HomeMy WebLinkAbout#14 Inwood 5th Final Plat496491v1 SJS LA515-30
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 4/4/2017
REGULAR
ITEM #: 14
MOTION
TO: City Council
FROM: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
AGENDA ITEM: Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plans
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Kristina Handt, City Administrator
Sarah Sonsalla, City Attorney
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
Mike Bent, Building Official
Emily Becker, City Planner
BACKGROUND:
M/I Homes of Minneapolis/St. Paul (f/k/a Hans Hagen Homes) is requesting approval of its final
plat and final Planned Unit Development (PUD) plans for the Inwood 5th Addition plat to create
101 single family residential lots, the last phase of the residential PUD for Inwood. The Planning
Commission reviewed the final plat and final PUD plans on March 13, 2017 and has recommended
approval with 11 conditions.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
The Council is being requested to review the final plat and final PUD plans and to adopt Resolution
2017-029 (a, b, or amended) approving the final plat and PUD plans with 11 (or amended)
conditions.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Inwood 5th Addition is the final phase of the residential PUD. The City’s subdivision ordinance
establishes the procedure for obtaining final plat approval. A final plat can only be approved if it
is in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plat and if in conformance, it must be
approved. The final plat and final PUD plans that were submitted by M/I are generally consistent
with the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans with the exception of the following:
•10th Street Right-of-Way. Washington County’s review of the preliminary plat, dated
November 17, 2014, required that an additional 32 feet of right-of-way be dedicated by
the developer in the plat for future 10th Street improvements. Emails between John
Rask of Has Hagen (M/I) and Ann Terwedo, Washington County Transportation
Planner in November of 2014 and up to the Council’s approval of the preliminary plat
show a dialogue requesting the County review right-of-way dedication on the north
City Council Meeting Regular Agenda item #
4/4/2017
Page 2
496491v1 SJS LA515-30
side of 10th Street rather than the 32 feet of dedication from the Inwood plat that was
being required. There is no documentation that any agreement was reached.
Furthermore, the November 24, 2014 staff report reiterates Washington County’s need
and request for right-of-way dedication for 10th Street in the plat. A condition of
approval in the Resolution approving the Inwood Preliminary Plat (City Council
Resolution 2014-094), states:
The applicant shall be responsible for updating the final construction plans to
include construction of all improvements within the County rights-of-way as
required by Washington County and further described in the review letter received
from the County dated November 17, 2014.
The signed and recorded Inwood Developer Agreement includes a special provision:
The Developer shall observe all other county requirements as specified in the
Washington County review letter dated November 17, 2014 or any subsequent
direction from the County.
Staff believes the requirement for the additional 10th Street right-of-way was well
documented and repeatedly conditioned by the City. The developer also agreed to it
in the Developer Agreement. The Inwood 5th final plat and PUD plans that have been
submitted do not include this additional right-of-way. Staff is recommending that a
condition of final plat approval be that the final plat and the PUD plans be changed to
include the additional right-of-way.
• 10th Street Trail (between Island Trail and Inwood Avenue). When the City
Council approved the Inwood preliminary plat, a condition of approval in the resolution
(City Council Resolution 2014-094 was as follows:
The developer shall install a multi-purpose trail along 10th Street between “Street
B” (Island Trail) and Inwood Avenue.
The November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report indicates that Staff at the
time was supportive of the applicant’s request to remove this requirement, however,
the condition remained in the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the
Council’s adopted resolution of approval. The conditions of approval for the Inwood
final plat contained in City Council Resolution 2015-40, again, required the trail,
although, the Planning Commission Staff Report also indicated that the developer was
still requesting that the City and County consider the trail on the north side of 10th
Street. The County’s November 17, 2014 letter (referenced above) also references the
trail requirement. As discussed above, this letter was incorporated as a special
provision into the Developer Agreement which was signed and recorded.
Staff believes that the requirement for the trail was well documented and repeatedly
conditioned by the City. The developer also agreed to it in the Developer Agreement.
The Inwood 5th final plat and PUD plans that were submitted do not include the trail.
City Council Meeting Regular Agenda item #
4/4/2017
Page 3
496491v1 SJS LA515-30
Staff is recommending that a condition of final plat approval be that the final plat and
the PUD plans be changed to include the trail.
The developer has maintained that 60 feet of right-of-way for 10th Street was dedicated in the 1st
Addition plat and therefore, the City waived its right to request additional right-of-way. In
response, the City acceptance of 60 feet of right-of-way in the plat does not negate the additional
need and request for an additional 32 feet that was well documented in the conditions of approval
for the preliminary plat and in the Developer Agreement.
The developer has contended that because the additional right-of-way for 10th Street requirement
was not included as a condition of approval in City Council Resolution 2015-40, which approved
the final plat for Inwood and that the 10th Street right-of-way and trail requirements were not
conditions of approval in resolutions of subsequent plat additions, these conditions were no longer
being required and the City waived its rights to assert these conditions. According to the City
Attorney, “it is typical for developers to not dedicate right-of-way and trails within outlots that
will later be platted for future development.” The property that includes the trail and the additional
10th Street right-of-way was not located within the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th additions, so that is why these
items were not conditions of approval with respect to those plats. The 5th Addition is the first time
that the area being platted abuts 10th Street and includes the area where the trail would be located.
The developer has stated that it believes that the County has changed its plans with respect to the
10th Street right-of-way dedication. It is clear from reviewing the correspondence records that the
County has been consistent with respect to the additional 32 feet of right-of-way for 10th Street
requirement, and although it was willing to consider allowing the additional right-of-way to be
dedicated on the property to the north, this additional right-of-way has not been provided and
therefore, it remains a requirement with respect to the 5th Addition final plat.
The developer has also stated that since the property was graded and an as-built survey of the
graded property was submitted and accepted by the City that this means that the right-of-way and
trail were not being required. Grading of an area prior to final plat is at the developer’s risk. The
City’s approval of the as-built survey is simply a staff review of grading and drainage on the
property and their engineering components and does not encompass review of any additional
requirements that may be imposed by the City through the approval process. Furthermore,
additional grading is usually needed for each addition, so the grading that was initially completed
as part of the 1st Addition is not necessarily final with respect to the area that encompasses the 5th
Addition as plans change.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The 10th Street right-of-way issue is of financial concern to the City. If the right-of-way and trail
are not dedicated within the Inwood 5th final plat and the County needs additional right-of-way in
the future for a future 10th Street widening project, the County will have to purchase the right-of-
way. The County has indicated that it will pass these costs on to the City. It is possible that the
needed right-of-way may be obtained from the property to the north if and when that property
develops, however, if M/I does not provide the right-of-way that is being required with respect to
City Council Meeting Regular Agenda item #
4/4/2017
Page 4
496491v1 SJS LA515-30
Inwood 5th Addition now, the landowner to the north would have to dedicate more than its fair
share to meet the amount needed for 10th Street.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options:
1) Adopt Resolution 2017-029 b approving the Inwood 5th Final Plat and Final PUD plans
with the conditions recommended by Staff.
2) Adopt Resolution 2017-029 a approving the Inwood 5th Final Plat and Final PUD plans
with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
3) Change the conditions and/or findings and adopt an amended Resolution 2017-029 c
approving the Inwood 5th Final Plat and Final PUD plans.
PLANNING COMMISSION/PUBLIC HEARING:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the Inwood 5th Final Plat and PUD
Plans on March 13, 2017 and recommended approval with 11 conditions. There was no public
testimony during the public hearing. The Planning Commission decided to remove Staff’s
recommended condition #11 pertaining to the trail requirement. The Commission also added a
new condition that a trail be constructed between Island Trail North and the previously constructed
north-south trail adjacent to the Stonegate subdivision. The Planning Commission also
recommended the following modifications to the recommended findings for approval:
#8 That legal issues related to the 32’ of right-of-way are beyond the scope of the Planning
Commission.
#9 That if trail between Island Trail and Inwood Avenue is required, the City should credit the
developer for the costs of the trail against the park dedication requirements.
The Commission’s primary concerns were:
• The loss of the landscape berm that is currently located within the right-of-way that
would be dedicated for 10th Street if the right-of-way and trail were required.
• If the trail is required, the developer should get credit for the trail construction against
park dedication paid/granted.
• Some members felt the trail was not needed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution 2017-029 b approving the Inwood 5th Final
Plat and Final PUD Plans with the following motion
“Move to adopt Resolution 2017-029 b approving the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat
and Final PUD Plans as recommended by Staff.”
City Council Meeting Regular Agenda item #
4/4/2017
Page 5
496491v1 SJS LA515-30
If the Council is in support of the Planning Commission recommendation, then the recommended
motion is:
“Move to adopt Resolution 2017-029 a approving the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat and
Final PUD Plans as recommended by the Planning Commission.”
If the Council changes the conditions and/or findings, then Staff recommends the following
motion:
“Move to adopt Resolution 2017-029 c with the following changes (list changes to the
conditions or findings).”
ATTACHMENTS:
• Staff Recommended Resolution 2017-029 b
• Planning Commission Recommended Resolution 2017-029 a
• Planning Commission packet
• Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/13/2017
1
Resolution 2017-__
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-029 b
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) PLAN FOR INWOOD 5TH 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, M/I Homes of Mpls./St. Paul/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 5th 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 with 19 conditions; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan includes
101 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 13,
2017 to consider the Final Plat and Final PUD Plan request; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending
approval of the Final Plat and Final PUD Plan subject to 11 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 4, 2017 Council Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat and Final
PUD Plan at its meeting held on April 4, 2017 and made the following findings:
1. That all the requirements of City Code Section 153.08 related to the Final Plat have been met
by the Applicant.
2. That the proposed Final Plat for Inwood 5th Addition consists of the creation of 101 single-
family detached residential structures.
2
Resolution 2017-__
3. That the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat is generally consistent with the Preliminary Plat and
PUD Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on December 2, 2014 with conditions.
4. That the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive
Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
5. That the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat generally complies with the City’s Urban Low
Density Residential zoning district except as previously approved as part of the Inwood PUD.
6. That the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat complies with all other applicable zoning
requirements, including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control
and other ordinances, except as previously approved as part of the Inwood PUD with
conditions.
7. That the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby
approve the InWood 5th Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. All easements as requested by the City Engineer or Public Works Department shall be
documented on the Final Plat prior to the recording of the final plat.
2. That Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, utility plans, sanitary and storm
water management plans, street and utility construction plans and agreements shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer complying with all conditions/comments from
the City Engineer’s review memorandum dated February 15, 2017 prior to the recording of the
final plat.
3. That the Developer shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement acceptable to the City
Attorney and approved by the City Council that delineates who is responsible for the
design, construction, and payment of the required improvements with financial guarantees
therefore prior to recording of the final plat.
4. The applicant shall provide evidence that all conditions attached the South Washington
Watershed District permit for the final plat have been met prior to the commencement of
any grading/construction activity.
5. That the Landscape Plans shall be revised to address the Planning and Engineering review
comments prior to recording the final plat.
6. That Outlots A, B, C, and D be dedicated to the City for stormwater purposes with the
recording of the final plat.
7. A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of Inwood 5th
Addition and establishing a homeowner’s association shall be submitted in final form to the
Planning Director before a building permit may be issued for any structure within this
subdivision.
3
Resolution 2017-__
8. The developer shall also enter into a landscape license agreement and 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.
9. The Developer shall provide 32 feet of right-of-way for 10th Street and observe all County
requirements as specified in the Washington County review letter dated November 17, 2014 or
any subsequent direction from the County.
10. The Island Trail/10th Street intersection must be reviewed and approved by Washington
County. Improvements required by Washington County at the intersection shall be the
responsibility of the developer and shall be incorporated into the final PUD plans.
11. The developer shall construct a multi-purpose trail along 10th Street between Island Trail to
Inwood Avenue prior to issuance of building permits and the final PUD plans shall be updated
showing the trail prior to recording the final plat.
Passed and duly adopted this 4th day of April, 2017 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
___________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
1
Resolution 2017-__
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-029 a
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) PLAN FOR INWOOD 5TH 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, M/I Homes of Mpls./St. Paul/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 5th 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 with 19 conditions; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan includes
101 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 13,
2017 to consider the Final Plat and Final PUD Plan request; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending
approval of the Final Plat and Final PUD Plan subject to 11 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 4, 2017 Council Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat and Final
PUD Plan at its meeting held on April 4, 2017 and made the following findings:
1. That all the requirements of City Code Section 153.08 related to the Final Plat have been met
by the Applicant.
2. That the proposed Final Plat for Inwood 5th Addition consists of the creation of 101 single-
family detached residential structures.
2
Resolution 2017-__
3. That the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat is generally consistent with the Preliminary Plat and
PUD Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on December 2, 2014 with conditions.
4. That the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive
Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
5. That the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat generally complies with the City’s Urban Low
Density Residential zoning district except as previously approved as part of the Inwood PUD.
6. That the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat complies with all other applicable zoning
requirements, including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control
and other ordinances, except as previously approved as part of the Inwood PUD with
conditions.
7. That the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
8. That legal issues surrounding the 32’ of right-of-way and the trail are beyond the scope of
the Planning Commission.
9. That the Planning Commission finds significant value to the existing berm that the
developer built along 10th Street and the County should be requested to retain the berm
regardless of the right of way issue.
10. That the City consider any trail required to be implemented by the development from
Island Trail to Inwood be credited towards parkland dedication.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby
approve the InWood 5th Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. All easements as requested by the City Engineer or Public Works Department shall be
documented on the Final Plat prior to the recording of the final plat.
2. That Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, utility plans, sanitary and storm
water management plans, street and utility construction plans and agreements shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer complying with all conditions/comments from
the City Engineer’s review memorandum dated February 15, 2017 prior to the recording of the
final plat.
3. That the Developer shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement acceptable to the City
Attorney and approved by the City Council that delineates who is responsible for the
design, construction, and payment of the required improvements with financial guarantees
therefore prior to recording of the final plat.
4. The applicant shall provide evidence that all conditions attached the South Washington
Watershed District permit for the final plat have been met prior to the commencement of
any grading/construction activity.
5. That the Landscape Plans shall be revised to address the Planning and Engineering review
comments prior to recording the final plat.
3
Resolution 2017-__
6. That Outlots A, B, C, and D be dedicated to the City for stormwater purposes with the
recording of the final plat.
7. A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of Inwood 5th
Addition and establishing a homeowner’s association shall be submitted in final form to the
Planning Director before a building permit may be issued for any structure within this
subdivision.
8. The developer shall also enter into a landscape license agreement and 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.
9. The Developer shall provide 32 feet of right-of-way for 10th Street and observe all County
requirements as specified in the Washington County review letter dated November 17, 2014 or
any subsequent direction from the County.
10. The Island Trail/10th Street intersection must be reviewed and approved by Washington
County. Improvements required by Washington County at the intersection shall be the
responsibility of the developer and shall be incorporated into the final PUD plans.
11. That a trail be constructed between Island Trail N. and the previously constructed north-
south trail adjacent to the Stonegate subdivision
Passed and duly adopted this 4th day of April, 2017 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
___________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 03/13/2017
AGENDA ITEM: 4B– PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
CASE #2016-57
TO: Planning Commission
ITEM: Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development Plans
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Emily Becker, City Planner
Sarah Sonsalla, City Attorney
Kristina Handt, City Administrator
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
M/I Homes of Minneapolis/St. Paul (Hans Hagen Homes) is requesting approval of Final Plat and
Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plans for Inwood 5th Addition to create 101 single family
lots. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend approval with the following
motion:
“move to recommend approval of the Inwood 5th Addition final plat and PUD plans with 12
conditions based on the findings listed in the Staff report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: M/I Homes/Hans Hagen Homes (John Rask), 941 NE Hillwind Rd. Suite 300,
Fridley, MN
Property Owners: M/I Homes (John Rask), 941 NE Hillwind Rd. Suite 300, Fridley, MN
Location: Outlots A, B, F and G, Inwood 3rd Addition.
PID#: 33.029.21.11.0045, 33.029.21.11.0046, 33.029.21.12.0047 and
33.029.21.12.0048
Request: Application for Final Plat and Final PUD approval of a 101 unit residential
subdivision to be named Inwood 5th Addition.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: undeveloped outlots in Inwood 3rd Final Plat area. Current
Zoning: LDR/PUD – Low Density Residential Planned Unit
Development.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Surrounded by residential lots to the south, parkland to the east,
Commercial/PUD zoning to the west and 10th Street N. to the
North.
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 - 4 units per acre)
Planning Commission Meeting Page 2
03/13/2017
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b
History: The City Council approved the general concept plan for the Inwood on September 16,
2014, the preliminary plat on December 2, 2014 and the Final Plat on May 19, 2015
for phase 1. Inwood 2nd was approved on 9/1/15, Inwood 3rd was approved on
4/19/16. Inwood 4th was approved on 10/18/16.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 02/10/2017
60 Day Deadline – 04/11/2017
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline –
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (LDR)
Article 16 – Planned Unit Development Regulations
§150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment Control
REQUEST DETAILS
This report is based upon a review of the preliminary plat and PUD plans dated 11/28/16 with an
additional submittal on 2/10/17. The developer resubmitted plans on 3/6/17 with a plan date of
3/3/17. These plans have not been reviewed by City staff.
M/I Homes/Hans Hagen Homes is requesting Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
approval of Inwood 5th Addition, replat of Outlots, A, B, F and G, Inwood 3rd Addition. The final
plat will result in 101 single family lots on 27.71 acres. Inwood 5th Addition will be the last phase of
the single family development within the Inwood development and will connect Island Trail to 10th
Street North. The final plat will have a gross density of 3.65 dwelling units per acre compared to the
overall Inwood gross density of 2.7 DUA as there are no ponds, wetlands, collector roads or parkland
in the 5th addition. Lot widths vary from just under 38 feet to 234.5 feet and lot sizes vary from
4,940 sq. ft. to 22,869 sq. ft. The preliminary plat and preliminary PUD established 38 feet as the
most narrow lot width. There are two lots, Lots 2 and 7, Block 1 that are 38 feet in width. The
preliminary plat for the area encompassing the 5th addition identifies 4 more lots than what is
proposed for the 5th Addition Final Plat.
Plat Summary:
Development area 27.70 acres
Total lot area: 20.16 acres
Residential lots: 101
R/W area: 4.68 acres
Average lot size: .20 acres
Gross density: 3.65 dwelling units per acre
Net density: 3.65 dwelling units per acre
There is no parkland dedication in the 5th Addition. All parkland dedicated was addressed with the
first phase.
The City’s subdivision ordinance establishes the procedure for obtaining final subdivision approval.
A final plat can only be approved if it is in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary
Planning Commission Meeting Page 3
03/13/2017
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b
plat and if in conformance it must be approved. Staff has reviewed the final plat and found that it is
generally consistent with the preliminary plat.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The preliminary plat was approved on December 2, 2014 with conditions. Although the final plat is
generally consistent with the preliminary plat, there are a number of conditions of preliminary plat
that have not yet been complied with. Staff has reviewed the final plat and final PUD development
plans and has identified the following issues:
Fewer Lots. Blocks 3 and 4 each have one lot less than shown on the preliminary plat. Block 2 has
two less lots than the preliminary plat. The reduction in lots results in slightly larger lots in the 5th
Addition. Although the 5th Addition has four fewer lots than on the preliminary plat, Staff believes
the change is an improvement and not a significant issue.
10th Street Right-of-Way. Washington County’s preliminary plat review, dated 11/17/14, requests
an additional 32 feet of right-of-way from future 10th Street improvements. The 11/24/14 Planning
Staff report reiterates Washington County’s need and request for right-of-way dedication for 10th
Street. A condition of approval for the Inwood Preliminary Plat, Resolution 2014-094, states, “the
applicant shall be responsible for updating the final construction plans to include construction of all
improvements within the County rights-of-way as required by Washington County and further
described in the review letter received from the County dated November 17, 2014.” In addition, the
signed and recorded Inwood Developer Agreement includes a special provision: “The Developer
shall observe all other county requirements as specified in the Washington County review letter dated
November 17, 2014 or any subsequent direction from the County.” Staff believes the requirement for
the additional 10th street right-of-way was repeatedly conditioned and well documented and is a
deficiency in the Inwood 5th Final Plat and PUD Plans and as a result has been made a condition of
approval.
10th Street Trail. A condition of approval for the Inwood Preliminary Plat, Resolution 2014-094
states, “The developer shall install a multi-purpose trail along 10th Street between “Street B” (Island
Trail) and Inwood Avenue.” The 11/24/14 Planning Commission Staff Report indicates that Staff at
the time was supportive of the applicant’s request to remove this requirement, however, the condition
remained in the Commission’s recommendation and the Councils resolution of approval. The
condition of approval for the Inwood final plat contained in Resolution 2015-40, again, required the
trail. The preliminary plat plans were never updated to show this trail, and the developer has not
shown them on the Inwood 5th Final plat as required. Staff believes this is a significant deficiency in
the Inwood 5th Final Plat and PUD Plans and as a result the trail has been made a condition of
approval.
Landscape Plans. The landscape plans for the development are generally consistent with the
preliminary landscape plans for the development. There are a few issues that need to be addressed
prior to approval:
The Crabapples in Island Trail median should be removed or replaced with an upright tree
that will not encroach into the R/W.
The irrigation service for the landscaping should be shown on the landscape plans and should
be coordinated with the utility plans.
Landscaping and berming within the 32 feet to be dedicated for the 10th Street R/W will need
to be moved out of the R/W.
Planning Commission Meeting Page 4
03/13/2017
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b
The landscape plans shall be updated to match changes to the PUD Plans.
Engineering Review. The City Engineer has reviewed the final plat submittal and has prepared a
memorandum for the Commission and Council’s review. The comments in the City Engineer’s
review memorandum dated February 15, 2017 should be addressed prior to releasing the plat for
recording. There are a number of comments that pertain to the final plat which should be amended
and resubmitted prior to approval:
Revise and resubmit the Final Plat to provide the required watermain easements and to
address the required construction plan changes per the construction plans comments.
Revise the final plat to show the dedication of an additional 32 feet along the south right-of-
way of 10th Street per the conditions of preliminary plat approval (further described above).
Provide minimum 30 foot wide watermain utility easement over the pipe over Outlot K.
Add minimum 30 foot wide watermain utility easement centered over the pipe on lots 6 and
7, Block 4 for the 12” watermain pipe.
Revise R/W width or revise street section of Island Trail between 10th Street and Irving
Boulevard. The proposed R/W width is insufficient to meet City street and boulevard layout
standards.
The minimum one-way street width is 18 feet from face of curb to face of curb, not
back of curb to back of curb. The lane width must be increased by 1 foot.
The Island Trail with median typical section on Sheet No. 25 does not allow for
boulevard trees meeting minimum safety setbacks.
The end turning radius of 35 feet for each of the one-way loop roads do not meet the
City minimum standards of 45 feet. Revise end radius to the minimum 45 ft. or
provide additional pavement width to accommodate an equivalent turning radius.
Revise the intersection f Irving Boulevard and island Trail to align the drive lane
centerlines. Provide a center median on the west leg of Irving Boulevard.
Revise the intersection of Irving Court to intersect Irving Boulevard at 90-degrees for
the first 50 feet.
Preliminary Plat Conditions. The Inwood 5th Addition final plat is generally in conformance with
the preliminary plat except for as identified in this report. The following are the Inwood preliminary
plat and PUD plans conditions of approval, as per Resolution 2014-094, with the status of each listed
in bold italics:
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.
The Planning Department had named all streets within the entire plat and has
reviewed them again against the City’s new street naming ordinance and has found
them to be in conformance with the ordinance.
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. The Developer and the City have an agreement and the water
tower is presently under construction.
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
Planning Commission Meeting Page 5
03/13/2017
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b
18, 2014. The review comments were addressed. In addition, the 5th Addition
landscape plans are mostly in conformance with City regulations. Landscaping and
berming planted within the R/W to be dedicated for 10th Street will need to be moved
out of the R/W. Final approval of the landscape plans will be required prior to
recording the plat.
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. Park dedication was provided with the 1st
Addition.
5) As part of any development agreement that includes improvements to one of the adjacent
County State Aid Highways (CSAH 13 and 10th Street), the City and the developer shall
determine the appropriate responsibility for the cost of these improvements. The 5th
Addition connects Island Trail to 10th Street N. Cost sharing for improvements to
CSAH 13 were determined and agreed upon with the 1st Addition.
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. Grading was
completed under a separate grading agreement and was graded according to plans.
7) The applicant shall continue to work with the City on the final design of 5th 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).
5th Street was constructed with prior phases of the development.
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. This item was completed with prior phases of the development.
9) The proposed public street access to 5th 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. This change was
made to the preliminary plat.
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. The HOA documents address this condition.
Additionally, a landscape license agreement will be drafted and executed between the City
and Developer that will assign responsibilities for installation and maintenance of
landscaping.
Planning Commission Meeting Page 6
03/13/2017
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b
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 10th 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. The trail was installed with previous phases of the development.
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. The plans
were updated with the 1st Addition.
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. The plans were updated to include the required right-of-way improvements, but
not the required R/W dedication. The trail within the R/W between Island Trail and
Inwood is also missing from the plans.
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. A developer agreement will be prepared for the 5th Addition with the final
plat as it was done in previous phases.
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.
There are no wetland impacts in the 5th Addition and all conditions of approval for the
South Washington Watershed District Permit have been complied with.
16) The developer shall provide landscape material along the west side of Pond #200 to the
satisfaction of the City’s landscape consultant. This condition has been addressed.
17) The developer shall incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study at the
intersection of 5th Street and Inwood Avenue. This condition was addressed with the design
of 5th Street in prior phases of the development.
18) The developer shall install a multi-purpose trail along 10th Street between “Street B” and
Inwood Avenue. This condition should be addressed with the 5th Addition development.
Street B is now named Island Trail and the current plan submittal shows no trail between
island Trail and Inwood Avenue along 10th Street (see issues section above)
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. This condition has been met.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Staff is recommending approval of the final plat and PUD plat with the following conditions:
1) All easements as requested by the City Engineer or Public Works Department shall be
documented on the Final Plat prior to the recording of the final plat.
Planning Commission Meeting Page 7
03/13/2017
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b
2) That Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, utility plans, sanitary and storm
water management plans, street and utility construction plans and agreements shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer complying with all conditions/comments
from the City Engineer’s review memorandum dated February 15, 2017 prior to the recording
of the final plat.
3) That the Developer shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement acceptable to the City
Attorney and approved by the City Council that delineates who is responsible for the
design, construction, and payment of the required improvements with financial
guarantees therefore prior to recording of the final plat.
4) The applicant shall provide evidence that all conditions attached the Valley Branch
Watershed District permit for the final plat have been met prior to the commencement of
any grading/construction activity.
5) That the Landscape Plans shall be revised to address the Planning and Engineering review
comments prior to recording the final plat.
6) That Outlots A, B, C, and D be dedicated to the City for stormwater purposes with the
recording of the final plat.
7) A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of Inwood 5th
Addition and establishing a homeowner’s association shall be submitted in final form to the
Planning Director before a building permit may be issued for any structure within this
subdivision.
8) The developer shall also enter into a landscape license agreement and 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.
9) The Developer shall provide 32 feet of right-of-way for 10th Street and observe all County
requirements as specified in the Washington County review letter dated November 17, 2014
or any subsequent direction from the County.
10) The Island Trail/10th Street intersection must be reviewed and approved by Washington
County. Improvements required by Washington County at the intersection shall be the
responsibility of the developer and shall be incorporated into the final PUD plans.
11) The developer shall construct a multi-purpose trail along 10th Street between Island Trail to
Inwood Avenue prior to issuance of building permits and the final PUD plans shall be
updated showing the trail prior to recording the final plat.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat and PUD Plans:
Planning Commission Meeting Page 8
03/13/2017
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b
1. That all the requirements of City Code Section 153.08 related to the Final Plat have been met
by the Applicant.
2. That the proposed Final Plat for Inwood 5th Addition consists of the creation of 101 single-
family detached residential structures.
3. That the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat is generally consistent with the Preliminary Plat and
PUD Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on December 2, 2014 with conditions.
4. That the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive
Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
5. That the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat generally complies with the City’s Urban Low
Density Residential zoning district except as previously approved as part of the Inwood PUD.
6. That the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat complies with all other applicable zoning
requirements, including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control
and other ordinances, except as previously approved as part of the Inwood PUD with
conditions.
7. That the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
RECOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Inwood 5th Addition
Final Plat and Final PUD with 12 conditions based on the findings listed in the Staff report.
Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat and Final PUD plans with
12 conditions based on the findings listed in the Staff Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application Narrative
2. Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat
3. Inwood 5th Addition Final Landscape Plans
4. City Engineer’s report, dated February 15, 2017
5. Resolution 2014-094 approving the Inwood Preliminary Plat
6. Resolution 2015-40 approving Inwood 1st Addition
7. Planning Commission Report, dated 11/24/14
8. Washington County Review letter November 17, 2014
9. Washington County Review letter January 9, 2017
1
Final Plat and PUD Final Plan Narrative
Hans Hagen Homes
December 22, 2016
2. Written Statements
a. List of contact information:
Applicant
John Rask
Hans Hagen Homes
941 NE Hillwind Road, Suite 300
Fridley, MN 55432
763-586-7200
Property Owner
Inwood 10 LLC
95 South Owasso Blvd. E
St. Paul, MN 55117
651-484-0070
Surveyor
Dan Obermiller
EG Rud and Sons, Inc.
6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
651-361-8200
Civil Engineer
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
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);
2
See attached.
c. Final Subdivision and Lot Information
i. InWood 5th Addition
ii. Lot Tabulation – see attached plat and table. The 5th addition plat
includes a total of 101 lots, which is consistent with the approved
preliminary plat for this part of the neighborhood.
iii. There is no park land dedicated in this phase.
iv. 4.68 acres of public right-of-way.
d. An explanation of how issues have been addressed since the Preliminary Plat
phase of the development;
The final plat for the 5th Addition is consistent with the preliminary plat and
conditions of approval as discussed below.
Conditions of Preliminary Plat Approval:
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.
Response: The Community Development Director has supplied street names for
the entire 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.
Response: The applicant and City have agreement on the final water system design.
The property owner, Inwood 10 LLC, has provided land for a future City water
tower.
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.
Response: The applicant has submitted revised plans to the City addressing the
above. Landscaping for the first phase and 5th Street has been installed.
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.
3
Response: The Park Dedication requirements were satisfied with the Final Plat for
Inwood. Outlot L, Inwood was dedicated to the City for future park.
5. As part of any development agreement that includes improvements to one of the
adjacent County State Aid Highways (CSAH 13 and 10th Street), the City and the
developer shall determine the appropriate responsibility for the cost of these
improvements.
Response: The 5th Addition included a future connection to 10th Street. Cost
sharing was determined and agreed upon with the Inwood final plat for CSAH 13
and funds were provided by Hans Hagen Homes. No specific cost sharing
agreement has been determined for the CSAH 10/10th Street intersection.
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.
Response: The applicant entered into a separate grading agreement with the City
and has graded the property consistent with the approval.
7. The applicant shall continue to work with the City on the final design of 5th 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).
Response: The applicant worked with the City on the final design and has
constructed 5th Street through the project site.
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.
Response: The utility plans were updated and resubmitted to the City Engineer prior
to the approval of the Inwood Final Plat.
9. The proposed public street access to 5th Street from Streets D2 and the southwest 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 southwest park area.
Response: This change was made to the preliminary plat.
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
4
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.
Response: The HOA documents for the project were drafted consistent with this
condition. The documents are recorded against the property.
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 10th
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.
Response: The trail was installed with the previous phase of the development and
conforms to this condition.
12. The Final Plat and Plans must address the requested modifications outlined in the
City Engineer’s review memorandum dated November 16, 2014.
Response: The applicant updated the preliminary streets and utility plans to be
consistent with the City Engineer’s comments. The update plans were submitted
to the City prior to the Final Plat and Final PUD plan for the 1st phase.
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.
Response: The plans are updated to include the necessary right-of-way as
required by Washington County.
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.
Response: The applicant has entered into a Developers Agreement consistent with
this condition.
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.
Response: There are no wetlands being impacted as a result of this project and
all the conditions of South Washington Watershed District are being met. The
applicant has received the necessary development approvals from the Watershed
District.
5
e. A statement showing the proposed density of the project with the method of
calculating said density shown (Below numbers are based on all the single
family lots, and not just this phase);
i. Single Family land use area of the overall plat includes 102.9 acres
(The 5th additional includes 28 acres)
ii. 275 total single family homes (101 lots in 5th Addition).
iii. Single Family Net Density of 3.61 units per acre (there is no park land,
ponds or collector roads in this phase of the neighborhood.)
f. Discuss proposed infrastructure improvements and phasing thereof (i.e.
proposed roadways, sewer systems, water systems, sidewalks/trails, parking,
etc) necessary to serve the subdivision;
The 5th phase will include the construction of the necessary roads, sewer and
water for the balance of the neighborhood. The storm water improvements,
including ponding and infiltration basins were installed with the first phase of
development.
g. 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 Plan review stage.
Comments generally related to concerns over the extension of municipal
services in this area of the community and the impacts that come along with
changes to land use.
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
varies from 100 feet to over 200 feet.
ii. The lots and streets were orientated east/west with cul-de-sac lots
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.
6
iv. Landscaped berms along 10th Street, 5th Street, and along a portion
of the western edge of the neighborhood.
h. 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 5th Street parkway will be single family homes. Transitioning to the west
will be commercial. The neighborhood plan for InWood provides a large
pond and berms 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.
i. 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 traffic flows) in the area.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan provides for the planned and orderly growth
of the community by making sure that the necessary infrastructure and
services are in place as growth occurs. Because the proposed neighborhood is
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.
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.
j. If applicable, provide a description of proposed lakeshore access (i.e. shared
dock with multiple slips, individual docks for each lot, etc.);
Not applicable.
k. A description of proposed parks and/or open space. Please include a brief
statement on the proposed ownership and maintenance of said areas;
The neighborhood includes approximately 14.5 acres of public parkland.
Overall, the neighborhood includes approximately 49 acres of open spaces,
including public park, trail corridors, landscaped berms, ponding, infiltration
7
areas, wetland preservation areas, and private open space. The private open
space and infiltration areas will be maintained by a homeowners association.
l. A proposed development schedule indicating the approximate date when
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).
Construction of the 5th Addition improvements will commence in March of
2017 and be completed by August 2017.
1(
ÄÄ&CVG4GXKUKQPU
LNV
LNV&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
.*#05*#)'0*1/'5
*+..9+0&41#&0'57+6'
(4+&.';/+00'516#
+0911&(+(6*#&&+6+10'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
Ä
.#-''./1/+00'516#
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEV
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
%+8+.'0)+0''45 .#0&2.#00'45 .#0&5748';145 .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65
.#0&5%#2'2.#00COG
4GI0Q&CVG
,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQPYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO(CZ Ä
1(
ÄÄ&CVG4GXKUKQPU
LNV
LNV&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
.*#05*#)'0*1/'5
*+..9+0&41#&0'57+6'
(4+&.';/+00'516#
+0911&(+(6*#&&+6+10'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
Ä
.#-''./1/+00'516#
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEV
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
%+8+.'0)+0''45 .#0&2.#00'45 .#0&5748';145 .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65
.#0&5%#2'2.#00COG
4GI0Q&CVG
,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQPYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO(CZ Ä
1(
ÄÄ&CVG4GXKUKQPU
LNV
LNV&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
.*#05*#)'0*1/'5
*+..9+0&41#&0'57+6'
(4+&.';/+00'516#
+0911&(+(6*#&&+6+10'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
Ä
.#-''./1/+00'516#
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEV
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
%+8+.'0)+0''45 .#0&2.#00'45 .#0&5748';145 .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65
.#0&5%#2'2.#00COG
4GI0Q&CVG
,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQP
E 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI
YYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO(CZ Ä
1(
ÄÄ&CVG4GXKUKQPU
LNV
LNV&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
.*#05*#)'0*1/'5
*+..9+0&41#&0'57+6'
(4+&.';/+00'516#
+0911&(+(6*#&&+6+10'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
Ä
.#-''./1/+00'516#
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEV
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
%+8+.'0)+0''45 .#0&2.#00'45 .#0&5748';145 .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65
.#0&5%#2'2.#00COG
4GI0Q&CVG
,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQP
E 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI
YYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO(CZ Ä
1(
&CVG4GXKUKQPU
LNV
LNV&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
.*#05*#)'0*1/'5
*+..9+0&41#&0'57+6'
(4+&.';/+00'516#
+0911&(+(6*#&&+6+10'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
Ä
.#-''./1/+00'516#
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEV
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
%+8+.'0)+0''45 .#0&2.#00'45 .#0&5748';145 .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQP
E 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI
YYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO(CZ Ä
ÄÄ.#0&5%#2'2.#0
1(
&CVG4GXKUKQPU
LNV
LNV&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
.*#05*#)'0*1/'5
*+..9+0&41#&0'57+6'
(4+&.';/+00'516#
+0911&(+(6*#&&+6+10'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
Ä
.#-''./1/+00'516#
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEV
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
%+8+.'0)+0''45 .#0&2.#00'45 .#0&5748';145 .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQP
E 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI
YYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO(CZ Ä
ÄÄ.#0&5%#2'2.#0
1(
&CVG4GXKUKQPU
LNV
LNV&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
.*#05*#)'0*1/'5
*+..9+0&41#&0'57+6'
(4+&.';/+00'516#
+0911&(+(6*#&&+6+10'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
Ä
.#-''./1/+00'516#
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEV
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
%+8+.'0)+0''45 .#0&2.#00'45 .#0&5748';145 .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQP
E 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI
YYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO(CZ Ä
ÄÄ.#0&5%#2'2.#0
PAGE 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 15, 2017
To: Brian Krystofiak, Carlson McCain Re: Inwood 5th Addition – Final Construction Plans
Cc: Jason Biederwolf, M/I Homes Engineering Review Comments
Stephen Wensman, City Planner
Chad Isakson, P.E., Municipal Engineer
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Inwood 5th Addition. Final Plat/Final Construction Plans were
received on December 16, 2016. The submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by Carlson‐
McCainst, Inc. or as noted:
Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat, dated December 6, 2016.
Inwood 5th Addition Street and Utility Construction Plans dated November 28, 2016.
Inwood 5th Addition Specifications dated November 28, 2016.
Inwood 5th Addition Landscape Plans dated November 28, 2016.
Storm Sewer Design Spreadsheet dated February 16, 2015 and Drainage Area Exhibit dated October 6, 2016.
STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering review comments have been provided to assist with the completion of the final
Construction Plans and Final Plat.
INWOOD 5TH ADDITION FINAL PLAT
Revise and resubmit the Final Plat to provide the required wate rmain easements and to address the required
construction plan changes per the construction plan comments below.
Revise the Final Plat to show the dedication of an additional 32 feet along the south right‐of‐way of 10th
Street per the conditions of preliminary plat approval.
FINAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS
With Inwood PUD 5th Addition being the last addition covering the preliminary plat, the interim sanitary
sewer routing at the intersection of 5th Street and Ivywood Avenue must be converted to the permanent
routing condition as part of this plan set before the improvements can be considered complete. Add sanitary
sewer plan sheet to address convert the interim sanitary sewer routing to the permanent sewer routing
condition by diverting the flow to the east at this intersection through the Boulder Ponds subdivision.
Add grading plans and erosion control plans for the Inwood PUD 5th Addition. The grading plans should show
the existing grading conditions and call out the phasing and removal of the temporary sedimentation basins
along with the permanent final grading. The plan should also describe and address the erosion control
provisions for the construction of the Inwood PUD 5th Addition. Grading, erosion control and site restoration
plan notes should be incorporated on the appropriate plan sheet and removed from the detail sheets.
Sheet No. 1‐3 – Remove temporary cul‐de‐sac on Island Trail between 2nd and 3rd Addition.
Sheet No. 4‐10 – Show all easements on all utility plans.
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283
PAGE 2 of 3
Sheet No. 4‐10 – Provide notes in plan view to label and callout 4” insulation.
Sheet No. 4‐10 – The utility plans must be updated to incorporate any proposed Irrigation services after the
irrigation service plans have been reviewed and approved by the City Landscape Architect.
Sheet No. 4‐5 – 12” watermain crossing of Island Trail at 10 th Street should be perpendicular with Island Trail.
Extend 12” watermain to the north and replace (2) 45‐degree bends with 12x12 tee. Add 12” Gate Valve on
south leg of tee.
Sheet No. 4 – Add Gate Valve on the north leg of the watermain cross at STA 5+50 Island Trail.
Sheet No. 4 – Show insulation at the storm sewer crossing at STA 6+10 of Island Trail.
Sheet No. 4 – Revise the existing manhole invert (and field verify note) with the As‐built invert elevation.
Sheet No. 4 – Remove localized high point in the watermain profile from STA 0+00 to STA 1+50 of Island
Trail. Carry straight grade from the connection point to the watermain offset.
Sheet No. 5 – Extend watermain along 10th Street to the plat limits.
Sheet No. 6 – Modify sanitary sewer slopes from MH 1 to MH 7 to be 0.50%.
Sheet No. 7 – Add 8” Gate Valve on east watermain segment on the north side of 9th Street Place N., adjacent
to MH‐2. Revise service stationing.
Sheet No. 7 – Remove 4” service from MH‐9. Service to be installed using a wye from the sewer mainline.
Sheet No. 7 – Place hydrant on southern leg of Upper 9th Place North between lots 3 and 4.
Sheet No. 8 – Remove 22‐degree bend from northern intersection of Irving Blvd and Island Trail. Have 8”
DIP connect perpendicular to 12” watermain. Keep 8” gate valve at connection.
Sheet No. 8 – Revise sanitary sewer grade from MH‐3 to MH‐11 to 3.16% and MH 11 to MH 14 to 0.50%
Sheet No. 9 – Add 12” Gate Valve at STA 6+00 on Irving Boulevard so that less than 20 lots are impacted
when the system is isolated.
Sheet No. 10 – Relocate the 12” Gate Valve on Irene Avenue to keep it out of the street centerline.
Sheet No. 10 – Label Outlot K on the plans in the northwest corner to identify the parcel with the proposed
watermain installation.
Sheet No. 10 – Revise the watermain connection and Outlot K watermain alignment to connect the proposed
watermain to the newly constructed Inwood Trunk Watermain 16”x12” tee at the intersection of Inwood
Avenue and 10th Street. The existing conditions must reflect the as‐built Inwood Trunk Watermain Plans.
Sheet No. 10 – Provide minimum 30 foot wide watermain utility easement centered over the pipe over
Outlot K. A. Revise Plat accordingly.
Sheet No. 10 – Add minimum 30 foot wide watermain utility easement centered over the pipe on lots 6 and
7, Block 4 for the 12” watermain pipe. Revise Plat accordingly.
Sheet No. 11‐14 – Storm Sewer Structures within 10 ft. of watermain to have water tight connections per
MDH requirements. Include note on each storm sewer plan sheet and mark applicable storm structure. Also
include water stop grouting ring detail.
Sheet No. 11‐14 – Minimum drain tile run is 100 ft. Clean‐outs must be provided every 150 ft.
Sheet No. 11 – Modify draintile invert elevation in CBMH 316 to be 1025.04.
Sheet No. 11 – Show HWL and NWL for Pond W1. Show in plan and profile.
Sheet No. 11 – Add invert and label FES at Pond W1.
Sheet No. 11 – The maximum run without catch basins is 350 feet. Add catch basins along Irving Boulevard
or adjust catch basin locations accordingly (CBMH 305 and 306 exceed 400‐feet from the high point of Irving
Boulevard).
Sheet No. 12 – Revise the existing CBMH invert (and field verify note) with the As‐built invert elevation
Sheet No. 13 – Add 100 ft. draintile runs from CBMH 288A and CB 288B.
Sheet No. 13 – Reconfigure storm sewer to place CBMH at the end rads of Irving Boulevard (west side) to
capture storm water flowing down Irving Boulevard before reaching Island Trail. This will allow the valley
gutter to be removed.
Sheet No. 15‐20 – K‐values must be placed on the plans for all vertical curves and must meet City standards.
Sheet No. 15 – Revise R/W width or revise street section of Island Trail between 10th Street and Irving
Boulevard. The proposed R/W width is insufficient to meet City street and boulevard layout standards.
PAGE 3 of 3
The minimum one‐way street width is 18 feet from face of curb to face of curb; not back of curb to
back of curb. The lane width must be increased by 1 ft.
The Island Trail w/median typical section on Sheet No. 25 does not allow for boulevard trees
meeting minimum safety setbacks.
Revise Plat accordingly.
Sheet No. 16‐18 – Street grades along the one‐way loop roads are proposed at the City minimum 0.5% for
long distances. Due to construction tolerances this grade has not be working on previous Inwood PUD
Additions. Street grades should be increased to provide better drainage of the streets. City acceptance will
not be granted for standing water at any point in the roadway.
Sheet No. 16‐18 – The end turning radius of 35 ft. for each of the one‐way loop roads do not meet the City
minimum standard of 45 ft. Revise end radius to the minimum 45 ft. or provide additional pavement width
to accommodate an equivalent turning radius. Revise Plat accordingly.
Sheet No. 19 – Revise the intersection of Irving Boulevard and Island Trail to align the drive lane centerlines.
Provide a center median on the west leg of Irving Boulevard. Revise Plat accordingly.
Sheet No. 20 – Revise the intersection of Irving Court to intersect Irving Boulevard at 90‐degrees for the first
50 feet. Revise Plat accordingly.
Sheet No. 20 – Revise the Irving Court cul‐de‐sac to meet the City minimum boulevard width.
Sheet No. 21‐22 – At locations were a stop sign and street sign are proposed at an intersection they should
be combined into one pole.
Sheet No. 21‐22 – The city standard street light note should include the fixture specification as a 100W HPS
California Acorn (black in color) with a 15 ft. aluminum pole (also black in color).
Sheet No. 21 – Add light pole at the intersection of Island Trail and 10th Street.
Sheet No. 21 – Add second set of turn arrows for the turn lanes of Island Trail.
Sheet No. 21 – Add fog line and yellow median line striping along Island trail. Show striping ending at the
southerly median nose.
Sheet No. 21 – Turn lane widths conflict with the widths shown on the typical section on Sheet No. 25.
Sheet No. 22 – Add light poles along Irving Boulevard at the lot line of Lots 30‐31, Lot 11 and Outlot D, and
at the intersection of Irving Boulevard and Irving Court.
Sheet No. 22 – Add light poles along Upper 9th Street at the lot lines of 19‐20 and 5‐6.
Sheet No. 24 – Replace the Cottage Grove Valley Gutter detail with the Lake Elmo Standard Detail 505.
Sheet No. 25 – Remove City Standard Detail 807A.
Sheet No. 25 – Add the Lake Elmo Standard Detail 514 (Saw and Seal).
Replace Sheet No. T1‐T4 with the updated CSAH 10 (10th Street) Turn Lane Plans. Note the City standard trail
width is 8 feet.
Lake Elmo has adapted MRWA tracer wire standards for Sanitary Sewer which includes grounding rod anode
and grade level access box on all sanitary sewer services. Add these specifications/details into the plans.
Add a Plan Sheet to address the installation of the 8 foot bituminous trail along 10th Street from Island Trail
to Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13).
STORM SEWER CHART
Revise and resubmit a storm sewer calculation chart based on pl an changes and verify that all minimum and
maximum pipe velocities meet city standards. Verify pipe cover meeting minimum 3 feet and verify pipe
velocities meeting city design standards. Minimum allowable pipe velocity is 3 fps, maximum allowable pipe
velocity is 15 fps and maximum allowable pipe discharge is 5 fps.
The storm sewer chart invert for STMH‐303 does not match the plan invert.
The storm sewer chart invert for CBMH‐280 does not match the plan invert.
LANDSCPAPE PLANS
Add plan note to the landscape plans to require all trees to be field located and approved by the city prior
to planting trees.
Resolution 2014-94
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-94
A RESOLUTION APPROVING 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 10th 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:
2
Resolution 2014-094
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 corner of Inwood Avenue and 10th 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
Side / 5 Feet Garage Side
4 Feet
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.
3
Resolution 2014-094
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 10th 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
11/16/14 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 10th Street), the City and the developer shall
determine the appropriate responsibility for the cost of these improvements.
4
Resolution 2014-094
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 5th 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 5th 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 10th 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 10th Street and at the intersection of 5th Street and Inwood Avenue.
18) The developer shall install a multi-purpose trail along 10th Street between “Street B” and
Inwood Avenue.
5
Resolution 2014-094
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 2nd day of December 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
__________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Adam Bell, City Clerk
PLANNING COMMISSION
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
10th 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 10th Street (CSAH 10),
immediately north of Eagle Point Business Park, immediately east of Inwood
Avenue (CSAH 13) and immediately west of Stonegate residential subdivision.
PIDs: 33.029.21.12.0001, 33.029.21.12.0003, 33.029.21.11.0002 and
33.029.21.11.0001.
Request: Application for 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 10th 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 5th 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 5th 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 10th Street and 5th
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 25th 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 5th 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 1 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 10th Street, 5th 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 southwestern 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 Elmo
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 5th 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 5th 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 10th 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 10th 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
7
preliminary development plans be updated to include a trail connection either along Inwood
Avenue from 10th Street to either 5th 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.
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
Side / 5 Feet Garage Side
4 Feet
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
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
southwest 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 5th Street. As noted earlier, the phase 1 area includes the construction of 5th
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 22 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 Staff’s 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 10th 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 10th Street. At this point,
there is a general agreement in place for the City to acquire land roughly midway between
15th Street and 10th 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
• 5th Street. The applicant has submitted plans for 5th 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 5th 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 5th 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
5th 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
10th 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 10th Street to either 5th 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 5th Street and Street B and 10th 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 10th Street; the final plat will need to
incorporate the County’s requirements for right-of-way in this portion of the plat.
• 5th Street Access. Staff is recommending that access to 5th Street from Streets D2 and the
southwest 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 southwest 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 5th 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 10th 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 5th 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 Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans
9) The proposed public street access to 5th Street from Streets D2 and the southwest 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 southwest 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 10th 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 InWood 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 11/17/14
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
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3‐13‐17
requires it. He stated that he does not control the Ebertz property, but he is willing to
give them an easement for access.
Public Hearing opened at 7:52 pm
No one spoke and there were no written comments
Public Hearing closed at 7:52 pm
Williams feels that this is a good development and good for this spot. He does have
concerns about the access spacing, traffic flow for all the drive thru and parking needs
to be more detailed. The offsets to open space he is willing to discuss, but needs to be
convinced with more details of landscaping and architectural design. Dodson agrees
with Williams and would like to see an agreement worked out with the property owner
to the West. There was discussion regarding concern with the traffic flow of the drive
thru. Kreimer would like to see a couple of islands in the center of parking lot to break it
up a little bit. He is also concerned about the turn radius for the multiple drive‐thru and
is concerned about the access spacing.
Lundquist thinks this will be a great addition to the community and she is not concerned
about the drive‐thru radius. Hartley is uncomfortable permitting some of these
activities without knowing what the actual use or scale will be. He would like to see
them as Conditional Use Permits as the use comes in. Kreimer would like to add
condition #19 that the applicant shall be limited to 4 drive thru accesses and 2 of these
must be low intensity uses. Miller stated that the approval or denial for a drive thru
would impact how you lay out the site and construct the building. Dodson is wondering
if the design of the buildings limits what types of businesses would go in there. Miller
stated that the design would dictate what types of businesses would go in there.
Williams is wondering if with the next phase the developer could give them information
regarding the drive thru traffic. Hartley stated that the drive thru traffic could be part of
the parking space analysis.
M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, move to add condition of approval #19 that an analysis be
done on the drive thru traffic volume, including any impact on the parking areas as well
as the secondary access and overall development, Vote: 7‐0, motion carried
unanimously.
Dorschner feels that this would be self‐managing as businesses will pick a location that
will accommodate their needs. He doesn’t see the concern with the parking as this
development doesn’t seem any more dense than in other communities. Lundquist
agrees. She sees the traffic going around with a flow.
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3‐13‐17
M/S/P: Dorschner/Lundquist, move to recommend approval of the Lakewood Crossing
2nd addition PUD Concept Plan with the 19 conditions of approval as drafted by staff and
amended by the Planning Commission, based on the findings of fact listed in the staff
report, Vote: 7‐0, motion carried unanimously.
Williams would like a friendly amendment to #14 that the word “for” be inserted at the
beginning of the sentence. This friendly amendment was accepted. Wensman
suggested that for condition #17, the first part of sentence should be struck and it
should read “a deed restriction that guarantees access to the parking for all uses must
be submitted.” This friendly amendment was accepted.
Public Hearing – Final Plat and PUD Plans – Inwood 5th Addition
Wensman started his presentation regarding Inwood 5th Addition final plat and PUD
Plans. This is the last addition of the residential portion of the development. This is a
replatting of Outlots A, B, F and G of Inwood 3rd Addition. They are proposing 101 Single
family lots. In 2014, Washington County conducted a Preliminary Plat review and
requested an additional 32 ft of ROW from future 10th Street improvements. This
condition was a condition of approval documented in several locations. It is in the 2014
Preliminary Plat report, the resolution approving Preliminary Plat and the signed
developer’s agreement. At one point the Developer was talking with the County about
ROW to the north. That never transpired and plans were never updated. The County
has control over the proposed Island Trail and 10th street intersection and they want the
32 ft of dedicated ROW with this plat.
Another condition of preliminary plat approval is that the developer install a multi‐
purpose trail along 10th street between Island Trail and Inwood Ave. Staff was
supportive of removal of this trail, but the Commission and Council’s resolution of
approval required this trail. Preliminary Plat was never updated and it is not included in
Inwood 5th Plat submittal. There are some Landscaping and engineering revisions that
are required, such as removal of certain trees and berms and required water main
easements.
Kreimer asked if there is room to build the homes if they do the 32 foot ROW
dedication. Wensman stated that those are deep lots, but the back yards will have part
of the berms and it will tighten things up. Williams is wondering why the application is
not deemed incomplete without that ROW dedication. Wensman stated that it was
originally deemed incomplete. The Developer provided more information and upon the
City Attorney’s advice, it can be dealt with through conditions. There was discussion
about the advantage of the trail ROW to the North vs. the South. The trail would be
located within the 32 feet of ROW being required. Wensman stated that from a
Planning perspective, the trail is desirable to move people to the future commercial
properties to the West. Dodson asked if the segment of trail along 10th street would be
a City trail. Wensman stated that he thinks it is HOA owned and maintained, but he is
not sure.
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3‐13‐17
Williams stated that condition #4 should be South Washington instead of Valley Branch
watershed district.
Hartley is wondering if this was reviewed by the Fire Chief, specifically if the Circles that
dead end are wide enough. Wensman stated that it was a concern of the City Engineer
and he would like the pavement widened there so that they function better.
John Rask, MI Homes, stated that the cul‐de‐sacs are standard radius for cul‐de‐sacs so
they would accommodate a fire truck. He does not necessary disagree with the
conditions of approval of Preliminary Plat, but what is missing is that there were
subsequent approvals granted for final plats and grading that didn’t have this trail. They
had discussions with the County and they agreed to take the ROW and trail to the
North. Rask feels that with the staff turnover, some things have fallen through the
cracks. Rask stated that these discussions were held after the Preliminary Plat was
approved. He feels that the County has changed the requirements. When Inwood was
approved, it was known and stated that both Inwood and 10th Street would someday be
4 lane roads with trails on one side. Rask stated that if they grant the ROW, they will
need to take out the berm and the trail was never once shown on any of their plans.
The berm was installed at expense to the developer to make the development look
better. They graded the berm with a grading permit and no one ever mentioned that
the trail wasn’t on the plan. Rask feels they are consistent with the City’s trail plan and
added trails at the City’s request. Rask is making the following request that 1) the
Planning Commission find that the trail along 10th street is inconsistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan 2) Strike the conditions requiring additional ROW and a trail along
10th Street 3) Reconfirm that the trail and additional Row should be on the north side of
10th Street 4) allow the existing berm to remain as approved in the Development
contract approved by the City Council.
Dodson asked what would happen to the berm if the additional 32 feet of ROW is given.
Rask stated that they would need to take out the berm. Williams asked why it couldn’t
be moved to the south. Rask stated that the whole row of lots would be lost as it
couldn’t remain in the ROW. Williams asked when the developer was made aware of
the staff’s analysis of the ROW issue. Rask stated that it was probably in December.
What happened is they went to County for an access permit to construct the road and
then they were told about the trail and additional ROW. Rask doesn’t believe that the
County has that authority. Williams doesn’t see that the City should be involved in this
other than dealing with what is in written record which is the condition of approval.
Wensman stated that the trail and the ROW were conditions of approval that are in
multiple locations and were carried over from Preliminary Plat. It is typical for the
County to require these things with access and typical for the City to require that as part
of the plat.
Public Hearing opened at 9:00 pm
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3‐13‐17
No one spoke and there were no written comments
Public Hearing closed at 9:00 pm
Williams thinks that the trail and ROW issue is more complicated than they can deal
with tonight. He would suggest that under condition #9 that at the end add “unless the
County submits written permission for less ROW”. He feels that the written record
shows that the ROW should be dedicated, but it is up to the County. Wensman stated
that the County has reaffirmed their letter from November 17, 2014, that they would
still need that ROW. Handt stated that if the City does not get that ROW at the time of
plat, when the County does need to acquire the land, they will come back and charge
the City for the acquisition of the ROW. Rask disagrees with that statement.
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to add finding #8 that the legal issues surrounding the
additional 32 feet of ROW and the trail from Island to Inwood along 10th Street are
beyond the scope of the Planning Commission, Vote: 6‐1, motion carried, with
Lundquist opposed. Lundquist feels that they have an obligation to remain consistent
with what the County is asking for.
M/S/P: Kreimer/Dodson, move to add finding #9 that the Planning Commission finds
significant value to the existing berm that the developer built along 10th Street and the
County should be requested to retain the berm regardless of the ROW issue, Vote: 6‐1,
motion carried, with Lundquist opposed.
Wensman stated that the County is fine with the berm staying as long as there is a wall
once it gets to the ROW. They don’t want to have to move or restore the berm if
improvements need to be made. Lundquist stated that 10th street is a major thorough
fare with plans to go to a 4 lane and they need the space.
M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, move to recommend removing condition number 11
requiring a multi‐purpose trail along 10th Street between Island Trail and Inwood Ave be
removed, Vote: 7‐0, motion carried unanimously.
Kreimer remembers the discussion about the trails and he remembers giving up the
requirement for a trail on Inwood, but that they decided that they wanted the trail
along 10th Street. Larson stated that there is already a trail through the development to
the commercial so it is not like there is no trail at all. Dorschner remembers the
developer stating that they could get easements on the North side of 10th for the trail.
He feels it makes sense to make the connection. Rask stated that to give more ROW
and build the trail, he would have to remove the berm. Rask stated that when they sat
down with the County, he felt that there was no compromise. He feels that the County
wants everything and is willing to give nothing.
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3‐13‐17
M/S/P: Kreimer/Williams, move to add a condition requiring that the section of trail
from Island trail to the eastern buffer is built, Vote: 7‐0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, move to add a finding #10 that the City consider any trail
required to be implemented by the development from Island Trail to Inwood be
credited towards parkland dedication, Vote: 7‐0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Williams/Dorschner, move to recommend approval of Inwood 5th Addition Final
Plat and Final PUD plans with 11 conditions of approval based on the findings as
amended in the staff report, Vote: 7‐0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment and Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans ‐ Royal
Golf
Wensman started his presentation regarding the rezoning from PF to GCC – Golf Course
Community and the Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans. Wensman went through the issues
from the Concept plan that were addressed with the Preliminary plan. With the PUD
Overlay, the developer has requested flexibility. They would like single access to the
clubhouse, lot sizes smaller than 9000 for villa lots, 40% impervious and 20 ft front yard
setbacks on villa lots, 50 ft ROW on Street C, add’l subdivision and neighborhood signs,
and garages greater than 1000 sq ft to be permitted rather than a CUP.
With the Shoreland evaluation, there are 100 lots within the shoreland area, the
development is preserving 50.5% or the shoreland, where 50% is required, less than
allowed base density within each shoreland, shoreland impact zones and steep slopes
preserved in Lake Elmo and Downs Lake, 70% of shoreland impact preserved for Rose
and Horseshoe, 59.9% of Lake Elmo shoreland preserved, and preserved a
wildlife/drainage corridor from NW to SE. The developer needs to maintain a 100 ft
Natural Corridor outside of lot areas. They have 89 feet, so staff has made the 100 foot
corridor a condition of approval. The GCC minimum lot size is 9000 sq feet. The PUD
flexibility sought is 6,600 sq ft on some lots. The average lot size is 13,499 sq feet
because of some of the larger lots. There is also a request for PUD flexibility for 20’
front setback and 7.5’ setbacks. The 7.5’ setback averaging is already allowed by policy.
Staff is requesting there be an exhibit which clearly shows specific lots and setbacks, no
encroachments into D & U easements and lots with 20’ setbacks should have garages
adorned with windows or other architectural features for sides of garages facing the
public ROW. The GCC maximum impervious per lot is 30%, the request for PUD
flexibility is for 40%. Staff feels this is ok as it matches LDR zoning and will be limited to
the villa lots. The developer is asking to forego the sidewalk requirement on a number
of streets. Staff is only supportive of street C having no sidewalk because of site
limitations. Dodson would like the exhibit showing the setbacks to also show which lots
can have the larger garage.