The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About#18a CC Report Inwood 3rd Add Final Plat 4.19.16 MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: April 19, 2016 REGULAR ITEM # 18a RESOLUTION 2016-34 AGENDA ITEM: Inwood 3rd Addition Residential Subdivision – Final Plat and Final PUD SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Jack Griffin, City Engineer 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 is recommending that the City Council approve a Final Plat and Final PUD request from Hans Hagen Homes for the third addition of a planned unit development to be located east of Inwood Avenue and south of 10th Street within the City’s I-94 corridor planning area. The Final Plat and PUDt had included 68 single-family lots, however to avoid the need to construct a temporary turnaround, the final plat will be 67 lots and one additional outlot. The Planning Commission considered the final plat at its March 14, 2016 meeting and a summary of the Commission’s report and recommendation is included below. FISCAL IMPACT: The developer agreement includes a detailed accounting of any development costs that will be the responsibility of the developer and/or the City. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a request from Hans Hagen Homes for approval of a Final Plat and Final PUD associated with the City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 18a] April 19, 2016 -- page 2 -- third phase of the InWood Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Final Plat and PUD consists of 67 single family lots and seven outlots that will re-subdivide Outlot J, Inwood 1st Addition and the related construction plans for the improvements necessary to serve the 67 single family homes. Outlots C, D, and E, 0.29, 0.40 and 0.68 acres respectively, are infiltration basins that will be dedicated to the City. Outlots A, B, F and G will be held by the developer to be replatted in a future phase. The Planning Commission reviewed the final plat at the March 14, 2016 meeting. At the Planning Commission meeting, several errors to the Staff report were noted. Island Trail will be platted to 10th Street, but only constructed to the northerly extent of the new lots. The 3rd Addition includes an extension of the sidewalk along Island Trail and a new trail through Outlot D as well as in the City Park extending to 10th Street to the north. Also, in several places 2nd Addition was referenced rather than 3rd Addition. On March 14, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Inwood 3rd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan subject to 10 conditions of approval. Since the Commission’s review, Staff had the South Washington Watershed District (SWWD) review the infiltration basin design based on concerns with the detail. The SWWD provided recommended changes to the developer that are attached to this memorandum and are now a condition of approval. The condition related to the Final Plat lots 11 and 12, Block 4 has been complied with and the change has been reflected on the attached Final Plat. The attached resolution lists ten conditions of approval. Since the Planning Commission review and to address an Engineering requirement for a temporary cul-de-sac, the developer has removed one lot and has turn it into an Outlot G for future development as reflected on the attached Final Plat. The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2016-34 approving the final plat for Inwood 3rd Addition with the findings in the staff report” LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The Planning Commission considered the final plat at its March 14, 2016 meeting, and recommended approval of the request as presented with one additional condition. The Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval of the final plat consistent with the findings as noted in the attached resolution. The motion passed unanimously. BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): Strengths • The proposed plat is consistent with preliminary plat and creates 67 new buildable lots and one outlot from a larger outlot that was set aside for future replatting. Weaknesses • None Opportunities • The request for third addition is based on strong demand for the lots within the development. City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 18a] April 19, 2016 -- page 3 -- Threats • None RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the City Council approve the final plat for Inwood 3rd Addition. The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2016-34 approving the final plat for Inwood 3rd Addition with the findings in the staff report” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2016-34 2. Final Plat 3. Planning Commission Staff Report and attachments – 3/14/16 4. Planning Commission Minutes – 3/14/16 5. SWWD Infiltration Basin review email – 3/30/16 1 Resolution 2016-34 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2016-34 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PLAN FOR INWOOD 3RD ADDITION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Hans Hagen Homes, 941 NE Hillwind Road, Suite 300, Fridley, MN has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (“City”) for a Final Plat and Final PUD Plan for InWood Third Addition Planned Unit Development, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the City approved the InWood PUD General Concept Plan on September 16, 2014; and WHEREAS, the City approved the InWood Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan on December 2, 2014; and WHEREAS, the proposed InWood 3rd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan includes 68 single family residential lots within the single family residential portion of the 157.2-acre InWood planned unit development located in Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held public hearing on March 14, 2016 to consider the Final Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan request; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending approval of the Final Plat and Final PUD Plan subject to 10 conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation concerning the Final Plat and Final PUD Plan as part of a memorandum to the City Council for the April 19, 2016 Council Meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the InWood Final Plat and Final PUD Plan at its meeting held on April 19, 2016 and made the following findings of fact: 1) That the procedure for obtaining approval of said Final Plat and Final PUD plans is found in the Lake Elmo City Code, Sections 153.08 and 154.750. 2) That all the requirements of said City Code Sections 153.08 and 154.750 related to the Final Plat and Final PUD plans have been met by the Applicant. 2 Resolution 2016-34 3) That the proposed Final Plat for InWood 3rd Addition consists of the creation of 68 single-family detached residential structures. 4) That the InWood 3rd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent with the Preliminary Plat and Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on December 2, 2014. 5) That the InWood 3rd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. 6) That the InWood 3rd Addition Final Plat generally complies with the City’s Urban Low Density Residential zoning district, with the exceptions as noted in the approved Preliminary PUD Plans and as further specified in Resolution No. 2014-094. 7) That the InWood Final Plat complies with all other applicable zoning requirements, including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control and other ordinances, except as noted in this report or attachment thereof. 8) That the InWood 3rd Addition Final Plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance. 9) That the InWood 3rd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan complies with the City’s Planned Unit Development Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve the InWood 3rd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan subject to the following conditions: 1) All easements as requested by the City Engineer shall be documented on the Final Plat prior to the execution of the final plat by City Officials. 2) All conditions/comments from the City Engineer’s review memorandum dated 3/10/16 be complied with prior to the execution of the final plat by City Officials. 3) That the Landscape Plans and Irrigation Plans be reviewed and approved by the City’s Landscape Architect before a building permit may be issued for any structure within this subdivision. 4) A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of InWood 3rd Addition and establishing a homeowner’s association shall be submitted in final form to the Community Development Director before a building permit may be issued for any structure within this subdivision. 5) The applicant shall also enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the final plat. 6) The final plat and final development plans shall include provisions satisfactory to the City that no structure be located within 15 feet of any storm water improvement (include pipes and catch basins). 3 Resolution 2016-34 7) Retaining walls within rear yard utility easements shall be clearly documented and shall be owned and maintained by the InWood homeowners’ association. All costs associated with protection, replacement, or maintenance of retaining walls due to any work in easements by the City shall be the full responsibility of the HOA. 8) That the trail in the east buffer area be constructed to 10th Street with the 3rd Addition development, before a building permit may be issued for any structure within this subdivision. 9) All trails within and adjacent to the 3rd Addition development be constructed before any building permits are issued for any structure within this subdivision. 10) That the infiltration basin design be revised to comply with the South Washington Watershed District’s recommended changes as specified in the email dated 3/30/16. Passed and duly adopted this 19th day of April, 2016 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. ___________________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk 1 Stephen Wensman From:Schilling, Andrew <aschilling@ci.woodbury.mn.us> Sent:Wednesday, March 30, 2016 1:42 PM To:John Rask Cc:Loomis, John; Moore, Matt; Jenni Thompson; Stephen Wensman Subject:RE: Inwood Landscape Plans Hello, John. See my comments and recommendations below regarding the latest filtration basin plans you provided (plans dated 3/17/16). Inwood Filtration Basins ‐ SWWD Recommendations and Comments: 1. Filtration Basin Amended Soil Media: a. As the majority of the basin bottom is covered by a dry creek bed (vs. vegetation), it is recommended the filtration media be very lean on organics, following MN Stormater Manual's updated Mix B with 85% Sand, 15% organic matter (MnDOT grade 2 compost and/or Peat) where the soil mixture has a phosphorus index between 12 and 30 mg/kg per Mehlich III (or equivalent) test. b. For more information on Mix B ‐ http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Comparison_of_pros_and_cons_of_bioretention_soil_mixes 2. Filtration Basin underdrain: a. Geotextile fabric ‐ Geotextile fabric is no longer recommended around underdrains (due to clogging/failure issues). Use choking stone (minimum 2" thickness between filtration media and larger diameter washed stone adjacent to pipe) in place of geotextile fabric. b. Ensure there are inspection/cleanout risers at upstream and downstream ends of the underdrain (at minimum) c. Add a gate valve at the downstream end of the underdrain (just before underdrain outlet) to allow for performance optimization. d. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual provides more information regarding underdrains: http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Design_criteria_for_filtration 3. Ensure top of all landscape material (top of sod thatch, shredded hardwood mulch, top of stone (dry creek bed) is set 2" below ribbon curb to allow sheet flow runoff to remain as sheet flow entering the filtration basin area. 4. Comments on Landscape Notes: a. Note 2: Vinyl edging tends to be a maintenance issue in locations where stormwater flows must cross ‐ consider steel edging or grade to ensure flows do not cross edging locations b. Note 5: Geotextile fabric is not recommend under the dry creek bed within the filtration basin's level bottom. However, for maintenance and erosion control purposes, geotextile fabric is recommended under dry creek bed sections adjacent to the ribbon curb and other side slopes. Thanks, Andy Andy Schilling Watershed Restoration Specialist South Washington Watershed District 2 aschilling@ci.woodbury.mn.us 651‐714‐3717 Click for Directions ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: John Rask [mailto:jrask@MIHOMES.com] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 3:11 PM To: Schilling, Andrew Cc: Loomis, John; Moore, Matt; Jenni Thompson Subject: RE: Inwood Landscape Plans Andy, I apologize. The e‐mail I sent last week got bounced back. It must have been too large. I was trying to send you the complete grading plan along with the updated landscape plans. We've made a few adjustments based on the suggestions of the City's landscape architect. These are still filtration basins with underdrains. They are mislabeled on our landscape plans as infiltration basins. I will correct this. You will find the filtration basin detail with the soil amendments specified on page 7 of the grading plan. This detail is the same as the original submittal. As previously mentioned, there is a homeowners association that is obligated to maintain these basins. Thanks, John ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: John Rask Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 8:44 AM To: 'Schilling, Andrew' Cc: swensman@lakeelmo.org; Loomis, John; Moore, Matt; Jenni Thompson; Stephen Mastey Subject: RE: Inwood Landscape Plans Andrew, Attached are the landscape plans for the islands. Please feel free to call me or e‐mail with any questions. Thanks, John Rask | VP Land M/I Homes of Minneapolis, LLC Office: (763) 586‐7202 | Mobile: (612) 910‐9909 941 NE Hillwind Road | 300 | Fridley, MN | 55432 jrask@mihomes.com ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 3 From: Schilling, Andrew [mailto:aschilling@ci.woodbury.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 9:39 AM To: John Rask Cc: swensman@lakeelmo.org; Loomis, John; Moore, Matt Subject: RE: Inwood Landscape Plans John, We need more information from you to clear up inconsistencies with the basin plans: 1. We've seen several different landscape plans for these basins ‐ send the most current to us. ‐ my comments regarding the basin final cover last week were based on plans dated 3‐26‐15 2. These basins were originally permitted as filtration basins with underdrains. Is this still the plan? ‐ include details on soil amendments These are a critical part of the stormwater management plan for the site, so we need to ensure they are built for long‐ term functionality. Thanks, Andy Andy Schilling Watershed Restoration Specialist South Washington Watershed District aschilling@ci.woodbury.mn.us 651‐714‐3717 Click for Directions ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loomis, John Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:36 AM To: Schilling, Andrew Subject: FW: Inwood Landscape Plans John Loomis/SWWD 651‐714‐3714 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Moore, Matt Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 3:34 PM To: Loomis, John Subject: FW: Inwood Landscape Plans Matt Moore 4 Administrator South Washington Watershed District 2302 Tower Drive Woodbury, MN 55125 P: 651.714.3729 C: 651.249.7096 mmoore@ci.woodbury.mn.us www.swwdmn.org Click for Directions ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Stephen Wensman [mailto:SWensman@lakeelmo.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 3:13 PM To: Moore, Matt Subject: Inwood Landscape Plans Matt, I have attached the landscape plans for Inwood and you can see that the landscape plans for the infiltration basins show only rocks with no plants. The grading plans do not match the landscape plans. The developer plans on installing without native plants. Again, please let me know if you have any questions. Stephen Wensman Planning Director City of Lake Elmo 651‐747‐3911 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-11-16 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 11, 2016 Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Kreimer, Dunn, Larson, Griffin, Dodson, Fields, Lundquist and Williams. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Haggard & Larson STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman, & City Planner Becker Approve Agenda: The agenda was approved as presented. Approve Minutes: March 28, 2015 M/S/P: Williams/ move to approve the March 28, 2016 minutes as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion carried. Public Hearing – Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Wensman started his presentation regarding the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The City is planning for the Old Village Phase 2 street and utility improvement project. 3 parcels have petitioned to join the MUSA. Within the proposed MUSA, many properties are currently guided for rural single family and rural area development which is not consistent with sewered development. The identified parcels will be reguided to Village Urban Low Density. Met Council approval is required and upon review, the Met Council has requested that the properties within the MUSA be guided for sewered development. Dunn asked how many acres are in the new area. She wants the motions broke into 2 separate motions. She wants to know what the density range is for this Village Urban Low Denisty. Wensman stated that the range is 1.5 – 2.49 per acre. Wensman stated that this might need to be continued as the Comp plan requires 3 units per acre for sewered. Kreimer stated that there can be pockets as long as the overall area meets the 3 units per acre. Wensman stated that he thinks that we will get push back from Met Council if we use this guidance. 2 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-11-16 Public hearing on adding the 3 properties opened at 7:15 pm Steve Johnson, 2915 Lake Elmo Ave, asked what t he designation needed to be. Williams pointed out that the public hearing was only to add them to the MUSA. There were no written comments Public hearing closed at 7:18 pm M/S/P: Williams/Dunn, move to add findings of fact that there is a homeowner petition, that the Met Council staff is in agreement with adding these properties and that there is no significant change in project scope and cost to the City. Vote: 7-0, motion carried. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to recommend approval of an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Wastewater Facilities Plan adding 3 residentail parcels, PID #’s 24.029.21.22.0019, 24.029.21.22.0020 and 24.029.21.22.0021 to the Village MUSA area based on the attached findings, Vote: 7-0, motion carried. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to postpone amending the Comprehensive Land Use Plan by reguiding parcels in the Village MUSA until such time as a new public hearing has been noticed, Vote: 7-0, motion carried. Dodson is concerned that the existing RS homes will get that Village Medium Density designation. Wensman stated that the rezoning should occur shortly after the sewer hook ups occur. Dunn stated that the maps are different in the packet than what was shown tonight. She would like things clarified and simplified. Public Hearing – Rezoning the Inwood Water Tower site to PF The City’s Inwood Watertower site is currently zoned Rural Residentail and essential services are guided in the Comprehensive Plan as Public/Park. The requiest is to rezone the Inwood watertower to PF – Public/Semi Public. This is a 1.44 acre parcel owned by the City. Public hearing opened at 7:34 pm No one spoke and there were no written comments. Public hearing closed at 7:35 pm 3 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-11-16 M/S/P:Lundquist/Williams, move to recommend approval of the rezoning of the Inwood Watertower site PID #28.029.21.42.0003, from the RR – Rural Residential Zoning District to the PF – PF Public or Semi-Public zoning district, Vote: 7-0, motion carried. M/S/P:Williams/Dodson, proposes an amendment to include based on the findings presented in the staff report, Vote: 7-0, motion carried. Business Item – Village Preserve 2nd Addition Final Plat Wensman started his presentation regarding Village Preserve 2nd addition. This application is to Final Plat Outlot C into 45 single family homeas and a .13 acre outlot for a trail. This final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat. The Fire Chief would like the street named Lady Slipper Circle on the plat map changed to 41st Street Circle. Wensman went throught he findings of fact and 13 conditions of approval, one of which is constructing a turn lane on Lake Elmo Ave. Building permits will not be issued until the turn lane is constructed. Dodson pointed out a few technical changes. He also asked if the HOA had been established yet. Wensman stated that the documents have been drafted, but beyond that he is not sure. Craig Allen, GWSA, talked about the drainage of the development and the shared ponding with Wildflower. The irrigation and landscape plan was all done at once and should not be difficult to finish up for phase II. Dunn asked about the sidewalk and trail system and why they are different widths. Allen went through the trail system. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to approve the Village Preserve 2nd addition Final Plat with the 13 conditions of approval as drafted by Staff based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion carried. Business Item – Zoning Text Amendment Noise Ordinance Planner Becker explained the proposed ordinance as requested by the City Engineer. The staff would like feedback from the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing scheduled on April 25th, 2016. Dodson likes the Oakdale ordinance better than either version of the Lake Elmo ordinance. He prefers talking about how loud something is and hours vs. types of equipment allowed. He is also wondering what the penalties are for violations. Becker stated that the penalty is outlined in ordinance 10.99. 4 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-11-16 Dunn is concerned about MPCA standards, but does not see those standards anywhere. Wensman stated that it was previously discussed during the Hecker wedding venue and states what the noise limits are. Williams thinks there should be a reference to those standards. Wensman stated that he does not think it is necessary as our numbers come from those standards. Dunn feels that the current ordinance protects the current residents and does not feel it should change. Kreimer does not see a need to change the noise ordinance. He lived through it in 2014 with Hammes Estates and they worked weekends and it was miserable. They could not enjoy their property that whole summer. Fields would rather have exemptions on a project by project basis rather than change the ordinance. Williams is troubled by the inclusion of Saturday. He would rather see the ordinance allow public projects to be exempted. Williams would like to suggest that in section 1A, construction activity is allowed from 7am – 7pm during the week, but nothing on Saturdays. In the last section where it talks about public projects, allow Business Item – Zoning Text Amendment – Open Space Preservation Ordinance Business Item – 2016 Planning Commission Work Plan Council Updates – April 5, 2016 Meeting 1. Savona 4th addition Developer Agreement – passed. 2. Easton Village Park Plan – passed. 3. Palmquist Commercial Wedding Venue IUP – Postponed. Staff Updates 1. Upcoming Meetings a. April 25, 2016 b. May 10, 2016 Commission Concerns Meeting adjourned at 9:50 pm Respectfully submitted, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant