HomeMy WebLinkAbout#16 - Highpointe Crossing Preliminary Plat and OP PUDSTAFF REPORT
DATE: 8/20/24
REGULAR
Motion
TO: Lake Elmo City Council
FROM: Nathan Fuerst, AICP, Consulting Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Highpointe Crossing | Preliminary Plat/Open Space Planned Unit
Development request by Rachel Development
REVIEWED BY: Jason Stopa, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND:
Rachel Development is requesting Preliminary Plat and Open Space Planned Unit Development
(OP-PUD) approval for a 65-unit development on approximately 78 acres of land. The project is
to be called Highpointe Crossing and is located west of Inwood Avenue North between the existing
Torre Pines and Lake Elmo Heights subdivisions. The developer is requesting flexibility from the
Rural Residential zoning regulations to allow for an Open Space development.
The City of Lake Elmo has not approved an OP-PUD since 2006. OP-PUD’s provide greater
development flexibility for projects, such as increased development density, in return for a
minimum of 50% of a project being dedicated for open natural areas which are preserved into
perpetuity through conservation easements. This project makes several requests for flexibility
beyond what is provided for in the City’s OP-PUD ordinance. Such requests must be approved
through a supermajority vote of the City Council.
At its regular workshop meeting on December 12, 2023, the City Council reviewed this project
and was generally supportive of the request for increased density.
With a greater level of detail in the proposed plans, staff have provided an assessment in this
report and appended memos about conformance with the City’s requirements and policies.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL:
The Planning Commission should review and make a recommendation to the City Council for
the Preliminary Plat, and Preliminary Open Space Planned Unit Development (PUD).
City Council Meeting
August 20, 2024 Page 2
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Rachel Development, 4180 Napier Court, NE, St. Michael, MN 55376
Property Owner: Allan Eberhard, Caroline M. Eberhard Trust, 1320 Ryan Ave. W. Roseville, MN
55113
Location: 2298 Inwood Avenue N, Lake Elmo (PID#: 2102921320001)
Request: Preliminary Plat/ Open Space Planned Unit Development (OP PUD)
Deadline: Application Complete – 6/7/2024
120 Day Deadline – 10/5/24
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Site Data.
Total Site Area 78.24 acres
Wetlands 2.58 acres
Net Acreage 75.66 acres
Outlots 49.87 acres
Right-of-Way (R/W)
Number of Units
7.06 acres
65 single family units
Net Density .86 units/acre
The calculation of net density in this case nets out only the wetlands present on the property. The
City’s calculation of net density is consistent with the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan
Council determines net density through netting out wetlands and water bodies, dedication for
designated arterial right-of-way, wetland buffers, public parks and qualifying preserved open
space.
Environmental Review. This project does not trigger a mandatory Environmental Assessment
Worksheet under Minnesota Rules 4410.4300. No further environmental review is required.
Phasing. This project would be completed in two phases, with the phase abutting Inwood
Avenue North proceeding first. There are 32 units proposed in the first phase (including the
existing homestead) with 33 in the second phase.
Open Space Planned Unit Developments (OP PUDs).
A PUD is a negotiated zoning district. The City of Lake Elmo has a somewhat unique ordinance
in that it has PUD regulations for both sewered (PUD) and nonsewered (OP PUD) areas. The
purpose of OP PUD’s is established by City Code Section 105.12.980 as follows:
The purpose of open space planned unit developments is to provide greater development
flexibility within rural portions of the community while maintaining the rural character
by preserving agricultural land, woodlands, wildlife or natural corridors, pollinator and
wildlife habitat, and other significant natural features consistent with the goals and
objectives of the city's comprehensive plan. The city reserves the right to deny
establishment of an open space PUD overlay district and direct a developer to re-apply
City Council Meeting
August 20, 2024 Page 3
under standard zoning provisions if it is determined that proposed benefits of the open
space PUD do not justify the requested flexibilities.
The Applicant is proposing a density of .86 units per acre along with other flexibilities to the
City’s ordinances which go beyond what is established through the City’s Open Space PUD
Ordinance; therefore, a supermajority (4/5 vote) of the City Council will need to approve of the
development.
OP PUD Minimum Requirements.
Article 17 does provide for minimum prerequisites for OP PUDS. Staff has found that the
proposed development does meet the following minimum requirements of a PUD:
a. Only land zoned as agricultural, rural residential, or rural estate may be considered for
establishment of an open space planned unit development. Requirement met.
b. The minimum land area for establishment of an open space planned unit development is a
nominal contiguous 20 acres. Requirement met.
c. Establishment of an open space planned unit development will be considered only for
areas of land in single ownership or control. Alternatively, multiple party ownership, in
the sole discretion of the city, is acceptable when legally sufficient written consent from
all persons and entities with ownership interest is provided at the time of application.
Requirement met.
Required vs. Proposed OP PUD Bulk Standards
Cells in the ‘As Proposed’ cells shaded in blue indicate a deviation from City Code.
Standards (105.12.1050) OP PUD Requirement: As Proposed
Minimum Lot Area 21,780 sq ft Range of 11,200 to 20,800 sq ft
Minimum Lot Width N/A 70’
Max Impervious Cover 25% of developable area 36% of min developable area, 18% of
total site (50% max on SFH lots)
Minimum Setback - Front 30 feet 30 feet
Minimum Setback - Side 15 feet 10 feet
Minimum Setback - Corner 30 feet 30 feet
Minimum Setback - Rear 20 feet 20 feet
Maximum Height 35 feet Not provided
Driveway Setback from
intersection
50 feet from r-o-w 200+ feet
Driveway setback from side
lot line
5 feet Driveway locations/widths not provided
Driveway Width 12-26 feet Driveway locations/widths not provided
Design Standards for OP PUDs.
The following development standards are created for OP PUDs by City Code Sec. 105.12.1050.
For any standard not strictly met by the development, a supermajority vote is required to approve
the project:
City Council Meeting
August 20, 2024 Page 4
(a) Density – City Code allows a maximum density in OP PUDs of .45 units per acre. This
development is proposed to have .86 units per acre. Deviation Requested.
(b) Lot Design – Lot locations and configuration should be according to the following sequence
of review steps.
(1) Soils analysis conducted – Requirement met.
(2) Septic design identified - Requirement met.
(3) Buffer areas identified - Requirement met.
(4) Building pad locations identified - Requirement met.
(5) Placement of streets - Requirement met.
(6) Lots identified – see bulk standard review, above. Deviation requested.
(7) Open Space and park land adjustments –
a) Open space – The total preserved open space is over 50% Requirement met.
b) Park land – a cash fee in lieu of land dedication is suggested for this project.
Requirement to be met.
Development Standards for OP PUDs.
The following development standards are created for OP PUDs by City Code Sec. 105.12.1060.
For any standard not strictly met by the development, a supermajority vote is required to approve
the project:
a. Preserved Open Space Standards – The Applicant has submitted an Open Space
Restoration Plan. That plan details the management goals, objectives, and strategies for a
conversion from tilled agricultural land to natural habitat. The open areas on site are
generally split into three categories, Upland Prairie, Wildflower Drifts, and
Basins/Wetlands. Vegetation is proposed in each area that is intended to be consistent with
the topography and plant and animal species native to the area. A conservation easement
shall be placed over the Open Space areas to ensure permanent protection from
development. After the area is graded and restored and proposed vegetation is established,
the HOA for this development would be responsible for maintenance of the open space
area, and yearly reporting to the City. If additional management is identified as necessary,
the HOA would be responsible. The City’s Landscape Architect has reviewed and supports
the restoration plan. Requirement met.
b. Septic Design Standards – The Applicant is proposing a community septic system. An
acceptable location was identified for the primary and secondary drain fields. The
Community Wastewater Treatment System (CWTS) plans are considered incomplete by
the City Engineer. Staff believe that plans can be provided that will meet applicable
requirements. Requirement to be met.
c. Building Standards – The Applicant has submitted architectural guidelines for the site and
elevation renderings consistent with applicable City Code design requirements. HOA
controls for architectural standards are more restrictive than the City’s ordinance.
Requirement met.
d. Landscaping Standards – A total of 10 trees per lot and one boulevard tree located every
30 feet is required. The Applicant’s plan only provides 5 trees per lot and one boulevard
for every 50 feet. Deviation requested.
e. Impervious Surface Standards – The maximum impervious surface that is allowed in the
development is 25% of the developable (non-open space) areas. This number includes
roads and trails. The Applicant is proposing an impervious coverage of 47% of the
City Council Meeting
August 20, 2024 Page 5
“developable area”, which assumes 50% impervious on each proposed lot. Land proposed
for open space is greater than the minimum required by ordinance, if it were to be reduced
to the minimum under code, the Impervious Surface would be measured at 36% of the
developable area. The entire site would be approximately 18% impervious including all
lots and required infrastructure. Deviation requested.
f. Trail Standards – City Code requires trails and sidewalks to be established within the
development. Trails must be equal to the centerline length of all public roads in the
development, and surfaced with asphalt. Instead of the required 3550 feet of trail
(commensurate with centerline of all proposed roads), the Applicant is proposing 5968 feet
of grass trails. Deviation requested.
Parks. §103.00.150 Park Land Dedication Requirements. The City Code requires that the project
provide a minimum of at least 5% of the land for parks, or a cash in lieu fee using the estimated
fair market value of the property. The City’s Parks Commission reviewed the concept plan for this
development in November of 2023, and provided a recommendation for cash in lieu given the
close proximity of the Washington County Park Reserve.
Subdivision Signs. Section 105.12.430 allows one (1) subdivision sign for this residential
development with a maximum sign area of 32 sq. ft. One sign is proposed within the 10-foot
setback for such signage. There does not appear to be a rationale for deviations to the signage
requirements. A condition of approval has been added that the signage is relocated and ultimately
conforms with City Code.
Lot Configuration. Of the 65 lots, nearly all have a backyard with a full view of the open space
area. Lots 1-3 of Block 3 are in the immediate area of the rear yards of lots 6-10 of Block 2.
Additional vegetative screening is recommended in that location.
The City Council has previously acknowledged that lots required by the OP PUD ordinance are
larger than need be required for open space development. Staff are working towards amendments
to the OP PUD ordinance as a result. This development is proposing lots that are about half of the
size of the .5 acre minimum in ordinance. The smallest lot would be slightly larger than a ¼ acre
at 11,200 square feet, the largest lot at 20,800 square feet, and the average lot size 13,661 square
feet.
Landscaping. As described in the above section on Development Standards for OP PUDs, the
developer is proposing not to provide all trees required in LEC 105.12.1060. This is broken down
as follows:
• Street Trees –
o Required – every 30’ minimum, 236 trees would be required.
o Proposed – every 50’, 152 trees would be provided.
• Trees per lot –
o Required – 10 trees per lot, for a total of 650 trees
o Proposed – 5 trees per lot, for a total of 325 trees.
While the number of lots will increase if the proposed density is approved, the buildable area will
still be the same. Using the buildable area of 20 acres, with the base density in the OP PUD
City Council Meeting
August 20, 2024 Page 6
Ordinance (1/2 acre lots), a total of 400 trees would be required at 10 per lot. Staff suggest that
this be used as the total number of trees required for the development instead of being on a per lot
basis. The City’s Landscape Architect finds that the full required number of trees could be supplied
on site.
Strictly requiring boulevard tree spacing every 30’ is not practical in several areas of the site. This
includes the boulevard areas abutting the powerline easement, and the development entrances
where sightlines are a concern, and certain situations where utility buffers and driveways create
conflicts. Staff are therefore supportive of a flexibility that would allow an attempt to locate trees
at 30’ but no further than 50’ if not practicable.
A condition of approval is suggested to require a minimum of 400 tree plantings, with boulevard
tree spacing at no less than 50’, but at 30’ where practicable.
Tree Preservation. The proposed tree preservation plan is acceptable per the City’s Landscape
Architect. The Applicant should provide additional detail on how existing trees will be protected
during construction on site.
Access. The roadway proposed for this development, called 24th Street North, would be public and
is proposed to connect Inwood Avenue North to the current roadway stub of Imperial Avenue
North. Given that the first phase units will only have one access, only 30 units can be platted in
that phase. An acceptable turnaround will also be required. A condition has been added.
Parking and Driveways. Section 105.12.410 requires 2 spaces per dwelling unit. The homes
will have 2 or more enclosed stalls with driveways to accommodate additional visitor parking.
Given the width of the right of way, parking will be limited to one side of the street.
Section 9.16.090 details driveway requirements. Driveways must be at least 5 feet from property
side yards and must be between 12 and 26 feet in width. Driveways are not shown on the project
plans, and locations cannot be verified. As such, driveways must conform to all City standards
including location, grade, and surface, when proposed.
Traffic. A trip generation report was submitted by the Applicant’s consultant, S2 Traffic
Solutions. The report documents the expected traffic generated from this land use. This land use
is anticipated to generate on average a total of 669 trips per day on weekdays. During peak hours,
there would be an estimated 50 trips in the AM peak period (highest hour period between 7-9am)
and 65 total trips in the PM peak period (highest hour period between 4-6pm). The report concludes
that existing infrastructure, and that which is proposed by the developer, is acceptable to
accommodate the traffic generated by this use.
Sidewalk and Trail. The City’s subdivision ordinance requires a concrete sidewalk along at
least one side of all public streets. One is provided in the plans. OP PUDs are also required to
have a paved trail at least the length of the centerline of all public streets. The Applicant is
requesting flexibility for 5968 feet of mowed grass trails instead of 3550 feet of paved trails.
Preferably, an asphalt trail would be provided. Staff suggest that an asphalt trail be required.
City Council Meeting
August 20, 2024 Page 7
REVIEW COMMENTS:
Fire Chief Comments. The City’s Fire Chief provided a comment memo dated July 15, 2024
which details a comment on phasing for plans to meet City standards and state fire code.
Engineering Review. This project has been reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance
with the City’s Engineering Design Standards Manual. Detailed comments relating to the review
are included in the Engineer’s memo dated June 28, 2024. Ultimately, the City Engineer is
recommending that if approved, the development fully address all City Engineering comments.
Several key comments are summarized below:
• Revisions are required to the Preliminary Plat, Grading, Utility, Storm Sewer,
Stormwater Irrigation Reuse, Lighting, and Landscaping Plans in order to bring them into
compliance with City Standards.
• The phasing plan should be incorporated into the Preliminary Plans. One of the Phase 1
lots should be platted as an Outlot with Phase 1 and can then be platted as a lot with
Phase 2.
• Consideration should be made to create a dedication Outlot for Community Wastewater
Treatment System and potentially the two stormwater ponds. The dedicated Outlots may
be necessary to ensure that the infrastructure maintenance, repair and replacement are not
encumbered by conservation easements.
• The Preliminary Plat must be revised to provide additional right-of-way width for a
portion of 24thStreet North to accommodate the required turn lanes at the intersection
with Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13).
Valley Branch Watershed District. This property is located within Valley Branch Watershed
District. The Applicant will be required to follow watershed rules and permitting requirements.
The District commented that a review of the application was underway as of June 2024. A permit
from VBWD will be required before any work can begin on site.
REVIEW OF OP PUD FLEXIBILITIES:
The developer’s requests for flexibility from the City’s OP PUD ordinance requirements must be
approved by a supermajority (4/5) vote of the City Council. The following summary is intended
to provide a consolidated review of the flexibilities requested by the developer.
• 65 Units vs. 34 units – The City Council had previously provided guidance that this density
was acceptable, a review of related flexibilities is provided in this list. The proposed
average lot size is in line with those previously discussed by City Council for OP PUDs.
• Grass vs. Paved trail – Under the Sidewalk and Trail section, above, staff suggest requiring
a paved trail. The Applicant has proposed nearly double the minimum trail length if in
mowed trails. This flexibility is a decision of the City Council.
• 50% vs 25% Impervious – Under the OP PUD Bulk standards section, above, staff
calculate that the development is at 36% impervious in the minimum developable area
(50% developable area). Staff acknowledge that the smaller lots create a need for flexibility
to the impervious limit of 25% of buildable area.
• 50’ Street Tree Spacing – Staff recommend a review of where 30’ spacing can be
accomplished but are supportive of flexibility (to no greater than 50’) when not practicable.
• 5 vs 10 Trees per Lot – Under the Landscaping section, above, staff recommend requiring
a total of 400 trees, minimum, for this development.
City Council Meeting
August 20, 2024 Page 8
• 10’ vs 15’ Side yard setbacks – Staff find that a 10’ side yard setback (20’ minimum
between homes) is reasonable if the 70’ wide lots are found acceptable by the City.
• ¼ vs ½ acre Minimum Lot Area – Staff find that the proposed lot areas are reasonable if
the density is found acceptable by the City Council. The average lot size is 1/3 acre, and
the City will ultimately conserve more open area with smaller lots.
• Allow 3:1 or Flatter Slopes – Staff find that City Engineer shall ultimately help make a
determination on slopes that are acceptable. The City Engineer’s memo dated June 28,
2024, or as subsequently revised shall be what is suggested.
• 2.021 ac Homestead Parcel – Staff find that the proposed homestead parcel is acceptable,
provided that access remains acceptable for this development.
• Monument Sign – Under the Subdivision Signs section, above, staff do not recommend
allowing a deviation to the required setback of 10’ to preserve the dry utility corridor.
• 1% slopes within open space stormwater swales – The City Standard is a grade of at least
2%. Staff find that City Engineer shall ultimately help make a determination on slopes that
are acceptable. The City Engineer’s memo dated June 28, 2024, or as subsequently revised
shall be what is suggested.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
OP PUD Review Criteria.
When evaluating a PUD proposal, the Planning Commission and City Council must find an
OP PUD meets the criteria contained in Article 17 (Sec. 105.12.1070) and meet the minimum
requirements for an OP PUD. Staff find that the proposed development appears consistent with
the following criteria for approval:
(a) The proposed development is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
comprehensive plan.
(b) All prerequisites for an open space PUD as outlined in LEC 105.12.1030 are met.
(c) All open space PUD design standards (as outlined in LEC 105.12.1050) and all open
space development standards (as outlined in LEC 105.12.1060) are met; or if deviations
are proposed, that all such deviations are supported because they achieve the following
three goals:
(1) The deviations allow for higher quality building and site design that will enhance
aesthetics of the site;
(2) The deviations help to create a more unified environment within the project
boundaries by ensuring one or more of the following: architectural compatibility of
all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, enhanced landscaping
and site features, and/or efficient use of utilities; and
(3) The overall design provides appropriate solutions to eliminate adverse impacts that
proposed deviations may impose on surrounding lands.
(d) If the proposed PUD involves construction over two or more phases, the applicant has
demonstrated that each phase is capable of being a stand-alone development independent
of other phases.
Recommended Findings for Preliminary Plat. Staff recommended approval of the
Preliminary Plat to the Planning Commission based on the following findings:
City Council Meeting
August 20, 2024 Page 9
1. That the Preliminary OP PUD Plan would be consistent with the intent of the 2040 Lake
Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the 2040 Land Use Map for this area.
2. That the preliminary plat generally complies with the City’s Subdivision regulations and
does not meet the criteria for denial in Section 103.00.090 (d)(2).
3. That the preliminary plat generally complies with the City’s Zoning Code with the
exceptions provided for in the OP PUD.
4. That the preliminary plat generally complies with the City’s design standards.
5. That the preliminary OP PUD Plan meets the minimum requirements for an OP PUD
identified in LEC 105.12.1030 and criteria for approval in LEC 105.12.1070.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Should the City Council seek to approve the development, Staff recommends the following
conditions of approval:
1. Prior to the City finding any application for a final plat and final PUD complete, the
applicant shall fully address all comments in the following review memos to the
satisfaction of the City:
a. City Engineer’s memo dated June 28, 2024.
b. City Landscape Architect’s memo dated June 26, 2024.
c. City Fire Chief’s memo dated July 14, 2024.
2. The Plans must be revised as follows to address Planning Comments in the Staff Report
dated August 20, 2024:
a. The Plans must demonstrate conformance with applicable City Code requirements for
subdivision monument signs in OP PUDs.
b. The Plans must demonstrate an asphalt trail meeting the requirements of City Code.
c. The Plans must demonstrate at least 400 tree plantings in the development, as
approved by the City’s Landscape Architect, meeting the boulevard spacing
requirements in City Code where practicable.
3. That prior to the City finding any application for final plat and final PUD complete, the
applicant shall demonstrate that the plans reflect compliance with Valley Branch
Watershed (VBWD) review requirements and that the applicant provide the City evidence
that all conditions attached to a VBWD permit will be met before the starting any grading
activity on the site.
4. That the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits including but not limited to all
applicable City permits (building, grading, sign, etc.), NPDES/SWPPP permits and
Valley Branch Watershed District approval before starting any grading or construction
activities.
5. The applicant/developer is responsible, at their own expense, for installing all required
right of way improvements.
6. Storm water ponds shall be placed on separate outlots and conveyed to the City through a
warranty deed in a form acceptable to the City.
7. No stormwater impacts shall be created on CSAH 13 (Inwood Avenue North).
8. The applicant/developer shall provide the City a fee in lieu of park land dedication as
required by Section 103.00.150 to be paid prior to recording of the final plat.
9. All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works Department shall be
documented on the Final Plat before the execution of the final plat by City Officials.
City Council Meeting
August 20, 2024 Page 10
10. If applicable, a storm water maintenance and easement agreement in a form acceptable to
the City shall be executed and recorded with the final plat.
11. If applicable, a landscape and irrigation license agreement in a form acceptable to the
City shall be executed and recorded with the final plat.
12. The Applicant shall submit information demonstrating compliance with a Plat Opinion by
the City Attorney, to the satisfaction of the City, before execution or recording of the
Final Plat.
13. If necessary, the applicant shall provide the City with a copy of written permission for
any off-site grading work and storm sewer discharges to adjacent properties before
starting any site work, grading and as part of any final plat or final PUD application.
14. Before the execution and recording of a final plat for the development, the developer or
applicant shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement or a Site Work Agreement with the
City. Such an Agreement must be approved by the City Attorney and by the City
Council. The Agreement shall delineate who is responsible for the design, construction
and payment for the required improvements with financial guarantees therefore. The
Agreement shall outline any approved phasing plan.
15. The applicant or developer shall enter into a separate grading agreement with the City
before starting any grading activity in advance of final plat/ PUD approval. The City
Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat or final
PUD, and said plan shall document the extent of any proposed grading on the site.
PUD BENEFITS: Generally, the City grants flexibility through a PUD in order to receive benefits
beyond improvements that are required in City Code. The following represent benefits unique to
this project:
• Over 62% of the land preserved as Open Space in perpetuity, this is over 12% higher than
the minimum acreage required by City Code.
• Proposed restoration plan for the open space that exceeds minimum City requirements and
will create habitat for drought-tolerant native species to be reintroduced.
• Stormwater Irrigation Reuse system for irrigation of single family lots.
• 200 feet, or more, of buffer areas between existing single family lots and those in this
proposed development.
• Development theming consistent with, or exceeding, minimum architectural requirements
of the City’s Code.
FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary OP PUD grant entitlements
to a developer. Therefore, there would be no fiscal impact to the City at this time. When the
property begins to develop, it will have municipal water service and will pay water connection
charges, building permit fees, and the like.
PREMATURE SUBDIVISONS:
Staff acknowledge concerns regarding water appropriations. If found that it is not in the best
interests of the City to approve development, and that this request is considered a Premature
Subdivision, the City would have to articulate such concerns and find that conditions exist to
warrant a denial on that basis. The City’s Premature Subdivisions ordinance is found in Section
103.00.025. Subsection C, Lack of adequate water supply, is copied as follows:
City Council Meeting
August 20, 2024 Page 11
Lack of adequate water supply. Unless the city has guided the site of the proposed plat or
subdivision as rural by the comprehensive plan, a proposed plat or subdivision may be
deemed premature if municipal water is not available to serve the proposed subdivision if
it is developed to its maximum permissible density without causing and unreasonable
depreciation of existing municipal water supplies. The term “available” shall mean
existing or readily extended and funded consistent with the phasing in the comprehensive
plan, the capital improvement program, and any relevant city ordinances, plans, and
policies. If the site of the proposed plat or subdivision is guided as rural by the
comprehensive plan, a proposed subdivision shall be deemed premature with respect to a
lack of adequate water supply if a private well or wells cannot adequately or safely serve
the proposed subdivision.
If applied, City staff strongly suggest that the premature subdivisions ordinance be consistently
used in development review. No developments have yet been denied due to water appropriations
under the premature subdivision ordinance.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on July 22, 2024.
Several residents from neighborhoods surrounding this project were in attendance and provided
public comments at the hearing. Staff generally summarize the comments as concern for impacts
of development including traffic, construction impacts, smells from the septic system and related
impact on property value.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The City’s Planning Commission reviewed and discussed this item at its regular meeting on July
22, 2024. After consideration of the reports of Staff, the Applicant, and the public hearing, the
Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend denial of the project with the following findings:
• The proposed density, lot sizes, and lot width are inconsistent with requirements for the
OP PUD ordinance.
• The impervious surface of the development was higher than allowed by the City’s
ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should provide direction to staff on whether it wishes to approve or deny this
development, and with what findings and conditions. Staff will bring a corresponding resolution
and PUD Ordinance to the next City Council meeting’s consent agenda.
Approval:
“Move to direct staff to prepare a resolution and PUD Ordinance approving the
requests for Highpoint Crossing based on the findings of fact and recommended
conditions of approval listed in the staff report.”
Denial:
“Move to direct staff to prepare a resolution and PUD Ordinance denying the requests
for Highpoint Crossing based on the findings of fact discussed by the Planning
Commission and City Council.”
City Council Meeting
August 20, 2024 Page 12
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft PUD Ordinance
2. Application Narrative
3. Preliminary Plat and OP PUD Plans
4. Trip Generation Report
5. City Engineer Memo
6. Landscape Architect Memo
7. Fire Chief Memo
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. XX-YYY
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 105 OF THE LAKE ELMO CITY
CODE OF ORDINANCES BY REZONING ALL PROPERTY AT PID
21.029.21.32.0001 FROM RR (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO OP (OPEN
SPACE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
SECTION 1. Zoning Map Amendment. The following property is hereby rezoned from RR – Rural
Residential to OP – Open Space Planned Unit Development:
The North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 29, Range 21. Washington
County, Minnesota; Except: All that part of the North 75.00 feet of the East 150.00 feet of the
North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 29 North, Range 21 West,
Washington County, Minnesota, which lies westerly of the west line of Parcel 3 of the
Washington County Highway Right of Way Plat No. 98 – C.S.A.H 13, according to the recorded
plat thereof.
SECTION 2. PUD District Regulations. Permitted uses and regulations acceptable to the OP-PUD are hereby
established as follows:
1. Development Density – The development is to contain ___ single-family residential lots with a net
density of ____.
2. Land Use – Uses permitted within this OP PUD shall be: Residential.
3. Accessory Uses – Accessory uses shall be incidental to the principal uses of the property and as
allowed in the OP PUD, Open Space Planned Unit Development, Zoning District.
4. Design and Performance Standards – Unless a PUD deviation has been granted or conditions imposed
the standards for the property shall be those found in the OP PUD, Open Space Planned Unit
Development, Zoning District, Article XVII of the Zoning Ordinance. The following deviations are
granted as proposed:
a. Minimum Lot Area of ________ square feet as depicted on the Final PUD plans approved by
the City through resolution 2024-XX on _______________.
b. Minimum Side Yard Setback of ______ feet.
c. Maximum Impervious Surface Cover on residential lots of ____________ percent.
5. Other Standards – Other standards including but not limited to bulk and design standards shall be those
found in the Open Space PUD (OP) Zoning District, Article XVII or as applicable in other Articles of
the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 3. Zoning Map. The zoning map of the City of Lake Elmo shall be republished in the ordinary
course to show the aforesaid zoning, and in the interim the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on
file in the Clerk’s Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance,
and all of the notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference
and made a part of this ordinance.
Ordinance No. XX-YYY
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and
publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo.
SECTION 5. Adoption Date. This Ordinance XX-YYY was adopted on this ___ day of _________________,
2024, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
__________________________________
Charles Cadenhead, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
This Ordinance XX-YYY was published on the ______ day of __________________, 2024
4180 Napier Ct NE Michael, MN 55376
Office: 763.424.1500
www.racheldevelopment.com
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Preliminary Plat/PUD Narrative
To: City of Lake Elmo
From: Rachel Development, Paul Robinson – Development Director
Date: 6/7/24
A - Submittal Documents:
1. Narrative/Preliminary Plat and PUD Applications
2. Preliminary Plan Set
o Site Information
o Existing Conditions
o Preliminary Plat
o Preliminary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
o Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan
o Preliminary Sanitary Sewer and Watermain
o Preliminary Storm Water
o Tree Preservation
o Preliminary Landscaping Plan/Monument
o Preliminary Irrigation Plan
3. Stormwater Management Plan - Narrative and Supporting Data/Calculations
4. Street Lighting Plan
5. Open Space Restoration Plan
6. Community Wastewater Treatment System Report
7. Traffic Memo
8. Letter from Washington County
9. Wetland Delineation Report
10. Notice of Decision - Wetland Delineation - Valley Branch Watershed District
11. De-minimis Wetland Impact Application/Report
12. Soil Boring Report – Haugo
13. Soil Boring Letter/Logs – Braun
14. Mailing Labels - from Washington County
15. DRAFT - Declaration of Covenants
16. DRAFT - Architectural Guidelines
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 2
2
B - Development Property:
• Owner
o Caroline M Eberhard Trust - Allan Eberhard is the Trustee.
• Applicant
o Rachel Development – Paul Robinson, Development Director
• Property
o Address – 2298 Inwood Ave N, Lake Elmo Mn 55042
o Current Zoning – Rural Residential (RR)
o Current Zoning/Uses Around Property – see below
o Current Land Use Plan Guiding – Rural Single Family (RSF)
Eberhard Property
2298 Inwood Ave
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 3
3
C - Introduction:
We are excited to present our plan for developing the Eberhard property. Some of you may or may not
know that over the past 10 years Rachel Development has developed over 5,000 units in and around the
Twin Cities. We develop single family residential neighborhoods, apartments and memory care
facilities.
Our goal for the Eberhard property is to use the OP-PUD zoning district as a guide to create a
conservation subdivision. Over my career I have been a part of several conservation subdivision
developments including Wild Meadows in Medina, Locust Hills in Wayzata and Woodland Cove in
Minnetrista. My experience with conservation developments dates back to my time as City
Administrator of Medina when, as coincidence may have it, I took the city council and planning
commission on a tour of Fields of St. Croix which ultimately led to the adoption of a PUD conservation
ordinance in Medina and then ultimately to the development of Wild Meadows.
Work on a development plan for the Eberhard property started late last year with a concept review by
the City staff in September/October and then a more formal sketch plan review by the City Council on
December 12, 2023. The Preliminary Plat, which we are calling Highpointe Crossing, is consistent with
the Sketch Plan reviewed by the City Council in December. Since the Council’s review we have refined
our plans, completed additional soil analysis on the property and held a neighborhood meeting. The
Neighborhood meeting was held on April 3, 2024. Feedback from the neighbors is summarized later in
this narrative.
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 4
4
We believe our plans for this property, which follow the essence of the OP-PUD zoning, will create a
beautiful neighborhood that will take what is and has been primarily a row crop farm and transform it
into a neighborhood surrounded by open space with robust native vegetation that includes areas of
mesic and wet prairies, intermixed with wildflower drifts.
D - Property Facts
• Gross Acres 78.24
• Wetlands Acres (2.58)
• Net Acres 75.66
E - Property Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Guiding
The Eberhard property is guided Rural Single Family (RSF). As we understand it, the 2040
Comprehensive Plan merged the Residential Estates (RE) areas with the Rural Single Family (RS) areas
into a new guiding called Rural Single Family (RSF). This change allowed properties with this guiding to
have some additional density. The stated density range for RSF is 0.1 units per acre to 2 units per acre. I
am jumping ahead here but our proposal is 0.86 units per acre, well within that density range.
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 5
5
There are only two properties in the City that could take advantage of the RSF guiding that are 20 acres
or greater as required by the OP-PUD code. These properties are highlighted below. One is the
Eberhard property and the other is owned by Mary Durand Trust.
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 6
6
The current zoning of the property is Rural Residential. Adjacent zoning districts which are lower density
single family districts are still higher density than Rural Residential.
• To the North
o Residential Estate Zoning (RE) - Single family large lot development, generally 2.5 acre
lots.
• To South
o Residential Estate Zoning (RE) - Single family large lot development, generally 2.5 acre
lots.
• To East
o Public Facilities Zoning – 2,165 acre Lake Elmo Regional Park
o Residential Single Family (RS) - To Northeast, generally 1.5 acre lots.
• To West
o Suburban density residential development, generally 1/4 - 1/5 acre lots
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 7
7
F - Submittal History
Before describing our current plan in detail, I wanted to provide some background on how we got to the
plan before you. On September 22, 2023, we submitted a concept plan to the City for an Open Space
Preserve (OP) neighborhood on the 78 acre Eberhard property.
That plan included 42 units (35 plus a 20% bonus). At the time we submitted our initial concept plan we
were still working through our due diligence work including wetlands, soils, septic design, and cost
analysis etc. We submitted our concept plan early in order to get some initial feedback from City staff
and Consultants.
Below is that sketch plan.
This plan included 42 half acre lots and assumed that we would qualify for the 20% PUD bonus.
Initial Staff Review
We received a very thorough staff review from both the Planning and Engineering departments which
helped us put together a detailed cost estimate for the project. What we found was that even if the
Seller gave us the property, we would not be able to successfully complete an OP neighborhood plan
with 42 units. This is likely why the City has not approved a neighborhood using OP zoning since 2006.
Our intent with this initial concept plan submittal was to meet or come as close as possible to meeting
all of the City codes and rules including but not limited to those in the OP zoning district and PUD
overlay.
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 8
8
We believe that the 42 Lot plan did meet the letter and intent of the OP zoning. We kept over 60% of
the property in open space, fit the lots into the natural landscape of the property, created a community
septic treatment system, a water reuse system for irrigation, plans to restore all of the open space,
provide trails, etc. We felt very good about the plan until we realized that there was no way to pay for
the project with the revenues we could generate from 42 lots.
So, after we met with staff, we looked at what it would take to get a project to work financially and yet
keep as many of the OP goals intact. What we came up with is a 65 unit project that continued to
• to preserve a 200’ buffer around the property (except for the homestead lot),
• to provide over 60% open space, and
• stay within the same basic footprint as the 42 lot plan.
City Council Sketch Plan Review
On December 12, 2023 the City Council reviewed our sketch plan at a Council Workshop meeting. At
that meeting we received feedback from a majority of the council that they liked our plan and would be
in favor of us proceeding to a preliminary plat. There were some members that would have liked an
alternative to the community septic system and after the meeting we spent a couple months exploring
the option of a connection to the City of Oakdale. In the end we were discouraged by the City of
Oakdale staff to pursue a connection to their City. They did not believe there would be City Council or
even Met Council support for a connection to their City. Therefore, we continued our work testing and
evaluating the property for a primary and alternative community septic system location. That system is
included and described in greater detail later in this narrative and in a separate report provided with our
preliminary plat submittal.
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 9
9
Neighborhood Meeting
On April 3, 2024 we held a neighborhood meeting. Approximately 35 people attended the meeting. We
gave a presentation about the neighborhood, similar to what we will give to the Planning Commission
and City Council.
In general, we described our proposal in detail and then clarified a number of facts about the
neighborhood and its surroundings. At the end of our presentation there were a number of questions
and concerns raised by the neighbors. These are summarized below with our general response and how
we have or have not addressed them with revisions included in our preliminary plat.
• Density - In general we heard from several residents from neighborhoods to the north and
south of our proposed neighborhood that they would prefer to see a neighborhood that was
more aligned with the lots sizes and density found in their neighborhoods. Lots within the two
neighborhoods to the north and south are about 2.5 acres in size which would yield about 30-32
lots on the 78-80 Eberhard parcel about ½ of what is being proposed.
o Response – Our response in general is that we are proposing a neighborhood that seeks
to meet the principals of the OP-PUD zoning district and within the allowed density of
the Comprehensive Plan. This neighborhood permanently conserves over 50% of the 78
acres as permanent open space. This includes a 200’ buffer around the entire site. There
will be no active uses within the open space besides a few walkers on grass trails. No
sheds, pools, cars, RV’s or any storage within 200’ or more of neighbors’ homes
anywhere surrounding the site. Homes will be clustered and the lotted area as
proposed only occupies 22 acres or 28 % of the total property. The homes proposed are
targeted toward empty nesters which will make for quieter neighbors even if there are
more homes. This neighborhood will have a community treatment system that is
professionally operated and maintained vs numerous individual treatment systems that
are often more prone to failure. There will also be a shared irrigation system that will to
irrigate lawns and portion of the open space. This system utilizes pond water reducing
the burden on the City water system. City water will be provided to residents within the
neighborhood vs numerous individual wells. This will reduce the number of people
directly and individually using water from an aquifer already contaminated with PFAS.
The Comprehensive Plan mentions a number of times the City’s desire to have open
space neighborhoods, neighborhoods like what is being proposed here that protect
large areas of open space.
• Traffic – There were concerns raised about the additional traffic that could go through the
adjacent neighborhood to the north and about the additional traffic that would use Inwood.
Many neighbors felt that there is too much traffic on Inwood today and that the speed on
Inwood is too high making an already unsafe roadway more unsafe.
o Response – Since the neighborhood meeting we have completed a traffic study which is
included in our preliminary plat submittal. That study shows that little to no traffic will
travel north through the adjacent neighborhood. The only times that the north access
would be used would be in the very rare occasions when the access to Inwood was
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 10
10
closed because of some type of emergency. The study also shows that the traffic
generated by our neighborhood can be handled by the existing roadway systems,
including Inwood. To handle the traffic safely our neighborhood will also include
building a full right and left turn lane access into the neighborhood unlike either of the
neighborhoods to the north and south which both access Inwood and only provide a
right turn lane and bypass. We did not comment on the speed on Inwood since we do
not have control over the speed of the current traffic on Inwood.
• Minimize construction traffic through adjacent neighborhood – Residents in the neighborhood
to the north would prefer that all construction traffic use the Inwood access
o Response – We are okay requiring that of our builders once home construction starts.
There could be times in the early stages of site construction when the Imperial access
would be used on a very limited basis, most likely for delivering equipment.
• Noise from Septic System – Some neighbors living adjacent to the community septic system
drain field were concerned about noise coming from the operation of the system. They used
the example that the City had told them the well booster station was supposed to be quiet but
they say it’s not. They are now concerned that when we say there will be no noise that there
will actually be noise.
o Response – The current noise issue appears to be when the power goes out and backup
generators are needed for the booster station. Adjacent residents said this is an issue
because the power goes out frequently in their neighborhood.
When the Community System is up and running there will be little to no discernable
noise from the day to day operation. There will, like the booster station, be a backup
generator. Based on the neighbors’ concerns we will locate our backup generator on
the south side of the small control shed. When it runs, only during power outages, the
generator will be buffered by the shed and it will likely be unnoticed by the neighbors.
• Concerns about the appearance of the drain fields – There were some concerns that residents
adjacent to the drain fields were not getting the same true 200’ buffer that other residents were
getting.
o Response - In general, the drain field will look like all the other opens spaces. There will
be slight undulations within the prairie. A majority of the mounds in the drain field will
not rise more than 1’ over the existing elevation. A small portion of the westernmost
mounds will rise 2.5’. We tested soils across the entire property and the area along the
northern boundary was determined to be the best location for the community
treatment system. To help the residents who are adjacent to the primary drain fields
we increased the buffer in this area from 200 feet to 250’ feet.
• Possible Septic System Odor – There were some concerns and questions about odors coming
from the treatment system.
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 11
11
o Response – In the general day to day operation of the system odors will not be noticed.
Activated charcoal filters are placed in locations where odors could escape. These filters
significantly minimize any odors. You would need to be directly over the area to get
any indication of odor. There will be rare times when the system is being maintained,
once every 1-2 years where for a short period of time odors may be present during a
cleaning or removal of built up solids. In general, by the time the treated water is
pumped from the treatments tank to the mounds there is very little discernible odor
and no detectable odor within the drain field. This would be similar but likely better
than the drain fields neighbors have in their own backyards. There is more information
on this in the community treatment system report.
• Fence around Septic System – Some residents asked if there would be a fence around the
system.
o Response – Since the drain field will be part of the conservation area and planted with
natives it will be like any other part of the open space area. That said it is possible that
some fencing could be required by the state. We would prefer not to have fencing but
would consider it if needed.
• Concerns about the appearance of the small control shed (16’ by 16’ shed for septic system
controls and additives) – A few residents mentioned that they did not like the shed example we
provided at the neighborhood meeting. It was a simple shed with little architectural interest.
They mentioned that the City booster station was a very nice structure and would like to see the
shed be nicer as well.
o Response – Based on the feedback from the neighbors we had Charles Cudd design the
control structure to include architectural features that align with the home styles within
the neighborhood. The plans for this structure are included in the community treatment
system report.
• No Screening from Headlights – Some residents were concerned that cars entering the
neighborhood could shine streetlights into their properties.
o Response - We modified the entry road location, alignment and elevations to mitigate
adjacent properties from headlight impacts. We also added some additional
landscaping to help block headlights. We indicated to one of the adjacent owners
potentially most impacted that we could look at adding some landscaping on their
property if needed.
• Grass Trail appeared close too adjacent properties– Some neighbors felt that the proposed
trails were too close to their homes.
o Response – We moved a majority of the trail system interior to our property and further
away from some of the adjacent properties who had concerns. The only portion of the
trail system that comes close to the adjacent properties that are in the current
Preliminary Plat plans are in areas where there is heavy tree cover or at roadway
connections.
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 12
12
• Water pressure concerns – Some residents expressed that they have water pressure issues and
that certain neighbors need booster pumps in their homes. They are concerned that our
development would make that worse.
o Response – We are being required to install a pressure reducing value. We are not
aware of pressure issues and would need the City to weigh in on answering this
question. Generally, when water mains are looped they provide better water quality
and pressure to the adjacent properties.
• Install Berms - Some residents suggested adding berms around the property to screen them
from this neighborhood.
o Response – We added some berms adjacent to the primary or alternate septic system
areas, mostly in the northern portion of the property. The homes located on the south
side of the roadway are much higher than the neighboring homes to the south. Because
of that and other reasons berms were not provided on the southern portion of the
neighborhood. That said, the buffer provided to the majority of the homes on the south
side of the neighborhood is over 300’ and in many cases over 400’.
G - Development Plan
65 Lot OP-PUD Plan
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 13
13
The tables below provide basic information about the property. You will see that the site is 78.24 gross
acres and while our neighborhood plan includes 65 homesites it maintains over 60% open space and a
net density of 0.86 units/ net acre.
• Area/Unit Information
Units 65*
Net Density 0.86 units/net acre
Gross Density 0.83 units/acre
Open Space 49 ac 63 %
Right of Way 7 ac 9 %
Lotted Area 22 ac 28 %
• 2 ac Homestead lot plus 64 OP lots
• Lot Information*
Lot Minimums*
Area 11,200 sf
Width(setback) 70’
Depth 160’
• Except homestead lot which has 2 acres of lot area.
Lot Set-backs*
Front 30’
Side 10’
Side (Street) 30’
Rear 20’
• Except homestead lot which, due to existing structures, has 20’ setbacks – side, front, rear.
H – Open Space Preserve (OP) PUD Flexibility
Within this narrative we are asking for a number of flexibilities to the OP code. These are summarized at
the end of the narrative. We are not trying to show bonus points or come up with a specific calculation
to justify our request. What we are doing is trying, the best we can, to make a case that we are meeting
the intent of the code and comprehensive plan. For these flexibilities we understand that the OP code
will require a super majority vote of the City Council (code provision shown below). That is why we
provided a detailed sketch plan and narrative and are following up with a detailed preliminary plat plan
and narrative.
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 14
14
I - Property Characteristics/Background
• Wetlands
o Wetland Delineation - Within the past year a wetland delineation was processed and
approved by a previous developer. We purchased the rights to this report. This
delineation report identified 6 wetlands; these are shown within our Preliminary Plat
plans.
o MNRAM & Buffers– We have completed a Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for
Wetlands (MnRAM) to determine the quality of the wetlands. This report was approved
by the Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) and all wetlands on the property were
identified as Management 2. Management 2 wetlands in the VBWD require a 50’
buffer. Buffer averaging is allowed and is shown on the Sketch Plan. Buffer averaging
allows for a minimum buffer of 25’ so long as the total area of buffer is the same as if it
were all 50’. As a part of our restoration plan, we will be planting the wetland buffers
with native seed.
o Wetland Impacts – Our plan assumes filling Wetland 6. Wetland 6 is 872 sf in size. This
impact qualifies as a de-minimus impact. We have submitted a de-minimis application
with the Valley Branch Watershed. Filling this wetland is being driven in part by the
County requesting an access location in the middle of the property to CR 13 and by the
need for ponding in this location. The de-minimis application and report was included
with our preliminary plat submittal.
• Soils
o Soil Borings/Test Pits – Included in our submittal is a soil boring report done by Haugo
Geotechnical Services, a geotechnical letter done by Braun Intertec, and a draft test pit
log also from Braun Intertec. The Haugo soil report was initially done for a previous
developer but we have, similar to the wetland report, purchased the rights to this
report. Braun Intertec was hired to conduct additional borings and evaluate test pits.
In general, the reports show that the soils on the Eberhard property are suitable to
support housing. There was one boring that found, what Braun has characterized as
glacial slopewash or native organic soil, found approximately 20’ deep. This is currently
not a concern since it is not near any of the homesites planned within the
neighborhood.
• Karst
o The Valley Branch Watershed District has pointed out that there is an indication that
there could be some Karst features on or near this property. Braun Intertec studied this
issue. To date the nearest Karst formation in or near Lake Elmo is a couple miles from
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 15
15
this property. Braun stated that it is unlikely that there will be significant Karst and that
if found there is adequate soil cover to any bedrock layer.
• Tree Inventory
o We have completed a tree inventory. 78 total trees and 40 qualifying trees were
identified. Their locations and numbers are shown on our plans. We are removing
under 5% of the existing trees (inches), well below the removal threshold required by
the City’s Tree Preservation code.
• Wells
o There are two known wells on the property. Both are shown on the plans. Well #1 has
been sealed and Well # 2 will be sealed with development work since the homestead in
connected to City water.
• Slope Analysis
o A slope analysis was included within our sketch plan submittal. We are designing our
plan in a way to best work within the existing topography while creating beautiful
marketable homesites.
• County Road 13
o Included in our submittal is a letter from Washington County containing their initial
review of our first concept (different from the sketch plan reviewed by the Council).
Their comments in summary were:
▪ Ideally place the CR 13 access near the center of the property – center location
shown on plans
▪ Show trail access to CR 13 on the plans – Shown on plans
▪ They will require full turn lanes from CR 13
▪ We will need access and utility permits – will complete with final construction
plans
• Powerline Easement
o As you can see from the aerial included on the first page there are Xcel Energy Power
lines that bifurcate the property. These are located in a 125’ easement as shown on the
plans. We are staying within the rights of our easement and are also in communication
with Xcel Energy concerning work within the easement area. We will be submitting our
plans for their review concurrent with the City’s review.
J - Development Plan Details
• Lot Sizes and Setbacks
o The homesites themselves have been kept smaller. The setbacks are generally
consistent with the OP zoning. Reducing the lot sizes provided the additional density
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 16
16
needed to make this project possible while keeping the development footprint small
staying true to the intent of the OP-PUD.
• Landscaping/Theming/Amenities
o Overall Landscaping – As shown in our landscaping plans we will have a nicely
landscaped entry feature, including a monument along with white fencing. The fencing
feature continues in select locations throughout the neighborhood to accentuate the
rural character of the neighborhood’s open spaces.
o Monument – We are planning on installing a very nice monument at the Inwood
entrance. We are asking for the flexibility to have the structure of the monument be 10’
high and to locate it 20’ from the county ROW and adjacent to the City ROW. This will
help the monument be seen and create a prominent sense of entry coming into the
neighborhood.
o Site Restoration – Since a majority of the site is farmland, the primary amenity we are
creating is the restoration of the open space back to native vegetation. Included in our
submittal is a restoration plan completed by Minnesota Native Landscapes for the open
spaces within the property. This plan includes…
▪ Upland and Wet prairies
▪ Native drifts designed for pollinators in both dry and wet areas
o Street Trees – 130 street trees are shown on the plans. That is, in general, one street
tree for every 50’ of roadway frontage except for the area within the powerline
easement where trees are not allowed. While we understand that the OP code calls for
street trees every 30’ we believe this is not practical with the layout we are proposing
and adds additional cost that does not add to the rural character of the neighborhood
and takes away from other ways to add amenity value to the neighborhood.
o Open Space Trees – Over 320 open space landscaping trees are shown on the plans. The
number of trees was determined by multiplying 5 trees times the number of lots. We
are requesting flexibility here. The OP code would require 10 trees per lot. In large part
we believe that planting over 300 trees will be more than sufficient in conjunction with
the other requirements and goals of the OP code that we are meeting. This is over four
times the number of trees currently on the property. This total number of trees is
basically the same number of trees that would have been required with a more typical
OP-PUD plan.
o Mailboxes – The cluster mailboxes will also be designed to fit within the theme of the
property yet be durable.
o Trails – We are also including over 5,968’ of grass trails through and around the
restoration areas on the site as a substitute to the 3,550’ of paved trail that would
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 17
17
typically be required by the OP-PUD (OP Code requires a paved trail equivalent in length
to the length of roadway within the neighborhood). The trail system will include
themed bird feeders, pedestrian nodes with informal boulder seating, an overlook, and
interpretive signage identifying the flora and fauna that the residents are experiencing.
We are currently identifying the grass trails as private unless the City is interested in
them being public.
There is a shoulder trail along CR 13. We are keeping or constructing the same or
similar shoulder trail along the county road. The County and City have both told us they
have no other trail plans along CR 13 other than what is currently being provided by the
shoulder trail.
o Streetlights – A photometric street light plan has been included within the plan included
with the Preliminary Plat submittal.
o Homeowner’s Association – The intention for this neighborhood is that the HOA
maintain the lawns and landscaping and remove snow among the other items such as
maintain the community septic, restoration areas and water reuse system.
• Declarations and Architectural Controls
o Draft declarations and architectural guidelines have been included with our submittal.
This will help ensure that the homes built in this neighborhood are high quality homes
with a focus on architectural detailing. Examples of these homes are provided later in
this narrative.
• Conservation Easement
o For an open space development, we have been told that the City ideally prefers that a
501 C3 organization holds the easement. We have spoken with the Mn Land Trust. They
are not interested in holding an easement in this development. The OP code does
indicate that the City could hold the easement. We have been told that the City would
also prefer not to hold the easement. We are suggesting an alternative to the City
holding the easement. That alternative is to place conservation and open space
requirements in the homeowners associations declarations of covenants.
Your OP code requires that the declarations in each OP neighborhood include a
provision allowing the City to assess the HOA in the case that the HOA is not maintaining
the open space. This appears to give the City a way to enforce open space principles in a
declaration the same as if it were in a conservation easement.
So as mentioned above we are proposing that with our PUD the Homeowner’s
Association (HOA) includes similar restrictions of a conservation easement in the
declarations of covenants. To help monitor the ongoing health of the open space a
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 18
18
requirement can be added that the HOA provide the City with an annual inspection
report done by a qualified third party approved by the City and the HOA.
In a previous project I used an ecologist working for Kjolhaug Environmental to
complete the inspections and reports. If the report identified issues needing attention
the HOA had to complete the repairs within a specific timeframe. If not done within
that timeframe the City could use the assessment provisions already included in the
declarations to pay for and complete any necessary work.
• Builder/Homes/Architecture
• The primary builder of this neighborhood will be Charles Cudd Co. It is possible that we
may include another luxury villa homebuilder to join Charles Cudd Co but we have not
yet made that determination. Charles Cudd Co has built a number of homes in Lake
Elmo over the years including in Clover Dale Farms and Royal Club as well as nearby in
West Lakeland Township in Wyndstone, Waterford, and Waterford East.
• Above is an example rendering of the streetscape using Charles Cudd Homes and below
photo of a recent project in the City of Victoria.
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 19
19
• Below are some photo examples of the interior finishes Charles Cudd Villa homes.
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 20
20
• Impervious
o A typical OP-PUD limits impervious surfaces to 25% of the lot area including streets and
trails. We are unsure of the reason for this stricter standard since over 50% of the
property will be deep rooted prairie open space and water running off from the
impervious surfaces will be treated within the storm water ponds. That said since our
lots are smaller there will be a need for a higher percentage of impervious. We are
asking for an allowance of up to 50% impervious on the homesites. While some lots will
need up to 50% impervious, most lots will likely need less. Below is a table with hard
cover examples based on models that Charles Cudd is planning to build within the
neighborhood. These are modest sized homes in the luxury villa category. You will see
that without a pool most lots, not all, will be able to accommodate the largest of the
planned Cudd home models. If a customer wants a pool, the size of the pool deck could
eliminate some of the smaller homesites. We are ok that not all lots will accommodate
a pool. Without a pool most lots work with most models so some lots may not
accommodate a pool. Still there are some lots where 50% may not work for certain
models and just like the examples with the pools, compromises will need to be made or
customers who want larger homes will need to look to the larger lots. The examples
below are conservative. We believe that when all is said and done the overall hardcover
of the property including sidewalks and roads will be under 15%. However, if all lots use
up their 50% hardcover the neighborhood including streets, sidewalk and the county
road turn lanes will be 18.64% hardcover.
Impervious Examples
Bennington Willow Coventry
High Low High Low High Low
Driveway 1,500 950 1,500 950 1,500 900
Home 2,350 2,350 1,900 1,900 2,330 2,330
Garage 975 975 990 990 850 850
Entry
Sidewalk 160 60 120 90 125 70
Patio 1,000 300 1,000 300 1,000 300
Total 5,985 4,635 5,510 4,230 5,805 4,450
Smallest Lot 11,300 53% 41% 49% 38% 52% 40%
Average Lot 13,692 44% 34% 40% 31% 42% 33%
Pool Deck 1,200 1,000 1,200 1,000 1,200 1,000
Total 7,186 5,636 6,711 5,231 7,006 5,451
Smallest Lot 11,300 64% 50% 60% 47% 63% 49%
Average Lot 13,692 52% 41% 49% 38% 51% 40%
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 21
21
• Storm Water Treatment
o One of the refinements from the sketch plan includes reducing the number of storm
water ponds and centralizing more water into the larger pond in the southeast corner of
the property. This was done to help keep as much water as possible in the pond that will
be irrigating a large portion of the property.
o The OP code asks that ponds and water conveyance features be placed in City outlots.
We were unsure how to best do that. Since the HOA will be maintaining the restoration
work within all the open spaces it seemed better to have the ponds and drainage swales
be located in drainage and utility easements giving the city access and maintenance
rights but having the outlots still be owned by the HOA. If the City would like outlots
that they own we can accommodate that but would like to know where and how those
outlots should be arranged and located.
• Park
o On November 20, 2023 the Park Commission reviewed the Highpointe Crossing Sketch
Plan and determined that they would prefer a payment of cash in leu of a land
dedication. Therefore, no public park areas are shown within the Preliminary Plat.
K - Development Standards/Infrastructure/Other
• Roadway Width – OP code states that streets shall comply with the engineering standards. The
engineering standards have street standards listed in multiple locations. Both seem to indicate
that a 28’ F-F wide residential roadway is acceptable. Excerpt from engineering standard
included below.
o Minimum Street Widths, Measured from Face of Curb to Face of Curb (F‐F)
▪ New Local Residential Streets (with parking on both sides) - 32‐feet F‐F
▪ Local Residential Street (when parking is allowed on one‐side) - 28‐feet F‐F
o Minimum Right‐of‐way Widths
▪ Local Multi‐Family Residential Street (32 feet wide) - 66‐feet ROW
▪ Local Single Family or Twinhome Residential Street (28‐feet wide) - 60‐feet ROW
There is also a section in the engineering standards on Low Impact Design Practices. This
section encourages the use of:
o Open Space Developments (Such as the OP-PUD)
o Narrow streets (Like the 28’ Standard)
o Stormwater reuse (Which we are including)
o Vegetated Swales (which we are also using to convey water across the site)
Since we are using a conservation design, we are using the roadway listed for low impact design
practices identified in the Engineering Standards. We believe that there will be sufficient
parking with one-sided parking.
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 22
22
• Stormwater Reuse – We are proposing a stormwater reuse system that will be installed to
irrigate 100% of the sodded and landscaped areas on the lots along with a portion of the open
space and entry landscaping. We have previously installed these types of systems with success
in other neighborhoods.
• Sanitary Sewer - Community Septic – We have completed soil and infiltration tests as well as
test pits to identify the best location(s) for a community septic system. That location is along
the north boundary of the property. Community treatment systems today are like package
plants they include a series of underground tanks including one called a Sequencing Batch
Reactor (SBR). These tanks basically function as a sewage treatment plant. A more detailed
report and explanation of the system has been included with our preliminary plat submittal.
Below is the preliminary plan for the community system.
• City Water/ Water Allocation
• The City has asked that we provide City water to this neighborhood along with a loop
connection to the Lake Elmo Heights neighborhood. This includes a City watermain as shown
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 23
23
on our plans. We will be connecting to the 8” watermain in Lake Elmo Heights 3rd Addition
neighborhood on Imperial Ave N and also be making a connection to the 16” high pressure line
along Inwood. In addition the Inwood connection will require pressure-reducing valve.
• Phasing
o We will likely need to develop this neighborhood in two phases from east to west as
shown below. The first phase includes the communal septic system and water reuse
pond.
L - Summary
• Items consistent with OP-PUD code, engineering standards, or staff directives:
• 200’ open space buffer (no lotted area included in buffer, except for homestead lot)
• 50% open space (actual over 60%)
• Set-Backs – Front 30’, Rear 20’
• Community Septic System
• Storm Water Reuse System
• Wetland Buffers (Manage 2 = 50’ Buffer Averaging)
• Theming – Entry monuments, fencing and other landscaping and decorative features
• Enhanced restoration of 100% of the open space
• Conservation Easements – Held by HOA with City Oversight or held by City.
• No wetland buffer within lotted areas
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 24
24
• Providing city water vs. private wells
• Site layout works with existing topography of the site
• Open space provided in 5 ac or greater contiguous parcels
• Low Impact Design Roadway - 29’ B to B Roadway (no parking one side) within 60’ ROW
• Flexibilities requested to OP-PUD Code/City Standards
• 65 units vs. 34 units
o Increased density from 34 unit (.45 units/net acre) to 65 units (0.86 units/net acre)
• Grass Trail vs Paved Trail
o Substituting over 5,968 feet of grass trail for 3,550 feet of paved trail to meet and
possibly exceed the required trail which is supposed to be a paved trail equivalent to
the length of street.
• 50% impervious vs 25% Impervious
o Due in large part to the smaller lot sizes we are asking for up to 50% of lot area to be
impervious, as mentioned above even with this the overall site will only have
18.64% impervious.
• 50’ Street Tree Spacing
o Asking for trees every 50’ which is the City’s typical standard vs. 30’ which is asked
for in the OP-PUD
• Landscaping Requirements Five 1.5” Landscaping Trees per Lot vs. ten.
o Asking to reduce landscaping standard to five 1.5” trees per lot vs. ten 1.5” trees per
lot and to allow substituting larger caliper trees for smaller. For example, 3” would
be the equivalent to two 1.5” trees.
• 10’ Side yard set-back
o 10’ side yard vs 15’ side yard – Lot width is 70’
• 11,200 sf Minimum Lot Size
o Reduce lot size from 21,780 sf to 11,200 sf.
• Allow 3:1 or flatter slopes
o Clarify that for this OP-PUD steep slopes are slopes in excess of 3:1.
• 2.021 ac Homestead Parcel
o Allowance to create a homestead parcel with its own rules, 20’ setbacks all around
and private septic. This homestead parcel would then be sold separately and not be
part of the subdivision.
• Monument Sign
o 20’ from County ROW, Adjacent to City ROW, Monument to be 10’ high, and Sign to
be located no higher than 7’ from the ground.
• 1% slopes within open space storm water swales
o The open space swales are intended to convey water slowly across the site. These
are not within homesites and the speed at which they dry out is not as significant a
concern. Over time the slow draining swales will encourage more natural storm
water treatment aided by the deep rooted native and evapotranspiration.
Highpointe Crossing - 2298 Inwood Ave N – Lake Elmo – Preliminary Plat Narrative
June 7, 2024
Page 25
25
M - Closing
• We believe that OP-PUD plan we are proposing meets the intent of the OP-PUD code as well the
goals of the comprehensive plan for properties in the rural areas of the City especially ones with
RSF guiding. It does that by…
o Providing over 60% of the property in open space and placing it in a conservation
easement.
o Restoring the open space from what is today 80% corn and soybeans to native prairie.
o Buffering our development from surrounding neighbors by 200’ – No other OP
development has ever done this. While the buffer is 200’, the distance from our homes
to the nearest adjacent homes will in most cases be greater than a football field.
o Using storm water to irrigate the lawns and open spaces which lowers the burden on
the City water system by reducing the amount of good, treated water that is used to
water lawns.
o Providing trails, landscaping and theming to make this neighborhood different and
special.
As noted above we started with an OP plan that would have more closely met the initial
intended density of the zoning district. Well, times have changed, costs have gone up,
regulation has increased and it is no longer possible to create a plan with that density that also
provides sewer and water service, urban roads, theming, a complete restoration of the open
space and more. What we are proposing is a modern OP plan that meets the goals of the OP
but includes enough units to cover the additional development costs of meeting those goals.
This property has been in the Eberhard family for over 100 years. They are now ready to sell
and have tried unsuccessfully to sell/develop their property. The landowners have made
concessions to help us get this to a point where we have a plan that we believe can succeed. We
believe our development plan will create a beautiful neighborhood, one that will become one of
the more sought after neighborhoods in this City.
We look forward to talking with you about our plans and hope we can together create the first
Open Space Development in almost two decades in the City.
oooooooooo
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
o o
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
STILLWATER BLVD
N
INWOOD AVE NINWOOD AVE NDRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS:
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS BEING
5 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE
INDICATED, ADJOINING LOT LINES, AND
BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS
OTHERWISE INDICATED, ADJOINING RIGHT
OF WAY LINES, AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT.
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS BEING 5 FEET IN
WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE
INDICATED, ADJOINING LOT
LINES, AND BEING 10 FEET IN
WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE
INDICATED, ADJOINING
RIGHT OF WAY LINES, AS
SHOWN ON THIS PLAT.
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS ARE
SHOWN THUS:
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS BEING 5 FEET IN
WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE
INDICATED, ADJOINING LOT
LINES, AND BEING 10 FEET IN
WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE
INDICATED, ADJOINING
RIGHT OF WAY LINES, AS
SHOWN ON THIS PLAT.
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS ARE
SHOWN THUS:
oooooooooo
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
l
ll
ll
ll
l
l
llll
lllllllllllll
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
lllllll
llll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l lll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lll lll ll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
l
l
l
l
l
ll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
l
l
l
lllllllllll
llllllllll
lllllllllll
l
llll lllll
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l llllllllllllllll ll l l l l l l l l llllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l llllll l l l l lllllllllllll l l l llllll l l l l l l lllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l llllll llll l l l l lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llll llllllllllllllllll
l
l
l
lllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l llllllllllllllllll llllllllllllll
lllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l lllllllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ll l l l l l l l l ll l l l l l l l l l l l ll l l ll l l l l l l l l l l l l l ll l lllllllllll
l l l l llllllllllllllll
l
ll
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllll l l l l l l lll l ll l llll lll l lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
ll
l
ll
l
l
l
ll
l
l
l
l
l
l
llllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ll ll lll l lll lll lllllll llllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l l l l l l l ll
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
ll l l l l l l l llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
ll
ll
ll
l
l
l
l
l
l
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
l
l
l
l
l
lllll
l
l
l
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l lllllllllll l l l l l llllllllllllllllllllllllll l l l l l llllllllll
lllll
llllllllllllll l lllllllllll l llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
X
XXX
X
XX
oooooooooo
1
Eberhard Site
Lake Elmo, MN
Prairie
Restoration Plan
Prepared for:
Rachel Development
4180 Napier Court NE
St. Michael
Prepared by:
MNL, Inc
8740 77th Street NE
Otsego, MN 55362
June 4, 2024
si
MNL
2
Table of Contents
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Figures and Appendices .................................................................................................................... 2
1.0 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Vegetation Establishment Plan ..................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 3
3.0 Site Description ........................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Site Overview ........................................................................................................................... 3
4.0 Management Units....................................................................................................................... 4
5.0 Management Objectives .............................................................................................................. 4
5.1 Establishment Period (0-5 Years) .............................................................................................. 4
5.2 Long Term Objectives (5+ Years) ............................................................................................... 5
6.0 Vegetation Establishment and Management ................................................................................. 5
6.1 Site Preparation ....................................................................................................................... 5
6.2 Seeding and Planting ................................................................................................................ 6
6.3 Seed Establishment Techniques (Establishment Phase) ............................................................ 7
6.4 Plant Community Management Techniques (Long-Term)............................................................ 8
7.0 Vegetation Monitoring and Reporting ............................................................................................ 9
7.1 Projected Outcomes ................................................................................................................ 9
7.2 Annual Reporting ..................................................................................................................... 10
List of Tables
Table 1: Establishment Timeline......................................................................................................... 5
Table 2: Wildflower Drifts Species Lists .............................................................................................. 7
Figures and Appendices
Figure 1: Management Units Map
Appendix A: Seed Mixes
3
1.0 Executive Summary
Rachel Development proposes to construct a residential development in Lake Elmo, MN, known as the
Eberhard project (or Project). The area within the Project boundary is approximately 78 acres. A portion
of this area will be occupied by housing, lots, roads, and associated infrastructure (the Site). The
remaining areas will be established with a high diversity of native prairie and wetland plant species to
provide wildlife habitat and pollinator food sources throughout the growing season. The overall goal of
this prairie restoration plan (the Plan) is to highlight goals and objectives for vegetation establishment,
outline seed mix options, and describe vegetation management approaches within the prairie and
wetland areas. This perennial, native vegetation is expected to stabilize the soil, improve soil health,
and provide habitat for native wildlife. The homeowner’s association will maintain this vegetation to
control invasive and other unwanted species and to provide habitat for native insects and other wildlife,
such as the rusty patched bumblebee.
2.0 Vegetation Establishment Plan
2.1 Goals and Objectives
Rachel Development’s primary goals related to vegetation management are described below, with the
related objectives to meet the goals.
•Goal 1: Establish native, perennial vegetation within the restoration areas within the Site (not
including single family lots, roads, and infrastructure).
o Objective 1a. Design seed mixes appropriate for this region and expected conditions in
the Project area, with a diversity of grasses and forbs where appropriate.
o Objective 1b. Use plant species that provide habitat and nectar sources throughout the
growing season for native pollinators.
•Goal 2: Provide soil stability and improve soil health over the duration of the Project.
o Objective 2a. Quickly establish vegetation to minimize the duration and extent of bare
soil.
o Objective 2b. Include diverse native plant species that stabilize soils, improve soil
health, and sequester carbon with deep and varied root structures.
•Goal 3: Minimize invasive species, noxious weeds, and other undesirable species on the Site.
o Objective 3a. Establish and selectively manage plant species that do not require
extensive maintenance, provide complete cover, and minimize invasion of undesirable
species, such as noxious weeds.
o Objective 3b. Plan for long-term monitoring and maintenance to quickly detect new
infestations and effectively control undesirable species.
3.0 Site Description
3.1 Site Overview
The proposed Project is located in Lake Elmo in Washington County, Minnesota. The site is surrounded
by residential developments, except for the east side, which is bordered by Lake Elmo Park Reserve. The
Site is made up of a contiguous block of land, covering approximately 78 acres in total.
4
The Site falls within the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Ecological Classification
System’s Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province, Minnesota & NE Iowa Morainal Section, and St. Paul-
Baldwin Plains Subsection. The landscape of this area is rolling terrain with predominately urban
development. Historically, vegetation in this area was likely forest and woodlands with periodic fire and
some area of open prairie where wildfires carried across the landscape.
The existing vegetation at the Site is predominately agricultural cultivated cropland. Typically, corn and
soybeans are grown in the area. Historically, the vegetation of this area was primarily oak openings and
barrens, with scattered big woods, wet prairies, and bogs and swamps. Most of the soils on the Site
likely developed under historic deciduous forest cover and are well-drained silt loam and sandy loam
textures. Portions of the Site have moderate to poorly drained soils with silt loam textures and are
considered hydric.
Planned grading activities on the Site will result in a rolling topography, with elevations ranging from 976
to 1040 feet above mean sea level. Low points within the Site are associated with stormwater basins or
wetlands. A mapped shallow marsh wetland is located in the southwest corner of the Site. Depending
on the history of drainage, hydrology may have been affected by drain tiling or ditching.
4.0 Management Units
The restoration portions of the Site will be divided into three management unit types (Figure 1). These
units are as follows:
o Upland Prairie: This management unit will be comprised of short-statured native grasses and
diverse forbs that provide wildlife habitat and nectar sources throughout the growing season.
This unit encompasses upland areas, including septic mounds.
o Wildflower Drifts: These upland prairie areas will be overseeded with additional native
wildflowers that are favored by butterflies, bees, and other pollinators, including the rusty
patched bumblebee.
o Basin/Wetland: These areas will be seeded with a diverse native seed mix within stormwater
catchments. This seed mix may also include some areas of existing wetland that need to be
seeded. This will include species adapted to saturated soils and periods of shallow inundation.
5.0 Management Objectives
5.1 Establishment Period (0-5 Years)
•Minimize soil disturbance and ensure appropriate seedbeds with minimal compaction and
subsoil mixing.
•Comply with the SWPPP and Construction Stormwater General Permit by installing appropriate
BMPs and carefully monitoring construction activities.
•Establish perennial native vegetation including a diversity of native grasses and forbs to provide
high quality wildlife habitat and pollinator nectar sources. Specifically, these mixes in
combination will include a minimum of:
o 25% wildflower seed by number of seeds
o 25 native species
5
o Three forb species that bloom in each portion of the growing season: early, mid, and
late.
o Flower species that are identified as preferred species by the rusty patched bumblebee
and other pollinators.
5.2 Long Term Objectives (5+ Years)
•Maintain desirable, seeded perennial native vegetation to reduce invasion of noxious weeds,
woody species, and other undesirable plants.
•Monitor annually to assess conditions and identify problems to be addressed through
management activities.
6.0 Vegetation Establishment and Management
The following vegetation establishment guidelines are based on expected conditions prior to and during
construction.
Table 1: Establishment Timeline
Activity Summary Timeline
Preparatory herbicide
treatments
(unnecessary if
seeding soon after
crops are harvested
from weed-free soil)
Application of a non-specific herbicide
to all live vegetation in the seeding area
if undesirable vegetation is present
At minimum 14-21 days prior to
seeding
Install BMPs Placement of erosion control measures Immediately prior to grading
and seedbed preparation
Grading and seedbed
preparation
Conduct Site grading, manage topsoil
appropriately, de-compact soil if
needed, and prepare a smooth, evenly
textured soil surface
Immediately following BMP
installation
Seeding Install seed mixes with specialty
equipment designed for native species:
no-till drill seeder or appropriate
broadcast seeder
Within 14 days of completion of
seedbed preparation; seeding is
best conducted whenever soils
are not frozen and not in the
middle of summer (avoid
seeding Jun 15 – Sep 15)
6.1 Site Preparation
BMPs will be installed before and during grading activities, including placement of erosion control
measures such as silt fences, biologs, and sediment catch basins to prevent soil loss. Tree clearing,
grubbing, and stump removal will be conducted only where necessary. Grading will be completed in
accordance with the Site plans and in a manner that minimizes overall soil disturbance and reduces the
movement of soil as much as possible.
Topsoil will be segregated during grading and redistributed across graded areas. Where necessary, soils
compacted by construction activities beyond the range of 250 PSI as determined by a soil compaction
6
test will be decompacted with chisel plows, rippers, or tillers depending on severity of compaction.
Decompaction may be followed by disking to prepare a smooth, evenly textured soil surface.
If existing undesirable vegetation is present following grading and decompaction, preparatory herbicide
treatment should be conducted as needed. This spraying should be done at least 14-21 days prior to
scheduled seeding with the application of a non-specific herbicide to all undesirable live vegetation in
the seeding area. A second herbicide treatment may be applied to any significant areas of undesirable
vegetation still growing 14 days after the first herbicide application. Herbicide drift would be minimized
by utilizing appropriate equipment calibrated to be conducive to the weather conditions at the time of
treatment.
6.2 Seeding and Planting
Seed should be installed using a Truax no-till drill or Trillion type seeder (or similar seeder designed for
native species). Where drill-seeding is not practical due to Site conditions or management unit size,
seed should be broadcast onto the soil surface using a Vicon seeder (or similar) and raked to ensure
good seed-to-soil contact.
Prior to seed installation, the seeding contractor will calibrate and adjust seeding equipment to sow
seeds at the proper seeding rate. Equipment will be operated in a manner to ensure complete coverage
of the entire area to be seeded. Equipment will be steam cleaned or thoroughly washed prior to starting
work to prevent contamination from outside seed sources.
6.2.1 Seed Mixes
Three seed mix types are planned for the Project, corresponding with each management unit.
•Upland Prairie: MNL Upland Dry Prairie Mix – Shortgrass (Appendix A)
o This seed mix is appropriate for a wide range of soil types and includes species that will
tend to grow about 2 to 4 feet tall.
o Similar state seed mixes:
BWSR Little Bluestem Urban Prairie 35-121
BWSR Pollinator Plot Urban SE 38-631 seed mix
•Basin/Wetland: MNL Stormwater Basin Mix (Appendix A)
o This seed mix is appropriate for wetter soils and includes plant species that may grow 3
to 6 feet tall.
o Similar state seed mixes:
BWSR Stormwater South and West 33-261
Wet Meadow South and West 34-272
•Wildflower Drifts: Three specialty drift mixes to be overseeded in select upland prairie areas
(Table 2). These drift areas may be overseeded, or planted with forbs, with some combination of
the listed species in Table 2.
A cover crop should be installed into any open soils left undisturbed for more than 14 days without
erosion control or permanent seeding to provide soil stabilization.
Trees and shrubs may be installed throughout the site as a part of revegetation activities. MNL
recommends the use of native-origin tree species appropriate for the site and expected conditions. This
would include species like bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), white oak (Quercus alba), northern pin oak
(Quercus ellipsoidales), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), black cherry (Prunus serotina), paper
7
birch (Betula papyrifera), among others. A more detailed native tree and shrub species list can be
provided upon request.
Table 2: Wildflower Drifts Species Lists
Drift Mix Common Name Scientific Name Bloom Season
Rusty patched
bumblebee drift
Showy penstemon Penstemon grandiflorus Spring
Columbine Aquilegia canadensis Spring
Heart leaved alexander Zizea aptera Spring
Wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa Summer
Hoary vervain Verbena stricta Summer
Purple prairie clover Dalea purpurea Summer
Sky-blue aster Symphyotrichum oolentangiense Fall
Upland white goldenrod Solidago ptarmicoides Fall
Stiff goldenrod Solidago rigida Fall
Monarch
butterfly drift
Meadow blazing star Liatris ligulistylis Summer
Swamp milkweed Asclepias incarnata Summer
Butterfly milkweed Asclepias tuberosa Summer
New England aster Symphyotrichum novae-angliae Fall
Gray goldenrod Solidago nemoralis Fall
Sky-blue aster Symphyotrichum oolentangiense Fall
Pollinator drift Long-bracted spiderwort Tradescantia bracteata Spring
Cream wild indigo Baptisia bracteata Spring
Columbine Aquilegia canadensis Spring
Purple prairie clover Dalea purpurea Summer
Meadow blazing star Liatris ligulistylis Summer
Butterfly milkweed Asclepias tuberosa Summer
Common oxeye Heliopsis helianthoides Fall
Smooth blue aster Symphyotrichum laeve Fall
Upland white goldenrod Solidago ptarmicoides Fall
6.2.2 Supplemental Seeding
Supplemental seeding may be necessary where native vegetation does not establish. Establishment
failure can occur for a variety of reasons, including compacted soil conditions, flooding, drought, and
extensive weed competition. Depending on the reason(s) for failure, recommendations may be provided
to adjust species in the re-seeding mix to better accommodate growing conditions in the specific area.
6.3 Seed Establishment Techniques (Establishment Phase)
A variety of vegetation establishment techniques should be implemented on the Site. Methods will be
selected to provide the best control possible of noxious, invasive, and woody species while minimizing
impacts on seeded species.
6.3.1 Control and Prevention of Invasive Species
Noxious, invasive, and undesirable plant species will be controlled, including all species listed on the
state noxious weed list maintained by the MDA in accordance with State of Minnesota noxious weed
rules and regulations. Invasive plant species as listed by MN DNR may be controlled as appropriate for
Project objectives. During the establishment phase, efforts to prevent and control the spread of invasive
species will likely require a combination of herbicide use and mechanical mowing. Prescribed burning
or other methods described in Section 6.4 may also be considered.
8
Invasive Species Prevention
To reduce the spread of noxious and invasive weeds, all machinery and equipment to be used on the
Site should be thoroughly inspected and cleaned before arrival. Any plants, seeds, mud, and dirt clods
should be removed through washing to prevent the import of undesirable species to the Site.
Herbicide Use
Herbicides are an effective weed management tool. Herbicide treatments should begin as needed
based on weed populations, as early as the first year, if extensive perennial weeds or woody species are
present. Selective herbicide application, using herbicides formulated for specific plant groups, and spot
herbicide application, applying herbicide directly to the foliage of target plants, are preferred over
broadcast and non-selective applications. All herbicide applications will be completed per
manufacturer label instructions, and all applicators will hold a valid State of Minnesota Pesticide
Applicator License.
6.3.2 Mechanical Mowing
During the first year, vegetation in the seeded areas should be mowed 2-3 times throughout the growing
season as needed to prevent weed seed production and remove shading from small plant seedlings.
During the subsequent few years during establishment, vegetation in the seeded areas will likely require
mowing 1-2 times throughout the growing season to control annual weeds and to ensure good
establishment of seeded species. Noxious, invasive, and woody plants may also require mowing to
prevent seed development.
Mowing will be accomplished by agricultural tractors with flail or rotary mower attachments, zero-turn
mowers, and/or other mechanical option(s). Flail mower implements are preferred to mulch the cut
material and avoid forming a mat of cut vegetation which could smother desirable plant growth. Other
mechanical cutting implements may be used if haying is expected to follow the mowing operation.
Where appropriate, mower height should be at least 6-9” from the ground to avoid damaging flowering
plants. Weed whipping may be used to remove excessive vegetation growth in areas that are difficult to
access with mechanical mowing equipment.
6.4 Plant Community Management Techniques (Long-Term)
A variety of vegetation management techniques should be implemented on the Site. Methods will be
selected to provide the best control possible of noxious, invasive, and woody species while minimizing
impacts on desirable, native species.
6.4.1 Control and Prevention of Invasive Species
Preventing and controlling invasive species within the management units will require long-term
management efforts. These efforts will likely take shape as a combination of the following approaches.
6.4.2. Herbicide Use
While mowing/grazing controls annuals and may provide short-term control for some perennials, most
perennial invasive species, and in particular woody plants, must be treated with herbicide to provide
effective control. Herbicide treatment will reduce populations, prevent the spread of weed seeds, and
kill vegetation. Ongoing annual herbicide applications 2-3 times per year will likely be required into the
long-term maintenance phase to continue providing control of woody and noxious species introduced
to the Site from surrounding landscapes.
9
6.4.2 Mechanical Mowing
After the establishment period, mowing specific areas 1 or 2 times per year may be required to control
noxious weeds and woody species. Mowing may be targeted to certain management areas depending
on invasive species cover. Any mowers should be cleaned before entering the area to reduce the
potential to spread invasive species into the prairies.
6.4.4 Prescribed Burning
Periodic wildfire has played a crucial role in maintaining fire-dependent plant communities, including
upland prairies. Fire re-invigorates the growth of native species, maintains species diversity, and
improves wildlife habitat. Prescribed burning is a management strategy that land managers can use to
improve the conditions of prairies, which are fire-dependent plant communities.
Periodic prescribed burning may be recommended to manage invasive species, remove accumulated
thatch, and invigorate native fire-dependent plant communities. Burns can be conducted at different
times of the year depending on the objectives. Prescribed burns should be set in a controlled manner by
trained professionals using burn plans that are understood by the Protected Property manager and the
full burn crew. The goals and objectives should be clearly identified before each burn.
6.4.5 Grazing
Grazing may be utilized as a management tool, if appropriate for the site. Sheep grazing can be
implemented in place of mowing to manage vegetation height or density. Grazing provides many of the
same impacts as mowing, such as removing the vegetative thatch from the Site and reducing the risk of
wildfires. Sheep grazing also re-introduces valuable services for the overall health of the vegetation by
recycling nutrients and has been shown to increase soil carbon and nutrients when grazing in native
vegetation. Grazing intensity and timing will vary based on vegetation type and management objectives.
6.4.6 Haying
Haying is an optional method that could be used to help with specific goals especially if burning and
grazing will not be used. Haying would include mowing, and it would be followed by mechanical removal
of the cut thatch material. This is beneficial for the Site to minimize the accumulation of material that
may pose wildfire risks. In addition, removing the thatch is beneficial for the growth of many species,
because it allows new seedlings to become established.
7.0 Vegetation Monitoring and Reporting
Periodic site monitoring is recommended to evaluate the establishment of seeded species, identify
invasive, noxious, and woody species presence, check for erosion or other Site issues, and determine
vegetation maintenance needs and timing. These monitoring visits should occur three times per
year/growing season during the early establishment period (Years 1-3) and 1-2 times per year thereafter.
7.1 Projected Outcomes
Monitoring will be used to assess the vegetative cover relative to the following projected outcomes:
•All vegetated areas have at least 90% vegetative cover.
•Vegetative cover should have at least 60-70% cover by native species.
•Noxious weeds and invasive species should not exceed 20% cover.
•Aim to have at least 15 native species with 1% or greater cover.
•Wildflower species (forbs) should compose at least 15% cover.
10
•At least 3 plant species are present that bloom in spring/early summer and 3 that bloom in late
summer/fall.
Areas that fail to meet these performance standards should be treated accordingly to remediate the
issues. This may include re-seeding or installing live plants if necessary.
7.2 Annual Reporting
A brief annual monitoring report should be prepared after each growing season, beginning in Year 1 and
continuing for 10 years or until it is determined that monitoring is no longer needed. The annual report
can be very brief and should include the following:
•A description of Site conditions.
•A summary of monitoring results.
•A summary of management activities implemented during the reporting period intended to meet
objectives for each management unit.
•A description of challenges or unforeseen circumstances (e.g., unanticipated weather events)
that the Project faced during the reporting year and how these challenges may have affected
vegetation establishment.
•Representative photographs of the management area vegetation.
•A summary of the recommended management activities for the coming season(s).
2021 Imagery
CIR 7-County
0 200 400100
Feet
¯
Eberhard Lake Elmo Project
Restoration Plan
Figure 1:
Management Units
Pollinator drift
Community septic system
Basin-Wetland
Community septic
Wildflower-Drifts
Upland Prairie
Mown walking trails
Rusty patch
bumblebee drift
Rusty patch
bumblebee drift
Monarch butterfly drift
Pollinator drift
Monarch butterfly drift
Rusty patch
bumblebee drift
“—■-TT-*-j_____'kSTjcfe V% ;1£ «8»
'tM
*T’s.,.*//?r '
•*
lVfk11t*1■Hi'mC.!ril1 *-? «>it r ;AT%#.»2
'■y%—s
»yji i1 ii-s<A ..1 pnr‘-*)T
I r
• I I7%fe ;T/In Mi i K\-4X Jl/-N ,■/;i"
iNx.___, CZ3>.hif—
,
Xs 1 **m2•7r \isiii’Ra1si.x.■//.r/ ^
x❖X..iV
>■-TJ //o TT-----UflU17///-4 Pik\rnk f \JrnliL hi QVViSA /\N
__\ft L.1'ij___;/MM,!i x
T*;,r- Mil\i\*l
1
< _m iI■■■■■(I 1If.
I II ,IIfar VV 1/■ w //-r,■i
*iiitiT&.(///*
|70>
/irl
Ii ii/a . >»iiK /)\/// «=K "•rjna
■
\m
»V S*T v\\
* r •■'>4'H 1
:
K7 ii 1SB&
r
m WUIA/m fra#lWJk//f||,r Vk\s
\ A x --m—|t"i\.:j i|/ii k\\k'.r /k / vbE■ il!STI fa.; Li S^rtP' *JSw*
• flmS /ii
llllIu.:
*,t.k <iaj 1V/55"■M>£J TOi11 |r ■\
L*'!i w\\\\
m \
v-
A i mi I:■».urr------v •'•i..V V>n
i
7 \\/I>--■m\V,J iiti1ILi11/iir-.'I4SkoWi\I/V.1 7\7r V/m Ifffi7'W// L \;//-\X
-*>•' Jr S'
S'-/
•-Ns,NX.
ii -
1 4/-i<r7
J / /.' d
i .4m 4 til *
' *Bcl
■w :■w /5
O
fiN:w
’
/r fTRs. S_yT
\\.«~
1^7 A/w /S''r Ml (Iii\\^(r
i^4 d.'i \vP /-----fj i <I(
.s'*
m Iu i H1L V „</
p:ik
*iMS3rw12 #.\v .j M¥:1 -V': ji"r 1 4W V pmftr,?■v ir t>&.«jjm,•
*
je '•Vr<v faIf : ««f.1 ‘Jw ^f,SiaSi*'ll ; k r\k4l."»•-Ill■%| JLi Wi asr *-V I
,1J1*>MNLX1?IS!■£l!___
Ideal for dry (xeric) or sandy sites, or where shorter species are desired. Height 2-4'
Scientific Name Common Name
% of
Mix
Seeds/
Sq Ft
PLS
lbs/ac
Bloom
Season
Grasses:Bouteloua curtipendula Side-oats Grama 26.00 11.40 3.12
Bouteloua gracilis Blue Grama 3.00 5.29 0.36
Bromus kalmii Prairie Brome 1.50 0.53 0.18
Elymus trachycaulus Slender Wheat Grass 7.65 2.33 0.92
Koeleria macrantha Junegrass 0.25 1.93 0.03
Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem 27.00 17.85 3.24
Sporobolus compositus Rough Dropseed 2.60 3.44 0.31
Sporobolus heterolepis Prairie Dropseed 0.25 0.18 0.03
Sedges/Rushes:Carex brevior Plains Oval Sedge 1.75 2.24 0.21
Forbs:Achillea millefolium Yarrow 0.08 0.62 0.01 Summer
Agastache foeniculum Fragrant Giant Hyssop 0.15 0.60 0.02 Summer
Allium stellatum Prairie Onion 0.20 0.10 0.02 Summer
Amorpha canescens Leadplant 2.25 1.59 0.27 Summer
Artemisia ludoviciana Prairie Sage 0.07 0.77 0.01 Summer
Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed 1.20 0.21 0.14 Summer
Asclepias tuberosa Butterfly Milkweed 0.65 0.12 0.08 Summer
Baptisia bracteata Cream Wild Indigo 0.10 0.01 0.01 Spring
Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea 6.00 0.71 0.72 Fall
Coreopsis palmata Prairie Coreopsis 0.20 0.09 0.02 Summer
Dalea candida White Prairie Clover 4.25 3.56 0.51 Summer
Dalea purpurea Purple Prairie Clover 6.35 4.20 0.76 Summer
Drymocallis arguta Prairie Cinquefoil 0.30 3.04 0.04 Summer
Echinacea angustifolia Narrow-leaved Coneflower 0.50 0.15 0.06 Summer
Helianthus pauciflorus Stiff Sunflower 0.50 0.09 0.06 Fall
Lespedeza capitata Round-headed Bushclover 0.70 0.25 0.08 Summer
Liatris punctata Dotted Blazing Star 0.20 0.06 0.02 Summer
Monarda punctata Spotted Bee Balm 0.10 0.40 0.01 Summer
Penstemon grandiflorus Large-flower Penstemon 1.00 0.62 0.12 Spring
Ratibida columnifera Long-headed Coneflower 0.80 1.48 0.10 Summer
Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan 1.30 5.27 0.16 Summer
Solidago missouriensis Missouri Goldenrod 0.25 2.81 0.03 Fall
Solidago nemoralis Gray Goldenrod 0.25 3.31 0.03 Fall
Solidago ptarmicoides Upland White Goldenrod 0.20 0.56 0.02 Fall
Solidago rigida Stiff Goldenrod 0.20 0.36 0.02 Fall
Symphyotrichum laeve Smooth Blue Aster 0.40 0.97 0.05 Fall
Symphyotrichum oolentangiense Sky-blue Aster 0.50 1.76 0.06 Fall
Tradescantia bracteata Long-bracted Spiderwort 0.20 0.09 0.02 Spring
Verbena stricta Hoary Vervain 0.75 0.93 0.09 Summer
Zizia aptera Heart-leaved Alexanders 0.35 0.19 0.04 Spring
100.00 80.08 12.00
Seeds/sq ft:80.00
Grass Species:8
Sedges/Rush Sp:1
Forb Species:30
MNL Upland Dry Prairie Mix
Shortgrass
Seed mixes are subject to change based on availability
Similar Minnesota state seed mixes:
BWSR Little Bluestem Urban Prairie 35-121
BWSR Pollinator Plot Urban SE 38-631
bwsr.state.mn.us/seed-mixes
MNL
Native mix for stormwater & retention basin pond edges or rain gardens. Height 3-6'
Scientific Name Common Name
% of
Mix
Seeds/
Sq Ft
PLS
lbs/ac
Bloom
Season
Grasses:Andropogon gerardii Big Bluestem 9.00 2.98 0.81
Calamagrostis canadensis Blue-joint Grass 0.30 2.78 0.03
Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild Rye 18.00 2.50 1.62
Glyceria grandis Reed Manna Grass 3.50 9.23 0.32
Leersia oryzoides Rice Cutgrass 10.00 11.24 0.90
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 4.75 2.20 0.43
Sorghastrum nutans Indian Grass 16.00 6.35 1.44
Spartina pectinata Prairie Cordgrass 7.00 1.53 0.63
Sedges/Rushes:Carex hystericina Porcupine Sedge 0.50 0.50 0.05
Carex stipata Awl-fruited Sedge 0.75 0.84 0.07
Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge 2.00 5.36 0.18
Scirpus atrovirens Green Bulrush 0.50 7.60 0.05
Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass 0.25 14.05 0.02
Forbs:Anemone canadensis Canada Anemone 0.20 0.05 0.02 Spring
Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed 4.50 0.71 0.41 Summer
Bidens cernua Nodding Beggarstick 1.50 1.04 0.14 Summer
Desmodium canadense Showy Tick-trefoil 3.00 0.55 0.27 Summer
Eutrochium maculatum Joe-pye Weed 0.55 2.19 0.05 Summer
Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset 0.25 2.07 0.02 Fall
Helenium autumnale Sneezeweed 0.80 3.44 0.07 Fall
Hypericum pyramidatum Great St. Johnswort 0.40 2.51 0.04 Summer
Liatris pycnostachya Prairie Blazing Star 1.30 0.47 0.12 Summer
Lythrum alatum Winged Loosestrife 0.20 6.25 0.02 Summer
Mimulus ringens Monkey Flower 0.15 11.40 0.01 Summer
Monarda fistulosa Wild Bergamot 0.75 1.74 0.07 Summer
Ratibida pinnata Yellow Coneflower 1.45 1.44 0.13 Summer
Silphium perfoliatum Cup Plant 2.40 0.11 0.22 Summer
Solidago rigida Stiff Goldenrod 1.50 2.03 0.14 Fall
Sparganium eurycarpum Giant Burreed 2.00 0.03 0.18 Summer
Symphyotrichum novae-angliae New England Aster 0.75 1.64 0.07 Fall
Thalictrum dasycarpum Purple Meadow Rue 0.50 0.33 0.05 Summer
Verbena hastata Blue Vervain 1.00 3.07 0.09 Summer
Vernonia fasciculata Ironweed 2.75 2.18 0.25 Summer
Veronicastrum virginicum Culver's Root 0.30 7.93 0.03 Summer
Zizia aurea Golden Alexanders 1.20 0.44 0.11 Spring
100.00 118.78 9.00
Seeds/sq ft:119.00
Grass Species:8
Sedges/Rushes:5
Forb Species:22
Basin Mix
MNL Stormwater
Seed mixes are subject to change based on availability
Similar Minnesota state seed mixes:
BWSR Stormwater South and West 33-261
Wet Meadow South and West 34-272
bwsr.state.mn.us/seed-mixes
MNL
June 5, 2024
To: Paul Robinson, Rachel Development
From: Vernon Swing, PE
Re: Trip Generation Study for Eberhard Property, Lake Elmo, MN
Per your request, S2 Traffic Solutions, LLC has conducted a trip generation analysis for the build out of
the proposed 64 single family residential development on the Eberhard Property, in Lake Elmo, MN. The
proposed development would construct 64 single family residential units on the 78.24 acre site located
on the west side of Inwood Avenue N. The site is located at 2298 Inwood Ave N, south of Stillwater Blvd
and north of 15th St N. Access to the site is proposed via a new connection to Inwood Ave N at 24 th St N,
as well as from a new connection on the west side of the site to the property to north which indirectly
connects to Inwood Ave N via 26th St N and 27th St N. This secondary connection will primarily serve as
emergency vehicle access if 24th St N is blocked. It is noted, the development will also include the
construction of a southbound dedicated right-turn lane and a northbound dedicated left-turn lane on
Inwood Ave N at the new 24th St N intersection.
To determine the trip generation potential for the proposed Eberhard Property residential development,
S2 Traffic Solutions assumed the Single-Family Detached Housing category, Land Use Code 210, as
described by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation, 11th Edition. Table 1
summarizes the findings.
Table 1
Trip Generation
Land Use Units ITE Code AM Peak Trips PM Peak Trips Daily Trips
Enter Exit Enter Exit
Single Family Residential 64 210 12 38 41 24 669
TOTAL 50 65 669
As shown in Table 1, when fully built out and occupied the residential development is forecast to
generate 50 AM Peak hour trips distributed as 12 entering and 38 exiting trips; is forecast to generate 65
PM Peak hour trips distributed as 41 entering and 24 exiting trips; and is forecast to generate 669 daily
trips.
These trips will be distributed to the local roadway network via the new 24 th St N access to Inwood Ave
N. Review of traffic counts in the area, as provided by Washington County, the majority will travel to the
regional roadways I-94, I-694 and TH 5 via Inwood Ave N and its connections at Stillwater Blvd to the
north, and 10th St N or I-94 to the south. A review of the traffic counts taken in 2024 indicate that 40
percent of the site generated traffic will be distributed to/from the north on Inwood Ave N, and 60
2 | P a g e E b e r h a r d P r o p e r t y , L a k e E l m o , M N
percent of the site generated traffic will be distributed to/from the south on Inwood Ave N. In other
words:
Entering in the AM Peak – 5 trips will enter the site from the north by turning right from Inwood
Ave N on 24th St N, and 7 trips will enter the site from the south by turning left from northbound
Inwood Ave N to westbound 24th St N.
Exiting in the AM Peak – 15 trips will turn left from eastbound 24 th St N to northbound Inwood
Ave N, and 23 trips will turn right from eastbound 24th St N to southbound Inwood Ave N.
Entering in the PM Peak – 16 trips will turn right from southbound Inwood Ave N to the
westbound 24th St N, and 25 trips will turn left from northbound Inwood Ave to westbound 24 th
St N.
Exiting in the PM Peak – 10 trips will turn left from eastbound 24 th St N to northbound Inwood
Ave N, and 14 trips will turn right from eastbound 24th St N to southbound Inwood Ave N.
The magnitude of traffic generated by the development of the Eberhard Property as 64 single family
homes will not result in a change in traffic operations along the roadway system serving the site. As
mentioned above the development of the site will include a southbound dedicated right-turn lane from
Inwood Lane N to 24th St N and a northbound dedicated left-turn lane on Inwood Ave N to allow turning
vehicles a refuge from through traffic on Inwood Ave N. No other improvements are necessary to
accommodate traffic generated by the 64-family home development.
Please contact Vernon Swing at vswingtraffic@gmail.com or 612-968-4142 with any questions.
PAGE 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 28, 2024
To: Nathan Fuesrt, Planning Consultant Re: Highpointe Crossing (Rachel Development)
Cc: Jason Stopia, Community Development Director Preliminary Plat/Plans
Marty Powers, Public Works Director
Chad Isakson, PE, Assistant City Engineer
From: Jack Griffin, PE, City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Highpointe Crossing Preliminary Plat/Plans (2298 Inwood
Avenue) received on June 10, 2024. The submittal consisted of the following documentation:
Highpointe Crossing Preliminary Plat/Plans dated June 7, 2024.
Stormwater Management Narrative dated June 5, 2024 and misc. supporting documents.
Community Wastewater Treatment System dated June 4, 2024.
STATUS/FINDINGS: A condition of Preliminary Plat approval, if granted, must require the applicant to revise and
resubmit Preliminary Plat/Plans to address each review comment and condition of approval to the satisfaction of
City staff prior to the City accepting a Final Plat/Plan application. Engineering has prepared the following review
comments to be addressed. A point‐by‐point response letter must accompany the plan resubmittal.
It is further recommended that it be a condition of Preliminary Plat/Plan approval that all subdivision improvements
constructed to support the development must be designed and constructed in accordance with the City Engineering
Design Standards Manual dated January 2022, unless approved otherwise by the City.
Also, see the attached supplemental stormwater review memo prepared by Bolton and Menk dated June 25, 2024.
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND EASEMENTS
1. The Preliminary Plat and Plans must be revised to show Outlot ownership and dedication. Both Outlot A
and Outlot B should be shown as HOA owned. Drainage and utility easements have been shown over all of
Outlot A and Outlot B as required.
2. Stormwater Ponds are required to be placed in Outlots dedicated to the City for ownership and
maintenance. The PUD narrative seeks flexibility to allow the two stormwater ponds to be located on HOA
owned Outlots with drainage and utility easements.
3. Consideration should be made to create a dedicated Outlot for the Community Wastewater Treatment
System and potentially the two stormwater ponds. The dedicated Outlots may be necessary to ensure that
the infrastructure maintenance, repair and replacement are not encumbered by conservation easements.
4. The Preliminary Plat must be revised to provide additional right‐of‐way width for a portion of 24th Street
North to accommodate the required turn lanes at the intersection with Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13).
5. Off‐site temporary construction easements must be obtained and provided to make the required street
connection to Imperial Avenue and associated grading tie‐ins. The temporary construction easement must
be obtained using the City standard form of easement agreement with the City named an additional party
to the easement. The easement must be shown on the Preliminary Plans.
PAGE 2 of 6
6. When not located within the public right‐of‐way, minimum 30‐foot easements are required for public
watermain and storm sewer, centered over the pipe/hydrant/structure and without encroachments from
retaining walls, trees, other small/dry utilities, or storm water management BMPs. Utility easements must
be dedicated to the City as part of the plat. All utility easements must be shown on all grading, utility, and
landscape plans.
7. If not address through a right‐of‐way permit, the privately owned sanitary sewer collection system will
require a utility easement agreement as prepared by the City Attorney and Public Works Director, to
address the ongoing ownership and maintenance of the private sanitary sewer collection system located
within the public right‐of‐way.
STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION
1. Inwood Avenue Right‐of‐way dedication. Right‐of‐way dedication will be required as part of the Plat
including 75‐feet as measured from the existing roadway centerline. Right‐of‐way dedication has been
shown on the Preliminary Plat and Plans as required.
2. Access Management. Site access is shown from a new street (24th Street North) extending west into the
subdivision from Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13). The Access location is subject to final approval by Washington
County.
3. Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) Improvements. The development will be responsible to make improvements to
Inwood Avenue at developer’s sole cost. Improvements will include right and center left turn lanes at the
intersection of the new local street (24th Street north) consistent with Washington County Standards. The
Preliminary Plans include turn lane improvements as required. The turn lane plans are subject to review
and final approval by Washington County.
4. Secondary access to the site is required for residential units exceeding 30 homes. Secondary access will be
accomplished through a connection to Imperial Avenue, connecting into the existing Lake Elmo Heights
residential neighborhood.
5. Phasing Plan. The development phasing will require the secondary connection to Imperial Avenue to be
operational before the 31st building permit will be issued. Access for the initial phases of development
should be prohibited from Imperial Avenue to avoid construction traffic through the existing Lake Elmo
Heights neighborhood. Temporary cul‐de‐sacs meeting City design standards will be required as the
development is phased.
A phasing plan was included in the Narrative of the application. The Preliminary Plans must be revised
to incorporate the Phasing Plan as part of the Preliminary Plan set.
Phase 1 of the phasing plan includes 31 lots. The Phasing Plan must be revised to show one of the 31
lots as an Outlot in Phase 1 to be platted as a lot with Phase 2 and available for a building permit once
the secondary roadway connection is complete.
The Phasing Plan must include a temporary cul‐de‐sac consistent with City design standards at the end
of the Phase 1 street. Add City detail 807B (temporary cul‐de‐sac) to the Preliminary Plan detail sheets.
6. The public streets are proposed at 28‐ft wide within a 60‐ft right‐of‐way. No Parking signs will be required
as part of the final construction plans to designate parking on one side, as determined by the Fire
Department and Public Works Director.
7. All streets must be designed to meet the City’s Engineering Design Standards, including cross slopes,
boulevard grades and utility easement grades. Surmountable concrete curb and gutter shall be installed
along the frontage of properties with future driveways and B618 curb installed along entrance roads.
8. Street intersections must connect at 90 degrees and maintain 50‐feet of tangent with maximum slopes of
2.5%. Residential maximum longitudinal grade is 6%. All cul‐de‐sacs must meet City design standards for
minimum diameter of 90‐feet, minimum right‐of‐way diameter of 120‐feet, and signed “No parking”
throughout.
The Preliminary Plans must be revised to incorporate proposed street improvement Plan Sheets,
including vertical profiles meeting City design standards. Minimum vertical curve K‐values of K=19
(crest) and K=37 (sag), including stop conditions.
9. The street connection to the Lake Elmo Heights neighborhood at Imperial Avenue will require the removal
of the existing cul‐de‐sac.
PAGE 3 of 6
Additional design detail is required to support the proposed street connection at the existing Lake Elmo
Heights cul‐de‐sac. As presented to design appears to raise the grades adjacent to an existing property
and will require off‐site temporary construction easements. It is recommended that the design match
into the existing conditions to minimize impacts to existing properties and to alter the transition of the
street into the subdivision. A detailed vertical profile is needed to review the proposed street
connection and drainage.
The temporary easement area must be shown on the preliminary plans.
10. The Preliminary Plans must be revised to include a dedicated right and left right turn lane along 24th Street
North at the subdivision entrance at Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13). Additional right‐of‐way will be required to
accommodate the turn lane. A typical section must be added to the Preliminary Plans to address the turn
lane details and additional right‐of‐way. The Preliminary Plat must be revised to include the additional right‐
of‐way.
11. Sidewalks. City design standards require a six (6) foot sidewalk along all residential streets. The Preliminary
Plans show a 6‐ft. concrete sidewalk along the south and west sides of the proposed streets as required,
except that no sidewalk is shown along the short stub of the proposed cul‐de‐sac.
The Preliminary Plans should be revised to reflect a concrete sidewalk along the full extents of 24th
Street, thereby eliminating the short segment of bituminous trail (400+/‐ feet) in lieu of sidewalk, and
creating a consistent pedestrian facility.
Revise the typical section for 24th Street and Imperial Avenue to provide a consistent pedestrian path
The transition from trail to sidewalk is not recommended as presented on the Preliminary Plans.
12. Trail Requirements. The Open Space PUD ordinance requires a trail system to be established equal in length
to the sum of the centerline length of all public roads within the development. The Open Space PUD
ordinance also requires all trails to be paved. The Preliminary Plans and Narrative propose an extensive
grass trail system to be privately owned and maintained.
Should the unpaved trails be approved by the City, it is strongly recommended that the trails be paved
in the vicinity of each street crossing, providing paved trails within the full extents of the right‐of‐way.
13. Ten (10) foot utility easements are required on either side of all public right‐of‐way. The 10‐ft. easement
corridor must be preserved for the installation of small/dry utilities and remain free from all
encroachments, and graded to a maximum 4% grade per city detail 805.
Landscape plan revisions are necessary to remove all tree and monument encroachments.
14. Driveways. No driveways were shown as part of the Preliminary Plans. All driveways must be installed in
accordance with all city ordinances, including minimum distance from intersections, driveway angles
installed at 90‐degrees as they cross public right‐of‐way, and distance between driveways. Revisions to the
lot layouts may be necessary for driveway compliance.
15. Streetlights. A separate street light plan was submitted that remains inconsistent with the City design
standards in regards to the standard fixture and pole. The City requires the fixtures and poles to be Xcel
Energy fixture/poles, installed by the developer, and owned and maintained by Xcel Energy.
Street light fixtures shall by 4000 Lumen Type B Traditional Colonial LED (Black in Color)
Street light pole shall be 15 ft. Washington Fluted Aluminum pole (Black in Color).
The Preliminary Plans should be revised to include a street pavement marking, signing and lighting plan
as required by the City design standards. The street light locations appear to be consistent with City
requirements, including at the entrance at Inwood Avenue, at the intersection with Imperial Court, at
the end of the cul‐de‐sac of Imperial Court, and at each trail crossing.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT/GRADING
1. The proposed development is subject to a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) meeting State, Valley
Branch Watershed District (VBWD) and City rules. A VBWD permit is required. Storm water facilities
proposed as part of the development to meet State and watershed permitting requirements must be
constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual dated January 2022.
2. Preliminary Plat approval must be conditioned on revisions to the SWMP as follows:
The SWMP must be combined into a Report document with a Table of Contents, executive summary
and all supporting calculations. The Report must be signed by a registered professional engineer.
PAGE 4 of 6
The executive summary must include a summary of existing and proposed curve numbers, summary of
stormwater basins with their resulting normal water level (NWL) and high‐water level (HWL) for each
NURP pond, and a summary of the volume extraction requirements and extraction volume provided by
each pond. The pre and post development NWL and HWL must also be provided for all wetlands.
3. The SWMP is required to verify that rate control requirements are met for all points of discharge from the
site. Curve numbers must be adjusted per the attached Memo prepared by Bolton and Menk dated June
25, 2024.
4. Revisions to the volume control requirements and water quality treatment must be completed and
resubmitted for further review; per the attached Memo prepared by Bolton and Menk dated June 25, 2024.
5. Stormwater Reuse System. The SWMP must indicate that the stormwater reuse system must be provided
in accordance with the City design standards for Stormwater Reuse.
6. For stormwater reuse systems, City design standards require that flood management provisions be
implemented for all new developments assuming no storm water reuse irrigation is operating. The SWMP
executive summary must be revised to clarify that all 100‐year HWL flood elevations were determined
assuming no volume reduction is occurring for storm water reuse irrigation at the time of the flood event.
7. The SWMP executive summary must include reuse system design and operating criteria, including
identification for the collection area for the reuse pond, a summary of the dedicated irrigation areas, by lot
and Outlot, the assumed application rate and frequency, the storage requirement for the reuse pond, and
the storage area available.
8. Stormwater Irrigation Plan Sheet. The Preliminary Irrigation Map must be revised to include the following
information for City review, and must be revised as needed to meet the following design criteria:
Area to be irrigated with a chart summarizing the area calculations together with an exhibit. For these
calculations the contributing area for each private lot must be limited to the maximum allowable
impervious surface. Areas with slopes of 3H:1V or greater should be removed, as well as removing all
drainage ditches and swale areas.
Identification of the source pond, pond name and depiction of the drainage area to source water.
Location of reuse system components, including the pump, intake from pond, usage meter, location of
potable connection (if applicable), location of backflow prevention device (if applicable), location and
type of filters (if applicable), location of debris collection sumps (if applicable).
Location of maintenance access.
Drawdown elevation of pond.
Irrigation pipe routing that is proposed. Irrigation system supply and feeder lines must be shown to not
encroach City drainage and utility easements with the exceptions of perpendicular crossings. If
irrigation piping is proposed within any City right‐of‐way, the detailed piping locations must be provided
for City review and approval.
9. The Reuse Pond should be revised as necessary to meet the following design criteria:
The Reuse Pond should be sized to provide a minimum of 4 times the weekly irrigation demand within
the reuse zone. The reuse zone is the allowable drawdown zone of the pond for water reuse and is
defined as the volume between the “off” elevation and the normal water level.
The Reuse Pond should be designed so a minimum depth of four feet remains below the reuse zone of
the pond.
The Pond reuse zone shall have a slope shallower than 5H:1V and be stabilized with tolerant vegetation
or bank armoring. The grading plans must be revised accordingly.
10. Revise the grading plans to provide the NWL and HWL for all water bodies including NURP ponds and
wetlands. HWL contours must be shown on the plans to verify that flood levels are contained.
11. All wetlands and wetland buffers must be protected by easement and may not encroach individual lots.
12. Minimum floor elevations must be at least 2 feet higher than the adjacent 100‐year HWL elevation. Also,
all low opening elevations for all buildings must be at least 1‐ft higher than any adjacent emergency
overflow elevation (EOF).
13. All localized low points must be protected within a drainage easement. All localized low points must include
the 100‐year HWL and HWL contour on the grading plans.
PAGE 5 of 6
14. The storm sewer system shall be designed to meet all City design standards including RCP pipe materials
and maintaining the minimum pipe cover of 3 feet. Drain tile is required as part of the city standard street
section at all localized low points in the street. Drain tile considerations may impact the storm sewer design
and depth requirements at low points. Per city requirements all storm sewer pipe easements must be a
minimum 30‐feet in width.
15. See attached Memo prepared by Bolton and Menk dated June 25, 2024 for additional storm sewer and
stormwater management comments.
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
1. Connection to the municipal water system is available near the proposed development in two locations.
The applicant will be responsible for connecting to the existing 16‐inch trunk watermain located along
Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13). An 8‐inch ductile iron watermain will need to be extended along the new streets
into and throughout the development at developer’s sole cost, and to serve each proposed parcel in the
Subdivision.
2. A second connection point is required to create a looped watermain system, connecting to the existing 8‐
inch watermain located along Imperial Avenue in the adjacent Lake Elmo Heights neighborhood. This
secondary connection will require the installation of a pressure reduction valve (PRV) as the Lake Elmo
Heights neighborhood is located in the intermediate pressure zone while the Highpointe OP parcel is
located in the high‐pressure zone.
3. The Preliminary Plans show the required watermain improvements to serve the subdivision. The Pressure
Reducing Valve (PRV) and vault will need to be relocated so that the valve and vault reside outside of the
street pavement surface. Additional drainage and utility easement may be necessary for the revised PRV
location.
4. No watermain oversizing reimbursement is applicable for this development.
5. The developer will be responsible to place hydrants and water system valves internal to the site as
determined by the Lake Elmo Public Works Director and Fire Department. Hydrant and system valve
locations will be reviewed and finalized as part of the final construction plans.
WATEWATER MANAGEMENT / SANITARY SEWER
1. The proposed development is located outside of the City designated Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA)
for sanitary sewer service. The developer is therefore responsible to provide wastewater management
infrastructure to support the proposed development in perpetuity, including professional management of
the system. All sewer infrastructure must be provided at the developer’s sole cost and will remain privately
owned and maintained.
2. The City will require the private sanitary sewer collection system to be constructed as a gravity sewer
system meeting City design standards even though it will remain privately owned and maintained. All
sanitary sewer manholes must be located at the street centerline. Additional manholes may be required to
maintain utility pipe alignments centered within the street pavements.
3. Grading revisions are recommended to increase pipe cover over the sanitary sewer run from the
wastewater system tanks to ½ way between SSMH‐1 and SSMH‐2. Additional pipe cover is strongly
recommended over pipe insulation along this stretch of the conveyance system.
4. The privately owned sanitary sewer collection system will require either a utility easement agreement as
prepared by the City Attorney and Public Works Director, or the facility will require a City right‐of‐way
permit to address the ongoing ownership and maintenance of the private sanitary sewer collection system
located within the public right‐of‐way.
5. A Communal Septic System is proposed to be located in the 200 ft. buffer area, including both the primary
and secondary community drain fields. The primary system is shown in the northeast quadrant of the site,
with additional area reserved for secondary treatment systems to the west of the primary system. A
community wastewater treatment system serving 65 Lots will exceed a 10,000 gpd capacity and will
therefore require a NPDES permit and be regulated through the MPCA.
PAGE 6 of 6
6. The Community Wastewater Treatment System design remains incomplete as submitted. Preliminary Plat
approval must be conditioned on revisions to the Community Wastewater Treatment System design
documents as follows:
The Community Wastewater Treatment System (CWTS) Report must be signed by a qualified licensed
professional.
The CWTS Report must identify all permits necessary to construct, own and operate the proposed
facility, including the minimum required Professional Service Operation credentials.
The CWTS Report must be revised to address LEC 105.12.1050 (b)(1).
The CWTS Plans must be incorporated into the Preliminary and Final infrastructure Plan set as part of
the required utility infrastructure to serve the development. Plan sheets must fully detail all proposed
infrastructure components including labeling and dimensions. All plan sheets must include title blocks
identifying the proposed project, revision dates and professional certifications.
The grading plans must include the proposed grading for the pressure bed areas and showing how the
pressure bed grading will match into the existing north property line.
The primary and secondary pressure bed areas must be clearly labeled and dimensioned on the grading
and utility plans, demonstrating a minimum reserved area of 52,500 sq. ft for both the primary and
secondary systems. All setbacks and buffers for the system must be clearly labeled and dimensioned.
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
1. The Preliminary Landscape Plans, in electronic format, are not legible. Revised electronic plans must be
submitted is clear, legible plan format.
2. The Landscape Plans must be revised to further detail the location of all proposed trees within the public
right‐of‐way. All typical sections must be updated to include boulevard tree locations consistent with City
design standards. Landscape Plans must include notes to identify tree locations with respect to back of curb.
3. The Landscape Plans must be revised to include notes to identify that all trees must be at least 10 feet from
all sanitary sewer, storm sewer and watermain pipes. Dimensions must be shown between each tree and
utility (including private water/sewer service lines to each property) with less than 15 feet of separation.
4. Significant landscaping improvements have been proposed at each subdivision entrance. The landscaping
must be revised to eliminate all tree and monument encroachments from the 10‐ft. small/dry utility
easement corridor.
DETAILS
1. Add City Standard Detail 416 and revise pond grading to meet City design standards.
2. Revise City Details 200A, 201, 400A, and 901 with details dated March 2023.
3. Revise City Details 207A, 207B, and Engineering Spec Section 3310 with standards dated February 2024.
4. Revise the typical sections shown on Sheet 8 to include all boulevard design elements as shown on City
Detail 805, including boulevard trees, and topsoil and sod requirements.
5. Revise irrigation basin cross section to show maximum basin slopes of 5H:1V for the irrigation draw down
(per the Minnesota Stormwater Manual). Revise grading plans accordingly.
6. Add City details for irrigation reuse including, C‐01, C‐03, C‐04, and C‐05.
H:\LKELMN\N15110350\Highpointe Crossing\Correspondence\110350 Draft Stormwater Comments HighPointeCrossing Development
2024-06-25.docx
MEMORANDUM
Date: 06/25/2024
To: Cara L. Geheren, P.E.
From: Brent Johnson, P.E.
Subject: High Pointe Crossing Development Plan Review
City of Lake Elmo, MN
Project No.: N15.110350
This memo summarizes the review of stormwater related documents submitted by James R. Hill, Inc.,
received 06/18/2024. The submittal included plans, stormwater narrative, and storm sewer design
information:
• 02-Highpointe Crossing-Preplat Submittal 2024-06-06.pdf
• 03a-Highpointe Crossing – Stormwater Narrative 06-05-24.pdf
• 03b – Existing Drainage 06-05-24.hcp
• 03c – Proposed Drainage 06-05-24.hcp
• 03d-Highpointe Crossing – Existing HydroCAD 06-05-24.pdf
• 03e-Highpointe Crossing – Proposed HydroCAD 06-05-24.pdf
• 03f -Highpointe Crossing – 10Yr Storm Design 06-03-24.pdf
• 03g- Highpointe Crossing – 10Yr Storm Map 06-03-24.pdf
• 03h- Highpointe Crossing – NURP 1P 06-05-24.pdf
• 03i- Highpointe Crossing – NURP 2P 06-05-24.pdf
• 03j- Highpointe Crossing – VBWD Calculator 06-05-24.pdf
• 10 - 23-01-13-Highpointe Crossing WCA Delineation – Notice of Decision. Pdf
• 12 – 22-03-26 Highpointe Crossing – Haugo Geo Report Bundle Final.pdf
1. Curve Numbers: Existing ag cropland areas are modeled in HydroCAD with a curve number of 72
(for conditions of small grain, straight row and crop residue (SR + CR), good condition, HSG B).
Proposed conditions pervious areas are generally modeled with a curve number of 61 ( for
conditions with greater than 75% grass cover, good condition, HSG B). These existing and
proposed conditions pervious area curve numbers don't quite comply with Valley Branch
Watershed rule requirements:
“The runoff curve number for existing agriculture areas shall be less than or equal to the
developed condition curve number.”1
Please adjust the HydroCAD curve numbers to comply with the watershed district rule or explain
the reasoning.
1 Valley Branch Watershed District Rules, Rule 2 Stormwater Management Standard 5, 2-9-2023
HighPointe Crossing Development Stormwater Review
Page: 2
2. Volume Control and Water Quality Treatment: The Valley Branch Watershed requires volume
control and water quality treatment for 1.3 inches of runoff from the sum of new and fully
reconstructed impervious surfaces (1.3 inches over 14.6 acres = 1.58 acre-feet).
o Two proposed wet sediment (NURP) ponds will provide water quality treatment for the
development along with a proposed stormwater reuse system. J.R. Hill, Inc. submitted
Valley Branch Stormwater Reuse Calculator results indicating 87.4% reduction in
average annual runoff volume. It appears that the computed 87.4% reduction in
average annual runoff volume attributed to the reuse system is for the watershed area
(51.97 acres @ 25.9% impervious) tributary to the stormwater harvest and irrigation
system rather than for the full site (78.8 acres @ 18.5% impervious). Please compute
the reduction in runoff volume for the full site and please also submit the MIDS
calculator analysis referenced in the VBWD Reuse Summary Table.
o If meeting the total volume control requirement is infeasible, please document the
reasoning and analyze the flexible treatment options (FTOs) outlined in the Valley
Branch Watershed rules (for example FTO1: retain 0.55 inches of runoff from
impervious and 75% TP removal).
3. Stormwater Reuse Pond: The MPCA Stormwater Manual lists a number of design
considerations for multipurpose stormwater reuse ponds. Please provide information regarding
the following:
o Does a drawdown limit need to be set…to maintain sufficient water levels for pond
aesthetics?
o Will riprap or other measures be used to address potential erosion from pond inlets
under low pond water levels?
o
4. Pond 2P: Please label the location and elevation of the EOF on Sheet 3.24.
5. Pond 2AP: Please show pond 2AP on the plan sheets 3.20 and 3.24 so the plans match the
HydroCAD model. Please also label the NWL, HWL and EOF elevations of the pond.
6. Pond Liner: Valley Branch Watershed Rule 2 Standard 10.D requires: “Impermeable liners shall
be used at ponds used as reservoirs to draw irrigation water.” Please show the pond liner in the
plans or explain why a liner is not feasible.
7. Storm Drain Design: The 27" RC Pipe segment between 123 and 122 is at 8% grade with design
velocity of 22 ft./s.--exceeding the 15 ft./s. maximum city standard. Please reduce the design
pipe velocity by adjusting grades or explain why adjustments are not feasible.
8. Swale 2% Grade: Sheet 3.22 shows swales along Lots 1 through 10 of Block 1 and Sheet 3.23
shows swales along lots 10 through 20 of Block 4, and Sheet 3.24 shows swales along Lots 1
through 6 of Block 2 and Lots 1 through 3 of Block 3. that appear to have grades less than the
city design standard of 2%. Please revise the grades or explain why this is not feasible.
9. SWPPP: The erosion control sheets and SWPPP were reviewed using a checklist from the MPCA.
The SWPPP might be improved with the following:
o Identify those responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the permanent
stormwater treatment systems.
HighPointe Crossing Development Stormwater Review
Page: 3
o When determined, identify the person knowledgeable and experienced in the
application of erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices
(BMPs) who will oversee the implementation of the SWPPP.
o Describe whether infiltration is prohibited or the other reason(s) why infiltration basins
have not been proposed as stormwater BMPS.
o Attach or reference the stormwater reports, model summaries, and Geotechnical
Reports.
Memorandum
800 Washington Avenue North, Suite 103
Minneapolis, MN 55401
June 26, 2024
TO: SOPHIA JENSEN
FROM: SARAH EVENSON, PLA
RE: CITY OF LAKE ELMO LANDSCAPE AND TREE PRESERVATION PLAN REVIEW:
RACHEL DEVELOPMENT | HIGHPOINTE CROSSING PRELIMINARY PLAT/PUD SUBMITTAL
SUBMITTALS
1. Rachel Development Sketch Plan dated 9/21/23 and Landscape Theming Concept dated 9/18/23.
Both received 9/25/23.
2. Preliminary Plat/PUD Submittal dated 6/7/2024.
REVIEW HISTORY
Initial sketch plan review on September 29, 2023.
Preliminary Plat / PUD review on June 26, 2024.
LOCATION: PID# 2102921320001 The North ½ of the SW ¼, Section 21, Township 29, Range 21,
Washington County Except all that part of the North 75.00 feet of the East 150.00 feet of the North ½ of
the SW ¼ of Section 21, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, MN. Address: 2298
Inwood Ave. N., Lake Elmo MN 55042
CURRENT LAND USE CATEGORY: RR – Rural Residential. Future zoning: Open Space (OS) PUD
ADJACENT AND SURROUNDING LAND USE: RE- Residential Estate to the North and South,
PF—Public Facilities to the East, City of Oakdale R4—Middle Density to the West (south) and R2-Low
Density to the West (north).
SPECIAL LANDSCAPE PROVISIONS: 200’ yard buffers required for OS
TREE PRESERVATION PLAN: 105. 12. 470
» The tree preservation plan has been submitted and will meet code requirements upon the inclusion of the
following on the plans:
- Identify locations of tree protection fencing around significant tree species identified to be preserved
- Include Lake Elmo’s city standard tree protection detail
LANDSCAPE PLAN: 105.12.480
» Landscape plans have been submitted that require the following adjustments prior to approval:
- Provide plans that illustrate seeding, sodding, and ground cover materials across all disturbed portions
of the site
- Include city standard landscape plan notes and planting details
June 26, 2024
Highpointe Crossing
Memorandum 2
- Provide a landscape plan sheet showing proposed trees across the full site with keyed areas for each of
the zoomed in plan areas for legibility
- Planting plans do not meet the required minimum percentage of evergreens. A minimum of 25% of
plantings must be evergreen per code. Applicant appears to have the space to plant additional
evergreen trees around the site perimeter, which would contribute to resolving the adjacent neighbors’
concerns about viewsheds and bring the development closer to meeting the OP PUD landscaping
requirements. Understanding that the intent of this site is primarily to reflect a prairie landscape, if
additional evergreens are proposed where they contribute to buffering and the minimum requirement
is not yet met, we will consider waiving the remainder required.
The proposed Techny Upright Arborvitae shown in the main entrance planting plan may be
counted toward this requirement but does not appear to be reflected in the tree schedule.
- Please provide calculations on the planting plans listing total disturbed area and total linear feet of
street so that landscaping requirements can be confirmed.
- The narrative indicates that the proposer requests the following landscape-related variances:
1. 50’ street tree spacing vs 30’
o Assuming roughly 6500 linear feet of roadway based on the narrative (please confirm), 217
street trees are required, but only 130 are proposed.
o Street trees may be planted in clusters to achieve the requirement rather than individually,
which may be an option to increase tree quantities in some areas. While it makes sense to
grant a variance beneath the power lines where trees are not allowed to be planted and in
areas where minimum utility offsets cannot be achieved, 30’ spacing is otherwise not
unreasonable. Please see how many street trees can reasonably be planted along the
proposed roadways beginning with a 30’ spacing and adjusting to ensure required utility
offsets.
2. 5 trees / lot rather than 10
o The currently proposed 450 trees do not meet even the minimum landscape requirements
of a typical development, which would be required include 353 trees (at 5 trees/acre
disturbed with 70.72 acres disturbed) in addition to the required street trees. Given that
this is an open space PUD and flexibility is already being requested for street trees,
additional tree plantings are warranted. The applicant’s efforts to restore native prairie and
pollinator habitat are valuable; however, even native savannas have up to 25 trees per acre,
and there is plenty of space on site for additional tree planting without compromising the
open, rolling prairie aesthetic. Please adjust the plan to add in additional trees, especially
along the site boundaries, and see what makes reasonable sense without shading out the
intended native seeding. Any tree plantings within the seeded prairie should be fire
tolerant to withstand prescribed burns.
June 26, 2024
Highpointe Crossing
Memorandum 3
RECOMMENDATION:
Submittal does not meet criteria for approval. Prepare and resubmit tree preservation and landscape plans
per memo instruction for future review.
Sarah Evenson, PLA (MN)
City of Lake Elmo Municipal Landscape Architect
P: (262) 391-7653
E: Sarah@hkgi.com
PUBLIC WORKS
Wayne Sandberg, P.E., Director, County Engineer
Frank D. Ticknor, P.E., Deputy Director
September 15, 2023
Paul Robinson
Development Director
Rachael Development
4180 Napier Court NE
St. Michael, MN 55376
Comments on 2298 Inwood Sketch Plan
Dear Paul,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the sketch plan for the site located at 2298
Inwood located along CSAH 13. We are grateful for Rachael Development reaching out to the County to
receive initial feedback on the site plan before moving forward on the project. Our development review
team has reviewed the sketch plan proposal and offers the following comments.
CSAH 13 at this location is currently classified as an “A-Minor Expander” roadway. The Washington
County 2040 Comprehensive Plan contains access criteria for county roads related to spacing, sight lines,
and availability of local road connections. CSAH 13 requires preserving 150 feet of right-of-way for this
portion of CSAH 13. The site plan will need to indicate a dedication of 75 feet of right-of-way along the
parcel to meet the needs identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
Washington County access spacing guidelines for minor arterial roads is ¼ of a mile. The development
proposes accessing CSAH 13 just south of Lake Elmo’s booster station. The existing intersections located
at 21st and 26th Streets are approximately 2400 feet apart. The ideal spacing for the site access would be
for it to be located at approximately the center of this parcel. Deviation from normal access spacing can
sometimes be considered in favor of other access management goals, such as removal of other access
and/or locations with improved sight distance. In this instance, access near the north end of the parcel
might be considered in pairing with the removal of 26th Street (conversion to cul-de-sac) and the city
utility driveway from CSAH 13, along with removal of any inplace driveways or field access points along
the parcel.
Access permits will be needed to construct new street connections within the county right-of-way. Based
on number of units, the development will be required to construct turn lanes and connect to adjacent
developments wherever stubs are provided as a condition of county road access, which in this case
would be Imperial Ave. We appreciate the foresight in connecting this development to Imperial Avenue
North. The plans should identify trail connections within the site and along CSAH 13.
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.
A great place to live, work and play…today and tomorrow
Government Center | 14949 62nd Street North | P. O. Box 6 | Stillwater, MN 55082-0006
P: 651-430-6001 | F: 651-430-6017 | TTY: 651-430-6246
www.co.washington.mn.us
Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer
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. 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 the County highway right of way as it relates
to the development. As the development progresses, a plan set will be required with the application and
include any grading, culvert installation, water and sewer services, parallel trail development, signage,
and any landscaping and other improvements within the County right of way.
Additionally, the developer or the City will need to submit a drainage report and calculations for review
of any downstream impacts to the county drainage system. Along with the drainage calculations, we will
request written conclusions that the volume and rate of stormwater run-off into the county right of way
will stay the same as part of the project.
All utility connections to County highway right of way for the development require Washington County
Right of Way permits. Typically, these utility connection permits are the responsibility of the utility
companies.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on the sketch plan for 2298 Inwood. We look
forward to continuing to work with you and the City of Lake Elmo to ensure that development in this
area is successful and well-served by the transportation network.
If you have any questions, please get in touch with me at 651-430-4307 or
daniel.elder@co.washington.mn.us
Sincerely,
Daniel Elder
Planner II
A great place to live, work and play…today and tomorrow
Government Center | 14949 62nd Street North | P. O. Box 6 | Stillwater, MN 55082-0006
P: 651-430-6001 | F: 651-430-6017 | TTY: 651-430-6246
www.co.washington.mn.us
Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer
Cc (email only):
Sophia Jensen, City Planner City of Lake Elmo
Wayne Sandberg, Public Works Director/County Engineer
Frank Ticknor, Deputy Director Public Works
Lyssa Leitner, Public Works Planning Director
Joe Gustafson, Traffic Engineer
Kevin Peterson, Design Engineer