HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 19 - 3 FOCUSENGINEERING, inc.
MEMORANDUM
Cara Geheren,P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin,P.E. 651,300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651,300.4267
Date: June 2, 2014 Chad Isakson,P.E. 651.300.4283
To: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Re: Wildflower at Lake Elmo
Cc: Nick Johnson, City Planner Sketch Plat Engineering Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E.,City Engineer
We have received a Concept Plan submittal for the above referenced development proposal consisting of the
following exhibits/documentation received on May 29, 2014.
® Concept Plan Narrative and application dated May 22, 2014.
Concept Site Plan dated May 20, 2014,Sheet 1, prepared by Design Forum incorporated.
® Existing Conditions dated May 22, 2014, prepared by Pioneer Engineering.
We have the following review comments:
COMMENTS
The phasing plan indicates the first phase to begin on the east side of the development. With street
access, sewer and water all coming from the west, it should be noted that the preliminary plans and
construction plans must evolve to near completion for the entire development to facilitate this phasing
strategy; providing assurance to allow utility installation within future R/W.
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
® The project narrative and plans do not address water service for the development. As part of the Village
municipal urban service area,the development must be served by the Lake Elmo municipal water system.
® Municipal water supply is available along 39t" Street North and along State Highway 5. Connections to
both locations will be required as well as a stub to the adjacent property to the west.
The applicant is responsible to extend the municipal water supply to the development site at developers
cost. Watermain distribution lines will need to be looped wherever reasonably possible.The proposed site
plan facilitates watermain looping very well.
MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER
® The project narrative and plans do not address sewer service for the development. As part of the Village
municipal urban service area,the development must be served by the Lake Elmo municipal sanitary sewer
system.
® A sanitary sewer lift station will be required to provide municipal sewer service for the 12 lots proposed
with access from CSAH 17. This lift station is not a part of the City's comprehensive sewer plan and would
therefore be added infrastructure.
PAGE 1 of 3
w Municipal sanitary sewer bnot currently available to the development. The applicant bresponsible to
extend the municipal sanitary sewer to the development site at developers cost. We understand that the
developer is part of collaborative group pursuing a trunk sanitary sewer extension project to route the
sewer along the east side of the Village from the Reid Park |Ut station to State Highway S. The applicant
has also submitted an escrow to partially secure and support the sanitary sewer improvement project
along 39m Street North. In addition the applicant will be responsible for the extension of municipal sewer
from 39m Street W. to the property to be developed.
� Consideration should be given to stubbing municipal sanitary sewer to the northeast of this development
for a future potential extension for relief of failing wastewater management systems. A 10-\nch sewer
line will need to be extended through this development to the northeast corner.
STORK4VVATERN1ANAGEyWENT
w Stormxvater facilities shall be in accordance with the requirements listed in the City of Lake Elmo
Engineering Design Standards in addition to the requirements of the Valley Branch Watershed District.
* All storm water ponds, infiltration basins and other facilities that are constructed with the purpose to
fulfill the rate and volume control requirements of the VBVVD rules must be placed within Out|otx
dedicated to the City for operation and maintenance purposes and with no other restrictions on the City.
The 0ut|oto must contain the entire facility including the HVVL elevation together with maintenance
access roads and graded areas that allow safe access to all storm sewer outfa||s and structures.
m The proposed trails adjacent to the ponds must be placed such that the trail subgrade is I foot above the
pond HVVLetall points.
^ The minimum 25fout wetland buffer width must be placed fully outside of any proposed lots. Additional
buffering may encroach nn lots if contained within a defined easement. The current plan shows wetland
buffer encroachments on3ofthe 1l lots located in the northwest part of the plan.
m No utility piping is shown on the drawings. However, it should be noted that all easements for City utilities
must be a minimum of 30femt with the pipe centered on the easement. Wider easements may be
required for deep pipes to meet OSHA excavation requirements.
STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION
m It is recommended that a second access connection be pursed along 3 9th Street North or the development
access is combined with the Fields of St. Croix entrance. The development proposes 133 lots with one
access. Secondary access may be completed with later phases for the development but should be
accommodated ao part of the overall development plan.
m The access to Lake Elmo Avenue requires Washington County approval. Improvements a|*ngCSAH 17
(Lake Elmo Avenue) as required by Washington County will be the responsibility of the developer.
Improvements should be included os part of the preliminary plat.
w Some streets are proposed with 30foot R/VV and 18font paved streets. The project narrative does not
define the use and purpose for these streets. A clearly defined purpose and use for these streets must be
provided to allow further review on the minimum required widths and potential additional requirements.
Because these streets appear to act more like ''A|\eyx"the following considerations are recommended:
� Consideration should be given to requiring these streets to be privately owned and maintained.
� If pub\icaUy owned and maintained, minimum widths for both R/VV and pavement section must
be further reviewed by all City staff to establish minimums for the defined purposes.
� Example restrictions that must apply to accept less than standard minimums:
m Less than standard minimums should be considered only when acting as secondary street
to any given lot.The primary street must always meet the City standard.
PAGE luf3
|
® No public utilities, except minimal storm sewer necessary to facilitate drainage will be
allowed within these R/W, and storm sewer can be allowed only when centered within
the 30 foot R/W.
® No private utilities will be allowed within these R/W.
• No parking can be allowed. No parking signs must be installed to designate the no parking
zones.
® The remaining proposed "primary" streets do not all comply with City minimum design standards. The
following considerations are recommended:
The street along the southern part of the plat requires a minimum 60-foot R/W and 28 foot street
width since this street serves as the primary street access to several proposed residential lots. If
private utilities are allowed within the 15 foot buffer area, the 50 foot R/W may be acceptable.
The Street should be centered within the "60 foot area (R/W plus first 10 feet of Buffer)"to meet
the minimum City boulevard areas on each side.
Since this street is single sided by residential properties a reduced pavement width may be
considered if appropriately signed. A 24 foot minimum pavement width could be allowed if the
street is signed "No Parking"along one side.
The proposed emergency exit should be eliminated by connecting the road as a full intersection.
> All streets must be centered within the proposed R/W.
The proposed parking near Outlot P must be parallel parking or a bump out design be utilized that
extends further into Outlot P.
A The two smaller "eyebrows" located on the northern loop street should be eliminated since they
require increased maintenance while adding no additional lot potential.
Consideration should be given to extending the 8-foot trail along the northern loop street to
connect to the trail at Outlot O.
Some sidewalks are proposed at 5 foot widths instead of the City standard 6 foot sidewalk. A 5
foot sidewalk seems appropriate when sidewalk is provided along both sides of the street,
otherwise the City standard 6 foot sidewalk should be provided.
® All streets must include concrete curb and'gutter on both sides of the road.
PAGE 3 of 3
Robert & Marcy Eischen
Mary Jean Dupuis
Date: June 4, 2014
To.- Kyle Klatt & Lake Elmo Planning Commission
Subject: Wildflower Proposal
Please consider this letter as our written comments in reference to
the recently received Notice of Public Hearing from the City of Lake
E
9h lmo scheduled for June 12014 at the Lake Elmo City Hall for the
Wildflower Planned Unit Development Concept Plan by Robert
Engstrom Companies.
In the initial planning of the Fields of St Croix 11 development, we were
personally contacted by Bob Engstrom, the developer for our rt®
Perhaps he didn't need our support at that time but he was gracious
enough to have meetings with us. In addition, we attended council
meetings dealing with FOSC 11 proposals. There was also a meeting
with Washington County dealing with Land Trusts.
The west side of our properties is adjacent to the Engstrom Outlots
Lots 0 & P go west to Richard Smith"s (our neighbor) driveway.
Bob & Marcy Eischen have lived in their Lake Elmo home since 1969
some 45 years. Mary Jean Dupuis has lived in her home since 1973 -
41 years.
During the planning and review process for the FOSC 11 all three of us
neighbors understood by our meetings with Bob Engstrom and from
the City Council meetings that the land to the immediate west and
south of our properties would be part of the open space for FOSC 11.
is tl f land was required as open space for the development
to proceed. This property was also a part of the natural flow of water
or water shed and part of it held large amounts of runoff water during
early spring & after heavy rains.
We were assured by Mr. Engstrom that thos utlots would never be
developed for homes and would alwaysr l n space
exclusively for farming, perhaps a tree farm or wildflowers. We all
understood that this adjacent property to ours was in a long term
agricultural land trust or conservation easement. Plus - we do not
understand taking lots from an existing development and re-
allocating them for a new development.
Mr. Engstrom did a very nocejob with FOSC 11® Our support for that
development was all based on the fact that it would never be
developed for home building.
When we moved here - 45 & 42 years ago there was nothing except
open fields which was part of our life style. We did know however
that someday some of this area would be developed. We have a lot
of history with Lake Elmo and view it as a proud developing
community with rural roots. We don't know if there are legal issues
regarding the development of th utlots but there are certainly
ethical and verbal commitments by the developer to consider. Any
housing on thos utlots would be very unsatisfactory to us on land
that was never supposed to be developed.
We anticipate that the Planning Commission and ultimately the
Council will support the rural tradition and history of this land and
most importantly represent the residents of Lake Elmo in dealing with
the Wildflower proposal.
In conclusion we would like to add that Mr. Engstrorns"s property
development history is exemplary including the proposed Wildflower
development of is we support except for the afore mentioned
exceptions. We ask that the original intention of the outlots be
preserved and honored by the City and Mr. Engstrom.
Cordially
Robert Eischen
11674 Stillwater Blvd N
Lake Elmo MN 55042
777-9542
Marcy Eischen
11674 Stillwater Blvd N
Lake Elmo MN 55042
,Y A
Mary Jean Dupuis
11676 Stillwater Blvd N
Lake Elmo MN 55042
7747-123Q\,
Date: June 7, 2014
To: Kyle Klan & Lake Elmo Planning Commission
® Planned Unit Development Concept Plan
From: Richard Smith
The following are written comments regarding the concept plan being
submitted by Robert Engstrom Companies named, Wildflower at Lake
Elmo.
I have been a homeowner in Lake Elmo for more than 27 years. I own the
property to the north of the proposed housing in the sketch plan that was
submitted to the Planning Commission by Robert Engstorra Companies
earlier this spring. In that sketch, the housing on the northeast corner of the
proposed development abuts the south edge of my props
Approximately 10 yrs ago the City of Lake Elmo embarked on an
amendment to the Comprehensive Flan, creating the Village Master Plan.
At that time, October 2003, the City honored the decision Mary Jean Dupuis,
Robert and Marcy Eischen and myself made to have our properties removed
from the Village Planning Area. We had our properties removed because the
Village envisioned green corridors/buffers surrounding the Village. Had we
not, our properties would have been subjected to having housing directly
abutting our properties.
In the summer of 2005, the City of Lake Elmo retained a team led by Robert
Engstrom Companies to prepare a Master Plan to guide anticipated
development within the Village Planning Area. This study focused on
techniques that could be used by the City to help preserve the character of
the Village. One of the guiding principles was the "Promotion of open space
and green corridors", part of the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan, (chapter
111, page 3).
.Although the master plan submitted in 2005 was not adopted it was my
understanding that it would be used as guidance as the City grew. In the
Village Plan (maps 3-3 and ® , circa 12/ 0/201 and 10/8/ 013
respectively) there is property referenced as the Village Open Space Overlay
that I interpret as a buffer to the adjacent homeowners.
I have met with Mr. Engstom. on several occasions since he submitted his
sketch plan to the planning commission. I have reviewed numerous
iterations subsequent to this plan and have discussed my concerns regarding
the lack of buffer that he originally proposed in 2005.
I have also made some suggestions regarding connectivity with respect to
the trails proposed in the Wildflower Conservancy, the Tanna Ridge and
Fields of St. Croix 11 developments, as all three are adjacent to me.
That said, I cannot think of another developer that I would rather have
involved in the design and implementation of this project. Mr. Engstrom is
nationally respected for having designed and developed communities
focused on their vision for future growth. Having been involved in other
developments that Mr. Engstrom has done (FOSCII) I have always been
impressed with his willingness to work with the adjacent property owners,
conservation community leaders and city to arrive at a fair, equitable and
workable arrangement. I trust that in this project he will do the same and
that all parties will be satisfied with the final plan.
Respectfully,
Richard Smith
Cc Mary Jean Dupuis
Cc Robert and Marcy Eischen
Cc Robert Engstrom
Date: October 18, 2003
To: Lake Elmo City Council & Administrator
Lee Hunt
Steve DeLapp
Sue Dunn
Dean Johnson
Chuck Siedow
Chuck Dillerud
In referring to the map and plan of the proposed amemdment to the Lake
Elmo comprehensive plan, we are recommending the following
modifications:
1) Exclude the properties of Marcy & Bob Eischen and Mary Jean Dupuis
from permanent open space designation(approximately 3.5 acres). This
would then be consistent with the present exclusion on the map of their
neighbors, Onie Jacobson, Bill & Gerri Bartholomew and the property in
front of Bill.. & Gerri.
) Extend the connected greenway designated directly in front of the
props (south) of Richard Smith a minimum of 300 feet which will
give him an-a ditional buffer from the newly proposed ho es in front of
his house and exclude any proposed roadway immediately adjoining his
property to the south.
e propose that these modifications will not adversely affect the proposed
plan amendment and will contribute as our input and overall satisfaction to
e plan. Thank you for your consideration.
Robert & Marcy Eischen
11674 Stillwater Blvd N
Lake Elmo, MN 55042 f"
Mary Jean Dupuis
11676 Stillwater Blvd N
Lake Elmo, MN 5042 g
s
Richard Smith
11514 Stillwater Blvd
Lake Elmo, MN 55042 ' v
June 9, 2014
The following is a summary of a tentative agreement between the Fields of St Croix Community
Association (FoSC) and Robert Engstrom Companies (RECo) regarding RECo's proposed
Wildflower development. This summary is provided for summary purposes only and is not
meant to be a complete statement of the proposed agreement and is subject to change.
Subject: The Fields of St Croix Community Association (FoSC) and Robert Engstrom Companies
(RECo) Wildflower development
Background:The Open Space Agreement(s) is/are key to this discussion because it explicitly
prohibits the Wildflower development proposed for Outlots O & P, which are part of the FoSC.
The express intent of the Open Space Agreement is in summary to:
® Permanently retain the protected land in its predominately natural, scenic, agricultural,
forested and open space condition;
® Prevent or remedy action or use that significantly impairs or interferes with the
Conservation Values of the land;
• Expressly prohibits the Owner (RECo)from subdividing all or part of the protected lands
for residential, commercial or industrial development;
® Prohibits construction of roads, driveways and the alteration of the surface of the
protected land, including excavation.
FoSC homeowners
Purchased lots and built homes understanding FoSC was a conservation community with
Open Space Agreement protection.
Do not want development on Outlot O & Outlot P, but will support limited residential
development on part of Outlot P in turn for "additional" legal protection preventing
development on the other Outlots associated with FoSC.
® Requested that representatives of FoSC conduct negotiations with RECo.Tentative
agreement between FoSC and RECo was reached, pending City approval to allow limited
residential development on Outlot P, given the terms of the agreement, which are attached.
The FoSC Community Association requests this agreement become part of Wildflower's
developmentlan and its terms enforced by the City of Lake Elmo.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the FoSC Association homeowners:
John W. holer
Fields of St Croix Board President
1
The following are highlights of the tentative agreement:
® No development will occur on Outlot 0.
o Retain the existing Open Space Easement condition;
o Fields of St Croix Community Association (FoSC) will be added as a party to the
easement, thereby requiring FoSC's approval for any future changes thereto.
® Outlot P will have limited development on its west boundary (plan on page 4):
o Includes small number of RECo-constructed homes along the west boundary of
Outlot P;
o No coffee shop or other retail/commercial facilities located on Outlot P;
o RECo will install a path around part of the storm water system on Outlot P. This path
will not connect to the FoSC pathways;
o FoSC will have easement access rights for pedestrian and bicycles to Outlots 0 & P,
and any Outlot created out of Outlot P for the storm water system;
o FoSC will be added as a party to the existing easement on the title to the section of
Outlot P not included in the new development's homes;
o The exact boundary of the re-sized Outlot P will be defined by a survey (paid by
RECo).
The City of Lake Elmo will ensure the design of the Wildflower development's storm water
system does not include a storm water retention basin on Outlot 0; and will not increase
the current flow of storm water drained onto Outlot 0 or any FoSC II Outlot (exception
Outlot P):
o The storm water design will not allow drainage to adversely affect any FoSC 11
homeowner;
o Lake Elmo City will ensure the contractor and developer install the storm water
system as designed;
a The City of Lake Elmo will be responsible for maintenance of any portion of the
Wildflower storm water system installed on Outlot P, or any Outlot created from
Outlot P for the storm water systems
® Road access to Wildflower development:
o The existing FOSC, phase 11, entry will remain "as is".This access road will not
connect to the Wildflower development;
o No access road for the new development will be constructed that connects to
highway#5 through any Outlot.
2
® Ensure FoSC has the right to object to or modify any future development requests involving
any one or more of the Outlots located in the Fields of St Croix development (see Outlots
page #S).
o FoSC will be added as a party to all Open Space Easements now in place for Phase II
Outlots;
o FOSC will be added as a party to the Minnesota Land Trust Conservation Easement
now in place for Phase I Outlots.
® Phase I Outlots A& E's Minnesota Land Trust Conservation Easement revisions.
o Rescind the right to construct a farm home;
o Livestock operation or use of temporary farm buildings will only be granted if all
parties to the easement (including FoSC) agree.
• RECo will transfer ownership of the gluestem Village Green property (PIN1202921440009) if
it is not under a 'public right of way restriction'.
® All easement updates or amendments and Outlot ownership transfers will be completed
prior to approval of the new development's plans by the City of Lake Elmo.
® RECo's creation of the storm water system, path, natural setting, and plantings on Outlots O
and P will be completed in the beginning stage of the new development. The "beginning
stage" is defined as a date equal to the completion of the first home.
• RECo coordinates with Lake Elmo City& FoSC during the design and installation of
Wildflower's sewer pipe
o Ensure adequate capacity to handle the wastewater from FOSC's phase I, phase II
(including Rluestem) and Tana Ridge homes;
o Sewer easement across the Northeast corner of the new development and Outlots O
& P well be granted to FoSC;
o Final connection, if and when completed, between the Lake Elmo City sewer system
and the FoSC wastewater system (currently serving the above homes) will be
coordinated by the FoSC Association at a later time.
It is understood,that any agreements between RECo and FOSC will be subject to approval by
the Lake Elmo City Council and other regulatory bodies.
The final agreement will include a provision that neither party may assign the agreement to any
other person without the express prior written consent of the other party or its successor in
interest.
3
Revised 6/05/2014 RECo and FoSC
AA l ®cam
{ k f <7 l� d�*tx-{s. 1 , R a'H ✓"'ar�w 'yr. �
ON
B s
P I{ m•
a
� r
t
t
t
n
M a
i
outlots
"w
1`
p,
p
x � 9�.
h
I
e
3
IL L
J.
as pe
VII
1 E. Pita 1
46 ' r . —
r
a
i
a �
qp t w
� s
,mow»�,8 ..„�, , �-'�",�i�` u.. . ���x �.�. � R,,.,o;.�,�,.�..w��.y�•*�� ��Y"9 N.�.�. ..
5