HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-26 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPlanning Commission Meeting
3880 Laverne Avenue North
Monday June 8th, 2026
6:30 p.m.
AGENDA
Pledge Of Allegiance
Approve Agenda
Approve Minutes
05 -11 -26 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
3 - PZ MINUTES 5 -11 -26.PDF
Public Hearing
Limerick Village Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, And Planned Unit Development
Maplewood Development has submitted new Preliminary Plat, Zoning Map
Amendment, and Planned Unit Development requests for a residential development on
about 79 acres (PIDs: 36.029.21.42.0001 and 36.029.21.41.0001). The proposal
includes approximately 679 residential homes with mix of single family, attached
townhomes, and apartment units. A change in the property's zoning and approval of
the PUD will allow for the development to meet City standards. The development will
be served by city water and sewer.
4A PC MEMO - LIMERICK VILLAGE PRELIMINARY PUD AND PLAT.PDF
4A PRESENTATION LIMERICK VILLAGE PRELIM PLAT AND PUD.PDF
Inwood Commercial Preliminary Plat
Vadnais Associates has submitted a preliminary plat for a 5-lot commercial
subdivision located at PID 33.029.21.12.0006. No tenant approvals are proposed with
this application. The property is a part of the 2014 InWood Development master plan.
4B PRESENTATION - INWOOD COMMERCIAL PRELIM PLAT.PDF
4B PC MEMO - INWOOD COMMERCIAL PRELIMINARY PLAT.PDF
Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan - Population Forecast Update
As a part of routine coordination with the Metropolitan Council, the City Council of
Lake Elmo has initiated an update to the population forecasts found in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed revisions to the plan modify the population,
housing units, and jobs expected in Lake Elmo by 2030 and 2040.
4C PRESENTATION - POPULATION FORECAST OPTIONS.PDF
4C PC MEMO - 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.PDF
New/Unfinished Business
N/A
Communications/Updates
City Council Updates
9960 57th St Variance - 6/2/2026
LE Medical Conditional Use Permit And Variance - 6/2/2026
Upcoming Meetings
June 26th, 2026 - Canceled
July 13th 2026
Adjourn
***Note: Every effort will be made to accommodate person or persons that need special
considerations to attend this meeting due to a health condition or disability. Please contact the
Lake Elmo City Clerk if you are in need of special accommodations.
1.
2.
3.
a.
Documents:
4.
a.
Documents:
b.
Documents:
c.
Documents:
5.
a.
6.
a.
i.
ii.
b.
i.
ii.
7.
Planning Commission Meeting3880 Laverne Avenue NorthMonday June 8th, 20266:30 p.m.AGENDAPledge Of AllegianceApprove AgendaApprove Minutes05-11 -26 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes3 - PZ MINUTES 5 -11 -26.PDFPublic HearingLimerick Village Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, And Planned Unit DevelopmentMaplewood Development has submitted new Preliminary Plat, Zoning Map Amendment, and Planned Unit Development requests for a residential development on about 79 acres (PIDs: 36.029.21.42.0001 and 36.029.21.41.0001). The proposal includes approximately 679 residential homes with mix of single family, attached townhomes, and apartment units. A change in the property's zoning and approval of the PUD will allow for the development to meet City standards. The development will be served by city water and sewer.4A PC MEMO - LIMERICK VILLAGE PRELIMINARY PUD AND PLAT.PDF4A PRESENTATION LIMERICK VILLAGE PRELIM PLAT AND PUD.PDFInwood Commercial Preliminary PlatVadnais Associates has submitted a preliminary plat for a 5-lot commercial subdivision located at PID 33.029.21.12.0006. No tenant approvals are proposed with this application. The property is a part of the 2014 InWood Development master plan.
4B PRESENTATION - INWOOD COMMERCIAL PRELIM PLAT.PDF
4B PC MEMO - INWOOD COMMERCIAL PRELIMINARY PLAT.PDF
Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan - Population Forecast Update
As a part of routine coordination with the Metropolitan Council, the City Council of
Lake Elmo has initiated an update to the population forecasts found in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed revisions to the plan modify the population,
housing units, and jobs expected in Lake Elmo by 2030 and 2040.
4C PRESENTATION - POPULATION FORECAST OPTIONS.PDF
4C PC MEMO - 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.PDF
New/Unfinished Business
N/A
Communications/Updates
City Council Updates
9960 57th St Variance - 6/2/2026
LE Medical Conditional Use Permit And Variance - 6/2/2026
Upcoming Meetings
June 26th, 2026 - Canceled
July 13th 2026
Adjourn
***Note: Every effort will be made to accommodate person or persons that need special
considerations to attend this meeting due to a health condition or disability. Please contact the
Lake Elmo City Clerk if you are in need of special accommodations.
1.2.3.a.Documents:4.a.Documents:b.
Documents:
c.
Documents:
5.
a.
6.
a.
i.
ii.
b.
i.
ii.
7.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: 5-11-26
City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission
Meeting City Council Chambers – 3880 Laverne
Avenue North Minutes of Regular Meeting of
May 11th, 2026
CALL TO ORDER: Commission Chair Rehkamp called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 6:30 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Amend, Chars, Dunn, Rasmussen, Rehkamp
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Vrieze, Sarro
STAFF PRESENT: Senior City Planner Sophia Jensen, Planning Assistant Miranda Moulis
Pledge of Allegiance at 6:30 PM
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Chars / Dunn made a motion to approve the agenda Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously
Approve Minutes:
M/S/P: Chars / Amend made a motion to approve the 4-13-26 meeting minutes. Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing:
a. 9960 57th St N – Variance: Rick Egersdorf and Olson Construction have submitted a variance request for the
property located at 9960 57th St (PID 03.029.21.14.0002). The request would be LEC 105.12.670(c) which requires
an accessory structure to be set behind the front line of the house. The applicant is proposing to construct a new
detached accessory building in the Southeast corner of the property nearer the roadway.
Planning Assistant Miranda Moulis gave presentation and answered questions.
M/S/P: Dunn / Chars moved to open the public hearing at 6:40 PM. Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Comments:
Email comment from Steve & Joan Ziertman: 5761 Keats Ave N, stated they were in support of this variance. Email was read
into record,
M/S/P: Amend/ Chars moved to close the public hearing at 6:42 PM. 5-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Chars / Amend moved to recommend approval of a variance request to reduce accessory structure front yard setback
requirement to 98.7 feet in the Residential Estate Zoning district for the property located at 9960 57th St N with the conditions
of approval and findings of fact listed in the staff report. 5-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing:
a. 8650 Hudson Blvd N Lake Elmo Medical Center - Conditional Use Permit and Variance: Lake Elmo Medical Center LLC
has submitted a conditional use permit request for a medical facility expansion in the Business Park zoning district. The
property is located at 8650 Hudson Blvd N (PID 33.029.21.44.0007). This request would include a building and parking
lot expansion. A variance is required for deviations to the Business Park Zoning district setback requirements.
Planning Assistant Miranda Moulis gave presentation and answered questions.
M/S/P: Chars / Amend moved to open the public hearing at 6:56 PM. Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Comments: N/A
M/S/P: Amend / Chars moved to close the public hearing at 6:57 PM. 5-0, motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: 5-11-26
M/S/P: Chars/Rasmusson moved to recommend approval of the request for Lake Elmo Medical Center, LLC approving a
conditional use permit for a medical facility and variance request to reduce the West side yard setback to 27 feet at property
located at the 8650 Hudson Blvd N based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report 5-0,
motion carried unanimously
New/Unfinished Business: none
Communications/Updates:
a) City Council Updates
I. Zoning Text Amendment Short Term Rentals - 5/5/2026
II. Highpointe Crossing Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, and Variance - 5/5/2026
b) Upcoming Meetings
i. May 26th, 2026 – canceled
ii. June 8th, 2026
Meeting adjourned at 7:01 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane Wendt
Permit Technician
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 8, 2026
Regular
Item #4b – Public Hearing
Motion
TO: Lake Elmo Planning Commission
FROM: Nathan Fuerst, Consulting Planner, Bolton & Menk
Jane Kansier, Consulting Planner, Bolton & Menk
AGENDA ITEM: Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development – Limerick Village
REVIEWED BY: Jason Stopa, Community Development Director
Sophia Jensen, Senior City Planner
CORE STRATEGIES:
☒ Vibrant, inclusive, connected community
☒ Responsive, transparent, adaptive governance
☒ Managed Growth
☒ Efficient, reliable, innovative services
☐ Balanced Finances now and future
☒ Resilient Infrastructure
BACKGROUND:
Maplewood Development is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a
total of 647 dwelling units on approximately 80 acres of land. The project is to be called Limerick Village and is
located directly east of Manning Avenue, about ¼ mile north of Hudson Boulevard and ¼ mile west of 5th Street
North. The development includes 67 detached single family homes, 60 patio style townhomes, 129 urban
townhomes, 3 multifamily buildings (271 units), and one senior living building (120 units). The developer is
requesting flexibility to several zoning standards by way of a Planned Unit Development application.
The Developer first submitted a concept plan for this development in 2023. A general timeline of the concept plan
review is summarized below:
• December 12, 2023 - City Council review of concept plan
• February 21, 2024 - Parks Commission review of the concept plan
• March 12, 2024 – City Council review of a revised concept plan
• August 14, 2024 - City Council review of a revised concept plan
• November 18, 2024 – Parks Commission review of a revised concept plan
• December 3, 2024 – City Council review of concept plan
The Developer recently submitted a revised preliminary plat and PUD for this development, incorporating the
comments received during the concept plan review. This memo and those attached provide an assessment
about conformance with the City’s requirements and policies.
ISSUE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission should review and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Preliminary Plat
and PUD.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Applicant: Maplewood Development, Inc.
Property Owner: SPQR – Lake Elmo, LLC
Location: 456 Manning Ave, N. (PID# 36.029.21.41.0001 & 36.029.21.42.0001)
Request: Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development
Deadline: Application Complete – 4/7/26
120 Day Deadline – 8/5/2026
Applicable Code Title 103 – Subdivision Regulations
Title 105, Article VII – General Regulations
Title 105, Article VIII – Environmental Performance Standards
Title 105, Article XII – Urban Residential Districts
Title 105., Article XVIII – Planned Unit Development Regulations
Site Data. The City’s calculation of net density is consistent with the Metropolitan Council.
Total Site Area 79.40 acres
Wetlands 0 acres
Right-of-Way 6.59 acres
Stormwater Ponds 7.38 acres
Parkland 9.48 acres
Net Site Area 55.95 acres
Total Number of Units 647
Net Overall Density 11.56 units/acre
Gross Overall Density 8.15 units/acre
Environmental Review. The number of both unattached and attached residential units in this project triggered
a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) under Minnesota Rules 4410.4300. The EAW was
completed in the summer of 2025. On October 21, 2025, the City Council reviewed the EAW and comments, and
determined the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts, so there is no need
for an Environmental Impact Statement.
Land Use.
Comprehensive Plan:
The 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map guides the northwest portion of this site as Medium
Density Residential (MDR). The southeast portion of the site is guided for High Density Residential (HDR) uses.
The MDR designation is intended for a variety of residential uses, including single family and townhomes, with
densities between 4.01 and 8 units per acre. The HDR designation is intended for townhomes and multifamily
residential development at densities of 8.01 to 15 units per acre. The proposed density of this development by
land use designation is shown in the table below:
Net Acres Number of Units Density Min – Max # Units
HDR (8.01-15 units/acre) 36.72 524 14.27 units/acre* 295 – 551
MDR (4.01-8 units/acre) 23.88 123 5.15 units/acre 95 – 191
Total 55.95 647 11.56 units/acre 351 - 672
*The Met Council revised MUSA Implementation Guidelines in February of 2026. The new guidelines now
require Cities to net out stormwater facilities and collector roadways. However, this project was planned and
submitted using the prior methodology. City staff have confirmed with the Met Council’s sector representative
that the City can use the prior methodology for this purpose.
Zoning.
The site is currently zoned Rural Transitional (RT). The RT district is an interim holding zone for portions of the
city planned and staged for development connected to regional sewer service. The proposed medium density
and high density residential development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations.
Bulk Standards. Cells in the ‘As Proposed’ standards highlighted in orange indicate a deviation from City Code.
Standards (105.12.720)
MDR
Requirement:
HDR
Requirements
As Proposed
MDR HDR
Minimum Lot Area
Detached Single Family
Attached Single Family
Multifamily
7,000 sf
1,750 sf/unit
3,000 sf/unit
NA
1,750 sf/unit
1,800 sf/unit
5,400* - 26,378 sf
1,750 – 2,100 sf
NA
NA
1,166 sf
1,225 – 1,856 sf/unit
Minimum Lot Width
Detached Single Family
Attached Single Family
Multifamily
50 feet
25 feet/unit
NA
50 feet
20 feet/unit
60 feet/building
50 feet
25 feet/unit
NA
NA
22 feet/unit
275–890 feet/building
Maximum Building Height 35 feet 50 feet Not Provided Not Provided
Max Impervious Cover 50% 75% Not Provided Not Provided
Minimum Setback – Front
Detached Single Family
Attached Single Family
Multifamily
25 feet
25 feet
25 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
25 feet
25 feet
NA
NA
22 feet
20 feet
Minimum Setback – Side
Detached Single Family
Attached Single Family
Multifamily
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
5 feet
10 feet
NA
NA
10 feet
10 feet
Minimum Setback – Corner
Detached Single Family
Attached Single Family
Multifamily
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
NA
NA
15 feet
15 feet
Minimum Setback – Rear
Detached Single Family
Attached Single Family
Multifamily
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
NA
NA
20 feet
20 feet
Maximum Impervious Coverage 50% 75% 56.3% Total
* There are two lots, Lots 1 & 2, of Block 1, which are less than 4000 sq ft due to encumbrance by a cul-de-sac
which would be removed in the future when a public road connection is made. These lots will be required to
remain an outlot such time as the cul-de-sac is removed.
Lot Configuration. The proposed lots appear to meet the City’s standards for area and width, subject to the
requested flexibility. The lot and street configuration also appear consistent with city standards for subdivisions
found in section 103.00.140.
Outlot A, containing the City Park area should be separated from the attached townhome common spaces where
a new privately owned outlot should be created.
Design and development standards. Specific site design and development standards for urban developments are
listed in City Code Sec. 105.12.740. The standards most relevant to this proposal include parking location (subp.
e), number of units per building (subp. g and k), and common open space (subp. k). This development is anticipated
to meet the applicable standards listed in this section.
The City of Lake Elmo Design Guidelines and Building Standards, referenced in City Code Sec. 105.12.750, contains
no requirements for design and building materials on single family dwellings. For multifamily dwellings in the MDR
and HDR districts, limited standards are provided. The document lists guidelines for building design and materials,
roof design, lighting, and landscaping. Generally, the buildings and parking areas are sited in compliance with the
City’s standards. No building plans have been provided for the multifamily buildings. A condition of approval
includes the need to address these standards prior to approval of the plans for the multifamily sites.
Parking and Driveways. Section 105.12.410 requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit for single family
detached residences. One parking space per 1-bedroom unit, two spaces per 2-bedroom or larger unit are
required for single family attached dwelling units and multifamily dwellings. Senior housing requires one space
per dwelling unit. In addition, single-family attached dwellings shall provide an additional ten percent of parking
spaces for visitor parking, and multifamily dwellings shall also provide one visitor space per four units. two interior
spaces per dwelling unit, and two exterior spaces outside of the side yard setback for the principal structure.
The proposed development appears to meet the required parking for detached single family homes, including two
garage spaces and two driveway spaces. The development plans also indicate at least four parking spaces per
attached single family dwelling unit will be provided, and a total of 960 parking spaces for the multifamily buildings
will be provided. The number of spaces appears to comply with the ordinance requirements. Since there are no
detailed plans for the attached single family or multifamily buildings, these numbers will need to be verified when
specific development plans are proposed for those phases.
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 must conform to all City standards including location, grade,
and surface, when proposed.
The Parking Lot in Outlot A shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department.
Subdivision Signs. Section 105.12.430 allows one (1) subdivision sign per each entrance to this residential
development with a maximum sign area of 32 sq. ft. These signs must be set back at least 10 feet from the right
of way. There is no signage identified on the plans. If proposed, signage must conform to City standards.
Landscaping and Tree Preservation. A tree preservation plan was submitted and reviewed by the City’s Landscape
Architect. Per the City Landscape Architect’s Memo, dated May 18, 2026, the proposed plans require revisions to
comply with City Standards prior to acceptance by the City.
Wetlands. There are no wetlands on the development site.
Access. The roadways proposed for this development are public streets. 5th Street North will extend from Manning
Avenue east to the east boundary of the plat. 5th Street North is a planned collector street, and will eventually
connect to 5th Street North in Hunters Crossing 1st Addition to the east. This development will also realign Hudson
Boulevard to the south off of Manning Avenue. This realignment is consistent with City-approved plans. A series
of internal local streets will provide direct access to the lots.
The new access location at 5th Street and Manning Avenue includes the elimination of the private driveway access
to Manning Avenue that is immediately north of the proposed intersection in order to meet County spacing
guidelines. The Developer has agreed to work directly with the property owner to the north to provide alternative
access for this driveway interior to the subdivision. Proof of this agreement, and an approved access plan, will be
required prior to final plat approval.
Sidewalks and trails. Sidewalks and trails are shown throughout the development, but some corrections are
required to be consistent with City code, plans, and policies:
• Sidewalks are required on both sides of the street in MDR and HDR zoning districts. A sidewalk shall also
be provided on the south side of the public street serving the multifamily apartment buildings.
• A sidewalk shall be provided along the cul-de-sac on the northwest side of the development to terminate
at or near the property boundary.
• Sidewalks in the northeast corner of the development should be modified to provide better pedestrian
circulation along Road B.
• A trail is required on the north side of the length of 5th St. N. running though this development.
• A trail is required on the west side of the full length of Limerick Parkway.
Traffic. A traffic analysis for this development was completed as part of the EAW. The proposed access points to
Manning Avenue and the realignment of Hudson Boulevard are expected to manage the traffic generated by this
proposal.
Parks. City Code Section 103.00.150 requires the project provide a minimum of at least 10% of the land for parks,
or a cash in lieu fee using the estimated fair market value of the property. The proposed development identifies
Outlot A as a public park. Park area, less the stormwater ponds, is approximately 9 acres in size. The City’s Parks
Commission reviewed the concept plan for this development on February 21, 2024, and provided a
recommendation for land dedication and cash in lieu to cover any difference between actual dedication and
required dedication.
Stormwater. The Developer has supplied plans showing one new City-owned stormwater pond and one filtration
basin. The proposed ponds are located in the approximate center of the site. Runoff is directed to the ponds
through grading and stormwater pipes. As part of the PUD benefit for this project, the Developer is proposing a
stormwater irrigation reuse system. That system is proposed to irrigate the attached townhome and multifamily
parts of the development but not the single family lots.
Sanitary Sewer and Public Water Supply. Sanitary sewer will be provided by extending the existing 24” sewer
pipe in Hudson Boulevard to the project site. The extension of public sanitary sewer service will also provide the
parcel to the north with access to this service.
Municipal water will be supplied to Limerick Village by extending the watermain stub in Hudson Boulevard
northeastward as part of the roadway realignment plans and then northward through Limerick Parkway. This
watermain will be expanded through the neighborhood streets and provide water to the homes. In addition,
watermain will be extended westward from the existing watermain in Hunters Crossing 1st Addition to the 5th
Street North right-of-way in this project. The developer has obtained an easement for the utility extension from
the property owner to the east.
Phasing. As per City Code Section 105.12.1180, the developer has submitted a phasing plan for the construction
of this development. The first phase includes the single family home lots, the patio townhomes, the park, and
infrastructure, including sewer and water, stormwater, and major roads. The first phase also includes the
realignment of Hudson Boulevard. Phase 2 includes the multifamily buildings and the urban townhomes.
REVIEW COMMENTS:
Conditions of approval for addressing agency review memos has been added to the recommendations.
Fire Chief Review. The City’s Fire Chief provided a comment memo dated 5/13/2026 which includes comments
on emergency access, signage, hydrants, addressing, street naming, and required fire sprinkler systems.
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. A permit from VBWD will be required
before any work can begin on site. A permit has not yet been submitted to the VBWD, as noted in their email
dated 4/27/2026.
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 will be provided by the City
Engineer in a forthcoming review memo. The City Engineer is recommending that if approved, the development
fully address all City Engineering comments. Key comments based on the ongoing review are summarized
below:
• Revisions will be required to the Preliminary Plat, Grading, Streets, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, Water
plans to bring them into compliance with City Standards.
• A 10 foot drainage and utility easement is required on both sides of the 5th St. N. corridor, this will mean
that 5th St. N. will need to be moved 10 feet to the south or that an easement is required on the existing
property to the North.
• Outlot A must be split to create a separate outlot containing HOA Maintained common areas for the
attached townhomes.
Landscape Architect Memo. The City’s Landscape Architect has provided a memo dated 5/18/2026 reviewing the
tree preservation and landscape plans submitted by the applicant. The plans set must be revised and/or modified
to meet City Standards. Several key comments are summarized below:
• Revisions are required to the Tree Preservation Plan to account for proposed removals, and to identify tree
protection for trees on neighboring properties that may be impacted by the project construction.
• Revisions are required to the Landscape Plan to meet City Code requirements related to the number of
trees to account for required landscaping and tree removal, required parking lot landscaping, and
screening requirements from less intensive uses.
RECOMENDED FINDINGS
Preliminary Plat/Preliminary PUD. Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat/Preliminary Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for PID 36.029.21.41.0001 & 36.029.21.42.0001 based on the following findings:
1. The Preliminary PUD Plan is consistent with the intent of the 2040 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and
the 2040 Land Use Map for this area.
2. The preliminary PUD Plan complies with the general intent of the Medium Density Residential and High
Density Residential zoning districts with PUD modifications.
3. The preliminary PUD Plan generally complies with the Lake Elmo Design Guidelines and Standards
Manual.
4. The preliminary plat generally complies with the City’s Subdivision regulations.
5. The preliminary plat generally complies with the City’s design standards.
6. The preliminary plat generally complies with the City’s Zoning Code with the exceptions provided for in
the PUD.
7. The preliminary PUD Plan meets the minimum requirements for a PUD identified in Section 105.12.1150
and Section 105.12.1130, Identified Objectives for PUDs, subp. b, c, d, e, g, h, and i as follows:
b. Promotion of integrated land uses, allowing for a mixture of residential, commercial, and public
facilities.
c. Establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses.
d. Provision of more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space, recreational amenities, natural
resource protection and other public facilities than would otherwise be provided under
conventional land development techniques.
e. Accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to employment opportunities and/or
commercial facilities; and especially to create additional opportunities for lifecycle housing to all
income and age groups.
g. Coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility within the
development and surrounding land uses.
h. Creation of more efficient provision of public utilities and services, lessened demand on
transportation, and/or the promotion of energy resource conservation.
i. Establishing measures to protect and preserve groundwater storage.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat/Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the
Limerick Village project on PIDs 36.029.21.41.0001 & 36.029.21.42.0001 with the following conditions:
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 forthcoming
b. City Landscape Architect’s memo dated 5/18/2026
c. City Fire Chief’s memo dated 5/13/2026
2. Prior to the City finding any application for final plat complete, the following shall be completed:
a. 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.
b. An approved access plan for the Screaton property (PID 36.029.21.14.0001) must be identified
and generally agreed upon by both property owners, the City, and Washington County.
c. The Applicant must complete/execute easements with the abutting property owners where off-
site improvements are required. No work may occur related to the project, including grading
and tree removal, prior to the easements being completed/executed as required by the City on
its standard form(s).
d. Sidewalks and trails should be modified as identified in the City Staff Report dated June 16,
2026.
3. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits including but not limited to all applicable City permits
(building, grading, sign, etc.), Washington County ISTS permits, NPDES/SWPPP permits and Valley
Branch Watershed District approval before starting any grading or construction activities.
4. The Applicant/developer is responsible, at their own expense, for installing all required right of way and
pedestrian improvements.
5. Outlot A shall be separated from attached townhome common areas and shall be conveyed to the City
through a warranty deed.
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. A stormwater reuse system shall be provided for irrigation as a benefit of the Planned Unit
Development.
8. Final design of the parking lot proposed in Outlot A shall be reviewed and approved by the City.
9. 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 application.
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. 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.
12. The applicant or developer shall enter into a separate grading agreement with the City before starting
any grading activity in advance of final plat approval. The City Engineer shall review any grading plan
that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said plan shall document the extent of any proposed
grading on the site.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of the Preliminary Plat/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 and sewer
service and will pay water and sewer connection charges, building permit fees, and the like. As with City policy,
the Developer is responsible for the costs of public utility extensions serving the proposed development.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A public hearing was posted in the Stillwater Gazette on May 20th, 2026, and a notice was mailed to property
owners within 500’ of the outermost property boundaries on May 18th, 2026. It was also added to the City’s
Push Notification list. At the time of writing this report, no comments have been received by the City on the
requests.
OPTIONS:
1. Approve the preliminary plat and PUD; or
2. Approve the preliminary plat and PUD with conditions as recommended by staff; or
3. Deny the preliminary plat and PUD with specific findings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above review, City staff find the proposal to be generally in line with the City’s adopted ordinances
and policies. Staff is therefore recommending conditional approval of the preliminary plat, setback and sidewalk
variances, and rezoning. Example Motion:
“Move to recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat and PUD as requested by Maplewood
Development on the subject property based on the findings of fact and recommended conditions of approval
listed in the staff report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application and Narrative
2. Preliminary Plat Plans
3. Engineer Memo - forthcoming
4. Fire Dept Memo 5/13/2026
5. LSA Memo 5/18/2026
MANNING AVENUE NORTH(CSAH 15)3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,000 SF - 96 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITS
OUTLOT A LIMERICK PKWY3RD ST N3RD ST CT N5TH ST N
5TH ST N4TH
S
T
N
LILAC AVEOUTLOT C
OUTLOT B
OUTLOT D
OUTLOT G
OUTLOT E
OUTLOT F
OUTLOT DROAD B
ROAD A
ROAD C
ROAD A ROAD AROAD B6
6
12BLOCK 1BLOCK 3
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 5BLOCK 4BLOCK 7B
LO
C
K
6
B
L
O
C
K
8
B
L
O
C
K
9 BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 14BLOCK 15BLOCK 16BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 1911
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 1 2 3 4 5
1243
5
6
7
1234
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
7
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCK 20 BLOCK 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
BLOCK 22
1
2
3
4
BLOCK 231
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BLOCK 24BLOCK 251
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 712345678123456
B
L
O
C
K
2
6
BLOCK 27BLOCK 28BLOCK 29
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4BLOCK 30BLOCK 31BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34
BLOCK 38 BLOCK 37
BLOCK 40 BLOCK 39
BLOCK 42 BLOCK 41
BLOCK 35BLOCK 36BLOCK 43
LOT 1
44
LOT 1
BLOCK 45
LOT 1
2ND ST N
MANNING AVE NMANNING AVE NCSAH 15 (MANNING AVE)HUDSO
N
BLVD.
NOR
T
H
TRUNK HIG
H
W
A
Y
N
O
.
9
4Property Boundary LineDOC 3467364DOC 373655060 FT WIDE NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT PER BOOK 199 DEEDS, PAGE 408 & AMENDED BY DOC. 373654935 FT WIDE NO NAT GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT DOC 3138117DOC 40056023602921340006
SCOTT M SAYER
TRINITY SELECT LLCMN DOT R/W
CITY R/W
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WHUD
S
O
N
BLVD.
NORTH
MN DOT R/W
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WCITY R/W
EX.
EX.
HUDSON BLVD. NORTH
HUDSON BLVD
HUDSO
N
BLVD
PROJECT
LOCATION
File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\COVER.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:21:05 PMFOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
www.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
Cover Sheet X X
Preliminary Plat - View A - View D
Site Plan - Overall
Grading & Drainage Plan - Overall
Erosion Control Plan - View A - View I
Landscape Plan - Overall
PLAN SUBMISSION/REVISION MATRIX
#SHEET DESCRIPTION
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X2026-02-062026-02-27Demolition & Removal Plan - Overall
Preliminary Plat - Overall
DEVELOPER
Maplewood Development
1128 Harmon Place, Suite 320
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Phone: 612.746.4046
Contact: Mario J. Cocchiarella
Email: mario.cocchiarella@belair-us.com
CONSULTANT
Alliant Engineering, Inc.
Marquette Avenue South, Suite 700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: 612.758.3080
Fax: 612.758.3099
ENGINEER
Clark Wicklund
License No. 40922
Email: cwicklund@alliant-inc.com
SURVEYOR
Dan Ekrem
License No. 57366
Email: dekrem@alliant-inc.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Mark Kronbeck
License No. 26222
Email: mkronbeck@alliant-inc.com
VICINITY MAP
Scale: 1"=5000'
Limerick Village
Lake Elmo, MN
Landscape Schedule & Details
CONTACT LIST
1 95
1
1
8
13
14-17
18
19
20
21-29
30
31
32-40
41
42-44
45
46-54
55
56
57
58-67
68
69-77
80
81-89
90
N
Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
0
SCALE IN FEET
100 200 400
N
Preliminary Plat Parcel Area Table
Phasing Plan
Site Plan - View A - View I
Parking & Boulevard Plan
Grading & Drainage Plan - View A - View I
Stormwater Management Facility Detail
Grading Profiles
Erosion Control Plan - Overall
Erosion Control Notes
Erosion Control Details
Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Plan - Overall
Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Plan - View A - View J
Storm Sewer Plan - Overall
Storm Sewer Plan - View A - View I
Landscape Plan - View A - View I City SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageCover Sheet221-0010
X X
Demolition & Removal Plan - View A - View D9-12
78 Storm Sewer Schedule
Manning Avenue North Improvements
Existing Conditions - Overall2
Existing Conditions - View A - View C5-7
X
X
93-95
3-4 ALTA Survey
79 Irrigation Reuse Plan
Tree Preservation Plan91
Tree Inventory92
S89°48'29"W 2576.63
N00°05'28"W 1168.73S89°50'51"W 2537.07
N05°40'53"E
117.79N00°08'04"W 385.03N01°12'47"W
175.96N00°13'45"W 644.36N12°20'35"W
155.51 MANNING AVENUE NORTH(CSAH 15)PARCEL 1PARCEL 2
5T
H
ST
N
8" & 10" WIL
8" WIL
8" WIL
8" WIL 3- 8"
7-8" WIL
8" WIL8" WIL
5-8" WIL
8" WIL
3-8" CHERRY
3-8" WIL
3-8" WIL
8" WIL
24" COT
24" COT
10" WIL
24" COT
30" COT
2-20" COT
2-30" COT
6" & 12" MAP
3-20" COT
20" COT
30" COT
3-20" COT
30" COT
30" COT
10" COT
30" COT
24" COT
30" COT
2-8" BOX
30" COT
3-10" BOX
20" COT
12" BOX
2-10" BOX
2-10" BOX
3 -10"
10" BOX
24" BOX
30" BOX
12" BOX
8" ASH
15" ASH
9" BOX
7" BOX
10" BOX
18" BOX
10" TRIP BOX
2 18"
FES
Inv=897.5
FES
Inv=889.9
FES
Inv=892.3
FES
Inv=891.0
FES
Inv=890.7
FES
Inv=891.4
FESInv=889.2FESInv=889.2FESInv=890.2FESInv=890.118"CMP
18"CMP 18"RCP34
"
C
M
P
O
V
A
L
FES
Inv=891.3
FES
Inv=884.8
4
8
"
R
.C
.P
.36"
R
.C
.P
.CSAH 15 (MANNING AVE)HUDSO
N
BLVD.
NOR
T
H
TRUNK HIG
H
W
A
Y
N
O
.
9
4
San M
H
0-
1
4
8"
Rim 9
1
9.
9
3
Inv E
8
8
2.
6
8
Inv NW
8
8
2.
5
8
San M
H
0-
2
5
4"
Rim 9
1
7.
1
8
Inv N&
E
8
8
4.
1
0
Inv W
8
8
3.
6
0Inv N
Dr
o
p
9
0
0.
4
0
San M
H
1-
1
5
4"
Rim 9
2
0.
1
0
Inv E
9
0
0.
9
8
Inv S
9
0
0.
8
8
San M
H
1-
2
5
4"
Rim 9
1
5.
5
8
Inv N
9
0
1.
2
2
Inv W
9
0
1.
1
2
San M
H
1-
3
4
8"
Rim 9
1
9.
3
1
Inv N
9
0
1.
7
4
Inv S
9
0
1.
6
4
18" S
a
n
St
u
b
Inv 88
4.
1
2
24" San 24" San24" San 24" San24" San24" San24" San8" PVC San
San M
H
1-
4
4
8"
Rim 9
2
1.
9
3
Inv N
9
0
2.
3
8
Inv S
9
0
2.
2
8
Inv W
9
0
3.
5
9
8" Sa
n
St
u
b
at 0.4
%
San M
H
1-
5
4
8"
Rim 9
1
7.
6
1
Inv N
9
0
2.
9
9
Inv S
9
0
2.
8
9
Inv W
9
0
4.
4
4
San M
H
E
x-
1
Rim 9
2
2.
4
1
Inv N
W
9
0
9.
9
1
Inv E
9
0
9.
8
1
15" CMP StormInv 91
7.
2
Inv 91
6.
7
15" CMP Storm
Inv 91
4.
7
Inv 91
5.
3
15" CMP StormInv 91
8.
0
Inv 91
8.
2
24" RCP StormInv 91
3.
5
F
E
S
Outlet
Str
u
ct
ur
e
Inv 91
8.
2
27" F
E
S
Inv 91
5.
0
F
E
S
Fire H
y
dr
a
nt
Subm
er
g
e
d
15" RCP
S
t
o
r
m
0
= 901.00
Inv. Elev. = 900.56Property Boundary LineFES
Inv. 901.5
FES Inv. 901.040 LF-18"CPPInv. Elev.
18" HDPE Culvert
Inv 90
2
.
0
9
Inv 90
1
.
2
318" HDPE Culvert18" HDPE Culvert
Under S
n
o
w
?Locatio
n
EN PROPERTIESLAUNCHPARK LAKE ELMO LLC3602921330004 3602921340001
36029213300103602921340004
3602921340005
3602921340008 DOC 3467364DOC 373655060 FT WIDE NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT PER BOOK 199 DEEDS, PAGE 408 & AMENDED BY DOC. 373654935 FT WIDE NO NAT GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT DOC 3138117PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC NO 3956981DOC 4005602LAUNCHPARK LAKE ELMO LLC3602921330001
PROPERTIES LLC
VALI-HI METRO
PROPERTIES LLCVALI-HI METROPROPERTIES LLC
VALI-HI METRO
& TODD J OLSON
JAMILE L & WENDY 3602921340006
SCOTT M SAYER
PROPERTIES LLC
VALI-HI METRO
EN PROPERTIES
EN PROPERTIES
TRINITY SELECT LLCHUDSON BLVD. NORTH3602921340008PROPERTIES LLCVALI-HI METROPUBLIC DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC NO 4020446
MN DOT R/W
CITY R/W
CIT
Y
R/
W
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WHUD
S
O
N
BLVD.
NORTH
MN DOT R/W
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WCITY R/W
EX.
EX.
HUDSON BLVD. NORTH
EXISTING LEGEND: File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010excon.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:21:17 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
www.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
2 95
20
SCALE IN FEET
100 200 400
N City SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageExisting Conditions - Overall221-0010
S89°48'29"W 2576.63
N00°05'28"W 1168.73N12°20'35"W
155.51
S89°50'51"W 2537.07
N05°40'53"E
117.79N00°08'04"W 385.03N01°12'47"W
175.96N00°13'45"W 644.36MANNING AVENUE NORTH(CSAH 15)PARCEL 1PARCEL 2
733 Marquette Ave, Ste 700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612.758.3080
612.758.3099
www.alliant-inc.com
MAIN
FAX
1"=100'
02/27/2026
DE
MT
FIELD
DRAWN BY
SCALE
DATE ISSUED
JOB NO.
CHECKED BY
210010LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
456 MANNING AVENUE N
KJ,RS
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Parcel 1
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 29 North, Range 21 West,
Washington County, Minnesota which lies westerly of the westerly right of way line of Minnesota Department of
Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 82-35 recorded as Document No. 424557 in the office of the County Recorder,
Washington County, Minnesota and westerly of the westerly right of way line of Washington County Highway Right of
Way Plat No. 36 recorded as Document No. 449905 in said office of the County Recorder.
Parcel 2
And also the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 29 North, Range 21 West,
Washington County, Minnesota; EXCEPT the following described tract:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North along the West
line a distance of 152 feet to a point; thence Southeasterly in a straight line to a point on the South line of said Northwest
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter to a point, said point being located 33 feet East of the Point of beginning; thence West
33 feet to the point of beginning.
Abstract.
LEGENDNOTES
1. This survey and the property description shown here on are based upon information found in the commitment for title
insurance prepared by Stewart Title Guaranty Company, file no. 01040-23720, dated June 7, 2021.
2. The orientation of this bearing system is based on the Washington County Coordinate System, NAD83, 1986 Adj.
3. All distances are in feet.
4. The subject property is zoned RT - Rural Transitional per Lake Elmo Zoning Map.
5. The area of the property is 3,405,786 sq. ft. or 78.186 acres.
6. The locations of existing public utilities on or serving the property are depicted based on Gopher State One Call
Ticket Nos. 253102410 and 253102695, available city maps, records and observed evidence locations. Lacking
excavation, underground utility locations may not be exact. Verify critical utilities prior to construction or design.
7. Benchmark: MnDOT monument KRAFTHEFER MN163 has an elevation of 913.05 (NAVD88).
8. Contours shown hereon from MnTOPO Lidar data.
EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
Signature
Date License Number
Print Name
DANIEL EKREM
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land
Surveyor under the laws of the state of
Minnesota.
57366
8" & 10" WIL
8" WIL
8" WIL
8" WIL 3- 8"
7-8" WIL
8" WIL8" WIL
5-8" WIL
8" WIL
3-8" CHERRY
3-8" WIL
3-8" WIL
8" WIL
24" COT
24" COT
10" WIL
24" COT
30" COT
2-20" COT
2-30" COT
6" & 12" MAP
3-20" COT
20" COT
30" COT
3-20" COT
30" COT
30" COT
10" COT
30" COT
24" COT
30" COT
2-8" BOX
30" COT
3-10" BOX
20" COT
12" BOX
2-10" BOX
2-10" BOX
3 -10"
10" BOX
24" BOX
30" BOX
12" BOX
8" ASH
15" ASH
9" BOX
7" BOX
10" BOX
18" BOX
10" TRIP BOX
2 18"
FES
Inv=897.5
FES
Inv=889.9
FES
Inv=892.3
FES
Inv=891.0
FES
Inv=890.7
FES
Inv=891.4
FESInv=889.2FES
Inv=889.2FESInv=890.2FESInv=890.118"CMP
18"CMP 18"RCP34
"
C
M
P
O
V
A
L
FES
Inv=891.3
FES
Inv=884.8
4
8
"
R
.C
.
P
.36"
R
.C
.P
.CSAH 15 (MANNING AVE)HUDSO
N
BLVD.
NOR
T
H
TRUNK HIG
H
W
A
Y
N
O
.
9
4
= 901.00
Inv. Elev. = 900.56Property Boundary LineFES
Inv. 901.5
FES Inv. 901.040 LF-18"CPPInv. Elev.
18" HDPE Culvert
Inv 902
.
0
9
Inv 901
.
2
318" HDPE Culvert18" HDPE Culvert
Under S
n
o
w
?Locatio
n
EN PROPERTIESDOC 3467364DOC 373655060 FT WIDE NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT PER BOOK 199 DEEDS, PAGE 408 & AMENDED BY DOC. 373654935 FT WIDE NO NAT GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT DOC 3138117DOC 40056023602921340006
SCOTT M SAYER
EN PROPERTIES
EN PROPERTIES
TRINITY SELECT LLCMN DOT R/W
CITY R/W CITY R/W
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WHUD
S
O
N
BLVD.
NORTH
MN DOT R/W
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WCITY R/W
EX.
EX.
HUDSON BLVD. NORTH
S89°48'29"W 2576.63
N00°05'28"W 1168.73S89°50'51"W 2537.07
N05°40'53"E
117.79N00°08'04"W 385.03N01°12'47"W
175.96N00°13'45"W 644.36N12°20'35"W
155.51 MANNING AVENUE NORTH(CSAH 15)PARCEL 1PARCEL 2
EXISTING LEGEND:
REMOVAL LEGEND: File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010demo.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:21:42 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
www.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
8 95
80
SCALE IN FEET
75 150 300
N City SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageDemolition & Removal Plan - Overall221-0010
OUTLOT A LIMERICK PKWY3RD ST N3RD ST CT N5TH ST N
5TH ST N4TH
S
T
N
LILAC AVEOUTLOT C
OUTLOT B
OUTLOT D
OUTLOT G
OUTLOT E
OUTLOT F
OUTLOT DROAD B
ROAD A
ROAD C
ROAD A ROAD AROAD B6
6
12BLOCK 1BLOCK 3
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 5BLOCK 4BLOCK 7BLOC
K
6
B
L
O
C
K
8
B
L
O
C
K
9 BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 14BLOCK 15BLOCK 16BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 1911
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 1 2 3 4 5
1243
5
6
7
1234
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
7
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCK 20 BLOCK 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
BLOCK 22
1
2
3
4
BLOCK 231
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BLOCK 24BLOCK 251
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 712345678123456
B
L
O
C
K
2
6
BLOCK 27BLOCK 28BLOCK 29
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4BLOCK 30BLOCK 31BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34
BLOCK 38 BLOCK 37
BLOCK 40 BLOCK 39
BLOCK 42 BLOCK 41
BLOCK 35BLOCK 36BLOCK 43
LOT 1
44
LOT 1
BLOCK 45
LOT 1
2ND ST N
MANNING AVE NMANNING AVE NS89°48'29"W 2576.63
N00°05'28"W 1168.73S89°50'51"W 2537.07
N05°40'53"E
117.79N00°08'04"W 385.03N01°12'47"W
175.96N00°13'45"W 644.36N12°20'35"W
155.51 MANNING AVENUE NORTH(CSAH 15)File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010preplat.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:21:52 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
50 50 200
N
www.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
13 95
1313City SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillagePreliminary Plat - Overall221-0010
3RD ST CT N5TH ST N4TH S
T
N
LILAC AVEOUTLOT B
6
6
12BLOCK 1BLOCK 3
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 5BLOCK 4BLOCK 7BLOCK
6
B
L
O
C
K
8
B
L
O
C
K
9 BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 14BLOCK 15BLOCK 16BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 1911
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 1 2 3 4 5
1243
5
6
7
1234
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
S89°48'29"W 2576.63
N00°05'28"W 1168.73=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=N0°05'28"W 1168.73'=
=
=File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010preplat.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:21:53 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
N City SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillagePreliminary Plat - View Awww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
14 95
1414
LILAC AVEOUTLOT C
OUTLOT B
12
BLOCK 5BLOCK
6
B
L
O
C
K
8
B
L
O
C
K
9 BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 1915
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
5
4
3
2
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1 2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
7
2
BLOCK 45
LOT 1N00°05'28"W 1168.73S89°50'51"W 2537.07
N12°20'35"W
155.51
=
=
=
=
=
=
S89°50'51"W 2537.07'N12°20'35"W 155.51'=File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010preplat.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:21:54 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
N City SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillagePreliminary Plat - View Bwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
15 95
1515
OUTLOT A LIMERICK PKWY3RD ST N
5TH ST N
OUTLOT D
OUTLOT G
OUTLOT E
OUTLOT F
OUTLOT DROAD B
ROAD A
ROAD C
ROAD A ROAD AROAD B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCK 20 BLOCK 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
BLOCK 221
2
3
4
BLOCK 231
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BLOCK 24BLOCK 251
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 712345678123456
B
L
O
C
K
2
6
BLOCK 27BLOCK 28BLOCK 29
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4BLOCK 30BLOCK 31BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34
BLOCK 38 BLOCK 37
BLOCK 40 BLOCK 39
BLOCK 42 BLOCK 41
BLOCK 35BLOCK 36MANNING AVE NS89°48'29"W 2576.63
N00°08'04"W 385.03N00°13'45"W 644.36S89°48'29"W 2576.63'N1°12'47"W 175.96'N0°08'04"W 385.03'N0°13'45"W 644.36'File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010preplat.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:21:55 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
N
City SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillagePreliminary Plat - View Cwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
16 95
1616
OUTLOT A LIMERICK PKWY3RD ST N
OUTLOT F
OUTLOT D
ROAD C
ROAD AROAD B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCK 20 BLOCK 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
BLOCK 221
2
3
4
BLOCK 231
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
BLOCK 242
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4BLOCK 31BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34
BLOCK 38 BLOCK 37
BLOCK 35BLOCK 36BLOCK 43
LOT 1
44
LOT 1 MANNING AVE NS89°50'51"W 2537.07 N00°08'04"W 385.03N00°13'45"W 644.36=N5°40'53"E 117.79'=N1°12'47"W 175.96'N0°08'04"W 385.03'File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010preplat.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:21:57 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
N
City SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillagePreliminary Plat - View Dwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
17 95
1717
PARCEL AREA TABLE
PARCEL
B 1 : L 1
B 1 : L 2
B 1 : L 3
B 1 : L 4
B 1 : L 5
B 1 : L 6
B 1 : L 7
B 1 : L 8
B 1 : L 9
B 1 : L 10
B 1 : L 11
B 1 : L 12
B 2 : L 1
B 2 : L 2
B 2 : L 3
B 2 : L 4
B 2 : L 5
B 2 : L 6
B 3 : L 1
B 3 : L 2
B 3 : L 3
B 3 : L 4
B 3 : L 5
B 3 : L 6
B 3 : L 7
AREA SF
4,678
3,420
5,524
5,525
5,525
5,525
5,525
5,525
5,525
6,164
8,436
12,030
7,436
5,511
5,515
5,520
9,880
26,378
9,100
6,500
6,500
10,241
9,603
8,204
14,875
AREA AC
0.11
0.08
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.19
0.28
0.17
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.23
0.61
0.21
0.15
0.15
0.24
0.22
0.19
0.34
PARCEL AREA TABLE
PARCEL
B 4 : L 1
B 4 : L 2
B 4 : L 3
B 4 : L 4
B 4 : L 5
B 4 : L 6
B 4 : L 7
B 4 : L 8
B 4 : L 9
B 4 : L 10
B 4 : L 11
B 4 : L 12
B 4 : L 13
B 4 : L 14
B 4 : L 15
B 4 : L 16
B 5 : L 1
B 5 : L 2
B 5 : L 3
B 5 : L 4
B 5 : L 5
B 5 : L 6
B 5 : L 7
B 5 : L 8
B 5 : L 9
AREA SF
8,220
7,353
7,534
7,534
7,534
7,534
7,534
7,534
7,987
7,987
7,557
7,261
7,265
7,674
7,674
10,443
8,947
7,131
7,134
10,342
11,473
8,641
6,599
6,500
6,487
AREA AC
0.19
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.24
0.21
0.16
0.16
0.24
0.26
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.15
PARCEL AREA TABLE
PARCEL
B 5 : L 10
B 6 : L 1
B 6 : L 2
B 6 : L 3
B 6 : L 4
B 6 : L 5
B 6 : L 6
B 6 : L 7
B 7 : L 1
B 7 : L 2
B 7 : L 3
B 7 : L 4
B 7 : L 5
B 7 : L 6
B 7 : L 7
B 7 : L 8
B 7 : L 9
B 8 : L 1
B 8 : L 2
B 8 : L 3
B 8 : L 4
B 9 : L 1
B 9 : L 2
B 9 : L 3
B 9 : L 4
AREA SF
9,924
8,674
6,241
6,650
8,389
7,566
12,212
11,726
7,749
7,749
7,749
7,588
6,500
6,500
6,617
6,797
6,797
2,100
1,750
1,750
2,100
2,100
1,750
1,750
2,100
AREA AC
0.23
0.20
0.14
0.15
0.19
0.17
0.28
0.27
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
PARCEL AREA TABLE
PARCEL
B 10 : L 1
B 10 : L 2
B 10 : L 3
B 10 : L 4
B 10 : L 5
B 10 : L 6
B 11 : L 1
B 11 : L 2
B 11 : L 3
B 11 : L 4
B 11 : L 5
B 11: L 6
B 12 : L 1
B 12 : L 2
B 12 : L 3
B 12 : L 4
B 12 : L 5
B 12 : L 6
B 13 : L 1
B 13 : L 2
B 13 : L 3
B 13 : L 4
B 14 : L 1
B 14 : L 2
B 14 : L 3
AREA SF
2,100
1,750
1,750
1,750
1,750
2,100
2,100
1,750
1,750
1,750
1,750
2,100
2,100
1,750
1,750
1,750
1,750
2,100
2,100
1,750
1,750
2,100
2,100
1,750
1,750
AREA AC
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
PARCEL AREA TABLE
PARCEL
B 14 : L 4
B 15 : L 1
B 15 : L 2
B 15 : L 3
B 15 : L 4
B 15 : L 5
B 15 : L 6
B 16 : L 1
B 16 : L 2
B 16 : L 3
B 16 : L 4
B 16 : L 5
B 16 : L 6
B 17 : L 1
B 17 : L 2
B 17 : L 3
B 17 : L 4
B 17 : L 5
B 17 : L 6
B 18 : L 1
B 18 : L 2
B 18 : L 3
B 18 : L 4
B 19 : L 1
B 19 : L 2
AREA SF
2,100
2,100
1,750
1,750
1,750
1,750
2,100
2,100
1,750
1,750
1,750
1,750
2,100
2,100
1,750
1,750
1,750
1,750
2,100
2,100
1,750
1,750
2,100
2,100
1,750
AREA AC
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
PARCEL AREA TABLE
PARCEL
B 19 : L 3
B 19 : L 4
B 20 : L 1
B 20 : L 2
B 20 : L 3
B 20 : L 4
B 20 : L 5
B 20 : L 6
B 20 : L 7
B 20 : L 8
B 21 : L 1
B 21 : L 2
B 21 : L 3
B 21 : L 4
B 21 : L 5
B 21 : L 6
B 22 : L 1
B 22 : L 2
B 22 : L 3
B 22 : L 4
B 22 : L 5
B 22 : L 6
B 23 : L 1
B 23 : L 2
B 23 : L 3
AREA SF
1,750
2,100
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
AREA AC
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
PARCEL AREA TABLE
PARCEL
B 23 : L 4
B 24 : L 1
B 24 : L 2
B 24 : L 3
B 24 : L 4
B 24 : L 5
B 24 : L 6
B 24 : L 7
B 24 : L 8
B 25 : L 1
B 25 : L 2
B 25 : L 3
B 25 : L 4
B 25 : L 5
B 25 : L 6
B 25 : L 7
B 25 : L 8
B 26 : L 1
B 26 : L 2
B 26 : L 3
B 26 : L 4
B 26 : L 5
B 26 : L 6
B 27 : L 1
B 27 : L 2
AREA SF
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
AREA AC
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
PARCEL AREA TABLE
PARCEL
B 27 : L 3
B 27 : L 4
B 27 : L 5
B 27 : L 6
B 27 : L 7
B 28 : L 1
B 28 : L 2
B 28 : L 3
B 28 : L 4
B 28 : L 5
B 28 : L 6
B 28 : L 7
B 28 : L 8
B 29 : L 1
B 29 : L 2
B 29 : L 3
B 29 : L 4
B 29 : L 5
B 29 : L 6
B 30 : L 1
B 30 : L 2
B 30 : L 3
B 30 : L 4
B 31 : L 1
B 31 : L 2
AREA SF
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
AREA AC
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
PARCEL AREA TABLE
PARCEL
B 31 : L 3
B 31 : L 4
B 32 : L 1
B 32 : L 2
B 32 : L 3
B 32 : L 4
B 32 : L 5
B 33 : L 1
B 33 : L 2
B 33 : L 3
B 33 : L 4
B 33 : L 5
B 33 : L 6
B 34 : L 1
B 34 : L 2
B 34 : L 3
B 34 : L 4
B 34 : L 5
B 34 : L 6
B 34 : L 7
B 35 : L 1
B 35 : L 2
B 35 : L 3
B 35 : L 4
B 36 : L 1
AREA SF
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
AREA AC
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
PARCEL AREA TABLE
PARCEL
B 36 : L 2
B 36 : L 3
B 36 : L 4
B 37 : L 1
B 37 : L 2
B 37 : L 3
B 37 : L 4
B 38 : L 1
B 38 : L 2
B 38 : L 3
B 38 : L 4
B 39 : L 1
B 39 : L 2
B 39 : L 3
B 39 : L 4
B 39 : L 5
B 39 : L 6
B 40 : L 1
B 40 : L 2
B 40 : L 3
B 40 : L 4
B 41 : L 1
B 41 : L 2
B 41 : L 3
B 41 : L 4
AREA SF
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
AREA AC
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
PARCEL AREA TABLE
PARCEL
B 42 : L 1
B 42 : L 2
B 42 : L 3
B 42 : L 4
B 42 : L 5
B 42 : L 6
B 43 : L 1
B 44 : L 1
B 45 : L 1
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
OUTLOT C
OUTLOT D
OUTLOT E
OUTLOT F
OUTLOT G
ROW 1
ROW 2
AREA SF
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
1,166
222,752
229,193
117,569
734,269
97,727
48,440
139,788
31,527
39,943
36,301
900,018
12,470
AREA AC
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
5.11
5.26
2.70
16.86
2.24
1.11
3.21
0.72
0.92
0.83
20.66
0.29
File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010preplat.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:21:58 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillagePreliminary Plat Parcel Area Tablewww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
18 95
1818
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,000 SF - 96 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS
229,540 S.F.
5.27 AC
116,013 S.F.
2.66 AC
216,218 S.F.
4.96 AC
120 UNITS MAX
SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITS
PUBLIC PARK
OUTLOT A
PRIVATE
COURTYARD
0.12 AC
PRIVATE PARK
1.11 AC
PID: 3602921420001 PID: 3602921410001
LIMERICK PKWY3RD ST N3RD ST CT N5TH ST N
5TH ST N4TH
S
T
N
LILAC AVEOUTLOT C
OUTLOT B
OUTLOT D
OUTLOT G
OUTLOT E
OUTLOT F
OUTLOT DROAD B
ROAD A
ROAD C
ROAD A ROAD AROAD B6
6
12BLOCK 1BLOCK 3
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 5BLOCK 4BLOCK 7BLOC
K
6
B
L
O
C
K
8
B
L
O
C
K
9 BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 14BLOCK 15BLOCK 16BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 1911
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 1 2 3 4 5
1243
5
6
7
1234
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
7
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCK 20 BLOCK 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
BLOCK 22
1
2
3
4
BLOCK 231
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BLOCK 24BLOCK 251
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 712345678123456
B
L
O
C
K
2
6
BLOCK 27BLOCK 28BLOCK 29
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4BLOCK 30BLOCK 31BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34
BLOCK 38 BLOCK 37
BLOCK 40 BLOCK 39
BLOCK 42 BLOCK 41
BLOCK 35BLOCK 36BLOCK 43
LOT 1
44
LOT 1
BLOCK 45
LOT 1
2ND ST N
MANNING AVE NMANNING AVE NHUDSON BLVD
HUDSO
N
BLVD
S89°48'29"W 2576.63
N00°05'28"W 1168.73S89°50'51"W 2537.07
N05°40'53"E
117.79N00°08'04"W 385.03N01°12'47"W
175.96N00°13'45"W 644.36N12°20'35"W
155.51 MANNING AVENUE NORTH(CSAH 15)5T
H
ST
N
·FUTURE 161 UNITS
·PRIVATE COURTYARD
PHASE 1
·67 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS
·60 TOWNHOME UNITS
·5TH ST N EXTENSION
·LIMERICK PKWY TIE TO 2ND ST RELOCATION
FUTURE
·391 UNITS
FES
Inv=897.5
FES
Inv=889.9
FES
Inv=891.0
FES
Inv=890.7
FES
Inv=891.4
18"CMP
18"CMP 18"RCPFES
Inv=891.3
FES
Inv=884.8
4
8
"
R
.C
.P
.36"
R
.C
.P
.CSAH 15 (MANNING AVE)HUDSO
N
BLVD.
NOR
T
H
TRUNK HIG
H
W
A
Y
N
O
.
9
4
San M
H
0-
2
5
4"
Rim 9
1
7.
1
8
Inv N
&
E
8
8
4.
1
0
Inv W
8
8
3.
6
0
Inv N
Dr
o
p
9
0
0.
4
0
San M
H
1-
1
5
4"
Rim 9
2
0.
1
0
Inv E
9
0
0.
9
8
Inv S
9
0
0.
8
8
San M
H
1-
2
5
4"
Rim 9
1
5.
5
8
Inv N
9
0
1.
2
2
Inv W
9
0
1.
1
2
San M
H
1-
3
4
8"
Rim 9
1
9.
3
1
Inv N
9
0
1.
7
4
Inv S
9
0
1.
6
4
18" S
a
n
St
u
b
Inv 88
4.
1
2
24" San 24" San24" San 24" San24" San24" San24" San8" PVC San
San M
H
1-
4
4
8"
Rim 9
2
1.
9
3
Inv N
9
0
2.
3
8
Inv S
9
0
2.
2
8
Inv W
9
0
3.
5
9
8" Sa
n
St
u
b
at 0.4
%
San M
H
1-
5
4
8"
Rim 9
1
7.
6
1
Inv N
9
0
2.
9
9
Inv S
9
0
2.
8
9
Inv W
9
0
4.
4
4
15" CMP StormInv 91
7.
2
Inv 91
6.
7
15" CMP Storm
Inv 91
4.
7
Inv 91
5.
3
24" RCP Storm Inv 91
3.
5
F
E
S
Outlet
Str
u
ct
ur
e
Inv 91
8.
2
27" F
E
S
Inv 91
5.
0
F
E
S
Subm
er
g
e
d
0
= 901.00
Inv. Elev. = 900.56Property Boundary LineFES
Inv. 901.5
FES Inv. 901.040 LF-18"CPPInv. Elev.
18" HDPE Culvert
Inv 902.
0
9
Inv 90
1.
2
318" HDPE Culvert18" HDPE Culvert
Under
S
n
o
w
?
Locatio
n
3602921330004 3602921340001
36029213300103602921340004
3602921340005
3602921340008 DOC 3467364DOC 373655060 FT WIDE NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT PER BOOK 199 DEEDS, PAGE 408 & AMENDED BY DOC. 373654935 FT WIDE NO NAT GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT DOC 3138117PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC NO 3956981DOC 4005602LAUNCHPARK LAKE ELMO LLC
PROPERTIES LLC
VALI-HI METRO
PROPERTIES LLCVALI-HI METROPROPERTIES LLC
VALI-HI METRO
& TODD J OLSON
JAMILE L & WENDY 3602921340006
SCOTT M SAYER
PROPERTIES LLC
VALI-HI METRO
TRINITY SELECT LLCHUDSON BLVD. NORTH3602921340008PROPERTIES LLCVALI-HI METROMN DOT R/W
CITY R/W
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WHUD
S
O
N
BLVD.
NORTH
MN DOT R/W
MN DO
T
R
/
W MN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WCITY R/W
EX.
EX.
HUDSON BLVD. NORTH
File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010phas.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:22:08 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillagePhasing Planwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
19 95
190
SCALE IN FEET
75 150 300
N
CSAH 15 (MANNING AVE)HUDSO
N
BLVD.
NOR
T
H
TRUNK HIG
H
W
A
Y
N
O
.
9
4Property Boundary LineDOC 3467364DOC 373655060 FT WIDE NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT PER BOOK 199 DEEDS, PAGE 408 & AMENDED BY DOC. 373654935 FT WIDE NO NAT GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT DOC 3138117DOC 40056023602921340006
SCOTT M SAYER
TRINITY SELECT LLCMN DOT R/W
CITY R/W
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WHUD
S
O
N
BLVD.
NORTH
MN DOT R/W
MN DO
T
R
/
W MN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WCITY R/W
EX.
EX.
HUDSON BLVD. NORTH
HUDSON BLVD
HUDSO
N
BLVD MANNING AVENUE NORTH(CSAH 15)3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,000 SF - 96 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS
229,540 S.F.
5.27 AC
116,013 S.F.
2.66 AC
216,218 S.F.
4.96 AC
120 UNITS MAX
SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITS
PUBLIC PARK
OUTLOT A
PRIVATE
COURTYARD
0.12 AC
PRIVATE PARK
1.11 AC LIMERICK PKWY3RD ST N3RD ST CT N5TH ST N
5TH ST N4TH
S
T
N
LILAC AVEOUTLOT C
OUTLOT B
OUTLOT D
OUTLOT G
OUTLOT E
OUTLOT F
OUTLOT DROAD B
ROAD A
ROAD C
ROAD A ROAD AROAD B6
6
12BLOCK 1BLOCK 3
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 5BLOCK 4BLOCK 7BLOC
K
6
B
L
O
C
K
8
B
L
O
C
K
9 BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 14BLOCK 15BLOCK 16BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 1911
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 1 2 3 4 5
1243
5
6
7
1234
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
7
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCK 20 BLOCK 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
BLOCK 221
2
3
4
BLOCK 231
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BLOCK 24BLOCK 251
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 712345678123456
B
L
O
C
K
2
6
BLOCK 27BLOCK 28BLOCK 29
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4BLOCK 30BLOCK 31BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34
BLOCK 38 BLOCK 37
BLOCK 40 BLOCK 39
BLOCK 42 BLOCK 41
BLOCK 35BLOCK 36BLOCK 43
LOT 1
44
LOT 1
BLOCK 45
LOT 1
2ND ST N
MANNING AVE NMANNING AVE N3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,000 SF - 96 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS
229,540 S.F.
5.27 AC
116,013 S.F.
2.66 AC
216,218 S.F.
4.96 AC
120 UNITS MAX
SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITS
PUBLIC PARK
OUTLOT A
PRIVATE
COURTYARD
0.12 AC
PRIVATE PARK
1.11 AC LIMERICK PKWY3RD ST N3RD ST CT N5TH ST N
5TH ST N4TH
S
T
N
LILAC AVEOUTLOT C
OUTLOT B
OUTLOT D
OUTLOT G
OUTLOT E
OUTLOT F
OUTLOT DROAD B
ROAD A
ROAD C
ROAD A ROAD AROAD B6
6
12BLOCK 1BLOCK 3
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 5BLOCK 4BLOCK 7BLOC
K
6
B
L
O
C
K
8
B
L
O
C
K
9 BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 14BLOCK 15BLOCK 16BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 1911
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 1 2 3 4 5
1243
5
6
7
1234
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
7
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCK 20 BLOCK 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
BLOCK 221
2
3
4
BLOCK 231
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BLOCK 24BLOCK 251
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 712345678123456
B
L
O
C
K
2
6
BLOCK 27BLOCK 28BLOCK 29
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4BLOCK 30BLOCK 31BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34
BLOCK 38 BLOCK 37
BLOCK 40 BLOCK 39
BLOCK 42 BLOCK 41
BLOCK 35BLOCK 36BLOCK 43
LOT 1
44
LOT 1
BLOCK 45
LOT 1
2ND ST N
MANNING AVE NMANNING AVE NA'
A'
B'
B'File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010site.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:22:17 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageSite Plan - Overallwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
20 95
20
0
SCALE IN FEET
75 150 300
N
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE
LIMITS
INFILTRATION WET POND
HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
R/WR/W
℄℄
R/WR/W
3RD ST CT N5TH ST N4TH S
T
N
LILAC AVEOUTLOT B
6
6
12BLOCK 1BLOCK 3
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 5BLOCK 4BLOCK 7BLOCK
6
B
L
O
C
K
8
B
L
O
C
K
9 BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 1911
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 1 2 3 4 5
1243
5
6
7
1234
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6 5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
23RD ST CT N5TH ST N4TH S
T
N
LILAC AVEOUTLOT B
6
6
12BLOCK 1BLOCK 3
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 5BLOCK 4BLOCK 7BLOCK
6
B
L
O
C
K
8
B
L
O
C
K
9 BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 1911
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 1 2 3 4 5
1243
5
6
7
1234
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6 5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
A'
A'
B'
B'File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010site.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:22:17 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageSite Plan - View Awww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
21 95
21
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
PUBLIC PARK
OUTLOT ALILAC AVEOUTLOT E
BLOCK 7BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 14BLOCK 15BLOCK 16BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 191234
5
1
2
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
1
BLOCK 30
PUBLIC PARK
OUTLOT ALILAC AVEOUTLOT E
BLOCK 7BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 14BLOCK 15BLOCK 16BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 191234
5
1
2
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
1
BLOCK 30
B'
B'File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010site.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:22:18 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageSite Plan - View Bwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
22 95
22
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
MANNING AVENUE NORTH(CSAH 15)PUBLIC PARK
OUTLOT A
PRIVATE
COURTYARD
0.12 AC
LIMERICK PKWY5TH ST N
OUTLOT D
OUTLOT G
OUTLOT E
OUTLOT F
OUTLOT DROAD B
ROAD A
ROAD C
ROAD A ROAD AROAD B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCK 20 BLOCK 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
BLOCK 22
1
2
3
4
BLOCK 231
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BLOCK 24BLOCK 251
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 712345678123456
B
L
O
C
K
2
6
BLOCK 27BLOCK 28BLOCK 29
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4BLOCK 30BLOCK 31BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34
BLOCK 38 BLOCK 37
BLOCK 40 BLOCK 39
BLOCK 42 BLOCK 41
BLOCK 35BLOCK 36MANNING AVE NPUBLIC PARK
OUTLOT A
PRIVATE
COURTYARD
0.12 AC
LIMERICK PKWY5TH ST N
OUTLOT D
OUTLOT G
OUTLOT E
OUTLOT F
OUTLOT DROAD B
ROAD A
ROAD C
ROAD A ROAD AROAD B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCK 20 BLOCK 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
BLOCK 22
1
2
3
4
BLOCK 231
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BLOCK 24BLOCK 251
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 712345678123456
B
L
O
C
K
2
6
BLOCK 27BLOCK 28BLOCK 29
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4BLOCK 30BLOCK 31BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34
BLOCK 38 BLOCK 37
BLOCK 40 BLOCK 39
BLOCK 42 BLOCK 41
BLOCK 35BLOCK 36MANNING AVE NFile Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010site.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:22:19 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageSite Plan - View Cwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
23 95
23
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,000 SF - 96 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS
229,540 S.F.
5.27 AC
116,013 S.F.
2.66 ACPRIVATE PARK
1.11 AC3RD ST CT N5TH ST NLILAC AVEOUTLOT C
OUTLOT B
6
12
BLOCK 5BLOCK 7BLOCK
6
B
L
O
C
K
8
B
L
O
C
K
9 BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 1911
10
9
8
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
7
2
BLOCK 45
LOT 1
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,000 SF - 96 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS
229,540 S.F.
5.27 AC
116,013 S.F.
2.66 ACPRIVATE PARK
1.11 AC3RD ST CT N5TH ST NLILAC AVEOUTLOT C
OUTLOT B
6
12
BLOCK 5BLOCK 7BLOCK
6
B
L
O
C
K
8
B
L
O
C
K
9 BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 1911
10
9
8
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
7
2
BLOCK 45
LOT 1
A'
A'File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010site.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:22:20 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageSite Plan - View Dwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
24 95
24
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS
229,540 S.F.
5.27 AC
OUTLOT A
3RD ST NLILAC AVEBLOCK 7BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 16BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 191
2
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
44
LOT 1
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS
229,540 S.F.
5.27 AC
OUTLOT A
3RD ST NLILAC AVEBLOCK 7BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 16BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 191
2
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
44
LOT 1
File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010site.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:22:21 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageSite Plan - View Ewww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
25 95
25
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
MN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WHUDSO
N
BLVD MANNING AVENUE NORTH3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS 216,218 S.F.
4.96 AC
120 UNITS MAX
SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITS
OUTLOT A
PRIVATE
COURTYARD
0.12 AC
LIMERICK PKWYOUTLOT F
OUTLOT D
ROAD AROAD B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCK 20 BLOCK 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
BLOCK 22
1
2
3
4
BLOCK 231
2
3
4
BLOCK 245
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34 BLOCK 35BLOCK 36BLOCK 43
LOT 1
MANNING AVE N3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS 216,218 S.F.
4.96 AC
120 UNITS MAX
SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITS
OUTLOT A
PRIVATE
COURTYARD
0.12 AC
LIMERICK PKWYOUTLOT F
OUTLOT D
ROAD AROAD B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCK 20 BLOCK 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
BLOCK 22
1
2
3
4
BLOCK 231
2
3
4
BLOCK 245
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34 BLOCK 35BLOCK 36BLOCK 43
LOT 1
MANNING AVE NFile Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010site.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:22:22 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageSite Plan - View Fwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
26 95
26
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
CSAH 15 (MANNING AVE)MN DOT R/WHUD
S
O
N
BLVD.
NORTH MN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WEX.
HUDSO
N
BLVD MANNING AVENUE NORTHWITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
216,218 S.F.
4.96 AC
120 UNITS MAX
SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITS
BLOCK 43
LOT 1
2ND ST N
MANNING AVE NWITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
216,218 S.F.
4.96 AC
120 UNITS MAX
SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITS
BLOCK 43
LOT 1
2ND ST N
MANNING AVE NFile Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010site.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:22:22 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageSite Plan - View Gwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
27 95
27
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
CSAH 15 (MANNING AVE)BLVD.
NOR
T
H
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WHUD
S
O
N
BLVD.
NORTH
MN DO
T
R
/
W MN DOT R/WEX.MANNING AVE NMANNING AVE NFile Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010site.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:22:23 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageSite Plan - View Hwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
28 95
28
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
HUDSO
N
BLVD.
NOR
T
H
TRUNK HIG
H
W
A
Y
N
O
.
9
4
MN DOT R/W
CITY R/W MN DOT R/WCITY R/W
EX.
HUDSON BLVD. NORTH
HUDSON BLVD
File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010site.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:22:24 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageSite Plan - View Iwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
29 95
29
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
S89°48'29"W 2576.63
N00°05'28"W 1168.73S89°50'51"W 2537.07
N05°40'53"E
117.79N00°08'04"W 385.03N01°12'47"W
175.96N00°13'45"W 644.36N12°20'35"W
155.51 MANNING AVENUE NORTH(CSAH 15)3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,000 SF - 96 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS
229,540 S.F.
5.27 AC
116,013 S.F.
2.66 AC
216,218 S.F.
4.96 AC
120 UNITS MAX
SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITS
PUBLIC PARK
OUTLOT A
PRIVATE
COURTYARD
0.12 AC
PRIVATE PARK
1.11 AC
PID: 3602921420001 PID: 3602921410001
LIMERICK PKWY3RD ST N3RD ST CT N5TH ST N
5TH ST N4TH
S
T
N
LILAC AVEOUTLOT C
OUTLOT B
OUTLOT D
OUTLOT G
OUTLOT E
OUTLOT F
OUTLOT DROAD B
ROAD A
ROAD C
ROAD A ROAD AROAD B6
6
12BLOCK 1BLOCK 3
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 5BLOCK 4BLOCK 7BLOCK
6
B
L
O
C
K
8
B
L
O
C
K
9 BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 14BLOCK 15BLOCK 16BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 1911
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 1 2 3 4 5
1243
5
6
7
1234
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
7
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCK 20 BLOCK 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
BLOCK 221
2
3
4
BLOCK 231
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BLOCK 24BLOCK 251
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 712345678123456
B
L
O
C
K
2
6
BLOCK 27BLOCK 28BLOCK 29
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4BLOCK 30BLOCK 31BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34
BLOCK 38 BLOCK 37
BLOCK 40 BLOCK 39
BLOCK 42 BLOCK 41
BLOCK 35BLOCK 36BLOCK 43
LOT 1
44
LOT 1
BLOCK 45
LOT 1 MANNING AVE NFile Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010park.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:22:31 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageParking & Boulevard Planwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
30 95
300
SCALE IN FEET
50 100 200
N
HUDSON BLVD
HUDSON
BLVD
FES
Inv=897.5
FES
Inv=889.9
FES
Inv=891.0
FES
Inv=890.7
FES
Inv=891.4
18"CMP
18"CMP 18"RCPFES
Inv=891.3
FES
Inv=884.8
4
8
"
R
.C
.
P
.36
"
R
.C
.P
.CSAH 15 (MANNING AVE)HUDSON
BLVD.
NOR
T
H
TRUNK HIGH
W
A
Y
N
O
.
9
4
Metro
S
e
w
er
Flow
M
et
er
San M
H
Rim 9
2
4.
0
8
San M
H
0-
e
x
4
8"
Rim 9
2
2.
8
7
Inv W
8
8
1.
7
5
Inv SE
8
8
2.
2
3
San M
H
0-
1
4
8"
Rim 9
1
9.
9
3
Inv E
8
8
2.
6
8
Inv N
W
8
8
2.
5
8
Top C
o
n
c
9
2
4.
2
4
San M
H
0
-
2
5
4"
Rim 9
1
7.
1
8
Inv N&
E
8
8
4.
1
0
Inv W
8
8
3.
6
0
Inv N
D
r
o
p
9
0
0.
4
0
San M
H
1
-
1
5
4"
Rim 9
2
0.
1
0
Inv E
9
0
0.
9
8
Inv S
9
0
0.
8
8
San M
H
1
-
2
5
4"
Rim 9
1
5.
5
8
Inv N
9
0
1.
2
2
Inv W
9
0
1.
1
2
San M
H
1-
3
4
8
"
Rim 9
1
9.
3
1
Inv N
9
0
1.
7
4
Inv S
9
0
1.
6
4
18" S
a
n
St
u
b
Inv 88
4.
1
224"
San
24" San 24" San24" San 24" San24" San24" San24" San8" PVC San8" PVC San
San M
H
1
-
4
4
8"
Rim 9
2
1.
9
3
Inv N
9
0
2.
3
8
Inv S
9
0
2.
2
8
Inv W
9
0
3.
5
9
8" Sa
n
St
u
b
at 0.4
%
San M
H
1
-
5
4
8"
Rim 9
1
7.
6
1
Inv N
9
0
2.
9
9
Inv S
9
0
2.
8
9
Inv W
9
0
4.
4
4
San M
H
E
x-
1
Rim 9
2
2.
4
1
Inv NW
9
0
9.
9
1
Inv E
9
0
9.
8
1
Metro Sewer Trunk15" CMP StormInv 91
7.
2
Inv 91
6.
7
15" CMP Storm
Inv 91
4.
7
Inv 91
5.
3
15" CMP StormInv 91
8.
0
Inv 91
8.
2
15" CM
P
S
t
o
r
mInv 92
0.
7
Inv 92
1.
136" RCP Storm Inv 920.0 DES
24" RCP StormInv 91
3.
5
F
E
S
Outlet
Str
u
ct
ur
e
Inv 91
8.
2
27" F
E
S
Inv 91
5.
0
F
E
S
Inv 91
7.
9
3Rim 9
2
3.
5
2
Catch
B
a
si
n
Inv 91
7.
5
7
Rim 9
2
3.
0
5
Catch
B
a
si
n
Inv 92
6.
5
8Rim 9
3
1.
6
Catch
B
a
si
n
Inv 91
5.
5
4Rim 9
2
0.
7
0
Catch
B
a
si
n 12" DIP Waterma
in
Fire H
y
dr
a
nt
Subm
er
g
e
d
15" RC
P
S
t
o
r
m
15" RCP Storm15" RCP Storm15" RCP Storm
0
= 901.00
Inv. Elev. = 900.56Property Boundary LineFES
Inv. 901.5
FES Inv. 901.040 LF-18"CPPInv. Elev.
18" HDPE Culvert
Inv 902
.
0
9
Inv 901
.
2
318" HDPE Culvert18" HDPE Culvert
Under S
n
o
w
?Locatio
n
LAUNCHPARK LAKE ELMO LLC3602921330004METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 3602921340001
36029213300103602921340004
3602921340005
3602921340008 DOC 3467364DOC 373655060 FT WIDE NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT PER BOOK 199 DEEDS, PAGE 408 & AMENDED BY DOC. 373654935 FT WIDE NO NAT GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT DOC 3138117PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC NO 3956981DOC 4005602LAUNCHPARK LAKE ELMO LLC
3602921330014 3602921330001PROPERTIES LLC
VALI-HI METRO
PROPERTIES LLCVALI-HI METROPROPERTIES LLC
VALI-HI METRO
& TODD J OLSON
JAMILE L & WENDY 3602921340006
SCOTT M SAYER
PROPERTIES LLC
VALI-HI METRO
TRINITY SELECT LLCHUDSON BLVD. NORTH3602921340008PROPERTIES LLCVALI-HI METROPUBLIC DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC NO 4020446
MN DOT R/W
CITY R/W
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WHUD
S
O
N
BLVD.
NORTH
MN DOT R/W
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WCITY R/W
EX.
EX.
HUDSON BLVD. NORTH MANNING AVENUE NORTH(CSAH 15)5T
H
ST
N
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,000 SF - 96 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS
229,540 S.F.
5.27 AC
116,013 S.F.
2.66 AC
216,218 S.F.
4.96 AC
120 UNITS MAX
SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITS
PUBLIC PARK
PRIVATE
COURTYARD
0.12 AC
PRIVATE PARK
1.11 AC
PID: 3602921420001 PID: 3602921410001
LIMERICK PKWY3RD ST N3RD ST CT N5TH ST N
5TH ST N4TH
S
T
N
LILAC AVEROAD B
ROAD A
ROAD C
ROAD A ROAD AROAD B2ND ST N
MANNING AVE NMANNING AVE N896.0 B*
897.84 HP
896.92 LP
898.60 HP
895.56 LP
895.05 LP
894.50 EOF
INFILTR
A
T
I
O
N
B
A
S
I
N
2
100-YR
H
W
L
=
8
9
0
.
0
6
BTM = 8
8
7
.
7
5
INFIL. V
O
L
U
M
E
=
2
9
,
3
1
9
C
F
894.00 G
PRETREATMENT POND
NWL: 897.55
100-YR HWL: 898.21
INFILTRATION POND
BOT: 896.30
100-YR HWL: 898.21
901.15 B*
FOREBAY
100-YR HWL = 891.28
NWL = 889.00
BTM = 885.00
INFILTRATION BASIN 1
100-YR HWL = 891.35
BTM = 888.00
INFIL. VOLUME = 2,307 CF
901.78 G
892.40 G
896.62 G
898.75 G
889.77 G
891.10 G
890.38 FES
902.88 TC
902.38 GL903.03 TC
902.53 GL
903.28 TC
902.78 GL
905.29 TC
904.79 GL
DITCH
100-YR HWL = 890.06
DITCH
100-YR HWL = 894.15
895.36 B*895.04 B
895.80 B
DITCH
100-YR HWL = 894.15
896.42 B
REMOVE EXISTING ROADWAY BED,
TO PROMOTE POSITIVE DRAINAGE
TO THE SOUTH AND EAST.
889.25 G
895.90 G
893.78 G
900.25 G
896.30 EOF
File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010grad.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:22:49 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageGrading & Drainage Plan - Overallwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
31 95
310
SCALE IN FEET
125 250 500
N
FES
Inv=897.5
FES
Inv=889.9
FES
Inv=891.0
FES
Inv=890.7
FES
Inv=891.4
18"CMP
18"CMP 18"RCPFES
Inv=891.3
FES
Inv=884.8
4
8
"
R
.C
.P
.
36
"
R
.C
.P
.CSAH 15 (MANNING AVE)HUDSO
N
BLVD.
NOR
T
H
TRUNK HIG
H
W
A
Y
N
O
.
9
4
= 901.00
Inv. Elev. = 900.56Property Boundary LineFES
Inv. 901.5
FES Inv. 901.040 LF-18"CPPInv. Elev.
18" HDPE Culvert
Inv 902
.
0
9
Inv 901.
2
318" HDPE Culvert18" HDPE Culvert
Under S
n
o
w
?Locatio
n DOC 3467364DOC 373655060 FT WIDE NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT PER BOOK 199 DEEDS, PAGE 408 & AMENDED BY DOC. 373654935 FT WIDE NO NAT GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT DOC 3138117DOC 40056023602921340006
SCOTT M SAYER
TRINITY SELECT LLCMN DOT R/W
CITY R/W
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WHUD
S
O
N
BLVD.
NORTH
MN DOT R/W
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WCITY R/W
EX.
EX.
HUDSON BLVD. NORTH
HUDSON BLVD
HUDSO
N
BLVD MANNING AVENUE NORTH(CSAH 15)3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,000 SF - 96 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITS
OUTLOT A LIMERICK PKWY3RD ST N3RD ST CT N5TH ST N
5TH ST N4TH
S
T
N
LILAC AVEOUTLOT C
OUTLOT B
OUTLOT D
OUTLOT G
OUTLOT E
OUTLOT F
OUTLOT DROAD B
ROAD A
ROAD C
ROAD A ROAD AROAD B6
6
12BLOCK 1BLOCK 3
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 5BLOCK 4BLOCK 7BLO
CK
6
B
L
O
C
K
8
B
L
O
C
K
9 BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 14BLOCK 15BLOCK 16BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 1911
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 1 2 3 4 5
1243
5
6
7
1234
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
7
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCK 20 BLOCK 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
BLOCK 22
1
2
3
4
BLOCK 231
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BLOCK 24BLOCK 251
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 712345678123456
B
L
O
C
K
2
6
BLOCK 27BLOCK 28BLOCK 29
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4BLOCK 30BLOCK 31BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34
BLOCK 38 BLOCK 37
BLOCK 40 BLOCK 39
BLOCK 42 BLOCK 41
BLOCK 35BLOCK 36BLOCK 43
LOT 1
44
LOT 1
BLOCK 45
LOT 1
2ND ST N
MANNING AVE NMANNING AVE NFile Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010escp.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:24:23 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageErosion Control Plan - Overallwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
45 95
450
SCALE IN FEET
50 100 200
N
FES
Inv=897.5
FES
Inv=889.9
FES
Inv=891.0
FES
Inv=890.7
FES
Inv=891.4
18"CMP
18"CMP 18"RCPFES
Inv=891.3
FES
Inv=884.8
4
8
"
R
.C
.
P
.
36
"
R
.C
.P
.CSAH 15 (MANNING AVE)HUDSON
BLVD.
NOR
T
H
TRUNK HIGH
W
A
Y
N
O
.
9
4
Metro
S
e
w
er
Flow
M
et
er
San M
H
Rim 9
2
4.
0
8
San M
H
0-
e
x
4
8"
Rim 9
2
2.
8
7
Inv W
8
8
1.
7
5
Inv SE
8
8
2.
2
3
San M
H
0-
1
4
8
"
Rim 9
1
9.
9
3
Inv E
8
8
2.
6
8
Inv N
W
8
8
2.
5
8
Top C
o
n
c
9
2
4.
2
4
San M
H
0-
2
5
4
"
Rim 9
1
7.
1
8
Inv N&
E
8
8
4.
1
0
Inv W
8
8
3.
6
0
Inv N
Dr
o
p
9
0
0.
4
0
San M
H
1-
1
5
4"
Rim 9
2
0.
1
0
Inv E
9
0
0.
9
8
Inv S
9
0
0.
8
8
San M
H
1-
2
5
4
"
Rim 9
1
5.
5
8
Inv N
9
0
1.
2
2
Inv W
9
0
1.
1
2
San M
H
1
-
3
4
8"
Rim 9
1
9.
3
1
Inv N
9
0
1.
7
4
Inv S
9
0
1.
6
4
18" S
a
n
St
u
b
Inv 88
4.
1
224"
San
24" San 24" San24" San 24" San24" San24" San24" San8" PVC San8" PVC
San
San M
H
1-
4
4
8
"
Rim 9
2
1.
9
3
Inv N
9
0
2.
3
8
Inv S
9
0
2.
2
8
Inv W
9
0
3.
5
9
8" Sa
n
St
u
b
at 0.4
%
San M
H
1-
5
4
8
"
Rim 9
1
7.
6
1
Inv N
9
0
2.
9
9
Inv S
9
0
2.
8
9
Inv W
9
0
4.
4
4
San M
H
E
x-
1
Rim 9
2
2.
4
1
Inv N
W
9
0
9.
9
1
Inv E
9
0
9.
8
1
Metro Sewer Trunk15" CMP StormInv 91
7.
2
Inv 91
6.
7
15" CMP Storm
Inv 91
4.
7
Inv 91
5.
3
15" CMP StormInv 91
8.
0
Inv 91
8.
2
15" CM
P
S
t
o
r
mInv 92
0.
7
Inv 92
1.
136" RCP Stor
m
Inv 920.0 DES15" CMP StormInv 93
6.
8Inv 93
6.
3
15" CMP Storm Inv 93
5.
5
24" RCP Storm Inv 91
3.
5
F
E
S
Outlet
St
r
u
ct
ur
e
Inv 91
8.
2
27" F
E
S
Inv 91
5.
0
F
E
S
Inv 91
7.
9
3Rim 9
2
3.
5
2
Catch
B
a
si
n
Inv 91
7.
5
7Rim 9
2
3.
0
5
Catch
B
a
si
n
Inv 92
6.
5
8
Rim 9
3
1.
6
Catch
B
a
si
n
Inv 91
5.
5
4
Rim 9
2
0.
7
0
Catch
B
a
si
n 12" D
IP Wa
terma
in
Fire H
y
dr
a
nt
Subm
er
g
e
d
15" RC
P
S
t
o
r
m
15" RCP Storm15" RCP Storm15" RCP Storm
0
= 901.00
Inv. Elev. = 900.56Property Boundary LineFES
Inv. 901.5
FES Inv. 901.040 LF-18"CPPInv. Elev.
18" HDPE Culvert
Inv 902
.
0
9
Inv 901
.
2
318" HDPE Culvert18" HDPE Culvert
Under S
n
o
w
?Location
LAUNCHPARK LAKE ELMO LLC3602921330004METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 3602921340001
36029213300103602921340004
3602921340005
3602921340008 DOC 3467364DOC 373655060 FT WIDE NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT PER BOOK 199 DEEDS, PAGE 408 & AMENDED BY DOC. 373654935 FT WIDE NO NAT GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT DOC 3138117PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC NO 3956981DOC 4005602LAUNCHPARK LAKE ELMO LLC
3602921330014 3602921330001PROPERTIES LLC
VALI-HI METRO
PROPERTIES LLCVALI-HI METROPROPERTIES LLC
VALI-HI METRO
& TODD J OLSON
JAMILE L & WENDY 3602921340006
SCOTT M SAYER
PROPERTIES LLC
VALI-HI METRO
TRINITY SELECT LLCCSAH 17 (LAKE ELMO AVE)HUDSON BLVD. NORTH3602921340008PROPERTIES LLCVALI-HI METROPUBLIC DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC NO 4020446
MN DOT R/W
CITY R/W
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WHUD
S
O
N
BLVD.
NORTH
MN DOT R/W
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WCITY R/W
EX.
EX.
HUDSON BLVD. NORTH
HUDSON BLVD
HUDSO
N
BLVD MANNING AVENUE NORTH(CSAH 15)5T
H
ST
N
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,000 SF - 96 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITSLIMERICK PKWY3RD ST N3RD ST CT N5TH ST N
5TH ST N4TH
S
T
N
LILAC AVEROAD B
ROAD A
ROAD C
ROAD A ROAD AROAD B2ND ST N
MANNING AVE NMANNING AVE N3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,000 SF - 96 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITSLIMERICK PKWY3RD ST N3RD ST CT N5TH ST N
5TH ST N4TH
S
T
N
LILAC AVEROAD B
ROAD A
ROAD C
ROAD A ROAD AROAD B2ND ST N
MANNING AVE NMANNING AVE NFile Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010util.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:25:04 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageSanitary Sewer & Watermain Plan - Overallwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
57 95
570
SCALE IN FEET
125 250 500
N
FES
Inv=897.5
FES
Inv=889.9
FES
Inv=891.0
FES
Inv=890.7
FES
Inv=891.4
18"CMP
18"CMP 18"RCPFES
Inv=891.3
FES
Inv=884.8
4
8
"
R
.C
.P
.36
"
R
.C
.P
.CSAH 15 (MANNING AVE)HUDSON
BLVD.
NOR
T
H
TRUNK HIG
H
W
A
Y
N
O
.
9
4
Metro
S
e
w
er
Flow
M
et
er
San M
H
Rim 9
2
4.
0
8
San M
H
0
-
e
x
4
8
"
Rim 9
2
2.
8
7
Inv W
8
8
1.
7
5
Inv SE
8
8
2.
2
3
San M
H
0-
1
4
8
"
Rim 9
1
9.
9
3
Inv E
8
8
2.
6
8
Inv NW
8
8
2.
5
8
Top C
o
n
c
9
2
4.
2
4
San M
H
0-
2
5
4"
Rim 9
1
7.
1
8
Inv N&
E
8
8
4.
1
0
Inv W
8
8
3.
6
0Inv N
D
r
o
p
9
0
0.
4
0
San M
H
1-
1
5
4
"
Rim 9
2
0.
1
0
Inv E
9
0
0.
9
8
Inv S
9
0
0.
8
8
San M
H
1-
2
5
4
"
Rim 9
1
5.
5
8
Inv N
9
0
1.
2
2
Inv W
9
0
1.
1
2
San M
H
1-
3
4
8
"
Rim 9
1
9.
3
1
Inv N
9
0
1.
7
4
Inv S
9
0
1.
6
4
18" S
a
n
St
u
b
Inv 88
4.
1
224" San
24" San 24" San24" San 24" San24" San24" San24" San8" PVC San8" PVC SanSan M
H
1
-
4
4
8"
Rim 9
2
1.
9
3
Inv N
9
0
2.
3
8
Inv S
9
0
2.
2
8
Inv W
9
0
3.
5
9
8" Sa
n
St
u
b
at 0.4
%
San M
H
1-
5
4
8"
Rim 9
1
7.
6
1
Inv N
9
0
2.
9
9
Inv S
9
0
2.
8
9
Inv W
9
0
4.
4
4
San M
H
E
x
-
1
Rim 9
2
2.
4
1
Inv NW
9
0
9.
9
1
Inv E
9
0
9.
8
1
Metro Sewer Trunk15" CMP StormInv 91
7.
2
Inv 91
6.
7
15" CMP Storm
Inv 91
4.
7
Inv 91
5.
3
15" CMP StormInv 91
8.
0
Inv 91
8.
2
15" CM
P
S
t
o
r
mInv 92
0.
7
Inv 92
1.
136" RCP Stor
m
Inv 920.0 DES15" CMP StormInv 93
6.
8Inv 93
6.
3
15" CMP Storm Inv 93
5.
5
24" RCP Storm Inv 91
3.
5
F
E
S
Outlet
St
r
u
ct
ur
e
Inv 91
8.
2
27" F
E
S
Inv 91
5.
0
F
E
S
Inv 91
7.
9
3
Rim 9
2
3.
5
2
Catch
B
a
si
n
Inv 91
7.
5
7
Rim 9
2
3.
0
5
Catch
B
a
si
n
Inv 92
6.
5
8Rim 9
3
1.
6
Catch
B
a
si
n
Inv 91
5.
5
4
Rim 9
2
0.
7
0
Catch
B
a
si
n 12" D
IP Wa
terma
in
Fire H
y
d
r
a
nt
Subm
er
g
e
d
15" RCP
S
t
o
r
m
15" RCP Storm15" RCP Storm15" RCP Storm
0
= 901.00
Inv. Elev. = 900.56Property Boundary LineFES
Inv. 901.5
FES Inv. 901.040 LF-18"CPPInv. Elev.
18" HDPE Culvert
Inv 902
.
0
9
Inv 901
.
2
318" HDPE Culvert18" HDPE Culvert
Under S
n
o
w
?Locatio
n
LAUNCHPARK LAKE ELMO LLC3602921330004METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 3602921340001
36029213300103602921340004
3602921340005
3602921340008 DOC 3467364DOC 373655060 FT WIDE NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT PER BOOK 199 DEEDS, PAGE 408 & AMENDED BY DOC. 373654935 FT WIDE NO NAT GAS CO PIPELINE EASEMENT DOC 3138117PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC NO 3956981DOC 4005602LAUNCHPARK LAKE ELMO LLC
3602921330014 3602921330001PROPERTIES LLC
VALI-HI METRO
PROPERTIES LLCVALI-HI METROPROPERTIES LLC
VALI-HI METRO
& TODD J OLSON
JAMILE L & WENDY 3602921340006
SCOTT M SAYER
PROPERTIES LLC
VALI-HI METRO
TRINITY SELECT LLCCSAH 17 (LAKE ELMO AVE)HUDSON BLVD. NORTH3602921340008PROPERTIES LLCVALI-HI METROPUBLIC DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC NO 4020446
MN DOT R/W
CITY R/W
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WHUD
S
O
N
BLVD.
NORTH
MN DOT R/W
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WCITY R/W
EX.
EX.
HUDSON BLVD. NORTH MANNING AVENUE NORTH(CSAH 15)5T
H
ST
N
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,000 SF - 96 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITS
OUTLOT A
PID: 3602921420001 PID: 3602921410001
LIMERICK PKWY3RD ST N3RD ST CT N5TH ST N
5TH ST N4TH
S
T
N
LILAC AVEOUTLOT C
OUTLOT B
OUTLOT D
OUTLOT G
OUTLOT E
OUTLOT F
OUTLOT DROAD B
ROAD A
ROAD C
ROAD A ROAD AROAD B6
6
12BLOCK 1BLOCK 3
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 5BLOCK 4BLOCK 7B
LOC
K
6
B
L
O
C
K
8
B
L
O
C
K
9 BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 14BLOCK 15BLOCK 16BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 1911
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 1 2 3 4 5
1243
5
6
7
1234
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
7
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCK 20 BLOCK 21
1
2 3
4
5
6
BLOCK 22
1
2
3
4
BLOCK 231
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BLOCK 24BLOCK 251
2
34
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 712345678123456
B
L
O
C
K
2
6
BLOCK 27BLOCK 28BLOCK 29
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4BLOCK
30BLOCK 31BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34
BLOCK 38 BLOCK 37
BLOCK 40 BLOCK 39
BLOCK 42 BLOCK 41
BLOCK 35BLOCK 36BLOCK 43
LOT 1
44
LOT 1
BLOCK 45
LOT 1
2ND ST N
MANNING AVE NMANNING AVE NHUDSON BLVD
HUDSON
BLVD
CB 30
RIM = 896.11
INV = 892.11
50 FT - 12" RCP @ 0.28%
CBMH 27
RIM = 897.28
INV = 891.57 (NW)
INV = 891.12 (NE)
INV = 890.32 (SW)
CBMH 18
RIM = 894.93
INV = 890.31 (NW)
INV = 889.99 (SW)
INV = 889.51 (NE)
INV = 889.11 (SE)
93 FT - 18" RCP @
1.45% (BULKHEAD)
CB 36
RIM = 894.38
INV = 890.38
CB 23
RIM = 895.00
INV = 891.00
FES 7
INV = 886.00
FES 6
INV = 888.00
OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE
RIM = 894.00
INV = 892.50 TOP OF WEIR
INV = 889.25 6" ORIFICE
INV = 889.25 21" RCP
FES 12
INV = 889.00
54 FT - 12" RCP @ 0.91%
CB 35
RIM = 894.24
INV = 889.89
STMH 34
RIM = 894.25
INV = 889.42 (W)
INV = 888.42 (N, S)
FES 11
INV = 888.00
CB 29
RIM = 896.32
INV = 891.97 (NW)
INV = 891.57 (SW)164 FT - 18" RCP @ 0.20%
86 FT - 18" RCP @ 0.14%
CBMH 28
RIM = 896.18
INV = 891.65 (NW)
INV = 891.45 (NE, SW)
50 FT - 15" RCP @ 0.50%
CBMH 31
RIM = 896.42
INV = 891.90
272 FT - 30" RCP @ 0.14%143 FT - 30" RCP @ 0.14%CB 22
RIM = 895.25
INV = 891.25
50 FT - 12" RCP @ 1.00%
50 FT - 12" RCP @ 0.70%
CB 24
RIM = 895.25
INV = 891.25
50 FT - 12" RCP @ 1.40%
CBMH 21
RIM = 895.10
INV = 890.75 (NW)
INV = 890.55 (NE)
171 FT - 18" RCP @ 0.60%
248 FT - 15" RCP @
0
.
5
8
%
23 FT - 24" RCP @ 0.22%
STMH 13a
RIM = 896.50
INV = 892.25 (W, NE)
INV = 892.05 (S)
SUMP = 889.05
68 FT - 21" RCP @ 1.84%
99 FT - 21" RCP @ -3.28%
50 FT - 12" RCP @ 2.0%
CB 32
RIM = 896.68
INV = 892.68
CBMH 26
RIM = 896.93
INV = 891.68 (W)
INV = 889.94 (N, S)146 FT - 30" RCP @ 0.16%CBMH 25
RIM = 896.06
INV = 890.94 (W)
INV = 889.74 (N, S)
50 FT - 12" RCP @ 1.74%
CB 33
RIM = 895.81
INV = 891.81
63 FT - 18"RCP @ 0.25%CBMH 19
RIM = 895.25
INV = 890.55 (NW)
INV = 890.15 (SW, NE)
CBMH 20
RIM = 894.75
INV = 890.65 (NW)
INV = 890.45 (SW)
INV = 890.25 (NE)
CB 17
RIM = 896.45
INV = 892.45
84 FT - 12" RCP @ 0.24%
CBMH 14
RIM = 897.73
INV = 893.27 (W, E)
SUMP = 890.27
CB 16
RIM = 899.57
INV = 895.57
8 FT - 12" RCP @ 1.0%
248 FT - 15" RCP @ 0.57%
STMH 15
RIM = 899.97
INV = 895.49 (N)
INV = 894.71 (W, E)
FES 9
INV = 889.00
FES 10
INV = 889.00
62 FT - 12" RCP @ 0.0%
51 FT - 15" RCP @ 0.91%
92 FT - 30" RCP @ 0.46%
270 LF 51" X 31" RCP ARCH @ 0.51%
FES 2
INV = 890.38
FES 1
INV = 889.00
FES 8
INV = 889.00
58 FT - 36" RCP @ 0.19%
92 FT - 18" RCP @
1.45% (BULKHEAD)
FES 5
INV = 892.00
74 FT - 21" RCP @ 0.34%
FES 4
INV = 889.50
FES 3
INV = 889.25
41 FT - 15" RCP @ 0.25%
42 FT - 18" RCP @ 0.25%96 FT - 30" RCP @ 0.60%FES 13
INV = 892.57
10 LF 18" CMP @ 1.00%
9 LF 18" CMP @ 1.91%
STMH 37
RIM = 894.97
INV = 892.47
40 FT - 15" RCP @ 0.50%
CBMH 38
RIM = 896.11
INV = 892.30 (NE)
INV = 892.10 (S)
28 FT - 12" RCP @ 0.50%
CB 39
RIM = 896.15
INV = 892.48
File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010strm.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:25:24 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageStorm Sewer Plan - Overallwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Clark Wicklund
40922
CJW
JCH
221-0010
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of MN.
68 95
680
SCALE IN FEET
50 100 200
N
MN DOT R/WHUDSONBLVD
MANNING AVENUE NORTH (CSAH 15)3 - STORY APARTMENTS WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING34,000 SF - 96 UNITS3 - STORY APARTMENTS WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING26,000 SF - 75 UNITS3 - STORY APARTMENTS WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING34,200 SF - 100 UNITS229,540 S.F.5.27 AC116,013 S.F.2.66 AC216,218 S.F.4.96 AC120 UNITS MAXSENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING42,000 SF - 120 UNITSPUBLIC PARKOUTLOT APRIVATECOURTYARD0.12 ACPRIVATE PARK1.11 ACLIMERICK PKWY3RD ST N3RD ST CT N
5TH ST N5TH ST N 4TH ST NLILA
C
A
V
EOUTLOT COUTLOT BOUTLOT DOUTLOT GOUTLOT EOUTLOT FOUTLOT DROAD BROAD AROAD CROAD AROAD AROAD B6612BLOCK 1BLOCK 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 5 BLOCK 4BLOCK 7BLOCK 6BLOCK 8BLOCK 9BLOCK 10 BLOCK 11
BL
O
C
K
1
2
BLOCK 13
BLOCK 14BLOCK 15
BLOCK
1
6
B
L
O
C
K
1
7
BLOCK 18BLOCK 19 1110987654321123451243567123456789101112131415161234567891065432123457891234123465432165432165432143121234123456123456123456134123417212345678123456BLOCK 20BLOCK 21123456B
L
O
C
K
2
2
1234BLOCK 23 1234567812345678BLOCK 24 BLOCK 25 123456123456712345678123456BLOCK 26BLOCK 27BLOCK 28BLOCK 2912341234123451234561234567123456123412341234561234123412341234BLOCK 30BLOCK 31BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34BLOCK 38BLOCK 37BLOCK 40BLOCK 39BLOCK 42BLOCK 41BLOCK 35
BLOCK 36BLOCK 43LOT 144LOT 1BLOCK 45LOT 1MANNING AVE N3 - STORY APARTMENTS WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING34,000 SF - 96 UNITS3 - STORY APARTMENTS WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING26,000 SF - 75 UNITS3 - STORY APARTMENTS WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING34,200 SF - 100 UNITS229,540 S.F.5.27 AC116,013 S.F.2.66 AC216,218 S.F.4.96 AC120 UNITS MAXSENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING42,000 SF - 120 UNITSPUBLIC PARKOUTLOT APRIVATECOURTYARD0.12 ACPRIVATE PARK1.11 ACLIMERICK PKWY3RD ST N3RD ST CT N
5TH ST N5TH ST N 4TH ST NLILA
C
A
V
EOUTLOT COUTLOT BOUTLOT DOUTLOT GOUTLOT EOUTLOT FOUTLOT DROAD BROAD AROAD CROAD AROAD AROAD B6612BLOCK 1BLOCK 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 5 BLOCK 4BLOCK 7BLOCK 6BLOCK 8BLOCK 9BLOCK 10 BLOCK 11
BL
O
C
K
1
2
BLOCK 13
BLOCK 14BLOCK 15
BLOCK
1
6
B
L
O
C
K
1
7
BLOCK 18BLOCK 19 1110987654321123451243567123456789101112131415161234567891065432123457891234123465432165432165432143121234123456123456123456134123417212345678123456BLOCK 20BLOCK 21123456B
L
O
C
K
2
2
1234BLOCK 23 1234567812345678BLOCK 24 BLOCK 25 123456123456712345678123456BLOCK 26BLOCK 27BLOCK 28BLOCK 2912341234123451234561234567123456123412341234561234123412341234BLOCK 30BLOCK 31BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34BLOCK 38BLOCK 37BLOCK 40BLOCK 39BLOCK 42BLOCK 41BLOCK 35
BLOCK 36BLOCK 43LOT 144LOT 1BLOCK 45LOT 1MANNING AVE NFile Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010irrigation.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:25:40 PMKnow what's below.Call before you dig.RDial 811FOR REV
IEW
ONLYPRELIM
INARYNOT FOR
CONSTRUCT
ION
City Submittal
Completeness Review Comments
2-27-26
2-6-26
Lake Elmo, MN
Preliminary Plat Submittal
Limerick Village
Irrigation Reuse Plan www.alliant-inc.comPROJECT TEAM DATAQA/QC CHECKDateByCERTIFICATIONDateLicense no.DATE DESCRIPTION
Project No.:Drafted By:Designed By:SheetofClark Wicklund40922 CJWJCH221-0010I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly Licensed ProfessionalCivil Engineer under the laws of theState of MN. 7995790SCALE IN FEET50100200NINFILTRATIONWET PONDHIGH DENSITYRESIDENTIALMEDIUM DENSITYRESIDENTIALREUSE INTAKE PIPEIRRIGATION REUSEPUMP & CABINET
MN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WHUDSO
N
BLVD MANNING AVENUE NORTH(CSAH 15)3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,000 SF - 96 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITS
OUTLOT A LIMERICK PKWY3RD ST N3RD ST CT N5TH ST N
5TH ST N4TH
S
T
N
LILAC AVEOUTLOT C
OUTLOT B
OUTLOT D
OUTLOT G
OUTLOT E
OUTLOT F
OUTLOT DROAD B
ROAD A
ROAD C
ROAD A ROAD AROAD B6
6
12BLOCK 1BLOCK 3
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 5BLOCK 4BLOCK 7BLOC
K
6
B
L
O
C
K
8
B
L
O
C
K
9 BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 14BLOCK 15BLOCK 16BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 1911
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 1 2 3 4 5
1243
5
6
7
1234
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
7
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCK 20 BLOCK 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
BLOCK 22
1
2
3
4
BLOCK 231
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BLOCK 24BLOCK 251
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 712345678123456
B
L
O
C
K
2
6
BLOCK 27BLOCK 28BLOCK 29
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4BLOCK 30BLOCK 31BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34
BLOCK 38 BLOCK 37
BLOCK 40 BLOCK 39
BLOCK 42 BLOCK 41
BLOCK 35BLOCK 36BLOCK 43
LOT 1
44
LOT 1
BLOCK 45
LOT 1
2ND ST N
MANNING AVE NMANNING AVE NFile Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010land.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:25:58 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageLandscape Plan - Overallwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
221-0010
Mark Kronbeck
26222
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Landscape Architect under the laws of the
State of MN.
80 95
800
SCALE IN FEET
50 100 200
N
LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS:MITIGATION REQUIRED:
3RD ST CT N5TH ST N4TH S
T
N
LILAC AVEOUTLOT B
6
6
12BLOCK 1BLOCK 3
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 5BLOCK 4BLOCK 7BLOCK
6
B
L
O
C
K
8
B
L
O
C
K
9 BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 1911
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 1 2 3 4 5
1243
5
6
7
1234
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6 5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3 - JL
7 - CH
7 - WO
7 - WO
7 - HL
7 - HL
3 - PC
3 - JL
3 - PC
3 - JL
7 - NF
3 - PC
6 - NF
3 - JL
3 - PC
1 - NF
4 - AE
4 - AE
7 - WO
5 - KC
5 - SL
2 - BM
4 - AE
6 - RO
5 - RO
2 - KC
3 - HL
7 - CH
2 - KC
7 - WO
7 - SL
7 - NF
7 - CH
2 - BM
3 - HL
5 - AE
7 - BM
7 - RO
5 - KC
4 - HL
3 - WP
3 - NS
3 - WP
3 - BF
3 - BH 3 - NS
3 - BF
3 - BH
3 - BH
3 - NS
1 - SW
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - RB
1 - BF
1 - NS
1 - BH
1 - BF
1 - NS
1 - BH
1 - BH
1 - BF
1 - NS
1 - BH
1 - BF
1 - BH
1 - NS 1 - BF 1 - BH
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - WP
1 - RB
1 - RB
1 - RB
1 - CH
3 - BF
1 - NS
1 - CH
1 - RB
1 - RO
1 - CH
File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010land.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:26:03 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageLandscape Plan - View Awww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
221-0010
Mark Kronbeck
26222
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Landscape Architect under the laws of the
State of MN.
81 95
81
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
LEGEND
OUTLOT ALILAC AVEOUTLOT E
BLOCK 7BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 14BLOCK 15BLOCK 16BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 191234
5
1
2
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
1
BLOCK 30
8 - BM
6 - BM
7 - CH
3 - PC3 - JL3 - JL
7 - CH
3 - WP
7 - WO
7 - WO3 - PC
7 - NF
7 - KC
3 - WO
4 - WO
7 - WO
7 - SL
7 - NF
7 - CH
2 - BM
3 - HL
5 - AE
7 - BM
7 - RO
3 - NS
3 - WP
3 - WP
3 - BF
3 - BF
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - RB
1 - BM
1 - RB
1 - RB1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - SW
1 - CH
1 - CH
1 - SW
1 - SW
1 - SW
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - RB 1 - SW
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - SW
3 - BF
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - WP
1 - RB1 - SW
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - BF
1 - BH
1 - NS 1 - BF 1 - BH
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - WP
3 - BF File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010land.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:26:09 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageLandscape Plan - View Bwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
221-0010
Mark Kronbeck
26222
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Landscape Architect under the laws of the
State of MN.
82 95
82
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
LEGEND
MANNING AVENUE NORTH(CSAH 15)OUTLOT A LIMERICK PKWY5TH ST N
OUTLOT D
OUTLOT G
OUTLOT E
OUTLOT F
OUTLOT DROAD B
ROAD A
ROAD C
ROAD A ROAD AROAD B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCK 20 BLOCK 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
BLOCK 22
1
2
3
4
BLOCK 231
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BLOCK 24BLOCK 251
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 712345678123456
B
L
O
C
K
2
6
BLOCK 27BLOCK 28BLOCK 29
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4BLOCK 30BLOCK 31BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34
BLOCK 38 BLOCK 37
BLOCK 40 BLOCK 39
BLOCK 42 BLOCK 41
BLOCK 35BLOCK 36MANNING AVE N7 - RO
3 - JL
8 - RO
7 - SL
7 - SL
3 - PC
6 - BM
1 - BM 1 - RB7 - AE
7 - NF
7 - KC
3 - WO
4 - WO
7 - SL
3 - BH
3 - BF
3 - BH
3 - NS
2 - CH
2 - SW
3 - NS
2 - SB
2 - SB 3 - PC 3 - JL
2 - SB
3 - JL
3 - PC
2 - JL
2 - JL
3 - JL
2 - PC3 - SB
3 - BH
2 - SB
2 - PC
3 - BF
2 - KC
1 - RB
1 - AE
1 - RB
1 - BH
1 - AE 1 - AE 1 - BH
1 - SW
1 - RB
1 - NS
1 - RO
1 - CH
1 - HL
1 - RO
1 - NF
1 - HL
1 - SL
1 - RO
1 - SL
1 - HL
1 - HL1 - HL1 - SW1 - SW
1 - RB
1 - BM
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - SB
1 - SW
1 - BF
1 - AE1 - PC
1 - KC 1 - SB 1 - AE 1 - SB
2 - AE
2 - SW
1 - SB1 - SW
1 - SW
1 - JL
1 - BF
1 - RB
1 - RB
1 - WP
1 - SB
2 - SW
1 - KC
1 - BF
1 - CH
1 - AE
1 - BH
1 - SL
1 - WP
1 - SW
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - SW
3 - BF
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - WP
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - SB
1 - SW
1 - RB
1 - NS
1 - SW
1 - JL
1 - RB
1 - RO
3 - JL
File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010land.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:26:14 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageLandscape Plan - View Cwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
221-0010
Mark Kronbeck
26222
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Landscape Architect under the laws of the
State of MN.
83 95
83
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
LEGEND
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,000 SF - 96 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS3RD ST CT N5TH ST NLILAC AVEOUTLOT C
OUTLOT B
6
12
BLOCK 5BLOCK 7BLOCK
6
B
L
O
C
K
8
B
L
O
C
K
9 BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 1911
10
9
8
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
7
2
BLOCK 45
LOT 1
3 - JL
7 - NF
3 - PC
6 - NF
3 - JL
3 - PC
1 - NF
4 - AE
4 - AE
5 - RO
2 - KC
3 - HL
7 - NF
7 - CH
2 - KC
7 - NF
3 - NS
3 - NS
7 - AE
8 - HL
7 - WO
7 - SL
5 - KC
4 - HL
3 - WP
3 - WP
3 - BF
3 - NS
1 - NF 1 - NF 1 - NF
1 - SW
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - RB
1 - BF
1 - NS
1 - BH
1 - BF
1 - NS
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - WP
1 - RB
1 - RB
1 - RB
1 - CH
3 - BF
1 - NS
1 - RB
1 - CH
File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010land.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:26:20 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageLandscape Plan - View Dwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
221-0010
Mark Kronbeck
26222
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Landscape Architect under the laws of the
State of MN.
84 95
84
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
LEGEND
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS
OUTLOT A
3RD ST NLILAC AVEBLOCK 7BLOCK 10BLOCK 11BLOCK 12BLOCK 13BLOCK 16BLOCK 17BLOCK 18BLOCK 191
2
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
44
LOT 1
7 - AE
7 - CH
8 - HL
7 - BM
7 - KC
7 - RO
7 - HL
7 - WO
4 - RO
4 - KC
7 - NF
7 - WO
7 - SL
3 - WP
3 - WP
3 - BF
2 - AE
2 - NF
2 - KC
1 - NF 1 - NF
1 - WP
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - CH
1 - RB
1 - RB
1 - CH
1 - SW
1 - SW
1 - SW
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - RB 1 - SW
1 - SW
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - SW
3 - BF
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - WP
1 - RB1 - SW
1 - RB
2 - SB
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - WP
3 - BF
File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010land.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:26:25 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageLandscape Plan - View Ewww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
221-0010
Mark Kronbeck
26222
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Landscape Architect under the laws of the
State of MN.
85 95
85
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
LEGEND
MN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WHUDSO
N
BLVD MANNING AVENUE NORTH3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITS
OUTLOT A LIMERICK PKWYOUTLOT F
OUTLOT D
ROAD AROAD B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCK 20 BLOCK 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
BLOCK 22
1
2
3
4
BLOCK 231
2
3
4
BLOCK 245
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4BLOCK 32BLOCK 33BLOCK 34 BLOCK 35BLOCK 36BLOCK 43
LOT 1
MANNING AVE N7 - HL
7 - WO
4 - RO
4 - KC
6 - BM
1 - BM 1 - RB7 - AE
7 - SL
3 - WP
3 - WP
2 - SW
2 - HL
2 - SW
2 - HL
2 - SW
3 - BH
3 - NS
2 - CH
2 - SW
3 - PC
2 - JL
3 - JL
2 - PC3 - SB
3 - BH
2 - SB
1 - NF
1 - WP
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - CH
1 - RB
1 - RB
1 - RB
1 - RB
1 - AE
1 - RB
1 - AE
1 - AE
1 - RB
1 - BH
1 - AE 1 - AE 1 - BH
1 - HL
1 - SW
1 - RB
1 - NS
1 - RO
1 - CH
1 - HL
1 - RO
1 - SW
1 - JL
1 - BF
1 - RB
1 - RB
1 - WP
1 - SB
2 - SW
1 - KC
1 - BF
1 - CH
1 - AE
1 - BH
1 - SW
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - SW
3 - BF
1 - RB
1 - CH
1 - CH
1 - HL
1 - SB
1 - SW
1 - RB
5 - SL
4 - BM
6 - SW
File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010land.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:26:31 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageLandscape Plan - View Fwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
221-0010
Mark Kronbeck
26222
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Landscape Architect under the laws of the
State of MN.
86 95
86
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
LEGEND
CSAH 15 (MANNING AVE)MN DOT R/WHUD
S
O
N
BLVD.
NORTH MN DOT R/WMN DOT R/WEX.
HUDSO
N
BLVD MANNING AVENUE NORTHWITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITS
BLOCK 43
LOT 1
2ND ST N
MANNING AVE N4 - RO
4 - KC
3 - WP
2 - SW
1 - WP
1 - RB
1 - SW
1 - CH
1 - RB
1 - RB
1 - RB
1 - AE
1 - RB
1 - CH
1 - CH
1 - HL
5 - SL
4 - BM
6 - SW
File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010land.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:26:36 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageLandscape Plan - View Gwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
221-0010
Mark Kronbeck
26222
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Landscape Architect under the laws of the
State of MN.
87 95
87
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
LEGEND
CSAH 15 (MANNING AVE)BLVD.
NOR
T
H
MN DOT
R
/
W MN DOT R/WHUD
S
O
N
BLVD.
NORTH
MN DO
T
R
/
W MN DOT R/WEX.MANNING AVE NFile Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010land.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:26:40 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageLandscape Plan - View Hwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
221-0010
Mark Kronbeck
26222
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Landscape Architect under the laws of the
State of MN.
88 95
88
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
LEGEND
HUDSO
N
BLVD.
NOR
T
H
TRUNK HIG
H
W
A
Y
N
O
.
9
4
MN DOT R/W
CITY R/W MN DOT R/WCITY R/W
EX.
HUDSON BLVD. NORTH
HUDSON BLVD
File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010land.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:26:45 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageLandscape Plan - View Iwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
221-0010
Mark Kronbeck
26222
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Landscape Architect under the laws of the
State of MN.
89 95
89
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
LEGEND
File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010land.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:26:45 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageLandscape Schedule & Detailswww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
221-0010
Mark Kronbeck
26222
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Landscape Architect under the laws of the
State of MN.
90 95
900
SCALE IN FEET
20 40 80
N
90
4 MULCH AT SIDEWALK
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
1.REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET NOTES FOR
COLOR AND TYPE OF MULCH.
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
2" MIN.MULCH TO BE LEVEL AT SIDEWALK
MULCH SEE NOTES
4" TYP.PLANTING SOIL
DEPTH VARIES
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTES
FILTER FABRIC
MIRAFI OR EQUAL
90
5 MULCH AT SOD
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
1.REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET NOTES FOR
COLOR AND TYPE OF MULCH.
SOD
2" MIN.POLY EDGING
MULCH SEE NOTES
4" TYP.PLANTING SOIL
DEPTH VARIES
SEE LANDSCAPE
PLAN NOTES
FILTER FABRIC
MIRAFI OR EQUAL
12" SPIKE
MULCH TO BE LEVEL WITH FINISHED GRADE
PERENNIAL PLANTING
NOT TO SCALE90
3
EQUAL SPACING
PERENNIALS (TYP.),
PLANT IN STAGGERED
ROWS UNLESS
OTHERWISE SHOWN ON
LANDSCAPE PLAN
MIN. 3"-4" DEPTH
HARDWOOD MULCH OVER
FILTER FABRIC, SEE NOTES
FOR TYPE & COLOR.
MIN. 12" PLANTING SOIL AS
SPECIFIED, SEE NOTES.
UNDISTURBED AND
UNCOMPACTED
SUBGRADE
90
2 SHRUB PLANTING
NOT TO SCALE
PROVIDE MULCH, DO NOT BURY STEMS OR
TRUNK. SEE NOTES FOR TYPE AND DEPTH
REQUIRED.
UNDISTURBED AND
UNCOMPACTED SUBGRADE
PRUNE DEAD AND BROKEN BRANCHES
ROOT BALL SHOULD SIT
DIRECTLY ON TOP OF
UNDISTURBED SOIL.
BACKFILL WITH TOPSOIL
FROM HOLE AND WATER
THOROUGHLY. PROVIDE
PLANTING SOIL AS
SPECIFIED IN NOTES.
PROVIDE FILTER FABRIC,
MIRAFI OR EQUAL
PLANT TOP OF ROOT BALL 1-2" ABOVE
SURROUNDING GRADE.
PREPARE PLANTING AREA 3X
THE DIAMETER OF THE
ROOTBALL
L-2.0
1 TREE PLANTING
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
1.TREE STAKING IS OPTIONAL.
2.DO NOT PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO-DOMINANT LEADERS AND
BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES.
3.FOR TREES IN CONTAINERS, REMOVE CONTAINER PRIOR TO PLANTING. FOR BARE ROOT TREES, PLACE
TREE IN MIDDLE OF PLANTING HOLE, SPREAD ROOTS OUT RADIALLY FROM THE TRUNK AROUND THE
PREPARED HOLE.
PREPARE PLANTING AREA 3X THE
DIAMETER OF THE ROOTBALL OR PER
PLAN IF PLANTED IN A BIORETENTION
OR LARGER PLANTING AREA
PLACE ROOTBALL ON UNEXCAVATED OR TAMPED SOIL
EXPOSE TRUNK FLARE
MULCH RING, DIAMETER PER PLAN OR
LANDSCAPE NOTES. PLACE MULCH SO NOT IN
CONTACT WITH BASE OF TREE.
COMPLETELY REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL
TWINE, ROPE AND BASKETS. DISPOSE INTO
PROPER LOCATION.
TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOTBALL BASE FIRMLY WITH FOOT
PRESSURE SO THAT THE ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFT.
PLANTING SOIL, BACKFILL PLACED IN 6" LIFTS
GUYING PLAN
SOD
UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL
ROOTBALL
PRUNE DEAD AND BROKEN BRANCHES
16" POLY STRAP, 40 MIL. 1-1/2" WIDE
1 FLAG PER WIRE
3-GUY CABLES, DOUBLE STRAND, 14 GA. WIRES
AT 120° SPACING, SEE GUYING PLAN
18" MIN.MACHINE EDGE V-DITCH AROUND
ALL TREES IN SODDED AREAS
2"X2"X24" WOODEN STAKE AT AN ANGLE
0
HUD
S
O
N
BLVD.
NORTH
EX.
HUDSO
N
BLVD
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,000 SF - 96 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
26,000 SF - 75 UNITS
3 - STORY APARTMENTS
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
34,200 SF - 100 UNITS SENIOR LIVING - 4 STORIES
WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
42,000 SF - 120 UNITSLIMERICK PKWY3RD ST N3RD ST CT N5TH ST N
5TH ST N4TH
S
T
N
LILAC AVEROAD B
ROAD A
ROAD C
ROAD A ROAD AROAD B2ND ST N
MANNING AVE NMANNING AVE NFile Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010tree.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:26:59 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageTree Preservation Planwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
221-0010
Mark Kronbeck
26222
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Landscape Architect under the laws of the
State of MN.
91 95
910
SCALE IN FEET
50 100 200
N
TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATIONS LEGEND: TREE PRESERVATION NOTES: TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS
File Location: X:\2021\210010\plan sheets\Preliminary Plat\210010tree.dwg Plotted By: Jorgen Holt on February 27, 2026 at 5:26:59 PMFOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity SubmittalCompleteness Review Comments 2-27-262-6-26 Lake Elmo, MN Preliminary Plat SubmittalLimerick VillageTree Inventorywww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
221-0010
Mark Kronbeck
26222
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Landscape Architect under the laws of the
State of MN.
92 95
92
PLAN
NOTE: TREE PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR AS REQUIRED
TO ENSURE SURVIVABILITY OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. NO HEAVY EQUIPMENT
SHALL BE STORED WITHIN THE TREE DRIP LINE AS DESIGNATED ABOVE.
ELEVATION
4' ORANGE SNOW FENCE WITH
POSTS 8' O.C. AT DRIP
LINE OF OUTER MOST
BRANCHES
DRIP LINE
TREE PROTECTION FENCE
NO SCALE1
ROAD A5TH ST N2ND ST NMANNING AVE NFUTURE ROADMANNING AVE N ROAD A5TH ST N2ND ST NMANNING AVE NFUTURE ROADMANNING AVE N
ALLIANT
0
SCALE IN FEET
75 150 300
NLEGEND:
93 95Sheetof
5TH ST N FUTURE ROAD
MANNING AVE N5TH ST N FUTURE ROAD
MANNING AVE NLEGEND:
ALLIANT0
SCALE IN FEET
50 100 200
N
94 95Sheetof
2ND ST N
MANNING AVE N2ND ST N
MANNING AVE N0
SCALE IN FEET
50 100 200
N
LEGEND:
ALLIANT
95 95Sheetof
LAKE ELMO FIRE DEPARTMENT – OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL
Fire Prevention, Code Enforcement, and Public Education
May 13, 2026
Sophia Jensen, Planner
City of Lake Elmo
Re: Limerick Village
Prepared by: Anthony Svoboda, Fire Marshal
Approved by: Dustin Kalis, Fire Chief
Applicable Codes:
• 2020 Minnesota State Fire Code
• 2020 Minnesota State Building Code
• Lake Elmo Fire Department Fire Code Policies
• NFPA 13, 2016 edition
• NFPA 13D, 2016 edition
Fire Department Comments:
1) All roads and drive lanes shall meet the Lake Elmo Fire Department requirements for widths and turning
radiuses.
2) Approved fire apparatus roads shall be provided and maintained in coordination with engineering, public works,
planning, and fire departments. In accordance with MSFC D104.2, two fire apparatus access roads shall be
required and always maintained.
3) Project construction phasing shall always accommodate emergency access to the entire construction zone,
generally meaning two separate means of entrance/exit as defined in the code. Phasing plan to be approved by
the fire department prior to construction.
4) An approved signage and marking plan shall be determined for all No Parking and Fire Lane access roads. On-
street parking shall be provided in approved locations following review by Engineering and Public Works. Parking
shall be prohibited on both sides of private driving lanes.
5) Street names and addresses shall be consistent with the Washington County Uniform Street Naming and
Property Numbering System and shall be approved by the City of Lake Elmo.
6) Fire hydrants and watermains shall be provided in approved locations following review by Engineering and
Public Works.
7) Building address numbers shall be plainly visible from the street fronting the property and shall be contrasting
color from the background. Size and placement of address numbers shall be approved by the fire and planning
departments.
LAKE ELMO FIRE DEPARTMENT – OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL
Fire Prevention, Code Enforcement, and Public Education
“Proudly Serving Neighbors and Friends”
8) A fire sprinkler system shall be installed in commercial buildings in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire
Code and Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code. A permit is required prior to work.
a. Fire Department sprinkler connection locations shall be approved prior to installation.
9) Fire sprinkler systems shall be installed in the townhome buildings compliant with provisions of 2016 NFPA
Standard 13D, Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings or IRC P2904. City permit
required prior to initiation of work.
10) A fire alarm system shall be installed in commercial buildings in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code
(907.2.3) and Lake Elmo Ordinances. A permit is required prior to work.
11) An emergency responder radio coverage amplifier shall be installed throughout commercial buildings if the fire
department determines that signal strength is not reliable.
12) An exterior door numbering system shall be utilized to determine exterior doors on all sides of the apartment
buildings. Door numbering convention shall be approved by the fire department prior to installation.
13) A KNOX rapid access lockbox shall be installed in an approved location, on all commercial buildings.
a. Multiple KNOX rapid access lockboxes may be required as determined by the fire department.
14) KNOX locking Fire Department Connection Caps shall be installed on all fire department connections.
15) All gates, whether manual or electric, shall be accompanied by either a KNOX lock or KNOX gate control switch
for rapid access.
16) All parking areas shall be capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing up to 75,000
pounds.
17) Locations of all EV charging stations or Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment shall be reviewed and installed in
approved locations. All electric vehicle supply equipment installed in the apartment building underground
parking area may require additional fire suppression considerations and restrictions on installation
locations. An electric vehicle supply equipment plan is required. This plan shall be reviewed by the fire
department, building contractor, building owner and building insurance provider.
Questions, clarifications, or the request to provide code documents can be made using the contact information listed
below.
Respectfully,
Memorandum
800 Washington Avenue North, Suite 207
Minneapolis, MN 55401
May 18, 2026
TO : SOPHIA JENSEN
FROM: SARAH EVENSON, PLA
RE: LIMERICK VILLAGE- LANDSCAPE AND TREE PRESERVATION PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW
SUBMITTALS
1. Limerick Village Sketch Plan, dated 7/28/23, received 8/2/23
2. Limerick Village Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, and PUD Submittal, dated 2/27/26, received 4/21/26
REVIEW HISTORY
1. August 8, 2023: Initial Sketch Plan Review
2. May 18, 2026: Preliminary Plat and PUD Landscape and Tree Preservation Plan Review
LOCATION: 79.4 acres west of Manning Avenue N, south of 10th St. N, north of I-94, east of Lake Elmo
Avenue N (former site of Lake Elmo Sod Farm)
CURRENT ZONING CATEGORY: Rural Transitional (RT).
ADJACENT AND SURROUNDING LAND USE: Rural Transitional (RT) to the northeast, Medium Density
Residential (MDR) to the northwest, Rural Transitional (RT) to the west and south. Future Land Use is
guided for Medium Density Residential (MDR) and High Density Residential (HDR).
SPECIAL LANDSCAPE PROVISIONS: none
TREE PRESERVATION PLAN: 105. 12. 470
• Preservation of as many healthy and significant trees as possible is encouraged. It appears the
applicant is making no effort to preserve any significant trees on site. The site has several large
diameter Elms that have survived Dutch Elm Disease, in addition to many other large diameter trees
with significant tree canopies. These could be spectacular focal points for residents, and would make
the public park portion of this development much more pleasant than what is currently proposed.
Consider whether some of the housing might be flipped with Outlot A to preserve this small patch of
woodland in the northeast.
• Based on the chart on Sheet 91, the applicant will be required to plant 6 trees to mitigate hardwood
inches removed, 25 trees to mitigate conifer inches removed, and 53 trees to mitigate inches of
common trees removed, for a total of 84 trees.
• Ornamental trees are not acceptable as mitigation trees (remove last line of assumptions under
“Mitigation Required” on Sheet 80).
• The tree preservation plan requires the following adjustments prior to approval:
o Even if all trees on site are slated for removal, tree protection is still required for trees on
neighboring properties whose critical root zones (CRZs) may be impacted by construction
activity on this site. Applicant must swap out the tree protection fencing detail on sheet 92 for
May 18, 2026
Limerick Village
Memorandum 2
the city standard detail that can be found here:
https://www.lakeelmo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/334/Landscaping-and-Irrigation-
Standards-PDF?bidId=
LANDSCAPE PLAN: 105.12.480
The landscape plan must be resubmitted, incorporating the following adjustments prior to approval:
• Applicant correctly notes landscaping requirements for trees every 50’ along roadways (250) and 5
trees per acre of disturbance (391); however, applicant has not included the full 84 required mitigation
trees into the landscaping. Code says that planting of trees for mitigation on residential projects shall
be in addition to any other landscape requirements of the City.
• No calculations have been completed to account for necessary parking lot screening, interior parking
lot landscaping, or screening where adjacent land uses are less intense.
o Note and address the landscaping requirements around and within parking lots. A
landscaped frontage strip including screening between 3.5’ and 4’ tall, not less than 50%
opaque year round, must be installed between parking lots and road ROWs in order to limit
glare from headlights. For example, Block 43’s parking lot will require screening where it faces
Limerick Parkway. Where parking lots abut residential, such as north of this parking lot, more
significant screening is required.
o Note the screening requirements for adjacencies to less intensive uses. The parcel to the west
is guided Low Density Residential, which is a lower intensity than the proposed development.
o Sections and elevations must be provided to illustrate all required screening.
• Applicant must swap out the tree planting detail on sheet 90 for the city standard detail that can be
found here: https://www.lakeelmo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/334/Landscaping-and-Irrigation-
Standards-PDF?bidId=
• Add plant schedule tables to each landscape sheet so that contractors and city inspectors understand
which species are proposed on each sheet without having to flip back and forth.
• The location of a topsoil stockpile and notes indicating that the quantity of soil shall be sufficient to
cover all landscaped areas at least 4” deep must be provided somewhere in the drawing set.
RECOMMENDATION:
Neither landscape nor tree preservation plans may be approved at this time. In future submittals, the
applicant must address the above-noted items.
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
November 30, 2023
Sophia Jensen
City Planner
City of Lake Elmo
3880 Laverne Avenue
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Comments on Revised Limerick Village Sketch Plan
Dear Sophia,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the sketch plan for the Limerick Village located
along CSAH 15 (Manning Avenue). We are grateful for the City of Lake Elmo’s partnership in ensuring the
safety and mobility of our County transportation system. Our development review team has reviewed
the resubmitted sketch plan proposal dated 11-17-2023 and offers the following comments.
CSAH 15 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 15 requires preserving 180 feet of right-of-way for this
portion of CSAH 15. The site plan will need to show the right-of-way measurements in more detail to
ensure that it meets the needs identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
The development proposes accessing CSAH 15 at 5th Street N and 2nd Street N. These locations are in
conformance with the county’s access location guidelines. Access permits will be needed for the
construction of new street connections within the county right-of-way. Both access points are potential
candidates for traffic signals or roundabouts, either in the future or potentially upon opening.
Construction of such intersection improvements would be subject to “Washington County Cost
Participation Policy #8001 for Cooperative Highway Improvement Projects”, which can be found here:
https://www.co.washington.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/54003/Cost-Policy, including city cost for any
necessary changes to city-owned approach roadways. We would recommend a brief meeting with city
staff to discuss various lane configuration scenarios and traffic signal cost-share agreements to ensure
that the City’s and County’s interests are reflected in the development street plan.
Washington County access spacing guidelines for minor arterial roads is ¼ of a mile. The proposed
development access and the existing access to Oak-Land Middle School are approximately ¼ of a mile
apart. The City should work with the developer and the property owner to the north to plan for future
access into the northern parcel from the proposed 5th Street, as no additional access points to Manning
Avenue north of 5th Street would be allowed by the County.
The plans should identify trail connections within the site and along CSAH 15. Trails should connect to
future subdivisions to the north, Hudson Road, and Oak-Land Middle School, with a trail connection
through Cimarron to the northwest or directly west to connect to CSAH 17.
Washington County's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use
and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic
noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S.
Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for
taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area
Classification (NAC), where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established
noise standards. Minnesota Statute 116.07, Subpart 2a exempts County Roads and County State Aid
Highways from noise thresholds. County policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways
prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures. 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. A temporary access permit
will be needed for access to Manning for site grading purposes, even if an existing access point is being
repurposed for such use.
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. Confirmation that the developments stormwater plan meets all
watershed requirements will be required prior to any permit approvals.
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 revised sketch plan for Limerick Village.
We look forward to continuing to work with the City of Lake Elmo to ensure that development in this
area is successful and well-served by the transportation network.
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
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
Cc (email only):
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
Limerick Village Preliminary Plat and
Planned Unit Development
Planning Commission | May 12, 2025
Overview
Two Parcels – PIDs:
•36.029.21.41.0001 &
•36.029.21.42.0001
Total Acreage
•79.40 acres
•No wetlands on site
Land Use - Currently tilled farmland
Requests:
•Preliminary Plat
•Planned Unit Development
EAW completed in Fall 2025 – negative
declaration
Plat
Land Use Analysis - Zoning
Current Zoning District
•Rural Transition (RT)
Proposed Base Zoning Districts
•Medium Density Residential (MDR)
• High Density Residential (HDR)
PUD Overlay:
•PUD ordinance to summarize
flexibilities if granted
Land Use Analysis – Comp Plan
2040 Comprehensive Plan (Current):
•Medium Density Residential (4 – 8 u/a)
•High Density Residential (8 – 15 u/a)
Net Acres Number of
Units
Density Min – Max #
Units
HDR (8.01-15
units/acre)
36.72 524 14.27
units/acre*
295 – 551
MDR (4.01-8
units/acre)
23.88 123 5.15
units/acre
95 – 191
Total 55.95 647 11.56
units/acre
351 - 672
Plat
PUD Minimum Criteria
Lot over 5 Acres01
Open Space > 20%02
Street Layout maintains existing access and street grid03
PUD Objectives
a)Innovation in land development techniques that may be more suitable for a given parcel than
conventional approaches.
b)Promotion of integrated land uses, allowing for a mixture of residential, commercial, and public
facilities.
c)Establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses.
d)Provision of more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space, recreational amenities,
natural resource protection and other public facilities than would otherwise be provided under
conventional land development techniques.
e)Accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to employment opportunities
and/or commercial facilities; and especially to create additional opportunities for lifecyle
housing to all income and age groups.
f)Preservation and enhancement of important environmental features through careful and sensitive
placement of buildings and facilities.
g)Coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility within
the development and surrounding land uses.
h)Creation of more efficient provision of public utilities and services, lessened demand on
transportation, and/or the promotion of energy resource conservation.
i)Establishing measures to protect and preserve groundwater storage.
j)Allowing the development to operate in concert with a redevelopment plan in certain areas of the
City and to ensure the redevelopment goals and objectives will be achieved.
Preliminary Plat Review
Requirements Reviewed:
•Land use
•Bulk Standards
•Site Design
•Tree Preservation/Landscaping
•Grading/Stormwater/Wetland Impacts
•Public Infrastructure (streets, access, utilities)
•Parkland Dedication
Plat
Plat
Plat
Plat
Plat
Plat
Standards (105.12.720)MDR Requirement:HDR Requirements
As Proposed
MDR HDR
Minimum Lot Area
Detached Single Family
Attached Single Family
Multifamily
7,000 sf
1,750 sf/unit
3,000 sf/unit
NA
1,750 sf/unit
1,800 sf/unit
5,400* -26,378 sf
1,750 – 2,100 sf
NA
NA
1,166 sf
1,225 –1,856 sf/unit
Minimum Lot Width
Detached Single Family
Attached Single Family
Multifamily
50 feet
25 feet/unit
NA
50 feet
20 feet/unit
60 feet/building
50 feet
25 feet/unit
NA
NA
22 feet/unit
275–890 feet/building
Maximum Building Height 35 feet 50 feet Not Provided Not Provided
Max Impervious Cover 50% 75%Not Provided Not Provided
Minimum Setback – Front
Detached Single Family
Attached Single Family
Multifamily
25 feet
25 feet
25 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
25 feet
25 feet
NA
NA
22 feet
20 feet
Minimum Setback – Side
Detached Single Family
Attached Single Family
Multifamily
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
5 feet
10 feet
NA
NA
10 feet
10 feet
Minimum Setback – Corner
Detached Single Family
Attached Single Family
Multifamily
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
NA
NA
15 feet
15 feet
Minimum Setback – Rear
Detached Single Family
Attached Single Family
Multifamily
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
NA
NA
20 feet
20 feet
Maximum Impervious Coverage 50%75%56.3% Total
Specific Performance Standards
Lake Elmo Code Section 105.12.740
Single Family Detached, all urban districts
•Parking on driveways or in garage
•Primary façade/entrance oriented to street
Single Family Attached (townhomes) in HDR:
•Buildings smaller than 10 units (or conditional use)
•Public Street Frontage (or conditional use)
•No parking in front yards
•Shared open spaces of 300 sq ft per unit
Multifamily Dwellings in HDR:
•No parking located in ‘front yard’ areas
•Common open spaces or private open spaces comprising 200 sq ft per unit
Design Standards Review
Site Design
•Building placement
•Streetscape
•Landscaping
•Parking
Building Design
•Form and Façade
•Building materials
•Mass and Scale
•Roof Design
•Signage
Plat
Design Standards – Patio Townhomes
Form and Facade
•Buildings are proposed with consistent architecture, with articulated facades, little blank space.
•Parking is not recessed or rear loaded
Building Materials
•Colors and design generally consistent with surrounding neighborhoods.
•Vinyl siding is not permitted on attached townhomes in the MDR or HDR.
Mass and Scale
•Buildings articulated into appearance of multiple structures, not greater than 10 units.
•Complementary transition between single family detached and multifamily
Other
•Roof, entries, and lighting all consistent or must be consistent with design standards.
Tree Preservation
Plat
Plat
Landscaping/Screening
Landscaping – Landscape Architect Memo – 5/18/26:
•Overall number of plantings must be revised to include mitigation trees.
•Fewer plantings in areas with spatial constraints
Buffering:
•Buffering via landscaping not proposed to south – future
commercial/industrial sites.
•Opportunity to incorporate foundation plantings to better break up
building facades
Parking and Traffic
Parking:
•Single Family Homes and Townhome units will meet requirements
•Visitor parking for townhomes in driveways
•Public park parking area to be reviewed by PW
•Parking counts for multifamily residential not available without unit mix
•960 spaces for 391 units = ~2.5 spaces per unit
Traffic:
•Traffic Study completed with EAW
•Limerick Parkway acts as collector
•Improvements generally consistent with anticipated traffic volumes and
long range plans (5 th St. N.)
Access
Access:
•Realigning Hudson Blvd.
•Construction portion of 5 th St. N.
•2 points of access required in phase 1
•Challenges with northern private access to 5 th St. N.
Sidewalks & Trails
Parkland Dedication
Development creates demand on
parks and trails.
Development proposes ~9 acres
of park land.
Shown in park search area/park
gap map.
Trail corridors to start or continue
through development.
Parks commission recommended
land requirement
Review Comments
Fire Department – Memo dated May 13, 2026
City Engineer – Memo forthcoming
City Landscape Architect – Memo dated May 18, 2026
South Washington Watershed District (SWWD) – Watershed District Staff indicated receipt of permit
request, project under review.
Washington County – County Staff have provided sketch plan comments which are still current.
West Lakeland Township – No comments received.
PUD Flexibilities
1.Minimum lot size:
a.Single Family Detached
b.Attached Townhomes
c.Multifamily Residential
2.Side yard setback – single family detached (principal structure)
Findings – Preliminary Plat/PUD
Findings needed to support recommendation to City Council
•Preliminary Plats can only be denied if they meet the criteria for denial (LEC
103.00.090).
•PUD’s need to meet identified objectives and minimum criteria.
Considerations:
•Is the project consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan?
•Is the project consistent with the City’s subdivision ordinance and criteria for
approval or denial?
•Is the project consistent with the City’s minimum requirements and identified
objectives for Planned Unit Developments?
•Is the project conforming with the City’s zoning ordinance and design
standards?
•How might the project impact surrounding land uses?
Options
A.Recommend approval
B.Recommend approval with conditions
C.Recommend denial
D.Table the Request
Statutory Deadline: 8/5/25
12 Conditions for Approval
Satisfaction of Staff review memos:
•City Engineer
•Fire Chief
•Landscape Architect
Standard conditions for Preliminary Plat Requests:
•Agreements, fees, permits (VBWD), additional reviews
Unique conditions for Preliminary Plat Request:
•Approved Access Plan for property to the North
•Provide easements to the City on the standard form with abutting property owners
where offsite improvements are shown.
•Revise Sidewalks and Trials
•Stormwater Reuse is required
Public Hearing
Posted early April in paper of record.
Public Hearing held on April 14, 2025.
General public comments as summarized:
•Concerns for increase in vehicle traffic
•Concerns for traffic speeds in area, 5 th St. N. in particular
•Conversation about crossing locations
•Comments on stormwater reuse system
Recommendation
Staff recommend approval of the preliminary plat and PUD with conditions .
Planning Commission should:
•Hold Public Hearing
•Discuss Proposal
•Determine Findings
•Provide Recommendation
Example motion:
“Move to recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat and PUD as requested by
Maplewood Development on the subject property based on the findings of fact and
recommended conditions of approval listed in the staff report.”
MOTION
QUESTIONS?
PUD Objectives
a)Innovation in land development techniques that may be more suitable for a given parcel than
conventional approaches.
b)Promotion of integrated land uses, allowing for a mixture of residential, commercial, and public
facilities.
c)Establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses.
d)Provision of more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space, recreational amenities,
natural resource protection and other public facilities than would otherwise be provided under
conventional land development techniques.
e)Accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to employment opportunities
and/or commercial facilities; and especially to create additional opportunities for lifecyle housing to
all income and age groups.
f)Preservation and enhancement of important environmental features through careful and sensitive
placement of buildings and facilities.
g)Coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility within the
development and surrounding land uses.
h)Creation of more efficient provision of public utilities and services, lessened demand on
transportation, and/or the promotion of energy resource conservation.
i)Establishing measures to protect and preserve groundwater storage.
j)Allowing the development to operate in concert with a redevelopment plan in certain areas of the
City and to ensure the redevelopment goals and objectives will be achieved.
Preliminary Plat Criteria for Denial
a)That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the city's comprehensive plan, development code,
capital improvements program, or other policy or regulation.
b)That the physical characteristics of the site, including, but not limited to, topography, vegetation,
susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, and retention, are such
that the site is not suitable for the type or intensity of development or use contemplated .
c)That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial and
irreversible environmental damage .
d)That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of the public .
e)That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will conflict with easements on record
or with easements established by judgment of a court.
f)That the subdivision is premature as determined by the standards of this title
Inwood Commercial Preliminary Plat
Planning Commission | June 8 th 2026
Background
Applicant: Vadnais Associates LLC
Location: Outlot K of InWood (PID 33.029.21.12.0006)
Area: 17.34 Acres
Current Zoning: Commercial (C) and Partial
Shoreland Overlay
2040 Comprehensive Plan: Commercial (C)
History: This parcel was included in the InWood
Master development plan from 2014 as an
anticipated commercial area.
Request: Preliminary Plat for a 5 Lot Commercial
Subdivision
10th St
Oak Marsh Golf
Course and
Inwood Ave
5th St and Kwik Trip
Inwood
Residential Area
PlatNorth South
Preliminary Plat Review
•Land Use/Zoning
•Bulk Standards
•Tree Preservation/Landscaping
•Grading/Stormwater/Wetland Impacts
•Public Infrastructure (Streets, Access, Utilities)
•Parkland Dedication
Land Use and Performance Standards– At this time, the developer is not proposing tenant approvals for the buildout of the
individual commercial lots within the subdivision. Each future user will be subject to a complete review at the time a new use is
proposed in addition to receiving land use approvals if applicable. It is noted that most of the commercial lots, except for Lot 1,
are labeled “ghost plat”. The developer has indicated Lot 1 is proposed to be a Gaming Café. This use has been determined to be
Indoor Recreation, Retail Sales, and Standard Restaurant. A Conditional Use permit will be required for the Indoor Recreation. No
development rights or site plan approvals are granted though the platting process. The commercial lots were reviewed by staff
for conformance with applicable zoning and subdivision requirements. No flexibility is requested by the Applicant from City Code.
Therefore, any standards not reviewed through this process will be reviewed at the time of site plan review on each commercial
lot. Lots must be developed to all relevant city standards at the time they are requested.
Traffic/Access/Parking – This subdivision will have 2 public streets as proposed in the plans. There will be two access to County
Roads and one access to a City Road. The City ROW width is required to be 60 feet and minimum roadway width is 28 feet. Off-
street parking is required consistent with City Code Section 105.12.410. Since the proposed land uses and floor areas of the
proposed buildings will be subject to change based on site layout, tenant, or property owner needs, etc., staff will conduct a
review of parking requirements at the time of site plan review.
Signage- No signage is proposed. Signage will be reviewed when requested by the Applicant or subsequent property owners.
Landscaping – Minor revisions are required to the landscaping plans. No tree preservation is required on this site as it was
previously mass graded, and no significant trees exist on site. Boulevard plantings are required at the time subdivision
improvements are installed. As the commercial lots develop landscaping will be required on each lot to provide the required
screening from the adjacent residential use.
Park Dedication – Set fee in the City’s fee schedule. $6,000 per acre (~$104,040).
Stormwater Management - Stormwater management for this area was planned as part of the 2014 InWood master plan. As
such, regional ponds will treat stormwater generated by this project, including the proposed roadways. As the commercial lots
develop, or if treatment standards change, it is possible that additional stormwater treatment could be required on each lot.
Review Considerations
Review Comments
Below is a summary of the agency review comments received. Conditions of approval have been added where
applicable.
Fire Dept: Provided standard comments regarding drive lanes, access points, signage, hydrants, fire suppression,
addressing, EMS systems, KNOX systems, and EV charging.
Landscape Architect: Revisions are required to the landscape plan. Boulevard trees will be provided with this
application. As the single lots develop landscaping and screening will be required. No tree preservation plan is required
with this application.
MN DNR: Provided comments that the impervious surface limit is 30% and that commercial uses in the shoreland
districts of natural environment (NE) lakes require a conditional use permit.
City of Oakdale: Provided comments that they would like to ensure a full access at the intersection of 9th Street and
Inwood Ave.
Washington County: Provided comments that their plans have addressed their preliminary comments regarding
intersections in the memo dated November 10th, 2025.
South Washington Watershed District: The applicant is in communication with the SWWD and seeking to coordinate
on permitting reviews and timelines, as necessary.
City Attorney: The City Attorney will need to review the plat documents and title commitment. A plat opinion is
required prior to recording of the final plat.
4 Findings of Fact
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat based on the following findings:
•That the Preliminary Plat would be consistent with the intent of the 2040 Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan and the 2040 Land Use Map for this area.
•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).
•That the preliminary plat complies with the City’s Zoning Code.
•That the preliminary plat generally complies with the City’s design standards.
16 Conditions for Approval
Satisfaction of Staff review memos:
•City Engineer
•Fire Chief
•Landscape Architect
•W ashington County
Standard conditions for Preliminary Plat requests, in summary:
•Agreements (DA, Stormwater, Landscape, Grading)
•Fees (Development Security, Park Dedication)
•Permits (MDH, MPCA)
•18 0 -day Expiration
•Additional Reviews
Public Hearing
•Mailed to Property Owners within 500’ and pushed on May 18th, 2026. The Notice
was published in the Stillwater Gazette on May 22nd, 2026.
•Staff has not received any public comment at this time.
Recommendation
Staff is therefore recommending the Planning Commission provide a
recommendation to the City Council for conditional approval. Example Motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the preliminary plat requested by Vadnais
Associates on the subject property based on the findings of fact and
recommended conditions of approval listed in the staff report.”
Note: This presentation is subject to change
based on staff revisions or public comment
received between the date of the packet posting
and day of the meeting.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 6/8/2026
Regular
Item#: 4b – PUBLIC HEARING
Motion
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sophia Jensen, Senior City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Inwood Commercial Preliminary Plat
REVIEWED BY: Nathan Fuerst Planning Consultant
Jason Stopa, Community Development Director
CORE STRATEGIES:
☒ Vibrant, inclusive, connected community
☒ Responsive, transparent, adaptive governance
☒ Managed Growth
☐ Efficient, reliable, innovative services
☐ Balanced Finances now and future
☒ Resilient Infrastructure
BACKGROUND:
Vadnais Associates LLC (Applicant/Property Owner) has requested Preliminary Plat approval. This parcel was
anticipated to be a commercial site based on the Inwood Master Plan that was approved in 2014 and has already
been mass graded. The project, to be called Inwood Commercial, will contain five commercial lots. The current
request only includes subdivision of the property to create the individual commercial lots. After the subdivision
is created, any parties interested in establishing commercial uses on the lots must conform with all standard
requirements and receive the necessary approvals at the time they are proposed.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on the
preliminary plat request.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant/Property Owner : Vadnais Associates LLC
Location: Outlot K of InWood
PID#s: 33.029.21.12.0006
Request: Preliminary Plat
Site Area: 17.34 acres
Current Zoning and 2040 FLU: C – Commercial and Partial Shoreland Overlay
Surrounding: Rural Residential (north); Low Density Residential and Public Facilities (east);
Commercial (south); City of Oakdale (west)
History: The parcel is undeveloped and apart of the 2014 InWood master plan
Wetland: There are no wetlands on site.
Deadline: Application Complete – 4/23/26
120 Day Deadline – 8/21/26
Applicable Code: Article 7- General Regulations
Article 15- Commercial Districts
Title 103 – Subdivision Regulations
Lake Elmo Design Guidelines
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Site Data. This property was anticipated Commercial as part of the InWood master plan developed in 2014.
The property has already been mass graded with the prior phases. Site area could vary slightly based on
requirements for Right of Way from Washington County, or the City of Lake Elmo.
Total Site Area 17.34 acres
Right-of-Way (R/W) 3.18 acres
Commercial (C) Area 14.16 acres
Wetlands None identified on site
Land Use(s): The purpose of the C district is to provide for the establishment of commercial and service
activities which draw from and serve customers from the entire community or region and are located in areas
that are well served by collector or arterial street facilities outside the village area. It is intended to allow the
widest range of commercial uses, especially those that are oriented towards the traveling public or that need
large sites with highway access and visibility.
At this time the developer is not proposing tenant approvals for the buildout of the individual commercial lots
within the subdivision. Each future user will be subject to a complete review at the time a new use is proposed
in addition to receiving land use approvals if applicable. It is noted that most of the commercial lots, with the
exception of Lot 1, are labeled “ghost plat”. The developer has indicated Lot 1 is proposed to be a Gaming
Café. This use has been determined to be Indoor Recreation, Retail Sales, and Standard Restaurant. A
Conditional Use permit will be required for the Indoor Recreation. No development rights or site plan
approvals are granted though the platting process.
Site Plan Review. The commercial lots were reviewed by staff for conformance with applicable zoning and
subdivision requirements. No flexibility is requested by the Applicant from City Code. Therefore, any standards
not reviewed through this process will be reviewed at the time of site plan review on each commercial lot.
Lots must be developed to all relevant city standards at the time they are requested.
Parking. Off-street parking is required consistent with City Code Section 105.12.410. Since the proposed land
uses and floor areas of the proposed buildings will be subject to change based on site layout, tenant, or
property owner needs, etc., staff will conduct a review of parking requirements at the time of site plan review.
Signage. No signage is proposed on the plans or discussed in the Applicant’s narrative. Signage will be reviewed
when requested by the Applicant or subsequent property owners.
Commercial Lot Performance Standards. The proposed commercial lots will be subject to other site and building
design performance standards which may not be mentioned in this report. Those standards include, but are not
limited to the City’s Design Guidelines Standards Manual, landscaping requirements, lighting, parking lot
landscaping, off-street loading areas, etc. No flexibility to any City standards is requested by the Applicant at
this time. All individual lots will have to meet the performance standards in the zoning ordinance at the time of
permit application.
Subdivision Requirements. The subdivision has been reviewed according to City Zoning and Subdivision
requirements. The platted lots will meet City standards for areas and locations as proposed. Driveways and
access for the lots is consistent with City Standards. A Development Agreement will be required as part of future
plat approval. The City Engineer has reviewed for conformance with engineering standards and provided memo
dated May 18th 2026, attached, and all items are to be addressed as part of the final plat submittal.
Landscaping and Tree Preservation. The Landscape Architect is suggesting minor revisions to the submitted
landscaping plans as a condition of preliminary plat approval. No tree preservation is required on this site as it
was mass graded and no significant trees exist on site. Boulevard plantings are required at the time subdivision
improvements are installed. As the commercial lots develop landscaping will be required on each lot to provide
the required screening from the adjacent residential use.
Parkland Dedication: The City’s ordinance requires parkland dedication in the amount of $6,000 per acre for
commercial projects. The fee ($104,040) will be paid as part of the Development Agreement prior to recording
the final plat.
Wetlands: The Applicant’s surveyor and engineer have provided a statement indicating that no wetlands are
present on site.
Stormwater Management: Stormwater management for this commercial development was planned as part of
the InWood master plan. As such, regional ponds will treat stormwater generated by this project, including the
proposed roadways. As the commercial lots develop, or if treatment standards change, it is possible that
additional stormwater treatment could be required on each lot. The City Engineer and SWWD have reviewed
the plans accordingly.
Streets and Access: This subdivision will have public streets as proposed in the plans. There will be two access
to County Roads and one access to a City Road. The City ROW width is required to be 60 feet and minimum
roadway width is 28 feet. The City Engineer and County Engineer have reviewed the plans accordingly.
AGENCY REVIEW :
City Engineer Comments 5/18/2026: See attached memo dated May 18th 2026. The City Engineer has
suggested that approval, if granted, should be conditional upon addressing each review comment in the
Engineer’s review memo. Additional information is required from the Applicant, and any public improvements
shall be consistent with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual.
Fire Chief Comments 5/12/2026: Provided standard comments regarding drive lanes, access points, signage,
hydrants, fire suppression, addressing, EMS systems, KNOX systems, and EV charging.
Landscape Architect Memo 5/7/2026 : Revisions are required to the landscape plan. Boulevard trees will be
provided with this application. As the single lots develop landscaping and screening will be required.
MN DNR 5/15/2026: Provided comments that the impervious surface limit is 30% and that commercial uses in
the shoreland districts of natural environment (NE) lakes require a conditional use permit.
City of Oakdale 5/7/2026: Provided comments that they would like to ensure a full access at the intersection of
9th Street and Inwood Avenue North on the Oakdale side.
Washington County: Provided comments that their plans have addressed their preliminary comments regarding
intersections in the memo dated November 10th, 2025, and they have no further comments at this time.
South Washington Watershed District: The applicant is in communication with the SWWD and seeking to
coordinate on permitting reviews and timelines as necessary.
City Attorney Review: The City Attorney will need to review the plat documents and title commitment. A plat
opinion is required prior to recording of the final plat. A condition has been added.
RECOMMENTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat based on the following findings:
1. That the Preliminary Plat 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 complies with the City’s Zoning Code.
4. That the preliminary plat generally complies with the City’s design standards.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) with the following conditions:
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 5/18/2026
b. City Landscape Architect’s memo dated 5/7/2026
c. City Fire Chief’s memo dated 5/12/2026
d. Washington County Memo Dated 11/10/2025
2. The City Attorney shall issue a plat opinion certifying that the final plat, title evidence, and all
agreements and documents meet the requirements of the City Code and state statutes prior to the City
Council review or approval of the final plat.
3. The final plat shall include all necessary and additional public right-of-way and easements.
4. No flexibility from City standards is provided by this approval. All lots to be platted in this subdivision
must meet existing City standards at the time of building permit submittal.
5. Sign permits are required and must comply with the City Code.
6. That the Applicant must obtain all necessary permits including but not limited to all applicable City
permits (building, grading, wetland, sign, etc.), NPDES/SWPPP permits and SWWD permits before
starting any grading or construction activities.
7. The applicant/developer is responsible, at their own expense, for installing all required right of way and
pedestrian improvements.
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. If applicable, a landscape and irrigation license agreement in a form acceptable to the City shall be
executed and recorded with the final plat.
10. If applicable, a stormwater reuse irrigation and license agreement in a form acceptable to the City shall
be executed and recorded with the final plat.
11. 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.
12. Before the execution and recording of a final plat for the development, the developer or the Applicant
shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City. Such an agreement must be approved by the
City Attorney. The Development Agreement must be approved 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.
13. If necessary, the Applicant must provide the City with a copy of written permission from adjacent
property owners 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 application.
14. The Applicant or developer must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City before starting
any grading activity in advance of final plat approval. The City Engineer shall review any grading plan
that is submitted in advance of a final plat and said plan shall document the extent of any proposed
grading on the site.
15. The Applicant must submit a revised preliminary plat and project plans meeting all conditions of
approval for City review and approval. The revised Applicant project plans and other materials shall
meet all of the above conditions before the City will find complete any final plat application for the
development and before the start of any clearing or grading activity on the site.
16. That the Applicant must submit the final plat within 180 days after City Council approval of the
preliminary plat or approval of the preliminary plat shall be considered void unless a request for a time
extension is submitted in writing and approved by the City Council.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A public hearing was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500’ on May 18th 2026. The notice was
also published in the City’s official paper, the Stillwater Gazette, on May 22nd 2026. At this time no public
comment has been received.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of the Applicant’s requests grants entitlements to the Applicant, however there would be no fiscal
impact to the City at this time. A final plat is required along with a Development Agreement which will detail
public improvements and address fiscal impacts. When the property begins to develop it will have urban
services and will require development fees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff suggest the recommendation for approval based on compliance with existing City Standards. Suggested
motion provided below:
“Move to recommend approval of the preliminary plat requested by Vadnais Associates on the subject property based
on the findings of fact and recommended conditions of approval listed in the staff report.”
ATTACH MENTS:
1. Application Documents
2. Preliminary Plat and Project Plans
3. Fire Chief Memo 5/12/2026
4. Landscape Architect Memo 5/7/2026
5. City Engineer Memo 5/18/2026
6. Washington County Memo 11/10/2025
7. DNR Email 5/15/2026
8. City of Oakdale Email 5/7/2026
Subdivision of 17.35 acre outlot within the existing Inwood PUD into five (5) commercial
lots for future development by others. See project narrative for additional information.
Date: April 23, 2026
To: Sophia Jensen, Senior City Planner
Jason Stopa, Community Development Director
City of Lake Elmo
Applicant: Judy Siebel
Vadnais Associates
Re: Inwood Commercial Preliminary Plat Application
Ms. Jensen,
We are pleased to submit this Preliminary Plat Application on behalf of Judy Siebel, for the
proposed Inwood Commercial subdivision. We appreciate the feedback received on the two Concept
Plans previously submitted and look forward to continuing our work with the City of Lake Elmo on
this project.
Below you will find the Written Statements from the application checklist, as well as a complete
list of attachments included with this application. Please contact us with any questions.
Sincerely,
Ryan J. Ruttger, RLA
Landscape Architect / Planner
Carlson Engineering
CC: Brian Krystofiak, PE
Kyle Ogren, EIT
Attachments:
1) Completed Land Use Application Forms / Checklist
2) Certified Address List
3) Preliminary Plan Set, dated 04/23/26
4) Stormwater Management Plan, dated 04/23/26
5) Storm Sewer Design
6) Existing Pond Impervious Exhibit
7) Future Intersection Exhibit – 9th Street N & Inwood Avenue N
8) 2nd Concept Review Memo, Responses dated 04/23/26
9) Geotechnical Report, dated 12/03/14
Carlson Engineering, LLC Page 2
Written Statements
A) Contact Information
Owner: Vadnais Associates, LLC / Judy Siebel
2935 Country Drive, Suite 102
Little Canada, MN 55117
(612)325-5945
Engineer: Brian J. Krystofiak, PE
Carlson Engineering
3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE, Suite 100
Blaine, MN 55449
763-489-7905 (office) / 763-443-5963 (cell)
B) Site Data
Address: Unassigned, Lake Elmo
Current Zoning: Commercial Planned Unit Development (C-PUD)
with partial Shoreland Overlay
Parcel Size: 17.34 acres / 755,859 square feet
PID: 33.029.21.12.0006
Current Legal Desc: That part of Outlot K, INWOOD as recorded in Washington
County Surveyor’s Office.
C) General Information
Proposed Name: Inwood Commercial
Number of Lots: Five (5) commercial lots
Public Open Space: None
Dedicated Right-of-Way: 3.18 acres
D) Sketch Plan Comments – See attached comment responses.
E) Project Narrative:
This project involves the subdivision of a 17.35 acre outlot within the existing Inwood PUD
into five commercial parcels. Initial development will include the construction of internal
public streets, turn lanes, sidewalks, trails and boulevard trees consistent with the original
PUD concept for this area. Public utilities, including water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater
infrastructure, will be extended to serve each parcel. This project provides opportunities for
orderly infill development of future commercial uses, providing sufficient access and
flexibility, while ensuring compliance with municipal standards and zoning requirements.
F) Proposed Density: N/A – lots for future development, no uses proposed.
G) Proposed Infrastructure / Phasing
Streets. Consistent with the Inwood PUD, Irene Avenue will extend along the east side of
the parcel from 5th Street N to 10th Street N. (C.S.A.H 10). Near the midpoint of the site, 9th
Street N will extend west to Inwood Ave. N. (C.S.A.H. 13). Both intersections with the
County roads will be ¾ access with turn lanes into the site. Additional right-of-way is
proposed to accommodate a future signalized intersection at 9th Street and Inwood Ave.
Carlson Engineering, LLC Page 3
Utilities. The proposed utilities are consistent with the engineering comments received
during Concept Plan Review and will be provided to each lot from Irene Ave. Water main
will connect to both an existing 8” stub off 5th Street N and the existing 12” water main
along 10th Street N creating a looped system. Sanitary sewer will be extended from the
existing 8” stub at the intersection of Irene Ave and 5th Street N. Stormwater will be
directed to the existing pond to the east, which was designed with the Inwood PUD to
accommodate the maximum allowable impervious with future development of this site.
Sidewalk / Trail. An 8’ bituminous trail is proposed along the east side of Irene Ave, from
the existing 5th Street trail to 9th Street N. This trail will also connect to an existing trail
within the Inwood residential area to provide access to this site from the adjacent
neighborhood. A 6’ concrete sidewalk is proposed along the west side of Irene Ave and
along the south side of 9th Street N.
Additionally, a separate trail is being proposed along Inwood Ave N and 10th Street N,
consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and which Washington County has also
expressed support for. Constructing this trail fully within the county right-of-way would
require relocating a significant amount of utility infrastructure, including multiple utility
poles, fire hydrants and electrical transformers. For this reason, the trail is proposed to be
located 1’ within the private lot areas along the west and north boundaries of the site. A 10’
trail easement will be granted to the county after the Inwood Commercial final plat is
recorded. Because the trail easement will be located within the required drainage and
utility easements, those easements have been expanded to 20’ along Inwood Ave. and 30’
along 10th Street N to accommodate the proposed trail and existing water main.
Phasing. This project is proposed to be graded and constructed in one phase. Future
development of the platted lots will be done separately from this project.
H) Neighborhood Concerns / Issues:
While public feedback has yet to be received, we expect comments to reflect the knowledge
that future commercial development has always been planned for this site. The adjacent
residential area is also part of the Inwood PUD and was designed with concept plans for
commercial development on this site. The existing stormwater pond within Outlot D and
additional open space within Outlot E provide a buffer between the planned uses. A 6-8’
berm and significant tree plantings were installed with the previous residential
construction to provide additional screening, and a trail was built to provide access to
future commercial amenities.
I) Land Use Conflicts:
Being a planned part of the existing Inwood PUD, the proposed development of this site is
consistent with the City’s Future Land Use Plan. Commercial development is well suited to
the adjacent county roads and has been incorporated into the design of the adjacent
residential area.
Carlson Engineering, LLC Page 4
J) Public Burden:
No uses are being proposed for the platted lots with this project, and therefore the impact
to traffic and public facilities and services is expected to be negligible. This project is
consistent with the previously approved Inwood planned development. The water, sewer
and stormwater systems have been designed to accommodate the future commercial
development that this project is providing access for. The developer will be responsible for
all applicable costs associated with infrastructure construction, design, review, inspection,
and administration, ensuring that no additional burden is placed on the city.
K) Lakeshore Access – Not applicable.
L) Parks & Open Space:
Parks and open space for this project are consistent with the original Inwood PUD. This
project will provide public access to the proposed trails, but no additional areas are
proposed for public dedication. Future development on this site will meet the shoreland
requirements for impervious area, preserving 70% open space within the private lot areas.
Park dedication will be provided consistent with city policy, with consideration for trail
construction to be determined.
M) Proposed Development Schedule
The developer hopes to begin construction as soon as possible and anticipates starting this
fall (2026). Plans are consistent with the mass grading that was completed with Inwood.
Clearing and grading work will be minimal, followed immediately by utility and street
construction. Site restoration will be ongoing as work is completed. Landscaping will
follow curb / gutter, sidewalk and trail installation, with tree planting potentially deferred
to spring 2027 depending on weather. Overall construction is expected to be completed in
6-8 weeks.
VADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MNoff:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\preliminary\5172-05_cover.dwgSave Date:04/21/2615Revisions:1.Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of Minnesota04/23/26KRO04/23/26Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.25063BJK#5172-05COVER1INWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, Minnesota VICINITY MAP Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRSITEI N W O O D5 T H A D D I T I O
N
I N
W
O
O
D3 R D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
I
N
W
O
O
D1 S
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
NG H
O
S
TP L
A
TG H
O
S
TP L
A
TG H O S TP L A TG H O S TP L A TB YO T
H
E
R
S
OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OW
N
E
R
:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:O
W
N
E
R
:
OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:f:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\survey\preliminary\5172-05_excon.dwgSave Date:04/21/26VADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MinnesotaEXISTING CONDITIONSThomas R. Balluff, L.S.I hereby certify that this survey, planor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Land Surveyor underthe laws of the State of MinnesotaPrint Name:Signature:Date:License #:40361DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:FILE NO:Revisions:152NJS2938LEGEND 4/23/264/23/26
OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:
OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:O
W
N
E
R
:
OWNER:IRENE AVENUEN.9TH ST. N.OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:OWNER:f:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\survey\preliminary\5172-05_preplat.dwgSave Date:04/22/26VADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MinnesotaPRELIMINARY PLATThomas R. Balluff, L.S.I hereby certify that this survey, planor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Land Surveyor underthe laws of the State of MinnesotaPrint Name:Signature:Date:License #: 4/23/2640361DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:FILE NO:Revisions:153NJS4/23/262938LEGEND SITE DATA
REMOVALS PLAN4VADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MNoff:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\preliminary\5172-05_removals.dwgSave Date:04/22/2615Revisions:1.Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of Minnesota04/23/26KRO04/23/26Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.25063BJK#5172-05I N W O O D5 T H A D D I T I O NI N W O O D3 R D A D D I T I O NI N W O O D1 S T A D D I T I O NI N W O O D1 S T A D D I T I O N
I
N
W
O
O
D
3
R
D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
I
N
W
O
O
D
1
S
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
G
H
O
S
T
P
L
A
T
G H O S T P L A TG H O S T P L A T I N W O O D5 T H A D D I T I O NB
Y
O
T
H
E
R
SC I T Y O FO A K D A L EG
H
O
S
T
P
L
A
T
5SHORELAND EXHIBITVADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MNoff:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\preliminary\5172-05_shoreland.dwgSave Date:04/22/2615Revisions:1.Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of Minnesota04/23/26KRO04/23/26Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.25063BJK#5172-05 SITE DATA LEGAL DESCRIPTION NOTE LEGEND LOT DATA (FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS BY OTHERS)
6Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRPRELIMINARY SITE &UTILITY PLAN INDEXVADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MNoff:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\preliminary\5172-05_site.dwgSave Date:04/22/2615Revisions:1.Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of Minnesota04/23/26KRO04/23/26Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.25063BJK#5172-05I N W O O D5 T H A D D I T I
O
N
I N
W
O
O
D3 R D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
I
N
W
O
O
D1 S
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
NG H
O
S
TP L
A
TG H
O
S
TP L
A
TG H O S TP L A TG H O S TP L A TSITE PLAN LEGEND
I N W O O D3 R D A D D I T I O N
I
N
W
O
O
D
1
S
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
G H
O
S
T
P L
A
T
G H O S T P L A T
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
S
PRELIMINARY SITE &UTILITY PLAN7VADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MNoff:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\preliminary\5172-05_site.dwgSave Date:04/22/2615Revisions:1.Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of Minnesota04/23/26KRO04/23/26Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.25063BJK#5172-05SITE PLAN LEGEND
I
N
W
O
O
D
3
R
D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
G
H
O
S
T
G
H
O
S
T
P
L
A
T
G H
O
S
T
P L
A
T
G H O S T P L A T I N W O O D5 T H A D D I T I O NPRELIMINARY SITE &UTILITY PLAN8VADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MNoff:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\preliminary\5172-05_site.dwgSave Date:04/22/2615Revisions:1.Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of Minnesota04/23/26KRO04/23/26Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.25063BJK#5172-05SITE PLAN LEGEND
I N W O O D3 R D A D D I T I O N
I
N
W
O
O
D
1
S
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
G H
O
S
T
P L
A
T
G H O S T P L A T
SIGNING, STRIPING, ANDLIGHTING PLAN9VADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MNoff:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\preliminary\5172-05_sign_stripe_light.dwgSave Date:04/22/2615Revisions:1.Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of Minnesota04/23/26KRO04/23/26Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.25063BJK#5172-05
I
N
W
O
O
D
3
R
D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
G
H
O
S
T
G
H
O
S
T
P
L
A
T
G H
O
S
T
P L
A
T
G H O S T P L A T I N W O O D5 T H A D D I T I O NSIGNING, STRIPING, ANDLIGHTING PLAN10VADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MNoff:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\preliminary\5172-05_sign_stripe_light.dwgSave Date:04/22/2615Revisions:1.Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of Minnesota04/23/26KRO04/23/26Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.25063BJK#5172-05
GRADING INDEX11Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRVADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MNoff:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\preliminary\5172-05_gr.dwgSave Date:04/22/2615Revisions:1.Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of Minnesota04/23/26KRO04/23/26Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.25063BJK#5172-05I N W O O D5 T H A D D I T I
O
N
I N
W
O
O
D3 R D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
I
N
W
O
O
D1 S
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
NG H
O
S
TP L
A
TG H
O
S
TP L
A
TG H O S TP L A TG H O S TP L A T
I N W O O D3 R D A D D I T I O NI N
W
O
O
D
1 S
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
G H O
S
T
P L
A
T
G H O S T P L A T
PRELIMINARY GRADING& EROSION CONTROL PLAN12VADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MNoff:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\preliminary\5172-05_gr.dwgSave Date:04/22/2615Revisions:1.Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of Minnesota04/23/26KRO04/23/26Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.25063BJK#5172-05
I
N
W
O
O
D
3
R
D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
I
N
W
O
O
D
1
S
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
G
H
O
S
T
P
L
A
T
G
H
O
S
T
P
L
A
T
G
H
O
S
T
P
L
A
T
G H O S T P L A T I N W O O D5 T H A D D I T I O NPRELIMINARY GRADING& EROSION CONTROL PLAN13VADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MNoff:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\preliminary\5172-05_gr.dwgSave Date:04/22/2615Revisions:1.Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of Minnesota04/23/26KRO04/23/26Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.25063BJK#5172-05
DETAILS14VADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MNoff:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\preliminary\5172-05_details.dwgSave Date:04/21/2615Revisions:1.Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of Minnesota04/23/26KRO04/23/26Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.25063BJK#5172-05
DETAILS15VADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MNoff:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\preliminary\5172-05_details.dwgSave Date:04/21/2615Revisions:1.Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of Minnesota04/23/26KRO04/23/26Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.25063BJK#5172-05
I
N
W
O
O
D
3
R
D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
I
N
W
O
O
D
1
S
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
G
H
O
S
T
P
L
A
T
G
H
O
S
T
P
L
A
T
G H O S T P L A T G H O S T P L A T I N W O O D5 T H A D D I T I O NB
Y
O
T
H
E
R
S 2RM7KC12WP6JL5BL2RM12AE2CA2CA16BH6FM5BL8HB2RM9WO6JL2RM7HLC I T Y O F O A K D A L EL1Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRPRELIMINARYLANDSCAPE PLANVADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MNoff:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\landscape\5172-05_landscape_prelim.dwgSave Date:04/21/26Revisions:1.#5172-052Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Landscape Architect underthe laws of the State of Minnesota04/23/26RJR04/23/26Ryan J. Ruttger, RLA56346RJR
SYMBOLCODEQTYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZECONTAINERTREESRM8Acer rubrum `Northwood`Northwoods Red Maple2.5" Cal.B&BFM6Acer x freemanii `Sienna`Sienna Glen Maple2.5" Cal.B&BHB8Celtis occidentalisCommon Hackberry2.5" Cal.B&BHL7Gleditsia triacanthos inermis `Harve`Northern Acclaim Thornless Honey Locust2.5" Cal.B&BKC7Gymnocladus dioica `Espresso`Kentucky Coffeetree2.5" Cal.B&BWO9Quercus bicolorSwamp White Oak2.5" Cal.B&BBL10Tilia americana `Boulevard`Boulevard Linden2.5" Cal.B&BAE12Ulmus americana `Princeton`American Elm2.5" Cal.B&B67SUBTOTAL:CONIFEROUS TREESBH16Picea glauca densataBlack Hills Spruce6` Ht.B&BWP12Pinus strobusWhite Pine6` Ht.B&B28SUBTOTAL:ORNAMENTAL TREESCA4Malus x `Prairiefire`Red Flowers, Clump Form, 2" CalEquivalentPrairiefire Crabapple7` Ht.B&BJL12Syringa reticulata `Ivory Silk`White FlowersIvory Silk Japanese Tree Lilac2" Cal.B&B16SUBTOTAL:GROUND COVERSTI59,623 sfType I - Turf Seed MixRefer to notes for acceptable seedingmethodsSeeding Rate 200 lb/acMnDOT Residential Turfgrass (RT)seedTII100,748 sfType II - Native Seed Mix (A)Refer to notes for acceptable seedingmethodsSeeding Rate 39 lb/acMnDOT Southern Shortgrass Roadside (SSR)seedTIII34,739 sfType III - Native Seed Mix (B)Refer to notes for acceptable seedingmethodsSeeding Rate 39 lb/acMnDOT Southern Tallgrass Roadside (STR)seed195,110 sfSUBTOTAL:PLANT SCHEDULEL2PRELIMINARYLANDSCAPE PLANVADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MNoff:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\landscape\5172-05_landscape_prelim.dwgSave Date:04/21/26Revisions:1.#5172-052Print Name:Signature:Date:License #:Drawn:Designed:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Landscape Architect underthe laws of the State of Minnesota04/23/26RJR04/23/26Ryan J. Ruttger, RLA56346RJR
3890 PHEASANT RIDGE DRIVE NE, SUITE 100
BLAINE, MN 55449
TEL 763.489.7900
FAX 763.489.7959
CARLSON-ENGINEERING.COM
ENGINEERING \ SURVEYING \ PLANNING
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
INWOOD COMMERCIAL
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Carlson Engineering Project No.: 5172 -05
Prepared for:
Vadnais Associates, LLC
2935 Country Drive, Suite 102
Little Canada, MN 55117
April 23, 2026
Stormwater Management Plan
Inwood Commercial
Carlson Engineering, Inc. Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Proposed Conditions .................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Soil Information ........................................................................................................... 2
STORMWATER ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 3
1.4 Peak Elevations ............................................................................................................ 3
1.5 Rate Control Analysis .................................................................................................. 4
1.6 Water Quality and Volume Reduction Analysis ....................................................... 4
1.7 Storm Sewer Design ..................................................................................................... 4
1.8 Other Considerations................................................................................................... 5
1.9 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 CERTIFICATION .................................................................................................... 6
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Existing Conditions Drainage Map
Figure 3 Proposed Conditions Drainage Map
Figure 4 Storm Sewer Drainage Map
Figure 5 Impervious To Existing Ponds Exhibit
APPENDICES
Appendix A Inwood Proposed Drainage Area Map
Appendix B Storm Sewer Design
Appendix C Soil Information
Stormwater Management Plan
Inwood Commercial
Carlson Engineering, Inc. Page 1 of 6
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document provides detailed information on the proposed surface water management system
for the development of property located between 10th Street N and 5th Street N, along Inwood
Avenue N and the western property line of the Inwood development in Lake Elmo, Washington
County, Minnesota. Vadnais Associates, LLC plans on platting the site into 5 separate lots, with
corresponding public streets and utilities, which will all be developed separately. Included in
this document is a general rate control analysis and storm sewer design. See Figure 1 for a site
location map.
1.1 Existing Conditions
The site is located between 10th Street N and 5th Street N, along Inwood Avenue N and the western
property line of the Inwood development in Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota. The site
is bounded on the west by the Inwood development, on the north and east by 10th Street North,
on the south by 5th Street N, and on the west by Inwood Avenue N (C.S.A.H. 13). The site is
currently undeveloped grassland, but was mass graded for future development as part of the
Inwood Development. The site boundary consists of 17.35 acres. There are no existing
impervious surfaces onsite.
The site has a gradually sloped topography, with elevations ranging from 1060 in the north
eastern portion of the site, down to about 1010 in the south eastern portion of the site. There is
an existing stormwater pond located just east of the site, and another across from 5th Street N,
behind the existing Kwik Trip lot located in the southeast quadrant of the 5th Street N and Inwood
Avenue N intersection. The majority of the stormwater from the site drains from north to south
through the site, where it either accumulates at the previously graded low points in the future
street section, or off-site to the south on 5th Street N, where it is collected by existing storm sewer
and discharged to an existing pond south of 5th Street N. This stormwater pond discharges to an
existing ditch that drains south under Interstate Highway 94 and ultimately to Wilmes Lake. The
remainder drains off site to the existing ditches along 10th Street N and Inwood Avenue N, which
ultimately flows south, away from the site. See Figure 2 for an existing conditions drainage map.
There are no wetlands onsite. Goose Lake is within one mile of the site and is classified as an
impaired water. The site does not drain towards this lake so no additional construction BMP’s
are necessary.
1.2 Proposed Conditions
Vadnais Associates, LLC plans on platting the site into 5 separate lots, with corresponding public
streets and utilities, which will all be developed separately. Currently, the first phase of
construction will include the construction of all public streets, sidewalks, trails, and
accompanying utilities. After the first phase of construction, each individual lot will be sold and
developed separately. The majority of the site lies within the 1,000 Foot Shoreland District
Stormwater Management Plan
Inwood Commercial
Carlson Engineering, Inc. Page 2 of 6
Boundary, which limits the amount of new impervious surface to 30% of the square footage of
each lot within the boundary. All lot areas outside of the district boundary is limited to 75% of
the lot square footage. During the first phase of construction, approximately 6.24 acres will be
disturbed. After the initial construction, the site will contain approximately 2.57 acres of
impervious surface. When the site is fully built out, the site will contain a maximum allowable
impervious surface area of approximately 5.67 acres. This 5.67 acres combines the 8.24 acres from
the public streets, trail, sidewalks, and additional impervious from the turn lane construction,
and a maximum allowable total lot impervious of approximately 5.67.
Stormwater from the site will be collected in storm sewer and routed to the existing stormwater
pond located immediately east of the site, and the existing pond south of the site, behind the
existing Kwik Trip. These stormwater ponds were designed to provide water quality treatment
and rate control for the site in a fully developed condition. See Figure 3 for a proposed conditions
drainage map.
For new outlets into the pond immediately east of the site, a sump catch basin manhole will be
used in the most downstream manhole to prevent suspended sediment from being discharged to
the pond. When tying into existing storm sewer stubs provided for this site, which will be utilized
with the development of Lot 2, Block 2, existing 4-foot sumps were provided on the most
downstream storm sewer structure. This prevents suspended solids from being discharged to
the pond behind Kwik Trip. No additional stormwater treatment practices are proposed for the
site.
1.3 Soil Information
For the entire Inwood Site, in November 2014, Braun Intertec drilled seven soil boings to
approximate near surface soils in the western and southern portion of the site. These borings
indicated near surface soils consist primarily of the silty sand and course graded sand, with areas
of clay.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service web soil survey onsite soils fall within
the Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) “B” and “C”.
See Appendix C for soil information.
Stormwater Management Plan
Inwood Commercial
Carlson Engineering, Inc. Page 3 of 6
STORMWATER ANALYSIS
The proposed site is part of a master development known as Inwood. The site was mass graded
in 2015, including grading for the Inwood Commercial and adjacent commercial lots. As part of
the mass grading, two regional stormwater ponds and a regional infiltration basin were
constructed to provide water quality treatment and rate control for the area in question, as well
as portions of the residential area to the west. The analysis presented below is based on a review
of the approved Inwood Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Carlson Engineering, last
revised February 16, 2015.
1.4 Peak Elevations
Based on the Inwood Stormwater Management Plan, the table below summarizes the existing
high water levels for the existing Ponds 100 and Infiltration Basin 400 located south of the existing
Kwik Trip, and Pond 200 located immediately east of the site.
Table 1
High Water Elevations
Inwood Development
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Basin Bottom Outlet 2y HWL 10y HWL 100y HWL
Pond 100 986.0 995.0 996.9 998.1 1000.7*
Pond 200 996.0 1006.0 1007.9 1008.9 1011.0*
Basin 400 994.0 995.0 996.6 997.5 998.6*
*Note the revised HydroCAD model and final grading plans for Inwood list the 100-year HWL
for Pond 100 at 1001.3, for Pond 200 at 1010.4 and for Basin 400 at 998.8.
The previously approved Inwood development stormwater management plan accounted for a
maximum allowable impervious area of 3.330 acres of the proposed site to flow to Pond 200.
The current Inwood Commercial plan is proposing a total of 3.184 acres of impervious (from the
public streets and ghost plat lots) to Pond 200. Therefore, the approved Inwood stormwater
plan is more conservative than the proposed Inwood Commercial layout, and Pond 200 will see
no adverse effects of the full build out of Inwood Commercial. Pond 100 is in a similar situation
with a maximum allowable impervious area of 2.850 acres, which was previously accounted for
in the approved Inwood stormwater plan, and a proposed impervious area of 2.377 acres with
Inwood Commercial development. Thus, Pond 100 will see no adverse effects from the full
build out of the Inwood Commercial site.
Stormwater Management Plan
Inwood Commercial
Carlson Engineering, Inc. Page 4 of 6
1.5 Rate Control Analysis
All stormwater from the site drains to existing stormwater ponds 100 and 200. Based on the
Inwood Stormwater Management Plan, Inwood Commercial areas were assumed to have 30
percent impervious area within the 1,000 Foot Shoreland District Boundary, and 75% of the area
outside of the district boundary, which is indicated in the notes section on Figure 3 of the Inwood
Stormwater Management Plan (See Appendix A). The majority of the Inwood Commercial site
was slated to drain to Stormwater Pond 200, and a small southern portion to drain to Stormwater
Pond 100. It will be up to the future lot development plans to correctly discharge the future
impervious area to the right pond and not exceed the maximum allowable.
Since the Inwood Commercial proposed impervious amount, which includes 4 ghost platted lots,
is less than maximum allowable from each catchment area, proposed runoff rates will be less than
the design runoff rates. Please see Figure 5 for an impervious exhibit.
When the 5 individual lots develop, a percent impervious analysis should be completed to
ensure that runoff rates are not increased to the ponds.
1.6 Water Quality and Volume Reduction Analysis
Based on the Inwood Stormwater Management Plan, the ponds were designed to meet NURP
standards as well as South Washington Watershed District phosphorus reduction requirements.
Additionally, the infiltration basin was designed to provide volume reduction meeting the South
Washington Watershed District and MPCA requirements for the entire site in a fully developed
condition.
Because the proposed site will have less impervious than the original assumptions used in the
water quality and volume reductions calculations, the site will generate less runoff and require
less water quality treatment and volume reduction than the approved master development plan.
1.7 Storm Sewer Design
Proposed storm sewer will be used to collect stormwater from the site and to route it to existing
pond 200. Lot 2, Block 2 will need utilize existing storm sewer stubs into the site from 5 th Street N
to route stormwater south to existing Pond 100, behind Kwik Trip, as to not exceed the maximum
allowable impervious to Pond 200. The rational method was used to determine anticipated flows
to each catch basin and the pipes were sized using those flows along with Manning’s equation.
All proposed storm sewer has been designed to accommodate a 10-year storm at a minimum. See
Figure 4 for Storm Sewer Drainage Map and Appendix B for storm sewer design spreadsheet.
Stormwater Management Plan
Inwood Commercial
Carlson Engineering, Inc. Page 5 of 6
1.8 Other Considerations
Sump catch basin manholes will be installed at the most downstream structure of the pipe
network to prevent suspended solids from being discharged to the existing pond. Riprap will be
used at the outlet to the existing pond to provide energy dissipation. When additional storm
sewer is tied into an existing storm sewer network, sumps were previously installed along with
riprap at the outlet to the existing pond.
1.9 Conclusion
The proposed development will result in less impervious surface and less runoff rate and volume
from the site than what was originally planned for under the Inwood Development stormwater
management system. All storm sewers have been designed to accommodate a 10-year storm at a
minimum. Sump catch basins will be utilized to prevent sediment from being conveyed
downstream.
Stormwater Management Plan
Inwood Commercial
Carlson Engineering, Inc. Page 6 of 6
2.0 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
This Stormwater Management Plan was prepared by:
4/23/2026
Justin J. Olson, P.E. Date
License #: 54231
FIGURES
SOURCE: USGS LAKE ELMO 7.5 MIN. QUADRANGLE
SITE LOCATION
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
INWOOD COMMERCIAL
Lake Elmo, MN
f:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\5172-05_drain.dwgSave Date:04/22/26 #5172-05
1 S
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
I
N
W
O
O
D3 R
D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
NFIGURE 2.1EXISTING CONDITIONSDRAINAGE MAPNOTES:LEGENDCATCHMENT LINEf:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\5172-05_drain.dwgSave Date:04/23/26#5412-05VADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117INWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MN
I
N
W
O
O
D1 S
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
I N W O O D3 R D A D D I T I O NFIGURE 2.2EXISTING CONDITIONSDRAINAGE MAPNOTES:LEGENDCATCHMENT LINEf:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\5172-05_drain.dwgSave Date:04/23/26E X
I
S
T
I
N
GK W
I
K
T
R
I
P#5412-05VADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117INWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MN
1 S
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
I
N
W
O
O
D3 R
D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
NFIGURE 3.1EXISTING CONDITIONSDRAINAGE MAPNOTES:LEGENDCATCHMENT LINEf:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\5172-05_drain.dwgSave Date:04/23/26G H
O
S
TP L
A
TG H
O
S
TP L
A
TG H
O
S
TP L
A
TG H
O
S
TP L
A
TNOTE:CURRENTLY, THERE IS NO GRADING PLANFOR ANY OF THE PROPOSED PLATTED LOTS,BUT IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE MAJORITYOF EACH LOT WILL BE COLLECTED BYFUTURE STORM SEWER AND ROUTED TOTHE DENOTED POND, EXCEPT FOR A SMALLSTRIP ALONG 10TH STREET N ANDINWOOD AVENUE N, WHICH WILL DRAINDIRECTLY TO THE EXISTING COUNTY ROADDITCHES. 4 OF THE 5 LOTS ARECURRENTLY GHOST PLATS.#5412-05VADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117INWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MN
I
N
W
O
O
D1 S
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
I N W O O D3 R D A D D I T I O NFIGURE 3.2EXISTING CONDITIONSDRAINAGE MAPNOTES:#5412-05LEGENDCATCHMENT LINEVADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117INWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MNf:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\5172-05_drain.dwgSave Date:04/23/26E X
I
S
T
I
N
GK W
I
K
T
R
I
PB YO T
H
E
R
SG H
O
S
TP L
A
TG H O S TP L A TNOTE:CURRENTLY, THERE IS NO GRADING PLANFOR ANY OF THE PROPOSED PLATTED LOTS,BUT IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE MAJORITYOF EACH LOT WILL BE COLLECTED BYFUTURE STORM SEWER AND ROUTED TOTHE DENOTED POND, EXCEPT FOR A SMALLSTRIP ALONG 10TH STREET N ANDINWOOD AVENUE N, WHICH WILL DRAINDIRECTLY TO THE EXISTING COUNTY ROADDITCHES. 4 OF THE 5 LOTS ARECURRENTLY GHOST PLATS.
336335334333332350
346345331347
348
3413403303
6
0
3
6
1
362371370f:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\5172-05_stm swr catchment.dwgSave Date:04/22/26NOTES:#5172-05VADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117INWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MinnesotaFIGURE 4STORM SEWERCATCHMENT AREAS060120240LEGENDCATCHMENT LINESTRUCTURE NUMBER105
I N W O O D3 R D A D D I T I O NI N W O O D5 T H A D D I T I O NC I T Y O FO A K D A L EVADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLAKE ELMO, MNoff:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\exhibits\z_old_5172-05_stormwater exhibit.dwgSave Date:04/22/261Revisions:#5172-051FIGURE 5IMPERVIOUS TO EXISTINGPONDS EXHIBIT LEGEND POND 200 (CATCHMENT 201S) IMPERVIOUS SUMMARY POND 100 (CATCHMENTS 101S & 102S) IMPERVIOUS SUMMARY
APPENDIX A
FIGURE 3PROPOSED CONDITIONSDRAINAGE MAPHANS HAGEN HOMES941 NE Hillwind RoadFridley, MN 55432REVISIONS1.2.3.4.5.6.DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:ISSUE DATE:JTRJTR10/10/14INWOODLake Elmo, Minnesotaf:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172 - lake elmo property\cad\engineer\5172_drain.dwgSave Date:02/16/15248 Apollo Dr, Suite 100, Lino Lakes, MN 55014Phone: 763-489-7900 Fax: 763-489-7959ENVIRONMENTAL ◦ ENGINEERING ◦ SURVEYINGNOTESLEGENDCATCHMENT LINECATCHMENTCOLLECTION POINTDRAINAGE ARROWNOTESASSUMED 75% IMPERVIOUSASSUMED 30% IMPERVIOUS (SHORELAND OVERLAY)ASSUMED 30% IMPERVIOUS (SHORELAND OVERLAY)
APPENDIX B
10 year
0.013
varies
STRUCTURE AREA
CBMH
(from)CBMH (to) Size
Inc. Area
(ac)Inc. "C" Inc. CA Cum. CA T (min) I (in/hr)
Q = CAI
(cfs)D (in) % Grade
Qfull
(cfs)
Vfull
(fps)L (ft) Invert (in)
Invert
(out)Rim El. Build (ft)
371 370 24x36 0.31 0.65 0.20 0.20 10 5.8 1.16 12 0.50% 2.52 3.21 34 1006.39 1006.22 1010.89 4.50
370 fes 48 (sump) 0.30 0.65 0.19 0.39 10 5.8 2.28 15 0.35% 3.82 3.11 45 1006.05 1005.90 1011.09 9.04
1006.00
st362 361 4.20 0.65 2.73 2.73 11 5.6 15.31 21 1.20% 17.34 7.21 27 1008.50 1008.18 1016.50 8.00
361 360 48 0.19 0.65 0.12 2.86 11 5.6 16.00 24 0.60% 17.51 5.57 28 1008.01 1007.84 1015.06 7.05
360 fes 48 (sump) 0.16 0.65 0.10 2.96 11 5.6 16.59 27 0.35% 18.31 4.60 63 1006.22 1006.00 1015.25 13.03
1006.00
st350 333 2.01 0.65 1.30 1.30 11 5.6 7.30 18 1.00% 10.50 5.94 53 1021.00 1020.47 1029.50 8.50
348 347 24x36 0.22 0.65 0.15 0.15 10 5.8 0.84 12 0.50% 2.52 3.21 26 1014.35 1014.22 1018.85 4.50
347 345 48 0.22 0.65 0.14 0.29 10 5.8 1.68 15 0.50% 4.56 3.72 42 1014.05 1013.84 1018.85 4.80
st346 345 2.35 0.65 1.53 1.53 12 5.4 8.25 21 0.50% 11.20 4.65 30 1014.50 1014.35 1021.50 7.00
345 331 48 0.27 0.65 0.17 1.99 12 5.4 10.75 21 0.60% 12.26 5.10 26 1013.51 1013.35 1019.46 5.95
st341 340 2.75 0.65 1.78 1.78 12 5.4 9.64 21 0.50% 11.20 4.65 27 1012.25 1012.12 1019.25 7.00
340 330 48 0.23 0.65 0.15 1.94 12 5.4 10.46 21 0.60% 12.26 5.10 26 1012.12 1011.96 1017.55 5.43
st336 335 2.85 0.65 1.85 1.85 13 5.3 9.83 21 0.50% 11.20 4.65 74 1018.30 1017.93 1029.30 11.00
335 334 48 0.34 0.65 0.22 2.08 13 5.3 11.00 21 0.55% 11.74 4.88 26 1017.93 1017.79 1027.64 9.71
334 333 48 0.73 0.65 0.47 2.55 13 5.3 13.50 21 0.75% 13.71 5.70 106 1017.79 1016.99 1027.64 9.85
333 332 48 0.05 0.65 0.03 3.89 13 5.3 20.60 24 0.90% 21.44 6.83 93 1016.83 1015.99 1028.17 11.34
332 331 60 0.09 0.65 0.06 3.95 13 5.3 20.91 27 0.50% 21.88 5.50 307 1015.82 1014.29 1027.17 11.35
331 330 60 0.72 0.65 0.47 6.41 13 5.3 33.95 27 1.50% 37.90 9.53 142 1013.02 1010.89 1019.46 6.44
330 fes 84 0.45 0.65 0.30 8.64 13 5.3 45.78 48 0.15% 55.59 4.42 91 1006.14 1006.00 1017.55 15.41
1006.00
GENERAL DESIGN PROFILE INFORMATION
DESIGN CRITERIA
Storm Frequency
Manning's "n"
"C" coefficient
LOCATION
PROJECT NAME: Inwood Commercial
PROJECT LOCATION: Lake Elmo, MN
CARLSON ENGINEERING PROJECT NO.: 5172-05
DATE: 04/23/2026
BY: KRO
"C" COEFFICIENT
APPENDIX C
Table of Contents
Description Page
A. Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
A.1. Project Description..............................................................................................................1
A.2. Background Information and Reference Documents..........................................................2
A.3. Scope of Services.................................................................................................................2
A.4. Boring Locations..................................................................................................................3
B. Results..............................................................................................................................................3
B.1. Exploration Logs..................................................................................................................3
B.1.a. Log of Boring Sheets...............................................................................................3
B.1.b. Geologic Origins .....................................................................................................3
B.2. Geologic Profile...................................................................................................................4
B.2.a. Topsoil....................................................................................................................4
B.2.b. Glacial Deposits......................................................................................................4
B.2.c. Groundwater..........................................................................................................4
B.3. Laboratory Test Results.......................................................................................................5
C. Basis for Recommendations.............................................................................................................5
D. Recommendations ...........................................................................................................................6
D.1. Site Grading and Building Pad Preparation.........................................................................7
D.1.a. Excavations.............................................................................................................7
D.1.b. Excavation Support.................................................................................................8
D.1.c. Placement and Compaction of Backfill and Fill......................................................8
D.1.d. Grade Raises...........................................................................................................9
D.2. Spread Footings...................................................................................................................9
D.2.a. Embedment Depth.................................................................................................9
D.2.b. Net Allowable Bearing Pressure.............................................................................9
D.3. Interior Slabs .......................................................................................................................9
D.3.a. Subgrade Modulus.................................................................................................9
D.3.b. Moisture Vapor Protection ..................................................................................10
D.4. Exterior Slabs.....................................................................................................................10
D.5. Utilities ..............................................................................................................................11
D.6. Pavements.........................................................................................................................11
D.6.a. Subgrade Preparation ..........................................................................................11
D.6.b. Subgrade Proofroll ...............................................................................................12
D.6.c. R-Value.................................................................................................................12
D.6.d. Pavement Sections...............................................................................................12
D.7. Stormwater Management.................................................................................................13
D.8. Additional Evaluation........................................................................................................13
E. Procedures......................................................................................................................................14
E.1. Penetration Test Borings...................................................................................................14
E.2. Material Classification and Testing ...................................................................................14
E.2.a. Visual and Manual Classification..........................................................................14
E.2.b. Laboratory Testing ...............................................................................................14
E.3. Groundwater Measurements............................................................................................14
F. Qualifications..................................................................................................................................14
Table of Contents (continued)
Description Page
F.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions..................................................................................14
F.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility..........................................................................15
F.2.a. Plan Review..........................................................................................................15
F.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing...............................................................15
F.3. Use of Report.....................................................................................................................15
F.4. Standard of Care................................................................................................................15
Appendix
Boring Location Sketch
Log of Boring Sheets ST-1 to ST-7
AET Subsurface Boring Logs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9
Descriptive Terminology
A.Introduction
A.1.Project Description
It is our understanding that Inwood 10 LLC is proposing to develop a 154-acre area for both commercial
and residential use in Lake Elmo, Minnesota. A geotechnical evaluation has already been performed for
the residential portion of the project by American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET). The residential portion
includes the construction of a subdivision in the center and northwest portions of the development as
shown on the sketch below. Our evaluation was performed for only the commercial area as outlined in
the sketch below.
Figure 1. Proposed Commercial Development Concept Plan
The majority of the parcel is agricultural fields with small isolated areas with trees. The surface also has a
general downward slope across the site towards the southwest.
Commercial parcel
Residential parcel
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 2
The purpose of this preliminary geotechnical evaluation is to assist Inwood 10 LLC and their design team
in evaluating the soil and groundwater conditions in the area of the proposed commercial development
and to provide preliminary recommendations for design and construction of foundations, slabs on grade,
utilities, and pavements.
A.2.Background Information and Reference Documents
To facilitate our evaluation, we were provided with or reviewed the following information or documents:
A proposed boring location sketch outlining the commercial development, the proposed
boring locations, and previously performed soil borings by American Engineering Testing, Inc.
A development concept sketch titled as, “PUD Concept Plan Inwood”, and dated August 28,
2014.
A Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by AET and dated May 13, 2014 for the residential
portion of the project generally located at the northwest portion of the parcel.
Discussions with Rick Schreier of Inwood 10 LLC in regard to the commercial development
grading, building pad preparation, and features.
A.3.Scope of Services
Our scope of services for this project was originally submitted as a Proposal to Rick Schreier of Inwood 10
LLC and dated October 24, 2014. We received authorization to proceed on October 30, 2014. Tasks
completed in accordance with our authorized scope of services are described below.
Staking the boring locations at the locations provided by Rick Schreier and determining
ground surface elevations at the boring locations.
Coordinating the locating of underground public utilities near the boring locations.
Conducting 7 standard penetration borings in the proposed commercial development to a
nominal depth of 20 feet below existing grade.
Classifying the samples and preparing boring logs.
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 3
Conducting a limited laboratory testing program.
Analyzing the results of the field and laboratory tests.
Formulating recommendations and submitting a preliminary geotechnical evaluation report
containing logs of the borings, our analysis of the field and laboratory tests, and preliminary
recommendations for design of foundations, slabs on grade, utilities, and pavements.
A.4.Boring Locations
The soil boring locations and surface elevations were determined using GPS (Global Positioning System)
technology uses the Minnesota Department of Transportation's permanent GPS Virtual Reference
Network (VRN). The boring locations are shown on the attached sketch.
Prior to commencing with our subsurface exploration activities, we coordinated the clearing of the soil
boring of underground utilities through Gopher State One Call.
B.Results
B.1.Exploration Logs
B.1.a.Log of Boring Sheets
Log of Boring sheets for our penetration test borings are included in the Appendix. The logs identify and
describe the geologic materials penetrated, the results of penetration resistance and laboratory tests
performed on penetration test samples retrieved from them, and groundwater observations.
Strata boundaries were inferred from changes in the penetration test samples and the drill auger
cuttings. Because sampling was not performed continuously, the strata boundary depths are only
approximate. The boundary depths likely vary away from the boring locations, and the boundaries
themselves may also occur as gradual rather than abrupt transitions.
B.1.b.Geologic Origins
Geologic origins presented for each stratum on the Log of Boring sheets are based on the soil types,
blows per foot, and available common knowledge of the geological history of the site. Because of the
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 4
complex glacial and post-glacial depositional environments, geologic origins can be difficult to ascertain.
A detailed investigation of the geologic history of the site was not performed.
B.2.Geologic Profile
The types of soils encountered in the borings are described below. The soils are generally described in
the order they were encountered; i.e., beginning at the ground surface. Please reference the Logs of
Borings attached in the Appendix for additional details.
B.2.a.Topsoil
Topsoil was encountered at the surface at our boring locations with thicknesses of about 8 inches to
1 foot. The topsoil encountered by our soil borings consisted of lean clay with sand.
In soil borings 1 through 5 and 9 performed by AET nearest the commercial development, a “plow zone”
layer was encountered at the surface. This layer had a thickness of 2 feet and the soils encountered were
similar to the topsoil encountered in our soil borings. We noted the depth of soils that were interpreted
to have the organic contents high enough that they were estimated to impact structural properties of the
soil.
B.2.b.Glacial Deposits
The borings we performed encountered glacial deposits beneath the topsoil consisted predominately of
silty sands and silty clayey sands with lesser amounts of poorly graded sand, poorly graded sand with silt,
clayey sand, and lean clay with sand. The penetration resistances recorded in the cohesionless (sand)
soils varied from 4 to 47 blows per foot (BPF), indicating a very loose to dense relative density. The
penetration resistances recorded in the cohesive (clay) deposits varied from 8 to 38 BPF, indicating a
medium to hard consistency. Some of the higher blow counts are likely due to gravel.
The glacial deposits our soil borings encountered are consistent with the soils AET encountered. One
difference is that our glacial outwash sands were generally classified as alluvial soils by AET. Also of note
is that in AET borings 1 and 5 a layer of soft clay was encountered.
B.2.c.Groundwater
Water was encountered in soil boring ST-4 at approximate elevation 991. Based on the moisture contents
of the geologic material beneath this elevation, it does not appear our soil boring penetrated the
hydrostatic groundwater surface but instead encountered perched deposits of groundwater trapped in
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 5
the sand. Due to variations in site elevations, soil borings ST-3, ST-4, ST- 5, and ST-6 extended beyond
this elevation and water was not encountered.
In AET’s soil boring 1, water was encountered approximately 11 feet below the surface which
corresponds to an elevation of about 997.5. In their report, the water encountered was judged to be
water accumulating in fast draining soil layers above slower draining soil layers during wetter periods of
the year.
The elevations at which perched groundwater accumulates seasonally and annually will likely vary and
could be shallower/higher at the exploration locations and between the exploration locations.
Piezometers or monitoring wells would be required to confirm if groundwater was present within the
depths explored.
B.3.Laboratory Test Results
Selected soil samples were submitted to our laboratory for testing. The laboratory tests were completed
in general accordance with current ASTM procedures. The test results can be found on the Log of Boring
sheets opposite the soil sample tested.
Moisture content tests on selected granular soil samples generally ranged from 3 to 10 percent,
indicating the majority of the sandy soils tested were likely at or below their estimated optimum
moisture content. Moisture conditioning of granular soils may be needed to meet required densities if
used for fill or backfill. The moisture content test on the selected cohesive soil sample was 9 percent,
indicating the clayey soil tested was near its estimated optimum moisture content.
Our mechanical analyses (grain size accumulation curve) indicated the selected samples contained 9 to
34 percent silt and clay by weight and was used to classify the soil and may be used to estimate
infiltration or to evaluate the material for reuse on site.
C.Basis for Recommendations
We understand the project includes the construction of multiple buildings of the office/ warehouse style
common to business parks. At the time of this report, design loads, anticipated grades, and final locations
of structures have not been provided. Only conceptual aspects of the development were presented.
Aspects of the conceptual design include the construction of roadways separating the residential and
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 6
commercial developments, multiple commercial and multi-family residential structures, and stormwater
ponds.
Per conversations with Rick Schreier of Inwood 10 LLC, this preliminary geotechnical evaluation will be
utilized by the project design team to assist in developing plans and specifications for the project,
specifically related to site grading. Existing grades, in the commercial development area as shown on the
sketch in the Appendix, range between 1003 and 1031.
We have attempted to describe our understanding of the proposed construction to the extent it was
reported to us by others. Depending on the extent of available information, assumptions may have been
made based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the
project details, we should be notified. New or changed information could require additional evaluation,
analyses and/or recommendations.
D.Recommendations
Based on the soil borings, we anticipate that the site would be prepared typical to similar commercial
buildings, namely:
Site grading will likely include stripping the vegetation and topsoil and any very loose sands
or soft clays.
Surface compaction within the building pads once stripping is complete for areas to be filled.
Cutting to grade or filling with suitable soils. A majority of material below the topsoil is
anticipated to be considered suitable for engineered fill, though it should be noted moisture
conditioning may be needed.
In our judgment, the on-site clays could be reused as engineered fill, but will require drying so
compaction can be achieved. To dry these soils, extensive farming of these clays will likely be required
and is easier to accomplish in the drier months of June to September. If site grading is done in the spring
or fall, on-site drying of these soils may not prove to be feasible and the importing of drier soils may be
required. If time or space is not available to dry these soils, then drier soils may need to be imported. The
reuse of these materials should be discussed at the bidding stages of the project.
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 7
In areas where clays would comprise a majority of the fill where grades are raised or where there are
significant grade raises placed upon clay, the thickness of clay placed may need to be restricted to limit
the amount of post-construction settlement which occurs from the excavation backfill compressing
under its own weight. Usually fills on the order of 5 to 10 feet can be accommodated within a
construction schedule provided the transition is gradual.
Once the final design, grades, and locations of each structure are determined, our evaluation should be
finalized. This final evaluation may revise or provide additional recommendations and may include
additional field exploration utilizing soil borings or test pits.
D.1.Site Grading and Building Pad Preparation
D.1.a.Excavations
To prepare the building pads, encountered organic topsoil, very loose sands, and soft clays should be
removed and replaced. The following tabulation outlines the anticipated depths needed at the boring
locations to remove the topsoil and possible loose or soft soils.
Table 1. Anticipated Excavation Depths of Building Pads
Soil Boring
Approximate Surface
Elevation
Anticipated Depth of
Excavation
(Feet)
Anticipated Bottom of
Excavation
(Elevation)
ST-1 1030.7 1 1030
ST-2 1019.9 1 1019
ST-3 1011.5 1 1010 1/2
ST-4 1003.6 1 1002 1/2
ST-5 1005.1 1 1004
ST-6 1005.5 1 1004 1/2
ST-7 1012.7 1 1011 1/2
AET 1 1008.5 9 999 1/2
AET 2 1019.6 4 1015 1/2
AET 3 1021.4 2 1019
AET 4 1015.8 2 1013 1/2
AET 5 1019.9 4 1015 1/2
AET 9 1020.5 2 - 4 1018 1/2 - 1016 1/2
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 8
The excavation depths indicated in the above tabulation are approximate and will vary. The actual depth
of excavation needs to be determined in the field at the time of construction. An experienced
geotechnical engineering technician, under the direction of a geotechnical engineer, should work closely
with the excavating contractor during excavation to make the necessary field judgments regarding the
suitability of the exposed soils and to determine the extent of soft soils.
To provide lateral support and control settlement to the structural loads they will support, we
recommend oversizing (widening) the excavations 1 foot horizontally beyond the footings for each foot
the excavations extend below bottom-of-footing elevations.
Prior to the placement of engineered fill or footings, we recommend the exposed sand soils in the
bottoms of the excavations be surface compacted using a minimum of 5 passes over an area with a large
(minimum 3-foot-diameter drum), self-propelled vibratory drum compactor.
D.1.b.Excavation Support
Sandy soils are prevalent in the near surface soils, and portions of the sands are described as poorly
graded sand and would be classified as Type C Soil under OSHA guidelines. Based on this classification it
should be anticipated unsupported excavations be maintained at a gradient no steeper than 1 1/2 to 1
(horizontal: vertical). In areas of the site encountering only silty sand tills the soils would be classified as
Type B Soil under OSHA guidelines. Based on this classification it should be anticipated unsupported
excavations be maintained at a gradient no steeper than 1 to 1 (horizontal: vertical). Slopes constructed
in this manner may still exhibit surface sloughing. If site constraints do not allow the construction of
temporary slopes with these dimensions, then temporary shoring may be required, and we should be
consulted for additional recommendations.
An OSHA approved competent person should review this soil classification in the field. Excavations must
comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations and Trenches.” This
document states excavation safety is the responsibility of the contractor. Reference to these OSHA
requirements should be included in the project specifications.
D.1.c.Placement and Compaction of Backfill and Fill
Based on the results of the borings and laboratory tests, the sand soils frequently encountered below the
topsoil appear generally suitable for use as engineered fill. Any clay soils encountered being fine-grained,
will be more difficult to compact if wet or allowed to become wet, or if spread and compacted over wet
surfaces.
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 9
If site grading and construction is anticipated during cold weather, snow and ice should be removed from
cut and fill areas prior to additional grading. No fill should be placed on frozen subgrades. No frozen soils
should be used as fill. Frost should not be allowed to penetrate below the footings. If winter excavation
and filling activities are planned, we recommend material selected for backfill and fill (to achieve design
grades) consist of clean, coarse sand with less than 12 percent passing a #200 sieve. Frost should not be
permitted to penetrate below footings. Compaction effort will vary with depth of fill placed and the
structure it intends to support. Based on the anticipated fill depths, soil types and structures, in most
areas we anticipate typical levels of compaction in the range of 95 to 100 percent of standard Proctor
would be suitable, but would be further defined as part of the final evaluation.
D.1.d.Grade Raises
As final grades were not provided for this preliminarily evaluation, should engineered fill be placed to
raise grades, considerations should be made in regards to long term consolidation of the native soils.
Small grade raises on the order of 2 to 5 feet may be made with minimal risk of post construction
consolidation of the exposed underlying native soils and the fill itself. Long-term consolidation of the
soils, especially if clay is used for fill or filled upon, may be a consideration if grade raises extend above
5 feet.
D.2.Spread Footings
D.2.a.Embedment Depth
For frost protection, we recommend embedding perimeter footings at least 42 inches below the lowest
exterior grade in heated portions of the building. Interior footings may be placed directly below floor
slabs. We recommend embedding building footings not heated during construction, and footings in
unheated areas at least 60 inches below the lowest exterior grade.
D.2.b.Net Allowable Bearing Pressure
Based on the soil boring results and the above-described site grading procedures, it is our opinion the
exposed glacial soils and engineered fill would be anticipated for support of spread footings sized for an
allowable soil bearing pressure from 2,000 to 5,000 pounds per square foot.
D.3.Interior Slabs
D.3.a.Subgrade Modulus
After the site grading and building pad preparation has been completed, we anticipate the floor subgrade
will be engineered fill or suitable native soils. We recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 10
150 pounds per square inch per inch of deflection (pci) to design the slabs. If 6 inches of compacted
aggregate base is placed immediately below the slab, the k- value may be increased by 50 pci. An
aggregate base will also be a more stable platform for construction equipment during construction and is
less weather sensitive.
D.3.b.Moisture Vapor Protection
As large portions of the building are anticipated to have an exposed concrete floor, vapor transmission
through the floor may not be a major concern. However, it may still be a benefit to put a vapor barrier
below the floor due to:
Materials placed on the floor may be damaged by absorbed moisture.
Less water vapor in the air may result in a reduction in heating and cooling costs.
The vapor barrier will be in place for any future remodeling.
Excess transmission of water vapor could cause floor dampness, certain types of floor bonding agents to
separate, or mold to form under floor coverings. If floor coverings or coatings less permeable than the
concrete slab will be used, we recommend a vapor retarder or vapor barrier be place immediately
beneath the slab. We recommend consulting with floor covering manufacturers regarding the
appropriate type, use and installation of the vapor retarder or barrier to preserve warranty assurances.
We recommend the vapor retarder or barrier be observed prior to concrete placement so holes, tears or
gaps in the vapor retarder or barrier can be identified and patched or realigned as needed. We further
recommend performing moisture vapor transmission tests after the concrete slabs have cured, but
before flooring are installed. Flooring manufacturers typically recommend upper limits of moisture vapor
transmission can be used to set schedules for flooring installation but, more importantly, may impact
warranties.
D.4.Exterior Slabs
For general exterior slabs we recommend subgrades be prepared similar as to what is described in
section D.6 for pavements. If portions of the exterior surface will have higher expectations for
performance for example a paver patio, additional preparations would be recommended to limit frost
heave and post construction settlement.
We anticipate exterior slabs will be underlain with silty sands, which are considered moderately to highly
frost susceptible. If these soils become saturated and freeze, unfavorable amounts of heaving could
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 11
occur. Grading to direct surface drainage away from buildings helps limit the potential for saturation and
subsequent heaving to occur. Still, even limited amounts of movement can create tripping hazards to
building employees and guests. One way to help limit the potential for heaving to occur is to remove
frost-susceptible soils present below the overlying slab “footprints” down to bottom-of-footing grades,
and replace them with non-frost-susceptible (NFS) backfill consisting of medium to coarse grained sands
having less than 5 percent of the particles by weight passing a #200 sieve. We recommend differential
frost heave should be accommodated at transition areas.
D.5.Utilities
Based on the borings, we anticipate the soils at typical invert elevations should be suitable for utility
support. However, if unfavorable conditions such as soft clay, organic soils or perched water are
encountered at invert grades, the unsuitable soils may require some additional subcutting and
replacement with sand or crushed rock to prepare a proper subgrade for pipe support. Utilities should
not be placed within the 1:1 oversizing of foundations. If it is necessary to place utilities within the
oversizing of the footings, we should review the documents prior to construction as it may be necessary
to backfill with lean concrete or lower the footing elevations near the utility trenches. We anticipate
utilities can be installed per manufacturer bedding requirements.
A majority of the soil borings indicated the site predominantly consists of sandy soils. These soils are
considered non- to only slightly corrosive to metallic conduits. If utilities extend through clay soils, the
utilities should be bedded in sandy soil free of any clay lumps or the utilities should be constructed with
non-corrosive materials.
D.6.Pavements
D.6.a.Subgrade Preparation
We recommend the vegetation and topsoil be removed from the upper 3 feet below the pavement
section. In areas requiring engineered fill to establish pavement grades, the excavation should be
oversized at least 1 foot beyond the outside edge of the paved areas for each foot of fill placed below the
roads or parking lot.
Prior to the placement of engineered fill or pavements, we recommend the exposed sandy soils in the
bottoms of the excavations be thoroughly compacted by a minimum of 5 passes with a large (3-foot-
diameter drum minimum), self-propelled drum compactor. This is recommended to further densify the
underlying native soils and to provide a more uniform base to place additional fill or pavement.
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 12
On-site soils free of organic soil and debris can be considered for placement up to design subgrade
elevations in pavement areas. Note again the clay soils will be more difficult to compact if wet or allowed
to become wet, or if spread and compacted over wet surfaces.
D.6.b.Subgrade Proofroll
Prior to the placement of the aggregate base, we recommend the subgrade soils be proofrolled with a
fully loaded tandem-axle truck and the proofroll be observed by a geotechnical engineer. This will assist
in identifying soft or weak areas will require additional soil correction work. Areas that display excessive
yielding or rutting during the proofroll should be corrected. In areas where subgrade correction is
deemed necessary, unsuitable soils should be removed to soils of adequate density or to a maximum
depth of 3 feet. Failed areas should be compacted, or if too wet, subcut and replaced with suitable soil or
additional aggregate base and compacted as previously specified.
D.6.c.R-Value
Laboratory tests to determine an R-value for pavement design were not included in the scope of this
project. Based on our experience with similar soil conditions, however, it is our opinion an R-value of 30
can be assumed for design purposes. This R-value is based on a pavement section directly supported on a
poorly graded sand to silty clayey sand subgrade. If clayey sand or sandy lean clay subgrades are
anticipated on final grades, lower R-values in the range of 12 to 20 may be needed and the pavement
section may be supported on engineered fill. In that case the R-value will have to be reevaluated based
on the engineered fill material.
D.6.d.Pavement Sections
Based on our experience with typical commercial sites as illustrated on your conceptual design in
Section A, we anticipate the parking lots and roadways will likely have a larger volume of automobiles
and delivery or garbage trucks than the residential portion of the development. In these areas a light-
duty pavement section ranging from 3 to 3 1/2 inches of bituminous pavement over 6 to 9 inches of
aggregate base material are anticipated. If any of these proposed buildings or roadways is expecting
larger amounts of large truck traffic, thicker sections may be needed. These sections are anticipated to
be on the order of 4 to 5 inches of bituminous pavement over 8 to 12 inches of aggregate base material.
In areas with high point loads such as truck parking areas or loading docks, concrete pavement should be
considered. Wherever concrete pavements will be utilized, the appropriate panel sizing, jointing,
doweling and edge reinforcement are critical to the ridged pavement performance.
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 13
D.7.Stormwater Management
Based on the provided conceptual sketch, it appears the design and construction of stormwater
management features are part of the development. These features appear to be large infiltration basins
located in the southwest corner of the site in the vicinity of soil boring ST-4 and near the center of the
development in the vicinity of AET’s soil borings 4 and 5. The soil profiles at soil boring locations ST-3 and
ST-4, dependent on final grades, may provide challenges to infiltration. Typically, the profiles in these
areas have layers of silty clayey sand, clayey sand and sandy lean clay which are not conducive to high
infiltration rates. AET boring 5 encountered sand with silt and sand with gravel 4 feet below the surface
to boring termination. This location may yield higher infiltration rates. Infiltration rates were estimated
for some of the soils we observed in our soil borings and are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Estimated Design Infiltration Rates Based on Soil Classification
Soil Type
Infiltration Rate *
(in/hr)
Sands with less than 12% fines
Poorly graded or well graded sands 0.8
Silty sands, silty gravelly sands 0.45
Silts, very fine sands, silty or clayey fine sands 0.2
Clayey sands and clays 0.06
*From Minnesota Stormwater Manual Section 12.8 with December 16 updates. Rates may differ at individual sites.
In any case, infiltration rates can be calculated based on field testing with Double Ring Infiltrometer
testing (ASTM D3385). Additional soil borings and geotechnical evaluation should also be performed in
infiltration basins once the location and grades are determined. This geotechnical evaluation does not
constitute a review of site suitability for stormwater infiltration or evaluate the potential impacts, if any,
from infiltration of large amount of stormwater.
D.8.Additional Evaluation
This preliminary geotechnical evaluation is not considered sufficient to provide detailed geotechnical
design recommendations for the commercial buildings. Once the location, framing system, structural
loads, building layout, etc. have been finalized for each structure, additional borings and evaluation
should be done. The information contained in this report should be reviewed as part of the design
evaluation.
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 14
E.Procedures
E.1.Penetration Test Borings
The penetration test borings were drilled with a floatation tired-mounted core and auger drill equipped
with hollow-stem auger. The borings were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1586. Penetration test
samples were taken at 2 1/2- or 5-foot intervals. Actual sample intervals and corresponding depths are
shown on the boring logs.
E.2.Material Classification and Testing
E.2.a.Visual and Manual Classification
The geologic materials encountered were visually and manually classified in accordance with ASTM Test
Method D 2488. A chart explaining the classification system is attached. Samples were sealed in jars and
returned to our facility for review and storage.
E.2.b.Laboratory Testing
The results of the laboratory tests performed on geologic material samples are noted on or follow the
appropriate attached exploration logs. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM procedures.
E.3.Groundwater Measurements
The drillers checked for groundwater as the penetration test borings were advanced, and again after
auger withdrawal. The boreholes were then backfilled as noted on the boring logs.
F.Qualifications
F.1.Variations in Subsurface Conditions
F.1.a.Material Strata
Our evaluation, analyses and recommendations were developed from a limited amount of site and
subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from
exploration locations continuously with depth, and therefore strata boundaries and thicknesses must be
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 15
inferred to some extent. Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions, and can be expected to vary
in depth, elevation and thickness away from the exploration locations.
Variations in subsurface conditions present between exploration locations may not be revealed until
additional exploration work is completed, or construction commences. If any such variations are
revealed, our recommendations should be re-evaluated. Such variations could increase construction
costs, and a contingency should be provided to accommodate them.
F.2.Continuity of Professional Responsibility
F.2.a.Plan Review
This report is based on a limited amount of information, and a number of assumptions were necessary to
help us develop our recommendations. It is recommended that our firm review the geotechnical aspects
of the designs and specifications, and evaluate whether the design is as expected, if any design changes
have affected the validity of our recommendations, and if our recommendations have been correctly
interpreted and implemented in the designs and specifications.
F.2.b.Construction Observations and Testing
It is recommended that we be retained to perform observations and tests during construction. This will
allow correlation of the subsurface conditions encountered during construction with those encountered
by the borings, and provide continuity of professional responsibility.
F.3.Use of Report
This report is for the exclusive use of the parties to which it has been addressed. Without written
approval, we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses
and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects.
F.4.Standard of Care
In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under
similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No
warranty, express or implied, is made.
Appendix
8
12
10
11
14
27
9
Benchmark:
Elevations were
obtained using
GPS and the State
of Minnesota's
permanent base
station network.
No sample
recovery.
4
CL
SM
SP-
SM
SC-
SM
LEAN CLAY with SAND, brown, moist.
(Topsoil)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, brown to
reddish brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, reddish brown, moist, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with
Sand seams and Gravel, brown, wet, loose to medium
dense.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Auger met refusal at the 15-foot depth.
Water not observed while drilling.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 14 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
1030.0
1026.7
1023.7
1014.7
0.7
4.0
7.0
16.0
11/11/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-1 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-1
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
B14-08413LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2014\08413.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 12/3/14 10:43Braun Project B14-08413
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Inwood and 10th Development
Southeast Quadrant of Inwood Avenue N and 10th Street N
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
P200
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
1030.7
Depth
feet
0.0
7
32
26
30
18
22
19
349
CL
SM
SP-
SM
SC-
SM
SP
SC-
SM
LEAN CLAY with SAND, brown, moist.
(Topsoil)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, brown to
reddish brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, Gravely, brown
to reddish brown, moist, dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with
Gravel, brown, wet, medium dense.
(Glacial Till)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-grained, brown, moist,
medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with
Gravel, brown to reddish brown, wet, medium dense.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed while drilling.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 14 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
1018.9
1015.9
1012.9
1010.9
1007.9
998.9
1.0
4.0
7.0
9.0
12.0
21.0
11/11/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-2 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-2
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
B14-08413LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2014\08413.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 12/3/14 10:43Braun Project B14-08413
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Inwood and 10th Development
Southeast Quadrant of Inwood Avenue N and 10th Street N
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
P200
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
1019.9
Depth
feet
0.0
5
15
23
24
33
21
24
4
CL
SM
SC-
SM
LEAN CLAY with SAND, brown, moist.
(Topsoil)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Clayey
Sand seams and Gravel, reddish brown to brown, moist
to wet, loose to medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with
Sand seams and Gravel, reddish brown to brown, wet,
medium dense to dense.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed while drilling.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 16 1/2 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
1010.5
1002.5
990.5
1.0
9.0
21.0
11/11/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-3 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-3
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
B14-08413LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2014\08413.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 12/3/14 10:43Braun Project B14-08413
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Inwood and 10th Development
Southeast Quadrant of Inwood Avenue N and 10th Street N
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
1011.5
Depth
feet
0.0
8
6
19
21
24
36
38
27
An open triangle in
the water level
(WL) column
indicates the depth
at which
groundwater was
observed while
drilling.
Groundwater
levels fluctuate.
7
10
9
CL
CL
SM
SP-
SM
SC
SM
SC
LEAN CLAY with SAND, dark brown, moist.
LEAN CLAY with SAND, brown, wet, medium.
(Glacial Till)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, brown, moist to
wet, loose to medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
With Gravel at 7 1/2 feet.
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, wet, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
CLAYEY SAND, with Gravel, brown to reddish brown,
wet, very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, brown to
reddish brown, wet, dense.
(Glacial Till)
CLAYEY SAND, with Sand seams, brown to reddish
brown, wet, hard.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at 12 1/2 feet with 12 feet of
hollow-stem auger in the ground.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 13 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
1002.6
999.6
994.6
991.6
989.6
985.6
982.6
1.0
4.0
9.0
12.0
14.0
18.0
21.0
11/11/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-4 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-4
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
B14-08413LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2014\08413.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 12/3/14 10:43Braun Project B14-08413
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Inwood and 10th Development
Southeast Quadrant of Inwood Avenue N and 10th Street N
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
P200
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
1003.6
Depth
feet
0.0
6
4
8
10
21
23
20 No recovery. Sample
from cuttings.
10
CL
SM
SP-
SM
SP
SC
LEAN CLAY with SAND, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
SILTY SAND, with Gravel, reddish brown, wet, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, with Gravel, brown to reddish brown,
moist, very loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, with Clayey Sand lenses
and Gravel, brown to reddish brown, wet, loose to
medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
CLAYEY SAND, Gravely, reddish brown, wet, very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed while drilling.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 16 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
1004.3
1001.1
998.1
987.1
984.1
0.8
4.0
7.0
18.0
21.0
11/12/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-5 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-5
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
B14-08413LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2014\08413.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 12/3/14 10:43Braun Project B14-08413
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Inwood and 10th Development
Southeast Quadrant of Inwood Avenue N and 10th Street N
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
1005.1
Depth
feet
0.0
13
18
15
21
35
36
25
3
CL
SC
SP
SC-
SM
SP
SC
LEAN CLAY with SAND, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
CLAYEY SAND, with Sand seams, reddish brown,
moist, stiff.
(Glacial Till)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-grained, brown, moist,
medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with
Gravel, reddish brown, wet, medium dense.
(Glacial Till)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-grained, brown, moist,
dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
With Gravel at 15 feet.
CLAYEY SAND, with Gravel, reddish brown, wet, very
stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed while drilling.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 15 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
1004.5
1001.5
998.5
993.5
987.5
984.5
1.0
4.0
7.0
12.0
18.0
21.0
11/11/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-6 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-6
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
B14-08413LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2014\08413.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 12/3/14 10:44Braun Project B14-08413
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Inwood and 10th Development
Southeast Quadrant of Inwood Avenue N and 10th Street N
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
1005.5
Depth
feet
0.0
10
25
47
30
34
37
18
10
8
5
CL
SC-
SM
SP-
SM
SM
SP
SC-
SM
LEAN CLAY with SAND, dark brown, moist.
(Topsoil)
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, brown
to reddish brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Till)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, with Gravel, brown to reddish brown,
moist, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel,
brown to reddish brown, moist, dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-grained, with Clayey
Sand seams and Gravel, brown to reddish brown,
moist, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with
Gravel, reddish brown, wet, medium dense to dense.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed while drilling.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 17 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
1011.7
1008.7
1005.7
1003.7
1000.7
991.7
1.0
4.0
7.0
9.0
12.0
21.0
11/11/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-7 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-7
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
B14-08413LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2014\08413.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 12/3/14 10:44Braun Project B14-08413
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Inwood and 10th Development
Southeast Quadrant of Inwood Avenue N and 10th Street N
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
P200
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
1012.7
Depth
feet
0.0
Descriptive Terminology of Soil
Standard D 2487 - 00
Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System)
Rev. 7/07
DD Dry density, pcf
WD Wet density, pcf
MC Natural moisture content, %
LL Liqiuid limit, %
PL Plastic limit, %
PI Plasticity index, %
P200 % passing 200 sieve
OC Organic content, %
S Percent of saturation, %
SG Specific gravity
C Cohesion, psf
Angle of internal friction
qu Unconfined compressive strength, psf
qp Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf
Liquid Limit (LL)
Laboratory TestsPlasticity Index (PI)Drilling Notes
Standard penetration test borings were advanced by 3 1/4” or 6 1/4”
ID hollow-stem augers unless noted otherwise, Jetting water was used
to clean out auger prior to sampling only where indicated on logs.
Standard penetration test borings are designated by the prefix “ST”
(Split Tube). All samples were taken with the standard 2” OD split-tube
sampler, except where noted.
Power auger borings were advanced by 4” or 6” diameter continuous-
flight, solid-stem augers. Soil classifications and strata depths were in-
ferred from disturbed samples augered to the surface and are, therefore,
somewhat approximate. Power auger borings are designated by the
prefix “B.”
Hand auger borings were advanced manually with a 1 1/2” or 3 1/4”
diameter auger and were limited to the depth from which the auger could
be manually withdrawn. Hand auger borings are indicated by the prefix
“H.”
BPF: Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard penetration
test, also known as “N” value. The sampler was set 6” into undisturbed
soil below the hollow-stem auger. Driving resistances were then counted
for second and third 6” increments and added to get BPF. Where they
differed significantly, they are reported in the following form: 2/12 for the
second and third 6” increments, respectively.
WH: WH indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammer
and rods alone; driving not required.
WR: WR indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of rods
alone; hammer weight and driving not required.
TW indicates thin-walled (undisturbed) tube sample.
Note: All tests were run in general accordance with applicable ASTM
standards.
Particle Size Identification
Boulders ............................... over 12”
Cobbles ............................... 3” to 12”
Gravel
Coarse ............................ 3/4” to 3”
Fine ................................. No. 4 to 3/4”
Sand
Coarse ............................ No. 4 to No. 10
Medium ........................... No. 10 to No. 40
Fine ................................. No. 40 to No. 200
Silt ....................................... No. 200, PI 4 or
below “A” line
Clay ..................................... No. 200, PI 4 and
on or above “A” line
Relative Density of
Cohesionless Soils
Very loose ................................ 0 to 4 BPF
Loose ....................................... 5 to 10 BPF
Medium dense ......................... 11 to 30 BPF
Dense ...................................... 31 to 50 BPF
Very dense ............................... over 50 BPF
Consistency of Cohesive Soils
Very soft ................................... 0 to 1 BPF
Soft ....................................... 2 to 3 BPF
Rather soft ............................... 4 to 5 BPF
Medium .................................... 6 to 8 BPF
Rather stiff ............................... 9 to 12 BPF
Stiff ....................................... 13 to 16 BPF
Very stiff ................................... 17 to 30 BPF
Hard ....................................... over 30 BPF
a. Based on the material passing the 3-in (75mm) sieve.
b. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders or both” to group name.
c. Cu = D60 / D10 Cc = (D30)2
D10 x D60
d. If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.
e. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:
GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt
GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay
GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt
GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay
f. If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM.
g. If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.
h. If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.
i. Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:
SW-SM well-graded sand with silt
SW-SC well-graded sand with clay
SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt
SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay
j. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
k. If soil contains 10 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel” whichever is predominant.
l. If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.
m. If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name.
n. PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.
o. PI 4 or plots below “A” line.
p. PI plots on or above “A” line.
q. PI plots below “A” line.
Poorly graded sand h
Peat
Well-graded gravel d
PI plots on or above “A” line
PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line j
PI 4 or plots below “A” line j
Fine-grained Soils50% or more passed theNo. 200 sieveCoarse-grained Soilsmore than 50% retained onNo. 200 sieveSoils Classification
Gravels
More than 50% of
coarse fraction
retained on
No. 4 sieve
Sands
50% or more of
coarse fraction
passes
No. 4 sieve
Silts and Clays
Liquid limit
less than 50
Highly Organic Soils
Silts and clays
Liquid limit
50 or more
Primarily organic matter, dark in color and organic odor
Group
Symbol
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and
Group Names Using Laboratory Tests a
Group Name b
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
CL
ML
OL
OL
SC
Poorly graded gravel d
Silty gravel d f g
Clean Gravels
5% or less fines e
Gravels with Fines
More than 12% fines e
Clean Sands
5% or less fines i
Sands with Fines
More than 12% i
Fines classify as ML or MH
Fines classify as CL or CH Clayey gravel d f g
Well-graded sand h
Fines classify as CL or CH
Fines classify as ML or MH Silty sand f g h
Clayey sand f g h
Inorganic
Organic Liquid limit - oven dried
Liquid limit - not dried 0.75
Inorganic
Organic
PI plots below “A” line
Lean clay k l m
Liquid limit - oven dried
Liquid limit - not dried 0.75
CH
MH
OH
OH
Fat clay k l m
Elastic silt k l m
Organic clay k l m n
Organic silt k l m o
Organic clay k l m p
Organic silt k l m q
Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 C
PT
Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 C
Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 C
Cu 6 and/or 1 CC 3 C
0 10 16 20
30 40 50 60 70 80
90 100 110
7 “U” Line“A” Line
10
20
30
40
50
60
4
0
ML or OL
MH or OHCL or
OL
CH or
O
H
CL - ML
Silt k l m
I N W O O D3 R D A D D I T I O NI N W O O D5 T H A D D I T I O NC I T Y O FO A K D A L EVADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 Country Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLAKE ELMO, MNoff:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\exhibits\z_old_5172-05_stormwater exhibit.dwgSave Date:04/22/261Revisions:#5172-051FIGURE 5IMPERVIOUS TO EXISTINGPONDS EXHIBIT LEGEND POND 200 (CATCHMENT 201S) IMPERVIOUS SUMMARY POND 100 (CATCHMENTS 101S & 102S) IMPERVIOUS SUMMARY
G H
O
S
T
P L
A
TG H
O
S
T
P L
A
TVADNAIS ASSOCIATES, LLC2935 County Drive, Suite 102Little Canada, MN 55117ofINWOOD COMMERCIALLake Elmo, MNf:\jobs\5161 - 5180\5172-05- inwood commercial (outlot k, inwood)\cad c3d\engineering\exhibits\5172-05_9th street full intersection exhibit.dwgSave Date:04/20/26119TH ST. & INWOOD AVE.FULL INTERSECTIONEXHIBITNOTES:#5172-05
Table of Contents
Description Page
A. Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
A.1. Project Description..............................................................................................................1
A.2. Background Information and Reference Documents..........................................................2
A.3. Scope of Services.................................................................................................................2
A.4. Boring Locations..................................................................................................................3
B. Results..............................................................................................................................................3
B.1. Exploration Logs..................................................................................................................3
B.1.a. Log of Boring Sheets...............................................................................................3
B.1.b. Geologic Origins .....................................................................................................3
B.2. Geologic Profile...................................................................................................................4
B.2.a. Topsoil....................................................................................................................4
B.2.b. Glacial Deposits......................................................................................................4
B.2.c. Groundwater..........................................................................................................4
B.3. Laboratory Test Results.......................................................................................................5
C. Basis for Recommendations.............................................................................................................5
D. Recommendations ...........................................................................................................................6
D.1. Site Grading and Building Pad Preparation.........................................................................7
D.1.a. Excavations.............................................................................................................7
D.1.b. Excavation Support.................................................................................................8
D.1.c. Placement and Compaction of Backfill and Fill......................................................8
D.1.d. Grade Raises...........................................................................................................9
D.2. Spread Footings...................................................................................................................9
D.2.a. Embedment Depth.................................................................................................9
D.2.b. Net Allowable Bearing Pressure.............................................................................9
D.3. Interior Slabs .......................................................................................................................9
D.3.a. Subgrade Modulus.................................................................................................9
D.3.b. Moisture Vapor Protection ..................................................................................10
D.4. Exterior Slabs.....................................................................................................................10
D.5. Utilities ..............................................................................................................................11
D.6. Pavements.........................................................................................................................11
D.6.a. Subgrade Preparation ..........................................................................................11
D.6.b. Subgrade Proofroll ...............................................................................................12
D.6.c. R-Value.................................................................................................................12
D.6.d. Pavement Sections...............................................................................................12
D.7. Stormwater Management.................................................................................................13
D.8. Additional Evaluation........................................................................................................13
E. Procedures......................................................................................................................................14
E.1. Penetration Test Borings...................................................................................................14
E.2. Material Classification and Testing ...................................................................................14
E.2.a. Visual and Manual Classification..........................................................................14
E.2.b. Laboratory Testing ...............................................................................................14
E.3. Groundwater Measurements............................................................................................14
F. Qualifications..................................................................................................................................14
Table of Contents (continued)
Description Page
F.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions..................................................................................14
F.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility..........................................................................15
F.2.a. Plan Review..........................................................................................................15
F.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing...............................................................15
F.3. Use of Report.....................................................................................................................15
F.4. Standard of Care................................................................................................................15
Appendix
Boring Location Sketch
Log of Boring Sheets ST-1 to ST-7
AET Subsurface Boring Logs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9
Descriptive Terminology
A.Introduction
A.1.Project Description
It is our understanding that Inwood 10 LLC is proposing to develop a 154-acre area for both commercial
and residential use in Lake Elmo, Minnesota. A geotechnical evaluation has already been performed for
the residential portion of the project by American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET). The residential portion
includes the construction of a subdivision in the center and northwest portions of the development as
shown on the sketch below. Our evaluation was performed for only the commercial area as outlined in
the sketch below.
Figure 1. Proposed Commercial Development Concept Plan
The majority of the parcel is agricultural fields with small isolated areas with trees. The surface also has a
general downward slope across the site towards the southwest.
Commercial parcel
Residential parcel
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 2
The purpose of this preliminary geotechnical evaluation is to assist Inwood 10 LLC and their design team
in evaluating the soil and groundwater conditions in the area of the proposed commercial development
and to provide preliminary recommendations for design and construction of foundations, slabs on grade,
utilities, and pavements.
A.2.Background Information and Reference Documents
To facilitate our evaluation, we were provided with or reviewed the following information or documents:
A proposed boring location sketch outlining the commercial development, the proposed
boring locations, and previously performed soil borings by American Engineering Testing, Inc.
A development concept sketch titled as, “PUD Concept Plan Inwood”, and dated August 28,
2014.
A Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by AET and dated May 13, 2014 for the residential
portion of the project generally located at the northwest portion of the parcel.
Discussions with Rick Schreier of Inwood 10 LLC in regard to the commercial development
grading, building pad preparation, and features.
A.3.Scope of Services
Our scope of services for this project was originally submitted as a Proposal to Rick Schreier of Inwood 10
LLC and dated October 24, 2014. We received authorization to proceed on October 30, 2014. Tasks
completed in accordance with our authorized scope of services are described below.
Staking the boring locations at the locations provided by Rick Schreier and determining
ground surface elevations at the boring locations.
Coordinating the locating of underground public utilities near the boring locations.
Conducting 7 standard penetration borings in the proposed commercial development to a
nominal depth of 20 feet below existing grade.
Classifying the samples and preparing boring logs.
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 3
Conducting a limited laboratory testing program.
Analyzing the results of the field and laboratory tests.
Formulating recommendations and submitting a preliminary geotechnical evaluation report
containing logs of the borings, our analysis of the field and laboratory tests, and preliminary
recommendations for design of foundations, slabs on grade, utilities, and pavements.
A.4.Boring Locations
The soil boring locations and surface elevations were determined using GPS (Global Positioning System)
technology uses the Minnesota Department of Transportation's permanent GPS Virtual Reference
Network (VRN). The boring locations are shown on the attached sketch.
Prior to commencing with our subsurface exploration activities, we coordinated the clearing of the soil
boring of underground utilities through Gopher State One Call.
B.Results
B.1.Exploration Logs
B.1.a.Log of Boring Sheets
Log of Boring sheets for our penetration test borings are included in the Appendix. The logs identify and
describe the geologic materials penetrated, the results of penetration resistance and laboratory tests
performed on penetration test samples retrieved from them, and groundwater observations.
Strata boundaries were inferred from changes in the penetration test samples and the drill auger
cuttings. Because sampling was not performed continuously, the strata boundary depths are only
approximate. The boundary depths likely vary away from the boring locations, and the boundaries
themselves may also occur as gradual rather than abrupt transitions.
B.1.b.Geologic Origins
Geologic origins presented for each stratum on the Log of Boring sheets are based on the soil types,
blows per foot, and available common knowledge of the geological history of the site. Because of the
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 4
complex glacial and post-glacial depositional environments, geologic origins can be difficult to ascertain.
A detailed investigation of the geologic history of the site was not performed.
B.2.Geologic Profile
The types of soils encountered in the borings are described below. The soils are generally described in
the order they were encountered; i.e., beginning at the ground surface. Please reference the Logs of
Borings attached in the Appendix for additional details.
B.2.a.Topsoil
Topsoil was encountered at the surface at our boring locations with thicknesses of about 8 inches to
1 foot. The topsoil encountered by our soil borings consisted of lean clay with sand.
In soil borings 1 through 5 and 9 performed by AET nearest the commercial development, a “plow zone”
layer was encountered at the surface. This layer had a thickness of 2 feet and the soils encountered were
similar to the topsoil encountered in our soil borings. We noted the depth of soils that were interpreted
to have the organic contents high enough that they were estimated to impact structural properties of the
soil.
B.2.b.Glacial Deposits
The borings we performed encountered glacial deposits beneath the topsoil consisted predominately of
silty sands and silty clayey sands with lesser amounts of poorly graded sand, poorly graded sand with silt,
clayey sand, and lean clay with sand. The penetration resistances recorded in the cohesionless (sand)
soils varied from 4 to 47 blows per foot (BPF), indicating a very loose to dense relative density. The
penetration resistances recorded in the cohesive (clay) deposits varied from 8 to 38 BPF, indicating a
medium to hard consistency. Some of the higher blow counts are likely due to gravel.
The glacial deposits our soil borings encountered are consistent with the soils AET encountered. One
difference is that our glacial outwash sands were generally classified as alluvial soils by AET. Also of note
is that in AET borings 1 and 5 a layer of soft clay was encountered.
B.2.c.Groundwater
Water was encountered in soil boring ST-4 at approximate elevation 991. Based on the moisture contents
of the geologic material beneath this elevation, it does not appear our soil boring penetrated the
hydrostatic groundwater surface but instead encountered perched deposits of groundwater trapped in
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 5
the sand. Due to variations in site elevations, soil borings ST-3, ST-4, ST- 5, and ST-6 extended beyond
this elevation and water was not encountered.
In AET’s soil boring 1, water was encountered approximately 11 feet below the surface which
corresponds to an elevation of about 997.5. In their report, the water encountered was judged to be
water accumulating in fast draining soil layers above slower draining soil layers during wetter periods of
the year.
The elevations at which perched groundwater accumulates seasonally and annually will likely vary and
could be shallower/higher at the exploration locations and between the exploration locations.
Piezometers or monitoring wells would be required to confirm if groundwater was present within the
depths explored.
B.3.Laboratory Test Results
Selected soil samples were submitted to our laboratory for testing. The laboratory tests were completed
in general accordance with current ASTM procedures. The test results can be found on the Log of Boring
sheets opposite the soil sample tested.
Moisture content tests on selected granular soil samples generally ranged from 3 to 10 percent,
indicating the majority of the sandy soils tested were likely at or below their estimated optimum
moisture content. Moisture conditioning of granular soils may be needed to meet required densities if
used for fill or backfill. The moisture content test on the selected cohesive soil sample was 9 percent,
indicating the clayey soil tested was near its estimated optimum moisture content.
Our mechanical analyses (grain size accumulation curve) indicated the selected samples contained 9 to
34 percent silt and clay by weight and was used to classify the soil and may be used to estimate
infiltration or to evaluate the material for reuse on site.
C.Basis for Recommendations
We understand the project includes the construction of multiple buildings of the office/ warehouse style
common to business parks. At the time of this report, design loads, anticipated grades, and final locations
of structures have not been provided. Only conceptual aspects of the development were presented.
Aspects of the conceptual design include the construction of roadways separating the residential and
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 6
commercial developments, multiple commercial and multi-family residential structures, and stormwater
ponds.
Per conversations with Rick Schreier of Inwood 10 LLC, this preliminary geotechnical evaluation will be
utilized by the project design team to assist in developing plans and specifications for the project,
specifically related to site grading. Existing grades, in the commercial development area as shown on the
sketch in the Appendix, range between 1003 and 1031.
We have attempted to describe our understanding of the proposed construction to the extent it was
reported to us by others. Depending on the extent of available information, assumptions may have been
made based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the
project details, we should be notified. New or changed information could require additional evaluation,
analyses and/or recommendations.
D.Recommendations
Based on the soil borings, we anticipate that the site would be prepared typical to similar commercial
buildings, namely:
Site grading will likely include stripping the vegetation and topsoil and any very loose sands
or soft clays.
Surface compaction within the building pads once stripping is complete for areas to be filled.
Cutting to grade or filling with suitable soils. A majority of material below the topsoil is
anticipated to be considered suitable for engineered fill, though it should be noted moisture
conditioning may be needed.
In our judgment, the on-site clays could be reused as engineered fill, but will require drying so
compaction can be achieved. To dry these soils, extensive farming of these clays will likely be required
and is easier to accomplish in the drier months of June to September. If site grading is done in the spring
or fall, on-site drying of these soils may not prove to be feasible and the importing of drier soils may be
required. If time or space is not available to dry these soils, then drier soils may need to be imported. The
reuse of these materials should be discussed at the bidding stages of the project.
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 7
In areas where clays would comprise a majority of the fill where grades are raised or where there are
significant grade raises placed upon clay, the thickness of clay placed may need to be restricted to limit
the amount of post-construction settlement which occurs from the excavation backfill compressing
under its own weight. Usually fills on the order of 5 to 10 feet can be accommodated within a
construction schedule provided the transition is gradual.
Once the final design, grades, and locations of each structure are determined, our evaluation should be
finalized. This final evaluation may revise or provide additional recommendations and may include
additional field exploration utilizing soil borings or test pits.
D.1.Site Grading and Building Pad Preparation
D.1.a.Excavations
To prepare the building pads, encountered organic topsoil, very loose sands, and soft clays should be
removed and replaced. The following tabulation outlines the anticipated depths needed at the boring
locations to remove the topsoil and possible loose or soft soils.
Table 1. Anticipated Excavation Depths of Building Pads
Soil Boring
Approximate Surface
Elevation
Anticipated Depth of
Excavation
(Feet)
Anticipated Bottom of
Excavation
(Elevation)
ST-1 1030.7 1 1030
ST-2 1019.9 1 1019
ST-3 1011.5 1 1010 1/2
ST-4 1003.6 1 1002 1/2
ST-5 1005.1 1 1004
ST-6 1005.5 1 1004 1/2
ST-7 1012.7 1 1011 1/2
AET 1 1008.5 9 999 1/2
AET 2 1019.6 4 1015 1/2
AET 3 1021.4 2 1019
AET 4 1015.8 2 1013 1/2
AET 5 1019.9 4 1015 1/2
AET 9 1020.5 2 - 4 1018 1/2 - 1016 1/2
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 8
The excavation depths indicated in the above tabulation are approximate and will vary. The actual depth
of excavation needs to be determined in the field at the time of construction. An experienced
geotechnical engineering technician, under the direction of a geotechnical engineer, should work closely
with the excavating contractor during excavation to make the necessary field judgments regarding the
suitability of the exposed soils and to determine the extent of soft soils.
To provide lateral support and control settlement to the structural loads they will support, we
recommend oversizing (widening) the excavations 1 foot horizontally beyond the footings for each foot
the excavations extend below bottom-of-footing elevations.
Prior to the placement of engineered fill or footings, we recommend the exposed sand soils in the
bottoms of the excavations be surface compacted using a minimum of 5 passes over an area with a large
(minimum 3-foot-diameter drum), self-propelled vibratory drum compactor.
D.1.b.Excavation Support
Sandy soils are prevalent in the near surface soils, and portions of the sands are described as poorly
graded sand and would be classified as Type C Soil under OSHA guidelines. Based on this classification it
should be anticipated unsupported excavations be maintained at a gradient no steeper than 1 1/2 to 1
(horizontal: vertical). In areas of the site encountering only silty sand tills the soils would be classified as
Type B Soil under OSHA guidelines. Based on this classification it should be anticipated unsupported
excavations be maintained at a gradient no steeper than 1 to 1 (horizontal: vertical). Slopes constructed
in this manner may still exhibit surface sloughing. If site constraints do not allow the construction of
temporary slopes with these dimensions, then temporary shoring may be required, and we should be
consulted for additional recommendations.
An OSHA approved competent person should review this soil classification in the field. Excavations must
comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations and Trenches.” This
document states excavation safety is the responsibility of the contractor. Reference to these OSHA
requirements should be included in the project specifications.
D.1.c.Placement and Compaction of Backfill and Fill
Based on the results of the borings and laboratory tests, the sand soils frequently encountered below the
topsoil appear generally suitable for use as engineered fill. Any clay soils encountered being fine-grained,
will be more difficult to compact if wet or allowed to become wet, or if spread and compacted over wet
surfaces.
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 9
If site grading and construction is anticipated during cold weather, snow and ice should be removed from
cut and fill areas prior to additional grading. No fill should be placed on frozen subgrades. No frozen soils
should be used as fill. Frost should not be allowed to penetrate below the footings. If winter excavation
and filling activities are planned, we recommend material selected for backfill and fill (to achieve design
grades) consist of clean, coarse sand with less than 12 percent passing a #200 sieve. Frost should not be
permitted to penetrate below footings. Compaction effort will vary with depth of fill placed and the
structure it intends to support. Based on the anticipated fill depths, soil types and structures, in most
areas we anticipate typical levels of compaction in the range of 95 to 100 percent of standard Proctor
would be suitable, but would be further defined as part of the final evaluation.
D.1.d.Grade Raises
As final grades were not provided for this preliminarily evaluation, should engineered fill be placed to
raise grades, considerations should be made in regards to long term consolidation of the native soils.
Small grade raises on the order of 2 to 5 feet may be made with minimal risk of post construction
consolidation of the exposed underlying native soils and the fill itself. Long-term consolidation of the
soils, especially if clay is used for fill or filled upon, may be a consideration if grade raises extend above
5 feet.
D.2.Spread Footings
D.2.a.Embedment Depth
For frost protection, we recommend embedding perimeter footings at least 42 inches below the lowest
exterior grade in heated portions of the building. Interior footings may be placed directly below floor
slabs. We recommend embedding building footings not heated during construction, and footings in
unheated areas at least 60 inches below the lowest exterior grade.
D.2.b.Net Allowable Bearing Pressure
Based on the soil boring results and the above-described site grading procedures, it is our opinion the
exposed glacial soils and engineered fill would be anticipated for support of spread footings sized for an
allowable soil bearing pressure from 2,000 to 5,000 pounds per square foot.
D.3.Interior Slabs
D.3.a.Subgrade Modulus
After the site grading and building pad preparation has been completed, we anticipate the floor subgrade
will be engineered fill or suitable native soils. We recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 10
150 pounds per square inch per inch of deflection (pci) to design the slabs. If 6 inches of compacted
aggregate base is placed immediately below the slab, the k- value may be increased by 50 pci. An
aggregate base will also be a more stable platform for construction equipment during construction and is
less weather sensitive.
D.3.b.Moisture Vapor Protection
As large portions of the building are anticipated to have an exposed concrete floor, vapor transmission
through the floor may not be a major concern. However, it may still be a benefit to put a vapor barrier
below the floor due to:
Materials placed on the floor may be damaged by absorbed moisture.
Less water vapor in the air may result in a reduction in heating and cooling costs.
The vapor barrier will be in place for any future remodeling.
Excess transmission of water vapor could cause floor dampness, certain types of floor bonding agents to
separate, or mold to form under floor coverings. If floor coverings or coatings less permeable than the
concrete slab will be used, we recommend a vapor retarder or vapor barrier be place immediately
beneath the slab. We recommend consulting with floor covering manufacturers regarding the
appropriate type, use and installation of the vapor retarder or barrier to preserve warranty assurances.
We recommend the vapor retarder or barrier be observed prior to concrete placement so holes, tears or
gaps in the vapor retarder or barrier can be identified and patched or realigned as needed. We further
recommend performing moisture vapor transmission tests after the concrete slabs have cured, but
before flooring are installed. Flooring manufacturers typically recommend upper limits of moisture vapor
transmission can be used to set schedules for flooring installation but, more importantly, may impact
warranties.
D.4.Exterior Slabs
For general exterior slabs we recommend subgrades be prepared similar as to what is described in
section D.6 for pavements. If portions of the exterior surface will have higher expectations for
performance for example a paver patio, additional preparations would be recommended to limit frost
heave and post construction settlement.
We anticipate exterior slabs will be underlain with silty sands, which are considered moderately to highly
frost susceptible. If these soils become saturated and freeze, unfavorable amounts of heaving could
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 11
occur. Grading to direct surface drainage away from buildings helps limit the potential for saturation and
subsequent heaving to occur. Still, even limited amounts of movement can create tripping hazards to
building employees and guests. One way to help limit the potential for heaving to occur is to remove
frost-susceptible soils present below the overlying slab “footprints” down to bottom-of-footing grades,
and replace them with non-frost-susceptible (NFS) backfill consisting of medium to coarse grained sands
having less than 5 percent of the particles by weight passing a #200 sieve. We recommend differential
frost heave should be accommodated at transition areas.
D.5.Utilities
Based on the borings, we anticipate the soils at typical invert elevations should be suitable for utility
support. However, if unfavorable conditions such as soft clay, organic soils or perched water are
encountered at invert grades, the unsuitable soils may require some additional subcutting and
replacement with sand or crushed rock to prepare a proper subgrade for pipe support. Utilities should
not be placed within the 1:1 oversizing of foundations. If it is necessary to place utilities within the
oversizing of the footings, we should review the documents prior to construction as it may be necessary
to backfill with lean concrete or lower the footing elevations near the utility trenches. We anticipate
utilities can be installed per manufacturer bedding requirements.
A majority of the soil borings indicated the site predominantly consists of sandy soils. These soils are
considered non- to only slightly corrosive to metallic conduits. If utilities extend through clay soils, the
utilities should be bedded in sandy soil free of any clay lumps or the utilities should be constructed with
non-corrosive materials.
D.6.Pavements
D.6.a.Subgrade Preparation
We recommend the vegetation and topsoil be removed from the upper 3 feet below the pavement
section. In areas requiring engineered fill to establish pavement grades, the excavation should be
oversized at least 1 foot beyond the outside edge of the paved areas for each foot of fill placed below the
roads or parking lot.
Prior to the placement of engineered fill or pavements, we recommend the exposed sandy soils in the
bottoms of the excavations be thoroughly compacted by a minimum of 5 passes with a large (3-foot-
diameter drum minimum), self-propelled drum compactor. This is recommended to further densify the
underlying native soils and to provide a more uniform base to place additional fill or pavement.
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 12
On-site soils free of organic soil and debris can be considered for placement up to design subgrade
elevations in pavement areas. Note again the clay soils will be more difficult to compact if wet or allowed
to become wet, or if spread and compacted over wet surfaces.
D.6.b.Subgrade Proofroll
Prior to the placement of the aggregate base, we recommend the subgrade soils be proofrolled with a
fully loaded tandem-axle truck and the proofroll be observed by a geotechnical engineer. This will assist
in identifying soft or weak areas will require additional soil correction work. Areas that display excessive
yielding or rutting during the proofroll should be corrected. In areas where subgrade correction is
deemed necessary, unsuitable soils should be removed to soils of adequate density or to a maximum
depth of 3 feet. Failed areas should be compacted, or if too wet, subcut and replaced with suitable soil or
additional aggregate base and compacted as previously specified.
D.6.c.R-Value
Laboratory tests to determine an R-value for pavement design were not included in the scope of this
project. Based on our experience with similar soil conditions, however, it is our opinion an R-value of 30
can be assumed for design purposes. This R-value is based on a pavement section directly supported on a
poorly graded sand to silty clayey sand subgrade. If clayey sand or sandy lean clay subgrades are
anticipated on final grades, lower R-values in the range of 12 to 20 may be needed and the pavement
section may be supported on engineered fill. In that case the R-value will have to be reevaluated based
on the engineered fill material.
D.6.d.Pavement Sections
Based on our experience with typical commercial sites as illustrated on your conceptual design in
Section A, we anticipate the parking lots and roadways will likely have a larger volume of automobiles
and delivery or garbage trucks than the residential portion of the development. In these areas a light-
duty pavement section ranging from 3 to 3 1/2 inches of bituminous pavement over 6 to 9 inches of
aggregate base material are anticipated. If any of these proposed buildings or roadways is expecting
larger amounts of large truck traffic, thicker sections may be needed. These sections are anticipated to
be on the order of 4 to 5 inches of bituminous pavement over 8 to 12 inches of aggregate base material.
In areas with high point loads such as truck parking areas or loading docks, concrete pavement should be
considered. Wherever concrete pavements will be utilized, the appropriate panel sizing, jointing,
doweling and edge reinforcement are critical to the ridged pavement performance.
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 13
D.7.Stormwater Management
Based on the provided conceptual sketch, it appears the design and construction of stormwater
management features are part of the development. These features appear to be large infiltration basins
located in the southwest corner of the site in the vicinity of soil boring ST-4 and near the center of the
development in the vicinity of AET’s soil borings 4 and 5. The soil profiles at soil boring locations ST-3 and
ST-4, dependent on final grades, may provide challenges to infiltration. Typically, the profiles in these
areas have layers of silty clayey sand, clayey sand and sandy lean clay which are not conducive to high
infiltration rates. AET boring 5 encountered sand with silt and sand with gravel 4 feet below the surface
to boring termination. This location may yield higher infiltration rates. Infiltration rates were estimated
for some of the soils we observed in our soil borings and are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Estimated Design Infiltration Rates Based on Soil Classification
Soil Type
Infiltration Rate *
(in/hr)
Sands with less than 12% fines
Poorly graded or well graded sands 0.8
Silty sands, silty gravelly sands 0.45
Silts, very fine sands, silty or clayey fine sands 0.2
Clayey sands and clays 0.06
*From Minnesota Stormwater Manual Section 12.8 with December 16 updates. Rates may differ at individual sites.
In any case, infiltration rates can be calculated based on field testing with Double Ring Infiltrometer
testing (ASTM D3385). Additional soil borings and geotechnical evaluation should also be performed in
infiltration basins once the location and grades are determined. This geotechnical evaluation does not
constitute a review of site suitability for stormwater infiltration or evaluate the potential impacts, if any,
from infiltration of large amount of stormwater.
D.8.Additional Evaluation
This preliminary geotechnical evaluation is not considered sufficient to provide detailed geotechnical
design recommendations for the commercial buildings. Once the location, framing system, structural
loads, building layout, etc. have been finalized for each structure, additional borings and evaluation
should be done. The information contained in this report should be reviewed as part of the design
evaluation.
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 14
E.Procedures
E.1.Penetration Test Borings
The penetration test borings were drilled with a floatation tired-mounted core and auger drill equipped
with hollow-stem auger. The borings were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1586. Penetration test
samples were taken at 2 1/2- or 5-foot intervals. Actual sample intervals and corresponding depths are
shown on the boring logs.
E.2.Material Classification and Testing
E.2.a.Visual and Manual Classification
The geologic materials encountered were visually and manually classified in accordance with ASTM Test
Method D 2488. A chart explaining the classification system is attached. Samples were sealed in jars and
returned to our facility for review and storage.
E.2.b.Laboratory Testing
The results of the laboratory tests performed on geologic material samples are noted on or follow the
appropriate attached exploration logs. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM procedures.
E.3.Groundwater Measurements
The drillers checked for groundwater as the penetration test borings were advanced, and again after
auger withdrawal. The boreholes were then backfilled as noted on the boring logs.
F.Qualifications
F.1.Variations in Subsurface Conditions
F.1.a.Material Strata
Our evaluation, analyses and recommendations were developed from a limited amount of site and
subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from
exploration locations continuously with depth, and therefore strata boundaries and thicknesses must be
Inwood 10 LLC
Project B14-08413
December 3, 2014
Page 15
inferred to some extent. Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions, and can be expected to vary
in depth, elevation and thickness away from the exploration locations.
Variations in subsurface conditions present between exploration locations may not be revealed until
additional exploration work is completed, or construction commences. If any such variations are
revealed, our recommendations should be re-evaluated. Such variations could increase construction
costs, and a contingency should be provided to accommodate them.
F.2.Continuity of Professional Responsibility
F.2.a.Plan Review
This report is based on a limited amount of information, and a number of assumptions were necessary to
help us develop our recommendations. It is recommended that our firm review the geotechnical aspects
of the designs and specifications, and evaluate whether the design is as expected, if any design changes
have affected the validity of our recommendations, and if our recommendations have been correctly
interpreted and implemented in the designs and specifications.
F.2.b.Construction Observations and Testing
It is recommended that we be retained to perform observations and tests during construction. This will
allow correlation of the subsurface conditions encountered during construction with those encountered
by the borings, and provide continuity of professional responsibility.
F.3.Use of Report
This report is for the exclusive use of the parties to which it has been addressed. Without written
approval, we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses
and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects.
F.4.Standard of Care
In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under
similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No
warranty, express or implied, is made.
Appendix
8
12
10
11
14
27
9
Benchmark:
Elevations were
obtained using
GPS and the State
of Minnesota's
permanent base
station network.
No sample
recovery.
4
CL
SM
SP-
SM
SC-
SM
LEAN CLAY with SAND, brown, moist.
(Topsoil)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, brown to
reddish brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, reddish brown, moist, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with
Sand seams and Gravel, brown, wet, loose to medium
dense.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Auger met refusal at the 15-foot depth.
Water not observed while drilling.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 14 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
1030.0
1026.7
1023.7
1014.7
0.7
4.0
7.0
16.0
11/11/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-1 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-1
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
B14-08413LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2014\08413.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 12/3/14 10:43Braun Project B14-08413
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Inwood and 10th Development
Southeast Quadrant of Inwood Avenue N and 10th Street N
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
P200
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
1030.7
Depth
feet
0.0
7
32
26
30
18
22
19
349
CL
SM
SP-
SM
SC-
SM
SP
SC-
SM
LEAN CLAY with SAND, brown, moist.
(Topsoil)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, brown to
reddish brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, Gravely, brown
to reddish brown, moist, dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with
Gravel, brown, wet, medium dense.
(Glacial Till)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-grained, brown, moist,
medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with
Gravel, brown to reddish brown, wet, medium dense.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed while drilling.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 14 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
1018.9
1015.9
1012.9
1010.9
1007.9
998.9
1.0
4.0
7.0
9.0
12.0
21.0
11/11/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-2 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-2
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
B14-08413LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2014\08413.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 12/3/14 10:43Braun Project B14-08413
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Inwood and 10th Development
Southeast Quadrant of Inwood Avenue N and 10th Street N
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
P200
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
1019.9
Depth
feet
0.0
5
15
23
24
33
21
24
4
CL
SM
SC-
SM
LEAN CLAY with SAND, brown, moist.
(Topsoil)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Clayey
Sand seams and Gravel, reddish brown to brown, moist
to wet, loose to medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with
Sand seams and Gravel, reddish brown to brown, wet,
medium dense to dense.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed while drilling.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 16 1/2 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
1010.5
1002.5
990.5
1.0
9.0
21.0
11/11/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-3 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-3
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
B14-08413LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2014\08413.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 12/3/14 10:43Braun Project B14-08413
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Inwood and 10th Development
Southeast Quadrant of Inwood Avenue N and 10th Street N
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
1011.5
Depth
feet
0.0
8
6
19
21
24
36
38
27
An open triangle in
the water level
(WL) column
indicates the depth
at which
groundwater was
observed while
drilling.
Groundwater
levels fluctuate.
7
10
9
CL
CL
SM
SP-
SM
SC
SM
SC
LEAN CLAY with SAND, dark brown, moist.
LEAN CLAY with SAND, brown, wet, medium.
(Glacial Till)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, brown, moist to
wet, loose to medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
With Gravel at 7 1/2 feet.
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, wet, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
CLAYEY SAND, with Gravel, brown to reddish brown,
wet, very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, brown to
reddish brown, wet, dense.
(Glacial Till)
CLAYEY SAND, with Sand seams, brown to reddish
brown, wet, hard.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at 12 1/2 feet with 12 feet of
hollow-stem auger in the ground.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 13 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
1002.6
999.6
994.6
991.6
989.6
985.6
982.6
1.0
4.0
9.0
12.0
14.0
18.0
21.0
11/11/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-4 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-4
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
B14-08413LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2014\08413.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 12/3/14 10:43Braun Project B14-08413
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Inwood and 10th Development
Southeast Quadrant of Inwood Avenue N and 10th Street N
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
P200
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
1003.6
Depth
feet
0.0
6
4
8
10
21
23
20 No recovery. Sample
from cuttings.
10
CL
SM
SP-
SM
SP
SC
LEAN CLAY with SAND, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
SILTY SAND, with Gravel, reddish brown, wet, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, with Gravel, brown to reddish brown,
moist, very loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, with Clayey Sand lenses
and Gravel, brown to reddish brown, wet, loose to
medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
CLAYEY SAND, Gravely, reddish brown, wet, very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed while drilling.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 16 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
1004.3
1001.1
998.1
987.1
984.1
0.8
4.0
7.0
18.0
21.0
11/12/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-5 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-5
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
B14-08413LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2014\08413.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 12/3/14 10:43Braun Project B14-08413
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Inwood and 10th Development
Southeast Quadrant of Inwood Avenue N and 10th Street N
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
1005.1
Depth
feet
0.0
13
18
15
21
35
36
25
3
CL
SC
SP
SC-
SM
SP
SC
LEAN CLAY with SAND, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
CLAYEY SAND, with Sand seams, reddish brown,
moist, stiff.
(Glacial Till)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-grained, brown, moist,
medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with
Gravel, reddish brown, wet, medium dense.
(Glacial Till)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-grained, brown, moist,
dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
With Gravel at 15 feet.
CLAYEY SAND, with Gravel, reddish brown, wet, very
stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed while drilling.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 15 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
1004.5
1001.5
998.5
993.5
987.5
984.5
1.0
4.0
7.0
12.0
18.0
21.0
11/11/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-6 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-6
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
B14-08413LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2014\08413.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 12/3/14 10:44Braun Project B14-08413
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Inwood and 10th Development
Southeast Quadrant of Inwood Avenue N and 10th Street N
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
1005.5
Depth
feet
0.0
10
25
47
30
34
37
18
10
8
5
CL
SC-
SM
SP-
SM
SM
SP
SC-
SM
LEAN CLAY with SAND, dark brown, moist.
(Topsoil)
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, brown
to reddish brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Till)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, with Gravel, brown to reddish brown,
moist, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel,
brown to reddish brown, moist, dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-grained, with Clayey
Sand seams and Gravel, brown to reddish brown,
moist, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with
Gravel, reddish brown, wet, medium dense to dense.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed while drilling.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 17 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
1011.7
1008.7
1005.7
1003.7
1000.7
991.7
1.0
4.0
7.0
9.0
12.0
21.0
11/11/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-7 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-7
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
B14-08413LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2014\08413.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 12/3/14 10:44Braun Project B14-08413
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Inwood and 10th Development
Southeast Quadrant of Inwood Avenue N and 10th Street N
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
P200
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
1012.7
Depth
feet
0.0
Descriptive Terminology of Soil
Standard D 2487 - 00
Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System)
Rev. 7/07
DD Dry density, pcf
WD Wet density, pcf
MC Natural moisture content, %
LL Liqiuid limit, %
PL Plastic limit, %
PI Plasticity index, %
P200 % passing 200 sieve
OC Organic content, %
S Percent of saturation, %
SG Specific gravity
C Cohesion, psf
Angle of internal friction
qu Unconfined compressive strength, psf
qp Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf
Liquid Limit (LL)
Laboratory TestsPlasticity Index (PI)Drilling Notes
Standard penetration test borings were advanced by 3 1/4” or 6 1/4”
ID hollow-stem augers unless noted otherwise, Jetting water was used
to clean out auger prior to sampling only where indicated on logs.
Standard penetration test borings are designated by the prefix “ST”
(Split Tube). All samples were taken with the standard 2” OD split-tube
sampler, except where noted.
Power auger borings were advanced by 4” or 6” diameter continuous-
flight, solid-stem augers. Soil classifications and strata depths were in-
ferred from disturbed samples augered to the surface and are, therefore,
somewhat approximate. Power auger borings are designated by the
prefix “B.”
Hand auger borings were advanced manually with a 1 1/2” or 3 1/4”
diameter auger and were limited to the depth from which the auger could
be manually withdrawn. Hand auger borings are indicated by the prefix
“H.”
BPF: Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard penetration
test, also known as “N” value. The sampler was set 6” into undisturbed
soil below the hollow-stem auger. Driving resistances were then counted
for second and third 6” increments and added to get BPF. Where they
differed significantly, they are reported in the following form: 2/12 for the
second and third 6” increments, respectively.
WH: WH indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammer
and rods alone; driving not required.
WR: WR indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of rods
alone; hammer weight and driving not required.
TW indicates thin-walled (undisturbed) tube sample.
Note: All tests were run in general accordance with applicable ASTM
standards.
Particle Size Identification
Boulders ............................... over 12”
Cobbles ............................... 3” to 12”
Gravel
Coarse ............................ 3/4” to 3”
Fine ................................. No. 4 to 3/4”
Sand
Coarse ............................ No. 4 to No. 10
Medium ........................... No. 10 to No. 40
Fine ................................. No. 40 to No. 200
Silt ....................................... No. 200, PI 4 or
below “A” line
Clay ..................................... No. 200, PI 4 and
on or above “A” line
Relative Density of
Cohesionless Soils
Very loose ................................ 0 to 4 BPF
Loose ....................................... 5 to 10 BPF
Medium dense ......................... 11 to 30 BPF
Dense ...................................... 31 to 50 BPF
Very dense ............................... over 50 BPF
Consistency of Cohesive Soils
Very soft ................................... 0 to 1 BPF
Soft ....................................... 2 to 3 BPF
Rather soft ............................... 4 to 5 BPF
Medium .................................... 6 to 8 BPF
Rather stiff ............................... 9 to 12 BPF
Stiff ....................................... 13 to 16 BPF
Very stiff ................................... 17 to 30 BPF
Hard ....................................... over 30 BPF
a. Based on the material passing the 3-in (75mm) sieve.
b. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders or both” to group name.
c. Cu = D60 / D10 Cc = (D30)2
D10 x D60
d. If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.
e. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:
GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt
GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay
GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt
GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay
f. If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM.
g. If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.
h. If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.
i. Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:
SW-SM well-graded sand with silt
SW-SC well-graded sand with clay
SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt
SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay
j. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
k. If soil contains 10 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel” whichever is predominant.
l. If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.
m. If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name.
n. PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.
o. PI 4 or plots below “A” line.
p. PI plots on or above “A” line.
q. PI plots below “A” line.
Poorly graded sand h
Peat
Well-graded gravel d
PI plots on or above “A” line
PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line j
PI 4 or plots below “A” line j
Fine-grained Soils50% or more passed theNo. 200 sieveCoarse-grained Soilsmore than 50% retained onNo. 200 sieveSoils Classification
Gravels
More than 50% of
coarse fraction
retained on
No. 4 sieve
Sands
50% or more of
coarse fraction
passes
No. 4 sieve
Silts and Clays
Liquid limit
less than 50
Highly Organic Soils
Silts and clays
Liquid limit
50 or more
Primarily organic matter, dark in color and organic odor
Group
Symbol
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and
Group Names Using Laboratory Tests a
Group Name b
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
CL
ML
OL
OL
SC
Poorly graded gravel d
Silty gravel d f g
Clean Gravels
5% or less fines e
Gravels with Fines
More than 12% fines e
Clean Sands
5% or less fines i
Sands with Fines
More than 12% i
Fines classify as ML or MH
Fines classify as CL or CH Clayey gravel d f g
Well-graded sand h
Fines classify as CL or CH
Fines classify as ML or MH Silty sand f g h
Clayey sand f g h
Inorganic
Organic Liquid limit - oven dried
Liquid limit - not dried 0.75
Inorganic
Organic
PI plots below “A” line
Lean clay k l m
Liquid limit - oven dried
Liquid limit - not dried 0.75
CH
MH
OH
OH
Fat clay k l m
Elastic silt k l m
Organic clay k l m n
Organic silt k l m o
Organic clay k l m p
Organic silt k l m q
Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 C
PT
Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 C
Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 C
Cu 6 and/or 1 CC 3 C
0 10 16 20
30 40 50 60 70 80
90 100 110
7 “U” Line“A” Line
10
20
30
40
50
60
4
0
ML or OL
MH or OHCL or
OL
CH or
O
H
CL - ML
Silt k l m
LAKE ELMO FIRE DEPARTMENT – OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL
Fire Prevention, Code Enforcement, and Public Education
May 12, 2026
Sophia Jensen, Planner
City of Lake Elmo
Re: Inwood Commercial
Prepared by: Anthony Svoboda, Fire Marshal
Approved by: Dustin Kalis, Fire Chief
Applicable Codes:
• 2020 Minnesota State Fire Code
• 2020 Minnesota State Building Code
• Lake Elmo Fire Department Fire Code Policies
• NFPA 13, 2016 edition
• NFPA 13D, 2016 edition
Fire Department Comments:
1) All roads and drive lanes shall meet the Lake Elmo Fire Department requirements for widths and turning
radiuses.
2) Approved fire apparatus roads shall be provided and maintained in coordination with engineering, public works,
planning, and fire departments. In accordance with MSFC D104.2, two fire apparatus access roads shall be
required and always maintained.
3) Project construction phasing shall always accommodate emergency access to the entire construction zone,
generally meaning two separate means of entrance/exit as defined in the code. Phasing plan to be approved by
the fire department prior to construction.
4) An approved signage and marking plan shall be determined for all No Parking and Fire Lane access roads. On-
street parking shall be provided in approved locations following review by Engineering and Public Works. Parking
shall be prohibited on both sides of private drive lanes.
5) Street names and addressing shall be consistent with the Washington County Uniform Street Naming and
Property Numbering System.
6) Fire hydrants and watermains shall be provided in approved locations following review by Engineering and
Public Works.
7) Building address numbers shall be plainly visible from the street fronting the property and shall be contrasting
color from the background. Size and placement of address numbers shall be approved by the fire and planning
departments.
LAKE ELMO FIRE DEPARTMENT – OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL
Fire Prevention, Code Enforcement, and Public Education
“Proudly Serving Neighbors and Friends”
8) A fire sprinkler system shall be installed in commercial buildings in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire
Code and Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code. A permit is required prior to work.
a. Fire Department sprinkler connection locations shall be approved prior to installation.
9) A fire alarm system shall be installed in commercial buildings in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code
(907.2.3) and Lake Elmo Ordinances. A permit is required prior to work.
10) An emergency responder radio coverage amplifier shall be installed throughout the building if the fire
department determines that signal strength is not reliable.
11) An exterior door numbering system shall be utilized to determine exterior doors on all sides of the building.
Door numbering convention shall be approved by the fire department prior to installation.
12) A KNOX rapid access lockbox shall be installed in an approved location, on all commercial buildings.
a. Multiple KNOX rapid access lockboxes may be required as determined by the fire department.
13) KNOX locking Fire Department Connection Caps shall be installed on all fire department connections.
14) All gates, whether manual or electric, shall be accompanied by either a KNOX lock or KNOX gate control switch
for rapid access.
15) All parking areas shall be capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing up to 75,000
pounds.
16) Locations of all EV charging stations or Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment shall be reviewed and installed in
approved locations. All electric vehicle supply equipment installed in the apartment building underground
parking area may require additional fire suppression considerations and restrictions on installation
locations. An electric vehicle supply equipment plan is required. This plan shall be reviewed by the fire
department, building contractor, building owner and building insurance provider.
Questions, clarifications, or the request to provide code documents can be made using the contact information listed
below.
Respectfully,
Memorandum
800 Washington Avenue North, Suite 207
Minneapolis, MN 55401
May 7, 2026
TO : SOPHIA JENSEN
FROM: SARAH EVENSON, PLA
RE: INWOOD COMMERCIAL- LANDSCAPE AND TREE PRESERVATION PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW
SUBMITTALS
1. Concept Plan Submittal, dated October 7, 2025, received October 17, 2025.
2. Preliminary Plat Submittal, dated April 23, 2026, received April 29, 2026.
REVIEW HISTORY
1. November 4, 2025 – Inwood Commercial Concept Plan- Landscape and Tree Preservation Plan Review
2. May 7, 2026 – Inwood Commercial Preliminary Plat- Landsca pe and Tree Preservation Plan Review
LOCATION: PID 33.029.21.12.0006. East of Inwood Ave between 5th Street and 10th Street.
CURRENT LAND USE CATEGORY: Commercial PUD
ADJACENT AND SURROUNDING LAND USE: Low Density Residential and Public Facilities to the east,
City of Oakdale commercial and golf course to the west, Commercial PUD to the south, Rural
Residential to the north
SPECIAL LANDSCAPE PROVISIONS: Shoreland Overlay District for Armstrong Lake
TREE PRESERVATION PLAN: 105. 12. 470
• A tree preservation plan was marked “N/A” in the preliminary plat application. Plans indicate there are
no significant trees within the subject parcels. A tree preservation plan is not required.
LANDSCAPE PLAN: 105.12.480
• Applicant notes that parking lot landscaping and any screening provisions will be incorporated as
individual parcels are developed. This phase of the project satisfies landscape requirements for street
frontage and acres of land disturbed.
• A preliminary landscape plan has been submitted that largely meets code, but requires the following
adjustments prior to approval:
o Applicant must swap out the city standard details on sheet L2 for the updated 2025 details that can
be found here: https://www.lakeelmo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/334/Landscaping-and-Irrigation-
Standards-PDF?bidId=
o The location of a topsoil stockpile and notes indicating that the quantity of soil shall be sufficient to
cover all landscaped areas at least 4” deep must be provided somewhere in the drawing set.
May 7, 2026
Inwood Commercial
Memorandum 2
RECOMMENDATION:
In future submittals, the applicant must address the above-noted items in their landscape plans.
Sarah Evenson, PLA (MN)
City of Lake Elmo Municipal Landscape Architect
P: (262) 391-7653 E: sarah@hkgi.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 18, 2026
To: Sophia Jensen, Senior Planner Re: Inwood Commercial Addition
Nathan Fuerst, Planning Consultant Preliminary Plat/Plans
Jason Stopa, Community Development Director
Pete Tholen, Public Works Director
Nate Stanley, City Engineer
Chad Isakson, Assistant City Engineer
From: Jack Griffin, Sr. Project Manager
An engineering review has been completed for the Inwood Commercial Addition Preliminary Plat/Plans
for a 5-lot commercial subdivision located at PID 3302921120006. The review consisted of the following
documentation received April 29, 2026:
· Inwood Commercial Addition Preliminary Plat/Plans dated April 23, 2026.
· Inwood Commercial Addition Stormwater Management Plan dated April 23, 2026.
· Inwood Commercial Addition Storm Sewer Design dated April 23, 2026.
· Inwood Avenue/9th Street Full Intersection Exhibit dated April 20, 2026.
STATUS/FINDINGS: As a condition of Preliminary Plat approval the applicant must revise and resubmit
Preliminary Plat/Plans to address each review comment and condition of approval to the satisfaction of
City staff prior to commencement of grading or prior to the City accepting a Final Plat/Plan application.
All subdivision improvements must be constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Design
Standards dated March 2026. All plan notes and details must be updated accordingly.
PRELIMINARY PLAT/PLANS
1. No Outlots are proposed as part of this Subdivision.
2. The Preliminary Plat and Plans must be revised to provide additional right-of-way along Irene
Avenue at the intersection with 10th Street. A minimum boulevard of 16-feet is required from the
back of curb from the proposed right-turn lane.
3. The Preliminary Plat and Plans must be revised to provide additional easement width over the
proposed bituminous trails along both Inwood Avenue and 10th Street. Trail location and minimum
easement width to be determined jointly by Washington County and Lake Elmo Public Works.
Page: 2
SITE PLANS, TRAFFIC AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT
1. Access Management. The Preliminary Plans propose public roadway access at three locations as
required, including access to 10th Street (CSAH 10), Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13), and 5th Street
(designated Municipal State Aid route).
Irene Avenue and 10th Street (CSAH 10) Intersection. A ¾ intersection with limited turning
movements, including right-in/right-out and left-in has been shown on the Preliminary
Plans as required. Plan revisions may be required as part of the Construction Plans and
Final Plat application to address intersection revisions per Washington County review
comments. A County roadway access permit will be required as part of this Project.
9th Street and Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13). A ¾ intersection with limited turning
movements, including right-in/right-out and left-in has been shown on the Preliminary
Plans as required. Plan revisions may be required as part of the Construction Plans and
Final Plat application to address intersection revisions per Washington County review
comments. A County roadway access permit will be required as part of this Project.
As part of the final construction plans, all County roadway and right-of-way improvements
must be incorporated into the plans for City review and approval.
2. County Road Right-of-way dedication. Washington County has confirmed (per letter dated March
6, 2026) that no additional right-of-way dedication will be required along the full length of Inwood
Avenue (CSAH 13) and 10th Street (CSAH 10).
3. City Street Turn Lane Improvements/Intersection Geometrics. Dedicated turn lanes have been
shown on the Preliminary Plans as required and as follows:
A right turn lane along Irene Avenue at 5th Street.
A right-out only on Irene Avenue at 10th Street.
A right-out only on 9th Street at Inwood Avenue.
The 9th Street approach to Inwood Avenue provides additional right-of-way and lane width
as required for a future signalized intersection that may allow for a dedicated right-turn
lane and a through/left lane at the traffic signal.
4. Driveway Access Management. The Preliminary Plans show proposed driveway locations for each
Lot. A minimum 150-ft centerline offset between driveways has been shown as required. Revisions
to the driveway locations may be needed as the construction plans are finalized. The Lot 1, Block
1, and Lot 2, Block 2 driveways are located fully outside of the Irene Avenue turn lane tapers as
required.
5. Public Streets. Irene Avenue and 9th Street will be public streets and must meet the City’s
Engineering Design Standards including right-of-way width (60-feet) and pavement width (28-feet).
As commercial access roadways, pavement markings have been incorporated into the Preliminary
Plans as required, including centerline, fog line and turn lane striping. Both streets have been
posted no parking along both sides of the street. All street intersections must be at 90 degrees and
maintain 50-ft of tangent with maximum longitudinal slopes of 2.5%.
6. Pedestrian Connectivity. Sidewalk/trail improvements have been incorporated as required by the
City. Trail revisions may be needed along Inwood Avenue and 10th Street as part of the
construction plans and Final Plat application.
7. Dedicated drainage and utility easements, minimum 10-feet wide, have been shown along all
public roadway frontage, including 5th Street, Inwood Avenue, 10th Street, 9th Street, and Irene
Avenue. All easement areas must be free from all encroachments other than those approved by
the City Engineer and upon execution of an easement encroachment agreement. Prohibited
encroachments include, but are not limited to trees, structures, landscaping, fences, retaining
walls, storm sewer running parallel with the easement, stormwater basins and BMPs, and grading
that exceeds 4:1.
Page: 3
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
1. The proposed subdivision is subject to a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) meeting State,
South Washington Watershed District (SWWD) and City rules. A SWWD permit is required.
2. The Preliminary Plat/Plans propose improvements that reside within the larger Inwood
subdivision in which stormwater management provisions have been previously designed,
permitted and constructed.
3. The allowable maximum impervious surface for each Lot has been documented on the Preliminary
Stormwater Management Plan and is consistent with the approved Inwood Stormwater
Management Plan. As final construction plans are prepared for the Subdivision, and future lot
build-outs, the impervious surfaces must remain below the maximum allowable, and the
stormwater drainage systems must be designed to direct runoff to the allocated stormwater
management basin.
4. The site design will create a maximum of 5.561 acres of new impervious surface once all public
improvements and all 5 lots have developed. A maximum of 3.184 acres of new impervious
surface will be conveyed and managed through Pond 200 (located east of the site) while a
maximum of 2.377 acres of new impervious surface will be conveyed and managed through Pond
100 (located on the south side of 5th Street).
The SWMP must be revised to add an exhibit that clearly presents the impervious surface
limits for each lot, including impervious surface allowed for each lot within the shoreland
district boundary and the impervious surface allowed for each lot outside of the shoreland
district boundary. The exhibit must also label and call-out the required storm sewer
connection location for each lot together with a delineated drainage shed that is allowed
to drain to each connection location. Lot labeling must be consistent with the proposed
preliminary and final plat.
The SWMP must be revised to account for and address the new impervious surfaces
created within the County right-of-way and bituminous trails.
The Grading Plans and SWMP must be revised to account for the bituminous trail
construction along Inwood Avenue and 10th Street and the drainage limits must be clearly
identified for the areas allowed to drain to County right-of-way.
2. Approval of the Preliminary Plat/Plans for the development is contingent upon all SWMP revisions,
as required by the SWWD or other applicable permitting agency, being submitted to the City for
review and approval.
3. Approval of the preliminary grading and storm sewer plans for the development is contingent upon
all grading plans being reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the start of any grading
or construction.
The grading plans must include lot corner and lot line spot elevations to clearly define
limits of the public right-of-way improvements and tie-in elevations for future lot grading
activities.
Overland emergency overflow (EOF) elevations are required throughout the site at all
localized low points. Low openings for adjacent structures must maintain 1-foot above
any adjacent EOF in the as-built condition.
The grading plans must include minimum low floor and/or low opening elevations for
each lot based on the SWMP and emergency overflow elevations.
The storm sewer plans must be revised to eliminate the 21-inch storm sewer stub being
extended to Lot 2, Block 2 as runoff from this area to Pond 200 is inconsistent with the
proposed SWMP. Connections to existing storm sewer stubs along 5th Street must be
called out for use by this Lot and the downstream storm sewer system capacity must be
modeled and verified.
4. Plan revisions may be required to meet City design standards and to mitigate encroachments.
Page: 4
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
1. Connection to the public watermain system is required. The developer will be responsible for
extending public watermain internally throughout the subdivision in accordance with the City
engineering design standards and to serve each proposed parcel. Public watermain improvements
must be completed at developer’s sole cost.
2. The extension of public watermain is shown along Irene Avenue as required with service stubs
extended to each proposed lot, and connecting to the existing watermain at both 5th Street and
10th Street.
3. Hydrants and service valves will be required as directed by the Fire Department and Public Works
Department at the time of final construction plan review. All fire hydrants and connecting
watermains will be owned and maintained by the City.
4. Minimum 30-foot easements centered over the pipe/hydrant will be required when not located
within the public right-of-way. Easements must be free from all encroachments, including
retaining walls, trees, fences, small/dry utilities, or storm water management BMPs. Dedicated
utility easements must be shown on all site, grading, utility, and landscape plans when submitting
a Preliminary and Final Plat application. Easements are shown over Lot 2, Block 2 as required.
MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER
1. The proposed subdivision is located in the Southwest Planning MUSA and current Regional Sewer
Staging Plan area and would discharge to the MCES WONE Interceptor. Recent communications
with Met Council have revealed potential discharge limitations within the Met Council
infrastructure that may restrict sewer flows within this sewer service district. Investigations are
ongoing. The proposed subdivision provides for 5 commercial lots within no reported sewer flow
requirements.
2. Connection to the municipal sanitary sewer system is required. The developer will be responsible
for extending sanitary sewer service internally throughout the subdivision to serve each platted
lot/parcel and in accordance with the City engineering design standards. All sanitary sewer
improvements must be completed at developer’s sole cost.
3. The extension of sanitary sewer is shown along Irene Avenue as required with service stubs
extended to each proposed lot, and connecting to the existing sewer system at the intersection
of 5th Street and Irene Avenue.
4. All public sanitary sewer mains placed within the development will require minimum 30-foot
easements centered over the pipe/structure, if not located within a public right-of-way.
Easements must be free from all encroachments, including retaining walls, trees, fences,
small/dry utilities, or storm water management BMPs. Dedicated utility easements must be
shown on all site, grading, utility, and landscape plans when submitting a Preliminary and Final
Plat application.
North Shop | 11660 Myeron Road North | Stillwater, MN 55082-9537
P: 651-430-4300 | F: 651-430-4350 | TTY: 651-430-6246
www.washingtoncountymn.gov
Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer
November 10, 2025
Sophia Jensen
Senior Planner
City of Lake Elmo
3880 Laverne Ave N
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Comments on Inwood Commercial Development
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Inwood Commercial Development located
adjacent to CSAH 10 (10th St N) and CSAH 13 (Inwood Ave N) Our development review team has reviewed
the application and offers the following comments.
The Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the County’s transportation network plan and
contains such things as access criteria for county roads related to spacing, sight lines, availability of local
road connections, and corridor classification. This corridor is currently classified as a “Minor Reliever and
Minor Expander,” and this classification was based on the comprehensive plan process. Development
along these corridors must meet County access spacing and intersection control guidelines to preserve
safety and mobility for the traveling public.
The only access that meets County spacing guidelines is the proposed access at 5th Street. The remaining
access points do not meet spacing requirements and are candidates for future closure or consolidation.
The County recommends that the developer and City evaluate the elimination of at least one of the
proposed access points to ensure consistency with County standards. Access permits will be needed for
the construction of new street connections within the county right -of-way.
The County supports the addition of a trail along both C SAH 13 and CSAH 10 to provide safe multimodal
connections consistent with County and regional trail plans.
The comprehensive plan for this area indicates a need for 180 feet of right-of-way which would be 90 feet
along the property from the centerline. Please document that the right-of-way dedicated is found on the
site plan applications and is sufficient.
Washington County's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use
and highways. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S.
Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for
taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification
(NAC), where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards.
Minnesota Statute 116.07, Subpart 2a exempts County Roads and County State Aid Highways from noise
PUBLIC WORKS
Wayne Sandberg, P.E., Director, County Engineer
Frank D. Ticknor, P.E., Deputy Director
North Shop | 11660 Myeron Road North | Stillwater, MN 55082-9537
P: 651-430-4300 | F: 651-430-4350 | TTY: 651-430-6246
www.washingtoncountymn.gov
Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer
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. Confirmation that the developments stormwater plan meets all
watershed requirements will be required prior to any permit approvals.
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 for the opportunity to provide comments on the concept plan application for the Inwood
Commercial Development. We look forward to continuing to work with 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@washingtoncountymn.gov
Sincerely,
Daniel Elder
Planner II
Cc (email only):
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
Gary Bruns. Environmental Program Supervisor
From:Scollan, Daniel (DNR)
To:Sophia Jensen
Subject:RE: Land Use Review Request - City of Lake Elmo May 1st Batch
Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 11:58:24 AM
Attachments:image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image001.png
Hello Sophia,
Inwood Commercial Preliminary Plat
This plat lies within the shoreland district of Armstrong Lake, a Natural Environment Lake.
Note that the impervious surface limit in the shoreland district is 30% in sewered areas. Please
also note that Table 17-3 of the city’s shoreland ordinance requires commercial development
in the shoreland districts of Natural Environment Lakes to be processed as a conditional use.
Best Regards,
Dan Scollan
East Metro Area Hydrologist – Ramsey and Washington Counties
Division of Ecological and Water Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Phone: 651-259-5732
Fax: 651-772-7977
Email: daniel.scollan@state.mn.us
mndnr.gov
From:Luke McClanahan
To:Sophia Jensen
Cc:Nathan Fuerst; Ashley Monterusso; Jason Stopa; Andrew Gitzlaff; Mark Statz
Subject:RE: Land Use Review Request - City of Lake Elmo May 1st Batch
Date:Thursday, May 7, 2026 8:54:25 AM
Attachments:image002.png
image003.png
Hi Sophia,
Oakdale City staff reviewed the Inwood Commercial preliminary plat. We maintain our
previous comment about ensuring that full access is maintained at the intersection of
9th Street North and County Highway 13/Inwood Avenue North on the Oakdale side. No
further comments beyond that.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the proposal.
Respectfully,
Luke McClanahan, AICP | Planning Manager
City of Oakdale | Community Development Dept.
1584 Hadley Avenue N, Oakdale, MN 55128
Office: (651) 730-2720
luke.mcclanahan@oakdalemn.gov
Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
2040 Comp Plan Forecasts
Planning Commission Meeting | June 8 th 2026
Background
•System Statements begin the
Comprehensive Plan update period
•Limited time to Appeal (60 days)
•Majority of communities do not appeal
•White Bear Lake Case has caused Met
Council to deflate population forecasts
in the WBL area
What are System Statements?
Individualized documents indicating how
communities are impacted by regional plans for:
•Transportation/Aviation
•Water Resources
•Regional Parks and Trails
Once released, communities have three years to
amend/update comprehensive plans to comply
with regional system plans.
2025 System Statement
Forecast Implications/Uses
•Guide updates to Comprehensive Plans (need to accommodate
a proportionate share of regional growth)
•Aids in long range wastewater system planning
•Forecasts may be used by other agencies (MnDNR) for
understanding growth trends
Timeline of Events
•September 22, 2025 – System statements released by Met Council (online)
•October 24, 2025 – City staff meet with Met Council, specific questions asked:
•What data sources/trends informed the population and household estimates?
•What happens if development exceeds forecasted growth?
•October 28, 2025 – Meeting with Met Council Sector Rep., staff learned that:
•Primary changes to forecast were due to regional trends. (WBL issue not cited)
•Openness from Met Council on adjustments to forecasts.
•Clarification that city is not “punished” for growing faster than projected.
•October 29, 2025 –Follow up from Met Council after meeting indicated:
•Specific methodologies for regional forecasts (WBL issue not cited)
•Clarification that forecasts could be adjusted unless regional systems could not
support growth
Timeline of Events, cont.
•November 21, 2025 – Period of appeals for system statements is closed. Staff
recommendation not to appeal based on:
•Ability to periodically adjust forecasts in collaboration with Met Council staff
•Growth projections best understood as City moves through Comp Plan Update
•January 15, 2026 – City staff receive WBL Methodology Memo from City of Hugo.
•City staff identify options to move forward and compile permitting/development
pipeline data to Met Council, countering low forecasts.
•February 19, 2026 – City staff meet with Met Council Forecaster and Sector Rep:
•Met Council staff acknowledge permitting data and low forecasts
•Met Council staff agree that a solution is needed for more reasonable forecasts
Data Provided: Development Projection
Year 2026 2030 2035 2040
Cumulative Building Starts*962 2359 2555 3059
Population 15127 18952 20689 22027
2025 System Statement
Population
n/a 15200 n/a 16900
Adjusted Forecasts n/a 19,200 n/a 21,400
Data Provided: Permitting History
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Detached 41 120 200 265 244 244 265 236 105 91 84 157
Attached 0 20 51 34 28 6 44 61 95 75 0 47
Total 41 140 251 299 272 250 309 297 200 166 84 204
Timeline of Events, cont.
•March 6, 2026 – City receives email from Angela Torres, Sr. Manager of Planning at Met
Council:
•City can amend its 2040 Plan to adjust forecasts for 2030 and 2040:
•Raise the 2030 forecast to 7,200 households @ 2.66 average household size = 19,200 pop. Of
this number, 2,472 households unsewered and the remainder sewer-serviced.
•Adjust the 2040 forecast to 8,250 households @ 2.59 average household size = 21,400 pop. Of
this number, 2,200 households unsewered and the remainder sewer-serviced.
•Met Council has not changed its policy position regarding population estimates
higher than 2040 plans found in WBL Memo
WBL Memo
•Summary of overall methodology used in regional/local population forecasts.
•Reference to legislatively directed White Bear Lake Comprehensive Plan Group – deadline of June 30, 2027 for
completion of a long term plan with supporting analysis, to convert some or all wells to surface water.
•Policy positions:
•“Until the White Bear Lake Area Work Group concludes and there is an identified response to legislative
direction and judicial decisions, the Met Council determined it prudent to withhold its consent of additional
growth in local jurisdictions affected by the White Bear Lake Area Court decision until the Council is assured
additional growth does not conflict with Court orders that cities must abide.”
•“as it relates to requesting an upward adjustment to forecasts for growth in this area prior to completion of the
White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Plan being prepared with assistance from the legislatively identified
Work Group Members and modification of the court order, communities should be aware that the Council will
only consider forecast adjustments in the future, not during System Statements review. If a request is made, it
may only be considered after modification of the court order, a change in local conditions, or a solution to
water supply constraints are determined and implemented.”
Bottom Line
The Met Council refuses to allow for a higher population projection than the City’s 2040 plan
provides, but has agreed that the September 2025 forecasts are low. The City has the option from
the Met Council to use the numbers from its Thrive 2040 plan, ending at a total of 21,400 by 2040.
For the time being, the City may need to work with the following projections by decade:
•2030: 19,200 (7,200 households @ 2.66 average household size)
•2040: 21,400 (8,250 households @ 2.59 average household size)
•2050: 21,400 (no increase)
From the Met Council’s Senior Manager of Local Planning Assistance, Angela Torres:
“We routinely have staff-to-staff agreements on forecast adjustments during development of
the decennial Plan updates and we are willing to discuss an expanded 2050 forecast in mid-
2027 after the White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Plan Work Group concludes. At that point,
we’d know more about everyone’s comfort (neighboring cities, DNR, etc.) and local systems
preparedness. Until then, Met Council will limit forecast increases as described in "Forecast
Methodology for the White Bear Lake Area Communities.”
Amending the 2040 Plan
Adopted vs Amended
2040 Plan Forecasts
2030 (as amended with average
household size of 2.66 instead of
2.77)
2040 (as amended with average
household size of 2.59 instead of
2.72)
Households Unsewered 2642 (2472)2742 (2200)
Households MUSA 3858 (4728)5458 (6050)
Total Households 6500 (7200)8200 (8250)
Total Population 18,005 (19,200)22,304 (21,400)
Employment Unsewered 562 562
Employment MUSA 2788 3238
Total Employment 3350 3800
Timeline for Amendment
In progress - City Notices a self-initiated comprehensive plan amendment (this includes adjacent and
affected jurisdiction notices to surrounding communities and other levels of government)
6/8/26 - Planning Commission review and Public Hearing
6/16/26 - City Council Review and Determination
(1 week post approval) Approved Amendment Submitted to Met Council for Review and Approval
(~60 days post approval) Met Council review and approval memo received by City.
Example Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval motion:
“Move to recommend City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the
Population and Household forecasts in the Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan with the
findings proposed by City Staff.”
MOTION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 6/8/2026
Regular
Item #: 4c Public Hearing
Motion
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Nathan Fuerst, Consulting City Planner
Jason Stopa, Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Sophia Jensen, Senior City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING – 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update for Community Forecasts
CORE STRATEGIES:
☐ Vibrant, inclusive, connected community
☒ Responsive, transparent, adaptive governance
☒ Managed Growth
☐ Efficient, reliable, innovative services
☐ Balanced Finances now and future
☐ Resilient Infrastructure
BACKGROUND:
The Met Council releases system statements containing community forecasts based on regional population
models. After release, communities have 60 days to appeal. Historically, Met Council staff have been willing to
work with communities to amend population forecasts periodically, including outside of the comprehensive
planning process, where there may be inconsistencies between the regional population model and local
realities.
The White Bear Lake lawsuit has caused the Met Council to take a new position on water that was not
understood during the review period for system statements. In a White Bear Lake Methodology Memo (“WBL
Memo”) the Met Council states that it will effectively cap population forecasts based on availability of water.
This has complicated the City’s review and would have likely resulted in a different determination on how to
proceed regarding its system statement.
Staff are proposing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that will create realistic household and population
forecasts for the upcoming 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update. To do this, the City must modify the 2040
Comprehensive Plan household and population forecasts.
ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION:
How should the City Council proceed with the Comprehensive Plan Amendments proposed by Staff?
DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Timeline
In September 22, 2025, system statements were released and communities began to review. Lake Elmo staff
reviewed the system statements and identified that the population estimate seemed low based on current
development trends.
On October 24, 2025, Lake Elmo staff sought a meeting with Met Council staff to discuss the implications.
Several questions were sent to the Met Council in anticipation of meeting:
• What data sources/trends informed the population and household estimates?
• What happens if development exceeds forecasted growth?
On October 28, 2025, City planning staff and the Met Council sector representative to discuss these questions.
Regional trends were cited as the primary driver for the downward change in population forecasts. Generally,
the feedback was that the Met Council is open to periodic forecast adjustments provided there was rationale
supporting a change. Small adjustments can be made administratively, while larger adjustments need to be
approved by the Met Council. Given ability of the Met Council to amend the forecasts, it was communicated that
the City is not “punished’ or limited in growth if population growth exceeds forecasts.
On October 29, 2025, additional follow-up information was provided based on the questions asked to the Met
Council. While considerable information was provided on methodology for regional and local forecasts, water
systems, water appropriation, or the WBL Memo methodology were not communicated. It was also noted that
forecast adjustments could be adjusted unless projected growth outstripped the transportation and wastewater
systems serving a community. Water systems were not mentioned.
November 21, 2025, the appeals period for the 2025 system statements expired. Prior to this, and based on the
communications above, staff determined that an appeal to the forecast found in the system statement would
not be necessary. Given the ability to periodically and collaboratively make adjustments, it was concluded that
the population could be increased as the City moved through the Comprehensive Planning process when it
would have a better idea about needs for forecast adjustments.
January 15, 2026, the City of Lake Elmo received the WBL Memo dated October 22, 2025 from City of Hugo staff.
This memo, nor any indication of the methodology and position on system statements within, had not been
provided in any correspondence prior from the Met Council in the period between the system statements being
released and the expiration of the appeal period. At this time, and due to the implications of the Met Council’s
policy position, staff began to take considerable efforts to understand what options the City has moving
forward.
February 19, 2025, the City of Lake Elmo staff met with Met Council Principal Forecaster and sector
representative to discuss population forecasts and options the City has. Prior to this meeting, staff compiled
data on development projections and permitting history which support a higher population forecast. Met
Council staff agreed to an interim adjustment of Lake Elmo’s population forecast.
March 6, 2026, City of Lake Elmo staff received an email from the Senior Manager of Local Planning Assistance
with the option for the City of Lake Elmo would be to adjust its 2030 and 2040 decade forecasts as follows:
• Raise the 2030 forecast to 7,200 households @ 2.66 average household size = 19,200 pop. Of this
number, 2,472 households unsewered and the remainder sewer-serviced.
• Adjust the 2040 forecast to 8,250 households @ 2.59 average household size = 21,400 pop. Of this
number, 2,200 households unsewered and the remainder sewer-serviced.
The Met Council has not changed its position on increasing population estimates until June 2027, after which,
the White Bear Lake working group is expected to have identified a solution and timeline to resolve issues of
water availability in the White Bear Lake Area.
White Bear Lake Memo (WBL Memo)
Attached to this report is the Forecast Methodology for the White Bear Lake Area Communities (WBL Memo)
which documents the methodology and policy position of the Met Council. Generally, the WBL Memo can be
summarized as follows:
• Summary of overall methodology used in regional/local population forecasts.
• Reference to legislatively directed White Bear Lake Comprehensive Plan Group – deadline of June 30,
2027 for completion of a long term plan with supporting analysis, to convert some or all wells to surface
water.
• Policy positions:
o “Until the White Bear Lake Area Work Group concludes and there is an identified response to
legislative direction and judicial decisions, the Met Council determined it prudent to withhold its
consent of additional growth in local jurisdictions affected by the White Bear Lake Area Court
decision until the Council is assured additional growth does not conflict with Court orders that
cities must abide.”
o “as it relates to requesting an upward adjustment to forecasts for growth in this area prior to
completion of the White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Plan being prepared with assistance
from the legislatively identified Work Group Members and modification of the court order,
communities should be aware that the Council will only consider forecast adjustments in the
future, not during System Statements review. If a request is made, it may only be considered
after modification of the court order, a change in local conditions, or a solution to water supply
constraints are determined and implemented.”
The Bottom Line for Lake Elmo
The Met Council refuses to allow for a higher population projection than the City’s 2040 plan provides, but has
agreed that the September 2025 forecasts are low. The City has the option from the Met Council to use the
numbers from its Thrive 2040 plan, ending at a total of 21,400 by 2040. For the time being, the City may need to
work with the following projections by decade:
• 2030: 19,200 (7,200 households @ 2.66 average household size)
• 2040: 21,400 (8,250 households @ 2.59 average household size)
• 2050: (to be proposed by Met Council based on growth trends above)
From the Met Council’s Senior Manager of Local Planning Assistance, Angela Torres: “We routinely have staff-to-
staff agreements on forecast adjustments during development of the decennial Plan updates and we are willing
to discuss an expanded 2050 forecast in mid-2027 after the White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Plan Work
Group concludes. At that point, we’d know more about everyone’s comfort (neighboring cities, DNR, etc.) and
local systems preparedness. Until then, Met Council will limit forecast increases as described in "Forecast
Methodology for the White Bear Lake Area Communities.”
Amending the 2040 Plan:
The above communication from Angela Torres, Senior Manager of Local Planning Assistance with the Met
Council, states that for the City to utilize the population forecast numbers from its 2040 Plan a comprehensive
plan amendment is necessary. However, the Met Council has not agreed to use the numbers found in the
adopted plan with modifications identified based primarily on fluctuations in average household size in the
region.
The Following comparison articulates the differences between what is in the current 2040 Plan and how it would
be amended:
Adopted vs Amended 2040
Plan Forecasts
2030 (as amended with average
household size of 2.66 instead of 2.77)
2040 (as amended with average
household size of 2.59 instead of 2.72)
Households Unsewered 2642 (2472) 2742 (2200)
Households MUSA 3858 (4728) 5458 (6050)
Total Households 6500 (7200) 8200 (8250)
Total Population 18,005 (19,200) 22,304 (21,400)
Employment Unsewered 562 562
Employment MUSA 2788 3238
Total Employment 3350 3800
Unsewered Households
Staff have requested clarification from the Met Council’s staff on why the projected unsewered houslehold
numbers were projected to decrease. The City has approved several rural (unswered) developments since
adoption of the 2040 plan. Therefore, it is likely that the number has either stayed the same (if failed septic
systems are taken int account) or increased.
Supporting Data - Staff generated population projection
The table below represents a population projection generated by staff based on approved and known
development projects, the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s future land use guidance, and MUSA staging
plan. The table uses a conservative estimate of average household size, 2.5 residents per household.
Year 2026 2030 2035 2040
Cumulative Building Starts* 962 2359 2555 3059
Population 15127 18952 20689 22027
2025 System Statement
Population
n/a 15200 n/a 16900
Adjusted Forecasts n/a 19,200 n/a 21,400
* This means the number of building permits issued from 2024 to 2026, 2030, 2035, and 2040.
Supporting Data – 10 Year Permitting History
The table below represents permitting history for detached and attached residential units. On average, the City
has issued permits for 171 detached single family homes alone per year over the last decade. Assuming a
conservative average household size of 2.5 residents per unit, this would mean a yearly population gain of 428
residents on average every year.
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Detached 41 120 200 265 244 244 265 236 105 91 84 157
Attached 0 20 51 34 28 6 44 61 95 75 0 47
Total 41 140 251 299 272 250 309 297 200 166 84 204
Next Steps
Staff find that the adjusted numbers are reasonable given that there is an expected net increase in households
but a reduction in population through 2040 given the regionwide trend of reduced household size. The above
amended forecast is both generally consistent with the adopted 2040 plan and would be accepted by the Met
Council as it does not represent additional growth which would not be supported by the Met Council’s WBL
Memo policy. Staff are therefore supportive of, and recommend the amendment to the 2040 plan. This would
provide a reasonable starting point for Comprehensive Planning effort that is now underway and allow further
discussions with the Met Council in 2027 or beyond following conclusion of the WBL Area Work Group study.
The Process to amend the City’s 2040 plan generally includes the following steps and timeline.
1. In progress - City Notices a self-initiated comprehensive plan amendment (this includes
adjacent and affected jurisdiction notices to surrounding communities and other levels of
government)
2. 6/8/26 - Planning Commission review and Public Hearing
3. 6/16/26 - City Council Review and Determination
4. (1 week post approval) Approved Amendment Submitted to Met Council for Review and
Approval
5. (~60 days post approval) Met Council review and approval memo received by City.
OPTIONS:
1. Recommend approval of the amendments as proposed by staff in conjunction with the Met
Council. The City can work through the 2050 Comprehensive Planning Process using the realistic
forecasts for 2030 and 2040 provided by the Met Council staff in March.
2. Recommend denial of the amendments. This is not recommended as it will place the City in an
unfavorable position with respect to constraints of artificially lowered and unreasonable
population projections.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A public hearing was published in the City’s official paper, the Stillwater Gazette, on May 22nd 2026. The duly
noticed public hearing was held at the Planning Commission’s regular meeting on June 8, 2026. At the time of
writing this report, no public comments have been received.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommend that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and provide a recommendation to the City
Council for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. These amendments will allow for the City to
continue a general development trend that is predictable for current landowners, City staff, and the
development community.
Example Motion:
“Move to recommend City Council approval of the amendments proposed to the forecasts found in the Lake
Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan as identified by staff.”
ATTACHMENTS:
• Forecast Methodology for the White Bear Lake Area Communities (WBL Memo)
FORECAST METHODOLOGY FOR THE WHITE BEAR LAKE AREA
COMMUNITIES
LOCAL
PLANNING HANDBOOK
BACKGROUND
As directed by state law, the Met Council develops forecasts of when, where, and how much population, household,
and job growth the seven-county region and local jurisdictions can expect over a 30-year horizon. These long-range
forecasts provide a shared foundation for coordinated comprehensive planning. The forecasts describe likely and reasoned
expectations of regional growth based on an understanding and modeling of regional dynamics. Regional total results were
published in April 2023.
Met Council’s local forecasting involves the geographic allocation of regional employment and households totals to specifc
places. Met Council uses the local forecasts as a basis and benchmark for regional systems planning and deployment (MN
Statutes 473.146); the local forecasts are our commitment to serve the forecasted population levels with transportation plans
and wastewater capacity. While the Met Council does not provide or guarantee water supply, water supply limitations are a
consideration in forecasts. Imagine 2050’s local forecasts were formally adopted by the Metropolitan Council on February 12,
2025.
The Met Council uses UrbanSim, a real estate market simulation model, to project the geographic pattern of expected future
growth and allocate the regional totals to locations. UrbanSim’s methodology is online, here. The model is provided a large
collection of neighborhood-level data for every location in the 7-county metro region; all of these locations are in competition
with one another to attract shares of the metro region total.
The main determinants of local forecasts are real estate dynamics, location characteristics and amenities, activity patterns
and accessibility (travel within the region). However, as part of forecast development, the Met Council may make manual
adjustments to the model outputs based on known issues as well as policy direction. This is the case with the White Bear
Lake Area communities impacted by court decisions.
Additionally, demographic trends through the region also indicate deceleration, as migration to the region has declined, birth
rates have fallen, and death rates have stabilized. These factors contributed to a downward adjustment of approximately
100,000 persons in the regional population forecast. Because each community’s forecast is a share of the regional total, a
reduction at the regional level results in corresponding decreases in local level projections.
WHITE BEAR LAKE
The Minnesota legislature directed the Met Council to “develop a comprehensive plan to ensure communities in the
White Bear Lake area have access to suffcient safe drinking water to allow for municipal growth while simultaneously
ensuring the sustainability of surface water and groundwater resources to supply the needs of future generations.” This
included establishing a White Bear Lake Comprehensive Plan Group, inclusive of 14 local governments and other named
stakeholders. This comprehensive plan was directed to be completed by June 30, 2027. This work is underway.
The Council is statutorily directed to plan for the orderly and economical development of the region. In this role, the
Council must act responsibly to ensure that adequate public services are available to accommodate forecasted growth.
Until the White Bear Lake Area Work Group concludes and there is an identifed response to legislative direction and
judicial decisions, the Met Council determined it prudent to withhold its consent of additional growth in local jurisdictions
affected by the White Bear Lake Area Court decision until the Council is assured additional growth does not confict with
Court orders that cities must abide.
1
2050 PLAN UPDATES
The 2050 local comprehensive planning process was formally initiated when system statements, including local
forecasts, were distributed to communities on September 22, 2025. Per statute, communities have the opportunity
to dispute their forecasts and work with Council staff to make adjustments. Any jurisdiction impacted by this
methodology and the court decision may still do that in accordance with state statutes. However, as it relates to
requesting an upward adjustment to forecasts for growth in this area prior to completion of the White Bear Lake
Area Comprehensive Plan being prepared with assistance from the legislatively identifed Work Group Members and
modifcation of the court order, communities should be aware that the Council will only consider forecast adjustments
in the future, not during System Statements review. If a request is made, it may only be considered after modifcation
of the court order, a change in local conditions, or a solution to water supply constraints are determined and
implemented.
Council staff and Sector Representatives are available to assist local governments as they prepare for their 2050
planning process. If a deeper discussion about forecast methodology is desired, contact Todd Graham, Principal
Forecaster at Todd.Graham@metc.state.mn.us.
October 22, 2025
Todd Graham, Principal Forecaster
Angela R Torres, Senior Manager, Local
Planning Assistance
LOCAL
PLANNING
HANDBOOK
Metropolitan Council Main: 651.602.1000
390 Robert Street North TTY: 651.291.0904
Saint Paul, MN 55101 Public Information: 651.602.1500
public.info@metc.state.mn.us
metrocouncil.org
2