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