requests:
2040 Comprehensive Plan/Land Use Plan Amendment. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan has designated
this site as V-LDR (Village Low Density Residential) on the future land use map. The City intends this
land use designation for single-family detached housing developments serviced by municipal sewer and
water with density ranges between 1.5 and 3 dwelling units per acre. The density standard the City is
striving to meet with future development in the areas with City sewer and water (such as this development)
is a minimum residential density of 3 units per acre.
The developer is proposing two primary types of housing within this development – 200 single-family
detached homes and 118 townhouse or row homes that would have buildings with 4-6 units connected
together. Based on this mix of proposed housing, the City would need to approve an amendment to the
land use plan map for at least the townhouse portion of this site to V-MDR (Village Medium Density
Residential) for this project to move forward.
The City intends the V-MDR land use designation for areas in the Village Planning Area guided for single-
family detached, duplexes and townhomes/villa housing types with residential density ranges between 3.01
and 8 dwelling units per acre. As noted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, “this land use allows for a greater
variety in housing stock and brings more people closer to living within easy access of Village destinations
and amenities.” As shown, the 19.92 acre area south of Stillwater Boulevard is proposed to have 118
townhouses – an average of 5.92 units per acre.
Because of the character of the area adjacent to and near the development site and because of the revisions
that are required to the development plans, City staff does not support changing the land use designation for
the development at this time.
Zoning Map Amendment. The existing zoning of the property is RT (rural development transitional). In
order to develop the site with the proposed mix of housing, the City will be required to rezone the
development to VMX with PUD overlay to be consistent with the proposed City’s Comprehensive Plan
guidance for the area. The purposed of VMX zoning district is “to provide an area for compact, mixed use
development made mutually compatible through a combination of careful planning and urban design and
coordinated public and private investment. This district is intended to continue the traditional mixed use
development that has occurred in the Village area by allowing retail, service, office, civic and public uses
as well as residential units. The mixture of land uses within the district is essential to establishing the level
of vitality and intensity needed to support retail and service uses.”
If the development proceeds with only single-family homes, then the City should rezone the development
site to V-LDR (village low density residential) with the PUD overlay. The V-LDR zoning district is “to
provide opportunity for lower density development within the Old Village and create a transition and
connectivity between the heart of the Old Village and surrounding rural areas. Residential development
within the areas zoned V-LDR will occur at a density of 1.5-2.39 units per acre.”
The V-LDR land use designation is for housing with a density between 1.5 and 3 dwelling units per acre,
the V-MDR land use designation allows for a density of 3-8 units per acre and the VMX zoning district
allows for a mix of housing with a density of 6-10 units per acre.
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 6
Site Data. The entire subdivision area is 123.4 acres which includes all of Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4. Of the
123.4 acres, the developer’s plan is proposing to develop 105.3 net acres into a 318 unit residential PUD
development with 200 single family homes north of Stillwater Boulevard and 118 townhouse or row homes
south of Stillwater Boulevard. The overall proposed project would have with a net density of 3.0 du/acre.
Density. The proposed overall density for this development as calculated by the applicant is 3 residential
units per net acre – 318 proposed units on a 105.3 net acre site. The proposed V-MDR land use designation
allows for a mix of housing with a density of up to 8 residential units per acre.
Total Site Area 123.4 acres (gross)
Residential Site Area 105.3 acres (net)
Outlot & Open Space Areas 24.8 acres (20.8 acre
open space/green area
and 4.0 acre open
space area - barn)
Ponding Areas
Stillwater Blvd Right-of-Way
(R/W)
10.6 acres
5.5 acres
Lake Elmo Ave R/W 2.0 acres
Wetland Area 10.6 acres
Residential Lot Area 105.3 acres (net)
The developer’s density calculations did not include the areas of steep slopes on the site. City staff
reviewed the density calculation for this site and calculated the net density as follows:
The calculation of net density is as follows:
Overall Development Area 123.4 gross acres
Lake Elmo Ave Right-of-Way
Stillwater Blvd Right-of-Way
2.0 acres
5.5 acres
Steep Slopes/Bluffs 2.85 acres (est.)
Wetlands 10.6 acres
Net Residential Buildable Area 102.45 acres
Total Number of Lots 318 units
Gross Density 2.58 du/acre
Net Density 3.1 du/acre
PUD Minimum Requirements. Parts of the proposed development site are within the shoreland of
Sunfish Lake and is therefore subject to the City’s Shoreland Regulations. Within a shoreland,
development lots must conform to the shoreland standards contained in the Zoning Code, Section 154.800,
Table 17-3, or develop as a Planned Unit Development with a Conditional Use Permit. A PUD is a
negotiated zoning district, and according to the Lake Elmo Zoning Code Article 19, Planned Unit
Development Regulations, the City may grant zoning flexibility in order to better utilize site features and to
obtain a higher quality of development. Or put another way, through the PUD review and approval process
the City may grant development and zoning flexibility in order to better protect and use site features to
obtain a higher quality of development than would occur by following the City’s subdivision standards.
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 7
Shoreland Regulations. Most of the western part of the development site is in the Shoreland Boundary
area of Sunfish Lake. The City has adopted a shoreland management overlay district (Article 18 of the City
Code) that regulates land uses and the intensity of land uses within the shoreland boundaries of the lakes in
Lake Elmo. The purpose of the Shoreland Overlay District is to preserve and enhance the quality of surface
waters and conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands. This is accomplished
by regulating the placement of improvements and structures and regulating the amount of land alterations
and the intensity of development that may occur in the shoreland management area. The shoreland
boundary area and management overlay district generally extends 1000 feet out from the ordinary high
water mark of a public lake, as determined by the Minnesota DNR.
The following is a listing of the most relevant Shoreland Regulations for this proposal:
For sewered lots – the minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet; the minimum lot width is 125 feet,
maximum impervious surface area allowed on each lot 30 percent.
PUDs – Section 154.800 C 11 Planned Unit Developments. (for PUD’s in a Shoreland Zone)
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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.
g. Open Space Requirements.
Open Space must constitute at least 50 percent of the total project area within the shoreland and
must include areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in their natural
state.
Open Space may include outdoor recreational facilities for use by the owners of lots in the
subdivision and by general public: and stormwater detention facilities.
Open space shall not include road rights-of-way, lots (unless owned in common by an owners
association.
h. Open space Maintenance and Administration Requirements.
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 8
Open Space preservation. The appearance of open space areas, including topography,
vegetation and allowable uses, must be preserved.
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.
PUD REVIEW
When evaluating a PUD proposal, a PUD must meet one or more objectives contained in Section 154.751
of the City Code and meet the minimum requirements of Section 154.753 which include a minimum of
20% protected open space and Street Layout requirements.
Minimum Requirements for PUD:
a. Lot Area: The site area exceeds the minimum lot area for a PUD and potentially achieves the
following PUD objectives identified in Section 154.751 (with City staff comments and comments
from the applicant as outlined in its project narrative):
A. Innovation in land development techniques that may be more suitable for a given parcel
than conventional approaches. Applicant comment: The proposal clusters the
proposed home sites on the flattest parts of the site and complies with the 50 percent
shoreland overlay open space. This design maintains more distance from the lake,
preserves most of the trees on site and preserves the existing terrain (slopes and
wetland) near the lake.
B. Promotion of integrated land uses, allowing for a mixture of residential, commercial and
public facilities. Staff comment: The developer is proposing a mix of residential
housing types. The proposal shows single-family lots closer to the lake, smaller villa-
style homes on the north and eastern parts of the site and townhouses (row homes)
south of Stillwater Boulevard, north of the railroad tracks. This concept plan provides
a variety of housing options in one neighborhood.
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 conserving or
creating about 30 acres of open space within the shoreland overlay of the project site.
This will conserve the slopes and woodlands and will provide a significant buffer
around the lake and wetland. It is also proposing to create an open space area
around the existing barn that will be preserved in some fashion.
D. Accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to employment
opportunities and/or commercial facilities; and especially to create additional
opportunities for senior and affordable housing. Staff comment: As noted by the
applicant, this location is close to the heart of Lake Elmo’s village and commercial
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 9
districts and would create housing opportunities for local employees. The proposed
development site offers easy access transportation access via Stillwater Boulevard to
area highways and freeways.
E. Preservation and enhancement of important environmental features through careful and
sensitive placement of buildings and facilities. Staff comment: The developer would be
meeting this objective by maintaining in perpetuity nearly 21 acres of land as either
private or public open space near Sunfish Lake. This open space area will provide a
significant space for existing woodland and wildlife conservation.
F. Preservation of historic buildings, structures or landscape features. Staff comment:
The applicant notes in its narrative that it is its intent to save or restore a portion of
the historic barn for use as an interpretive center.
G. Coordination or architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility
within the development and surrounding land uses. Staff comment: The applicant
notes that it will work with homebuilders to deliver homes that will be architecturally
compatible within the development and the surrounding area.
H. Creation of more efficient provision of public utilities and services, lessened demand on
transportation and the promotion of energy resource conservation. Staff comment: This
development is located at a main intersection in Lake Elmo and would be within
walking and biking distance of retail, office and educational facilities. This would
allow the residents to access the facilities and services without the need to drive,
lessening the impact to traffic and roads.
I. Allowing the development to operate in concern with a redevelopment plan in certain
areas of the City and to ensure the redevelopment goals and objective will be achieved.
Staff comment: As noted by the applicant, the development will use a new sanitary
sewer line that is planned to be built to serve parts of the Old Village, thereby making
the installation of the new sewer line more efficient.
J. Higher standards of site and building design than would otherwise be provided under
conventional land development techniques. Staff comment: The applicant notes that
the proposed PUD would have a mix of housing types providing a more interesting
and unique development, both visually and meeting the housing needs for a broader
demographic in Lake Elmo as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Open Space: The PUD concept plan provided by the developer shows about 31.2 acres of open
space and green areas within the development – 25.3 percent of the 123.4 acres of the
development site. These open space areas include 20.8 acres on the west side of site with Sunfish
Lake, a wetland area and bluffs along the lake, a 4 acre site around the historic barn, a storm water
ponding area the common areas around the proposed townhouses. The Shoreland Ordinance
requires 50% of the shoreland area be open space held in conservation easement. It appears that
the proposed Concept Plan meets the 50% open space requirement in the shoreland. As part of the
preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans, the developer will be required to provide a shoreland
tiering analysis.
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 incorporates a modified street grid
and shows connections to the new streets that were recently constructed to the north of the
developer’s site in the Legacy of North Star development.
Shoreland Tier Analysis. The western 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, the Code requires the development to be reviewed and approved as a PUD. The purpose
of PUDs in the Shoreland District are “to protect and enhance the natural and scenic qualities of shoreland
areas during and after development and redevelopment of high-density residential uses.” In general, the
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 10
proposed Concept PUD should meet the purpose of a PUD development in the shoreland of a lake – subject
to changes and conditions of approval as outlined in this report.
The Code also requires the developer to provide a shoreland tier analysis (for calculating density). This
will be required with any revised concept plan and for the future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD
Plans submittal. The PUD concept plan that was submitted by the developer has a tiering analysis that lists
the acreage and possible number of housing units that may be developed within each tier of the land around
Sunfish Lake. The analysis that is shown on the PUD concept plan says that there would be 3 units in Tier
One, 62 units in Tier Two, 68 units in Tier 3 and 16 units in Tier Four. The proposed numbers of units in
each tier meets the requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance. The developer will need to revise and update
this analysis as the proposal moves through the various steps of the design, review and approval process
with the City.
Furthermore, the Shoreland Ordinance requires that 50% of the shoreland area be preserved as open space
with a conservation easement. The developer’s PUD concept plan notes that about 62.4 acres of the site is
within the Shoreland Management Area of Sunfish Lake. This means that at least 31.2 acres within the
shoreland area of the lake is required to be preserved. The green cross-hatched areas on the PUD concept
plan are the proposed open space areas within the shoreland area and they include the land immediately
adjacent to the lake (20.8 acres), a ponding area (2 acres), the preserved area around the barn (4 acres) and
open space around the proposed townhouses. Meeting this 50 percent open space preservation requirement
will be a recommended condition of approval. City staff provided the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources the project narrative and the PUD concept plan for its comment, but we have not yet received
any comments from the DNR about the proposal.
Lot Sizes and Widths. The minimum lot width for single-family lots in the shoreland of Sunfish Lake is
125 feet, and in the V-LDR and VMX Zoning Districts 70 feet. The minimum lot size for single-family lots
for the shoreland of Sunfish Lake is 40,000 sq. ft. and in the V-LDR and VMX Districts, 9,000 sq. ft. The
developer is proposing the following deviations from setbacks and lot area:
V-LDR/VMX Proposed
Minimum lot width 70 feet 55-65 feet (the same as Legacy at N. Star)
Minimum lot area 9,000 sq. ft. 7,100-8,400 sq. ft.
For townhouses in the VMX zoning district, the minimum lot width is 25 feet and the minimum lot area is
2,500 square feet. The City’s PUD Ordinance allows for some flexibility from zoning and subdivision
requirements. Single-family homes and townhouses (single-family attached housing) are permitted uses in
the VMX (Village Mixed Use District) zoning district.
The PUD concept plan identifies 100 55-foot-wide villa style lots, 100 65-foot-wide single-family home lots
and 118 townhouse or row homes in the area south of Stillwater Boulevard.
Setbacks. The building setbacks in the V-LDR and VMX Districts are:
Front – 25 feet
House side – 10 feet
Garage side – 5 feet
Corner side-15 feet
Rear – 10 feet
Setback from County Roads – 50 feet
The developer is proposing the following setbacks:
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 11
Front yard – 25 feet
Front yard/Side loaded garages – 15 feet
Side yard -7.5 feet/7.5 feet
Rear yard -25 feet
Side yard corner lot - 20 feet
Setback from the CSAH 17 - 80 feet
Setback from CSAH 14 – 50-100 feet
The typical front yard setback in all urban districts is 25 feet, but the City has allowed 20-foot front yard
setbacks in some instances. Most recently, the Royal Golf Club at Lake Elmo Planned Unit Development
was allowed 20-foot front yards setbacks where the garages were side loaded. The current proposal for 25
foot front yard setbacks meets the City’s standard setback requirement. The City Engineer has indicated that
the City would need a detailed right-of-way/utility easement design layout that shows/demonstrates that all
infrastructure is being adequately accommodated, and in addition other City requirements are being met.
Impervious Surfaces. The maximum allowed impervious surface within the shoreland of Sunfish Lake is
30 percent and for residential lots in the VMX zone is 75 percent. The developer has not identified any
proposed changes to the required impervious coverage maximums; however, impervious coverage will likely
be exceeded on the smaller villa-style lots as proposed.
Sidewalks. The City’s standard local street detail requires a 6 foot wide public sidewalk be constructed on
one side of any public street and to accommodate a sidewalk, the standard right-of-way width is 60 feet wide.
The proposed PUD concept plan shows 60-foot-right-of-ways for the public streets within the development,
but it does not show sidewalks on any streets.
Easements. The City requires 10-foot-wide drainage and utility easements along all public rights-of-ways
and rear property lines, 5-foot-wide easements alongside property lines, and easements for stormwater
management and public utilities as needed. The City should require the applicant to show all required and
necessary easements on the preliminary and final PUD plans.
Architecture. The developer has proposed three housing types – villas on 55-foot-wide single-family lots,
detached single-family dwellings on 65-foot-wide lots and townhouses or row homes in 4-6 unit buildings
south of Stillwater Boulevard. The developer’s narrative suggests it would partner with national and local
home builders to deliver high-quality and architecturally appealing homes and that the designs will be
architecturally compatible within the development and the surrounding area. The design of villa homes
typically focuses primarily on main floor living with a finished basement and occasional second story rooms.
No additional architectural information has been provided. The City will require a more robust architectural
plan for the entire development with the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans submittal.
Parks. The Comprehensive Park Plan identifies this part of Lake Elmo as being in a community park search
area. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan noted the search area for such a park was the entire Village Planning
Area and the objective for this park would be to serve as an important gathering place for the entire
community and have specific programming tailored to meet the needs of the growing community. The
planned park should be about 10-15 acres in the Village Planning Area and provide ample opportunity and
access to both passive and active recreational space.
Parks and Trails.
• Park Dedication Requirement. The developer is required to provide the City with either physical
land, a cash payment, or a combination of the two. The developer will be required to provide the
City with 10% of the land, which would come to 12.34 acres.
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 12
• Park Dedication. There are large sections of the development that would be left open (20.8 acres),
specifically next to the lake. Much of that is undevelopable due to the existing slopes and the
requirements in the shoreland code.
• Neighborhood Park Search Area. The Comprehensive Park Plan identifies a neighborhood park
search area over a portion of the proposed development area. The Comprehensive Parks Plan also
identifies this development in the search area for a Sports Complex/community park. The City
should consider the need of a neighborhood park within the development site or a community sports
complex in this area.
The Parks chapter of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan defines a neighborhood park as “smaller parks offering
more common and highly used facilities to immediate area residents.” Within the neighborhood search area
there is not a public park to serve the immediate area. The parks within the Legacy at North Star development
are not public and there would not be a park internal to the proposed development that the residents would
have access to. Lake Elmo Elementary School is in close proximity but to use the schools’ recreation
facilities, children would have to cross a busy roadway. Being that this is the concept phase of the
development review, it would be best to state the types of facilities the City would like to see in a new
neighborhood park, if desired. For example, a ballfield, open field for field sports, a playground or a
combination of these.
2040 LAKE ELMO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
• HOA Land. The developer intends to preserve the barn and there will be 4 acres of land around the
barn that also will be undeveloped land owned by the HOA.
The park dedication requirement for a 123.4-acre development is 12.34 acres of parkland, or a combination
of parkland or fees in lieu of parkland. The developer has not identified any areas for park land dedication
within the development but has identified two open space areas on the Concept PUD totaling about 25 acres.
These include the 20.8-acre area adjacent to Sunfish Lake and the 4-acre area adjacent to the barn. These
two areas are part of the proposed open space as required by the Shoreland Ordinance. It would not be a
recommendation of City staff that the City consider either of these open space areas for public park land
dedication purposes.
Park Dedication Criteria:
The City Code outlines the type of land that is considered acceptable for park dedication. This language
outlined below, can be found in Section 153.15 Park Land Dedication Requirements.
Neighborhood Park Search Area
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 13
153.15 Parkland Dedication Requirements.
(C) Land acceptability. The City must approve the location and configuration of any park land which is
proposed for dedication and shall take into consideration the suitability of the land and for its intended
purpose; the future needs of the City for parks, playgrounds, trails, or open space; and the recommendations
of the City’s Parks Commission. The following properties shall not be accepted for park land dedications:
(1) Land dedicated or obtained as easements for streets, sewer, electrical, gas, storm water drainage and
retention areas, or other similar utilities and improvements;
(2) Land which is unusable or of limited use; and/or
(3) Land within a protected wetland or within a flood plain area unless the Council determines that all of
the following criteria are satisfied:
(a) Would be in the best interests of the general public;
(b) Would be valuable resource for environmental preservation, educational, or habitat preservation
purposes;
(c) Has an exceptional aesthetic value; and
(d) Would not become financially burdensome to the City as a result of maintenance or preservation
requirements.
Staff has not walked the land but does believe some of the area near the lake would have some value as a
“nature park” and would have similar aesthetics to Sunfish Lake Park. In order for this land to be accepted
the City would need to consider the criteria of 153.15 C 3. a-d (above). Furthermore, trails can count towards
the required park dedication. Unless the trails are public and deeded to the City, dedication credit for the
trails should not be considered. With that said, Staff does believe portions of the open space could count
towards the park dedication requirements. This type of dedication would not lead to further park development
as it would more than likely remain “natural.” The City also should consider the need for a more traditional
2-3 acre neighborhood par within the development.
The City’s Parks Commission, on July 20, 2020, is scheduled to review the Parks and Trail requirements for
this development. The Commission did not have a quorum for its June 15, 2020 meeting so they have not yet
provided a recommendation.
Trails. The Comprehensive Trails Plan identifies a needed trail along Lake Elmo Avenue and for a trail along
Stillwater Boulevard. Washington County is planning for a trail in this corridor as part of its Central
Greenway Trail project. The City should consider the need for trails along CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue)
along CSAH 14 (Stillwater Boulevard) as they would provide continuous and safe pedestrian connectivity
from this development to developments to the north and to the Village area to the east.
The Concept Plan shows a trail extending into the development from the Legacy at North Star development
that would proceed south and west to the open space area adjacent to Sunfish Lake. The plans also shows a
trail around much of the open space area, behind several of the homes, in and around the barn and crossing
Stillwater Boulevard to proceed south and east near the railroad tracks.
It was a condition of the Legacy at North Star First Addition preliminary plat approval that the applicant
provide a trail connection to the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake trails plat, as shown below. This trail connection
runs along 39th Street and will connect the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake trails to Lake Elmo Avenue. The applicant
and City have worked with the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake residents to determine this connection point. The
City recently reached an agreement with the Hamlet neighborhood to have many of the trails in their
neighborhood available for public use while some of the trails in the Hamlet neighborhood remain private
for the use of their residents.
There may be an opportunity to include a trail from the northwest corner of this development into the
southwest corner Legacy of North Star development and/or into the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake neighborhood.
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 14
There will be a stormwater ponding located just north of Lots 44-46 that the City will own when the developer
completes its construction and there will be a 3-acre HOA-owned and maintained play area north of the
ponding area as shown below.
Legacy at North Star Plan
Having an off-street trail in this area will allow for easy pedestrian connectivity between these parts of the
developments and to the future play area to the north. It appears that a possible location for such a trail would
be between Lots 43 and 44. The City should require the developer to study the options for public trail
connections in this area as it prepares the preliminary plat and PUD plans. I have attached 3 maps showing
this area in more detail for your reference.
The PUD concept plan also shows a trail running generally parallel to the railroad tracks along the south side
of the site to the southeast corner of the property. This trail could possibly be extended to the east within the
existing right-of-way for Upper 33rd Street to provide a pedestrian connection to the downtown village area
from this development. The City should require the developer to study the options for public trail connections
in this area as they prepare the preliminary plat and PUD plans. I have attached 3 maps showing this area
in more detail for your reference.
All trails within this development shall be eight-feet-wide and for all of the public to use. The HOA may
need to maintain some or all of these trails, however.
Barn and Interpretive Center Parking. The proposed plan is to preserve some or the entire barn for use
as an interpretive center. This would be in an open space area near the Stillwater Boulevard entrance putting
it in a prominent location that will make for an attractive entrance to the development. With 28-foot-wide
streets, parking will be allowed on both sides of the street, but the on-street parking could potentially create
significant congestion in this area. The PUD concept plan shows an area for off street parking near the barn
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 15
in the proposed open space area. The City should require the applicant to provide more design details for this
parking area with any submittal for preliminary PUD/plat approval.
Subdivision Signs. Section 154.212 allows one sign per entrance of a residential development with a
maximum sign area of 32 square feet for the main entrance and 24 square feet for all other signs. No signs
have been proposed.
Washington County Review. City staff sent the proposed PUD concept plan to Washington County its
review and comments as the site is at the intersection of two County Roads. I have attached the County’s
response letter dated June 3, 2020 for your review. The County notes several important issues and design
elements the developer will need to resolve as it moves the project forward. These include:
1. The County has prepared two preliminary concept designs for the redesign of the intersection of
County Road 17 and County Road 14. (Please see the attached plans). These two designs are
significantly different than the intersection plan shown by the developer. City staff is
recommending the developer coordinate and account for these intersection designs in its designs
for the preliminary plat/PUD plans.
2. As part of the platting process, the City and the County will be requiring the developer to dedicate
additional right-of-way along County Road 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue) and along realigned County
Road 14 (Stillwater Boulevard) to meet County standards. The CSAH 17 right-of-way
requirement is 75 feet from the centerline and the right-of-way requirement for County Road 14
is 180 feet total – 90 feet from centerline. The County also will be requiring the developer to
provide turn lanes according to County requirements
3. The developer will need to clearly show the existing and proposed right-of-way for the County
Roads (and all City streets) on the proposed preliminary plat.
4. The County is recommending that access for the townhouse site on the south side of County
Road 14 be connected to the updated intersection at County Road 17. The proposed access is
now shown to the west of the existing intersection.
5. Revising the access point along County Road 14 as it is less than the County’s ¼ mile access
guideline from County Road 17. The County suggests the developer use Klondike Avenue as
the access point as it is just over ¼ mile from the intersection with County Road 17. This issue
will require further analysis as the existing location of Klondike Avenue could not provide access
to the north side of Stillwater Boulevard as it is west of the west property line of the project site.
6. The Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies the Central Greenway Regional
Trail corridor along this section of Stillwater Boulevard. The County will work with the City on
the trail efforts and the trails should connect to the subdivisions to the north, to the Old Village
Center and Lake Elmo Elementary School.
7. The PUD concept plan does not reflect the regional pond as planned during the Downtown Lake
Elmo/CSAH 17/Lake Elmo Avenue Improvement Project. City staff note: The project plans
show several locations for possible ponding areas on the site.
In summary, these requirements of Washington County will require significant design changes to the parts
of the development site adjacent to County Road 14 and County Road 17. It would be best for the developer
to make changes to its PUD concept plan and resubmit it to the City to address the conditions as outlined by
Washington County before proceeding further with the development process.
Streets. The developer is proposing a modified street grid and is proposing 60 foot wide public rights-of-
ways with 28 foot wide streets that would allow parking on one side of the street, except where a center island
exists, such as at the entrance roads off of Lake Elmo Avenue and Stillwater Boulevard. This street design is
consistent with the streets in the Legacy at North Star development. For the area south of Stillwater
Boulevard, the developer’s plans show rerouting Klondike Avenue to the east into the development site so it
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 16
would create an intersection on Stillwater Boulevard with the new street that would be north of Stillwater
Boulevard. The County, as noted above, has flagged the proposed intersection location as being too close to
the intersection with County Road 17. The remainder of the streets south of Stillwater Boulevard would be
private driveways that would provide access to the proposed townhouses.
There may be an opportunity and a need for the developer to provide a public street access to the adjacent
property to the east, just south of the 2.5 acre ponding area. This connection would be to property at the west
end of 34th Street and would allow for 34th Street to eventually continue to the west. If not a street connection,
there may be a need for trail and/or an utility easement in southeast corner of the development to allow for
public pedestrian access between properties and for utilities to connect between the existing neighborhood
and the new neighborhood. The City should require the developer to study this in more detail as it prepares
the preliminary plat and PUD plans.
Additionally, the developer should plan for a secondary access to the west near the western portion of the
site to provide access to the land locked Chavez parcel (to be discussed next in this report).
Chavez Land Locked Parcel. To the west of the proposed residential development (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 City staff if the Chavez property is buildable. The property is subject to
shoreland and Rural Residential setback requirements, septic area (unless public utilities are provided to the
lot) and setback requirements. Mr. Chavez is requesting access through the subdivision of the Schiltgen
Farm property. The PUD concept plan shows an area about 25 feet wide between Lots 39 and 40 that is
intended to provide access to the Chavez parcel.
Legacy at North
Star Development
Concept PUD Site
(Schiltgen Farm)
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 17
Tree Removal and Preservation. Most of the trees on this site are around Sunfish Lake and the
existing farm buildings. The trees near the lake should be preserved as they would be in the open space
area except for any that would be removed due to trail construction. The applicant has not yet submitted a
proposed tree and landscaping plan for this site. The City should require the applicant to provide a detailed
tree inventory and preservation plan for the areas of the PUD that would be developed with housing and
would have improvements such as trails and streets.
The City also will require the applicant to provide a complete tree inventory and tree
preservation/replanting and landscaping plans for the areas of the site that would be disturbed as part of any
site development applications going forward. The City’s tree preservation ordinance allows for 30%
removal of significant trees on a site and the City requires a tree mitigation plan showing how the
developer will replace any removed trees.
Landscaping. The applicant has not yet provided the City with any details about landscaping for the site
(nor is it required to at this point of the review). The City will require the applicant to submit detailed
landscape plans with its preliminary PUD application and those plans will need to meet or exceed the
City’s landscape requirements for the replanting of trees and for screening. All tree removal, screening and
landscape plans will subject to review and approval by the City’s Landscape Architect.
Wetlands/Buffers. There is an existing wetland in the western part of the development site adjacent to
Sunfish Lake. This wetland would be in the proposed open space area adjacent to and around the lake. The
City requires wetlands and wetland buffers to be fully contained within outlots, outside of lot areas so this
requirement should be met with the proposed open space.
City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has submitted comments as outlined in the attached letter dated
June 3, 2020. The City Engineer has recommended the developer revise the PUD concept plan before any
formal City review and comment as this would be the opportunity to address several key design elements
that will likely result in significant plan layout.
Stormwater Management. The developer has not yet prepared a stormwater management plan for the
project at this time. The proposed PUD concept plan shows six areas for storm water ponding totaling
about 10.2 acres in area. The City Engineer’s memorandum addresses general stormwater management
considerations that the City will require as part of this development. He will need to see additional details
before commenting in any detail on any proposed storm water management plan, and in particular, how the
storm water ponds or basins would be connected and how the storm water system would allow emergency
overflow from the ponds. He also noted there should be a system of interconnecting drainage ways
incorporated into the design.
Municipal Sewer and Water. The City Engineer’s memorandum provides a review of municipal sewer and
water considerations. One issue of importance is the need to get sanitary sewer to this development site. The
tentative plan is to extend sanitary sewer to the site from the south from the Village area after the City extends
sanitary sewer along 32nd Street. The timing of this improvement project has not yet been finalized by the
City. The City should not accept an application for preliminary plat/PUD approval for this site until after the
City has awarded a construction contract for the sanitary sewer improvements to the south to ensure the final
design and timing of those improvements are known to the City and to the developer. The City Engineer
suggests that the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans submittal include a detailed proposal showing
the sanitary sewer connection.
The developer should extend City water into this site from existing points to the north, east and to the south
of the development. The City Engineer will require the watermain system to be a looped network wherever
reasonably possible to prevent long dead stretches of public watermain.
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 18
Valley Branch Watershed District Comments. The City has not received comments from John
Hanson from the Valley Branch Watershed District about this proposal. However, he provided the City
with the following comments about another recent development proposal that should be applicable to this
site:
1. The project will require a Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) permit. Once the
applicant submits a complete VBWD permit application, they will review it for
conformance to the VBWD rules and regulations.
2. I understand the applicant is proposing storm water ponds and facilities to control
stormwater runoff rates and to provide the required stormwater runoff volume treatment.
The VBWD will need to see soil borings and/or other infiltration testing results,
computations and design details to determine whether the proposed storm water
improvements will conform to the VBWD rules and regulations.
Subdivision Review Process. In order to proceed with the subdivision of the land included in the
concept plan the applicant will need to prepare a preliminary plat/PUD application. At this stage there
is much more information the City requires as part of that submission process, which also requires a
public hearing.
OPTIONS:
The City Council is asked to examine the proposed 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 PUD concept plan at this point will require the applicant to
reassess the development approach and return with a revised/new PUD 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 PUD concept plan based on the applicant’s submission, the
contents of this report, public testimony and other evidence available to the City Council.
B) DENIAL of the requested 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 additional information and/or further study.
Per the City Code, the PUD 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. City staff would recommend using the following as a guide for discussion.
(1) Has the applicant demonstrated that the proposal fulfills the intent for PUDs and at least one of
the identified objectives or reasons listed in Section 154.751 to permit development as a PUD?
a. If NO, deny the concept plan and provide findings to support the denial. Further review of the PUD
concept 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.
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 19
(2) What exceptions or modifications from the City Code are acceptable to the City Council with this
PUD concept plan 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
any exceptions or modifications to the City Code for this PUD will require City Council approval.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
Based on the above comments and analysis, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD
concept plan as described above. The Planning Commission made this recommendation based on the
following findings:
1. That the PUD concept plan is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Future Land Use Map for this area.
2. That the PUD concept plan complies with the general intent of the Village Urban Medium Density
Residential land use designation and the VMX zoning district with PUD modifications.
3. That the PUD concept plan generally complies with the City’s subdivision regulations.
4. That the PUD concept plan is generally consistent with the City’s engineering standards with
exceptions as noted in the City Engineer’s memorandum dated June 3, 2020.
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 of the City Code including providing: 1) innovation in land development techniques that
may be more suitable for a given parcel than conventional approaches; 2) promotion of integrated
land uses, allowing for a mixture of residential, commercial and public facilities; 3) more adequate,
usable, and suitably located open space and recreational amenities and other public facilities than
would otherwise be provided under conventional development techniques; 4) accommodation of
housing of all types with convenient access to employment opportunities and/or commercial
facilities; and especially to create additional opportunities for senior and affordable housing; 5)
preservation and enhancement of important environmental features through careful and sensitive
placement of buildings and facilities; 6) preservation of historic buildings, structures or landscape
features; 7) coordination or architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility
within the development and surrounding land uses; 8) creation of more efficient provision of public
utilities and services, lessened demand on transportation and the promotion of energy resource
conservation; and 9) allowing the development to operate in concern with a redevelopment plan in
certain areas of the City and to ensure the redevelopment goals and objectives will be achieved.
7. That the PUD concept plan will preserve important environmental features through careful and
sensitive placement of buildings and facilities.
City staff is recommending denial of the PUD concept plan for the Schiltgen Property located 10880
Stillwater Boulevard. Staff is recommending denial based on the findings listed below and because of the
significant changes required to the proposed development plans as outlined in the staff report.
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 20
If the City Council wants to deny the PUD concept plan for the Schiltgen property located 10880 Stillwater
Boulevard, then City staff would recommend the following findings for denial:
1. That the PUD concept plan is not consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Future Land Use Map for this area;
2. That the PUD concept plan does not comply with the general intent of the Village Urban
Low-Density Residential land use designation and the VMX zoning district with PUD
modifications;
3. That the PUD concept plan does not incorporate additional right-of-way needed for CSAH
17 and CSAH 14 as required by Washington County; and
4. That the PUD concept plan does not incorporate Washington County’s redesign of the
intersection of CSAH 17 and CSAH 14 which is needed to address various issues
pertaining to safety, geometry, access, and stormwater management;
5. That the PUD concept plan does not incorporate Washington County’s approved access
locations along CSAH 14 and CSAH 17, including that access from the development’s
townhouse site on the south side of CSAH 14 must be connected to the intersection at
CSAH 17 and the proposed access point along CSAH 14 is less than the County’s quarter
mile access spacing guidelines;
6. That the PUD concept plan does not incorporate bituminous trails along CSAH 14 and
CSAH 17, which are required pedestrian facilities by the City and Washington County;
and
7. That the PUD concept plan does not reflect the regional pond as planned by the City and
Washington County during the Downtown Lake Elmo/CSAH 17/Lake Elmo Avenue
Improvement Project;
8. The PUD concept plan is not consistent with several of the City’s engineering standards as
stated by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated June 3, 2020; and
9. The developer has not provided information satisfactory to the City that shows that it will
be preserving important environmental features on the property through careful and sensitive
placement of buildings and facilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the number of significant changes to the development that are required for location and design of
the County Roads and local streets that will affect the design of the proposed PUD (as outlined in this staff
report), City staff is recommending that the City Council deny approval of the requested PUD concept plan
for the Schiltgen Farm property located 10880 Stillwater Boulevard and adopt the attached resolution
denying the PUD concept plan.
However, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD concept plan on June 8, 2020.
If the City Council wants to approve the PUD concept plan, staff would recommend the Council follow the
recommendation of approval for the PUD Concept Plan as noted by the Planning Commission subject to the
following conditions. City staff also recommends that the City Council direct staff to bring a resolution of
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 21
approval back to the next City Council meeting for approval so staff may include any additional conditions
the Council wishes to add to the resolution based on its review and discussion of the request.
Staff recommended conditions of approval:
1. That the future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans includes parcels with the PID#s
1402921140001, 1402921410003, 1402921410001 and 1402921410002.
2. That the developer submit a PUD plan as part of any future preliminary development plans. The
PUD Plan shall include a detailed listing of all requested departures or modifications from City
ordinances and development standards.
3. That before submitting an application to the City for preliminary PUD plan/plat approval, the
developer revise the PUD concept plan to address the recommended changes from City staff and to
allow for additional City review.
4. That all comments of the City Engineer’s Memorandum dated June 3, 2020 be addressed with the
developer’s future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans submittal. In particular, the
preliminary development plans shall address the provision of public sanitary sewer and water to the
subdivision, storm water management and street and trail design.
5. That all storm water retention and infiltration areas must be dedicated to the City and platted as
outlots on the preliminary plat unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer.
6. That a shoreland tier analysis be provided with the developer’s future preliminary plat and
preliminary PUD plans submittal with the required 50% protected open space.
7. The developer shall secure all necessary permits from Washington County for the realignment of
Stillwater Boulevard and for the proposed access off of Lake Elmo Avenue and off of Stillwater
Boulevard.
8. That any approval be contingent on complying with Washington County’s requirements and requests
pertaining to right-of-way, right-of-way dedication, Stillwater Boulevard/Lake Elmo Avenue
intersection realignment and design, turn lanes, stormwater ponding and trail needs.
9. That the developer provide trails as recommended by the Parks Commission and Washington County.
All trails must be for public use and shall be located outside of storm water ponding areas and wetland
buffer zones.
10. That the future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans submittal show possible trail connections
near Lots 43 and 44 in the northwest corner of the Concept Plan to the City-owned property around
the storm water ponding area to the north or to the existing trails in the Hamlet of Sunfish Lake
neighborhood to the northwest of the site. The City will require the developer to provide a trail on its
own parcel that must either be dedicated to the City in the plat or by separate easement instrument.
11. That the developer’s future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans submittal show possible trail
connections to the area east of the southern part of development site near Upper 33rd Street or 34th
Street and south of the proposed storm water ponding area. The City will require the developer to
dedicate trails or provide the City with a trail easement over the developer’s parcel.
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 22
12. That the developer’s future Preliminary Plat and PUD plans submittal include accurate open space
and impervious surface calculations.
13. That the developer’s Preliminary Plat and PUD plans submittal include a complete tree inventory and
tree preservation/replanting and landscape plans to be reviewed and approved by the City’s Landscape
Architect.
14. That 6-foot-wide sidewalks be provided on one side of all City streets.
15. That wetlands and wetland buffer areas be contained on outlots outside of lot areas.
16. That all storm water retention and infiltration areas must be dedicated to the City and platted as outlots
on the preliminary and final plats unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer.
17. That all open space areas be platted in separate outlots to be commonly owned and managed by a
homeowners’ association.
18. That the developer provide the City with a parkland dedication (in fees and/or land dedication or a
combination thereof) as may be recommended by the Parks Commission and as required by Section
153.14 of the City Code with the future final plat.
19. That the developer’s future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans submittal include a detailed
subdivision phasing plan that includes a timeline for providing sanitary sewer to the site.
20. That the developer’s future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans submittal include a detailed
plan for the parking area for the historic barn and interpretive center.
21. That the developer’s future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans submittal include a detailed
architectural plan that clearly identifies the various architecture styles for all the proposed buildings.
22. The developer receives a permit from the Valley Branch Watershed District for the construction of
the proposed development.
23. That the developer complies with any comments or requirements provided by the DNR.
24. That the developer agrees and understands that the City will not accept an application for preliminary
plat/PUD approval for this site until after the City has awarded a construction contract for the proposed
public sanitary sewer improvements to the south that includes the scope of improvements necessary
to make sanitary sewer available to the site. This is to ensure the final design and timing of those
sanitary sewer improvements are known to the City and to the developer before the City proceeds
with any further land use or development review for this site.
25. That the developer shall prepare a plan for the ownership and management of the open space and
conservation areas as part of preliminary PUD plans.
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2020 Page 23
FISCAL IMPACT:
There would be no fiscal impact to the City at this time. PUD concept plan approval does not afford the
applicant development rights. When the property develops, the property will have urban services and the
developer and/or contractors will pay sewer and water connection charges, building permit fees and the like.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the proposed PUD concept plan for the proposed
development of the Schiltgen Farm property located at 10880 Stillwater Boulevard as proposed by the
Excelsior Group.
“Motion to adopt Resolution 2020 – 076 denying the PUD concept plan as requested by Excelsior Group
for the residential development proposed for the Schiltgen Farm property located at 10880 Stillwater
Boulevard, based on the findings of denial listed in the staff report.”
If the City Council wishes to approve the proposed PUD Concept Plan for the proposed development of the
Schiltgen Farm property located at 10880 Stillwater Boulevard as proposed by the Excelsior Group, then
staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to bring back a resolution approving the PUD concept
plan to the next City Council meeting for the Council’s consideration. The City Council should also direct
staff as to what conditions should be in the resolution.
“Motion to direct City staff to bring back a resolution approving the PUD concept plan for the
residential development proposed for the Schiltgen Farm property located at 10880 Stillwater Boulevard,
to the next City Council meeting.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application Narrative dated May 7, 2020 (3 pages)
2. Location Map
3. Land Use Plan Map
4. Property Line Map
5. Concept PUD Plans (3 pages)
6. 3 Maps – NW Corner
7. 3 Maps – SE Corner
8. City Engineer Report dated June 3, 2020
9. Washington County letter dated June 3, 2020
10. Washington County Concept Plan Number 1
11. Washington County Concept Plan Number 2
12. Resolution 2020 - 076
c
3OFSCHILTGEN PROPERTY
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
4-3-2020
JLT
JLT
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions Date
Designed
Drawn
2019 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
xx
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect
under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763
Jennifer L. Thompson 1THE EXCELSIOR GROUP
1660 HIGHWAY 100 SOUTH, SUITE 400SAINT LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416
CONCEPT PLAN
55'
65'
65'
c
3OFSCHILTGEN PROPERTY
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
4-3-2020
JLT
JLT
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions Date
Designed
Drawn
2019 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
xx
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect
under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763
Jennifer L. Thompson 2THE EXCELSIOR GROUP
1660 HIGHWAY 100 SOUTH, SUITE 400SAINT LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416
CONCEPT PLAN
c
3OFSCHILTGEN PROPERTY
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
4-3-2020
JLT
JLT
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions Date
Designed
Drawn
2019 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
xx
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect
under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763
Jennifer L. Thompson 3THE EXCELSIOR GROUP
1660 HIGHWAY 100 SOUTH, SUITE 400SAINT LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416
CONCEPT PLAN
PAGE 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 3, 2020
To: Ken Roberts, Planning Director Re: Schiltgen Property
Cc: Chad Isakson, Assistant City Engineer Concept Plan Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Schiltgen Property Concept Plans received on May 26, 2020.
The submittal consisted of the following documentation:
Residential PUD Concept Plan Narrative dated May 7, 2020.
Residential PUD Concept Plans, Sheets 1‐3, dated April 3, 2020.
STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering recommends that the concept plan be revised prior to formal City review and
comment, to address several key design elements that will likely result in significant plan layout. The Concept Plan
development for this property should begin with the identification and incorporation of the CSAH 14 and CSAH 17
intersection reconfiguration, the dedication of required right‐of‐way along CSAH 14 and CSAH 17, and the
identification and use of County approved site access along both CSAH 14 and CSAH 17.
Stormwater management considerations should also inform the design to ensure that storm water basins are not
landlocked by homes and roads. Overland emergency overflow elevations are required and must be utilized for all
stormwater ponding while maintaining 2‐foot minimum separation between structure low floor elevations and
the overland EOF. A system of interconnecting drainage ways should be incorporated into the design.
The public sanitary sewer system is not readily available to serve this site. The City capital improvement program
has tentatively scheduled the installation of sanitary sewer to the south side of the UP Railroad, as shown on the
concept plan, however the earliest sewer would be available would be in November 2021, if the project remains
on schedule. As the development plans move forward with this site, the city should not accept a preliminary
plat/plan application until a construction contract is awarded for the sanitary sewer project that includes the
scope of improvements necessary to make sanitary sewer available.
When submitting revised concept plans, the application should be deemed incomplete 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.
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 April, 2019.
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
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
CSAH 14 and CSAH 17 Intersection reconfiguration. The concept plans should be revised to incorporate
the proposed reconfiguration of the CSAH 14 and CSAH 17 Intersection improvements, including right0of‐
way dedications and site access.
Right‐of‐way dedication. The Plat must dedicate sufficient right‐of‐way along CSAH 14 (Stillwater
Boulevard) and CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue) as required by Washington County.
180 feet is required along the full length of CSAH 14. Only 150 feet is shown.
75 feet from centerline is shown from CSAH 17, however the dedication must consider the
realignment of this roadway corridor.
Access Management. The concept plans should be revised to incorporate the County approved access
locations along CSAH 14 and CSAH 17.
Intersection Improvements. The applicant will be responsible to construct all intersection and turn lane
improvements along CSAH 14 and CSAH 17 as required by Washington County. These improvements must
be completed at the developer’s cost.
Pedestrian facilities: The concept plans should be revised to incorporate bituminous trails along CSAH 14
and CSAH 17.
RESIDENTIAL STREETS
All streets must be public streets and must be designed to meet the City’s Engineering Design Standards
including right‐of‐way width (60‐feet), street width (28‐feet) and cul‐de‐sac radii.
All street intersections must be at 90 degrees and maintain 50 feet of tangent with maximum slopes of
2.5%. Residential maximum longitudinal grade is 6% with sidewalks.
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.
The proposed internal street network is well interconnected creating multiple access routes into and out
of the development. Street geometrics must meet city standards and the use of compounding curves
should be eliminated.
Additional right‐of‐way dedication may be required along Klondike Avenue and the roadway improved to
city standards.
Parkway or divided roadways must be a minimum of 19 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb. Right‐
of‐way along divided roadways must provide a minimum 16‐foot boulevard along both sides of the street.
Six (6) foot sidewalks must be provided along all residential streets and as may be required for
connectivity.
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 concept plan shows a Regional Pond at the intersection of CSAH 14 and CSAH 17 as required in the
City CIP. The capacity and area dedicated for the required regional pond should verified with the city and
the plans updated accordingly.
All storm water facilities (ponds and infiltration basins) must be placed in Outlots. The Stormwater Facility
Outlots must fully incorporate the 100‐year HWL, 10‐foot maintenance bench and all maintenance roads.
Maintenance access roads meeting City standards must be provided for all storm water facilities.
Stormwater management considerations should also inform the design to ensure that storm water basins
are not landlocked by homes and roads. Overland emergency overflow elevations are required and must
be utilized for all stormwater ponding while maintaining 2‐foot minimum separation between structure
low floor elevations and the overland EOF. A system of interconnecting drainage ways should be
incorporated into the design.
PAGE 3 of 3
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.
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
Municipal water supply is available immediately adjacent to the proposed development along the north,
east and south sides. The applicant is responsible to extend the municipal water supply into the
development site at developer’s cost.
The watermain distribution lines and connections will be required wherever reasonably possible to create
a looped network.
A watermain stub will be required to extend to the western boundary of the development for future
extension along CSAH 14.
MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER
Municipal sanitary sewer system is not readily available to serve this site. The City capital improvement
program has tentatively scheduled the installation of sanitary sewer to the south side of the UP Railroad,
as shown on the concept plan, however the earliest sewer would be available would be in November
2021, if the project remains on schedule. As the development plans move forward with this site, the city
should not accept a preliminary plat/plan application until a construction contract is awarded for the
sanitary sewer project that includes the scope of improvements necessary to make sanitary sewer
available.
The applicant is responsible to extend sanitary sewer north across the UP Railroad into the development
site at developer’s cost. The development phasing must plan accordingly.
A 15‐inch trunk sanitary sewer must be stubbed to the western boundary of the development for future
extension along CSAH 14.
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
Public Works Department
Donald J. Theisen, P.E.
Director
Wayne H. Sandberg, P.E.
Deputy Director/County Engineer
June 3, 2020
Ken Roberts
City of Lake Elmo
3600 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: Washington County comments on the Shiltgen property
Dear Ken,
Thank you for providing Washington County with the concept plan for the Shiltgen property in the
City of Lake Elmo, dated 8-28-2019. The proposed project consists of 318 residential dwelling
units on two parcels north and south of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 14 (Stillwater Blvd),
west of CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue). Other proposed uses include a nature park, interpretive
center and open space. Based on the plan provided, we have the following comments:
Washington County has previously discussed with city staff and school district staff
the potential to reconfigure the CSAH 17 intersection at CSAH 14 to address
various issues pertainting to safety, geometry, access, and stormwater
management. The approval of adjacent development will constrain future
opportunities for these intersection improvements and therefore should be carefully
considered prior to approval of any development concepts. We have provided
those drawings as an attachment to this letter. This work is not presently
programmed in the county’s Capital Improvement Plan.
The Functional Classification of CSAH 17 is an “A” Minor Arterial Roadway,
Expander category. The right-of-way requirement for this corridor is 150 feet total
consisting of 75 feet of dedicated right-of-way from the center line of CSAH 17. The
proposed dedication cannot be determined based on the plan submitted.
The Functional Classification of CSAH 14 is also an “A” Minor Arterial Roadway,
Expander Category. The right-of-way requirement on CSAH 14 is 180 feet total,
consisting of 90 feet from the center line. This dedication also should be verified.
The 2018 traffic volume on CSAH 17 is 5300 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
and 10,300 AADT for CSAH 14 according to the Washington County 2019 Traffic
Volume Map. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2040 has estimated
that traffic will increase to 7000 AADT by 2040. For CSAH 14, the future traffic
volumes are estimated to be 13,300 AADT.
Access from the townhouse site on the south side of CSAH 14 should be connected
to the intersection at CSAH 17. Gorman’s Restaurant driveway would need to be
realigned to tie into the new local road access at the intersection as well.
June 3, 2020
Shiltgen property
Page 2 of 3
The access location proposed on CSAH 17, across from the elementary school exit,
is acceptable to the county. Turn lane improvements at the intersection should be
center, left, and right turn lanes and the design will need to be approved by the
county traffic engineer. A Washington County Right-of-Way Permit will be required
for the turn lane improvements.
The proposed access point along CSAH 14 is less than the county’s quarter mile
access spacing guidelines. Klondike Avenue is just over ¼ mile away and should
be their north and south access point. There should also be center, left, and right
turn lanes for any new access on CSAH 14. Again, all improvements will need to
be approved by the county traffic engineer.
The plans should identify trail connections within the site as well as along CSAH 17
and CSAH 14. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2040 identifies the
Central Greenway Regional Trail corridor along this section. The county will work
with the city on those future efforts. Trails should connect to future subdivisions to
the north as well as to the Old Village Center and Lake Elmo Elementary.
The plans do not reflect the regional pond as planned during the Downtown Lake
Elmo/CSAH 17/Lake Elmo Avenue improvement project.
The developer or the city must submit the drainage report and calculations to our
office for review of any downstream impacts to the county drainage system. Along
with the drainage calculations, we will request written conclusions that show the
volume and rate of stormwater run-off into the 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 this
highway 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.
A Right-of-Way Permit will be required for any work within county highway right-of-
way as it relates to the development. A plan set is required with the application and
includes any grading, installation of culverts, installation of water and sewer
services, left and right turn lanes on CSAH 17 and on CSAH 14, parallel trail
June 3, 2020
Shiltgen property
Page 3 of 3
development, signage and any landscaping and other improvements within county
right-of-way.
All utility connections to county highway right-of-way for the development require
Washington County Right-of-Way respective permits. Typically, these utility
connection permits are the responsibility of the utility companies.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this preliminary plat. If you have any questions,
please contact me at 651-430-4362 or Ann.Pung-Terwedo@co.washington.mn.us. For permit
applications, please contact Carol Hanson at Carol.Hanson@co.washington.mn.us.
Regards,
Ann Pung-Terwedo
Senior Planner
Cc: Carol Hanson, Office Specialist
R/Plat Reviews/City of Lake Elmo/Shiltgen20202
CSAH 14CSAH 17SOUTH SCHOOL ENTRANCE
BROOKFIELD MALL ENTRANCE
39TH ST. N.100+00101102103104105+00106107108109110+00111112113114115+00116117118119120+00121122123124125+0012612712811'15'11'11'11'11'11'11'11'11'11'11'11'11'11'11'11'13'13'11'11'11'14'14'11'13'11'
11'
12'8' TRAIL10' TRAIL8' TRAIL8' TRAIL10' TRAIL10' TRAIL10' TRAIL11'11'11'
50
SCALE IN FEET
A A
B
C
B
C
DDEEF F
G
H
H
I
I
J JKKLLCSAH 17CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
INTERSECTION OF CSAH 14 AND CSAH 17
SQUARED OFF INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: JOE GUSTAFSON
DESIGN ENGINEER: FRANK TICKNOR
DESIGNER: DAVID F. CHURCHICH
11'11'11'NORTH SCHOOL EXIT11'11'13'13'13'
11'
13'
11'
11'
13'
M
M
13'12'
1:50
1:15 6' SHLD6' SHLD
1:56' SHLD
6' SHLD
6' SHLD
6' SHLD
8' BLVRD
8' SIDEWALK
6' SHLD
6' SHLD
1:15
10' SHLD10' SHLD
12'
12'
1:15
1:40
11'1:40
1:15
1:15
SITE
POND
POTENTIAL
SITE
POND
POTENTIAL
SITE
POND
POTENTIAL
G
JUNE 17, 2019
(TYPICALS FACE NORTH AND EAST)
(TYPICALS ARE NOT TO SCALE)
TYPICALS
R:\\00Design\LakeElmoOptions\csah17andcsah14opt1.dgn
11'
THRU LANETHRU LANE
11'
TRAIL
1.5'
BLVD.BLVD.
11'
3.9'
0.06'/'
0.06'/'
0.06'/'
0.015'/'
0.06'/'
0.02'/'
1.5'
{ CSAH 17 INPLACE
VAR.
LEFT TURN THRU LANE
INPLACE
9.0'
SHOULDERTHRU LANE
TRAIL
INPLACE
10.0'
SHLD.
V
A
R
.
8'8'2'6'2'2'6'
B624 C@GB624 C@G
B624 C@G 2.0'11'
B624 C@G
MEDIAN
A - A
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
0.02'/'0.02'/'
39TH ST. N. (NORTH OF INTERSECTION)
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
LANE
TURN
LEFT
INPLACE
10.0'
INPLACE
11.0'
INPLACE
12.0'
B624 C@G
11'
THRU LANETHRU LANE
11'
TRAIL
1.5'
BLVD.BLVD.
0.015'/'0.06'/'
0.06'/'0.06
'/'
0.06'/'
1.5'
{ CSAH 17 INPLACE
SHLD.TRAIL
0.015'/'
1.5'
1
:61:6
8'6'2'6'2'11'10'11'
11.5' INPLACE
2.5'
11.5' INPLACE
RIGHT TURN
5'
THRU LANE LEFT TURN THRU LANE
2'
MEDIAN
B - B
B624 C@G B624 C@G
C@G
B624
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
LANE
TURN
LEFT
SOUTH 39TH ST. N. (SOUTH OF INTERSECTION)
1.5'
0.02'/'
10' MIN.
VAR.
(8' MIN.)
VAR.
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
0.02'/'
INPLACE
10.5'
INPLACE
10.0'
0.02'/'
B624 C@G
11'
THRU LANETRAIL
1.5'
BLVD.BLVD.
0.015'/'0.06'/'0.06'/'0.06'/'
0.06'/'
1.5'
{ CSAH 17 INPLACE
SHLD.TRAIL
0.015'/'
1.5'
1
:61:6
8'8'6'2'2'11'10' MIN.
VAR.
10'
11.5' INPLACE
2.5'
11.5' INPLACE
RIGHT TURNTHRU LANE LEFT TURN THRU LANE
2'11'
THRU LANE MEDIAN
C - C
B624 C@G B624 C@G B624 C@G
BROOKFIELD MALL ENTERANCE (SOUTH OF INTERSECTION)
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
INPLACE
10.0'
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
VAR. (6'-18')
10' INPLACE
11'
THRU LANETHRU LANE
11'
TRAIL
1.5'
BLVD.BLVD.
11'
0.06'/'0.06'/'
0.06'/'
0.015'/'0.06'/'
1.5'
8'2'2'(8' MIN.)
VAR.
0.015'/'
1.5'
1
:6
TRAIL
10'
2.5'
{ CSAH 17 INPLACE
22' TO 135'
10'VAR.6'2'
MEDIAN TAPER
D - D
B624 C@G B624 C@G
1:6
SCHOOL'S NORTH ENTRANCE (NORTH OF INTERSECTION)
0.02'/'0.02'/'
0.02'/'
0.02'/'0.02'/'
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
6'
SHLD
B624 C@G
B624 C@G
THRU LANETHRU LANE
INPLACE
10.0'
10' INPLACE
RIGHT SHLD.
12' INPLACE12' INPLACE
SHLD.
B624 C@G
11'
THRU LANE
11'
TRAIL
1.5'
BLVD.BLVD.
0.06'/'0.06'/'
0.06'/'
0.015'/'0.06'/'
1.5'
TRAIL
0.015'/'
1.5'
1.5'
1
:61:6
8'2'6'2'(8' MIN.)
VAR.
TYPICAL SECTION AT SCHOOL'S NORTH ENTRANCE (SOUTH OF INTERSECTION)
LEFT TURN LANE
11'
THRU LANE
2.5'
{ CSAH 17 INPLACE
153' TO 212'
MEDIAN
E - E
B624 C@G B624 C@G B624 C@G
(10' MIN.)
VAR.
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
10'6'
SHLD
6'
SHLD
0.02'/'
THRU LANETHRU LANE
INPLACE
10.0'
10' INPLACE
RIGHT SHLD.
12' INPLACE12' INPLACE
SHLD.
B624 C@G
THRU LANE
11'
TRAIL BLVD.
0.015'/'
0.06'/'
0.06'/'0.06
'/'
0.06'/'
TRAIL
0.015'/'
1.5'
1.5'
VAR. BLVD.
22' MIN.
1
:6
1:6
8'2'2'10'
2.7'
{ CSAH 17 INPLACE
211'
11'
THRU LANEVAR.
VAR 6' TO 17'
MEDIAN
1.5'
TAPER
6'
F - F
B624 C@G B624 C@G
SCHOOLS SOUTH ENTRANCE (NORTH OF INTERSECTION)
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
0.02'/'0.02'/'
6'
SHLDTRAIL
1.5'
BLVD.
(8' MIN.)
VAR.
0-11'
SHLD
B624 C@G
TAPER
VAR.
0-11'
THRU LANETHRU LANE
10' INPLACE
RIGHT SHLD.
12' INPLACE12' INPLACEINPLACE
VAR'
TURN TAPER
B624 C@G
11'
THRU LANETRAIL
1.5'
BLVD.BLVD.
0.06'/'0.06'/'
0.06'/'
0.015'/'0.06'/'
1.5'
10'
TRAIL
0.015'/'
1.5'
1.5'
1
:6
1:6
8'8'11'10'2'2'17' TO 6'
2.7'
{ CSAH 17 INPLACE
211'
MEDIAN
11'
THRU LANE
2'
G - G
B624 C@GB624 C@G
B624 C@G
SOUTH SCHOOL ENTRANCE (SOUTH OF INTERSECTION
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
0.02'/'0.02'/'
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
0.02'/'
6'
TAPER
VAR.
SHLD/
0-11'
TAPER
VAR.
INPLACE
11'
INPLACE
11'
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
LANE
TURN
LEFT THRU LANE RIGHT SHLD.
INPLACE
12'
INPLACE
10'
B624 C@G
11'
THRU LANETHRU LANE
11'
TRAIL
1.5'
BLVD.BLVD.
11'11'
0.06'/'0.06'/'
0.06'/'
0.015'/'0.06'/'
1.5'
V
A
R
.
8'8'2'6'2'2'
B624 C@G
B624 C@G
TRAIL
0.015'/'
10'
2.7'
{ CSAH 17 INPLACE
211'
MEDIAN
1.5'
H - H
1:6
1.5'
TCSAH 14. (NORTH OF INTERSECTION)
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
0.02'/'
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
LANE
TURN
LEFT
0.02'/'
0.02'/'0.02'/'
(0' TO 11')
VAR.
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
(10 MIN.)
VAR.
B624 C@G
THRU LANE RIGHT SHLD.
INPLACE
11'
INPLACE
12'
INPLACE
10'
LANE
TURN
LEFT
INPLACE
11'
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
B624 C@G
11'
THRU LANETHRU LANE/
11'
BLVD.BLVD.
0.06'/'0.06'/'
0.06'/'0.06'/'
V
A
R
.
8'2'6'2'2'
B624 C@GB624 C@G
11'
LEFT TURN LANEMEDIAN
8'
LEFT TURN LANE
I - I
11'
BETWEEN GORMANS ENTRANCE AND CSAH 14)
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02/'0.02/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
B624 C@G
B624 C@G
14'
BLVD.
0.06'/'
0.06'/'
BLVD.
0.06'/'
0.06'/'
VAR.8'
THRU LANE
14'
J - J
B624 C@G
BETWEEN GORMANS ENTRANCE AND CUL-DE-SAC
LANE
RIGHT TURN
THRU/
0.02'/'0.02'/'
11'
THRU LANE
0.06
'/'THRU LANE
10'
BLVD.
0.06'/'
0.06'/'
CSAH 14 EAST OF CSAH 17
SHLD.TRAIL
1.5'
0.015'/'
1.5'
0.06'/'
11'11'
RIGHT TURN LANETRAIL
1.5'
0.015'/'
1:6
2'8'10'8'6'2'
MEDIAN
2'11'
LEFT TURN LANE
VAR.
TAPER
K - K
B624 C@G
B624 C@G B624 C@G
6'
B624 C@G
BLVD.
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
0.02'/'0.02'/'
B624 C@G
BLVD.
0.06'/'
THRU LANESHLD.
10'
0.06'/'
11'11'
RIGHT TURN LANEBLVD.
0.06'/'0.06'/'
10'
1:6
CSAH 14 WEST OF CSAH 17 (TURN LANES)
6'2'
MEDIAN
2'11'
LEFT TURN LANE
11'
THRU LANE
B624 C@G B624 C@G
L - L
6'
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
B624 C@G
B624 C@G
11'
THRU LANE
0.06'/'
10'
BLVD.
0.06'/'0.06'/'
SHLD.TRAIL
1.5'
0.015'/'
1.5'
0.06'/'
TRAIL
1.5'
0.015'/'
1:6
8'10'8'
SHLD.
6'2'
MEDIAN
2'
CSAH 14 WEST OF SOUTHEAST SCHOOL ENTRANCE
11'
LEFT TURN LANE
11'
THRU LANE
VAR.
TAPER
M - M
B624 C@G B624 C@G
6'
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
6'
SHLD
B624 C@G
SOUTH SCHOOL ENTRANCE
GORMAN'S ENTRANCE
NORTH SCHOOL EXIT
100+00101102103104105+00106107108109110+00111112113114115+00116117118119120+00121122123124125+0012612712811'11'11'11'11'11'11'11'11'11'11'22'11'
11'22'
22'14'14'11'11'11'11'
11'11'11'11'50
SCALE IN FEET
C
C
D D
E E
F F
G
H
H
I
JJI
K K
L L11'CSAH 171:40
6' SHLD
1:15
11'
11'11'
CSAH 14 6' SHLD
11'
11'
1:40
11'22'12'12'11'CSAH 17 BROOKFIELD MALL ENTRANCE
39TH ST. N.11'15'11'11'11'11'11'8' TRAIL8' TRAIL10' TRAIL11'A A
B B11'11'11'11'1:151:401:151:151:15TYPICALS
G
MMSITE
POND
SITE
POND
SITE
POND
NNR:\00Design\LakeElmoOptions\csah17andcsah14opt2.dgn
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: JOE GUSTAFSON
DESIGN ENGINEER: FRANK TICKNOR
DESIGNER: DAVID F. CHURCHICH
INTERSECTION OF CSAH 14 AND CSAH 17
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
AND BECOME POND AREAS
EXISTING ROADS BETWEEN SCHOOL AND CSAH 17 ARE REMOVED
ROUND ABOUT IS OFFSET FROM EXISTING ALIGNMENT
JUNE 17, 2019
(TYPICALS FACE NORTH AND EAST)
(TYPICALS ARE NOT TO SCALE)
B624 C@G
11'
THRU LANETRAIL
1.5'
BLVD.BLVD.
0.015'/'0.06'/'0.06'/'0.06'/'
0.06'/'
1.5'
SHLD.TRAIL
0.015'/'
1.5'
1
:61:6
8'6'2'2'11'10'
11.5' INPLACE 11.5' INPLACE
RIGHT TURNTHRU LANE THRU LANE
2'11'
THRU LANE MEDIAN
C - C
B624 C@G B624 C@G B624 C@G
BROOKFIELD MALL ENTERANCE (SOUTH OF INTERSECTION)
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
INPLACE
10.0'
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
VAR. (6'-17')(8' MIN.)
VAR.
(10' MIN.)
VAR.
6' - 46'
{ CSAH 17 INPLACE
INPLACE
10.0'
LEFT TURN
11'
THRU LANETHRU LANE
11'
TRAIL
1.5'
BLVD.BLVD.
11'
0.06'/'0.06'/'
0.06'/'
0.015'/'0.06'/'
1.5'
8'2'2'(8' MIN.)
VAR.
0.015'/'
1
:6
TRAIL
10'VAR.2'
MEDIAN TAPER
D - D
B624 C@G B624 C@G
1:6
SCHOOL'S NORTH ENTRANCE (NORTH OF INTERSECTION)
0.02'/'0.02'/'
0.02'/'
0.02'/'0.02'/'
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
6'
SHLD
B624 C@G
B624 C@G
(10' MIN.)
VAR.
(15'-17')
VAR.
1.5'
0' TO 59'
RIGHT TURN
2.5'
THRU LANELEFT TURNTHRU LANE
INPLACE
10.0'
{ CSAH 17 INPLACE
12' INPLACE 12' INPLACE 10' INPLACE
B624 C@G
11'
THRU LANETHRU LANE
11'
TRAIL
1.5'
BLVD.BLVD.
0.015'/'0.06'/'
0.06'/'0.06'/
'
0.06'/'
1.5'
{ CSAH 17 INPLACE
SHLD.TRAIL
0.015'/'
1.5'
1
:61:6
8'6'2'2'11'10'11'
11.5' INPLACE
2.5'
11.5' INPLACE
RIGHT TURN
5'
THRU LANE LEFT TURN THRU LANE
2'
MEDIAN
B - B
B624 C@G B624 C@G
C@G
B624
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
LANE
TURN
LEFT
SOUTH 39TH ST. N. (SOUTH OF INTERSECTION)
1.5'
0.02'/'
10' MIN.
VAR.
(8' MIN.)
VAR.
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
0.02'/'
INPLACE
10.5'
INPLACE
10.0'
0.02'/'
(6'-11')
VAR
11'
THRU LANETHRU LANE
11'
TRAIL
1.5'
BLVD.BLVD.
11'
3.9'
0.06'/'
0.06'/'
0.06'/'
0.015'/'
0.06'/'
0.02'/'
1.5'
{ CSAH 17 INPLACE
VAR.
LEFT TURN THRU LANE
INPLACE
9.0'
SHOULDERTHRU LANE
TRAIL
INPLACE
10.0'
SHLD.
VA
R
.
8'8'2'6'2'2'6'
B624 C@GB624 C@G
B624 C@G 2.0'11'
B624 C@G
MEDIAN
A - A
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
0.02'/'0.02'/'
39TH ST. N. (NORTH OF INTERSECTION)
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
LANE
TURN
LEFT
INPLACE
10.0'
INPLACE
11.0'
INPLACE
12.0'
B624 C@G
11'
THRU LANE
11'
TRAIL
1.5'
BLVD.BLVD.
0.06'/'0.06'/'
0.06'/'
0.015'/'0.06'/'
1.5'
TRAIL
0.015'/'
1.5'
1.5'
1
:61:6
8'2'6'2'1.5'(8' MIN.)
VAR.
TYPICAL SECTION AT SCHOOL'S NORTH ENTRANCE (SOUTH OF INTERSECTION)
11'
THRU LANE
2.5'
{ CSAH 17 INPLACE
MEDIAN
E - E
B624 C@G B624 C@G B624 C@G
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
10'6'
SHLD
6'
SHLD
0.02'/'
59'
17'
LANE
TURN
LEFT
THRU LANETHRU LANE
INPLACE
10.0'
10' INPLACE
RIGHT SHLD.
12' INPLACE12' INPLACE
SHLD.
B624 C@G
THRU LANE
11'
TRAIL BLVD.
0.015'/'
0.06'/'
0.06'/'0.06'/
'
0.06'/'
TRAIL
0.015'/'
1.5'
1.5'
VAR. BLVD.
22' MIN.
1
:6
1:6
8'2'2'10'11'
THRU LANEVAR.MEDIAN
1.5'
TAPER
6'
F - F
B624 C@G B624 C@G
SCHOOLS SOUTH ENTRANCE (NORTH OF INTERSECTION)
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
0.02'/'0.02'/'
6'
SHLDTRAIL
1.5'
BLVD.
(8' MIN.)
VAR.
0-11'
SHLD
B624 C@G
TAPER
VAR.
0-11'
RIGHT TURN
2.5'
THRU LANE
10.5' INPLACE
THRU LANE
{ CSAH 17 INPLACE
6'
59' - 60.5'
THRU LANETHRU LANE
10' INPLACE
RIGHT SHLD.
12' INPLACE12' INPLACE
TURN TAPER
B624 C@G
11'
THRU LANETRAIL
1.5'
BLVD.BLVD.
0.06'/'0.06'/'
0.06'/'
0.015'/'0.06'/'
1.5'
10'
TRAIL
0.015'/'
1.5'
1.5'
1
:61:6
8'8'11'10'2'2'
MEDIAN
11'
THRU LANE
2'
G - G
B624 C@G B624 C@G
SOUTH SCHOOL ENTRANCE (SOUTH OF INTERSECTION
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
0.02'/'
0-11'
TAPER
VAR.
RIGHT TURNTHRU LANE
{ CSAH 17 INPLACE
6'2'
60.5' - 61.5'
10' INPLACE12' INPLACE
2.5'
11' INPLACEINPLACE
11'
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
LANE
TURN
LEFT
B624 C@G
11'
THRU LANETRAIL
1.5'
BLVD.BLVD.
11'11'
0.06'/'0.06'/'
0.06'/'
0.015'/'0.06'/'
1.5'
VA
R
.
8'8'2'2'2'
B624 C@GB624 C@G
TRAIL
0.015'/'
10'
MEDIAN
1.5'
H - H
1:6
1.5'
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
0.02'/'
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
0.02'/'
0.02'/'0.02'/'
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
(10 MIN.)
VAR.
11'
RIGHT TURN
11.5' INPLACE
THRU LANELEFT TURN
{ CSAH 17 INPLACE
0' - 61.5'
CSAH 14. (NORTH OF INTERSECTION)
LANE
THRU
(6' MIN)
VAR.
B624 C@G
INPLACE
10'
INPLACE
12'
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
INPLACE
11'
11'
THRU LANETHRU LANE
10'
BLVD.
0.06'/'
0.06'/'
CSAH 14 EAST OF CSAH 17
TRAIL
1.5'
0.015'/'
1.5'
0.06'/'
11'11'
TRAIL
1.5'
0.015'/'
1:6
2'8'10'8'6'2'
MEDIAN
2'11'
I - I
B624 C@G
B624 C@G B624 C@G
B624 C@G
BLVD.
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.06'/'
0.02'/'
11'
LANE
TURN
LEFT
LANE
TURN
LEFT
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
B624 C@G
BLVD.
0.06'/'
THRU LANESHLD.
10'
0.06'/'
11'11'
BLVD.
0.06'/'0.06'/'
10'
1:6
CSAH 14 WEST OF CSAH 17 (TURN LANES)
6'2'
MEDIAN
2'11'
B624 C@G B624 C@G
J - J
6'
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
B624 C@G
LANE
TURN
RIGHTTHRU LANE
B624 C@G
11'
THRU LANE
11'
BLVD.BLVD.
0.06'/'0.06'/'
0.06'/'0.06'/'
VA
R
.
8'2'6'2'2'
B624 C@GB624 C@G
MEDIAN
8'11'
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
LANE
TURN
RIGHT
K- K
0.02'/'
11'
THRU LANE
LANE
TURN
LEFT
CSAH 17 BETWEEN GORMANS ENTRANCE AND CSAH 14
B624 C@G
B624 C@G
14'
BLVD.
0.06'/'
0.06'/'
BLVD.
0.06'/'0.06'/'
8'
THRU LANE
14'
L - L
B624 C@G
BETWEEN GORMANS ENTRANCE AND CUL-DE-SAC
LANE
RIGHT TURN
THRU/
0.02'/'0.02'/'
8'
B624 C@G
11'
THRU LANE
0.06'/'
10'
BLVD.
0.06'/'0.06'/'
SHLD.TRAIL
1.5'
0.015'/'
1.5'
0.06'/'
TRAIL
1.5'
0.015'/'
1:6
8'10'8'
SHLD.
6'2'
MEDIAN
2'
CSAH 14 WEST OF SOUTHEAST SCHOOL ENTRANCE
11'
LEFT TURN LANE
11'
THRU LANE
VAR.
TAPER
M - M
B624 C@G B624 C@G
6'
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'
6'
SHLD
B624 C@G
12'
0.06'/'
0.06'/'
BLVD.
0.06'/'0.06'/'
8'
THRU LANE
12'
B624 C@G
0.02'/'0.02'/'
N - N
CSAH 14 TIE TO INPLACE WEST OF CSAH 17
THRU LANE
0.02'/'
SHLDSHLD
0.02'/'
0-10' 0-10'
0.02'/'
0-6'
MEDIAN
B624 C@G
BLVD.
8'
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-076
RESOLUTION DENYING THE PUD CONCEPT PLAN AS PREPARED BY THE
EXCELSIOR GROUP FOR THE SCHILTGEN FARM PROPERTY LOCATED 10880
STILLWATER BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Ben Schmidt, representing the Excelsior Group, submitted an application
to the City of Lake Elmo (City) for a PUD concept plan for a 318-unit, residential planned unit
development on a 123 acre site known as the Schiltgen Farm property located at 10880 Stillwater
Boulevard (located generally near the intersection of Stillwater Boulevard and Lake Elmo Avenue),
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 June 8, 2020 to
review and consider the PUD concept plan; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD
concept plan to the City Council subject to 25 conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Director submitted a report and recommendation to
the City Council for the July 27, 2020 City Council Meeting regarding the PUD concept plan and
recommended denial of the PUD concept plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the PUD concept plan at its meeting on July 27,
2020; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby deny the
PUD concept plan as submitted by the Excelsior Group for the residential development proposed
for the Schiltgen Farm property located at 10880 Stillwater Boulevard, based on the following
findings of fact:
1. That the PUD concept plan is not consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Future Land Use Map for this area;
2. That the PUD concept plan does not comply with the general intent of the Village Urban
Low-Density Residential land use designation and the VMX zoning district with PUD
modifications;
3. That the PUD concept plan does not incorporate additional right-of-way needed for CSAH
17 and CSAH 14 as required by Washington County; and
4. That the PUD concept plan does not incorporate Washington County’s redesign of the
intersection of CSAH 17 and CSAH 14 which is needed to address various issues pertaining
to safety, geometry, access, and stormwater management;
5. That the PUD concept plan does not incorporate Washington County’s approved access
locations along CSAH 14 and CSAH 17, including that access from the development’s
townhouse site on the south side of CSAH 14 must be connected to the intersection at
CSAH 17 and the proposed access point along CSAH 14 is less than the County’s quarter
mile access spacing guidelines;
6. That the PUD concept plan does not incorporate bituminous trails along CSAH 14 and
CSAH 17, which are required pedestrian facilities by the City and Washington County; and
7. That the PUD concept plan does not reflect the regional pond as planned by the City and
Washington County during the Downtown Lake Elmo/CSAH 17/Lake Elmo Avenue
Improvement Project;
8. The PUD concept plan is not consistent with several of the City’s engineering standards as
stated by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated June 3, 2020; and
9. The developer has not provided information satisfactory to the City that shows that it will be
preserving important environmental features on the property through careful and sensitive
placement of buildings and facilities.
Passed and duly adopted this 27th day of July 2020 by the Lake Elmo Minnesota City Council.
____________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk