HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet; 7-28-14
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 747-3900
www.lakeelmo.org
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday, July 28, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. July 14 , 2014
4. Public Hearing
a. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN – BOULDER
PONDS OP3. The Planning Commission is being asked to review a Preliminary
Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan for a 162 unit planned residential development in
Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. The subject properties are located
immediately north of Hudson Boulevard and east of Eagle Point Business Park
(PIDs 34.029.21.32.0001, 34.029.21.33.0001, and 34.029.21.33.0002).
5. Business Items
a. None
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates – July 15, 2014 meeting:
i. Easton Village Preliminary Plat passed with 21 conditions of approval.
ii. Village Preserve Preliminary Plat passed with 13 conditions of approval.
iii. Holliday Property Comprehensive Plan passed with 2 conditions of
approval.
b. Staff Updates
i. Upcoming Meetings:
• August 11, 2014
• August 25, 2014
c. Commission Concerns
2
7. Adjourn
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of July 14, 2014
Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Dodson, Kreimer, and Lundgren.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Larson, Haggard and Dorschner.
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt and City Planner Johnson.
Approve Agenda:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Approve Minutes: June 30, 2014
M/S/P: Lundgren/Dodson, move to approve the minutes as amended, Vote: 4-0, motion
carried, with Kreimer not voting.
Public Hearing: Kwik Trip – Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit
Johnson presented an overview of a proposed conditional use permit to allow the
construction of a new Kwik Trip gasoline station/convenience store at the intersection
of I-94 and Keats Avenue. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the
conditional use permit with the conditions of approval as listed in the staff report.
Johnson reviewed draft findings with the Planning Commission to support this
recommendation, and asked if the Commission had any questions concerning the
proposal.
Dodson asked if a lower speed limit would have any implications for the proposed turn
lanes. Johnson replied that as traffic builds along Hudson Boulevard and additional
development occurs that there would likely be a reduced speed limit along this road.
Johnson indicated that this would not occur until sometime in the future. The
Commission asked general questions concerning the layout of the proposed driveways
and approaches into the site.
Bruce Miller, MFC Properties, noted that he was the owner of the property and that he
has been working with the City to address the review comments. He stated that he is
looking to develop the adjacent parcel to the North, and that this project would be a
good first project to get things going in the I-94 Corridor. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-14-14
2
Scott Tigen, Chief Financial Officer for Kwik Trip, discussed the approach used by Kwik
Trip in designing and siting its stores. He reviewed some of the history of the
organization and the philosophy of its owners. He noted that the second access drive is
critical to maintain safety on the site, and in particular to minimize the amount of
backing up done by larger trucks on the site.
Williams questioned the location of the proposed trees in front of the car wash signage,
and expressed concern that these would need to be removed in the future. Tigen stated
that the trees would take preference to the signage, but that he did not think there was
going to be a conflict.
Public Hearing opened at 7:46pm.
Public Hearing closed at 7:47pm.
Kreimer asked if there were any concerns with the sign plan as submitted. Johnson
replied that the applicant would need to submit a sign permit, at which time Staff would
perform a thorough review of the proposed sign for consistency with the Sign
Ordinance.
M/S/P: Lundgren/Dodson, move to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat , Final
Plat and Conditional Use Permit of Kwik Trip with the 8 conditions recommended by
Staff based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report as amended by the Planning
Commission, Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Eliminate RAD-ALT Land Use
Category.
Klatt noted that the Planning Commission reviewed this item in the past. The proposed
action is being brought before the Planning Commission again in response to the
finalized 2040 population forecast by the Metropolitan Council. Klatt noted that a large
amount of information has been presented in the past regarding the RAD-Alt properties.
Klatt identified where the parcels guided RAD-Alt in the City’s Comprehensive Plan are
located.
Klatt explained the purpose behind the inclusion of the original RAD-Alt category. He
provided background information related to the 2040 Met Council population forecast
for Lake Elmo. Klatt identified and described the three parcels that are guided RAD-Alt.
Moving on to the Staff Recommendation, Klatt noted that staff is recommending that
the RAD-Alt category be eliminated from the Comprehensive Plan. Klatt then
highlighted the proposed findings of fact, stating that some of the findings take into
account previous Planning commission and City Council discussion of the proposed
action.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-14-14
3
Kreimer asked if there has been any RAD-Alt development in the community. Klatt
noted that there has not been any RAD-Alt development.
Dodson asked if RAD-Alt development is possible when not served by public sanitary
sewer. He does not see the densities associated with RAD-Alt possible without sewer.
Klatt noted that it would be very difficult to serve these sites at these densities with
private sanitary systems.
Public Hearing opened at 8:22 pm.
Williams noted that Janice Greene submitted a letter for the Friedrich family noting
their objection to the elimination of RAD-Alt. The letter was entered into the public
record.
Larry Weiss, 9302 Stillwater Blvd. N., noted that the Friedrich site was changed to RAD-
Alt for a specific project and the project has not been built. He noted that he is not
supportive of RAD-Alt densities in the rural areas. He stated that the neighborhoods
surrounding these sites do not want development at the density associated with RAD –
Alt.
Terry Emerson, 2204 Legion Ln. N., stated that he does not oppose eliminating RAD-Alt,
but would like to develop his parcel as single family OP neighborhood, but would like to
consider some variances.
Ed Nielsen, 9499 Stillwater Blvd., stated that he would like to see the RAD-Alt go away
because it equates to spot zoning.
Public Hearing closed at 8:29 pm.
Williams stated he would like to add a finding that the 2040 population projections can
be reached without inclusion of the RAD-Alt land use category.
Kreimer noted that he is conflicted because the reduction of the overall population
forecast is not that large. He noted that if there are allowances for population relief, the
Village and South of 10th should be considered for land use changes. Dodson noted that
he is concerned with being able to pay for the public infrastructure investments that
have been made in the sewered areas. He does not support reductions in those areas
until the City is sure they can finance these public infrastructure improvements.
Williams agreed with Dodson.
M/S/P: Dodson/Lundgren, move to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to Eliminate RAD-Alt (Rural Area Development Alternative Density) as a
land use category from the Future Land Use Map as referenced in the Comprehensive
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-14-14
4
Plan subject to the condition of approval recommended by staff and based upon the
findings of fact listed in the Staff Report as amended by the Planning Commission, Vote:
3-1, motion carried with Kreimer voting no.
Public Hearing: Zoning Map Amendment – Perfecting Amendments
Klatt started his presentation of the Zoning Map Amendment – Perfecting Amendments
to change to the zoning for several properties guided for pending development as well
as other clean-up perfecting amendments. He presented an overview of the subject
properties one by one.
Public Hearing opened at 8:50pm.
Williams noted that a letter was submitted by Steve Delapp. It was entered into the
public record.
Public Hearing closed at 8:52pm.
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to recommend approval of the Zoning Map
Amendments as presented in the Staff Report. Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously.
Updates and Concerns
Council Updates
1. Hammes Shoreland Variance was withdrawn by the applicant
2. Hunter’s Crossing Preliminary Plat passed with 15 conditions of approval
3. Eagle Point Medical Center Preliminary and Final Development Plans passed with
7 conditions of approval
4. Hammes Estates Preliminary Plat passed with 17 conditions of approval.
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. July 28, 2014
b. August 11, 2014 – Lundgren will be unable to attend.
Commission Concerns -
Lundgren noted that the Planning Commission should have identification for visiting
development sites.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-14-14
5
Williams noted that he is concerned about crowding of some of the Lennar
developments that he has observed recently. Dodson agreed but doesn’t know what the
solution could be.
Meeting adjourned at 9:01pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-14-14
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 7/28/14
AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2014-30
ITEM: Boulder Ponds – Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
South Washington Watershed District
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
Stephen Mastey, Landscape Architecture, Inc.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan
application from OP3 Boulder Ponds, LLC for a 162-unit planned residential development to be
located on 58.3 acres of land within Stage 1 of the City’s I-94 Corridor Planning Area. The proposed
residential project is located immediately north of Hudson Blvd. N., immediately east of the Eagle
Point Business Park and immediately south of the Stonegate residential estates (RE) subdivision.
Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to compliance with 11 conditions as noted in
this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: OP3 Boulder Ponds, LLC (Deb Ridgeway), 11455 Viking Drive, Suite 350, Eden
Prairie, MN 55344.
Property Owners: Timothy Montgomery, 6211 Upper 51st St. N., Oakdale, MN; Louis J. Damiani
Revocable Trust (William Kuhlmann – Security Bank and Trust Co), 2202 11th
St. E., Glencoe, MN; DPS – Lake Elmo, LLC (Alan Dale), 6007 Culligan Way,
Minnetonka, MN; Lennar Corporation (Steve Ach), 16305 36th Ave. N., Suite
600, Plymouth, MN; and Bremer Bank (Kathleen Tucci) 8555 Eagle Point Blvd.,
PO Box 1000, Lake Elmo.
Location: Part of Section 34 in Lake Elmo, immediately north of Hudson Boulevard North,
immediately east of the Eagle Point Business Park, and immediately south of the
Stonegate subdivision. PID Numbers 34.029.21.32.0001, 34.029.21.33.0001, and
34.029.21.33.0002.
Request: Application for preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development
(PUD) plan approval of a 162-unit residential planned development to be named
Boulder Ponds.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Agricultural land. Current Zoning: RT – Rural Development
Transitional Zoning District; Proposed Zoning: LDR (PUD) -
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
2
Urban Low Density Residential, MDR (PUD) – Medium
Density Residential and C – Commercial.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North –Stonegate Residential Estates (RE) subdivision; west –
Eagle Point Business Park (Bremer Bank, Eagle Point Town
Office Condos, High Pointe Medical Campus, vacant land) BP;
east – Lennar Savona Urban Low Density Residential (LDR)
subdivision; south – vacant land guided for Commercial and
Interstate Highway 94.
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 – 3.99 units per acre),
Urban Medium Density Residential (4.0 – 7.49 units per acre)
and Commercial
History: Boulder Ponds General Concept Plan review by Planning Commission on 12/9/13
and approved by the City Council on 12/17/13.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 6/19/2014
60 Day Deadline – 8/17/14
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 10/16/14
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (LDR and MDR)
Article 16 – Planned Unit Development Regulations
§150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from OP3 Boulder Ponds, LLC for a Preliminary Plat
and Preliminary PUD Plan to subdivide approximately 58 acres of land located within Stage 1 of the
I-94 Corridor Planning Area into 98 detached residential lots. The proposed plat would be located on
property primarily owned by the Louis Damiani Revocable Trust (represented by William
Kuhlmann) and Timothy Montgomery, and would be located immediately north of Hudson
Boulevard, immediately east of Eagle Point Business Park, and immediately south of the Stonegate
subdivision. The 78 acre parcel has historically been used for agricultural purposes.
The preliminary plat has been developed in response to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which
identifies the applicant’s property for urban low density residential, urban medium density residential
and commercial. The proposed planned development includes 98 detached residential lots, located
both north and south of the City’s planned 5th Street minor collector road. In addition to the proposed
detached residential lots, the plat includes an outlot (Outlot K) planned for a 64-unit senior housing
facility or apartment. While approval is not being sought at this time, it is worth noting that the
proposed senior housing is consistent with the approved General PUD Concept Plan approved by the
City in December of 2013.
In terms of access, the preliminary plat and PUD plan shows a north-south connection to Hudson
Boulevard in the southern portion of the plat. In addition to the Hudson Blvd. connection, the
proposed plat includes a significant portion of the 5th Street minor collector road. As part of the total
public improvements of the Boulder Ponds planned development, the 5th Street minor collector road
will be constructed from the Savona (Lennar) urban low density subdivision in the east to the
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
3
approximately 160-acre parcel owned by Azure Properties to the northwest. Along with the
connection to Hudson Blvd., the 5th Street minor collector road will ultimately serve as the primary
access to the Boulder Ponds development.
The Boulder Ponds planned development is the City’s third proposed subdivision in Stage 1 of the I-
94 Corridor Planning Area that will receive public sanitary sewer service, which has been made
available to the site via the completed Section 34 Public Utility Project. At present, the water for this
area is provided by the City of Oakdale. However, the City plans to execute a trunk watermain
extension down Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) in the next year or two to connect existing facilities in
the western I-94 Corridor to the City water system. At present, there is enough capacity in the
Oakdale system to provide water to a significant portion of Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning
Area until Lake Elmo makes the needed connections to its system. Sewer and water for the Boulder
Ponds site is accessible along Hudson Blvd. as a result of the Section 34 Utility Project. The
applicants are proposing to extend sewer and water throughout their site from the facilities located in
Hudson Boulevard.
One of the other major features of the proposed subdivision is a continuation of the northern buffer
greenbelt along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the Stonegate subdivision. The greenbelt
is required under the guidance of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. As proposed, the greenbelt
includes a trail segment from the proposed Savona single family development in the east across the
northern boundary of the site to Stonegate Park in the west. In addition to connection to Stonegate
Park, the northern buffer trail as proposed also provides connection to the City’s planned minor
collector road, 5th Street. It should also be noted that a significant portion of the greenbelt buffer area
includes a Northern States Power (Xcel Energy) easement for overhead utilities.
As currently proposed, the single family or detached residential portion of the Boulder Ponds
development will be constructed in two phases. The initial phase of the project includes construction
of the access road to Hudson Blvd., as well as the eastern portion of the 5th Street minor collector
road. In addition, Phase I as proposed includes 47 residential lots, both of the traditional single family
and “Villa” type. The second phase of the residential development includes the construction of the
remaining residential lots and local roads, as well as the western portion of the 5th Street minor
collector road.
Finally, it should be noted that the Boulder Ponds development is proceeding through the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) process. By proceeding through the PUD process, the City may allow for
flexibility in the use of land or the base standards of the zoning code with the intent of achieving
higher quality development. The City’s PUD process has three phases: 1) General Concept Plan, 2)
Preliminary Plan, and 3) Final Plan. It should be noted that the City reviewed the Boulder Ponds
General Concept Plan (12/9/13 - Planning Commission, 12/17/13 – City Council), which was
approved by the City Council (Resolution #2013-109). Approval of the General Concept Plan allows
the applicant to proceed with preparation of preliminary plans, which the applicant has now
submitted. Staff has reviewed the approved General Concept Plan and all the conditions associated
with the approval. The most critical conditions, relating to the alignment of the 5th Street minor
collector road, have been resolved by the applicant. In addition to the issues related to the alignment
of 5th Street, the submitted preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans have generally addressed the
other conditions of approval related to the review of the General Concept Plan. It should also be
noted that the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan does contain 5 additional
residential lots than the General Concept Plan. The additional lots created in the subdivision directly
relate to a change in product type, as the applicants are proposing “Villa” homes, a detached
townhome on HOA maintained land. Staff reviewed the proposed increase and units and found it to
be consistent with the general intent of the approved General Concept Plan. The minimal number of
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
4
increased lots are being accommodated within the same street and utility network, not leading to
significant changes to the proposed public improvements.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
The Boulder Ponds site is guided for urban low density, urban medium density and commercial
development in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the applicant will be required to zone the site to
the appropriate zoning designation as part of Final PUD Plan approval. The overall subdivision plan
has therefore been prepared in order to generally comply with the district standards for the LDR and
MDR zoning districts. However, as part of the request for a planned development, the applicant is
permitted to request reductions in lot size, building setbacks, and other requirements of the base
zoning district. Therefore, it should be noted that four of the proposed lots (Lots 4, 7, 8 and 10, Block
3, 2nd Addition) are slightly under the minimum requirements for lot size. In addition, the applicants
are requesting reduced side-yard and front-yard setbacks. These requests were established at the
General Concept Plan phase of the PUD process and were supported through the approval of the
General Concept Plan.
In terms of the general design of the subdivision, the northern and southern portions are split between
the City’s planned minor collector road, 5th Street. The southern portion is accessed off the north-
south access road, called Cobblestone Plaza, connecting to Hudson Blvd. and contains 20 proposed
“Villa” units, which is a detached single family product with HOA maintained grounds. In addition,
according to the General Concept Plan, the southern portion of the planned development will also
include a 64-unit senior living multi-family building to be located on Outlot K at some point in the
future. The proposed senior living building is not currently included in the present application. The
design of the northern portion of the subdivision primarily follows one through street, Boulder Ponds
Parkway, which connects to the planned 5th Street in both the central and northwestern areas of the
plat. In addition to the main through street, three cul-de-sacs are proposed off of Boulder Ponds
Pkwy. The northern portion of the proposed subdivision is comprised of all single family residential
land uses, with 60 traditional single family homes and 18 Villa units. The proposed design of the
subdivision does allow for a significant amount of open space, allowing all the residential lots to
back up to some form of open space as opposed to additional lots. In addition, the overall design
(streets, sidewalks, building pads, etc.) is intended to provide a curvilinear aesthetic and pattern.
Along with varied setbacks and meandering sidewalks, the applicant has noted that creating visual
interest within the development is a critical component to the overall vision.
Sidewalks and trails are planned throughout the subdivision. The proposed plans provide for
sidewalks on one side of all streets, which is consistent with the Staff recommendation for sewered
single family residential subdivisions. In terms of proposed trails, all are designed to be ten feet in
width and constructed of bituminous asphalt, which is consistent with the City standard for a regional
trail. In addition to the buffer/greenway trail, the proposed subdivision includes a linking trail
segment to the northeastern cul-de-sac, Pebblestone Ridge Cove. Finally, the proposed minor
collector road 5th Street includes a regional trail on the north side of the road, which is consistent with
the City’s typical section.
The Boulder Ponds subdivision includes two general types of residential lots: traditional single
family and Villa. As proposed, there are 60 traditional single family lots. The average size of the
traditional single family lots is 9,735 square feet. In addition, the largest traditional lot (Lot 1, Block
2, 1st Addition) is 15,832 sq. ft., while the smallest proposed traditional lot (Lot 8, Block 3, 1st
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
5
Addition) is 7,206 sq. ft. in size. Regarding the Villa lots, this lot type is intended to serve a different
residential product than the traditional single family lots, allowing for a detached townhome type
product. According to the applicant narrative, the Villa lots are intended to serve an empty-nester
demographic, and the grounds of the Villa lots would be HOA maintained. As proposed, the Boulder
Ponds subdivision includes 38 Villa lots, which are located within Block 1, 1st Addition and Block 1,
2nd Addition. The average size of the Villa lots is 10,116 square feet. The largest Villa lot is 18,906
sq. ft., while the smallest Villa lot is 7,347 sq. ft. in size. It should be noted that the lot sizes of the
traditional single family and Villa homes are comparable in size. The main differences between the
lot types are the product type (single family home vs. detached townhome) and maintenance (owner
maintained vs. HOA maintained). In order facilitate the review of the proposed lots and lot types, the
applicants have submitted an updated lot summary that identifies the lot type (single family vs.
Villa). The updated lot summary is found in Attachment #3.
The following is a general summary of the subdivision design elements that have proposed as part of
the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and plans:
Zoning and Site Information:
• Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional District
• Proposed Zoning: LDR, MDR and C
• Total Site Area: 58.3 acres
• Total Residential Units: 98
• Proposed Density (Net): Northern - 2.69 units/acre, Southern – 8.05 units/acre*
(*Note: includes future planned 64-unit senior living multi family building)
Proposed Lot Dimensional Standards through Planned Unit Development Process:
• Lot Area: 9,882 sq. ft. average (7,206 sq. ft. min.)
• Front Yard Setback: 20 ft. (25 feet for garage)
• Side Yard Setback: 5 ft.
• Rear Yard Setback: 25 ft.
Proposed Street Standards:
• ROW Width – Local 60 ft. (per Subdivision Ordinance)
• Street Widths – Local: 28 ft.(per City standard)
The standards listed above are all either in compliance with the applicable requirements from the
City’s zoning and subdivision regulations, or are consistent with requested modifications through the
proposed planned unit development (PUD). Based on Staff’s review of the Preliminary Plat and
Preliminary PUD Plan, the applicant has generally demonstrated compliance with the majority of the
applicable codes, and the requested modifications or flexibilities as allowed under the City’s PUD
Ordinance represent a reasonable request given the various design goals the applicant it trying to
achieve.
The applicant is requesting some additional flexibility through the PUD process to receive advance
approval for an alternate design for certain portions of the development. The proposed alternative
designs are detailed in the attached document titled “Boulder Ponds – Alternative Site Plan”
(Attachment #8) and detailed on the site plans labeled Exhibit “A, B and C” – Alternative Single
Family Detached Townhouses. As specified in these plans, the applicant has asked for flexibility to
build houses consistent with the proposed preliminary plat, or to change the housing type for certain
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
6
portions of the development to a single-family detached townhouse-type building, or Villa, on
smaller lots. There are three specific portions of the development that are identified for this
alternative layout, and in total, the proposed flexibility would add nine additional lots to the plat
beyond the base conditions. The addition of these lots would not increase the net density for any
portion of the project so that it exceeds the underlying density in the Comprehensive Plan.
Because the requested alternative plans would not alter the layout of any proposed streets or
significantly alter the grading and utility plans for the site, Staff is recommending that the
preliminary PUD plans be structured in a way that allows the applicant to move forward with either
option. Please note that should the developer move forward with one of these alternatives, the
preliminary plans will need to be updated in their entirety to reflect the updated plans. Under such a
scenario, the developer would be able to submit revised preliminary plan simultaneously with a final
PUD and final plat. The comments from Staff included in the latter portions of this report address
the plat as submitted; any future plans that incorporate the alternative plans would be subject to a
complete plan review.
As with any new subdivision, the City Code requires that a portion of the plat be set aside for public
park use. In this case, the applicant has indicated that the northern outlot area, labeled Park, will be
dedicated to the City for this purpose. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance requires 10% of the land in
urban residential districts to be set aside as parkland, which according to the applicant’s calculation
would represent 4.09 acres of land. On the submitted narrative for the Boulder Ponds project (Item
D), the applicant has noted that 3.85 acres of land within or adjacent to the greenbelt/buffer have
been dedicated as park. However, City staff is unclear if this calculation includes the area within the
Xcel Energy easement, which would not be eligible to be counted towards the required parkland
amount. Related to this requirement, the Subdivision Ordinance states the following:
(C) Land acceptability. The city must approve the location and configuration of any park
land which is proposed for dedication and shall take into consideration the suitability of the
land and for its intended purpose; the future needs of the city for parks, playgrounds, trails,
or open space; and the recommendations of the city’s Parks Commission. The following
properties shall not be accepted for park land dedications:
(1) Land dedicated or obtained as easements for streets, sewer, electrical, gas, storm
water drainage and retention areas, or other similar utilities and improvements;
Given that a significant portion (approximately 75 feet x 1300 feet) of the land proposed to be
dedicated is subject to a Xcel Energy overhead utility easement, the portion of the parkland within
the easement would not be eligible for parkland dedication credit.
In addition to the eligibility the land provided, it should also be noted that the applicant has removed
the area of the 5th Street right-of-way and the area of the required northern greenbelt buffer from the
land calculation for parkland. While staff agrees that the right-of-way for the 5th St. minor collector
road should not be included in this calculation, the northern greenbelt is considered part of the gross
area being subdivided for development. For this reason, the greenbelt area, 2.83 acres according to
the applicant’s narrative, should be included in the gross land calculation in determining the amount
of required parkland dedication. Inclusion of the greenbelt area in the total land calculation for
parkland dedication would be consistent with other subdivisions (Savona and Hammes Estates) that
have incorporated portions of the greenbelt buffer around the Stonegate subdivision.
In order to address the issues related to the correct level of parkland dedication, Staff would
recommend that as a condition of approval (Condition #2) the applicant submit an updated parkland
dedication calculation in advance of Final Plat. Upon review of the updated calculation, if any gap
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
7
exists between the eligible land dedication provided and the required land dedication amount, the
applicant will be required to submit a fee in lieu of land dedication to satisfy the total land dedication
requirement (10%) per the Subdivision Ordinance. It should also be noted that in the submitted
narrative, the applicant has requested that the City consider some parkland credit for the construction
of park related improvements that do not receive credit for land dedication. Staff would support that
some credit be considered, as a significant stretch of trail is proposed over land that is not eligible for
parkland dedication credit due to the overhead utility easement. Staff will continue to work with the
applicant on how to properly achieve the required parkland dedication amount, whether it be through
land, improvements, or fees in lieu of land dedication.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
City Staff has reviewed the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan. In general,
the proposed plat will meet all applicable City requirements for conditional approval, and any
deficiencies or additional modifications that are needed are noted as part of the review record. In
addition, the City has received a detailed list of comments from the City Engineer, the Fire Chief and
the City’s Landscape Consultant, Stephen Mastey, all of which are attached for consideration by the
Commission.
In addition to the general comments that have been provided in the preceding sections of this report,
Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the following review comments as well:
• Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map for this area. The net densities for the
development generally comply with the range allowed for the Urban Low Density and Urban
Medium Density land use categories. In addition, other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan
that relate to the Boulder Ponds subdivision are as follows:
o Density Calculation. The subject property is guided Urban Low Density Residential,
Urban Medium Density Residential and Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. In
order to demonstrate compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan with regards to
proposed density, the applicant has submitted two density exhibits in the project
narrative. The exhibits demonstrate that the overall number of proposed residential
units fall well within the amount of planned growth under the Comprehensive Plan.
While the net density calculation of the medium density area, 8.05 units/acre, is
technically higher that the allowed range for MDR (4.0-7.49 units/acre), the overall
planned growth for the area was greatly reduced by the realignment of the 5th Street
minor collector road to the south, increasing the amount of land planned for Urban
Low Density Residential. In addition, the density of the proposed project was
reviewed along with the General Concept Plan. In reviewing the General Concept
Plan, the City found that the proposed subdivision was consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. With the addition of 5 residential lots since the approval of the
General Concept Plan, the proposed subdivision remains in conformance with the
planned growth as guided by the Comprehensive Plan.
o Parks. The City’s park plan identifies proposed location for neighborhood parks
based on the anticipated population that should be served by each park. The Park
Plan does not call for additional parks in the vicinity of the Boulder Ponds
subdivision, as it is located immediately adjacent to Stonegate Park. However, as part
of the required greenbelt buffer, the land dedicated to the City as parkland will
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
8
include areas adjacent to Stonegate Park. This should allow opportunities to integrate
trail and other facilities into Stonegate Park. However, any improvements will need
to conform to the conditions of the Xcel Energy power line easement.
o Water. Water will be provided to this area via existing watermain along Hudson
Boulevard. The Boulder Ponds subdivision will be able to be served under the City’s
current agreement with the City of Oakdale until the Inwood Ave. watermain
extension project is completed. Staff anticipate that this project will be completed
next year (2015).
o Sanitary Sewer. The Boulder Ponds subdivision will be served by sanitary sewer
that will connect to trunk gravity sewer in the Hudson Boulevard right-of-way. All of
the wastewater will flow to the W.O.N.E. MCES regional wastewater interceptor.
o Phasing. The Boulder Ponds subdivision is located within Stage 1 of the I-94
Corridor Planning Area. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City’s
Staging Plan, as the proposed development has access to both public sanitary sewer
and water.
• Zoning. The applicant has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development, and
has previously received approval of the General Concept Plan for Boulder Ponds. Consistent
with the City’s PUD Ordinance, preliminary PUD plans have been submitted along with the
preliminary plat. The final step in this process is submission of final PUD plans with a final
plat. The underlying zoning for the PUD still needs to be established, and staff is
recommending that the zoning be addressed at the final plan stage. In this case, the
Comprehensive Plan guides the applicant’s site for several different land use categories,
including low density residential, medium density residential, and commercial. Staff will be
recommending that the zoning for the subdivision be established to match the Comprehensive
Plan in the following manner:
o LDR - All portions of the subdivision north (and east) of 5th Street.
o MDR – All lots on Cobblestone Path and Outlots N and K.
o C – Outlots J, M, and L
At the time a final development plan is submitted, the official zoning map will be updated to
reflect both the underlying zoning as noted above and will include a special designation
marking the project area as a Planned Unit Development.
• Planned Unit Development. The applicant has applied for a PUD, and therefore is seeking
to take advantage of the flexibility allowed with this type of application. The specific aspects
of the project that will be permitted through the PUD ordinance include the following:
o Exceptions to the City’s minimum lot size requirements for LDR zoning to allow
certain lots to be platted with less than the minimum of 8,000 square feet of area
required in this zoning district.
o Exceptions to the City’s setback requirements in LDR and MDR zoning districts to
establish a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet (25 feet for garage) and side yard
setback of 5 feet for all residential lots in the subdivision.
o Exceptions to the City’s development standards for garages in urban residential
zoning districts. The applicant has stated that a small number of the standard
residential lots and a larger number of the proposed “Villa” homes will not be able to
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
9
meet the City’s 60% requirement concerning the width of garages on these site.
Given the unique aspects of the “coving” subdivision design concept, Staff is
recommending that the PUD plans be structured to eliminate this requirement in its
entirety.
o The ability to mix different types of uses as part of a larger development proposal that
is connected as one development. The project will include single family detached
homes, multi-family units, and commercial buildings, and has been designed to
function as one unified development.
o The applicant is proposing to meander sidewalks throughout the development both
inside and outside of the street right-of-way. The City’s right-of-way standards
depict sidewalks within a specific portion of the right-of-way.
o Certain connecting trails are depicted within 20-foot easements; Staff has been asking
that trails be dedicated to the City on Outlots of no less than 30 feet in width.
o The proposed roads include several medians and landscape islands that are not
otherwise included in the City’s street specifications.
• Subdivision Requirements. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance includes a fairly lengthy list
of standards that must be met by all new subdivisions, and include requirements for blocks,
lots, easements, erosion and sediment control, drainage systems, monuments, sanitary sewer
and water facilities, streets, and other aspects of the plans. Many of these requirements have
been addressed as part of the City Engineer’s review memo (which is summarized below).
After reviewing the proposed plat and PUD plan, Staff has not found any aspect of the plat
that conflict with these requirements.
• Infrastructure. The developer will be required to construct all streets, sewer, water, storm
water ponds, and other infrastructure necessary to serve the development, including all
portions of 5th Street that cut through the development. Also, Staff has reviewed the proposed
phasing of construction for the public improvements and finds it to be acceptable.
• Wetlands. The applicants have prepared a wetland delineation for the site, which identifies an
existing wetland on Outlot O. The applicant is proposing to incorporate this wetland as part
of the storm water management plan for the site, and will therefore need to comply with all
applicable requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act for this work. The South
Washington Watershed District is the responsible government unit for determining such
compliance issues.
• Trails. The developer is proposing to build a series of trails as part of the development,
including a 10-foot bituminous trail along the northern portion of the subdivision through the
required 100-foot open space buffer and a similar trail within the 5th Street right-of-way. The
applicant is seeking park land dedication credit for all of the land within the open space
buffer area and other adjacent portions of the site that are used for general open space or
storm water facilities. Given the circumstances associated with the northern portion of the
site, Staff is not recommending that the City accept all of the land shown as park along the
northern boundary of the plat for the following reasons: 1) this portion of the site lies under a
75-foot power line easement and nearly all portions of the trail are located within this
easement, 2) the area shown as park includes storm water ponding area, and 3) the
Subdivision ordinance specifically prohibits using areas under a power line easement and
within a storm water pond for park dedication requirements.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
10
Because the trail does serve a public purpose, and because the City has previously allowed
the buffer area to be used for park dedication purposes with the construction of a trail, Staff is
recommending that the developer received credit for park land dedication as follows:
o The equivalent land dedication equal to a 30-foot trail segment under all portions of
the power line easement.
o Land that is deeded to the City surrounding trails and located outside of the power
line easement and storm water facilities.
o Land within the 100-foot buffer in the northern portion of the site that is located
outside of the power line easement and outside of storm water facilities.
As noted earlier in this report, the exact calculations for park land dedications should be
completed as part of the final plat submissions (Condition #2).
Finally, although the northern greenbelt buffer trail is depicted as a 10-foot trail, Staff is
recommending that the design of this trail segment be reduced to eight-feet in width to be
consistent with the trail design approved in the adjacent subdivisions to the east (Condition
#9).
• Meandering Sidewalks. The proposed development plans include a series of sidewalks that
meander into and out of the street right-of-way for the subdivision. Because this was a
design element that was approved as part of the General Concept Plan review, Staff is
recommending that the preliminary plans be approved with this design feature. Please note,
however, that the City Engineer is not recommending the construction of any sidewalks
outside of the right-of-way, and that additional requirements should be included as part of the
City’s review in order to address the City Engineer’s concerns. Specifically, Staff is
recommending that the developer provide a 10-foot drainage and utility easement over all
private lots adjacent to sidewalks outside of the public right-of-way, and that any land located
between the sidewalk and the street right-of-way be covered under a similar easement as well
(Condition #6).
• Landscaping and Tree Preservation. The landscape and tree preservation plans have been
reviewed by the City’s consulting landscape architect, Stephen Mastey. The review
memorandum submitted by the Landscape Consultant is found in Attachment #11. In the
review memo, Mastey notes that the submitted Landscape Plan (L1-L6) and Tree Inventory
and Preservation Plan comply with the City’s ordinances related to landscaping and tree
preservation/replacement. It should be noted that the Landscape Plan as proposed includes
street tree plantings on the outside of the sidewalk, as opposed to in between the street and
sidewalk. As this location is typically reserved for private utilities, staff would recommend
that the Landscape Plan be revised to locate all boulevard trees in between the street and the
sidewalk (Condition #7). The requested modifications pertaining to plant location, as well as
the identification of plant species, can be incorporated into the Final Landscape Plan.
• Green Belt/Buffer. The Comprehensive Plan identifies an area north of the Boulder Ponds
plat as a greenway/buffer space with a minimum width of 100 feet. Throughout the Boulder
Ponds subdivision, the provided greenbelt complies with, and in many locations exceeds, the
100-foot greenbelt requirement. Consistent with City planning efforts, the applicant has
included a trail improvement within the greenbelt to act as a linear park amenity. In addition,
trail connections through this area will provide access to the Savona subdivision and beyond
to the east and Stonegate Park in the west. It should also be noted that a large portion of the
provided greenbelt is subject to a Northern States Power (Xcel Energy) easement.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
11
• Streets. The proposed street system has been designed to comply with all applicable
subdivision requirements and City engineering standards. The general street system of the
Boulder Ponds development is designed to have a curvilinear aesthetic. As part of the
subdivision, three cul-de-sacs are proposed. All of the proposed cul-de-sacs comply with the
maximum length (600 feet) for cul-de-sacs in sewered residential subdivisions per the City’s
Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, it should be noted that the applicants are proposing tear-
drop or enlarged cul-de-sac with inner islands to provide additional visual interest and
improved sightlines. In reviewing the design of the proposed cul-de-sacs, the Fire Chief and
public works staff have voiced concern over the function and maintenance of the proposed
design. However, the applicants have submitted turning radius exhibits (Attachment #7)
demonstrating that emergency service vehicles are able to navigate the proposed islands. It
should also be noted that the designs of the cul-de-sacs were discussed as part of the approval
of the General Concept Plan. At that time, the Planning Commission and City Council
supported the design of the proposed cul-de-sacs. Other comments from Staff concerning
streets are as follows:
o Secondary Access. The proposed development includes a new access to Hudson
Boulevard that will be constructed as part of the first project phase, and will include
the construction of a portion of 5th Street as well. Because there have been no
approvals to date for any additional extensions of 5th Street, there is no set timeline
for the creation of a secondary access point to the site. Because 5th Street will be
built with adjacent subdivisions, Staff is not recommending any restrictions
concerning the timing of project phases within Boulder Ponds.
o 5th Street. The development plans have been prepared to comply with the City’s
approved design for 5th Street with the exceptions listed in the City Engineer’s
memorandum. The developer will be responsible to construct this minor collector
road as part of the initial development plans, and in accordance with the phasing
depicted in the attached plans. The final construction plans will need to include all
lighting, landscaping, and other details as required by the City.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for the future extension of 5th Street further to the west
of the applicant’s property; however, in order to make this connection the owner of
the property immediately to the west of the site (Bremer Financial Services) will need
to give its consent to the proposed layout for 5th Street since it crosses through the
extreme northeastern portion of its property in the Eagle Point Business Park. The
attached application materials have been signed by Bremer Bank, which satisfactorily
addresses this concern.
• Street Names. Along with the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan, the applicants
have submitted proposed street names that relate to the proposed name of the subdivision,
Boulder Ponds. In developing the street names for the newly platted or developing areas of
Lake Elmo, Staff has been utilizing the Washington County street naming system. The
purpose of utilizing the County system is to provide emergency services and public works
personnel knowledge of the general location of a property in cases of emergency or general
public projects. While staff is sensitive to the applicant’s wish or desire to provide street
names that reflect the theme of the proposed development, staff is recommending that the
proposed subdivision adhere to the County street naming system to the best extent possible.
As a condition of approval (Condition #4), Staff is asking that the applicant continue to work
with the City at developing street names for the project, and that these names be included
with the final plat submission.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
12
• City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has submitted a detailed list of comments
concerning the preliminary plat and plans as part of a memorandum to the City dated July 24,
2014, which includes a separate review of the 5th Street plans conducted by a transportation
engineer from TKDA. While the report itself is quite lengthy, many of the comments pertain
to relatively minor plan revisions or construction details that should not result in any
significant changes to the preliminary plat document. For example, some of the comments
concerning grading may impact the ability to build a home with a walkout basement (as
opposed to a lookout basement), but would not otherwise alter the lots as proposed. Rather
than restating all issues and concerns as identified by the City Engineer, Staff is
recommending a condition of approval (Condition #5) that will require the applicant to
address all comment from the City Engineer in subsequent plan reviews.
• Fire Department Review. The Fire Chief has reviewed the plat and has submitted a review
memorandum (Attachment #10) dated 7/23/14. Included in the Fire Chief’s comments is
concern over the design of the enlarged “teardrop” cul-de-sacs. It should be noted that the
applicants have submitted a turning radius exhibit to demonstrate that a ladder truck can
effectively navigate the proposed cul-de-sacs. In addition to the concern over the cul-de-sacs,
the Fire Chief has noted that the proposed street names for the subdivision do not comply
with the Washington County street naming system, which the City has been utilizing for
recently approved plats. Staff would recommend that the applicants work with City to
determine appropriate street names for the subdivision in advance of Final Plat approval
(Condition #4).
• Watershed Districts. The project area lies within the South Washington Watershed District
(SWWD). The Boulder Ponds project has already submitted a watershed district permit, and
the permit has been conditionally approved. The conditions related to the watershed district
approval include compliance with NPDES permitting requirement and verification of soil
conditions rough on-site testing. Staff is recommending that adherence to the SWWD permit
requirement be included as a condition of approval (Condition #3).
Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat
and preliminary PUD plan with 11 conditions intended to address the outstanding issues noted above
and to further clarify the City’s expectations in order for the developer to move forward with a final
plat and final PUD plan. The recommended conditions are divided into two categories to better
communicate the purpose and intent of the conditions. The recommended conditions are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Pending Review and Approvals
1) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the
commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City
Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said
plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site.
2) The developer shall be required to submit an updated parkland dedication calculation in
advance of Final Plat. Upon submission of the calculation, the applicant must work with the
City to achieve the required parkland dedication amount per the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance. The developer shall be required to pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication
equivalent to the fair market value for the amount of land that is required to be dedicated for
such purposes in the City’s Subdivision Ordinance less the amount of land that is accepted
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
13
for park purposes by the City. Any cash payment in lieu of land dedication shall be paid by
the applicant prior to the release of the final plat for recording.
3) The developer must follow all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act, and
adhere to the conditions of approval for the South Washington Watershed District Permit.
4) The applicant shall work with the Planning Staff to name all streets in the subdivision in a
manner acceptable to the City prior to the submission of final plat.
Modifications to the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans
5) The Final Plat and Plans must include the requested modifications outlined in the City
Engineer’s review memorandum dated 7/24/14.
6) In addition to standard easements require by the Subdivision Ordinance, additional drainage
and utility easements must be provided extending 10 feet from meandering sidewalks, as well
as all of the portion of private lots between meandering sidewalks and the public right-of-
way.
7) The landscape plan shall be updated to locate all boulevards trees in between the public street
and sidewalk to not interfere with private utilities.
8) All islands and medians shall be platted as part of the right-of-way and shall be maintained
by the Home Owners Association. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement
with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed
in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the final plat.
9) The design of the northern buffer trail shall be modified to a width of 8 feet as opposed to the
regional trail standard of 10 feet.
10) The plan and profile for the eastern limits of 5th Street shall match the preliminary
development plans for the Savona Subdivision or will otherwise be revised in a manner to
meet the requirements of the City Engineer.
Plat Restrictions
11) Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat, the
Developer shall enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that
delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of public
improvements.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the proposed Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan:
• That the Boulder Ponds PUD General Concept Plan was approved by the City on December
17, 2013, and the submitted Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan is consistent with the
approved General Concept Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
14
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan are consistent with the
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan generally comply with
the City’s LDR- Urban Low Density Residential and MDR – Urban Medium Density
Residential zoning districts.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with the City’s
subdivision ordinance.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with the City’s
Planned Unit Development Regulations.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with City’s
Engineering Standards, except where noted in the review memorandum from the City
Engineer dated 7/24/14.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with other City
zoning ordinances, such as landscaping, tree preservation, and erosion and sediment control.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan achieve multiple
identified objectives for planned developments within Lake Elmo.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Boulder Ponds
Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan with the 11 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff
report. Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan
with the 11 conditions of approval as drafted by Staff based on the findings of fact listed in the
Staff Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Application Forms and Project Narrative
3. Updated Lot Summary
4. Site Survey
5. Preliminary Plat (4 sheets)
6. Preliminary Plans (49 sheets)
7. Turning Radius Exhibits
8. Alternative Site Plans w/Narrative
9. City Engineer Review Memorandum, dated 7/24/14
10. Fire Chief Review Memorandum, dated 7/24/14
11. Landscape Consultant Review Memorandum, dated 7/23/14
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
15
12. South Washington Watershed District Permit, dated 7/8/14
13. Not Included in Packet – Available Upon Request:
a. Street Cross Section Details
b. Plan Details
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Data Scource: Washington County, MN
12-4-2013
Location Map: Boulder Ponds PUD
K
STONEGATEPARK
STONEGATE
EAGLE POINT BUSINESS PARK
BREMERBANK
EAGLE POINT BLVD.
H
U
D
S
O
N
B
L
V
D
.
0 500 1,000250 Feet
1"=500'
Boulder Ponds Site
BOULDER PONDS, Lake Elmo
Preliminary Plat Lot Summary - Updated
7/24/2014
Lot Block Addn Sq. Ft.Acres Use Zoning
Min Required
Lot Size (SF)
per Zoning
Meets
Underlying
Zoning
Requirements?
1 1 1st 17,447 0.40 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
2 1 1st 11,579 0.27 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
3 1 1st 13,465 0.31 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
4 1 1st 10,790 0.25 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
5 1 1st 11,535 0.26 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
6 1 1st 8,908 0.20 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
7 1 1st 8,907 0.20 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
8 1 1st 8,438 0.19 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
9 1 1st 8,724 0.20 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
10 1 1st 8,725 0.20 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
11 1 1st 10,999 0.25 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
12 1 1st 9,338 0.21 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
13 1 1st 8,562 0.20 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
14 1 1st 10,419 0.24 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
15 1 1st 11,194 0.26 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
16 1 1st 7,729 0.18 Villa LDR 8,000 No
17 1 1st 7,549 0.17 Villa LDR 8,000 No
18 1 1st 10,519 0.24 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
19 1 1st 9,091 0.21 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
20 1 1st 8,993 0.21 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
1 2 1st 15,836 0.36 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
2 2 1st 9,873 0.23 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
3 2 1st 8,620 0.20 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
4 2 1st 8,005 0.18 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
5 2 1st 9,105 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
6 2 1st 11,483 0.26 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
1 3 1st 11,788 0.27 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
2 3 1st 8,428 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
3 3 1st 8,305 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
4 3 1st 7,935 0.18 Single Family LDR 8,000 No
5 3 1st 8,174 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
6 3 1st 10,298 0.24 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
7 3 1st 7,341 0.17 Single Family LDR 8,000 No
8 3 1st 7,206 0.17 Single Family LDR 8,000 No
9 3 1st 8,128 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
10 3 1st 7,951 0.18 Single Family LDR 8,000 No
11 3 1st 9,261 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
1 4 1st 8,716 0.20 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
2 4 1st 9,510 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
Lot Block Addn Sq. Ft.Acres Use Zoning
Min Required
Lot Size (SF)
per Zoning
Meets
Underlying
Zoning
Requirements?
3 4 1st 9,309 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
4 4 1st 9,199 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
5 4 1st 8,532 0.20 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
6 4 1st 8,480 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
7 4 1st 7,959 0.18 Single Family LDR 8,000 No
8 4 1st 10,046 0.23 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
9 4 1st 8,255 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
10 4 1st 8,280 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
1 1 2nd 8,192 0.19 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
2 1 2nd 7,347 0.17 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
3 1 2nd 8,040 0.18 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
4 1 2nd 8,909 0.20 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
5 1 2nd 9,934 0.23 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
6 1 2nd 9,814 0.23 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
7 1 2nd 10,214 0.23 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
8 1 2nd 13,582 0.31 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
9 1 2nd 18,906 0.43 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
10 1 2nd 11,049 0.25 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
11 1 2nd 8,680 0.20 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
12 1 2nd 9,975 0.23 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
13 1 2nd 8,194 0.19 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
14 1 2nd 8,994 0.21 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
15 1 2nd 8,614 0.20 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
16 1 2nd 10,965 0.25 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
17 1 2nd 10,413 0.24 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
18 1 2nd 9,667 0.22 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
1 2 2nd 17,402 0.40 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
2 2 2nd 12,514 0.29 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
3 2 2nd 9,526 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
4 2 2nd 9,327 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
5 2 2nd 9,190 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
6 2 2nd 9,336 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
7 2 2nd 9,636 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
8 2 2nd 8,346 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
9 2 2nd 8,334 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
10 2 2nd 8,399 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
11 2 2nd 8,251 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
12 2 2nd 8,173 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
1 3 2nd 12,072 0.28 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
2 3 2nd 12,282 0.28 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
3 3 2nd 10,757 0.25 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
4 3 2nd 12,142 0.28 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
Lot Block Addn Sq. Ft.Acres Use Zoning
Min Required
Lot Size (SF)
per Zoning
Meets
Underlying
Zoning
Requirements?
5 3 2nd 10,616 0.24 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
6 3 2nd 14,503 0.33 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
7 3 2nd 9,558 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
8 3 2nd 9,598 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
9 3 2nd 9,748 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
10 3 2nd 8,443 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
11 3 2nd 8,019 0.18 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
12 3 2nd 8,064 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
13 3 2nd 8,839 0.20 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
14 3 2nd 10,171 0.23 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
15 3 2nd 9,960 0.23 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
16 3 2nd 9,552 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
17 3 2nd 10,732 0.25 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
18 3 2nd 9,720 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
19 3 2nd 8,964 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
20 3 2nd 10,649 0.24 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
21 3 2nd 15,226 0.35 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
Outlot A 5,933 0.14 Cul De Sac
Outlot B 3,447 0.08 Cul De Sac
Outlot C 4,882 0.11 Cul De Sac
Outlot D 4,451 0.10 Cul De Sac
Outlot E 402 0.01
Outlot F 3,837 0.09
Outlot G 561 0.01
Outlot H 2,779 0.06
Outlot I 3,209 0.07
Outlot J 152,517 3.50 Commercial
Outlot K 107,367 2.46
Outlot L 64,584 1.48 Com'l Ponding
Outlot M 183,427 4.21 Commercial
Outlot N 109,350 2.51 Ponding
Outlot O 105,070 2.41 Ponding
Outlot P 45,027 1.03 Ponding
Outlot Q 73,704 1.69
42.22 TOTAL SITE ACREAGE
Wetland/Ponding
Parkway Median
Parkway Median
Parkway Median
Parkway Median
Parkway Median
Senior Housing - 64 Units
N
N
N
12
0
D
E
G
.
12
0
D
E
G
.
12
0
D
E
G
.
NOTES:1) CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE WITH PIN THE ROOT FLARE OF EACH TREE PRIOR TO DIGGING THE PLANTING PIT. (THE FLARE IS THE TRANSITION ZONE BETWEEN THE MAIN STEM AND THE ROOT SYSTEM.)2) REMOVE SOIL FROM TOP OF ROOTBALL TO EXPOSE TOP OF FLARE. TREES WITH MORE THAN 2" OF EXCESS SOIL ABOVE THE FLARE WILL BE REJECTED. MEASURE DISTANCE BETWEEN FLARE AND BOTTOM OF ROOTBALL. SUBTRACT 10% TO DETERMINE DEPTH OF PLANTING PIT.3) DIG PIT TO DEPTH DETERMINED ABOVE. PIT SHALL BE DISHED WITH SIDEWALLS AS SHOWN BELOW. SCARIFY WALLS AND BOTTOM OF PIT.4.) SET TREE IN PIT SO THAT FLARE IS ONE TO TWO INCHES ABOVE SURROUNDING GRADE.5) IN ALL AREAS WITH HEAVY CLAY OR POORLY DRAINED SOILS (MOTTLING), CONTACT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. TREE MAY BE RELOCATED OR ROOTBALL FURTHER ELEVATED.
ST
A
K
I
N
G
D
I
A
G
R
A
M
GE
N
E
R
A
L
N
O
T
E
S
:
”
BOULDER PONDS
Alternate Site Plans
7/18/14 The housing market is ever changing and being able to react to these changes is important in delivering what consumers desire. In order to be flexible as market conditions dictate, we are requesting approval of 3 alternative site plans at the time of PUD/Preliminary Plat for Boulder Ponds. Generally, the alternatives allow for an empty nester-type product in place of the traditional single family homes. The alternate plans include three options; this request is to allow flexibility to implement one or all three as market conditions dictate. The Preliminary Plat proposes a total of 98 detached lots. The three options increase the lot count by 9 to a total of 107 lots. Below is a summary of each option:
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHBIT C Original lot count (as shown on Preliminary Plat) 18 26 10 Proposed lot count (as shown on Alt Plans) 20 31 12 Difference in lot count +2 +5 +2 Min. Setbacks (as shown on Preliminary Plat) Front: 20’ house/25’ garage Side: 5’ min/10’ avg Front: 20’ house/25’ garage Side: 5’ min/10’ avg Front: 20’ house/25’ garage Side: 5’ min/10’ avg Min. Setbacks (as shown on Alt Plans) Front: 20’/25’ front facing garage Side: 5’ Rear: 10’ to covered porch Front: 20’/25’ front facing garage Side: 5’ Rear: 10’ to covered porch Front: 20’/25’ front facing garage Side: 5’ Rear: 10’ to covered porch The goal in designing the alternative site plans was to create options that could introduce a different product type while preserving the spirit of the neighborhood, which includes curvilinear streets, meandering walks and varied setbacks. In response, narrower lots are proposed within the same street layout. The product is a single level detached home with association maintained grounds that is geared toward empty nesters. In keeping with the intent of the original proposed design, home placement on the lot is important to maximize view corridors. This is accomplished by angling the lots and varying the setbacks. Staggering the lots along with strategic window and interior room placement maximizes the view sheds from inside the home. Instead of looking in your neighbor’s home, views of the ponds and open space are achieved. Additionally, the lot layout allows most homes to have a side-loaded garage, which downplays this typically prominent feature of the home. Now, the entry becomes the focal point of the front elevation. This staggered, angled approach avoids the traditional row appearance to the streetscape making it more visually interesting. This is also evident along 5th Street, where the best side of the home is showcased. In summary, it is important to maintain product flexibility to meet the demands of changing demographics while upholding the intent of the underlying design concepts. This is what will make Boulder Ponds a success.
PAGE 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 24, 2014
To: Nick Johnson, City Planner Re: Bolder Ponds
Cc: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Preliminary Plat Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Bolder Ponds development. A Preliminary Plan submittal was
received consisting of the following documentation prepared by Evolution Engineering and Design or as noted:
Preliminary Site and Construction Plans dated June 2, 2014.
Project Manual for Grading, Roadway and Utility Improvements dated June 2, 2014.
Preliminary Plat dated June 2, 2014 prepared by E.G.Rud and Sons, Inc.
Hydrology Report, no date.
Wetland Delineation Report dated May 29, 2014 prepared by SEH, Inc.
Turning Templates dated May 30, 2014 prepared by SEH, Inc.
Xcel Energy Transmission Easement Agreement dated July 21, 2014.
STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering review comments have been limited for the purpose of Preliminary Plat issues.
Additional Final Construction Plan review and comments will be provided once Preliminary Plat approval is
granted for the development. Engineering review comments are as outlined below.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The construction of 5th Street North is required as part of the Bolder Ponds development. The construction
plans include 5th Street North as part of the Plan set. The Preliminary Plat must be revised to include the full
R/W area to accommodate the construction of 5th Street North, including the added R/W required from the
Bremer Financial Services property. This added area needs to be Platted as R/W.
The street median Outlots should be Platted as public R/W. The City should use maintenance agreements
with the HOA to facilitate the landscape maintenance of the median areas. The Preliminary Plat should be
revised accordingly.
Additional R/W must be obtained along the east side of Cobblestone Plaza such that the R/W extends an
additional 80 feet, well past the Cobblestone Path intersection.
Additional easement is required to provide a minimum 30‐foot utility easement for the storm sewer pipe
run from CS‐600 to FES‐600C. Part of this easement must be acquired from the adjacent Eagle Point Town
Office property.
Additional easement is required to provide a minimum 30‐foot utility easement for the storm sewer pipe
run from CBMH 806 to CBMH 801.
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4285
PAGE 2 of 6
WATERMAIN AND SANITARY SEWER PLANS
Sanitary sewer and watermain stubs to adjacent property and pipe oversizing will continue to be reviewed
by City staff as the development progresses forward and oversizing routes may need to be changed as part
of the final construction plans. Sewer and watermain oversizing is paid by the City as a reimbursement
addressed within the development agreement.
Sewer oversizing may be required from Hudson Boulevard to the Azur property or an 8‐inch sewer
may need to be stubbed north on 5th Street to the Azur property.
The 12‐inch watermain oversize is appropriate as shown on the proposed plans. Additional
oversizing may need to be extended to the site of Well No. 3, pending further staff review.
The 12‐inch watermain stub location at Outlot Q must be coordinated with Lennar to verify that
the stub is placed in the appropriate location.
Sewer and water stubs may be needed to the north edge of the Lampert Lumber and or Cranky Ape
properties.
Sewer and water stubs may be needed from 5th Street to Outlot N for service to the property south
of Bremer Financial Services.
Sanitary sewer and watermain stubs have been proposed along Cobblestone Plaza to serve future
commercial developments at Outlots K, J and M. The size and location of these stubs require further review
with the applicant.
Detailed Sanitary Sewer and Watermain construction plans were submitted as part of the Preliminary Plat
application. A detailed construction plan review will be completed upon Preliminary Plat approval.
However, comments below have been provided for the applicant’s use and information:
Hydrant and system valve placement will be made per City standards and as laid out by City staff.
Applicant shall submit an overall watermain plan for staff redlines.
Utility alignments will be necessary to better maintain the sewer and water within the street
section, in particular in areas where the street meanders or divides. Sanitary sewer MH’s must be
moved to centerline or center of drive lanes (i.e. MH 10, MH 23 and MH 36).
Utility alignments will be necessary to eliminate or minimize the use of watermain insulation.
Watermain insulation will only be allowed when alignment alternatives are not available.
Watermain shall be placed to maintain appropriate storm sewer pipe separation.
Sanitary sewer along Boulder Ponds Parkway may terminate after the service stub to Lot 11, Block
4, eliminating roughly 60 feet of sewer pipe.
Sanitary sewer along Pebblestone Place may terminate after the service stub to Lot 8, Block 4,
eliminating roughly 70 feet of sewer pipe.
Sewer and water service stubs should be revised to eliminate bends and shall be perpendicular to
the street whenever feasible.
Stationing must be added to all profiles.
Profile elevation labels must be corrected for accuracy.
The existing watermain must be shown in plan and profile along Hudson Boulevard.
Correct “Existing Ground” and “Proposed Grade” call‐outs on Sheet 9, Pebblestone Ridge Cove –
12” Watermain Loop Profile.
Add hydrant at 12” plug on 5th Street (at approximate STA 21+90) for flushing purposes.
Add vertical bends to accommodate severe grade changes at the Pebblestone Place watermain
loop.
GRADING, STORM WATER MANGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL AND STORM SEWER SYSTEM
Preliminary Plat approval should be contingent upon additional plan revisions needed to provide a grading
plan, storm water management plan and storm sewer system that complies with the requirements of the
City of Lake Elmo Engineering Design Standards Manual.
PAGE 3 of 6
Grading plans must be resubmitted to include existing and proposed contours for a distance of 150 feet
from all edges of the proposed Plat. Staff review can continue upon receipt.
Relocate Outlot L retaining wall to Outlot M. This should be owned privately, not by the City.
Outlot M retaining wall requires greater separation from the proposed storm sewer pipe.
Permission to grade and install storm sewer pipe is required from the adjacent Eagle Point Town Office Park
for infrastructure behind Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, First Addition and potentially for the storm sewer run from
this location to Hudson Blvd.
There are three new proposed storm water discharge points to Hudson Boulevard:
Two new discharges to the south side of Hudson Blvd requires MnDOT permission. This permission
is required before plan approval can be provided and any grading work can begin.
One discharge point is along the north side of Hudson Blvd. owned by the City. Additional detail is
needed before the City can determine acceptance of this new storm water discharge.
Lot 1, Block 1, Second Addition does not conform to City requirements for flood protection from Infiltration
Basin 3C. The lot building type or grading for this lot and adjacent Outlot must be revised accordingly.
Storm sewer pipe alignments must be revised to better maintain the storm sewer within the street
footprint. Areas include:
Bolder Ponds Parkway, between Outlot F and 5th Street.
Pebblestone Place, from Bolder Ponds Parkway to cul‐de‐sac.
Pebblestone Terrace, near the cul‐de‐sac.
Storm sewer must be a minimum of 15 feet from proposed retaining walls (near MH 1004).
Storm sewer catch basins should be relocated from corners per the City standard details.
All proposed pipe crossings must be perpendicular to street alignment (i.e. CB 516A and CB 515A).
Infiltration basin 2A Retaining Wall should be eliminated or relocated onto the adjacent private property.
It appears that the wall can be eliminated if the adjacent lot is not a walk out. It is not recommended that
the City take on ownership of this retaining wall.
The double retaining walls located in the Xcel Transmission easement area should be eliminated or
relocated onto the adjacent private property. It appears that the walls can be eliminated if the adjacent lots
are not walk out lots. It is not recommended that the City take on ownership of these retaining walls.
The HWL must be provided for Infiltration Basin 1B.
The storm sewer system or grading plans must be revised to provide the City standard minimum pipe cover
of 3.5 feet. Changes must be made as part of the final construction plans. Several structures or pipe runs
do not meet this minimum, but it appears these changes can be made without impact to the Plat.
Drain tile is required as part of the City standard street section at all localized low points in the street. Drain
tile considerations may impact the storm sewer design and depth requirements at low points.
Storm sewer castings must comply with City of Lake Elmo Design Standards (i.e. proposed beehive castings).
The watershed has indicated that additional testing is required to verify the assumed infiltration rates at
each basin. The City standard is to require multiple tests at each location and not allowing tests taken in
the vicinity. Plan revisions may be required if rates do not support the design assumptions.
The plan must be updated to indicate wetland buffers for staff review.
STREET, SIDEWALK AND TRAIL PLANS
5TH STREET NORTH:
5th Street seeks to become the backbone of future development along the I94 corridor, essentially
becoming the primary access in and out of the future neighborhoods. The street is required for the sole
purpose to provide mobility to support the growth and development within the corridor. The quality of the
street and its connections are critically important. The purpose of the proposed street standards are to 1)
improve the function, mobility and appearance of the street, 2) encourage pedestrian and bicycle use, and
3) reduce the potential for speeding.
PAGE 4 of 6
The plan indicates a minimum 100 foot R/W as required, except for the additional R/W to be acquired from
Bremer Financial Services. This area must be Platted as public R/W.
The proposed 2‐lane collector Parkway street (5th Street) design and geometrics must meet all Municipal
State Aid design standards for urban streets (8820.9936) for ADT > 10,000; 40 mph design speed; and must
be consistent with the detailed Parkway cross section installed throughout the remaining corridor
segments.
The plans must include the City standard typical cross sections for 5th Street to ensure construction details
are followed accordingly, including turn lane configurations.
The proposed alignment is consistent with the State Aid design intent. However, the proposed plan
indicates impacts to adjacent properties. The applicant must coordinate the design of 5th Street with each
adjacent property and must show the proposed plan and profile for a distance of 150 feet beyond the Plat
for both Azur properties/Bremer and Lennar/Alan Dale. The matching profiles must be agreed to by all
impacted properties.
Access spacing to 5th Street meets the guidelines for the Cities Transportation Plan. A full access is proposed
at Boulder Ponds Parkway near the middle of the Plat and a partial access with Boulder Ponds Parkway at
the north end. Additional access to 5th Street is not recommended throughout the remaining corridor. It is
recommended that potential future access by Lampert Lumber and/or Cranky Ape properties be through
Boulder Ponds Parkway or a future street to the east, then to 5th Street as part of a full access.
The signing and striping plan for 5th Street, Sheet SS1, must be updated to meet state aid standards and the
5th Street typical section detail for turn lanes. Signage and pavement markings for cross walks should meet
the City standard for cross walk markings.
It is recommended that the 5th Street trail and sidewalks maintain the consistent boulevard alignment and
layout per the City approved 5th Street typical section.
The trail and sidewalk intersection crossings should occur within the R/W at the corners (see
attached TKDA Traffic Engineering review memo). 5th Street does not have a stop condition and
therefore the safer pedestrian crossing locations will be at the intersection corners.
The sidewalk along the south of 5th Street should connect the median walk to the west boulevard
walk.
The second crosswalk should be provided along the east side of the 5th Street/Boulder Ponds
Parkway and the signing and striping plan updated accordingly.
Pavement marking crosswalks should also be added for east‐west crossings.
A second 5th Street pedestrian crossing location should be considered near the north end of the
Plat at the Xcel Transmission easement area before 5th Street begins the next horizontal curve into
Azur properties.
Per the TKDA Traffic engineering review memo, the 5th Street and cross street medians must be adjusted
so that they do not extend into the intersection. Medians should terminate at the cross street curb line.
The proposed medians interfere with left turn movements and plowing operations.
Revise the 5th Street vertical sag curve to K=64 at STA 14+50. Minimum sag curve for 40 mph road is 64.
Corner curb radius must be 25 feet at 5th Street and must be shown on the plans.
Additional streetscape amenities are required along 5th Street consistent with the remaining corridor
segments and the City design standard for 5th Street.
A detailed review of these plans are completed by the City’s Landscape Architect.
The plans must be detailed and dimensioned to indicate the specific locations for all trees, light
poles, signs and utilities. This R/W corridor is very tight and specific spacing between amenities is
critical to a successful design. A 2‐foot clear zone must be maintained on each side of the trail and
sidewalk at all locations to meet state aid design standards.
HUDSON BOULEVARD TURN LANE:
Dedicated turn lanes are being provided along Hudson Boulevard to access the development at
Cobblestone Plaza. The signing and striping plan for Hudson Blvd, Sheet TL1, must be updated to meet the
current posted 50 mph design speed.
PAGE 5 of 6
RESIDENTIAL STREETS
The applicant is proposing a roadway configuration that is generally acceptable and in accordance with City
standard requirements. Primary and secondary access appears adequate for the site.
The plan indicates that residential streets are being proposed to a 28 foot width from back of curb to back
of curb. Surmountable concrete curb and gutter are proposed in single family residential areas and B618
curb is proposed in commercial and multi‐family areas.
The plan indicates a minimum 60 foot R/W as required.
The residential streets propose several medians that spilt the traffic into 2‐one way drive lanes. It is
recommended that plans be revised such that each lane is a minimum of 20 feet from face of curb to face
of curb to meet minimum fire lane requirements.
The intersection of Pebblestone Terrace and Pebblestone Place create a very unique and unfamiliar
intersection.
Turning templates must be submitted to verify appropriate curb radius at all median curb corners
and curb radius lengthened when required (i.e T‐S and H‐I).
The sidewalk crossing(s) at this intersection must be reviewed and relocated to provide safe
crossing(s) with snow storage considerations. The proposed crossing at Outlot F is not
recommended.
The intersection of Cobblestone Path should be moved south as far as possible to provide added separation
from the median at Outlot I. This becomes more important if a full access is contemplated in the future to
serve the Cranky Ape and Lampert Lumber properties.
Consideration should be given to shortening the Outlot I median.
The R/W along the east side of Boulder Ponds Parkway, across from Cobblestone Path, should be
extended further south at least 80 feet to facilitate a potential future road connection.
Corner curb radius must be indicated on the plans. For local streets a 20‐foot radius must be used.
Minimum K‐value for sag curves is 37. Revise sag curves along Pebblestone Place, Pebblestone Terrace, and
Pebblestone Ridge Cove. Grades between 1+00 and 3+50 along Pebblestone Terrace should be revised to
create a smoother transition and lesson the 5.45% grade, in particular since this road grade is a result of
the area being filled.
Minimum K‐value for crest curves is 19. Revise crest curve along Pebblestone Ridge Cove. Grades along this
road should be somewhat reduced, in particular since the area is being filled.
The Pebbelstone Ridge Cove Plan View on sheet 24 must be revised to plan scale to facilitate plan review.
Cul‐de‐sac geometry must be revised as follows:
The pavement width must be a minimum of 20 feet from face of curb to face of curb around cul‐
de‐sacs to accommodate emergency vehicle access.
With a 20 foot minimum pavement width, all cul‐de‐sacs must be signed as “No Parking Any Time”.
The proposed cul‐de‐sac medians show a tear drop design at the cul‐de‐sac entrance. The tear drop
must be revised to create a more rounded median to better facilitate snow plowing and emergency
access.
BOULEVARD LAYOUT ALONG RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Applicant is proposing a non‐standard boulevard layout which is not consistent with several City design
standards. It should be the applicant’s responsibility to submit proposed alternative design details as part
of the plan set that replaces the City standard design details that are not being met. This is required to detail
the proposed design both for City review and for construction purposes. Multiple details will be required
for the various boulevard layouts.
Construction plans must also be completely detailed for each varying condition because it cannot be left to
the various contractors to field locate all the different infrastructure components that must be closely
coordinated within the R/W corridor. Additional plan details must be submitted for staff review.
Meandering sidewalks and trails are proposed throughout the development. Sidewalks and trails outside
of the R/W create on‐going operation and maintenance difficulties. The following is strongly recommended
if the sidewalks are allowed to meander outside of the R/W:
PAGE 6 of 6
Sidewalk and trail easements shall be in a form created by the City.
The easements shall extend from the R/W to the sidewalk/trail and extend an additional 10 feet
past the sidewalk/trail to accommodate the utility corridor.
A plan must be submitted showing the sidewalk/trail setback from each garage front demonstrating
a minimum of 25 feet clearance to accommodate driveway parking without obstructing the
walkway.
Sidewalks along cul‐de‐sacs should extend around the outside of the cul‐de‐sac paved areas as
shown along Pebblestone Terrace to keep the sidewalk available for snow removal. Sidewalks
should not pass across the cul‐de‐sac island. This area must be preserved for significant snow
storage.
The plans must provide a detailed small utility corridor plan for City review and consideration which
addresses small utility installation when crossing/interfering with sidewalks.
On Sheet 28 the trail must be revised to maintain a maximum trail grade at 6%. Location to edge of Plat
must be coordinated with the Lennar development.
PROJECT MANUAL / SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD DETAILS
A detailed Project Manual / Specifications were submitted as part of the Preliminary Plat application. A
detailed review will be completed upon Preliminary Plat approval. However, comments below have been
provided for the applicant’s use and information:
The governing specifications shall be the City Standard Specifications. These specifications,
currently placed in the back of the project manual in Section 8, shall be placed near the front of
the manual.
The general requirements shall state the following: “The City Standard Specifications shall apply to
the work performed under this contract. Any supplemental specifications are intended to
supplement the City Standard Specifications; however they do NOT supersede the City Standard
Specifications, Details, Design Standards, or ordinances unless specific written approval has been
provided by the City.”
Any additional specifications for the project shall be clearly identified as “Supplemental
Provisions” not "Special Provisions".
Geotechnical Report. The report must be resubmitted so that exhibits are legible. A plan must be submitted
showing the soil boring locations with respect to the proposed improvements. Once received, additional
borings may be requested to support the proposed pavement designs (i.e. along 5th Street or other local
roadways).
Retaining Walls must be designed by a Professional Registered Engineer licensed in Minnesota. The design
engineer of record will be required to certify that the walls were constructed in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications.
Standard Details:
Water Services to be extended to edge of utility easement, at least 10 feet beyond property line.
Applicant’s standard detail must be corrected.
Sign details to be per City standards. Add City standard sign details and plan notes.
Memorandum
To: Ryan Stempski Reference:Boulder Ponds Development
Copies To: Traffic Review
City of Lake Elmo
From: Bryant Ficek Project No.:15545.000
Date: June 27, 2014 Routing:
Geometric plans and cross sections for the proposed 5th Street corridor of the Boulder Ponds
development were sent for our review on June 18. In addition to the plans, the City’s desired
typical sections and design guidelines were provided. Per your request, this information was
reviewed in terms of conformance to State Aid standards. The design of the medians at
intersections and the locations of crosswalks were additional issues raised for our review. The
provided information is attached to this memorandum for reference.
The proposed development is located on the north side of I-94 and the Hudson Boulevard
frontage road, between Inwood Avenue and Keats Avenue. As identified in the City’s
Transportation Plan of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, a future collector roadway is expected to
be located about halfway between 10th Street N and Hudson Boulevard. This new road is
expected to provide for east-west travel between Inwood Avenue and Keats Avenue and
beyond. The projected daily volume for this new roadway is 5,000 vehicles. The proposed
development’s 5th Street is anticipated to become part of that new collector roadway.
State Aid Standards
The MnDOT State Aid office provides design guidance in terms of lane widths and other
roadway design details. Satisfaction of these guidelines means that a roadway is eligible to
become a State Aid route, which then makes the road eligible for future maintenance and
improvement funding.
Based upon the information provided, the design of 5th Street meets the City’s desired
standards, which also satisfy the State Aid standards. The provided right-of-way, lane widths,
and median widths meet or exceed the State Aid minimums, assuming a posted speed limit of
40 mph or less. Horizontal and vertical curves also meet the minimum standards for a 40 mph
roadway. Pavement sections were not provided to check against the State Aid standard of a
9-ton roadway. However, the City’s desired standards call for a 10-ton roadway. Assuming that
5th Street continues to match the City’s desired standards, this detail would also satisfy the
State Aid standards.
Memo Page 2 June 27, 2014
Boulder Ponds Development Traffic Review
City of Lake Elmo
Pedestrian Movements
The design shows a 10-foot trail on one side of 5th Street and a 6-foot sidewalk on the other. A
wide boulevard separates the trail and sidewalk from the road except where right-turn lanes are
introduced. Based on our review of the layout of the trail and sidewalk, our comments are:
• The trail moves away from 5th Street at intersections, providing approximately 30 feet
between the pedestrian crossing area and the vehicle stopping point. This is similar to
pedestrian crossing treatments at roundabouts, allowing vehicles to focus on pedestrian
movements first, followed by a focus on other vehicle movements. At stop controlled
intersections, this approach is acceptable. Appropriate signing and striping should be
used to notify drivers of the pedestrian crossing area.
• Only one crossing of 5th Street is shown, on the west side of the Boulder Ponds
Parkway intersection. Assuming that this intersection is under side-street stop control,
with 5th Street traffic not stopping, the crossing should be located at the intersection
rather than set back approximately 30 feet as shown. When traffic will not stop or slow at
the intersection, setting the pedestrian crossing back in this manner does not offer
benefits to the driver or the pedestrian.
• Additional crossings of 5th Street should be considered, including mid-block crossings.
Connections to and from development outlots not at intersections could also be
considered. For instance, a sidewalk/trail connection linking outlot C to the trail on the
north side of 5th Street with a mid-block crossing to the sidewalk on the south side of
5th Street may provide additional benefits for those residents. Proper signing and
striping should be used for all crossings to improve safety.
• At all crossings, the ramp to and from the roadway should be properly designed using
the latest ADA standards. The provided plans do not uniformly identify pedestrian ramps
at each crossing point, nor do they provide information regarding the pedestrian ramp
design for those that are identified.
• The south crossing of Boulder Ponds Parkway is not continuous across the intersection.
Pedestrian routes should be reviewed to ensure that the routes are continuous and do
not strand a pedestrian in a potentially dangerous situation, such as the middle of an
intersection.
Medians
As mentioned, the raised median on 5th Street meets the City’s desired standards in addition to
the minimum State Aid standards. At the intersections, the minimum 4-foot width (face-of-curb
to face-of-curb) is sufficient for those standards. However, a minimum width of 6 feet is desired
if the median is to be used as a pedestrian refuge at crossing locations. A minimum width of
6 feet is also better in terms of space for sign mounting. The minimum 6-foot width could be
achieved by reducing the left-turn lane and through lane to 11-foot widths at the intersections.
This change in lane width would still satisfy State Aid standards.
Memo Page 3 June 27, 2014
Boulder Ponds Development Traffic Review
City of Lake Elmo
Vehicle turning movements should be considered at the intersections in regard to the median
design as well. As currently shown in the plans, the median on 5th Street extends too far into
the intersection and would interfere with left turn and through movements from the side streets.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the information presented in this
memorandum, please contact me at 651.726.7944 or bryant.ficek@tkda.com.