Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP 12-02-14 Tl II CITY OI Our Mission is to PmvideQuality Public Service in a Fiscally Responsible LAKEELMO Manner IFIbile Preserving the City s Open Space Character NOTICE OF MEETING City Council Meeting Tuesday,December 2,2014 7:00 P.M. Cite of Lake Elmo 13800 Laverne Avenue North AGENDA A. Call to Order B. Pledge of Allegiance C. Roll Call D. Order of Business E. Approval of Agenda F. Accept Minutes 1.Accept November 18,2014 City Council Meeting Minutes G. Council Reports • Mayor • Council H. Presentations/Public Comments/Inquiries 2a.Fire Department—Conditional Job Offer to New Recruit 2b.Fire Department—Swear in New Lieutenant I. Finance Consent Agenda 3. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll 5. Well No.4 Connecting Watermain Improvements—Change Order No. 1 6. Well No.4 Connecting Watermain Improvements—Compensating Change Order No. 2 7. Well No.4 Connecting Watermain Improvements—Pay Request No. 4(FINAL) J. Other Consent Agenda 8. 2015 Liquor License Renewals 9. Washington County Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Inspection Services Agreement 10a.Gonyea Preliminary Plat Extensions—Village Park Preserve;Resolution No.2014-90 10b. Gonyea Preliminary Plat Extensions—Village Preserve;Resolution No.2014-91 K. Regular Agenda 11. Public Hearing.2015 Proposed Tax Levy and General Fund Budget—Adopt 2015 Budget and Tax Levy; Resolution No.2014-92 12. Inwood EAW—Response to Comments,Findings of Fact,Record of Decision,and Declaration of No Need for an EIS; Resolution No.2014-93 13. Inwood PUD Preliminary Plat and Prelinunary Development Plans;Resolution No.2014-94 14. 2835 Legion Avenue—Request to Connect to Legion Avenue 201 Wastewater System 15. Emmerson IUP Renewal for a Bus/Trucking Terminal at 11530 Hudson Boulevard;Resolution No.2014-99 16. Halcyon Cemetery Sketch Plan Review 17. Lake Elmo Avenue Project(CSAH 17) Cooperative Agreement;Resolution No.2014-96 L. Staff Reports and Announcements • City Administrator • City Attorney • Planning Director • City Engineer • Finance Director • City Clerk M. Adjourn LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2014 CITY OF LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2014 Mayor Pearson called the meeting to order at 7.•00 pm, PRESENT: Mayor Mike Pearson and Council Members Wally Nelson,Anne Smith,Justin Bloyer,and Mike Reeves. Staff present: City Administrator Zuleger, City Attorney Snyder, Community Development Director Klatt, and City Clerk Bell. PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council Member Smith pulled Items 11 and 12 for discussion. MOTION. Council Member Nelson moved TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 18, 2014 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AS AMENDED. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ITEM 1: ACCEPT MINUTES THE NOVEMBER 5, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES WERE APPROVED AS PRESENTED BY CONSENSUS. THE NOVEMBER 12, 2014 CANVASS BOARD MINUTES WERE APPROVED AS PRESENTED BY CONSENSUS. THE JULY 22, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES WERE APPROVED AS AMENDED BY CONSENSUS. THE OCTOBER 7, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES WERE AMENDED AS PRESENTED BY CONSENSUS. COUNCIL REPORTS: Mayor Pearson: attended Gateway Corridor meeting;announced City received its first CAFR;public bonfire will be held in Sunfish Lake Park on 11/20 from 2pm to dusk. Council Member Bloyer: no report Council Member Reeves: attended Gateway Corridor meeting. There is an upcoming development forum in January that will discuss transit oriented development. East Metro Strong holding visioning meeting; Parks Commission meeting included forester report; commended resident Wendy Griffin and her work on buckthorn management. Council Member Smith: noted Sunfish Lake Park is largest upland forest in the county. Council Member Nelson: finance committee meeting. The Committee discussed past issues with developer agreements and escrow funds. Item 15 is a result of those discussions. Mr. Nelson also called for Council to review the CIP and consider the streets that were put off as it will need to be approved this year. PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES FINANCE CONSENT AGENDA 2. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll in the amount of$1,171,537.52. 3. Accept Financial Report dated October 31,2014 4. Accept Building Report dated October 31,2014 5. Accept City Assessor Report dated October 31,2014 6. Pumphouse No. 4 Improvements—Change Order No. 1 7. Pumphouse No. 4 Improvements—Pay Request No. 6 8. 39,h Street N: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements—Pay Request No. 2 Page 1 of 4 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2014 9. Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements—Pay Request No. 4 10. Rotating Schedule for Sign Purchases MOTION: Council Member Smith moved TO APPROVE THE FINANCE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. OTHER CONSENT AGENDA 11. 12. 13. Acceptance of the Koch Pipeline Easement proposed in the Demontreville Wildlife Area MOTION• Council Member Smith moved TO APPROVE THE OTHER CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED.Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5--0. ITEM 11• ASSIGN COUNCIL MEMBER BLOYER TO COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM DISCUSSIONS Council Member Smith wants this decision to be taken up after the New Year when the new Council is seated. Mayor Pearson noted that he is trying to take care of business while the city agenda is relatively light. Council Member Nelson noted that Council Member Bloyer serves on the Library Board, so it would make sense for him to be involved in the discussions. Ms. Smith also noted she has no interest in serving on the Gateway Corridor discussion. Mr.Bloyer stated that as a Library Board Member he would like to be involved in the library discussions. MOTION: Council Member Nelson moved TO ASSIGN COUNCIL MEMBER BLOYER TO THE COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM DISCUSSIONS. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-1(SMITH—NAY). ITEM 12:ASSIGN COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH TO GATEWAY CORRIDOR DISCUSSIONS Council Member Smith declined the assignment. Council Member Bloyer volunteered. MOTION: Council Member Nelson moved TO ASSIGN COUNCIL MEMBER BLOYER TO THE GATEWAY CORRIDOR DISCUSSIONS. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 14: LAKE ME 201 SYSTEM City Engineer Griffin presented an overview of the 201 public septic systems.They are owned and operated by the City.There are four in the Old Village and four in the Tri-Lakes area. It was stated that there is no imminent health threat with the specific system at issue. The system is not failing, but would be considered non-compliant along with some functionality issues. It was also explained that despite the fact the system was compliant when installed, now that the rules have been changed,it is no longer compliant.There is no grandfathering in of those systems. Staff asked for direction on possibility of purchasing land and expanding the number of users from the surrounding properties to deal with future non-compliant systems. The alternative is to limit it to just the current users and obtain a smaller parcel. Council Member Nelson asked about the maintenance. It was explained that the City used to track maintenance and the users were required to pump regularly—every one to two years. That has not been done for a few years. Page 2 of 4 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18,2014 Lucy Golish,9369 Jane Road,spoke about her history with the system.The tank has been pumped annually. Her husband recently passed away,and she is trying to sell the property. Her son Rob Golish also attested to the inspection and maintenance activity. City Administrator Zuleger explained that the City had Inspector Paul Brandt perform an inspection. His report was included in the Agenda Packet. Depending on what the City elects to do, that the city could provide a letter of intent to the residents to allow the property to be sold with the expectation that the septic would be addressed next year. The minimum size for a septic system was explained. The minimum size is at 20,000 feet. It was also explained that it would be cost-prohibitive to bring sewer to the area. Council Member Smith asked why the county is not responsible for providing the septic solution. It was explained that the 201 systems are a City responsibility as part of the federal grant funding the City received when the systems were installed. Non-compliance vs. non-operational was further clarified. Mr. Griffin explained the various options: Repair, replace and expanding the system. The City also has the option to get out of the business after the system is made whole. The estimated number of parcels that would potentially need to connect is not known at this time. Council Member Smith asked how the City can verify users pump the systems regularly. Mr. Griffin said a program to verify would have to be established. It was noted that the systems were designed to be 20 year- systems. It has now been 30 years. Council direction is to investigate and return to council with specific options and details. This would entail authorizing Paul Brandt to study the individual specific issue. Expected costs were discussed. The specific costs are not known at this time. Mr. Zuleger suggested adding not to exceed$5000 language to motion.The immediate concern is to address the smaller issue, not the possible larger system. There is a chance that the current site can be rehabilitated,but Mr.Brandt does not think it is likely. MOTION. Council Member Bloyer moved TO DIRECT STAFF TO INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL REPAIR/REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR THE JANE ROAD 201 WASTEWATER SYSTEM (TRI-LAKES REMOTE D), NOT TO EXCEED $5000. Counczl Member Reeves seconded the motion. Council Member Nelson wants the City to look at the bigger picture. Mr. Nelson stated that the other systems are at some point going to fail.It is incumbent upon the city to address it. He is not in favor of being in this business,but it has to be addressed.The urgency of addressing the current property was discussed. City Administrator Zuleger suggested clarifying that the costs should be funded from the sewer fund with costs applied to a future assessment.That language was added to the motion. Council Member Smith is concerned that current residents may not be interested in joining the septic when they do not need it at the moment. The Council consensus is in agreement but also believes it is prudent to conduct survey because eventually the systems will fail. The systems have to be compliant for the properties to be sold. FINAL MOTION.• DIRECT STAFF TO INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL REPAIR/REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR THE JANE ROAD 201 WASTEWATER SYSTEM(TRI-LAKES REMOTE D),NOT TO EXCEED$5000,FUNDED FROM THE SEWER FUND WITH COSTS APPLIED TO A FUTURE ASSESSMENT.MOTION PASSED 5-0. Page 3 of 4 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2014 ITEM 14• DEVELOPER ESCROW RELEASE PROCEDURES;RES.NO.2014-89 Council Member Nelson explained the background of this item and the Finance Committee's proposal. The Council agreed the proposal was a good step.The new policy is only related to developer agreements and not individual permits. MOTION. Council Member Nelson moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2014-89, DIRECTING THAT EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY ALL DEVELOPER ESCROW REFUNDS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO RELEASE. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. STAFF REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Zuleger: working with MPCA and DNR on parkland in the landfill; staff is trying to reconcile the Carriage Station Park status; upcoming staff retreat; rebooting efforts with the EDA following the recent Planning Commission meeting; upcoming milfoil meeting to work on grant funding; Met Council rebalancing discussion upcoming on 12/5 at 10AM; Discovery Crossing island was completed and related vandalism was addressed;City received its first CAFR. It is very important for City bond rating. City Attorney Snyder:routine development documents. Community Development Director Klatt: Planning is reviewing development submittals; City received an application for a new cemetery proposal. City Engineer Griffin: Well No. 4 pump house is completed; 39th Street construction is postponed due to the weather City Clerk Bell: Neither Lake Elmo precinct was selected for Post-Election Review; the City is accepting applications for Rink Attendant position. Mayor Pearson Adjourned the meeting at 8:05 pm. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ATTEST: Mike Pearson,Mayor Adam R.Bell,City Clerk Page 4 of 4 TI I CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: December 2, 2014 PRESENTATIONS ITEM— 2a AGENDA ITEM: Conditional Job Offer to New Recruit William McClellan SUBMITTED BY: Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief THROUGH: City Administrator, Dean Zuleger REVIEWED BY: City Administrator, Dean Zuleger SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item............................................................................Fire Chief - Report/Presentation...........................................................Fire Chief - Questions from Council to Staff............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ...............................................................Mayor& City Council - Discussion.......................................................................Mayor& City Council - Action on Motion.................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: Hiring process of fire department. FISCAL IMPACT: Additional member on the payroll, which has been budgeted for. Possible reimbursement to MBFTE if applicant does not successfully complete FFUII training. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: William McClellan has completed the hiring process to date. He has attended 3 dept training drills, completed a background check, successfully completed the Dept. Ability Test as well as the interview process. Council is being asked to approve the next phase of the hiring process which is for the candidate to successfully complete a Pre-Placement Physical Exam and Psychological Exam. Upon completion of these requirements, the applicant will be placed on Probation Status as a Probationary Firefighter and begin training. The suggested motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve a Conditional Job Offer to New Recruit William McClellan,pending the outcome of a Pre-Placement Physical Exam and Psychological Exam." LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: Established hiring process of the fire department. --page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Presentation Agenda Item 2a] December 2,2014 BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): Strengths New recruit to help us achieve a full roster. Previous Firefighter in Wisconsin. Weaknesses Possibly "wash out" before completion of probationary period and dept. would be responsible to reimburse the MBFTE Opportunities Long term Firefighter to serve the community. Threats Retention RECOMMENDATION: Council is being asked to approve the next phase of the hiring process which is for the candidate to successfully complete a Pre-Placement Physical Exam and Psychological Exam. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve a Conditional Job Offer to New Recruit William McClellan,pending the outcome of a Pre Placement Physical Exam and Psychological Exam." --page 2-- THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: December 2, 2014 PRESENTATION ITEM— 2b AGENDA ITEM: Fire Department—New Officers SUBMITTED BY: Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief THROUGH: Public Safety Committee REVIEWED BY: City Administrator, Dean Zuleger SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item............................................................................Fire Chief - Report/Presentation...........................................................Fire Chief - Questions from Council to Staff............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion............................................................... Mayor& City Council - Discussion.......................................................................Mayor& City Council - Action on Motion.................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: Public Safety Committee FISCAL IMPACT: Reduction in Officer Pay costs by one position. Long term impact will be less likelihood of Officers stepping down and loosing those training dollars spent. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: During the course of fire department structure by the Public Safety Committee, the officer structure was looked at. The structure consisted of I- Chief, 2-District Chiefs, 4-Captains (only 2 of these positions filled due to low personnel #'s) and 2-Safety Officers. At the recommendation of Public Safety Committee this has been restructured to 1-Chief, 1-Assistant Chief, 4-Captains (only 2 of these positions filled due to low personnel #'s) and 2-Lieutenants. NOTE: Safety Officers were not a supervisory position, they dealt strictly with Safety matters. The creation of Lieutenants is a Jr. Fire Officer with supervisory responsibility. Job descriptions were eliminated and rewritten. Each position was posted for 2 weeks followed by an interview process. While there were several applicants for the Station#1 Lt's. position and it has been filled, we had only one applicant for the Station #2 Lt's. position. The lone applicant --page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Presentation Agenda Item 2b] December 2,2014 then withdrew the application for personal reasons. The dept. officers discussed at length and determined the best course of action was to delay re-posting of the position for 6 months. This will allow us to implement the new position at Station #1, make adjustments and will also stagger the 1 year terms of Lt. which will benefit us into the future. We are now filling the second Lieutenant position at Station #2. We had two applicants and interviews were conducted by Station#2 Captain Noah Malmquist, Assistant Chief Mike Cornell and Chief Malmquist. This completes the officer restructuring process. BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): Strengths More efficient operation. Creation of Lieutenants positions will build a better prepared and trained officer program. Support the Station Captains. Weaknesses Safety responsibilities now fall on all personnel and more specifically the officers. Shift in roles and responsibilities. Opportunities Greater opportunities for personnel to try officer role with minimal commitment. Threats Adjusting to new roles and responsibilities. Adjusting to Lieutenants role at emergency scenes. RECOMMENDATION: Recognition of, Oath of Office and pinning of new officer in the fire department Station#2 Lieutenant—Brian Johnson --page 2-- THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: December 2, 2014 CONSENT ITEM# 3 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Disbursements in the amount of$134,017.52 SUBMITTED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director THROUGH: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director REVIEWED BY: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item..............................................................City Administrator - Report/Presentation................................................City Administrator Questions from Council to Staff............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ...............................................................Mayor& City Council - Discussion.......................................................................Mayor& City Council - Action on Motion.................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Finance FISCAL IMPACT: $134,017.52 SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to approve disbursements in the amount of$134,017.52. No specific motion is needed as this is recommended to be part of the Consent Agenda. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: NA --page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 3] December 2,2014 BACKGROUND INFORMATION/STAFF REPORT: The City of Lake Elmo has the fiduciary responsibility to conduct normal business operations. Below is a summary of current claims to be disbursed and paid in accordance with State law and City policies and procedures. Claim # Amount Description ACH $ 12,732.47 Payroll Taxes to IRS & MN Dept of Revenue 11/26/14 ACH $ 6,498.01 Payroll Retirement to PERA 11/26/14 DD5935-DD5962 $ 31,899.70 Payroll Dated (Direct Deposits) 11/26/14 42136-42172 $ 82,647.34 Accounts Payable 12/2/14 2517-2520 $ 240.00 Library Card Reimbursement 12/2/14 TOTAL $ 134,017.52 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council approve as part of the Consent Agenda the aforementioned disbursements in the amount of $134,017.52. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Accounts Payable— check registers --page 2-- k o 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 o c — y O O O O O O O O O O C v O O O O O O ClO ClO O O Cl 0 O O O O O O O C bbz ci a H O O O 0 0 0 O O O G C z z z z z z z z z z z 0 a a F+ v v v u y u C 0 0 o yV A Q 0 y H ++ 0 0 p O p, 0 c 00 cj PG se o a°'i A 0 c 8 c A oq F- U h O U �4 a a fY1 v v v v v v v v �+ CQ O O O O O O O O O O O A N N N N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N N rq rq O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C. O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O +" O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 C ee O a +' N 00 O T 00 ON N 0 O 0 0 O O [� 00 X O d' lz� C� O O N I _ 000 fn cn (V N W) h Ol O �O N 00 00 V et v� Q U CU CUC CUC Ur.U U U cca cd cd cd as coCN co •T7 'C M cts cd Ca 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o F- ie o E- o F' cn F- c o Urn U a�i aui aui aui a�i a�i a�i a�i rD F- c 0 c � ° p .C6 v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o z •� o o � T U v U v U v U v U v U v U v U a Z E 00ad � N (l� 1--I (14 M N cc N ccO N M N cc N ccO N cad N m N O N 'cd N 'ca N 'a V (�„c M A N .O N p N p N L N L N p N ,D N L M � .� � � Q� � � v�i •� ti a _ Q > w o 0 00 _ C C C C C EO c oM 00 cd W) kn In W) v) vn V) W) Q o O O N N N N N N N N v. d' Q N Q O O O O O O O L O �p O �p O �p o �p O �p O �p O �p O U etP- h'-� M �p M �O M M ur M �p M �p M �p M Q� O, (� M kj� ,n In In k1 N I ,n vl cn vl ,n I? W) vl -, — C W o v O 0 c Cl 0 Cl 00 0 0 0 Cl 00 0 0 0 = c o c O 0.. •O Q Mvl C) M CO M CO vM O Mmv� M MV) CO VMl 000 OC, O rq CD N O C 0 N 0 CD 0 Uj 0y ¢ MMMm m M Q 0 � �p O Q0. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cc O a d h O O O O O O O O v z z z z z z z z O a a F H G) u C w � � pG 0 to as w coi •c � on � .a � Ln C T �+ c) U y n cp A U U y v v v v v v v v co o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A N N N N N (V N N C4 O O O O O O O O +•' C Cl O O O O O C C LE a M M h W� W) 'IT W, �n O, `p �c `p �c N O O O �+ O N o0 O O M f+) M N C! N Nll� r r r r h O O O N N M Q; O, O1 4 7 00 oo N 10 � � M C O O O� T M r I- V' N M M M M r O O CD G rn r er o .fir fd y y M O U O 0 •• O O "', M CL h •• Cd w N O N ,M �`n [0 7 00 c,.V a) p Ry 7 m OC in O O O 00 O 0 00 N �— 0 7' F" c�C v N r 0.� 5 v a F v a �' N v N N U O v p- Q c\ o 0 0 o z o o0 0 € oo > w o o Q _ 0. N cc N U .. w p"NIn._ .c O N C1 N N O N_ N_ .0 A Q p w r a>i r a>i I � ^ M c — W vo � V) N rC• (, m � 000 � p � - o w o ^ o ^ c w aa)) ^ c ^ o C7 Q ^ cF' C7 0 z ^ o bo v E ^ CAr_ r [n o N V V E V w N N °� V V (,7 N 'D G ClO w O O O O C7 o O O 0. N ° O O U t CD — O Q O O } vl Vl d N V) C C > 00 M N M d O m w c o C7 c c c n c r c o OC o c cY 00CL c d o c 'p IT LL] N in C LL] N N 'T CA r�i Q ON ON wr � wOo00 O00 (� � � � � V00d C O O O O O O O O M C C 0 CD CD 0 CD O O O O O O O OO cli O G. v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v z z z z z z z z z O a, v a, E- F- tW O O Qi �T" fUi 0. to w cc C V O O cca com co t1 G. U O F CO bDco u u u v u n c m A w N V V 00 �' LL Li V N N NO N N O O O N AO O O O O O O O C N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CC a y N N N O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl C h O O O tn wl O O O O O O v7 v! W) O VI � p In V) vv1 V V N 0000 N In tn,M_, V V h v1 M o` N N cn cn O O O � � W ate+ 03 i--. C C v� i •� Y ni RS M M '� W rn y y F•+ C F" C F"' 0 Fr O N O O O « � 0 W O � UO c 00 ;� eo eo p cc 0 L. U C ^ p u a Lr 0 od o � o � a, CL a v a a U v U F, v 0o car 0o0 Q o � 00 0 00 N .. A N N b r C 'fly i � C C Q cyN tC PL .C � y 'D O :� Mp tv in 00 y � W a U U U � 0 ya� � L1 cad � .a o ...7 O O O O ^ O ^ O CDcd O CDN O 0 _ i O ;fl N N O F' m O� V O) to O a N M 0 �„ M M M v a p 0 IT v v D Z U L O 7? O U x O O O C O eti O O L O U N T v) v'� cn a7 ClO O u �• N S N M M O W ^ !I] u C] 0 0 ^ W 2 0 0 0 oo o o o o p 00 coots `�° �_ 10 en .o 0 0 > o0 N o 0 0 0 o tgOo o 000o a N �o .S� ^ cd F- 00 .a N V' N .1 Q k c o c o c v O CL 61 p O O O O C v z z z z z z a. v a E- x r F- U 6 u U U a) y_ Ln G v p W •U C�J FJ R' p U o c m U CL U a � c a 3 $ v o' M y O c0 c 3 N3 C OO O (V N ^ N N O O O O O CD C O O O O O O CC a C o 0 0 0 C, O` C O O C O O � O, O\ N N N 00 OO OO M_ p cam! O O "i M M t7 KI m N fV (V Oo Oo O O O O C O O O O CD O N N N C v:, NO lO m M M N N N O O O N N N r t t CN N N r t N d U c0 y C U, 00 G Q � UU._ 7 y o ca M _ •� O G V O O p M eC O L y f'•' O'j 000 O y U Cn O in U al '.7". �' � fn �1 [-. O G yr F' W •N O � � �, � w n CD co aaio W �- U � � �Q Pnu An W n �o � o � o Q o � �= 0 o 'L' W p o al N LL. y .. s. N w N m N w �] G N •C T x N •• ,� a w N3 pz a � U z � `� � oU U � Wa �: Oo oF- °cC,4 C j` y - - o � � yoo z 3 ^ oF' z F ^ o o v c v a ° m w N o a o o Z o `t o Ems- o a ate. d m IQ o c o Z a v cn o o c c Q JC) v Q � � F- r — ^ .— �c � NN Z za. ZO z N a. •tt ^ Q �t C C C O O O O O O 1) C C C O C C C O 0 O 0 O 0 a u ° c c c o Q o Q Q Q O Q c U z z z z z z z z z z z z C a v a x E� u � C � u > �. Q u �. LL) u � a N a ° ca c o � ^ U U � C y ca LU ¢ o'a a. Q w Oq a 0. F- u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N " N N N N c) O CDO O O O O .N. CN SN! .! .i N-. cq � >, Cl O O O O O C. O O O O O +•+ O O O O O O O O O O O O C O G O C C O C C O O cd 7 a O Cl C 00 00 00 O O O O �c M 0% O1 Ol 00 O, O, Ic 00 O C O eq N N C C C O to en 00 00 7 to O �c 7N C C 6 �'D �O O O O N 00 M N V1 er v) v� C O O N N N 00 00 Ln Q d U G N C M o W 00 ^ (� .0 .. y ti h 00 , C `O u C c0 m d N d o0 T to O �t a +y c F 00 a in. M-. 0. 0 F , � 0O ' .Lcoso .� o .c N�% l% d 0 NQVo pNrplepCD ( CD o CZJ Oi Ca U N N U O E..., N N �.N �.N a N a N �• a Al E - p� o _. En r 4. 3 o 0 ° o o ^ o 0 0 0 0 0 o °o O O O N N N N N N I Q., N N y N V4 N M M M M M M v 0 v tv U st �t M � MVM � M � MVM � "0 Cl. O j, O O O O HMO OMO ^ OmOm O 0. .Y O O O O N O O � '[F N , O , O , O , v� C M N M O M V d r N '� r n N r - U W � N 00 K1 V1 N Cl N (V N N M N V1 N m Z r O O O C O O O [— N O N O N O N O N p N 0 O V1 < V1 < kn O En N M z 0 O N O N O M O y� O zo. o a Cl >' oo 48 - o - o - o a �Qo �Qo �Qo �co .Do �oo c 0. W N 0. N N o0 G7 O O O En — r [- t- -- I1 l-- — Q CD CD CD G O O O O O O u ppp y O O C O .a a O o c c c c o 0 0 0 0 U z z z z z z z z z O c.. a H L F V C V U V E 6J > 'r-. O E U � C id N L� C tw V Q C 0 8 a 0 y W A C N O O N N N N N O O O O O O O O G O O O O O O O O O O O O O C C cC 7 a O` O` O C — C O O O N N N CO C O C tn O N M M 00 � p 00 00 V 00 00 00 O O C` O N M W) wl en �c Ic r r r r r r D\ C 00 r 00 00 00 N V1 V1 _ ^. ^ Vl VJ en 00 oc M v. U � O C � C C C y y al G C id y O O U O O M F a F sF F o 0 00 i 00 G _ N r p O F d - 0 U N 0p +�.' N U 0 d ON 4. O en F- 'ct oNs0 o I .a � o o Uo� s0o� at V 0 0 0N O � Y�io N ` U 0.N .In ^ o N .c �� U ,. N io w 3 0 M 3 N V S h U M M M m N n' M y v �r v v v v o O t� O ¢ O N O v1 O` N M l/] r 'n oNo N oNo oNo v oNo � �.1 � U N Q '? .1 N F O` cn 00 N 00 �? 00 O` 00 C` r7 Jn pp cd oc C7 0 fro � � o p00o0o00tn � v Q o 0 C, i Q N 1 U 0000 F r r V r VOA r � F o rn .� as wC0 � r r r- r uU CF `Oo Qvo �1 �; Z; 2; �noz;; 40 �+ r — En N tnM — F — .o F � — .0 -- %0 �o %0 .o F- No \ > y � y / 3 3 � J 5 ƒ � o / » _ $ } ® Q # 0 � t � 6 . « t « � \ k t � 2 \ \ ! / ƒ g \ o � � e \ a f «3 « «w « 9 / - % ■e - $ 00 oo \ �2% » %�� $ / /« ��a / ao a t » / § « Qo 7- U7k 77^ 0 %7ƒ k - / \ t\� f /k \$/ 3k � . / \ 2 Q o � \ ƒ » 1 $\ \ \ q / 3 % or \ a / # 7 «k0 ¥ k � J \ � 2 # � � � \ � \ \ � 4 0 a � e A ' e / t G S } \ / � k # / § 3 % » ` � \ a k \ 2 0 � g 0 7 0 � \ o \ o o \\ 0 ®® S 00 f ® ~ ƒ — ƒ % a � m = S$ q o On / # \ §2& � \ - ƒ § — � \ \/ 3 / « � U n a a 2 JaCd '� m � Cd co � � � 2 THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: December 2, 2014 CONSENT ITEM# 5 AGENDA ITEM: Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements—Change Order No. 1 SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Cathy Bendel, Finance Director Mike Bouthilet, Public Works SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS if removed from the Consent Agenda): - Questions from Council to Staff............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate........................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ...............................................................Mayor&City Council - Discussion.......................................................................Mayor&City Council - Action on Motion.................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering FISCAL IMPACT: $1,400.41. This change order provides compensation to the contractor for additional work completed on the project at the request of the City. The work includes the relocation of a service stub to a home and restocking a hydrant. The work increases the contract amount by $1.400.41. With approval of this change order the revised contract amount is $443,884.54. The construction contract therefore remains within the original total project budget as authorized on March 4, 2014. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving, as part of the consent agenda, Change Order No. 1 for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements Project, thereby increasing the Contract amount by $1,400.41. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for the action is as follows: --page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 5] December 2,2014 "Move to approve Change Order No. I for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements thereby increasing the contract amount by$1,400.41." LEGISLATIVE HISTORYBACKGROUND INFORMATION: This change order provides compensation to the contractor to change the location of an individual water service stub creating the need for the contractor to dig and restore an extra pit not planned for as a part of the original contract. The service stub was relocated at the property owner's request to better accommodate the property owner's future connection to City water. In addition this change order includes a hydrant restocking fee to return a hydrant that was ordered and delivered to the site but required a different hydrant to better fit the existing rural ditch conditions. The above described changes were not included in the original contract and result in a contract increase of $1,400.41. With this change order the total project budget remains within the authorized budget. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council consider, as part of the Consent Agenda, approving Change Order No. 1 for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements thereby increasing the contract amount by $1,400.41. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve Change Order No. 1 for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements thereby increasing the contract amount by$1,400.41." ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Change Order No. 1 --page 2-- CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FORM CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA FOGS ENGINEERING, inc. WELL NO. 4 CONNECTING WATERMAIN PROJECT NO.2013.131 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 DATE: November 19,2014 TO: NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO INC,9760 71ST NE,ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 This Document will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply hereto.The Contract Documents are modified as follows upon execution of this Change Order, CHANGE ORDER DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION: This change order is being processed at the request of the City to change the location of an individual water service stub creating the need for the contractor to dig and restore an extra pit not included in the contract.The location of the service stub was changed from the plan to better accommodate the property owner's future connection to City water.In addition a hydrant that was ordered and delivered to the site per plan but was returned at the request of the City.This was required to install a hydrant which better fit the existing rural ditch conditions. Attachments (list documents supporting change): None ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT QTY UNIT PRICE INCREASE/(DECREASE) C01-1 WATER SERVICE STUB PIT RESTORATION LS 1 $1,043.63 $1,043.63 COI-2 HYDRANT RESTOCKING FEE EA 1 $3S6.78 $356.78 NET CONTRACT CHANGE $1,400.41 Amount of Original Contract $ 442,484.13 Sum of Additions/Deductions approved to date(CO Nos. ) $ 0.00 Contract Amount to date $ 442,484.13 Amount of this Change Order (ADD) (DEDUCT) (NBCkAA16€) $ 1,400.41 Revised Contract Amount $ 443,884.54 The Contract Period for Completion will be (UNCHANGED) (INCREASED) (DECREASED) 0 days APPROVED 1BY ENGINEER: FOCUS Engineering, inc. APPROVED BY CONTRACTOR ENGINEER BY 11/19/2014 , � DATE DATE APPROVED BY OWNER: CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA BY BY DATE DATE FOCUS Engineering,inc. CHANGE ORDER FORM THE CITY OF LAKE ELM- MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: December 2,2014 CONSENT ITEM# 6 AGENDA ITEM: Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements—Compensating Change Order No. 2 SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Cathy Bendel,Finance Director Mike Bouthilet, Public Works SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS if removed from the Consent Agenda): - Questions from Council to Staff.............................................Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate........................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ...............................................................Mayor&City Council - Discussion.......................................................................Mayor& City Council - Action on Motion.................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering FISCAL IMPACT: $4,537.47. This change order reconciles the estimated and actual quantities installed on the project and increases the contract amount by $4,537.47. With this change order and previous change orders on the project the final contract amount is $448,422.01, or 1.3% over the original construction contract award. The total project costs remain within the original project budget as authorized on March 4, 2014. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving, as part of the consent agenda, Compensating Change Order No. 2 for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements to reconcile the estimated and actual quantities installed on the project. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for the action is as follows: --page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 6] December 2,2014 "Move to approve Compensating Change Order No. 2./or the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements thereby increasing the final contract amount by $4,537.47." LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Northdale Construction Company was awarded a construction contract on March 4, 2014 to construct the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements. The contractor has completed the work in accordance with the contract and with approval of this change order the contract amount will be adjusted to reflect quantities actually installed as a part of the project. Added project costs relate primarily to additional quantities of service pipe and fittings needed to locate each service stub in the appropriate location for the property. The overall increase in the contract amount for this change order is $4,537.47 as detailed on the attached itemization. The final contract amount is $448,422.01, or 1.3% over the original construction contract award. The total project costs remain within the original project budget authorized on March 4, 2014. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council consider, as part of the Consent Agenda, approving Compensating Change Order No. 2 for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements thereby increasing the final contract amount by $4,537.47. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve Compensating Change Order No. 2 for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements thereby increasing the final contract amount by $4,537.47." ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Compensating Change Order No. 2 --page 2-- CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FORM CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. WELL NO.4 CONNECTING WATERMAIN IMP PROJECT NO.2013.131 CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 DATE: November 19, 2014 TO: NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO INC,9760 71ST NE,ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 This Document will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply hereto.The Contract Documents are modified as follows upon execution of this Change Order. CHANGE ORDER DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION: Per the project Contract Documents the original contract amount and basis of award is established using the estimated quantities for each item of work listed in the bid schedule and multiplying them by the Contractor's corresponding unit bid price. The Contractor is paid for the actual final quantities installed on the project at the unit bid prices. At the completion of the project,a compensating change order is prepared to revise the estimated quantities for each work item listed in the bid schedule to the actual quantities installed and the corresponding Contract Amount is revised accordingly. This compensating change order reflects a net increase to the contract amount by$4,537.47.The primary areas of increased pay items included service piping and fittings required to complete the work. Attachments (list documents supporting change): None ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT CITY UNIT PRICE INCREASE/(DECREASE) **See attached itemization for Change Order items $4,537.47 L. NET CONTRACT CHANGE $4,537.47 Amount of Original Contract $ 442,484.13 Sum of Additions/Deductions approved to date(CO No.1) $ 1,400.41 Contract Amount to date $ 443,884.54 Amount of this Change Order (ADD) (DEPW ) (pie CHANGE) $ 4,537.47 Revised Contract Amount $ 448,422.01 The Contract Period for Completion will be (UNCHANGED) (rNGREA„SED) (DECREASED) 0 days APPROVED BY ENGINEER: FOCUS Engineering,inc. APPROVED BY CONTRACTOR ENGINEER BY 11/19/2014 r I/Ct h I DATE DATE APPROVED BY OWNER: CITY OF LAKE ELMO,MINNESOTA BY BY DATE DATE FOCUS Engineering,irc. CHANGE ORDER FORM COMPENSATING CHANGE ORDER NO.2 WELL NO.4 CONNECTING WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS FOCUS ENGINEERING, Inc. CITY OF LAKE ELMO,MINNESOTA PROJECT NO.2013.131 CONTRACT TOTAL TO DATE COMPENSATING CO#2 ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT NET CHANGE AMOUNT 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $19,640.77 $19,640.77 1.00 $19,640.77 - $0.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $2,275.00 $2,275.00 1.00 $2,275.00 - $0.00 3 CLEAR AND GRUB TREE EA 5 $375.00 $1,875.00 - $0.00 -5.00 -$1,875.00 4 CONNECT TO EXISTING 12"WATERMAIN EA 1 $1,033.82 $1,033.82 - $0.00 -1.00 -$1,033.82 5 CONNECT TO EXISTING 16"WATERMAIN EA 1 $3,353.64 $3,353.64 1.0 $3,353.64 - $0.00 6 6"DIP,CL.52 WATERMAIN LF 40 $76.89 $3,075.60 45.5 $3,498.50 5.50 $422.90 7 12"DIP,CL.52 WATERMAIN LF 76 $118.02 $8,969.52 133.0 $15,696.66 57.00 $6,727.14 8 12"HDPE WATERMAIN,DIRECTIONAL DRILL LF 4,347 $50.57 $219,827.79 4290.0 $216,945.30 -57.00 -$2,882.49 9 6"GATE VALVE AND BOX EA 8 $1,214.39 $9,715.12 8.0 $9,715.12 - $0.00 10 12"GATE VALVE AND BOX EA 9 $4,755.14 $42,796.26 9.0 $42,796.26 - $0.00 11 VALVE BOX EXTENSION LF 9 $138.70 $1,248.30 - $0.00 -9.00 -$1,248.30 12 HYDRANT EA 8 $6,752.79 $54,022.32 8.0 $54,022.32 - $0.00 13 HYDRANT EXTENSION LF 3.5 $991.24 $3,469.34 - $0.00 -3.50 -$3,469.34 14 1"TYPE"K"COPPER WATER SERVICE LF 5 $31.09 $155.45 4.5 $139.91 -0.50 -$15.55 15 1"TYPE"K"COPPER WATER SERVICE,DIRECTIONAL DRILL LF 220 $43.50 $9,570.00 251.0 $10,918.50 31.00 $1,348.50 16 1.5"TYPE"K"COPPER WATER SERVICE LF 65 $39.74 $2,583.10 101.5 $4,033.61 36.50 $1,450.51 17 1.5"TYPE"K"COPPER WATER SERVICE,DIRECTIONAL DRILL LF 215 $46.83 $10,068.45 239.0 $11,192.37 24.00 $1,123.92 18 1"CORPORATION STOP W/FUSABLE SADDLE EA 4 $469.74 $1,878.96 4.0 $1,878.96 - $0.00 19 1"CURB STOP&BOX EA 4 $712.75 $2,851.00 4.0 $2,851.00 - $0.00 20 1.5"CORPORATION STOP W/FUSABLE SADDLE EA 6 $527.08 $3,162.48 CO $3,162.48 - $0.00 21 1.S"CURB STOP&BOX EA 6 $755.16 $4,530.96 6.0 $4,530.96 - $0.00 22 OFF ROAD STRUCTURE MARKER EA 9 $71.25 $641.25 8.0 $570.00 -1.00 -$71.25 23 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LB 1,500 $8.55 $12,825.00 2205.0 $18,852.75 705.00 $6,027.75 24 POTHOLE EXISTING UTILITY EA 24 $275.00 $6,600.00 23.0 $6,325.00 -1.00 -$275.00 25 PATCH BITUMINOUS STREET SY 25 $90.00 $2,250.00 - $0.00 -25.00 -$2,250.00 26 TOPSOIL BORROW(CV) CY 100 $26.50 $2,650.00 130.0 $3,445.00 30.00 $795.00 27 SEED MIX 250&EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SY 3,000 $1.60 $4,800.00 6400.0 $10,240.00 3400.00 $5,440.00 28 SODDING SY 1,000 $4.57 $4,570.00 - $0.00 -1000.00 -$4,570.00 29 SILT FENCE,MACHINE SLICED LF 350 $4.20 $1,470.00 100.0 $420.00 -250.00 -$1,050.00 30 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICK UP BROOM HR 5 $115.00 $575.00 4.5 $517.50 -0.50 -$57.50 TOTALS-BASE CONTRACT $442,484.13 $447,021.60 $4,537.47 CHANGE ORDER NO.1 col-1 WATER SERVICE STUB PIT RESTORATION LS 1.0 $1,043.63 $1,043.6 1. 43673 .0 $0.0 1 1. ,0 COI-2 HYDRANT RESTOCKING FEE EA .0 $356.78 $356.78 0 $3 0.0 TOTALS-CHANGE ORDER NO.1 $1,400.41 $1,400.41 $0.00 TOTALS-DIFFERENCE IN CONTRACT AND ACTUAL WORK COMPLETE $443,884.54 $448,422.01 $4,537.47 TI IG CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: December 2, 2014 CONSENT ITEM # 7 AGENDA ITEM: Well No. 4 Connecting Watennain Improvements—Accept Improvements and Pay Request No. 4 (Final) SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Cathy Bendel, Finance Director SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS if removed front the Consent AQenda): Questions from Council to Staff............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate........................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ...............................................................Mayor& City Council - Discussion.......................................................................Mayor& City Council - Action on Motion.................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering FISCAL IMPACT: None. Final payment is proposed in accordance with the Contract for the project. Payment remains within authorized contract amount and approved change orders for the project. SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider accepting the improvements and approving Pay Request No. 4 (Final) for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watennain Improvements. The work has been reviewed by the Engineer and is fully completed in accordance with the Contract, Plans and Specifications and Change Orders. if removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for the action is as follows: "Move to accept the improvements for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermaitt Improvements and approve Pay Request No. 4 (Final) to Northdale Construction Company in the amount of $24,003.24". --page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 7] December 2,2014 LEGISLATIVE HISTORYBACKGROUND INFORMATION: Northdale Construction Company has completed the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements in accordance with the construction contract awarded by the council on March 4, 2014. The Project Engineer has prepared a Certification of Completion indicating that all work is completed including all punchlist items and is recommending the acceptance of the improvements and release of the final retainage. Project acceptance will initiate the one-year warranty period for the improvements. The one-year warranty will begin on December 3, 2014 and will extend through December 2, 2015. The final total construction costs for the project is $448,422.01 which is 1.3% over the original contract amount of $442,484.13. Added project costs are primarily related to added service piping and fittings required to complete the improvements. The project is being partially funded through the MN-DEED water system grant and through the levy of special assessments to the benefitting properties. A breakdown of the project costs compared with the previously approved budget is shown below. Post Construction Costs Authorized Project Budget Costs Total Project Costs: $543,194 $575,000 Funding Source: DEED Water Agreement Funds: $228,560 $260,000 Water Enterprise Funds: $285,634 $286,000 Water Assessment Revenue: $29,000 $29,000 (10 Units at$2,900 each) Final payment will be made to the Contractor, including the release of all retained funds, upon receipt of all lien waivers, consent of surety, and IC-134s from the Contractor. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council consider, as part of the Consent Agenda, accepting the improvements for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements and approving Pay Request No. 4 (Final) in the amount of $24,003.24. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for the action is as follows: "Move to accept the improvements for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements and approve Pay Request No. 4 (Final) to Northdale Construction Company in the amount of $24,003.24" ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Certificate of Completion 2. Partial Pay Estimate No. 4 (Final) --page 2-- i CITY OF LAKE ELMO,MN WELL NO.4 CONNECTING PROJECT NO.2013.131 WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION DATE OF ISSUANCE: DECEMBER 2,2014 OWNER: CITY OF LAKE ELMO,MN CONTRACTOR: NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. PROJECT NAME: WELL NO.4 CONNECTING WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.: 2013.131 N This Certification of Completion applies to all work under the Contract Documents [] This Certification of Completion applies to the following specified parts of the Contract Documents I do hereby certify that the work to which this Certificate applies has been constructed in accordance with the Contract dated APRIL 14,2014. The above-mentioned improvement is hereby declared to be complete and acceptance of this work is recommended. DATE OF COMPLETION: DECEMBER 2,2014 Chad Isakson Reg. No. 49028 0 S JL---� — — -- FOCUS Engineering, Inc. THE WARRANTY PERIOD BEGINS DEC.3,2014 AND ENDS DEC.2,2015 PROJECT PAY FORM PARTIAL PAY ESTIMATE NO. 4(FINAL) FOCUS ENGINEERING, Inc. WELL NO.4 CONNECTING WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS PERIOD OF ESTIMATE PROJECT NO.2013.131 FROM 7/9/2014 TO 11/19/2014 PROJECT 0 W N ER: CONTRACTOR: CITY OF LAKE ELMO NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. 3800 LAVERNE AVENUE NORTH 9760 71ST ST.NE LAKE ELMO,MN 55042 ALBERTVILLE,MN 55301 ATTN:JACK GRIFFIN,P.E.,CITY ENGINEER ATTN-.THOMAS WILEBSKI CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY PAY ESTIMATE SUMMARY N0, Approval Amount 1.Original Contract Amount $442,494.13 Date Additions Deductions 2. Net Change Order Sum $5,937.88 1 12/2/2014 $1,400.41 3. Revised Contract(1+2) $448,422.01 2 12/2/2014 $4,537.47 4. *Work Completed $448,422.01 5. *Stored Materials $0.00 6.Subtotal(4+5) $448,422.01 7.Retainage* 0.0% $0.00 8.Previous Payments $424,418.77 TOTALS $5,937.88 $0.00 9.Amount Due(6-7-9) $24,003.24 NET CHANGE $5,937.8 ig *Detailed Breakdown Attached CONTRACT TI M E START DATE: 4114/2014 ORIGINAL DAYS 86 ON SCHEDULE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION: 6/9/2014 REVISED DAYS 0 YES FINAL COMPLETION: 7/9/2014 REMAINING -133 NO ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION: FOCUS Engineering, inc. The undersigned certifies that the work has been reviewed and to the best of their knowledge and belief,the quantities shown in this estimate are correct and the work has been performed in accordance ENGINEER with the contract documents. 11/19/2014 DATE CONTRACTOR'S CERTIFICATION: CONTRACTOR The undersigned Contractor certifies that to the best of their knowledge,information and belief the work covered by this payment {_ estimate has been completed in accordance with the contract BY documents,that all amounts have been paid by the contractor for work for which previous payment estimates was issued and payments DATE - received from the owner,and that current payment shown herein is now due. APPROVED BY OWNER: CITY OF LAKE ELMO,MINNESOTA BY BY DATE DATE FOCUS Engineering,inc. PROJECT PAYMENT FORM PARTIAL PAY ESTIMATE NO. 4(FINAL) r C WELL NO.4 CONNECTING WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS FOCUS ENGINEERING, Inc. CITY OF LAKE ELMO,MINNESOTA PROJECT NO.2013.131 CONTRACT THIS PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT I MOBILIZATION LS 1 $19,640.77 $19,640.77 - $0.00 1.00 $19,640.77 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL L5 1 $2,275.00 $2,275.00 $0.00 1.00 $2,275.00 3 CLEAR AND GRUB TREE EA 5 $375.00 $1,875.00 - $0.00 - $0.00 4 CONNECT TO EXISTING 12"WATERMAIN EA 1 $1,033.82 $1,033.82 - $0.00 - $0.00 5 CONNECT TO EXISTING 16"WATERMAIN EA 1 $3,353.64 $3,353.64 - $0.00 1.0 $3,353.64 6 6"DIP,CL.52 WATERMAIN LF 40 $76.89 $3,075.60 - $0.00 45.5 $3,498.50 7 12"DIP,CL.52 WATERMAIN LF 76 $118.02 $8,969.52 $0.00 133.0 $15,696.66 8 12"HDPE WATERMAIN,DIRECTIONAL DRILL LF 4,347 $50.S7 $219,827.79 - $0.00 4290.0 $216,945.30 9 6"GATE VALVE AND BOX EA 8 $1,214.39 $9,715.12 - $0.00 8.0 $9,715.12 10 12"GATE VALVE AND BOX EA 9 $4,755.14 $42,796.26 - $0.00 9.0 $42,796.26 11 VALVE BOX EXTENSION LF 9 $138.70 $1,248.30 - $0.00 - $o.00 12 HYDRANT EA 8 $6,752.79 $54,022.32 - $0.00 8.0 $54,022.32 13 HYDRANT EXTENSION LF 4 $991.24 $3,469.34 - $0.00 $0.00 14 1"TYPE"K"COPPER WATER SERVICE LF 5 $31.09 $155.45 - $0.00 4.5 $139.91 15 1"TYPE"K"COPPER WATER SERVICE,DIRECTIONAL DRILL LF 220 $43.50 $9,570.00 - $0.00 251.0 $10,918.50 16 1.5"TYPE"K"COPPER WATER SERVICE LF 65 $39.74 $2,583.10 - $0.00 101.5 $4,033.61 17 1.5"TYPE"K"COPPER WATER SERVICE,DIRECTIONAL DRILL LF 215 $46.83 $10,068.45 - $0.00 239.0 $11,192.37 18 1"CORPORATION STOP W/FUSABLE SADDLE EA 4 $469.74 $1,878.96 - $0.00 4.0 $1,878.96 19 1"CURB STOP&BOX EA 4 $712.75 $2,851.00 - $0.00 4.0 $2,851.00 20 1.5"CORPORATION STOP W/FUSABLE SADDLE EA 6 $527.08 $3,162AS - $0.00 6.0 $3,162AS 21 1.5"CURB STOP&BOX EA 6 $755.16 $4,530.96 - $0.00 6.0 $4,530.96 22 OFF ROAD STRUCTURE MARKER EA 9 $71.25 $641.25 - $0.00 8.0 $570.00 23 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LB 1,500 $8.55 $12,825.00 - $0.00 2205.0 $18,852.75 24 POTHOLE EXISTING UTILITY EA 24 $275.00 $6,600.00 - $0.00 23.0 $6,325.00 25 PATCH BITUMINOUS STREET SY 25 $90.00 $2,250.00 - $0.00 - $0.00 26 TOPSOIL BORROW(CV) CY 100 $26.50 $2,650.00 10.00 $265.00 130.0 $3,445.00 27 SEED MIX 250&EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SY 3,000 $1.60 $4,800.00 - $0.00 64DD.0 $10,240.00 28 SODDING SY 1,000 $4.57 $4,570.00 - $0.00 - $0.00 29 SILT FENCE,MACHINE SLICED LF 350 $4.20 $1,470.00 - $0.00 100.0 $420,00 30 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICK UP BROOM HR 1 5 $115.00 $575.00 - $0.00 4.5 $517.50 TOTALS-BASE CONTRACT $442,484.13 $265.00 $447,021.60 CHANGE ORDER NO.1 Col-1 WATER SERVICE STUB PIT RESTORATION LS 1.0 $1,043.63 $1,043.63 1.0 $1,043.63 1.0 $1,043.63 COI-2 HYDRANT RESTOCKING FEE EA 1.0 $356.78 $356.78 1.0 $356.78 1.0 $356.78 TOTALS-CHANGE ORDER NO.1 $1,400.41 $1,400.41 $1,400.41 COMPENSATING CHANGE ORDER NO.2 CCO2-1 LS 1.00 $4,537.47 $4,537.47 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 TOTALS-COMPENSATING CHANGE ORDER NO.2 $4,537.47 $0.00 $0.00 TOTALS-REVISED CONTRACT $448,422.01 $1,665.41 $448,422.01 THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: December 2, 2014 CONSENT ITEM # 8 AGENDA ITEM: Consider Approval of 2015 Liquor License Renewals SUBMITTED BY: Beckie Gumatz, Deputy Clerk THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Adam Bell, City Clerk/Assistant City Administrator Washington County Sheriff's Office (Pending) SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item.....................................................................................Staff - Report/Presentation..................................................................Staff Questions from Council to Staff............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ...............................................................Mayor& City Council - Discussion.......................................................................Mayor& City Council - Action on Motion.................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Staff FISCAL IMPACT: license application revenue of$8,150 SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City has received liquor license applications for 2015, required fees, and insurance certificates. As all applications are in order, it is respectfully requested that the City Council approve these renewals as part of its Consent Agenda. If removed from the Consent Agenda, staff recommends the following motion: "Move to approve 2015 Liquor License Renewals, as presented." LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: According to State Statute and City Code, each year, all Liquor Licenses must be renewed. All renewals are contingent upon approve by the Washington County Sheriff's Department. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City is respectfully requested to consider granting the following 2015 Liquor License applications: --page 1 -- City Council Meeting (Consent Agenda Item Ug December 2,2014 • On-sale intoxicating liquor and On-Sale Sunday intoxicating license to Prom Management Group (Operators of Tartan Park Restaurant) and to The Machine Shed Restaurant by Heart of America Restaurants; contingent upon approval by the Washington County Sheriff's Department. • On-sale intoxicating liquor, Off-sale intoxicating liquor and On-sale Sunday intoxicating license to the Twin Point Tavern and Lake Elmo Inn including the outside patio; contingent upon approval by the Washington County Sheriff's Department. • Off-sale intoxicating liquor license to Village Wine & Spirits; contingent upon approval by the Washington County Sheriff's Department. • On-sale intoxicating liquor license (second location) for the Lake Elmo Inn Event Center; contingent upon approval by the Washington County Sheriff's Department. • Lake Elmo Wine Company has not renewed their license as they are no longer in business. RECOMMENDATION: As all applications are in order, it is respectfully requested that the City Council approve all liquor license renewals. As part of its Consent Agenda, no formal motion is required. If removed from the Consent Agenda, staff recommends the following motion: "Move to approve 2015 Liquor License Renewals, as presented." --page 2 -- THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: December 2, 2014 CONSENT ITEM #: 9 AGENDA ITEM: 2015-2016 Washington County Subsurface Sewage Treatment Inspection Services Agreement SUBMITTED BY: Adam Bell, Asst. City Administrator/Clerk THROUGH: Mayor Mike Pearson REVIEWED BY: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from Consent): - Introduction of Item..................................................................................................... Staff - Report/Presentation................................................................................Staff Questions from Council to Staff..............................................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion................................................................................Mayor& City Council Discussion........................................................................................Mayor& City Council - Action on Motion.....................................................................................Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Staff FISCAL IMPACT: The agreement reduces time and material expenses for City by eliminating the permitting and inspection costs. In 2012, this was estimated at an average of$25,000-$27,000 per year. SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: The Council is respectfully requested to renew contract with Washington County for the Inspection of Private Septic Systems for FY 2015-2016. As part of its Consent Agenda, no formal motion is required. If removed from the Consent Agenda, staff recommends the following motion: "Move to Approve of the Subsurface Sewage Treatment Inspection: Services Agreement Between the City of Lake Elmo and Washington County for Private Septic System Inspections." LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: To better serve its taxpayer and reduce costs, the City of Lake Elmo has contracted in the past with Washington County for septic system inspections. This agreement allows for one-stop --page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 9] December 2,2014 permit approval process for the taxpayer installing / modifying a private septic service. The current agreement expires at the end of 2014. BACKGROUND INFORMATION/STAFF REPORT: Staff has evaluated the contract based on service delivery, cost to the City, and cost to the taxpayer. The agreement places the certification process in the hands of the technical experts of Washington County. Experientially, the lines of communication and troubleshooting efforts between the City of Lake Elmo and Washington County are very good and result in efficient turnaround service for our taxpayers. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned information, the City Staff recommends approval of the agreement. As part of its Consent Agenda, no formal motion is required. If removed from the Consent Agenda, staff recommends the following motion: "Move to Approve of the Subsurface Sewage Treatment Inspection Services Agreement Between the City of Lake Elmo and Washington County for Private Septic System Inspections." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Washington County Letter from Girard Goder, Environmental Program Supervisor 2. Washington County Subsurface Sewage Treatment Inspection Services Agreement --page 2-- Department of Public Washffigton Health and Environment Country Lowell Johnson Director Sue Hedlund November 6, 2014 Deputy Director City of Lake Elmo Adam Bell 3800 Laverne Ave N Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Washington County, through its Department of Public Health and Environment (Department), has historically provided, and it is the county's desire to continue to provide, septic system permitting and inspection services for the City of Lake Elmo. The most recent Agreement between the city and the county will expire on December 31, 2014. Please be assured there will be no interruption of service to the city while we work jointly to execute a new Agreement. The changes to the Agreement include: • TERMS AND EFFECTIVE DATE— Dates changed to reflect effective date of January 1, 2015 and termination date of December 31, 2016. Please review the enclosed Agreement, and, if the language is satisfactory, return the signed original Agreement to the attention of Stephanie Holt. We will send a fully executed copy of the Agreement to the city as soon as it is signed by the County Board Chair and County Administrator. If, however, there are paragraphs in the Agreement you would like to discuss, please contact our Department at your earliest convenience. We would also like to use this opportunity to remind you that the Department is currently in the process of revising our Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Ordinance. If there are any questions regarding this process, please let us know. We look forward to continued service to your community. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please contact me at 651-430-6768 or via email at girard.goder@co.wasliingtoti.mn.us or Stephanie Holt at 651-430-6678 or via email at stephanie.bolt@co.washington.rnn.us. Sincerely, Girard Goder Environmental Program Supervisor Enclosure: Agreement Government Center • 14949 62nd Street North— P.O. Box 6, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-0006 Phone: 651-430-6655 • Fax: 651-430-6730 • TTY: 651-430-6246 www.co.washington.mn.us Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agreement for Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Inspection Services This agreement is made and entered into, by and between the County of Washington (hereinafter referred to as the County) and City of Lake Elmo (hereinafter referred to as the City). I. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City wishes to contract with the County to perform subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS) inspection services within the City's boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City adopted the County's Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations Ordinance #179 (Washington County Development Code Chapter 4), hereinafter SSTSRO, regulating subsurface sewage treatment systems, which applies to all areas of the City; and WHEREAS,the County agrees to provide subsurface sewage treatment system inspection services under the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, this contract is authorized under Section 471.59 of the Minnesota Statutes. NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed between the County and City as follows: II. SCOPE OF SERVICES County's Responsibilities 1. The County agrees to provide, through its Department of Public Health and Environment, subsurface sewage treatment system inspection services for the City. The County shall provide a Qualified Employee(s),as described in Minn.Rule 7083.1010 and 7083.0020 subp 17. 2. The standards of performance, method of providing subsurface sewage treatment system inspection services, and other matters incident to the performance of services under this Agreement, including personnel to be employed, shall be determined by the County. The City shall be notified in advance of any proposed changes in standards of performance or methods of providing services. 3. The County shall provide the necessary SSTS application review and sewage system plan approval as required by laws, regulations and ordinances,provide all job site inspections of projects under permit, and conduct special inspections as deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the SSTSRO. Services shall include clerical support incidental to the performance of this agreement. 1 4. The County shall provide and issue all sewage permits as required by the SSTSRO,existing laws or regulations and shall maintain records of all such permits. If the City requests a copy of a granted permit,the County shall provide a copy to the City within 5 (five)working days. 5. The County shall send a copy of the County's issuance of a certificate of compliance of the sewage system's completion to the City within 10(ten)working days of the County granting the certificate. 6. In the event of a violation or threatened violation of the SSTSRO or sewage permit the County may pursue the administrative issuance of stop work orders on the installation of the septic system, and/or issue corrective orders, and/or issue notices of non-compliance. 7. The County shall advise the City if a misdemeanor citation is warranted for any violation of a sewage permit or SSTSRO. 8. The County may request appropriate actions or proceedings be brought by the City, to prevent, restrain, correct or abate violations or threatened violations of a sewage permit or SSTSRO. 9. The County will cooperate with the City's officials and/or employees in fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement. City's Responsibilities: l. In areas not served by municipal sewer, the City shall not issue a building permit for new dwelling construction and/or for the addition of bedrooms until the County has issued a sewage permit for the new construction and/or addition of bedrooms. 2. The City shall act on all applications for special permits and SSTSRO variance requests. 3. Upon request from the County the City shall issue a stop work order on projects commencing construction prior to the issuance of a sewage permit. 4. The City is responsible for commencing appropriate actions or proceedings to prevent, restrain, correct or abate violations or threatened violations of a sewage permit or SSTSRO and shall represent the County during appeals of the administrative remedies issued by the County. 5. The City may issue misdemeanor citations for violations of the SSTSRO or sewage permit. 6. The City shall not issue a certificate of occupancy for new construction or the addition of bedrooms prior to receipt of the County's certificate of compliance. 2 7. The City, and its agents and employees, will cooperate and assist the County in the performance of this Agreement. 8. In the event of County SSTS Ordinance revision, the City may adopt a revised SSTS Ordinance which is consistent with or more restrictive than the County's revised SSTS Ordinance no more than 12 (twelve) months after the County revised SSTS Ordinance has been adopted. III. SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES 1. The County shall establish the schedule of fees for its subsurface sewage treatment system inspection services. The septic permit application and installation fees shall be in accordance with the fee schedule adopted annually by the Washington County Board of Commissioners. The County shall collect,receipt for,disburse,and maintain records for all fees and charges collected incident to the administration of subsurface sewage treatment system inspection and permit services contained herein. 1. Fees and charges shall be due and payable by the applicant upon issuance of the permit and will be collected by the County from the applicant for said permit. 2. The City agrees that in payment for the subsurface sewage treatment system inspection and permit services provided by the County that the County shall retain, out of the fees and charges collected incident to this service, an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of all SSTS permit fees. 3. The City shall not assume any liability for the direct payment of any salary, wage, or other compensation to any County employee performing subsurface sewage treatment system inspection services pursuant to this agreement. IV. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Data Privacy 1. All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated for any purposes by the activities of the County because of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Chapter 13, as amended, the Minnesota Rules implementing such Act now in force or as adopted, as well as Federal Regulations on data privacy, including but not limited to,the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) where it applies. The City and County agree to abide by these statutes, rules and regulations and as they may be amended. 3 Indemnity Clause 2. The City agrees that it will indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officers and employees,against any and all liability,loss,costs,damages and expenses which the County, its officers or employees may hereafter sustain,incur,or be required to pay arising out of the City's negligent performance or failure to adequately perform its obligations pursuant to this Agreement. The County agrees that it will indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers and employees,against any and all liability,loss,costs,damages and expenses which the City,its officers or employees may hereafter sustain, incur, or be required to pay arising out of the County's negligent performance or failure to adequately perform its obligations pursuant to this Agreement. Insurance 3. The City further agrees that in order to protect itself, as well as the County, under the indemnifications provisions set forth above that it shall at all times during the terms of this Agreement, provide maximum tort liability limits as set forth in Minnesota Statute, Sections 3.736 and 466.04. This provision shall be set as a condition subsequent; failure to abide by this provision shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract. The County further agrees that in order to protect itself, as well as the City, under the indemnifications provisions set forth above that it shall at all times during the terms of this Agreement, provide maximum tort liability limits as set forth in Minnesota Statute, Section 466.04. This provision shall be set as a condition subsequent; failure to abide by this provision shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract. Records —Availability and Retention 4. Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 16C.05, Subd 5.,the County/City agrees that the County/City, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary,shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc. which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of the County/City and involve transactions relating to this agreement. The County/City agrees to maintain these records for a period of six years from the date of termination of this Agreement and make available as requested. Nondiscrimination 4. The provisions of Minn. Stat. 181.59 and of any applicable ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein, and 4 shall be part of any Agreement entered into by the parties with any contractor,subcontractor, or material suppliers. Merger and Modification 6. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained here and that this agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter. Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment and signed by the parties. Severability 7. Every section, provision or part of this Agreement is declared severable from every other section, provision or part thereof to the extent that if any sections, provision or part of this Agreement shall be held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not invalidate any other section, provision or part thereof. V. TERM AND EFFECTIVE DATE 1. The effective date of this agreement shall be January 1,2015,notwithstanding the date of the signatures below. 2. This agreement shall run until December 31, 2016, at which time it will automatically terminate unless it is renewed by official action of both the City and the County prior to the termination date. Notice of either the City's intent or the County's intent not to renew the agreement should be given to the other party ninety(90)days in advance of the December 31, 2016, termination date. 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this agreement to be signed by its Mayor and attested to by its Clerk, and the County of Washington, by order of its Board of County Commissioners, has caused this Agreement to be signed by its Board Chair and attested to by its County Administrator. City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Washington County, Minnesota By: By: Mayor Chair, Board of Commissioners Date: Date: By: By: City Clerk County Administrator Approve as to Form: /L Assist ashington County Attorney 6 THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: December 2, 2014 CONSENT ITEM# 10a&b AGENDA ITEM: Final Plat Submission Extension for Village Preserve and Village Park Preserve Residential Subdivisions SUBMITTED BY: Nick M. Johnson, City Planner THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director 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: Staff is recommending that the City Council approve a request by GWSA Land Development, LLC to extend the Final Plat submission deadline for both the Village Preserve and Village Park Preserve residential subdivisions. FISCAL IMPACT: TBD — The City will require that the applicant enter into a developer's agreement with the City to specify the financial responsibilities for various aspects of the subdivision and related public improvements. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a request from GWSA Land Development, LLC to extend the Final Plat submission deadline for both the Village Park Preserve and Village Preserve residential subdivisions. The City's subdivision ordinance requires a Final Plat application to be filed within 180 days of Preliminary Plat approval for a proposed subdivision. The Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat was approved on September 16, 2014 (Resolution 2014-74). The Village Preserve Preliminary Plat was approved on July 15, 2014 (Resolution 2014-59). Both residential subdivisions are located in the Village Planning Area. GWSA Land Development, LLC is requesting a 6-month extension for the submission of the Village Park Preserve Final Plat, as well as an 18-month extension for the Village Preserve Final Plat. Both requests relate to the immediate availability of utilities, as --page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item IOa&bj December 2,2014 well as the outcome of a upcoming storm water management study being completed by the Valley Branch Watershed District. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the request to extend the Final Plat submission deadline for the Village Park Preserve residential subdivision through the following motion: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-90, extending the Final Plat submission deadline,for the Village Park Preserve residential subdivision by 6 months." In addition, Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the request to extend the Final Plat submission deadline for the Village Preserve residential subdivision through the following motion: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-91, extending the Final Plat submission deadline.for the Village Preserve residential subdivision by 18 months. STRENGTHS,WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES,THREATS: Strengths: Approval of the extension requests for the submission of the Village Park Preserve and Village Preserve Final Plats will allow the applicants to finalize utility and stormwater management plans. As utilities are not directly adjacent to either site, the applicants are working on final plans to complete the extensions of sanitary sewer and water. In addition, extension of the submittal deadline will allow for the completion of the Valley Branch Watershed District study related to the Goetschel Pond diversion of stormwater. This study is critical in finalizing a final stormwater management plan for the Village Preserve residential subdivision. The requested extensions provide a reasonable timeframe to move into construction for both residential subdivisions given the existing conditions surrounding each site. Weaknesses: None Opportunities: Approval of the Final Plat submission extensions will allow the applicants enough time to complete the Final Construction Plans for the residential subdivisions within a more reasonable and appropriate timeframe. Threats: The delay of the submission of Final Plat does delay future payment of sewer and water availability charges for the proposed subdivisions. However, given the circumstances of each site, Staff views the requested extensions as reasonable solutions to resolve the outstanding issues and preparation of Final Construction Plans. RECOMMENDATION: --page 2-- City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item IOa&b] December 2,2014 Based on the aforementioned, Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the request to extend the Final Plat submission deadline for the Village Park Preserve residential subdivision through the following motion: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-90, extending the Final Plat submission deadline for the Village Park Preserve residential subdivision by 6 months." In addition, Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the request to extend the Final Plat submission deadline for the Village Preserve residential subdivision through the following motion: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-91, extending the Final Plat submission deadline for the Village Preserve residential subdivision by 18 months." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2014-90 2. Resolution No. 2014-91 3. Village Park Preserve and Village Preserve Extension Requests 4. Location Map 5. Resolution No. 2014-74: Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat Approval 6. Resolution No. 2014-59: Village Preserve Preliminary Plat Approval --page 3 -- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-90 A RESOL UTION APPRO PING AN EXTENSION FOR THE FINAL PLAT APPLICA TION DEADLINE FOR THE VILLAGE PARK PRESERVE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WHEREAS,the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS,GWSA Land Development, LLC, 10850 Old County Road 15, Suite 200, Plymouth,MN, submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (City) for a Preliminary Plat for a 100-unit single family subdivision on an approximately 64 acre parcel in the Village Planning Area(PIDs: 13.029.21.43.0004 and 13.029.21.44.0002)to be called Village Park Preserve, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, on September 8, 2014,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2014, the Lake Elmo City Council adopted Resolution 2014-74, approving the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat; and WHEREAS, GWSA Land Development, LLC has requested a 6-month extension to the Final Plat submittal deadline of the approved plan to allow for additional time to prepare Final Utility and Stormwater Management Plans; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve a 6-month extension to the Final Plat deadline for the Village Park Preserve residential subdivision, thereby extending the Final Plat application deadline to September 16, 2015. Passed and duly adopted this 2nd day of December 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Mike Pearson,Mayor ATTEST: Adam Bell, City Clerk 1 Resolution 2014-90 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-91 A RESOL UTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION FOR THE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION DEADLINE FOR THE VILLAGE PRESERVE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WHEREAS,the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, GWSA Land Development, LLC, 10850 Old County Road 15, Suite 200, Plymouth, MN, submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (City) for a Preliminary Plat for a 97-unit single family subdivision on an approximately 40-acre parcel in the Village Planning Area(PID: 12.029.21.33.0001)to be called Village Preserve, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Community Development Department; and WHEREAS,on June 30, 2014, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the Village Preserve Preliminary Plat; and WHEREAS, on July 15, 2014,the Lake Elmo City Council adopted Resolution 2014-59, approving the Village Preserve Preliminary Plat; and WHEREAS, GWSA Land Development, LLC has requested an 18-month extension to the Final Plat submittal deadline of the approved plan to allow for additional time to prepare Final Utility and Stormwater Management Plans; NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve an 18-month extension to the Final Plat deadline for the Village Preserve residential subdivision,thereby extending the Final Plat application deadline to July 15,2016. Passed and duly adopted this 2nd day of December 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Mike Pearson,Mayor ATTEST: Adam Bell, City Clerk 1 Resolution 2014-91 i 0 VA • Ik Kf iNl P A _„N. `y Monday, November 10, 2014 Nick Johnson City Planner City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Dear Nick: On behalf of GWSA Land Development, LLC, the developer, and pursuant to Lake Elmo City f Ordinance Section 153.07 Subdivision L, I am requesting an extension for the deadline to present the final plat of Village Park Preserve to the City. Prior to the development of this property,we will be extending sanitary sewer from the lift station on 3011, Street to connect with Easton Village and ultimately the 39th Street sewer project. Our plan is to begin construction on the sewer extension as soon as weather permits and then begin construction of Village Park Preserve. Village Park Preserve received preliminary plat approval on September 16, 2014 making the deadline for final plat application March 16, ! 2015. Due to the urgency to extend sanitary sewer and weather uncertainty that will dictate timing to begin construction of the sanitary sewer extension,we would like to request a six month extension to September 16, 2015 for final plat application. We feel this extension will be in the best interest of GWSA Land Development and the City. Thank you for your consideration. i i Cor A 1 raig Allen Principal - Gonyea Company j I I C -Y. Monday, November 10, 2014 Nick Johnson City Planner City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Dear Nick: On behalf of GWSA Land Development, LLC, the developer, and pursuant to Lake Elmo City Ordinance Section 153.07 Subdivision L, I am requesting an extension for the deadline to present the final plat of Village Preserve to the City. Since our Preliminary Plat application and July 15, 2014 approval,Valley Branch Watershed District initiated a study that will greatly influence the stormwater management of our site. Study results will not be available until January 1, 2015 at the earliest,leaving us 14 days to analyze, engineer and make the appropriate changes before final plat application is due on January 15, 2015. Due to this delay and the uncertainty,we immediately began planning Village Park Preserve and received preliminary plat approval on September 16, 2014. Our plan is now to start developing Village Park Preserve in late spring/early summer 2015 which will include extending sewer north to Easton Village, 39t"Street and ultimately stub into our Village Preserve development. We would like to request an 18 month extension to the final plat application for Village Preserve. This would extend the deadline from January 15, 2015 to July 15, 2016 and allow for the sanitary sewer extension north to the property and give us time to develop and begin selling homes in Village Park Preserve. Thank you for your consideration. Cordially, C. Craig Allen Principal - Gonyea Company BEN �iC a1 gum mum lim �11 BY dd SS -- •F. :o. €_ ig+ta G! E,e. =Eu ed�DY.�3l>'�� > - - ._ w° Location Map: Plat Extension Request " -' LAKE ELMO Village Preserve 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet Village Park Preserve I I I I I I I I I Data Scource: Washington County, MN 1"=1000' 11-21-2014 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY i STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-74 j i A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VILLAGE PARK PRESERVE I 1 WHEREAS,the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS,GWSA Land Development, LLC, 10850 Old County Road 15, Suite 200,Plymouth, MN, has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (City) for a , Preliminary Plat for a 104-unit single family subdivision on an approximately 64 acre parcel in the Village Planning Area(PIDs: 13.029.21.43.0004 and 13.029.21.44.0002)to be called Village Park Preserve, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Ehno Community Development Department; and WHEREAS,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held public hearing on September 8, 2014 to consider the Preliminary Plat request; and WHEREAS,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending I approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to 13 conditions of approval; and WHEREAS,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and I recommendation concerning the Preliminary Plat as part of a memorandum to the City Council from City Planner Nick Johnson for the September 16,2014 Council Meeting; and WHEREAS,the City Council reviewed the Preliminary Plat at its meeting held on September 16,2014 and made the following findings of fact: l 1) That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area conditioned upon receiving final approval for the Metropolitan Council for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Holliday parcel. 2) That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat complies with the City's LDR-Urban Low Density Residential zoning district. 3) That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat complies with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 4) That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat meets other City zoning ordinances, such as landscaping,tree preservation, erosion and sediment control, and other ordinances, except where noted in the conditions of approval or the attachments to this report. 1 Resolution 2014-74 i i 5) That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat is consistent with the City's engineering standards provided the plans are updated to address the City Engineer's comments documented in a letter dated September 4,2014. 6) That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat provides effective and safe pedestrian facilities,providing access to Reid Park and a future connection to downtown Lake Elmo, contributing to a walkable community as guided by the Village Land Use Plan. j 7) That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat provides a significant expansion of Reid Park, as recommended by the Village Land Use Plan. 8) That the Village Park Preserve residential subdivision will allow for the completion of the i Village Parkway ininor collector road from 30th Street to Easton Village,providing a critical transportation improvement needed for the Village Planning Area. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: i 1) The Metropolitan Council must approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Holliday parcel in advance of the City's consideration of an application for Final Plat for the Village Park Preserve Subdivision. 2) In advance of Final Plat application,the applicant shall provide adequate title evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney. 3) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review memorandum dated September 4, 2014 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to consideration of a Final Plat. 4) The Preliminary Plat approval is conditioned upon the applicant meeting all minimum City standards and design requirements. 5) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from Valley Branch Watershed District prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site. 6) Related to the proposed storm water discharge to the south,the applicant must provide written permission from all property owners of the affected parcels located south of the proposed 30th Street culvert consenting to the discharge location,volume and rate(s) in advance of submitting Final Plat. 7) The applicant shall be responsible for the submission of final plans and the construction of all improvements within the 30th Street right-of-way as required by the City and further described in the review memorandum from the City Engineer dated September 4, 2014. 8) The applicant shall observe all right-of-way and other requirements included in a review memorandum from Washington County dated September 3,2014. 2 Resolution 2014-74 i i 9) The Landscape Plan shall be updated per the recommendations of the City's Landscape Consultant, describe in a memo dated September 4,2014. Tree protection measures for trees intended to be saved according to the submitted Tree Survey must be included in the Final Landscape Plan. 10)The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site. I i 11)The applicant shall install an additional row of trees in the rear of Lots 1-3, Block 1 to provide additional screening for the eastern boundary of the Mcleod property to satisfy the condition of approval related to the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 12)The developer shall obtain all required permits from Northern Natural Gas to perform construction work over the gas line that runs from north to south across this site. 13)The developer shall submit a letter from the Metropolitan Airports Commission agreeing to design of stormwater facilities acceptable to the City prior to submitting Final Plat application. Passed and duly adopted this 16`h day of September 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo,Minnesota. 1 e Pearson,Mayor ATTEST: 4:--��,::5(—C�—4�—�� — A am Bell,City Clerk 3 Resolution 2014-74 CITY OF LAKE ELMO j WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA I I RESOLUTION NO,2014-59 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VILLAGE PRESERVE 4 i WHEREAS,the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and ` I 1 WHEREAS,GWSA Land Development, LLC, 10850 Old County Road 15, I Suite 200, Plymouth, MN,has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (City)for a I Preliminary Plat for a 97-unit single family subdivision on an approximately 40 acre parcel in the f Village Planning Area(PID: 12.029.21.33.0001)to be called Village Preserve, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Planning and Zoning Department;and WHEREAS,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held public hearing on June 30,2014 to consider the Preliminary Plat request; and i WHEREAS,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to 13 conditions of approval; and WHEREAS,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation concerning the Preliminary Plat as part of a memorandum to the City Council from City Planner Nick Johnson for the July 15, 2014 Council Meeting; and WHEREAS,the City Council reviewed the Preliminary Plat at its meeting held on July 15,2014 and made the following findings of fact: 1) That the Village Preserve Preliminary Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. 2) That the Village Preserve Preliminary Plat complies with the City's MDR- Urban Medium Density Residential zoning district. 3) That the Village Preserve Preliminary Plat complies with the City's subdivision ordinance. 4) That the Village Preserve preliminary plat meets other City zoning ordinances,such as landscaping,tree preservation, erosion and sediment control, and other ordinances, with the exceptions noted in the conditions of approval. 5) That the Village Preserve preliminary plat is consistent with the City's engineering standards provided the plans are updated to address the City Engineer's comments documented in a letter dated June 23, 2014. 6) That the Village Preserve preliminary plat provides effective and safe pedestrian facilities, contributing to a walkable community as guided by the Village Land Use Plan. I 1 Resolution No. 2014-59 NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve the Village Preserve Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: 1) Within six months of preliminary plat approval,the applicant shall complete the following: a. The applicant shall provide adequate title evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney. b. The applicant shall submit a revised Preliminary Plat and plans meeting all conditions of approval. All of the above conditions shall be met prior to the City accepting an application for Final Plat and prior to the commencement of any grading activity on the site. 2) The City Engineer shall review and approve all revised Preliminary Plans that are submitted to the City in advance of Final Plat to satisfy Condition#1. 3) The Preliminary Plat approval is conditioned upon the applicant meeting all minimum City , standards and design requirements. 4) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review letter dated June 23,2014 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to consideration of a Final Plat. 5) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland Conservation Act,and shall acquire the needed permits from Valley Branch Watershed C District prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site. i 6) Related to proposed storm water discharge to the north, the applicant must provide written permission from the property owner of the parcel located immediately north of the proposed Village Preserve subdivision consenting to the discharge location, volume and rate(s) in advance of submitting Final Plat. 7) The applicant shall be responsible for the submission of final plans and the construction of all i improvements within the Lake Elmo Avenue(CSAH 17)right-of-way as required by Washington County and further described in the review letter received from the County dated j June 24,2014. ; i 8) The Landscape Plan shal l be updated per the recommendations of the City's Landscape Consultant,describe in a memo dated 6/25/14. 9) The developer shall be required to submit an updated parkland dedication calculation in advance of Final Plat to clarify the proposed amount of dedication being provided in the Village Preserve Subdivision. For whatever amount of land the applicant is short of the required parkland dedication amount,the applicant will either: a. Subdivide the parcel under contract with Schiltgen Farms, Inc. and dedicate the land being proposed for parkland dedication east of Reid Park; or b. Post an escrow in the amount equal to the fees in lieu of land dedication for the equal market value of the remaining land dedication requirement for Village Preserve until such time the land is dedicated east of Reid Park. 2 Resolution No. 2014-59 10)Secondary access to the site must be provided as part of the 2nd phase of the Village Preserve Subdivision. Said access must be included in the Final Plat and final construction documents for the 2nd phase of the development. 1 1)The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site. 12)Application for Final Plat for the Village Preserve subdivision will not be accepted until approved plans for the extension of sanitary sewer to the site have been accepted or ordered by the City. 13)All of the outlots within the Village Preserve Preliminary Plat that serve as parkland or storm water management shall be dedicated to the City. Passed and duly adopted this 15`h day of July 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Mike Pearson, ayor 1 I ATTEST: I i Adam Bell, City Clerk I �f f i I I I i 1 I, 3 Resolution No. 2014-59 THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: December 2, 2014 REGULAR ITEM# 11 AGENDA ITEM: Approve 2015 Final General Fund, Debt Service Fund & Library Fund Annual Budget and Tax Levy SUBMITTED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director THROUGH: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director REVIEWED BY: Finance Committee SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item..................................................................Finance Director - Report/Presentation...................Finance Director/Finance Committee Chair - Questions from Council to Staff............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Public Hearing........................................................... Mayor Facilitates - Close Public Hearing................................................Mayor Facilitates - Discussion.......................................................................Mayor& City Council - Action on Motion.................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Finance Director and Finance Committee FISCAL IMPACT: NA SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Pursuant to State law, the City is required to hold a Truth in Taxation hearing regarding the adoption of the 2015 General Fund, Debt Service Fund and Library Fund Budgets. The City Council is asked to approve the Final 2015 Annual Budget and Levy for these funds and hold a public hearing. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Lake Elmo has both the legal and fiduciary authority and responsibility under Minnesota State Statute to adopt a 2015 General Fund, Debt Service Fund and Library Fund annual budgets; all of which impact the annual Property Tax Levy. On September 2, 2014, the Preliminary Annual Budgets for these funds were approved and subsequently certified to Washington County. The final levy and budgets for these funds must be adopted and certified to Washington County by December 28th, 2014, after holding a Truth in Taxation hearing. --page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 11] December 2,2014 STAFF REPORT: At the budget workshop on August 13, 2014 the City Council reviewed an in-depth budget and levy presentation for 2015 related to the General Fund. At the budget workshop on August 26, 2014 the City Council reviewed an in-depth budget and levy presentation for 2015 related to the Library Fund. No further changes were identified since that time and as such the City Council is respectfully being asked that the budgets be made final and the 2015 Levies be adopted. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing related to these budgets and if no issues arise as a result, pass Resolution 2014-92, thereby approving the final 2015 General Fund, Debt Service Fund and Library Fund Annual Budget's and Levies by undertaking the following motion: "Move to approve Resolution No. 2014-92 adopting the final 2015 General Fund, Debt Service Fund and Library Fund Mutual Budget's and Levies" ATTACHMENT: 1. Resolution No. 2014-92 --page 2-- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-92 RESOLUTION APPROVING 2014 TAX LEVY,COLLECTIBLE IN 2015 AND ADOPTING THE 2015 GENERAL FUND BUDGET WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted budget council workshops and meetings to review the 2014 Tax Levy, collectible in 2015, and the final 2015 General Fund, 2015 Debt Fund, and 2015 Library Fund Budgets; and WHEREAS, the City is required to adopt a final 2015 general fund budget payable 2015 and certify its final property tax levy payable in 2015. WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo held it's Truth in Taxation hearing on December 2, 2014; WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo closed the public hearing on the 2015 General Fund,Debt Fund and Library Fund budgets at the close of the meeting on December 2, 2014 without need for continuation; BE IT RESOLVED that the City adopts the final 2015 General Fund,Debt Fund and Library Fund Budgets, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Lake Elmo, County of Washington, Minnesota that the following sums of money be levied for the current year, collectible in 2015,upon taxable property in the City of Lake Elmo, for the following purposes: Total General Fund Levy $2,421,588 Total G.O. Debt Levy $ 484,814 Library Levy $ 231,261 Total Levy $3,137,663 BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Washington County, Minnesota. ADOPTED, by the Lake Elmo City Council on the 2nd day of December, 2014. Mike Pearson Mayor ATTEST: Adam Bell City Clerk THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: December 2, 2014 REGULAR ITEM# 12 AGENDA ITEM: InWood EAW (Hans Hagen Homes) Response to Comments, Findings of Fact,Record of Decision, and Declaration of No Need for an EIS SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Matt, Community Development Director THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer (Drafted by Hans Hagen Homes) 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: With the end of the comment period for the InWood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), the City Council must respond to the comments received and establish findings of fact related to the comments. As part of this process, the Council must also decide on whether or not to require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution and official response to comments as drafted by Hans Hagen Homes and reviewed by Staff. FISCAL IMPACT: None — Hans Hagen Homes has prepared the EAW and has drafted the attached document. Staff has been involved in reviewing the developer's work and revising the documents to address City comments and concerns. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to approve a response to comments, findings of fact, and record of decision for the InWood PUD Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). As a part of this review, the Council is also being asked to adopt a resolution approving the InWood EAW and finding no need for an --page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 12] December 2,2014 Environmental Impact Statement. The City Council has previously authorized distribution of the EAW, which been prepared for the proposed Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10, LLC mixed use development project (InWood PUD) located within the 1-94 Corridor planning area on approximately 157 acres of land southeast of the intersection of Inwood Avenue and I Oh Street. The EAW document has been prepared under the direction of the City of Lake Elmo acting as the RGU (Responsible Governing Unit). Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached document establishing a response to comments, findings of fact, and a record of the decision for the InWood EAW and to declare no need for an EIS by taking the following action/with the following motion: "Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2014-93 approving the In Wood EAW and finding no need for an Environmental Impact Statement" BACKGROUND: The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared, published, and distributed by City of Lake Elmo for the proposed Inwood mixed use development pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410. The completed EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and persons and agencies listed on the official EQB EAW Distribution List in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1500. The notification was published in the EQB Monitor on September 29, 2014, initiating the 30-day comment period and posted on the City's website for public viewing. The 30-day comment period ended on October 29,2014. The EAW and comments on it have been reviewed in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 to determine if the project has potential for significant environmental effects. This document includes the Response to Comments for all comments received by the City of Lake Elmo,the Findings of Fact supporting the decision, and the Record of Decision. The purpose of the EAW, comments and comment responses is to provide the record on which the RGU can base a decision about whether an EIS needs to be prepared for a project. EIS need is described in the rules: "An EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects" (part 4410.1700, subpart 1). An EAW is not to be used to justify a decision, nor do indications of adverse environmental effects necessarily require that a project be disapproved. EAWs are used as guides in issuing, amending, and denying permits and carrying out other responsibilities of governmental units to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects and to restore and enhance environmental quality (Minnesota Rules 4410.0300, Subp. 3). STAFF REPORT: The City of Lake Elmo received six comments concerning the InWood EAW within the 30-day comment period, and all are included as part of the attached record and decision making document. None of the comments received indicated the potential for significant environmental impacts as further described in the findings of fact. Staff has sent the response to comments to the six respondents in advance of the meeting. BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): Strengths • The EAW and supporting documents will help identify and --page 2-- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Itens 12] December 2,2014 mitigate any potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed InWood PUD development. • The EAW and comments received do not indicate that any further environmental analysis is necessary. Weaknesses • The EAW does identify potential impacts that can be mitigated through the development review process. Opportunities • The EAW provides the City (and reviewing individuals and bodies) with the opportunity to review and address potential environmental issues prior to any development taking place. Threats • The City will need to follow through on the recommendations and comments that were received through this process. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information and Staff report it is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached document establishing a response to comments, findings of fact, and a record of the decision for the InWood EAW and to declare no need for an EIS with the following motion: "Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2014-93 approving the In Wood EA W and finding no need for an Environmental Impact Statement" ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2014-93 2. Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision — InWood EAW --page 3 -- STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON CITY OF LAKE ELMO Resolution No. 2014-93 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INWOOD PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW)AND FINDING NO NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) WHEREAS,the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS,under Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1100 Subp 6. (EAW Decision)the City of Lake Elmo ordered the preparation of an EAW for the InWood PUD Mixed-Use Development Project. WHEREAS, on August 19, 2014, an EAW was completed for the Inwood Project, which will be located on approximately 157 acres of primarily agricultural land in the southwestern portion of Lake Elmo. The project is proposing 275 single-family lots, 264 multi- family units, and 90,870 square feet of commercial space; and WHEREAS,beginning on September 8, 2014, copies of the EAW were distributed to all persons and agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, on September 29, 2014, the EAW was publicly noticed in the EQB Monitor, commencing the 30-day public comment period; and WHEREAS, the 30-day comment period ended on October 29, 2014 at 4:30 p.m., and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo accepted and responded to all written comments received. NOW, THEREFORE,based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS 1) The EAW was prepared,published, and distributed in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and Minnesota Rules, Parts 4410.1000 to 4410.1700 (1997). 2) The EAW, combined with the supplemental information contained in the Response to Comments, satisfactorily addressed all the issues raised and comments received for which existing information could have been reasonably obtained, and further investigation is therefore not required. 3) Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 4) City of Lake Elmo makes a"Negative Declaration" on the need for an EIS. 5) The City of Lake Elmo City Council adopts a"Negative Declaration". 6) An EIS is not required, and 7) The City of Lake Elmo shall maintain a Record of Decision, including the Response to Comments on the EAW, and will notify in writing, within five days, all persons on the EAW distribution list, all persons who commented in writing during the 30-day comment period, and any other person upon written request. City of Lake Elmo will also send notice of this decision to the project proposer and the EQB. Passed and duly adopted on this 2nd day of December,2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: Adam Bell, City Clerk (SEAL) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon,the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. DRAFT 11-24-14 City of Lake Elmo RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE InWood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................2 COMMENTS RECEIVED............................................................................................................3 PROJECT INFORMATION.........................................................................................................4 ProjectDescription ..........................................................................................................................4 Changes in the Project Since the EAW was Published...............................................................5 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ....................................................................................................6 Item A. Minnesota Historical Society............................................................................................6 Item B. Metropolitan Council .........................................................................................................6 Item C. South Washington Watershed District............................................................................6 Item D. Minnesota Department of Transportation.......................................................................7 ItemE. Washington County...........................................................................................................8 Item F. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources...............................................................10 FINDINGS OF FACT................................................................................................................14 DECISION REGARDING NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. Criteria for Determining Whether the Project has the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects..............................................................................................................................................15 RECORD OF DECISION ..........................................................................................................18 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT,AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 City of Lake Elmo RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 I. INTRODUCTION The City of Lake Elmo is the Responsible Governmental Unit for this project. The Project Proposer is Hans Hagen Homes. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW)has been prepared for this project in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410. The project consists of a mix of single family homes,multi-family, and commercial land uses on 157 acres of property located in Lake Elmo. The EAW was developed to assess the impacts of the project to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)is necessary. The EAW was filed with the Minnesota EQB and circulated for review and comments to the required EAW distribution list.A "Notice of Availability"was published in the EQB Monitor on September 29,2014. A Notice of Availability was posted to the City of Lake Elmo's website. This notice provided a brief description of the project and information on where copies of the EAW were available, and invited the public to provide comments that would be used in determining the need for an EIS for the proposed project. The EAW was made available for public review at Lake Elmo City Hall. The EAW public comment period concluded on October 29, 2014. Written comments were received from various agencies on the distribution list during the EAW comment period. No formal written comments were received from the general public. All comments received during the EAW comment period were considered in determining the potential for significant environmental impacts. Comments received during the comment period, and responses to these comments, are provided below. Based upon the information in the record, which consists of the EAW for the proposed project,the comments received during the 30 day public comment period,the responses to the comments, and other supporting documents, the City of Lake Elmo makes a negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for InWood based on the following findings of fact and conclusions. Page 2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT,AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 COMMENTS RECEIVED Six agencies submitted written comments on the EAW,and all of the comments were dated or received prior to the comment period deadline. Copies of the comment letters are included at the end of this document. The following table lists the comment letters received: Table 1.0. Comment Letters Received No. Comment Letter Received From Si2natory Abbreviation Date 1 Minnesota Historical Society Sarah J. Beimers 10-8-2014 2 Metropolitan Council LisaBeth Barajas MetCouncil 10-29-2014 3 South Washington Watershed District John Loomis SWWS 10-27-2014 4 Minnesota Department of Transportation Karen Scheffing MnDOT 10-9-2014 5 Washington County Ann Pung-Terwedo 10-28-2014 rMinnesota Department of Natural Brooke Haworth DNR 10-27-2014 Resources Page 3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 I1. PROJECT INFORMATION A. Project Description Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10,LLC are proposing to construct a mixed use development consisting of commercial,multi-family, and single family homes on approximately 157 acres. The proposed land uses are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The detached single family neighborhood occupies approximately 90 acres and will include 278 single family lots. The multi-familv will include an additional 458 units consisting of: 1) 176 rental townhomes,2) 120 senior housing units, 3) 150 multifamily units, and 4) 12 townhomes. The commercial land uses will consist of approximately 73,000 square feet of office and retail uses. Proiect development will convert approximately 157 acres of agricultural fields to a new mixed use neighborhood that includes streets, homes, retail goods and services, offices, lawns, landscaping,parkland,trails, and stormwater ponding. Public streets will serve the development including the construction of a minor collector roadway, which will be known as 56' Street. The City's approved Comprehensive Land Use Plan provides for an additional 6,600 Residential Equivalent Connections(RECs)of regional sewer service by 2030. The subject property is guided for a mix of Urban High Density, Urban Low Density, and Commercial. Development of the subject property will be consistent with the total level of density guided by the Land Use Plan. Development of the property will occur in multiple phases with the first phase expected to begin in 2014.Full build-out is anticipated in 2020;however,construction timing will ultimately depend upon market conditions. Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1000 Subp 2. Mandatory EAW Categories. An EAW shall be prepared for any project that meets or exceeds the thresholds of any of the EAW categories listed in part 4410.4300 or any of the EIS categories listed in part 4410.4400. The proposed Inwood exceeds this mandatory EAW threshold and will include 275 single-family units, and 264 multi-family units. Site Description and Existing Conditions The existing site conditions include the following Cover-types on the Property: Estimated Before and After Cover Types Land Cover Before (acres) After (acres) Wetlands 0.28 0.10 Deep water/streams 0.20 0.20 Wooded/forest 14.70 5.00 Brush/grassland 0.00 0.00 Cropland 142.80 0.00 Lawn/landscaping 0.00 52.00 Impervious surface 0.00 60.00 Page 4 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT,AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 Land Cover Before(acres) After(acres) Stonnwater pond 0.00 7.70 Other 0.00 41.50 Totals 157 157 B. Changes in the Project Since the EAW was Published Since the EAW was published, the following project items have changed or been updated: 1. The number of single family homes was reduced from 278 to 275 units. 2. The number of multi-family housing units was reduced from 458 to 264 units. 3. The amount of commercial increased from 73,000 to 90,870 square feet. The change in the above land uses is a result of the City's desire to see less multi-family housing and more commercial. Specially, the multi-family housing in the northwest corner of the property was replaced with 33,000 square feet of commercial. While there is a slight increase in the amount of commercial space, the reduction of 197 residential units off sets the potential for any significant environmental effects. Page 5 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT,AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 III. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS: Minnesota Rules 4410.1600 states that the comments shall address the accuracy and completeness of the material contained in the EAW,potential impacts that may warrant further investigation before the project is commenced, and the need for an EIS on the proposed project. Comments that do not address these areas have been noted for the record,but are not necessarily addressed in the response. As part of the process in determining whether an EIS is needed, City of Lake Ehno must respond to all substantive comments received during the 30-day comment period(Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subp. 4 and 5). The City received written comments from six governmental agencies. A copy of the comment letters is attached. No comments were received from the general public. A response to the comments is provided below: A. Minnesota Historical Society The Historical Society found that there are no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological property in the area that will be affected by this project. The RGU agrees with this finding. B. Metropolitan Council The Metropolitan Council found the EAW to be complete and accurate, and finds no need to prepare an EIS. The RGU concurs. The Metropolitan Council found that the EAW will have a positive impact on Metro Transit ridership, and recommended pedestrian facilities and connections be incorporated in the project to connect the neighborhood to adjacent employment and mass transit. The RGU concurs with these comments and will make sure the proposed project includes the appropriate pedestrian connections. C. South Washington Watershed District(SWWD) The SWWD found that the project does not have the potential for significant unmitigated environmental impacts and that an EIS is not necessary. The RGU concurs with the Watershed's findings. SWWD recommends a north/south trail connection through the project as part of the District's Greenway Plan. The InWood neighborhood will have a north south trail located within a linear public park. Regarding wetlands, the Watershed notes that the wetland delineation has been approved, but that no impacts or replacement plan has been approved. Since the publication of the Page 6 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 EAW, the Project Proposer has amended the development plan to avoid the wetland impacts. Accordingly,no wetland impacts are proposed at this time. The Watershed indicated that the project needs to comply with SWWD standards and that additional treatment and/or on-site storage capacity may be necessary to prevent downstream flooding. InWood is designed to comply with the SWWD rules. The Project Proposer will need to submit for permit approval through the SWWD. D. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Traffic MnDOT's comments correctly reflect that the InWood development would not cause problems at the I-94/Inwood ramps. MnDOT's comments further suggest that a traffic impact study should be done to look at the cumulative impacts of development occurring in Woodbury, Oakdale, and Lake Elmo. While this additional regional study may be desirous, it is beyond the scope of this EAW. The InWood neighborhood is not connected to any of the projects proposed in Oakdale, Woodbury,or Lake Ehno. Minnesota Administrative Rules 4410.0220, Subp. 9c. defines a connected action as, "Two projects are"connected actions" if a responsible governmental unit determines they are related in any of the following ways: a. One project would directly induce the other; b. One project is a prerequisite for the other and the prerequisite project is not justified by itself; or c. Neither project is justified by itself." InWood is not connected to any of the projects occurring elsewhere in Lake Elmo or in adjoining communities. Development and redevelopment of surrounding parcels in adjacent communities may have cumulative impacts on local and regional transportation systems. These cumulative impacts have been thoughtfully contemplated and addressed in the City's Comprehensive Plan, including the Transportation element of the Plan. Moreover, the City's Transportation Plan was reviewed by the Metropolitan Council and was found to be consistent with regional plans. Washington County, as a part of the Gateway Corridor Commission, is preparing a Draft Environmental Statement (DEIS) for a proposed transitjway through the I-94 "Gateway Corridor"from St.Paul to the Oakdale/Lake Elmo Area,including a potential transit station on the north side of I-94. As stated by Washington County,this transitway and station will impact adjacent roadways. Lake Elmo, acting as the RGU for InWood,would recommend that Washington County work with MnDOT to look at the regional transportation issues impacting Oakdale and Woodbury as part of the DEIS for the Gateway Corridor. Page 7 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT,AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 Water Resources MnDOT's comments note that the project site will ultimately drain through a culvert underneath I-94. MnDOT's policy is to not permit an increase in discharge through MnDOT's drainage system. InWood is over 0.5 miles from the MnDOT culvert. The storm water and infiltration basins on the project site are designed so that there is no increase in the runoff rate from the site. In fact,there will be a substantial reduction of runoff rates from the preexisting conditions. Under a 2-year storm event, the runoff rate is reduced from 20.1 cfs to 3.3 cfs. The 10- year event is reduced from 75 cfs to 32 cfs, and under the 100-year storm event the rates are reduced from 255 cfs to 97 cfs. E. Washington County Washington County found that the InWood EAW is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and will assist the County in implementing portions of its Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly,Washington County found no need for an EIS. Permits The Project Proposer will need to obtain permits for work in the County"s right-of-way. Water Resourses The County does not allow an increase of storm water runoff into the County's drainage system. As proposed, the InWood Development would not increase the rate or volume of runoff into County road side ditches. Noise Washington County commented that adjacent roads may produce noise in excess of MnPCA noise standards. The County further states that they will not provide noise mitigation measures and that the Project Proposer should consider providing for noise mitigation on the property. The proposed single family homes in InWood would be over 400 feet from CSAH 13/Inwood Avenue, and would be separated by both berms future commercial buildings. As such, no noise impacts are anticipated from CSAH 13. The traffic on CSAH 10 (Wh Street) is significantly less than CSAH 13. CSAH 10 is expected to have a daily traffic volume of 11,050 by the year 2030, which is less than one half the traffic proposed for CSAH 13'. While traffic noise from CSAH 10 is not expected to cause significant environmental impacts, the Project Proposer is proposing increased Page 8 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT,AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 setbacks and berming along CSAH 10. Single family homes would be approximately 140 feet from CSAH 10. An earthen berm that is 6-10 feet high will separate the homes from CSAH 10. Landscaping will be placed on top of the berm. With the increased setbacks, berm, and landscaping,no significant environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of noise. Transportation Washington County agrees with the findings of the Traffic Impact Study. The RGU agrees with the comments provided by Washington County regarding transportation improvements. The InWood project as planned will incorporate the necessary improvements recommended by Washington County. The RGU further agrees to work with Washington County and the City of Oakdale to prepare a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)for access management along CSAH 13 and CSAH 10. Washington County also recommended that the RGU consider the need for pedestrian and bicycle facilities to serve the neighborhood. A regional trail currently exist along CSAH 13. InWood will include trails and sidewalks to serve the need of residents of Lake Elmo. A major east/west trail will be constructed along 5' street. A north/south trail will be constructed through the neighborhood within a linear park system. Additional trails and sidewalks will provide connection within and through the neighborhood. See trail and sidewalk plan below. Page 9 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT,AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 1 1 I� 1 1 • • '' 1 1 1 • •� 1 1 • i •,! '.....................'1 1 • Tf • • lb -------------- 1 •I � 1 1 • tt� 1 [ 1 1 1 / 1 •, 1 1 1 / 1 • 1 1 1 , � • s • t • • 1 • • • • 1 1 • � • 1 1 • • • 1 • 1 , • • • •. • • 1 • • • • � / • 1 1 1 � 1 1 Trail System .••••••. / � •••. •• / • Sidewalk System ..•..... 1 • 1 •• • 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 F. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Permits The DNR correctly noted that they EAW stated in two locations that a Water Appropriation Permit is required, and requested that one of the citations be deleted as only one permit is necessary. The RGU agrees. Page 10 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 Surface Waters The DNR notes that the City's shoreland ordinance is not yet approved by the DNR and that the DNR will be responsible to approve the portions of the PUD within the shoreland district. The DNR's PUD standards assume PUDs are being used to increase density. The InWood PUD does not request any increase in density above what is allowed under the City's Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, none of the property within the InWood PUD falls within the Shoreland Tier Dimensions. Areas of the project that fall within the Shoreland District will need to comply with applicable Shoreland requirements. Site Runoff The DNR has requested copies of the stormwater model and calculations. The project proposer has sent a copy to the DNR. The DNR requested more detail on, "what considerations have been taken by the developer to include best management practices within the project design that increase infiltration and reduce the amount of rainfall this is converted to run off prior to reaching the storm water ponds." Inwood incorporates infiltration basins to reduce runoff entering the storm pond system. Most all of the residential streets incorporate rain gardens/infiltration basins to capture runoff from the streets, driveways, and front yard areas. The storm water and infiltration basins on the project site are designed to reduce the runoff rates from the preexisting conditions. Under a 2-year storm event,the runoff rate is reduced from 20.1 cfs to 3.3 cfs. The 10-year event is reduced from 75 cfs to 32 cfs, and under the 100-year storm event the rates are reduced from 255 cfs to 97 cfs. Water Resources, Surface Water, and Other Surface Waters The DNR requested additional information on what specific measures will be taken to reduce direct runoff and impact into the unnamed public watercourse. The project will not involve the physical or hydrologic alteration of the unnamed creek. Runoff from impervious surfaces will not go directly into the unnamed creek. All runoff is captured in storm water improvements or infiltration areas and directed to a storm water pond,prior to discharging into the unnamed creek. The project incorporates both infiltration and storm water treatment ponds necessary to protect the unnamed creek. The construction of these improvements is subject to the review and approval of the applicable permitting authorities. Rare Species Page 11 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT,AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 At the time the EAW was prepared,the Project Proposer had not yet received a Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. After preparation of the EAW, a Natural Heritage review letter was received from the DNR and was also attached to the DNR's comment letter. The DNR Natural Heritage review states that Blanding's turtles, a state-listed threatened species, have been reported from the vicinity of the proposed project, although no records or documented siting of the Blanding's turtles has been identified on the project site. The project site does not contain suitable habitat for the Blanding's turtles for the following reasons: 1. Almost all of the upland acreage has been actively tilled and planted for crop production for many years. 2. Very little of the property has any type of natural vegetative cover that will be impacted as a result of development 3. If suitable habitat for the Blanding's turtles was present, it has been diminished or eliminated by ongoing agricultural use of the property. 4. The existing wetland basins are fanned wetlands with ephemeral hydrology that are currently planted with crops. The wetlands would typically lack inundation from July through March. 5. The wetland basins are poor habitat because they are surrounded with tilled uplands on the all sides, and heavily travelled roads directly to the north and west. There are no hydrological connections to nearby wetlands that are not interrupted by tilled fields or roads. 6. The unnamed creek in the southwest comer is generally dry, and any flows in the creek will be unaffected by the project allowing for continued wildlife movement. Minimization Measures The DNR recommends a number of measures to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife. These measures include: 1. Keeping ditches and ponds aware from busy roadways. Response: The location of ponds is dictated by the natural topography of the site,because ponds need to be located in the low areas in order to appropriately direct storm water runoff. As proposed,the large main pond is over 950 feet from Inwood, and the smaller southern pond is over 500 feet from Inwood. An infiltration basin is approximately 150 feet from Inwood Avenue. 2. Use of surmountable curbs.Response: The project makes use of surmountable curbs. 3. Wildlife-friendly erosion control products. Response. Erosion control measures will consist of erosion control fencing where necessary, as well as sedimentation logs which have been shown to be more wildlife friendly. Where netting is required,the Project Proposer will use a rectangular-shaped mesh. Most importantly, the Project Proposer will quickly establish vegetative cover after disturbance and remove the erosion control. Page 12 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 4. Recommending using native plants. Response: The individual lots within the neighborhood will be privately owned. While the homeowners association will maintain the yard areas, each individual homeowner will select landscaping for their yard. Native plants will be encouraged by the Project Proposer. Cumulative Potential Effects The DNR requested that the responses discuss the cumulative potential effect to Armstrong Lake and the unnamed public stream. A small portion of the property lies within the shoreland overlay district of Armstrong Lake. None of the property drains toward Armstrong Lake. The InWood property is on the opposite side of a divided 4-lane highway from Armstrong Lake, and is separated by a commercial/office development. As such, any development on the subject property will not impact Armstrong Lake. The RGU is not aware of any other projects near Armstrong Lake that would have cumulative potential effects. The unnamed creek has been ditched and impacted by past agricultural use of the property, as well as chloride from the adjacent County Highway that drains into this stream. As is the case with Armstrong Lake,the RGU is not aware of any additional projects in the vicinity that would drain or otherwise impact the unnamed creek. As such, no cumulative potential effects are anticipated. Page 13 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT,AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On August 12, 2014, the project proposers presented a Concept Plan to the City of Lake Elmo for the Inwood mixed use development. 2. The City of Lake Elmo City Council authorized the EAW submittal to the Environmental Quality Board(EQB)on August 19,2014. 3. On September 29, 2014 the City of Lake Elmo published the EAW in the EQB Monitor. 4. The EAW is incorporated by reference in the Record of Decision. 5. An indicated in the EAW,the proposed Inwood development is proposed on approximately 157 acres of primarily agricultural land in the southwestern portion of Lake Elmo. The project is proposing 275 single-family lots,264 multi-family units, and 90,870 square feet of commercial space in Washington County, City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. 6. The EAW was filed with the EQB and notice for its availability for public review and comment was published in the EQB monitor on September 29, 2013. A copy of the EAW was sent to all persons on the EQB Distribution list and to persons who requested a copy. The EAW was also made available at Lake Elmo City Hall and on the City of Lake Elmo's website. 7. The 30-day public review and comment period for the EAW began on September 30, 2014, and ended on October 29, 2014. 8. During the 30-day review and comment period, the City of Lake Ehno received 6 written comments on the EAW. Comments were received from: Minnesota Historical Society, Metropolitan Council, South Washington Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Transportation,Washington County, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Page 14 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT,AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 V. DECISION REGARDING NEED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Criteria for Determining Whether the Project has the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. l states"An EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects". In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 indicates that the City of Lake Elmo must consider the following factors: Criteria A: The type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; Criteria B: The cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; Criteria C: The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and, Criteria D: The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EIS's. A. Type and Extent of Impacts The City of Lake Elmo finds that the EAW is adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW described the type and extent of impacts anticipated from the proposed project. This report provides clarifications and additional information since the EAW was published. The EAW and this report also identify mitigative measures that will be incorporated into the final design of the project, or will be coordinated with local and state agencies during the permitting process. B. Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects The RGU is not aware for any related or future projects that would have the potential for cumulative impacts. Existing and planned projects are and will be consistent with the City of Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan. These projects, whether public or private, are subject to permitting in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements, including wetland mitigation and stormwater management requirements. As discussed in the EAW, the cumulative potential effect of related or anticipated future development has been considered and the proposed project has low potential for cumulative impacts to the resources directly or indirectly affected by the project. C. Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by Page 15 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority The mitigation of environmental impacts will be designed and implemented in coordination with regulatory agencies and will be subject to the plan approval and permitting process. Permits and approvals that have been obtained or may be required prior to project construction include those listed in the EAW. Permits and Approvals Required Unit of Government Type of Application Status City of Lake Elmo Concept Plan Approval Completed City of Lake Elmo Preliminary Plat Approval To be applied for City of Lake Elmo Final Plat Approval To be applied for City of Lake Elmo EAW Negative Declaration To be applied for City of Lake Elmo Grading Permit To be applied for City of Lake Elmo Building Permit To be applied for City of Lake Elmo Municipal Water To be applied for Connection Permit City of Lake Elmo Sanitary Sewer Connection To be applied for Permit City of Lake Elmo Rezoning To be applied for(if needed) City of Lake Elmo Wetland Delineation Applied for Confirmation Wetland Conservation Act City of Lake Elmo No-Loss Determination Applied for Washington County Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for Washington County Access Permit To be applied for Washington County Obstruction Permit To be applied for(if needed) Washington County Transportation Permit To be applied for(if needed) Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Connection To be applied for Permit Minnesota Department of Water Main Extension To be applied for Health Approval Minnesota DNR Division of Water Appropriation To be applied for(if needed) Waters Permit Minnesota Pollution Control NPDES/SDS To be applied for Agency Minnesota Pollution Control Sanitary Sewer Extension To be applied for Agency Approval U. S.Army Corps of Section 404/Letter of No Engineers Jurisdiction Applied for MN DNR Division of Waters Water Appropriation To be applied for if needed Permit(s) MN Pollution Control NPDES/SDS General Covered under general Agency Permit permit;submit NOI prior to construction. Page 16 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 Note: All required permits and approvals will be obtained. Any necessary permits or approvals that are not listed in the table above were not intentionally omitted. The potential environmental effects associated with this project are not significant and will be mitigated in compliance with applicable rules, regulations, and permit requirements. The City of Lake Elmo therefore finds that the potential environmental effects of the project are "subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority"(Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7.D.). D. Extent to Which Environmental Effects Can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including Other Environmental Impact Statements. The final factor the City must consider is the"extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of EIS's previously prepared on similar projects" (Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7(D)). The City's findings are set forth below. The proposed project is reasonably similar to other residential development projects located in City of Lake Elmo and in surrounding communities. Other projects of similar scope, accompanied by similar land use,natural resources, surface water, traffic studies, and associated mitigation,have, in general, successfully mitigated potential environmental impacts. The EAW, in conjunction with this document, contains or references the known studies that provide information or guidance regarding environmental effects that can be anticipated and controlled. No EIS that addresses a similarly sized project is known to be available in City of Lake Elmo or the surrounding area. In light of the results of environmental review and permitting processes for similar projects, City of Lake Elmo finds that the environmental effects of the project can be adequately anticipated and controlled. Based on the original EAW, comments received from agencies and individuals, the responses to comments, and the criteria above, City of Lake Elmo fords that the Savona Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and does not require the preparation of an EIS. Page 17 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT,AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 RECORD OF DECISION Based on the EAW, the Response to Comments, and the Findings of Fact, City of Lake Elmo as the RGU for this environmental review, concludes the following: The EAW was prepared, published, and distributed in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 116D,to implement the environmental review procedures established by the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and Minnesota Rules Parts 4410.1000 to 4410.1700(1997). The EAW,combined with the supplemental information contained in the Response to Comments and Findings of Fact, satisfactorily addressed and responded to all of the issues raised and comments received for which existing information could have been reasonably obtained, and further investigation is therefore not required. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. An EIS is not required for the Inwood Project. The City of Lake Elmo Council adopts a"Negative Declaration". Page 18 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT,AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON CITY OF LAKE ELMO Resolution No.2014-93 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INWOOD PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW)AND FINDING NO NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS,under Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1100 Subp 6. (EAW Decision)the City of Lake Elmo ordered the preparation of an EAW for the InWood PUD Mixed-Use Development Project. WHEREAS, on August 19, 2014, an EAW was completed for the InWood Project, which will be located on approximately 157 acres of primarily agricultural land in the southwestern portion of Lake Elmo. The project is proposing 275 single-family lots, 264 multi- family units, and 90,870 square feet of commercial space; and WHEREAS,beginning on September 8, 2014, copies of the EAW were distributed to all persons and agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board(EQB)mailing list and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, on September 29,2014,the EAW was publicly noticed in the EQB Monitor,commencing the 30-day public comment period; and WHEREAS,the 30-day comment period ended on October 29,2014 at 4:30 p.m., and WHEREAS,the City of Lake Elmo accepted and responded to all written comments received. NOW,THEREFORE,based on the testimony elicited and information received,the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS 1) The EAW was prepared,published, and distributed in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and Minnesota Rules, Parts 4410.1000 to 4410.1700 (1997). Page 19 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT,AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 2) The EAW, combined with the supplemental information contained in the Response to Comments, satisfactorily addressed all the issues raised and comments received for which existing information could have been reasonably obtained, and further investigation is therefore not required. 3) Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 4) City of Lake Elmo makes a"Negative Declaration" on the need for an EIS. 5) The City of Lake Elmo City Council adopts a"Negative Declaration". 6) An EIS is not required, and 7) The City of Lake Elmo shall maintain a Record of Decision, including the Response to Comments on the EAW, and will notify in writing, within five days, all persons on the EAW distribution list, all persons who commented in writing during the 30-day comment period, and any other person upon written request. City of Lake Elmo will also send notice of this decision to the project proposer and the EQB. Passed and duly adopted on this 2nd day of December, 2013 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Mike Pearson,Mayor ATTEST: Adam Bell, City Clerk (SEAL) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon,the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Page 20 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Inwood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) November 24, 2014 Comment Letters Received P uc 21 1.4Minnesota Historical SociHt Using the PO wet of History to Transform Lives Y PRESERVING iSHARING�CONNLCPNG STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE I October 8,2014 Mr. Kyle Klatt, Planning Director City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Ave N Lake Elmo, MN 55042 RE: EAW—InWood -Lake Elmo Lake Elmo,Washington County SHPO Number: 2014-3024 Dear Mr. Klatt: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project. It has been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act. Based on our review of the project information,we conclude that there are no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places,and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800,Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance,or requires a federal permit or license, it should be submitted to our office by the responsible federal agency. Please contact our Compliance Section at(651)259-3455 if you have any questions regarding our review of this project. Sincerely, OVM�4r- � Sarah J, Beimers, Manager Government Programs and Compliance Minnesota I Imorical Society,34S Kellogg Boulevard Wnst.Selinl Paid.Minnesola S5102 6S1-2S9 3000•888-Y21-8386•www.rnnhs.org A N 7 N • Z 9 � • OD N D Z Y f1 r¢ OQ zo ^ n 0 m v K z� W N c,0 N p 3 C r N (D� O rh °a m cu O c m N C� G N 1n N N C �•� w n i ° oo r 0 ( o o IN cn i(1 r- v fYl O rip 0 N fit! rD N ,r ro m_ fi z D tfj Ln N 0 a) CD n crq u �r ' i i , ! Fii i �li •� t`,��h i} t'' ri5 t it �H ! Metropolitan Council i October 29,2014 Kyle Klatt, Planning Director City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue N Lake Elmo, MN 55042 RE: City of Lake Elmo Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW)—InWood Metropolitan Council Review File No. 21284-I Metropolitan Council District 12 Dear Mr. Klatt: The Metropolitan Council received an EAW for the proposed InWood development on September 18, 2014. The InWood project is a proposed 157-acre development that will include 278 single family homes,458 multi-family homes,and approximately 73,000 square feet of office and retail uses.The proposed project is located in the southeast quadrant of 10'h Street North and Inwood Avenue North. The staff review finds the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. Staff offer the following advisory comments for your consideration. Transit and Station Area Planning Metro Transit Route 375 offers the nearest transit service %z mile from the proposed single and multi-family development.Route 375 provides peak-only express service between the Guardian Angels Park& Ride and downtown Minneapolis.The proposed development will likely have a positive impact on ridership given the current transit investment in this area and the proposed number of multi-family units near the current park-and-ride. The EAW also notes that the multi-family units of the development will be located along the southern edge of the property,which is adjacent to the existing office park. In addition,the proposed commercial land uses are on the west side of the property adjacent to Inwood Avenue.These concentrations of the development are closest to the proposed Inwood Avenue Station of the Gateway Corridor,albeit on the outer edges of the proposed station area. Based on the materials in the EAW, it appears that high density portions in the south have roughly a gross density of 15 units per acre. It is unclear in the EAW materials whether the development proposes any connections to the existing sidewalk facilities on the west side of Inwood Avenue.As discussed in the CounciI's Draft Transportation Policy Plan, pedestrian orientation and connections are vital to the success of a transit station. We recommend that the City and the developer consider the future pedestrian environment in this area given the proximity to the proposed station to the southwest,since the traditional land uses in this area have not been conducive to pedestrian activity.Pedestrian facilities and connections should be considered both within the development site itself,and at the 9th Street/Inwood Avenue, 5th Street/Inwood Avenue and,possibly,the Eagle Point Blvd/Inwood Avenue intersections. www.metrocouncii.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul,MN 55101-1805 • (651)602-1000 • Fax(651)602-1550 • M(651)291-0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer Kyle Klatt, Planning Director October 29,2014 Page 2 This concludes the Council's review of the EAW. The Council will take no formal action on the EAW. if you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 651-602-1895. Sincerely, LisaBeth Barajas, anager Local Planning Assistance CC: Crystal Sheppeck, MHFA Tod Sherman,Development Reviews Coordinator,MnDOT- Metro Division Harty Melander, Metropolitan Council District 12 Raya Esmaeili,Reviews Coordinator N:ICOInniDevlLPAlCotlit)tilnilieslLGke EGnolLetterslLake Elmo 2014 EAW MWood 21284J.docx South Washington District October 27, 2014 via email Mr. Kyle Klatt City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Ave North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 RE: Inwood-Hans Hagen Homes EAW Dear Mr. Klatt: SWWD has reviewed the Inwood EAW published September 29, 2014. We believe that the project does not have the potential for significant unmitigated environmental impact and that an EIS is not necessary. We do however, offer the following comments for clarification: Land Use: SWWDs Greenway Plan identifies the subject parcel as a key link in the SWWD greenway connecting Lake Elmo Regional Park to Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park. We strongly encourage the City and developer to incorporate a North/South greenway and trail corridor through the proposed development. I Water Resources: The EAW indicates wetland impacts. SWWD is the WCA LOU for wetlands on site. To date,only a wetland boundary decision has been approved by SWWD. No wetland impacts or replacement plan have been approved by SWWD. Stormwater: SWWD standards require the developer to maintain existing runoff rates for the 2, 10,and 100 year Atlas 14 events. And, while SWWD does not prohibit increases in runoff volume,we will review the project for potential downstream impacts at its I94 and Wilmes Lake regional assessment locations. SWWD may require additional treatment and/or on-site storage capacity to prevent downstream flooding. Cumulative Effects: The proposed development is tributary to SWWDs northern watershed (NWS). Along with ongoing and planned development throughout the NWS, the proposed InWood development will result in increases in stormwater runoff beyond the capacity of I` existing regional storage. Because the NWS does not currently have a controlled overflow,that increase in runoff results in risk of residential flooding in the City of Cottage Grove. SWWD is currently in the process of constructing an overflow for the NWS. To ensure that the overflow system functions as designed, SWWD will enforce strict compliance with its stormwater management development standards. ' If you have questions or need additional information,please contact me at 651-714-3714 or iloomisCa ci.woodbur, ate. 2302 Tower Dr•Woodbury, MN 55125 www.swwdmn.org Sincerely, South Washington Watershed District John Loomis Water Resource Program Manager Page 2 of 2 maw Qyo lllflinnesota Department of Transportation 1 Metropolitan District Waters d 500 County Road l B2 West _T._..._. Roseville, MN 55113 4 7.1314 October 9, 2014 4 Kyle Klatt Planning Director, City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue N. Lake Elmo,MN 55042 kldatt@lakeelmo.org SUBJECT: Inwood EAW 14-010 4 North of I-94, East of Inwood Ave.N. Lake Elmo, Washington County j Control Section 8282 { Dear Mr. Klatt: I i Thank you for the opportunity to review the Inwood CAW. MnDOT has reviewed the EAW and i has the following comments: Traffic i The Traffic Impact Study(TIS)that was conducted suggests no problems at our ramps in 2019. MnDOT Metro Traffic strongly recommends looking at a 20 year forecast when evaluating future impacts. There is significant development potential for Lake Elmo/Woodbury/Oakdale in the area around the 1-94 ramps at Radio/Inwood and the I-694 ramps at I Och St N. All of the future development has the potential to adversely affect freeway ramps operations when taken as a whole. We recommend including these impacts in a TIS and identifying potential mitigation. i The recommendation of new signals for the development will create/add to existing signal ' corridors. It is suggested that discussions take place between Washington County and MnDOT to develop a plan regarding coordinating these corridors(both Radio/Inwood and I Oth St N). For questions concerning these comments,please contact Kaare Festvog(651-234-7814)in MnDOT Metro District's Traffic Engineering Section. Water Resources There is significant future development planned for this area. Currently, MnDOT is also reviewing a drainage permit for Boulder Ponds housing development,which is located just southeast of the project. Both projects ultimately discharge to the same MnDOT 72" storm sewer pipe that crosses underneath Trunk Highway I-94. MnDOT's policy is that the offsite runoff i coning to MnDOT drainage system and/or right-of-way will not increase as a result of the proposed project. This is quantified as a"no increase in discharge"criteria for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storm events. A MnDOT drainage permit will be required. Please see attached drainage permit review checklist for required submittal information with the application. In addition, the submitted information must include consideration of the project impact to flood levels within the TH94 right of way. Depending on the proposed outlet situation, increased runoff I volume has the potential to adversely affect flood levels at TH94. For this reason, additional information and modeling might be requested to show that the impact to 100 year flood levels within MnDOT right of way is minimal. The permittee must also meet the requirements of South Washington Watershed District rules. If you have any questions regarding these comments please direct them to Jodi Hreha at 651-234-7533 orjqdi.hiLeha@state.mn.us. Review Submittal Options: MnDOT's goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent electronically can usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options: j 1. One(1) electronic pdf version of the plans. MnDOT accept plans at j metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us provided that each e-mail is less than 20 megabytes. 2. Three(3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite j the review process. Send plans to: MnDOT—Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One(1) compact disk. 4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT's External FTP Site at: ft:Hb2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/incoming/MetroWatersEdge/Plannin Internet Explorer may not i work using FTP so use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer(My Computer).Notify metrodevreviews.dotna-,,state.mn.us indicating the plans have been submitted on the FTP site. i If you have any questions concerning this review,please contact me at 651-234-7784. Sincerely, i Karen Scheffing MnDOT Principal Planner Copy sent via E-Mail: Buck Craig, Permits Nancy Jacobson, Design Bryce Fossand, Water Resources Tiffany Kautz, Right-of-Way Ryan Coddington, Area Engineer Karre Festvog, Traffic Russ Owens, Metropolitan Council fie" RIV 0 (n (=1 (D CD C> � O SD ID o C-) o C.n :3 C1.3 03 -4 CL .1 CL to V 2 Q,N Sl'�dM -city Z, 17, > C,lo r c)A) Y TA U t, T 17 c 114 -rj fn to j fn C fl� Al WaVWngton Public Works Department Donald J.Theisen,P.E. 10 CountyDirector Wayne H.Sandberg,P.E. Deputy Director/County Engineer October 28, 2014 Kyle Klatt Community Development Director City of Lake Elmo 3600 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Mn 55042 Re: Washington County Comments on Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW) for the Inwood Development Project in the City of Lake Elmo Dear Mr. Klatt, Thank you for the opportunity for Washington County to submit comments on the City of Lake Elmo's Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Inwood in Section 33, City of Lake Elmo, dated September 5, 2014. The Inwood Project, located north of Interstate 94 at CSAH 13/Inwood Avenue and 101h Street/CSAH 10, includes 278 single family lots, 458 multi-family uses including 176 rental townhomes, 120 senior housing units, 150 multifamily units and 12 townhomes. The commercial land uses will consist of approximately 73,000 square feet of office and retail uses. Washington County supports the City of Lake Elmo efforts to allow for the expansion of urban services (MUSA) for development of a variety of single family and multifamily residential developments as well as commercial and office uses on the site. The county has prepared the following comments in the context of the Washington County, the Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2030 and the Public Works Department transportation responsibilities to ensure the health, safety and welfare of county residents, ensure environmental compliance, and minimize environmental impacts: Section 8. Permits and approvals required Any work in the county right-of way as it relates to the development including grading for the installation of culverts, installation of water and sewer services, turn lane modifications, road improvements, trails, Americans with Disability Act ramp improvements will require a right-of- way permit. The county agrees that an access permit will be required for access to the site at the proposed locations since this is a change and intensification of land uses on the site. 11660 Myeron Road North,Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573 Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 • TTY: 651-430-6246 www.co.washington.mn.us Equal Employment Opportunity/Affinnative Action Page 2 October 28,2014 Washington County Comments on EAW for Inwood PUD Kyle Klatt, Plating Director Section 9. Land Use From a land use perspective, intensifying the uses at this site is appropriate to complement the office, commercial and residential development along CSAH 1311nwood Avenue south of the project and to the west in the City of Oakdale, It is also located near other campus office uses in this area of Lake Elmo adjacent communities and the East Metro Area. The development implements the land use goals of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2030, Land Use Goal to design the land use plan to support economic development by the following policies: • Locate commercial and industrial growth where urban services are available; continue to prohibit commercial and industrial land use in unsewered areas. • Promote commercial and industrial development in planned clusters such as business parks and mixed-use developments. • Support land use patterns that efficiently connect housing, jobs, transportation, transit, and retail and commercial centers. The development also implements the transportation goals of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2030, to develop and maintain a roadway system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Strategies in the plan include.the following: • Increased Jobs and Housing Concentrations: . o Transportation investments and land development along major transportation corridors will be coordinated to intensify job centers, increase transportation links between job centers and medium-to-high density residential developments, and improve the jobs/housing connections with policies that include: o Plan for, design, and construct roadways to accommodate existing and future traffic growth. o Use effective transportation planning to accommodate existing and planned land uses, while preserving natural, cultural, and historic resources. o Develop a collaborative process with local municipalities to identify fiscally responsible system improvements that are consistent with county priorities and meet the needs of municipalities. o Coordinate with other agencies to promote a well balanced transportation system. o Coordinate with communities and provide feedback on development and redevelopment proposals. 11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573 Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 - TTY: 651-430-6246 www.co.washington.mn.us Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Page 3 October 28, 2014 Washington County Comments on EAW for Inwood PUD Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Section 11. Water Resources Although the county has not reviewed a stormwater plan to date, the developer, city or watershed district must submit the drainage report and calculations for review of any downstream impacts to the county drainage system. Along with the drainage calculations, written conclusions that the volume and rate of stormwater run-off into any county right-of way will not increase as part of the project. Section 17. Noise Washington County's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise.Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA),the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC)where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Minnesota Statute 116.07, Subpart 2a exempts County Roads and County State Aid Highways from noise thresholds. County policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The developer should assess the noise situation and take any action outside of County right of way deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. Section 18. Transportation The County agrees with the purpose of the study to determine if improvements are needed to nearby intersections that may be impacted by traffic from the built out development. The objectives of the study included the following: • Document how the study intersections currently operate. • Forecast the amount of traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development. • Determine how the study intersections will operate in the year 2019 with no development traffic. • Determine how the study intersections will operate in the year 2019 with development traffic, • Determine how the surrounding roadways will operate in the year 2030 with development traffic added. • Recommend improvements, if needed. 11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573 Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 • TFY: 651-430-6246 www.co.washington.mn.us Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Page 4 October 28, 2014 Washington County Comments on EAW for Inwood PUD Kyle Klatl, Planning Director There is also agreement with the study intersections surrounding the site which included the following: • CSAH 13 & 1-94 Southern Ramp • CSAH 13 & 1-94 Northern Ramp • CSAH 13 & Hudson Boulevard • CSAH 13 & Eagle Point Road • CSAH 13 & 5th Street Access Road • CSAH 13 & 9th Street • CSAH 13 & CSAH 10 • CSAH 10 &Western Site Access Road • CSAH 10 & Eastern Site Access Road • Eagle Point Road & Site Access Road As documented in the TIS report dated July 8, 2014, the county agrees with the following conclusions in regard to the proposed Inwood Development with the introduction of new commercial, office and residential uses. The traffic impacts of the proposed development on the study intersections were analyzed in the 2019 build-out conditions. The County is in agreement with principal findings which are: • All study intersections will operate acceptably through the 2019 build-out condition except the CSAH 13/Eagle Point Boulevard and CSAH 13/5th Street intersections. • The CSAH 13/5th Street intersection will likely need a signal before the development is fully built and occupied and should be monitored as construction occurs to determine when a signal should be installed. • The CSAH 13/5th Street intersection should be built with an exclusive southbound left turn lane, a northbound right turn lane, a westbound left turn lane and a westbound right turn lane. • The traffic signal at the CSAH 13/5th Street intersection as well as alternate routes should allow the CSAH 13/Eagle Point Boulevard i nte rsectio n to operate acceptably. The County will monitor the intersection, however, in case the traffic balancing does not occur and a traffic signal is needed at the intersection, the intersection will be placed on the County's Intersection Control Ranking System priority list to be funded through the County Capital Improvement Planning process. Any improvements to this intersection will be completed under the County's Cost Participation Policy. • The site access at CSAH 13/9th Street should be constructed such that vehicles exiting the site can only make right turns. • The site access at CSAH 10/Western Site Access should be built as a 3/ intersection with vehicles exiting the development only able to make right turns. 11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573 Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 - TTY: 651-430-6246 wvvw.co.washinglon.mn.us Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Page S October 28, 2014 Washington County Comments on EAW for Inwood PUD Kyle Klatt, Planning Director • The Eastern Site Access on CSAH 10 can be built as a full movement intersection. Washington County in coordination with the City of Lake Elmo and the City of Oakdale will prepare a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for access management along CSAH 13 (Inwood Avenue) and CSAH 10 (loth Street) to provide direction on future access to this development project as well as other developments in the area. Washington County, as a part of the Gateway Corridor Commission, is preparing a Draft Environmental Statement (DEIS) for a proposed transitway through the 1-94 "Gateway Corridor" from St Paul to the Oakdale/ Lake Elmo area, One of the potential transit stations would be south of the project area near County Road 13 on the north side of 1-94. The ability of the transit alternative to mitigate any of the project impacts to adjacent roadways will be dependent on a number of factors that have yet to be determined including the distance of the project area from the station location chosen, the level of bicycle, pedestrian and feeder bus connections linking the station to the project area the presence of transit supportive uses within the project area. There should be additional detail provided on the mitigation measures identified on the effect of the proposed development on the need for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. CSAH 10 (10`h Street) is identified as a Planned County Trail in the Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2040, Planned Trail System. If the comments in this letter are addressed in the EAW, the county does not feel the need for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the planned project; however, future studies, environmental documentation, and mitigation measures will need to be addressed as development occurs in the area. If you have any questions or comments to the responses on the Inwood EAW, please contact me at Ann.pung-trwedo@co.washington.mn.us. Sincere Ann Pung-Terwedo Senior Planner c: Wayne Sandberg, County Engineer Jan Lucke, Transit and Planning Manager 11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573 Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 • TTY: 651-430-6246 www.co.washington.mn.us Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Minnesota Department of Natural Resource- Minnesota Division of Ecological and Water Resources 1200 Warner Road Saint Paul, MN 55106-6793 DEPARTMENT Of NATURAL RESOURCES October 27, 2014 Transmitted via Electronic Mail Mr. Kyle Klatt, Planning Director 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Mr. Klatt, The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for Inwood- Lake Elmo, and offers the following comments for your review. Item 8. Permits and a112rovals required: This table lists DNR Water Appropriation Permit two times. Please remove the second entry or replace Water Appropriation Permit with Public Waters Permit under one of the entries. There are two categories of DNR public waters permits that could be applied for if needed. Item 11.i. Water resources. Description of Surface water: Because the City of Lake Elmo's shoreland ordinance is not approved by DNR at this time and the City does not include all of the state's PUD standards in its shoreland PUD provision, (for example,tiers for weighting density are not included), DNR will be required to approve PUDs that are within the City's shoreland district until the City's shoreland ordinance is approved by DNR. Item 11.ii. Water resources. Stormwater. Post-development Site Runoff: • Has a stormwater model or stormwater calculations for the site post-construction been completed? If so, please include results in the narrative to provide justification for the statement that only extreme conditions such as those occurring in connection with 50- or 100-year storm events will result in measurable increases in runoff volume and associated pollutant transport. The 2-, 5-,and 10-year storm events are more frequent and are also impacted by increases in impervious surface. • Please discuss in more specific detail what considerations have been taken by the developer to include best management practices within the project design (post- construction) that increase infiltration and reduce the amount of rainfall that is converted to runoff prior to it reaching the stormwater ponds included in the project area. mndnr.gov An Equal Opportunity Employer DNR Information:651-296-6157 1-888-646-6367 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929 • Please quantify how much the open space areas will reduce runoff. Item 11.iv. Water resources. Surface waters. a.Wetlands and b. Other surface waters: • Please further describe what specific measures will be taken to reduce direct runoff into the unnamed public watercourse (07010205-745). • List specific project design elements that have been added to the project to reduce impacts to the unnamed stream. Item 13. Fish,wildlife, plant communities, and rare features: This section of the EAW does not sufficiently discuss the treatment of wildlife and rare species resources impacted by this project. b. Rare species: The Natural Heritage Information Survey (NHIS) response letter is attached to these comments.As stated in the letter,the Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii),a state-listed threatened species, has been documented in the vicinity of the proposed project. The EAW should discuss potential impacts to this rare turtle and identify any measures (e.g.,fact sheet recommendations) that will be implemented to avoid or minimize disturbance. d. Minimization measures: This project site is located less than one mile from Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve, a 2100 acre area that provides varied habitats for multiple animal species.We recommend the following activities to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife associated with the periphery of this large landscape feature: • Avoid creating wetlands, ditches,and water retention ponds near busy roadways. These aquatic habitats may attract wildlife,but then act as a population sink by increasing mortality rates as a result of more frequent road crossings. This is especially important in areas were Blanding's Turtles may occur. • We recommend the use of surmountable curbs, and wildlife-friendly stormwater drains. • We recommend the use of wildlife-friendly erosion control products. Traditional erosion control mesh is known to cause injury and may be fatal to wildlife, particularly reptiles and amphibians. Please see attached factsheet. • We recommend the use of native plants in green space development; native wildlife is best adapted to native plants. Native flowering plants and grasses serve the additional function of providing food and habitat for butterflies and other native pollinators. mndnr.gov An Equal Opportunity Employer DNR Information:651-296-6157 1-888-646-6367 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929 Item 19. Cumulative potential effects: • Please discuss cumulative potential effects to both Armstrong Lake and the unnamed public stream. • Is the concept plan included with the EAW the most current concept plan? If not, please include the most recent concept plan. We appreciate the opportunity to review this document. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 01,100 e �awoet/� Brooke Haworth Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Central Region MnDNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources 1200 Warner Road,St. Paul, MN 55106 Phone: 651-259-5755 Email: Brooke.haworthCa)state.mn.us ERDB 20150027 Attachments:NMS review;Blanding's Turtle Factsheet; Wildlife-friendly Erosion Control mndnr.gov An Equal Opportunity Employer DNR Information:651-296-6157 1-888-646-6367 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929 ldlinnesola Minnesota Department of Natural Resources I Division of Ecological and Water Resources,Box 25 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4025 DEPARVENT OF Phone:(651)259-5109 E-mail:lisa.joyal@state.mn.us NATURAL RESOURCES August 29,2014 Correspondence#ERDB 20150027 Mr.John Rask Hans Hagen Homes 941 NE Hillwind Road, Suite 300 Fridley,MN 55432 RE:Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Inwood Creek Mixed-Use Development, T29N R21 W Section 33,Washington County Dear Mr.Rask, As requested,the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been queried to determine if any rare species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the proposed project. Based on this query,rare features have been documented within the search area(please visit the Rare Species Guide at htti)://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html for more information on the biology,habitat use,and conservation measures of these rare species). Please note that the following rare features may be adversely affected by the proposed project: • Blanding's turtles(Emydoidea blandingii),a state-listed threatened species,have been reported from the vicinity of the proposed project. Although we have no records from directly within the project site,turtles may use the site if it contains suitable habitat. Blanding's turtles use upland areas up to and over a mile distant from wetlands, as well as wetlands. Uplands are used for nesting,basking,periods of dormancy,and traveling between wetlands. Because of the tendency to travel long distances over land, Blanding's turtles regularly travel across roads and are therefore susceptible to collisions with vehicles. Any added mortality can be detrimental to populations of Blanding's turtles,as these turtles have a low reproduction rate that depends upon a high survival rate to maintain population levels. Other factors believed to contribute to the decline of this species include wetland drainage and degradation,and the development of upland habitat. For your information, )have attached a Blanding's turtle fact sheet that describes the habitat use and life history of this species. The fact sheet also provides two lists of recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to this rare turtle. Please refer to the first list of recommendations for your project. There are specific recommendations regarding roads, utilities,landscaping,and sediment and erosion control(see enclosed fact sheet regarding plastic mesh netting) that may pertain to this project. If greater protection for turtles is desired,the second list of additional recommendations can also be implemented. The attached flyer should be given to all contractors working in the area. If Blanding's turtles are encountered on site, please remember that state law and rules prohibit the destruction of threatened or endangered species, except under certain prescribed conditions. If turtles are in imminent danger they should be moved by hand out of harm's way,otherwise they should be left undisturbed. www.mndnr.gov AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER • The Environmental Assessment Worksheet should clearly discuss potential impacts to Blanding's turtles and identify any measures(e.g.,fact sheet recommendations)that will be implemented to avoid,minimize,or mitigate disturbance. • Please include a copy of this letter in any DNR license or permit application. The Natural Heritage Information System(NHIS),a collection of databases that contains information about Minnesota's rare natural features,is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species,native plant communities,and other natural features. However,the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore,ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area. If additional information becomes available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project,further review may be necessary. For environmental review purposes,this Natural Heritage Review is valid for one year;it is only valid for the project location(noted above)and the project description provided on the NHIS Data Request Form. Please contact me if project details change or for an updated review if construction has not occurred within one year. The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole.Instead,it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential effects to these rare features. To determine whether there are other natural resource concerns associated with the proposed project, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist (contact information available at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/eM rezioncontacts.html). Please be aware that additional site assessments or review may be required. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. An invoice will be mailed to you under separate cover. Sincerely, Lisa Joyal Endangered Species Review Coordinator enc. Blanding's Turtle Fact Sheet and Flyer Wildlife Friendly Erosion Control cc: Brooke Haworth Erica Hoaglund �� ��- -�;._ �[f Ali_..•7 CAUTION BLANDING'S TURTLES MAY BE ENCOUNTERED IN THIS AREA The unique and rare Blanding's turtle has been found in this area. Blanding's turtles are state-listed as Threatened and are protected under Minnesota Statute 84.095, Protection of Threatened and Endangered Species. Please be careful of turtles on roads and in construction sites. For additional information on turtles, or to report a Blanding's turtle sighting, contact the DNR Nongame Specialist nearest you: Bemidji (218-308-2641); Grand Rapids (218-327-4518); New Ulm (507-359-6033); Rochester (507-280-5070); or St. Paul (651-259-5764). DESCRIPTION: The Blanding's turtle is a medium to large turtle (5 to 10 inches) with a black or dark blue, dome-shaped shell with muted yellow spots and bars. The bottom of the shell is hinged across the front third, enabling the turtle to pull the front edge of the lower shell firmly against the top shell to provide additional protection when threatened. The head, legs, and tail are dark brown or blue-gray with small dots of light brown or yellow. A distinctive field mark is the bright yellow chin and neck. BLANDING'S TURTLES DO NOT MAKE GOOD PETS IT IS ILLEGAL TO KEEP THIS THREATENED SPECIES IN CAPTIVITY Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series landau--ered,'I'hreateued,:uul Special Concern tipeeies of Minnesota Blanding's Tlu-de (l;u�yiloidra hla»rliptgiz) Minnesota Status: Threatened State Rank: S2 Federal Status: none Global Rank: G4 HABITAT USE Blanding's turtles need both wetland and upland habitats to complete their life cycle. The types of wetlands used include ponds, marshes, shrub swamps, bogs, and ditches and streams with slow-moving water. In Minnesota, Blanding's turtles are primarily marsh and pond inhabitants. Calm,shallow water bodies(Type 1-3 wetlands)with mud bottoms and abundant aquatic vegetation (e.g., cattails, water lilies) are preferred, and extensive marshes bordering rivers provide excellent habitat. Small temporary wetlands(those that dry up in the late summer or fall) are frequently used in spring and summer--these fishless pools are amphibian and invertebrate breeding habitat, which provides an important food source for Blanding's turtles. Also,the warmer water of these shallower areas probably aids in the development of eggs within the female turtle. Nesting occurs in open(grassy or brushy)sandy uplands, often some distance from water bodies. Frequently, nesting occurs in traditional nesting grounds on undeveloped land. Blanding's turtles have also been known to nest successfully on residential property(especially in low density housing situations),and to utilize disturbed areas such as farm fields,gardens,under power lines,and road shoulders (especially of dirt roads). Although Blanding's turtles may travel through woodlots during their seasonal movements,shady areas(including forests and lawns with shade trees)are not used for nesting. Wetlands with deeper water are needed in times of drought,and during the winter. Blanding's turtles overwinter in the muddy bottoms of deeper marshes and ponds,or other water bodies where they are protected from freezing. LIFE HISTORY Individuals emerge from overwintering and begin basking in late March or early April on warm,sunny days. The increase in body temperature which occurs during basking is necessary for egg development within the female turtle. Nesting in Minnesota typically occurs during June, and females are most active in late afternoon and at dusk. Nesting can occur as much as a mile from wetlands. The nest is dug by the female in an open sandy area and 6-15 eggs are laid. The female turtle returns to the marsh within 24 hours of laying eggs. After a development period of approximately two months,hatchlings leave the nest from mid-August through early-October. Nesting females and hatchlings are often at risk of being killed while crossing roads between wetlands and nesting areas. In addition to movements associated with nesting,all ages and both sexes move between wetlands from April through November. These movements peak in June and July and again in September and October as turtles move to and from overwintering sites. In late autumn(typically November),Blanding' s turtles bury themselves in the substrate(the mud at the bottom)of deeper wetlands to overwinter. IMPACTS/THREATS/CAUSES OF DECLINE • loss of wetland habitat through drainage or flooding(converting wetlands into ponds or lakes) • loss of upland habitat through development or conversion to agriculture • human disturbance, including collection for the pet trade* and road kills during seasonal movements • increase in predator populations(skunks, raccoons, etc.)which prey on nests and young *It is illegal to possess this threatened species. Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological Resources Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series.Blanding's Turtle. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVOIDING AND MINIMIZING IMPACTS These recommendations apply to typical construction projects and general land use within Blanding's turtle habitat, and are provided to help local governments,developers,contractors,and homeowners minimize or avoid detrimental impacts to Blanding's turtle populations. List 1 describes minimum treasures which we recommend to prevent harm to Blanding's turtles during construction or other work within Blanding's turtle habitat. List 2 contains recommendations which offer even greater protection for Blanding's turtles populations;this list should be used in addition to the fir st list in areas which are known to be of state-wide importance to Blanding's turtles(contact the DNR's Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program if you wish to determine if your project or home is in one of these areas),or in any other area where greater protection for Blanding's turtles is desired. List 1. Recommendations for all areas inhabited by List 2. Additional recommendations for areas known to Blanding's turtles, be of state-wide importance to Blanding's turtles. GENERAL A flyer with an illustration of a Blanding's turtle should be Turtle crossing signs can be installed adjacent to road- given to all contractors working in the area. Homeowners crossing areas used by Blanding's turtles to increase public should also be informed of the presence of Blanding's awareness and reduce road kills. turtles in the area. Turtles which are in imminent danger should be moved,by Workers in the area should be aware that Blanding' s hand,out of harms way. Turtles which are not in turtles nest in June,generally after 4pm,and should be imminent danger should be left undisturbed. advised to minimize disturbance if turtles are seen. If a Blanding's turtle nests in your yard,do not disturb the If you would like to provide more protection for a nest. Blanding's turtle nest on your property,see"Protecting Blanding's Turtle Nests"on page 3 of this fact sheet. Silt fencing should be set up to keep turtles out of Construction in potential nesting areas should be limited to construction areas. It is critical that silt fencing be the period between September 15 and June I (this is the removed after the area has been revegetated. time when activity of adults and hatchlings in upland areas is at a minimum). WETLANDS Small,vegetated temporary wetlands(Types 2&3)should Shallow portions of wetlands should not be disturbed not be dredged,deepened,filled,or converted to storm during prime basking time(mid morning to mid-afternoon water retention basins(these wetlands provide important in May and June). A wide buffer should be left along the habitat during spring and summer). shore to minimize human activity near wetlands(basking Blanding's turtles are more easily disturbed than other turtle species). Wetlands should be protected from pollution;use of Wetlands should be protected from road,lawn,and other fertilizers and pesticides should be avoided,and run-off chemical run-off by a vegetated buffer strip at least 50' from lawns and streets should be controlled. Erosion wide. This area should be left unmowed and in a natural should be prevented to keep sediment from reaching condition. wetlands and lakes. ROADS Roads should be kept to minimum standards on widths and Tunnels should be considered in areas with concentrations lanes(this reduces road kills by slowing traffic and of turtle crossings(more than 10 turtles per year per 100 reducing the distance turtles need to cross). meters of road),and in areas of lower density if the level of road use would make a safe crossing impossible for turtles. Contact your DNR Regional Nongame Specialist for further information on wildlife tunnels. Roads should be ditched,not curbed or below grade. if Roads should be ditched,not curbed or below grade. curbs must be used,4 inch high curbs at a 3:1 slope are preferred(Blanding's turtles have great difficulty climbing traditional curbs;curbs and below grade roads trap turtles on the road and can cause road kills). Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological Resources Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series.Blanding's Turtle. ROADS Cont. Culverts between wetland areas,or between wetland areas Road placement should avoid separating wetlands from and nesting areas,should be 36 inches or greater in adjacent upland nesting sites,or these roads should be diameter,and elliptical or flat-bottomed. fenced to prevent turtles from attempting to cross them (contact your DNR Nongame Specialist for details). Wetland crossings should be bridged,or include raised Road placement should avoid bisecting wetlands,or these roadways with culverts which are 36 in or greater in roads should be fenced to prevent turtles from attempting diameter and flat-bottomed or elliptical(raised roadways to cross them(contact your DNR Nongame Specialist for discourage turtles from leaving the wetland to bask on details). This is especially important for roads with more roads). than 2 lanes. Culverts under roads crossing streams should be oversized Roads crossing streams should be bridged. (at least twice as wide as the normal width of open water) and flat-bottomed or elliptical. UTILITIES Utility access and maintenance roads should be kept to a minimum(this reduces road-kill potential). Because trenches can trap turtles,trenches should be checked for turtles prior to being backfilled and the sites should be returned to original grade. LANDSCAPING AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as As much natural landscape as possible should be preserved possible. (installation of sod or wood chips,paving,and planting of trees within nesting habitat can make that habitat unusable to nesting Blanding's turtles). Graded areas should be revegetated with native grasses Open space should include some areas at higher elevations and fortis(some non-natives form dense patches through for nesting. These areas should be retained in native which it is difficult for turtles to travel). vegetation,and should be connected to wetlands by a wide corridor of native vegetation. Vegetation management in infrequently mowed areas-- Ditches and utility access roads should not be mowed or such as in ditches,along utility access roads,and under managed through use of chemicals. If vegetation power lines--should be done mechanically(chemicals management is required,it should be done mechanically, should not be used). Work should occur fall through as infrequently as possible,and fall through spring spring(after October?and before June I'). (mowing can kill turtles present during mowing,and makes it easier for predators to locate turtles crossing roads). Protecting Blanding's Turtle Nests: Most predation on turtle nests occurs within 48 hours after the eggs are laid. After this time,the scent is gone from the nest and it is more difficult for predators to locate the nest. Nests more than a week old probably do not need additional protection,unless they are in a particularly vulnerable spot,such as a yard where pets may disturb the nest. Turtle nests can be protected from predators and other disturbance by covering them with a piece of wire fencing(such as chicken wire),secured to the ground with stakes or rocks. The piece of fencing should measure at least 2 ft.x 2 ft.,and should be of medium sized mesh(openings should be about 2 in. x 2 in.). It is very important that the fencing be removed before August lst so the young turtles can escape from the nest when they hatch! REFERENCES 'Association for Biodiversity Information. "Heritage Status: Global,National,and Subnational Conservation Status Ranks." NatureServe. Version 1.3 (9 April 2001). http://www.natureserve.orp-/rankinp,.htm (15 April 2001). Coffin, B., and L. Pfannmuller. 1988. Minnesota's Endangered Flora and Fauna. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,473 pp. Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological Resources Environmental Review Tact Sheet Series.Blanding's Turtle. 4 REFERENCES (cont.) Moriarty,J.J.,and M. Linck. 1994. Suggested guidelines for projects occurring in Blanding's turtle habitat. Unpublished report to the Minnesota DNR. 8 pp. Oldfield, B.,and J. J. Moriarty. 1994. Amphibians and Reptiles Native to Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,237 pp. Sajwaj,T. D.,and J. W. Lang. 2000. Thermal ecology of Blanding' s turtle in central Minnesota. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(4):626-636. Compiled by the Minnesota Depanmem of Alantral Resources Division of Ecological Resources, Updated Harch 2008 Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator,500 Lafayette Rd..Box 25,St. Paul, AIN 55155/651-259-5109 i Wildlife-friendly Erosion Control Wildlife entanglement in, and death from,plastic netting and other man-made plastic materials has been documented in birds(Johnson, 1990; Fuller-Perrine and Tobin, 1993), fish(Johnson, 1990), mammals(Derraik,2002), and reptiles (Barton and Kinkead, 2005; Kapfer and Paloski, 2011). Unfortunately,the use of these materials for erosion control continues in many cases, often without consideration for wildlife impact. This plastic netting is frequently used for erosion control during construction and landscape projects and can negatively impact terrestrial and aquatic wildlife populations as well as snag in maintenance machinery,resulting in costly repairs and delays. However, erosion-control materials that are wildlife friendly do exist and are sold by several large companies. Below are a few key considerations before starting a project. Know Your Options • Remember to consult with local natural resource agencies(DNR,USFWS,etc.)before starting a project.They can help you identify sensitive �— areas and rare species. • When erosion control is necessary,select products with biodegradable netting(natural fiber,biodegradable polyesters,etc.). • DO NOT use products that require UV-light to biodegrade(also called"photodegradable")as they do not biodegrade properly when shaded by vegetation. Woven 100%natural fiber erosion-control materials being utilized along a central Minnesota stream.©MN DNR,Nick Proulx • Use netting with rectangular-shaped mesh(not square mesh). • Use netting with flexible(non-welded)mesh. Know the Landscape -. ��. • It is especially important to use wildlife-friendly erosion control around: o Areas with threatened or endangered species. o Wetlands,rivers,lakes,and other watercourses. o Habitat-transition zones(prairie—woodland edges,rocky outcrop—woodland edges,steep rocky slopes,etc.). Fish trapped and killed by welded-plastic square erosion- control mesh improperly placed along a small central • Use erosion mesh wisely;not all areas with Minnesota stream.Photo courtesy of Ben Lowe. disturbed ground necessitate its use. Do not use plastic mesh unless it is specifically required.Other erosion-control options exist(open weave textile (OWT),rolled erosion control products(RECPs)with woven,natural fiber netting). WFEC Fact-sheet—MN DNR 2013(acc.) Protect Wildlife • Avoid photodegradable erosion-control �� 1 materials where possible. J + J • Use only biodegradable materials(typically �na3r _ made from natural fiberspreferably those that will biodegrade under a variety of '-- - V conditions. • The cost of erosion-control material that is h> j wildlife friendly is often comparable to conventional plastic netting. Plains Gartersnake trapped and killed by welded-plastic square erosion-control mesh placed along a newly Installed cement culvert in southern Minnesota.©MN DNR,Carol Hall Literature Referenced Barton,C. and K.Kinkead.2005. Do erosion control and . ' snakes mesh? Soil and Water Conservation Society 60:33A-35A. f• ;. �'' Derraik,J.G.B.2002.The pollution of the marine t' environment by plastic debris: a review.Marine Pollution Bulletin 44:842-852. r ` Fuller-Perrine,L.D.,and M.E. Tobin. 1993.A method for applying and removing bird-exclusion netting in ': `'f . ; `��\ •' , f commercial vineyards.Wildlife Society Bulletin 'jFla Ila 21:47-51. Johnson, S.W. 1990. Distribution,abundance,and A small vole that was strangled and killed by plastic erosion-control source of entanglement debris and other plastics on material with welded and square mesh. Photo taken in southern Minnesota and provided courtesy of Tom)essen. Alaskan beaches, 1982-1988.Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris 331-348. Kapfer,J.M.,and R.A. Paloski.2011.On the threat to MICIIlBSOta �LpLIFE too, snakes of mesh deployed for erosion control and wildlife exclusion.Herpetological Conservation and O • Biology 6:1-9. z DEPARTMENT OF HAT-URAL RESOURCES WFEC Fact-sheet—MN DNR 2013(acc.) THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: December 2, 2014 REGULAR ITEM# 13 AGENDA ITEM: Inwood PUD - Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Matt, Community Development Director THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Nick M. Johnson, City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief Stephen Mastey, Landscape Consultant SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item.....................................Community Development Director - Report/Presentation..............................Community Development Director Questions from Council to Staff.............................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ...............................................................Mayor& City Council - Discussion.......................................................................Mayor&City Council - Action on Motion.................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: The Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the City Council approve a request by Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10, LLC for a mixed-use Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be located on 157 acres of land at the southeast corner of Inwood Avenue and 10t' Street in Lake Elmo. The City's Subdivision and PUD Ordinance requires that the City Council review and approval a preliminary plat and preliminary development plans before an applicant may proceed with the preparation and recording of a final plat. FISCAL IMPACT: TBD — The City will require that the applicant enter into a developer's agreement with the City to specify the financial responsibilities for various aspects of the subdivision and related public improvements. The project will include oversizing of sewer and water infrastructure, as well as improvements to County roads that will require cost participation by the City. The financial responsibility for these improvements will be negotiated as part of a development contract for the project. --page 1 -- City Council Meeting Regular Agenda Item#13 December 2,2014 SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Hans Hagen Homes and InWood 10, LLC for approval of a preliminary plat and preliminary development plans associated with the InWood Planned Unit Development. The PUD will be located on 157 acres of land located southeast of the intersection of Inwood Avenue and 1 Oth Street in Lake Elmo, and is consistent with the development uses and areas as depicted in the general concept plan for the property. The submitted plans cover the entire site; however, the developer intends to proceed construction of only the single family areas at this time, and will need to submit more detailed plans for the multi-family and commercial areas in the future. The application for a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan follows the City's approval of a general concept plan for the site, and the plans as submitted are consistent with this earlier approval. While the overall plans include a mix of single-family residential,medium to high density residential, and commercial development, the applicant has provided detailed preliminary plans for only the single-family portion of the site. The proposed plat includes 275 single family detached lots, while the remainder of the site will be platted as outlots for future open space, commercial, and multi-family uses. As documented in the updated concept plan, the future development areas will include up to 264 multi-family units south of 1 Oth Street and approximately 90,000 square feet of commercial activity immediately east of Inwood Avenue. Preliminary development plans will need to be submitted in the future for these other planned uses. The Planning Commission and Staff and are recommending that the City Council approve the InWood Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan with 19 conditions of approval through the following motion: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-94, approving the Inwood Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan subject to 19 conditions of approval." LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: Attached is the original detailed Staff Report that was provided to the Planning Commission concerning the Inwood Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans in advance of its November 24, 2014 meeting. The report includes information about the application, a summary of the relevant planning and zoning issues, a thorough review of the proposed plat and public improvements, draft findings, and the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission. It should be noted that the City approved the Inwood General Concept Plan on September 24, 2014 (Resolution 2014-0072). Approval of the concept plan allows the applicant to prepare a preliminary PUD plan and preliminary plat. In addition to the general information noted above, the Planning Commission report includes a breakdown of the changes made to the concept plan in response to specific City conditions and a summary of the flexibility being requested as part of the PUD plans. There were also a few aspects of the plan that have not been revised based on the Council's direction for the Planning Commission to reconsider these particular aspects of the plan, which are also further described in this report. --page 2-- City Council Meeting Regular Agenda Item#13 December 2,2014 The Planning Commission reviewed the Inwood Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan request at its November 24, 2014 meeting and conducted a public hearing at this time. Before the public hearing was opened, John Rask from Hans Hagen Homes,made a brief presentation and spent time answering questions from Commissioners concerning the development. After the applicant addressed the Commission,the public hearing was opened. During the public hearing, the City received the following testimony: • Curt Montieth, 331 Julep Ave. N., asked about the installation and maintenance of the street lights. Klatt noted that the developer must install the lights and the City will lease them from Xcel. Mr. Montieth also asked about snow removal of the loop roads and the possibility of locating the water tower in the 2-acre park next to the multi-family area. He noted that he supports the lower design speed of 5th street because it will slow people down. Montieth suggested that design standards be put in place now for the multi-family areas since these units will be built after the single-family homes are in place. Mr. Montieth suggested that the park area adjacent to Stonegate have adequate parking. He also requested that a berm be put in place in Stonegate Park to buffer some of the nearby residential properties. He requested that the developer and the Park Commission meet with nearby Stonegate residents to work on the park design. • Clayton Lance, Oakdale resident, expressed concern about the existing intersection of 91b Street and Inwood Avenue. He noted that it is difficult to make left-hand turns onto Inwood Ave. with the current levels of traffic. Mr. Lance stated that the future commercial users are a concern, and that he would prefer commercial uses that are not 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In addition to the public testimony received, the City did receive one letter regarding the preliminary plat and plans: • Klatt read a letter from the City of Oakdale into the public record. Emily Shively, City Planner,noted that Oakdale does not support restricted access at Oak Marsh Drive and 9th Street. She asked that any proposed access restrictions be considered via an open process with significant stakeholder input. In addition, the City of Oakdale recommend that a trail be installed on the east side of Inwood Avenue. As part of the presentation to the Planning Commission Staff distributed an additional set of comments from the City Engineer pertaining to 5 h Street and a further study of this road that had been completed by SRF Engineering. These comments are also attached to the City Council report, and essentially provide further recommendations that should be considered as the plans for this roadway segment are finalized by the developer. The proposed road and curve design as documents in the attached plans have been found to be an acceptable design, subject to the access spacing modification and submission of additional details as recommended by the City Engineer. Staff also recommended changes to the conditions of approval as drafted to strengthen the language used in conditions 4 and 9 and to add a reference to condition 12 concerning the additional City Engineering comments dated November 24, 2014. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed development plans and adopted motions to amend the Staff recommendation in the following manner: --page 3 -- City Council Meeting Regular Agenda Item#13 December 2,2014 • To revise the proposed findings of fact to clarify the specific flexibility being requested by the applicant through the PUD review process. • To add conditions as follows: o To require the submission of additional details on the landscape plan for the proposed plantings around Pond 200. o To incorporate elements from the City's theming study at the intersections of "Street B"and l Oth Street and 5th Street and Inwood Avenue. o To require that the developer install a trail along 10th Street between "Street B" and Inwood Avenue. o To specify that the trail through the eastern buffer area be kept as far west on the applicant's property as possible. All of the Commissions revisions to the findings of fact and the additional conditions of approval are incorporated into the attached Resolution 2014-094 for review by the City Council. The Commission also adopted two general motions outside of the scope of the Commission's PUD review that are noted below for consideration by the City Council as follows: • That the Park Commission prioritize Stonegate Park, including the Inwood development portion, in light of the overall development plans for the area around this park. • That when HOA's are established, before homeowners move into development, that the City makes sure that a bank account and accounting system is set up to ensure that HOA is viable. After discussing the InWood Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan, the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to 19 conditions of approval. The motion to approve the PUD passed with a vote of 5 to 2 (Commissioners Lundgren and Haggard voted against the motion). STRENGTHS,WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES,THREATS: Strengths • The Planning Commission and Staff have found the Preliminary PUD plans to be consistent with the General Concept Plan for the development. • Approval of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan allows the applicants to move forward with the preparation of a PUD Final Plan and Final Plat application. • The City Council has 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. --page 4-- City Council Meeting Regular Agenda Item#13 December 2,2014 Opportunities o 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 50' Street minor collector road. • The developer and the City have generally agreement concerning the location of the water tower needed to serve this area. Threats • The EAW for the project identifies environmental concerns that will need to be considered during the development process. • 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 upon the above background information, Staff report and Planning Commission recommendation, it is recommended that the City Council approve the Inwood Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans with the 19 conditions of approval as documented in the resolution of approval by taking the following action / with the following motion: "Hone to adopt Resolution No. 2014-94, approving the Inwood Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan subject to 19 conditions of approval" ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2014-094 2. Planning Commission Staff Report— 11/24/14 3. InWood PUD Application Booklet 4. PUD Plans a. Application Forms b. PUD Narrative c. Open Space Plan d. Plat Narrative e. Preliminary Plat f. Grading Plan (Available Online) g. Utility Plan (Available Online) h. Landscape Plan (Available Online) i. HOA Documents (Available Online) 5. Park"N" Concept 6. City Engineer Review Memorandum, dated 11/16/14 7. Fire Chief Review Memorandum, dated 11/17/14 8. Landscape Consultant Review Memorandum, dated 11/18/14 9. Washington County Review Memorandum, dated 11/17/14 10. City Council Meeting Minutes—Excerpt from 9/16/14 Meeting --page 5 -- City Council Meeting Regular Agenda Item#13 December 2,2014 11. City Engineer Comments, dated 11/24/14 12. City of Oakdale Letter, dated 11/20/14 13. Not Included in Packet—Available Upon Request: a. Storm Water Management Plan --page 6-- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-94 A RESOL UTION APPRO VING THE INWOOD PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY PUD 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 Preliminary Plat and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Preliminary Plan for a planned development to be called InWood, copies of which are on file in the City Planning Department; and WHEREAS,the proposed Planned Unit Development is for a mixed-use Planned Unit Development on 157 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Inwood Avenue and 101' Street in Lake Elmo and will include 275 single-family residential lots, 264 multi-family residential units, and approximately 90,000 square feet of commercial/office uses; and WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Plans include the single family portions of the overall PUD development; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo City Council approved the InWood PUD Concept Plan on September 16, 2014, and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on November 24, 2014 to consider the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Plans for the PUD; and WHEREAS, on November 24, 2014 the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Inwood PUD Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Plans; and WHEREAS,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation concerning the Inwood PUD Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Plans to the City Council as part of a memorandum from the Planning Department dated December 2, 2014; and WHEREAS,the City Council reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the proposed Inwood PUD Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Plans at a meeting on December 2, 2014. NOW, THEREFORE,based upon the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: Resolution 2014-94 2 FINDINGS 1) That the procedure for obtaining approval of said PUD Preliminary Plan is found in the Lake Elmo City Code, Section 154.800. 2) That all the requirements of said City Code Section 154.800 related to the PUD Preliminary Plan have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the Inwood preliminary plat complies with the City's subdivision ordinance and is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. 4) That the proposed PUD Preliminary Plan is for a mixed-use Planned Unit Development on 157 acres of land located at the southeast comer of Inwood Avenue and 10'h Street in Lake Elmo and that the Preliminary Plan includes 275 single-family residential lots. 5) That the PUD Preliminary Plan will be located on property legally described on the attached Exhibit"A". 6) That the proposed PUD will allow a more flexible, creative, and efficient approach to the use of the land, and will specifically relate to existing zoning district standards in the following manner(with exceptions as noted): Setback LDR Zoning District(Min.) Inwood PUD(Min.) Front Yard 25 feet 20 feet Interior Side Yard 10 Feet Principal Structure 4 Feet Side/5 Feet Garage Side Rear Yard 20 feet 20 feet Lot Area 8,000 square feet 4,250 square feet Lot Depth N/A 110 feet Lot Width 60 feet 38 feet a) The InWood PUD shall be exempt from Section 154.457 of the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance concerning the width of attached garages b) All other requirements for the City's LDR zoning district will apply, including the allowed uses and other site and development standards 7) That the InWood PUD General Concept Plan was approved by the City on September 16, 2014, and that the submitted Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan is consistent with the approved General Concept Plan. Resolution 2014-094 3 8) That the InWood preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan are consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area, with the exception of the narrowing and extending of the commercial area further south of 101' Street along Inwood Avenue as approved in the General Concept Plan. 9) That the InWood preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan generally complies with the City's LDR- Urban Low Density Residential and HDR—High Medium Density Residential zoning districts with the exceptions to lot size, lot width, setbacks, and garage width requirements as specified above. 10)That the Inwood preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with the City's subdivision ordinance. 11)That the Inwood preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with the City's Planned Unit Development Regulations. 12)That the InWood preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with City's Engineering Standards, except where noted in the review memorandum from the City Engineer dated I I/16/14 and 11/24/14. 13)That the InWood preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with other City ordinances, such as landscaping, tree preservation, and erosion and sediment control. 14)That the InWood preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan achieve multiple identified objectives for planned developments within Lake Elmo. 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 shall work with Community Development Director to name all streets in the subdivision in a manner acceptable to the City prior to the submission of final plat. 2) The City and the applicant shall reach an agreement concerning the location and dedication of land associated with the proposed water necessary to provide adequate water service to the InWood project area prior to the acceptance of a final plat for any portion of the PUD area. 3) The preliminary landscape plan shall be updated to address the review comments from the City's landscape architecture consultant as noted in a review letter dated November 18, 2014. 4) Prior to the submission of a final plat for any portion of the InWood PUD,the developer shall reach agreement with the City to determine the appropriate park dedication calculations for the entire development area. 5) As part of any development agreement that includes improvements to one of the adjacent County State Aid Highways(CSAH 13 and 10'h Street),the City and the developer shall determine the appropriate responsibility for the cost of these improvements. Resolution 2014-094 4 6) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site. 7) The applicant shall continue to work with the City on the final design of 51h Street, and in particular, the transition from the InWood PUD to properties located further to the east (including the Boulder Ponds development and land owned by Bremer Financial Services). 8) The utility construction plans shall be updated to incorporate the recommendations of the City Engineer concerning the appropriate location and size of sewer services through the PUD planning area, including any requested oversizing of these facilities to service adjacent properties. 9) The proposed public street access to 51h Street from Streets D2 and the southeast park area (Park 1)shall be eliminated from the preliminary development plans in order to bring the proposed spacing into conformance with the City's access spacing guidelines. The developer shall provide access into the park to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 10)All center median planting areas as depicted on the preliminary plat and plans shall be owned by the City of Lake Elmo and maintained by the Home Owners Association. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park,trails, or open space on the final plat. 11)The applicant must either move the planned north/south tail through Park 1 further to the west around an existing wetland area located approximately 400 feet south of I O'h Street or will need to work with the South Washington Watershed District to design a multi-purpose trail through the buffer area that complies with all applicable watershed district's requirements. 12)The Final Plat and Plans must address the requested modifications outlined in the City Engineer's review memoranda dated November 16,2014 and November 24,2014. 13)The applicant shall be responsible for updating the final construction plans to include the construction of all improvements within County rights-of-way as required by Washington County and further described in the review letter received from the County dated November 17, 2014. 14)Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat, the Developer shall enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of public improvements. 15)The developer must follow all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act, and adhere to the conditions of approval for the South Washington Watershed District Permit. 16)The developer shall provide landscape material along the west side of Pond#200 to the satisfaction of the City's landscape consultant. 17)The developer shall incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study at the intersection of"Street B"and 1 Oth Street and at the intersection of 5th Street and Inwood Avenue. 18)The developer shall install a multi-purpose trail along loth Street between "Street B" and Inwood Avenue. Resolution 2014-094 5 19)The multi-purpose trail through the eastern buffer area shall be kept as far west on the applicant's property as possible, and the final alignment of this trail shall be subject to review by the City's landscape consultant. Passed and duly adopted this 2°d day of December 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: Adam Bell, City Clerk Resolution 2014-094 THE CITY OI; PLANNING COMMISSION LAKE ELMO DATE: 11/24/14 AGENDA ITEM: 4A—PUBLIC HEARING CASE#2014-48 ITEM: InWood PUD—Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer Stephen Mastey, Landscape Architecture,Inc. Greg Malmquist,Fire Chief SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan application from Hans Hagen Homes and InWood 10,LLC for a mixed use Planned Unit Development(PUD)to be located on 157 acres of land at the southeast corner of Inwood Avenue and 10"'Street in Lake Elmo. The application for a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan follows the City's approval of a general concept plan for the site,and the plans as submitted are consistent with this earlier approval. While the overall plans include a mix of single-family residential,medium to high density residential,and commercial development,the applicant has provided detailed preliminary plans for only the single-family portion of the site. The proposed plat includes 275 single family detached lots,while the remainder of the site will be platted as outlots for future open space,commercial, and multi-family uses. Preliminary development plans will need to be submitted in the future for these other planned uses. Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to compliance with 15 conditions as noted in the Staff report. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Hans Hagen Homes(John Rask),941 NE Hillwind Rd. Suite 300,Fridley,MN and Inwood 10,LLC (Tom Scheutte)95 S Owasso Blvd. W., St.Paul, MN Property Owners: Inwood 10, LLC (Tom Scheutte), 95 S Owasso Blvd. W., St. Paul,MN Location: Part of Section 33 in Lake Elmo,immediately south of loth 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 Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD)Plan approval of a mixed-use development to be named InWood. The preliminary plat includes 275 single-family residential lots,while the remainder of the site will be platted as outlots(subject to future review and approval by the City of Lake Elmo). PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A—ACTION ITEM 2 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; there is no specific site information on file with the City(the property was subject to development speculation at various times in the past). The applicants have summited a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the development and the comment period for the EAW ended on October 29, 2014. The City Council will consider adoption of a resolution declaring no need for an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) at its December 2,2014 meeting. The City Council approved the general concept plan for the development at its September 16,2014 meeting. Deadline for Action: Application Complete— 10/10/14 60 Day Deadline— 12/10/14 Extension Letter Mailed—No 120 Day Deadline—2/10/15 Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153—Subdivision Regulations Article 10—Urban Residential Districts(LDR and MDR) Article 16—Planned Unit Development Regulations §150.270 Storm Water,Erosion, and Sediment Shoreland Management Overlay District REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Hans Hagen Homes and InWood 10,LLC for approval of a preliminary plat and preliminary development plans associated with the InWood Planned Unit Development. The PUD will be located on 157 acres of land located southeast of the intersection of Inwood Avenue and 10fl'Street in Lake Elmo,and is consistent with the development uses and areas as depicted in the general concept plan for the property. The submitted plans cover the entire site;however,the developer intends to proceed construction of only the single family areas at this time, and will need to submit more detailed plans for the multi-family and commercial areas in the future. As noted during the concept plan review,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, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A—ACTION ITEM 3 including single-family detached housing,townhouses, and multi-family. 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 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. The concept plan was approved by the City Council with conditions that ultimately resulted in reductions to the overall dwelling unit count for the project. These changes included the elimination of any multi-family residential north of the proposed 5'h Street alignment, and further reductions in the number of single-family lots to provide additional space for a larger park in the extreme southeastern part of the site. The preliminary plans as submitted include 275 single-family residential detached dwelling units (down from 281 on the original concept plan)all located in a contiguous area on the site north of 5ch Street and east of the planned commercial areas along Inwood Avenue. For the purposes of this review,the proposed commercial and multi-family areas of the site will not be discussed in terms of specific uses and building footprints or other site details since these details will need to be provided as part of any future PUD and subdivision review and approvals. This is very similar to the approach used in the Eagle Point Business Park,with individual construction projects being reviewed by the City as buildings are proposed for undeveloped sites within the park. The staff review therefore focuses on the single-family portions of the site in terms of the general planning and zoning issues,and all of the single-family lots that are being platted as part of the proposed preliminary plat. All other areas of the development are shown as outlots,and therefore will be subject to future subdivision approval. With the approval of the preliminary development plans as submitted,the developer may proceed with final plat approval for the single-family portions of the InWood development. As part of the concept plan review,the City did approve the configuration of uses as shown on the preliminary development plan. This site layout includes the creation of a commercial area that extends approximately 400 feet east of Inwood Avenue and is located between 101h Street and Bch Street. The preliminary plans also mirror the concept plan with the designation of a multi-family for all portions of the site that are south of 5th Street. The other significant development area represents the remainder of the site,which is planned for single-family development. In addition,the plans include a buffer along the eastern boundary of the site that maintains the 100-foot buffer specified for this area in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed land uses and configuration of these uses were deemed to be in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan by the City Council as part of the findings of approval for the concept plan. The applicant has not deviated from the concept plan approval with the preliminary plat and PUD plan submissions. While specific details concerning development within the commercial and multi-family outlots will be provided with future plan submissions,the applicant has provided the required preliminary plans for all site grading,erosion control,grading, storm water management,utilities, streets, sidewalks, landscaping, and other details for the entire development area. These plans will serve as the basis for all future reviews,whether these reviews are for a final plat related to the single family areas of the site or more detailed preliminary development plans for the commercial and multi-family portion of the InWood PUD. The City's overall PUD process has three phases: 1)General Concept Plan, 2)Preliminary Development Plan, and 3)Final Plan. It should be noted that the Planning Commission reviewed the InWood General Concept Plan at meetings conducted on August 251h and September 8 of this year, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A—ACTION ITEM 4 with approval by the City Council at its September 16,2014 meeting with the adoption of Resolution No. 2014-72. Approval of the General Concept Plan allows the applicant to proceed with preparation of preliminary plans, which the applicant has now submitted. Staff has reviewed the approved General Concept Plan and all the conditions associated with the approval. The applicant has also provided a point-by-point response to the conditions of approval,which is included in the application packet provided to the Planning Commission. The applicant has previously explained the rational for requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD)as part of the concept plan application, and Staff has agreed that using the PUD process for the development of this site is reasonable and beneficial for the City in a number of ways, including: • The PUD process allows the City to review the site as a whole instead of dealing with individual development projects that may or may not be connected to each other. • This overall approach allows the City to work with the developer on a series of larger planning and development issues on this site, including determining the appropriate road configurations through this area,the best manner in which to serve not just the applicant's site,but adjacent areas with sewer and water services, and many other connected issues including park dedication,trails,County road improvements, landscaping and buffering and other aspects to site development. • The developer has requested certain exceptions from standard zoning requirements(as allowed through the PUD process)in order to bring forward a unique development that provides a housing option not presently found in Lake Elmo. The resulting project will function similar to a townhouse project,but with all of the homes on individual lots under separate ownership. • The integrated approach allows the developer to plan for common maintenance and upkeep of the areas around individual homes,which further allows for some unique street configurations that will bring open space into a median planting/storm water area within certain streets in the development. • The development proposes a mix of uses and activities across the site that can be integrated as one larger development instead of separate areas. For instance, the planned roads have been designed to provide necessary access to residential and commercial areas while providing for appropriate separation between these uses. • The applicant has previously provided documentation that the development plans are consistent with the City's requirements for consideration of a PUD. In terms of new roads to serve the InWood development,the preliminary plans include the extension of the City's planned 5`h Street minor collector road from the western-most extension of this road through the Boulder Ponds development to the east all the way its eventually termination point at Inwood Avenue. The developer is proposing to build this road as part of the Phase I improvements, and it will serve as the main collector road for moving traffic through the middle portion of the development while providing an important link to the east. The other major road feature, labeled as Street B and Street B-2 on the plans,will provide a north and south connection through the entire site and will eventually provide a link between 10`h Street, 51h Street,and Eagle Point Boulevard and the extreme southern portion of the development. Other local streets will be constructed as the residential lots are platted or in conjunction with future plans for multi-family and commercial development. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A—ACTION ITEM 5 The other major features of the InWood Preliminary PUD Plans include the creation of a new park area immediately to the west of the existing Stonegate Park in the southeastern portion of the development; an extensive trail system providing access throughout the internal portions of the development, a site-wide storm water infiltration system that is intended to comply with South Washington Watershed District requirements, and the use of center medians within individual neighborhoods to provide common green space within the local street system. The applicant has also submitted a concept plan for the use of Outlot P in the northwestern portion of the site in response to the Planning Commissions request for additional gathering space in this area. The InWood planned development is located within Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area,and pubic water and sewer services are presently available to the site via connections to the Eagle Point Business Park. The City's Comprehensive Plan calls for installation of a public water trunk line to bring water down to this area from the north that will also provide connections to City of Lake Ehno water system for the other near-by developments to the east. PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES Because the Planning Commission has previously received a significant amount of information along with the concept plan for the Inwood PUD and spent several hours over the course of two meetings reviewing this information, Staff will therefore focus on those aspects of the plans that have been changed or updated since the City's concept plan approval,along with a general summary of the PUD request as submitted by the applicant of the current report. Other general issues are noted as well. As required by the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances,the applicant has provided a much greater amount of information as part of the current submission than is required for a Concept. Because of this, Staff will not attempt to spell out every single change or update from the concept plan,but instead will provide a summary of the most significant changes that have been made to address specific comments from the Commission as follows: • All multi-family development is located south of 5't' Street,and the area previously planned for multi-family housing in the extreme northwest portion of the site has been changed to commercial development. These units have been eliminated from the plans and resulted in a fairly significant drop to the overall site density. • The southeastern corner has been reconfigured to provide a larger park area adjacent to the Stonegate Park. The general park concept layout is consistent with a plan that was presented by the applicant during the concept plan review. • The portion of 51h Street extending to the east and south of the applicants' site has been reconfigured to avoid any additional right-of-way acquisition from Bremer Bank. • Sidewalks have been added to both sides of"Street B"per the recommendation of the Planning Commission. • Any lots that were encroaching into the required 100-foot buffer area between InWood and Stonegate have been moved to comply with this requirement. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A—ACTION ITEM 6 • In response to the Planning Commission request for additional small park in the northwest corner of the development the developer has submitted a concept for Outlot P(Street N)that shows how this area could be used for public gathering space associated amenities. The applicant has accurately pointed out that the City's reviewing bodies did have differences of opinions concerning the size and most appropriate improvement for this area. • As a response to a specific condition of approval,the developer has proposed specific design considerations for the single family homes. These standards will be incorporated as part of the City approval. There are other aspects of the development plans that were discussed by the Planning Commission but that have not been changed based on the City Council's direction to have the Commission reconsider these items as part of its preliminary development plan review. Please refer to the attached minutes for the specific Council direction on these review items. These specific development items include the following: • The plans as submitted do not incorporate sidewalks on the interior loop roads throughout the subdivision. The developer has provided a response to this Condition in the application packet(Page 6 of Exhibit A), and has explained how these particular streets have been designed to accommodate pedestrians safely. In particular,the applicant stated that these streets have been designed to slow traffic,provide space for guest parking in a location that reduces conflict points,promote clear sight lines along the road,reduce or eliminate cut- through traffic, soften the landscape with plantings in the median,and minimize the distance to sidewalk and trails that connect to the broader trail network within and outside the development. • The lots at the end of the Streets E,F,and H have been left in a configuration that follows the concept plan submission. The applicant again has provided a response to the concept plan condition of approval as noted on Page 7 of Exhibit A in their PUD application materials. The applicant has specifically stated in this response that making this change would require pushing the lots back towards the boundary with Stonegate instead of maintaining a more substantial buffer than otherwise required to preserve the existing landscaping in this area. Staff would also like to point out that the resulting lots at the end of the curve are actually very similar in size to the"designer" lots in the southern portion of the development. As depicted on the InWood preliminary plat,the designer lots range in size from 8,346 to 11,931 square feet while the lots at the end of the loop roads in the eastern portion of the site range in size from 8,800 square feet to 10,754 square feet. Please note that all of the lots at the end of these cul-de-sacs meet the minimize lot size requirements of the City's LDR Zoning Districts For all practical purposes,there is not a lot of differentiation,if any,between these two types of lots in terms of size,and the applicant has indicated that making these lots larger will have the unintended consequence of impacting the existing landscape buffer. • The applicant has accurately noted that the County does not have plans for trails along either Inwood Avenue or I0`h Street as part of its long-range plans,and has therefore not included such trails as part of the preliminary development plans. After discussing this matter with the County, Staff does not object to the applicant's position concerning trails along and within the County right-of-way,but would like to note that the City's trail plan does include a connection from the intersection of 10`h and Inwood through this development to the east. Staff is recommending that as a condition of approval for the preliminary PUD plans,that the PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A—ACTION ITEM preliminary development plans be updated to include a trail connection either along Inwood Avenue from 1 Oth Street to either 5th Street or to the planned trail segment along 9th Street or a trail connection along 1 Oth Street that connects Street B and the trail to the east to Inwood Avenue. The applicant has provided a detailed summary and response to all other conditions of approval that addresses the City's previous review comments, along with a line-by-line response to the application submission requirements for this type of request. Staff has reviewed this information and found that it is an accurate response to the various development requirements and conditions of concept plan approval. The InWood development includes a request for a Planned Unit Development and some related flexibility as permitted under this ordinance. In order to grant a PUD,an applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with the City's PUD applicant requirements and PUD Objectives. These requirements and objectives are spelled out in the attached PUD Narrative provided by the applicant, along a response for each item.For the most part,the single family portion of the development is consistent with the zoning requirements for the City's LDR—Low Density Residential Zoning District, with the exceptions that were discussed during the concept plan review and are summarized as follows: Setback LDR Zoning District(Min.) Inwood PUD (Min.) Front Yard 25 feet 20 feet Interior Side Yard 10 Feet Principal Structure 4 Feet Side/5 Feet Garage Side Rear Yard 20 feet 20 feet Lot Area 8,000 square feet 4,250 square feet Lot Depth N/A 110 feet Lot Width 60 feet 38 feet All other requirements for the City's LDR zoning district will apply, including the allowed uses and other site and development standards. Please note that the above table includes some minor modifications from the numbers proposed by the developer and are being recommended by Staff in order to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to construct the subdivision as proposed. The purpose of this table is to document the minimum expectation for lots and homes in the development,and is otherwise consistent with the development plans. Staff is also recommended numbers that will allow for minor revisions to various site planning issues that have been identified by Staff,including wetland buffers,provision of adequate storm water infiltration areas, and road adjustments that are necessary for the development to comply with all applicable City development and engineering standards. For instance,the City is requesting that all wetland buffers be contained within an outlot and not spill over on to private properties. The developer should be able to address this review comment by making small adjustments to the property boundaries in these portions of the site to that the actual on site conditions will not necessarily need to be changed. The application packet provided by the applicant provides a fairly detailed response to the City's PUD Ordinance requirements for a preliminary development plan,and Staff will not be providing PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A—ACTION ITEM i 8 much more in terms of further analysis for this information,but would like to specifically comment on the following aspects of the plan: • The City's PUD requirements require that 20%of the project area not within street rights-of- way must be preserved as open space(and the ordinance specifically allows infiltration areas to be counted towards this amount). The applicant has provided a specific plan as part of the application materials that demonstrates that over 30%of the site, including roads, will be open space. • While the proposed lot dimensional standards listed above are lower than those required in the LDR zoning district,the applicant has proposed a preliminary plan that includes a mixture of lot sizes and widths throughout the development, including"designer lots" in the southeast portion of the site that will predominately comply with the LDR district standards. The overall breakdown of lot widths is listed in the development application as follows: o 16%of lots are 38 feet in width o 53%are 50 feet in width o 16%are 58 feet in width o 15%are 65 feet in width With the provision of open space as note above and even with the smaller lot sizes that have been proposed,this development falls within the lower end of the range allowed for low density residential development in the City Comprehensive Plan. • The PUD applicant materials include a specific zoning and phasing plan for the project. As noted in the previous Staff report concerning this matter,the base zoning will be established at the time the final plat is recorded for the entire development(the specific land use areas will not be established as separate outlots until this time). The Zoning for the property will be split between LDR,HDR—High Density Residential,and C—Commercial consistent with the corresponding land uses on the applicant's plans. The Phasing Plan divides the single family area into four distinct phases, starting with the neighborhoods immediately adjacent and north of 5'h Street. As noted earlier,the phase 1 area includes the construction of 5`h Street across the entire development site. There is no time frame established for the construction of any buildings or public improvements within the commercial or multi-family portions of the site. The overall site plan for the property follows the adopted concept plan very closely. Staff has conducted a review of the detailed plat and plans and specific comments from Staff concerning these plans are listed in the following section of this report. The following is a general summary of the subdivision design elements that have proposed as part of the InWood preliminary plat and plans: Zoning and Site Information: • Existing Zoning: RT—Rural Development Transitional District • Proposed Zoning: LDR,MDR and C • Total Site Area: 157.2 acres • Total Residential Units: 539 (275 single family, 264 multi-family per PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A—ACTION ITEM 9 development plans) • Proposed Density(Net): Single Family—3.0 units per acre Multi-family—9.1 units per acre Proposed Lot Dimensional Standards through Planned Unit Development Process: • As listed above Proposed Street Standards: • ROW Width—Local 60 ft. (per Subdivision Ordinance) • ROW Width—Minor Collector 100 ft. (Engineering Standard) • ROW Width—Loop Roads 40 ft. (one way segment with median) • Street Widths—Local: 28 ft. (per City standard) • Street Widths—Loop Roads 24 ft. (one way) The standards listed above are all either in compliance with the applicable requirements from the City's zoning and subdivision regulations, or are consistent with requested modifications through the proposed planned unit development(PUD). Based on Staffs review of the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan,the applicant has generally demonstrated compliance with the majority of the applicable codes, and the requested modifications or flexibilities as allowed under the City's PUD Ordinance represent a reasonable request given the various design goals the applicant it trying to achieve. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS City Staff has reviewed the InWood preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan. In general,the proposed plat will meet all applicable City requirements for conditional approval, and any deficiencies or additional modifications that are needed are noted as part of the review record. In addition,the City has received a detailed list of comments from the City Engineer, the Fire Chief and the City's Landscape Consultant, Stephen Mastey, all of which are attached for consideration by the Commission. In addition to the general comments that have been provided in the preceding sections of this report, Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the following review comments as well: Critical Path Issues: • Water Tower. The City's water supply plan,last updated as part of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update, indicates that a water tower is necessary to serve this area in order to provide adequate water system operations to serve the additional units(both commercial and residential REC units)within the proposed development area. Although the Comprehensive Plan does identify a water tower southwest of the 101h Street and Inwood Avenue intersection of the applicant's property,the land owner has been negotiating with the City to identify a location for this water tower on land they presently own north of I O`h Street. At this point, there is a general agreement in place for the City to acquire land roughly midway between 15`" Street and 10`h Street and adjacent to Inwood Avenue, which would allow the City to construct the tower with the other planned water improvements in the area. As noted during the concept plan review,the location of the tower will need to be finalized prior to the platting of any property within the PUD project area. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A—ACTION ITEM 10 • S"'Street. The applicant has submitted plans for 5`h Street that comply with the location for this road as depicted in the City's transportation plan. As the Planning Commission has seen with other projects in the area,transition from InWood to Boulder Ponds by the Bremer Bank facility and Stonegate Park has previously been identified as a pinch point and an extremely difficult transition area for this segment of the road. In balancing the needs and expectations of all impacted parties,while also adhering to the road alignment as previously approved by the City,the developer has submitted plans that avoid any further impacts to Bremer's property while keeping the curve somewhat tighter to minimize impacts to Stonegate Park and the new park area adjacent to Stonegate. The curve as proposed would reduce the intended design speed for 5'h Street through this area;however,both the applicant and Bremer Bank have stated that they would prefer this solution to a higher deign speed. Should the proposed design be found to be problematic as planning for 51h Street continues into the final plat submission,the City will still be able to continuing working with the applicant and neighboring property owners on an acceptable solution. As noted below,the applicant has also agreed to modify the preliminary plan to eliminate two of the existing access points on to 5"'Street,which will also help ensure that that the proposed design will serve the intended function of the road. Staff is recommending that the plans as submitted be approved for InWood,with the understanding that additional conversations with the affected property owners and the results of any further analysis will be taken into consideration as the developer's plans are finalized for their entire segment. Other Issues: • City Engineer Comments. The City Engineer has submitted a detailed list of comments that will need be addressed prior to the City's approval of final development plans for this property. None of the comments represent a critical concern(other than the ones noted above)that will not be able to be addressed by the applicant as they finalize the development plans for the site, and most of the comments are requesting technical revisions to ensure compliance with the City's engineering and development standards. Of particular note,the City Engineer has requested a realignment of Street N around Outlot P to meet the City's required geometrics and is asking that all wetland buffers and the high water level of storm water infiltration ponds be located on publicly owned outlots. • Sewer and Water. The City will be extending water down Inwood Avenue to serve the urban service areas along the I-94 Corridor as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Prior to the completion of this water project,the InWood development will be served under the City's current agreement with the City of Oakdale. The water main project is expected to be completed in 2015. The developer will also be required to install sewer service throughout the project area,and the City Engineer has asked that the preliminary plans be updated to accommodate the oversizing necessary to provide adequate service levels within and adjacent to this development. The developer has provided a general response to the City Engineer's comments,and will continue working with the City Engineer to ensure that the final design accommodates the City's service needs for the entire area. • Environmental Review. The public comment period for the InWood EAW was completed on October 29, 2014. The City received six letters from commenting agencies,and based on the comments received, Staff agrees with the developer that none of the comments provided represent a significant environmental issue that could not otherwise be addressed through the City's review and approval process. The City Council will be considering the EAW comments at its December 2,2014 meeting, and will be asked to consider a resolution PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A—ACTION ITEM 11 finding no need to perform an EIS(Environmental Impact Statement)at this time. The developer is also working on a response to the comments that will be included with the Council resolution. • Design Standards. The Planning Commission requested the inclusion of residential design standards as part of the PUD approval. The developer has proposed specific design standards for the residential homes as listed in the PUD Narrative and response to conditions of approval. • Trails. In order to help better illustrate the location of all trails and sidewalks planned within the development the developer has submitted a specific color plan illustrating the location of these improvements throughout the project area. Staff would like to noted that although the developer is not planned to install any trails beyond those shown along Inwood Avenue and 10'h Street,the City's Trail Plan does depict a City trail extending from this intersection to the City's wide trail network to the south and east of this area. Based on this plan, Staff is recommending that the preliminary development plans be updated to include a trail connection either along Inwood Avenue from 10'h Street to either 5`h Street or to the planned trail segment along 9th Street or a trail connection along 10th Street that connects Street B and the trail to the east to Inwood Avenue. o Trail Adjacent to Wetland. In response to comments from the City Engineer,the applicant will need to either move the planned north/south tail through Park 1 further to the west around an existing wetland area or will need to work with the South Washington Watershed District to design a multi-purpose trail through the buffer area that complies with the watershed district's requirements. • Sidewalks. The developer has provided a sidewalk along both sides of Street B in response to the concept plan review comments from the City. The developer's response to other sidewalk issues are noted elsewhere in this report. • Washington County Review. The City has received an updated set of comments from the County that mirror its review of the concept plan. The developer will need to prepare plans for the intersection of Inwood Avenue and Sth Street and Street B and 1 Oth Street that comply with the County's requirements for intersection improvements at these intersections. Staff is recommending that a condition of approval note that the City and developer will need to determine the appropriate cost sharing for these required improvements as part of a development agreement for the Phase 1 and Phase 3 development areas. The County is also asking for additional right-of-way to be platted along 1 Oth Street;the final plat will need to incorporate the County's requirements for right-of-way in this portion of the plat. • 5"'Street Access. Staff is recommending that access to 5`' Street from Streets D2 and the southeast park be eliminated from the development plans in order to bring the proposed spacing into conformance with the City's access spacing guidelines. Staff is requesting that the developer continue working with the City to determine the most appropriate access into and out of the southeast park area. Staff is encouraging the inclusion of a connecting road between the park area and Outlot C in the approximately location of Lot 4,Block 7 on the preliminary plat. • Zoning. Staff will bring forward the appropriate zoning map amendments for consideration once the applicant has submitted a final plat for the first phase of the development. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A—ACTION ITEM 12 • Wetlands. The wetlands identified on the site are being protected from development. The City Engineer has requested that the applicant keep all buffer areas around these wetlands on publicly owned property. • Landscape Plan Review/Tree Preservation. The City's Landscape Architect has completed an initial review of the proposed landscape plan and tree preservation plan, and his review comments are attached. The developer has been asked to provide additional documentation to verify that the eastern evergreen trees would be exempt from the City's replacement requirements. • Park Dedication. The applicant has indicated that 12.2%of the overall land area planned for single family development will be dedicated as public parkland,which exceeds the City's requirement for land dedication for this type of use. The City will need to work with the developer to account for the multi-family and commercial park land calculations as part of any future development agreements for the project. • Phasing. The developer will be constructing all of 5�h Street and roughly one-third of the single-family lots as part of Phase 1. The applicant will need to enter into a development contract with the City related to the improvements necessary to service this development. • Fire Chief Comments. Comments from the Fire Chief are attached for consideration by the Planning Commission. These comments will be taken into account as the final construction plans are being reviewed by the City. Other Comments: • Subdivision Requirements. The City's Subdivision Ordinance includes a fairly lengthy list of standards that must be met by all new subdivisions, and include requirements for blocks, lots, easements, erosion and sediment control, drainage systems,monuments, sanitary sewer and water facilities, streets,and other aspects of the plans. Many of these requirements have been addressed as part of the City Engineer's review memo(which is summarized below). After reviewing the proposed plat and PUD plan, Staff has not found any aspect of the plat that conflict with these requirements. • Comprehensive Plan. With the elimination of the multi-family area in the northwest portion of the site,the overall densities proposed within both the single-family area and multi-family area are very much in line with the City's future land use plan. In this case,the Low Density Residential land use allows for residential densities at 2.5 to 3.99 units per acre and the applicant has proposed a net density of 3.0 units per acre. For the multi-family area,the developer is indicating that these densities will fall in the range of 8.4 to 9.1 units per acre, which is well within the Comprehensive Plan guidance of 7.5 to 15 units per acre. • Buffer Area. The preliminary development plans indicate that no residential parcels will encroach into the required 100-foot buffer area between Stonegate and the InWood PUD. There are several locations in which the developer is providing a larger buffer area than required,with some areas as wide as 230 feet. • Street Names. The final plat will need to incorporate street names per the direction of the Planning Department. • Shoreland Ordinance. The preliminary development plans have been designed to comply with the City's Shoreland Management Overlay District. The specific development plans PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A—ACTION ITEM 13 that are subject to Shoreland regulations will need to be reviewed with any future development proposals for these site. • Watershed District Review. Staff has not received any comments from the South Washington Watershed District concerning the InWood PUD. The development will need to comply with watershed district regulations and permitting requirements as the project moves forward for construction. • Theming. Staff has distributed the Branding and Theming Study completed by Damon Farber and Associates to the applicants previously. In finalizing a 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. Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan with 15 conditions intended to address the outstanding issues noted above and to further clarify the City's expectations in order for the developer to move forward with a final plat and final PUD plan. The recommended conditions are divided into two categories to better communicate the purpose and intent of the conditions. The recommended conditions are as follows: Recommended Conditions of Approval. Pending Review and Approvals 1) The applicant shall work with Community Development Director to name all streets in the subdivision in a manner acceptable to the City prior to the submission of final plat. 2) The City and the applicant shall reach an agreement concerning the location and dedication of land associated with the proposed water necessary to provide adequate water service to the InWood project area prior to the acceptance of a final plat for any portion of the PUD area. 3) The preliminary landscape plan shall be updated to address the review comments from the City's landscape architecture consultant as noted in a review letter dated November 18,2014. 4) Prior to the submission of a final plat for any portion of the InWood PUD,the developer shall work with the City to determine the appropriate park dedication calculations for the entire development area. 5) As part of any development agreement that includes improvements to one of the adjacent County State Aid Highways(CSAH 13 and I O b Street),the City and the developer shall determine the appropriate responsibility for the cost of these improvements. 6) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat,and said plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site. 7) The applicant shall continue to work with the City on the final design of 5"' Street,and in particular,the transition from the InWood PUD to properties located further to the east (including the Boulder Ponds development and land owned by Bremer Financial Services). PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A—ACTION ITEM 14 8) The utility construction plans shall be updated to incorporate the recommendations of the City Engineer concerning the appropriate location and size of sewer services through the PUD planning area,including any requested oversizing of these facilities to service adjacent properties. Modifications to the Prelintinary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plaits 9) The proposed public street access to 51h Street from Streets D2 and the southeast park area (Park 1)shall be eliminated from the preliminary development plans in order to bring the proposed spacing into conformance with the City's access spacing guidelines. Staff is requesting that the developer continue working with the City to determine the most appropriate access into and out of the southeast park area. 10)All center median planting areas as depicted on the preliminary plat and plans shall be owned by the City of Lake Elmo and maintained by the Home Owners Association. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park, trails, or open space on the final plat. 11)The applicant must either move the planned north/south tail through Park 1 further to the west around an existing wetland area located approximately 400 feet south of 10"' Street or will need to work with the South Washington Watershed District to design a multi-purpose trail through the buffer area that complies with all applicable watershed district's requirements. 12)The Final Plat and Plans must address the requested modifications outlined in the City Engineer's review memorandum dated November 16,2014. 13)The applicant shall be responsible for updating the final construction plans to include the construction of all improvements within County rights-of-way as required by Washington County and further described in the review letter received from the County dated November 17,2014. Plat Restrictions 14)Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat,the Developer shall enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that delineates who is responsible for the design, construction,and payment of public improvements. 15)The developer must follow all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act,and adhere to the conditions of approval for the South Washington Watershed District Permit. DRAFT FINDINGS Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed InWood preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan: • That the InWood PUD General Concept Plan was approved by the City on September 16, 2014,and the submitted Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan is consistent with the approved General Concept Plan. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A—ACTION ITEM 15 • That the InWood preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan are consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. • That the InWood preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan generally complies with the City's LDR-Urban Low Density Residential and MDR—Urban Medium Density Residential zoning districts. • That the InWood preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with the City's subdivision ordinance. • That the InWood preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with the City's Planned Unit Development Regulations. • That the InWood preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with City's Engineering Standards,except where noted in the review memorandum from the City Engineer dated 11/16/14. • That the InWood preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan comply with other City zoning ordinances, such as landscaping,tree preservation,and erosion and sediment control. • That the InWood preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan achieve multiple identified objectives for planned developments within Lake Elmo. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the InWood Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan with the 15 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. Suggested motion: "Move to recommend approval of the In Wood Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan with the 15 conditions of approval as drafted by Staff based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report" ATTACHMENTS: 1. InWood PUD Application Booklet a. PUD Plans b. Application Forms c. PUD Narrative d. Open Space Plan e. Plat Narrative f. Preliminary Plat g. Grading Plan h. Utility Plan i. Landscape Plan j. HOA Documents PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A—ACTION ITEM 16 2. Park"N"Concept 3. City Engineer Review Memorandum, dated 11/16/14 4. Fire Chief Review Memorandum,dated I I/17/14 5. Landscape Consultant Review Memorandum,dated 11/18/14 6. Washington County Review Memorandum,dated 11/17/14 7. City Council Meeting Minutes—Excerpt from 9/16/14 Meeting 8. Not Included in Packet—Available Upon Request: a. Storm Water Management Plan ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction........................................................................................Planning Staff - Report by Staff...................................................................................Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission............................Chair& Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing..................................................................................Chair - Close the Public Hearing..................................................................................Chair - Discussion by the Commission..............................Chair&Commission Members - Action by the Commission.....................................Chair&Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A—ACTION ITEM Inwood Preliminary Plat and PUD Preliminary Plan Applications Table of Contents 1. PUD Plan 2. Applications 3. PUD Narrative 4. Open Space Plan 5. Plat Narrative 6. Preliminary Plat 7. Grading Plan 8. Utility Plan 9. Landscape Plan 10. HOA Document - a 4 ��f r1�11• '•'f ' I \�O ru 1 �,�� p. ,r4•�td ,# i O �n r✓.Hxl1,.'2' 3 jJig ,` - _ ,� •/ 0 I 312 w O ` 11• Vza. L O �, ,. •_� t t �r5 o w _ c CL w i •t �O t R e 1 .ft Ziai% rV w r 1 1 .v• o vY rya � •� ;�+ ;' . , ' ./ , � o �U d9 II l �� ..lT .. _ ,mot �`-- tZ K .1 71 1 Ji Lo Lu r. rill N YON9AN OOOAINI 'N MDa,5Y OOOAINI Ii E / * Ole .oeo++�+.+���+++, .."` `�ss+.+•�v+ +.�+:� : .�... -.._:77f r f ------ • e r ' 1 f . • � i i � 1 • ��`•�a I � I ------------ - j t • ' t r 1 • t 1 t , r , .," i ` f •� t 1 � N � � I ' L � L ti rlaq W ,i, , ., ;�- !iili!1' i � _- c• �Y .4�% � '*M� � ���� ��� jar •--� • � �-�� � •'> • .61 I A lk? _.► cl 4 f; •may / �1 Aj � N N`� / . c .T r � y . t. - il . 4 L �� u N n e6 IL Egkx 4 u�>sLiS �n� w. I . a � oa E // �.?!� CD I N W -- t j r E 0 , =ai}f ea •_ 8 $aA Date Received: _ Tt-►t_ CITY of 651-747-3900 Received By: LAKE F L M O 3800 Laverne Avenue North LU File#: Lake Brro, MN 55042 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION Applicant: r Address; qt>/ :r I,,:;, _ Phone#; S" 4 0 2- ` Email Address: -)-a a Goes-,. Fee Owner: Address: IS' Phone#: Email Address; Property Location (Address and Complete(long)Legal Description: A.)Z -7 General information of proposed subdivision: S40S Conducted pre-application meeting with Staff? Yes ® No In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application procedures and hereby agree to pay all stat/ mments received the City pertaining to additional application expense. Signature of applicant- ~J Date: �� 7 Signature of Fee Owner ----Date: S:\FORMS\Plonning Dept Fcims-Permits-Forms (.U1Tet1t\Prelial7inary Plat Ahpli(atloll ojily 10.7.l J.doc—.< Revised 311012014 2:31 PN Lake Elmo City Hall ri IF Ca-ry OF 651-747-3900 L,n K E E L,M 0 3800 Laveme Avenue Nash Lakeemo, MN 55042 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application, I have read and understand the instructions supplied for processing this application. The documents and/or information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and of the progress of this application. I understand that this application may be reviewed by City staff and consultants. I further understand that additional information, including, but not limited to, traffic analysis and expert testimony may be required for review of this application. I agree to pay to the City upon demand, expenses, determined by the City, that the City incurs in reviewing this application and shall provide an escrow deposit to the City in an amount to be determined by the City. Said expenses shall include, but are not limited to, staff time, engineering, legal expenses and other consultant expenses, I agree to allow access by City personnel to the property for purposes of review of my application. Signature of applicant -_.. �% / Date Name of applicant ,�Sa�., Phone `?G 3' ',5'Sr41p 7.,1-® Z (Please Print) Name and address of Contact (if other than applicant) Revised 9/11/2013 3:04 PM i I I Lake Elmo City Hall i 'I•l 11:CITY OI; 651-747-3900 I A K��', ,!,l._AVIO 3800 L�vareAgecx l�cxlh I dKeEhm,MN 56642 i i'tf"FIR1UATION OF IJFFICl�`IVT INTERES7' I i hereby affirm that t am the fee title owner of the below described property or that f have written authorization hom the owner to pursue the described action. j i fee {�ji.•;, y..._ r f �'r �.` ,G.f`�' Name of-applicant_ (Please Print) Street address/legal description of subject properly f I ' Signature 13 to I 1 If you are not the fee owner,attach another copy of this form which has been colnpteted by the fee owner or a copy of your authorization to p�irsde this action, + If a Corporation is fee title'Bolder,attach a copy of(lie resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing this i action, If a joint venture or p,artne.rstiip is the fee owner, Mach a copy of agreement authorizing this ciclion on i behalf of the joint velitUTO or partnership, I Pevise d 9110013 304 N Date Received: THE CITY OF 651-747-3900 Received By: LA K E ELLMO 3800 Lamm Avenue North Permit#: Lake Ebro, M N 55042 LA ND APPLICATION ❑ Comprehensive Plan ❑ Zoning District Amend ❑ Zoning Text Amend ❑ Variance*(see below) ❑ Zoning Appeal ❑ Conditional Use Permit(C.U.P.) ❑ Flood Plain C.U.P. ❑ Interim Use Permit(W.P.) ❑ Excavating/Grading ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Residential Subdivision Sketch/Concept Plan ❑ PUD Concept Plan A.PUD Preliminary Plan ❑ PUD Final Plan i Applicant: AL d 4A Address: /V / 1 /C'u1. �ivi�• Sao Phone# _76.�"— 6—7,3.o 2— Email Address:,_An&s le cor.� Fee Owner A t� n o d /0 4.44 ' Phone# 4S/ _ f� b 0'7L Email Address: `i e 4�c�.^? Property Location(Address and Complete(long)Legal Description: 1 J i Detailed Reason for Request: sae q.(rf�G e� 'Variance Requests: As outlined in Section 301.060 C.of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code,the applicant must demonstrate practical difficulties before a variance)can be granted. The practical difficulties related to this application are as follows: In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning ordinance and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the City pertaining to additional application expense. Signature of applican: ` " - __Date:_ / Signature of fee owner: Date: 'l vir:1 r1'I'Y or- I AKE ELMO Lake Elmo City Hall 651-747-3900 3800 Lawne Avenue Wh i Lakeen,MN 55042 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY ! I This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. j I have read and understand the instructions supplied for processing this application. The documents and/or information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and of the progress of this application. I understand that this application may be reviewed by City staff and consultants. I further understand that additional information, including, but not limited to, traffic analysis and expert testimony may be required for review of this application. I agree to pay to the City upon demand, expenses, determined by the City, that j the City incurs in reviewing this application and shall provide an escrow deposit to the City in an amount to be determined by the City. Said expenses shall include, but are not limited to, staff time, engineering, legal expenses and other consultant expenses. I agree to allow access by City personnel to the property for purposes of review of my application, Signature of applicant Date _ Name of applicant Phone 76-7 7-117Z--- (Please Print) Name and address of Contact(if other than applicant) _— Rev�se6 3/13/2014 9:11 AM I Ti I[-: CITY OF T A K E ELMO Lake Elmo City Hall 651-747-3900 3800 Laveme Avenue North LakeElrro, MN 55042 i AFFIRMATION OF SUFFICIENT INTEREST i I hereby affirm that I am the fee title owner of the below described property or that I have written authorization from the owner to pursue the described action. Name of applicant I �44- (Please Print) Street address/legal description of subject property__ I Signature Date If you are not the fee owner, attach another copy of this form which has been completed by the fee owner or a copy of your authorization to pursue this action. If a corporation is fee title holder, attach a copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing this action. If a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner, attach a copy of agreement authorizing this action on behalf of the joint venture or partnership, Revised 3/13/2014 9:12 AM I i Lake Elnio City Hall ( '1111; GITY OF 651.747.3900 I AK l_ M0 3860(a�ttleAvewehhth 1'y 14ef im,PAN 55042 asRs I 1 AFFIRMATION OF SUrFICIDVT AIl'rr"REST I hereby affirm that I am the fee title owner of the below described property or that I have written 81.IthOriz8 �001)from the owner to pursue the described action. �vTr d ) `r Name of applleant__ _"�! 'ems' '.'MX`ry�� < C. �r,,✓+,f, — -- (Please Prii1t) Street addressllegai description of subject property r ' �'�.._v� '�>•,• �' '?: 1 � ' i 1 Signature pate if you are not the fn owrier,attach another copy of this form which has been completed by the fee owner or.a copy of your authorization to pursue this action. If a corporation is fee title holder,attach a Copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing this action. If a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner,attach a copy of agreement authorizing this action on behalf of the joint venture or partnership. I i r;eehed 011112313 3:04 P1 i PUD Preliminai-,y Plan Application InWood 'Village — Single Family HoRne Narrative October 10, 2014 The City's PUD Preliminary PUD application requests the following information: • A written statement generally describing the proposed PUD and the market which it is intended to serve and its demand showing its relationship to the City's Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed PUD is designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable regulations of the City. " I The proposed single family neighborhood is intended to serve an empty nester and young professional demographic that desires maintenance fee living in a single family home. The City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies a density range of 2.5 to 3.99 units per acre for the single family portion of the neighborhood. The InWood PUD has a gross density of 2.7 units per acre,and a net density(gross land area—park)of 3.0 units per acre. The Housing Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan outlines objectives for providing �' P J P ng a variety of housing choices in the City. The Housing Element of the Plan also provides a strategyof preserving open space b focusing the future j P g P P Y g growth in the I-94 Corridor. InWood provides a choice of housing not currently available, and is located within the I- 94 Corridor. The Housing Element further states that, "In the future, the City would like to encourage the development of life-cycle, workforce, and rental housing." Goal number 3 of the Housing Element on page IV-6 states that, "the City must strive to attract and develop a greater variety of housing that suits the needs of seniors...." The InWood neighborhood would advance the goals of the Housing Element by providing a type of housing not currently available in Lake Elmo, including housing that would serve the needs of seniors. The arrangement of the neighborhood and the variety of housing is consistent with the City's Land Use Plan. The City's Land Use Plan identifies a mix of low density housing, I. high density housing, and commercial on this particular property. • A statement of the proposed financing of the PUD. InWood would be financed privately. We are not requesting any financial assistance,nor asking the City to finance and assess any of the proposed development, including the construction of 5`" Street. Hans Hagen Hanes will design, finance, and construct 5`" Street through the project site. 1 • Statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed for the PUD and a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres and as a percent of the total project area, which shall include at least the following: i. Area devoted to residential use by building type; Single Family= 102.9 acres. Future Commercial=23.4 acres. Future High Density Residential= 30.8. ii. Area devoted to common open space; 29 acres of open space in Single Family Area. (48.8 acres of open space for entire neighborhood.) iii.Area devoted to public open space and public amenities; 12.58 acres of parkland in Single Family neighborhood. i 1.76 acres in future multi-family area. iv.Approximate area devoted to, and number of, off-street parking and loading spaces and related access; j Each home will have a minimum of a two car garage with adequate parking for at least two cars in each driveway. The commercial and multi-family uses shown on the plan are conceptual. A detailed site plan, including parking lot layout,will be provided once specific buildings and tenants are identified. v. Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to commercial uses; Future commercial uses would occupy approximately 23.4 acres, and would include 90,870 square feet of commercial. Some of these buildings could be office as permitted under the commercial zoning of the property. vi. Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to industrial or office use; None of the commercial buildings are identified exclusively for office at this time; however, it's likely that some of the buildings would contain some office uses. • When the proposed PUD includes increases in density of residential development above the base zoning district, a statement describing the site amenities to be included within i the PUD, and demonstrating that the proposed site amenities sufficiently achieve the desired density bonus. Applicant is required to demonstrate that all site amenity .standards have been met in order to be awarded increased density for residential i development. 2 i I The single family portion of the PUD is at a gross density of 2.7 units per acre and a net density of 3.0 units/acre. The density is below the 3.99 permitted by the Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, no density bonus is necessary. • When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending beyond a j single construction season, a schedule for the development of such stages or units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each such stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space and dwelling units to be provided or constructed during each such state and overall chronology of development to be followed from stage to stage. See attached Phasing Plan. i • When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common open.space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open space or service facilities. Included with this application is a draft of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Easements that provide for the care and maintenance of open space areas of the single family neighborhood, including the infiltration areas. The future commercial and ! multi-family areas would be responsible for maintenance of their respective open space areas. • Any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to property included in the proposed PUD. Included with this application is a draft of the Declaration of Covenants,Conditions, j Restrictions and Easements that cover the single family neighborhood. Section 154.801 PUD Objections Section 154.801 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the City should consider whether one or more of the objectives Listed below is being achieved when approving a Planned Unit Development. A. Innovation in land development techniques that may be more suitable for a given parcel than conventional approaches. The City's Land Use Guide Plan calls for a mix of uses on the InWood property. The inWood PUD arranges commercial,multi-family and single family uses in a manner that provides for appropriate vehicle access,pedestrian connections, and transitions between uses. Berms, water fcatures,public parks,opens spaces, and landscaping will establish transitions between different land uses. The PUD also incorporates low impact development street designs that provide for enhanced storm water management. B. Promotion of integrated land uses, allowing for a mixture of residential, commercial, and public facilities. 3 i The single family lots are located north of proposed 50' Street on the east side of the neighborhood. A public park is established between the single family homes and the Stonegate development. The west side of the property adjacent to Inwood Avenue is planned for commercial uses. Significant water features,berms,and landscaping lie between the single family and the multifamily/commercial uses. The requested PUD provides for the integration of these compatible land uses. C. Provision of more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space, recreational amenities and other public facilities than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development techniques. The InWood neighborhood incorporates a variety of open space and recreational amenities. The park on the cast side of the neighborhood provides open space adjacent to the Stonegate development, as well as a trail connection to existing Stonegate public park. The park and trail system extends through the neighborhood to the commercial district of InWood. Trails and sidewalks are also provided along 5th Street with connections to the linear park. The Preliminary PUD also includes additional public parkland to expand the Stonegate park,as well as a park south of 5th Street for use and enjoyment of residents in the multi- family portion of the neighborhood. The park south of 51h Street will also serve the adjacent commercial development providing a location for workers to enjoy a walk or lunch in the park. D. Accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to employment opportunities and/or commercial facilities; and especially to create additional opportunities for senior and affordable housing. i The InWood neighborhood provides convenient access to existing employment opportunities located in the adjacent Eagle Point Office Park,as well as nearby locations i in Oakdale, Woodbury,and Lake Elmo. As discussed earlier,the neighborhood will provide a variety of housing types including: townhouses, multifamily, senior,and single family homes. E. Preservation and enhancement of important environmental features through careful and .sensitive placement of buildings and fiacilities. The property consists almost entirely of tilled agricultural fields and contains no significant environmental features. The trees along the east property line will be saved and incorporated into the park. i F. Preservation of historic buildings, structures or landscape features. "There are no historic buildings or significant landscape features found on the property. G. Coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility within the development and surrounding land uses. 4 i i As discussed above,the purpose of the PUD is to provide for the appropriate mixing and integration of land uses. The architecture of the single family homes will be controlled through standards imposed by Hans Hagen Homes. The opportunity for the buyer to choose from a variety of architectural styles, features,colors,and materials will create i visual interest and establish the unique neighborhood character of 1nWood. f { Final building plans for the commercial or multi-family properties will be completed as I specific projects are identified. Future buildings on these parcels would conform to applicable City standards. H. Creation of more efficient provision of public utilities and services, lessened demand on i transportation, and the promotion of energy resource conservation. Master planning this neighborhood provides for the efficient layout and design of public utilities and services. The neighborhood will provide important connections to Eagle Point Boulevard, Inwood Avenue, and 10"'Street. It will also provide the connection of 5'n Street through the project site. 1. Allowing the development to operate in concert with a redevelopment plan in certain areas of the Cite and to ensure the redevelopment goals and objectives will be achieved. i The project does not include any redevelopment. .I J. Higher standards of site and building design than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development technique. The Lake Elmo PUD ordinance is designed to provide the flexibility necessary to establish housing choices encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan, as well as housing not currently available in Lake Elmo. As discussed above, the InWood master plan provides efficient use of public infrastructure plus an excellent integration of adjacent 1 land uses as compared to many small subdivisions of different uses proposed by l multiple developers. InWood features low impact development street designs, attractive streetscape, a variety of homes and architectural features all incorporated with unique storm water management and landscape architecture. i i i i 5 Preliminary Plat Narrative Hans Hagen Homes October 10, 2014 2. Written Statements a. List of contact information: Applicant John Rask Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. 941 NE Hillwind Road, Suite 300 Fridley, MN 55432 763-586-7200 Property Owner Tom Schuette Inwood 10 LLC i 95 South Owasso Blvd. E St. Paul, MN 55117 651-484-0070 I I Surveyor Dan Obermiller EG Rud and Sons,Inc. 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 j Lino Lakes, MN 55014 651-361-8200 Civil Engineer i Brian Krystofiak, PE Carlson McCain, Inc. 248 Apollo Drive, Suite 100 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 763-489-7905 Wetland Consultant Melissa Barrett Kjolhaug Environmental 26105 Wild Rose Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 952-401-8757 i i 1 i I i i i b. A listing of the following site data:Address, current zoning,parcel size in acres and square feet,property identification number(s) (PID), and current legal description(s); i See attached application. 1 c. A listing of general information including: the proposed name of the subdivision, the number of proposed lots, acreage dedicated for open space or public use, acreage dedicated within rights of'way; I Inwood includes the following lots: 1 i. 275 Single Family Lots ii. Outlots for future commercial and multi-family housing iii. 29 acres of open space in the single family neighborhood (approximately 49 acres of open space in the entire neighborhood) iv. 34 acres of public right-of-way d.. An explanation of how issues have been addressed since the Sketch Plat phase j of the development; I Attached as Exhibit A to this narrative is an explanation of how issues have been addressed since the Concept Plan. e. A narrative explaining the intent of the project and/or your original or revised vision for the finished product; The Preliminary Plat Application is for the single family portion of the ' i Inwood PUD Concept approved by the City Council. The single family neighborhood is referred to as InWood Village, and includes homes with association maintenance. The neighborhood provides the benefits of a single family home, with all the conveniences of a townhome. The association maintenance of lawn areas and snow removal provides the homeowner with the freedom to travel, own a winter or summer home, or more time for recreation. Inwood homeowners may select "ale-carte" services through the homeowner association, such as gutter cleaning, spring and fall clean-up, and other services to assist in the upkeep and maintenance of the outdoor spaces. Hans Hagen Homes will assist each buyer in selecting and designing a home that fits their particular need. Individual homeowners have the ability to choose from a wide variety of plans, exterior materials, including extensive use of brick and stone, architectural features, and landscape designs. This j process creates variety and interest in the architecture of the neighborhood. i I 2 i I I InWood Village will feature private outdoor patio spaces, a private yard for gardening, plentiful landscaping, and a homeowners association to take care of the exterior spaces. Lush landscaping in the front yards and center medians provide a park like atmosphere on every street. I f. A statement showing the proposed density of the project with the method of calculating said density shown; i i. Single Family land use area of the plat includes 102.9 acres ii. 275 total single family homes i iii. Single Family Gross Density of 2.7 units per acre iv. Single Family Net Density of 3.0 units per acre (excludes park land) g. Discuss proposed infrastructure improvements and phasing thereof(i.e. proposed roadways, sewer.systems, water systems, sidewalks/trails, parking, etc) necessary to serve the subdivision; i The proposed roadways are consistent with the City's Transportation Plan. 5°i Street from Inwood Avenue to the Boulder Ponds Neighborhood will be i constructed in 2015. All roadways will be phased as market demand warrants. In general, the phasing of lots will occur from south to north. The utility plan provides the extension of municipal sanitary sewer through the Boulder Ponds neighborhood. Hans Hagen Homes is working with the City and Boulder Ponds to coordinate the extension of the municipal sewer, 1 and would request that the City coordinate the installation of the sewer through Boulder Ponds development so that it is available to InWood in the summer of 2015. Municipal Water will be extended from both the south and west. The City is ' planning the construction of a trunk water main along Inwood in the summer of 2015. The neighborhood will connect to this main along with a connection to the Boulder Ponds neighborhood. Sidewalks and trails will be installed along 5a' Street in the first phase of development. The trail in the park along the eastern edge of the property will be constructed in the first phase in 2015. Other trails and sidewalks will be phased as streets are constructed. i h. A narrative addressing concerns/issues raised by neighboring properties (discussing your proposal with the neighboring land owners is recommended to get a sense of*what issues may arise as your application is processed); Neighborhood input was provided during the PUD Concept Plan review stage. Comments generally related to concerns over the extension of municipal 3 i i I services in this area of the community and the impacts that come along with changes to land use. i The land uses and density of the InWood neighborhood are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and no changes are necessary as a result of the Preliminary Plat application. Hans Hagen Homes has also designed the neighborhood to lessen the impacts on adjacent property owners, as well as to enhance the neighborhood for future residents. These design features include: i. A linear park along the eastern edge of the property that exceeds the City's initial standard of 100 feet. The InWood linear park j varies from 100 feet to over 200 feet. ii. The lots and streets were orientated east/west with cul-de-sac lots j backing to the linear park. There are only 19 lots that back up to the linear park over a distance of 2,640 feet. Under standard zoning, there could be 40 lots backing up to the buffer. iii. Additional land for a neighborhood park adjacent to the existing Stonegate development. This park will serve the needs of residents living in InWood as well as the neighborhoods to the east. iv. Landscaped berms along 10"' Street, 5ti' Street, and along a portion of the western edge of the neighborhood. i i. A description of how conflicts with nearby land uses(livability, value, potential future development, etc.)and/or disturbances to wetlands or natural areas are being avoided or mitigated; The InWood neighborhood is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan which provides for a graduation of land use intensities over the site. North of the 5tn Street parkway will be single family homes. Transitioning to the west will be commercial. The neighborhood plan for Inwood provides a large pond and beans to help transition between the commercial and single family neighborhood. The InWood neighborhood plan avoids and preserves the three wetland basins found on the site. While these wetlands are currently farmed and significantly degraded, it's our intent to restore them with native vegetation. j. Provide justification that the proposal will not place an excessive burden on roads (.traffic), sewage, water supply, parks, schools,fire,police, or other public facilities/services (including tragic flows) in the area. The City's Comprehensive Plan provides for the planned and orderly growth of the community by snaking sure that the necessary infrastructure and services are in place as growth occurs. Because the proposed neighborhood is i 4 i I I� 1 I consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, no impacts or excessive burdens are anticipated to the roads,public utilities,or public services. A detailed traffic study was prepared as part of the EAW, and found no traffic impacts that could not be mitigated. i The majority of the homes in the neighborhood will not contain school age children. As such, no impacts are anticipated to the North St. Paul school district. i I k. If applicable,provide a description of proposed Lakeshore access (i.e. shared dock with multiple slips, individual docks for each lot, etc.); � I i Not applicable. ! 1. A description ofproposed parks and/or open space. Please include a brief statement on the proposed ownership and maintenance of said areas; i The neighborhood will include approximately 14.34 acres of public parkland. f Overall, the neighborhood includes approximately 49 acres of open spaces, j including public park, trail corridors, landscaped berms,ponding, infiltration I areas, wetland preservation areas, and private open space. The private open space and infiltration areas will be maintained by a homeowners association. I m. A proposed development schedule indicating the approximate date when I construction of the project, or stages of the same, can be expected to begin and be completed(including the proposed phasing of construction of public improvements and recreational and common space areas). I i Construction of 5lh Street and site grading would commence in the spring of 2015 with the first neighborhood lots being developed in the summer of 2015. The single family neighborhood is anticipated to be phased over a 7 year period. Annual home construction will likely vary with fluctuations in the housing market. I I i I ! I I I 5 i I i i Exhibit A i Inwood Response to PUD Conditions of Approval October 10, 2014 i On September 16,2014,the City Council approved the PUD Concept Plan for In Wood subject to 25 conditions. The 25 conditions are listed below along with a response to each condition: i i 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 SthStreet 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. The proposed 5"' Street alignment is consistent with the City's transportation plan. Hans Hagen Homes is proposing a design speed of 40 mph for 5"' Street with one exception. A small segment of the road next to the City Park would be slightly less than the 40 mph design speed recommended by the City Engineer. This slight reduction in the design speed allows the road to go farther south thereby minimizing the impacts to Stonegate Park,as well as the proposed additional park property. If a higher roadway design speed is necessary, Hans Hagen Homes could adjust 5th Street to the north to provide the recommended design speed. However, given the impacts to the park, a slight deviation to the standard appears warranted. i Hans Hagen Homes approached Bremer Bank about acquiring some additional j property for 5"' Street. This additional right-of-way would have allowed us to save the parkland and trees while providing the higher design speed next to the park. However, Bremer Bank declined our request because it would interfere with their future expansion plans. Hans Hagen Homes will construct 5`h Street in one phase, and will complete the work in the spring of 2015. Boulder Ponds does not plan to construct 51" Street until after 2015. As such, the construction of 5'h Street through InWood will likely occur prior to the construction of 5ch Street through Boulder Ponds. Hans Hagen Homes does not plan to impact the Bremer Bank Property and will work with Boulder Ponds to coordinate the alignment. 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. ] 1 i ! i Minimum lot sizes and setbacks for 1nWood single family neighborhood are as follows: t i Setbacks: I Front Yard=20 feet Side Yard =4 feet Rear Yard=20 feet Lot Sizes: Lot Widths=38, 50, 58,and 65 feet I 16%of the lots will be 38 feet in width I 53%of the lots will be 50 feet in width 16%of the lots will be 58 feet in width 15%of the lots will be 65 feet in width Lot Depth= 125 feet Minimum lot sizes will range from 4,750 sq. ft. to 8,125 sq. ft. 3. The applicationffor 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 s considerations to be used throughout the project area. All of the single family homes will be part of a neighborhood association that is i responsible for the maintenance of the yards and common areas. The specific design standards for the homes include: Front Home Elevations: All front elevations shall include stone, brick, stucco or lap siding. Trim Detail on All Elevations: i a. Frieze board on gable roof elements b. Window trim i c. Door trim t d. Corner board unless brick or stone is used e. Belly bands on homes with two stories above grade I I Doors and Windows: i a. Windows on the front elevation shall include grids. b. Windows and doors may be painted,natural wood,aluminum,or vinyl clad. I c. All windows must have exterior trim. Garages: a. A variety of garage designs will be incorporated into the design of homes and will include elements such as raised panels, windows, recessed doors, 2 1 f overhangs, gables, corbels and accents that add architectural interest to every home and garage. b. Flush garage doors will be prohibited. c. Home designs shall reduce the impact of blank areas above the garage doors through the use of windows, louvers, lowered roof lines, eyebrows, frieze board, or other trim and details. d. Garages adjacent to a street on corner lots shall include a window and trim on the side of the garage facing the street. s 4. The Preliminary PUD plans will include a phasing plan for all portions of the ' development. Attached is a plan showing the general phasing of neighborhood improvements. Tinting of the various phases will be based on market demand. 5th Street will be constructed from Inwood Avenue to Boulder Ponds in the first phase. General phasing of the project will occur from south to north given the availability of existing sewer,water, and the natural drainage patterns of the property. S. 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 In Wood PUD. The property owner, InWood 10, LLC has proposed a location for a water tower on its property north of 1 Ott' Street. 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 S to 10 acres adjacent to the existing Stonegate Park and with access to 5rhStreet is the preferred location. The location and size of this park will be subject to review by the Lake Elmo Park Commission. The Preliminary PUD provides approximately 4 acres of additional park land in the southwest corner of the site. This property is part of a larger 12.58 acre open space area that includes the buffer and trail corridor. An additional approximately 4 1.7 acre park would be provided south of 5"' Street within the future townhome area. 7. All street and median geomelrics must accommodate emergency vehicle access and maintenance. Applicants must demonstrate acceptable turning radii for all uniquely shaped landscape medians and cul-de-sacs. All streets meet acceptable turning radii for emergency and maintenance vehicles. 3 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. The plat was redesigned to comply with the Wetland Conservation Act and to avoid and preserve the wetlands. I 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. I The applicant will work with staff to determine which trails qualify for parkland credit. The applicant anticipates approximately 1.3 acres of additional park land associated with trails. i 10. The applicant shall observe all comments and recommendationsfrom the City Engineer documented on the Engineer's report dated August 13, 2014. The applicant met with staff and the City Engineer to review the Engineer's l report. The appropriate changes have been incorporated in the Preliminary Plat/PUD applications. 11. The Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans will address review comments and issues that are identif ed within the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the In Wood planned development site. i Based on the draft EAW and preliminary comments, the applicants do not anticipate any changes to the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD plans. The i EAW found no significant environmental impacts. Any comments will be addressed as part of the permitting process. 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. Hans Hagen Homes is proposing that the Homeowners Association be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the medians and infiltration basins located in the single family neighborhood. 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 Sth Street and Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13). The applicant has no objections to paying its equitable and proportionate share of the 5` Street and Inwood Avenue signalization. A typical cost sharing proposal 4 I distributes the cost based on each approach of the intersection. The County has two approaches to the intersection via CSAH 13, and the City has one approach via 5"' Street. There is no future extension planned to the west. As such the County would be responsible for 2/3 of the intersection cost and the City would be responsible for 1/3 of the cost. The applicants understand that a portion of the City's cost is attributed to the future development of the property, and that the applicants would be financially responsible for a portion of the City's cost. The City's Transportation plan identifies 5 h Street as a neighborhood collector for all of the growth occurring south of 10`'street and north of Hudson Road, including the recently approved Savona and Boulder Ponds neighborhoods. Traffic from these neighborhoods will utilize 51h Street and the associated signal at Inwood. As such, some cost sharing from these neighborhoods would be appropriate. 14. The applicant must work with Washington County to address all review comments documented in the attached report dated 8120114 pertaining to access and intersection design for Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) and IOth Street (CSAH 10). Hans Hagen Homes has discussed the comments with Washington County. None of the comments will impact the Preliminary Plat as proposed. Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood10 LLC have objected to the County's suggestion that county trails be added along CSAH 13 and 10"' Street. As noted in the County's Comment letter dated August 20,2014,the trail along Inwood is not included in the County's Comprehensive Plan. The letter further notes that there is an existing trail on the west side of Inwood. I i A County trail by definition is one that provides benefit to residents in Washington County. Nearby residents of Oakdale, Woodbury, and Lake F,hno would utilize these trails. The future construction of these trails should be a i County expense. The plat will provide the necessary right-of-way, at no cost to the County, for the future construction of trails and any necessary road improvements. 15. The applicant must provide sidewalks on both sides of Street B to better serve the single family residential area. Hans Hagen Homes has included trails on both sides of Street B as requested. 16. Additional trail segments along the east side of Inwood Avenue from 5th Street to 10a,Street and along IOth Street from Inwood Avenue to the Greenbelt Buffer Trail i must be incorporated into the plans. As stated above,the construction of County trails should be the responsibility of the County as they benefit residents outside of Lake Elmo, in addition to Lake 5 i i Ehno Residents. The InWood preliminary plat includes trails and sidewalks parallel to and generally within a 300' of Inwood Avenue and 101"Street. The location of trails proposed in our preliminary plat provide pedestrians with a safe and attractive trail system that eliminates the need for duplicate trails adjacent to the high traffic County Highways of Inwood and l 0`h Street. InWood also includes two additional trails that provide pedestrian corridors from east to west through the neighborhood. The first trail is located in the center of InWood, and meanders alm large ponds with extensive landscaping. A second trail on the north side of 5 Street is next to an eight-foot high landscaped berm. Additional trails and sidewalks are provided throughout the Inwood neighborhood for the ! use and enjoyment by residents of Lake Elmo. I 17. The applicant must work with the City to ensure compliance with the City's I shoreland provisions and the standards of the SWWD and MN DNR related to shoreland areas of designated public waters. The plat as proposed would comply with these applicable standards. 18. The develoment plans must be updated so that all multi-family housing is located south of 5' Street. No multi family residential development will be allowed north o f 5dh Street. I i The InWood PUD has been modified to comply with this condition. 19. Sidewalkv shall be provided on one side of every street, including all cul-de-sacs i and loop roads within the development with the exception of 9`h Street. Hans Hagen Homes is providing sidewalks on one side of all through streets within the neighborhood. Our plan for Inwood does not include sidewalks on the one-way streets. The reason we have not included sidewalks on every street include: i i • Great care has been taken to design one way streets with a loop that slows j traffic and reduces the number of trips past most homes. • The unique loop street design provides guest parking on the median side of the street. This design eliminates the potential problems created by backing out of a driveway between parked cars. • The street design provides a corridor on the house side of the street that provides clear lines of sight for automobiles and pedestrians. j • The looped road design also provides a walkable,pedestrian friendly community that calms traffic because of the loop. • The 40' wide landscaped median softens the streetscape and makes it visually appealing to walk along. • The loop street is specifically designed to provide a short distance to walk to nearby sidewalk and trail corridors. 6 1 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. The applicants have no objection to establishing the trail in a manner that maximizes the privacy for existing and future residents, as well as those using the trails. Trail users and homeowners alike will benefit from a trail that is private and not infringing on backyards. The trees in this park area were planted for i Christmas trees and are generally located in rows. Care will be taken to establish a trail corridor that minimizes tree removal and maximizes privacy for all i involved. , 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. i Hans Hagen Homes is asking that the Planning Commission reconsider this request. Expanding the width of the homes at the end of the cul-de-sacs will not result in fewer lots, nor will it result in fewer lots backing up to the linear park. The reason for this is that in some instances the lots are only 5 feet wider. Requiring wider lots will push the homes farther back (east)causing more tree removal. As such, the applicant sees it as a tradeoff between 1) providing wider lots and removing more trees, or 2)providing the original lots and preserving additional trees. Hans Hagen Homes has provided additional buffering beyond the City required minimum of 100 feet. This was done to try and save trees and provide for a more usable open space area. It also enhances the screening between the future homes and the Stonegate development. 22. The developer shall consider adding a small park to the northwest portion Qf the site subject to review and comment by the Park Commission. The Planning Commission, Park Commission and City Council all had different views and recommendations on the location of a future neighborhood park. The location of the park on the Preliminary Plat is consistent with City Council's review of the concept plan. 23. The high density housing area shall be limited to a maximum of 15 units per acre. The future housing located south of 5`" Street is not part of this Preliminary Plat. However,the housing south of 51h Street as identified in the Concept Plan is at a net density of approximately 9.1 units per acre, which is below the allowed 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. 7 l { The connnercial and multi-family buildings shown on the plan are conceptual and not part of the Preliminary Plat application. These buildings were shown to give the City an idea of how the property could be development, and to assist the applicants and City in designing 5"' Street, as well as planning for the future extension of public utilities. i Inwood 10 LLC is not requesting any additional density or other lot size or building setback flexibility,nor are they seeking Preliminary Plat or Preliminary PUD approvals at this time. Future development of the commercial and rnulti- family property will need to be consistent with the City's design standards. Given the size and mass of the commercial and multifamily buildings, the architecture of these buildings will be very different from the single family homes. 25. All cul-de-sac streets shall meet the City's maximum length requirements as specified in the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The cul-de-sacs meet the City maximum length requirements. Street C(cul-de- sac by the park)will have connection through the park property providing additional park access. Given the access limitations along 5°i Street, residents using the park will gain access from the westbound lane of 5`" Street, as well as the Street C cul-de-sac. i i 8 N g z 30 �< o0 m 'd IL � • o�$JWWow<Wo. 13 Z _ � wn,un$noPSuwo � O 'o$ 3� e E w w 3 1 I 1 =V I �w Z z �. 41 - OZ Z ' ■ ' Z LLI 1.1 _._.._.. • W �.r • 3 Y . i y — I tto I I i .._.._..1. .._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..�..�.._.._.. .. _.._. —___..•. 5 a a�p {E� E.l�t iE n 'gig s " e �9R��55 $f<EC 9E- _ _ _ I sof c c s`oE� O�U .�. UM _N a Qc II ` - I� r--- � I I = — R „a � a � Y •e y � i�� / 2 pf I a _ I — — L.._.._.._.._.. 7ofiAw, — — - �— — — I.� a ad�azz 0�--__ ------------------- Z lI �r CY 1 I r-- e a _ < I a A I r a a E i E ca •.me � a '�'• - v I C a yLc - I � i r' I R � Ti �I I as 5•�' S _ = R lJ to xus l I\ a776� �y O 22 I s=!! ay 8 = I J loo mmoo long] --- ----------- s o II � € I. 5 o'vo ...... ��'' r@@ Y9 3a p seas sgsg a €o g ag 'ee U4, y5y .i e'n «n� ew n J mY�[ •Fe,s Fo€ �F. � � S«RS, _ _�'1S p.:� R��Y54 }tea �^C:^. Ne_a� p a Al 116 � E_' m€e'��� ;" ^�• •xe�Ea a W n W tg �;t ff;�;a � i �bs COD ^ pe€ Asti € o•�f r = i b g4; Y Sy o descm ;� a •fg�g e p yr I !_ ��a 35 a i;g x ,wa$ " nR WNL`t, e _�;e aEa a`6=say§` =Q" e aa m s e yy33 - pe �LLe iygqJ o aas W 5_ a6F EFFe"FY oo�' �F m I i 3 !uo i z2 t"aa i §t 3 '^ ��+ 'pep Vx" §+' a p `a«dY! ND - « p c �¢Mb"I$ 7a � Y �aa z e N^_ • 3 E B Fez, W •N a-^ fAl asc Ffigeoa es p b g� �aa ae '.. a:=: ... : "M vyyMM16 as 9 1 � I y 1 POE Pepe P� WyW I o Z6z o00 •e 1 q , r I,I H j < .egoME ®erg LIP VE , y CD y�F'—� $ �� Off, t „F 1 • �••-: nwlHiY� d� C'm _� a [ o ey I I I 0 C-I —44 pp 6 nnn" Z / Q I ♦ q��r a u I •1 1 11 " I'�' n R :� �' �I a 3 I �q (II � IA �b � n i •e� �' 1 e«I� I �j m U I I =I I I m 1 ! I IL IL i43 � I 1 Y I � s � i °•nx O I a I i � � i !I RuII "�« O u', 1 1 S _uei I Z o n I R q W 2 a0 19 • I °vi i � 1 . I I I ° I AQ I a9 S m I I e ° , ° h a _____—__ ,Iet�zus A� nm _ it ~ \ 0 rl I n e � s' I a � �e j 1 i�///��;ja \•�•��� 3�C. yLU x [_ ti b •..� �,ui R 1 R� I I ' oe a I � eRi /I � `i 4� W to r_ 1- 1 I R' MNlB I•• 1 gq w'j to i,N� i° �/ n. 7 �r } I p• �� Itl3 1 // '� I� •1 191 119J ON It tT ICI ' � i p E U i 1 one, � ��° i• j ? �i=p..i� .na I; d I Ip w. �I �.,R I I 1 I �• JI °«,'� Ii CaP I I • .� 1: 1 N� d 1 ma, F � I °rl C a 1 : 1 1 1 ` r �\ \ • �` 1 `rl Y eu ;i S133HS 4Z d0 6133HS 33S 5 a a s a z i J r� ce y-I 1 1 � i I 1 � ^B � ` __�_—_ J• PIU 1 - I r � i'� �`p��m/� I� ,f R:I ox�ti P--_-j/'_� i'� ^: i 1" N S ^'�N I ! �� ' 1• ---sue-- 1 w I __) .�•�`_1 1 1 1 A �� W m p i ulhe ma ^9 i i � i. ��� 1 xr" i• , \\`' a \^ �. __ // 7 �/�n8 i i rri - `ir: r 1 99I e x iA xi i °^$ IF 4 � °I �•sx 1 �p AI� eg7 ; � �•'\�\\i ids' 77�`� \�4.\- +�\�,`�J �i/ �I N I,I•e1I ea I I 9 I ems` `• �/ ^� / j /»—`_ �,� N w`JI I I 'a cm1 [ tu— Lu y ``•�,,^ -0� 4 �y '/i ;I N8 Q f��J ar a` n� \`gel J _ _ i I y ae 1 y� a 1 - .ke ril� _.�aap'pW 7.:. • p 7f le A ' \' `wC 1 1 'x� , ; ', ; ; ? ; Tf`. •_" \-- `ter x ; 1" or� N� 1• Sp / �rl d` C2" •I C ns 1• � a a 1 I °I � � �I 2 b � 1 t�`}" ��A ^�r• j I �! 'n�`.: _\�`.. 4 _y elt Y °xi I I tui r 1 _ ,8 I �` /, ._`,� .\' • F`� _y�8te I ! a 1 fill Y 1 ^$ ��• (�: 1� nA 1. 1 / 4 ' ` `� �l 1. °li nya XI I ; , I 9 I1 � / r• p� 117 •I I �9 1 I fit I I v Gam`• A q 1°r I e°r m _ SL33HS Sb JO Ol 133HS 33S I, \ I . NNVd 4110 •�� -- I c0 It user •.w.woowt< n tl I wlG uauw- /��•�' Ilt Y@tl I i —91�J018,6 C 3 ' it I to 1 II I 1 R J II 1 _ 'rrr tl I II 1 I 1 j n r I . 1 O 1� th? I H • 1 1 1 IU �I i 1 k 11 W 11 N-�� I I �1 1�.70�el1 t N -J L_---'J L__' h_ta -1 r-----i GnaLU 1 15�O 1 Pee 1.�`sw 1 1y 1pp�C 1 1 R II I N 11 Ij • �i fAp, j _ -J J l It It f1� II • 1 J .I 1 a I 1 i• iia3,I�T��li I I �=' 1, w� 1111aa� II �_ wsF I Fo 1-- F3 •& j�"4\ I;b. ` I �, Ste• J -----s. S133HS SE JO L L 133HS 33S SL33HS 4Z 40 9133HS 33S N • \ a �� a`�/ 1 0�7 �A K 149 �e36 1 /„ f6 `�\ ^� ,y l_r"n`s"A mw'.'.-•A� I C °�c _ 1 '-?q III 11 `a[ �'^� _- / � // %• --�•w• -ii 5 r-----_---- I e" Iq i :�. z 1�.mm- �_`t _ m.N -`:—__ _• — — _i / 1 a,u 11 O IL I !`, F IA �sw�'�oe` �°\ O �� � /1 a Y- - -`\ �•rc�•`1"i':. .i¢ +' ^� �Ua r � rf m ``- • -.ram W tf uj vj --- _ _ R ___ __- 114 - I F Ilm ZR- I } a a ..-ADLLd3J%3--` a 93' —————————————————-L 7 : 0 1 € I « Sa3HS SS JO L 133HS 33S al � �1 •! a N7 I I / �`` � � ..1 °a I I s� I I �^ IIA_ '_• f f'� �� `mil `. ��. -':..��\ // � � I A O I �9 I I 1 • y� I P le I P AI n`•' V 1 i sg O 1 1 '~ y I S / ♦ 7 0La Lu nR W W e� �. I I'= ^`n I �� a ^i I d• U I �rl O 1 / .r 9 �3 Ir '�W I� �i ��• Wig"g n i. i I n �; "1 � ,oa O 11 a I , rn p 1 4. O ru W I 11 ^$ar VO 11 '\_ H u v H1 1 R ej Lu W , N, jl Gn C i O lei, / fRr _O1�I1S I'1SClS � 9 row .Ep { \� PBY e'S a `xx� C2p -- .rsost � � .aa.saaav�-4,ananY3-J'—�—�.••I— ! 33i WX ---I - r—_�,..-..,���..-,.--_ ------------------ — a S 1 1 Z g � m � S133HS SL d0 8133HS 33S _N r W Ir It I a IL -\ a"'•a°,<.. � jiee5 1 ; I € v \•��..� � 'dM�SIi it I I �� > dI -� It Imp ' / 0 _ mom`•« ro A °° 2- 1 11dull i p5 -__-___ rtrrt__-_ LmP® wo o _=12 - \ ` \ z w- [o Cl \ ' i Il 1 IIh I u. !E! _` w W it I I b I ; I I 1 / 1 I I , I 1 I a 1 1 / I i I1I i g Gab / 1 1 ,wrlt,Ar'r r » I _ 1 I 3(iH7f. ..GOM kE F t _—— _____________ 0 a �s tom. .� .•moo._ ��` �OEM � �... ,.1= r■idMat I ]■ �r�� ui■� ��j■ 9ii■ Imo.�E,;, iDt �:.t4 � �� ®� R r�■ �'� +r� mill ■u• �►�-E■C , Ir. raid ■i.i t�i��-)y�/� I hai �a�� I ��3�� r�r1� r -=r,11i1 491 T Elmo OM WER liff op" �����:. �I�1 , ■n� "'�L , � ;mil �• �� ;j �i�_���! �_J■� �I ' '�'..~I �• ����' � �� ��� Q�fi��r g�: .r�r ��l� mil,\r iir�. - I ■�.i 1�� [�■ter 4:r� ��� �.� $! 1 � - �i IFL!:� '�L� ri�I � �af� [ � IQIi�! ��' r.�`� jl 1•�•�� 1�,�� 'N�� MEMO nl O,� r ` �,, ■ I�■�.� f r■r■ fir q w.,OC1y/ Iff 1� Rai%��Oii�► ���. �■ � �� � Imo$ �` � �� �t -791 �. mum OUR, C. !mot t�-�I�`` !�■ � ��,,-: ® In� ' iu Plan 1 Ell t 1��� jr.�f �J fr ! ♦i�1 \ ��1� WIN M uama ii �� • Big t .,n i� �779"C kK (;f .. �I •j• � ® l �FG i ua uW < po mZ�x mZ.1i oW o 0 oz i LL is< dig =^Wi sWWz t3 po� 6R smOu�ecu ti WY2 Z 0 j rWf Z <>Fu Gac a z zZ F<Z< o� < �� ZQE —^ t - f 4—J — i a-J ` o ro ^ r r) LL 4--J C37 L L 00 �= °° W u z� r 1 ti r V ^ � 1 i COI•ii V V L A r V o S d Z O 8 O S u i FOCUSENGINEERING., inc. MEMORANDUM Cara Geheren,P.E. 651.300.4261 Jack Griffin,P.E. 651.300.4264 Ryan Stempski,P.E. 651.300.4267 Date: November 16, 2014 Chad Isakson,P.E. 651.300.4283 To: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Re: Inwood—PUD Preliminary Plan Review Cc: Nick Johnson,City Planner From: Jack Griffin, P.E.,City Engineer An engineering review has been completed for the Preliminary Plan submittal for the Inwood PUD.The submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by Carlson-McCain and E.G.Rud&Sons, Inc.: • Inwood PUD Preliminary Plan Set,Sheets 1-25,dated October 10, 2014. • Revised Inwood PUD Site Plans,Sheets 15 and 16 dated November 6,2014. • Preliminary Plat and PUD Application, dated October 10, 2014. • Stormwater Management Plan dated October 10,2014, STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering has prepared the following review comments: PRELIMINARY PLAT • Outlots K, L, M, N,O, P,O? R,S and T should be dedicated to the City as they reside within the City R/W. A maintenance agreement should be executed to require the Outlot landscape maintenance to be completed by the HOA. • Per City requirements all storm sewer pipe easements must be a minimum 30-feet in width. Y Revise easement or storm sewer pipe along Lots 42-45, Block 10. Additional easement is required for the storm sewer pipe between Lots 12 and 13, Block 10 and Lot 11 Block 10. Only 25 feet is provided and the pipe is placed only 5 feet from the property line. • Additional pipe easement is required between Lots 6 and 7, Block 4 and Lots 9 and 10, Block 7 to accommodate both the proposed watermain and proposed sanitary sewer pipes. With 2 pipes passing between these lots the minimum easement must be 40 feet. • Revise the Preliminary Plat Building set back lines so that set back lines do not encroach proposed drainage and utility easements. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS • Access along Inwood Avenue and 10t" Street must be reviewed and approved by Washington County. Improvements required by Washington County at the intersections along Inwood Avenue and 10th Street should be the responsibility of the developer and should be incorporated as part of the preliminary plat submittal documents. • The traffic impact study completed for the development indicates the need for a signalized intersection at 5th Street and Inwood Avenue. Therefore the installation of a signal should be incorporated as part of the PAGE ] of 5 required improvements for the development. The City should consider a cost contribution from the developer for the signal improvements. • Turn lanes must be added on all interior development streets at the intersections with 10th Street, Inwood Avenue, and 5"'Street.Turn lanes must meet state aid standards for a 30 mph design speed,including turn lane length,taper,and lane widths. Y Street D:Add right turn lane at 10th Street and right turn lane at 5th Street. r 9th Street:Add right turn lane at Inwood Avenue. ➢ Street B:Add right turn lane at 10th Street and right turn lane at both southbound and northbound intersection with 5th Street. 5TH STREET NORTH: 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 City standard typical sections for 5th Street North must be included as part of the Preliminary Plans.All other 5th Street typical sections must be removed to avoid inconsistencies. • Access spacing to 5th Street is allowed at 1/8 mile intervals for non-continuous local streets, at % mile intervals for continuous local streets and collector streets, and at %: mile intervals for streets with higher classification. Access from Street D2 must be removed completely to maintain proper access management. Y The proposed Park entrance should be removed to maintain proper access management. A new street connection between Streets B and C should be pursued to provide better Park access and internal street circulation. • The 5"Street horizontal alignment requires a 667 foot minimum horizontal curve to meet state aid design standards for a 40 mph design speed.The preliminary plans show a 407 foot horizontal curve(requires a 30 mph posted curve speed)as the roadway passes Stonegate Park and Bremer Financial Services properties. Y An engineering review has been requested from the City's Transportation Engineer,SRF Consulting, to identify for the City potential performance impacts for the substandard road. • The plan indicates a minimum 100 foot R/W as required.However,the Preliminary Plat and Site Plans must be revised to provide a 10 foot utility easement corridor along both sides of 5th Street North as shown in the City standard typical section for 5th Street. • Right and left turn lanes must be incorporated along Sth Street North per the City design standards to maintain mobility along the Parkway since there is only one travel lane in each direction.Turn lanes must be provided at all full access intersections and must meet state aid standards for a 40 mph design speed, including turn lane length,taper, and lane widths. • A bituminous trail is shown along the north side and a sidewalk is shown along the south side of 5th Street as required by the City.The trail must be a minimum 10 foot width with 5 foot clear zone and the concrete sidewalk must be a minimum 6 foot width with 2 foot clear zone. • Additional streetscape amenities are required along 5th Street consistent with the remaining corridor segments and the design standards previously established by the City including a center landscape median, street lighting, and theming elements including banner poles at primary gateway intersections, and white post& rail fencing. RESIDENTIAL STREETS • The City standard typical section for residential streets must be placed within the Preliminary Plan set without revisions and including City of Lake Elmo title block. Additional typical sections must detail the entire proposed boulevard including placement of boulevard trees and small utility corridor for City review. Typical street sections must reference each streetthat the section applies.Additional City review is required once the requested information is provided. • Street C and Street B should be connected in order to improve circulation and eliminate non-compliant access to 5"'Street.This connection would provide improved and safer Park access. PAGE 2of5 • The Street M cul-de-sac R/W must be the City minimum standard of 60 feet. • The Street N and Outlot P geometrics must be revised to improve turning radii for emergency vehicle access. The proposed geometrics do not meet City minimum standards and must be revised. • Street D must be revised to meet the minimum radii of 260 feet for a 30 mph design speed. • Street D2 must be eliminated to meet minimum access spacing guidelines for 5" Street and to allow for adequate turn lane improvements for 5th Street to Inwood Avenue.Street D2 should serve as a commercial driveway access to Street D only. • Staff has reviewed the unique street layout for the "Neighborhood" street segments proposed in this preliminary plat 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. • A sidewalk should be added along one side of Street M. GRADING PLAN,STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND STORM SEWER SYSTEM • The site plan is dependent upon and subject to a storm water management plan meeting State,SWWD and City rules and regulations.Storm waterfacilities 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 100-year HWL must be shown on the grading plans for all wetland areas,Stormwater ponds,Infiltration basins and localized grading low points (rear yard catch basin inlets). Existing HWLs must be shown on the grading plans for all wetlands and water bodies. • 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,a 10 foot maintenance bench above the NWL and maintenance access roads to the ponds. Y Add the City required 10:1 maintenance bench around each storm water pond and revise the storm water pond typical detail to include the maintenance bench. Revise grading plans or revise lot lines for Pond 300 to maintain pond HWL and maintenance bench entirely within the Outlot. i Revise grading plans or revise lot lines for Pond W1 and W2 to maintain pond HWL within Outlot. ➢ Provide Stormwater Pond access approach roadways for each storm water pond using 20 feet minimum width road approaches and 10%maximum grade.Show maintenance access roads clearly on the grading plans. • Wetlands and wetland buffers must be placed entirely within Outlots. To better protect and manage wetland buffers the City requires all buffers to remain on a dedicated Outlot. Revise Lots 2, 3,4,and 5, Block 12 to eliminate the encroachment to the Outlot A wetland buffer. Revise Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 11,and Lots 8, 9, 10 and 11, Block 12 to eliminate the encroachment to the Outlot B wetland buffer. • The Park 1 Wetland Buffer must be shown on the Preliminary Plat and Site Plans.The proposed trail must be revised to remain outside of the wetland buffer.This may require revisions to Lots 10 and 11,Block 1. • Infiltration basin 400 is partially within the Xcel Energy Transmission easement area. Provide documentation from Xcel Energy demonstrating permission to construct the infiltration basin as proposed. • Typical pond section detail— revise to indicate maximum 10 foot depth from NWL, maximum 3:1 slopes below the NWL and 10:1 maintenance bench above the NWL. • The grading plan indicates significant use of retaining walls. Retaining walls should be placed within private lots to be owned and maintained by the HOA. Retaining walls should be placed on City R/W or Outlots dedicated to the City. Retaining walls should also not be placed within lot drainage and utility easements. i> Revise retaining walls to place all walls within non-publically owned areas. r Maintain minimum 15 feet between storm sewer pipe and retaining walls. • The storm sewer system shall be designed to maintain the City standard minimum pipe cover of 3.5 feet. Storm sewer pipe sizes, rims and inverts were not provided and therefore could not be reviewed. PAGE3of5 • 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. • The maximum allowable curb run along streets without catch basins is 350 feet. Y Add catch basins along Street A west of Street B to maintain maximum curb run of 350 ft. Add catch basins along Street B near Street K intersection. Y Add catch basins along Street C north of Park and at intersection with 5"'Street. Add catch basins along Street M. i- Add catch basins at intersection of 91h Street and Street D. Add catch basins along Street D closer to 10th Street intersection. Then place catch basins at least every 350 ft. Y Move catch basins along Street B2 closer to the 5th Street intersection. 5th Street catch basins must be placed per MSA standards with maximum runs of 350 feet. • Landscape Plans should be reviewed and revised to keep plantings outside all utility easements,and outside of storm water facility 10 foot maintenance benches and 20 foot access roads. MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY • 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 incorporated within this Preliminary Plat in order to provide adequate water system operations to serve the additional units for this development. • As an alternative, the developer may dedicate to the City an alternate site for the Water Tower if the alternate site is found to provide similar operational performance for the water system. Soil borings must be taken to verify any site to assure adequate structural support for a Water Tower.The City must verify that an alternative site has been acquired prior to excluding the Water Tower from this Preliminary Plat. • Site Plan sheets 15 and 16 as revised on November 6,2014 must be incorporated as part of the Preliminary Plat and Site Plans and must be further amended as described within this memorandum. • Municipal water service is readily available for the Inwood development proposal. The applicant is responsible to extend municipal water to the development site at developer's cost and to extend 8-inch watermain connection stubs to all adjacent properties for future watermain extensions. • Watermain pipe oversizing and additional watermain stubs must be incorporated into the development utility plans per the attached pipe oversizing exhibit. Watermain oversizing costs for watermain in excess of the minimum standard 8-inch pipe is paid by the City as a reimbursement addressed within the development agreement. • More specifically: Y Extend 12-inch watermain from the City installed 16-inch trunk watermain at the intersection of Inwood Avenue and 10t'Street to the end of the Street M cul-de-sac. 1 Oversize the 8-inch pipe to 12-inch pipe along Street M and Street A to connect to Street B. y Extend 12-inch watermain from the intersection of Street B and 10th Street to the easterly plat limits at 10t''Street. • The watermain along Street C must be looped to connect to 5th Street to eliminate a long dead end pipe. MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER • Site Plan sheets 15 and 16 as revised on November 6,2014 must be incorporated as part of the Preliminary Plat and Site Plans and must be further amended as described within this memorandum. • Two municipal sanitary sewer connection points are available to serve the Inwood development with various invert and capacity limitations. The applicant is responsible to extend municipal sanitary sewer to the development site at developer's cost and to establish a sewer shed plan that utilizes the various connection points as follows: PAGE 4 of 5 y Future 12-inch stub along 5th Street at the north end of the Bolder Ponds development, to be constructed as Bolder Ponds Phase 2. Invert maximum of 999.5. Current sewer plan allocates 276 units to this connection point. ➢ Connect to the existing 8-inch stub at Eagle Point Boulevard near Bremer Financial Services with Invert 991.00 and 326 maximum REC unit capacity. • Sanitary sewer pipe oversizing has been incorporated into the development utility plans per the attached pipe oversizing exhibit thereby extending 12-inch pipe from the Bolder ponds development to the intersection of Street B and 10th Street North. Sanitary sewer oversizing costs for sewer pipe in excess of the minimum standard 8-inch pipe is paid by the City as a reimbursement addressed within the development agreement. • Additional sanitary sewer pipe may be required along Streets E, F,G, H, I,J,and N.The City needs to further review the acceptability of allowing long service stubs underneath the Street Outlots and infiltration areas. �i 1 PAGE 5of5 �, 1 1 ;, 1 `\ � ' t \ �` \ ;1 ;� r ��t �� �, , ,� � � � � �. i `\ ,\ Station #1 Station #2 3510 Laverne Ave. No. 4259 Jamaca Ave. No. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Lake Elmo,MN. 55042 651-770-5006 - 651-779-8882 LADE ELMO FIRE DEPARTMENT November 17,2014 Review of the PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUD DEVELOPMENT PLANS —INWOOD PUD Following a review of the packet provided, I have no specific concerns at this time, however, as this moves forward we will need to address the following: • Hydrant placement. • Street naming to remain consistent with current program. • Road access for emergency vehicles: o Widths, o Center islands o Allowed parking on streets Sincerely, Greg Malmquist,Fire Chief II "Proudly Serving Neighbors & T i-iend s" LAYDS[AF:fr.[dI::CIdR�iAc�rre ]_C INWOOD - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW REPORT LAKE ELMO, MN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW DATED NOVEMBER 18T", 2014 REVIEWED PLAN SET DATED OCTOBER 10"', 2014 Required Action Items by INWOOD Project Team 1. Applicant suggests that coniferous trees along eastern boundary were planted as part of a Commercial Nursery Business. Per ordinance 08-077: Article VI - Environmental Performance Standards under 154.257 TREE PRESERVATION, 3 C. ".....The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to provide evidence to support the findings that the trees do not need to be included in this totals. Please provide this requested information if you feel that in fact this coniferous shelterbelt should be exempt from the tree preservation requirements. 2. Due to the large number of specimen trees located in the existing forest masses at the northwest corner of the site and near the riparian area near the southwest portion of the site we are asking you to take these trees in consideration to preserve and protect these existing natural resources where possible. Please consider to preserve as many of these existing specimen trees as possible as plans are refined. SINCERELY, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC. STEPHEN MASTEY, ASLA, CLARB, LEED AP BD+C DIRECTOR OF DESIGN 2350 BAYLESS PLACE • ST. PAUL, MN 55114 PHONE: 651 .646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN`Q>LANDARCIIJC.COM Wa�Wngton Pubtic Works Department Donald J.Theisen,P.E. �ount Director y Wayne H.Sandberg,P.E. Deputy Director/County Engineer November 17,2014 Kyle Klatt Community Development Director City of Lake Elmo 3600 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Washington County comments on the concept plan for Inwood Village Preliminary Plat/Plan City of Lake Elmo Dear Kyle: Thank you for providing the Inwood Village Preliminary Plans for the property located southeast of the CSAH 10/CSAH 13 intersection in Section 33, Township 29, Range 21 in the City of Lake Elmo. From the project narrative dated October 10, 2014, the proposed site plans and preliminary plats provided, this is the first phase of a four phase residential development. Future commercial/office uses are shown as conceptual and will be defined as building and tenants are identified. The residential uses proposed are 275 single family homes on 102.9 acres. The remainder of the land area will be platted as Outiots for future subdivision platting. Based on initial review of the narrative, site plan and the proposed uses, the following access points and general intersection layouts should be provided: The proposed CSAH 13/5th Street intersection should be designed as a full access intersection with an exclusive southbound left turn lane, a northbound right turn lane, a westbound left turn lane and a westbound right turn lane. Traffic Signals may be necessary at this location in the future, so the intersection should be designed to accommodate a future signal. As noted in the county's comments on the EAW for this project, "the County will monitor the intersection, however, in case the traffic balancing does not occur and a traffic signal is needed at the intersection, the intersection will be placed on the County's intersection Control Ranking System Priority list to be funded through the County Capital Improvement Planning Process. Any traffic signal improvements at this intersection will be completed under the County Cost Participation Policy". The Eastern Site Access on CSAH 10/101h Street should be designed as a full access intersection with a westbound left turn lane, an eastbound right turn lane, a northbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane. The intersection should be designed to accommodate a possible future traffic signal. A Washington County Access permit will be required for all new access points on CSAH 13/Inwood Avenue and CSAH 10/10"' Street. 11660 Myeron Road North,Stillwater,Minnesota 55082.9573 Phone 651-430-4300 - Far.: 651-430-4350 - TTY: 651-430-6246 www.co.washington.mn.us Equal Employment Opportunity I Affirmative Action Inwood Village Preliminary Plan 2 Page Washington County in coordination with the City of Lake Elmo and the City of Oakdale will prepare a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)for access management along CSAH 13 (Inwood Avenue) and CSAH 10(10h Street) to provide direction on future access to this development project as well as other developments in the area. Other comments and recommendations include the following: • As noted on the comments on the PUD concept plan for this development, the right-of- way requirements for both CSAH 10/10'h Street and CSAH 13/Inwood Avenue is 184 feet (92 feet from the centerline of the roadway. Based on the Preliminary Plat dated 10/10/2014, there is approximately 180 feet of full right-of-way along CSAH 13/Inwood Avenue. Along CSAH10/10 Street, there appears to be 60 feet.This should be verified with the surveyor and an additional 32 feet will need to be dedicated and shown on the Preliminary and Final plats. • As noted on the comments on the PUD Concept Plan for this development, the Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2030, Planned Trail System, does not identify a trail corridor along CSAH 13/Inwood Avenue but does identify a Planned County Trail along CSAH 10/1&Street. Even though CSAH 13 is not identified as a county of regional trail 1,there is currently a trail along the west side of CSAH 13 extending from Woodbury to Oakdale, It is important to consider the development of trails on both sides of this CSAH 13/Inwood Avenue since this is an"K Minor Arterial Roadway in an urban area.We recommend that the city require trails along CSAH 13/Inwood Avenue and CSAH 10/10'h Street as part of this development. The city is also encouraged to develop their local trails in the area to connect with the county and regional trail system. • Washington County's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Minnesota Statute 116.07, Subpart 2a exempts County Roads and County State Aid Highways from noise thresholds. County policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The developer should assess the noise situation and take any action outside of County right of way deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. • All roadway improvements and any grading within County right-of-way will require a Washington County Right of Way Permit. • All utility connections for the development require Washington County Right of Way permits. Typically, these are the responsibility of the utility companies. Inwood Village Preliminary Plan 3 ) • The developer, city or watershed district must submit the drainage report and calculations for review of any downstream impacts to the county drainage system. Along with the drainage calculations, written conclusions that the volume and rate of stormwater run-off into any county right-of way will not increase as part of the project. • As noted previously, Washington County, as a part of the Gateway Corridor Commission, is preparing a Draft Environmental Statement(DEIS) for a proposed transitway through the 1-94 "Gateway Corridor"from St Paul to the Lake Elmo 1 Woodbury area. One of the potential stops would be in the general vicinity of this project area near CSAH 13/Inwood Avenue. The transit alternative may have impacts to adjacent roadways which will be dependent on a number of factors that have yet to be determined. The distance of this site from the station location chosen, the location of bicycle and pedestrian connections and the presence of transit supportive uses within the area may compliment this development. • Finally, the City could consider the following on the site plan: ■ Eliminating Street D2 since it may not be necessary. There could be a private drive with reasonable access off Street D. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this PUD concept plan. If you have any questions, please contact me at 651-430-4362 or ann.pung-terwedo@co.wash ington.mn.us, For permit applications, please contact Carol Hanson at carol.hanson@co.washington.mn.us. Re ands, Ann Pung-Terwedo Senior Planner c: Carol Hanson, Office Specialist rvlat reviewslplat review-lake elm&nwood pudMnwood pud preliminary 11-W-2014.docx 1 t . , i _ � �i ,� t `, 1 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 Council Member Bloyer asked what benefit would be gained. Mr. Kriesel said that is what the study is for. The economic development is one claimed benefit. Commissioner Lisa Weik explained some of the other benefits that the project will include and further explained some of the financial breakdown.Traffic lanes and other transportation options were discussed. Council Member Nelson asked about who is doing the study. County Senior Planner Andy Getzlaff explained who would be doing what in regards to the study. Community Development Director Klatt read letter from business owners along corridor who support the public transportation benefits. Mr. Klatt also explained the Met Council does not see any increase in density due to transit. Mr. Nelson asked why all four alternatives are listed in the resolution. It was explained that the crossing location will be studied in depth. By leaving the other alternatives in the resolution it allows the most flexibility for future stations. Council consensus was in favor of adding the E3 alternative language. It was clarified that light rail is no longer an option. City Attorney Snyder suggested now is the time that Council should add any language that they want. MOTION.Mayor Pearron moved TO ADOPT RESOLU77ON 2014-71, TRANSMITTING THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO'S SUPPORT OF THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) TO THE RAMSEY COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY, WASHINGTON COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY,AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. Comma Member Reeves seconded the motion. Mayor Pearson wants d-ie E3 alternative language added. Mr. Getzlaff suggested adding city also supports an E3 alternative. "The City of Lake Elmo would also support an A-B-C-D2-E3 alignment and continued evaluation as part of the Draft EIS." Council member Reeves believes there is a benefit for Lake Elmo if the City's requested conditions are met. MOTIONPASSED 5--0. Council Member Bloyerrequested a point ofprivilege at 8:59pm.Meeting reconvened at 9.-OSpm. ITEM 16: INWOOD PUD CONCEPT PLAN:RES.NO.2014-72 Community Development Director Klatt presented the PUD proposal by Inwood 10, LLC. Concept plan includes a IT planned development consisting of 157 Acres including 273 single family residential lots, 144 townhomes, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse units and approximately 68,814 sq. ft. of commercial/office uses.Mr.Klatt explained the Planning Commission conditions of approval updates. Council discussed Condition #20 regarding the western placement of the trails, Condition #18 regarding prohibiting multifamily north of 5t"street,and Condition#19 regarding sidewalks in cut-de-sacs.The Council consensus is to have those conditions re-evaluated as to whether they are necessary. Council Member Smith stated that she had not received this item in her packet. Mr. Klatt explained the number and type of units included in proposal. The density numbers were explained. It was noted that the northwestern 150 multifamily units would be eliminated and revert back to commercial. Mr. Matt also explained the PUD was being sought for more flexibility in design. Pam Morreale,785 Jasmine Ave. N.,read letter from neighbor Tom Fitzgerald (877 Jasmine Ave. N.),who could not attend meeting. He requested that the council deny the PUD based on the density. He also demanded that the city rewrite the comprehensive plan. Ms. Morreale read the petition that Stonegate submitted to the Planning Commission. John Rask from Hans Hagen Homes presented the proposed development. Wayne Prowse, 697 Julep Ave.N., spoke about preserving the Lake Elmo heritage by denying development that does not fit the character of the City. Nancy Andert, 697 Julep Ave. N., spoke about the impact on the Stonegate neighborhood. Requested that council deny PUD. Page 4 of 8 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16,2014 Michael Laneette, 832 Jasmine Ave. N., spoke in opposition to the PUD. He also identified specific issues he had with some of the conditions of approval. Curt Montieth,331 Julep Ave.N.,asked if council had enough time to review the proposal. Council clarified that they had received the info along with the Planning Commission and Park Commission meetings. City Administrator Zuleger explained staffs efforts to work with Mr.Montieth on the park issue. Planning Commissioner Tom Kreimer, 772 Jewel Ave. N. and Stonegate resident, asked council to deny the request. Planning Commissioner Kathleen Haggard, 12154 Marquess Ln. N., spoke about how the whole Stonegate neighborhood should have been notified. Greg Milner,9073 9th St.N.,spoke about his concern about the density and the 100 foot buffer. Planning Commissioner Jill Lundgren, 8282 Hidden Bay ct. N., took issue with the packet delivery. She does not believe the amount of time is not enough.Asked the council to deny proposal. David Heinriehs,781.Jewel Ave.N.,asked the council to reconsider the pace of growth. Council Member Bloyer noted that the city has to pay for the infrastructure in the ground. Ann Bucheck,2361 Legion Ave.N.,agrees with the petition and urged Council to deny the PUD. Fred Pomeroy, 687 Jewel Ave. N., opposed to PUD. He thinks that a builder will come back «rith a better product if they were forced to. Ben Roth, 10819 3rd St.Pl.,asked that council send the developer back"to the drawing board" MOTION.•Mayor 1'earron moved TO ADOPT RESOLUTION201¢072y APPROVING THE INWOOD PUD GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN.He withdrew his motion. Council Member Smith presented the REC units previously mandated under the MOU and the new figures now that the MOU is no longer in effect. She suggested that the city reevaluate the density numbers. Mr. Klatt explained the comp plan and density. Council Member Reeves noted that the developments Lake Elmo has approved have all been at the lower end of density figures. He and the mayor believe that it is important to have greater diversity in type of development.The current proposal is only 66%of the maximum density. Mr.Zuleger explained staff efforts on managing the traffic issues on Inwood and 10th. Mayor Pearson noted that the developer is following the approved land use plan. The Council clarified and discussed the proposed density.The overall density is 3.4 units per acre.Low density range is 2.5 to 4.0 units per acre. Mayor Pearson expressed his desire for further consideration of conditions #19(sidewalks)and #21(designer lots). City Attorney Snyder explained the legal status of the proposal. It was fuuther explained that the preliminary plat may contain different final densities when submitted, but it will be within the approved range. Council consensus was to direct the Planning Commission give further consideration of conditions #19 and#21. Motion: Council Member Bl yer moved TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2014-072, APPROVING THE INWOOD PUD GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN, WITH ALL THE PROVISIONS DISCUSSED. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. Page 5 of 8 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 Council Member Nelson acknowledged that the proposal is not perfect, but it is a great product and will be good for Lake Elmo. Council Member Smith wishes the numbers were lower but she lilies Hans Hagen product. Council Member Bloyer noted that the city needs to play by the rules that are in place. Council Member Reeves is happy this builder is in Lake Elmo and this development can be something special. Council discussed density ranges versus set density numbers.Mr.Bloyer asked for the last comp plan that was approved when the city moved to ranges provided to council. MOTION PASSED 4-1(SMITH—NAY) Council Member Smith explained she is not against developer or project but wants the parties to work together. Meeting recessed at 11.29 pm.Meeting reconvened at I1.34 pm. ITEM 17• BOULDER PONDS PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN: RES. NO.2014-73 Community Development Director Klatt presented the Boulder Ponds PUD.The proposal consists of a 162- unit planned residential development on a 58.3 acre parcel.There will be 98 residential lots in 2 phases.There will be future multi-family units.Mr. Matt explained the reason for the PUD,which mainly includes a couple of smaller lots and homes set closer together. Council Member Reeves noted that the proposal was at 61%of the maximum density. Deb Ridgeway of OP3 Boulder Ponds Excelsior Group was available for questions.There were none. MOTION.•Comnal.Member Reeves moved TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.2014-73,APPROVING THE BOULDER PONDS PRELIMINAR Y PLA T AND PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN SUBJECT TO 12 CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL. Coemcil Member Smith seconded the motion. Some of the engineering department and Fire department concerns were noted. MOTION PASSED 5--a ITEM 18•VILLAGE PARK PRESERVE PRELIMINARY PLAT:RES,NO.2014-74 Community Development Director Klatt described the proposed development by GSWA. The proposal consists of a 104-unit residential subdivision on a 63.6 acre parcel. Mr. Klatt explained the critical issues that are still pending.Stormwater management is a large issue.The street light impact fee was noted. Storm-water and regional retention was discussed. The impact these developments will have on the village was discussed. The proposed developments will actually be part of the solution for stormwater management. The park dedication was discussed. Mr. Klatt noted that because the developer has another project in the Village planning area they are looking to receive credit for one applied to other. Dave Gonyea noted that the additional infiltration and screening will be an option if the southern 4 homes on west side of the parkway are removed. Planning Commissioner Kathleen Haggard, 12154 Marquess Ln. N., spoke in opposition to development. She wants a grander entrance and additional landscaping. It was agreed that Gonyea could "dress up" the entrance a bit and possibly put an island back in the plans. MOTION. Mayor PearBon moved TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-74, APPROVING THE VILLAGE PARK PRESERVE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO 13 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. Colmeil iWember Nelron seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ITEM 19• HUNTERS CROSSING FINAL PLAT,RES.NO.2014-75 Community Development Director Klatt presented an overview of the proposed development by the Ryland Group. The proposal consists of a 51-unit residential subdivision on a 23 acre parcel and includes 22 single family lots.The phasing and design of 5th Street,access to the development, and landscaping was addressed. City .administrator Zuleger noted that the City has been working on this project for 14 months. Wirt "half the road"means was further explained. Page 6 of 8 Kyle Matt From: Jack Griffin <jack.griffin@focusengineeringinc.com> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 2:25 PM To: Kyle Klatt Subject: Inwood PUD - 5th Street Improvements and Transportation Engineering Review Findings Kyle, The City's Transportation Engineering Consultant, SRFwas asked to review the 5th Street design elements for the Inwood PUD. As of November 24th the review report is not yet available,however in speaking with the review engineer I was able to obtain a verbal summary of the major review findings. I have summarized these findings below with recommendations for plan modifications: 1. Eliminate access to 5th Street at Street D2. Traffic operations are expected to be negatively impacted with this non compliant access and the Street D full-access is expected to adequately serve the adjacent parcels. 2. Eliminate the right-in only access along 5th Street located opposite the Street D2 access. Traffic operations are expected to be negatively impacted with this non compliant access and the Street D full- access is expected to adequately serve the adjacent parcels. 3. Eliminate access to 5th Street at Street C east(Park Access). Recommended park access would be from Street C west with additional street segment connecting Street C west and Street C east along south edge of Lots 5 and 16, Block 7. 4. A traffic control improvement(traffic signal or roundabout)will be necessary at the 5th Street/Inwood Avenue intersection prior to full build-out. 5. Stripe the westbound approach at the Inwood Avenue/5th Street intersection for a left turn lane and a right turn lane. Align westbound approaching traffic with the striped left turn lane. The additional available pavement width could be utilized later for a duel left turn and single right turn lane configuration under traffic signal control. A duel left turn configuration is not recommended under side- street stop control. 6. Horizontal curvature as it passes Stonegate Park and Bremer Financial Services. o Preferred option: Provide the minimum guideline 667 foot radius horizontal curve as it passes Stonegate Park and Bremer Financial Services to maintain a uniform roadway speed to improve both safety and reduce emissions. o Acceptable option: Allow substandard design speed horizontal curve with 407.86 foot radius. To maintain State Aid standards the curve must have advanced advisory speed notice for 30 mph curve. o Additional option under review (findings pending): Allow substandard design speed horizontal curve with 407.86 foot radius and require superelevation to increase roadway design speed to 35 mph or 40 mph. 7. 5th Street design modifications are needed to align with the City standard typical section. o Provide a 10-foot utility easement along both sides of the 5th Street R/W per the City standard typical section. o Provide 18-feet wide through lanes, curb face to curb face (plan shows 17.7 feet). o Provide 2 foot minimum trail clear zone(plan shows 1.67.foot clear zone at turn lane sections). o Provide 2 foot minimum sidewalk clear zone(plan shows 1.67 foot clear zone at turn lane sections). i o Provide landscaping and theming elements for 5th Street section(currently not included in landscaping plans). Thanks Jack John(Jack)W. Griffin,P.E. Principal/ Sr. Municipal Engineer FOCUS ENGINEERING, INC. 651.300.4264 jack.gnffm(a-),focusen ing eeringinc.com 2 Community Development Department 1584 Hadley Avenue North 01 (lsililclde Oakdale,MN 55128 November 20,2014 Kyle Klatt Community Development Director City of Lake Elmo,MN 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo,Minnesota 55042 (VIA EMAIL) RE: InWood Preliminary Plat and PUD Development Plans Dear Mr.Klatt: Thank you for providing the InWood preliminary plat and PUD development plans for the City of Oakdale's review. We would like to comment on the following items: • The City of Oakdale does not support restricted access on Inwood Avenue at Oak Marsh Drive and 9'Street North. We understand that Inwood Avenue is a Washington County road;however, the access restrictions are being proposed as a consequence of the proposed InWood development. Any proposed access restrictions must be considered via an open process with significant stakeholder input. • The city would like to encourage the development of a trail along the east side of Inwood Avenue. This will provide greater trail connections in the area,particularly to the planned Gateway Bus Rapid Transit line. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed development adjacent to our city boundary and look forward to working with the city of Lake Elmo and Washington County as the proposal moves forward. Sincerely, Emily Shively City Planner City of Oakdale (651)730-2720 emily@ci.oakdale.mn.us Cc: Ann Pung-Terwedo Senior Planner Washington County 11660 Myeron Road North Stillwater,MN 55082-9573 (VIA EMAIL) Bob Streetar Community Development Director City of Oakdale 1584 Hadley Avenue North Oakdale,MN 55128 (VIA EMAIL) THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: December 2, 2014 REGULAR ITEM # 14 AGENDA ITEM: 2835 Legion Avenue—Request to Connect to Legion Avenue 201 Wastewater System(Old Village Remote A) SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stempski,Assistant City Engineer THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger,City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin,City Engineer Cathy Bendel,Finance Director Mike Bouthilet,Public Works SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item..................................................................................City Engineer - Report/Presentation...................................................................................City Engineer - Questions from Council to Staff.........................................................Mayor Facilitates Public Input,if Appropriate.............................................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ...............................................................Mayor& City Council Discussion.......................................................................Mayor& City Council - Action on Motion....................................................................Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering/Public Works FISCAL IMPACT: None The property owner at 2835 Legion Avenue will be required to pay an up-front system buy-in cost of $7,520; will need to obtain a sewer connection permit and pay the permit fee; and will be required to extend and connect to the City 201 Wastewater System at their own cost. Upon connection, the property owner will be billed the applicable wastewater system user charges. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider a request from Scott and Cindy Baerman at 2835 Legion Avenue to connect to the City's 201 Wastewater System located along Legion Avenue. The recommended motion for the action is as follows: --page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 141 December 21 2014 "Move to approve an Assessment Agreement for 2835 Legion Avenge to Connect to the 201 Wastewater System (Old Village Remote A)." LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City was recently contacted by Scott Baerman, property owner at 2835 Legion Avenue, regarding ongoing performance issues with his septic system. The property owner referenced a non-compliant Septic System Compliance Report by Inspect Minnesota&Midwest Soil Testing dated May 6,2009.This report identified issues with bottomless tanks, a lack of three foot separation between the bottom of the seepage bed and seasonally saturated soils. The system is referenced as an imminent threat to public health and safety because of the unsafe manhole covers. The property owner was given the following three options by Washington County: 1. Replace the system in its entirety. 2. Abandon the current system and install holding tanks. The holding tanks will be a temporary measure until City sewer becomes available in the future. 3. Hook up to the City 201 Wastewater System. An Assessment Agreement to connect the City 201 Wastewater System was drafted and provided to the property owner. The system buy-in cost was determined by staff by using the assessment costs charge to current system users at the time the system was constructed and indexing those costs to today's dollar amounts. Upon review of this agreement, the property owner has formally requested permission to connect to this system pursuant the terms of the Assessment Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending the City Council approve an Assessment Agreement for 2835 Legion Avenue to connect to the City 201 Wastewater System.The recommended motion for the action is as follows: "Move to approve an Assessment Agreement for 2835 Legion Avenue to Connect to the 201 Wastewater System (Old Village Remote A)." ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Legion Avenue 201 Wastewater System(Old Village Remote A)Record Drawing. 2. Assessment Agreement 3. Septic System Compliance Report by Inspect Minnesota & Midwest Soil Testing, dated May 6, 2009. --page 2-- OD Nltl°ry-3M Np933 I m U) W i i f _—�_—_ V1 •6 t0 LL 0 ff . ( i - I w E. I I o IBIS 9~0O_ o ,_ - v N I° W3 i6 LU O W tD .y T --4 >m I co LuOr ,- g¢p O 13 Z O z gS� ino�X3 ` I 5 o t~� z w n t- Ld N��� tlg 1�� • .� i� ¢gd - Q uJ g"s ea egg gms 3r gm ^ gym a - O ash Bga taY a gym. yyew tl�^ Y�e E&: Ee€l€ GQg S� � so Aia: 8g!,l Hi P9_o it '� A4r .a � �� ' P1kwum ;n a 4 .@ T Gn y'e t 9I W _ - f$ b 1` 8g b I C'` g•, gt 06 I ;�d e"•7 G P,y K >e7 r5 Wz S 8 yy 'c .te,. a x RR 1/ ffif g. wg iIr sad 4 Q I` I gl l b Q I s - si a Z W�wl ia'z_. i I w,° 4is ~' hl 30 TH ST NORTH I Return To: David K.Snyder,Esq. 7oHNsoN/TURNER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 56 East Broadway Avenue,Suite 206 Forest Lake,MN 55025 DRAFT-NOVEMBER 14, 2014 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY,MINNESOTA ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 2014, by and between the City of Lake Elmo, a Minnesota municipality organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota(hereinafter referred to as "City"); and Scott and Cindy Baerman, owners of the property located at 2832 Legion Avenue N.,Lake Elmo MN, 55042 (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"). WITNESS: WHEREAS,the City Council of the City has,by council action taken on approved a request by Applicant to connect to the City's 201 Wastewater Treatment System, Remote A located on Legion Avenue North due to a noncompliant system located on their property; and, WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to enter into development contracts as contemplated in Minnesota Statutes §462.358, Subd. 2(a); and, WHEREAS,the parties hereto desire to set forth their respective rights and obligations. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises and conditions contained herein, it is agreed by the parties hereto as follows: 1. The Council has approved the Applicant's request to connect to the Remote A 201 wastewater treatment system for a treatment system buy-in cost of $7,520 to be paid before the connection is made. 2. The applicant is responsible for performing the work and incurring all costs for constructing their sanitary sewer service line and connecting to the City's 2.5-inch low pressure forcemain located within the right of way of Legion Avenue North. 3. The applicant must retain a licensed contractor and obtain a sewer connection permit before commencing the work. The sewer connection permit must include a scaled drawing showing the work to be performed in accordance with the state building code requirements, including curb stop and valve locations,to be reviewed and approved by the City Building Official. 4. At the time that the City notifies the Applicant that the public sanitary sewer is or _ was made available, then the Applicant shall, within six (6) months, connect to public sanitary sewer. Applicant agrees that in connection with any assessment proceeding, the value conferred on the Applicant's property by the availability of public sewer shall be determined based upon the fact that no permanent septic system serves the property and that the 201 wastewater treatment system connection is temporary and would no longer be useable once sanitary sewer is furnished to the property. 5. Warranty of Title. Applicant warrants and represents to the City that it is the fee owner(s) of the Subject Parcel described herein and that it has authority to execute this Assessment Agreement and agree to the conditions hereof. 6. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be deemed to be a restrictive covenant and the terms and conditions hereof shall run with the lands described herein, and be binding on and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives and assigns of the parties hereto, and shall be binding upon all future owners of all or any part of the subject property, and shall be deemed covenants running with the land. Reference herein to the Applicant, if there be more than one, shall mean each and all of them. This Agreement shall be placed of record so as to give notice hereof to subsequent purchasers, the cost of said recording shall be borne by the Applicant and charged against the escrow account. 7. Notices. Any notice or other communication that either party wishes or must give to the other shall be deemed duly given: (i) on the date of personal delivery or (ii) two (2) days following mailing by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the following addresses of the parties or to such other address as either party shall designate to the other: City of Lake Elmo: Adam Bell, City Clerk City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo,MN 55042 Applicant: Scott and Cindy Baerman 2832 Legion Avenue North Lake Elmo,MN 55042 8. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with and be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties hereto and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between the parties with respect to the matters contained herein. 10. Amendment, Modification or Waiver. No amendment, modification or waiver of any condition, provision or term herein shall be valid or of any effect unless made in writing, signed by the party or parties to be bound or by a duly authorized representative thereof and specifying with particularity the extent and nature of such amendment, modification and waiver. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Applicant have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE(S)] APPLICANT Scott Baerman Cindy Baerman STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) On this day of ,2014,before me, a Notary Public,within and for said County and State,personally appeared Scott Baerman and Cindy Baerman,husband and wife,who signed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged said instrument to be their free act and deed. Notary Public CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: By: Mike Pearson Adam Bell Its: Mayor Its: Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2014, by Mike Pearson, the Mayor of the City of Lake Elmo, a Minnesota municipal corporation,on behalf of said City with full authority so to do. OFFICIAL SEAL OF NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2014, by Adam Bell, the Clerk of the City of Lake Elmo, a Minnesota municipal corporation,on behalf of said City with full authority so to do. OFFICIAL SEAL OF NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: David K.Snyder,Esq. JOHNsoN/TURNER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 56 East Broadway Avenue,Suite 206 Forest Lake,MN 55025 (651)464-7292 Inspect Minnesota & Midwest Soil Testing Brian Humpal - President - MPCA Licensed Designer,Inspector,Installer,and Pumper May 7,2009 Mr. Brad Hetlund Keller Williams Realty 659 Bielenberg Drive Suite 100 Woodbury,MN 55125 Subject: Septic System at 2832 Legion Ave, Lake Elmo,MN Dear Brad: Please find attached septic system report for subject property. I am sending a copy of the enclosed septic report to your client who has paid for our services at the time of the inspection. Thank you very much for allowing me to do this work. Please contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Brian Humpal Copies: Mr. Scott Baerman -Buyer Mr. Karl Homing-City of Lake Elmo P.O. Box 383 • Hugo,MN 55038 •Phone (651)493-2682 • Fax (651)493-2683 Inspect Minnesota & Midwest Soil Testing P.O. Box 383 Hugo,MN 55038 Brian Humpal 651-493-2682 MPCA Licensed Designer& Inspector SEPTIC SYSTEM COMPLIANCE REPORT Date: May 6, 2009 Time: 10:00 AM Owner: Elizabeth &Theodore Olson Inspection Address: 2832 Legion Ave, Lake Elmo,MN 55042 REPORT SUMMARY I have performed an "MPCA Compliance Inspection" on this septic system, have reviewed the sellers "private sewer system disclosure" statement, and have reviewed the limited design/permit records on file at the City of Lake Elmo. This system consists of a bottomless septic tank, a bottomless lift tank, and a gravity seepage bed (bottomless septic tanks are considered to be cesspools by the MPCA). The septic tanks were most likely installed in 1970 when the house was built and the seepage bed was installed in 1981, with an addition to the bed in 1996. My inspection indicates that this system is presently "non-compliant" in accordance with MPCA rules 7080.1500 Subp.4(B)(D) because of the bottomless tanks (cesspools) and also the lack of the required three foot separation between the bottom of the seepage bed and seasonally saturated soils. This system is also an imminent threat to public health and safety per MPCA rule 7080.1500 Subp.4(A)because of the unsafe manhole covers. In accordance with MPCA rules, I am sending a copy of this complete report to the City of Lake Elmo. I am not sure of the City's requirements on the upgrading of these non-compliant systems and cannot officially speak on behalf of the City. Please contact City of Lake Elmo Building Inspector,Mr. Karl Horning,(651-777-5510) to verify the City's position. Please advise buyer, agents, lender, etc. to contact me at any time should they have any questions regarding this system. Brian Humpal NOTE: This report is not complete without the inclusion/attachment of the additional pages which consist of up to five(5)MPCA drafted Compliance Inspection Documents,one(1)Homeowner/Occupant Information Sheet(when obtainable),one(1)site diagram,one(1)log of soil boring(s),one(1)Brian L Humpal,Inc.Disclaimer Sheet,and one(1)MPCA License. Page 1 of 10 Minnesota Pollution Compliance Inspection Form Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North Existing Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS) St.Paul,MN 55155-4194 Instructions on page 7 Parcel number: For Local Tracking Purposes: System status: ❑ Compliant ® Noncompliant (based on all compliance requirements) Summary Form Property Information Property owner name(s): Elizabeth&Theodore Olson Property address: 2832 Legion Ave,Lake Elmo,MN 55042 Property owner's address(if different): Unknown County: Washington Property owner phone: Unknown Permitting authority: Lake Elmo Date system constructed: 70,81,96 Reason for inspection: Property Sale System Description Brief system description: Bottomless septic&lift tank,gravity seepage bed(bottomless tanks are considered cesspools by the MPCA) Local permit number: 96-165 Number of bedrooms: 3 Design flow rate: Unknown Is the system: In Shoreland area? ❑ Yes ®No In Wellhead Protection Area? ❑Yes ® No An U.S. Environmental Protection System serving a Minnesota Department Agency(EPA)Class V Injection Well?❑ Yes ®No of Heath(MDH)licensed facility? ❑Yes ® No Compliance Status(Based on state requirements—additional local requirements may also apply.) Based on the information gathered and reported on attached forms,the compliance status of this system is(check one): ❑ Certificate of Compliance—valid until (3 years from date of report): ® Notice of Noncompliance-For Noncompliant systems: Bottomless septic tank,bottomless lift tank,lack of the required three foot separation between The reason for noncompliance is: the bottom of the seepage bed and seasonally saturated soils,unsafe manhole covers This noncompliant system is classified as(check one below): ® Imminent threat to public health&safety ® Failing to protect ground water ❑ Not in compliance with operating permit Certification (Completed form must be submitted to the local unit of government within 15 days.) I hereby certify that all the necessary information has been gathered to determine the compliance status of this system. No determination of future system performance has been nor can be made due to unknown conditions during system construction, possible abuse of the system, inadequate maintenance, or future water usage. Name: Brian Humpal Certification number: C5342 Business license name and number: Inspect Minnesota, Midwest Soil Testing-L2896 or Name of local unit of government: Signature: Date: 5/7/09 Required Attachments Inspector Complete: This Inspection Report is 10 pages long. Check compliance forms attached: ®Hydraulic Performance ®Tank Integrity ®Soil Separation ❑Operating Permit Form(if applicable) ®System drawing/As-built drawing ❑An assessment of any local requirements that are different from what is required on this form ®Soil Boring Logs ❑Abandonment form(if appropriate) ®Other information(list): Report Summary,Property Information,Disclaimer,License Upgrade Requirements (derived from Minn.Stat.§115.55)An imminent threat to public health and safety(ITPHS)must be upgraded,replaced,or its use discontinued within ten months of receipt of this notice or within a shorter period if required by local ordinance.If the system is failing to protect ground water,the system must be upgraded,replaced,or its use discontinued within the time required by local ordinance.If an existing system is not failing as defined in law,and has at least two feet of design soil separation,then the system need not be upgraded,repaired,replaced,or its use discontinued,notwithstanding any local ordinance that is more strict.This provision does not apply to systems in shoreland areas.Wellhead Protection Areas,or those used in connection with food, beverage,and lodging establishments as defined in law. wq-wwists4-31 Page 2 of 10 Compliance Inspection Form for Existing SSTS 414108 Parcel number: System status: ❑Compliant ® Noncompliant (as determined by this form) Hydraulic Performance and Other Compliance Compliance Issue #1 of 4 Date of observation: 5/6/09 Reason for observation: Property Sale This form expires upon next inspection or in three years,whichever occurs first: 5/6/2012 Compliance questions/criteria: (Required) Verification Method*: (Optional) (Check the appropriate box) (Check the appropriate box) Does the system discharge sewage to the ❑Yes ® No round surface? ® Searched for surface outlet ❑ Performed hydraulic test Does the system discharge sewage to drain [:]Yes ® No tile or surface waters? ® Searched for seeping in yard Does the system cause sewage backup ❑Yes ® No ® Checked for backup in home into dwelling or establishment? ❑ Excessive ponding in soil system/D-boxes Do other situations exist that have the ❑ Yes ® No ® Homeowner testimony potential to immediately and adversely impact or threaten public health or safety ® Examined for surging in tank electrical, unsafe covers,etc.)? ❑ "Black soil"above soil dispersal system Any"yes"answer indicates that the system is an imminent threat to public health and safety. ❑ System requires"emergency"pumping ❑ Performed dye test Does the system pose a threat to ground ®Yes ❑No water for any conditions deemed non- ® Other: None of the above found rotective as determined by the inspector? "Yes"indicates that the system is failing to protect ground water.if"yes",describe the condition noted: "No standard protocol exists. This list is not exhaustive, Bottomless tanks(cesspools) in sequential order, nor does it indicate which Lack of the required three foot separation between the bottom of the combinations are necessary to make this determination. drainfield and seasonally saturated soils Certification This form is to be completed and attached to the Summary Form of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's(MPCA)Compliance Inspection Form for Existing Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems.Observations, interpretations, and conclusions must be completed by an inspector. Completed form must be submitted to the local unit of government within 15 days. Property owner name(s): Elizabeth&Theodore Olson Property address: 2832 Legion Ave,Lake Elmo,MN 55042 Property owner's address(if different): Unknown County: Washington Phone: Unknown I hereby certify that I personally made the observations, interpretations, and conclusions reported on this form and that they are correct. Name: Brian Humpal Certification number: C5342 Business license name and number: Inspect Minnesota, Midwest Soil Testing-L2896 or Name of local unit of government: Signature: `^"f"a Date: 5/7/09 wq-wwists4-31 Page 3 of 10 Compliance Inspection Form for Existing SSTS 414108 Parcel number: System status: ❑Compliant ® Noncompliant (as determined by this form) Tank Integrity and Safety Compliance Compliance Issue #2 of 4 Date of observation: 5/6/09 Reason for observation: Property Sale This form expires on(three years): 5/6/2012 Compliance questions/criteria: (Required) Verification Method*": (Optional) Check the a propriate box (Check the appropriate box) Does the system consist of a seepage pit*, ®Yes ❑ No ® Probed tank bottom cesspool,drywell,or leaching it? Do any sewage tank(s)leak below their ®Yes [—] No ® Observed low liquid level designed operating depth? ❑ Examined construction records If yes, identify which sewage All Tanks ❑ Examined empty(pumped)tank tank leaks. ❑ Probed outside tank for"black soil" Any"yes"answer indicates that the system is failing to protect ground water. ❑ Pressure/vacuum check ❑ Other: * Seepage pits meeting 7080.2550 may be compliant if allowed in ordinance by local permitting authority. **No standard protocol exists. This list is not exhaustive,in sequential order,nor does it indicate which combinations are necessary to make this determination. Safety Check 1. Are any maintenance hole covers damaged,cracked,or appeared to be structurally unsound? ®Yes* ❑ No 2. Were all maintenance hole covers replaced in a secured manner(e.g.,all screws replaced)? ❑Yes ® No* 3. Was secondary access restraint present(safety pan,second cover,or safety netting)—highly recommended. ❑Yes ® No 4. Was any other safety/health issue present? ®Yes* ❑ No Explain: Manhole covers are unsafe and can easily be removed *System is an imminent threat to public health and safety. Certification This form is to be completed and attached to the Summary Form of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's(MPCA)Compliance Inspection Form for Existing Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems.Observations, interpretations, and conclusions must be completed by an inspector, maintainer,or service provider.Completed form must be submitted to the local unit of government within 15 days. Property owner name(s): Elizabeth&Theodore Olson Property address: 2832 Legion Ave,Lake Elmo,MN 55042 Property owner's address(if different): Unknown County: Washington Phone: Unknown I hereby certify that I personally made the observations, interpretations, and conclusions reported on this form and that they are correct. Name: Brian Humpal Certification number: C5342 Business license name and number: Inspect Minnesota, Midwest Soil Testing-L2896 or Name of localunit oof,f_goverrnment:: p Signature: ` X " ." Date: 5/7/09 wq-wwists4-31 Page 4 of 10 Compliance Inspection Form for Existing SSTS 414108 Parcel number: System status: ❑Compliant ® Noncompliant (as determined by this form) Soil Separation Compliance and Other Compliance Compliance Issue #3 of 4 Date of observation: 5/6/09 Reason for observation: Property Sale This information on this form does not expire. Compliance questions/criteria: (Required) Verification Method": (Optional) Check the appropriate box (Check the appropriate box) For systems built prior to April 1, 1996, and not ❑ Conducted soil observation(s)(attach boring logs) located in Shoreland or Wellhead Protection Area or not serving a food, beverage or ❑ Two previous verifications(attach boring logs) lodging establishment: ❑ Other: Does the system have at least a two-foot vertical separation distance from periodically saturated soil or bedrock? ❑Yes ❑No For non-performance systems built April 1, 1996, or later or for non-performance systems located in Shoreland or Wellhead Protection Soil observation does not expire. Previous observations Areas or serving a food, beverage or lodging by two independent parties are sufficient,unless site establishment: conditions have been altered. Does the system have a three-foot vertical separation distance from periodically saturated soil or bedrock?* ❑Yes ® No For reduced separation distance systems(i.e., ,.performance"systems under old 7080.0179 or * May be reduced by up to 15 percent if allowed in local Type IV or V system under new 7080.2350 or ordinance. 7080.2400): **No standard protocol exists. This list is not exhaustive, Does the system meet the designed vertical in sequential order,nor does it indicate which separation distance from periodically saturated combinations are necessary to make this soil or bedrock?* ❑ Yes [—] No determination. Any"no"answer indicates that the system is failing to protect ground water. Certification This form is to be completed and attached to the Summary Form of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's(MPCA)Compliance Inspection Form for Existing Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems.Observations, interpretations,and conclusions must be completed by an inspector or designer. Completed form must be submitted to the local unit of government within 15 days. Property owner name(s): Elizabeth&Theodore Olson Property address: 2832 Legion Ave,Lake Elmo,MN 55042 Property owner's address(if different): Unknown County: Washington Phone: Unknown I hereby certify that I personally made the observations, interpretations, and conclusions reported on this form and that they are correct. Name: Brian Humpal Certification number: C5342 Business license name and number: Inspect Minnesota, Midwest Soil Testing-L2896 or Name of local unit of government: - Signature: �"^ � Date: 5/7/09 wq-wwists4-31 Page 5 of 10 Compliance Inspection Form for Existing SSTS 414108 Inspect Minnesota & Midwest Soil Testing Septic System Owner/Occupant Information The following information must be provided by the legal Owner or authorized representative. The information will be used for the purpose of conducting an MPCA Compliance Inspection. Date of Inspection s-t; -Oq Time O d /ai Property Address 2g31, LtgAv.4. L.G.Vy— V-1r^o PL A/ Zip S 5 O�{2 Property Owner E1�Ta,b,—kL. -- 'Ch,�ors OISo,.t Phone (Check appropriate sewer system component and indicate on site sketch on back of form). Tanks Tank(s)Material Soil Treatment System Other XSeptic _fiberglass _rock trench _alternative system _Aerobic _plastic _gravelless trench _experimental system XCPump _metal _chamber trench _drywell system _Holding concrete Xseepage bed(,ra,;� _other system block _mound Kother b0 oP*%,c.� _at-grade Have any other compliance inspections been done on this system?_When/why/who? Year house built Ia 1 n Year septic installed'10,J I,q 4 Tank size qoo e.sA, gals. How long has seller lived in home? Number of residents in home? More than one system (laundry, etc.)? Aj Number of bedrooms? Garbage disposal?N Whirlpool bath?YAre all floors drained by gravity? Does this property have any footing drain tiles connected to the septic system? Al Do any buildings on this property such as garages, workshops, etc. have floor drains connected to the septic system? AJ Location of septic system on lot? To»�A L- C Location of water well on lot? CA., W&k.cx- Is the well a deep well?&_ Have you ever experienced any p or eml s with the system such as tree roots, sewage back-ups in floor drains, sinks, toilets, etc.; sewage odors inside/outside of property, surfacing of sewage onto the ground, septic tank overflowing, etc., or have any repairs been made to the system? If yes, explain When was the system last pumped? 20o1 _ Name of pumper How often pumped in previous years? Is system on a monitoring plan? Have you received notices from any government agency concerning this system? Is your property located in a shoreland management area? ^/ Do you have an}, additional information that should be given to the new owner? I hereby certify that the above information is correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that if the system is considered"failing" per MPCA rules, that the inspector must by law submit a copy of this report to the local unit of government within 30 days of the date of inspection completion. l also agree that unless otherwise noted in this report,that I/we are ultimately responsible for payment of all fees for all work performed relative to this inspection by Inspect Minnesota and Midwest Soil Testing, Owner/Occupant yGC���' Date Page 6 of 10 ^ - Page 7m10 Log Of Soil Borings Location of Project: 2832 Legion Ave Lake Elmo MN 55042 Borings Made By: Inspect Minnesota I Date: 5/6/09 Auger Used: Hand/Bucket Classification System: USDA Boring Number: 1 Boring Number: Surface Same as ground surface at Surface Elevation of seepage bed Elevation of Boring Boring Depth In Soils Encountered Depth In Soils Encountered Inches Inches 0-6 7.5YR 2.5/2 Silt Loam (Fill) 6-20 7.5YR 3/4 Loamy Sand (Fill) 20-33 7.5YR 3/4 Loamy Sand W/Silt Loam Layers And 5YR 5/8 & 7.5YR 5/2 Fill Mottles 33-46 7.5YR 4/4 Loamy Sand (Fill) With 7.5YR 5/8 & 7.5YR 5/3 Mottles/Redox 46-54 10YR 3/2 Sandy Loam Native Soil With 5YR 4/6 & 7.5YR 4/1 Mottles/Redox 54-66 10YR 3/2 Loam Sand Saturated 66-72 10YR 3/1 Sandy Loam Saturated 20" Depth To End Of Boring Or Mottled Soils Depth To End Of Boring Or Mottled Soils Same Elevation Of Boring Relative To System Elevation Of Boring Relative To System -33" Depth To Bottom Of System Depth To Bottom Of System =0" Of Separation 10f Separation End Of Boring At: 72" End Of Boring At: Mottled Soil Present At: 20" Mottled Soil Present At: Standing Water Present At: None Standing Water Present At: Bottom Of Distribution Medium At: 33 Inches Page 8 of 10 Brian L. Humpal, Inc. dba. Inspect Minnesota, Midwest Soil Testing DISCLAIMER SHEET Relative to Septic System Compliance Inspections 1. This inspection/report is being performed for only the seller/owner of the property on which the septic system is located; there is no contract between Brian L. Humpal, Inc. and any other party except the seller/owner unless otherwise noted. In such case that the buyer of the property is paying for the inspection, the contract is between only the buyer of the property and Brian L. Humpal, Inc.,there is no contract with any other party unless otherwise noted. 2. Brian L. Humpal, Inc. has not been retained to warrant, guarantee, or certify the proper functioning of the system for any period of time beyond the date of inspection or the future. Because of the numerous factors (usage, maintenance, tank pumping, soil characteristics, previous failures, etc.) which may affect the proper operation of a septic system, as well as the inability of Brian L. Humpal, Inc. to supervise or monitor the use or maintenance of the system, the report shall not be construed as a warranty by Brian L. Humpal, Inc. that the system will function properly for any particular person for any period of time. 3. Minimum Compliance Inspection requirements relative to this inspection and this report include only verification that the septic system has a water tight septic tank(s) and lift tank, the required separation from the bottom of the drainfield/mound distribution medium and saturated soils, no back-ups of sewage into the dwelling, and no discharge of sewage/effluent onto the ground surface or surface water (lakes, streams, etc.) Brian L. Humpal, Inc. does not inspect basement ejector pumps or exterior lift tank pumps as they are considered to be a"maintenance item". Sewage back- up verification is limited to observing the floor drain area and/or the information supplied by the last occupants of the dwelling prior to inspection. Brian L. Humpal, Inc. cannot guarantee that the information given to them by the last occupants of the dwelling prior to inspection relative to back- ups is accurate. Some persons may attempt to hide or conceal signs of previous back-ups. 4. Certification of this system does not warranty future use beyond the date of the inspection. Any system, old or new, can be hydraulically overloaded as a result of more people moving into the house than were previously occupying the house, improper maintenance and/or heavy usage, tree roots, freezing conditions, surface drainage problems, or the system can simply stop working because of it's age. The average life expectancy of a properly maintained septic system is twenty to twenty five years. 5. A Compliance Inspection is not meant to be a test or inspection for longevity of the septic system, a Compliance Inspection is strictly for the purpose of determining if the septic system is polluting the environment at the date and time the inspection is performed. This inspection is not intended to determine if the septic system was originally designed or installed to past or present MPCA or Local Unit of Government code requirements. 6. WINTER WORK: Client (person paying for inspection) understands that inspections conducted during winter weather(approximately November I"through April I") are more difficult to perform because of the possible snow cover and ground frost. Septic system components such as tanks / tank covers and drop boxes / drop box covers and soil treatment areas are more difficult to locate because of snow cover and ground frost. Soil borings and locating drainfields are more difficult to perform because of ground frost. Brian L. Humpal, Inc. will attempt to use the same level of standards when performing winter work as when performing non-winter work. However, Client understands that because of aforementioned considerations, the same level of standards may not be possible. Page 9 of 10 _ � rn rn rn rn 00000 00000 N N N N N ° \G Cl [V N N i O C11 N N f11 OJ O U Ul U u U . U q Ir'�1 x •" rR`"'rG'• � Q� V f rx w w Qj 10 •� G, U v H M y m a�v9 V >= 4. C„ y., L. O 0 cu 0 on cz f==1 3 C� v h N N N N O '1 'n Vl W UW •0000 • 1 m w F� di 'w 1 !,1 C U_ a� •� � �. • o c C1 r Ln Ln `o �n Z L e y g «, �-1 V G R 0. 0. m 0 0 U $ 4-0 v JA c c .5 .S ,a Qj cC c=^J c=s r C o a N 111 N Ln a o �� Z THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: December 2, 2014 REGULAR ITEM# 15 AGENDA ITEM: EN Properties, LLC Trucking Terminal Interim Use Permit Renewal SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner 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: Terry Emerson (EN Properties, LLC) is requesting that the City Council renew the interim use permit that has previously been issued for his property at 11530 Hudson Boulevard in Lake Elmo. Staff is recommending approval of a two-year extension for the interim use for this property. FISCAL IMPACT: None—the City's Interim Use Ordinance specifies that the operation of the interim use will not add additional costs to the City concerning future public improvements in this area. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a request by Terry Emerson of EN Properties for the renewal of an Interim Use Permit related to his truck terminal facility located at 11530 Hudson Boulevard. The Interim Use Permit for this property was originally approved by the Council on December 9, 2008 and was reviewed little more than a year after the approval date. The applicant has received a subsequent extension for the interim use that technically expired at the end of 2012. Because there have been no changes to the site since the previous extension and because Staff is not aware of any issues or concerns associated with the operation of the facility, Staff is recommending that the City process the renewal request in accordance with the requirements for renewal of an interim use permit as specified in the Zoning Ordinance (as opposed to requiring an entirely new application). --page 1 -- City Council Meeting Regular Agenda Item 15 December 2,2014 Staff has previously conducted an on-site review of the site with the applicant, and has not observed any changes to the site since this review was conducted. Staff is recommending that the City grant a two-year renewal to allow the trucking terminal to continue operating on this location. Should the Council decide to approve the renewal request, the original Interim Use Permit agreement will need to be revised and updated to reflect the new termination date. A revised agreement is attached to this report and referenced in the draft resolution of approval. The recommended motion to take action on the request is as follows: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-95 granting a renewal for an Interim Use Permit to allow a bus/truck terminal at 11530 Hudson Boulevard and approving a revised consent agreement for the interim use renewal time period." LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/STAFF REPORT: Because the Interim Use Permit is not operating under circumstances that are different than originally described in the initial permit request, Staff will not be providing the Planning Commission and City Council with a new Staff report or additional information concerning this use. The original report filed with the Council in December of 2008 is available for review, along with any of the subsequent City reviews. The City's regulations pertaining to Interim Uses has been updated since the applicant's permit was granted;however, the general findings and conclusions from the original report and as references in the Interim Use Agreement are still valid. The trucking terminal currently operating from 11530 Hudson Boulevard is allowed as an Interim Use subject to the standards for a non-agricultural low impact use, and has been in operation since early 2009. If the permit is renewed by the City Council, the applicant has indicated that he is working with the Kenworth Trucking company to move into this site and operate under the requirements of the existing permit and ordinance requirements. The City's Interim Use Ordinance includes special requirements for the review of a renewal request that requires notification of the renewal be sent to surrounding property owners. If there are no objections to the interim use permit renewal expressed within 10 days of this notice, the City Council can approve the request by resolution. Should any objections be filed with the City, the permit must be reviewed as a new application. Staff has sent out notices in accordance with this ordinance, and the 10 day comment period will end on November 28, 2014. Staff has not received any comments to date, and will be preparing a resolution of approval for consideration by the City Council at its December 2, 2014 meeting. As noted in previous reviews of the interim use, Staff has observed the following: • Traffic: The non-agricultural low impact use standards specify that the daily vehicle trips from the site cannot exceed 6 trips per acre of agricultural land. Because the agricultural area owned by the applicant is 70 acres in size, the total number of vehicle trips cannot exceed 420 per day. The applicant has estimated that there are no more than 120 trips in and out of the site every day by trucks and employee vehicles. Staff s own observations --page 2 -- City Council Meeting Regular Agenda Item 15 December 2,2014 during visits to the site since it began operations, in addition to daily trips along Manning Avenue,have supported this estimate. • Site Operation. The daily use of the site has not changed substantially from the way it was originally run as a bus garage. Although the semi-trailers being parked on the site are generally larger than the school buses that previously were stored and serviced here, the number of daily trips is substantially lower now than in the recent past. The overall site activities, including exterior storage, light maintenance/servicing of vehicles, and refueling are very similar to past activities, but with fewer vehicles and trips into and outside of the property. • Landscaping. One of the conditions of Interim Use approval stated "that additional screening be provided in all locations recommended by the City Forester in order to replace vegetation that has either died or been removed". The applicant did plant some additional trees on the site in early 2009, and has previously replaced more trees along the northern and eastern site boundaries. Given the replanting that has occurred since the Interim Use Permit was issued, the applicant has been demonstrating a clear intent to comply with the original landscape plan since the issuance of the Interim Use Permit • Interim Use Permit/Consent Agreement. The Interim Use provisions in the Zoning Ordinance (and the resolution of approval) require that an applicant for an interim use permit enter into a consent agreement with the City that clarifies the terms and requirements under which the interim use can operate. With the request for renewal, the City will need to consider and approve a revised consent agreement, which at a minimum, should reference the new termination date for the interim use. BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): Strengths: The proposed IUP renewal will allow the continued operation of a business in the community that has had a limited impact in this area. Weaknesses: The City will need to continue monitoring the interim use as future development projects come forward. Opportunities: The interim use allows a limited use of agricultural land in advance of future development in this portion of the City. Threats: The user of this site will need to be taken into account as part of future development proposals. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information and Staff report, it is recommended that the City Council renew the Interim Use Permit concerning the EN Properties, LLC Trucking Terminal facility operating at 11530 Hudson Boulevard by undertaking the following action: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-95 granting a renewal for an Interim Use Permit to allow a bus/truck terminal at 11530 Hudson Boulevard and approving a revised consent agreement for the interim use renewal time period." --page 3 -- City Council Meeting Regular Agenda Item 15 December 2, 2014 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2014-95 2. Location Map 3. Updated Consent Agreement --page 4-- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-95 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A RENEWAL FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A BUS/TRUCK TREMINAL AT 11530 HUDSON BOULEVARD SOUTH AND APPROVING A REVISED CONSENT AGREEMENT FOR THE INTERIM USE RENEWAL TIME PERIOD WHEREAS, Terry Emerson, E & E Properties, 11530 Hudson Boulevard South, has submitted a request to renew an Interim Use Permit related to a non-agricultural low impact use at 11530 Hudson Boulevard South establishing a bus/truck terminal in a HD- A-BP zoning district. WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on November 10, 2008, and reviewed and recommended approval of the Interim Use Permit for a bus/truck terminal on the site based on the following findings: 1) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all of the standards for a non- agricultural low impact use; and 2) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all applicable City Code standards for the issuance of an interim use. WHEREAS, Section 154.019, Subd. (B, 5) of the City Code requires the applicant to enter into a consent agreement with the City the specifies the terms and conditions of the interim use; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo City Council reviewed the Interim Use Permit request and consent agreement at its December 1 and December 9, 2008 meetings and approved the Interim Use Permit and consent agreement at its December 9, 2008 meeting; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on December 13, 2010, and reviewed and recommended approval of the renewal request concerning the Interim Use Permit for a bus/truck terminal on the site based on the findings that were included in the City original approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered a request for an additional renewal of the interim use permit at its December 2, 2014 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo City Council reviewed the renewal request concerning the Interim Use Permit request and revised consent agreement at its December 2, 2014 meeting; NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lake Elmo City Council hereby approves the renewal of the Interim Use Permit at 11530 Hudson Boulevard South to establish a bus/truck terminal as a non-agricultural low impact use and authorizes the execution of the revised consent agreement for this interim use subject to the following conditions: Resolution No. 2014-95 1) That the applicant signs the approved consent agreement with the City in accordance with Section 154.019, Subd. (B, 5) of the City Code. 2) That the interim use will be valid for a period of two years from the date of the renewal of the Interim Use Permit(December 2, 2016). 3) That the interim use shall be subject to a review by the City Council after two years; and that neighboring property owners will be notified of the date when said review is conducted by the City. 4) That the interim use will terminate when any portion of the property is rezoned or when public sanitary sewer is provided to the site. This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo on the 2"d day of December 2014, by a vote of_Ayes and _ Nays. Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: Adam Bell, City Clerk (SEAL) Resolution No. 2014-95 0.r1n lLigI11TC.ES.1C . �- '�r ppJ•YfLT1OMlTyEl uC '. � 4 ;. MANNING AVE S - s 1 Lli 1 ! i � a _ !j �f 1 / r f - w - — r 3 s t � � w � 1 FY Q - W1 � J rl 11 m , t O i Q13 = t 1 Z - 1 k O1 r t if I$ 0,T € r '� ilk a N1 CONSENT AGREEMENT INTERIM USE PERMIT 1.0 Parties. This Consent Agreement/Interim Use Permit ("Agreement") is entered into by and between the City of Lake Elmo, a Minnesota statutory ("City"); and E & E Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability corporation ("Applicant"). 2.0 Recitals. A. Applicant is the record fee owner of the following described property situated in Lake Elmo, MN ("Property"): That part of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota lying easterly of the West 33.00 feet (2 rods) thereof, EXCEPT that part designated as Parcel 44 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 82-35, State Project No. 8292 (94-392) 904, recorded as Document No. 424557 in the office of the County recorder, Washington County, Minnesota. Subject to highway easements in favor of Washington County described in Book 258 of Deeds, page 91 and Book 309 of Deeds, page 831, of record, and on file in said office of the County Recorder. Also, subject to highway easements in favor of the State of Minnesota as described in Book 109 of Deeds, page 622, Book 109 of Deeds, page 638, and Book 220 of Deeds, page 11, of record and on file in said office of the County Recorder. B. The Property is zoned HD-A-BP. C. Interim uses are allowed in the HD-A-BP zoning district subject to the regulations contained in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.019. D. Applicant has requested that the City allow a portion of the Property to be used as a bus/truck terminal as illustrated on the Site Plan attached as Exhibit A (Site Plan): E. On the 30t" day of October 2008, Applicant submitted a completed application for an Interim Use Permit. F. On the 10th day of November, 2008, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission, at a public hearing, reviewed the Interim Use Permit application, city staff comments and reports, Applicant's comments and reports, public comments, and recommended approval of the interim bus/truck terminal use subject to certain conditions. G. On the 1st day of December, 2008, and on the 9th day of December, 2008, the Lake Elmo City Council reviewed the Interim Use Permit application, city staff comments and reports, Applicant's comments and reports, public comments, and the recommendations of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission, and agreed to authorize the interim use subject to the terms and conditions as specified in Section 154.019 of the Zoning Ordinance and Resolution 2008-056 approving the interim use permit. H. On the 2"d day of February, 2010, the Lake Elmo City Council completed a one-year review of the interim use permit and granted an extension of the Interim Use. I. On the 2"d day of December 2014 the Lake Elmo City Council considered a request to renew the interim us permit and authorized the Mayor to execute a consent agreement with the Applicant. 3.0 Terms and Conditions. The Lake Elmo City Council hereby authorizes and Applicant, for itself, and its successors and assigns, agree that the interim bus/truck terminal use shall be subject to the following conditions: A. The Applicant, and its successors and assigns, shall have no entitlement to future re-approval of the Interim Use Permit. B. Applicant and its successors and assigns, agree that in the event of a full or partial taking of the Property by a governmental unit that the value of the Property taken will be based on its highest and best use as it existed prior to the approval of the Interim Use Permit. C. The interim use shall be located on that portion of the Applicant's Property illustrated on the Site Plan. The remainder of Applicant's Property shall continue to be used for agricultural purposes. D. Applicant shall replace any trees that have died or been removed from the site in order to maintain the site landscaping as depicted on the original Site Plan for the property. E. The Interim Use Permit is valid until the first occurring following event: 2 1. For two (2) years from the date of the renewal of the Interim Use Permit (December 2, 2014); 2. Until a violation of the conditions of this Consent Agreement; 3. Until a change in the City's zoning regulations, which renders the interim use non-conforming; or 4. Until the redevelopment of the Property for a permitted or conditional use as allowed by the City's zoning regulations. 4.0 Rescission of the Conditional Use. The Conditional Use Permit, which was previously issued for the Property is hereby rescinded and replaced by this Consent Agreement/interim Use Permit. 5.0 Acknowledgement and Consent. Applicant acknowledges that this is a legally binding agreement and that Applicant has had an opportunity to review the Agreement with legal counsel. Applicant consents to the terms of this Agreement and its restrictions on the use of the Property and the Interim Use Area. 6.0 Effective Date. This Consent Agreement/Interim Use Permit shall be effective upon execution by all parties. Date: 12/2/14 CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: Mike Pearson Mayor E and E Properties, LLC By: Terry Emerson Its: 3 Y S�V Q r•r� f ! ! iiY 0 7� �. .Z, � a 3 N^�• ry d f�• o � �63 �E --- 1 Q 7 n ,�, ,H M1 4.0 i a•y N✓1 f N 19 WLU a a• a V) `Y a` 1i — - � 41•.. L W UP ri Z p q O fl��ypl W O o I I ,. = ;� •III ,�� � { - ;-� �� ........... ------------ F '- $• i a c' I :�� I;Isrd,l I«�J�i I,I I ► 11J_L _ I ;i � 1 � # I E, E ---------------- pDOY a)onud I a _• I THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: December 2, 2014 REGULAR ITEM# 16 AGENDA ITEM: Halcyon Cemetery Sketch Plan Review SUBMITTED BY: Nick M. Johnson, City Planner THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director 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: Mr. Lee Rossow has submitted a Sketch Plan for a proposed cemetery to be located on a 10-acre parcel located at 11050 50t' Street North. The sketch plan review provides the applicant the opportunity to receive initial feedback on a development concept from the City Council, Planning Commission and staff. The sketch plan review is intended to assist the applicant in the preparation of a Preliminary Plat application. FISCAL IMPACT: None—City costs related to the review of the sketch plan are reimbursed by an application fee and a development review escrow. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to review a Sketch Plan submitted by Mr. Lee Rossow for a proposed cemetery at 11050 50t' Street North. The Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan for the cemetery,to be called Halcyon, at the 11/24/14 meeting. As the sketch plan review requires no formal action, the City Council is asked to provide preliminary feedback and high level review of the proposed development. In order for the cemetery to be properly filed with Washington County, a required step per State Statutes,the City ultimately needs to approve the plat. The Sketch Plan allows the City to provide initial feedback in advance of preliminary/final plat application. --page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16] December 2,2014 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached is the original detailed Staff Report that was provided to the Planning Commission on 11/24/14 regarding the Halcyon Cemetery. The Staff Report includes general information about the proposed cemetery, a summary of the relevant planning and zoning issues, as well as a review of the proposed design. In terms of the specifics of the review, greater details are found in the Staff Report dated 11/24/14, as well as the attachments. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan at its November 24, 2014 meeting. In reviewing the Halcyon Cemetery Sketch Plan, the Planning Commission provided high level review and initial feedback to the applicant regarding the proposal. Greater detail of the Planning Commission's review comments can be found in the Planning Commission minutes (DRAFT). However, staff wanted to highlight the following items that were identified during the Planning Commission review: • The Planning Commission asked why the proposed cemetery is subject to the plat review process of the City's subdivision ordinance. In order for use of the property as a cemetery to proceed, it must be properly filed with Washington County as a plat. In order for this to occur, the City must approve the plat. • There was general discussion about the use of the existing buildings on site. The existing home would be used for administrative purposes, as a greeting or gathering space, and as a full-time caretaker's residence. The existing accessory building on the site would be used as a maintenance building or garage. • There was discussion about the location of the access with regards to access spacing to nearby Lake Elmo Avenue(CSAH 17). Staff will contact Washington County to get their input on the location of the driveway on 501h Street. • The proposed activities of the cemetery were discussed. The applicants noted that the site will not perform the same services as a funeral home. Cremation services or other services for the dead will not be performed on-site. • The security of the site was also discussed. The applicant is planning for a tall security fence to secure the site. A gate will also be employed when the site is closed at night. In addition to security, screening using landscaping or trees was also discussed adjacent to residential properties. • The neighboring property owner, Deb Downing,provided the Planning Commission with a list of questions for the applicant. Ms. Downing's email is provided as Attachment#6. The applicant and staff addressed several of the neighbor's questions. In providing feedback directly to the applicant, the Planning Commission was able to communicate the areas of future focus and review. The applicant noted that after review by the City Council, they will likely start preparing a preliminary plat application. --page 2-- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16] December 2,2014 STRENGTHS,WEAKNESSES,OPPORTUNITIES,THREATS: Strengths: Providing a review of a sketch or concept plan allows for initial review of a development plan in advance of preliminary/final plat application. This process allows the City to identify critical issues and set expectations before the applicant has expended significant resources in preparing a preliminary plat. Weaknesses: Transitioning the use from a single family home to a cemetery will take the property off the property tax rolls, as cemeteries under 300 acres are exempt. However, per current zoning ordinance, cemeteries are a permitted use in Agricultural and Rural Residential zones. Opportunities: The applicant has noted that there are few opportunities for non- denominational burials and similar services in the area. They view the potential market for such use in the coming years as strong. Threats: None RECOMMENDATION: No formal action is required as part of the sketch plan review. The City Council is asked to provide high-level review and feedback regarding the proposed cemetery. The review comments and issues identified in this stage of review are utilized to inform a future preliminary/final plat application. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report to the Planning Commission, 11/24/14 2. Location Map 3. Application Form 4. Existing Conditions Plan 5. Cemetery Sketch Plan 6. Email from Deb Downing, 5135 Lake Elmo Ave. N. --page 3 -- TI I CITY OI; PLANNING COMMISSION LAKE ELMO DATE: 11/24/2014 AGENDA ITEM: 5A—BUSINESS ITEM CASE#2014-50 ITEM: Halcyon Cemetery- Sketch Plan Review SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson,City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to review a Sketch Plan for a proposed cemetery within the Rural Planning Area submitted by Mr. Lee Rossow. The proposed cemetery would be located at 11050 501h Street North, on the northeast corner of 50th'h Street and Lake Elmo Avenue(CSAH 17). The Sketch Plan includes three main areas for in-ground burials, space for columbarium, and a parking area. The existing home and accessory building would be repurposed to serve as administration and maintenance of the cemetery.Because this is a Sketch Plan review,there is no formal action required by the Planning Commission. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Lee Rossow, 11050 50"' Street North, Lake Elmo,MN 55042 Property Owners: Lee Rossow, 11050 50'h Street North, Lake Elmo,MN 55042 Location: Part of Section 01,Township 29 North,Range 21 West in Lake Elmo, immediately north of 50'h Street and immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17). PID Number: 01.029.21.33.0003 Request: Sketch Plan Review Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Existing Zoning: RR—Rural Residential Surrounding Land Use: North—single family home(RR);west—single family home(RR); south —Agricultural (RR);east—single family residential(RR) and Municipal Well Site#4. Surrounding Zoning: RR—Rural Residential;PF—Public Facilities Comprehensive Plan: Rural Area Development Proposed Zoning: RR—Rural Residential History: The 10-acre site has historically been used for a single family home. According to County records,the existing home was built in 1984. Deadline for Action: N/A—No action required by City BUSINESS ITEM 5A 2 Applicable Regulations: Article IX—Rural Districts REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo is in receipt of a Sketch Plan from Mr. Lee Rossow for a proposed cemetery that would be located within the Rural Planning Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed cemetery would be located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 50`h Street North and Lake Elmo Avenue North.Under the City's Zoning Code,cemeteries are a permitted use in the Rural Residential(RR)and Agricultural (A)zoning districts.The subject property is zoned Rural Residential. However,in order to sell burial plots,the property must go through a formal platting process. Per State Statues,cemeteries must be formally platted under the appropriate regulation of the State and local jurisdiction.The Lake Elmo Subdivision Ordinance specifies that as part of the pre- application process for a subdivision of land,the applicant must first submit a Sketch Plan for review by the Planning Commission. The Ordinance notes that the purpose of the Sketch Plan review is as follows: Sketch plan. In order to ensure that all applicants are informed of the procedural requirements and minimum standards of this chapter and the requirements or limitations imposed by other city ordinances or plans,prior to the development of a preliminary plat, the subdivider shall meet with the Planning Commission and prepare a sketch plan which explains or illustrates the proposed subdivision and its purpose. The Planning Commission shall accept the information received, but take no formal or informal action which could be construed as approval or denial of the proposed plat. Based on this wording,the Planning Commission is not being asked to take any formal action as part of its review other than to accept the information received. Staff has completed an internal review of the Sketch Plan, and general comments from Staff are included in this memorandum and applicable attachment. BACKGROUND The proposed Sketch Plan is located in the north-central portion of the Rural Planning Area at the intersection of 501h Street North and Lake Elmo Avenue North(CSAH 17). The applicant's submission to the City includes the following components: • Application Forms • Existing Conditions. The applicants have submitted an existing conditions plan, showing an aerial image of the property and the existing single family detached residential use. As shown in the existing conditions plan,the house and accessory building are currently existing on the property. These structure would be repurposed as part of the proposed cemetery as an administration/caretaker building and maintenance garage. • Sketch Plan. The Sketch Plan for the proposed cemetery shows three larger in-ground burial areas, several sites for columbaria, a gathering space,a parking lot,a network of private drive lanes or driveways to access the various sites, and the existing buildings and drainfield. BUSINESS ITEM 5A 3 The Staff review comments that follow are all based on conducting a very high level review of the Sketch Plan since there is not a lot of detailed information that is required at this stage in the subdivision process. Staff has focused its review on the elements of the site plan that STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS: Staff has reviewed the proposed Sketch Plan and provided comments in the following areas: • Land Use: The proposed Sketch Plan does conform to the City's Land Use Plan in that the site is guided for Rural Area Development. Under this designation,Rural Residential is a typical zoning for sites of this size and character. • Zoning. The current zoning for the parcel is Rural Residential. Under this zoning designation,a cemetery is a permitted use. In the Zoning Code,cemetery is defined as the following: Land used or intended to be used for the burial of the dead and dedicated for cemetery purposes, including columbarium's, crematories, mausoleums, and mortuaries when operated in conjunction with and within the boundaries ofsuch cemetery. Under this definition, it is staffs interpretation that the proposed use would be permitted under the City's ordinance. It should also be noted that the Zoning Code does not include any specific development standards for cemeteries at this time. The only other reference to cemeteries in the Zoning Code is in the PF—Public Facilities zoning district,where cemeteries are identified as a conditional use. • Public Utilities. The site is currently not hooked up to City water,but does have access via a watermain extension from Well#4 and down Lake Elmo Avenue North. Should the proposed use require City water, it does have access to service. • Private Utilities. It should be noted that an existing septic system serves the site. The property is not in the City's Public Sanitary Sewer Service Area. If any expansion of the septic system is required for the cemetery use,the applicant will need to secure the applicable permits from the Washington County Dept. of Health. • Access. The applicants are proposing to reduce the total accesses to the property from 2 to 1, accessing the site off of 50th Street North.The current driveway configuration includes accesses on both Lake Elmo Ave. and 50`h Street North. The proposed access on 500'Street would be move to the west,while the access on Lake Elmo Ave. would be eliminated. As proposed,the access on 50'h Street would be located approximately 150 feet from Lake Ehno Ave. Staff recommends that the proposed access be reviewed by the City Engineer in consultation with Washington County in order to ensure that the proposed access spacing is appropriate for the conditions on 50'h Street and Lake Elmo Avenue. • Landscaping and Tree Protection/Preservation. The applicant has not provided any details concerning landscaping for the site,which must be submitted at the time of Preliminary Plat submission. In addition, a tree preservation plan or woodland evaluation report must be submitted with preliminary plat to document any impacts to significant trees on the site. The City's landscaping provisions require 5 trees for every one acre of land that is developed,as BUSINESS ITEM 5A 4 well as 1 tree per 50 feet of street frontage. These requirements should inform the landscape plan for the site. • Screening and Fencing. The Sketch Plan also includes fencing around all four boundaries of the property.The north and east sides of the property include a regular fence,whereas the west and south sides include ornamental fencing. Significant detail of the fencing is not provided with this submittal,but Staff would assume that the northern and eastern fencing is provided for screening purposes for the adjacent residential properties. The ornamental fencing is likely provided for aesthetic purposes along the street frontage sides of the property. In addition to fencing, staff would recommend that some landscaping and trees be utilized to add additional screening along the property boundaries. • Park Dedication. The City's subdivision ordinance requires parkland dedication for subdivisions. Residential subdivision require a land dedication as a percentage depending on the zoning or land use,whereas commercial projects are required to post a fee in lieu of land dedication. For example, subdivisions on Rural Residential land require a 4%dedication,or equal market value in fees thereof. The current commercial rate for park dedication is$4,500 per acre. Staff is still conducting some research to determine if and how much parkland dedication would be appropriate for this type of use. Staff will consult with the City Attorney in determining what the appropriate precedents are for a similar case such as the present application.If any dedication were appropriate, staff would recommend a fee in lieu of land dedication. • Subdivision Review Process. In order to proceed with the subdivision of the land included in the Sketch Plan,the applicant will need to next prepare a Preliminary Plat application. At the Preliminary Plat stage,there is more information required as part of the submission process, which also requires a public hearing. RECCOMENDATION: No formal action is required at this time. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission accept the Sketch Plan provided by Mr. Lee Rossow for a cemetery at 11050 50th Street North and provide feedback. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Application Form 3. Existing Conditions Plan 4. Cemetery Sketch Plan ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction.......................................................Community Development Director - Report by Staff.....................................................................................City Planner - Questions from the Commission............................Chair&Commission Members - Discussion by the Commission..............................Chair&Commission Members BUSINESS ITEM 5A i _ a'y 1 • ` Za •`a it v 14 �'Pr ► •1. ,max `• L few¢ !. N����f• � ,f 6 � 17 t +: (ts�; t} - i � � =o sr. �gita � o• .G o- e. -cubed.LADA =w,-AEA Get pi ,rye} �:. �� �` � t _nerognd;I,GN GF s� ss o•o a d the GfS se C•ormm ni. Location Map: Proposed Halcyon Cemetery "I-I IL C:]'rl' UI- LAKE ELv10 0 150 300 600 Feet �— 11050 50th Street N. I�i�l t i t It i t Data Source: Washington County, MN 1"=300' 11-17-2014 i I i i Date Received: rat== , ` >t 651-747-3900 : Received By: 3800 Laverne Avenue North LU Filed: Lake Elmo,MN 55042 PRELIMINARY RLATAPRLICATION Applicant: 4 re e- R 0 y s 0L-� — Address: I 0 ,'i Q S T 'tti 7 /V Phone#r: w Pr g2 --2 Email Address: 3 'i Q ��`� d /V E r Fee Owner: Address: c9 IR s E J' S Phone#: Email Address: Property Location(Address and Complete(long)Legal Description: ' e S 1 i General information of proposed subdivision: ; ! > I i � I i Conducted pre-application meeting with Staff? yes No :l In signing this application.I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the Gity pertaining to additional application expense. �T 4 Signature of applicant: 1 _Date: + f` 3C4 701 Signature of Fee Uwner___.__._ ,� d�? r�T' � Date: S:\F0PMS\F!anNng Dept rorrm-Permi'i;•'orms CLtrrent\I?reiimiriavi Plat A pplicatiori onli f 1 O.-J.1..7.d0c7; Reviser. 1110120142131 K - . . / Lake Elmo City Hall 60-747-3800 l � �! [� 380OLmmmoAv�u North | -- Lake--~------ i | \ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT�� �� ' ^ "=^^^"`,°"'_�-c,����m�xx/ �� xx/_�» ��o����c� ^ / | This is to certify �S | �� making ���0 d�8C�U8U �CUOR hvUl9 City �Dd��i | am n�8�OR��8 | -- ^ ---� ~rp''~"°"" -, , � for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should h8 processed in � my name and | am the party vvhO0 the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this ' 8ppUo8U0n. \ have read and understand the instructions supplied for processing this application. The documents and/or � information I have submitted are true and correct bothe best ofnOyknowledge. } will keep myself informed ' of the deadlines for submission of 0819ha} and of the progress of this application. � understand that this application may be reviewed by City staff and consultants. | further understand that additional information, including, but not limited to, traffic analysis and expert testimony may be required for � review 0fthis application. | agree to pay to the City upon dennand, enpnnGaS, determined by the CitY. that ' the City ! ' -^ | be U8tOnniDRd by the Cdx. Said expenses uh;V( include, but are not limited to, staff time, engineering, legal / expenses and other consultant expenses. � I aaree to allow access by City personnel to the property for purposes of review of my application. � ^ | Signature ufapp\\nan D Name of applicant /� rz-rz s-a a�� hone � — 3 0 � ' �7 �F,'p 9' i (Please Print) Name and address ofContact(if other than applicant) _ . ��--'---- ! � ` \ / � � i Lake Eirrio Citv Hail 651-747-3900 3800 Laverne Avenue NorthLA11\'E L 10 II Lake Elmo. MN 55042 AFFIRMA770fif OF SUFFICIENT WTEREST I hereby affirm that I am the fee title owner of the belavv described property or that I have written authorization from the owner to pursue the described action. Name of applicant--Lf�—:"Z.—� (Please Print) Street addressliegal description of subject property &Z 7— k--- 33 Signature Date If you are not the fee owner, attach another copy of this form which has been completed by the fee owner or a copy of your authorization to pursue this action. If a corporation is fee title holder, attach a copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing this action. if a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner,attach a copy of agreement authorizing this action on behalf of the joint venture or partnership. LLJ 0 ra U7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L----------------------- Ed In = 3 AtlV64�09 A11f3dOMd - `.{,�- ve S. ®i N1N L._._._._._._._.------- ._._._._.---._.---._._._._._._.J '3TV OW 3N nnnrn9Sir]�KTn.ol.ra r.e lfl r.K•b.�aae Nick Johnson From: Deb <deb4135@aol.com> Sent: Friday, November 21, 20141:11 PM To: Nick Johnson Subject: Questions for Planning Commission Attachments: Planning_Commission_questions.docx Nick, It's been a crazy week but I've gotten the questions done and have attached them to this e-mail.Thanks for taking the time to talk to me about this proposed project in our neighborhood. I've also put the questions below in case the attachment doesn't work. 1. When will the property be open and will it be locked after hours? Will there be on site staff and if so what will the hours of that staff be? 2. What will the lighting be and will there be lighting all night? If so,will it be localized and facing downward or will it be illuminating into adjacent properties? 3. What will the security be to help keep vandals and unauthorized persons from gaining entry or going into adjacent properties? i 4. What is the height and type of the fencing that is not street side, i.e. chain link,solid wood? i 5. The property is zoned residential.Since this appears to be a for profit business venture, if it fails who will be responsible for the property or removing the bodies?Also, since it will have been used for a business purpose,will it then be eligible to continue as a commercial property vs. a residential property? 6. Is there a potential impact to the ground water due to the in ground burial feature of the plan?There is a new city well that has just been placed to the east of the property. In addition, most homes in the area have private wells.There j have been studies done that the decaying bodies of the dead can impact water quality. These questions are being submitted by adjacent property owner, Debra Downing, 5135 Lake Elmo Av. Deb Downing 5135 Lake Elmo Av N Lake Elmo, MN 55042 612-867-7014 deb4135@aol.com t THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: December 2, 2014 REGULAR ITEM# 17 AGENDA ITEM: Lake Elmo Avenue(CSAH 17) Project Cooperative Agreement with Washington County for Right of Way Acquisition SUBMITTED BY: Nick M. Johnson, City Planner THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Jack Griffin, City Engineer David Snyder, City Attorney 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: Staff is recommending that the City enter into a cooperative agreement with Washington County to contract right-of-way and temporary easement acquisition services related to the Lake Elmo Avenue Street and Utility Project. FISCAL IMPACT: Not to exceed $597,950. The City would be required to pay the County for all services rendered related to the acquisition of temporary easements or permanent right of way. The costs for easement and right-of-way acquisition should be considered part of the total project costs and funded in accordance with a council approved project funding plan, yet to be fully determined. The project is planned for in the 2015 and 2016 CIP. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider entering a cooperative agreement with Washington County to contract services for the acquisition of permanent right-of-way and temporary construction easements for the Lake Elmo Avenue Downtown Street and Utility Project. Contracting these services through Washington County would be advantageous for the City for a number of reasons. Foremost, following the County's right-of-way acquisition process would help to ensure that the project will proceed as --page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17] December 2,2014 planned in 2015 and 2016. The acquisition of easements and right-of-way is extremely time sensitive. Failure to acquire the necessary easements could result in the bidding of the project in a less favorable bidding environment, or the delay of the project to the following year. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the Cooperative Agreement with Washington County through the following motion: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-96, approving the Cooperative Agreement with Washington County to facilitate right of way acquisition associated with the Lake Elmo Avenue Downtown Street and Utility Project." BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City and County have been working collaboratively over the past year on the Lake Elmo Avenue Downtown Street and Utility Project. The project includes the installation of sanitary sewer, replacement of watermain, stormwater improvements, and street reconstruction for Lake Elmo Ave. from 30d' Street to Trunk Highway(TH) 5, 30`h Street North, Upper 33`d Street North, 30h Street North and Laverne Avenue North. The ability to work on the downtown street and utility project resulted from Washington County moving the project up to 2015 in their Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) at the request of the City. In addition to the development of preliminary plans for the project, the City and County have engaged in significant efforts in community engagement, finance and planning. The project is planned to proceed in two phases over 2015 and 2016 (See Phasing Map for Downtown Street and Utility Improvements — Attachment #5). In order for the project to proceed on the planned schedule, the City and County must begin acquisition of permanent right of way, permanent easements and temporary easements. To acquire the necessary right of way and easements for the project, the City has been presented two options: 1) The City can acquire all right of way associated with City streets without the assistance of the County, or 2) The County has offered the City the opportunity to utilize the County's right of way acquisition services for the total project at cost. If the City were to perform the acquisition services for the City streets independently of the County, the City would likely need to contract these services to an outside right-of-way agent and have staff manage this contract. Conversely, if the County were to perform these services, they have the staff in place to complete the acquisition for the entire project, not just Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17 — County facility). Staff has evaluated both options and, after careful consideration,has determined that contracting the service to Washington County is the superior and more prudent option for the following reasons: • The County right-of-way acquisition process is a tried and true method that will leave no doubt to the acquisition of the necessary right-of-way and easements to proceed with the project. For more detail on the County process, see Attachments #3 and #4. In the judgment of staff, there is a tremendous amount of value in ensuring that the project proceeds in 2015, as the City and County have expended significant resources in preparing for the project to commence in 2015. In other words, ensuring that the --page 2-- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17] December 2,2014 necessary right-of-way is acquired for the process to commence is critical in mitigating potential risk to the project. • Following the County's acquisition process provides a concrete timeframe in which the final construction plans can be prepared and the project can go out for public bid. One of the critical goals for both the County and the City is to ensure that the public construction project is bid within a favorable bidding timeframe. If the project gets delayed due to right-of-way and easement acquisition, the project could be bid during a less favorable bidding environment, leading to an escalation of costs. Once again, following the County's acquisition process minimizes the risk associated with project delays that can result in escalating costs. • Completing the necessary acquisition work under the County contract will ensure that all property owners are treated in a fair and equitable manner within the same process. The County will contract all acquisition work through one appraiser and agent, allowing for fair treatment for all property owners, as well as one point of contact for the entirety of the project. Staff believes that there is value in having all property owner's work within the same process so no property owner gains favor or additional compensation over another through the acquisition process. • Contracting these services to the County provides value to the City in minimizing the amount of resources necessary for management of the acquisition process. Given the magnitude of the project (number of property owners, amount of right-of-way/easements) and the amount of planning, design, construction and public engagement tasks associated with it , staff is concerned with not having sufficient time and resources to adequately manage the acquisition process. In terms of the costs associated with the right-of-way acquisition, it is important to note that the City will only be responsible for the actual costs incurred within the acquisition process. Within the Cooperative Agreement (Attachment #2), this critical point is outlined in subsection CA. In other words, if the design of the project as it stands today were to change, and some of the easement or right-of-way acquisition were unnecessary, these services would not be rendered. In other words, the estimate cost figure of$597,950 is a not-to-exceed worst case scenario figure. In addition, please note that the agreement contains $121,500 in contingency second-appraisal costs. Under state law, any government must offer a second appraisal if the landowner requests it. However, the request for second appraisal is not common within such public projects. Given the required contingencies in the agreement, staff is confident that the overall cost of right-of- way and easement acquisition will go down as the process unfolds. The County has provided a conservative and safe estimate in order to ensure that the proposed agreement covers all contingencies and scenarios through the acquisition process. STRENGTHS,WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES,THREATS: Strengths: The County provides greater certainty to maintain a timely project schedule and control of design and construction costs. The County also provides a process that will result in a fair and equitable treatment for all property owners. Finally, utilizing the --page 3 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17] December 2,2014 County's services will allow City staff to focus resources on design, planning, construction, and community engagement efforts. Weaknesses: If staff had significant time and resources to pursue easement acquisitions in house, acquisition costs may be able to be reduced. However, the ability to reduce acquisition costs likely results in non-equitable treatment between property owners. Opportunities: The County process offers cost-effective and proven methods and the resources to assist the City with maintaining the project schedule. Keeping the project on schedule will result in bidding the project in a more favorable bidding environment. Threats: All acquisition processes risk the threat of dispute. The County process helps ensure statutory process is followed to mitigate the risk of dispute. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the cooperative agreement with Washington County through the following motion: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-96, approving the Cooperative Agreement with Washington County to facilitate right of way acquisition associated with the Lake Elmo Avenue Downtown Street and Utility Project" ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2014-96 2. Cooperative Agreement for Right of Way Cost of CSAH 17 3. Cooperative Agreement Memorandum 4. County Right of Way Acquisition Schedule 5. Phasing Map for Downtown Street and Utility Improvements --page 4-- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2014-96 A RESOLUTIONAPPROVING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY TO FACILITATE ALL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION FOR THE LAKE ELMO A VE DOWNTOWN STREET AND UTILITY PROJECT WHEREAS,the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS,the City and Washington County intend to reconstruct County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue)from Trunk Highway(TH) 5 to 30`h Street North in the City of Lake Elmo; and WHEREAS,the City and County intend to reconstruct 301h Street North,Upper 331d Street North, 36d' Street North and Laverne Avenue North,all local streets in the City of Lake Elmo,as part of the project; and WHEREAS,the construction of streets and utilities associated with the project will require the acquisition of permanent right of way,permanent easements, and temporary easements; and WHEREAS,the preliminary right of way cost estimate has been prepared by the County and the City will participate in the right of way costs in accordance with the Revised Draft County Cost Participation Policy for Projects Constructed in Washington County Using State Aid Funds or Local Tax Levy Dollars dated September 30,2014; and WHEREAS,a cooperative agreement between the City and County is the appropriate method to facilitate the right of way acquisition;and NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve the Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Lake Elmo and Washington County for Right of Way Cost for the Lake Elmo Avenue Downtown Street and Utility Project. Passed and duly adopted this 2nd day of December 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Mike Pearson,Mayor ATTEST: Adam Bell, City Clerk 1 Resolution No. 2014-96 WASHINGTON COUNTY CONTRACT NO. 9155 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEPT. PUBLIC WORKS LAKE ELMO AND WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR RIGHT OF WAY DIVISION TRANSPORTATION COST OF COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY (CSAH) 17 TERM SIGNATURE-COMPLETION THIS AGREEMENT, by and between the City of Lake Elmo, a municipal corporation, herein after referred to as the "City", and Washington County, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County", shall consist of this agreement and Exhibit A (Project Location Map). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County intends to reconstruct County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue)from Trunk Highway (TH) 5 to 30th Street North in the City of Lake Elmo; and WHEREAS, the County intends to reconstruct, as a part of this project, a portion of the City streets: 30th Street North, Upper 33rd Street North, 361h Street North, and Laverne Avenue; and WHEREAS, the preliminary right of way cost estimate has been prepared by the County and the City will participate in the right of way costs in accordance with the County Cost Participation Policy as summarized in Section C of this agreement; and WHEREAS, the City desires to use local funds for these improvements; and WHEREAS, a cooperative effort between the City and County is the appropriate method to facilitate the right of way acquisition; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is made pursuant to statutory authority contained in Minnesota Statute 162.17 sub.1 and Minnesota Statute 471.59. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: A. PURPOSE The purpose of this agreement is set forth in the above whereas clauses which are all incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. B. RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS 1. The County shall acquire all permanent right-of-way, permanent easements, and temporary slope easements. All permanent rights-of-way, permanent easements, and temporary easements will be acquired in the name of the County. 2. Any rights-of-way, permanent easements, and temporary slope easements that cannot be obtained through negotiation will be acquired by the County through eminent domain proceedings. 3. Upon completion of the project, title to permanent right-of-way for and adjacent to City streets and permanent easements for storm water storage and water quality treatment within the City will be conveyed to the City. C. COST PARTICIPATION ITEMS AND ESTIMATED COSTS 1. The estimated cost participation breakdown is in accordance with the REVISED DRAFT "Cost Participation Policy for Projects Constructed in Washington County Using State Aid Funds or Local Tax Levy Dollars" dated September 30, 2014. 2. The City shall pay to the County 55 percent of the cost of all permanent right-of-way, permanent Page 1 of 3 utility and/or drainage easements, temporary slope easements, title work costs, appraisal costs, relocation specialist costs, relocation costs, condemnation commissioner costs, and all related acquisition costs along CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue), from 30th Street North to MN Highway 5. The City cost is ESTIMATED in the table below. 3. The City shall pay to the County 100 percent of the cost of all permanent right-of-way, permanent utility and/or drainage easements, temporary slope easements, title work costs, appraisal costs, relocation specialist costs, relocation costs, condemnation commissioner costs, and all related acquisition costs on 30'h Street North, Upper 33`d Street North, 36th Street North, and Laverne Avenue. The City cost is ESTIMATED in the table below. Table 1 City of Lake Elmo Cost Summary ITEM CITY COST ESTIMATE CITY STREET(30 1 HST N, UPPER 33 ST N, 36 ST N, LAVERNE AVE) ACQUISITION NEEDS: TITLE WORK COSTS (100%) $6,450 APPRAISAL COSTS (100%) $43,000 LANDOWNER SECOND APPRAISAL COSTS (100%) $64,500 PERMANENT RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION (100%) $100,000 TEMPORARY EASEMENT ACQUISITION (100%) $75,000 TREE AND LANDSCAPING COST TO CURE(100%) $30,000 LAKE ELMO AVENUE(CSAH 17)ACQUISITION NEEDS: TITLE WORK COSTS(55%) $6,000 APPRAISAL COSTS (55%) $40,000 LANDOWNER SECOND APPRAISAL COSTS (55%) $57,000 PERMANENT RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION (55%) $70,000 TEMPORARY EASEMENT ACQUISITION (55%) $80,000 TREE AND LANDSCAPING COST TO CURE(55%) $26,000 TOTAL COSTS $597,950 4. Actual right of way costs shall be determined at the conclusion of the acquisition process. The City shall be responsible to pay for the actual costs of the aforementioned acquisition costs. D. PAYMENT Right of way costs shall be due a payable by the City to the County immediately and will be invoiced to the City by the County as incurred during the project. The City shall pay 100 percent of the invoiced amount within 35 days of its receipt. E. CIVIL RIGHTS AND NON-DISCRIMINATION The provisions of Minn. Stat. 181.59 and of any applicable ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered part of this Agreement as if fully set further herein, and shall be part of any Agreement entered into by the parties with any contractor subcontractor, or material suppliers. Page 2 of 3 F. INDEMNIFICATION 1. The City agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County against any and all liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses which the County may hereafter sustain, incur or be required to pay by reason of any negligent act by the City, its agents, officers or employees during the performance of this agreement. 2. The County agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City against any and all liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses which the City may hereafter sustain, incur or be required to pay by reason of any negligent act by the County, its agents, officers or employees during the performance of this agreement. 3. To the fullest extent permitted by law, actions by the parties to this Agreement are intended to be and shall be construed as a "cooperative activity" and it is the intent of the parties that they shall be deemed a "single governmental unit"for the purposes of liability, as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, subd. 1 a(b). The parties to this Agreement are not liable for the acts or omissions of another party to this Agreement except to the extent they have agreed in writing to be responsible for the acts or omissions of the other parties as provided for in Section 471.59, subd. la. 4. Each party's liability shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 and other applicable law. The parties agree that liability under this Agreement is controlled by Minnesota Statute 471.59, subdivision 1 a and that the total liability for the parties shall not exceed the limits on governmental liability for a single unit of government as specified in 466.04, subdivision 1(a). G. DATA PRIVACY All data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated, or used for any purposes in the course of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes 1984, Section 13.01, et seq. or any other applicable state statutes and state rules adopted to implement the Act, as well as state statutes and federal regulations on data privacy. H. CONDITIONS The City shall not assess or otherwise recover any portion of its cost for this project through levy on County-owned property. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this agreement by their duly authorized officers. WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY OF LAKE ELMO Chair Date Mayor Date Board of Commissioners Molly O'Rourke Date City Administrator Date County Administrator Approved as to form: Approved as to form: Assistant County Attorney Date City Attorney Date R:\11703\Right of Way\City Cost Share Agree(row only)V4.docx Page 3 of 3 Wa4iinlgton Public Works Department Donald J.Theisen, P.E. �1zo County Director Wayne H.Sandberg,P.E. Deputy Director/County Engineer MEMORANDUM Date: November 25, 2014 To: City of Lake Elmo From: Washington County Public Works Re: Cooperative Agreement between the City of Lake Elmo and Washington County for Right of Way Cost of County State Aid Highway(CSAH) 17 Below is a brief description of how the estimated costs were calculated for the anticipated right of way acquisition associated with the Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) Corridor Management and Safety Improvement Project. The items described below are associated with the standard right of way acquisition process the County follows. TITLE WORK COSTS • Necessary to verify ownership and any encumbrances on the property. • Cost is $150/parcel APPRAISAL COSTS • Appraiser will value the acquisition area needed for each parcel • The appraised value will be used as the offer to the property owners for the necessary acquisition. • Appraisal costs vary depending on the complexity of the parcel; but average $1000/parcel LANDOWNER SECOND APPRAISAL COSTS • After the initial offer is made, property owners have a right(by Minnesota State Law) to hire a different appraiser to value the acquisition area. This is usually done only if a property owner is not satisfied with the initial offer. • By Minnesota State Law, property owners are entitled reasonable reimbursement for a second appraisal up to $1500 for single family residential, two-family residential, and agricultural property and $5000 for commercial and other types of property. • Costs for this in the cooperative agreement were assuming a majority of property owners would get a second appraisal; which is unlikely. PERMANENT RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION COSTS • The appraiser will determine the value of the property based on recent sales of similar property 11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573 Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 • TTY: 651-430-6246 www.co.washington.mn.us Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action • This project will necessitate several small permanent acquisitions; with the majority of permanent acquisitions on 30th Street. TEMPORARY EASEMENT ACQUISITION COSTS • The majority of property along Lake Elmo Avenue, 30th Street, Upper 33`d Street, 36th Street North, and Laverne Avenue will require temporary easements • Temporary Easement costs are essentially "rental costs"for the necessary area. • Temporary Easement costs usually range between 8-10% of the land value/year • Temporary Easements are normally purchased for at least two construction seasons (For example: April 1, 2015— September 30, 2016) even if the project is designed to be completed in one season. This allows for any schedule delays, turf establishment in the easement area, and clean-up work. TREE AND LANDSCAPING COST TO CURE • There will be an estimated 46 trees removed on private property as a part of the project. • Full grown tree value averages $1000/tree • The appraiser will include any tree compensation in the appraised value of the overall acquisition amount. • Estimated costs in the table on the cooperative agreement allow for these 46 trees; and in addition, any trees that may have been missed or additional shrubs and/or landscaping items that would also be reimbursed to the property owners in the appraisals. CONDEMNATION COSTS • These costs are not listed on the table in the cooperative agreement; as there is no way to estimate them • For any parcel that does not settle; the County will begin eminent domain proceedings • Costs associated with these proceedings include (but are not limited to): condemnation commissioner, attorney, updated appraisal, and testimony fees. • If this step is needed, the city will be responsible for 100% of these costs on acquisitions along city streets and 55% of these costs on acquisitions along Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) o �n LO � N CDLO d N O Q)N LO 0 �t t0 — r- r N _ toN ON N r LO C Q) Q N O co E O O N N N O N N O CO NO ro `- u7 N -p N V' N �� U N N U — m n CDCO �-- (D __ O +�-I ' O 0 `- N N mco a) 0 t C'') -Q N N. N .C7 = U oai n rn d Z g °'n rol 0) � N a, o, U ` L E .Q ca U C L ro L C � a) m QI Q 7 > � N 0 ro N t 6 N 7 n. O U N N �-. a) � m O z U -Q ' LL N co (n U pp cp LL Q o z q o c o c° -`n c Q z J J Q) a) c o °ca U cY)to M L >� � C Q O L m ch Q 3 r+ L Q- cco q a O d O (D c M m cCo ai Y) ° d N o 3 m a`> �O (1) Q M �O o v a C E Q w o c c U Q QO odE c v a) D 2 -o (D a) cn a> o C N> O LoQ o o a) N U v, � Q n > N O > Q a c o D E N vc oC UNO a p m -a O a C Q- >> a� (0 ap) IZ C p O ro p a) a) 'O pN � p_ pO a) >, O O a) ro o Q m o c � ro o QU a e L U � o cOo d NF •� � ro $a .� <"> .Ov L � .� n a) _c nU ro c c cn 3 t Q o O o N uS 'ro a� —Lm oU c no a o O Qa y JQro N (ao CD o- D a r -0 In@ - Q a ) cU p mn lL uNZ > ° Z O ?c o � •— c o i rticToro-� � 0- - Q ro o m 4 �- ism CU -0 ° .� a' � a U O c cr o > o C a a: ° v; ° a) U ro Y �; ° U O Q. a C O Q.� o r a) c ro C .p-: Y 0 Q In ro0 ) Q ;O j) � ? m U aJ �+ — L �, Q) O� � c p c N to () C c U) U .,L. N Q� UO C O O O O ti.. N U wU ) c fe Q C O Q C ro ro ,N Q V_ U ro O E U) cu m b C N c a acn 0 N c ® c X_ d m p q C: c 0 _ 'cy '� Qa � o LLI L 12 .-,) ch C) to ti 39TH STREET h�P Q Z oc g Q O , J ' W S 32ND STREET ; 32ND STREET 31ST STREET ' REID PARK 30TH STREET LIFT STATION w Q Z 0 w J LEGEND 2014 CONSTRUCTION: 39TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS (CITY PROJECT) 2015 CONSTRUCTION: VILLAGE EAST SEWER IMPROVEMENTS (PRIVATE PROJECT) 2015 CONSTRUCTION:VILLAGE STREET,SANITARY SEWER,AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS (CITY PROJECT) ■� 2016 CONSTRUCTION: VILLAGE STREET,SANITARY SEWER,AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS (COUNTY PROJECT) FUTURE:TENTATIVE 2017-2019 CONSTRUCTION: VILLAGE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS (CITY PROJECTS) N THE CITY OI- CITY OF LA K C ELMO LAKE ELMO OLD VILLAGE STREET AND EXHIBIT NO. 1 FOCUSUTILITY IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION MAP ENGINEERING PROJECT NO.2014.137 OLD VILLAGE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS OCTOBER,2014