HomeMy WebLinkAbout#16 Wildflower 2nd Addn Final Plat and PUD 12.6.16MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: 12/6/2016
REGULAR
ITEM #: 16
AGENDA ITEM: Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plans
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
THROUGH: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Sarah Sonsalla, City Attorney
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
Mike Bent, Building Official
BACKGROUND:
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.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 24, 2016 and tabled the request to allow Staff
to research perceived stormwater issues related to the Wildflower and Village Preserve Developments and
promised conditions of approval related to the Smith property. The Planning Commission resumed
discussion of the application on 11/14/16 and recommended approval after reviewing findings by the
Valley Branch Watershed District and an understanding of the Smith Property issues.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
The City Council is being requested to adopt Resolution 2016-__ approving the final plat and final PUD
plans for Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition with ten conditions.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
On 11/14/16, the Planning Commission reviewed the Valley Branch Watershed District report on the
stormwater issues and the agreements between the developer and Mr. Smith regarding access and other
improvements promised with the second addition. The Planning Commission determined that that the
stormwater issues are understood and will be resolved with the construction process and that the agreements
between the developer and Mr. Smith were private agreements and not subject to plat approval. It was
determined, however, that two temporary easements that are set to expire with the approval of the second
addition need to be replaced with new temporary easements. Originally, a larger second phase was
anticipated which would have given the Smith property access and utilities. This will now occur with a later
phase. New easements have been made a condition of final plat approval.
City Council Meeting 12/6/2016 Regular Agenda Item #16
Page 2
As outlined in the Planning Commission report, the other outstanding issues are as follows:
Street Names. Street B on the Final Plat has not been given a proper name. This street should be given a
name consistent with the City’s street naming ordinance prior to recording the plat. This has been made a
condition of approval.
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.
This has been made a condition of approval.
Landscape Plan. A revised landscape plan has been submitted for review, but has not been approved.
Approval of the landscape plan and will be required prior to recording the plat. This has been made
condition of approval.
Protective Easement. A condition of preliminary plat was to protect all open space with protective
easements. A protective easement is being prepared to protect Outlot A from any future development.
Execution of the easement agreement is required prior to releasing the plat for recording. This has been
made a condition of approval.
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 in the Planning Commission Report (attached). There are several preliminary plat conditions
that have been carried forward to with this approval.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Street signs and no parking signs shall be installed on City Streets within the development prior
to any building permits being issued.
FISCAL IMPACT:
TBD – the Council will be asked to review a developer’s agreement concerning the final plat at a future
meeting. The agreement will include a detailed accounting of any development costs that will be the
responsibility of the City.
City Council Meeting 12/6/2016 Regular Agenda Item #16
Page 3
OPTIONS:
The City Council must approve the final plat and PUD plans if they are found to be in substantial
conformance with the preliminary plat.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adopting Resolution 2016-106 granting approval of the
Wildflower of Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and PUD Plans with the following motion:
Move to adopt Resolution No. 2016-106 approving the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final
Plat and Final Planned Unit Development Plans.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution 2016-106 approving the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and PUD
Plans.
• Planning Commission report.
1
Resolution 2016-106
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-106
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) PLAN FOR THE WILDFLOWER AT LAKE ELMO 2ND ADDITION 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, Robert Engstrom Companies, 4801 West 81st Street, #101, Bloomington,
MN has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (“City”) for a Final Plat and Final
PUD Plan for the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition planned residential development, a
copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the City approved the Wildflower at Lake Elmo General Concept Plan on
June 17, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the City approved the Wildflower at Lake Elmo Preliminary Plat and
Preliminary PUD Plan on April 7, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final
PUD Plan includes 20 single family residential lots within a planned development on Outlot O,
Wildflower at Lake Elmo; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held public hearing on October 24,
2016 to consider the Final Plat and Final 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 10 conditions of approval on November
14, 2016; 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 December 6, 2016 Council Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final
Plat and Final PUD Plan at its meeting held on December 6, 2016 and made the following
findings of fact:
1) That all the requirements of City Code Section 153.07 related to the Final Plan and Final
Plat have been met by the Applicant, with the exceptions noted in the staff report.
2
Resolution 2016-106
2) That the proposed Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat consists of the
creation of 20 single-family detached residential structures and a courtyard open space
area.
3) 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.
4) 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.
5) 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.
6) 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.
7) That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat complies with the City’s
subdivision ordinance.
8) That the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan complies
with the City’s Planned Unit Development Ordinance.
9) 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby
approve the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan subject to the
following conditions:
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
3
Resolution 2016-106
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.
Passed and duly adopted this 6th day of December, 2016 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
___________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
PLANNING COMMISSION
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 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,
2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
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 pla t
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
3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
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 1st 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 1st 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 2 nd 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:
4
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
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.
5
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
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 nd 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.
6
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
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,
7
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
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.
8
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a
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 2nd 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.
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
PLANNING COMMISSION
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,
2
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
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
3
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
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 1st 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
4
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
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.
5
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
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 first phase 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
6
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
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 o r
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.
7
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
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:
8
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
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 1st 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’
Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com
Memorandum
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southwest of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Project: 23820020.00 2200 346 and 352
c: Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse, John Hanson
Background and Introduction
As the Managers saw during their September 22, 2016, tour, some
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.
Precipitation
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.
Requested Manager Action
Review memo
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southw est of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Page: 2
P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382016\_MovedFromMpls_P\VBWD\2382016\MEETINGS\2016\10272016\ForDeb\Superseded\Memo_KruegersEtc_fringe.docx
Table 1 2007–2016 April–September Precipitation (inches)
Year April May June July August September Total
2016 Not
Available 2.20 4.290 9.30 10.41 5.82 >32.02
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.
Historic Water Levels
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 of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southw est of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Page: 3
P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382016\_MovedFromMpls_P\VBWD\2382016\MEETINGS\2016\10272016\ForDeb\Superseded\Memo_KruegersEtc_fringe.docx
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.
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southw est of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Page: 4
P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382016\_MovedFromMpls_P\VBWD\2382016\MEETINGS\2016\10272016\ForDeb\Superseded\Memo_KruegersEtc_fringe.docx
To: Valley Branch Watershed District Board of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southw est of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Page: 5
P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382016\_MovedFromMpls_P\VBWD\2382016\MEETINGS\2016\10272016\ForDeb\Superseded\Memo_KruegersEtc_fringe.docx
Drainage 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 A and Krueger Property
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 of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southw est of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Page: 6
P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382016\_MovedFromMpls_P\VBWD\2382016\MEETINGS\2016\10272016\ForDeb\Superseded\Memo_KruegersEtc_fringe.docx
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: Valley Branch Watershed District Board of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southw est of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Page: 7
P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382016\_MovedFromMpls_P\VBWD\2382016\MEETINGS\2016\10272016\ForDeb\Superseded\Memo_KruegersEtc_fringe.docx
Table 2 Drainage Areas, Inflow Volumes, and High Water Levels of Wetland A
Drainage Area from South
(acres)
2-Year 2-Hour Storm
Inflow Volume
(acre-feet)
High Water Level
(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 H and 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 of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southw est of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Page: 8
P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382016\_MovedFromMpls_P\VBWD\2382016\MEETINGS\2016\10272016\ForDeb\Superseded\Memo_KruegersEtc_fringe.docx
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.
Wetland 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 Stormwater Management Facilities
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 of Managers
From: John Hanson
Subject: Wildflower at Lake Elmo/Village Preserve/Floodplain Southw est of Goetschel Pond
Date: October 19, 2016
Page: 9
P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382016\_MovedFromMpls_P\VBWD\2382016\MEETINGS\2016\10272016\ForDeb\Superseded\Memo_KruegersEtc_fringe.docx
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.
Wildflowerat Lake Elmo
VillagePreserve
Arbor GlenSenior Living
See Floodplainin Figures 2 & 3Veronica's Pond
44th St
Stillwa
t
e
r
B
l
v
d
N
Li
l
y
Av
e
N
LittleBlueCir N
La
k
e
E
l
m
o
A
v
e
N
La
v
e
r
n
e
Av
e
N
Little
BlueCir N
44
t
h
S
t
L
a
Li
l
y
Av
e
N
L
i
l
y
A
v
e
N
Lady Slipper La N
43rd St N
Li
t
t
l
e
B
l
u
e
S
t
e
m
T
r
N
Little Blue Stem La
39th St N
456717
456714
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
4
,
2
0
1
6
-
1
0
-
2
1
1
5
:
1
2
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
V
B
W
D
\
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
\
W
o
r
k
_
O
r
d
e
r
s
\
O
u
t
_
o
f
_
S
c
o
p
e
\
S
i
t
e
_
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
_
M
a
p
p
i
n
g
\
2
0
1
6
_
S
i
t
e
m
a
p
s
\
S
W
_
G
o
e
t
s
c
h
e
l
\
F
i
g
0
1
_
L
o
c
a
l
_
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
m
b
s
2
Developed Subwatershed Boundary
Major Subwatershed Boundary
Imagery: USDA NAIP, 2015
I
350 0 350
Feet
Figure 1
LOCAL DEVELOPMENTSValley Branch Watershed DistrictWashington County, Minnesota
*Vertical Datum: NAVD88
%
%
%
%%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%%%
%
%%
%%
%
%
%
%
Wetland A
Low Area FilledWith Development
Veronica's Pond
Le
a
f
Av
e
N
LeafAve
N
43rd St N
La
k
e
E
l
m
o
A
v
e
N
456717
922.5
919.9
909.9
920.5
913.4
911.6
923.7
913.6
918.4
921.6
906.1
906.4
909.6904.3
914.7
917
910.8916.3
913.5916.6
921.2
916.7
914.4
913.7
920.5'
915'
916.9'
910
920
94
0
940
930
920
920
950 940
9
4
0
90
0
900
9
3
0
930
920
930
930
9
3
0
9
2
0 930
920
9
1
0
910
922
914
908
906
932
924
916
912
904
926
918
938
936
9
3
4
926
924
9
2
2
928
938936
932
92
8
926
924
922
926
922
918
916928
924
952
948
946
944
942
928926924
922
9
4
2
9
3
8
9
3
6
9
3
4
928
926
924
922
9
2
6
9
2
2
928
926
924
922
926
924 926
924922
9
2
2
9
1
6
916
912
9
0
6
9
0
2
904
92
6
9
2
4
92
2
91
4
9
1
2
902
938
936
93
2
932
924922
92
2
91
6
91
4
914
912
9
4
8
9
4
6
9
2
2
9
1
8
908
906
9
0
8
9
0
6
928
902
934
918
932
932
92
4
924
928
918
91
6
9
1
4
916
904
9
2
2
92
4
91
6
912
914
9
1
2
90
8
9
0
6
954
948
944
9
4
4
944
942
942
932
932
926
926
92
4
924
922
92
2
9
2
2
918 918
918
918
91
8
9
1
8
918
91
6
91
6
914
9
1
4912
906
926 922
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
4
,
2
0
1
6
-
1
0
-
2
1
1
5
:
1
6
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
V
B
W
D
\
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
\
W
o
r
k
_
O
r
d
e
r
s
\
O
u
t
_
o
f
_
S
c
o
p
e
\
S
i
t
e
_
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
_
M
a
p
p
i
n
g
\
2
0
1
6
_
S
i
t
e
m
a
p
s
\
S
W
_
G
o
e
t
s
c
h
e
l
\
F
i
g
0
2
_
S
W
_
G
o
e
t
s
c
h
e
l
_
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
_
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
m
b
s
2
%Depression Area Low Point Overflow Elevation (ft)
Local Depression Boundary
Inundation Extents to Local Overflow Point
100-Year Floodplain Labeled with1% Probability Flood Level (ft)
Contours (DNR, November 2011)
2-Foot Contour
10-Foot Contour
Imagery: Washington County, 2013
I
250 0 250
Feet
Figure 2
SOUTHWEST GOETSCHELWATERSHED DETAILValley Branch Watershed DistrictWashington County, Minnesota
*Vertical Datum: NAVD88
Veronica's Pond
Le
a
f
Av
e
N
LeafAve
N
43rd St N
La
k
e
E
l
m
o
A
v
e
N
456717
910
920
94
0
940
930
920
920
950 940
9
4
0
90
0
900
9
3
0
930
920
930
930
9
3
0
920
930
920
910
910
922
914
908
906
932
924
916
912
904
926
918
938
936
9
3
4
926
924
9
2
2
928
938936
932
92
8
926
924
922
926
922
918
916928
924
952
948
946
944
942
928926924
922
9
4
2
9
3
8
9
3
6
9
3
4
928
926
924
922
9
2
2
91
8
928
926
924
922
926
924 926
924922
9
2
2
9
1
6
916
912
9
0
6
9
0
2
904
92
6
9
2
4
92
2
91
4
9
1
2
902
938
936
93
2
932
924922
92
2
91
6
91
4
914
912
9
4
8
9
4
6
9
2
2
9
1
8
908
906
928
902
934
918
932
932
92
6
92
4
924
928
918
91
6
9
1
4 916
904
9
2
2
92
4
91
6
912
914
9
1
2
90
8
9
0
6
954
948
944
9
4
4
944
942
942
932
932
926
926
92
4
924
922
92
2
9
2
2
918 918
918
918
91
8
918
91
6
91
6
914
9
1
4912
9
0
6
906
926 922
915'
915'
915'
915'
915'
915'
916.9'
InfiltrationBasin200
InfiltrationBasin 300
InfiltrationBasin 2
InfiltrationBasin 1
Infiltration
Wet Pond 200
Wet Pond 2
Wetland B
Wetland C
Wetland A
Wetland G
Wetland H
Wetland F
Wetland E
Wetland D
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
4
,
2
0
1
6
-
1
0
-
2
0
1
4
:
4
7
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
V
B
W
D
\
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
\
W
o
r
k
_
O
r
d
e
r
s
\
O
u
t
_
o
f
_
S
c
o
p
e
\
S
i
t
e
_
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
_
M
a
p
p
i
n
g
\
2
0
1
6
_
S
i
t
e
m
a
p
s
\
S
W
_
G
o
e
t
s
c
h
e
l
\
F
i
g
0
2
_
S
W
_
G
o
e
t
s
c
h
e
l
_
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
_
M
a
p
_
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
m
b
s
2
Primary Overflow
Secondary Overflow
Wetland
Wet Pond
Infiltration Basin
Developed Inundation Extents Labeledwith 1% Probability Flood Level (ft)
Developed Subwatersheds
Original Goetschel Pond Subwatershed
Contours (DNR, November 2011)
2-Foot Contour
10-Foot Contour
Imagery: USDA NAIP, 2015
I
250 0 250
Feet
Figure 3
SOUTHWEST GOETSCHELDEVELOPED WATERSHED DETAILValley Branch Watershed DistrictWashington County, Minnesota
*Vertical Datum: NAVD88
%
%
%
%
%
%
La
k
e
E
l
m
o
A
v
e
N
43rd St N
456717
919.9
914.7
917
916.3
916.6
93
0
92
0
93
0
920
9
1
0
92
0
920
9
4
0
920
Wetland A
9
3
8
9
3
6
9
3
4
93
2
92
8 92
6 92
4 92
2
91
8
91
6
91
4
91
2
92
8
92
6
92
4
92
2
918
932
914
91
6
9
1
4
9
1
2
9
0
8
92
4
92
2
91
6
916
914
922
91
4
91
2
91
6
91
4
91
4
912
91
2
906
918
9
2
2
91
6
90
4
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
4
,
2
0
1
6
-
1
0
-
2
1
1
5
:
2
1
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
V
B
W
D
\
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
\
W
o
r
k
_
O
r
d
e
r
s
\
O
u
t
_
o
f
_
S
c
o
p
e
\
S
i
t
e
_
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
_
M
a
p
p
i
n
g
\
2
0
1
6
_
S
i
t
e
m
a
p
s
\
S
W
_
G
o
e
t
s
c
h
e
l
\
F
i
g
0
4
_
L
a
k
e
_
E
l
m
o
_
A
v
e
_
D
e
t
a
i
l
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
m
b
s
2
%Depression Area Low Point Overflow Elevation (ft)
Inundation to 914.7 Feet(Overflow Elevation)
Inundation to 916.9 Feet(100-Year Flood Level)
Developed Subwatersheds
Original Goetschel Pond Subwatershed
Culvert (Approximate Location)
Contours (DNR, November 2011)
2-Foot Contour
10-Foot Contour
Imagery: Washington County, 2013
I
80 0 80
Feet
Figure 4
LAKE ELMO AVENUE DETAILValley Branch Watershed DistrictWashington County, Minnesota
*Vertical Datum: NAVD88
!
KruegerOutbuilding
Veronica's Pond
Li
l
y
Av
e
N
44th St
Lit
t
l
e
Blu
e
Cir
N
L
e
a
f
A
v
e
N
Stillwa
t
e
r
B
l
v
d
N
LittleBlueCir N
Li
l
y
Av
e
N
La
k
e
E
l
m
o
A
v
e
N
La
v
e
r
n
e
A
v
e
N
44
t
h
S
t
L
a
L
i
t
t
l
e
B
l
u
e
S
t
e
m
T
r
N
Li
l
y
A
v
e
N
Lady Slipper La N
Little B
l
u
e
S
t
e
m
L
a
43rd St N
39th St N
456717
456714
920
94
0
90091
0
94
0
9
5
0
92
0
9
5
0
940
930
930
930
940
93
0
930
940
940
92
0
9
3
0
910
930
910
930
930
9
3
0
930
920
920
90
0
890
9
3
0
930
910
9
0
0
906
904
922
918
916
924
914
926
908
938
92
2
91
2
90
8
9
0
2
8
9
8
8
9
6
8
9
2
904
894
91
4
93
8
9
3
4
9
3
2
926
924
928
922
944
932928
924
92
6
92
2
9
6
2
9
5
8
95
6
9
5
4
9
4
8
94
6
92
8
926
924
922
92
4
9
4
8
9
4
6 952
944
942
946
942
938
936
942 9
3
8
928926
922
924
922
942
938
938
934
932
934
926
922
918
932
928
928
924
9
1
6
914
906
904
942
93
6
9
3
6
934
938
93
6
932928
926
922
922
922
918
914
912
9
3
6
93
4
92
8
92
6
926
9
2
4
9
3
4
92
8
912
9
0
2
91
8
9
1
6
918
952
944
934
924
9
1
2
96
8
934
932
91
2
948
93
2
9
2
8
9
2
2
9
1
8
9
1
6
90
8
902
934
932
928
924
922
9
1
8
91691
6
914
9
1
4
9
1
2
908
904
902
95
4
954
94
6
948
94
6
9
4
4
94
4
944
942
936
9
3
6
936
9
3
2
932
934
93
2
928
928
928
926
924
926
926
9
2
4
92
2
92
4
9
2
4
922
922
922
922
918
916
918
91
8
918
916
91
6
9
1
6
914
9
1
4
91
2
91
2
912
90
8
9
0
8
906
906
9
0
6
9
0
6
9
0
6
Wetland B Wetland C
Wetland A
Wetland G
Wetland H
Wetland F
Wetland E
Wetland D
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
4
,
2
0
1
6
-
1
0
-
2
0
1
4
:
4
4
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
V
B
W
D
\
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
\
W
o
r
k
_
O
r
d
e
r
s
\
O
u
t
_
o
f
_
S
c
o
p
e
\
S
i
t
e
_
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
_
M
a
p
p
i
n
g
\
2
0
1
6
_
S
i
t
e
m
a
p
s
\
S
W
_
G
o
e
t
s
c
h
e
l
\
F
i
g
0
5
_
P
r
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
_
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
_
A
r
e
a
s
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
m
b
s
2
Pre-Development Subwatershed Boundary
Downs Lake Watershed
Goetschel Pond Watershed
Contours (DNR, November 2011)
2-Foot Contour
10-Foot Contour
Imagery: Washington County, 2013
I
400 0 400
Feet
Figure 5
PRE-DEVELOPMENTDRAINAGE AREASValley Branch Watershed DistrictWashington County, Minnesota
*Vertical Datum: NAVD88
Veronica's Pond
Li
l
y
Av
e
N
44th St
Lit
t
l
e
Blu
e
Cir
N
L
e
a
f
A
v
e
N
Stillwa
t
e
r
B
l
v
d
N
LittleBlueCir N
Li
l
y
Av
e
N
La
k
e
E
l
m
o
A
v
e
N
La
v
e
r
n
e
A
v
e
N
44
t
h
S
t
L
a
L
i
t
t
l
e
B
l
u
e
S
t
e
m
T
r
N
Li
l
y
A
v
e
N
Lady Slipper La N
Little B
l
u
e
S
t
e
m
L
a
43rd St N
39th St N
456717
456714
InfiltrationBasin 200
InfiltrationBasin 300
InfiltrationBasin 2
InfiltrationBasin 1
InfiltrationBasin 100
Infiltration
Infiltration
Wet Pond 200
Wet Pond 2
Wet Pond 3
Wet Pond 4
Wet Pond 100
Wetland B Wetland C
Wetland A
Wetland G
Wetland H
Wetland F
Wetland E
Wetland D
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
4
,
2
0
1
6
-
1
0
-
2
0
1
5
:
1
3
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
V
B
W
D
\
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
\
W
o
r
k
_
O
r
d
e
r
s
\
O
u
t
_
o
f
_
S
c
o
p
e
\
S
i
t
e
_
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
_
M
a
p
p
i
n
g
\
2
0
1
6
_
S
i
t
e
m
a
p
s
\
S
W
_
G
o
e
t
s
c
h
e
l
\
F
i
g
0
6
_
P
o
s
t
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
_
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
_
A
r
e
a
s
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
m
b
s
2
Wetland
Wet Pond
Infiltration Basin
Developed Subwatershed Boundary
Downs Lake Watershed
Goetschel Pond Watershed
Imagery: UDSA NAIP, 2015
I
400 0 400
Feet
Figure 6
POST-DEVELOPMENTDRAINAGE AREASValley Branch Watershed DistrictWashington County, Minnesota
*Vertical Datum: NAVD88