HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet - 4-27-15
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, April 27, 2015 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. April 13, 2015
4. Public Hearing
a. FINAL PLAT AND FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLANS – INWOOD PUD.
The Planning commission will consider a request from Hans Hagen Homes, for a
Final Plat, Final PUD Plan, and related zoning map amendments for the first
phase of a mixed use development in Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area.
The final plat will facilitate the construction for 40 single family homes within the
initial development stage of project. The final plat includes detailed construction
plans for the public improvements to serve the development, including all
portions of 5th Street that cross the development site. The PID for the affected
parcels are: 33.029.21.12.0001; 33.029.21.12.0003; 33.029.21.11.0002; and
33.029.21.11.0001.
5. Business Items
a. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – FREEWAY SIGNS. This item is being
brought back as it was tabled at the last meeting. Rihm Kenworth has requested a
zoning text amendment to change the Sign Ordinance to allow freestanding signs
that are 25 feet in height and 250 square feet in area for properties/businesses
adjacent interstate highways. In addition to looking at the height and area for
freeway signs, the Planning Commission has also asked that staff bring
information regarding design standards forward.
b. FINAL PLAT – VILLAGE PRESERVE. The Planning Commission will
consider a request from GSWA Land Development, LLC, for the first phase of
the development located in the Village Planning area. The final plat will facilitate
the construction of 46 single family homes within the initial development stage of
the project
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates – April 21, 2015 Meeting
i. Zoning Map Amendment – Perfecting Amendment - approved.
2
ii. Easton Village Developer Agreement - approved
iii. Sign Variance – 8515 Eagle Point Blvd - approved
iv. Boulder Ponds – Zoning Map Amendment, Final Plat and PUD - approved
v. Boulder Ponds Developer Agreement - approved.
vi. Municipal Consent – Phase II Downtown Street and Utility Project –
approved.
b. Staff Updates
i. Upcoming Meetings:
May 11, 2015
May 27, 2015
c. Commission Concerns
7. Adjourn
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-13-15
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of April 13, 2015
Chairman Dodson called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Dodson, Kreimer, Fields, Griffin, Haggard and
Dorschner
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Larson
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt and City Planner Johnson
Approve Agenda:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Approve Minutes: March 23, 2015
M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to approve minutes as amended, Vote: 6-0, motion
carried, with Fields not voting.
Public Hearing: Sign Variance 8515 Eagle Point Boulevard
Johnson explained that the City has received a request from BDH and Young on behalf of
the Eagle Point Medical Center for a variance to allow a sign that is higher than allowed
under the zoning ordinance. He stated that the request is to install a 16-foot high sign
and that the zoning ordinance allows a maximum height of 12 feet for this type of sign.
Johnson reviewed information concerning the site and the applicant’s statement
concerning the justification for the variance. He specifically noted that elevation
changes on the site and the location of a wider easement along the western property
line limit the visibility of a sign that complies with the City’s height requirements for
signs.
Johnson reviewed draft findings of fact to support the granting of a variance with the
Planning Commission. Staff finds that the 4 criteria required to grant the variance has
been met. He noted that Washington County does not object to the granting of a
variance.
Haggard asked if there is any signage being placed on the building. Johnson stated that
the City has issued a sign permit for building signage that is allowed under the zoning
ordinance.
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-13-15
Dodson asked why construction had started on the sign in advance of the formal
variance request. Johnson replied that the builder began construction based on the
building permit approval prior to submitting a sign permit request. This problem was a
result of a miscommunication between the architect, general contractor and subs.
Patrick Giordana addressed the Commission and reviewed the reasons that the request
has been made to the City.
Public hearing opened at 7:28 p.m.
No one spoke.
Johnson stated that no written correspondence has been received.
Public hearing closed at 7:28 p.m.
Dodson indicated that he has driven by the sign and that it fits into the surround ing
landscape and that one cannot tell that it is too high by driving by it.
Williams asked for clarifications to certain findings of the Staff report, and asked to
remove language concerning viewsheds. Williams asked that the word “marginally” be
removed from finding number one.
Kreimer noted that additional commercial properties will be located along Inwood
Avenue. He also asked for clarification concerning the City’s electronic message board
sign requirements. Johnson noted that the code allows electronic signs that are static
and that do not change for 10 seconds or longer.
Haggard expressed concern that approval of a variance would lead to other similar
requests along Inwood Avenue in the future. Johnson stated that the wider easement
along the west side is a unique circumstance of the Eagle Point Medical site, which
would likely not be the case on properties to the north into the Inwood PUD
development.
M/S/P: Williams/Dorschner, move to approve the variance as presented based on the
amended findings of fact listed in the staff report, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Public Hearing: Zoning Text Amendment – Freeway Signs
Johnson stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing on
a request submitted by Rihm Kenworth to amend the City’s Sign Ordinance to allow
pylon and freestanding signs with a maximum height of 25 feet and 250 sq/ft surface
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-13-15
area for properties within all commercial zoning districts abutting Interstate 94. The
current zoning districts with frontages along I-94 include Business Park (BP), Commercial
(C), and Rural Transitional (RT). Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of a Zoning Text Amendment to allow freestanding signs with a
maximum height of 25 feet and an area of 150 square feet on properties adjacent to
interstate highways.
Johnson reviewed the background information included in the Staff report, and noted
that Staff received previous inquiries for larger signs along the I-94 corridor. He noted
that the City’s previous sign ordinance included an allowance for larger signs that
directly abutted the I-94 corridor right-of-way. This allowance was eliminated in 2013 as
part of a larger ordinance update. Staff is recommended an ordinance amendment due
in part to the expected requests that will continue to occur within the I-94 corridor. The
proposed ordinance will align with the signage allowed in adjacent communities and
with the previously adopted Lake Elmo sign ordinance.
Johnson distributed a red-line version of the proposed sign ordinance update and
reviewed the specific changes with the Planning Commission. Freeway signs are
defined. The specifics such as number, size and location are also defined. The Staff
recommendation does not exactly match the applicant’s request, but does include
language that would allow the applicant to install a sign consistent with their general
desire.
Haggard asked if there was a limit to the number of freeway signs allowed under the
proposed ordinance. Johnson noted that each individual parcel would be allowed to
install one freeway sign.
There was a general discussion concerning the application and interpretation of the
proposed ordinance amendments.
Williams noted that the relationship of the elevation between I-94 and the private
properties along this corridor could be an issue. Johnson commented that the proposed
ordinance does not address this issue directly.
Dodson asked why 150 square feet was chosen as the limit. Johnson replied that this
was a reasonable balance between the ordinance of nearby communities and previous
sign ordinances adopted by the City of Lake Elmo. In response to an additional
question, Johnson indicated that the current sign ordinance does include some general
design requirements for signs.
Griffin asked if the ordinance included a spacing requirement for freeway signs.
Johnson stated that the draft ordinance does include this type of requirement.
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-13-15
Dan Dunn, Rihm Kenworth, provided general information concerning the business. He
indicated that the proposed ordinance would work to achieve their signage objectives
for the site.
Public hearing opened at 8:11 p.m.
No one spoke.
There was no written correspondence received concerning this agenda item.
Public hearing closed at 8:11 p.m.
The Commission requested minor corrections to the draft ordinance as presented.
There was a general discussion concerning whether or not the ordinance should apply
to areas outside of the I-94 corridor.
The Commission generally discussed how to address variations in the elevation between
private properties and the road surface of I-94. Williams expressed concern that signs
could be very high compared to the adjacent road elevation along certa in portions of
the interstate.
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson to table the proposed ordinance until Staff receives feedback
from the City Council to see if they are receptive to design standards for freeway signs.
In addition, City staff shall come back to the Planning Commission with
recommendations for design standards for freeway signs. Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously as amended.
Johnson stated that the Planning Commission does have the ability to recommend
design standards without seeking Council authorization first. It was noted that the
Commission is the recommending body and that it would not be a lot of work for staff .
There was a general discussion concerning the appropriate process to develop design
standards for freeway signs.
M/S/P: Haggard/Griffin, move to eliminate the portion of the original motion that
requires Staff to seek advance feedback from the City Council, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Haggard requested that Staff also research the aspect ratio of height to width to prevent
anything odd to happen.
Business Item: Hunters Crossing 2nd Addition Final Plat
Klatt began his presentation by providing an overview of the site, highlighting the
location of the residential subdivision. The application for Final Plat is for the 2 nd
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-13-15
addition of the Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat. The proposed plat includes plans for the 5th
Street minor collector road. It should be noted that Lennar Homes is working on
bringing a development forward on the parcel to the north. These developers will be
able to collaborate on the construction of 5th Street.
Moving on, Klatt showed a map of the 1st addition of Hunter’s Crossing. The first
addition included 22 lots. The 2nd addition includes 29 lots, comprising the remaining
lots in the Hunter’s Crossing subdivision. No additional phases of the subdivision would
come forward after 2nd Addition. Klatt also noted that the water main project down Lake
Elmo Ave. has been completed and sewer and water are available to the site. The zoning
for the property is LDR – Urban Low Density. The lot sizes are above the minimum lot
areas required under the LDR district.
In terms of construction, Klatt noted that the site was mass graded with the 1 st phase of
construction. No additional grading is necessary. The applicants have submitted
updated landscape plans. In addition, the plans for 2nd addition include utility, street,
stormwater and other supporting plans.
Regarding critical issues, the most important topic pertaining to this development is the
construction of 5th Street with Lennar, timing and phasing. The temporary access needs
to be removed once 5th street is built. Another condition was that only 25 homes can be
built if the temporary access is still being used.
Dodson asked about the timing of 5th Street and the improvements to Lake Elmo Ave.
Klatt noted that in order to construct 5th street and make access to Lake Elmo Ave., the
applicant will need a permit from the County. In order to get a permit from the County
for 5th Street, the developer will need to complete improvements to Lake Elmo Avenue.
Haggard asked about timing. Klatt noted that the timing of the improvements are
identified in the Developers Agreement.
Klatt presented the recommended conditions of approval. Staff is recommending 9
conditions of approval. The conditions include making final edits to the landscape plans,
submitting final fees in lieu of land dedication, and addressing final construction review
comments from the City Engineer. Klatt also provided draft findings. He noted that Staff
is recommending approval of the final plat subject to the re commended 9 conditions of
approval.
Williams asked about the condition of timing with regards to the completing of 5th
Street. Klatt noted that the required improvement by the applicant is to build the
southern half of the collector road. Again, staff is working with the applicant and
property owner to the north to construct the collector road in one phase.
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-13-15
Williams asked about the tree replacement requirements. Klatt noted that the updated
landscape plan addresses the required mitigation for tree repla cement as required by
the City’s tree preservation ordinance.
Williams asked about the size of the outlots needed to serve the exceptions parcels.
Klatt noted that there is at least 50 feet, which meets the standard for a limited public
street.
Fields asked if parkland fees go into a dedicated fund for parkland acquisition and
improvements. Klatt confirmed that this is correct.
Kreimer asked about sewer service to the exception parcels. Klatt noted that there are
not stubs to the exception parcels.
Kreimer asked about the sales of homes in the Hunters Crossing development. The
developer noted that 5 homes have been sold.
Dorschner asked about the timing of the City accepting the public improvements and
infrastructure. Klatt noted that the temporary access road will need to be closed upon
the acceptance of the public improvements. Dorschner noted that the timing of closing
the access to 5th Street should be explicit. Klatt noted that there is a condition of 25
permits to require the closing of the temporary access on Lake Elmo Ave.
Dodson noted a discrepancy in the street names. Klatt stated that the Preliminary Plat
was correct.
Williams asked about the height for lights on residential streets and 5th street. There
was a discussion about the need for street lights in residential neighborhoods. Haggard
asked about the design of the street lights. Klatt described how the light fixtures were
selected. He noted that the City does not run its own light utility. The lights will be
owned and operated by Xcel energy and leased by the City. The developer is
responsible to install those lights. Klatt also noted that the fixtures that were selected
were based on the recommendations of the theming study completed by Damon Farber
and Associates.
Dodson asked if we had any external correspondence regarding the proposed
development. Klatt noted that the City has corresponded with the County regarding the
improvements and access to Lake Elmo Ave.
Dodson asked about the maintenance of Outlot A. Klatt noted the HOA is responsible via
a maintenance agreement.
Williams asked about condition 8 with regards to the fee for parkl and dedication. Klatt
explained that at Preliminary Plat, the parkland dedication amount was calculated. The
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-13-15
30 foot easement for trails was deducted from the amount. Klatt feels that it is
adequate as written.
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to recommend approval of the Hunters Crossing 2nd
Addition Final Plat with the 9 conditions of approval and updated draft findings
identified in the staff report, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Updates and Concerns
Council Updates – April 7, 2015 Meeting
1. None
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. April 27, 2015
b. May 11, 2015
2. Welcome to Commissioner Fields
3. Updates on Gateway Corridor Planning Process
4. Updated Population Forecasts from Met Council
5. Planning Commissioner Terms
Commission Concerns
Dodson would like to request more information for street lighting. He asked if street
lights are necessary. There was a general discussion about street lights.
Fields asked about the installation of fiber-optics and other private utilities. Staff will
check with City Engineer. There has been some good coordination with the new
developments. Dodson asked about requiring underground electric.
Haggard requested an email from staff with the updated design for 5 th Street.
Dodson asked about the amount of paperwork given to the Planning Commission for
plats and if that could be cut down. Klatt stated that a lot of the paper is construction
plans and might just be made available electronically. The Plat, grading and landscape
plans will be included in packet.
Meeting adjourned at 10:04 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 1/26/15
AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2015-12
ITEM: InWood Final Plat and Final PUD Plans (Phase 1)
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request to approve a final plat, final PUD
development plans, and related zoning map amendments associated with the first phase of the
InWood PUD development. The final plat includes 40 single family residential lots that will be
located within the southern portion of the development along with all portions of the 5th Street right-
of-way through the PUD development area. The developer is also seeking approval of amendments
to the City’s Zoning Map that will establish the base zoning for the entire development area. Staff is
recommending approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions listed in this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Hans Hagen Homes (John Rask), 941 NE Hillwind Rd. Suite 300, Fridley, MN
and Inwood 10, LLC (Tom Scheutte) 95 S Owasso Blvd. W., St. Paul, MN
Property Owners: Inwood 10, LLC (Tom Scheutte), 95 S Owasso Blvd. W., St. Paul, MN
Location: Part of Section 33 in Lake Elmo, south of 10th Street (CSAH 10), north of Eagle
Point Business Park, east of Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) and west of Stonegate
residential subdivision. PIDs: 33.029.21.12.0001, 33.029.21.12.0003,
33.029.21.11.0002 and 33.029.21.11.0001.
Request: Application for Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan
approval for the first phase of a mixed-use development to be named InWood.
The final plat includes 40 single-family residential lots, while the remainder of
the site will be platted as outlots for either public dedication or to be reserved for
future development. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to establish the base
zoning for the overall area included in the concept plan.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant land used for agricultural purposes. Current Zoning:
RT– Rural Transitional Zoning District; Proposed Zoning: LDR
– Low Density Residential, HDR – High Density Residential
and C – Commercial (all with PUD overlay)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Vacant agricultural land and two residential homes – RR
and PF zoning; West: Oak Marsh Golf Course, urban single
family subdivision, commercial – City of Oakdale jurisdiction;
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
2
South: Offices in Eagle Point Business Park (including Bremer
Bank facility) – BP zoning; East: Stonegate residential estates
subdivision – RE zoning.
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 - 4 units per acre)
Urban High Density Residential (7.5 – 15 units per acre)
Commercial
History: The site has historically been used for agricultural purposes; there is no specific site
information on file with the City (the property was subject to development
speculation at various times in the past). The applicants have summited a mandatory
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the development and the comment
period for the EAW ended on October 29, 2014. The City Council adopted a
resolution declaring no need for an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) at its
December 2, 2014 meeting. The City Council approved the general concept plan for
the development at its September 16, 2014 meeting and approved the preliminary
development plans at its December 2, 2014 meeting.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 3/27/15
60 Day Deadline – 5/26/15
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 7/25/15
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (LDR)
Article 16 – Planned Unit Development Regulations
§150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment Control
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Hans Hagen Homes and InWood 10, LLC for
approval of a final plat and final PUD plan associated with the first phase of the InWood Planned
Unit Development (PUD). The final plat consists of four primary components that will initiate
development of a much larger development project that will ultimately include single family
residential, multi-family residential, and commercial buildings over the applicants’ entire 160 acre
parcel. The initial development components included as part of the final plat request include the
following:
• A final plat for the first 40 single family homes within the development. The proposed
houses are part of planned 275 “lifestyle” houses that will be slab-on-grade construction with
common open space around each home.
• The platting and construction of all portions of 5th Street that bisects the applicants’ site,
connecting Inwood Avenue to the planned 5th Street connection within the Boulder Ponds
development.
• Mass grading of the entire site and the construction of the public and private infrastructure
necessary to serve the initial project phase. This infrastructure will include a sewer
connection into the Eagle Point Business Park and the construction of the road connecting 5th
Street to Eagle Point Boulevard.
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
3
• The platting of all other portions of the larger development area into outlots to facilitate
either the future transfer of these outlots to the City for park or storm water management
purposes or the replatting of lots into future project phases.
Please note that the attached application materials provided by the applicant include maps and plans
that cover the entire development site (including grading, landscape, and others) while the final plat
and certain construction plans are specific to the first phase. Staff has not provided copies of the
overall PUD development plans, but these are available as part of previous Planning Commission
agendas and are on file in the Planning Department.
In advance of submitting an application for a final plat, the developer worked with the City and other
external agencies to address the conditions attached to the City’s approval of the preliminary plat.
The end result of this process was a revised preliminary plat and associated plans dated March 27,
2015 that were deemed compliant with the previous conditions of approval by the City. There are a
few minor issues that need to be addressed as noted in the City Engineer’s review memorandum, but
none significant enough that they cannot be resolved through revisions to the final development
plans. Staff has provided an update concerning the preliminary plat conditions in the latter sections
of this report.
The applicant has submitted a binder with all final plat and PUD development plan submissions to
the City, which includes the final plat, project narrative, phasing plan, grading plans, street and utility
plans, landscape plan, proposed HOA documents, and example home elevations and designs. The
first phase of the project will located immediately north of 5th Street roughly halfway between
Inwood Avenue and the eastern project boundary. All of the proposed lots are located within the
“lifestyle” housing portion of the site, and subsequent phases would generally continuing with the
platting of additional single family lots further to the north. There are no specific time frames
associated with the commercial or multi-family areas, which will need further City review and
approval the preliminary stage of review.
One of the significant elements of the final development plans is the construction of the 5th Street
minor collector road over the entire development area. Unlike other developments within Section 34,
the developer is not proposing to phase the construction of 5th Street with future project phases, and
instead will undertake all of this work as part of phase one. This will help establish the road in
advance of all future development activity, and will help provide a connection to the adjacent
Boulder Ponds development (which will eventually connect through Boulder Ponds and Savona all of
the way to Keats Avenue). The developer has proposed a landscape design for 5th Street that does
need to be updated to reflect the City’s final design for road. Because this final design was
completed shortly after Inwood has submitted its plans, Staff is recommending that the landscape
architect review the design for consistency with the City’s plans and direct the applicant to make any
changes necessary to bring the landscaping into conformance with City’s design standards for the
roadway.
The applicant has provided an updated grading, erosion control, and storm water management plan
that has also been approved by the South Washington Watershed District. In advance of final plat
approval, the developer has also applied for an interim grading permit to begin grading the site in
accordance with the approved preliminary plans.
The revised preliminary plat and plans address other review comments as noted in the following
section of this report. As the applicant has worked to address the previous review comments and
conditions of approval, there have been some minor modifications to the configuration of some lots
within the subdivision. These changes directly address preliminary plat review comments, and more
specifically respond to the following:
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
4
• Two access points on 5th Street have been eliminated consistent with the preliminary plat
review comments: a secondary access between Street D and Inwood Avenue and the eastern
leg of a loop road into the City park (Outlot L).
• A public road through Outlot L has been eliminated and the primary access to the City park
will be from Street C and off of 5th Street.
• Trails that encroached into wetland setback areas have been moved outside of these areas.
The City’s subdivision ordinance establishes the procedure for obtaining final subdivision approval,
in which case a final plat may only be reviewed after the City takes action on a preliminary plat. As
long as the final plat is consistent with the preliminary approval, it must be approved by the City.
Please note that the City’s approval of the Inwood Preliminary Plat and Plans did include a series of
conditions that must be met by the applicant, which are addressed in the “Review and Analysis”
section below. Because the application is for approval of a final PUD plan, the request does require a
public hearing to establish the final PUD zoning for the first phase of the development.
As part of the request for final PUD approval, the applicant is also requesting to establish the base
zoning for the entire project area. With the City’s approval of the preliminary plat and PUD plans
and the proposed platting of the future development areas into outlots (and with the extension of
public services proposed with the final plat), it is appropriate to establish the zoning for each portion
of the site at this time. Staff has revised the applicant’s Zoning and Phasing Map to specifically
denote the specific zoning for each portion of the site that will be applied to the official zoning map.
In this case, all single-family areas will be rezoned from RT – Rural Transitional to LDR – Urban
Low Density Residential, all multi-family areas will be rezoned from RT to HDR – Urban High
Density Residential, and the commercial areas will be rezoned from RT to C – Commercial. With
the base zoning in place, the City will be able to proceed with establishing a PUD overlay district for
the portions of the site that receive final plan approval.
Staff has reviewed the final plat and found that it is consistent with the preliminary plat that was
approved by the City with the exceptions as noted below and as listed in the City Engineer’s report.
These exceptions can be addressed with the submission of revised final plans, and primarily relate to
details that need to be worked out before final approval of the construction plans. The City Engineer
and Landscape Architect have reviewed the final plat, although the final report from the Landscape
Architect is still forthcoming. Although there are some additional revisions to the final construction
plans that will need to be addressed by the applicant, the remaining revisions are relatively minor and
can be made before the City releases the final plat for recording.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
The InWood development includes a request for a Planned Unit Development and some related
flexibility as permitted under this ordinance. In order to grant a PUD, an applicant is required to
demonstrate compliance with the City’s PUD applicant requirements and PUD Objectives. These
requirements and objectives were previously detailed with the applicants’ preliminary plan
submissions. For the most part, the single family portion of the development is consistent with the
zoning requirements for the City’s LDR – Low Density Residential Zoning District, with the
exceptions that were discussed during the concept and preliminary plan review and are summarized
as follows:
Setback LDR Zoning District (Min.) Inwood PUD (Min.)
Front Yard 25 feet 20 feet
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
5
Interior Side Yard 10 Feet Principal Structure
Side / 5 Feet Garage Side
4 Feet
Rear Yard 20 feet 20 feet
Lot Area 8,000 square feet 4,250 square feet
Lot Depth N/A 110 feet
Lot Width 60 feet 38 feet
All other requirements for the City’s LDR zoning district will apply, including the allowed uses and
other site and development standards.
Please note that the above table includes some minor modifications from the numbers originally
proposed by the developer and are being recommended by Staff in order to ensure that there is
sufficient flexibility to construct the subdivision as proposed. The purpose of this table is to
document the minimum expectation for lots and homes in the development, and is otherwise
consistent with the development plans. Staff also recommended these numbers to account for minor
revisions between the preliminary and final plat review (for issues such as wetland buffers, provision
of adequate storm water infiltration areas, and road adjustments that are necessary for the
development to comply with all applicable City development and engineering standards).
The overall site plan for the property follows the adopted concept plan very closely, and the final plat
and plans are consistent with preliminary plat as well. The following is a general summary of the
subdivision design elements that have proposed as part of the InWood final plat and plans:
Zoning and Site Information:
• Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional District
• Proposed Zoning: LDR
• Total Site Area: Final Plat Area +/- 15 acres outside of road ROW
• Total Residential Units: 40 (out of 275 approved single family units)
• Proposed Density (Net): Single Family – 3.0 units per acre
Proposed Lot Dimensional Standards through Planned Unit Development Process:
• As listed above
Proposed Street Standards:
• ROW Width – Local 60 ft. (per Subdivision Ordinance)
• ROW Width – Minor Collector 100 ft. (Engineering Standard)
• ROW Width – Loop Roads 40 ft. (one way segment with median)
• Street Widths – Local: 28 ft. (per City standard)
• Street Widths – Loop Roads 24 ft. (one way)
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.
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
6
As part of the Staff recommendation below, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
adopt specific zoning map amendments using the applicant’s provided zoning map and phasing plan
as a guide for these amendmnets.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The preliminary plat and plans for InWood were approved with several conditions, which are
indicated below along with Staff’s comments on the status of each. Staff is recommending approval
of the final plat and plans with conditions intended to address the outstanding issues that will require
additional review and/or documentation. Staff is also recommending approval of the Zoning Map
amendments to establish the base zoning throughout the larger development area. In order to assist
the Planning Commission with its review, Staff is also including a summary the critical issues that
need to be resolved for the subdivision to move forward.
Critical Issues Summary:
1) Water Tower Site. The City’s water supply plan, last updated as part of the 2008
Comprehensive Plan Update, indicates that a water tower is necessary to serve this area in
order to provide adequate water system operations to serve the additional units (both
commercial and residential REC units) within the proposed development area. Although the
Comprehensive Plan does identify a water tower southwest of the 10th Street and Inwood
Avenue intersection of the applicant’s property, the land owner and the City have reached an
agreement to site the tower roughly midway between 15th Street and 10th Street along Inwood
Avenue on land currently owned by the co-applicant (Inwood 10, LLC). The City Attorney
is drafting a final agreement for the purchase of this land, and this agreement will need to
executed prior to work commencing on the public improvements within the InWood PUD
development.
2) 5th Street Design and Construction. The City’s review of the preliminary development plans
included a fairly extensive review of the proposed alignment and design of 5th Street. The
design that ultimately has been approved and recommended by the City Engineer includes a
slightly tighter curve and transition between InWood and Boulder Ponds, and will result in a
speed reduction notification at this curve. In general, Staff believes that this represents a fair
compromise to ensure that the road is situated in a location that minimizes impacts to all
adjacent properties, including the Bremer Bank Facility and Stonegate Park. In order to
address the last remaining “gap” between Boulder Ponds and Inwood where four properties
meeting, Staff is recommending that the developer be responsible for the design and
construction of the road across the extreme southwestern corner of the Stonegate Park
property. The City also needs to formally vacate a small portion of the parkland in order to
provide the right-of-way necessary to bring the road across this property (or find another
appropriate mechanism such as easements for the roadway). Staff will be working with the
developer to finalize the construction plans for 5th Street and to deal with any other associated
issues prior to the execution of a development agreement for the project.
3) Park Land Dedication and Trails. The overall trail plan has been revised form the original
preliminary plat submission in order to address previous review comments. The one
exception is the northern trail segment that will be required along 10th Street. The developer
is asking to address the specific alignment and location of this trail as part of a future project
submission in order to more fully consider whether the trail should be constructed on the
north or south side of 10th Street. In general, there are valid reasons for choosing either
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
7
location, but ultimately, both Staff and the developer would like continue discussing this
matter with Washington County prior to making any final decisions.
4) Inwood Avenue Improvements. Washington County has previously provided review
comments to the City that describe the type of improvements that will be necessary at
Inwood Avenue and 5th Street in order to support current and planned development around
this intersection. Because these improvements will ultimately include a signalized
intersection in this location, Staff is recommending that the developer share in the costs
associated with the City’s portion of any future signal improvements. All other
improvements as recommended by the County will be the developer’s responsibility to
construct with the other public improvements.
5) General Review Comments. All other recommended conditions of approval relate to final
details that must be addressed by the applicant and can be handled prior to release of the final
plat for recording.
In order to provide the Planning Commission with an update concerning the conditions associated
with the preliminary plat and plans for InWood, Staff has prepared the following:
Preliminary Plat Conditions – With Staff Update Comments (updated information in bold
italics):
1) The applicant shall work with Community Development Director to name all streets in the
subdivision in a manner acceptable to the City prior to the submission of final plat. Comments:
Street naming within new subdivisions has been a point of discussion at the City Council level
recently, and Staff is holding off on naming new streets in order to receive further direction
from the City Council on this matter. In general, the City Council has not supported strict
adherence to the County naming system, and would like to consider some additional options
for streets that may align with each other without connecting. Since this is not a developer
responsibility, Staff is recommending that the final street names be included on the final plat
after further discussion on this subject with the City Council.
2) The City and the applicant shall reach an agreement concerning the location and dedication of
land associated with the proposed water tower necessary to provide adequate water service to the
InWood project area prior to the acceptance of a final plat for any portion of the PUD area.
Comments: The final agreement concerning the water tower site is presently under review by
the City Attorney as noted above and should be completed prior to the construction of public
utilities within the project area. Since the final execution of the purchase agreement still
needs to the finalized, this condition should be carried forward as part of the City’s final plat
decision.
3) The preliminary landscape plan shall be updated to address the review comments from the City’s
landscape architecture consultant as noted in a review letter dated November 18, 2014.
Comments: The landscape plan has been updated and has been distributed to the landscape
architect for final review. Any final comments should be incorporated into the plans prior to
construction. The landscape plans will need to be updated to address the City’s final design
and standards for 5th Street (this information has been provided to the developer). The
landscape architect is also asking for further documentation concerning the preservation and
protection of trees in the eastern portion of the site.
4) Prior to the submission of a final plat for any portion of the InWood PUD, the developer shall
reach agreement with the City to determine the appropriate park dedication calculations for the
entire development area. Comments: The developer is indicated that the overall park land that
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
8
will be dedicated as part of the development will total 12.49 acres, and has provided an analysis
of the City’s requirements taking into account the requirements for commercial development
areas as well as residential areas. The developer’s calculations have been included as an
attachment to this report. Staff is concerned that the developer appears to be using a net
acreage calculation whereas the City Code requires park land dedication to be calculated on a
gross acreage basis. In either case, the updated preliminary plans show that 12.49 acres of
park land will be dedicated with the plat. Any amount short of the requirements will need to be
recovered as a fee in lieu of land dedication. Staff will work with the developer to finalize
these numbers prior to the Planning Commission meeting. No park land is planned for
dedication with the first project phase; the developer’s agreement will address the developer’s
obligations for future dedications as required by the City.
5) As part of any development agreement that includes improvements to one of the adjacent County
State Aid Highways (CSAH 13 and 10th Street), the City and the developer shall determine the
appropriate responsibility for the cost of these improvements. Comment: This condition will be
addressed as part of a development agreement with the developer to construct the public
improvements.
6) 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. Comment: the developer has met
this condition and has commenced grading work on the site.
7) The applicant shall continue to work with the City on the final design of 5th Street, and in
particular, the transition from the InWood PUD to properties located further to the east (including
the Boulder Ponds development and land owned by Bremer Financial Services). Comment: The
final plans include a final design for 5th Street that addresses the City Engineer’s
requirements. There will need to be final adjustments to the plans prior to final approval;
however, the alignment and design as submitted addresses the previous review comments.
Staff has noted the City action that will be necessary to connect the road across the southwest
corner of Stonegate Park, and this action will be scheduled for a future Council meeting.
8) The utility construction plans shall be updated to incorporate the recommendations of the City
Engineer concerning the appropriate location and size of sewer services through the PUD
planning area, including any requested oversizing of these facilities to service adjacent
properties. Comments: The plans have been updated accordingly. Final review will be
required before construction may commence on the site.
9) The proposed public street access to 5th Street from Streets D2 and the southeast park area (Park
1) shall be eliminated from the preliminary development plans in order to bring the proposed
spacing into conformance with the City’s access spacing guidelines. The developer shall provide
access into the park to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Comments: The preliminary plans
have been updated to remove these connections.
10) All center median planting areas as depicted on the preliminary plat and plans shall be owned by
the City of Lake Elmo and 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, trails,
or open space on the final plat. Comments: The maintenance agreement will be incorporated
into the developer’s agreement.
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
9
11) The applicant must either move the planned north/south tail through Park 1 further to the west
around an existing wetland area located approximately 400 feet south of 10th Street or will need
to work with the South Washington Watershed District to design a multi-purpose trail through
the buffer area that complies with all applicable watershed district’s requirements. Comments:
The preliminary plans have been updated accordingly.
12) The Final Plat and Plans must address the requested modifications outlined in the City Engineer’s
review memoranda dated November 16, 2014 and November 24, 2014. Comments: The City
has received updated plans that have been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
13) The applicant shall be responsible for updating the final construction plans to include the
construction of all improvements within County rights-of-way as required by Washington
County and further described in the review letter received from the County dated November 17,
2014. Comments: The plans have been updated and are pending final approval by the
County.
14) 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.
Comments: A developer’s agreement will be submitted to the City Council either with or
shortly after the final plat is approved.
15) 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.
Comments: These requirements will apply for all project phases moving forward. The
developer has secured a permit from South Washington Watershed District which has allowed
grading to start on the site.
16) The developer shall provide landscape material along the west side of Pond #200 to the
satisfaction of the City’s landscape consultant. Comments: The landscape plan has been
updated to incorporate additional plantings in this portion of the site.
17) The developer shall incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study at the intersection
of 5th Street and Inwood Avenue. Comments: The developer is proposing some unique
theming elements along 5th Street; however, these improvements are focused around the
primary entrance into the residential subdivision and not at Inwood Avenue. Staff will discuss
this matter with the development and City’s landscape architect prior to the meeting.
18) The developer shall install a multi-purpose trail along 10th Street between “Street B” and Inwood
Avenue. Comments: Please refer to the Staff comments in the preceding section of this report.
The final alignment for this trail is a decision that will need to be made at a future date.
19) The multi-purpose trail through the eastern buffer area shall be kept as far west on the applicant’s
property as possible, and the final alignment of this trail shall be subject to review by the City’s
landscape consultant. Comments: The final location of the trail attempts to balance the City’s
request for a larger setback with the goal of preserving as many trees as possible within this
buffer area. Staff is recommending that final alignment of the trail be staked on the site and
subject to further review and approval by the City.
Staff is recommending certain conditions that been specifically identified as part of the final plat
review, and that have not otherwise been addressed by the applicant, be addressed as part of the
Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council. The City Engineer’s review letter does
identify several issues that need to be addressed by the developer in order for the City to deem the
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
10
final plans complete. Of particular concern to the City Engineer is maintaining an appropriate
setback between individual homes and storm water pipes being installed in rear yards. Staff is
recommending that City Officials not sign the final plat mylars until the City’s construction plan
review is finalized and all necessary easements are documented on the final plat.
Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the final plat and
final development plans for phase one with several conditions intended to address the outstanding
issues noted above and to further clarify the City’s expectations in order for the developer to proceed
with the recording of the final plat.
The recommended conditions are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, sanitary and storm water management
plans, landscape plans, and street and utility construction plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to the recording of the Final Plat. All changes and
modifications to the plans requested by the City Engineer in a memorandum dated April 23,
2015 shall be incorporated into these documents before they are approved.
2) Prior to the execution of the Final Plat by City officials, the Developer shall enter into a
Developer’s Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Council
that delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of the required
improvements for the InWood Final Plat and Final Development Plans with financial
guarantees therefore.
3) All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works Department shall be
documented on the Final Plat prior to the execution of the final plat by City Officials.
4) A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of InWood
and establishing a homeowner’s association shall be submitted in final form to the
Community Development Director before a building permit may be issued for any structure
within this subdivision. The applicant shall also 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
5) The developer is encouraged to incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study
into the final design of the community mailboxes within InWood.
6) The applicant shall deed Outlots C, D, F, G, I and H to the City upon recording of the final
plat.
7) The applicant shall work with Community Development Director to name all streets in the
subdivision in a manner acceptable to the City prior the recording of the final plat.
8) The City and the applicant shall enter into a final purchase agreement concerning the location
and dedication of land associated with the proposed water tower necessary to provide
adequate water service to the InWood project area prior to the execution of a developer’s
agreement or the recording of the final plat.
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
11
9) The final landscape plan shall be updated to address the review comments from the City’s
landscape architecture consultant and shall incorporate all design elements as specified in the
City’s 5th Street Standard Details and Design Book.
10) The developer shall update the final construction plans for 5th Street to include those portions
of this road that will cross the southwest corner of Stonegate Park.
11) The developer shall update the final development plans to identify an alignment for a multi-
purpose trail connection Street B to Inwood Avenue based on further review of this trail with
the City of Lake Elmo and Washington County.
12) The final plat and final development plans shall include provisions satisfactory to the City
that no structure be located within 15 feet of any storm water improvement (include pipes
and catch basins).
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the proposed Easton Village Final Plat:
• That all the requirements of City Code Section 153.07 related to the Final Plan and Final Plat
have been met by the Applicant.
• That the proposed Final Plat for InWood consists of the creation of 40 single-family detached
residential structures.
• That the InWood Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent with the Preliminary Plat and
Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on December 2, 2014.
• That the InWood Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent with the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
• That the InWood Final Plat generally complies with the City’s Urban Low Density
Residential zoning district, with the exceptions as noted in the approved Preliminary PUD
Plans.
• That the InWood Final Plat complies with all other applicable zoning requirements, including
the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control and other ordinances,
except as noted in this report or attachment thereof.
• That the InWood Final Plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
• That the InWood Final Plat and Final PUD Plan complies with the City’s Planned Unit
Development Ordinance.
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
12
• That the InWood Final Plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards with the
exceptions noted by the City Engineer in his review comments to the City dated April 23,
2015.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final Plat and Final
Development Plans for InWood with the 12 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report.
Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of amendments to the
City’s Zoning Map to rezone land within the InWood PUD development area from RT Rural
Transitional and as depicted in the “Zoning and Phasing Map” dated 2/16/15 and submitted by the
developer to the following:
• PUD Single Family: LDR – Low Density Residential
• Future High Density Residential – HDR – High Density Residential
• Future Commercial: C - Commercial
Suggested motions:
“Move to recommend approval of the requested Zoning Map Amendment for the InWood planned
development based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report.”
“Move to recommend approval of the InWood Final Plat and Final PUD Plan with the 12
conditions of approval as drafted by Staff based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Engineer Review Comments – 4/23/15
2. InWood Park Calculations (Provided by Developer)
3. Application Booklet – with Table of Contents
a. PUD Final Plan
b. Final Plat
c. Application Forms
d. PUD Narrative
e. Phasing Plan
f. Open Space Plan
g. Grading Plan
h. Storm Water Plan
i. Utility Plan
j. Landscape and Tree Preservation Plans
k. HOA Documents
l. Example Home Elevations
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
13
- 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
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
PAGE 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 23, 2015
To: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Re: Inwood – PUD Final Plat and Revised
Preliminary Plans
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Inwood PUD Final Plat and Revised Preliminary Plan submittal
for the Inwood PUD. The submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by Carlson‐McCain and E.G.
Rud & Sons, Inc.:
Inwood PUD Preliminary Plan Set, Sheets 1‐30, dated April 10, 2015.
Inwood Final Plat, dated March 26, 2015.
STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering has prepared the following review comments:
REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT
Additional utility easements are still required or other building restriction provisions are necessary to assure
that no building can be constructed within 15 feet of a City utility pipe. Currently only 10 foot easements
are provided for proposed storm sewer pipe along Lots 1‐7 Block 2, Lots 1‐7 Block 5, Lots 1‐5 Block 9, Lots
12‐21 Block 9, Lots 6‐8 Block 10, and Lots 35‐48 Block 10. Additional easement is also required for the
southwest corner of Lot 12 Block 10.
Retaining walls are proposed within rear yard utility easements throughout much of the development. It
should be clearly documented that the retaining walls remain within the ownership of the HOA even though
they are within drainage and utility easements. It should be further documented that any and all costs
associated with protection, replacement or maintenance of retaining walls due to any work in the
easements by the City, shall be the full responsibility of the HOA.
The 12‐inch trunk watermain along 10th Street, between Street B and the easterly plat limits should be
relocated to the south side of the CSAH 10 R/W. The pipe should be placed within a utility easement
dedicated to the City.
The plan note for the 5th Street horizontal curve on the preliminary site and grading plans must be revised
to include “The westbound lane of 5th Street North shall include a 2.5% super elevation slope from STA
24+50 to STA 29+00 with 150 foot transitions on each end. The curve shall be posted with a 35 MPH Speed
Advisory per MSA standards”.
INWOOD FINAL PLAT
Final Plat should be contingent upon the applicant expanding utility easements or other building restriction
provisions to assure that no building can be constructed within 15 ft of a City utility pipe. Currently only 10
foot easements are provided for proposed storm sewer pipe along Lots 1‐6 Block 1 and Lots 13‐19 Block 2.
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283
PAGE 2 of 2
Retaining walls are proposed within rear yard utility easements for Lots 7‐12, Block 2 (and for future Lots in
Outlot E). It should be clearly documented that the retaining walls remain within the ownership of the HOA
even though they are within drainage and utility easements. It should be further documented that any and
all costs associated with protection, replacement or maintenance of retaining walls due to any work in the
easements by the City, shall be the full responsibility of the HOA.
The design and construction of 5th Street North shall be completed in accordance with the City design
standards for 5th Street including streetscape amenities consistent with the remaining corridor segments
and the design standards previously established by the City. Design elements include a center landscape
median, street lighting, and theming elements.
FINAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS
No street and utility construction can occur on the site until the applicant has received City Engineer approval
for the final construction plans, has obtained all applicable permits for the Subdivision, and has scheduled a
preconstruction notice through the City’s engineering department.
The Final Plat shall not be recorded until final construction plan approval is granted.
Final Construction Plans and Specifications must be prepared in accordance with the City Engineering Design
Standards Manual using City details and specifications and meeting City Engineering Design Guidelines.
Final construction plan review comments will be provided separately to assist the applicant with the
completion of Final Construction Plans.
InWood Park Calculations
Inwood Land Area
Single Family Land Area 89.35
High Density Residential 18.99
Total Residential 108.34
Park North of 5th Street
Buffer and Parkland 12.11
Ponds 1.15
Wetland 0.23
Net Parkland 10.73
Park South of 5th Street 1.76
Total Parkland 12.49
Residential Required Park 10.834
Commercial Required Park
Commercial Acres 30.8
Commercial Fee Per Acre 4,500$
Total Park Fee 138,600$
Land Dedication Equivalent 2.31
Total Park Required 13.1
Total Park Dedicated 13.4
Park Shortage 0.2
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 5A
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 4/27/15
AGENDA ITEM: 5A
CASE # 2015-15
ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Pylon and Freestanding Signs
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
Casey Riley, Planning Intern
Adam Bell, City Clerk
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to review precedents for design standards for freestanding
and pylon signs for the I-94 corridor. A public hearing was held on April 13, 2015 for a request
submitted by Rihm Kenworth to amend the City’s Sign Ordinance to allow pylon and freestanding
signs with a maximum height of 25 feet and 250 sq/ft surface area for properties within all
commercial zoning districts abutting Interstate 94. At that time the Planning Commission requested
research be done for design standards for freestanding and pylon signs. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission review the precedents from surrounding cities and discuss design standards for
the properties with frontages along I-94. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of a Zoning Text Amendment to allow freestanding signs with a maximum
height of 25 feet and an area of 150 square feet on properties adjacent to interstate highways.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Rihm Kenworth of Lake Elmo, 11530 Hudson Boulevard, Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Property Owners: EN Properties LLC, 11530 Hudson Boulevard, Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Location: N/A – Request would allow for pylon and freestanding signs with a maximum
height of 25 feet and 250 square feet of surface area for commercial properties
abutting Interstate 94.
Request: Rihm Kenworth of Lake Elmo is requesting to amend the City’s Zoning Code to
allow pylon and freestanding signs with a maximum height of 25 feet and 250
square feet of surface area in the Business Park (BP), Commercial (C), and Rural
Transitional (RT) zoning districts for properties along I-94.
Existing Land Use: N/A
Existing Zoning: N/A
Surrounding Land Use: N/A
Surrounding Zoning: N/A
Comprehensive Plan: N/A
2
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 5A
Proposed Zoning: N/A
History: The Planning Commission discussed Freestanding and Pylon signs at the April 13,
2015 Planning Commission meeting and public hearing regarding the Zoning Text
Amendment. No members of the public spoke at the public hearing on April 13. The
discussion focused design standards and possibly adding a theming element to the I-
94 corridor. The clarification was made that the Damon Farber Branding and
Theming Study was aimed at public signs, and that the I-94 corridor would host
private signs. Currently, the only mandatory element in the sign code is that signs
must be constructed of high quality durable materials.
Applicable Regulations: Sign Regulations (§154.212) in Current Zoning Code
Signs: I-94 District (§151.115) in Previous Zoning Code
REQUEST DETAILS
The zoning text amendment was brought forward by Rihm Kenworth, a business located on the I-94
corridor. The zoning text amendment would permit freestanding and pylon signs for properties
adjacent to the freeway within the Business Park (BP), Commercial (C), and Rural Transitional (RT)
zoning districts.
At the April 13, 2015, Planning Commission meeting, the zoning text amendment was postponed and
design standards were requested and discussed.
BACKGROUND
Rihm Kenworth currently operates a business at 11530 Hudson Boulevard. The property is located
along Interstate 94 in the southeast corner of the City west of Manning Avenue . They recently started
operations on this site and are interested in marketing their business with a sign on I-94. At the April
13 Planning Commission meeting, the company stated that 150 square feet of surface area would be
an acceptable amount to market the business along I-94.
The Planning Commission met on April 13th, to consider amending the zoning text to allow
freestanding and pylon signs along I-94. Design standards were requested at that time to move
forward with the zoning text amendment. Questions and comments at the meeting focused on
clarifying the proposed zoning amendment. In summary, the amendment would pertain only to
properties abutting I-94. The recommended 150 sq. ft. surface area would be permissible per side,
with two sides maximum. The 150 sq. ft. sign area refers to the commercial area of the sign,
excluding the pole or supporting structure.
The City has adopted Design Standards. The standards were prepared by Damon Farber and
Associates and include signage. The recommendations are as follows:
Goal: Residential signage should be subtle in nature and utilized to promote building identity and to
properly direct automobile and pedestrian traffic.
a. Signs shall be consistent with the architectural style of the building on which they are placed, including
scale, lighting levels, color and material.
3
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 5A
b. Signs shall be constructed of quality materials.
c. All signage should be illuminated and clearly visible after dark.
d. Signs are encouraged to be creative in the use of two and three-dimensional forms, lighting and graphic
design, and use of color, patterns, typography, and materials.
e. Interior vehicle and pedestrian routes should be clearly marked.
f. All buildings are encouraged to incorporate elements of community theming in appropriate signage,
supporting district and city identity.
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS:
Design Standards for freestanding and pylon signs from numerous cities within the metro were
reviewed by staff. The majority of cities within the Metro along and interstate do not have design
standards for freestanding and pylon signs. Those that do were reviewed and compiled into a table
for review by the Planning Commission, see Attachment 1.
The key cities that address design standards are Belle Plaine, Brooklyn Center, Forest Lake,
Roseville, and Woodbury. Belle Plaine requires a landscaped area surrounding the sign, as well as a
pole cover or pylon cover for pylon signs. They specifically discourage pylon signs.
Brooklyn Center specifies that freestanding signs that exceed 16 feet in area shall not impede vision
between a height of 2 ½ and 7 ½ feet above the centerline grade of the street. This means that
freestanding signs cannot have a large and wide pole that obstructions vision.
Roseville requires freestanding signs to include materials that complement the architectural
design/existing building materials, including but not limited to face brick, natural or cut stone,
integrally colored concrete masonry units/rock faced block, glass, pre -finished metal stucco, and
factory finished metal panels. Roseville also specifies that freestanding signs cannot be closer than 5
feet to a property line.
Woodbury is the only city found that includes an aspect ratio, or addresses the width of the sign
compared to the base of the sign. Woodbury stipulates that “freestanding signs shall be attached to a
base which is at least 75 percent of the width of the sign but shall not exceed the width of the sign by
more than 20 percent.”
Specific design standards, such as renderings or images, for pylon and freestanding signs were not
found for any city in the Metro area. The majority of cities addressed design standards in their code
by requiring “quality materials,” or “similar materials and architecture to that of the primary
structure.”
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested zoning
text amendment to allow pylon and freestanding signs with a maximum height of 25 feet and 150
square feet for commercial properties abutting Interstate 94. The recommended motion is as follows:
“Move to recommend approval of the request amend the Sign Ordinance to allow pylon and
freestanding signs for commercial properties adjacent to interstate highways. These sign should
not exceed 25 feet in height and 150 square feet in area.”
4
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 5A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Research of Metro Sign Design Standards
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director
- Report by Staff ..................................................................................... City Planner
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
5
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 5A
City Construction
Standards
Landscape/Spatial
Standards
Design Standards Other
Bloomington Monument Sign:
One square foot
may be added for
each linear foot over
one hundred (100)
feet up to a
maximum sign
surface area of one
hundred-fifty (150)
square feet.
Pylon Sign:
One square
foot may be
added for
each linear
foot over
one hundred
(100) feet
up to a
maximum
sign surface
area of one
hundred
twenty-five
(125) square
feet.
Belle Plaine Highway design
shall provide
architecture,
landscape
architecture, and
urban design
guidelines that
provide a
complementary
aesthetic to the
Downtown District
and embrace the
large-scale nature
of highway
development.
Freestanding signs
must be placed in a
landscaped area
with vegetation a
minimum of 4 feet
from the sign in
each direction.
Pylon signs must
have a pole cover or
pylon cover. Pole
signs are
discouraged.
Brooklyn Center Freestanding:
Unless set back 10
or more feet from
the street right or
way line, the
supporting
column(s) of a
freestanding sign
exceeding 16 feet in
area shall not
materially impede
vision between a
height of 2 ½ and 7
6
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 5A
½ feet above the
centerline grade of
the street.
Freestanding sighs
located within the
sight triangle shall
have a minimum
vertical clearance of
10 feet above the
centerline grade of
the intersecting
streets.
Fridley Determines
allowable signage
by lot size. Larger
lots result in larger
signs.
Forest Lake Parcels within 500
feet of I-35 shall be
allowed 1
additional
freestanding
monument or pylon
sign. Monument
sign bases shall be
constructed of
similar materials,
style, and color as
that of the principal
building.
To reduce clutter,
signage shall be
distinct and
minimal. No “box”
style signs shall be
permitted. One sign
for multiple
residents, a sign
plan must be
submitted and
approved.
One
freestanding
monument
is allowed
with a
surface not
to exceed
100 square
feet.
Inver Grove
Heights
Signs, billboards and
other advertising
structures shall be
designed and
constructed to
withstand a wind
pressure of not less
than thirty (30) pounds
per square foot of area,
and shall be
constructed in a good
workmanlike manner
so as to be a safe
structure and shall be
securely fastened so as
not to be a hazard to
persons or property.
7
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 5A
New Brighton Signs shall be
designed and
constructed to meet
the standards of the
International
Building Code. All
signs shall be
constructed in such
a manner and of
such material that
they shall be safe
and substantial.
Signs that become
unsafe shall be
ordered repaired or
removed by the
City.
The City
may
determine
areas of
special
control to
establish
special
regulations
for signs
that are
either more
restrictive or
less
restrictive
than those
provided by
this Chapter.
Oakdale The total sign area
of any multi-faced
free-standing or
projecting wall sign
shall not exceed
twice the permitted
area of a two-sided
sign or three times
the area of a three-
sided sign. All
applications for
signs of more than
two sides shall be
reviewed by the
Planning
Commission and
Council.
Roseville Signs must be
compatible with
their surroundings.
Signs shall be
designed,
constructed,
installed, and
maintained in a
manner that does
not adversely
impact public
No freestanding
sign shall be
located closer than
5 feet to a property
line, roadway
easement, or other
public easement.
Signs must not
interfere in any
way with the
proper functioning
All freestanding
signs shall include
materials that
complement the
architectural
design/existing
building materials,
including but not
limited to face
brick, natural or cut
stone, integrally
8
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 5A
safety or unduly
distract motorists.
All signs must be
maintained by the
sign owner in a
safe, neat, clean,
and attractive
condition. A sign
must be replaced or
refurbished so as to
restore the original
appearance thereof
whenever it begins
to fade, chip, or
discolor, rust, cease
to be in good repair
or become
unsightly.
or purpose of a
traffic sign or
signal. No
freestanding sign
shall be located in
the Traffic
Visibility Triangle.
colored concrete
masonry units/rock
faced block, glass,
pre-finished metal
stucco, factory
finished metal
panels.
Shoreview All sign
components shall
be kept in a sound
structural and
attractive condition:
replacement of
defective, missing,
or broken parts,
including lighting;
periodic cleaning.
Permanent
freestanding signs
shall have self-
supporting
structures erected
on and
permanently
attached to
concrete
foundations.
Signs must be
proportioned to the
size of, and
architecturally
compatible with, the
structures and other
signs on the
premises.
At least 75 feet
between
freestanding signs,
must be 5 feet from
property line.
Stillwater Total allowable sign
area. The total
aggregate sign area
allowed on a property
for all signs permitted
in subparts (a) through
(e) above shall be as
follows: a minimum of
100 square feet; and at
a rate of 15 percent of
the building wall area
facing a public street,
up to a maximum of
300 square feet.
9
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 5A
Woodbury Freestanding signs
shall be attached to a
base which is at least
75 percent of the width
of the sign but shall not
exceed the width of the
sign by more than 20
percent. The base shall
be constructed of class
I materials that match
those used on the
building for which the
sign is installed. If no
class I materials are
used on the building,
class I or II materials
shall be used.
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN , IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Data S cource: Washington County, MN3-7-2014
Location Map: 12.029.21.33.0001
K12.029.21.33 .00 01(S ketch Plan Location)0 500 1,000250 Feet
1"=50 0'
39th Street
L a k e
E l m
o
A v
e
Laverne Ave
T H 5
Village Preserve
Development Narrative
Phase 1
April 20, 2015
Developer Introduction:
GWSA LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
Craig Allen
10850 Old County Road 15
Suite 200
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Telephone: 952-270-4473
Email: craig@gonyeacompany.com
The developer is proposing a community of 91 single family homes on +/- 39.84 acres of land located on
the east side of Lake Elmo Avenue (CASH17), approximately 525 feet north of 39th Street North. The
developer is requesting Final Plat for 46 of the 91 single family homes in Phase 1 on +/- 25.6 acres of the
total +/-39.84. This proposed residential development will consist of higher end single family homes. It is
anticipated that these homes will range in price from $400,000 to $750,000. The development is located
in an area of Lake Elmo with easy access to the transportation system. This will provide the future home
owners a secluded place to live that is located within minutes of all the amenities Lake Elmo has to offer
with the regional facilities of the larger metropolitan area.
Village Preserve
The project is anticipated to be constructed in two phases. The primary access is Lake Elmo Avenue. A
community amenity area/park will be developed (proposed Outlot D) between the Village Preserve
development and the proposed Wildflower at Lake Elmo development. Village Preserve is located within
the Stillwater School District #834.
Development Team:
Civil Engineering, Surveying & Land Planning
Sathre-Bergquist, Inc.
Robert S. Molstad, P.E.
David B. Pemberton, P.L.S.
150 South Broadway
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Telephone: 952-476-6000
Facsimile: 952-476-0104
Email: molstad@sathre.com
Email: pemberton@sathre.com
Wetland & Biological Sciences
Kjolhaug Environmental Services
Melissa Barrett
26105 Wild Rose Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
Telephone: 952-401-8757
Email: Melissa@kjolhaugenv.com
Soil Sciences
Haugo GeoTechnical Services
Paul Haugo
13570 Grove Drive #278
Maple Grove, MN 55311
Telephone: (612) 554-4829
Email: p.haugo@gmail.com
Property Ownership:
Schiltgen Farms, Inc.
PID: 1202921330001
The Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 29 North, Range 21 West,
Washington County, Minnesota.
Pete Schiltgen
10880 Stillwater Blvd. North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Telephone: (651) 303-8188
Peteschiltgen@gmail.com
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, Density, & Variances:
The planned Land Use is Village Urban Medium Density. On the Village Land Use Plan, the project site
is classified as Village Urban Medium Density (V-MDR). The density range for V-MDR is 2.5 – 4.99
units per acre. The attached final plat shows 46 single family lots that are a minimum width of 65 feet.
The smallest lot area is L4B4 – 8,455 sf and the largest lot area is L7B1 at 20,480 sf, with an average lot
area of 12,469 for the entire project.
Lake Elmo Zoning:
LDR District
Minimum Lot Area – 8,000 square feet
Minimum Width – 60 feet
Front Yard Setback – 25 feet
Side Yard Setback – 5 feet to garage and 10 feet to living space
Corner Yard Setback – 15 feet
Rear Yard Setback – 20 feet
Density:
Total Site:
Gross Site Area: 39.84 acres
Gross Density = 91/39.84= 2.28 units per acre
CSAH 17 ROW: 2.27 acres
Open Space: 1.22 acres
Net Area: 39.84-2.27-1.22 = 36.35 acres
Net Density = 91/36.35 = 2.50 units per acre
Variances – No variances are proposed.
A final plat lot area tabulation sheet for Phase 1 is in Appendix A of this narrative.
Site Analysis:
The site is bordered on the north and east by the proposed Wildflower at Lake Elmo development, a
Robert Engstrom Development. The site is bordered on the west by Lake Elmo Avenue and on the south
by future commercial properties. The primary access to the site will be via Lake Elmo Avenue with a
second access from 39th Street North via Layton Avenue North.
The site is currently being used for agricultural purposes. Please refer to the ALTA Survey and the aerial
photos. Utility service, sanitary sewer will be provided to the site as part of the proposed Trunk Sanitary
Sewer project that will extend sewer service from the new lift station at Reid Park, north to the Site.
Watermain exists on the east side of Lake Elmo Avenue and will be extended to the south east corner of
the project from 39th Street North. Storm water will be managed and outlet from the site in accordance
with the City and Watershed requirements. The site is within the Valley Branch Watershed District.
Minor utilities (gas, electric, phone, and TV) will need to be extended to service the site.
The topography of the site is relatively flat on most of the site, 940 to 945 along Lake Elmo Avenue and
sloping southeast to 938 at the south east corner. The highest elevations are in the northwest corner at +/-
955. There is an existing slope in the north central portion of the site that slopes from 940 down to 920.
There are no wetlands on the site.
The USDA Soil Survey of the project site indicates Antigo Silt Loams, Campia Silt Loams, and
Mahtomedi Loamy Sand. The soils that are present consist of mostly moderately well drained loams and
sandy loams with a moderate permeability.
Street Design:
Village Preserve proposes to have public streets; the public streets within the project would be 28’ B-B,
with a sidewalk along one side of the street, within a 60’ ROW. The cul-de-sacs will have a 45’ radius to
the back of curb. All streets will be constructed to the City of Lake Elmo standard street section.
Utility Services:
City sanitary sewer will need to be extended to the site. Water is currently available to serve the site, see
notes above.
Site Grading:
The site grading is planned to begin in the spring of 2015. The project will be graded in one phase. The
overall graded area is +/- 38 acres. We are proposing to grade all streets to the proposed hold downs and
prepare corrected building pads for all home sites. We are creating three storm water ponding areas and
two infiltration areas to meet the storm water treatment requirements of the City and the Watershed. It is
our design objective to balance the site with on-site material, some import of suitable structural fill
material may be necessary for building pad, and street.
Storm water:
The storm water facilities proposed in Village Preserve are illustrated on the enclosed preliminary plans.
Runoff from the site will be directed to storm sewer inlet locations, collected and conveyed to the
proposed treatment pond(s) and filtration area(s). The ponds and filtration areas will provide temporary
storage of storm water runoff, treatment of storm water and sediment removal. The storm water plan will
provide adequate treatment and storage to meet the City of Lake Elmo and the Valley Branch Watershed
District requirements.
Wetlands:
There are no wetlands on the site.
Traffic:
Village Preserve proposes one primary access point off of Lake Elmo Avenue and a secondary street
connection to 39th Street North via Layton Avenue North.
Traffic Generation – (anticipate 10 trips per day per home site)
Total Site: 91 Lots = 910 trips per day
Phase 1: 46 Lots = 460 trips per day
The additional traffic generated from this site is not anticipated to have a noticeable impact on the
existing traffic in the area and is on the lower end of the proposed Comprehensive Plan guiding.
Trail System:
Six-foot concrete sidewalks are proposed along residential streets within the site. In addition, there are
8.5 foot trails proposed to promote neighborhood connectivity as well as encourage and expand
pedestrian use of Downtown.
Park:
The neighborhood park and a majority of the trails will be installed with Phase 1 of the development. The
developer is proposing dedicating land adjacent to Reid Park in lieu of park dedication fees. The
developer is working with Robert Engstrom Companies and the Lake Elmo Park Commission on possible
park improvements.
Woodland Areas & Protection:
I. Introduction
A current tree survey in accordance with City of Lake Elmo requirements has been completed for this site
and is included in the submittal. The tree inventory plan is shown on the Erosion Control Plan. Only 14
trees were identified, per the City requirements.
II. Tree Species, Distribution and Size:
The site has 318 caliper inches of significant trees, with 15 caliper inches of exempt trees for a net total of
303 caliper inches. The trees are located throughout the site. The species include Cherry, Maple, Box
Elder, Red Cedar and a few others. A table containing data on the trees, as well as a map which shows
tree location, species, size and condition, are shown in the preliminary plans, please see the Erosion
Control Plan.
Tree Removal & Restitution:
The Village Preserve development will impact approximately 61.4% of the significant trees on the site.
The development is over the allowable 30% threshold and a proposed replacement plan has been prepared
for the project.
Landscape Plan, Monuments, & Entrance:
This development will have a divided entry off of Lake Elmo Avenue and some small berming along
Lake Elmo Avenue. Many of the lots will have pond views or overlook views, due to the site topography.
The storm water pond and treatment areas will have landscaping to create unique water treatment
facilities for the proposed project. A custom entry monument may be designed and constructed at the
proposed entrance(s). This will create a sense of luxury and livability for the new single family residents,
while providing safer access to the site.
Homeowner’s Association and Restrictive Covenants:
The developer will prepare restrictive covenants and standards that will apply to this 91 lot project. The
restrictive covenants will be tailored to the developer’s vision of the project. Each home will be required
to meet the specifics of building types, landscaping, and overall goals of the development.
A master HOA will be created for the Village Preserve project. This association will be in charge of the
monumentation, entrance, landscaping, and infiltration basins. The HOA will also be responsible for
maintenance issues within the subdivision. These may include special landscaping, mailboxes, signage,
and other common elements.
Preliminary Plat Conditions for Approval
1) Within six months of preliminary plat approval, the applicant shall complete the following:
a. The applicant shall provide adequate title evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney.
Comment: Title work will be submitted for review before City officials sign the final
plat.
b. The applicant shall submit a revised Preliminary Plat and plans meeting all conditions of
approval. All of the above conditions shall be met prior to the City accepting an
application for Final Plat and prior to the commencement of any grading activity on the
site.
2) The City Engineer shall review and approve all revised Preliminary Plans that are submitted to
the City in advance of Final Plat to satisfy Condition #1. Comment: Revised plans have been
submitted for City Engineer to review.
3) The Preliminary Plat approval is conditioned upon the applicant meeting all minimum City
standards and design requirements.
4) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review letter dated
June 23, 2014 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to consideration of a Final Plat.
Comment: All modifications requested in Engineer review letter have been incorporated.
5) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland
Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from Valley Branch Watershed District
prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site. Comment:
Village Preserve has received Valley Branch Watershed District storm water permit. Plans
have been updated with their conditions of approval.
6) Related to proposed storm water discharge to the north, the applicant must provide written
permission from the property owner of the parcel located immediately north of the proposed
Village Preserve subdivision consenting to the discharge location, volume and rate(s) in advance
of submitting Final Plat. Comment: Applicant and neighboring landowner have an agreement
to discharge storm water to the north.
7) The applicant shall be responsible for the submission of final plans and the construction of all
improvements within the Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) right-of-way as required by Washington
County and further described in the review letter received from the County dated June 24, 2014.
Comment: Lake Elmo Avenue improvement plans have been submitted.
8) The Landscape Plan shall be updated per the recommendations of the City’s Landscape
Consultant, describe in a memo dated 6/25/14. Comment: Landscape Plans have been updated
with Landscape Consultant recommendations dated 6/25/14.
9) The developer shall be required to submit an updated parkland dedication calculation in advance
of Final Plat to clarify the proposed amount of dedication being provided in the Village Preserve
Subdivision. For whatever amount of land the applicant is short of the required parkland
dedication amount, the applicant will either:
a. Subdivide the parcel under contract with Schiltgen Farms, Inc. and dedicate the land
being proposed for parkland dedication east of Reid Park; or
b. Post an escrow in the amount equal to the fees in lieu of land dedication for the equal
market value of the remaining land dedication requirement for Village Preserve until such
time the land is dedicated east of Reid Park.
Comment: Applicant has provided updated parkland dedication calculations.
Applicant will choose one of the two options for parkland dedication listed above, both
resulting in land dedication east of Reid Park.
10) Secondary access to the site must be provided as part of the 2nd phase of the Village Preserve
Subdivision. Said access must be included in the Final Plat and final construction documents for
the 2nd phase of the development. Comment: Secondary access is included in Phase 1 plans.
11) 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. Comment: Applicant does not intend
to grade site prior to final plat approval.
12) Application for Final Plat for the Village Preserve subdivision will not be accepted until approved
plans for the extension of sanitary sewer to the site have been accepted or ordered by the City.
Comment: Applicant has two agreements with local landowners to extend sanitary sewer
privately to the site once they have final plat approval and the City accepts a developer’s
agreement for Village Preserve.
13) All of the outlots within the Village Preserve Preliminary Plat that serve as parkland or storm
water management shall be dedicated to the City. Comment: All outlots will be dedicated to the
City.
APPENDIX A:
Village Preserve (Phase 1) – Final Plat Lot Area Summary
s.f.0.32 acres s.f.s.f.0.32 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.34 acres s.f.s.f.0.34 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.40 acres s.f.s.f.0.40 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.33 acres s.f.s.f.0.33 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.39 acres s.f.s.f.0.39 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.26 acres s.f.s.f.0.26 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.34 acres s.f.s.f.0.34 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.43 acres s.f.s.f.0.43 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.29 acres s.f.s.f.0.29 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.37 acres s.f.s.f.0.37 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.28 acres s.f.s.f.0.28 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.31 acres s.f.s.f.0.31 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.28 acres s.f.s.f.0.28 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.27 acres s.f.s.f.0.27 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.27 acres s.f.s.f.0.27 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.4.85 acres s.f.s.f.4.85 acres
s.f.0.29 acres s.f.s.f.0.29 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.29 acres s.f.s.f.0.29 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.26 acres s.f.s.f.0.26 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.26 acres s.f.s.f.0.26 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.27 acres s.f.s.f.0.27 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.26 acres s.f.s.f.0.26 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.1.63 acres s.f.s.f.1.63 acres
s.f.0.21 acres s.f.s.f.0.21 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.24 acres s.f.s.f.0.24 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.24 acres s.f.s.f.0.24 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.24 acres s.f.s.f.0.24 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.28 acres s.f.s.f.0.28 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.27 acres s.f.s.f.0.27 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.27 acres s.f.s.f.0.27 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.26 acres s.f.s.f.0.26 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.26 acres s.f.s.f.0.26 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.2.27 acres s.f.s.f.2.27 acres
11,603 0 11,603 80.6
Lot 2 14,656 0 14,656 85.3
0 12,123 85.2
Lot 12 13,294 0 13,294 95
Lot 13 12,057 0 12,057 82
WETLAND AREA
Lot 6 11,179 0 11,179 94.1
65
Total 71,170 0 71,170
Lot 2 10,415 0 10,415 93.2
BLOCK 3 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK
Lot 1 9,342 0
11,523 80.7
Lot 5 11,835 0 11,835 80.8
Lot 4 11,523 0
80.8
0
WIDTH @ SETBACKGROSS AREA NET AREA
Lot 5
Lot 6
Lot 7
80.7
95
211,438
84.1
13,873
17,337
13,873 0
0
0
0
0
95.6
80.1
80.1
80.8
Lot 1
Lot 3
Lot 4
17,337
14,344
16,946
11,249
14,660
BLOCK 1
0
0
14,344
16,946
11,249
14,660
Lot 14
18,881
BLOCK 2 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA
11,650
211,438
Lot 15
Total
Lot 8
0
18,881
WIDTH @ SETBACK
Lot 1 12,737 0 12,737 133.6
Lot 9 12,822 0 12,822 80.5
Lot 10 15,944 0 15,944 91.5
Lot 11 12,123
11,650
Lot 2
Lot 3 11,315 0 11,315 81
12,581 0 12,581 108.6
9,342 83.3
Lot 3 10,341 0 10,341 74.5
Lot 4 10,588 0 10,588 80.9
Lot 7 11,662 0 11,662 65
Lot 5 12,100 0 12,100 85.2
Lot 6 11,544 0 11,544
Lot 9 11,325 0 11,325 97.6
Total 98,818 0 98,818
Lot 8 11,500 0 11,500 87.4
s.f.0.33 acres s.f.s.f.0.33 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.30 acres s.f.s.f.0.30 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.24 acres s.f.s.f.0.24 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.19 acres s.f.s.f.0.19 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.20 acres s.f.s.f.0.20 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.20 acres s.f.s.f.0.20 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.23 acres s.f.s.f.0.23 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.29 acres s.f.s.f.0.29 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.26 acres s.f.s.f.0.26 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.21 acres s.f.s.f.0.21 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.24 acres s.f.s.f.0.24 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.27 acres s.f.s.f.0.27 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.34 acres s.f.s.f.0.34 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.28 acres s.f.s.f.0.28 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.25 acres s.f.s.f.0.25 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.25 acres s.f.s.f.0.25 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.4.08 acres s.f.s.f.4.08 acres
s.f.0.33 acres s.f.s.f.0.33 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.1.97 acres s.f.s.f.1.97 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.13.33 acres s.f.s.f.13.33 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.1.50 acres s.f.s.f.1.50 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.55 acres s.f.s.f.0.55 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.94 acres s.f.s.f.0.94 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.04 acres s.f.s.f.0.04 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.85 acres s.f.s.f.0.85 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.1.13 acres s.f.s.f.1.13 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.20.63 acres s.f.s.f.20.63 acres
s.f.8.01 acres s.f.s.f.8.01 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.39.84 acres s.f.s.f.39.84 acres
177,839
1,735,349 0 1,735,349
TOTAL
348,735 0 348,735 0
R/W WIDTH @ SETBACKGROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA
GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA
BLOCK 4 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK
Lot 1 14,334 0 14,334 71.4
Lot 2 13,065 0 13,065 65
Lot 3 10,624 0 10,624 65
Lot 4 8,455 0 8,455 65
Lot 5 8,509 0 8,509 65
Lot 6 8,571 0 8,571 65
Lot 7 10,205 0 10,205 65
Lot 8 12,673 0 12,673 71
Lot 9 11,314 0 11,314 71
65
Lot 13 14,676 0 14,676 65
Lot 10 8,980 0 8,980 65
Lot 11 10,346 0 10,346 65
23,870 0 23,870 0
36,958
0
Lot 14 12,340 0 12,340 65
OUTLOT GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK
Lot 15 10,881 0 10,881 65.5
Lot 16 11,012 0
C 580,709 0 580,709
Total 898,519 0 898,519
I 49,235 0 49,235 0
H 0 36,958 0
D 65,261 0 65,261 0
E
G 1,735 0 1,735 0
F 40,766 0 40,766 0
B 85,678 0 85,678 0
A 14,306 0 14,306 0
11,012 75.3
Total 177,839 0
Lot 12 11,856 0 11,856
Village Preserve
Development Narrative
Phase 1
April 20, 2015
Developer Introduction:
GWSA LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
Craig Allen
10850 Old County Road 15
Suite 200
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Telephone: 952-270-4473
Email: craig@gonyeacompany.com
The developer is proposing a community of 91 single family homes on +/- 39.84 acres of land located on
the east side of Lake Elmo Avenue (CASH17), approximately 525 feet north of 39th Street North. The
developer is requesting Final Plat for 46 of the 91 single family homes in Phase 1 on +/- 25.6 acres of the
total +/-39.84. This proposed residential development will consist of higher end single family homes. It is
anticipated that these homes will range in price from $400,000 to $750,000. The development is located
in an area of Lake Elmo with easy access to the transportation system. This will provide the future home
owners a secluded place to live that is located within minutes of all the amenities Lake Elmo has to offer
with the regional facilities of the larger metropolitan area.
Village Preserve
The project is anticipated to be constructed in two phases. The primary access is Lake Elmo Avenue. A
community amenity area/park will be developed (proposed Outlot D) between the Village Preserve
development and the proposed Wildflower at Lake Elmo development. Village Preserve is located within
the Stillwater School District #834.
Development Team:
Civil Engineering, Surveying & Land Planning
Sathre-Bergquist, Inc.
Robert S. Molstad, P.E.
David B. Pemberton, P.L.S.
150 South Broadway
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Telephone: 952-476-6000
Facsimile: 952-476-0104
Email: molstad@sathre.com
Email: pemberton@sathre.com
Wetland & Biological Sciences
Kjolhaug Environmental Services
Melissa Barrett
26105 Wild Rose Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
Telephone: 952-401-8757
Email: Melissa@kjolhaugenv.com
Soil Sciences
Haugo GeoTechnical Services
Paul Haugo
13570 Grove Drive #278
Maple Grove, MN 55311
Telephone: (612) 554-4829
Email: p.haugo@gmail.com
Property Ownership:
Schiltgen Farms, Inc.
PID: 1202921330001
The Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 29 North, Range 21 West,
Washington County, Minnesota.
Pete Schiltgen
10880 Stillwater Blvd. North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Telephone: (651) 303-8188
Peteschiltgen@gmail.com
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, Density, & Variances:
The planned Land Use is Village Urban Medium Density. On the Village Land Use Plan, the project site
is classified as Village Urban Medium Density (V-MDR). The density range for V-MDR is 2.5 – 4.99
units per acre. The attached final plat shows 46 single family lots that are a minimum width of 65 feet.
The smallest lot area is L4B4 – 8,455 sf and the largest lot area is L7B1 at 20,480 sf, with an average lot
area of 12,469 for the entire project.
Lake Elmo Zoning:
LDR District
Minimum Lot Area – 8,000 square feet
Minimum Width – 60 feet
Front Yard Setback – 25 feet
Side Yard Setback – 5 feet to garage and 10 feet to living space
Corner Yard Setback – 15 feet
Rear Yard Setback – 20 feet
Density:
Total Site:
Gross Site Area: 39.84 acres
Gross Density = 91/39.84= 2.28 units per acre
CSAH 17 ROW: 2.27 acres
Open Space: 1.22 acres
Net Area: 39.84-2.27-1.22 = 36.35 acres
Net Density = 91/36.35 = 2.50 units per acre
Variances – No variances are proposed.
A final plat lot area tabulation sheet for Phase 1 is in Appendix A of this narrative.
Site Analysis:
The site is bordered on the north and east by the proposed Wildflower at Lake Elmo development, a
Robert Engstrom Development. The site is bordered on the west by Lake Elmo Avenue and on the south
by future commercial properties. The primary access to the site will be via Lake Elmo Avenue with a
second access from 39th Street North via Layton Avenue North.
The site is currently being used for agricultural purposes. Please refer to the ALTA Survey and the aerial
photos. Utility service, sanitary sewer will be provided to the site as part of the proposed Trunk Sanitary
Sewer project that will extend sewer service from the new lift station at Reid Park, north to the Site.
Watermain exists on the east side of Lake Elmo Avenue and will be extended to the south east corner of
the project from 39th Street North. Storm water will be managed and outlet from the site in accordance
with the City and Watershed requirements. The site is within the Valley Branch Watershed District.
Minor utilities (gas, electric, phone, and TV) will need to be extended to service the site.
The topography of the site is relatively flat on most of the site, 940 to 945 along Lake Elmo Avenue and
sloping southeast to 938 at the south east corner. The highest elevations are in the northwest corner at +/-
955. There is an existing slope in the north central portion of the site that slopes from 940 down to 920.
There are no wetlands on the site.
The USDA Soil Survey of the project site indicates Antigo Silt Loams, Campia Silt Loams, and
Mahtomedi Loamy Sand. The soils that are present consist of mostly moderately well drained loams and
sandy loams with a moderate permeability.
Street Design:
Village Preserve proposes to have public streets; the public streets within the project would be 28’ B-B,
with a sidewalk along one side of the street, within a 60’ ROW. The cul-de-sacs will have a 45’ radius to
the back of curb. All streets will be constructed to the City of Lake Elmo standard street section.
Utility Services:
City sanitary sewer will need to be extended to the site. Water is currently available to serve the site, see
notes above.
Site Grading:
The site grading is planned to begin in the spring of 2015. The project will be graded in one phase. The
overall graded area is +/- 38 acres. We are proposing to grade all streets to the proposed hold downs and
prepare corrected building pads for all home sites. We are creating three storm water ponding areas and
two infiltration areas to meet the storm water treatment requirements of the City and the Watershed. It is
our design objective to balance the site with on-site material, some import of suitable structural fill
material may be necessary for building pad, and street.
Storm water:
The storm water facilities proposed in Village Preserve are illustrated on the enclosed preliminary plans.
Runoff from the site will be directed to storm sewer inlet locations, collected and conveyed to the
proposed treatment pond(s) and filtration area(s). The ponds and filtration areas will provide temporary
storage of storm water runoff, treatment of storm water and sediment removal. The storm water plan will
provide adequate treatment and storage to meet the City of Lake Elmo and the Valley Branch Watershed
District requirements.
Wetlands:
There are no wetlands on the site.
Traffic:
Village Preserve proposes one primary access point off of Lake Elmo Avenue and a secondary street
connection to 39th Street North via Layton Avenue North.
Traffic Generation – (anticipate 10 trips per day per home site)
Total Site: 91 Lots = 910 trips per day
Phase 1: 46 Lots = 460 trips per day
The additional traffic generated from this site is not anticipated to have a noticeable impact on the
existing traffic in the area and is on the lower end of the proposed Comprehensive Plan guiding.
Trail System:
Six-foot concrete sidewalks are proposed along residential streets within the site. In addition, there are
8.5 foot trails proposed to promote neighborhood connectivity as well as encourage and expand
pedestrian use of Downtown.
Park:
The neighborhood park and a majority of the trails will be installed with Phase 1 of the development. The
developer is proposing dedicating land adjacent to Reid Park in lieu of park dedication fees. The
developer is working with Robert Engstrom Companies and the Lake Elmo Park Commission on possible
park improvements.
Woodland Areas & Protection:
I. Introduction
A current tree survey in accordance with City of Lake Elmo requirements has been completed for this site
and is included in the submittal. The tree inventory plan is shown on the Erosion Control Plan. Only 14
trees were identified, per the City requirements.
II. Tree Species, Distribution and Size:
The site has 318 caliper inches of significant trees, with 15 caliper inches of exempt trees for a net total of
303 caliper inches. The trees are located throughout the site. The species include Cherry, Maple, Box
Elder, Red Cedar and a few others. A table containing data on the trees, as well as a map which shows
tree location, species, size and condition, are shown in the preliminary plans, please see the Erosion
Control Plan.
Tree Removal & Restitution:
The Village Preserve development will impact approximately 61.4% of the significant trees on the site.
The development is over the allowable 30% threshold and a proposed replacement plan has been prepared
for the project.
Landscape Plan, Monuments, & Entrance:
This development will have a divided entry off of Lake Elmo Avenue and some small berming along
Lake Elmo Avenue. Many of the lots will have pond views or overlook views, due to the site topography.
The storm water pond and treatment areas will have landscaping to create unique water treatment
facilities for the proposed project. A custom entry monument may be designed and constructed at the
proposed entrance(s). This will create a sense of luxury and livability for the new single family residents,
while providing safer access to the site.
Homeowner’s Association and Restrictive Covenants:
The developer will prepare restrictive covenants and standards that will apply to this 91 lot project. The
restrictive covenants will be tailored to the developer’s vision of the project. Each home will be required
to meet the specifics of building types, landscaping, and overall goals of the development.
A master HOA will be created for the Village Preserve project. This association will be in charge of the
monumentation, entrance, landscaping, and infiltration basins. The HOA will also be responsible for
maintenance issues within the subdivision. These may include special landscaping, mailboxes, signage,
and other common elements.
Preliminary Plat Conditions for Approval
1) Within six months of preliminary plat approval, the applicant shall complete the following:
a. The applicant shall provide adequate title evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney.
Comment: Title work will be submitted for review before City officials sign the final
plat.
b. The applicant shall submit a revised Preliminary Plat and plans meeting all conditions of
approval. All of the above conditions shall be met prior to the City accepting an
application for Final Plat and prior to the commencement of any grading activity on the
site.
2) The City Engineer shall review and approve all revised Preliminary Plans that are submitted to
the City in advance of Final Plat to satisfy Condition #1. Comment: Revised plans have been
submitted for City Engineer to review.
3) The Preliminary Plat approval is conditioned upon the applicant meeting all minimum City
standards and design requirements.
4) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review letter dated
June 23, 2014 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to consideration of a Final Plat.
Comment: All modifications requested in Engineer review letter have been incorporated.
5) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland
Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from Valley Branch Watershed District
prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site. Comment:
Village Preserve has received Valley Branch Watershed District storm water permit. Plans
have been updated with their conditions of approval.
6) Related to proposed storm water discharge to the north, the applicant must provide written
permission from the property owner of the parcel located immediately north of the proposed
Village Preserve subdivision consenting to the discharge location, volume and rate(s) in advance
of submitting Final Plat. Comment: Applicant and neighboring landowner have an agreement
to discharge storm water to the north.
7) The applicant shall be responsible for the submission of final plans and the construction of all
improvements within the Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) right-of-way as required by Washington
County and further described in the review letter received from the County dated June 24, 2014.
Comment: Lake Elmo Avenue improvement plans have been submitted.
8) The Landscape Plan shall be updated per the recommendations of the City’s Landscape
Consultant, describe in a memo dated 6/25/14. Comment: Landscape Plans have been updated
with Landscape Consultant recommendations dated 6/25/14.
9) The developer shall be required to submit an updated parkland dedication calculation in advance
of Final Plat to clarify the proposed amount of dedication being provided in the Village Preserve
Subdivision. For whatever amount of land the applicant is short of the required parkland
dedication amount, the applicant will either:
a. Subdivide the parcel under contract with Schiltgen Farms, Inc. and dedicate the land
being proposed for parkland dedication east of Reid Park; or
b. Post an escrow in the amount equal to the fees in lieu of land dedication for the equal
market value of the remaining land dedication requirement for Village Preserve until such
time the land is dedicated east of Reid Park.
Comment: Applicant has provided updated parkland dedication calculations.
Applicant will choose one of the two options for parkland dedication listed above, both
resulting in land dedication east of Reid Park.
10) Secondary access to the site must be provided as part of the 2nd phase of the Village Preserve
Subdivision. Said access must be included in the Final Plat and final construction documents for
the 2nd phase of the development. Comment: Secondary access is included in Phase 1 plans.
11) 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. Comment: Applicant does not intend
to grade site prior to final plat approval.
12) Application for Final Plat for the Village Preserve subdivision will not be accepted until approved
plans for the extension of sanitary sewer to the site have been accepted or ordered by the City.
Comment: Applicant has two agreements with local landowners to extend sanitary sewer
privately to the site once they have final plat approval and the City accepts a developer’s
agreement for Village Preserve.
13) All of the outlots within the Village Preserve Preliminary Plat that serve as parkland or storm
water management shall be dedicated to the City. Comment: All outlots will be dedicated to the
City.
APPENDIX A:
Village Preserve (Phase 1) – Final Plat Lot Area Summary
s.f.0.32 acres s.f.s.f.0.32 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.34 acres s.f.s.f.0.34 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.40 acres s.f.s.f.0.40 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.33 acres s.f.s.f.0.33 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.39 acres s.f.s.f.0.39 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.26 acres s.f.s.f.0.26 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.34 acres s.f.s.f.0.34 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.43 acres s.f.s.f.0.43 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.29 acres s.f.s.f.0.29 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.37 acres s.f.s.f.0.37 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.28 acres s.f.s.f.0.28 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.31 acres s.f.s.f.0.31 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.28 acres s.f.s.f.0.28 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.27 acres s.f.s.f.0.27 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.27 acres s.f.s.f.0.27 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.4.85 acres s.f.s.f.4.85 acres
s.f.0.29 acres s.f.s.f.0.29 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.29 acres s.f.s.f.0.29 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.26 acres s.f.s.f.0.26 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.26 acres s.f.s.f.0.26 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.27 acres s.f.s.f.0.27 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.26 acres s.f.s.f.0.26 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.1.63 acres s.f.s.f.1.63 acres
s.f.0.21 acres s.f.s.f.0.21 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.24 acres s.f.s.f.0.24 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.24 acres s.f.s.f.0.24 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.24 acres s.f.s.f.0.24 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.28 acres s.f.s.f.0.28 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.27 acres s.f.s.f.0.27 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.27 acres s.f.s.f.0.27 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.26 acres s.f.s.f.0.26 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.26 acres s.f.s.f.0.26 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.2.27 acres s.f.s.f.2.27 acres
11,603 0 11,603 80.6
Lot 2 14,656 0 14,656 85.3
0 12,123 85.2
Lot 12 13,294 0 13,294 95
Lot 13 12,057 0 12,057 82
WETLAND AREA
Lot 6 11,179 0 11,179 94.1
65
Total 71,170 0 71,170
Lot 2 10,415 0 10,415 93.2
BLOCK 3 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK
Lot 1 9,342 0
11,523 80.7
Lot 5 11,835 0 11,835 80.8
Lot 4 11,523 0
80.8
0
WIDTH @ SETBACKGROSS AREA NET AREA
Lot 5
Lot 6
Lot 7
80.7
95
211,438
84.1
13,873
17,337
13,873 0
0
0
0
0
95.6
80.1
80.1
80.8
Lot 1
Lot 3
Lot 4
17,337
14,344
16,946
11,249
14,660
BLOCK 1
0
0
14,344
16,946
11,249
14,660
Lot 14
18,881
BLOCK 2 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA
11,650
211,438
Lot 15
Total
Lot 8
0
18,881
WIDTH @ SETBACK
Lot 1 12,737 0 12,737 133.6
Lot 9 12,822 0 12,822 80.5
Lot 10 15,944 0 15,944 91.5
Lot 11 12,123
11,650
Lot 2
Lot 3 11,315 0 11,315 81
12,581 0 12,581 108.6
9,342 83.3
Lot 3 10,341 0 10,341 74.5
Lot 4 10,588 0 10,588 80.9
Lot 7 11,662 0 11,662 65
Lot 5 12,100 0 12,100 85.2
Lot 6 11,544 0 11,544
Lot 9 11,325 0 11,325 97.6
Total 98,818 0 98,818
Lot 8 11,500 0 11,500 87.4
s.f.0.33 acres s.f.s.f.0.33 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.30 acres s.f.s.f.0.30 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.24 acres s.f.s.f.0.24 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.19 acres s.f.s.f.0.19 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.20 acres s.f.s.f.0.20 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.20 acres s.f.s.f.0.20 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.23 acres s.f.s.f.0.23 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.29 acres s.f.s.f.0.29 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.26 acres s.f.s.f.0.26 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.21 acres s.f.s.f.0.21 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.24 acres s.f.s.f.0.24 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.27 acres s.f.s.f.0.27 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.34 acres s.f.s.f.0.34 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.28 acres s.f.s.f.0.28 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.25 acres s.f.s.f.0.25 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.25 acres s.f.s.f.0.25 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.4.08 acres s.f.s.f.4.08 acres
s.f.0.33 acres s.f.s.f.0.33 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.1.97 acres s.f.s.f.1.97 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.13.33 acres s.f.s.f.13.33 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.1.50 acres s.f.s.f.1.50 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.55 acres s.f.s.f.0.55 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.94 acres s.f.s.f.0.94 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.04 acres s.f.s.f.0.04 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.0.85 acres s.f.s.f.0.85 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.1.13 acres s.f.s.f.1.13 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.20.63 acres s.f.s.f.20.63 acres
s.f.8.01 acres s.f.s.f.8.01 acres +/-l.f.
s.f.39.84 acres s.f.s.f.39.84 acres
177,839
1,735,349 0 1,735,349
TOTAL
348,735 0 348,735 0
R/W WIDTH @ SETBACKGROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA
GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA
BLOCK 4 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK
Lot 1 14,334 0 14,334 71.4
Lot 2 13,065 0 13,065 65
Lot 3 10,624 0 10,624 65
Lot 4 8,455 0 8,455 65
Lot 5 8,509 0 8,509 65
Lot 6 8,571 0 8,571 65
Lot 7 10,205 0 10,205 65
Lot 8 12,673 0 12,673 71
Lot 9 11,314 0 11,314 71
65
Lot 13 14,676 0 14,676 65
Lot 10 8,980 0 8,980 65
Lot 11 10,346 0 10,346 65
23,870 0 23,870 0
36,958
0
Lot 14 12,340 0 12,340 65
OUTLOT GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK
Lot 15 10,881 0 10,881 65.5
Lot 16 11,012 0
C 580,709 0 580,709
Total 898,519 0 898,519
I 49,235 0 49,235 0
H 0 36,958 0
D 65,261 0 65,261 0
E
G 1,735 0 1,735 0
F 40,766 0 40,766 0
B 85,678 0 85,678 0
A 14,306 0 14,306 0
11,012 75.3
Total 177,839 0
Lot 12 11,856 0 11,856
2350 BAYLESS PLACE • ST. PAUL, MN • 55114
PHONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LAN D ARCINC.COM
VILLAGE PRESERVE – DESIGN REVIEW REPORT
LAKE ELMO, MN
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW DATED APRIL 22nd, 2015
REVIEWED PLAN SET DATED FEBRUARY 24TH, 2015
Required Action Items by Village Preserve Project Team
1. Please provide more detail as to the groundcover plantings within the
entry median off Lake Elmo Avenue North. Preference would be to see a
pollinator friendly plant or plant mix.
2. Village Preserve Project Landscape Architect to provide landscape
irrigation plans for all commonly held HOA & City R.O.W. areas.
3. Planting plan for Outlot B (City Park) as represented is appropriate for an
undeveloped City Park. If developer is successful in working with the City
to develop Outlot B as part of the development project at this time by
creating an active use park we would request to revisit the design and
how it impacts the city required landscape.
4. The landscape architect has done a great job providing a maintenance
plan for all native seeding areas within all commonly held HOA & City
Outlot / R.O.W areas. In addition to this information for the same area the
City requests a copy of the executed agreement with an approved
ecosystem management provider for these services including stated
financial commitments.
SINCERELY,
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC.
STEPHEN MASTEY, ASLA, CLARB, LEED AP BD+C
DIRECTOR OF DESIGN
1
Nick Johnson
From:Carol Hanson <Carol.Hanson@co.washington.mn.us>
Sent:Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:17 AM
To:'ejohnson@sathre.com'
Cc:Nick Johnson; Joe Gustafson; Nik Costello; Wayne Sandberg
Subject:Village Preserve plan revisions for CSAH 17
Attachments:DOC042115-04212015084602.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Hello Eric,
We have reviewed the construction plan sheets for CSAH 17 lane modifications and request changes as shown on the
attached plan sheets.
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions.
Thank You,
Carol
Carol Hanson
Washington County Public Works
11660 Myeron Road N
Stillwater MN 55082
(651) 430‐4313
March 18, 2015
Craig Allen
GWSA Land Development, LLC
Suite 200
10850 Old County Rd. 15
Plymouth, MN 55441
Re: Village Preserve—Lake Elmo, Minnesota
VBWD Permit #2015-06
Dear Mr. Allen:
Enclosed is the Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) permit for your project. Please note the
following conditions imposed by the Managers, which are also listed on the back of the permit.
1. No construction shall start until all permit conditions are met. If the Valley Branch Watershed District
Board is not satisfied that the conditions are met, the permit will be revoked.
2. The infiltration material shall be in conformance with Mn/DOT Specification 3877.1G, or an
equivalent specification approved by the VBWD.
3. This permit is not valid until a maintenance agreement in the general format of Appendix B of the
VBWD Rules is submitted to and approved by the VBWD Attorney.
4. The permit holder must obtain permission for any work outside of his property.
5. Prior to construction, the required surety and fee shall be submitted.
6. The plan sheets shall be revised to show the correct inverts at the pond outlet structures.
7. Drain tile shall be installed around the perimeters of the foundations at Block 1, Lots 1 and 2 and the
lot north of Block 3, Lot 1.
8. Plans shall be revised to show minimum floor elevations at least 2 feet higher than the adjacent water
body’s 100-year flood level.
9. This permit is not transferable.
Craig Allen, GWSA Land Development, LLC
VBWD Permit #2015-06: Village Preserve, Lake Elmo
March 18, 2015
Page 2
10. This permit is subject to obtaining all other permits required by governmental agencies having
jurisdiction (including a NPDES permit).
11. The VBWD Engineer and Inspector shall be notified at least three days prior to commencement of
work.
12. Erosion controls shall be installed prior to the commencement of grading operations and must be
maintained throughout the construction period until turf is established. Additional erosion controls
may be required, as directed by the VBWD Inspector or VBWD Engineer.
13. The following additional erosion controls shall be implemented on the site:
a. All proposed slopes three-feet horizontal to one-foot vertical (3H:1V) should be covered with
erosion-control blanket.
b. Silt fence should follow existing contours as closely as feasible to limit the potential for gully
erosion along the edges.
c. Any sediment that collects in storm sewers, ponds, or other water management features shall be
removed.
d. Street sweeping shall be performed if sediment collects on streets.
e. If erosion occurs at the outlets of the storm sewer pipes the applicant will be responsible for
correcting the problem to the satisfaction of the VBWD.
14. To prevent soil compaction, the proposed infiltration area shall be staked off and marked during
construction to prevent heavy equipment and traffic from traveling over it. If the infiltration facility is
in place during construction activities, sediment and runoff shall be kept away from the facility, using
practices such as diversion berms and vegetation around the facility’s perimeter. The infiltration
facility shall not be excavated to final grade until the contributing drainage area has been constructed
and fully stabilized. The final phase of excavation shall remove all accumulated sediment and be done
by light, tracked equipment to avoid compaction of the basin floor. To provide a well-aerated, highly
porous surface, the soils of the basin floor shall be loosened to a depth of at least 24 inches to a
maximum compaction of 85% standard proctor density prior to planting.
15. All disturbed areas shall be vegetated within 14 days of final grading.
16. The applicant is responsible for removal of all temporary erosion-control measures, including silt
fence, upon establishment of permanent vegetation at the project site as determined by the VBWD
Engineer and/or Inspector.
17. Valley Branch Watershed District shall be granted drainage easements which cover: (a) land adjacent
to stormwater management facilities, wetlands, and lowlands up to their 100-year flood elevations
and (b) all ditches, storm sewers, and maintenance accesses to the stormwater management facilities.
Craig Allen, GWSA Land Development, LLC
VBWD Permit #2015-06: Village Preserve, Lake Elmo
March 18, 2015
Page 3
18. The minimum floor elevations for all buildable lots in the development shall be recorded in a
Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions or on the final plat.
19. The required drainage easements and access easements shall be recorded with the Washington County
Recorder’s Office.
20. Return or allowed expiration of any remaining surety and permit closeout is dependent on the permit
holder providing proof that all required documents have been recorded (including but not limited to
easements) and providing as-built drawings that show that the project was constructed as approved by
the Managers and in conformance with the VBWD rules and regulations.
Thank you for your cooperation with the District’s permit program.
Sincerely,
David J. Bucheck, President
Valley Branch Watershed District
DJB/ymh
Enclosure
c: Ray Marshall, VBWD Attorney
Ray Roemmich, VBWD Inspector
Jenifer Sorensen, MDNR
Kyle Klatt, City Planning Director—City of Lake Elmo
Jack Griffin, City Engineer, FOCUS Engineering—City of Lake Elmo
Building Inspector—City of Lake Elmo
Nate Herman, Sathre-Bergquist, Inc.—Authorized Agent
Schiltgen Farm, Inc.—Owner
Karen Wold, Barr Engineering Company
Yvonne Huffman, Barr Engineering Company
P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382020\_MovedFromMpls_P\2015\2015-06_SchiltgenParcelB\2015-06_Permit Ltr_March2015.docx
1. No construction shall start until all permit conditions are met. If the Valley Branch Watershed District Board is not satisfied that the
conditions are met, the permit will be revoked.
2. The infiltration material shall be in conformance with Mn/DOT Specification 3877.1G, or an equivalent specification approved by the
VBWD.
3. This permit is not valid until a maintenance agreement in the general format of Appendix B of the VBWD Rules is submitted to and
approved by the VBWD Attorney.
4. The permit holder must obtain permission for any work outside of his property.
5. Prior to construction, the required surety and fee shall be submitted.
6. The plan sheets shall be revised to show the correct inverts at the pond outlet structures.
7. Drain tile shall be installed around the perimeters of the foundations at Block 1, Lots 1 and 2 and the lot north of Block 3, Lot 1.
8. Plans shall be revised to show minimum floor elevations at least 2 feet higher than the adjacent water body’s 100-year flood level.
9. This permit is not transferable.
10. This permit is subject to obtaining all other permits required by governmental agencies having jurisdiction (including a NPDES
permit).
11. The VBWD Engineer and Inspector shall be notified at least three days prior to commencement of work.
12. Erosion controls shall be installed prior to the commencement of grading operations and must be maintained throughout the
construction period until turf is established. Additional erosion controls may be required, as directed by the VBWD Inspector or
VBWD Engineer.
13. The following additional erosion controls shall be implemented on the site:
a. All proposed slopes three-feet horizontal to one-foot vertical (3H:1V) should be covered with erosion-control blanket.
b. Silt fence should follow existing contours as closely as feasible to limit the potential for gully erosion along the edges.
c. Any sediment that collects in storm sewers, ponds, or other water management features shall be removed.
d. Street sweeping shall be performed if sediment collects on streets.
e. If erosion occurs at the outlets of the storm sewer pipes the applicant will be responsible for correcting the problem to the
satisfaction of the VBWD.
14. To prevent soil compaction, the proposed infiltration area shall be staked off and marked during construction to prevent heavy
equipment and traffic from traveling over it. If the infiltration facility is in place during construction activities, sediment and runoff
shall be kept away from the facility, using practices such as diversion berms and vegetation around the facility’s perimeter. The
infiltration facility shall not be excavated to final grade until the contributing drainage area has been constructed and fully stabilized.
The final phase of excavation shall remove all accumulated sediment and be done by light, tracked equipment to avoid compaction
of the basin floor. To provide a well-aerated, highly porous surface, the soils of the basin floor shall be loosened to a depth of at
least 24 inches to a maximum compaction of 85% standard proctor density prior to planting.
15. All disturbed areas shall be vegetated within 14 days of final grading.
16. The applicant is responsible for removal of all temporary erosion-control measures, including silt fence, upon establishment of
permanent vegetation at the project site as determined by the VBWD Engineer and/or Inspector.
17. Valley Branch Watershed District shall be granted drainage easements which cover: (a) land adjacent to stormwater management
facilities, wetlands, and lowlands up to their 100-year flood elevations and (b) all ditches, storm sewers, and maintenance accesses
to the stormwater management facilities.
18. The minimum floor elevations for all buildable lots in the development shall be recorded in a Declaration of Covenants and
Restrictions or on the final plat.
19. The required drainage easements and access easements shall be recorded with the Washington County Recorder’s Office.
20. Return or allowed expiration of any remaining surety and permit closeout is dependent on the permit holder providing proof that all
required documents have been recorded (including but not limited to easements) and providing as-built drawings that show that the
project was constructed as approved by the Managers and in conformance with the VBWD rules and regulations.
Approved: March 12, 2015
Signature
Valley Branch Watershed District
Title
Note: The grant of this permit in no way purports to permit acts, which may be prohibited by other governmental agencies.
CRAIG ALLEN
GWSA LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC
SUITE 200
10850 OLD CTY RD. 15
PLYMOUTH, MN 55441
SCHILTGEN FARM INC.
10880 STILLWATER BLVD. N
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
NATE HERMAN
SATHRE-BERGQUEST, INC.
150 BROADWAY AVE. S.
WAYZATA, MN 55391
RAYMOND O. MARSHALL
ATTORNEY FOR VBWD
LAWSON LAW FIRM
10390 39TH STREET NORTH
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
RAY ROEMMICH
INSPECTOR FOR VBWD
301 CRESTWOOD TERRACE
STILLWATER, MN 55082
JENIFER SORENSEN
MNDR--WATERS
1200 WARNER RD
ST. PAUL, MN 55155
KYLE KLATT, CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
3800 LAVERNE AVE N
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
JACK GRIFFIN, CITY ENGINEER
FOCUS ENGINEERING
C/O CITY OF LAKE ELMO
3800 LAVERNE AVE N
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
CITY BUILDING INSPECTOR
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
3800 LAVERNE AVE N
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
VBWD PERMIT #
23/82-0020.00 2200 346
PERMIT #2015-06
VILLAGE PRESERVE