HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages from CC Packet 9-16-14 Part III
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: September 16, 2014
REGULAR
ITEM# 17
AGENDA ITEM: Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Nick M. Johnson, City Planner
THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission
Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
South Washington Watershed District
Stephen Mastey, Landscape Consultant
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director
- Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECCOMENDER: The Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the City Council approve a request by Boulder Ponds OP3, LLC for a Preliminary Plat and
Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for a planned residential development with
98 single family lots. The proposed residential development is part of a broader PUD on
approximately 58 acres of land that includes outlots planned for a 64-unit senior living multi-family building and commercial uses.
FISCAL IMPACT: TBD – The City will require that the applicant enter into a developer’s
agreement with the City to specify the financial responsibilities for various aspects of the
subdivision and related public improvements.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Boulder Ponds OP3, LLC has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan for a proposed 98-unit single family
residential subdivision in Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. The proposed planned
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17]
September 16, 2014
development includes outlots planned for a future 64-unit multi-family residential building and
commercial uses. The proposed Boulder Ponds development is located on 58.3 acres of land
immediately east of Eagle Point Business Park, immediately north of Hudson Boulevard North
and immediately south of the Stonegate residential estates residential subdivision. Approval of the request would allow the applicant to proceed with preparation of a final plat and final PUD
plan.
The Planning Commission and Staff and are recommending that the City Council approve the
Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan with 12 conditions of approval through the following motion:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-73, approving the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan subject to 12 conditions of approval.”
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Attached is the original detailed Staff Report that was provided to the Planning Commission on 7/28/14 regarding the applicant’s request for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan for 98
single family lots in the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. The Staff Report includes general
information about the application, a summary of the relevant planning and zoning issues, a
thorough review of the proposed plat and public improvements, draft findings, and the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission. It should be noted that the City approved the Boulder Ponds General Concept Plan in December of 2013 (Resolution 2013-109). Approval of
the concept plan allows the applicant to prepare a preliminary PUD plan and preliminary plat.
Finally, it should be noted that the Boulder Pounds Preliminary Plat would have been presented
to the City Council at an earlier date (early August), but the applicant requested additional time to address some of the discussion items that arose at the Planning Commission meeting. To address these discussion items, which are identified in the Planning Commission Report section,
the applicant has submitted updated materials (Attachment #4) to respond to the Planning
Commission’s questions/requests. More specifically, the updated materials address the following
discussion items:
• Flag Lots. Flag lots were eliminated by making some adjustments to the Preliminary
Plat. The PUD will still include lots that do not meet the width requirement of the LDR
district, but this type of dimensional flexibility is permitted under the City’s PUD
Ordinance. The modifications to the Preliminary Plat give staff more confidence that the narrower lots will work from a utility and access standpoint.
• Lot Areas. The modifications to the plat also allowed for all of the lots to meet the area
requirement (8,000 sq. ft.) with the exception of 2 lots. With the previous plat, 8 lots did
not meet the minimum threshold.
• Community Gathering Space. In response to the Planning Commission’s desire for increased community gathering space in the development, the applicants have submitted
exhibits showing plans for community gathering locations, Outlot H most notable among
them.
-- page 2 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17]
September 16, 2014
• Trail Connection. The applicants have added a sidewalk connection to the 5th Street
Trail from the western cul-de-sac in the single family area. This will provide greater
connectivity to the neighborhood.
• Theming. The applicants have noted that they intend to incorporate elements of the City’s Branding and Theming Study into the signage/monuments for the Boulder Ponds
development.
From Staff’s perspective, the updated plans and Preliminary Plat (Attachment #4) provided by the applicants demonstrates responsiveness to the Planning Commission discussion items. The modifications and additions address many of the concerns that were discussed, and should make
the site function better with regards to access and utilities.
In reviewing the broader application for the Boulder Ponds residential planned development,
staff focused their review on the proposed design elements that are unique to the proposed subdivision and relate to the applicant’s request to follow the planned unit development (PUD) process as opposed to the standards subdivision process. In requesting a PUD, the applicants are
requesting flexibility in some areas with regard to minimum lot and building standards as
determined by the City’s urban residential zoning districts. For example, the applicants are
proposing that 2 of the 98 total lots be allowed under the City’s minimum size threshold (8,000 square feet) for urban low density residential (LDR). In addition, they are requesting a reduced side-yard structure setback of 5 feet to allow for Rick Harrison’s coving design principal. Coving
is a design technique utilizing curvilinear patterns in streets, setbacks and building pad
orientation in order to provide greater visual interest and variation between residential homes. In
reviewing the PUD, staff has identified all of the areas that require minor flexibility for the Boulder Ponds planned development to proceed as proposed. In addition, the Planning Commission also identified the inclusion of reduced lot widths during their, sometimes resulting
in what is known as flag lots, particularly located in the cul-de-sac in the eastern portion.
However, the widths of the proposed “flag lots” have been increased to address the concern over
public and private utilities. It is important to note that by applying for a planned unit development, the applicant is presenting a plan that includes requested flexibility in the identified areas. By approving the Preliminary PUD Plan, the City would be granting approval of the
requested flexibilities.
As part of the Boulder Ponds residential development, the applicants are proposing two product
types: traditional single family homes and “Villas”. Villas are detached residential product, typically one-story ramblers with walkout, lookout or full basements that are marketed towards the empty-nester demographic. As opposed to the traditional single family homes, the Villa
properties would be maintained by the Home Owners Association (HOA).
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT:
The Planning Commission reviewed the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD
Plan request at its July 28, 2014 meeting and conducted a public hearing at this time. Before the
public hearing was opened, several members of the Boulder Ponds OP3 development team made
presentations and answered questions. The members of the Boulder Ponds team included Deb Ridgeway of the Excelsior Group, Steve Sletner of SEH and Rick Harrison of Rick Harrison Site
-- page 3 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17]
September 16, 2014
Design. The team provided additional background information regarding the intent and function
of the coving design. After the applicants spoke and answered questions, the public hearing was
opened. During the public hearing, the City received the following testimony:
• Curt Montieth, 331 Julep Ave. N., noted that he lives adjacent to the proposed Boulder Ponds development. He asked what park facilities could be incorporated into Stonegate
Park as part of the adjacent land proposed for parkland dedication. In addition, he noted
that he will likely contact the Park Commission to get involved in any future changes or
additions to Stonegate Park. Mr. Montieth also suggested adding additional plantings north of the proposed buffer greenbelt trail, noting that the Stonegate residents would appreciate it. He stated that he supported the design of the proposed subdivision.
In addition to the public testimony received, the City did receive two letters regarding the
Boulder Ponds development:
• Lampert Lumber submitted a letter (Attachment #14a) to inquire about the proposed grades of the 5th Street minor collector road adjacent to their property. The Planning
Commission asked the City Engineer how the City could address their concern regarding
access to 5th Street. The City Engineer noted that due to access spacing guidelines, it
would be difficult to access the Lampert Lumber site from 5th Street. In addition, the site slopes downward in that area, and it would be difficult to set 5th Street in a way that was perfectly at grade at the Lampert site.
• John Jaros, 429 Julep Ave. N., submitted a letter (Attachment #14b) requesting that the
eastern segment of the northern greenbelt buffer trail be moved to the south. The
applicants noted that it is difficult to move the entirety of the trail south due to a retaining wall and infiltration basin. However, they noted that it would be possible to move the
trail segment further to the south in the northeast corner. The Planning Commission
added a condition of approval that they move the trail south to the best extent possible.
The Planning Commission then closed the public hearing.
In discussing the proposed Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan, the Planning Commission identified some concerns or issues needing clarification. These issues
included the following:
• Theming: The Planning Commission noted that the proposed subdivision did not include
any design elements from the Theming Study completed by Damon Farber and Associates. It should be noted that developers are not required to incorporate theming
elements into their projects. Nevertheless, some members of the Planning Commission
noted that the theming elements would be a nice addition.
• Reduced Side-Yard Setbacks: The Planning Commission noted some reservation
regarding the request to allow reduced side-yard setbacks. The applicants responded to note that the not all homes would be reduced to the minimum 5 feet. In addition, due to
the coving design that turns building pads, there are many instances where one corner of
the home is setback 5 feet to the property line, and the other corner is setback 15 to 20
feet. In other words, utilizing the reduced setback allows for the increased dimension of openness in other areas of the subdivision.
-- page 4 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17]
September 16, 2014
• Flag Lots: The Planning Commission noted that the instances of flag lots are concerning.
Staff noted that flag lots are typically discouraged due to the difficulty of providing sewer
and water service in between tight spaces for driveway access. Staff requested that the applicant submit additional detail regarding the flag lots to ensure they function properly. In response to this request, the applicant amended the Preliminary Plat to eliminate the
occurrence of flag lots, providing greater confidence that narrower lots will work from a
sewer, water and private utility standpoint in addition to the required driveways.
• Ensuring that the Development is Constructed as Proposed: Many members of the Planning Commission expressed support for many design elements of the proposed
subdivision. However, there was some concern that if the builder of the project was not
informed as to the proper location for each home, many of the benefits of the Rick
Harrison design would could be lost by building homes in not ideal locations. The applicants responded to this point by explaining that they complete a development lot book that shows the proper location for each home on all the lots in the subdivision. In
addition, the grading plan is completed in such a way that there are fewer options of
where to locate the home. To ensure that the development is constructed as proposed, the
Planning Commission recommended that the City be party to the development lot book, and can therefore use it as a reference in approving building permits (Condition #12).
• Identified Objectives for PUDs: There was a discussion about the required objectives for
planned development per the City’s PUD Ordinance. Per §154.801, there are objectives
that must be met for the City to consider a planned development. In reviewing the
application, staff determined the multiple objectives had been met, warranting consideration. However, there was a discussion whether or not the proposed
development met one or more of the identified objectives according to the Planning
Commission. After discussion, the majority of the Planning Commission determined that
the proposed development includes the promotion of integrated land uses, allowing for a
mixture of residential, commercial, and public facilities (Objective B).
After discussing the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan, the Planning
Commission recommended approval subject to 12 conditions (Vote 5-2). Commissioners
Lundgren and Haggard voted against the motion to recommend approval of the Boulder Ponds
Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan.
STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS:
Strengths: Approval of the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan
will allow for the applicants to proceed to Final Plat and Final PUD Plan. Approval of the
Boulder Ponds subdivision will provide for a residential subdivision that incorporates unique design elements, including varied setbacks, meandering sidewalks, no double
frontage lots, and other features. In addition, construction of the proposed neighborhood
would allow for the construction of the 5th Street minor collector road, a critical piece of
infrastructure needed to serve the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. Also, inclusion of the
recommended conditions of approval will better ensure that the subdivision is constructed per the vision of the Boulder Ponds development. Finally, it should be noted that the
-- page 5 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17]
September 16, 2014
applicants have obtained their watershed district permit (Attachment #13). Having
received conditional approval from the watershed greatly supports staff confidence of the
constructability of the plan.
Weaknesses: The Boulder Ponds development does include alternative designs that are different than the City’s typical sections and right-of-way. This may present challenges from a maintenance standpoint. At the same time, the proposed design does provide a
subdivision with different design features than some of the other recent subdivisions,
offering variety in subdivision design and product type (Villa homes).
Opportunities: Approval of the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan allows for the extension of infrastructure needed to serve Stage 1 of the I-94
Corridor Planning Area. In addition to the 5th Street minor collector road, the applicants
are proposing to construct a north-south local road that could distribute traffic to the
proposed future commercial areas, as well as any future redevelopment on the Cranky Ape and Lampert Lumber sites. In addition, the northern greenbelt trail will be
completed from the proposed Savona single family subdivision to Stonegate Park, adding
to the overall network of trails.
Threats: Should the lots be sold to builders that are unfamiliar with the Rick Harrison design or vision for Boulder Ponds, it is possible that the homes will not be constructed in
the intended locations per the PUD Plan. However, the Planning Commission
recommended a condition to alleviate this concern, requiring a development lot book at
time of Final PUD Plan. The City would be able to utilize this document to give builders
direction on the ideal locations for proposed homes. The applicants noted that the Architectural Control Committee of the HOA will enforce the same standards, but giving
the City the opportunity provides greater assurance that the vision for the planned
development will be followed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the aforementioned, the Planning Commission and Staff and are recommending that
the City Council approve the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan with 12 conditions of approval through the following motion:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-73, approving the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan subject to 12 conditions of approval.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 2014-73
2. Staff Report to the Planning Commission, 7/28/14
3. Location Map
-- page 6 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17]
September 16, 2014
4. Updated Boulder Ponds Materials w/Cover Letter (Includes Updated Preliminary Plat)
5. Updated Lot Summary
6. Application Forms and Project Narrative
7. Site Survey
8. Preliminary Plans (49 sheets)
9. Turning Radius Exhibits
10. City Engineer Review Memorandum, dated 7/24/14
11. Fire Chief Review Memorandum, dated 7/23/14
12. Landscape Consultant Review Memorandum, dated 7/23/14
13. South Washington Watershed District Permit, dated 7/8/14
14. Letters Submitted to the City
a. Lampert Lumber, 7/22/14
b. John Jaros, 429 Julep Ave. N., 7/28/14
15. Not Included in Packet – Available Upon Request
a. Street Cross Section Details
b. Plan Details
-- page 7 --
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-73 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BOULDER PONDS PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Boulder Ponds OP3, LLC, 11455 Viking Drive, Suite 350, Eden Prairie,
MN has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (“City”) for a Preliminary Plat and
Preliminary PUD Plan for Boulder Ponds, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo
Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the City approved the Boulder Ponds PUD General Concept Plan on
December 17, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan
include 98 single family residential lots within a planned development on three parcels of land (PIDs: 34.029.21.33.0001, 34.029.21.32.0001 and 34.029.21.33.0002) totaling approximately 58
acres in Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held public hearing on July 28, 2014
to consider the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan request; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending
approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to 12 conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation concerning the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan as part of a
memorandum to the City Council from City Planner Nick Johnson for the September 16, 2014
Council Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan at its meeting held on September 16, 2014 and made the following
findings of fact:
1) That the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan are consistent with the
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
2) That the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan generally comply with
the City’s LDR- Urban Low Density Residential and MDR – Urban Medium Density Residential zoning districts.
1 Resolution 2014-73
3) That the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan comply with the City’s
Subdivision Ordinance.
4) That the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan comply with the City’s
Planned Unit Development Regulations.
5) That the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan comply with the City’s Engineering Standards, except where noted in the review memorandum from the City
Engineer dated 7/24/14.
6) That the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan comply with other City
zoning ordinances, such as landscaping, tree preservation, and erosion and sediment control.
7) That the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan includes the promotion
of integrated land uses, allowing for a mixture of residential, commercial, and public
facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan subject to the following conditions:
Pending Review and Approvals
1) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the
commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City
Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site.
2) The developer shall be required to submit an updated parkland dedication calculation in
advance of Final Plat. Upon submission of the calculation, the applicant must work with the
City to achieve the required parkland dedication amount per the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. The developer shall be required to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication equivalent to the fair market value for the amount of land that is required to be dedicated for such
purposes in the City’s Subdivision Ordinance less the amount of land that is accepted for
park purposes by the City. Any cash in lieu of land dedication shall be paid by the applicant
prior to the release of the Final Plat for recording.
3) The developer shall follow all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act and
adhere to the conditions of approval for the South Washington Watershed District Permit.
4) The applicant will work with the Planning Staff to name all streets in the subdivision in a
manner acceptable to the City prior to the submission of Final Plat.
Modifications to the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans
5) The applicant will work with staff to address the comments in the City Engineer's review
memo dated 7/24/14 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer as part of the Final Plat and Final
PUD Plan.
2 Resolution 2014-73
6) In addition to standard easements required by the Subdivision Ordinance, additional drainage
and utility easements must be provided extending 10 feet from meandering sidewalks, as well
as all of the portion of private lots between meandering sidewalks and the public right-of-
way.
7) The landscape plan shall be updated to locate all boulevard trees in between the public street and sidewalk to not interfere with private utilities.
8) All islands and medians internal to the Boulder Ponds development shall be platted as part of
the right-of-way and shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association. The applicant
shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and
open space on the Final Plat.
9) The design of the northern buffer trail shall be modified to a width of 8 feet as opposed to the
regional trail standard of 10 feet.
10) The eastern segment of the northern buffer trail shall be moved to the south to the greatest
extent possible with plantings to screen the trail on the north side.
Plat Restrictions
11) Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat, the Developer shall enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of public
improvements.
12) The Final PUD Plan will include a development lot book to clarify proper building placement
for use in granting building permits for the development.
Passed and duly adopted this 16th day of September, 2014 by the City Council of the City of
Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
___________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Adam Bell, City Clerk
3 Resolution 2014-73
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 7/28/14
AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2014-30
ITEM: Boulder Ponds – Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
South Washington Watershed District Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
Stephen Mastey, Landscape Architecture, Inc.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan
application from OP3 Boulder Ponds, LLC for a 162-unit planned residential development to be located on 58.3 acres of land within Stage 1 of the City’s I-94 Corridor Planning Area. The proposed
residential project is located immediately north of Hudson Blvd. N., immediately east of the Eagle
Point Business Park and immediately south of the Stonegate residential estates (RE) subdivision.
Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to compliance with 11 conditions as noted in this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: OP3 Boulder Ponds, LLC (Deb Ridgeway), 11455 Viking Drive, Suite 350, Eden
Prairie, MN 55344.
Property Owners: Timothy Montgomery, 6211 Upper 51st St. N., Oakdale, MN; Louis J. Damiani
Revocable Trust (William Kuhlmann – Security Bank and Trust Co), 2202 11th St. E., Glencoe, MN; DPS – Lake Elmo, LLC (Alan Dale), 6007 Culligan Way, Minnetonka, MN; Lennar Corporation (Steve Ach), 16305 36th Ave. N., Suite
600, Plymouth, MN; and Bremer Bank (Kathleen Tucci) 8555 Eagle Point Blvd.,
PO Box 1000, Lake Elmo.
Location: Part of Section 34 in Lake Elmo, immediately north of Hudson Boulevard North, immediately east of the Eagle Point Business Park, and immediately south of the
Stonegate subdivision. PID Numbers 34.029.21.32.0001, 34.029.21.33.0001, and
34.029.21.33.0002.
Request: Application for preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development (PUD) plan approval of a 162-unit residential planned development to be named
Boulder Ponds.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Agricultural land. Current Zoning: RT – Rural Development
Transitional Zoning District; Proposed Zoning: LDR (PUD) -
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
2
Urban Low Density Residential, MDR (PUD) – Medium
Density Residential and C – Commercial.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North –Stonegate Residential Estates (RE) subdivision; west –
Eagle Point Business Park (Bremer Bank, Eagle Point Town Office Condos, High Pointe Medical Campus, vacant land) BP; east – Lennar Savona Urban Low Density Residential (LDR)
subdivision; south – vacant land guided for Commercial and
Interstate Highway 94.
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 – 3.99 units per acre), Urban Medium Density Residential (4.0 – 7.49 units per acre)
and Commercial
History: Boulder Ponds General Concept Plan review by Planning Commission on 12/9/13
and approved by the City Council on 12/17/13.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 6/19/2014
60 Day Deadline – 8/17/14
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 10/16/14
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (LDR and MDR)
Article 16 – Planned Unit Development Regulations
§150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from OP3 Boulder Ponds, LLC for a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan to subdivide approximately 58 acres of land located within Stage 1 of the
I-94 Corridor Planning Area into 98 detached residential lots. The proposed plat would be located on
property primarily owned by the Louis Damiani Revocable Trust (represented by William Kuhlmann) and Timothy Montgomery, and would be located immediately north of Hudson Boulevard, immediately east of Eagle Point Business Park, and immediately south of the Stonegate
subdivision. The 78 acre parcel has historically been used for agricultural purposes.
The preliminary plat has been developed in response to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which
identifies the applicant’s property for urban low density residential, urban medium density residential and commercial. The proposed planned development includes 98 detached residential lots, located both north and south of the City’s planned 5th Street minor collector road. In addition to the proposed
detached residential lots, the plat includes an outlot (Outlot K) planned for a 64-unit senior housing
facility or apartment. While approval is not being sought at this time, it is worth noting that the proposed senior housing is consistent with the approved General PUD Concept Plan approved by the City in December of 2013.
In terms of access, the preliminary plat and PUD plan shows a north-south connection to Hudson
Boulevard in the southern portion of the plat. In addition to the Hudson Blvd. connection, the
proposed plat includes a significant portion of the 5th Street minor collector road. As part of the total public improvements of the Boulder Ponds planned development, the 5th Street minor collector road will be constructed from the Savona (Lennar) urban low density subdivision in the east to the
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
3
approximately 160-acre parcel owned by Azure Properties to the northwest. Along with the
connection to Hudson Blvd., the 5th Street minor collector road will ultimately serve as the primary
access to the Boulder Ponds development.
The Boulder Ponds planned development is the City’s third proposed subdivision in Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area that will receive public sanitary sewer service, which has been made available to the site via the completed Section 34 Public Utility Project. At present, the water for this
area is provided by the City of Oakdale. However, the City plans to execute a trunk watermain
extension down Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) in the next year or two to connect existing facilities in
the western I-94 Corridor to the City water system. At present, there is enough capacity in the Oakdale system to provide water to a significant portion of Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning
Area until Lake Elmo makes the needed connections to its system. Sewer and water for the Boulder
Ponds site is accessible along Hudson Blvd. as a result of the Section 34 Utility Project. The
applicants are proposing to extend sewer and water throughout their site from the facilities located in Hudson Boulevard.
One of the other major features of the proposed subdivision is a continuation of the northern buffer
greenbelt along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the Stonegate subdivision. The greenbelt
is required under the guidance of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. As proposed, the greenbelt includes a trail segment from the proposed Savona single family development in the east across the northern boundary of the site to Stonegate Park in the west. In addition to connection to Stonegate
Park, the northern buffer trail as proposed also provides connection to the City’s planned minor
collector road, 5th Street. It should also be noted that a significant portion of the greenbelt buffer area
includes a Northern States Power (Xcel Energy) easement for overhead utilities.
As currently proposed, the single family or detached residential portion of the Boulder Ponds
development will be constructed in two phases. The initial phase of the project includes construction
of the access road to Hudson Blvd., as well as the eastern portion of the 5th Street minor collector
road. In addition, Phase I as proposed includes 47 residential lots, both of the traditional single family and “Villa” type. The second phase of the residential development includes the construction of the remaining residential lots and local roads, as well as the western portion of the 5th Street minor
collector road.
Finally, it should be noted that the Boulder Ponds development is proceeding through the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) process. By proceeding through the PUD process, the City may allow for flexibility in the use of land or the base standards of the zoning code with the intent of achieving higher quality development. The City’s PUD process has three phases: 1) General Concept Plan, 2)
Preliminary Plan, and 3) Final Plan. It should be noted that the City reviewed the Boulder Ponds
General Concept Plan (12/9/13 - Planning Commission, 12/17/13 – City Council), which was approved by the City Council (Resolution #2013-109). Approval of the General Concept Plan allows the applicant to proceed with preparation of preliminary plans, which the applicant has now
submitted. Staff has reviewed the approved General Concept Plan and all the conditions associated
with the approval. The most critical conditions, relating to the alignment of the 5th Street minor
collector road, have been resolved by the applicant. In addition to the issues related to the alignment of 5th Street, the submitted preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans have generally addressed the
other conditions of approval related to the review of the General Concept Plan. It should also be
noted that the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan does contain 5 additional
residential lots than the General Concept Plan. The additional lots created in the subdivision directly relate to a change in product type, as the applicants are proposing “Villa” homes, a detached townhome on HOA maintained land. Staff reviewed the proposed increase and units and found it to
be consistent with the general intent of the approved General Concept Plan. The minimal number of
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
4
increased lots are being accommodated within the same street and utility network, not leading to
significant changes to the proposed public improvements.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
The Boulder Ponds site is guided for urban low density, urban medium density and commercial
development in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the applicant will be required to zone the site to the appropriate zoning designation as part of Final PUD Plan approval. The overall subdivision plan has therefore been prepared in order to generally comply with the district standards for the LDR and
MDR zoning districts. However, as part of the request for a planned development, the applicant is
permitted to request reductions in lot size, building setbacks, and other requirements of the base
zoning district. Therefore, it should be noted that four of the proposed lots (Lots 4, 7, 8 and 10, Block 3, 2nd Addition) are slightly under the minimum requirements for lot size. In addition, the applicants
are requesting reduced side-yard and front-yard setbacks. These requests were established at the
General Concept Plan phase of the PUD process and were supported through the approval of the
General Concept Plan. In terms of the general design of the subdivision, the northern and southern portions are split between
the City’s planned minor collector road, 5th Street. The southern portion is accessed off the north-
south access road, called Cobblestone Plaza, connecting to Hudson Blvd. and contains 20 proposed
“Villa” units, which is a detached single family product with HOA maintained grounds. In addition, according to the General Concept Plan, the southern portion of the planned development will also
include a 64-unit senior living multi-family building to be located on Outlot K at some point in the
future. The proposed senior living building is not currently included in the present application. The
design of the northern portion of the subdivision primarily follows one through street, Boulder Ponds Parkway, which connects to the planned 5th Street in both the central and northwestern areas of the plat. In addition to the main through street, three cul-de-sacs are proposed off of Boulder Ponds
Pkwy. The northern portion of the proposed subdivision is comprised of all single family residential
land uses, with 60 traditional single family homes and 18 Villa units. The proposed design of the subdivision does allow for a significant amount of open space, allowing all the residential lots to back up to some form of open space as opposed to additional lots. In addition, the overall design
(streets, sidewalks, building pads, etc.) is intended to provide a curvilinear aesthetic and pattern.
Along with varied setbacks and meandering sidewalks, the applicant has noted that creating visual
interest within the development is a critical component to the overall vision. Sidewalks and trails are planned throughout the subdivision. The proposed plans provide for
sidewalks on one side of all streets, which is consistent with the Staff recommendation for sewered
single family residential subdivisions. In terms of proposed trails, all are designed to be ten feet in width and constructed of bituminous asphalt, which is consistent with the City standard for a regional trail. In addition to the buffer/greenway trail, the proposed subdivision includes a linking trail
segment to the northeastern cul-de-sac, Pebblestone Ridge Cove. Finally, the proposed minor
collector road 5th Street includes a regional trail on the north side of the road, which is consistent with
the City’s typical section. The Boulder Ponds subdivision includes two general types of residential lots: traditional single
family and Villa. As proposed, there are 60 traditional single family lots. The average size of the
traditional single family lots is 9,735 square feet. In addition, the largest traditional lot (Lot 1, Block
2, 1st Addition) is 15,832 sq. ft., while the smallest proposed traditional lot (Lot 8, Block 3, 1st
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
5
Addition) is 7,206 sq. ft. in size. Regarding the Villa lots, this lot type is intended to serve a different
residential product than the traditional single family lots, allowing for a detached townhome type
product. According to the applicant narrative, the Villa lots are intended to serve an empty-nester
demographic, and the grounds of the Villa lots would be HOA maintained. As proposed, the Boulder Ponds subdivision includes 38 Villa lots, which are located within Block 1, 1st Addition and Block 1, 2nd Addition. The average size of the Villa lots is 10,116 square feet. The largest Villa lot is 18,906
sq. ft., while the smallest Villa lot is 7,347 sq. ft. in size. It should be noted that the lot sizes of the
traditional single family and Villa homes are comparable in size. The main differences between the
lot types are the product type (single family home vs. detached townhome) and maintenance (owner maintained vs. HOA maintained). In order facilitate the review of the proposed lots and lot types, the
applicants have submitted an updated lot summary that identifies the lot type (single family vs.
Villa). The updated lot summary is found in Attachment #3.
The following is a general summary of the subdivision design elements that have proposed as part of
the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and plans:
Zoning and Site Information:
• Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional District
• Proposed Zoning: LDR, MDR and C
• Total Site Area: 58.3 acres
• Total Residential Units: 98
• Proposed Density (Net): Northern - 2.69 units/acre, Southern – 8.05 units/acre* (*Note: includes future planned 64-unit senior living multi family building)
Proposed Lot Dimensional Standards through Planned Unit Development Process:
• Lot Area: 9,882 sq. ft. average (7,206 sq. ft. min.)
• Front Yard Setback: 20 ft. (25 feet for garage)
• Side Yard Setback: 5 ft.
• Rear Yard Setback: 25 ft.
Proposed Street Standards:
• ROW Width – Local 60 ft. (per Subdivision Ordinance)
• Street Widths – Local: 28 ft.(per City standard)
The standards listed above are all either in compliance with the applicable requirements from the City’s zoning and subdivision regulations, or are consistent with requested modifications through the
proposed planned unit development (PUD). Based on Staff’s review of the Preliminary Plat and
Preliminary PUD Plan, the applicant has generally demonstrated compliance with the majority of the
applicable codes, and the requested modifications or flexibilities as allowed under the City’s PUD Ordinance represent a reasonable request given the various design goals the applicant it trying to achieve.
The applicant is requesting some additional flexibility through the PUD process to receive advance
approval for an alternate design for certain portions of the development. The proposed alternative
designs are detailed in the attached document titled “Boulder Ponds – Alternative Site Plan” (Attachment #8) and detailed on the site plans labeled Exhibit “A, B and C” – Alternative Single
Family Detached Townhouses. As specified in these plans, the applicant has asked for flexibility to
build houses consistent with the proposed preliminary plat, or to change the housing type for certain
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
6
portions of the development to a single-family detached townhouse-type building, or Villa, on
smaller lots. There are three specific portions of the development that are identified for this
alternative layout, and in total, the proposed flexibility would add nine additional lots to the plat
beyond the base conditions. The addition of these lots would not increase the net density for any portion of the project so that it exceeds the underlying density in the Comprehensive Plan.
Because the requested alternative plans would not alter the layout of any proposed streets or
significantly alter the grading and utility plans for the site, Staff is recommending that the
preliminary PUD plans be structured in a way that allows the applicant to move forward with either
option. Please note that should the developer move forward with one of these alternatives, the preliminary plans will need to be updated in their entirety to reflect the updated plans. Under such a
scenario, the developer would be able to submit revised preliminary plan simultaneously with a final
PUD and final plat. The comments from Staff included in the latter portions of this report address
the plat as submitted; any future plans that incorporate the alternative plans would be subject to a complete plan review.
As with any new subdivision, the City Code requires that a portion of the plat be set aside for public
park use. In this case, the applicant has indicated that the northern outlot area, labeled Park, will be
dedicated to the City for this purpose. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance requires 10% of the land in urban residential districts to be set aside as parkland, which according to the applicant’s calculation would represent 4.09 acres of land. On the submitted narrative for the Boulder Ponds project (Item
D), the applicant has noted that 3.85 acres of land within or adjacent to the greenbelt/buffer have
been dedicated as park. However, City staff is unclear if this calculation includes the area within the
Xcel Energy easement, which would not be eligible to be counted towards the required parkland amount. Related to this requirement, the Subdivision Ordinance states the following:
(C) Land acceptability. The city must approve the location and configuration of any park
land which is proposed for dedication and shall take into consideration the suitability of the
land and for its intended purpose; the future needs of the city for parks, playgrounds, trails,
or open space; and the recommendations of the city’s Parks Commission. The following properties shall not be accepted for park land dedications:
(1) Land dedicated or obtained as easements for streets, sewer, electrical, gas, storm
water drainage and retention areas, or other similar utilities and improvements;
Given that a significant portion (approximately 75 feet x 1300 feet) of the land proposed to be dedicated is subject to a Xcel Energy overhead utility easement, the portion of the parkland within
the easement would not be eligible for parkland dedication credit.
In addition to the eligibility the land provided, it should also be noted that the applicant has removed
the area of the 5th Street right-of-way and the area of the required northern greenbelt buffer from the land calculation for parkland. While staff agrees that the right-of-way for the 5th St. minor collector road should not be included in this calculation, the northern greenbelt is considered part of the gross
area being subdivided for development. For this reason, the greenbelt area, 2.83 acres according to
the applicant’s narrative, should be included in the gross land calculation in determining the amount
of required parkland dedication. Inclusion of the greenbelt area in the total land calculation for parkland dedication would be consistent with other subdivisions (Savona and Hammes Estates) that
have incorporated portions of the greenbelt buffer around the Stonegate subdivision.
In order to address the issues related to the correct level of parkland dedication, Staff would
recommend that as a condition of approval (Condition #2) the applicant submit an updated parkland dedication calculation in advance of Final Plat. Upon review of the updated calculation, if any gap
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
7
exists between the eligible land dedication provided and the required land dedication amount, the
applicant will be required to submit a fee in lieu of land dedication to satisfy the total land dedication
requirement (10%) per the Subdivision Ordinance. It should also be noted that in the submitted
narrative, the applicant has requested that the City consider some parkland credit for the construction of park related improvements that do not receive credit for land dedication. Staff would support that some credit be considered, as a significant stretch of trail is proposed over land that is not eligible for
parkland dedication credit due to the overhead utility easement. Staff will continue to work with the
applicant on how to properly achieve the required parkland dedication amount, whether it be through
land, improvements, or fees in lieu of land dedication.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
City Staff has reviewed the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan. In general,
the proposed plat will meet all applicable City requirements for conditional approval, and any
deficiencies or additional modifications that are needed are noted as part of the review record. In
addition, the City has received a detailed list of comments from the City Engineer, the Fire Chief and the City’s Landscape Consultant, Stephen Mastey, all of which are attached for consideration by the Commission.
In addition to the general comments that have been provided in the preceding sections of this report,
Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the following review comments as well:
• Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map for this area. The net densities for the development generally comply with the range allowed for the Urban Low Density and Urban
Medium Density land use categories. In addition, other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan
that relate to the Boulder Ponds subdivision are as follows:
o Density Calculation. The subject property is guided Urban Low Density Residential, Urban Medium Density Residential and Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. In
order to demonstrate compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan with regards to
proposed density, the applicant has submitted two density exhibits in the project
narrative. The exhibits demonstrate that the overall number of proposed residential units fall well within the amount of planned growth under the Comprehensive Plan. While the net density calculation of the medium density area, 8.05 units/acre, is
technically higher that the allowed range for MDR (4.0-7.49 units/acre), the overall
planned growth for the area was greatly reduced by the realignment of the 5th Street
minor collector road to the south, increasing the amount of land planned for Urban Low Density Residential. In addition, the density of the proposed project was reviewed along with the General Concept Plan. In reviewing the General Concept
Plan, the City found that the proposed subdivision was consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. With the addition of 5 residential lots since the approval of the General Concept Plan, the proposed subdivision remains in conformance with the planned growth as guided by the Comprehensive Plan.
o Parks. The City’s park plan identifies proposed location for neighborhood parks
based on the anticipated population that should be served by each park. The Park Plan does not call for additional parks in the vicinity of the Boulder Ponds subdivision, as it is located immediately adjacent to Stonegate Park. However, as part
of the required greenbelt buffer, the land dedicated to the City as parkland will
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
8
include areas adjacent to Stonegate Park. This should allow opportunities to integrate
trail and other facilities into Stonegate Park. However, any improvements will need
to conform to the conditions of the Xcel Energy power line easement.
o Water. Water will be provided to this area via existing watermain along Hudson Boulevard. The Boulder Ponds subdivision will be able to be served under the City’s current agreement with the City of Oakdale until the Inwood Ave. watermain
extension project is completed. Staff anticipate that this project will be completed
next year (2015).
o Sanitary Sewer. The Boulder Ponds subdivision will be served by sanitary sewer that will connect to trunk gravity sewer in the Hudson Boulevard right-of-way. All of
the wastewater will flow to the W.O.N.E. MCES regional wastewater interceptor.
o Phasing. The Boulder Ponds subdivision is located within Stage 1 of the I-94
Corridor Planning Area. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City’s Staging Plan, as the proposed development has access to both public sanitary sewer
and water.
• Zoning. The applicant has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development, and
has previously received approval of the General Concept Plan for Boulder Ponds. Consistent
with the City’s PUD Ordinance, preliminary PUD plans have been submitted along with the preliminary plat. The final step in this process is submission of final PUD plans with a final plat. The underlying zoning for the PUD still needs to be established, and staff is
recommending that the zoning be addressed at the final plan stage. In this case, the
Comprehensive Plan guides the applicant’s site for several different land use categories,
including low density residential, medium density residential, and commercial. Staff will be recommending that the zoning for the subdivision be established to match the Comprehensive
Plan in the following manner:
o LDR - All portions of the subdivision north (and east) of 5th Street.
o MDR – All lots on Cobblestone Path and Outlots N and K.
o C – Outlots J, M, and L
At the time a final development plan is submitted, the official zoning map will be updated to
reflect both the underlying zoning as noted above and will include a special designation
marking the project area as a Planned Unit Development.
• Planned Unit Development. The applicant has applied for a PUD, and therefore is seeking to take advantage of the flexibility allowed with this type of application. The specific aspects of the project that will be permitted through the PUD ordinance include the following:
o Exceptions to the City’s minimum lot size requirements for LDR zoning to allow
certain lots to be platted with less than the minimum of 8,000 square feet of area
required in this zoning district.
o Exceptions to the City’s setback requirements in LDR and MDR zoning districts to establish a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet (25 feet for garage) and side yard
setback of 5 feet for all residential lots in the subdivision.
o Exceptions to the City’s development standards for garages in urban residential zoning districts. The applicant has stated that a small number of the standard residential lots and a larger number of the proposed “Villa” homes will not be able to
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
9
meet the City’s 60% requirement concerning the width of garages on these site.
Given the unique aspects of the “coving” subdivision design concept, Staff is
recommending that the PUD plans be structured to eliminate this requirement in its
entirety.
o The ability to mix different types of uses as part of a larger development proposal that is connected as one development. The project will include single family detached
homes, multi-family units, and commercial buildings, and has been designed to
function as one unified development.
o The applicant is proposing to meander sidewalks throughout the development both inside and outside of the street right-of-way. The City’s right-of-way standards
depict sidewalks within a specific portion of the right-of-way.
o Certain connecting trails are depicted within 20-foot easements; Staff has been asking
that trails be dedicated to the City on Outlots of no less than 30 feet in width.
o The proposed roads include several medians and landscape islands that are not
otherwise included in the City’s street specifications.
• Subdivision Requirements. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance includes a fairly lengthy list
of standards that must be met by all new subdivisions, and include requirements for blocks,
lots, easements, erosion and sediment control, drainage systems, monuments, sanitary sewer and water facilities, streets, and other aspects of the plans. Many of these requirements have been addressed as part of the City Engineer’s review memo (which is summarized below).
After reviewing the proposed plat and PUD plan, Staff has not found any aspect of the plat
that conflict with these requirements.
• Infrastructure. The developer will be required to construct all streets, sewer, water, storm water ponds, and other infrastructure necessary to serve the development, including all portions of 5th Street that cut through the development. Also, Staff has reviewed the proposed
phasing of construction for the public improvements and finds it to be acceptable.
• Wetlands. The applicants have prepared a wetland delineation for the site, which identifies an
existing wetland on Outlot O. The applicant is proposing to incorporate this wetland as part
of the storm water management plan for the site, and will therefore need to comply with all applicable requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act for this work. The South
Washington Watershed District is the responsible government unit for determining such
compliance issues.
• Trails. The developer is proposing to build a series of trails as part of the development,
including a 10-foot bituminous trail along the northern portion of the subdivision through the required 100-foot open space buffer and a similar trail within the 5th Street right-of-way. The applicant is seeking park land dedication credit for all of the land within the open space
buffer area and other adjacent portions of the site that are used for general open space or
storm water facilities. Given the circumstances associated with the northern portion of the site, Staff is not recommending that the City accept all of the land shown as park along the northern boundary of the plat for the following reasons: 1) this portion of the site lies under a
75-foot power line easement and nearly all portions of the trail are located within this
easement, 2) the area shown as park includes storm water ponding area, and 3) the
Subdivision ordinance specifically prohibits using areas under a power line easement and within a storm water pond for park dedication requirements.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
10
Because the trail does serve a public purpose, and because the City has previously allowed
the buffer area to be used for park dedication purposes with the construction of a trail, Staff is
recommending that the developer received credit for park land dedication as follows:
o The equivalent land dedication equal to a 30-foot trail segment under all portions of the power line easement.
o Land that is deeded to the City surrounding trails and located outside of the power
line easement and storm water facilities.
o Land within the 100-foot buffer in the northern portion of the site that is located
outside of the power line easement and outside of storm water facilities.
As noted earlier in this report, the exact calculations for park land dedications should be
completed as part of the final plat submissions (Condition #2).
Finally, although the northern greenbelt buffer trail is depicted as a 10-foot trail, Staff is
recommending that the design of this trail segment be reduced to eight-feet in width to be consistent with the trail design approved in the adjacent subdivisions to the east (Condition
#9).
• Meandering Sidewalks. The proposed development plans include a series of sidewalks that
meander into and out of the street right-of-way for the subdivision. Because this was a
design element that was approved as part of the General Concept Plan review, Staff is recommending that the preliminary plans be approved with this design feature. Please note, however, that the City Engineer is not recommending the construction of any sidewalks
outside of the right-of-way, and that additional requirements should be included as part of the
City’s review in order to address the City Engineer’s concerns. Specifically, Staff is
recommending that the developer provide a 10-foot drainage and utility easement over all private lots adjacent to sidewalks outside of the public right-of-way, and that any land located
between the sidewalk and the street right-of-way be covered under a similar easement as well
(Condition #6).
• Landscaping and Tree Preservation. The landscape and tree preservation plans have been
reviewed by the City’s consulting landscape architect, Stephen Mastey. The review memorandum submitted by the Landscape Consultant is found in Attachment #11. In the
review memo, Mastey notes that the submitted Landscape Plan (L1-L6) and Tree Inventory
and Preservation Plan comply with the City’s ordinances related to landscaping and tree
preservation/replacement. It should be noted that the Landscape Plan as proposed includes street tree plantings on the outside of the sidewalk, as opposed to in between the street and sidewalk. As this location is typically reserved for private utilities, staff would recommend
that the Landscape Plan be revised to locate all boulevard trees in between the street and the
sidewalk (Condition #7). The requested modifications pertaining to plant location, as well as the identification of plant species, can be incorporated into the Final Landscape Plan.
• Green Belt/Buffer. The Comprehensive Plan identifies an area north of the Boulder Ponds plat as a greenway/buffer space with a minimum width of 100 feet. Throughout the Boulder
Ponds subdivision, the provided greenbelt complies with, and in many locations exceeds, the
100-foot greenbelt requirement. Consistent with City planning efforts, the applicant has
included a trail improvement within the greenbelt to act as a linear park amenity. In addition, trail connections through this area will provide access to the Savona subdivision and beyond to the east and Stonegate Park in the west. It should also be noted that a large portion of the
provided greenbelt is subject to a Northern States Power (Xcel Energy) easement.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
11
• Streets. The proposed street system has been designed to comply with all applicable subdivision requirements and City engineering standards. The general street system of the
Boulder Ponds development is designed to have a curvilinear aesthetic. As part of the
subdivision, three cul-de-sacs are proposed. All of the proposed cul-de-sacs comply with the
maximum length (600 feet) for cul-de-sacs in sewered residential subdivisions per the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, it should be noted that the applicants are proposing tear-
drop or enlarged cul-de-sac with inner islands to provide additional visual interest and
improved sightlines. In reviewing the design of the proposed cul-de-sacs, the Fire Chief and
public works staff have voiced concern over the function and maintenance of the proposed design. However, the applicants have submitted turning radius exhibits (Attachment #7) demonstrating that emergency service vehicles are able to navigate the proposed islands. It
should also be noted that the designs of the cul-de-sacs were discussed as part of the approval
of the General Concept Plan. At that time, the Planning Commission and City Council
supported the design of the proposed cul-de-sacs. Other comments from Staff concerning streets are as follows:
o Secondary Access. The proposed development includes a new access to Hudson
Boulevard that will be constructed as part of the first project phase, and will include
the construction of a portion of 5th Street as well. Because there have been no approvals to date for any additional extensions of 5th Street, there is no set timeline for the creation of a secondary access point to the site. Because 5th Street will be
built with adjacent subdivisions, Staff is not recommending any restrictions
concerning the timing of project phases within Boulder Ponds.
o 5th Street. The development plans have been prepared to comply with the City’s approved design for 5th Street with the exceptions listed in the City Engineer’s
memorandum. The developer will be responsible to construct this minor collector
road as part of the initial development plans, and in accordance with the phasing
depicted in the attached plans. The final construction plans will need to include all lighting, landscaping, and other details as required by the City.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for the future extension of 5th Street further to the west
of the applicant’s property; however, in order to make this connection the owner of
the property immediately to the west of the site (Bremer Financial Services) will need
to give its consent to the proposed layout for 5th Street since it crosses through the extreme northeastern portion of its property in the Eagle Point Business Park. The
attached application materials have been signed by Bremer Bank, which satisfactorily
addresses this concern.
• Street Names. Along with the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan, the applicants
have submitted proposed street names that relate to the proposed name of the subdivision, Boulder Ponds. In developing the street names for the newly platted or developing areas of Lake Elmo, Staff has been utilizing the Washington County street naming system. The
purpose of utilizing the County system is to provide emergency services and public works
personnel knowledge of the general location of a property in cases of emergency or general public projects. While staff is sensitive to the applicant’s wish or desire to provide street names that reflect the theme of the proposed development, staff is recommending that the
proposed subdivision adhere to the County street naming system to the best extent possible.
As a condition of approval (Condition #4), Staff is asking that the applicant continue to work with the City at developing street names for the project, and that these names be included with the final plat submission.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
12
• City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has submitted a detailed list of comments concerning the preliminary plat and plans as part of a memorandum to the City dated July 24,
2014, which includes a separate review of the 5th Street plans conducted by a transportation
engineer from TKDA. While the report itself is quite lengthy, many of the comments pertain
to relatively minor plan revisions or construction details that should not result in any significant changes to the preliminary plat document. For example, some of the comments
concerning grading may impact the ability to build a home with a walkout basement (as
opposed to a lookout basement), but would not otherwise alter the lots as proposed. Rather
than restating all issues and concerns as identified by the City Engineer, Staff is recommending a condition of approval (Condition #5) that will require the applicant to address all comment from the City Engineer in subsequent plan reviews.
• Fire Department Review. The Fire Chief has reviewed the plat and has submitted a review
memorandum (Attachment #10) dated 7/23/14. Included in the Fire Chief’s comments is
concern over the design of the enlarged “teardrop” cul-de-sacs. It should be noted that the
applicants have submitted a turning radius exhibit to demonstrate that a ladder truck can effectively navigate the proposed cul-de-sacs. In addition to the concern over the cul-de-sacs,
the Fire Chief has noted that the proposed street names for the subdivision do not comply
with the Washington County street naming system, which the City has been utilizing for
recently approved plats. Staff would recommend that the applicants work with City to determine appropriate street names for the subdivision in advance of Final Plat approval
(Condition #4).
• Watershed Districts. The project area lies within the South Washington Watershed District
(SWWD). The Boulder Ponds project has already submitted a watershed district permit, and
the permit has been conditionally approved. The conditions related to the watershed district approval include compliance with NPDES permitting requirement and verification of soil conditions rough on-site testing. Staff is recommending that adherence to the SWWD permit
requirement be included as a condition of approval (Condition #3).
Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat
and preliminary PUD plan with 11 conditions intended to address the outstanding issues noted above and to further clarify the City’s expectations in order for the developer to move forward with a final
plat and final PUD plan. The recommended conditions are divided into two categories to better
communicate the purpose and intent of the conditions. The recommended conditions are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Pending Review and Approvals
1) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the
commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City
Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site.
2) The developer shall be required to submit an updated parkland dedication calculation in
advance of Final Plat. Upon submission of the calculation, the applicant must work with the
City to achieve the required parkland dedication amount per the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance. The developer shall be required to pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication equivalent to the fair market value for the amount of land that is required to be dedicated for such purposes in the City’s Subdivision Ordinance less the amount of land that is accepted
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
13
for park purposes by the City. Any cash payment in lieu of land dedication shall be paid by
the applicant prior to the release of the final plat for recording.
3) The developer must follow all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act, and adhere to the conditions of approval for the South Washington Watershed District Permit.
4) The applicant shall work with the Planning Staff to name all streets in the subdivision in a
manner acceptable to the City prior to the submission of final plat.
Modifications to the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans
5) The Final Plat and Plans must include the requested modifications outlined in the City Engineer’s review memorandum dated 7/24/14.
6) In addition to standard easements require by the Subdivision Ordinance, additional drainage
and utility easements must be provided extending 10 feet from meandering sidewalks, as well
as all of the portion of private lots between meandering sidewalks and the public right-of-way.
7) The landscape plan shall be updated to locate all boulevards trees in between the public street
and sidewalk to not interfere with private utilities.
8) All islands and medians shall be platted as part of the right-of-way and shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed
in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the final plat.
9) The design of the northern buffer trail shall be modified to a width of 8 feet as opposed to the
regional trail standard of 10 feet.
10) The plan and profile for the eastern limits of 5th Street shall match the preliminary
development plans for the Savona Subdivision or will otherwise be revised in a manner to
meet the requirements of the City Engineer.
Plat Restrictions
11) Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat, the Developer shall enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that
delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of public
improvements.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan:
• That the Boulder Ponds PUD General Concept Plan was approved by the City on December 17, 2013, and the submitted Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan is consistent with the
approved General Concept Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
14
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan are consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan generally comply with
the City’s LDR- Urban Low Density Residential and MDR – Urban Medium Density
Residential zoning districts.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with the City’s Planned Unit Development Regulations.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with City’s
Engineering Standards, except where noted in the review memorandum from the City
Engineer dated 7/24/14.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with other City zoning ordinances, such as landscaping, tree preservation, and erosion and sediment control.
• That the Boulder Ponds preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan achieve multiple identified objectives for planned developments within Lake Elmo.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Boulder Ponds
Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan with the 11 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan
with the 11 conditions of approval as drafted by Staff based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Application Forms and Project Narrative
3. Updated Lot Summary
4. Site Survey
5. Preliminary Plat (4 sheets)
6. Preliminary Plans (49 sheets)
7. Turning Radius Exhibits
8. Alternative Site Plans w/Narrative
9. City Engineer Review Memorandum, dated 7/24/14
10. Fire Chief Review Memorandum, dated 7/24/14
11. Landscape Consultant Review Memorandum, dated 7/23/14
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
15
12. South Washington Watershed District Permit, dated 7/8/14
13. Not Included in Packet – Available Upon Request:
a. Street Cross Section Details
b. Plan Details
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Data Scource: Washington County, MN
12-4-2013
Location Map: Boulder Ponds PUD
K
STONEGATEPARK
STONEGATE
EAGLE POINT BUSINESS PARK
BREMERBANK
EAGLE POINT BLVD.
H
U
D
S
O
N
B
L
V
D
.
0 500 1,000250 Feet
1"=500'
Boulder Ponds Site
BOULDER PONDS
OF LAKE ELMO, MN
N
0
100’ 200’ 300’I-94
HUDSON BLVD
Adjacent
Property
Improvements
Outlot for
Future
Development
Outlot for
Future
Development
Regional Trail
Connection
Regional Trail
Connection
Stormwater
Management:
Pond & Infiltration
Mesic Prairie
Plantings
Upland Prairie
Plantings
10’ Bituminous Trail
Plantings for
Screening
Cul-de-Sac Island
Plantings &
Landscape Treatment
Neighborhood
Concrete Walkway
New Collector Street
with Median Plantings
Ornamental Trees
& Perennial Plantings
Special Concrete/
Pavers at Median Ends
Ribbon Curb at Both
Sides of Median
25’ Street Light
‘Evans’ Lamp
Special Features at Entry:
Plantings, Stone Signage, &
Decorative Fencing
Cul-de-Sac Island
Plantings &
Landscape Treatment
Stormwater
Infiltration Area with
Mesic Prairie Plantings
Wet Prairie Plantings
at Edge of Ponds
Native Shrub
Plantings
Landscape
Boulder Groupings
Neighborhood
Concrete Walkway
Outlot for
Future
Development
15’ Ornamental Light
‘Acorn’ Lamp
6’ Concrete Walkway
Landscape
Boulder Groupings
Stormwater
Management:
Pond & Infiltration
10’ Bituminous Trail
Special Features
at Entry: Plantings,
Stone Signage, &
Decorative Fencing
Conifer Tree
Canopy Tree
Ornamental Tree
Stormwater
Management:
Pond, Infiltration
& Mesic Prairie
SEPTEMBER 2014
Potential Community
Gathering Space
Walkway & Trail
Connection
Upland Prairie
Plantings
*MMVTUSBUJWF1MBOTVCKFDUUPDIBOHFT
OVERALL SITE PLAN
N
0
15’ 30’ 45’
BOULDER PONDS
OF LAKE ELMO, MN
DESIGN CONCEPT: CENTRAL COMMUNITY GATHERING SPACE
CENTRAL COMMUNITY
GATHERING SPACE
LOCATION
POTENTIAL PROGRAM ELEMENTS
eìGAZEBO OR PICNIC SHELTER
eìPICNIC TABLES
eìGRILLS
eìBENCH SEATING
eìWALKWAYS/ TRAIL CONNECTIONS
eìTREES & PLANTINGS
OVERALL SITE PLAN
N
0
15’ 30’ 45’
NORTHEAST ISLAND
COMMUNITY SPACE
LOCATION
DESIGN CONCEPT: NORTHEAST ISLAND COMMUNITY SPACE
BOULDER PONDS
OF LAKE ELMO, MN
POTENTIAL PROGRAM ELEMENTS
eìBENCH SEATING
eìWALKWAY/ TRAIL CONNECTIONS
eìTREES & PLANTINGS
OVERALL SITE PLAN
BOULDER PONDS
OF LAKE ELMO, MN
DESIGN CONCEPT: SOUTHWEST ISLAND COMMUNITY SPACE
N
0
15’ 30’ 45’
SOUTHWEST ISLAND
COMMUNITY SPACE
LOCATION
POTENTIAL PROGRAM ELEMENTS
eìPERGOLA OR SMALL GAZEBO
eìBENCH SEATING
eìWALKWAY/ TRAIL CONNECTIONS
eìTREES & PLANTINGS
1
BOULDER PONDS, Lake Elmo
Preliminary Plat Lot Summary
9/8/2014
Lot Block Sq. Ft. Acres Use Zoning
Min Required
Lot Size (SF)
per Zoning
Meets Underlying
Zoning
Requirements?
1ST PHASE AREA
1 1 17,447 0.40 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
2 1 11,604 0.27 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
3 1 12,822 0.29 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
4 1 10,190 0.23 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
5 1 11,353 0.26 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes6 1 8,584 0.20 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
7 1 8,587 0.20 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
8 1 8,112 0.19 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
9 1 8,410 0.19 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
10 1 8,400 0.19 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
11 1 10,631 0.24 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
12 1 8,909 0.20 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes13 1 8,180 0.19 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
14 1 9,736 0.22 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
15 1 10,982 0.25 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
16 1 8,042 0.18 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
17 1 7,625 0.18 Villa LDR 8,000 No
18 1 10,443 0.24 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
19 1 9,005 0.21 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes20 1 8,717 0.20 Villa LDR 8,000 Yes
1 2 15,836 0.36 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
2 2 9,873 0.23 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
3 2 8,620 0.20 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
4 2 8,005 0.18 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
5 2 9,105 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes6 2 11,483 0.26 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
1 3 11,788 0.27 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes2 3 8,428 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
3 3 8,338 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
4 3 8,078 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
5 3 8,159 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
6 3 9,788 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
7 3 8,004 0.18 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
8 3 7,450 0.17 Single Family LDR 8,000 No9 3 8,229 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
10 3 8,112 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
11 3 9,100 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
1 4 8,716 0.20 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
2 4 9,510 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
3 4 9,309 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes4 4 9,199 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
5 4 8,532 0.20 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
6 4 8,480 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
7 4 8,172 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
8 4 10,194 0.23 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
9 4 8,255 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
10 4 8,280 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
2
BOULDER PONDS, Lake Elmo
Preliminary Plat Lot Summary
9/8/2014
Lot Block Sq. Ft. Acres Use Zoning
Min Required
Lot Size (SF)
per Zoning
Meets Underlying
Zoning
Requirements?
2ND PHASE AREA
1 1 9,057 0.21 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
2 1 8,001 0.18 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes3 1 8,012 0.18 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
4 1 9,582 0.22 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
5 1 9,959 0.23 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
6 1 8,783 0.20 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
7 1 8,455 0.19 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
8 1 9,080 0.21 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
9 1 12,793 0.29 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes10 1 21,111 0.48 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
11 1 10,190 0.23 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
12 1 9,331 0.21 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
13 1 8,270 0.19 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
14 1 8,973 0.21 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
15 1 8,644 0.20 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
16 1 10,923 0.25 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes17 1 10,413 0.24 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
18 1 9,677 0.22 Villa MDR 7,000 Yes
1 2 17,402 0.40 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
2 2 12,514 0.29 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
3 2 9,526 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
4 2 9,327 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes5 2 9,190 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
6 2 9,336 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
7 2 9,636 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
8 2 8,346 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
9 2 8,334 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
10 2 8,399 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
11 2 8,251 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes12 2 8,173 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
1 3 12,072 0.28 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
2 3 12,282 0.28 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
3 3 10,377 0.24 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
4 3 12,142 0.28 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
5 3 10,547 0.24 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes6 3 11,689 0.27 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
7 3 11,463 0.26 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
8 3 9,598 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
9 3 9,748 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
10 3 8,443 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
11 3 8,019 0.18 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
12 3 8,064 0.19 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes13 3 8,839 0.20 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
14 3 10,171 0.23 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
15 3 9,960 0.23 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes16 3 9,552 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
17 3 10,732 0.25 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
18 3 9,720 0.22 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
19 3 8,964 0.21 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes20 3 10,649 0.24 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
21 3 15,226 0.35 Single Family LDR 8,000 Yes
3
BOULDER PONDS, Lake Elmo
Preliminary Plat Lot Summary
9/8/2014
Lot Block Sq. Ft. Acres Use Zoning
Min Required
Lot Size (SF)
per Zoning
Meets Underlying
Zoning
Requirements?
Outlot A 152,517 3.50 Comercial
Outlot B 107,367 2.46 Senior Housing - 64 UnitsOutlot C 109,350 2.51 Ponding
Outlot D 64,584 1.48 Ponding
Outlot E 183,233 4.21 Commercial
Outlot F 104,051 2.39 Ponding
Outlot G 44,646 1.02 Ponding
Outlot H 69,606 1.60 Pond & Wetland
PARK 168,635 3.87 Park
45.15 TOTAL SITE ACREAGE (net of ROW)
Total
Single Family Lots
Total
Villa Lots
#60 38
Acreage 13.40 8.70
DUA 4.5 4.4
Total Units 162
Total Site Acreage 45.15
Units/Acre 3.6
N
N
N
120 DEG.120 DEG.120 DEG.NOTES:1) CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE WITH PIN THE ROOT FLARE OF EACH TREE PRIOR TO DIGGINGTHE PLANTING PIT. (THE FLARE IS THE TRANSITION ZONE BETWEEN THE MAIN STEM AND THEROOT SYSTEM.)2) REMOVE SOIL FROM TOP OF ROOTBALL TO EXPOSE TOP OF FLARE. TREES WITH MORE THAN2" OF EXCESS SOIL ABOVE THE FLARE WILL BE REJECTED. MEASURE DISTANCE BETWEEN FLAREAND BOTTOM OF ROOTBALL. SUBTRACT 10% TO DETERMINE DEPTH OF PLANTING PIT.3) DIG PIT TO DEPTH DETERMINED ABOVE. PIT SHALL BE DISHED WITH SIDEWALLS AS SHOWNBELOW. SCARIFY WALLS AND BOTTOM OF PIT.4.) SET TREE IN PIT SO THAT FLARE IS ONE TO TWO INCHES ABOVE SURROUNDING GRADE.5) IN ALL AREAS WITH HEAVY CLAY OR POORLY DRAINED SOILS (MOTTLING), CONTACT THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. TREE MAY BE RELOCATED OR ROOTBALL FURTHER ELEVATED.STAKING DIAGRAMGENERAL NOTES:
”
PAGE 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 24, 2014
To: Nick Johnson, City Planner Re: Bolder Ponds
Cc: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Preliminary Plat Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Bolder Ponds development. A Preliminary Plan submittal was
received consisting of the following documentation prepared by Evolution Engineering and Design or as noted:
Preliminary Site and Construction Plans dated June 2, 2014.
Project Manual for Grading, Roadway and Utility Improvements dated June 2, 2014.
Preliminary Plat dated June 2, 2014 prepared by E.G.Rud and Sons, Inc.
Hydrology Report, no date.
Wetland Delineation Report dated May 29, 2014 prepared by SEH, Inc.
Turning Templates dated May 30, 2014 prepared by SEH, Inc.
Xcel Energy Transmission Easement Agreement dated July 21, 2014.
STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering review comments have been limited for the purpose of Preliminary Plat issues.
Additional Final Construction Plan review and comments will be provided once Preliminary Plat approval is
granted for the development. Engineering review comments are as outlined below.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The construction of 5th Street North is required as part of the Bolder Ponds development. The construction
plans include 5th Street North as part of the Plan set. The Preliminary Plat must be revised to include the full
R/W area to accommodate the construction of 5th Street North, including the added R/W required from the
Bremer Financial Services property. This added area needs to be Platted as R/W.
The street median Outlots should be Platted as public R/W. The City should use maintenance agreements
with the HOA to facilitate the landscape maintenance of the median areas. The Preliminary Plat should be
revised accordingly.
Additional R/W must be obtained along the east side of Cobblestone Plaza such that the R/W extends an
additional 80 feet, well past the Cobblestone Path intersection.
Additional easement is required to provide a minimum 30‐foot utility easement for the storm sewer pipe
run from CS‐600 to FES‐600C. Part of this easement must be acquired from the adjacent Eagle Point Town
Office property.
Additional easement is required to provide a minimum 30‐foot utility easement for the storm sewer pipe
run from CBMH 806 to CBMH 801.
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4285
PAGE 2 of 6
WATERMAIN AND SANITARY SEWER PLANS
Sanitary sewer and watermain stubs to adjacent property and pipe oversizing will continue to be reviewed
by City staff as the development progresses forward and oversizing routes may need to be changed as part
of the final construction plans. Sewer and watermain oversizing is paid by the City as a reimbursement
addressed within the development agreement.
Sewer oversizing may be required from Hudson Boulevard to the Azur property or an 8‐inch sewer
may need to be stubbed north on 5th Street to the Azur property.
The 12‐inch watermain oversize is appropriate as shown on the proposed plans. Additional
oversizing may need to be extended to the site of Well No. 3, pending further staff review.
The 12‐inch watermain stub location at Outlot Q must be coordinated with Lennar to verify that
the stub is placed in the appropriate location.
Sewer and water stubs may be needed to the north edge of the Lampert Lumber and or Cranky Ape
properties.
Sewer and water stubs may be needed from 5th Street to Outlot N for service to the property south
of Bremer Financial Services.
Sanitary sewer and watermain stubs have been proposed along Cobblestone Plaza to serve future
commercial developments at Outlots K, J and M. The size and location of these stubs require further review
with the applicant.
Detailed Sanitary Sewer and Watermain construction plans were submitted as part of the Preliminary Plat
application. A detailed construction plan review will be completed upon Preliminary Plat approval.
However, comments below have been provided for the applicant’s use and information:
Hydrant and system valve placement will be made per City standards and as laid out by City staff.
Applicant shall submit an overall watermain plan for staff redlines.
Utility alignments will be necessary to better maintain the sewer and water within the street
section, in particular in areas where the street meanders or divides. Sanitary sewer MH’s must be
moved to centerline or center of drive lanes (i.e. MH 10, MH 23 and MH 36).
Utility alignments will be necessary to eliminate or minimize the use of watermain insulation.
Watermain insulation will only be allowed when alignment alternatives are not available.
Watermain shall be placed to maintain appropriate storm sewer pipe separation.
Sanitary sewer along Boulder Ponds Parkway may terminate after the service stub to Lot 11, Block
4, eliminating roughly 60 feet of sewer pipe.
Sanitary sewer along Pebblestone Place may terminate after the service stub to Lot 8, Block 4,
eliminating roughly 70 feet of sewer pipe.
Sewer and water service stubs should be revised to eliminate bends and shall be perpendicular to
the street whenever feasible.
Stationing must be added to all profiles.
Profile elevation labels must be corrected for accuracy.
The existing watermain must be shown in plan and profile along Hudson Boulevard.
Correct “Existing Ground” and “Proposed Grade” call‐outs on Sheet 9, Pebblestone Ridge Cove –
12” Watermain Loop Profile.
Add hydrant at 12” plug on 5th Street (at approximate STA 21+90) for flushing purposes.
Add vertical bends to accommodate severe grade changes at the Pebblestone Place watermain
loop.
GRADING, STORM WATER MANGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL AND STORM SEWER SYSTEM
Preliminary Plat approval should be contingent upon additional plan revisions needed to provide a grading
plan, storm water management plan and storm sewer system that complies with the requirements of the
City of Lake Elmo Engineering Design Standards Manual.
PAGE 3 of 6
Grading plans must be resubmitted to include existing and proposed contours for a distance of 150 feet
from all edges of the proposed Plat. Staff review can continue upon receipt.
Relocate Outlot L retaining wall to Outlot M. This should be owned privately, not by the City.
Outlot M retaining wall requires greater separation from the proposed storm sewer pipe.
Permission to grade and install storm sewer pipe is required from the adjacent Eagle Point Town Office Park
for infrastructure behind Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, First Addition and potentially for the storm sewer run from
this location to Hudson Blvd.
There are three new proposed storm water discharge points to Hudson Boulevard:
Two new discharges to the south side of Hudson Blvd requires MnDOT permission. This permission
is required before plan approval can be provided and any grading work can begin.
One discharge point is along the north side of Hudson Blvd. owned by the City. Additional detail is
needed before the City can determine acceptance of this new storm water discharge.
Lot 1, Block 1, Second Addition does not conform to City requirements for flood protection from Infiltration
Basin 3C. The lot building type or grading for this lot and adjacent Outlot must be revised accordingly.
Storm sewer pipe alignments must be revised to better maintain the storm sewer within the street
footprint. Areas include:
Bolder Ponds Parkway, between Outlot F and 5th Street.
Pebblestone Place, from Bolder Ponds Parkway to cul‐de‐sac.
Pebblestone Terrace, near the cul‐de‐sac.
Storm sewer must be a minimum of 15 feet from proposed retaining walls (near MH 1004).
Storm sewer catch basins should be relocated from corners per the City standard details.
All proposed pipe crossings must be perpendicular to street alignment (i.e. CB 516A and CB 515A).
Infiltration basin 2A Retaining Wall should be eliminated or relocated onto the adjacent private property.
It appears that the wall can be eliminated if the adjacent lot is not a walk out. It is not recommended that
the City take on ownership of this retaining wall.
The double retaining walls located in the Xcel Transmission easement area should be eliminated or
relocated onto the adjacent private property. It appears that the walls can be eliminated if the adjacent lots
are not walk out lots. It is not recommended that the City take on ownership of these retaining walls.
The HWL must be provided for Infiltration Basin 1B.
The storm sewer system or grading plans must be revised to provide the City standard minimum pipe cover
of 3.5 feet. Changes must be made as part of the final construction plans. Several structures or pipe runs
do not meet this minimum, but it appears these changes can be made without impact to the Plat.
Drain tile is required as part of the City standard street section at all localized low points in the street. Drain
tile considerations may impact the storm sewer design and depth requirements at low points.
Storm sewer castings must comply with City of Lake Elmo Design Standards (i.e. proposed beehive castings).
The watershed has indicated that additional testing is required to verify the assumed infiltration rates at
each basin. The City standard is to require multiple tests at each location and not allowing tests taken in
the vicinity. Plan revisions may be required if rates do not support the design assumptions.
The plan must be updated to indicate wetland buffers for staff review.
STREET, SIDEWALK AND TRAIL PLANS
5TH STREET NORTH:
5th Street seeks to become the backbone of future development along the I94 corridor, essentially
becoming the primary access in and out of the future neighborhoods. The street is required for the sole
purpose to provide mobility to support the growth and development within the corridor. The quality of the
street and its connections are critically important. The purpose of the proposed street standards are to 1)
improve the function, mobility and appearance of the street, 2) encourage pedestrian and bicycle use, and
3) reduce the potential for speeding.
PAGE 4 of 6
The plan indicates a minimum 100 foot R/W as required, except for the additional R/W to be acquired from
Bremer Financial Services. This area must be Platted as public R/W.
The proposed 2‐lane collector Parkway street (5th Street) design and geometrics must meet all Municipal
State Aid design standards for urban streets (8820.9936) for ADT > 10,000; 40 mph design speed; and must
be consistent with the detailed Parkway cross section installed throughout the remaining corridor
segments.
The plans must include the City standard typical cross sections for 5th Street to ensure construction details
are followed accordingly, including turn lane configurations.
The proposed alignment is consistent with the State Aid design intent. However, the proposed plan
indicates impacts to adjacent properties. The applicant must coordinate the design of 5th Street with each
adjacent property and must show the proposed plan and profile for a distance of 150 feet beyond the Plat
for both Azur properties/Bremer and Lennar/Alan Dale. The matching profiles must be agreed to by all
impacted properties.
Access spacing to 5th Street meets the guidelines for the Cities Transportation Plan. A full access is proposed
at Boulder Ponds Parkway near the middle of the Plat and a partial access with Boulder Ponds Parkway at
the north end. Additional access to 5th Street is not recommended throughout the remaining corridor. It is
recommended that potential future access by Lampert Lumber and/or Cranky Ape properties be through
Boulder Ponds Parkway or a future street to the east, then to 5th Street as part of a full access.
The signing and striping plan for 5th Street, Sheet SS1, must be updated to meet state aid standards and the
5th Street typical section detail for turn lanes. Signage and pavement markings for cross walks should meet
the City standard for cross walk markings.
It is recommended that the 5th Street trail and sidewalks maintain the consistent boulevard alignment and
layout per the City approved 5th Street typical section.
The trail and sidewalk intersection crossings should occur within the R/W at the corners (see
attached TKDA Traffic Engineering review memo). 5th Street does not have a stop condition and
therefore the safer pedestrian crossing locations will be at the intersection corners.
The sidewalk along the south of 5th Street should connect the median walk to the west boulevard
walk.
The second crosswalk should be provided along the east side of the 5th Street/Boulder Ponds
Parkway and the signing and striping plan updated accordingly.
Pavement marking crosswalks should also be added for east‐west crossings.
A second 5th Street pedestrian crossing location should be considered near the north end of the
Plat at the Xcel Transmission easement area before 5th Street begins the next horizontal curve into
Azur properties.
Per the TKDA Traffic engineering review memo, the 5th Street and cross street medians must be adjusted
so that they do not extend into the intersection. Medians should terminate at the cross street curb line.
The proposed medians interfere with left turn movements and plowing operations.
Revise the 5th Street vertical sag curve to K=64 at STA 14+50. Minimum sag curve for 40 mph road is 64.
Corner curb radius must be 25 feet at 5th Street and must be shown on the plans.
Additional streetscape amenities are required along 5th Street consistent with the remaining corridor
segments and the City design standard for 5th Street.
A detailed review of these plans are completed by the City’s Landscape Architect.
The plans must be detailed and dimensioned to indicate the specific locations for all trees, light
poles, signs and utilities. This R/W corridor is very tight and specific spacing between amenities is
critical to a successful design. A 2‐foot clear zone must be maintained on each side of the trail and
sidewalk at all locations to meet state aid design standards.
HUDSON BOULEVARD TURN LANE:
Dedicated turn lanes are being provided along Hudson Boulevard to access the development at
Cobblestone Plaza. The signing and striping plan for Hudson Blvd, Sheet TL1, must be updated to meet the
current posted 50 mph design speed.
PAGE 5 of 6
RESIDENTIAL STREETS
The applicant is proposing a roadway configuration that is generally acceptable and in accordance with City
standard requirements. Primary and secondary access appears adequate for the site.
The plan indicates that residential streets are being proposed to a 28 foot width from back of curb to back
of curb. Surmountable concrete curb and gutter are proposed in single family residential areas and B618
curb is proposed in commercial and multi‐family areas.
The plan indicates a minimum 60 foot R/W as required.
The residential streets propose several medians that spilt the traffic into 2‐one way drive lanes. It is
recommended that plans be revised such that each lane is a minimum of 20 feet from face of curb to face
of curb to meet minimum fire lane requirements.
The intersection of Pebblestone Terrace and Pebblestone Place create a very unique and unfamiliar
intersection.
Turning templates must be submitted to verify appropriate curb radius at all median curb corners
and curb radius lengthened when required (i.e T‐S and H‐I).
The sidewalk crossing(s) at this intersection must be reviewed and relocated to provide safe
crossing(s) with snow storage considerations. The proposed crossing at Outlot F is not
recommended.
The intersection of Cobblestone Path should be moved south as far as possible to provide added separation
from the median at Outlot I. This becomes more important if a full access is contemplated in the future to
serve the Cranky Ape and Lampert Lumber properties.
Consideration should be given to shortening the Outlot I median.
The R/W along the east side of Boulder Ponds Parkway, across from Cobblestone Path, should be
extended further south at least 80 feet to facilitate a potential future road connection.
Corner curb radius must be indicated on the plans. For local streets a 20‐foot radius must be used.
Minimum K‐value for sag curves is 37. Revise sag curves along Pebblestone Place, Pebblestone Terrace, and
Pebblestone Ridge Cove. Grades between 1+00 and 3+50 along Pebblestone Terrace should be revised to
create a smoother transition and lesson the 5.45% grade, in particular since this road grade is a result of
the area being filled.
Minimum K‐value for crest curves is 19. Revise crest curve along Pebblestone Ridge Cove. Grades along this
road should be somewhat reduced, in particular since the area is being filled.
The Pebbelstone Ridge Cove Plan View on sheet 24 must be revised to plan scale to facilitate plan review.
Cul‐de‐sac geometry must be revised as follows:
The pavement width must be a minimum of 20 feet from face of curb to face of curb around cul‐
de‐sacs to accommodate emergency vehicle access.
With a 20 foot minimum pavement width, all cul‐de‐sacs must be signed as “No Parking Any Time”.
The proposed cul‐de‐sac medians show a tear drop design at the cul‐de‐sac entrance. The tear drop
must be revised to create a more rounded median to better facilitate snow plowing and emergency
access.
BOULEVARD LAYOUT ALONG RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Applicant is proposing a non‐standard boulevard layout which is not consistent with several City design
standards. It should be the applicant’s responsibility to submit proposed alternative design details as part
of the plan set that replaces the City standard design details that are not being met. This is required to detail
the proposed design both for City review and for construction purposes. Multiple details will be required
for the various boulevard layouts.
Construction plans must also be completely detailed for each varying condition because it cannot be left to
the various contractors to field locate all the different infrastructure components that must be closely
coordinated within the R/W corridor. Additional plan details must be submitted for staff review.
Meandering sidewalks and trails are proposed throughout the development. Sidewalks and trails outside
of the R/W create on‐going operation and maintenance difficulties. The following is strongly recommended
if the sidewalks are allowed to meander outside of the R/W:
PAGE 6 of 6
Sidewalk and trail easements shall be in a form created by the City.
The easements shall extend from the R/W to the sidewalk/trail and extend an additional 10 feet
past the sidewalk/trail to accommodate the utility corridor.
A plan must be submitted showing the sidewalk/trail setback from each garage front demonstrating
a minimum of 25 feet clearance to accommodate driveway parking without obstructing the
walkway.
Sidewalks along cul‐de‐sacs should extend around the outside of the cul‐de‐sac paved areas as
shown along Pebblestone Terrace to keep the sidewalk available for snow removal. Sidewalks
should not pass across the cul‐de‐sac island. This area must be preserved for significant snow
storage.
The plans must provide a detailed small utility corridor plan for City review and consideration which
addresses small utility installation when crossing/interfering with sidewalks.
On Sheet 28 the trail must be revised to maintain a maximum trail grade at 6%. Location to edge of Plat
must be coordinated with the Lennar development.
PROJECT MANUAL / SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD DETAILS
A detailed Project Manual / Specifications were submitted as part of the Preliminary Plat application. A
detailed review will be completed upon Preliminary Plat approval. However, comments below have been
provided for the applicant’s use and information:
The governing specifications shall be the City Standard Specifications. These specifications,
currently placed in the back of the project manual in Section 8, shall be placed near the front of
the manual.
The general requirements shall state the following: “The City Standard Specifications shall apply to
the work performed under this contract. Any supplemental specifications are intended to
supplement the City Standard Specifications; however they do NOT supersede the City Standard
Specifications, Details, Design Standards, or ordinances unless specific written approval has been
provided by the City.”
Any additional specifications for the project shall be clearly identified as “Supplemental
Provisions” not "Special Provisions".
Geotechnical Report. The report must be resubmitted so that exhibits are legible. A plan must be submitted
showing the soil boring locations with respect to the proposed improvements. Once received, additional
borings may be requested to support the proposed pavement designs (i.e. along 5th Street or other local
roadways).
Retaining Walls must be designed by a Professional Registered Engineer licensed in Minnesota. The design
engineer of record will be required to certify that the walls were constructed in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications.
Standard Details:
Water Services to be extended to edge of utility easement, at least 10 feet beyond property line.
Applicant’s standard detail must be corrected.
Sign details to be per City standards. Add City standard sign details and plan notes.
Memorandum
To: Ryan Stempski Reference:Boulder Ponds Development
Copies To: Traffic Review
City of Lake Elmo
From: Bryant Ficek Project No.:15545.000
Date: June 27, 2014 Routing:
Geometric plans and cross sections for the proposed 5th Street corridor of the Boulder Ponds development were sent for our review on June 18. In addition to the plans, the City’s desired
typical sections and design guidelines were provided. Per your request, this information was
reviewed in terms of conformance to State Aid standards. The design of the medians at intersections and the locations of crosswalks were additional issues raised for our review. The
provided information is attached to this memorandum for reference.
The proposed development is located on the north side of I-94 and the Hudson Boulevard frontage road, between Inwood Avenue and Keats Avenue. As identified in the City’s
Transportation Plan of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, a future collector roadway is expected to
be located about halfway between 10th Street N and Hudson Boulevard. This new road is expected to provide for east-west travel between Inwood Avenue and Keats Avenue and
beyond. The projected daily volume for this new roadway is 5,000 vehicles. The proposed
development’s 5th Street is anticipated to become part of that new collector roadway.
State Aid Standards
The MnDOT State Aid office provides design guidance in terms of lane widths and other roadway design details. Satisfaction of these guidelines means that a roadway is eligible to become a State Aid route, which then makes the road eligible for future maintenance and
improvement funding.
Based upon the information provided, the design of 5th Street meets the City’s desired
standards, which also satisfy the State Aid standards. The provided right-of-way, lane widths,
and median widths meet or exceed the State Aid minimums, assuming a posted speed limit of 40 mph or less. Horizontal and vertical curves also meet the minimum standards for a 40 mph
roadway. Pavement sections were not provided to check against the State Aid standard of a
9-ton roadway. However, the City’s desired standards call for a 10-ton roadway. Assuming that 5th Street continues to match the City’s desired standards, this detail would also satisfy the
State Aid standards.
Memo Page 2 June 27, 2014 Boulder Ponds Development Traffic Review
City of Lake Elmo
Pedestrian Movements
The design shows a 10-foot trail on one side of 5th Street and a 6-foot sidewalk on the other. A
wide boulevard separates the trail and sidewalk from the road except where right-turn lanes are introduced. Based on our review of the layout of the trail and sidewalk, our comments are:
• The trail moves away from 5th Street at intersections, providing approximately 30 feet between the pedestrian crossing area and the vehicle stopping point. This is similar to
pedestrian crossing treatments at roundabouts, allowing vehicles to focus on pedestrian
movements first, followed by a focus on other vehicle movements. At stop controlled intersections, this approach is acceptable. Appropriate signing and striping should be
used to notify drivers of the pedestrian crossing area.
• Only one crossing of 5th Street is shown, on the west side of the Boulder Ponds
Parkway intersection. Assuming that this intersection is under side-street stop control,
with 5th Street traffic not stopping, the crossing should be located at the intersection rather than set back approximately 30 feet as shown. When traffic will not stop or slow at
the intersection, setting the pedestrian crossing back in this manner does not offer
benefits to the driver or the pedestrian.
• Additional crossings of 5th Street should be considered, including mid-block crossings.
Connections to and from development outlots not at intersections could also be considered. For instance, a sidewalk/trail connection linking outlot C to the trail on the
north side of 5th Street with a mid-block crossing to the sidewalk on the south side of 5th Street may provide additional benefits for those residents. Proper signing and striping should be used for all crossings to improve safety.
• At all crossings, the ramp to and from the roadway should be properly designed using the latest ADA standards. The provided plans do not uniformly identify pedestrian ramps
at each crossing point, nor do they provide information regarding the pedestrian ramp
design for those that are identified.
• The south crossing of Boulder Ponds Parkway is not continuous across the intersection. Pedestrian routes should be reviewed to ensure that the routes are continuous and do not strand a pedestrian in a potentially dangerous situation, such as the middle of an
intersection.
Medians
As mentioned, the raised median on 5th Street meets the City’s desired standards in addition to
the minimum State Aid standards. At the intersections, the minimum 4-foot width (face-of-curb to face-of-curb) is sufficient for those standards. However, a minimum width of 6 feet is desired
if the median is to be used as a pedestrian refuge at crossing locations. A minimum width of
6 feet is also better in terms of space for sign mounting. The minimum 6-foot width could be achieved by reducing the left-turn lane and through lane to 11-foot widths at the intersections.
This change in lane width would still satisfy State Aid standards.
Memo Page 3 June 27, 2014 Boulder Ponds Development Traffic Review
City of Lake Elmo
Vehicle turning movements should be considered at the intersections in regard to the median
design as well. As currently shown in the plans, the median on 5th Street extends too far into
the intersection and would interfere with left turn and through movements from the side streets.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the information presented in this
memorandum, please contact me at 651.726.7944 or bryant.ficek@tkda.com.
1
Nick Johnson
From:Bob Egan <began@lampertlumber.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:57 PM
To:Nick Johnson
Cc:Kevin Tauer
Subject:Lampert Lumber & Boulder Ponds
Nick,
In follow‐up to our phone conversation earlier today, I would like to reiterate a concern that Lamperts would like to
have considered as the Boulder Ponds Development plan is under review.
As indicated on the Preliminary Plat the north end of Lamperts’ property abuts the future 5th Street.
It is our belief that sometime in the future part of our property will be best suited for residential development.
We would like the possibility of future residential development of that property taken into consideration as the
elevations for 5th street are being established.
It would be beneficial if the elevation of 5th Street was such that minimal elevation change on our property will be
necessary to develop a residential area that would be accessed from 5th Street in the future.
Thanks for your consideration. We look forward to a response addressing the concerns expressed in this email.
Bob Egan
President & COO
(651) 695‐3671
1
Nick Johnson
From:Kyle Klatt
Sent:Monday, December 09, 2013 2:24 PM
To:Nick Johnson
Subject:FW: Planning Commission Agenda Packet for 12-9-13
From: jjjaros@mmm.com [mailto:jjjaros@mmm.com]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 2:20 PM
To: Kyle Klatt
Subject: Fw: Planning Commission Agenda Packet for 12‐9‐13
Hi Kyle,
I had a chance to look at the materials for Boulder Ponds. Thanks for posting this on the web site.
I understand the need to develop the property south of 10th street. From the public hearing on the Lennar site
proposals, I understood that the greenway walk way path was going to be put on the southern 1/3 of the greenway
buffer.
The Boulder Ponds plans show the greeway buffer path it to be directly adjacent to the stonegate property and right
next to my land. If we have a 100' buffer, don't put the path directly adjacent to my property. Is there a reason it can't
be put on the south 1/3 of the greenway buffer like the Lennar properties agreement? If not in the south 1/3 of the
greenway, why not down the middle of the buffer? Because of the power line easement, I can't put a fence on the
property line so I would like to see the path away from my property.
I was not vocal at the Lennar hearing on the pathway because I was OK with the placement in the southern 1/3rd of the
greenway. I will be much more vocal with the placement of the Boulder Ponds path placement.
On the Lennar proposal, I didn't like the lack of park area, but I am not an expert in the management of parks.
Stonegate park will need to be larger with other amenities to support the population in these new developments if they
don't have a park in their area.
Thanks,
John Jaros
‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded by John J Jaros/EG‐Engrg/3M/US on 12/09/2013 01:55 PM ‐‐‐‐‐
From: Tom Kreimer <tkreimer@comcast.net <mailto:tkreimer@comcast.net> >
To: John Jaros <jjjaros@mmm.com <mailto:jjjaros@mmm.com> >
Date: 12/07/2013 07:45 PM
Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Agenda Packet for 12‐9‐13
2
________________________________
Hi John‐
Your email address wouldn't allow the attachment, so I am just sending the email. You can obtain the information from
the Lake Elmo website under planning commission agendas.
Tom Kreimer
________________________________
From: "Tom Kreimer" <tkreimer@comcast.net <mailto:tkreimer@comcast.net> >
To: "Curt Monteith" <cmonteith@comcast.net <mailto:cmonteith@comcast.net> >, "Amy Betz" <ambetz@mmm.com
<mailto:ambetz@mmm.com> >, "Family Betz" <betzfamily5@comcast.net <mailto:betzfamily5@comcast.net> >, "John
Jaros" <jjjaros@mmm.com <mailto:jjjaros@mmm.com> >, "Craig Rossow" <craig@comfortbus.net
<mailto:craig@comfortbus.net> >
Cc: "Jay Morreale" <jay.morreale@sprint.com <mailto:jay.morreale@sprint.com> >
Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2013 1:33:32 PM
Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Packet for 12‐9‐13
Hi Neighbors‐
I just wanted to make sure you were aware of a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission meeting Monday night
regarding the land behind your home (Boulder Ponds). You may want to review the attached materials. If you have any
issues with anything, I suggest you attend the meeting ‐ Monday night at 7pm. If you can't attend, you can always send
written comments to Kyle Klatt (kklatt@lakeelmo.org <mailto:kklatt@lakeelmo.org> ). Also, you can let me know your
thoughts as well ‐ but that isn't as good as attending or sending your comments in.
Based on what we're forced to have, the plan looks pretty good. Personally, I would like to see a bit larger lots against
our neighborhood, but I don't think we'll get that. My biggest problem with the plan is that they are showing the new
trail directly adjacent to Stonegate. In prior meetings, it was agreed that the trail would be adjacent to the new
neighborhoods. The council did not follow this on the Lennar development, so we need to be a bit more vocal about this
aspect if it is something you care about. Craig, it looks like they are completely ignoring a buffer around your new land.
Please consider attending the meeting if you have concerns. The further these things go, the harder they are to change.
Now is the time to act if you care.
Thank you!
Tom Kreimer
________________________________
From: "Kyle Klatt" <KKlatt@lakeelmo.org <mailto:KKlatt@lakeelmo.org> >
To: "Sara Yocum (yocumrealestategroup@edinarealty.com <mailto:yocumrealestategroup@edinarealty.com> )"
<yocumrealestategroup@edinarealty.com <mailto:yocumrealestategroup@edinarealty.com> >,
daledorschner@comcast.net <mailto:daledorschner@comcast.net> , "Dean dodson" <Dean.dodson@gmail.com
<mailto:Dean.dodson@gmail.com> >, "Jay Morreale (jay.morreale@sprint.com <mailto:jay.morreale@sprint.com> )"
<jay.morreale@sprint.com <mailto:jay.morreale@sprint.com> >, "Jill Lundgren (pottingshedpottery@gmail.com
3
<mailto:pottingshedpottery@gmail.com> )" <pottingshedpottery@gmail.com <mailto:pottingshedpottery@gmail.com>
>, "Kathy Haggard (haggardfive@hotmail.com <mailto:haggardfive@hotmail.com> )" <haggardfive@hotmail.com
<mailto:haggardfive@hotmail.com> >, "Rolf Larson (halver@mac.com <mailto:halver@mac.com> )" <halver@mac.com
<mailto:halver@mac.com> >, toddwilli@comcast.net <mailto:toddwilli@comcast.net> , "Tom Kreimer
(tkreimer@comcast.net <mailto:tkreimer@comcast.net> )" <tkreimer@comcast.net <mailto:tkreimer@comcast.net> >
Cc: "Dean Zuleger" <DZuleger@lakeelmo.org <mailto:DZuleger@lakeelmo.org> >, "Nick Johnson"
<NJohnson@lakeelmo.org <mailto:NJohnson@lakeelmo.org> >, "Alyssa MacLeod" <AMacLeod@lakeelmo.org
<mailto:AMacLeod@lakeelmo.org> >, "Adam Bell" <ABell@lakeelmo.org <mailto:ABell@lakeelmo.org> >, "Beckie
Gumatz" <BGumatz@lakeelmo.org <mailto:BGumatz@lakeelmo.org> >
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2013 4:48:05 PM
Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Packet for 12‐9‐13
Members of the Planning Commission:
Please find attached a copy of the Agenda and Packet for the Planning Commission’s December 9, 2013 meeting. Staff
will be bringing materials to the meeting concerning agenda item 5b (the 2014 work plan). If you need to reference the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance in regards to item 4a, these materials can be accessed on the City’s website.
Stay warm and have a great weekend!
Kyle Klatt
Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo
(651) 747‐3911