03-21-95 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 21, 1995 4 this location, however, since CSAH 13 is scheduled for reconstruction in 1996 and its design will accommodate the location of this intersection. The Parks Commission recommended the council accept the 6.6 acres of park land as presented on the Lake Elmo Heights 3rd Addition with the exception of the 1.1 acres on the NSP easement and the .3 acres of pond and accept cash in lieu of for the two mentioned exceptions and that the city determine the location of the storm pond. Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, presented the preliminary plat of Lake Elmo Heights 3rd Addition. Black had met with the city engineer and Randy Peterson, VBWD, who have agreed to certain minor changes to their previous recommendation that all lots adjacent to ponding areas be a minimum of 2' above the 100 year flood plain elevation. The City of Oakdale engineer and manager expressed their dissatisfaction with the plat as presented. They had approached Mr. Black to allow them to extend Helmo Avenue northwards to tie into Ideal Avenue and that would encroach into Lake Elmo property. Mike Black stated the best they could do for Oakdale was to dedicate a 40' wide and 400' long easement through the wetlands on the northwest corner so Oakdale could taper a roadway in and connect a 90 degree intersection with Ideal Avenue. Council member Conlin asked the council to consider not creating a park as presented, but the city take cash in lieu of that land and have the parks commission prepare a future larger park perhaps on the Eberhard parcel that could be specified as an active park. The Council discussed Exhibit A showing a proposed park plan for this area presented by Mike Black. M/S/P Hunt/John - to approve the preliminary plat of Lake Elmo Heights 3rd Addition as presented, conditioned on the following: 1. The applicant meets conditions set forth by the Valley Branch Watershed District in its letter of February 24, 1995. 2. The applicant meets the conditions set forth by the City Engineer in his letter dated February 23, 1995. 3. The applicant meets the conditions set forth by the City Planner in his letter dated February 22, 1995. 4. The applicant provides a revised landscape plan, with the final plat that is consistent with city landscape regulations (and incorporate Bob Helwig's comments that some of the discretion of the placement on the landscaping requirements of the individual lots should compliment what the individual property owner wants as long as its in compliance with the city ordinance).