HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5a THE CITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION
LAKE ELMO DATE: 11/14/2016
AGENDA ITEM: 5A—PUBLIC HEARING
CASE#2016-40
ITEM: Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plans
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Emily Becker, City Planner
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
Robert Engstrom Companies is requesting approval of final plat, final PUD development plans for
the second phase of the Wildflower at Lake Elmo PUD development. The final plat includes 20
single family residential lots located to the east of the first phase. Staff is recommending approval of
the request subject to compliance with the conditions listed in this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Robert Engstrom Companies; 4801 West 81st Street, #101, Bloomington,MN
Property Owners: Robert Engstrom Companies; 4801 West 81st Street, #101, Bloomington, MN
Location: Outlot O, Wildflower at Lake Elmo 1 st Addition, near the intersection of
Wildflower Drive and Monarch Lane.
Request: Application for lot Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development(PUD)Plan
approval for the second phase of the Wildflower PUD development. The final
plat includes 20 single-family residential lots, an outlot(courtyard), and an outlot
for future development.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant outlot and MDR/PUD.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North—vacant outlot and MDR/PUD zoning—; west—
Wildflower 1'Addition and MDR/PUD zoning—; south—
offices, business park land—General Business zoning; east—
Wildflower outlot and open space/Field of St. Croix II
subdivision open space—RR and OP zoning.
Comprehensive Plan: Village Medium Density Residential(3-4 units per acre)/Village Open
Space Overlay
History: The property is within the Village Planning Area boundary and municipal sewer
service area. The site was historically been used for faming activities. A large portion
of the site is located in a FEMA Flood District. The City approved a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment in 2014 that removed portions of the site from the open space land
category. The City approved a PUD Concept Plan for the property on June 17, 2014,
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
2
and a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans on April 7, 2015. Wildflower 1st
Addition received final plat and PUD plan approval on 7/21/15.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete—8/26/16
60 Day Deadline— 10/25/16
Extension Letter Mailed—Yes
120 Day Deadline— 12/24/16
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 —Subdivision Regulations
Article 10—Urban Residential Districts (MDR)
Article 16—Planned Unit Development Regulations
§150.270 Storm Water,Erosion, and Sediment Control
REQUEST DETAILS
Robert Engstrom Companies is requesting approval of a final plat and final PUD plan associated with
the second phase of the Wildflower Planned Unit Development(PUD). The proposed final plat will
replat the Outlot O, Wildflower at Lake Elmo, 19.2074 acres, in 20 single-family residential lots, of
which 10 will be the "garden villa"homes while the remaining 10 will be the general single family
homes located north of Wildflower Drive. In addition to the 20 single family homes, the final plat
and PUD plans include two outlots. Outlot A is 0.5818 acres in size and will be an HOA owned
outlot for the garden villa courtyard. Outlot B is 11.99 acres in size and will be redeveloped into
residential lots in the future. The ten garden villa lots average 0.16 aces in size with the smallest lot
being 0.1405 acres in size and the largest 0.1774 acres in size; the ten single family lots average 0.29
acres in size,with the smallest being 0.2292 acres in size and largest being 0.3504 the acres in size.
The lots sizes and dimensions are consistent with the preliminary plat and PUD Plans.
Plat Summary:
Development area(Outlot O): 19.2074 acres
Total lot area: 4.4962 acres
Residential lots: 20 (10 villa, 10 regular)
Outlot for future development(Outlot B): 11.9934 acres
Outlot for courtyard(Outlot A): 0.5818 acres
R/W area: 2.1359 acres
Average garden villa lot size: 0.16 acres
Average single family lot size: 0.29 acres
Gross density(excluding outlots): 2.55 dwelling units per acre
Net density(excluding outlots and R/W) 4.0 dwelling units per acre
Grading. The site was graded with the first phase development, so no grading plans were included in
the final plat submittal.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS:
At the October 10,2016 Planning Commission meeting, Staff discussed the PUD Agreement and a
conflict in the interpretation of the setback adjacent a public street in the courtyard areas. Since the
meeting, Staff has further researched the issue and discovered that the PUD Agreement Summary
document was in conflict with the Preliminary Plat Resolution No. 2015-23 (attached). The
resolution and attached 4/14/16 City Council minutes clarify the setback issue, establishing the
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
3
sideyard setback adjacent a public street at 10 feet, rather than 15 feet. That being so, encroachments
are allowed into setbacks,but not necessarily drainage and utility easements unless the encroachment
is reviewed by the City Engineer and an encroachment agreement is executed. This process will
ensure that there will be no more issues similar to the encroachments on Lot 4, Block 4, Wildflower
at Lake Elmo 1 st Addition.
Also at the October 10,2016 meeting during the public hearing, stormwater from Wildflower and
Village Preserve was discussed and the Planning Commission and as a result,the Planning
Commission tabled the Wildflower 2nd Addition final plat and final PUD until the potential issues
were better understood. John Hanson from the Valley Branch Watershed District has since
investigated the storm water issues and has determined that there are some issues with the
Wildflower stormwater pond depth and non-functioning infiltration basins in the Village Preserve
development that will be corrected as part of the development process. The Village Preserve
infiltration basins will be corrected yet this fall. The report attributes the primary reason for the high
water levels to the large volume of rain this season. Overall, the report confirms that the planning
and design of the stormwater system is adequate for the proposed development and therefore, the
system can accommodate the additional stormwater that will be created with the development of the
Wildflower 2nd Addition.
Also at the public hearing, Rich Smith claimed some conditions of the Pt Addition plat have not
been satisfactorily addressed by the developer. The conditions appear to be a private agreement
between Mr. Smith and Mr. Engstrom that would have provided connection to municipal sewer,
landscaping and other improvements.
The issues remaining with the final plat are:
Stormwater. (as mentioned above).
Street Names. Street B on the Final Plat has not been given a proper name. This street should be
named consistent with the City's street naming ordinance prior to recording the plat.
Engineering Review. The City Engineer has reviewed the final plat submittal and has prepared a
memorandum for the Commission and Council's review. The comments in the City Engineer's
review memorandum dated September 29, 2016 should be addressed prior to releasing the plat for
recording.
Landscape Plan. A revised landscape plan has been submitted for review,but has not been
approved. Approval of the landscape plan should be a condition prior to releasing the plat for
recording.
Protective Easement. A condition of preliminary plat was to protect all open space with protective
easements. An protective easement is being prepared to protect Outlot A from any future
development. This should be a condition of that needs to be addressed prior to releasing the plat for
recording.
Temporary Easements. The City Attorney has indicated that with the 2nd Addition Plat, existing
temporary easement between the city and Mr. Smith and a temporary access easement between the
developer and Mr. Smith will expire with the platting of the 2nd Addition. New easement agreements
are being drafted and the execution of these agreements should be made a condition of the 2nd
addition final plat.
Preliminary Plat Conditions. The final plat is in conformance with the preliminary plat. The
preliminary plat and PUD plans were approved with conditions. Staff has provided comments on the
status of each in bold italics:
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
4
Preliminary Plat Conditions—With Staff Update Comments (updated information in bold
italics):
1) No lots within a FEMA flood zone shall be approved as part of a final plat until such time that
the City's Floodplain Management Map has been amended to remove these lots. As an
alternative to amending this map,the developer must provide documentation that all structures
will be built above the regulatory flood protection elevation,that any public infrastructure will
also meet Floodplain Ordinance requirements, and that the proposed storm water ponds may be
constructed within the floodplain area. Comments: This condition will apply to the final plat
and all subsequent stages. The Valley Branch Watershed District has indicated that it will
undertake a study to amend the FEMA flood delineations to lower the flood levels in this area
to match those identified in the Goetschel Pond study. There are no buildable lots depicted on
the final plat that are located in a flood district.
2) Prior to any grading activity,the developer shall submit to the City temporary grading easements
from the owner of the lots adjacent to Layton Avenue within the Brookman Addition in order to
construct the improvements within this right-of-way as documented in the preliminary
construction plans. Comments: These easements have been secured and grading was
completed within this area.
3) The developer has requested the inclusion of public art within common areas and public property
throughout Wildflower development. Prior to the placement of any art on publicly owned
property or public rights-of-way, the developer and City shall enter into an agreement that
clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for maintenance,upkeep and removal of any
public art. No public art shall be lit in a manner that conflicts with the City's Lighting
Ordinance. Comments: This is a condition that will apply to any placement of public art
within the development, including that installed in phase 1, the stamping of poetry into
sidewalks and sculpture in the right of way. A landscape license agreement shall be executed
to include public art as a landscape element and shall be executed prior to building permits in
the second phase.
4) Prior to the submission of a final plat for any portion of the Wildflower PUD, the developer shall
work with the City to determine the appropriate park dedication calculations for the entire
development area. Comments: The developer agreement for the first phase indicated that all
park dedication was satisfied with the first phase of the development.
5) 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. Comments: The site grading was
completed with the first phase of the development
6) The utility construction plans shall be updated to incorporate the recommendations of the City
Engineer as described in a February 18, 2015 memorandum to the City concerning the
appropriate location and size of sewer services through the PUD planning area, including any
requested oversizing of these facilities to service adjacent properties,prior to the submission of a
final plat. Comments: The supplemental plans included in the final plat submission address
the previous review comments. The City Engineer approved the supplemental plans. This
condition has been met
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
5
7) The developer shall minimize the number of rain gardens within public rights-of-way consistent
with the review comments from the City Engineer. Any such storm water infiltration features
shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Comments:All rain gardens as
previously proposed have been eliminated from the plans.
8) The preliminary development plans must be revised to comply with City Street standards as
referenced in the City Engineer's review memorandum dated February 18,2015. Comments:
The plans have been updated to meet City standards and were approved as part of the PUD.
9) The City approves all requests for flexibility from City Zoning and Subdivision requirements
with the exception of the street standards noted in the preceding condition. Comments: The
revised plans address this condition.
10)The applicant is encouraged to incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study into the
open space areas within the subdivision. Comments: The final plans do not include any specific
references to the City's theming study. This condition was not a mandatory requirement.
11)The preliminary landscape plan shall be updated to address the review comments from the City's
landscape architecture consultant as noted in a review letter dated February 4, 2015. Comments:
The Preliminary Landscape Plans dated 5/28/15 generally meet the City's requirements for
landscaping, however the Landscape Architect's review comments have not been fully
addressed. The developer has since submitted an amended plan for a portion of the first
addition landscaping which have been approved, subject to the landscape requirements for the
entire site. The first phase landscaping will be evaluated for compliance once the first phase is
landscaped and an asbuilt plan has been submitted. A second phase plan has been submitted
and approval of the plan shall be required prior to recording the final plat of the 2"d Addition.
12)All center median planting areas as depicted on the preliminary plat and plans shall be owned by
the City of Lake Elmo and maintained by the Homeowners Association. The applicant shall
enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities
responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park,trails,
or open space on the final plat. The developer has entered into a landscape license agreement
that meets this condition for the first phase which will need to be amended to address the
public art.A similar agreement will be required with the second addition and will be a
condition of approval. The agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of building permits
in the second phase.
13)The Final Plat and Plans must address the requested modifications outlined in the City Engineer's
review memorandum dated February 18, 2015. Comments: The final plans have addressed
these comments/
14)Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat, the
Developer shall enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that
delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of public improvements.
Comments:A developer's agreement was entered into for the first phase and will be for the
second phase.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
6
15)The developer shall provide an easement over or dedicate in a separate outlot all trails to be
dedicated for public use. Any such trails shall be considered a park land dedication provide said
trails are constructed by the developer with other public improvements within the subdivision.
Comments: this condition has been met.
16) The City will not approve a final plat for any portion of Wildflower until such time that the City
has approved construction plans and received financial security related to the construction of the
public improvement project to connect the 39th Street Sewer to the 30th Street lift station.
Comments: This condition has been met and no longer applies.
17)The developer must follow all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act, and
adhere to the conditions of approval for the Valley Branch Watershed District Permit.
Comments: The developers plan have been reviewed and approved by the Watershed District
and grading work has been completed in accordance with this permit.
18)The developer shall maintain access to the Smith property(11514 Stillwater Boulevard North)
during construction of the first development phase. Said access shall, at a minimum,be capable
of supporting emergency management vehicles and be consistent with City access driveway
standards. The existing driveway easement shall be vacated prior to the recording of the final
plat. Comments: The driveway easement from the Smith property providing access to
Stillwater Boulevard has been vacated. Easements to the City and Mr. Smith will expire upon
the recording of the 2nd Addition Final Plat. These replacement easements are being drafted
and should be a condition of final plat.
19)The developer shall establish a legally binding agreement to prevent further residential or
commercial development of all outlots that are planned for open space or conservation uses
within the preliminary plat. Comments: This condition has been met for the first phase and is
being addressed in the second phase to protect Outlot A.
Staff is recommending approval of the final plat and PUD plans with conditions intended to address
the outstanding issues that will require additional review and/or documentation.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Staff is recommending conditions as part of this final plat review to address issues highlighted in this
report that include conditions of the preliminary plat that have not been fully addressed by the
applicant. The City Engineer's review memorandum dated September 29, 2016 identifies a number
of issues that need to be addressed by the developer in order for the City to deem the final plans
complete. Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the final
plat and final PUD development plans for phase two with the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) The comments in the City Engineer's review memorandum dated September 29, 2016 should be
addressed prior to releasing the plat for recording. Final construction plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to the recording of the Final Plat. All changes and
modifications to the plans requested by the City Engineer in a memorandum dated September 29,
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
7
2016 and any future reviews shall be incorporated into these documents before they are
approved.
2) Prior to the execution of the Final Plat by City officials, the Developer shall enter into a
Developer's Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Council that
delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of the required
improvements for the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD
Development Plans with financial guarantees therefore.
3) All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works Department shall be
documented on the Final Plat prior to the execution of the final plat by City Officials.
4) A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of Wildflower at
Lake Elmo 2nd Addition and establishing a homeowner's association shall be submitted in final
form to the Community Development Director before a building permit may be issued for any
structure within this subdivision.
5) The applicant shall also enter into a landscape license/public art agreement and maintenance
agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping
and public art installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the
final plat.
6) The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to releasing the final plat for
recording.
7) Street signs and no parking signs shall be installed on City Streets within the development prior
to any building permits being issued.
8) That street segment B,be given a name on the final plat prior to approval of the final plat by the
City Council.
9) That new easements be executed between the Developer and the City and the Developer and Mr.
Smith that replace the temporary easements that expire with the recording of the Wildflower at
Lake Elmo 2nd Addition.
10)That a protective easement be placed over Outlot A to protect the area from future development.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the proposed Wildflower Final Plat and Final PUD Plans
• That all the requirements of City Code Section 153.07 related to the Final Plan and Final Plat
have been met by the Applicant.
• That the proposed Final Plat for Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition consists of the
creation of 20 single-family detached residential structures.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
8
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent
with the Preliminary Plat and Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on April 7, 2014.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent
with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat generally complies with the City's
Urban Medium Density Residential zoning district,with the exceptions as noted in the
approved Preliminary PUD Plans and PUD Agreement.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat complies with all other applicable
zoning requirements, including the City's landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion
control and other ordinances, except as noted in this report or attachment thereof.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat complies with the City's
subdivision ordinance.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan complies with
the City's Planned Unit Development Ordinance.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat is consistent with the City's
engineering standards with the exceptions noted by the City Engineer in his review
comments to the City dated September 29, 2016 and as otherwise identified in future reviews.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final Plat and Final
Development Plans for Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition with the 10 conditions of approval as
listed in the Staff report.
Suggested motion:
"Move to recommend approval of the final plat and PUD development plans for the Wildflower at
Lake Elmo 2"d Addition with 10 conditions based on the findings listed in the staff report."
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application and narrative
2. City Engineer Review Comments—9/29/2016
3. 10/24/16 Planning Commission packet
4. Final Landscape Plan
5. Resolution 2015-23 —approving the final plat of Wildflower 1st Addn.
6. City Council minutes, 4-14-15, changing the 15' setback to 10'
7. Rich Smith correspondence with the developer.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
THE CITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION
LAKE ELMO DATE: 10/24/2016
AGENDA ITEM: 5A BUSINESS ITEM
CASE#2016-40
ITEM: Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plans
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Emily Becker, City Planner
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
Robert Engstrom Companies is requesting approval of final plat, final PUD development plans for
the second phase of the Wildflower at Lake Elmo PUD development. The final plat includes 20
single family residential lots located to the east of the first phase. Staff is recommending approval of
the request subject to compliance with the conditions listed in this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Robert Engstrom Companies; 4801 West 81st Street, #101, Bloomington,MN
Property Owners: Robert Engstrom Companies; 4801 West 81st Street, #101, Bloomington,MN
Location: Outlot O,Wildflower at Lake Elmo 1st Addition, near the intersection of
Wildflower Drive and Monarch Lane.
Request: Application for lot Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development(PUD)Plan
approval for the second phase of the Wildflower PUD development. The final
plat includes 20 single-family residential lots, an outlot(courtyard), and an outlot
for future development.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant outlot and MDR/PUD.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North—vacant outlot and MDR/PUD zoning—; west—
Wildflower 1st Addition and MDR/PUD zoning—; south—
offices,business park land—General Business zoning; east—
Wildflower outlot and open space/Field of St. Croix II
subdivision open space—RR and OP zoning.
Comprehensive Plan: Village Medium Density Residential (3-4 units per acre)/Village Open
Space Overlay
History: The property is within the Village Planning Area boundary and municipal sewer
service area. The site was historically been used for faming activities. A large portion
of the site is located in a FEMA Flood District. The City approved a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment in 2014 that removed portions of the site from the open space land
category. The City approved a PUD Concept Plan for the property on June 17, 2014,
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
2
and a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans on April 7, 2015. Wildflower 1st
Addition received final plat and PUD plan approval on 7/21/15.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete—8/26/16
60 Day Deadline— 10/25/16
Extension Letter Mailed—No
120 Day Deadline— 12/24/16
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 —Subdivision Regulations
Article 10—Urban Residential Districts (MDR)
Article 16—Planned Unit Development Regulations
§150.270 Storm Water,Erosion, and Sediment Control
REQUEST DETAILS
Robert Engstrom Companies is requesting approval of a final plat and final PUD plan associated with
the second phase of the Wildflower Planned Unit Development(PUD). The proposed final plat will
replat the Outlot O, Wildflower at Lake Elmo, 19.2074 acres, in 20 single-family residential lots, of
which 10 will be the "garden villa"homes while the remaining 10 will be the general single family
homes located north of Wildflower Drive. In addition to the 20 single family homes,the final plat
and PUD plans include two outlots. Outlot A is 0.5818 acres in size and will be an HOA owned
outlot for the garden villa courtyard. Outlot B is 11.99 acres in size and will be redeveloped into
residential lots in the future. The ten garden villa lots average 0.16 aces in size with the smallest lot
being 0.1405 acres in size and the largest 0.1774 acres in size; the ten single family lots average 0.29
acres in size,with the smallest being 0.2292 acres in size and largest being 0.3504 the acres in size.
The lots sizes and dimensions are consistent with the preliminary plat and PUD Plans.
Plat Summary:
Development area(Outlot O): 19.2074 acres
Total lot area: 4.4962 acres
Residential lots: 20 (10 villa, 10 regular)
Outlot for future development(Outlot B): 11.9934 acres
Outlot for courtyard(Outlot A): 0.5818 acres
R/W area: 2.1359 acres
Average garden villa lot size: 0.16 acres
Average single family lot size: 0.29 acres
Gross density(excluding outlots): 2.55 dwelling units per acre
Net density(excluding outlots and R/W) 4.0 dwelling units per acre
Grading. The site was graded with the first phase development, so no grading plans were included in
the final plat submittal.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS:
At the October 10, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, Staff discussed the PUD Agreement and a
conflict in the interpretation of the setback adjacent a public street in the courtyard areas. Since the
meeting, Staff has further researched the issue and discovered that the PUD Agreement Summary
document was in conflict with the Preliminary Plat Resolution No. 2015-23 (attached). The
resolution and attached 4/14/16 City Council minutes clarify the setback issue, establishing the
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
3
sideyard setback adjacent a public street at 10 feet, rather than 15 feet. That being said,
encroachments are allowed into setbacks,but not necessarily drainage and utility easements. Staff
will enforce a no encroachment policy for the drainage and utility easements adjacent the public
street to ensure that there will be no more similar issues as was illustrated with Lot 4, Block 4,
Wildflower at Lake Elmo 1"Addition.
Also at the October 10,2016 meeting, stormwater from Wildflower and Village Preserve was
discussed and the Planning Commission tabled the Wildflower 2nd Addition final plat and final PUD
until the potential issues were better understood. John Hanson from the Valley Branch Watershed
District is looking into the stormwater issues and will issue a report to the Valley Branch Board on
10/21/16,too late for the Planning Commission packet. Planning Staff will have copies of that
memo available at the Planning Commission meeting and will email it to Planning Commissioners
once it is received. The memo is anticipated to have an explanation of the stormwater issues that will
hopefully make sense and will allow Wildflower 2nd Addition to proceed.
The Rich Smith issue, comments made by Rich Smith that conditions of the first addition plat have
not been complied with, appear to be a private agreement between Mr. Smith and Mr. Engstrom that
would have provided connection to municipal sewer, landscaping and other improvements.
The issues remaining with the final plat are:
Stormwater. (as mentioned above).
Street Names. Street B on the Final Plat has not been given a proper name. This street should be
named consistent with the City's street naming ordinance prior to recording the plat.
Engineering Review. The City Engineer has reviewed the final plat submittal and has prepared a
memorandum for the Commission and Council's review. The comments in the City Engineer's
review memorandum dated September 29, 2016 should be addressed prior to releasing the plat for
recording.
Preliminary Plat Conditions. The final plat is in conformance with the preliminary plat. The
preliminary plat and PUD plans were approved with conditions. Staff has provided comments on the
status of each in bold italics:
Preliminary Plat Conditions—With Staff Update Comments (updated information in bold
italics):
1) No lots within a FEMA flood zone shall be approved as part of a final plat until such time that
the City's Floodplain Management Map has been amended to remove these lots. As an
alternative to amending this map,the developer must provide documentation that all structures
will be built above the regulatory flood protection elevation,that any public infrastructure will
also meet Floodplain Ordinance requirements, and that the proposed storm water ponds may be
constructed within the floodplain area. Comments: This condition will apply to the final plat
and all subsequent stages. The Valley Branch Watershed District has indicated that it will
undertake a study to amend the FEMA flood delineations to lower the flood levels in this area
to match those identified in the Goetschel Pond study. There are no buildable lots depicted on
the final plat that are located in a flood district.
2) Prior to any grading activity,the developer shall submit to the City temporary grading easements
from the owner of the lots adjacent to Layton Avenue within the Brookman Addition in order to
construct the improvements within this right-of-way as documented in the preliminary
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
4
construction plans. Comments: These easements have been secured and grading was
completed within this area.
3) The developer has requested the inclusion of public art within common areas and public property
throughout Wildflower development. Prior to the placement of any art on publicly owned
property or public rights-of-way, the developer and City shall enter into an agreement that
clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for maintenance,upkeep and removal of any
public art. No public art shall be lit in a manner that conflicts with the City's Lighting
Ordinance. Comments: This is a condition that will apply to any placement of public art
within the development, including that installed in phase 1, the stamping of poetry into
sidewalks and sculpture in the right of way. A landscape license agreement shall be executed
to include public art as a landscape element and shall be executed prior to building permits in
the second phase.
4) Prior to the submission of a final plat for any portion of the Wildflower PUD,the developer shall
work with the City to determine the appropriate park dedication calculations for the entire
development area. Comments: The developer agreement for the first phase indicated that all
park dedication was satisfied with the first phase of the development.
5) 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. Comments: The site grading was
completed with the first phase of the development
6) The utility construction plans shall be updated to incorporate the recommendations of the City
Engineer as described in a February 18, 2015 memorandum to the City concerning the
appropriate location and size of sewer services through the PUD planning area, including any
requested oversizing of these facilities to service adjacent properties,prior to the submission of a
final plat. Comments: The supplemental plans included in the final plat submission address
the previous review comments. The City Engineer approved the supplemental plans. This
condition has been met.
7) The developer shall minimize the number of rain gardens within public rights-of-way consistent
with the review comments from the City Engineer. Any such storm water infiltration features
shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Comments:All rain gardens as
previously proposed have been eliminated from the plans.
8) The preliminary development plans must be revised to comply with City Street standards as
referenced in the City Engineer's review memorandum dated February 18,2015. Comments:
The plans have been updated to meet City standards and were approved.
9) The City approves all requests for flexibility from City Zoning and Subdivision requirements
with the exception of the street standards noted in the preceding condition. Comments: The
revised plans address this condition.
10)The applicant is encouraged to incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study into the
open space areas within the subdivision. Comments: The final plans do not include any specific
references to the City's theming study. This condition was not a mandatory requirement.
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
5
11)The preliminary landscape plan shall be updated to address the review comments from the City's
landscape architecture consultant as noted in a review letter dated February 4, 2015. Comments:
The Preliminary Landscape Plans dated 5/28/15 generally meet the City's requirements for
landscaping, however the Landscape Architect's review comments have not been fully
addressed. The developer has since submitted an amended plan for a portion of the first
addition landscaping which have been approved, subject to the landscape requirements for the
entire site. The first phase landscaping will be evaluated for compliance once the first phase is
landscaped and an asbuilt plan has been submitted.
12)All center median planting areas as depicted on the preliminary plat and plans shall be owned by
the City of Lake Elmo and maintained by the Homeowners Association. The applicant shall
enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities
responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park,trails,
or open space on the final plat. The developer has entered into a landscape license agreement
that meets this condition for the first phase which will need to be amended to address the
public art A similar agreement will be required with the second addition and will be a
condition of approval. The agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of building permits
in the second phase.
13)The Final Plat and Plans must address the requested modifications outlined in the City Engineer's
review memorandum dated February 18, 2015. Comments: The final plans have addressed
these comments/
14)Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat, the
Developer shall enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that
delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of public improvements.
Comments:A developer's agreement was entered into for the firstphase and will be for the
second phase.
15)The developer shall provide an easement over or dedicate in a separate outlot all trails to be
dedicated for public use. Any such trails shall be considered a park land dedication provide said
trails are constructed by the developer with other public improvements within the subdivision.
Comments: this condition has been met.
16) The City will not approve a final plat for any portion of Wildflower until such time that the City
has approved construction plans and received financial security related to the construction of the
public improvement project to connect the 39th Street Sewer to the 30th Street lift station.
Comments: This condition has been met and no longer applies.
17)The developer must follow all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act, and
adhere to the conditions of approval for the Valley Branch Watershed District Permit.
Comments: The developers plan have been reviewed and approved by the Watershed District
and grading work has been completed in accordance with this permit.
18)The developer shall maintain access to the Smith property(11514 Stillwater Boulevard North)
during construction of the first development phase. Said access shall, at a minimum,be capable
of supporting emergency management vehicles and be consistent with City access driveway
standards. The existing driveway easement shall be vacated prior to the recording of the final
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
6
plat. Comments: The driveway easement from the Smith property providing access to
Stillwater Boulevard has been vacated.
19)The developer shall establish a legally binding agreement to prevent further residential or
commercial development of all outlots that are planned for open space or conservation uses
within the preliminary plat. Comments: This condition has been met.
Staff is recommending approval of the final plat and PUD plans with conditions intended to address
the outstanding issues that will require additional review and/or documentation.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Staff is recommending conditions as part of this final plat review to address issues highlighted in this
report that include conditions of the preliminary plat that have not been fully addressed by the
applicant. The City Engineer's review memorandum dated September 29, 2016 identifies a number
of issues that need to be addressed by the developer in order for the City to deem the final plans
complete. Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the final
plat and final PUD development plans for phase two with the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) The comments in the City Engineer's review memorandum dated September 29, 2016 should be
addressed prior to releasing the plat for recording. Final construction plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to the recording of the Final Plat. All changes and
modifications to the plans requested by the City Engineer in a memorandum dated September 29,
2016 and any future reviews shall be incorporated into these documents before they are
approved.
2) Prior to the execution of the Final Plat by City officials, the Developer shall enter into a
Developer's Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Council that
delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of the required
improvements for the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD
Development Plans with financial guarantees therefore.
3) All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works Department shall be
documented on the Final Plat prior to the execution of the final plat by City Officials.
4) A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of Wildflower at
Lake Elmo 2nd Addition and establishing a homeowner's association shall be submitted in final
form to the Community Development Director before a building permit may be issued for any
structure within this subdivision.
5) The applicant shall also enter into a landscape license/public art agreement and maintenance
agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping
and public art installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the
final plat.
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
7
6) Revised landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval consistent with recommended
changes per the City's Consulting Landscape Architect's review memo dated February 14, 2015,
prior to recording of the final plat.
7) Street signs and no parking signs shall be installed on City Streets within the development prior
to any building permits being issued.
8) That street segment B,be given a name on the final plat prior to approval of the final plat by the
City Council.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the proposed Wildflower Final Plat and Final PUD Plans
• That all the requirements of City Code Section 153.07 related to the Final Plan and Final Plat
have been met by the Applicant.
• That the proposed Final Plat for Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition consists of the
creation of 20 single-family detached residential structures.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent
with the Preliminary Plat and Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on April 7, 2014.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent
with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat generally complies with the City's
Urban Medium Density Residential zoning district,with the exceptions as noted in the
approved Preliminary PUD Plans and PUD Agreement.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat complies with all other applicable
zoning requirements, including the City's landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion
control and other ordinances, except as noted in this report or attachment thereof.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat complies with the City's
subdivision ordinance.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan complies with
the City's Planned Unit Development Ordinance.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat is consistent with the City's
engineering standards with the exceptions noted by the City Engineer in his review
comments to the City dated September 29, 2016 and as otherwise identified in future reviews.
RECOMMENDATION:
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
8
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final Plat and Final
Development Plans for Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition with the 8 conditions of approval as
listed in the Staff report.
Suggested motion:
"Move to recommend approval of the final plat and PUD development plans for the Wildflower at
Lake Elmo 2nd Addition based on the findings listed in the staff report."
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application and narrative
2. City Engineer Review Comments—9/29/2016
3. Final Plat
4. Final Construction Plans
5. Preliminary Landscape Plan dated 5/28/15
6. Landscape Architect memorandum dated 2/14/15
7. Lot 4, Block 4, Wildflower at Lake Elmo I"Addition Building Permit Survey
8. Resolution 2015-23 —approving the final plat of Wildflower 1st Addn
9. City Council minutes, 4-14-15, changing the 15' setback to 10'
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
I III GIT UI' PLANNING COMMISSION
LA K E E LMO DATE: 10/10/2016
AGENDA ITEM: 413—PUBLIC HEARING
CASE#2016-40
ITEM: Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2"d Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plans
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman,Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Emily Becker, City Planner
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
Robert Engstrom Companies is requesting approval of final plat, final PUD development plans for
the second phase of the Wildflower at Lake Elmo PUD development. The final plat includes 20
single family residential lots located to the east of the first phase. Staff is recommending approval of
the request subject to compliance with the conditions listed in this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Robert Engstrom Companies; 4801 West 81' Street,#101, Bloomington, MN
Property Owners: Robert Engstrom Companies; 4801 West 8151 Street,#101, Bloomington, MN
Location: Outlot O, Wildflower at Lake Elmo 1 s` Addition,near the intersection of
Wildflower Drive and Monarch Lane.
Request: Application for lot Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development(PUD)Plan
approval for the second phase of the Wildflower PUD development. The final
plat includes 20 single-family residential lots, an outlot (courtyard), and an outlot
for future development.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant outlot and MDR/PUD.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North—vacant outlot and MDR/PUD zoning—; west—
Wildflower I"Addition and MDR/PUD zoning—; south—
offices,business park land—General Business zoning; east—
Wildflower outlot and open space/Field of St. Croix II
subdivision open space—RR and OP zoning.
Comprehensive Plan: Village Medium Density Residential (3-4 units per acre)/Village Open
Space Overlay
History: The property is within the Village Planning Area boundary and municipal sewer
service area. The site was historically been used for faming activities. A large portion
of the site is located in a FEMA Flood District. The City approved a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment in 2014 that removed portions of the site from the open space land
category. The City approved a PUD Concept Plan for the property on June 17, 2014,
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b
2
and a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans on April 7, 2015. Wildflower 1 s`
Addition received final plat and PUD plan approval on 7/21/15.
Deadline.forAction: Application Complete—8/26/16
60 Day Deadline— 10/25/16
Extension Letter Mailed—No
120 Day Deadline— 12/24/16
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 —Subdivision Regulations
Article 10—Urban Residential Districts(MDR)
Article 16—Planned Unit Development Regulations
§150.270 Storm Water,Erosion, and Sediment Control
REQUEST DETAILS
Robert Engstrom Companies is requesting approval of a final plat and final PUD plan associated with
the second phase of the Wildflower Planned Unit Development(PUD). The proposed final plat will
replat the Outlot O, Wildflower at Lake Elmo, 19.2074 acres, in 20 single-family residential lots, of
which 10 will be the"garden villa"homes while the remaining 10 will be the general single family
homes located north of Wildflower Drive. In addition to the 20 single family homes, the final plat
and PUD plans include two outlots. Outlot A is 0.5818 acres in size and will be an HOA owned
outlot for the garden villa courtyard. Outlot B is 11.99 acres in size and will be redeveloped into
residential lots in the future. The ten garden villa lots average 0.16 aces in size with the smallest lot
being 0.1405 acres in size and the largest 0.1774 acres in size; the ten single family lots average 0.29
acres in size, with the smallest being 0.2292 acres in size and largest being 0.3504 the acres in size.
The lots sizes and dimensions are consistent with the preliminary plat and PUD Plans.
Plat Summary:
Development area (Outlot O): 19.2074 acres
Total lot area: 4.4962 acres
Residential lots: 20(10 villa, 10 regular)
Outlot for future development(Outlot B): 11.9934 acres
Outlot for courtyard (Outlot A): 0.5818 acres
R/W area: 2.1359 acres
Average garden villa lot size: 0.16 acres
Average single family lot size: 0.29 acres
Gross density(excluding outlots): 2.55 dwelling units per acre
Net density(excluding outlots and R/W) 4.0 dwelling units per acre
Grading.The site was graded with the first phase development, so no grading plans were included in
the final plat submittal.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the final plat and final PUD development plans and has identified a number of
issues that need to be addressed prior to recoding the final plat. A summary of the issues are as
follows:
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 0
3
Planned Unit Development Agreement. The Wildflower development is a Planned Unit
Development and some flexibility was permitted under this ordinance. Flexibility granted under
planned unit developments are negotiated up front and the agreements are approved with the plat.
The City's MDR—Medium Density Residential Zoning District requirements will apply to this
development with the exceptions outlined in the PUD Agreement approved with the first phase
below:
WILDFLOWER
LOT PROFILE (SFD)
RIDGE LOTS CONSERVANCY PRAIRIE LOTS COURTYARD LOTS
LOTS (Garden Villa Homes)
QUANTITY 9 13 54 67
AVG DIMENSION VARIABLE VARIABLE B5'x145'+/- 60,015'+/-
AVG SIZE(S.F.) 18,585 21,600 12,325+/- 7,015+/-
SETBACKS
RIDGE LOTS CONSERVANCY PRAIRIE LOTS GARDEN VILLA
LOTS HOMES
FRONT YD. 25' 25' 26' 20'+
SIDE YD. 15'TOTAL
HOUSE: 1s, 15' 10, 10'(OR 7.5')
GARAGE: 10' 10, 6' 5'(OR 7.5')
PUBLIC STREET: 25' 25' 16, 15'
REAR YARD TO VARIABLE VARIABLE 30, 20'+
COURT DRIVEWAY To maintain bluff To maintain bluff
vegetation and slope vegetation and slope
R.O.W. erosion erosion
(25'Minimum) (25'Minimum)
COURTYARD LOTS:
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS FOR SETBACK DESIGN FEATURES, FRONT,REAR&SIDE YARDS,
TO ALLOW FOR OVERLAPPING ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS IN SETBACK AREAS.
A. FIREPLACE BUILD OUTS (CHIMNEY&VENT BOXES) 2'.0"MAX.
B. WINDOW BAYS OR BOX OUT FEATURES (CANTILEVERED) 2'-0"MAX.
C. CANTILEVERED FLOOR AREAS (1&2 STORIES) 2'-0"MAX.
D. FRONT PORCHES 10'-0"MAX.PAST HOUSE FRONT
FACE
E. ROOF OVERHANGS,ALL SIDES Y-6"MAX.
F. HIGH FENCES—NOT ATTACHED TO HOUSE (MAX.HT.6')SIDE YARD SETBACK T-0"MAX.DISTANCE FROM
SETBACK LINE
G. LOW FENCES (30"-42"HT.) — FRONT&REAR YD-ALLOWED,CONSISTENT FRONT YD-8'-0"INSIDE FRONT
WITH SIZE OF PRIVATE PATIOS,DECKS AND GARDEN AREAS. YARD P.L.
REAR YD: NOT TO EXCEED 12'-0"
PAST GARAGE DOOR WALL FACE
H. DECKS&PATIOS—FRONT YO. 6'-0"INSIDE FRONT P.L.
I. DECKS&PATIOS—SIDE YD. X-0"MAX.DISTANCE FROM
SETBACK LINE
J. DECKS&PATIOS—REAR YD, NOT TO EXCEED 12'-0"PAST
GARAGE DOOR WALL FACE
K. TRELLIS,ARBORS,GATEWAYS&FEATURES LOCATION&SIZE TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH SIZE OF PRIVATE
PATIOS,DECKS&GARDEN AREAS.
EXACT FEATURE DESIGN AND
LOCATION TO BE REVIEWED AND
APPROVED BY R.E.C.DESIGN
REVIEW PROCEDURE,
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b
4
The PUD Plans/Agreement also allowed flexibility from the City street standards. The following is a
general summary of the subdivision design elements that were approved:
Proposed Street Standards:
• ROW Width—Local 60 ft. (per Subdivision Ordinance)
• Street Widths—Local: 28 ft. (per City standard)
• Street Widths—Other: 24 ft. (two way with parking one side)
20 ft. (one way with parking)
18ft. (one way with no parking)
• Alley/Rear Access 18ft. (proposed PUD standard)
The proposed streets in the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition are as follows:
• Goldenrod Court is a 60 foot R/W with 28' wide local street
• Wildflower Drive is a 110 foot with R/W divided by a median with street lane widths of
19'-4" and 21'-4" (no parking)
• Monarch Path a 30 foot R/W with 18' wide lane(one way-no parking).
• Street B (unnamed) is a 32 foot R/W with 20.5' wide lane (one way with parking).
• Sunflower lane is a 65 foot R/W with a 24' wide lane (parking on one side).
PUD Agreement- Phase 2. The developer has suggested an interpretation of the PUD Agreement
that is inconsistent with Staff s interpretation. The PUD Agreement(above) established the sideyard
setback from a public street as being 15 feet for the courtyard areas. Typically setbacks are
established from property lines, not streets, and all the other setbacks in the PUD Agreement are to
property lines. The developer's'interpretation is problematic as is illustrated by the building permit
being issued for Lot 4, Block 4, Wildflower at Lake Elmo 1" Addition. The permit was approved
after Staff being convinced the setback was from the street. The home was constructed with a
setback that is 10.2 feet from the,comer side property line, or 16 feet from the street(Hummingbird
Path). As a result,the home is located up to the side yard drainage utility easement with multiple
encroachments into it, including: a fireplace,a bay window and an egress window well. When the
small utility company installed the utilities,the trencher damaged the egress window well stone wall
that encroached in the esasement. The developer, aware of this issue, is specifically requesting a 10
foot(property line) setback for lot 1, Block 3 and Lot 4,Block 3, Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2"d
Addition. It is Staffs belief that this permit should not have been approved and that the 15 foot
setback from a public street should have be interpreted as setback from the property line on a corner
lot adjacent a public street. Furthermore, encroachments are not permitted in drainage and utility
easements. Some encroachments are permitted into setbacks as outline above in the PUD Agreement.
Planning and Engineering Staff are opposed to the suggested interpretation and does not support
corneryard setbacks adjacent a public street at 10 feet.
Street Names. Street B on the Final Plat has not been given a proper name. This street should be
named consistent with the City's street naming ordinance prior to recording the plat.
Engineering Review. The City Engineer has reviewed the final plat submittal and has prepared a
memorandum for the Commission and Council's review. The comments in the City Engineer's
review memorandum dated September 29,2016 should be addressed prior to releasing the plat for
recording.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b
5
Preliminary Plat Conditions. The final plat is in conformance with the preliminary plat. The
preliminary plat and PUD plans were approved with conditions. Staff has provided comments on the
status of each in bold italics:
Preliminary Plat Conditions—With Staff Update Comments (updated information in bold
italics):
1) No lots within a FEMA flood zone shall be approved as part of a final plat until such time that
the City's Floodplain Management Map has been amended to remove these lots. As an
alternative to amending this map, the developer must provide documentation that all structures
will be built above the regulatory flood protection elevation, that any public infrastructure will
also meet Floodplain Ordinance requirements, and that the proposed storm water ponds may be
constructed within the floodplain area. Comments: This condition will apply to the frnal plat
and all subsequent stages The Valley Branch Watershed District has indicated that it will
undertake a study to amend the FEMA flood delineations to lower the flood levels in this area
to match those identified in the Goetschel Pond study. There are no buildable lots depicted on
the final plat that are located in a flood district.
2) Prior to any grading activity,the developer shall submit to the City temporary grading easements
from the owner of the lots adjacent to Layton Avenue within the Brookman Addition in order to
construct the improvements within this right-of-way as documented in the preliminary
construction plans. Comments: These easements have been secured and grading was
completed within this area.
3) The developer has requested the inclusion of public art within common areas and public property
throughout Wildflower development. Prior to the placement of any art on publicly owned
property or public rights-of-way, the developer and City shall enter into an agreement that
clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for maintenance,upkeep and removal of any
public art. No public art shall be lit in a manner that conflicts with the City's Lighting
Ordinance. Comments: This is a condition that will apply to any placement of public art
within the development, including that installed in phase 1,the stamping of poetry into
sidewalks and sculpture in the right of way. A landscape license agreement shall be executed
to include public art as a landscape element and shall be executed prior to building permits in
the second phase.
4) Prior to the submission of a final plat for any portion of the Wildflower PUD,the developer shall
work with the City to determine the appropriate park dedication calculations for the entire
development area. Comments: The developer agreement for the first phase indicated that all
park dedication was satisfied with the first phase of the development.
5) 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. Comments: The site grading was
completed with the first phase of the development
6) The utility construction plans shall be updated to incorporate the recommendations of the City
Engineer as described in a February 18, 2015 memorandum to the City concerning the
appropriate location and size of sewer services through the PUD planning area, including any
requested oversizing of these facilities to service adjacent properties, prior to the submission of a
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b
6
final plat. Comments: The supplemental plans included in the final plat submission address
the previous review comments. The City Engineer approved life supplemental plans. This
condition has been met.
7) The developer shall minimize the number of rain gardens within public rights-of-way consistent
with the review comments from the City Engineer. Any such storm water infiltration features
shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Comments:All rain gardens as
previously proposed have been eliminated from the plans.
8) The preliminary development plans must be revised to comply with City Street standards as
referenced in the City Engineer's review memorandum dated February 18,2015. Comments.-
The plans have been updated to meet City standards and were approved
9) The City approves all requests for flexibility from City Zoning and Subdivision requirements
with the exception of the street standards noted in the preceding condition. Comments: The
revised plans address this condition.
10)The applicant is encouraged to incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study into the
open space areas within the subdivision. Comments. The final plans do not include any specific
references to the City's theming study. This condition was not a mandatory requirement
11) The preliminary landscape plan shall be updated to address the review comments from the City's
landscape architecture consultant as noted in a review letter dated February 4, 2015. Comments:
The Preliminary Landscape Plans dated 5/28/15 generally meet the City's requirements for
landscaping, however the Landscape Architect's review comments have not been fully
addressed. The developer has since submitted an amended plan for a portion of the first
addition landscaping which have been approved, subject to the landscape requirements for the
entire site. The first phase landscaping will be evaluated for compliance once the first phase is
landscaped and an asbuilt plan has been submitted
12)All center median planting areas as depicted on the preliminary plat and plans shall be owned by
the City of Lake Elmo and maintained by the Homeowners Association. The applicant shall
enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities
responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park,trails,
or open space on the final plat. The developer has entered into a landscape license agreement
that meets this condition for the firstphase which will need to be amended to address the
public art.A similar agreement will be required with the second addition and will be a
condition of approval. The agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of building permits
in the second phase.
13)The Final Plat and Plans must address the requested modifications outlined in the City Engineer's
review memorandum dated February 18, 2015. Comments: The final plans have addressed
these comments/
14)Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat,the
Developer shall enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that
delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of public improvements.
Comments:A developer's agreement was entered into for the first phase and will be for the
second phase.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b
7
15)The developer shall provide an easement over or dedicate in a separate outlot all trails to be
dedicated for public use. Any such trails shall be considered a park land dedication provide said
trails are constructed by the developer with other public improvements within the subdivision.
Comments: this condition has been met.
16) The City will not approve a final plat for any portion of Wildflower until such time that the City
has approved construction plans and received financial security related to the construction of the
public improvement project to connect the 39th Street Sewer to the 30th Street lift station.
Comments: This condition has been met and no longer applies.
17)The developer must follow all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act, and
adhere to the conditions of approval for the Valley Branch Watershed District Permit.
Comments: The developers plan have been reviewed and approved by the Watershed District
and grading work has been completed in accordance with this permit
18)The developer shall maintain access to the Smith property(11514 Stillwater Boulevard North)
during construction of the first development phase. Said access shall, at a minimum, be capable
of supporting emergency management vehicles and be consistent with City access driveway
standards. The existing driveway easement shall be vacated prior to the recording of the final
plat. Comments: The driveway easement from the Smith property providing access to
Stillwater Boulevard has been vacated.
19)The developer shall establish a legally binding agreement to prevent further residential or
commercial development of all outlots that are planned for open space or conservation uses
within the preliminary plat. Comments: This condition has been met.
Staff is recommending approval of the final plat and PUD plans with conditions intended to address
the outstanding issues that will require additional review and/or documentation.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Staff is recommending conditions as part of this final plat review to address issues highlighted in this
report that include conditions of the preliminary plat that have not been fully addressed by the
applicant. The City Engineer's review memorandum dated September 29, 2016 identifies a number
of issues that need to be addressed by the developer in order for the City to deem the final plans
complete. Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the final
plat and final PUD development plans for phase two with the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
I) The comments in the City Engineer's review memorandum dated September 29,2016 should be
addressed prior to releasing the plat for recording. Final construction plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to the recording of the Final Plat. All changes and
modifications to the plans requested by the City Engineer in a memorandum dated September 29,
2016 and any future reviews shall be incorporated into these documents before they are
approved.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b
8
2) Prior to the execution of the Final Plat by City officials, the Developer shall enter into a
Developer's Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Council that
delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of the required
improvements for the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD
Development Plans with financial guarantees therefore.
3) All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works Department shall be
documented on the Final Plat prior to the execution of the final plat by City Officials.
4) A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of Wildflower at
Lake Elmo 2"d Addition and establishing a homeowner's association shall be submitted in final
form to the Community Development Director before a building permit may be issued for any
structure within this subdivision.
5) The applicant shall also enter into a landscape license/public art agreement and maintenance
agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping
and public art installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the
final plat.
6) Revised landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval consistent with recommended
changes per the City's Consulting Landscape Architect's review memo dated February 14,2015,
prior to recording of the final plat.
7) Street signs and no parking signs shall be installed on City Streets within the development prior
to any building permits being issued.
8) That street segment B, be given a name on the final plat prior to approval of the final plat by the
City Council.
9) The developer should identify lots with corners adjacent a public street and adjust the building
plans to have a 15' setback from the side property line adjacent a public street.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the proposed Wildflower Final Plat and Final PUD Plans
• That all the requirements of City Code Section 153.07 related to the Final Plan and Final Plat
have been met by the Applicant.
• That the proposed Final Plat for Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2"Addition consists of the
creation of 20 single-family detached residential structures.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2"d Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent
with the Preliminary Plat and Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on April 7,2014.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b
9
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2"d Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent
with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2"d Addition Final Plat generally complies with the City's
Urban Medium Density Residential zoning district,with the exceptions as noted in the
approved Preliminary PUD Plans and PUD Agreement.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat complies with all other applicable
zoning requirements, including the City's landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion
control and other ordinances, except as noted in this report or attachment thereof.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2"d Addition Final Plat complies with the City's
subdivision ordinance.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2"d Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan complies with
the City's Planned Unit Development Ordinance.
• That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat is consistent with the City's
engineering standards with the exceptions noted by the City Engineer in his review
comments to the City dated September 29,2016 and as otherwise identified in future reviews.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final PIat and Final
Development Plans for Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2"d Addition with the 9 conditions of approval as
listed in the Staff report.
Suggested motion:
"Move to recommend approval of tlte.final plat and PUD development plans for the Wildflower at
Lake Elmo 2"d Addition based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report"
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application and narrative
2. City Engineer Review Comments— 9/29/2016
3. Final Plat
4. Final Construction Plans
5. Preliminary Landscape Plan dated 5/28/15
6. Landscape Architect memorandum dated 2/14/15
7. Lot 4, Block 4, Wildflower at Lake Elmo 1"Addition Building Permit Survey
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction....................................................................................... Planning Staff
- Report by Staff.................................................................................. Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission............................Chair&Commission Members
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b
to
- 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 4b
Date Received: I i I I CH Y ()I Received By LAKE ELM O
LU File M
651-747-3900
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION
Applicant: Robert Engstrom Companies
Address: 4801 West 81st Street, Suite 101 Minneapolis MN 55437
Phone#: 952-893-1001
Email Address: bob@engstromco.com
Fee Owner: Robert Engstrom Companies
Address: 4801 West 81 st Street, Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55437
Phone#: 952-893-1001
Email Address: bob@enastromco.com
Property Location (Address): Intersection of Wildflower Drive & Monarch Lane
Complete(long) Legal Description: Outlot O of Wildflower at Lake Elmo 1 st Addition
PID#: 12.029.21.34.0056
General information of proposed subdivision:
Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition,: 10-Pr air ie Lots 10-Courtyard Lots
In signing this application,I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance and current administrative procedures. 1 further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application
procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the City pertaining to additional application expense.
O
Signature of applicant: Date: U Z S �/
Fee Owner Signature Date:
Z 6 2016
Revised 7120/2016 11 20 AM
TIIL c:ITt 014
LAKE ELMO
Lake Elmo City Hall
651-747-3900
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible
for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in
my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application.
I have read and understand the instructions supplied for processing this application. The documents and/or
information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I will keep myself informed
of the deadlines for submission of material and of the progress of this application.
I understand that this application may be reviewed by City staff and consultants. I further understand that
additional information, including, but not limited to, traffic analysis and expert testimony may be required for
review of this application. I agree to pay to the City upon demand, expenses, determined by the City, that
the City incurs in reviewing this application and shall provide an escrow deposit to the City in an amount to
be determined by the City. Said expenses shall include, but are not limited to,staff time, engineering, legal
expenses and other consultant expenses.
I agree to allow access by City personnel to the property for purposes of review of my application.
Signature of applicant Date Z _
Name of applicant Robert Engstrom Phone 952-893-1001
(Please Print)
Name and address of Contact(if other than applicant)
Revised 311312014 911 AM
Wildflower at Lake Elmo
2nd Addition
Robert Engstrom Companies is submitting a Final Plat Application for
Wildflower at Lake Elmo, 2nd Addition.
The 2nd Addition consists of 19.2 acres,including two outlots. The acreage
for the 20 lots is 7.3 acres. There are ten Garden Villa Home Sites and ten lots on a
Cul de sac. Much of the infrastructure for the streets,sanitary sewer,storm sewer,
and municipal water is already constructed.
One half of the Garden Villa sites for the second neighborhood are included in
the Final Plat. The other half of the site involves substantial stormwater
construction. The private park will be fully developed with this phase. The design
will be similar to the Phase 1 park,which has been very well received.
The homes and Garden Villas will continue on a similar pattern to Phase 1,
with continued Architectural approvals.
Section two of the application:
a. Developer and owner of record: Robert Engstrom Companies,
Paul Engstrom 612-280-7797, Bob Engstrom 612-720-9990.
Pioneer Engineering (John Molinaro) 651-251-0640
Design Forum (Jerry Mazarra) 612-618-7406
b. Lot G—Current zoning, Residential PUD. Parcel size is 19.2 acres, ?I'n;
including two outlots. The lots area is 7.3 acres or 317,988 sf. lZ•O �
c. See Pioneer Engineering plat calculations.
d. Any issues were resolved as part of the Phase 1 Plat
e. NA
f. Much of the infrastructure is already constructed as part of phase
one. Seven Garden Villa lots on Monarch Lane are already
served with utilities. The balance of the infrastructure will be
similar to phase one.
g. Any concerns raised by neighboring properties were addressed
during phase one.
h. NA
i. NA
j. NA
k. The outlot park for the Garden Villa neighborhood will be similar
to phase one. The Conservancy and other areas have already
been planted in prairie.
WILDFLOWER
LOT PROFILE ( SFD)
RIDGE LOTS CONSERVANCY PRAIRIE LOTS COURTYARD LOTS
LOTS (Garden Villa Homes)
QUANTITY 9 13 54 67
AVG DIMENSION VARIABLE VARIABLE 85'x145'+/- 60'x116'+/-
AVG SIZE(S.F.) 18,585 21,600 12,325+/- 7,015+!-
SETBACKS
RIDGE LOTS CONSERVANCY PRAIRIE LOTS GARDEN VILLA
LOTS HOMES
FRONT YD. 26' 25' 25' 20'+
SIDE YD. 15'TOTAL
HOUSE: 15' 15' 10, 10'(OR 7.5')
GARAGE: 10, 10, 5' 5'(OR 7.5')
PUBLIC STREET: 26' 25' 15' 15,
REAR YARD TO VARIABLE VARIABLE 30' 20'+
COURT DRIVEWAY To maintain bluff To maintain bluff
vegetation and slope vegetation and slope
R.O.W. erosion erosion
(25'Minimum) (25'Minimum)
COURTYARD LOTS:
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS FOR SETBACK DESIGN FEATURES, FRONT, REAR & SIDE YARDS,
TO ALLOW FOR OVERLAPPING ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS IN SETBACK AREAS.
A. FIREPLACE BUILD OUTS (CHIMNEY&VENT BOXES) 2'-0"MAX.
B. WINDOW BAYS OR BOX OUT FEATURES (CANTILEVERED) 2'-0"MAX.
C. CANTILEVERED FLOOR AREAS (1 &2 STORIES) 2'-0"MAX.
D. FRONT PORCHES 10'-0"MAX.PAST HOUSE FRONT
FACE
E. ROOF OVERHANGS,ALL SIDES 3'-6"MAX.
F. HIGH FENCES-NOT ATTACHED TO HOUSE (MAX.HT.6')SIDE YARD SETBACK 3'-0"MAX.DISTANCE FROM
SETBACK LINE
G. LOW FENCES (30"-42"HT.) - FRONT&REAR YD-ALLOWED,CONSISTENT FRONT YD-8'-0"INSIDE FRONT
WITH SIZE OF PRIVATE PATIOS,DECKS AND GARDEN AREAS. YARD P.L.
REAR YD: NOT TO EXCEED 121-0"
PAST GARAGE DOOR WALL FACE
H. DECKS&PATIOS-FRONT YD. 6'-0"INSIDE FRONT P.L.
I. DECKS&PATIOS-SIDE YD. X-0"MAX. DISTANCE FROM
SETBACK LINE
J. DECKS&PATIOS-REAR YD. NOT TO EXCEED 12'-0"PAST
GARAGE DOOR WALL FACE
K. TRELLIS,ARBORS,GATEWAYS&FEATURES LOCATION&SIZE TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH SIZE OF PRIVATE
PATIOS,DECKS&GARDEN AREAS.
EXACT FEATURE DESIGN AND
LOCATION TO BE REVIEWED AND
APPROVED BY R.E.C.DESIGN
REVIEW PROCEDURE.
8-21-2014 PHASE 2:APPROVED SIDEYARD SETBACKS:
8-26-2014 10'SB—LOT 1 BLOCK 3 (at courtyard driveway side yard)
11-5-2014 - TOTAL LOTS: 143 10'SB—LOT 4 BLOCK 3 (at courtyard driveway side yard)
9-1-2015
8-18-16
WILDFLOWER AT LAKE ELMO 2ND ADDITION
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRES2NTS tact Rupert Engstrcm Comoames, o Mwnesoto Co-ecrabon cwrer of t^e fcicw,rq Jescribed property CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Ou❑,.l 0, WILDFLOili AT ,A1,F RLMO IS- ADDITION aecordiny tp the ecor ced pill thereat 1Ncsriutylu+ Couniv, Acpravea by the 'Icn^in3 Ccmmi n a+ the C,ly o' lake Flmo. YA esota, the day of
Has c.aubej lie scryie to Le Sur+eyeJ unJ Jla.te i as 10110FLOWER AT LAKE ELMO 2ND ADDITION aid :ue� hereby dea,.ale 'c the uubi- a LuL,h;. 1e,
B✓ — __ B✓
the RUC i= wcys and ire Ira rage and vp1 Iy easements as 'relied ay this Alai
f hnirmdn Secre fa•y
In witness whereof said Robert Engstrom Cnmpo^ie5, c Mirresoli Caraaratian, has couse1 these prese•ils to be Signed by Robert E Ergsrrom is
President, this day of • 20_
CITY COUNCIL, Lake Elmo, Minnesota
5,gn�d Robert E Encstrom Thu plat was approved by the CAV Ce 11, of the City of Luke EPnu Mir,ne A. t'uo uy of
2C and hereby certdies ton-chance with c'I requirements as set 'crm n Sechcr 505 03. Subd 2, ALrnesoto Staru'es
Robert F Engstrom, its P•esiden•
By -- 9y
STATE OF MINNESOTA Mcyor Clerk
COUNTY OF
This in 5truinent wcS aCknpwledged cefare me on this ,.by Robert E Enastram, Ire P,e den: of Robert Fngstrom
Companies. a Minnesota Coroorotion, or, behalf of the corperdlron COUNTY SURVEYOR, Washington County, Minnesota
Pursuant to Chapter 820, Lows of Mnnescta. 1971. ana n accordance w.th fAn,,escta Statutes. Section 505 C2' Subd i-os Noi has been
reviewed and 000rcved th-s _cloy of .2C
By By
Notary Pntlr_ Wcshing-.n Caurty Su,,eyor
My Dom ss,on Espirres
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE COUNTY AUDITOR/TREASURER, Washington County, Minnesota
I Deter J hawkmson do rereby certify thcl this plat wcs p•eaared by me or uncer my direct supe+msmn, trot 1 am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor nursuont to Minnesota Statutes, Sec•mn 505021, Subc 9 tares payable in the year 20 .+n l+e real r5:,Ite hnreiilaefa- Jesciioed no+e oeen
in the Slate of kinnesa c, Thal to plot ¢ a correct •ipresen totion of the boundary survey, Net all rrothemoticd do:c and Wbels cre correctly pa;d Also, pl.rsucnt to M'•nnesoto Statutes. Section 27212. there art no del rigaent tia"s, and Irunste• tics teen entered �n •r,,, Jay ci
de99ndted on this plat. that all monuments depicted on this plot have been set, or wll be correclly set wdhil one year, tncl all water boon Janes — --•one
J--
one wet -ords as refined w Mirnesota Statutes, Secto 505 01. Subd 3 as of Ine date at -his c rtihcate are shown and labeled on this plat, a d
at i ways are shown and labeled on this plat By. By
Wcshing•an Counl✓AudiSory Treasirer Decuty
Joted this day of 20
COUNTY RECORDER, Washington County, Minnesota
Occamerl Numioef
Peter J. Hawkinson, I lc Pnsed tend Surveya-
M.nnesDto License No 4?299 I �i er epy _edify lhut th- ,rsbu her wds ie_ard_d in He Office of the Cuunly Reaoi der lu- to ,j or th•: _ ddV c
2C et vclock M ana was duly recorded ,n WasR gtcn Ceun'y Records
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF Wcshing:cn County Recorder Deputy
+h1s nstrumen: .vas oaks lodged a 1f me on Lh's. - by Pete- J Hawk,,isor, Licensed Land Sureeyor
Notary Puhl,_
My Comn•iseon =rpires
PI4?NEEReV-neen-71g
SHE° 1 OF 2 S_Hts
WILDFLOWER AT LAKE ELMO 2ND ADDITION
E LINE our OT 0 _ CJ
,-
1187.60 N00`15'02"W �J
Ip ROAD EASEMENT PER Eh 293.110 394 585
M n BK.267 -1329, 292&HK 2fi 7,PG 310-S1i
--`------ -- _------- - - - ------- - —
5 1/4 CORNER 0-SEC 12 '
(.LM,INC.,90N PIPE
MTN BRASS DISC)
o A
tD
rJ
O '
1�ry,A F-
OUTLOT B
'J
oon
Soo No03H'3,7"I(W 51
90 90.00 0
50 '38' E 1600 5012'1H�w 1700
nrl 5000
80.00 15.0,c OC4
7 8N I
4
i5E Q 9 '0 E-I
NB9Z
C
'
> o� 3 •' ate LaT-�— J L'-----J I Q (JI
�3°2850y, Jc� �e �gGo, #>�703_2000D a649 9000 _` L_)
r0. ^ _ _ y
EN00'38'37'W -�25�6Jf
O 4,' ND.'3tl 37`w o 30774 IJ
r
N ------- GOLDENROD.COURT — — o
2 "0 15 `I N?P 00 Gv 11 sSJ "b��
r 48 9000 Q ssp "n'
�n.�.,:>7 19pg 04 v rrr— r-----1 NOD'3H'37'w 190
Jly
- cv �� //�`z'�g♦/ n =1 Ic,p, I I `'� I 1 to ^( �'roV .^„y of
51 // �•;/ 4 a" ri i 33 ni i OUTLOT A "u• a�
Z • NOO'38'37'W ISOw N00'3fl'S7'W - 2150I
- o0 70
m / NI to �I I I Ifo I ---- V h?"' w° r-- ,-20.00 3
mi h zl I z F---iz000 n1
----- L--t 1 L-----J L---.-.-J 8 a'.n`TGb N00'38'37'W 19000 r rn - al 3 �$ >LLI'
e------- J _ oI 2 v
-96M- - 19300 - HOOD 8000 9000 50.00 59.00 0 w J '� ,b 25( '162i - �I Z C}1:a
I 1 500_3A'S T"ET �T- 7`.6 U0
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY 552.00 N00'38'37"W D� o LNDo se'37'W -120_O0J i6_s! 5TR I B ?,H 25�o LHoo 3_H'3Tw _30-�J Jl,a� J
EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: -- 4400 5100 51W wco w ------ - e;
- - �--� t �--� r �i- I 4
SI 2 I$ W I �s'S's to gol sl I .�'`r' I„ NI 2
h Sep I I� "I 1 I I ".� I Noo SH'srw zoosJ I� Cl
-- 0n ,
C iN,5 r � I a 6 2 4toI --------�
lL'
I IH ^I I „I Is la 81 ��� 18 Z
Io13 al,.. I 'y'I (- 2 9 Im
J I Ch u� `e�j9�Irr 8 8 169 ,M1 I`° 3 I 1 $1 I Js�es�1 8 8 III A�h By4 V), -
3eIo4 5 ,eel �n wliih, end cUla,•un4 'Y I,nda I Z L--ca-oo-.--- 7` s000J Ls,aoJ LsiooJ Ls000�'` • T` -'�--9soo-` - oo I 3701 `�=
,nless o"+erwise nc,coted, and 10 feet in -1th -
,nJ oUo,,. n nl of wo Ie c.TW rvo, lot JLh s `
finless oo'.nenw'Sed'ncoted T,e
and shown on the clot i� 591.01 N00°38'37'W
CJ ' MONARCH' ":c HUMMINGBIRD-
SECTION 12 a 13. TWP 29. RGE 21 n PATH _ — — — _ _ — PATH — -
LOCATION MAP _ - — — —
NOT TO 9CAIF •. - �;~30 �3D ��6.
THE OR ENTANON OF THIS 3EARIN';S�S1EM 13 BASED JN —- +�-
THE EAST LINE 0- OUTLDT C, WILDFLCkR AT LAI,_ ELMD C� C --� ` In, `I pT�
IST ADD-T,ON 'WHICH IS ASSUM=D TO HAVE A BEAR,
NO F
SOUTH 59`212.3' WEST 2
V DENC•T.S FCUND WASHIv:;TON CCUNtr CAST IRON �1 i'• 1P
M ONUMEN7
O OFNOT-S SFT /2 R.fH Rr 14 ,NFHI IRFN PIPF z J0; HO 30 0 Hi
MONUMENT MARKED By LICENSE NUMBER 42299. OR -
VIILL 8E SET IN ACCJRDANCE W14- MS SECTION s°y 13 505 071 SUB Scale in Feet
] 10 .1.
• DENOTES FCUND 112 INCH IRON MONUMENT MARRED
BY LICENSE r)LMBER 42299 1>1LES5 3THER'MSE
NOILD
J PI*NEER� ng
r
SHEET 2 0= 2 SHEETS
WILDFLOWER AT LAKE ELMO 2ND ADDITION
AREA SKETCH
={S TIN d 1 F,)AI -)FSCRIP 71C PI
)utic,t 3, WILDFLO'IAER AT LAKE ELtAO IS- ADDITIOW
=r STIN3 PIDg• 12 029 21 340056
4UDRESS• Llrr_ssia_neo
ZONED Pup
;RCSS DENSITY (EXCLUD_S OUTLOTi) 255 LOTS/ACRES
NFT DENSITY (EkCLIUDES 'OUTLOTS AND V/VJ 4 00 LOTS/A(-`?ES
AREA SUMMARY
BLOCK 1 = 126,222 S= 2 89713 A,-
BLOCK 2 = 21,528 Sr 0 4-02 AC
BLOCK 3 = 26,652 S= 0,6113 AC
CLOCK 4 = 21,456 S 0.4926 AC OUTLOT B
TOTAL LOT AREA = 195.858 S= s 4962 AC
(rUfuRE OEVEtOPME11 t)
FUTURE GEV OUTLOT AREA =522.434 S= 71 9934 AC 92234 sr
HOA OUTLOT AREA — 25,342 S7 0 5318 AC 11 9934 AC
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AREA = 0 S= 0 AC
WETLAND AREA = 0 Sc 0 AC.
WEILAND BUH LR AHEA = 0 S- 0 AL
TOTAL OLTLOT AR_A = 547,'75 S= 12 5752 AC
TOTAL 97W AREA = 93,041 57 21359 A3
TOTAL AREA = 836.675 S 19 20'4 AC 7 8
—- 0 2a3E A 12836 AC 9986 51 9 10
p 2292 AL
10'4 if w
C i542 Ai 12259 5=
6 D2817
o
SF
3°-
9 ^
o
GOLDENROD COURT53z764` o
1 1 02996 91] 144 J
_ 2 _ 02656 80 144 LL.Q
1 3 02334 80 129 5 J
1 4 0 3494 78 137 ?y
1 5 035041 71 145
1 6 0 3455 74 144 526t sr
o t 7 02836 7-3124 IV14♦r
1 R 0 2292 fill 124
_ 1 9 0.2542 80 137 4 3 2 1 OUTLOT A
spsD s. ("z )
SF
10 02817 90 136 11569 sF 02996 A6 c-81B -c
2 1 0'7 74 65 120 c 2656 Ac
2 0.'515 55 '•2C c 3+9>C D 22384 A = w
2 3 0'653 60 120 3 F— 3 Z
.5_ 1 U•bb4 o2 120 2 :=pp s = STREET B 19�a1 sF Q rraa 59 Q
3 O'405 5l 120 01653 Ac r D"I" Ar. 0L J16osA J
3 3 0'405 51 12C Q
3 4 0'654 62 120 2 0- LC 2 4 W
4 1 0.'758 65 120
C 1515 AC
4 2 D bEOD s=
.'S15 55 120 01515 AC.. .3
(„) o p
4 3 0'653 so 12c of 1 2 3F��2!6
z
Q Li.
1 Z :20E S E120 5F 61 5FC 1654 AC J 1405 AC 01405 A(
7728 5c � � _4�.-A'F
.7 7,Ar = U 1 54y C
60 !0 o 60
=11
mw
Score In Feel
PI2NEEReVneering
FOCUSENGINEERING., inc.
MEMORANDUM
Cara Geheren,P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin,P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski,P.E. 651.300.4267
Date: September 29,2016 Chad Isakson,P.E. 651.300.4283
To: Stephen Wensman, City Planner Re: Wildflower 2nd Addition—Final Plat
Cc: Rob Weldon, Public Works Director Engineering Review Comments
Chad Isakson, P.E., Municipal Engineer
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Wildflower 2nd Addition. Final Plat/Final Construction Plans
were received on August 26, 2016.The submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by Carlson-
McCainst, Inc. or as noted:
• Wildflower 2nd Addition Final Plat,not dated.
• Wildflower 2nd Addition Street and Utility Construction Plans dated August 22, 2016.
• Wildflower 2nd Addition Storm Sewer Calculations dated July 11, 2016.
• Wildflower at Lake Elmo Grading Plans revised August 10,2016.
• No Specifications.
• No Landscape Plans.
STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering review comments have been provided in two separate memos; one for Final Plat
approval, and one to assist with the completion of the final Construction Plans. Please see the following review
comments relating to the Final Plat application.
FINAL PLAT: WILDFLOWER 2ND ADDITION
• Final Construction Plans and Specifications must be revised in accordance with the Construction Plan
engineering review memorandum dated September 29, 2016.
• Final Construction Plans and Specifications must be prepared in accordance with the City Engineering
Design Standards Manual using City details, plan notes and specifications and meeting City Engineering
Design Guidelines.
• All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works department shall be documented on the
Final Plat prior to the release of the Final Plat for recording.
• All Outlots to be owned by the City, all easements and all right-of-way as requested by the City Engineer
and Public Works department shall be documented on the Final Construction Plans.
• All easements presented on the Final Plat should be fully reserved for drainage and utility easement
purposes. No building or egress well encroachments will be allowed. If there are any lots, in particular
courtyard lots, intended to encroach onto easements this should be presented at the time of final plat and
final construction plan approval to allow staff the opportunity to verify adequate drainage and utility
easements are made available to support the PUD.
• The Wildflower 2nd Addition Final Plat should be conditioned upon Street A being extended and paved up
to the Street A3 intersections as part of the Wildflower 2nd Addition plans to better eliminate future
phase construction impacts to new homeowners in the 2nd Addition.
PAGE 1 of 2
• The Final Plat must be revised to provide a name for Street B in accordance with the City's street naming
policy.
FINAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS&SPECIFICATIONS
• No construction for Wildflower 2nd Addition may begin until the applicant has received City Engineer
approval for the Final Construction Plans; the applicant has obtained and submitted to the City all
applicable permits, easements and permissions needed for the project; and a preconstruction meeting has
been held by the City's engineering department.
• The Final Plat shall not be recorded until final construction plan approval is granted.
• A separate memorandum will be provided to direct additional plan corrections necessary for final
construction plan approval.
PAGE 2 of 2
I
t�NCSUI�/iFCM11EL1llPE1MCfltPfllATfD--
WILDFLOWER AT LAKE ELMO - DESIGN REVIEW REPORT
LAKE ELMO, MN
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW DATED FEBRUARY 14", 2015
REVIEWED PLAN SET DATED FEBRUARY 4T", 2015
Per our review the Landscape Plan is NOT in compliance with the City's planting
requirements.
Required Action Items by Wildflower at Lake Elmo Project Team
1. Tree placement needs to be more accurately considered and
represented throughout the plan. In some cases trees are represented on
sidewalks and streets or too close to hardscape elements.
2. Street trees need to be at least 5 feet from back of curb. In areas where
the boulevard does not allow this because of sidewalk or trail placement
as noted on Sheet L1 please redesign to accommodate required trees.
3. Please provide an analysis of street tree plantings in relationship to
proposed residential utility connections with appropriate setbacks from
both utility service connections and driveways. It appears that once this
exercise is completed some of the proposed street trees as currently
represented will have to be relocated and / or an adjustment of the lot
width may need to take place to facilitate the incorporation of the
required trees in the streetscape corridor.
4. When determining landscape requirements and trees required per street
frontage please recalculate to include street frontage on Hwy 5 and Lake
Elmo Avenue North as well in addition to the new proposed streets.
5. Trees are to have a two year warranty.
6. Please add note to plan sheets: All trees to be field staked prior to
installation. Contractor to coordinate field review of proposed tree
locations with the city and project landscape architect prior to any tree
installation.
7. Correct conversion for multi-stem trees to 2.5 inch B& B is 12 foot height.
8. Per plant schedule the specified River Birch/Betula nigra 'Heritage' is
incorrectly spelled / noted. Should read: Heritage River Birch / Betula nigra
'Cully'.
4. Minimum size for ornamental trees is 2" Caliper per Table 6-1. Minimum Size
Standards for Landscape Materials within the City's landscape
requirements.
10. Please provide more diversity of all plantings - overstory trees, evergreen
trees and ornamental trees. For example specify more than one type of
evergreen on the entire project. Perhaps focusing on pollinator friendly
choices would work nicely with the overall theme of the development.
211 Black Hills Spruce is not acceptable as the only evergreen specified,
2350 BAYLESS PLACE- ST. PAUL, MN • 55114
PHONE: 651 .646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LANDARCINC.COM
—2— February 15,2015
52 PrairieFire Crab is too many of one type of Crab, try to limit the use of
Honey Locust as it provides filtered light at best as a street tree, etc. as a
few examples.
11. Please provide design sections for all berms / landscape screening
suggested representing all typical planting arrangements with species
specified and represented to scale at time of installation. When planting
berms please consider planting side slopes verses simply planting the top
as it is currently suggested. Plants are much happier when not placed on
the highest, driest and windiest part of the berm.
12. Please provide design drawings for all signage and way finding elements.
13. Please provide us with an understory planting plan for the entire
development. This includes all shrub & perennial beds, infiltration basins,
raingardens as well as native seeding and turf sodding areas.
14. We request more information as it relates to the tree preservation plan to
make a determination if tree replacement is in fact required.
15. We would like your design team to rethink the layout of the plantings
within the HOA outlots M, O & P. It appears the layout is not very well
developed. The absence of street tree plantings is noted and should be
addressed. The observation is that the tree layout suggested simply
occupies the green space rather than utilizing trees to reinforce or create
space which would be our preference.
16, Correctly label Lake Elmo Avenue North on the western edge of the
property. Currently it is labeled Lake Elmo Drive North.
17. We request information on soil preparation and planting specifications for
all plantings/seeding.
18. Provide landscape irrigation plans for our review for all commonly held
HOA & City Outlots / R.O.W. areas.
19. We recommend you provide a three year maintenance plan for all
landscape materials/areas within all commonly held HOA & City Outlot /
R.O.W areas.
SINCERELY,
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC.
STEPHEN MASTEY, ASLA, CLARB, LEED AP BD+C
2350 BAYLESS PLACE • ST. PAUL, MN • 55114
PHONE: 651 .646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@ LAN DARCINC.COM
i
' I �
I
N 89e21`23"E 115.00
15I (937.3) (937.7) 9351 w 130
r V
t138.4
e __..-----__._..-'-----^
Y O o 27.1 o 1D I O Z
I
2817
10 IT_ o f Y i 917 m_� — m i I LLn J
i So N EL
3.00 0� I J / 2.00 � w =
= I`3 I g aS o / / o :9 =
trrj a v j M Q
w I /g ,4 0
Q 4 o
I ao z ^
z l0 1 4.33 g=w 0 o I o Q I
0 TQF I'S-_N .. - a_ 1100 is ' 1 Oi
1
.d �i N Z1 a�\ riq .410 n o V 130 I
n
I I I'• I
r0 .1 I N ry I �v
I
3E.1) Ora -inag and utility _
ease nl Qer plat d�` I I
ps,�—--� -—S89e21'2="W _85.0_(1
HUMMINGBIRD PATH
'(tf Oenotee+..Nee Lowest allowable floor elevabon 930.2
� owrolo I.n.ision eo.
�. 0en.l<.el.ovk bo. Haut elevations (Proposed)/As-buill
i� Denot..telephone b.. Lowest Flow FJGWLIW :(930,2) /
%aoo.na DMotn O.N1'nq tl.votion
Lot or—-6396 SF 1 000.00) n propa .N aed vair- Top Of Foundatlen LTev :(938.8)
..lo /
House area:2832 SF 0...Is.—N.a..dve Lion Garage Slob Elev o Dco- :(93A2)lotrset opening gore"
Porch arse 99 SF A O.nats.sow. Top Of Eames Well Ell, :(93&4)lowest openln9 house
Sidewalk area -50 SF , Denotes p opos.d ol—conbd
Drfveway pre.+58fi SF Egress W:ntlaw :(933.4) /
Total ImDsMous Arad�J577 SF Wn D.nol.s p,....d met een.lrurfon vnlrono
Impsrvksrs coverage-51.9%
('.nn.lruclton Nolee.
1.Install rxk eonslrucllon entrant..
2 Instal.sill lance as needed for erosion control.
3 Sidewalks shall drain away Irani house a minimum of t0R
4 Contractor must verily driveway design.
5 cen"cletw must verify service el—lion prior to
cunetn,atyahe
6 Aad or move foundation ledge oa required Scale 1' 20'
General Notts: Benchmark
1. Grading plan by Pioneer Engineering lost acted 9/7/15 was used to determine We hereby...lify to Lanomork Custom Homes that this survey, plan w Top Nul Hydrant
Proposed elevations shown herein. report was prepared by me or under my dlrecl supervision,and Thal I Elevation=
2 This survey does not purport to show improvements or encroachments. wn o duly licensed Lord Su•vsyor under the laws of the State of
except os hewn,as u-.yvd by me or under my direct supervision. Minnosolo,doted 02/11/16
3 Proposed bu8d,hg d'imenslons shown am(w horlxontai location a(structure- -
on the 101 only Contact buider prlw to construction for approved construct— Signed: Pioneer Engineering,P.A.
plans 11ax4,de Rranway
4 No specific soils in—lugaGon has been performed on thls lot by the surveyor. xlw is 1p nor rsru.k-u�
The suitability of soils to support the specific house proposed is not the By:
re.ponsibitfty of the surveyor. a er a son. ra es Lona an rveyor
5 This certificate does not purport to show easements other than those shown Minn...t l:c.nse No. 42299 email-phawk�n.wl0piwe.,.ng..wn
on the recorded plot.
6 evorings shown ore based on on ossumed datum
PISNEE Lot A Block 4,
1 l�li, 1�Ef1�l�IP,e1'i/tg',P.A. WILDFLOWER AT LAKE ELMO 1ST ADDITION Certificate of Survey for:
" w, according to the recorded plot thereof Landmark Custom Homes
2427 Beerff—. Drivc Ph.165E 681-1914 Washington County, Minnesota Sol Main Street.unit 4122
M,M..lfeighl,MN 51120 wow'(6$i 1681 9488
w.proneemq.com Address; Monarch Loner Lake Elmo. Minnesota Sliliwarer.MN 33082
House Model: Elevation:
Rgcc1B 115262002 Folderit 7665 Dreweby µNI Buyer: Carey/Nesheim
n P.,....-,crn,.,...,...
resourceful. naturally. BARB
engineering and environmental consultants
Memorandum
To: Va Hey Branch Watershed District Board of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: WildfloweratLake Elmo/Village Pre serve/Flo odpla in Southwest ofGoetscheIPond
Date: October 19, 2016
Pro je c t: 23820020.00 2200 346 and 352
c: Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse, John Hanson
Background and Introduction Requested Manager Action
As the Managers saw during their September 22, 2016, tour, some Review memo
infiltration basins on the Village Preserve site (see Figure 1) are
not functioning and water levels in the floodplain downstream
appear high (see Figures 2 and 3). The property owners west of the floodplain are concerned about the
high water levels and standing water in the Lake Elmo Avenue ditch. The City of Lake Elmo's Planning
Commission rejected approval of the next construction phase of the Wildflower at Lake Elmo subdivision
until stormwater management issues are better understood and asked Valley Branch Watershed District to
study the issue and identify potential solutions.
To understand the cause of the observed high water levels, we compared 2016 precipitation data to other
years and reviewed the development plans and permit application models to determine if construction
was done as planned and if stormwater management facilities are functioning as assumed. Based on this
review, we have recommendations for corrective actions. This memo summarizes our analysis and
findings.
Pre c ip ita do n
The area received 32.29 inches of precipitation from April 1—September 30, 2016, making it by far the
wettest year over the last 10 years. Between 2007 and 2015, the wettest April—September had been in
2014, with 28.54 inches of precipitation. The average during the 9-year period was 22.76 inches. Table 1
summarizes the precipitation recorded in the area.
Barr Engineering Co. 4300MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200,Minneapotis,MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board ofManagers
From: John Hanson
Subject: WildfloweratIake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southwest ofGoetschelPond
Date: October 19,2016
Page: 2
Table 1 2007-2016 April September Precipitation (inches)
Year April May June July August September Total
2016 Not 220 4.290 9.30 10.41 5.82 >32.02
Available
2.47 2.86 4.46 6.69 9.12 6.69 32.29
2015 3.02 3.59 5.29 6.11 3.69 5.32 27.02
1.99 4.16 4.34 7.07 3.07 5.55 26.18
2014 6.90 4.48 9.46 2.16 2.95 2.18 28.13
6.53 4.21 9.93 2.55 2.86 2.46 28.54
2013 5.19 5.15 9.06 2.24 0.57 1.69 23.90
5.46 5.35 9.67 1.57 1.21 1.56 24.82
2012 3.26 7.18 4.26 5.76 1.36 0.59 22.41
3.23 6.99 2.86 5.20 1.44 0.66 20.38
2011 3.58 3.11 5.58 10.6 4.85 0.71 28.43
2.13 4.07 3.40 6.98 5.11 1.02 22.71
2010 2.01 3.36 5.97 5.28 5.21 5.65 27.48
1.64 3.55 4.90 5.10 6.49 6.40 28.08
2009 1.38 0.58 2.94 2.12 7.02 0.64 14.68
0.75 0.60 3.56 2.39 7.25 0.93 15.48
2008 4.41 3.23 3.61 2.39 2.87 2.72 19.23
4.04 2.44 4.23 2.44 3.55 2.44 19.14
2007 1.51 3.62 1.17 1.06 5.75 6.52 19.63
1.85 4.06 1.32 1.32 5.95 5.00 19.50
The first row for each year is the precipitation recorded by VBWD citizen volunteer Charles Taylor at his
home on the northwest side of Lake Jane, 2.5 miles west of the site. The second row is the precipitation
recorded at the closest reporting station (within 2 miles of the site), accessed from
http://climate.umn.edu/HIDradius/radius new.asp.
Histo ric Wa to r Le ve is
The VBWD has not measured lowland water levels. We reviewed aerial photos, but these were taken in
early spring or late fall so were not helpful in determining extreme or typical summer water levels.
At Wetland F (see Figure 3 for the location and the following October 18, 2016, photos), cottonwood and
oak trees are standing in water. Based on their size,we estimate the trees to be 12-20 years old.While
cottonwood trees are flood-resistant, oak trees are not. Therefore, water levels in the wetland have not
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board ofManagers
From: John Hanson
Subject: WildfloweratIake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southwest ofGoetschelPond
Date: October 19,2016
Page: 3
likely been sustained at this level for at least 12-20 years. Aerial photos appear to show trees along the
wetland fringe in 1996, but not in 1992.This is consistent with precipitation records, which show that
2002, 1993, and 1991 were wet years; it's probable that the trees came in after one of the wet years during
1990s when water levels in the wetland were high.
,il � -may. �.:+'� �•
tC
1'.
I
A
5
n
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board ofManagers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflowerat Lake FJmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southwest ofGoetschelPond
Date: October 19,2016
Page: 4
Blomp
4� f
I
i
e
�k x
y 3 .
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board ofManagers
From: John Hanson
Subject: WildfloweratIake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southwest ofGoetschelPond
Date: October 19,2016
Page: 5
Dra in a g e Patterns
Figure 2 shows the pre-development drainage patterns, overflow elevations of lowlands, and the
1%-probability flood level for the area. Figure 3 shows the developed conditions drainage patterns and
1%-probability flood level for the area.
Developments and Impacts
Areas south of the floodplain are currently under construction. Figure 1 shows the developments in
relation to the floodplain. Village Preserve and Arbor Glen Senior Living are on the west side and
Wildflower at Lake Elmo is on the east side; a future cul-de-sac extends to the west, separating the
floodplain from Village Preserve.
Wetland Aand Krue g e r Prop e rty
The drainage area to Wetland A (see Figure 3) was reduced with development. Within the Village
Preserve site, 0.6 acres of the predeveloped 1.6-acre drainage area was diverted from flowing north into
Wetland A. Runoff from the remaining 1 acre (38% impervious) in the northwest corner of Village
Preserve drains to an infiltration basin with a capacity of 36,800 cubic feet (Infiltration Basin 1, see
Figure 3). Soils investigations prior to construction of this basin indicated infiltration rates exceeded 20
inches per hour. It was expected to drain dry within 48 hours of rainstorms with an infiltration rate of at
least 2 inches per hour. Basin overflows were anticipated only during storms significantly greater than the
100-year 24-hour design storm (7.3 inches).
During site visits in late August and September, Infiltration Basin 1 was found full of water. There were
also signs that it had discharged to the north along Lake Elmo Avenue and into Wetland A. The water
level in the basin on October 18, 2016, was approximately 1 foot below the overflow (see the following
photo, where the orange cone is the overflow). Therefore, this basin is not infiltrating as designed.As
noted above, it should drain dry within 48 hours of a rainstorm and should not discharge.
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board ofManagers
From: John Hanson
Subject: WildfloweratIake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southwest ofGoetschelPond
Date: October 19,2016
Page: 6
Il I
Within the Wildflower at Lake Elmo site (see Figure 1), the developer filled a low area south of Wetland A
(see Figure 2). That area now drains to an infiltration basin (Infiltration Basin 300) that overflows to
Wetland G (see Figure 3). This change, combined with the Village Preserve drainage change, reduced the
drainage area to Wetland A by 5.1 acres. Under pre-developed conditions, runoff from the south would fill
that low area; if it were to overflow, it would overflow to Wetland A.
Even with the reduction in runoff storage by the elimination of the low area south of Wetland A, less
runoff reaches Wetland A because of the development changes. Table 2 summarizes the drainage areas
and inflow runoff volumes.
To: Vafley Branch Watershed District Board ofManagers
From: John Hanson
Subject: WildfloweratIake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southwest ofGoetschelPond
Date: October 19,2016
Page: 7
Table 2 Drainage Areas,Inflow Volumes, and High Water Levels ofWetland A
2-Year 2-Hour Storm
Drainage Area from South Inflow Volume High Water Level
(acres) (acre-feet) (feet)
Pre-Development 17.9 0.98 911.9
Post-Development 12.8 0.64 911.6
High water levels were observed in Wetland A in 2014, prior to any development in the area. Given that
there has been much more precipitation in 2016, the current high water levels are not surprising. And,
they would likely be higher if the development had not made changes to the drainage area.
Wetland A overflows to Veronica's Pond at Elevation 914.7. The 1%-probability flood level of Wetland A is
Elevation 916.9. The ground adjacent to an outbuilding on the Krueger property west of Lake Elmo
Avenue is approximately Elevation 917.5. While this outbuilding should be safe from flooding, the low
area between it and Lake Elmo Avenue will fill with water after large storm events and during wet-weather
cycles. Figure 4 shows a close-up view of Wetland A and the Krueger property.
Wetland Hand G
Wetland H and G (see Figure 3) receive runoff from the Arbor Glen Senior Living Facility and Village
Preserve sites. Before development, runoff from the Arbor Glen Senior Living Facility and Village Preserve
generally drained southeast and eventually to Downs Lake. Once complete, part of the Arbor Glen Senior
Living site and all of the Village Preserve site will drain north to the Goetschel Pond watershed. The
VBWD allowed this diversion because soils investigations and computer modeling showed that the
diversion would not increase the 100-year flood level of the local lowlands or Goetschel Pond. Figures 5
and 6 show the pre- and post-development drainage areas.
Runoff diverted from the Downs Lake watershed into the Goetschel Pond watershed drains through a
series of stormwater management features before reaching the lowlands southwest of Goetschel Pond.
Runoff from the Arbor Glen Senior Living site will drain to a biofiltration basin and then to the Village
Preserve wet pond at the southwest corner of that subdivision. Runoff from Village Preserve generally
flows in a counterclockwise pattern through wet ponds before reaching a large infiltration basin
(Infiltration Basin 2) in the north-central portion of the site. Soils investigations prior to construction
indicated infiltration rates at this basin exceeded 20 inches per hour. It was expected to drain dry within
48 hours of rainstorms with infiltration rates of at least 4 inches per hour. Basin overflows were anticipated
only during storms significantly greater than the 10-year 24-hour design storm (4.17 inches). During site
visits in late August and September, the infiltration basin was found full of water and discharging to the
north (Wetland H, see Figure 6.) Therefore, Infiltration Basin 2 is not functioning as designed. If the basin
were functioning properly, Wetland H and downstream wetlands on the Wildflower at Lake Elmo site
would receive less runoff than they did this summer.
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board ofManagers
From: John Hanson
Subject: WildfloweratIake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southwest ofGoetschelPond
Date: October 19,2016
Page: 8
The Lake Elmo City Engineer and I have discussed the problem with the developer of Village Preserve.The
developer indicated that the infiltration basin will be cleaned out (sediment removed) before the end of
October. According to him, the basin was functioning well in the early part of 2016 and he expects that it
will function again once cleaned out. Neither the City nor the VBWD will release surety if it does not.
We tla nd F
Wetland F (and Veronica's Pond) is downstream of area developments and associated stormwater
management facilities under construction. While the current water level in the wetland appears to be
approximately Elevation 904, 11 feet below the 1%-probability flood level, it is higher than typical.As
previously described, several 8-inch-diameter and smaller oak trees, which are not flood-resistant, are in
standing water. The high water level is likely because:
2016 has been an extremely wet year. During the warm seasons of the last 60 years, only 2002,
1993, 1991, 1986, and 1978 were as wet.
Infiltration Basin 2 on the Village Preserve site discharged water that eventually reached
Wetland F. It was designed to discharge only in extreme events; otherwise, no water should
discharge to the Wildflower at Lake Elmo site.
Infiltration Basin 300 on the Wildflower at Lake Elmo site was not constructed to store as much
runoff as planned and could have sent more runoff downstream and eventually to Wetland F.
• Infiltration Basin 200 on the Wildflower at Lake Elmo site is not draining dry within 48 hours and is
sending more runoff downstream.
Needed Actions at StormwaterManagementFacilities
The developer's engineer for the Wildflower at Lake Elmo site submitted as-built drawings. The as-builts
show the grading and constructed infrastructure are generally with the appropriate tolerances with two
exceptions: (1) the outlet for Infiltration Basin 300 was constructed 0.6 feet lower than planned, and (2) the
bottom of Infiltration Basin 300 was constructed 0.1 foot lower than planned. Therefore, less volume is
being stored in the basin. This should be corrected or additional volume control needs to be provided.
Drainage patterns appear consistent with the as-built drawings and orginal plans, but Wetland G is
overflowing into the Wet Pond, rather than Infiltration Basin 200.
As previously noted, the infiltration basins on the Village Preserve site are not infiltrating. The developer
said they will be cleaned out by the end of October 2016.
On the Wildflower at Lake Elmo site, erosion problems should be corrected, builders should be more
diligent about installing and maintaining erosion controls, and vegetation should be better established
within the floodplain.
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board ofManagers
From: John Hanson
Subject: WildfloweratIake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southwest ofGoetschelPond
Date: October 19,2016
Page: 9
Conclusions
Higher-than-normal precipitation coupled with non-functioning infiltration basins have created
abnormally high water levels in Wetland F. Wetland A, which backs up water onto the Krueger property,
also has high water levels. While an infiltration basin draining to the wetland is not functioning properly,
the high water levels in Wetland A are due to higher-than-normal precipitation. The 100-year flood level
of Wetland A, both before and after development, is Elevation 916.9, which appears to be just below the
elevation of an outbuilding on the Krueger's property.
The developer of the Village Preserve project has committed to cleaning the non-functioning infiltration
basins on the site. The developer of the Wildflower at Lake Elmo site will be informed that Infiltration
Basin 200 is not functioning as designed and Infiltration Basin 300 was not constructed as designed and
that corrective actions are needed. Erosion issues also need to be addressed on the Wildflower at Lake
Elmo site and vegetation needs to be better established. VBWD should not release any escrow deposit
until these corrective actions have been taken and proof is submitted that the projects conform to the
VBWD Rules and Regulations, as described in the VBWD permit closeout process.
Developed Subwatershed Boundary
C3Major Subwatershed Boundary
,Y♦ I I �( r,. / `��,� e I: __ • in>L
A� I I '�_ -- ---�' --- --- '� T 't^�—r /+f+ ��+• \l r l r t l N
See Floodplain:
Veronica's ! ti ,•z I ' _
I I Pond; T4 L rlf �\ '� t
II `' i
in Fgures 2 & 3
IVERONICA POND
WETLAND B il'} -MANAGE 1 . i 'rr _ u D
,
�
i r
I„... ISHARGE POINT '\ � -,. - z
a� 75
ICA .OND
- �• _ y f' �
� .�\ � �c., Lv�\ r,.!!' ff ---�•- 1,S I~ �r it `- � 1��.�, ' ^-r '!, 'I I '� � La
\���� ,, - � 1 _ � '��. ,,� - - �•, !" _' � I !t� � c,: � }" r lii i ri) Q dY SIiPPer L
I I 99dt IAN D A _ """ 7 f i %✓c!1 r' '
C, �j / �• r F .,, v .ice -j �� 1 i , ,I I z
N¢GE 2
{' ' III I1/ pis _i :°*�- a cam\ , •, ¢' ly \ t'r` r- _ y
E
a)cr-
1=1
- --- ---
o -
� v %az1 - - _ s >\ \\`�" �ti_ ., _ ,.�� F°�� • � �,ti 'g II I'Kvffr I' �
\\ !A�'.`1.1
�s
i,
i
o � I r .a. � ._". ,.. _ I •--.— "�, t tit � v� ,
°' - + e , •' - Little
Wildflower el ueN ...
lly �i Blue C,r
z � t. :rt � � ,0.1 --� r•r�,.� (� ",� i -- ��, Plv i'Ilex' ys >I - � 4s Clr
yatLLake3El "ifmo __ ,I i y{
a
o' :x
I � 1 '� r- '1--1 r�• - �! ,� '•I!v� P � 7A �'� -
�4�'7-
T 9
Preserve ply ,� ;� -- r - - " � � tt �» - � ��� �••-��� ,v�'�ay ,N3 Nam'.\..,1
v ,� 'JI v.s Ir'ti -, ✓n, ,., d .e I ., -._firs 6 ../�-�r`` �G�
°' � ¢ i•: ; °.. � _` - �J y�/ ;�`,.., '.M . k e "i^ t_ 's I :,.yr� - x, � l r;� (ti)v... .2 •,
r^ ,i .•-,'°$'-)"ffJZe=i�rrr-✓- ,.`:. f d,>+; ' 'y t- .,.r� -- - - __ , T• � ,Op I.�., ��_ x ,- *Vertical Datum: NAVD88
in _�r f¢ .t 7- '•[t<` � `.`-1" �J�o '� F -
j `
ew { - �y3 ! f r ` I,000 1. - _Srr�� ,5�, ,y". ♦ +.l
- Feet
IF'- j4. 350 0 350
_r UNDER
, 3P
m I
I `
Arbor
Glen ' '01
Senior _
- +,,� c i Figure 1
Living � - _ ��" , : . ' ;, � - I
,. 39,t stN LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS
_ - Valley Branch Watershed District
o• o J ¢ Washington County, Minnesota
�'
m -
,) co _ gZ4 ,TI a Depression Area Low Point
Overflow Elevation (ft)
l De
pression ression Boundary
f � P Y
N 922 Inundation Extents to Local Overflow Point
J '93z
g2a �' �� 9z4 99�0 9ti$ 100-Year Floodplain Labeled with
ING 1 gti-_ � ��,y .�{ :y £, .f �R- -.j�+.':,j• ' 9ti6 `'� " r' °/° Probability Flood Level (ft)
r •;: f r z ' 926' g26 92A 1
922
922 Contours (DNR, November 2011)
2-Foot Contour
a
10-Foot Contour
R 1., cti '
d! r' Veronica's -
o'
w b �� k Pond ti
I Tom° � � n•.•,} 9
!ai '
• OE
v o
91
N
— N
A
43rd N - 'P 906 //
<v/ *Vertical Datum: NAVD88
,
° C ss 1
I�
92
9
12
Feet
V, 9`6 2R '` g�� �, D 250 0 250
Figure 2
_§ 954 g5Z O • ,•� ti � 6
95911 gaQ �� �� a3 SOUTHWEST GOETSCHEL
WATERSHED DETAIL
�aa �36 o w Valley Branch Watershed District
Washington County, Minnesota
m
��' �ro 924 gZ4 w a Primary Overflow
91�N •I � 926 �
► Secondary Overflow
Wetland
n'i y 922
• g3z 9g'L �` ` - S Wet Pond
a A 92 j 924 9�8 9ti Y S Infiltration Basin
9ti 916
'9�4 •` ` i`c 926 g26 g24 'L
6 922 924 922 �y Developed Inundation Extents Labeled
922 with 1% Probability Flood Level (ft)
0 C3 Developed Subwatersheds
gz6 C* Original Goetschel Pond Subwatershed
926 N w cti,
Contours (DNR, November 2011)
912
2-Foot Contour
N 90C% 92 928 °0m 10-Foot Contour
FW
0
920
Veronica's
c� o g3z
` O 0
90,
O
u
912 \
co ai
E
°' ai CA:A3.l.C1119CiJ �.p,., I
908 L:.Lt11J.1
N
43rd St N 906 •d�
' 0 922 gIz g1a *Vertical Datum: NAVD88
m N �N�'��. �• �� m ,� gIB 920
930 9z
926 8 -
g42
Or I
o �. °s¢ -
ti Feet
�• 9z6924 �. 95b �►. _ p 250 0 250
s
w Figure 3
954
SOUTHWEST GOETSCHEL
DEVELOPED WATERSHED DETAIL
Valley Branch Watershed District
Washington County, Minnesota
�,_ °'' t• e Depression Area Low Point
Overflow Elevation (ft)
r z •ti Inundation to 914.7 Feet
�
"N Y (Overflow Elevation)
Inundation to 916.9 Feet
(100-Year Flood Level)
C3Developed Subwatersheds
Original Goetschel Pond Subwatershed
t' Y Culvert (Approximate Location)
,� 'F, ►
Contours (DNR, November 2011)
2-Foot Contour
V ?
10-Foot Contour
W
91
916
Krueger Q -
. 11 Gilding
- ♦. ♦ N � 1
o .. ._.. �r •,� 91� *Vertical Datum: NAVD88
920
• �• •+ 7 .� .•.� \ CA'A:1.SL'111:J(iJ j .
IF
Feet
80 0 80
Figure 4
LAKE ELMO AVENUE DETAIL
a
r Valley Branch Watershed District
LL • o Washington County, Minnesota
m
9Z2 D 9zz 932�g3oag30 Z� ti 91� 9�8 N ti 890 Pre-Development Subwatershed Boundary
9
91g s �1, .vb a 926 _
9928 ti �p 924 92cp 922IV
WOW"-<- _, " Downs Lake Watershed
ry 6 2\ O �' N
'
� N 92 9�, •'r: m .
g30 N 9zz ` 894 ' ( Goetschel Pond Watershed
Contours (DNR, November 2011)
qQ0
2-Foot Contour
8 N 6 9pq
10-Foot Contour
9`a'B 91A Veronica's
Pond
m
910._' �9`4 0� " T 44th St
90
N
N "� -_ �i• - i� �.A.I�.Srlll:.l W O1 �' �Q � 01 T Z � �
940
Q ajry e8i
936
1 9126 90q
, O
o Z _ Q 906
y�y r�Iv1
> '�- i.`.arr•' 9�. ! 916
o 20 wr
938 942.
V
rb?;o-att. - a � 9Sq - i ',� 94
- 926
938'
o'
ro
a
- "' lip► �;,
tJ W 6l D ' yV�l7r4 Q W,/'.Olfr�.�t,
930 9 *Vertical Datum: NAVD88
928
0
o
� 1 x
°
I z
Feet
.. ,A Y.tst,. •«.� iszfir~ •»` �� 400 0 400
Figure 5
9ati 934 39thStN t`��;� . '9� •. PRE-DEVELOPMENT
DRAINAGE AREAS
Valley Branch Watershed District
o
�,,, /y,,,,..,/�,,, , 9 �, e J "' N 926 ` '� r'►► ` ". Washington County, Minnesota
m11 r[OIJfaG 0 0 OIY.(I�I.I CAA O �F OM aMj
Wetland
�• Wet Pond
Infiltration Basin
a` Developed Subwatershed Boundary
T:
At C3
Downs Lake Watershed
AL
` -�- " �a� r � ' . _ �,�►���;� Goetschel Pond Watershed
`� -�' . .�r'°►�_ "� fie.
� Veronica's - 4 �
T,
-44th St
' b♦ a C Y SIiPPer La N
�,� 7� � }" 43rd St N �� � � � ► � �� ,,A�� � � � li��e8/pe�����
m
t I
m
Ilk
IMF`
Blue
Rifiltration
XT
i
*Vertical Datum: NAVD88
0
Feet
--- s.� �.,1e �`•'��+ ' .. : - 11�l. I` s+w2 + ,o�. ��a - �e`���a� 400 0 400
Figure 6
f
39tn st Iv POST-DEVELOPMENT
N z ,jAw DRAINAGE AREAS
Valley Branch Watershed District
9
= �'y- Washington County, Minnesota
m
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.2015-23
A RESOL UTIONAPPROVING A FINAL PLAT AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD)
PLAN FOR THE BOULDER PONDS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
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 OP4,LLC, 11455 Viking Drive, Suite 350, Eden Prairie,MN has
submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo("City") for a Final Plat and Final PUD Plan for the
Boulder Ponds residential development, 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 City approved the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan
on September 16,2014; and
WHEREAS,the proposed Boulder Ponds Final Plat and Final PUD Plan includes 47 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) in Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held public hearing on March 9, 2015 to
consider the Final Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan request; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending approval of
the Final Plat and Final PUD Plan subject to 14 conditions of approval;and
WHEREAS,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation
concerning the Final Plat and Final PUD Plan as part of a memorandum to the City Council for the April
21,2015 Council Meeting; and
WHEREAS,the City Council reviewed the Boulder Ponds Final Plat and Final PUD Plan at its
meeting held on April 21,2015 and made the following findings of fact:
1) That the Boulder Ponds Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent with the Preliminary Plat and
Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on September 16,2014.
2) That the Boulder Ponds Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent with the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
3) That the Boulder Ponds Final Plat generally complies with the City's Urban Low Density
Residential zoning district, with the exceptions as noted in the approved Preliminary PUD Plans.
1
Resolution 2015-23
4) That the Boulder Ponds Final Plat complies with all other applicable zoning requirements,
including the City's landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control and other ordinances,
except as noted in this report or attachment thereof.
5) That the Boulder Ponds Final Plat complies with the City's subdivision ordinance.
6) That the Boulder Ponds Final Plat and Final PUD Plan complies with the City's Planned Unit
Development Ordinance.
7) That the Boulder Ponds Final Plat is consistent with the City's engineering standards with the
exceptions noted by the City Engineer in his review comments to the City dated March 4, 2015.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve the
Boulder Ponds Final Plat and Final PUD Plan subject to the following conditions:
1) Final grading,drainage,and erosion control plans,utility plans, sanitary and storm water
management plans,and street and utility construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Engineer prior to the recording of the Final Plat. All changes and modifications to the
plat and plans requested by the City Engineer in a memo dated 3/4/15 shall be incorporated into
these documents before they are approved.
2) Prior to the release of Final Plat for recording, the developer shall provide evidence in a form
satisfactory to the City Attorney that warrants it has fee interest in area included in the Boulder
Ponds Final Plat.
3) Prior to the release of the Final Plat for recording,the Developer shall enter into a Developer's
Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Council that delineates who
is responsible for the design, construction,and payment of the required improvements with
financial guarantees therefore.
4) All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works Department shall be
documented on the Final Plat prior to the release of the Final Plat for recording, including 10-foot
easements behind all proposed meandering sidewalks within the Boulder Ponds subdivision.
5) A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of Boulder Ponds
and establishing a homeowner's association shall be submitted in final form to the Community
Development Director before a building permit may be issued for any structure within this
subdivision. Said agreement shall comply with Minnesota Statues 51513-103,and specifically the
provisions concerning the transfer of control to the future property owners. The applicant shall
also enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities
responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and
open space on the Final Plat.
6) As part of the development agreement for the 1 st phase of the Boulder Ponds development, the
applicant shall provide fees in lieu of land dedication for 2.57 acres of land to fulfill the City's
parkland dedication requirements prior to the release of Final Plat for recording. The fee can be
provided in a pro-rated amount for the Phase 1 Area or in an amount addressing the total
residential portion of the site.
2
Resolution 2015-23
7) The Final Landscape Plan shall be revised per the requested modifications of the City Landscape
Consultant, documented in a memo dated 3/3/15.The Final Landscape Plans shall be approved
prior to the release of Final Plat for recording.
8) The applicant shall provide evidence that all conditions attached to the South Washington
Watershed District permit for the Final Plat and associated grading work have been met prior to
the release of the Final Plat for recording.
9) The applicant must provide written authorization to perform any work in the Electrical
Transmission easement areas prior to the release of the Final Plat for recording.
10) The locations of fire hydrant identified in a memo dated 2/23/15 shall be revised per the direction
of the Fire Chief.
11) The applicant shall provide a complete development lot book for all lots in Phase 1 of the Boulder
Ponds development clarifying proper building placement for use in granting building permits
prior to the release of Final Plat for recording.
12) The applicant is encouraged to incorporate multi-sided architecture and view sheds consistent
with design concepts and examples shown during the Preliminary Plat presented by Rick
Harrison.
13) The applicant is encouraged to incorporate elements of the Lake Elmo thenung study into the
open space and public areas within the subdivision.
14) The final landscape plan shall be reviewed by the City to ensure that road safety issues are
properly address by the development, and specifically the site triangle requirements.
15) The street name'Wh Street"shall be revised to an alternative street name acceptable to the City
staff prior to the recording of the Boulder Ponds Final Plat.
Passed and duly adopted this 21"day of April,2015 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo,
Minnesota.
Mike Pearson,Mayor
ATTEST:
A ni Bell,City Clerk
3
Resolution 2015-23
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 14,2015
Mayor Pearson called the meeting to order at 9.25pm.
PRESENT: Mayor Mike Pearson and Council Members Julie Fliflet, Anne Smith, Justin Bloyer, and Jill
Lundgren.
Staff present: City Administrator Zuleger, Community Development Director Klatt, City Engineer Griffin,
Finance Director Bendel,and City Clerk Bell.
PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE
Approval of agenda by consensus
WILDFLOWER PRELIMINARY PLAT; RES.NO.2015-23
Community Development Director Klatt provided summary of the proposed PUD development and the
process for a PUD. He explained the minor changes from the concept plan approved on 6/17/2014. The
flexibility that a PUD affords was explained. Mr. Klan went over the critical path issues and provided an
update on issues identified during the Planning Commission public hearing. Staff recommends adding one
additional condition of allowing 10 foot side yard setbacks.
The alley streets were discussed. Conservation easements were discussed. Median maintenance and rain
gardens were discussed.Street naming was discussed.The sanitarysewer construction from 30Lh St lift station
to 39rh St.was explained.
The previously discussed conditions placed on the Concept Plan and Comp Plan amendment were discussed.
Staff reported that all conditions have been met.
The proposed home size was explained to be about 1500 to 2200 for courtyard homes (Garden Villas); the
other lots include one stories with about 1800 sq ft and two stories with about 2200 sq ft. It was noted that
there are design standards in place,but they are not mandated by the City.
Staff supports the proposed PUD variances. It was pointed out that the 6ft fences in courtyard homes have
not been specifically reviewed,but if allowed they will be outside of the current fence regulations.
The plantings in the development were discussed.
Neil Krueger, 4452 Lake Elmo Ave, is concerned about the water issue. He thanked staff for addressing the
issue.
Richard Smith, 11514 Stillwater Blvd,spoke on behalf of Mary Jane Dupuis. He spoke in opposition to the
walking trail on Outlot H. It was noted that the HOA could create a trail at any later time if it was removed
from the plans.
Bob Engstrom, developer,spoke about the proposal and its unique features.
Mayor Pearson read letter from Mary Jane Dupuis. See Exhibit 20150414 A
It was confirmed that the courtyard fences would have to be 4 feet max,but interior privacy fencing could be
allowed.
The accommodations afforded the surrounding property owners by the developer were explained.
Council Member Fliflet is concerned about safety as many of the streets do not extend through and it can
cause confusion for emergency services.Street naming was further discussed.Mr.Klatt explained that this is a
bigger issue that needs resolution for future developments.
MOTION.- Council Member Smith moved to adopt Resolution No. 2019-23, approvrng the Wildflower at
Lake Elmo Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan subject to 20 conditions of approval. Coun6il
Member Fli flet seconded the motion.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2015
Friendly amendment by Council Member fliflet to amend motion to allow 10 foot side yard setback.
Accepted by Council Member Smith
Friendly amendment by Council Member Fliflet to amend motion to remove the Outlot H loop trail
from the plan.Accepted by Council Member Smith.
The existence of the loop trail and what ability the city has to restrict the use of the property were discussed.
Council Member Bloyer is opposed to Council restricting use of other parties'property.Lundgren supported
Council Member Bloyer called the question. CALL TO QUESTION PASSED 5-0
AMINMOTIONFAILS.2-3(Pearson, Bloyer, and Lundgren).
MOTION.- Council Member Smith movvd to adopt Resolution No. 2015-23, approving the Wildflower at
Lake Elmo Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan subject to 20 conditions of approval and
allow 10 foot side yard setback. Coirneillllember Lnr: gren.seconded the motion.
Council Member Fliflet wishes all the developments in Lake Elmo were like Mr. Engstrom's. His proposal is
exactly what she wants for the Village, and she hopes that future developments follow suit.
Public versus private road maintenance was discussed.
MOTION TO AMEND.Mayor Pearl on moved to AMEND THE MOTION THAT THE ALLEYWAYS
BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED. Conned Member Bloye)• seconded the motion. MOTION TO AMEND
FAILS 1-4(Fliflet, Smith, Bloyer, and Lundgren—Nay).
Council Member Bloyer questioned why this development was not scrutinized strictly as others. Mayor
Pearson voiced his support for the proposal despite it not being completely perfect as it brings diversity in
development.He expressed his desire that all developments can be treated with fair scrutiny despite not being
perfect.
Friendly amendment by Council Member Smith to remove condition #12. Accepted by Council
Member Lundgren.
Roll Call Vote called for by Council Member Bloyer
Fliflet: YEA
Smith: YEA
Pearson: YEA
Bloyer. YEA
Lundgren: YEA
MOTION PASSED 5-0.
Mayor Pearson Adjourned the meeting at 11:39 pm.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
ATTEST. -----
j
/ Mike Pearson,Mayor
R Bell,City Clerk
Page 2 of 2
Anne... Thank you for speaking on our behalf. We would like
you to make sure that all letters of intent between Robert
Engstrom Companies and the 3 neighbor's Richard Smith, Mary
Jean Dupuis and Robert and Marcy Eischen are on record with
the city and honored in there entirety in Phase 1 of the
Wildflower development.
Thanks again; Rich, MJ, Bob and Marcy
September 16,2014
To: Bob and Marcy Eischen
Re: Landscape plan previously prepared and approved by you
Bob and Marcy,
The same plan is attached with our commitment to implement as shown. The plan
includes selected clearing of the property on outlot P contiguous with the Eischen
property as shown. This area will be interspersed with new plant materials as indicated-
Exact locations will be determined in the field by you and Robert Engstrom Companies.
The clearing process is required before new plant material can be installed. The exact
timing for clearing and planting is dependent upon the overall grading schedule for that
portion of outlot P shown. At the time of this agreement it is our hope this will occur in
the spring of 2015 barring any unforeseen delays.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert En trom Companies
ii
.3
,NrP�
►�� .�y{r ri^ ja�,v1, ii,' �►/if' �l.yjl�j i°; , '= ►
IM
1 ?_
elk
Nr
Aw
1i�rar�a`�l�a�i`i�►'� Pilo
0 .iri�:�e�l�����i'q;Q��A•�w„�7��L1�9..��y,��1,Ybh� '
T�f • i~-
i
`I^; Py'` � �� � •S .ice �
- � ROBEl��' �1�T�STROM . COMPA�NI�.S
To: Richard R. Smith '
11514 SWhvaW Blvd.N.
L i,Elmo,MN 55042 ,
In rem to your liter&sod Feb.23,2015,addreised to the IAc Elmo Planning Commissionx
staved,ft item of agrcwu&at our meting with you on Dec. 11,2014,stud as.approvedby the
Dvvelaper,Robeat Bwtmm Comnpanks,and agrwd to as previously statssd.
l. Dmunaftfion of ma&drive*ay as blaldop.
2. Driveway is to Mow current location to east of Oak Tree.
3. Ads is to he provides in Phat 1.
4. ExWing 33easementv8cated
5. New 30' and filing wild the county.
` 6. Smvices: seewhv*w/gas tp Om house at the dewlopees
7.. ,pknhng plan as submitted to you and approved by yosa.
S. Removal of existing power pok m outlot O w69mv!ide new electrical service.
The ale far mmilation end completion of swd items will be vowwcut with phasmg c omplstiaas
of infinsu >oture and servim availabC*.Landscaping will also be completed when situ is suitmble for
Onatin Phys� ally-and svmm&Uy
Resully submitted,
RobatL Commies.
,
RESIVENTIAL COAAMUNITY DEVELOPERS_
4801 West 81st Street'Suite 101 •Minneapolis,Wnnesota 55437
www.engstromco.com 0.(952)893-1001 *Fax(952)893-1841
j
` '
_ "`�.�,�,'�-..�,� ems• - - - - -- - r t1.
0
1l j vno-
♦ ♦
_ r
a