HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages from CC Packet 9-16-14 Part II
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: 9/16/14
REGULAR
ITEM #16 RESOLUTION 2014-072
AGENDA ITEM: Inwood Planned Unit Development – General Concept Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
Nick M. Johnson, City Planner
THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Superintendent
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director
- Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECCOMENDER: The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval
of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) General Concept Plan for a mixed-used planned
development to be named Inwood, located in Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. In
recommending approval of the PUD Concept Plan, the Planning Commission made several findings of fact and recommended 25 conditions of approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: TBD – All costs incurred to the City through the review of the application
are reimbursed by land use application fees and a development escrow. The project covers 157
acres of land, and will include the extension of public services (water and sewer) into the site. The developer will be required to prepare a developer’s agreement for all phases of the project, at which point all public and private improvements will be identified. The developer is
proposing to construct 5th Street as privately as part of the overall improvements.
-- page 1 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16]
September 16, 2014
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a
request from Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10, LLC for a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Concept Plan for a new mixed-use development on 157 acres of land located at the southeast
corner of Inwood Avenue and 10th Street in Lake Elmo. The concept plan as submitted includes 273 single-family residential lots, 144 townhouses, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse
units, and approximately 68,814 square feet of commercial/office uses. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing and considered the PUD at its August 25th meeting, and
postponed taking action on the concept plan until its September 8th meeting. After further
discussion at is September 8th meeting, the Commission is recommending approval of the PUD General Concept Plan with 25 conditions of approval, some of which will require modifications to the plans as presented.
The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows:
“Move to adopt Resolution 2014-072, approving the Inwood PUD General Concept Plan.”
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The Planning
Commission considered the PUD plans at its August 25th meeting and conducted a public hearing on the request at this time. There were several comments received from the public at this meeting, and in addition to these statements, Staff also received written communication from the
Department of Natural Resources and from a neighboring property owner. Rather than
summarizing the public comments in this memorandum, Staff has attached an excerpt of the
minutes from the Commission’s meeting concerning the PUD for review by the Council. The letter from the DNR and neighboring property owner is likewise attached. After discussing various aspects of the project suggesting several modifications to the conditions of approval, the
Commission ultimately postponed taking action on the PUD.
As part of its ongoing review of the proposed project, the Commission conducted a site visit to a similar development that the applicant is building in Blaine, Minnesota on September 3, 2014. In addition, as a follow-up to the public hearing, the developer submitted a revised site plan in
order to address the initial comments and recommendations of the Planning Commission. Staff
has included the revised site plan with this report.
The Commission continued its discussion on the PUD Concept Plan (and reviewed the updated concept plan) at its September 8, 2014 meeting, and received additional testimony from members
of the public at this time. The City Council has been provided with the draft minutes from this
meeting as part of its meeting agenda packet, which includes a summary of the comments that
were received. As part of its discussion, the Commission recommending the inclusion of eight additional conditions of approval beyond those drafted by Staff, which included the requirements/conditions as follows:
1) All multi-family housing is to be located south of 5th Street.
2) Sidewalks will be provided on one side of every street with cul-de-sacs except 9th Street. 3) The trail along the Stonegate boundary will be located as far west as possible.
-- page 2 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16]
September 16, 2014
4) The lots at the end of cul-de-sacs in neighborhoods E, F, and H will be designed as
designer (larger) lots.
5) The developer will consider adding a small park to the northwest portion of the site
subject to review by the Park Commission. 6) The high density housing area will be limited to a maximum of 15 units per acre.
7) The design for the commercial and multi-family areas will be consistent with the single-
family housing and throughout the development.
8) All cul-de-sac will meet the City’s maximum length requirements.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, Staff has received comments from the Chair expressing
concern that the issues associated with the lot sizes within the development did not receive much
discussion at the meeting. As noted in the development plans, the developer is proposing a mix
of different lot sizes within the “lifestyle housing” portion of the development, and these lots
would be allocated as follows:
• 20% 38 foot wide lots
• 60% 50 foot wide lots
• 20% 58 foot wide lots
It is Staff’s expectation, that should the project be approved, that the final development plans
will need to follow this general allocation of lots throughout the project. While there was no
specific motion at the Planning Commission meeting to regulate the number of each type of lot permitted, at least two Commissioners have indicated that they would prefer a higher percentage
of larger lots within the development. At this time, Staff is asking that the Council review this
aspect of the project plans as it considers the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and
would need to request changes to the development plans if it finds the allocation of lot sizes to be
unacceptable to the City. Staff is on record as supporting the proposed lot size mix as proposed by the developer.
In order to provide the City Council with a complete description of the information considered
by the Planning Commission, Staff has attached the detailed reports submitted for both the
meetings at which the Planning Commission considered the PUD. These reports include detailed information concerning the concept plan in addition to the staff review and analysis of the
request. As noted earlier, any updated plans that were submitted by the applicant in between
Commission meetings have been integrated into the plans attached to this report.
After a lengthy discussion concerning the PUD Concept Plan and the recommended conditions of approval, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval of the Inwood
PUD General Concept Plan with conditions of approval. The complete list of recommended
conditions may be found in Resolution 2014-072 (Attachment #1). The motion passed with a
vote of 5 ayes and 2 nays. The dissenting Commissioners did not agree that that the PUD plans
were consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and noted that these plans did not meet the minimum standards of the LDR zoning district.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT):
-- page 3 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16]
September 16, 2014
Strengths • Approval of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan allows the
applicants to move forward with the preparation of a PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat application.
• The Planning Commission and Staff both determined that the
proposed Concept Plan is consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
• The proposed planned development offers unique design that is consistent with the City’s desire to promote walkable single
family neighborhoods with common open space.
Weaknesses • The project includes several conditions of approval that will need to be met by the applicant. Opportunities • The PUD will add users to the City’s public water and sanitary
sewer system (with connection fees).
• The project includes a major piece of the planned 5th Street minor collector road.
Threats • The City of Oakdale has raised concerns about transportation
access issues along Inwood Avenue. Washington County has
agreed to assist in the development of an access spacing plan for Inwood Avenue in the near future.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above report, background information, and related
attachments, the Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the City Council
approve the Inwood PUD Concept Plan with 25 conditions of approval. The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows:
“Move to adopt Resolution 2014-072, approving the Inwood PUD General Concept Plan.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 2014-072
2. Planning Commission Staff Report – 9/8/14
3. Planning Commission Staff Report – 8/25/14
4. Location Map 5. Application Form
6. Project Narrative (Revised/Supplement)
7. Project Narrative (Original)
8. Inwood PUD Concept Plan w/Details (Revised)
9. Inwood PUD Concept Planning & Design Booklet (Color Copies) 10. City Engineer’s Review Memorandum, dated 8/13/14
11. Fire Chief’s Review Memorandum, dated 8/19/14
12. Washington County Review Memorandum, dated 8/20/14
13. Minnesota DNR Review Comments 8/25/14
14. City of Oakdale Review Comments 8/29/14
-- page 4 --
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16]
September 16, 2014
15. City of Oakdale Email Comments 9/8/14
16. Tom FitzGerald, Email Comments 8/25/14
17. Stonegate Neighborhood Petition 9/8/14
18. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Excerpt) 8/25/14
-- page 5 --
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-072
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INWOOD PUD GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN
WHEREAS, Hans Hagen Homes, 941 NE Hillwind Road, Suite 300, Fridley, MN and
Inwood 10, LCC, 95 South Owasso Boulevard West, St. Paul, MN (“Applicants”) have submitted
an application to the City of Lake Elmo (“City”) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept
Plan for a proposed planned development to be called Inwood, copies of which are on file in the City Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Concept Plan is for a mixed-use Planned Unit Development
development on 157 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Inwood Avenue and 10th Street
in Lake Elmo and that the Concept Plan includes 273 single-family residential lots, 144 townhouses, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse units, and approximately 68,814 square
feet of commercial/office uses; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on August 25,
2014 to consider the request and continued its discussion concerning the request at its September 8, 2014 meeting; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2014 the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion
to recommend that the City Council approve the Inwood PUD Concept Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and
recommendation concerning the Inwood PUD Concept Plan to the City Council as part of a
memorandum from the Planning Department dated September 16, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the proposed Inwood PUD Concept Plan at a meeting on September 16, 2014.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the testimony elicited and information received, the City
Council makes the following:
FINDINGS
1) That the procedure for obtaining approval of said PUD Concept Plan is found in the Lake Elmo City Code, Section 154.800.
Resolution 2014-072
2
2) That all the requirements of said City Code Section 154.800 related to the PUD Concept
Plan have been met by the Applicant.
3) That the proposed PUD Concept Plan is for a mixed-use Planned Unit Development on 157 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Inwood Avenue and 10th Street in Lake Elmo
and that the Concept Plan includes 273 single-family residential lots, 144 townhouses, 150
multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse units, and approximately 68,814 square feet of
commercial/office uses.
4) That the PUD Concept Plan will be located on property legally described on the attached
Exhibit “A”.
5) That the proposed PUD Concept Plan includes exceptions to the City’s underlying Zoning
District requirements that will be more fully described as part of the Applicant’s Preliminary PUD Development Plans.
6) That the proposed General Concept Plan for a PUD is consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and that the uses proposed are consistent with the
LDR – Urban Low Density Residential, C – Commercial, and HDR – High Density Residential land use designations shown for the area on the official Comprehensive Land
Use Plan.
7) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan complies with the general intent of the City’s Urban
Low Density Residential, Urban High Density Residential and Commercial zoning districts with the exception of the issues identified in the Staff Reports.
8) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan complies with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.
9) That the Inwood PUD complies with the City’s PUD Ordinance, and specifically the
identified objectives for the consideration of a Planned Development.
10) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the City’s engineering standards with exceptions as noted by the City Engineer in his review comments to the City dated August
13, 2014.
11) That the master-planning technique utilized in the Inwood PUD Concept Plan provides
thoughtful integration of multiple land uses, a variety of housing types and an effective and
connected transportation system, allowing for different modes of travel throughout the site.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the foregoing, the Applicants’ application for a PUD Concept Plan is granted, provided the following conditions are met:
1) The applicant must obtain permission and consent from the adjoining property owner,
Bremer Bank, related to the right-of-way and alignment of the 5th Street minor collector road
in the southeast corner of the site. The final alignment must be determined prior to the
Resolution 2014-072
3
submittal of PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat applications.
2) Request for flexibility related to lot size, width, setbacks and all other requirements per the
City’s Zoning Ordinance or Design Standards must be clarified and documented as part of
the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat submission.
3) The application for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan approval will include an
overall PUD planning document that addresses the flexibility requests noted in the preceding
condition and that also specifies the specific design considerations to be used throughout the
project area.
4) The Preliminary PUD plans will include a phasing plan for all portions of the development.
5) The Preliminary Development Plans shall include a water tower within the project
development area in a location that is deemed acceptable by the City Engineer. As an
alternative, the developer may identify an alternate location off-site for the water tower in a
location deemed acceptable by the City Engineer provided the ownership of the site is
transferred to the City and all required utility connections are constructed in conjunction with the platting of the Inwood PUD.
6) The Preliminary PUD plans shall be updated to include additional park land in the
southeastern portion of the site. A larger park area of 5 to 10 acres adjacent to the existing
Stonegate Park and with access to 5th Street is the preferred location. The location and size
of this park will be subject to review by the Lake Elmo Park Commission.
7) All street and median geometrics must accommodate emergency vehicle access and
maintenance. Applicants must demonstrate acceptable turning radii for all uniquely shaped
landscape medians and cul-de-sacs.
8) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland
Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from the appropriate watershed district prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site.
9) Any land under which public trails are located will be accepted as park land provided the
developer constructs said trails as part of the public improvements for the subdivision, and
the land is located outside of any restrictive easements.
10) The applicant shall observe all comments and recommendations from the City Engineer documented on the Engineer’s report dated August 13, 2014.
11) The Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans will address review comments and issues
that are identified within the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Inwood planned
development site.
12) The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City clarifying responsibility for all median landscaping and stormwater facilities internal to the single
family residential streets.
13) The applicants must work with the City to determine fair and equitable cost share for City
costs related to the future signalization of the intersection at 5th Street and Inwood Avenue
(CSAH 13).
14) The applicant must work with Washington County to address all review comments documented in the attached report dated 8/20/14 pertaining to access and intersection design
Resolution 2014-072
4
for Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) and 10th Street (CSAH 10).
15) The applicant must provide sidewalks on both sides of Street B to better serve the single
family residential area.
16) Additional trail segments along the east side of Inwood Avenue from 5th Street to 10th Street and along 10th Street from Inwood Avenue to the Greenbelt Buffer Trail must be
incorporated into the plans.
17) The applicant must work with the City to ensure compliance with the City’s shoreland
provisions and the standards of the SWWD and MN DNR related to shoreland areas of
designated public waters.
18) The development plans must be updated so that all multi-family housing is located south of
5th Street. No multi-family residential development will be allowed north of 5th Street.
19) Sidewalks shall be provided on one side of every street, including all cul-de-sacs and loop
roads within the development with the exception of 9th Street.
20) The trail within the eastern buffer area near the property boundary with the Stonegate subdivision shall be located as far west as possible on the site.
21) The lots at the far eastern cul-de-sacs in neighborhoods E, F, and H shall be platted as
designer (larger) lots in accordance with the lot so designated on the PUD Concept Plan.
22) The developer shall consider adding a small park to the northwest portion of the site subject
to review and comment by the Park Commission.
23) The high density housing area shall be limited to a maximum of 15 units per acre.
24) The design for structures within the commercial and multi-family areas shall be consistent
with the overall design throughout the development, including the single-family
neighborhoods.
25) All cul-de-sac streets shall meet the City’s maximum length requirements as specified in the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.
Passed and duly adopted this 16th day of September 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
__________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Adam Bell, City Clerk
Resolution 2014-072
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 9/8/14
AGENDA ITEM: 5B – BUSINESS ITEM
CASE # 2014-42
ITEM: Inwood Planned Unit Development (PUD) – General Concept Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief Ann Pung-Terwedo, Washington County Matt Moore, South Washington Watershed District
Molly Shodeen, MN DNR
Emily Shively, City of Oakdale
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request from Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10, LLC for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a new mixed-use
development on 157 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Inwood Avenue and 10th
Street in Lake Elmo. The concept plan includes 273 single-family residential lots, 144
townhouses, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse units, and approximately 68,814 square feet of commercial/office uses. Staff is recommending approval of the PUD Concept Plan with 17 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. The Planning Commission held a
public hearing on at their meeting on 8/25/14 and postponed consideration of the planned
development.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Hans Hagen Homes (John Rask), 941 NE Hillwind Rd. Suite 300, Fridley,
MN 55432 and Inwood 10 (Tom Scheutte), LLC, 95 S Owasso Blvd. W., St. Paul, MN 55117-7830
Property Owners: Inwood 10, LLC (Tom Scheutte), 95 S Owasso Blvd. W., St. Paul, MN
55117-7830
Location: Part of Section 33 in Lake Elmo, immediately south of 10th Street (CSAH 10),
immediately north of Eagle Point Business Park, immediately east of Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) and immediately west of Stonegate residential
subdivision. PIDs: 33.029.21.12.0001, 33.029.21.12.0003, 33.029.21.11.0002
and 33.029.21.11.0001.
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
2
Request: Application for Concept Plan approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
containing 281 single family lots, 144 townhome units, 150 multi-family
units, 120 senior living townhome units and multiple sites intended for
commercial uses to be named Inwood of Lake Elmo.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant land used for agricultural purposes. Current Zoning:
RT – Rural Transitional Zoning District; Proposed Zoning:
LDR – Low Density Residential, HDR – High Density
Residential and C – Commercial (all with PUD overlay)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Vacant agricultural land and two residential homes – RR and PF zoning; West: Oak Marsh Golf Course, urban
single family subdivision, commercial – City of Oakdale
jurisdiction;
South: Offices in Eagle Point Business Park (including
Bremer Bank facility) – BP zoning; East: Stonegate residential estates subdivision – RE zoning.
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 – 4 units per acre),
Urban High Density Residential/Mixed Use (7.5 – 15 units
per acre) and Commercial.
History: The site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. The applicants have submitted a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for
publication to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) on September 15th,
commencing the 30-day comment period.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 8/12/14
60 Day Deadline – 10/10/14 Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 12/9/14
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (§154.450) Article 12 – Commercial Districts (§154.550)
Article 16 – Planned Unit Development (§154.800)
Article 17 – Shoreland Management Overlay District
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received an application from Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10,
LLC for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a mixed-use project that will be located on 157 acres of land located south of 10th Street (CSAH 10) and east of Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) in Lake Elmo. The proposed project will include 273 single-family residential lots,
144 townhouses, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse units, and approximately 68,814
square feet of commercial/office uses, in addition to storm water facilities, trails, and park areas
as depicted on the attached site development plan. While the planned uses for the site generally match those shown on the City’s future land use map for the property, the applicant is proposing a slightly different configuration of the various land uses. Most notably, the developer is asking
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
3
that the commercial area be moved further south along Inwood Avenue to the intersection of 5th
Street and that a small area of multi-family development be allowed at the intersection of Inwood
Avenue and 10th Street.
The Planning Commission reviewed the request and held a public hearing on 8/25/14. At the public hearing, testimony was received from Nancy Andert (697 Julep Ave. N.), Mike Lancette (832 Jasmine Ave. N.) and Curt Montieth (331 Julep Ave. N.). In addition, the City received
letters from MN DNR and Tom Fitzgerald (877 Jasmine Ave. N.), both of which were entered
into the public record. For further detail on the content of the testimony during the public
hearing, please refer to the draft minutes for the 8/25/14 Planning Commission meeting, which is attached to the 9/8/14 Planning Commission Agenda Packet. In addition to holding the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed many different elements of the proposed planned
development. Over the course of discussion, the Planning Commission made several motions
related to review of the Concept Plan. The summary of the Planning Commission review on
8/25/14 can be found in the Planning Commission Review, Analysis and Recommendations Section. After significant discussion of the proposed planned development, the Planning Commission postponed consideration of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan until the next meeting to
allow the Planning Commissioners to visit a similar Hans Hagen development containing
Lifestyle Homes, The Lakes in Blaine, MN. The site visit was useful in becoming familiar with
the requested residential product (Lifestyle Homes) and the requested setbacks.
In response to many of the questions and discussion items at the Planning Commission meeting on 8/25/14, the applicant has submitted an updated Concept Plan and cover letter (Attachment
#2) to address many of the questions/discussion. The updated Concept Plan is generally
consistent with the original version submitted to the Planning Commission with a couple
modifications. The modifications are noted in the Planning and Zoning Issues Section.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
Staff provided a complete analysis of the proposed planned development from a planning and zoning perspective in a Staff Report dated 8/25/14. The previous Staff Report is attached
electronically to this report for reference. In the original Staff Report, staff recommended 18
conditions of approval related to the Inwood PUD Concept Plan. For the purposes of the
Planning Commission’s second review of the proposed development, it should be noted that staff still supports the originally recommended conditions of approval with one exception. Original Condition # 12 required the applicant to remove two residential lots that encroached on the
required 100-foot greenbelt buffer. With the submittal of an updated Concept Plan, no
residential lots encroach on the required buffer area. Therefore, Original Condition #12 has been
removed as a recommended condition of approval, leaving 17 recommended conditions, all of which are referenced in this Staff Report.
To address some of the questions and discussion topics from the 1st review of the Inwood PUD
Concept Plan, the applicants have submitted an updated Concept Plan, an Open Space Plan and a
response letter detailing some of the changes and responding to some of the discussion topics. These materials can be found in Attachment #2. Many of the changes or discussion items are identified in the response or cover letter provided with the updated plans. The changes in the
updated Concept Plan include the following:
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
4
• The updated Concept Plan includes increased park area in the area adjacent to Stonegate
Park. The applicants acknowledge that the plan must be reviewed by the Park Commission in advance of solidifying an acceptable design and location of the park areas.
• The single family lot count has been reduced from 281 to 273 to account for additional
park space and protection of existing man-made wetlands on the site.
• The updated net density calculation is 3.14 units/acre, as opposed to 3.22 units/acre in the previous plan. As noted in the cover letter, this density calculation does not include
any of the larger ponding areas associated with the development. These areas would
typically be included according to the City’s net density definition, as has been the case
in other single family subdivisions. Staff is extremely confident that the single family area proposed in the Inwood PUD Concept Plan is well within the acceptable range
required under the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
• The applicant provided three notes with regards to lot area, lot width and setbacks that
relate to the allowed variations or flexibilities from the Zoning Code that can be achieved through the PUD Ordinance. After reviewing the comments pertaining to the lot area, lot width and setbacks, staff finds that the applicant’s analysis of the City’s PUD
Ordinance is accurate. Therefore, applicants are permitted to request such variations
from the Zoning Code as long as they are meeting one or more of the identified
objectives for planned developments per the ordinance.
• The applicants have provided an Open Space Plan to demonstrate that they are meeting the 20% open space requirement for PUDs. The Open Space Plan is included in
Attachment #2.
• The length of Cul-De-Sac L has been reduced to provide more park area adjacent to Stonegate Park. Staff still has some concern that it may exceed 600 feet in length, the
maximum allowed length of cul-de-sac for an urban subdivision. Staff will continue to
work with the applicant to ensure conformance to the rules of the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance.
• The original Concept Plan included two residential lots that encroached on the required 100-foot greenbelt buffer. The updated Concept Plan has corrected this issue,
maintaining, and in many cases far exceeding, the 100-foot buffer requirement. As a
result, staff would recommend removing the condition related to removing Lots 27 and
28, Block 7 from the greenbelt buffer area (Condition #12 on the 8/25/14 Staff Report).
It should be noted that although the applicant is providing an updated Concept Plan, the
recommended conditions of approval in the original Staff Report still apply (with the exception
of Original Condition #12). The applicant is providing the updated Concept Plan to be
responsive to questions and discussion items posed by the Planning Commission. In addition,
the updated plan includes a concept of increased park area adjacent to Stonegate Park. Staff is still recommending that the applicant present these plans to the Park Commission on September
15th. Overall, the updated plan is consistent with the previous plan with the exceptions noted.
Given the limited scope of the changes in the updated plan, the previous Staff Report, dated
8/25/14, and conditions (with exception of Condition #12) still apply.
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
5
In addition to the planning and zoning issues that were outlined in the previous Staff Report, it
should be noted that the City of Oakdale submitted a comment letter noting opposition to
potential future restrictions of access at Oak Marsh Drive and 9th Street North. As indicate in the
letter, staff is meeting with both the City of Oakdale and Washington County on September 12th to continue to work through access related concerns on Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13). As Inwood Avenue is a Washington County facility, the County will continue to take the lead on working
with the applicant and both communities on proper access spacing and design. As a condition of
approval (Condition #14), staff is recommending that the applicants work with Washington
County to address all issues pertaining to street and intersection design for the County roads (CSAH 13 and CSAH 10). In addition, City staff will continue to work with the applicant, Washington County and the City of Oakdale related to access considerations on Inwood Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to holding a public hearing on the proposed Inwood PUD Concept Plan, the Planning
Commission discussed the planned development at great length, making multiple motions to add
or amend conditions of approval for the development. As these additional or amended conditions were never included in a broader recommendation to the City Council, staff is asking the Planning Commission to reaffirm the following motions:
1. M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to include Condition #19 to require a 5-foot sideyard
setback for all of the single family detached housing, Vote: 4-2, motion carried, with
Larson and Dodson voting no.
The applicants have noted that the requested 4-foot sideyard setbacks are important to making the Lifestyle Home single family product work. Staff is confident that the
reduced setback will work from a land use perspective, as long as the site is carefully
engineered to properly account for storm water management.
2. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to add to Condition #6 “the location, size and design of the park will be subject to review by the Park Commission. It is recommended that the Park Commission consider the inclusion of a small park area or gathering space in the
northwest portion of the development”, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
If affirmed, planning staff will present the Planning Commission’s recommendation to
the Park Commission at the 9/15/14 meeting.
3. M/S/P: Dodson/Lundgren, move to include Condition #20 that the applicant must work with the City to submit their residential design standards to the City as part of the
Preliminary PUD Plan application for the City’s use in reviewing building permits,
Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
Staff would note that Hans Hagen has identified themselves and the sole builder of the Lifestyle Homes, which is the product that raised greater concern over garage-dominated front elevations.
4. M/S/P: Kreimer/Lundgren (with friendly amendment from Haggard), move to include
Condition #20 to change the proposed land use of the area in the northwest corner to
Commercial or multi-family with a maximum net density of 15 units per acre, Vote: 5-1, motion carried, with Dodson voting no.
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
6
In addition to the above approved motions, there was discussion and/or failed motions pertaining
to requiring typical single family lots on the east side of the development and incorporating
theming elements into the development. There was also discussion about requiring the greenbelt
buffer trail to be located within the western portion of the buffer. However, no formal motion was made related to the trail location. Finally, there was general discussion about the proposed
findings listed in the 8/25/14 Staff Report. As no formal motions were made, staff has included
the same draft findings that were listed in the previous report. However, staff did include
recommended language proposed by Chairman Williams to note that the Concept Plan complies
with the general intent of the applicable zoning districts “with the exception of the issues identified in the Staff Report.”
Based on the above Staff Report and analysis, as well as the analysis completed on 8/25/14, Staff
is recommending approval of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan with 17 conditions intended to
address future considerations related to the submission of a PUD Preliminary Plan and
Preliminary Plat application. The recommended conditions are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) The applicant must obtain permission and consent from the adjoining property owner,
Bremer Bank, related to the right-of-way and alignment of the 5th Street minor collector
road in the southeast corner of the site. The final alignment must be determined prior to
the submittal of PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat applications.
2) Request for flexibility related to lot size, width, setbacks and all other requirements per the City’s Zoning Ordinance or Design Standards must be clarified and documented as
part of the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat submission.
3) The application for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan approval will include an
overall PUD planning document that addresses the flexibility requests noted in the preceding condition and that also specifies the specific design considerations to be used throughout the project area.
4) The Preliminary PUD plans will include a phasing plan for all portions of the
development.
5) The Preliminary Development Plans shall include a water tower within the project development area in a location that is deemed acceptable by the City Engineer. As an alternative, the developer may identify an alternate location off-site for the water tower in
a location deemed acceptable by the City Engineer provided the ownership of the site is
transferred to the City and all required utility connections are constructed in conjunction
with the platting of the Inwood PUD.
6) The Preliminary PUD plans shall be updated to include additional park land in the southeastern portion of the site. A larger park area of 5 to 10 acres adjacent to the
existing Stonegate Park and with access to 5th Street is the preferred location. The
location and size of this park will be subject to review by the Lake Elmo Park
Commission.
7) All street and median geometrics must accommodate emergency vehicle access and maintenance. Applicants must demonstrate acceptable turning radii for all uniquely
shaped landscape medians and cul-de-sacs.
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
7
8) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland
Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from the appropriate watershed
district prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site.
9) Any land under which public trails are located will be accepted as park land provided the developer constructs said trails as part of the public improvements for the subdivision,
and the land is located outside of any restrictive easements.
10) The applicant shall observe all comments and recommendations from the City Engineer
documented on the Engineer’s report dated August 13, 2014.
11) The Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans will address review comments and issues that are identified within the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Inwood
planned development site.
12) The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City clarifying
responsibility for all median landscaping and stormwater facilities internal to the single
family residential streets.
13) The applicants must work with the City to determine fair and equitable cost share for City
costs related to the future signalization of the intersection at 5th Street and Inwood
Avenue (CSAH 13).
14) The applicant must work with Washington County to address all review comments
documented in the attached report dated 8/20/14 pertaining to access and intersection design for Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) and 10th Street (CSAH 10).
15) The applicant must provide sidewalks on both sides of Street B to better serve the single
family residential area.
16) Additional trail segments along the east side of Inwood Avenue from 5th Street to 10th
Street and along 10th Street from Inwood Avenue to the Greenbelt Buffer Trail must be incorporated into the plans.
17) The applicant must work with the City to ensure compliance with the City’s shoreland
provisions and the standards of the SWWD and MN DNR related to shoreland areas of
designated public waters.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed Inwood PUD Concept Plan:
1) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the intent of the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
2) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan complies with the general intent of the City’s Urban
Low Density Residential, Urban High Density Residential and Commercial zoning districts with the exception of the issues identified in the Staff Reports.
3) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan complies with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
8
4) That the Inwood PUD complies with the City’s PUD Ordinance, and specifically the
identified objectives for the consideration of a Planned Development.
5) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the City’s engineering standards
with exceptions as noted by the City Engineer in his review comments to the City dated August 13, 2014.
6) That the master-planning technique utilized in the Inwood PUD Concept Plan provides
thoughtful integration of multiple land uses, a variety of housing types and an effective
and connected transportation system, allowing for different modes of travel throughout
the site.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan with the 17 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff Report. Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan with the findings of fact and
17 conditions of approval as drafted in the Staff Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report, dated 8/25/14 (hard copy not included)
2. Updated Inwood PUD Concept Plan, Open Space Plan and Cover Letter
3. City of Oakdale Review memorandum
ATTACHMENTS FOUND IN 8/25/14 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKET: 1. Location Map
2. Application Form and Project Narrative
3. Inwood Concept Planning & Design Booklet 4. City Engineer’s Review Memorandum, dated 8/13/14 5. Washington County Review Memorandum
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ...................................................................................Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ..............................................................................Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ....................... Chair & Commission Members
- Discussion by the Commission ......................... Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission................................ Chair & Commission Members
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 8/25/14
AGENDA ITEM: 4B – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2014-42
ITEM: Inwood Planned Unit Development (PUD) – General Concept Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief Ann Pung-Terwedo, Washington County
Matt Moore, South Washington Watershed District
Molly Shodeen, MN DNR
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing for a request from Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10, LLC for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a new mixed-
use development on 157 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Inwood Avenue and 10th
Street in Lake Elmo. The concept plan includes 281 single-family residential lots, 144 townhouses,
150 multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse units, and approximately 68,814 square feet of commercial/office uses. Staff is recommending approval of the PUD Concept Plan with 18 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Hans Hagen Homes (John Rask), 941 NE Hillwind Rd. Suite 300, Fridley, MN
55432 and Inwood 10 (Tom Scheutte), LLC, 95 S Owasso Blvd. W., St. Paul,
MN 55117-7830
Property Owners: Inwood 10, LLC (Tom Scheutte), 95 S Owasso Blvd. W., St. Paul, MN 55117-7830
Location: Part of Section 33 in Lake Elmo, immediately south of 10th Street (CSAH 10),
immediately north of Eagle Point Business Park, immediately east of Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) and immediately west of Stonegate residential subdivision. PIDs: 33.029.21.12.0001, 33.029.21.12.0003, 33.029.21.11.0002 and
33.029.21.11.0001.
Request: Application for Concept Plan approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) containing 281 single family lots, 144 townhome units, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior living townhome units and multiple sites intended for commercial uses
to be named Inwood of Lake Elmo.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant land used for agricultural purposes. Current Zoning: RT
– Rural Transitional Zoning District; Proposed Zoning: LDR –
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
2
Low Density Residential, HDR – High Density Residential and
C – Commercial (all with PUD overlay)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Vacant agricultural land and two residential homes – RR
and PF zoning; West: Oak Marsh Golf Course, urban single family subdivision, commercial – City of Oakdale jurisdiction; South: Offices in Eagle Point Business Park (including Bremer
Bank facility) – BP zoning; East: Stonegate residential estates
subdivision – RE zoning.
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 – 4 units per acre), Urban High Density Residential/Mixed Use (7.5 – 15 units per acre)
and Commercial.
History: The site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. The applicants have
submitted a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for publication to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) on September 2nd, commencing the 30-
day comment period.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 8/12/14
60 Day Deadline – 10/10/14 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 12/9/14
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (§154.450) Article 12 – Commercial Districts (§154.550)
Article 16 – Planned Unit Development (§154.800)
Article 17 – Shoreland Management Overlay District
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received an application from Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10, LLC for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a mixed-use project that will be located on 157 acres of land located on south of 10th Street and east of Inwood Avenue in Lake Elmo. The
proposed project will include 281 single-family residential lots, 144 townhouses, 150 multi-family
units, 120 senior townhouse units, and approximately 68,814 square feet of commercial/office uses,
in addition to storm water facilities, trails, and park areas as depicted on the attached site development plan. While the planned uses for the site generally match those shown on the City’s future land use map for the property, the applicant is proposing a slightly different configuration of
the various land uses. Most notably, the developer is asking that the commercial area be moved
further south along Inwood Avenue to the intersection of 5th Street and that a small area of multi-family development be allowed at the intersection of Inwood Avenue and 10th Street.
The overall project can be divided up into three distinct areas on the plans, which includes a multi-
family area south of 5th Street, a single-family “lifestyle housing” neighborhood north of 5th Street,
and commercial areas with frontage along Inwood Avenue. Within the residential areas, the
developer plans a mix of different housing options, including single-family detached housing, townhouses, senior townhomes, senior multi-family, and standard multi-family housing. The planned single-family areas differ from typical residential neighborhoods in that the lots are smaller
than otherwise allowed in the LDR zoning district, with reduced setbacks from the LDR standards as
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
3
well. The homes to be built in these areas are intended to appeal to a different market then a typical
neighborhood by incorporating common open areas, association-maintained lawns and driveways,
and other services, and with amenities that are more typical in a townhouse type of development.
As indicated in the application narrative, the developer does not have detailed plans for any of the multi-family portions of the site, and the plans as submitted depict a general development concept for these areas. These structures planned for much of these areas are intended to serve seniors, including
a proposed 120-unit senior building that would be located in the southern portion of the site. All of
the planned commercial areas are located along Inwood Avenue, and would be separated from the
residential development by the internal road system or storm water ponds. At this time, the plans do not call for any vertical mixing of uses; however, the proposed multi-family buildings would be
located adjacent to commercial activities, allowing for easy access to goods and services.
As opposed to following the City’s normal subdivision procedures, the applicants have determined
that a planned development approach offers the best method to achieve their development vision for their property. The purpose of the City’s PUD ordinance is to provide flexibility in development and
zoning standards for large parcels under unified control with the goal of achieving higher quality
development. More specifically, the General Concept Plan phase of the PUD procedure allows the
applicant to submit a general plan to the City demonstrating his or her basic intent of the development, including general density ranges, location of residential and nonresidential land uses, and location of streets, paths and open space. The purpose of approving the Concept Plan is to
provide the applicant with conceptual approval related to the requested flexibilities or variations from
the City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, or other City standards, before incurring substantial
costs related to submitting a full Preliminary Plat application. In terms of procedure, the planned development path is similar to the normal subdivision process in that Preliminary and Final PUD
Plan approvals must follow parallel track to Preliminary and Final Plat. However, one critical
difference between the planned development process and standard subdivision process is that the
PUD Concept Plan phase requires a public hearing and the approval of the City Council.
The applicant is proposing to develop the site as a large Planned Unit Development, and is requesting flexibility from the underlying zoning in a number of areas including the following:
• The lot sizes and setbacks for the “lifestyle housing” that is planned for most of the single-
family detached houses.
• The construction of multi-family buildings on a portion of the site that is presently guided for
commercial development. It should be noted that the zoning ordinance does allow multi-family buildings in commercial zoning districts as a conditional use.
• Moving certain land uses and densities across the entire site. The overall densities that are planned, and the overall size of the commercial, multi-family, and single family areas follow
closely to the amount indicated in the Comprehensive Plan; however, the applicant is
proposing to move the specific locations of these uses in accordance with the submitted plans. For instance, the City’s future land use plan depicts approximately 13 acres of commercial land uses at the intersection of Inwood and 10th Street. The developer is
proposing to keep the overall size of the commercial area the same but extending it further
south along Inwood Avenue as opposed to locating single family residential directly adjacent
to the County arterial roadway.
• Allocating the allowed densities across the entire site instead of reviewing densities on a project-by-project basis. This allows the developer to plan for storm water management, parks, and roadways in the appropriate locations, even though a smaller project within the
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
4
planning area may exceed underlying zoning. The density projections for the site are
reviewed in greater detail in the latter sections of this report.
The flexibility that being requested by the developer is allowed under the City’s PUD Ordinance, and
the developer has provided a response to the PUD objectives as listed in the Zoning Ordinance as part of the project narrative. The appendix of the submitted Concept Planning & Design Booklet (Attachment #5) also addresses how the proposed planned development is meeting the objectives of
the City’s PUD Ordinance.
Because the project is located at the intersection of two major roadways in Lake Elmo and includes
the proposed construction of another, access issues will play a major role in how the site is able to develop. Internal to the site, the developer intends to connect to the planned extension of the 5th
Street minor collector road that will extend through the Boulder Ponds development in the
southeastern portion of the site. This road will then turn quickly to the west and eventually intersect
Inwood Avenue about 500 feet north of the Eagle Point Business Park. While most of the internal traffic will be accessed via 5th Street, there are multiple planned connections along both Inwood
Avenue and 10th Street, which includes a new north/south connection road that will provide a
connection between Eagle Point Boulevard and 10th Street. While all of the roads have been
designed to comply with City and County requirements, they will be subject to further review and analysis as more detailed plans are prepared for the site.
One of the other major features of the project includes the preservation of the wooded area along the
eastern project boundary. This area is guided for a green belt/buffer area between the Stonegate
neighborhood and denser urban development on the applicant’s site. The developer is also proposing
a series of trails within the project, including a trail in the eastern green belt/buffer running north and south along a linear park, an east-west trail running across the entire segment of the development
connecting the residential area to the commercial areas, as well as the City’s planned regional trail
section along 5th Street. In addition to the multiple trail systems, smaller park areas are shown in the
southeastern part of the site near the existing Stonegate Park, which are proposed as a logical extension of the existing park area. The other open space areas within the development are predominately being used for storm water management purposes, with larger ponds being located
south and east of the commercial area near the intersection of 5th Street and Inwood Avenue.
Regarding next steps, the applicant is proposing to bring forward a Preliminary Plan and Preliminary
Plat application upon approval of the Concept Plan. Per the PUD Ordinance, the final approval of the proposed planned unit development will result in a zoning change to a specific PUD zoning district, with specific requirements and standards that are specific to the development. If the application
moves forward, the change in the base zoning (LDR, HDR, C) of the property would occur at the
time of Preliminary Plan approval, and the final PUD zoning with approved flexibility that is specific to the development would be established at Final Plan approval.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
The Inwood site is guided for Urban Low Density Residential, Urban High Density Residential and
Commercial land uses in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. As noted above, the developer is planning
to keep the same general mix of uses on the property, but will be moving the specific location of
certain elements to better suit the unique circumstances of this property. The most important consideration in this regard is the location of the commercial area, which is shown in the extreme northwest portion of the site in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. While the location of this
commercial area at the intersection of two major roadways makes sense from a planning perspective,
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
5
in reality access to this area is limited due to spacing requirements along and adjacent to a County
road. The developer’s plans create a new commercial intersection at Inwood and 5th Street, which
allows these areas to be accessed via a back road system while avoiding any driveways with direct
access to either Inwood or 10th Street. The subsequent arrangement of uses makes logical sense given the access restrictions in place. In addition, it may be problematic to locate single family residential land uses directly adjacent to Inwood Ave. (CSAH 13) as guided by the Comprehensive
Plan. Inwood Ave is a County arterial roadway that is anticipated to serve a substantial volume of
traffic in the future. From a land use compatibility and noise mitigation standpoint, it makes sense to
narrow and extend the commercial uses along Inwood Avenue.
The other major break from the underlying Comprehensive Plan is the siting of two multi-family
structures at the intersection of 10th Street and Inwood Avenue. Essentially, the developer is
proposing to swap a portion of the high density/mixed use area north of Eagle Point Business Park with commercial development at this intersection. The overall balance of uses is therefore not being
changed from the Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed reconfiguration appears to work well given
the other site constraints, including storm water retention and infiltration requirements, that need to
be addressed on the site. In addition, it should be noted that multi-family housing is allowed in the Commercial zoning district as a conditional use. The applicant is proposing to site the multi-family use in this location through the planned development process as opposed to the Conditional Use
Permit process. Staff has reviewed the requested variations from the Comprehensive Plan and found
that the master-planning of the 157-acre parcel as proposed in the Inwood PUD represents thoughtful
planning and siting of the various uses proposed. After evaluating the master-planned development, Staff finds that the development is meeting the overall intent of the land use guidance of the
Comprehensive Plan when considering the overall land use goals for the parcel.
Regarding the density calculations of the Inwood planned development, the developer has provided
density calculations at the request of Staff for the entire site using the City’s recently adopted net density definition. These calculations are summarized as follows:
Use Area (in acres) Units Net Density (units per acre)
Single Family Detached 87.17 281 3.22
Multi-family (south of 5th Street) 23.2 264 11.38
Multi-family (corner of 10th and Inwood) 5.16 150 29.1
The overall net density for all of the residential areas is 6 units per acre, while on a gross basis this number is 4.9 units per acre. However, all of these numbers are misleading because most of the
ponding for the development is located on the outlots adjacent to the commercial parcels, which
would add additional open space to the residential calculations. The developer has noted that by utilizing the density ranges permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the maximum number of residential units that could be built on the site would be 812 units, compared to the planned number
of 695 included in the Inwood development. On an overall site development basis, the proposed
Inwood PUD would be consistent with the overall range of planned growth according to the
Comprehensive Plan.
In addition to the requested variation related to the Comprehensive Plan, the other flexibilities requested by the applicant include reduced setback requirements for the single family “lifestyle”
housing product offered in the residential neighborhood of the development. The standards for the
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
6
LDR zoning district and the requested flexibilities for the Inwood PUD single family lots are as
follows:
Setback LDR Zoning District Inwood PUD Front Yard 25 Feet 18 Feet to Principal Structure / 20 Feet to Garage
Interior Side Yard 10 Feet Principal Structure
Side / 5 Feet Garage Side
4 Feet
Rear Yard 20 Feet 20 Feet
In addition to setback requirements, the applicants will be requesting flexibility from minimum lot
size requirements and lot width requirements, particularly for the Village/Carriage residential
product. The Inwood Concept Plan noted that 20% of these homes are slightly under 40 feet in width, while 60% are 50 feet in width and the final 20% are 58 feet in width. The LDR zoning
district requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet. By pursuing the PUD process, the applicants are
requesting reduced lot sizes, which is allowed under the ordinance. They have noted that the unique
housing type, which is completely maintenance free (HOA maintained), requires different design considerations and setbacks. The lot width of the designer product (46 lots in the southeastern potion of the development) are 65 to 85 feet in width, meeting the minimum standards of the LDR district.
As an area tabulation of individual lots is not required at Concept Plan level review for a planned
development, the applicant has not submitted an area calculation. However, given the size of some
of the proposed lots, it is anticipated that many of the lots will be under the LDR zoning district standard of 8,000 square feet. As part of any preliminary PUD plan submittal, staff would require
the applicant to submit a complete area tabulation of all the lots proposed in the planned
development. Once again, the applicants have noted that in order to achieve a completely HOA
maintained neighborhood with a single level product type, flexibility from standard lot width, size and setback requirements are necessary. Based on the residential product presented in the planned development, Staff would offer that the residential product proposed offers a residential product or
type that is not currently represented in the Lake Elmo housing market.
With regards to the proposed uses in the Inwood PUD, it should be noted that the master-planned development proposes to integrate low density residential, high density residential and commercial uses all within one development effort. Master-planning the entire development as part of a broad,
single effort allows for much greater integration of street and pedestrian networks, providing greater
connectivity within the development. In addition, planning the entire site allows for improved planning and utilization of storm water facilities for the area. In reviewing the proposed commercial uses included in the Concept Plan, it should be noted that all are allowed in the Commercial zoning
district. However, it is anticipated that these uses may change according to market conditions and
demand. It would be Staff’s expectation that the uses proposed in the Commercial areas of the development would be allowed under the Commercial zoning district.
Finally, as the Inwood development is utilizing the PUD process, it is the burden of the applicant to
explain how the proposed development meets one or more of the City’s identified objectives
(§154.801) related to planned developments. In order to address this question, the applicant has provided a thorough explanation of which objectives are met within the back section of the Project Narrative (Attachment #3 – Also found in PUD Design Planning & Concepts Booklet). In the
judgment of Staff, the proposed development meets the criteria for the following identified
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
7
objectives: A) Innovation in land techniques, B) Promotion of integrated land uses, D)
Accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to employment and/or commercial
facilities and H) Creation of more efficient provision of public utilities and services, lessened demand
on transportation, etc. Arguments could be made for additional objectives being achieved. Staff was most confident in the aforementioned objectives being met.
Per the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant is required to provide parkland dedication in an
amount equal to 10% of land developed residentially, fees equal to the market value of 10% of the
land, or some combination thereof. The acceptable parkland solution is at the discretion of the City. Based on the submitted area calculations on the Inwood PUD Concept Plan, there is 78.1 acres of
single family residential area and 29.5 acres of multi-family residential area, totaling 107.6 acres.
Therefore, the required land dedication for the residential areas would be 10.7 acres. The applicants
have noted that 12.2 acres of public parkland is provided, going above the required dedication amount. However, the outlots containing area labeled park also contain storm water facilities and
one smaller wetland. In advance of preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan, it is recommended
that the applicant work with Staff to clarify the correct amount of parkland provided given the City’s
criteria for eligible parkland. In addition to the land dedication requirements for the residential areas of the Inwood planned development, the applicant would be required to submit a fee of $4,500 per acre of land developed for commercial purposes. Based on the area calculations, there is currently
27.7 acres of land being developed commercially, which would result in a parkland fee of $124,650.
In developing more detailed plans for the Inwood development in the future, staff will work with the
applicant to determine the correct parkland dedication amounts.
In terms of the parkland provided in the Inwood planned development, the majority of the park areas
are found in the southeast corner of the site adjacent to existing Stonegate Park and on the east side
of the development with the linear greenbelt park. It should be noted that there is park proposed on both sides of the 5th Street minor collector road. The smaller park area on the southern side of the collector is intended to serve the townhome area immediately to the west. The park area north of the
collector, along with the linear greenbelt park, could easily serve the single family residential portion
of the development. While at this time it appears that the total required parkland dedication amount
has been met by the applicant, Staff would recommend enlarging the park area north of 5th Street adjacent to existing Stonegate Park to an overall size of 5-10 acres. Increased park area in this location would give the City the ability to design more usable recreation space where organized
recreation activities, such as baseball or soccer, could be held. Given the number of residential units
proposed in the development, Staff believes that a larger park area is appropriate in this case. In addition, it is likely that the park should be served by an access off of 5th Street with a small parking area to serve the overall park. If the applicants have indeed met their land dedication requirements,
Staff would recommend that the applicants be given credit or compensated for any parkland provided
above the dedication amount. Credit and compensation could be achieved by reducing the parkland dedication fees due related to commercial development on the site by the equal market value of the land the City receives above the dedication amount. In order to get further direction regarding the
appropriate park area for the development, Staff is recommending that the applicant present their
plans to the Park Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which is on September 15th,
2014. It should also be noted that two portions of the site are subject to shoreland rules. The northwest
corner of the site is located within the shoreland district of Armstrong Lake, which is located in the
jurisdictions of both Oakdale and Lake Elmo. In addition, an unnamed stream or tributary exists in
the southwest corner of the site running towards Eagle Point Business Park. To review the proposed
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
8
development in and around these areas, Staff completed a review of the Concept Plan against the
City’s Shoreland Management Overlay District (Article 17 of Zoning Code). Regarding the
northwest potion of the site, the proposed structures are not in close proximity to the Ordinary High
Water Level (OHWL) of Armstrong Lake. In terms of impervious surface, sewered lots without riparian dedication are subject to a maximum amount of impervious surface of 30% of lot area. This standard would apply to the commercial and multi-family residential uses proposed in the northwest
and western portion of the site, as the shoreland district boundary is depicted on the Concept Plan
with a bold dashed black line. In addition, Staff does have some concern about the amount of
impervious coverage in Lots 7-14, Block 11. These lots may need to be revised to comply with the City’s shoreland standards. In addition to Armstrong Lake, the unnamed tributary flowing through
the southeastern portion of the site, which travels to Wilmes Lake in Woodbury, is considered a
protected water under DNR classification. The applicants have provided a significant buffer around
the unnamed tributary. The City’s shoreland provisions require a structure setback of 75 feet from tributaries for sewered lots with no riparian buffering requirement. However, the MN DNR and
South Washington Watershed District may provide additional review on this area. There may be a
concern about the proximity of the commercial use labeled “pharmacy”. Regarding all the shoreland
issues, Staff would recommend that the applicant work with the City to ensure compliance with the City’s shoreland provisions and the standards of the SWWD and MN DNR as a condition of approval (Condition #18).
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
City Staff has reviewed the proposed Inwood PUD Concept Plan, which has gone through multiple
iterations in advance of the formal application being made to the City. In general, the proposed plan
will meet all applicable City requirements for PUD Concept Plan approval, and any deficiencies or additional work that is needed is noted for the purpose of inclusion in the review record. In addition there are several things happening in and around the Inwood planned development that will have an
impact on the project, including the construction of 5th Street with appropriate access spacing and
alignment, as well as the potential siting of a future water tower on the site. Given that some of these efforts are still underway, Staff recognizes that some modifications will be necessary from PUD Concept Plan phase to PUD Preliminary Plan phase.
The City has received a detailed list of comments from the City Engineer and Fire Chief, in addition
to comments by the Washington County Public Works, all of which are attached for consideration by
the Commission.
In addition to the general comments that have been provided in the preceding sections of this report, Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the issues and comments related to the
following discussion areas as well:
• Comprehensive Plan. In the judgment of Staff, the proposed planned development is
consistent with the land use categories guided for this site as planned in the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amount of residential growth is consistent with the range of residential development as guided by the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the land uses
as proposed are generally consistent with the Urban Low Density Residential - LDR and
Urban High Density Residential - HDR zoning districts. Finally, the total area intended for commercial uses on the site matches the amount planned under the Comprehensive Plan, with the locational changes noted as an acceptable variation through the PUD process. Other
aspects of the Comprehensive Plan relate to the Inwood PUD Concept Plan as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
9
o Transportation. The City’s transportation plan calls for the construction of a minor
collector road (5th Street) that will connect the eastern and western portions of the I-
94 Corridor. Staff views this road as a critical piece of the transportation
infrastructure that is needed to serve the densities that have been planned for this area. The applicant has incorporated the right-of-way at the width necessary to construct the minor collector as part of its PUD Concept Plan. As proposed, the
provided segment of 5th Street will connect from Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) to the
Boulder Ponds development southeast of the site, eventually leading through the
Savona subdivision to Keats Avenue (CSAH 19). Completion of this segment of the minor collector road will provide the infrastructure needed to properly distribute
automobile traffic throughout Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area.
o Parks. The City’s Park Plan identifies the subject property as a needed location for a
neighborhood park. Given the amount of residential growth proposed for the site, it makes sense to provide enough parkland to adequately serve this portion of the I-94
Corridor Planning Area. In addition to a neighborhood park as guided by the
Comprehensive Plan, it should also be noted that the eastern portion of the site is
guided for a 100-foot linear park known as the greenbelt buffer. The greenbelt trail provided on the eastern portion of the development is consistent with the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan.
o Water. Water will eventually be provided to this area via a future extension of the
municipal system along Inwood Avenue. The Inwood planned development will be
able to be served under the City’s current agreement with the City of Oakdale until the Inwood watermain extension is completed in 2015. It also must be noted that the
subject property is identified as a future location for one of the two water towers
needed to serve the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. As a condition of approval
(Condition #5), Staff recommends that the applicant provide a location that meets the approval of the City Engineer within the development to site the necessary water tower. As an alternative, the applicant can provide the City with an alternative site,
as long as the location works from a hydrological standpoint and meets the approval
of the City Engineer.
o Sanitary Sewer. The Inwood planned development will be able to connect into the existing sanitary sewer system within the Eagle Point Business Park. While this area is presently served via an interconnected system with the City of Oakdale, all of
Section 34 will eventually be connected to the regional interceptor located
immediately south of the business park. As noted in the City Engineer’s memo, the proposed sanitary sewer connection will need to be evaluated for capacity and overall system design.
o Phasing. The Inwood planned development is located within the Stage 1 phasing
area of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. Therefore, the proposed development is consistent with the City’s anticipated phasing of growth.
• Zoning. The proposed base zoning for the Inwood site will be split between the Urban Low Density Residential – LDR, the Urban High Density Residential – HDR, and Commercial –
C zoning districts. However, approval of PUD Final Plan will result in a zoning change to a
specific PUD Zoning District, recording all of the permitted variations, such as minimum lot
size and setbacks, from the Zoning requirements of the base zoning district.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
10
• Subdivision Requirements. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance includes a fairly lengthy list of standards that must be met by all new subdivisions, and include requirements for blocks,
lots, easements, erosion and sediment control, drainage systems, monuments, sanitary sewer
and water facilities, streets, and other aspects of the plans. The City will work with the
applicant to ensure that all standards specified in the Subdivision Ordinance are met, or that the appropriate variation is requested through the PUD Preliminary Plan.
• Concept Phasing. The developer has indicated that the first phases of the project will be the
single-family areas, with the multi-family and commercial areas proceeding based on market
conditions. The narrative notes that Hans Hagen Homes will be the exclusive builder of the
single family area, while Inwood 10, LLC will develop the commercial and multi-family areas as the market permits. In addition, Staff is requesting that the developer will be asked to provide a more specific phasing plan with the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD
submissions (Condition #4).
• Infrastructure. The developer will be required to construct all streets, sewer, water, storm
water ponds, and other infrastructure necessary to serve the development. Storm water facilities should be platted as outlots and deeded to the city for maintenance purposes. Adequate access to public storm water facilities must be provided.
• Tree Preservation and Protection. Based upon the limited tree cover of the site, it is
possible that the applicant may not be required to complete a Tree Preservation Plan. If the
applicant can demonstrate that significant trees on the site will not be negatively impacted by
development activity, they would be allowed to submit a Woodland Evaluation Report in lieu of a Tree Preservation Plan. In addition to the trees along the eastern boundary, there are
only two relatively small stands of trees on the site, located in the southwest and southeast
corners of the site respectively. The Inwood PUD Concept Plan does not show development
activity over these areas. However, potential impacts to existing trees will be better understood at the preliminary plat level with the submission of a grading plan for the
development. Overall, the details at the preliminary plat stage will require a greater level of
detail concerning trees on the site.
• Green Belt/Buffer. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the area on the east side of the
Inwood planned development adjacent to the Stonegate residential subdivision as a green belt/buffer space with a minimum width of 100 feet. As proposed in the Inwood PUD
Concept Plan, the applicant is utilizing this space for the continuation of trail corridor from
the Boulder Ponds planned development in the south. As proposed, the design of the
greenbelt trail is consistent with City planning efforts to date. In addition, it should be noted that the applicants are proposing to maintain a significant amount of existing trees along the eastern boundary of the site, adding to the value and aesthetic of the proposed linear park
area. The existing trees include a significant amount of evergreen species, which should
provide ample year round screening to many portions of the development. It should be noted
that the distance maintained between private lots and the Stonegate neighborhood exceeds 100 feet in many areas, where separation distances of 140 to over 200 feet are common. However, it should be noted that Lots 27 and 28, Block 7 do encroach on the minimum 100-
foot buffer area. As a condition of approval (Condition #12), Staff would recommend that
the two lots noted be revised to maintain the 100-foot buffer requirement. With the exception of the two lots noted, Staff believes that that green belt/buffer requirements of the Comprehensive Plan have been met, and often exceeded, by the applicant.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
11
• Streets and Transportation. The Inwood PUD Concept Plan includes a substantial portion of the 5th Street minor collector road, as well as an extensive internal street network proposed to
serve the mixed-use development. From a conceptual level review of the street system, it
appears that the proposed internal public streets meet the City’s baseline subdivision
requirements and City engineering standards. The right-of-way of local streets are 60 feet in width and local roads are 28 feet in width from curb to curb. In addition to the local road
provided, the Inwood planned development includes a series of private streets and driveways
to serve multi-family and commercial properties. The private streets and driveways as
proposed are primarily accessed off 5th Street and Street D. Significant information regarding
the proposed transportation network can be found in the City Engineer’s memo (Attachment #6). In addition to the Engineer’s review comments, staff offers the following additional
comments related to streets:
o 5th Street. The City Engineer presents a significant amount of design requirements
related to the 5th Street minor collector road in his review memorandum. In addition to his comments, Staff would highlight the following:
Alignment. The proposed alignment should meet Washington County’s
specifications for the touchdown on Inwood Ave. (CSAH 13). However, the
alignment at the Boulder Ponds development includes slight additional impact to the Bremer Bank property, necessitating an additional 2,967 square feet of right-of-way from the Bremer site. In order to proceed with the alignment as
shown, the applicant will need written permission from Bremer Bank
(Condition #1).
5th Street and Inwood Avenue Signalization. Washington County will require signalization for the 5th Street and Inwood Ave. intersection at some
point in the future. Given the anticipated traffic volumes generated by the
Inwood planned development, Staff would recommend that the City require
the applicant to participate financially in the City’s share of the traffic signal costs. As a condition of approval (Condition #14), Staff is recommending that the applicant work with the City to determine a fair and reasonable cost share
for the City’s portion of the costs to signalize the 5th Street and Inwood
intersection.
o Residential Streets. For the single family neighborhood, the applicant is proposing unique street designs. The streets of the single family areas include Low Impact
Development (LID) techniques of utilizing center islands and medians to incorporate
infiltration and storm water management facilities allowing for enhanced and
innovative storm water management within close proximity to streets and residential lots. The center medians will also allow for additional landscaping and pedestrian spaces, as demonstrated in the Concept Planning and Design Booklet (Attachment
#5). It should also be noted that the islands would include a one way street design,
requiring vehicle traffic to move in circular direction around the island. Due to the unique design of these streets, the City will require additional geometric details and exhibits demonstrating successful turning movements throughout the neighborhood
streets. As a condition of approval (Condition #7), Staff is recommending that these
details be submitted as part of the Preliminary PUD Plan. Additional details needed
for review must address the review comments from the City Engineer documented in the review memorandum dated 8/13/14 (Attachment #6). Finally, it should be noted that Street C and Cul-De-Sac L exceed the maximum length of cul-de-sac for
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
12
sewered developments (600 feet) per the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. The Engineer
has recommended that this road section be revised to connect interior to the
development. This could most likely be accomplished by connecting Street C to
Neighborhood Street E.
• Sidewalks and Trails. The proposed Inwood planned development offers a substantial amount and variety of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the form of sidewalks and trails,
offering alternative modes of transport throughout the development. Staff has the following
comments pertaining to sidewalks and trails:
o Sidewalks. All of the major streets serving the single family residential area have sidewalks on at least one side of the streets, and in some case both sides. In addition, the applicant is planning unique street design with center medians. The Concept
Planning and Design Booklet note that these median areas include additional
pedestrian facilities to access residential homes. However, this level of detail is not
currently provided for all the individual islands and medians at the Concept Plan stage. Staff would recommend that this detail be provided to better understand how
these residential areas are being served. In addition, one recommendation (Condition
#16) that Staff would make is to include sidewalks on both sides of Street B, as this
street is serving as a neighborhood collector for the single family residential neighborhood. Finally, the mutli-family and commercial areas often have direct sidewalk access to the streets. Staff would recommend that the applicant provide
pedestrian access to the best extent possible to both mutli-family and commercial
uses, as one of the benefits of a master-planned development is to ensure broad
connectivity in between the various land uses included in the plan.
o Trails. The applicants are proposing an effective system of trails to serve the planned
development. In addition to the greenbelt linear park trail on the east side of the
development, the applicant is planning a central east-west trail contained mostly in
open space areas across the entire development. This should allow the development to achieve residential neighborhoods with easy access to employment and commercial services, resulting in an integrated development with a mix of uses. In
order to augment the proposed trails provided in the Concept Plat, staff recommends
that additional trail segments be provided within the Inwood Avenue and 10th Street
right-of-ways (Condition #17). Staff recommends that the Inwood Avenue trail segment on the east side of the road extend from 5th Street to 10th Street (CSAH 10).
In addition, the 10th Street (CSAH 10) trail segment should connect from Inwood
Avenue (CSAH 13) to the Greenbelt Buffer Trail at the northeast corner of the
development. These trail segments would ensure proper connection of the proposed trails and offer increased connectivity and access.
• City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has provided the Planning Department with a detailed comment letter (Attachment #6) dated August 13, 2014 as a summary of his review
of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan. Staff has incorporated the more significant issues
identified by the Engineer as part of the recommended conditions of approval, and has also included a general condition (Condition #10) that all issues identified by the City Engineer must be addressed by the applicant prior to approval of a the PUD Preliminary Plan and
Preliminary Plat.
• Washington County Public Works Review. Ann Pung-Terwedo of Washington County
Public Works has submitted a review memorandum that focuses on the proposed street
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
13
connections of the Inwood PUD to the surrounding arterial street network. Given that both
Inwood avenue (CSAH 13) and 10th Street (CSAH 10) are County arterial roadways that will
directly serve the development, there are many considerations related to access management
and intersection design that the applicants must consider in planning out the internal street system. The review memorandum from Washington County is found in Attachment #8. Staff is recommending that the applicants work with Washington County to address all
review comments in the memo as a condition of approval (Condition #15). Finally, it should
be noted that the Inwood planned development site is within proximity to one of the planned
stations for the planned Gateway Corridor transit facility. In the judgment of Staff, the development as proposed would be compatible with elements or characteristics of transit-
oriented development (TOD), offering further support for the Inwood Concept Plan.
• Fire Chief Review. The Lake Elmo Fire Chief, Greg Malmquist, submitted a review letter for
the proposed planned development. In the letter, he highlights the importance of an effective
street naming system that follows the County system and has been utilized by the City. In addition, there are comments submitted on the proper location of fire hydrants and proper
street design to allow for effective turning movements for fire apparatus and other emergency
vehicles. Finally, he notes that many of the structures included in the plan may be subject to
fire sprinkling requirements per State Building and Fire Codes.
• Watershed Districts. The project area lies within the South Washington Watershed District. The applicants have started working with Matt Moore, the SWWD engineer, on preparing a
stormwater management plan that will meet the treatment, rate and volume requirements for
the proposed development. As a condition of approval (Condition #8), all specific
development projects will need to comply with applicable watershed district requirements. As proposed, the project will impact man-made constructed wetlands on the site that were created related to agricultural activity. The applicant is currently working through the
mitigation requirements for these impacts with the watershed district (which is the
responsible government unit for wetland issues).
• Environmental Review. Based upon the proposed scope of the Concept Plan, the project will
meet the threshold for a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), as the proposed development will exceed the threshold of 300 residential units. The developer has
prepared a draft EAW that will be distributed for public comment starting on September 2,
2014. No subdivision of land can occur until this review is complete; however, the developer
may proceed with simultaneous reviews at its own risk.
• Design Review. Based on the proposed uses within the PUD Concept Plan, multiple structures within the Inwood Development will be subject to design and architectural review, including all multi-family residential (apartments, condos, senior living) and commercial
buildings. Design and architectural review will be performed at Preliminary and Final PUD
Plan stage for all applicable structures.
• Theming. Staff has distributed the Branding and Theming Study completed by Damon Farber and Associates to the applicants previously. In completing a preliminary landscape plan for the site, staff would recommend that the applicants consider the inclusion of various
theming elements and amenities identified in the plan for various locations within the
development. For example, the 5th Street and Inwood Avenue Intersection presents a gateway
opportunity for the City. Utilizing some of the elements described in the theming study would help the development and City achieve unique design that is consistent with the theme
that the City is attempting to augment and achieve as private development moves forward.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
14
Based on the above Staff Report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the Inwood PUD
Concept Plan with multiple conditions intended to address future considerations related to the
submission of a PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat application. The recommended
conditions are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) The applicant must obtain permission and consent from the adjoining property owner,
Bremer Bank, related to the right-of-way and alignment of the 5th Street minor collector road
in the southeast corner of the site. The final alignment must be determined prior to the
submittal of PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat applications.
2) Request for flexibility related to lot size, width, setbacks and all other requirements per the
City’s Zoning Ordinance or Design Standards must be clarified and documented as part of
the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat submission.
3) The application for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan approval will include an overall PUD planning document that addresses the flexibility requests noted in the preceding
condition and that also specifies the specific design considerations to be used throughout the
project area.
4) The Preliminary PUD plans will include a phasing plan for all portions of the development.
5) The Preliminary Development Plans shall include a water tower within the project development area in a location that is deemed acceptable by the City Engineer. As an
alternative, the developer may identify an alternate location off-site for the water tower in a
location deemed acceptable by the City Engineer provided the ownership of the site is
transferred to the City and all required utility connections are constructed in conjunction with the platting of the Inwood PUD.
6) The Preliminary PUD plans shall be updated to include additional park land in the
southeastern portion of the site. A larger park area of 5 to 10 acres adjacent to the existing
Stonegate Park and with access to 5th Street is the preferred location. The location and size of this park will be subject to review by the Lake Elmo Park Commission.
7) All street and median geometrics must accommodate emergency vehicle access and
maintenance. Applicants must demonstrate acceptable turning radii for all uniquely shaped
landscape medians and cul-de-sacs.
8) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from the appropriate watershed district prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site.
9) Any land under which public trails are located will be accepted as park land provided the
developer constructs said trails as part of the public improvements for the subdivision, and the land is located outside of any restrictive easements.
10) The applicant shall observe all comments and recommendations from the City Engineer
documented on the Engineer’s report dated August 13, 2014.
11) The Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans will address review comments and issues that are identified within the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Inwood planned development site.
12) Lots 27 and 28, Block 7 must be revised to maintain the minimum 100-foot greenbelt buffer
requirement along the eastern portion of the planned development.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
15
13) The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City clarifying responsibility
for all median landscaping and stormwater facilities internal to the single family residential
streets.
14) The applicants must work with the City to determine fair and equitable cost share for City costs related to the future signalization of the intersection at 5th Street and Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13).
15) The applicant must work with Washington County to address all review comments
documented in the attached report dated 8/20/14 pertaining to access and intersection design
for Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) and 10th Street (CSAH 10).
16) The applicant must provide sidewalks on both sides of Street B to better serve the single
family residential area.
17) Additional trail segments along the east side of Inwood Avenue from 5th Street to 10th Street
and along 10th Street from Inwood Avenue to the Greenbelt Buffer Trail must be incorporated into the plans.
18) The applicant must work with the City to ensure compliance with the City’s shoreland
provisions and the standards of the SWWD and MN DNR related to shoreland areas of
designated public waters.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed Inwood PUD Concept Plan:
1) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the intent of the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
2) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan complies with the general intent of the City’s Urban Low Density Residential, Urban High Density Residential and Commercial zoning districts.
3) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan complies with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.
4) That the Inwood PUD complies with the City’s PUD Ordinance, and specifically the
identified objectives for the consideration of a Planned Development.
5) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the City’s engineering standards with exceptions as noted by the City Engineer in his review comments to the City dated August
13, 2014.
6) That the master-planning technique utilized in the Inwood PUD Concept Plan provides
thoughtful integration of multiple land uses, a variety of housing types and an effective and connected transportation system, allowing for different modes of travel throughout the site.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Inwood PUD Concept
Plan with the 18 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff Report. Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan with the findings of fact and conditions of approval as drafted in the Staff Report.”
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
16
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Application Form 3. Project Narrative 4. Inwood PUD Concept Plan w/Details
5. Inwood PUD Concept Planning & Design Booklet
6. City Engineer’s Review Memorandum, dated 8/13/14
7. Fire Chief’s Review Memorandum, dated 8/19/14 8. Washington County Review Memorandum, dated 8/20/14
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B
Oak MarshGolf Course
StonegatePark
Bremer Bank
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Data Scource: Washington County, MN8-15-2014
Location Map: Inwood 10 PUD
KInwood Ave. N.10th St. N.
0 500 1,000250 Feet
1"=500'
Inwood 10 PUDEagle Point Blvd. N.456710
456713
InWood10LLCINWOOD VILLAGE: SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES WOOD BUFFER, TRAIL SYSTEM & GREEN SPACESINWOOD PLACE: MULTIFAMILYINWOOD SHOPS: RETAIL & SERVICESINWOOD MARKET: RETAIL & SERVICESINWOOD COVE: SENIOR HOUSINGINWOOD SOUTH: TOWNHOMES• CONTACT: JOHN RASK •• Hans Hagen Homes • • ph. 763.586.7202 •August 21st, 2014CONCEPT PLANNING & DESIGN
TABLE OF CONTENTSIntroductory Letter pg. 1Master Site Plan pg. 3-5Streetscape & Home Designs pg. 6-7 Island Greenspace Example Concepts pg. 8-10Coordinated Rear Yards Privacy Screening pg. 11Homes & Master Plan Amenities pg. 12-17Appendix: Letter to Mayor; Conformance to City Regulations pg 18-21
pg.1
pg.2
INWOOD AERIAL PERSPECTIVE LOOKING NORTH WESTNINTERSTATE 94INWOOD AVENUE N.........10TH STREET N...MASTMASTMASTMAER PER PER PERLANLANLANLAABBYBY HBY HBYANSANSANSNSHAGEHHAGEGEGEN HON HON HONHOHON HOHHMMESMESESMESMESMECOMCOMCOMCOMMERCMERCMERCMERCMERRCMERCIAL IALIAIAIAL& RE& RERNTALNTALALNTALHOUHOHOUOSINGSINGSPLAPLALAPLAALALAAN BYN BYN BYN BYN BYN BNN BCOLCOLOLLLAGELAGEALAGELAGEARCARARCRCARCARCARCCHITEHITEHITHITHITTECTURCTURCTUREEEINWOINWOINWOINOD VOD VOD VILLAILLALLAGE:GE:GSINSINGSINGLE FLE FE FAMILAMILAMMY DEY DEY DEEDETACHTACHTTAED ED HOMEHOMEHOMEMHOHOS NES NESNESNIGHBIGHBIGHBIGHBORHOORHORHOORHOORHORODODOOINWOINWOWONWONWNWONWOOD SOD SOOOOOHOPSHOPSHOPHOPS& MA& MAMA& MA& MA& MA& MA& MARKERKETRKETRKETRKETRKETTRKRININWONWOODOD SOD SSOUTHOUOUTHTH: TOWNTOWNHOMEHOMEOMESSINWOINWOINWNWININNNNWIOD CODD CD COD CDCCDCOOVOVE:OVE:OO SSENISENISENISENOR LOR LOR LOR LOR LOR OIVINVIIVINIVIVIVINNVNGGGINWOINWOINWONWOOWOINWOOD POD POD POD POD POD LACELACLACELACECEA::::MULTMULTMULTLTLTI-FAI-FAFFIFAI-FAMILYMILYILYLYMILYMILYILYRRESRESRESRESRESSIDENDENIDENIDENIDENIIDENCESCESCESCESSEXEXEXISEEXXISISXXTINGNGNGNGNGTIOAOAOAK K MARSMAARSARSMARSARSMARSAMAHHH GOHHH GOOHLLFLFFLFLFLCOURCOCOURCOURSESESEEEEXISEXISTINGTINGEAGEAGLE LE POINPOINT BUT BUSINESINESS SS CAMPCAMPUSUSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE & ILLUSTRATION BY PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGNpg.3
IAERIAL PERSPECTIVE LOOKING SOUTHNINTERSTATE 94INWO
O
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
N .........10TH STREET N..NOTENOTEOTE: EX: EXEX: EXEISTIISTING TNG TREESREESREESPREPREPRREPRER-SERVSERVVED BEDED BY 10Y 100’ +0’ +PREPRERSERVSERVSERVEEAAA-TIONTIONONBUFBUFFERFER (EXC(EXCEEDSEEDSEEORDIORDINANCNANCE REE REE REEEQUIRQUIRQQQUQEMENEMENTS))MASTMASTMASTMASTMASTER PER PER PERER PRLAN LAN LANLAN LANBY HBY HBY HBY HY HANSANS ANS ANSNANHAGEHAHAGAGEAGEHAGN HON HONNNNMESMESCOMCOMCOMCOMMERCMERCMERCMERCMERCIALIALIALIALI& RE& RE& RE& RE&NTALNTALNTANTALTTALHOUHOUHOHOUOUSINGSINGSINGSINGINPLAPLAALALALAPLAN BYNN BYBYN BYBCOLCOLCCCLLLAGELAGELELAGEARCARCARCRCRCHITEHITEHITEHITECTURCTURCTURUEEEEEINWOINWONWNWOOWWOOD VOD VOD VD VD VODVODDD VILLAILLAILLAILLAAILLAILLAALAAAAGGE:GGEGE:GE:GE:GEGEGSINGSININNGGSINLELE FLE FE FE FE FFAMILAMILAAMILAMILAMILAMILAMIMMY DEY DEY DDY DEDEEEY DETACHTACHTACHTACTACTACHTACHCCEDEDEDEDEDDDHOMEHOMEOMEMEHOMEOMEMEMMS NES NS NS NES NEEEIGHBIGHIGHBIGHBIGHBIGHIGHBGHBORHOORHOORHOORRHHORHOORORHOHHOORHORHOODODODODODOOINWOINWOINWININWINWONOD SOD SOD SOD SOD SOD SOD SSOHOPHOPSP& MA& MA& MAMA& MAM& MA&MA&&MARKETRKETRKETRINWOINWOOOOOD SOD SOOOOUTHOH:TOWNTOWNWHOMEHOMEMEESSSSINWOINWOOD COD COVE:OVE: SENISENIOR LOR LIVINIVININVIVINVIGGINWOINWOINWOINWOINWOIINWINOD POD POD POD PDPLACELACELACELACELA: : : :MULTMULTMULTMULMUMULTMULTTI-FAI-FAI-FAIFAFMILYMILYMILYMILYRESRESRESRIDENIDENIDENDENCESCESCESIINWOINWINWOINWOINWONWONWWOOD SODODOD SOD SOD SD SSHOPHOPHOPHOPSHOPSOPSSOP& MA&MA& MAMAMAMA& & MAMRKETRKETRKETRKETRKKETTLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE & ILLUSTRATION BY PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGNININWOINWONWONWINWONWONOD VOD VOD VOODVODILLAILLAILLALLAGE:GE:GE:GGE:ESINGSINGSINGSINNGNGSINGNGNGNNGLE FLE FLE FEE FLE FFFAMILAMILAMIAMILMILAMMMY DEY DEY DEDEYDEYTACHTACHTACTACHTACHED EDED DEDDDDHOMEHOMHOMEHOMEHOMEEMS NES NENES NES SNEIGHBGHBIGHBIGHBBGHBORHOORHOORHOORHOOOODODODODOpg.4
NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD LLLAAAAAAKKKKKKEEE EEEEEEELLLLLLMMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOO,,,,,,,, MMMMMMMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTAAAAAAAAAAAAASCALEIN FEET0 100 200400NLANDLANDLANDLANDNDDNSCAPSCAPSCASCAPSCASCAPCAAPSCPAPAPPE ARE ARE AREAE AARAE AECHITCHITCHCHCHECTUECTUECTUURE &RE &RRILLILLLLUSTRUSTRUSTRATIOATIOATATN BYBYPUTPUTUUTTMAN MANMMAMAANMAN NNAPLANPLANPLANPLANPLANLALAAPLANINGNINGINGINGNGNNGNGGGNINGNINGNING&D&D&&&&D&D& DD&&D&& D&&DDESIGESIGESIGESIGEEEEEESIGESIGESGGESIGESIESINNNNNNNNNNNNNNINWOINWOINWOINWONWNWNWOD VOD VOD VODOD OD VOD VOD VOD VOOOILLALLAILLALLILLALLALLALGE:GGGGSINGSISINGINGSINGSINGINGLELE FLE FLE E FLE FE FFLLEAMAMAMAMAMILAMILMILAMMIMILMIY DEY DEDDDY DEY DDDTACHTACHTACHTACHTACHACHACCCEDEDDDHOMEHOMHOMEHOMEOMHOMEHOMEOMHS NES NS NENEENES NNS NNSNIGHIGHBGHBGHBGHBBIIGHBGHHORHORHOORHORHOORHOOORORHORHOOODOOODOODODDDDODININWOWWOWOINOD SDOD SOHOPSHOPSHOPOPSPS& M& MAMAMAMAAAAARKETRKETRKRKRKRKRINWOINWOOD SODD SD DOUTHOUTH:TOWNTOWNHOMEHOMEHOMEOMOMSSEXISEXISEXISEXISEXEXEXISSISEXEEXTINGTINGTINGTINTINTINGTINTINGTINGTINGINEIGNEIGNEINEIGNEIGNEIGNNENHBORHBORHBORHBORBORBORBOHOODHOODHOODHOODHOODOOHOOHOOHOHOODOOOOOOODEXISEXISEXISEETINGINGINGTINGGTINGNEIGNEIGNEIGNEIGNEIEIGGGHBORHBORHBORHBORHBORHBORHBHOODHOODHOODHOODHOODDDEXISXISTINGTINGGGGNGGGGGOAOAK OAKOAKOAOOOOAOAK OOMARMARSH H GOGOGOOHOLF LFLLLFLLLCOURCOURCCCCSSSEEEEEXISEXEXEXISITINGTINGGINGNGEAGEAGEAGAGLE LE EPOINPOINPOINNT BUT BUTBUSINESINEISS SS SCAMPCAMPMMPMUSUSSAEAGLAGLEAGLEAGLEAGLEAGLEAGLEAGLEAGLLGLLLLLEAGLEAGLLAGLEAGLEAGAEAEAE POE POE POE POE POE POE PEPE POE POE POE POE POOEPOE PE POEEINT INT INT INT TININTINT INTINTINTININBLVLVDDVDVDDDVDVDDDVDDDLVDBLVDLVDBLVDBLVDDDBLVDBLVDBLVDBLVDVDDVVDBLVDVVDVDBLVDBLVBLVDVDVDBLLLBLBLBLVBLBL....MASTER PLAN BY HANS HAGEN HOOMESMESMMCOMCCCOMMERCMEIAL & RENTAL HOUSING PLAN BY COLLAGELAGEGARARCARAHITEHITEEECTURCTURCEEENOTENOTENOTE: EX: EX:ISTISTISTISTSTSTNG TNG TTGTTG TREESRREREREESREESRERERPREPREPREPRPREREPP--SERVSERVRVRSERVERVERVVEDED BED BED BED BEDY10Y10Y10Y 10Y10Y11000’ +0’ +0’ ++’+0’ +0’ PREPREEPREPRPREPRRSESERVSERSERVSERVSERVSEREAAAA---TIONTIONOTIONIONONOOONBUFBUFBUFBUFBUBUBUFER FER FERFER FER R(EXC(EXCEXCCEXCEXCEXCEXCEEEEDSEEDSEEDSEEDSEEDSEEDSORDIOORDIOORDIORDORDIONANANNANCNANCNANCCCNANCE REEREEREERE RE REQUIRQUIRQUIRQQQUIRQUIREMENEMENEMEEMENEMEMENMENNTS)TS)TS)TSTS)S)TINWOINWOINWOINWOINWOINWOOWOWWONWONWOONOD ODOD COD COD COD COD COD CCODCOVE:OVE:OVE:OVV SSSESSENSENSENINSSEOR LORRLRRORR OR LIVINIVIIVININVGGGINWOINWOINWOINWOINWOINWONWOOD POD POD POD POD PPPLACELACELACELACEE: :MULTMULTMULTMULTMULTMULTUI-FAI-FAI-FA-FAI-FAI-FAIMILYMILYMILYMILYMILYRESRESRESRESRRIIDENDENIDENDENIDIDEIDENCCCECECESCESCExtenExtenExtenExtentenExteneesivesive sive sivesivesive sivesieparkwarkwparkwparkwrkwparkwparkwwrkwparkwwpaparkarkwaay boay bay boay ay boay boay boay boaulevaulevaulevalevaulevavard plrd prdrdlrdllllantintintinantntinantanananng. Phg. PhPhhg. oto fotooto foto fo fo fo fo fo fofofo ffrromrom rom rom romran exan exan exan exan exexan exan ex exexanxexaistinistinistiistinistinistinstistinistinisiigHag HanHg Hang HanHag HanHg Hg Hg Hang Hans Has Hagss Has ss en Hooooomes nmesmesmes mes s mes nmmmssmeeigboeigboeigbogbogboerhoodrhoodrhoodddrhood....TrailTrailTrailiTrailillilsystsystsystsystsyystsyssystysyem adem adem adem admammmmdiding dingdingg new tnew tnew tew tew tnew twnerees reereerees esreeesesesessreessto anto antto ato ato ano antto anexisexisexisexisexisexiseeting inginggting gting gting gpresepresepresepresepreseesesppprved rved edrved rvedrvedrvedewoodswooddwoodswoodwoodswodswoowoods. Mas. MasMasMasMaMasMasMasMasMasMter Pter Per Per Pter Pter Pteter Pterer llalalanlan sn sn sn salalashows hohohows hows howshohows howshoowshohowhpreseppresepresereseresepreseprervatirvatrvativatirvatrvon ofon ofon ofnooon oon ofnoof 100 f100 f100 f000f0100 f01100t.+ wt.+ w.+ w++t.+ wwwt.+ t.+ ide pide pide pipde pireserresereserresereseresereserresersererrsereserved wved wed wed wved wved wved wved wvveved wveveoodedoodedoodeoodedodeoodedeoodeodeddddoodebuffbuffbuffffffffffffbuererer. Per. Per. Perr. Peerhoto hoto hotootooto frofrom from rom fromfrm mman exan ean exan exan exan eistinistinististinistinng Hang HaHg Hang Hang HanHg Hang HanHHHs Hags Hags Hags Hags HagagHs Hagggggen Hoen Hoen Hoen Hoen Hen Hon Hoen Hnen Honn HooHHoomemmesmes nmes mes nsnmes neighbeighbeighbeighbeigghbbeighborhooorhooorhooorhooorhooorhohhrhrhordd.d.dd.dBermBermBermermat leat leat leat leleeft prprft prrovideovideovidevideodededs adds adds adds adds addddds adddsads adds addssitionitionitionnttionitionitiontitiontioniitional scal sclscal scaaal scl scl sceniceneniceniceniceniceniccnicniccbeautbeautbeautbeautbeautbeautabeabeauteauteauteay to y to ytoytoytoyy toy to y to y toy toy todriveivdrivedriv, whe, whe, wheheheere thethre thre thrrre tru stru stu stttsttttreetsreerereetsreetsreetsreetsetsetsetreetetstaareaaraaradjacadjacdjjadjadjacadjacdadjacadjacadjacadjacjacdjadjajjent tentent entntttnt tentent tent tent teo homo homo homo hommmo hoeses.es.eesPhotoPhotoPhotofromfromfromomfroman ean ean eenn xisxistixististiiixing Hng Hang Hng Hg HHng Hng Hg HHHHns Has HasHas Has HaHaHnsnsHaHaHaHsgen Hgen gegegen gen Hn HHgenen gegen Hen Hn Hgengegeeomesomomomes meses neighneighiggghgggg--borhoborhoborhorhood.od.od.odPhoto bPhoto bPhoto bPhoto bobPhoto bPhoto bootoPhotoPhotoPhotoy Hans y Hans Hansy Hany HayyyHagen HHagen HHagen Hen Hn genes oromes ores oromes orss moo by Johy Johby JoyJbbbbbn Raskn RaskRasRRRPhoto boto bPhoto bPhoto bPhPHans y Hans y Hans y Hans y HansansHansanHaHagen HHagen HHagen HnHHagen HHagen HagengeHaggaggHagHroromes orromes oomes oomes oooo by Johby Joh by Johy JohJohhby Johy Joby Joby JbyJbyn Raskn Raskn Raskaskn RaskRaskRasaRanRnRnPhoto bPhoto boto bo bPhPPy Hans y Hans y Hans Hansy Hansyy HanHHagen HHagen HHagen HHHagen HHagen Hagen Hagaoromes oromes oromesoromes ororrromes oohoh by Joh by Johy Johby Joh by JohhhJoby Jobn Raskkkn RasnRn RnRnpg.5
INWOOD STREETSCAPE EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATION & PHOTOGRAPHY BY PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGN• Home - dominant streetscapes • traffic calmed... • with homes of high quality design, detail and materials pg.6
INWOOD STREETSCAPE EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATION & PHOTOGRAPHY BY PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGN• with extensive greenspace & boulevard planting • augmented by home-owner landscapingpg.7
ISLAND GREEN SPACE: EXAMPLE I (NHD.E) CONCEPT DESIGNLANDLANDLANDLLLLANDLAALAAAAAAAAALANDLANDLANDDDDLLANDAANDAAALAAANDDLLLANDAADLLANDDDLLANDLANDDDLLDDLANDLDDLANDLLLLLLLLLLSCAPE ARCHITTTTTTTTTTTTTEEEEECTUEEEEEEEEEERAL DESIGN & ILLUSTRTRTTRTTTRTRTRTRTRTRTRRRRTRTRTTTRTRTRTRTRTRTTRTTRTTRRRTTTTRTRTRRTRTRTRRRTRTTRTTRTTTRTRRTRTRTTRRTRRTAAATIOAAAAN BY PUTMAN PLANAANNNAANNANNNNNNAAAAANAANNNING& DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEESIGEENThe landscape concepts illustrate the general planting and screening plans for the neighborhood. Hans Hagen Homes will provide a base landscape package witheach home, install boulevard trees, infiltration islands, and establish berming and screening. Homeowners will be responsible for the final design and planting plans of individual lots. Homeowners will have the option of working with a professional landscape designer to install the landscape options identified in this booklet. A homeowners as-sociation will be responsible for the maintenance of the landscape plantings. The Association will have easements over each lot and common areas for the purpose of maintaining the yards and landscape planting.*AMENITY LOCATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODCENTRAL ISLAND GREEN SPACE: Concept above shows traffic calming one way traffic + parallel parking & central greens-pace that integrates rain gardens, mail stations, neighborhood sitting area & gatheringplace, overstory canopy trees, or-namental trees, flowers and ground covers.Car traffic speeds are “calmed” by use of one way travel, signage, parallel parking, paving texture changes, and classic boulevard tree plantingONE WAY, TRAFFIC-CALMING COURT-DRIVEPARALLEL PARKING & BLVD. TREESGATHERING PLACEPEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE & NARROW AUTO LOOP-THRUMAIL STATIONSPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPh t b P t Pl i & D ipg.8
ISLAND GREEN SPACE: EXAMPLE II (NHD.F) CONCEPT DESIGNThe landscape concepts illustrate the general planting and screening plans for the neighborhood. Hans Ha-gen Homes will provide a base landscape package with each home, install boulevard trees, infiltration islands, and establish berming and screening. Homeowners willbe responsible for the final design and planting plans of individual lots. Homeowners will have the option of working with aprofessional landscape designer to install the landscape options identified in this booklet. A homeowners asso-ciation will be responsible for the maintenance of the landscape plantings. The Association will have ease-ments over each lot and common areas for the purpose of maintaining the yards and landscape planting.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUCTUCTUTTUTUTUUUUUUUUTUUUUTUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURALRALRALARARARALRARALRAALALRRARAL RAL ALRAL RAL RRRARRRARALRRRRARARRRARRRARRRRARADEDDDEDEDDDDEDEDDEDESIDDEDDEDDDDEDDDDEDDDDDDDDDDDGN &ILLUSTRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTATIOAATIATIAATIIIATIATIAATIATIIATIIATIIIIATIATIATIIIAATIAAIIN BYPUTMAN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNPLANNING& DESIGN*AMENITY LOCATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODCENTRAL ISLAND GREEN SPACE: Concept above shows traffic calming one way traffic + parallel park-ing & central greenspace that integrates rain gardens, turf trails, mail stations, neighborhood sitting area &gathering place, overstory canopy trees, ornamental trees, flowers and ground covers.Car traffic speeds are “calmed” by use of one way travel, signage, parallel parking, paving texture changes, and classic boulevard tree plantingONE WAY, TRAFFIC-CALMING COURT-DRIVEPARALLEL PARKING & BLVD. TREESGATHERING PLACEPEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE & NARROW AUTO LOOP-THRUMAIL STATIONSTURF TRAILPEDESTRIAN - FRIENDLYSTREETSCAPESTRAFFIC CALMING BY DESIGNMAKES STREETSCAPES MORE IN-VITING FOR WALKINGFRONT YARD STREET TREES AUGMENTED BY OWNER-SE-LECTED ADDITIONAL PLANTINGRAIN GARDENPAVING TEXTURE CHANGEPARALLEL PARKINGPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPh b P Pl i & D ipg.9
IISLAND GREEN SPACE: EXAMPLE III (NHD.A) CONCEPT DESIGNLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL ALALALALAALALALALADESIGN & ILLUSTRATION BY PUTMAN AAAAAANNAAANANAAANAANANAANAANANAAPLANNING & DESIGNThe landscape concepts illustrate the general plant-ing and screening plans for the neighborhood. HansHagen Homes will provide a base landscape pack-age with each home, install boulevard trees, infil-tration islands, and establish berming and screen-ing. Homeowners will be responsible for the finaldesign and planting plans of individual lots.Homeowners will have the option of working with a professional landscape designer to install thelandscape options identified in this booklet. A ho-meowners association will be responsible for themaintenance of the landscape plantings. The Asso-ciation will have easements over each lot and com-mon areas for the purpose of maintaining the yards and landscape planting.*Car traffic speeds are “calmed” by use of one way travel, signage, parallel parking to the island sideof the street, paving texture changes, and classic boulevard tree plantingONE WAY, TRAFFIC-CALMING COURT-DRIVESTREET / NEIGHBORHOOOD NAMEGATHERING PLACEMAIL STATIONSTURF WALKRAIN GARDENPEDESTRIAN - FRIENDLY STREETSCAPESTRAFFIC CALMING BY DESIGN MAKES STREETSCAPES MORE IN-VITING FOR WALKINGFRONT YARD STREET TREES AUG-MENTED BY OWNER-SELECTEDADDITIONAL PLANTINGPRIVACY IS ENHANCED BY A MULTI-PURPOSE AMENITY FEATURE THAT ENCOURAG-ES NEIGHBORING AND HELPSCALM TRAFFICTURF WALKAMENITY LOCATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODCENTRAL ISLAND GREEN SPACE: Concept above shows traffic calming one way traffic + parallel parking & central greenspace that integrates rain gardens, turf trails, mail stations, neighborhood sitting area & gathering place, overstory canopy trees, ornamental trees, flowers and ground covers.obbPhoto bPhoto bhoto bhoto bbPhoto boto bbbPhoto bPhoto boto bhoto bPhoto bhoto bPhoto bbPhoto bPhotohotootoPhoPhohhPhPy Putmay Putmay Putmamay PutmaPutmay Putmay Putmay Putmay Putmay Putmay Putmaay Putmay Putmamay Putmautmaay Putmy Putmy Putmy PuPPy yy yy y y y y yyyyyyyn Plannn Plannn Plannn Plannn Plannn Plannn Plannn Plannn Plannnn Plannn Plannn Plannn Plannnn Plannn Plannn Plannn PlannPlann Plann Plan PlnPlPln PPnPnPPning & Ding & Ding & Ding & Ding & Dg&DDDg&DDng & DDDDDDDDng & Dng & DDing & Ding & Ding & Ding & Ding & Ding & Ding & D&ing && & &ing & ing & ing &ing ininnsignsignesignesignnnsignnenignesignesignesignesignesignesignesignesignesignesignesignesignesignesignsignesignesignesignesignesignnesignesigesigesigesigesigiesesseeePRIVACY IS ENHANCED BY A MULTI-PURPOSE AMENITY FEATURE THAT ENCOURAG-ES NEIGHBORING AND HELPSCALM TRAFFICpg.10
CCOORDINATED REAR YARD PRIVACY SCREENING & “MENU” OF PATIO + PLANTING CONCEPT DESIGNSThe landscape concepts illustrate the generalplanting and screening plans for the neigh-borhood. Hans Hagen Homes will provide a base landscape package with each home, in-stall boulevard trees, infiltration islands, andestablish berming and screening. Homeown-ers will be responsible for the final design andplanting plans of individual lots.Homeowners will have the option of work-ing with a professional landscape designer toinstall the landscape options identified in thisbooklet. A homeowners association will be responsible for the maintenance of the land-scape plantings. The Association will haveeasements over each lot and common areasfor the purpose of maintaining the yards andlandscape planting.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN & ILLUSTRATION BY PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGNFENCE INTERRUPTED BY CONIFER TREESPLAN: ELEELELLELELELELELELELELEELELELLELLLLLEEVATVATVATVATVATVATVAVVAVAAATTVAATIONIONIONIONONNNIONOONONONNONPATIO SHAPE SELEC-TION CHOICESPRIVACY SCREEN VIADEVELOPER PLANT-TTING AND BUYER SE-LECTED SCREENINGRETAINING WALL ELEMENTSSIDISIDISIDISIDISIDISSIDISIDSSIDISSSSIDISISISISSIDISSSSSISIDIDISSSIDISSIDIDISIDSIDDSIDDSISIDDDDSIDIIDIDISIDDSIDSIDDDDSIDDIIIDSIDDDSIDIISSSSSSSNG ING ING ING ING INNG IING ING IIGIIIGINGINGNG IGNG INGNGNG INGNGGNGNGNGGGNGNGGGGGNNNNFILNFNFINFNFNFNFNFNFNFNFINFINFINFINFINNFINFNFINFINNFININFFINFNFNFNFFFNNLTRELLISCABLE TRELLISw/VINESSCURVEDSCREENOWNER OPTION PRIVACY FEATURESRear privacy accomplisheed wid with eth evergvergreenn&d& decidecidu-ous tree and shrub plantinngngs. Photo is from an eexistxist-ing Hans Hagen Homes nneeighboorhoorhd.d privacy accomplished by fencing and planting. Photo rdRearReaRRee yarexisting Hans Hagen Homes neighborhoodefromromfromfromfromfromfromfromfrorofrofromfrofrorofrooan patio with extensive deciduous & coniferous plantingd Rear yardcreening. Photo from an existing Hans Hagen Homes scused for hoodrhneighborPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPh t b P t Pl i & D iPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPh t b P t a Pla i & D iPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John Raskpg.11
EXAMPLE HOMES & MASTER PLAN AMENITIESPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John Raskpg.12
EXAMPLE HOMES & MASTER PLAN AMENITIESPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & Designpg.13
EXAMPLE HOMES & MASTER PLAN AMENITIESPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or by John RaskPhoto by Putman Planning & Designpg.14
EXAMPLE HOMES & MASTER PLAN AMENITIESPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & Designpg.15
EXAMPLE HOMES & MASTER PLAN AMENITIESPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & Designpg.16
EXAMPLE HOMES & MASTER PLAN AMENITIESPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Putman Planning & DesignPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or John RaskPhoto by Hans Hagen Homes or John Raskpg.17
APPENDIXpg.18
pg.19
pg.20
pg.21
• COMMERCIAL, SENIOR & TOWNHOME SITE PLANNING• SURVEYING, GRADING DESIGN• CIVIL ENGINEERING• LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • AMENITY DESIGN & PLANTING• IDENTITY & GRAPHIC DESIGN• PHOTO GRAPHICS• REPRESENTATION ILLUSTRATION• ph. 877.381.8291•DEVELOPMENT • DETACHED HOMES MASTER PLANNING•CONTACT: JOHN RASK •ph. 763.586.7202DEVInWood10LLC
PAGE 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 13, 2014
To: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Re: Inwood – PUD Concept Plan Review
Cc: Nick Johnson, City Planner
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Hans Hagen Homes Inwood PUD Concept Plan. A PUD Concept
Plan was received on August 12, 2014. The submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by E.G.
Rud & Sons, Inc.:
Inwood PUD Concept Plan dated August 11, 2014.
Graphic Illustration, not dated.
We have the following review comments:
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
Municipal water service is readily available for the Inwood development proposal. The applicant is
responsible to extend the municipal water to the development site at developer’s cost and to extend
future connection stubs to all adjacent properties as directed by the City.
The Comprehensive Water System Plan, dated April 2009 requires the placement of Water Tower No. 4
within the area planned as Inwood PUD. The specific site for Water Tower No. 4 must be addressed as
part of this development proposal, either reserving the appropriate property dedicated for the Water
Tower or the City must verify that an alternative site has been acquired prior to excluding the Water
Tower from this development plan.
Multiple watermain connection points and stubs must be incorporated as part of the development. At
least two connections will be required along the south edge of the development; either two connections
to the Eagle Point Business Park water system or one connection to Eagle Point Business Park and one
connection to Boulder Ponds at 5th Street.
A trunk watermain stub shall be installed to the northeast corner of the development for potential future
extension along 10th Street.
The City will be constructing trunk watermain along Inwood Avenue in 2015, from 10th Street to Eagle
Point Blvd. This main could be incorporated interior to this development if the development application
has progressed sufficiently to accommodate the Inwood Trunk Watermain project schedule. The design of
the Inwood Trunk Watermain Improvements is already complete. Project bidding for the final alignment
will occur no later than January 2015.
Watermain stubs to adjacent property and pipe oversizing will continue to be reviewed by City staff as the
development progresses forward and oversizing routes may need to be changed as part of the final
construction plans, in particular to oversize pipe to and from the Water Tower site. Watermain oversizing
is paid by the City as a reimbursement addressed within the development agreement.
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283
PAGE 2 of 4
MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER
Municipal sanitary sewer service is readily available for the Inwood development proposal. The applicant
is responsible to extend the municipal sanitary sewer to the development site at developers cost.
The applicant must provide a total estimated number of residential equivalent units to be located within
the plat so that staff may review the downstream sewer capacity limits. The Inwood development may
need to connect at multiple sewer service locations to divide the flow to separate downstream sewer
mains. The City is in the process of evaluating the downstream sewer capacity limitations.
Sanitary sewer pipe stubs to adjacent property and pipe oversizing will continue to be reviewed by City
staff as the development progresses forward. Revisions may need to be incorporated as part of the final
construction plans. Sewer main oversizing is paid by the City as a reimbursement addressed within the
development agreement.
No lift station has been planned for this area. It appears that the area can be served without a lift station.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The site plan is dependent upon and subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, SWWD
and City rules and regulations. Storm water facilities proposed as part of the site plan to meet SWWD
permitting requirements must be constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards
Manual available on the City website.
The general drainage system should mimic the natural topography of the site in order to ensure a
drainage system that provides positive storm water drainage across the development. Overland
emergency overflows or outlets will need to be incorporated as part of the site plan.
The ultimate discharge rate and location will be an important consideration to avoid negative impacts to
downstream properties. The storm water management plan will need to address changes to the
downstream drainage system to the extent alterations are proposed. To the extent adjacent properties
are impacted, written permission from those properties must be submitted as part of the development
applications.
Per City requirements, all storm water facilities, including infiltration basins, must be placed in Outlots
deeded to the City for maintenance purposes. The Stormwater Facility Outlots must fully incorporate the
100‐year HWL and maintenance access roads. It is unclear from the concept plan submitted if all the
proposed ponding and infiltration is on Outlots that will be dedicated to the City.
The storm sewer system shall be designed to maintain the City standard minimum pipe cover of 3.5 feet.
Drain tile is required as part of the City standard street section at all localized low points in the street.
Drain tile considerations may impact the storm sewer design and depth requirements at low points.
Per City requirements all storm sewer pipe easements must be a minimum 30‐feet in width.
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
Access along Inwood Avenue and 10th Street must be reviewed and approved by Washington County. This
approval should be pursued prior to preliminary plat submittal to avoid significant rework. It appears that
the proposed access is consistent with Washington County guidelines with the exception of the additional
access proposed south of 5th Street. This access should ne eliminated.
Improvements required by Washington County at the intersections along Inwood Avenue and 10th Street
should be the responsibility of the applicant and should be incorporated as part of the preliminary plat
submittal documents.
5TH STREET NORTH: 5th Street North seeks to become the backbone of future development along the I94
corridor, essentially becoming the primary access in and out of the future neighborhoods. The street is
required for the sole purpose to support the growth and development within the corridor. The quality of the
street and its connections are critically important. The purpose of the proposed street standards are to 1)
PAGE 3 of 4
improve the function and appearance of the street, 2) encourage pedestrian and bicycle use, and 3) reduce the
potential for speeding.
The plan indicates a minimum 100 foot R/W as required.
The proposed 2‐lane collector parkway street (5th Street) design and geometrics must meet all Municipal
State Aid design standards for urban streets (8820.9936) for ADT > 10,000; 40 mph design speed; and
must be consistent with the detailed parkway cross section installed throughout the remaining corridor
segments and as outlined in the 5th Street Collector Design Guidelines as prepared by City staff.
The proposed alignment appears to be consistent with this design intent. However, the proposed plan
indicates additional impacts to the adjacent Bremer Financial Services property as noted on the Concept
Plan. The proposed alignment requires permission and R/W acquisition from Bremer Financial Services.
Access spacing to 5th Street is allowed at 1/8 mile intervals for non‐continuous local streets, at ¼ mile
intervals for continuous local streets and collector streets, and at ½ mile intervals for streets with higher
classification.
The intersection with Street B/D (a minor collector) is currently shown at 575 feet from the
westerly commercial driveway access. This intersection should be moved approximately 85 feet to
the east.
Street D accesses 5th Street as a RI/RO only with a commercial property access located just 300
feet to the east. Street D should be realigned to meet the full access guidelines of 660 feet to
avoid cut through traffic through the commercial property.
The private RI/RO driveway along the south of 5th Street should be moved further east to
maintain a minimum 330 feet from Inwood Avenue.
Right and left turn lanes must be incorporated along 5th Street North per the City design standards to
maintain mobility along the Parkway since there is only one travel lane in each direction.
Additional streetscape amenities are required along 5th Street consistent with the remaining corridor
segments and the preliminary design that was provided to the City by Damon Farber. 5th Street Amenities
include a north side off‐road bituminous trail, minimum 10 foot width with 5 foot clear zone; a south side
concrete sidewalk, minimum 6 foot width with 2 foot clear zone; landscaping elements including a center
landscape median; and theming elements including street and ornamental lighting, banner poles at
primary gateway intersections, and white post & rail fencing.
RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Turn lanes must be added on all interior development streets at the intersections with 10th Street, Inwood
Avenue, and 5th Street.
Street C is a proposed cul‐de‐sac extending over 1100 feet in length with an additional street cul‐de‐sac
extension of another 560 feet. This exceeds the maximum allowable cul‐de‐sac length. This street must be
revised to connect interior to the development.
9th Street and Neighborhood Street E should align to create a full intersection rather than offset
intersections along a minor collector road. As proposed, the intersections do not meet the minimum 330
foot access spacing for a minor neighborhood collector road.
Staff has preliminarily reviewed the unique street layout for the “Neighborhood” street segments
proposed in this concept plan and believes the general concept is a workable design. However, there are
several design details that must be addressed as the development progresses through the process. Some
revisions should be expected.
All R/W widths, pavement widths and turning radii need to be further detailed to allow staff to review the
proposed street geometrics. The turning radii shown in Neighborhood C and A do not appear to meet
acceptable standards.
The R/W Boulevard along the “Neighborhood” street segments appears insufficient including a proposed
reduced house setback. It is unclear where the private utilities will be installed.
Ten (10) foot utility easements are required on either side of all right‐of‐ways.
PAGE 4 of 4
Six (6) foot sidewalks must be provided along all continuous residential streets and along other streets as
may be required for connectivity. Sidewalk and Trail locations should be jointly addressed with the
applicant since the proposed sidewalk layouts vary from the City standard requirements.
All streets must be designed to meet the City’s Engineering Design Standards including R/W width, street
width and cul‐de‐sac radii. Surmountable concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in single family
residential areas and B618 curb in commercial and multi‐family areas. All street intersections must be at
90 degrees and maintain 100 feet of tangent with maximum slopes of 2% for first 100 feet. Residential
maximum longitudinal grade is 8% with no sidewalks, 6% where there are sidewalks.
For any street and R/W design variance from the City Standard residential street section, additional detail
must be submitted for staff review and consideration. This review should be completed prior to
preliminary plat submission to avoid significant rework.
COMMERCIAL AND MULTI‐FAMILY AREA STREETS/DRIVEWAYS
Turn lanes must be added on all interior development streets at the intersections with 10th Street, Inwood
Avenue, and 5th Street.
The commercial and multi‐family area access roads and driveways require more detail to facilitate staff
review including all R/W widths, pavement widths and turning radii. Additional clarification is requested
to delineate public street R/W from proposed commercial or multi‐family private driveway access. If
private streets are proposed, staff should review to determine where private streets will and will not be
allowed.
1
Nick Johnson
From:Tom FitzGerald <tfitzgerald@carbonair.com>
Sent:Monday, August 25, 2014 6:24 PM
To:Nick Johnson
Subject:Fwd: Hans Hagen Homes proposed PUD on 157 acres of land on the SE Corner of
Inwood and 10th Street
Attachments:image001.jpg
Please see below
Thanks
Tom Fitzgerald
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tom FitzGerald <tfitzgerald@carbonair.com <mailto:tfitzgerald@carbonair.com> >
Date: August 25, 2014 at 5:07:59 PM CDT
To: "'kklatt@lakeelmo.org <mailto:kklatt@lakeelmo.org> '" <kklatt@lakeelmo.org
<mailto:kklatt@lakeelmo.org> >
Subject: Hans Hagen Homes proposed PUD on 157 acres of land on the SE Corner of Inwood and 10th Street
Mr Klatt,
I am going to try to make the planning commission meeting this evening but may not be able to attend. I am a
resident of Stone Gate. I live at 877 Jasmine Ave Place North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042.
I am opposed to this planned development based on the density being requested, the types of dwellings
proposed (town homes and apartments) and the requested reduced set backs. I think we all realize that this land will be
developed and we have accepted that. However, I don’t feel that we should accept any developments that are more
dense than the density specified in the memorandum of understanding with the Met Council. The homes in Stone Gate
are mid to upper level homes with large lots and a development of any kind adjacent to it with lower valued properties
will negatively effect the property values in Stone Gate. A development with apartments, which I assume will be rentals,
will have a particularly negative effect on our homes’ values. I also don’t feel a development of this type is consistent
with Lake Elmo’s traditional rural feel.
2
Those of us that live in Stone Gate have accepted that the bulk of the new development required by the Met
Council was going to happen on land directly adjacent to our development. We are in effect bearing the burden of all
this new development for all the residents of the city. I do not think that it is unreasonable to ensure that these
developments are no more dense than they have to be and that the planning commission only approve those
developments that will not negatively effect the values of already existing homes in Stone Gate.
I hope to see you at the meeting this evening. If I can’t make it, I wanted you to know my thoughts.
Thanks
Thomas M. FitzGerald
President and CEO
Carbonair Environmental Systems, Inc.
1480 County Road C West
Roseville, MN 55113
(651) 202‐2953 Direct
(612) 599‐3752 Mobile
tfitzgerald@carbonair.com <mailto:tfitzgerald@carbonair.com>