HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ-Agenda-Packet-3-9-15
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 747-3900
www.lakeelmo.org
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday, March 9, 2015 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. February 23, 2015
4. Business Items
a. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY
PUD PLAN – WILDFLOWER AT LAKE ELMO Robert Engstrom Companies
has submitted a preliminary plat related to a 145-unit single family residential
subdivision to be called Wildflower at Lake Elmo. The proposed subdivision will
be located in the northern portion of the Village Planning Area. Of the total site
area of 117.84 acres, the developer is proposing to set aside over 40 acres for a
nature conservancy
5. Public Hearings
a. BOULDER PONDS FINAL PLAT, FINAL PUD PLAN AND ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT - The Planning Commission will consider a Final Plat, Final
PUD Plan and Zoning map Amendment for Boulder Ponds, a residential
development in Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning area. The Boulder ponds
Final Plat includes 47 residential lots. The subject properties are located
immediately north of Hudson Blvd and East of the Eagle Point Business Park.
The PID’s for the subject properties are 34.029.21.33.0001, 34.029.21.33.0002
and 34.029.21.32.0001.
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates – February 24, 2015 Meeting
i. Wendy Griffin was appointed 1st Alternate to Planning Commission.
ii. Hammes Estates 1st Addition Development Agreement Passed.
iii. Savona Preliminary Plat Resolution Resolution Amendment Passed.
b. City Council Updates – March 3, 2015 Meeting
i. Zoning Text Amendment – adding Liquor Stores to CC Zoning -
Approved
2
ii. Easton Village Final Plat - Approved
iii. Easton Village Developer Agreement - Approved
iv. Lennar Sketch Plan - Reviewed
c. Staff Updates
i. Upcoming Meetings:
• March 23, 2015
• April 13, 2015
• Future Joint Meeting with EDA
d. Commission Concerns
7. Adjourn
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of February 23, 2015
Chairman Dodson called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Dodson, Kreimer, Larson and Dorschner
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Haggard
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt and City Planner Johnson
Approve Agenda:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Approve Minutes: January 26, 2015
M/S/P: Williams/Larson, move to approve minutes as amended, Vote: 5-0, motion
carried, unanimously.
Public Hearing: Variance – 3033 Inwood Avenue N
Johnson started his presentation by explaining the variance request is for an accessory
building forward of the principal structure that does not meet the required 100-foot
front yard setback in Residential Estates. This property has unique constraints due to
topography, a BP pipeline easement and the location of septic drainfield. In addition,
the lot is a corner lot abutting two County roads (CSAH 13 and CSAH 6) and has above
average levels of traffic.
Johnson stated that from staff’s perspective, the 4 criteria for a variance would be met
and staff is recommending approval.
Williams asked the applicant if there wasn’t a more suitable location that didn’t require
a variance. The applicant stated that the location being requested is the best option,
and there is an added benefit that the structure would help block some of the noise
from the traffic of the busy nearby roads.
Public Hearing opened at 7:23pm
Greg McGrath, 1509 15th Street Court, wanted to congratulate the applicant for the
work and improvements he has made to the property. He spoke in favor of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-23-15
2
variance. He also noted that the front setbacks in the RE district limits a property
owner’s ability to use their property.
Staff noted that no written comments were received.
Public Hearing closed at 7:25pm.
Williams noted that he is not in favor of recommending approval of the variance. There
was discussion about the proposed location of the structure. Williams suggested that
the structure be moved further to the north to provide greater setback to the southern
property line. Johnson provided clarification that the proposed location of the structure
would meet the required setback from the southern property line. It is the 100-foot
setback from the western property line for which the applicant is requesting a variance.
Williams withdrew his objection based upon the clarification.
M/S/P: Dorschner/Larson, move to recommend approval of the variance request at
3033 Inwood Ave N to allow the construction of an accessory structure nearer the front
lot line than the principal structure and within the 100 foot setback from the front
property line based on the findings identified in the Staff Report, Vote: 5-0, motion
carried, unanimously.
During the discussion, the motion was amended by Kreimer to state that the accessory
building will be substantially similar to the principal structure, seconded by Williams.
Johnson noted that the Zoning Code already has language related to the building
materials and appearance of accessory buildings as they relate to principal structure. He
noted that this provision in the Zoning Code is in 154.406.E.
Kreimer withdrew the motion, Williams accepted the withdrawal of the motion.
Public Hearing: Zoning Text Amendment – Liquor Stores, Convenience Commercial
Zoning District
Johnson began his presentation by explaining that the request is for a zoning text
amendment to allow liquor stores as a permitted use in the Convenience Commercial
(CC) zoning district. There are only 2 properties in Lake Elmo that currently have this
zoning designation. The CC district was added in 2012 as part of the Zoning Code
update that added the urban residential and commercial zoning districts. Johnson
stated that requested action is to decide if liquor stores are an appropriate use for this
zoning district, as opposed to deciding whether a liquor store is appropriate on one
specific site. In deciding the actual location of liquor stores, the liquor license process is
the correct review mechanism.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-23-15
3
Keith Carlson noted that the Liquor Store would service the local community, and there
have been multiple requests for that use. He noted that there are presently no other
liquor stores in close proximity to the commercial property he owns.
Public Hearing opened at 7:59pm
No one spoke.
Public Hearing closed at 8:00pm
M/S/P: Williams/Dorschner, move to recommend approval of the requested Zoning Text
Amendment to change liquor stores to a permitted use in the Convenience Commercial
Zoning District based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report, Vote: 4-1, motion
carried with Larson voting no.
Larson referenced the U of M study about businesses in Lake Elmo. He noted that the
City already has more than average amount of liquor sales. He does not support the
motion, as he does not support further expansion of liquor stores as a use in the
community.
Williams asked the staff to do some research about size specifications and proximity
specifications for liquor stores.
M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to direct staff to conduct research about 3 items:
proximity to liquor stores, size of liquor stores, and maximum size of convenience
commercial parcels, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing: Wildflower at Lake Elmo Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan
Klatt started his presentation regarding the application for a residential subdivision on
117 acres. This plan includes 145 single family lots and roughly half the site is preserved
as open space in the form of a nature conservancy, storm water ponds and parklands.
Klatt noted that the gross density of the site is 1.2 units per acre. The net density of the
developed portion of the site is 3.5 units per acre of the site.
Klatt highlighted the fact that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was completed at the
time of the Concept Plan. The Met Council has since approved the requested Comp Plan
Amendment. Moving on, Klatt presented the approved Concept Plan. He highlighted
the changes between the Concept Plan and the proposed Preliminary Plat. The largest
change from Concept to Preliminary relates to the cul-de-sac in the northern portion of
the site. This residential area previously was accessed off Lake Elmo Ave, whereas now
it is accessed from the Wildflower neighborhood to the southeast. This change
occurred due to the need to run sanitary sewer to the residential sites.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-23-15
4
Klatt then described the area in the northern portion of the site, which is planned for a
nature conservancy. The northern portion has multiple wetlands in the area. The
developer is planning to use the northern portion for storm water purposes, as well as a
natural area to promote natural habitat and pollinators.
Klatt provided an overview of the feedback and comments from the surrounding
property owners. He noted that 3 letters have been submitted. One of the letters,
submitted by the Dupuis family, request that the trail in the northeastern portion of the
site be moved further away from their property boundary.
In relation to PUDs, Klatt noted why the PUD tool is being utilized in this case. In
addition, he identified the specific requests for flexibility as allowed under the PUD
ordinance. The flexibility requests include reduced lot size and setback requirements for
the courtyard homes, streets that do not meet the City standard for width, and a cul-de-
sac that exceeds the City’s standard for maximum length.
Klatt then presented specific details about the proposed street widths, comparing them
to the City’s minimum standards. This is one area where staff does not agree with the
applicant. More specifically, the City Engineer and Fire Chief are concerned about the
street width from a maintenance, snow removal, and emergency services access
standpoint.
One other critical note that Klatt highlighted is that the sanitary sewer that is available
to the site is currently not operational. One segment of the trunk gravity sewer from
the lift station to the railroad tracks is yet to be completed. The Easton Village
development has submitted plans to complete this segment of the sewer. The City
Council will review this development on March 3rd.
Klatt also noted that with regards to the stormwater management of the development,
the applicant is proposing to move stormwater to the north to the Goetschel Pond sub-
watershed. The Valley Branch Watershed District has reviewed this proposal and
completed a study. The watershed has agreed in concept to allow the stormwater to
move to the north.
To wrap up the presentation, Klatt identified the following critical path issues:
• Street widths – developer proposal vs. staff recommendation.
• Conservation easements – revised easement should be recorded prior to
approval of Final Plat.
• Plat Dedication and Modifications – all right-of-way and stormwater pond areas
will need to be dedicated or easements provided.
• Floodplain areas need to be addressed and either need to follow FEMA rules or
be taken out of the Floodplain areas.
• Rain garden areas need to be reduced or minimized.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-23-15
5
Klatt discussed the draft findings recommended by staff. Staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the Wildflower Preliminary Plat and
Preliminary PUD Plan, subject to 19 conditions of approval.
Finally, Klatt showed three additional exhibits submitted by the applicant: 1) Phasing
Plan, 2) additional landscaping and screening exhibit and 3) a concept site plan for the
park area.
Dodson asked about the flood plain. Klatt explained the process and noted that staff will
consult with the watershed district. Dodson asked if staff knew how long it would take
to resolve the issue. Klatt did not know for sure, but noted that the area in the flood
plain is proposed as the last phase of the development.
Larson asked how high Goetschel pond could rise and what type of damage could occur
if additional stormwater is directed there. Johnson stated that the study indicated that
the pond has been low since the early 2000’s. In addition, the watershed study revealed
that the previous 100-year flood elevation reduced significantly with the more detailed
study.
Williams asked if Condition #9 regarding the street standards included sidewalks. Klatt
noted that the standard does include sidewalks. Williams asked if condition #8 of VBWD
report regarding pond is included somewhere in report. Klatt stated that is included in
condition 19. Williams noted finding 19 should be VBWD, not South Washington.
Williams asked about the tradeoff for Outlot N.
Dodson asked about the impact to the City of the rain gardens. He asked if the
maintenance is heavy. Dorschner noted that the rain gardens do require maintenance to
ensure that they drain properly. Williams asked if the HOA could maintain the rain
gardens. Klatt noted that they could maintain them, however, the City will still likely
need to be involved as they are located within the right-of-way. Klatt noted that if the
City is going to take on more rain gardens, there needs to be a more robust
maintenance program or policy in place. Williams asked how many rain gardens should
be eliminated. Klatt was not sure, but would work with the Engineer.
Dodson asked about the request to allow duplexes. The developer noted that the plan
to include a minimal amount to duplexes has been eliminated. Dodson asked if the
Concept Plan had any conditions with regards to single family design standards. Klatt
noted that no such condition was included.
Kreimer asked which trails would be paved and which would be grass. Klatt noted that
the public trails would be paved, and the HOA maintained trails may be grass in some
cases.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-23-15
6
Williams asked about accessing the trails. Klatt noted that there would be parking
available on the public streets.
Dodson asked about the “tear-drop” cul-de-sacs. Klatt noted that the Engineer is
recommending that they be designed for emergency and maintenance vehicles to
maneuver safely.
Larson asked if there is any parking available on Lake Elmo Avenue. Klatt noted that
parking is allowed in some areas, but there may be difficulties due to a bypass lane in
the areas for 43rd Ave. N. Larson also asked about making a trail connection to Fields of
St. Croix in the northern portion of the conservancy. Klatt noted that the City would
need to acquire the land or an easement to make the trail connection public.
Bob Engstrom discussed the street naming of the development. He discussed his
preference of looking at alternative street names that are not consistent with the
County street naming system. Engstrom discussed the purpose of the rain gardens. He
noted they are not required, but are above and beyond the watershed standard. He
recognized recognizes the maintenance concerns associated with the rain gardens.
Engstrom then moved on to the design of the streets. He noted that he does not agree
with the Engineer’s recommendations. He noted that there are many 18 foot roads in
Fields of St. Croix.
Williams asked about Mr. Smith’s letter which indicated he was waiting for a letter of
intent. Mr. Engstrom stated he would work on that.
Dorschner asked for clarification about street width and parking. Engstrom went over
the width of roads and single side and 2 sided parking.
Engstrom noted that the MN Land Trust is no longer party to the agreement with Fields
of St. Croix.
Dodson asked who the builders would be. Engstrom listed some of the participating
builders such as Hartman Homes, Redstone, TJB, etc. Dodson asked if the covenants for
the development would include architectural controls. Engstrom noted that there would
be standards in place based on some specific principles, such as 4-sided architecture.
Dodson asked when the developer would give control of the HOA to the neighborhood.
Engstrom noted that the control would transfer at 75% buildout.
To finish his comments, Engstrom noted that the trail system will include native species
specifically intended for pollinators. There will be an educational component.
Public Hearing opened at 9:42pm.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-23-15
7
John Hodler, 11834 44th Street Lane N, Fields of St. Croix, noted that the Fields of St.
Croix HOA identified 40 issues to resolve in order to support the Wildflower
development. He noted that they are down to 1 or 2 remaining issues. Hodler stated
that the Fields HOA supports the rain gardens, as it reduces the amount of water that
would go to the north. In addition, the Fields HOA also would like special attention paid
to the home on the eastern boundary of the development, some of which currently
need to pump water via their sump pumps. Hodler also noted that the Fields of St. Croix
would like additional capacity in the sanitary sewer in case the Fields neighborhood
chose to connect to the City sewer system. He asked Engstrom which phase of the
Wildflower development included the sewer stub to Fields of St. Croix. Engstrom noted
it would be Phase II of the development. Hodler wanted it known that the sewer
connection is critical for the fields neighborhood. Paul Thomas, Pioneer Engineering,
explained that the sewer stub is readily available as part of Phase I of the development.
In other words, if the Fields of St. Croix neighborhood needs to connect to sewer before
Phase II moved forward, the stub is easily accessible. Dorschner asked if the City
Engineer has reviewed the proposed additional capacity needed to serve other
neighborhoods. Klatt noted that the City Engineer has confirmed that there is additional
capacity.
Richard Smith, 11514 Stillwater Blvd N., read a letter from Robert and Marcy Eischen,
who reside at 11676 Stillwater Blvd North. He also highlighted the comments noted in
the letter submitted by Mary Jean Dupuis. Finally, Smith presented his letter and made
some additional comments about commitments made to Smith from Engstrom.
Williams asked if an additional condition of approval would be warranted. Klatt noted
that it could be incorporated.
Neil Krueger, 4452 Lake Elmo Ave. N., thanked staff and the City for the notification. He
noted that communication is critical to build community. Krueger asked where the
water will outlet from Wildflower at Lake Elmo to Geostchel Pond. He noted his
concern about the storm water in the northwestern cul-de-sac area. He noted that they
have not received adequate answers to some of their questions. Williams asked which
questions remain unanswered. Kreuger noted the following questions:
1) How does the water flow to Geotschel Pond, physically.
2) How does the stormwater plan impact the water in and out of their property.
Deb Krueger, 4452 Lake Elmo Ave. N., noted that she has lived in the community for a
long period of time and worked hard to complete a vision for the community that
included open space and greenbelts. She is concerned that this vision has been lost. She
also supported the previous comments about the importance of communication. She
reiterated their concern about flooding or additional water being directed to their
property. She asked if it is the liability of the City to ensure that no additional
stormwater be directed to their property. Deb Krueger noted that there should be a
guarantee that the trails be public. She also suggested that some trails be constructed of
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-23-15
8
pervious material. To wrap up, she asked if the City will be responsible for the culvert in
between the Krueger property and the Wildflower development. Williams asked who is
responsible for the culvert. Klatt confirmed that if the culvert is in County right-of-way,
then the County is responsible. Deb asked that no parking be allowed on Lake Elmo
Avenue. Dodson noted that the road is County jurisdiction.
Williams asked the Engineer of record how the water travels to Goetschel pond. He
notes that water travels overland in the northeastern portion of the site. The Engineer,
Paul Thomas, noted that additional capacity is being provided in the flood plain area to
address the added water volume. The Kruegers noted that the pond just east of Lake
Elmo Ave has overflowed and gone across the road to the Krueger property.
Matt Frisbee, representing Mike Lynsky, noted that the Lynsky group would like to be
part for the dialogue regarding the grading of Layton Ave. North. They would also like to
discuss potential connections to Layton that may serve the Lysnky parcels. Finally, they
wanted to ensure proper erosion control.
Three letters were submitted into the public record from the surrounding landowners
(Eischen, Smith and Dupuis).
Public Hearing closed at 10:37pm.
Williams noted that he is concerned about acting on this item tonight. The surface water
management is the big issue including how many rain gardens would be considered
acceptable by the City Engineer. He also asked if the medians could be increased in
place of the rain gardens.
There was a discussion of the ownership of the trails. Klatt noted that the City is
beginning conversations with various HOAs about connections of private trails to public
trails.
Williams requested additional information about the impact of the storm water system
on the Fields of St. Croix drainfield. He suggested it be reviewed by the City Engineer.
Klatt noted that the stormwater management plan has been reviewed by the City
Engineer and Valley Branch Watershed District. Through these reviews, no major
concerns were identified related to the Fields drainfield or the culvert in between
Wildflower and the Krueger property. There was additional discussion about the storm
water management of the site.
There was discussion about whether to table consideration of the application, or take
action this evening. The majority felt there needed to be more answers, especially
regarding the storm water plan.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-23-15
9
Williams requested comment from the engineer, public works and fire department
about the concerns related to narrower streets. Planning staff shared some of the
common concerns that public works, fire and the engineers share with regards to
narrower streets.
Kreimer noted that he feels that the storm water issue is too important not to get more
information before taking action.
The Planning Commission then discussed the proposed conditions and findings:
Condition #4: Changed to read – The developer has requested the inclusion of public art
within common areas and public property throughout Wildflower development. Prior
to 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 art installations
can conflict with the dark skies ordinance.
Condition #7: Changed to read – The utility construction plans shall be updated prior to
final plat, to incorporate the recommendations of the City Engineer’s memo dated
February 18, 2015, 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.
Condition #11: There was a general discussion about this condition, which Klatt stated is
a general condition for all developments. There was no change made.
Add Condition #20: documentation be provided to establish easement and access to the
Smith property prior to final plat.
Condition #13: there was discussion about allowing variation of the street names. The
Commission decided to keep the condition in place and utilize the County street naming
system.
Condition #18: There was discussion about the timing of the sewer segment yet to be
completed. Klatt explained the intent of the condition and timing of the upcoming
review by the City Council on March 3rd. This issue might be resolved by the time the
application returns to the Planning Commission should they postpone consideration.
Williams suggested an additional finding of fact that reads - the change in conservation
easements on Outlots O and P are justified due to the much greater amount of
conserved open space received in return.
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to postpone taking action on the Wildflower Preliminary
Plat to gather additional information, vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-23-15
10
Items for further info:
1) Rain gardens and specifically how many.
2) Could the road medians be expanded in place of raingardens.
3) Narrow streets – what are specific problems associated with them.
4) Fields of St. Croix drainfield - Are there problems with directing water across.
5) Drainage issue near Krueger property – Are there any issues with culver and
flooding with this area.
Planning Commission suggested that the Engineer attend the meeting.
There was a discussion about the extra-long cul-de-sac and Williams suggested an
additional finding of fact.
M/S/P: Williams/Dorschner, move to amend the motion to add additional finding of fact
regarding extra-long cul-de-sac, vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously.
Finding reads: The extra-long cul-de-sac is justified based on the unique circumstances
of this property and development.
Business Item: Lennar Homes Sketch Plan – Diedrich/Reider Property
Klatt started his presentation by going over the sketch plan for a proposed residential
subdivision for a 50 unit single family detached development on 14.35 acres. This
subdivision is located in the I-94 corridor along Lake Elmo Ave and immediately north of
Hunter’s Crossing.
No formal action is required with the sketch plan.
Klatt noted that the site was the subject of a previous Comp Plan Amendment, changing
the guidance of the site from high density to medium density residential. The site is just
north of the Hunters Crossing single family subdivision. The gross density is 3.48 units
per acre, and the net density is 4.17 units per acre, which is near the low end of the
allowed range for medium density (4-7.5 units per acre). Klatt noted that the layout of
the subdivision is straightforward, as there is limited area on the parcel to have a much
different layout. In addition, the timing of the development may be good, as the
applicants could participate in the full construction of 5th Street.
Williams asked about the proposed zoning of the property. He noted that the
application stated that the zoning would need to be PUD. Klatt confirmed that the
proposed plan would meet the zoning standards for the MDR zoning district.
There was discussion about the possibility of trail connections to the cul-de-sacs.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-23-15
11
Kreimer asked if the access spacing would be acceptable to have driveways near the
entrance of the development, as is the case with one of the twin homes. Klatt stated
that he would bring that up with the engineer.
Dodson asked if the development had been reviewed by the Park Commission. Klatt
noted they still needed to schedule review by the Park Commission.
There was a question about the adjacent golf course, if that would cause a problem.
There is not a major concern, as there is a power line easement that provides a buffer.
In addition, the golf course is down an incline from the development.
Paul Tabone spoke about the development. He noted that the product is a twin home
that is a side by side home. There will be a homeowners association. They are planning
on submitting a preliminary plat this spring. The development could be built in one or
two phases.
Williams asked if the streets would be public or private. Klatt noted that the street
would need to be public per code. There will be further discussion on the nature of the
ownership of the road.
Williams made two recommendations: 1) that a trail connection be made to the eastern
cul-de-sac, and 2) that Lennar makes every effort to construct 5th street with Ryland
Homes as part of one project.
Tabone asked if the Commission saw any other red flags since they are in the
preliminary stage.
Dodson recommended that some design standard for the garage doors be considered.
Williams suggested that recessing the garage doors is a good technique. There was
additional discussion about the design of the twin homes.
Updates and Concerns
Council Updates – February 3, 2015 Meeting
1. Blinkoff Pool – Sale of Property and Vacation of Park Land was approved.
2. Easton Village Final Plat – Tabled by the City Council.
3. Planning Commission 2015 Work Plan was accepted.
4. Staff presented the 5th Street design to Council.
5. Approval of Municipal Consent of Phase I of Downtown Street and Utility
Project
6. Appointment of Gary Fields as Full Voting Member of Planning
Commission
Staff Updates
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-23-15
12
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. March 9, 2015
b. Future Joint Meeting with EDA – still undetermined
Commission Concerns
Klatt discussed the distribution and better access to upcoming application and
development plans.
Meeting adjourned at 11:52 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-23-15
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 3/9/15
AGENDA ITEM:5A –PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #2015-05
ITEM: Boulder Ponds – Final Plat, Final PUD Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
South Washington Watershed District
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
Stephen Mastey, Landscape Architecture, Inc.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider an application for a Final Plat, Final PUD Plan
and Zoning Map Amendment submitted by OP4 Boulder Ponds, LLC. The Final Plat application
represents the first phase of the Boulder Ponds residential development and includes 47 single family
residential lots. The proposed project is located immediately north of Hudson Blvd. N., immediately
east of the Eagle Point Business Park and immediately south of the Stonegate residential estates (RE)
subdivision. In addition to the plat and PUD request, the applicants are requesting a zoning map
amendment to implement the necessary zoning associated with the planned development. Staff is
recommending approval of the zoning map amendment and is recommending approval of the
Boulder Ponds Final Plat and Final PUD Plan subject to compliance with 11 conditions as noted in
this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: OP4 Boulder Ponds, LLC (Deb Ridgeway), 11455 Viking Drive, Suite 350, Eden
Prairie, MN 55344.
Property Owners: OP4 Boulder Ponds, LLC (Deb Ridgeway), 11455 Viking Drive, Suite 350, Eden
Prairie, MN 55344 and Bremer Bank (Kathleen Tucci) 8555 Eagle Point Blvd.,
PO Box 1000, Lake Elmo.
Location: Part of Section 34 in Lake Elmo, immediately north of Hudson Boulevard North,
immediately east of the Eagle Point Business Park, and immediately south of the
Stonegate subdivision. PID Numbers 34.029.21.32.0001, 34.029.21.33.0001, and
34.029.21.33.0002.
Request: Application for a Zoning Map Amendment, Final Plat and Final Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Plan for the 1st phase of the Boulder Ponds planned
development. The Final Plat (1st Phase of Boulder Ponds) includes 47 single
family lots and various outlots planned for stormwater management or future
commercial and residential uses.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
2
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Agricultural land. Current Zoning: RT – Rural Development
Transitional Zoning District; Proposed Zoning: LDR (PUD) -
Urban Low Density Residential, MDR (PUD) – Medium
Density Residential and C – Commercial.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North –Stonegate Residential Estates (RE) subdivision; west –
Eagle Point Business Park (Bremer Bank, Eagle Point Town
Office Condos, High Pointe Medical Campus, vacant land)
(BP); east – Lennar Savona Urban Low Density Residential
(LDR) subdivision; south – vacant land guided for Commercial
and Interstate Highway 94.
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 – 3.99 units per acre),
Urban Medium Density Residential (4.0 – 7.49 units per acre)
and Commercial
History: Boulder Ponds General Concept Plan approved by the City on 12/17/13 (Resolution
#2013-109). Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan approved by
the City on 9/16/14 (Resolution #2014-73).
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 2/20/2015
60 Day Deadline – 4/20/2015
Extension Letter Mailed – N/A
120 Day Deadline – 6/19/2015
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (LDR and MDR)
Article 16 – Planned Unit Development Regulations
§150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from OP4 Boulder Ponds, LLC for a Zoning Map
Amendment, Final Plat and Final PUD Plan to subdivide approximately 58 acres of land located
within Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning. The Final Plat would represent the first phase of the
Boulder Ponds residential subdivision and include 47 single family lots, as well as various outlots
planned for stormwater management, trails, and future commercial and residential land uses as
guided by the approved Preliminary PUD Plan. The proposed plat is located immediately north of
Hudson Boulevard, immediately east of Eagle Point Business Park, and immediately south of the
Stonegate subdivision. The subject properties have historically been used for agricultural purposes.
It should be noted that the zoning map amendment and Final PUD Plan require a public hearing to be
held.
The final plat area represents the initial project phase of the overall Boulder Ponds planned
development. The developer intends to build homes in the central portion of the site on both sides of
the planned minor collector road 5th Street. The developer will be conducting final mass grading on
the entirety of the site as part of the 1st phase of development, whereas the street and utility
construction will follow the proposed phasing as demonstrated on the plans. The applicant has
submitted detailed construction plans for related to sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, grading,
drainage, landscaping, and other details that have been reviewed by the City Engineer, Fire Chief and
Landscape Consultant.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
3
The City’s subdivision ordinance establishes the procedure for obtaining final subdivision approval,
in which case a final plat may only be reviewed after the City takes action on a preliminary plat. As
long as the final plat is consistent with the preliminary approval, it must be approved by the City.
Please note that the City’s approval of the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat did include a series of
conditions that must be met by the applicant, which are addressed in the “Review and Analysis”
section below. Staff has reviewed the final plat and found that it is consistent with the preliminary
plat that was approved by the City on September 16, 2014. Please note that the final plat and
construction plans now include approved street names for the subdivision.
The City Engineer has reviewed the final plat, and his comments are attached to this report.
Although there are some additional revisions and additions necessary for the Final Plat and final
construction plans that need to be addressed by the applicant, the revisions can be made before the
City releases the final plat for recording. Staff is recommending that all revisions and modifications
noted within the City Engineer’s review memorandum date 3/4/15 be completed prior to the release
of Final Plat for recording as a condition of approval.
Finally, in addition to the Final Plat and Final PUD Plan application, the landowner has also applied
for a Zoning Map Amendment. It should be noted that the current zoning for the Boulder Ponds site
is Rural Development Transitional District (RT), which is the City’s basic holding district for sites
guided for future development. For the development to move forward into implementation and
construction, it is appropriate for the site to be rezoned as guided by the approved plans for the
Boulder Ponds development. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed zoning map
amendment.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
Prior to a final plat being recorded, it is important to have the correct zoning in place to implement
the approved use of the site. In the previous development applications the City has processed, the
City was amenable to implementing the correct zoning for the site once the City approved
preliminary plans for the property, and sanitary sewer and water utilities were available. In the case
of Boulder Ponds, both of these thresholds or requirements have been met. The City approved the
Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan on 9/16/14. In addition, utilities are
available to the site on both the southern and western borders. The applicants have submitted an
exhibit for the proposed zoning for the site at the direction of City staff. According to the submitted
Zoning Exhibit (Attachment #3), there are three proposed zoning designations for the Boulder Ponds
site. The areas intended for single family residential use will be zoned Urban Low Density
Residential – Planned Unit Development (LDR-PUD), while Outlot C will be zoned Urban Medium
Density Residential – Planned Unit Development (MDR-PUD) and Outlots A, B, E and F will be
zoned Commercial (C). Staff has reviewed the proposed zoning for the site and found it to be
consistent with the approved Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan. Staff is
recommending approval of the requested zoning map amendment based on the following findings:
1) The City of Lake Elmo approved the Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD
Plan on September 16, 2014.
2) The requested zoning map amendment is consistent with the appropriate zoning as guided by
the approved Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan.
3) Municipal sanitary sewer and water utilities are presently available to the site on both the
western and southern border.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
4
FINAL PLAT REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The preliminary plat for Boulder Ponds was approved with several conditions, which are indicated
below along with Staff’s comments on the status of each. For those items and issues that are not
directly addressed below, Staff has provided additional comments following the preliminary plat
conditions list. Staff is recommending approval of the final plat, but with additional conditions
intended to address the outstanding issues that will require additional review and/or documentation.
Please also note that the applicant has also provided a response to the preliminary plat conditions as
part of the project narrative (Attachment #2).
Preliminary Plat Conditions – With Staff Update Comments (updated information in bold
italics):
1) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the
commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City
Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said
plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site. Comments: The applicant
has entered into a separate grading agreement with the City to complete mass grading on
the site. No grading activity has yet to commence. Should the applicant enter into a
development agreement with the City prior to any grading activity, the executed
development agreement will supersede the executed grading agreement.
2) The developer shall be required to submit an updated parkland dedication calculation in
advance of Final Plat. Upon submission of the calculation, the applicant must work with the
City to achieve the required parkland dedication amount per the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance. The developer shall be required to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication equivalent
to the fair market value for the amount of land that is required to be dedicated for such
purposes in the City’s Subdivision Ordinance less the amount of land that is accepted for
park purposes by the City. Any cash in lieu of land dedication shall be paid by the applicant
prior to the release of the Final Plat for recording. Comments: The applicant has submitted a
project narrative and exhibit that demonstrate that the portion of the northern greenbelt
park not within the Xcel Energy easement is 1.77 acres in size. It is the portion of the
northern greenbelt park not within the easement that would be eligible for parkland
dedication credit. Based on a calculation completed by staff and the applicant, the total
required amount of parkland dedication for the residential portion of the development is
4.34 acres. By subtracting the dedicated amount of 1.77 acres from the total required
amount of 4.34 acres, there remains 2.57 acres of land to be addressed through parkland
fees. Staff is recommending as a condition of approval that the applicant be required to
pay a fee in lieu of land dedication equivalent to the fair market value of 2.57 acres of land
(Condition #6).
3) The developer shall follow all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act and
adhere to the conditions of approval for the South Washington Watershed District Permit.
Comments: The Boulder Ponds development has received their watershed district permit
from South Washington Watershed District. The applicant will be responsible to meet all
conditions of approval associated with their watershed districts permit and abide by all
regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act. Staff is recommending that this condition be
applied to the Final Plat approval of the 1st phase of Boulder Ponds (Condition #8).
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
5
4) The applicant will work with the Planning Staff to name all streets in the subdivision in a
manner acceptable to the City prior to the submission of Final Plat. Comments: The Boulder
Ponds Final Plat submission includes updated street names that are consistent with the
Washington County street naming system. The Fire Chief has reviewed the proposed street
names and found them to be acceptable.
5) The applicant will work with staff to address the comments in the City Engineer's review
memo dated 7/24/14 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer as part of the Final Plat and Final
PUD Plan.Comments: The applicant has submitted updated plans to address many of the
conditions and review comments as specified by the City Engineer. All remaining
modifications requested by the City Engineer that relate to the Final Plat are outlined in a
review memo dated March 4, 2015. Staff is recommending a condition that all revisions
and modifications to the Final Plat and Final Construction Plans requested by the City
Engineer be included as a condition of approval (Condition #1)
6) In addition to standard easements required by the Subdivision Ordinance, additional drainage
and utility easements must be provided extending 10 feet from meandering sidewalks, as well
as all of the portion of private lots between meandering sidewalks and the public right-of-
way. Comments: The Final Plat does not currently show these easements at this time.
However, the applicant has noted in the project narrative that the additional easements will
be provided on the Final Plat once the final sidewalk layout is approved. Based on the
final construction plans for the Boulder Ponds development, staff believes that these
additional easements can be added once the construction plans are approved without
fundamentally altering the Final Plat. In other words, staff finds that the approach
recommended by the applicant to add additional easements upon approval of the sidewalk
locations will work. As a condition of approval of the final plat, staff is recommending that
the additional easements for meandering sidewalks be provided (Condition #4).
7) The landscape plan shall be updated to locate all boulevard trees in between the public street
and sidewalk to not interfere with private utilities. Comments: The City’s landscape
consultant has reviewed the Final Landscape Plan and determine that there are still
proposed tree locations that may conflict with the installation of private utilities. Staff is
recommending that this issue be resolved as part of the required updates to the Final
Landscape Plan per the direction of the City’s Landscape Consultant (Condition #7). It
should be noted that the location of trees within the development is a construction detail
that should not alter the Final Plat.
8) All islands and medians internal to the Boulder Ponds development shall be platted as part of
the right-of-way and shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association. The applicant
shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities
responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and
open space on the Final Plat. Comments: The islands and median are now proposed to be
platted as part of the City right-of-way, thereby complying with the condition of approval.
As a condition of the development agreement, the applicant or developer will be required to
enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to maintain all the landscaping within
islands and medians internal to the Boulder Ponds development. This requirement is
specified in Condition #5.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
6
9) The design of the northern buffer trail shall be modified to a width of 8 feet as opposed to the
regional trail standard of 10 feet. Comments: The width of the northern buffer trail remains
10 feet. As a trail with a regional design is planned for the 5th Street Corridor, staff would
suggest that this trail be reduced in width to a typical 8-foot local trail. However, this
improvement is scheduled for the 2nd phase of the Boulder Ponds development. Staff would
recommend that the applicant address this condition with the 2nd phase of the single family
portion of the development.
10) The eastern segment of the northern buffer trail shall be moved to the south to the greatest
extent possible with plantings to screen the trail on the north side. Comments: The
applicants have successfully moved the northern buffer trail to the south from the previous
location as shown on the preliminary plans for Boulder Ponds. However, screening on the
northern side of the trail through the use of plantings was not provided. Staff is
recommending a condition that the Final Landscape Plan be revised to provide some
screening along the north side of the trail in the northeastern portion of the Boulder Ponds
development. This update to the landscape plan can be added to the other general updates
as specified in the memo submitted by the City’s landscape consultant (Condition #7).
11) Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat, the
Developer shall enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that
delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of public
improvements. Comments: City staff are currently working with the applicant to draft a
development agreement based on the City’s standard template for these agreements. It is
the desire of the applicant to process the development agreement on a parallel track as the
approval of the Final Plat. This condition should remain in place to ensure that the
development agreement is approved and executed prior to the release of the Final Plat for
recording by Washington County (Condition #3).
12) The Final PUD Plan will include a development lot book to clarify proper building placement
for use in granting building permits for the development. Comments: The applicant has
noted that a complete lot development book will be submitted once all of the staff review
comments have been addressed and the construction plans are approved. Given that
additional easements or sight modifications to the plat are warranted to address final staff
review comments, staff feels it is reasonable to allow the applicant to submit the
development lot book once the review of final construction plans is complete. In addition,
the applicant is still working with the prospective builder of the development on which
home elevations and floor plans will fit on each lot. Both of these factors make it difficult
to complete the lot book at this time. An example of an individual lot as it would be shown
in the lot book has been provided in Attachment #8 to demonstrate to the City what will be
included in the lot book. As shown on the example, the lot will have a building pad
location to direct the appropriate home location for the purposes or reviewing the building
permit. Staff would recommend that the development lot book for Phase 1 of the
development be provided prior to the release of Final Plat for recording (Condition #11).
Staff is recommending that the conditions noted above that pertain to the Final Plat and that have not
yet been addressed by the applicant should be adopted with the Final Plat. The City Engineer’s
review letter does identify several issues that need to be addressed by the developer in order for the
City to approve the final plans. However, the majority of these concerns are related to the
construction plans and should have limited bearing on the final plat. Staff is recommending that City
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
7
Officials not sign the final plat mylars until the City’s construction plan review is finalized and all
necessary easements are documented on the Final Plat.
In addition to the items discussed above, it should be noted that the Fire Chief is requesting that the
location of several fire hydrants be adjusted to improve operational efficiency. The Fire Chief’s
memo, detailing all of the requested modification, is found in Attachment #10. Staff is
recommending as a condition of approval that the applicant adjust the hydrant locations to the
satisfaction of the Fire Chief (Condition #10).
Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the Final Plat with
several conditions intended to address the outstanding issues noted above and to further clarify the
City’s expectations in order for the developer to proceed with the recording of the Final Plat.
The recommended conditions are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
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 515B-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 1st 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.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
8
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 revised Final Landscape
Plan shall include screening on the north side of the northern buffer trail in the northeastern
portion of the development. 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.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the proposed Boulder Ponds Final Plat and Final PUD Plan:
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.
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.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
9
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested Zoning Map
Amendment to implement the correct zoning as guided by the approved Boulder Ponds Preliminary
Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan. The suggested motion is the following:
“Move to recommend approval of the requested Zoning Map Amendment for the Boulder Ponds
planned development based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report.”
In addition, Staff is recommending approval of the Boulder Ponds Final Plat and Final PUD Plan
with the 11 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. The suggested motion is the
following:
“Move to recommend approval of the Boulder Ponds Final Plat and Final PUD Plan with the 11
conditions of approval as drafted by Staff based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Application Forms and Project Narrative
3. Zoning Map Exhibit
4. Final Plat (4 sheets)
5. Final Construction Plans (52 sheets)
6. Final Landscape Plan (10 sheets)
7. Turning Radius Exhibit
8. Development Lot Book Letter and Example
9. City Engineer Review Memorandum, dated 3/4/15
10. Fire Chief Review Memorandum, dated 2/23/15
11. Landscape Consultant Review Memorandum, dated 3/3/15
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
10
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5A – ACTION ITEM
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Data Scource: Washington County, MN
12-4-2013
Location Map: Boulder Ponds PUD
K
STONEGATE
PARK
STONEGATE
EAGLE POINT BUSINESS PARK
BREMER
BANK
EAGLE POINT
BLVD.
H
U
D
S
O
N
B
L
V
D
.
0 500 1,000250 Feet
1"=500'
Boulder Ponds Site
PAGE1of2
MEMORANDUM
Date:March4,2015
To:NickJohnson,CityPlannerRe:BolderPonds
Cc:KyleKlatt,PlanningDirectorFinalPlat/ConstructionPlanReview
From:JackGriffin,P.E.,CityEngineer
AnengineeringreviewhasbeencompletedfortheBolderPondsdevelopment.FinalPlat/ConstructionPlanswere
receivedonFebruary5,2015.ThesubmittalconsistedofthefollowingdocumentationpreparedbyEvolution
EngineeringandDesignorasnoted:
xFinalPlat,notdated.
xFinalConstructionPlansdatedJanuary26,2015.
STATUS/FINDINGS:TheEngineeringreviewhasbeenseparatedforFinalPlatapprovalandFinalConstructionPlan
approval.Pleaseseethefollowingreviewcomments.
FINALPLAT:
xOutlotsD,E,G,I,andLmustbededicatedtotheCityofongoingoperationandmaintenanceofproposed
stormwaterfacilities.
xOutlotDmustberevisedtofullycontaintheHWLforInfiltrationBasin6Cwithanadditional10footwidth
toaccommodatemaintenanceaccessalongthebasinlength.
xPerthetypicalstreetsections,10footutilityeasementsmustbeprovidedalongbothsidesofeachpublic
roadwayincluding5thStreet.TheFinalPlatmustbeupdatedtoprovidetheseeasementsaspartofthe
Phase1PlatincludingeasementswithinOutlotsA,B,C,F,HandJ.Easementsarerequiredto
accommodatesmallutilityplacementtoservethedevelopment.
xTheCityrequiresaminimum10footutilityeasementalongeachsideofthepublicstreetR/W.However
fortheBoulderpondsdevelopmenttheseeasementsmustbeexpandedtoincludetheproposed
meanderingsidewalksplusanadditional10feet.ThePlatmustberevisedtoincludetheseeasements
priortorecording.
xOutlotHmustberevisedtoincludethe15footutilityeasementforthestormsewerpipebetweenLot6,
Block2andLot18,Block1(Phase2).TheeasementmustbegrantedaspartofPhase1Plat.
xThePlansandPlatmustberevisedtoincludeaminimum15ft.utilityeasementforCBͲ404.Theeasement
mustbeshownonOutlotHaspartofthePhase1Plat.
STORMWATERMANAGEMENTPLAN:StormwaterManagementPlanrevisionsandgradingplanrevisionshave
beenmadebytheapplicantsinceobtainingtheSWWDPermitApprovalinJuly2014andPreliminaryPlatapproval.
xTherevisedhydrologyreportdatedJanuary26,2015indicatesanincreaseddischargerateandvolumefrom
thesite.Increaseddischargeratestoadjacentpropertiesisspecificallyprohibited.Thestormwater
FOCUSENGINEERING,inc.
CaraGeheren,P.E.651.300.4261
JackGriffin,P.E. 651.300.4264
RyanStempski,P.E.651.300.4267
ChadIsakson,P.E.651.300.4285
PAGE2of2
managementplanandstormsewersystemdesignmustberevisedtoreducetherateofincreaseforeach
stormeventtoalladjacentproperties.
xTheFinalPlatmustbecontingentuponSWWDpermitapprovalfortherevisedgradingplansandhydrology
reportonceitisupdatedtobeacceptabletotheCity.
xAnyrevisionsmadetoaddressCityand/orSWWDpermitrequirementsmayrequirerevisionstotheFinal
Plat.TheFinalPlatshouldnotberecordeduntilSWWDpermitapprovalandCityconstructionplanapproval
isgrantedforthesamesetofconstructionplansandsamestormwatermanagement/hydrologyreport.
xTherevisedgradingplansdatedJanuary26,2015alsoindicategradingimpactstotheOutlotIwetlandbuffer.
TheapplicantmustprovidetotheCitywrittenSWWDapprovaltoallowthisbuffergrading.
xFinalPlatapprovalmustalsobecontingentupontheapplicantreceivingMnDOTapprovalforthestorm
waterdischargestoMnDOTR/WincludingallapplicableMnDOTpermits.
xInfiltrationfeasibilitytestingmustbecompletedateachspecificinfiltrationbasintoconfirmthefeasibility
ofthestormwatermanagementplan.TheHydologyReportindicatesthatinfiltrationtestinghasbeen
completed,howevertestinglocationshavenotbeenidentifiedandsomeinfiltrationbasinandraingarden
locationshavebechanged.FinalPlatmustbecontingentupontheapplicantdemonstratingthateach
proposedbasinlocationisfeasible.PerCitystandards,infiltrationbasinsarenotpermittedinGroupCorD
soils.
FINALCONSTRUCTIONPLANS
xNoconstruction,includinggradingoperationsmayoccuronthesiteuntiltheapplicanthasreceivedCity
EngineerapprovalforthefinalconstructionplansandhasobtainedallapplicablepermitsfortheSubdivision.
xTheFinalPlatshallnotberecordeduntilfinalconstructionplanapprovalisgranted.
xFinalconstructionplanreviewcommentswillbeprovidedseparatelytoassisttheapplicantwiththe
completionofFinalConstructionPlans.
xADDITIONALSUBMITTALSREQUIRED.Additionalsubmittalmaterialsarerequiredtofacilitatestaffplan
review.
¾Phase1ConstructionPlans.Theconstructionplansmustaddresstheimprovementstobeincludedas
partofPhase1constructionincludingtemporaryculͲdeͲsacs,temporaryfirehydrantsatinterim
watermainendpoints(nobilledvalvesareallowed),andgradingcontoursmatchingexistingcontoursat
thephase1gradingplanmatchpoints.
¾Itisadvisedthatapointbypointresponseletterbepreparedandsubmittedidentifyinghoweach
commentwasaddressedfromtheCity’sreviewmemodatedNovember3,2014.
2350 BAYLESS PLACE • ST. PAUL, MN • 55114
PHONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LANDARCINC.COM
BOULDER PONDS – DESIGN REVIEW REPORT
LAKE ELMO, MN
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW DATED MARCH 3RD, 2015
REVIEWED PLAN SET DATED JANUARY 30TH, 2015
The landscape design that was presented in this drawing set is very thoughtful
and we really appreciate the inclusion of flowering understory trees, shrubs,
perennials as well as native grass and wildflower areas to create a complete
landscape and provide a very nice exterior environment. In order for us to
complete the landscape review we are requesting a few more required items.
Required Action Items by Boulder Ponds Project Team
1. Provide landscape irrigation plans for our review for all commonly held
HOA & City Outlots / R.O.W. areas.
2. 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.
3. At the present time the 5th Street Corridor is included in the Landscape
Area and as well as the Street Frontage Calculations. To be consistent with
how were are addressing all the developments embracing this proposed
5th Street Corridor please omit the 5th Street Area and Street Frontage
Calculations from the landscape requirements for the remainder of the
development and treat the 5th Street landscape independently as we are
with the other projects embracing 5th street. At the time the final
Streetscape design is determined by the City, the City will provide
direction to your team to Incorporate & Implement the approved 5th
Street Streetscape Design.
4. The quality of the site amenities proposed on Sheet LS9 of 10 are not
consistent with the higher quality homes and planting areas suggested
within this development. We would challenge your team to specify site
amenities of higher quality design and materials that will enhance those
spaces and bring it the same level of thoughtfulness suggested
everywhere else.
5.The landscape plan shall be updated to locate all boulevard trees in
between the public street and sidewalk to not interfere with private
utilities.
SINCERELY,
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC.
STEPHEN MASTEY, ASLA, CLARB, LEED AP BD+C