HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet; 11-24-14
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 747-3900
www.lakeelmo.org
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday, November 24, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. November 10, 2014
4. Public Hearing –
a. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUD PLANS-INWOOD PUD. The Planning
Commission will consider a request by Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10, LLC
for a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for
a mixed use development to be located on 157 acres of land located south of 10th
Street and East of Inwood Ave. The Proposed Preliminary Plat and development
plans include 275 single-family housing, and 49 acres of open space (including
parks, trails, storm water infiltration areas, buffers, and median planting areas).
5. Business Item
a. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW – HALCYON CEMETARY. The Planning
Commission will review a Sketch Plan for a proposed cemetery located at 11050
50th Street North. The Sketch Plan has been submitted by the property owner, Mr.
Lee Rossow.
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates
b. Staff Updates
i. Upcoming Meetings:
• December 8, 2014
c. Commission Concerns
7. Adjourn
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-27-14
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of October 27, 2014
Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Dodson, Kreimer, Larson, Lundgren, Dorschner
and Haggard
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt and Planning Intern Casey
Riley
Approve Agenda:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Approve Minutes: October 13, 2014
M/S/P: Haggard/Dorschner move to postpone the minutes; Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Business Item: Rural Area Analysis Presentation
Business Item: Design Standards Discussion
Planning Intern Riley started her presentation by stating that there is 3 different
portions. Research relating to growth, rural inventory and 4 hypothetical growth
scenarios. 2 main points kept coming up. New development being built is always more
cost effective when infrastructure is present. Second, low density development is more
land intensive and can change the look and feel of the community. Open land and farm
land is much cheaper to a city. For each dollar of revenue for this land only .27 is spent.
For every dollar in revenue for residential land $1.07 is spent.
Riley explained what each type of land category is. High density, which would not be
seen in Lake Elmo, large lot, low-density, urbanized and working land. Klatt stated that
the large expenditures, whether it is in urban or suburban areas, are public safety, roads
and schools. Maintaining roads and public safety is the highest per capita costs. There
are storm water impacts and water quality impacts with growth. There are extensive
wetlands in the rural areas and they might be damaged if there is extensive growth.
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-27-14
There was a discussion regarding the average value of a 2.5 acre lot and what that
would be. Williams thought that the value of the homes should be included in the
report if we are comparing to expenditures.
Klatt went through the City’s zoning history and Comprehensive Plan history and
explained how we got to where we are today. One of the major changes that has
happened is the forecast number. This gives the City a lot more flexibility for the rural
areas. From a staff perspective, there are more options to choose from. The big issue
for staff is road access. The larger parcels are generally located on the larger roads and
there might be some spacing issues. Staff is concerned that if the rural areas change
and are more developed, does that change the character of the City. Is that consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan? Looking at the studies, when a residential home is next
to open space, the market value is higher. In general, large lot development creates a
higher cost of services. Questions that the Planning Commission might want to explore.
What is the City’s intent with the rural character? How does open space play into that?
Does it need to be commonly owned or can it be owned privately? How does access
management play into growth? Should the City be encouraging new well or septic
systems? Are higher density uses reasonable in rural areas? How does agriculture
factor into Lake Elmo’s future? Do we want to preserve that into the future? Does the
City want to allow rural estates in the City? Do we want to allow some kind of hybrid
zoning? Should the City move to be more restrictive in zoning in these areas?
Klatt stated that they are looking for feedback from the Planning Commission on how to
move forward if at all. This area has potential to have even greater impact to the City
than the urban areas.
The Commission would like to know at what point the growth does not pay for itself.
Klatt stated that most Cities have a better mix of commercial and residential to offset
each other. Kreimer wants to understand the shared septic. He is wondering if there
are problems with other shared septic. Dodson stated that in Farms of Lake Elmo, the
HOA has to have some level of knowledge. The design of the system was faulty and it
caused the system to shut down. There is a problem with having HOA’s managing these
complicated system. The Planning Commission has concerns with shared septic due to
cost, management and maintenance.
Dodson does not think we should be doing anything at this point. There is no pressure
to do something different out there. With the added cost for roads and such, it does
not make sense. Other members of the Commission were interested in seeing the
possibility of rural estates.
Business Item: Design Standards Discussion
Williams started the discussion by stating that the Mayor was surprised that there were
no design standards for the Hans Hagen development. Bloyer is not interested in any
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-27-14
design standards at all. Williams wants clarification on if the Planning Commission
wanted to proceed with any kind of design standards for single family detached.
Haggard said that in the Comprehensive Plan, it does suggest that we have design
standards and expect high standards. She also feels that if it is a PUD, we have the right
to put in design standards on a case by case basis. Klatt stated at the Preliminary Plat
stage, the developer submits a design booklet and the Planning Commission can accept
or reject what they submit. Klatt stated that they will be bringing forward form based
codes which will relate more to the mixed use. Williams stated that we do currently
have 2 design standards that apply to garages. Kreimer thinks that the Developers
should submit examples of what they intend to build. Dodson stated that withou t a tool
to deny something submitted, we could be stuck with them. Most of the Commission
does not feel that design standards are necessary unless it is a PUD.
Updates and Concerns
Council Updates
None
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. November 10, 2014
b. November 24, 2014
Commission Concerns –
Dodson asked if there was any economic plan for commercial development. The $1.09
for residential vs .27 for commercial. Where are we thinking of putting the commercial
and how are we going to entice businesses to come here? Williams stated the Comp
Plan does allow for commercial along 94 and the old village. There has not been any
cost benefit analysis done regarding this. Klatt stated at the next meeting, the
Commission will be presented with an Economic Development Plan.
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
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
Tree Inventory by:
Ken Arndt
Forest Ecologist/Wetland Specialist
Midwest Natural Resources, Inc.
1032 West Seventh St. #150
St. Paul, MN 55102
(651)-788-0641
Tree Preservation Plans provided by:
2422 Enterprise Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
651-681-1914
Tree Tag #Size (" dbh)Common Name Scientific Name Native/Non-
Native Notes Remove
(inches)
Save
(inches)
677 12 American elm Ulmus americana Native 12
678 15 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 15
679 44/24 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 68
680 38 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 38
681 22 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 22
682 28/16 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 44
683 12 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 12
684 18 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 18
685 27 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 27
686 19 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 19
687 24 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 24
688 25 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 25
689 22 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 22
690 14/12 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 26
691 21 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 21
692 25 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 25
693 20 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 20
694 17 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 17
695 25/23/21 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 69
696 20/20 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 40
697 19 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 19
698 20 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 20
699 15 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 15
700 16 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 16
701 14 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 14
702 21 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 21
703 12 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 12
704 12 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 12
705 13/8 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 21
706 15 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 15
707 25 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 25
708 20/18/18 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 56
709 17 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 17
710 21 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 21
711 21 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 21
712 18 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 18
713 22/22 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 44
714 17 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 17
715 23 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 23
716 19 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 19
717 22 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 22
718 18 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 18
719 17 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 17
720 12 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 12
721 12 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 12
722 18 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 18
723 19 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 19
724 16 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 16
725 19 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 19
726 16 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 16
727 20 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 20
728 21 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 21
Tree Tag #Size (" dbh)Common Name Scientific Name Native/Non-
Native Notes Remove
(inches)
Save
(inches)
729 15 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 15
730 16 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 16
731 16 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 16
732 15 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 15
733 19 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 19
734 21 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 21
735 25 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 25
736 21 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 21
737 27 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 27
738 13 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 13
739 24 American elm Ulmus americana Native 24
740 38 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 38
741 20/13/13 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 46
742 19/17/17/17 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 70
743 16 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 16
744 27/27 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 54
745 17 American elm Ulmus americana Native 17
746 36 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 36
747 48 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 48
748 20/15 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 35
749 16 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 16
750 12 Willow Salix spp.Native 12
751 15 American elm Ulmus americana Native 15
752 17 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 17
753 40 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 40
754 32/32 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 64
755 25 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 25
756 32/30/30/15 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 107
757 50/30/21 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 101
758 38/24 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 62
759 42 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 42
760 40 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 40
761 16 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 16
762 25/24 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 49
763 18 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 18
764 15 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 15
765 12 American elm Ulmus americana Native 12
766 30 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 30
767 12 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 12
768 12 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 12
769 12 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 12
770 18/17/14/12 Willow Salix spp.Native 61
771 18 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 18
772 15 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 15
773 26 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 26
774 31 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 31
775 32 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 32
776 21 American elm Ulmus americana Native 21
777 21 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 21
778 42 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 42
Tree Tag #Size (" dbh)Common Name Scientific Name Native/Non-
Native Notes Remove
(inches)
Save
(inches)
779 38 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 38
780 37 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 37
781 24 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 24
782 33 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 33
783 17 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 17
784 17 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 17
785 14 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 14
786 13 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 13
787 12 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 12
788 12 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 12
789 14 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 14
790 18 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 18
791 15 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 15
792 12 American elm Ulmus americana Native 12
793 15 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 15
794 20 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 20
795 22 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 22
796 19 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 19
797 16 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 16
798 18 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 18
799 12 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 12
800 14 Willow Salix spp.Native 14
801 17 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 17
802 16 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 16
803 17 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 17
804 18 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 18
805 17 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 17
806 12 American elm Ulmus americana Native 12
807 12 American elm Ulmus americana Native 12
808 12 American elm Ulmus americana Native 12
809 20 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 20
810 21 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 21
811 24/20/18 Willow Salix spp.Native 62
812 23 Willow Salix spp.Native 23
813 13/10 Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Native 23
814 14 Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Native 14
815 27 Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Native 27
816 25 Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Native 25
817 16 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 16
818 16/13 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 29
819 28 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 28
820 14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 14
821 15 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 15
822 13 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 13
823 15 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 15
824 15 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 15
825 16 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 16
826 16 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 16
827 14 American Elm Ulmus americana Non-Native 14
Tree Tag #Size (" dbh)Common Name Scientific Name Native/Non-
Native Notes Remove
(inches)
Save
(inches)
828 13 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 13
829 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 12
830 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 12
831 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 12
832 17 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 17
833 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 12
834 18/17/13 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 48
835 20/16/16 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 52
836 13 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 13
837 15 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 15
838 12 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 12
839 12 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 12
840 12 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 12
841 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 12
842 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 12
843 14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 14
844 13 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 13
845 12 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 12
846 12 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 12
847 19/19/16/13 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 67
848 17 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 17
849 12 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 12
850 20/19/15 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 54
851 19 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 19
852 16 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 16
853 12 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 12
854 12 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 12
855 13 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 13
856 20/17/17/17/16/12Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 99
857 12 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 12
858 12 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 12
859 19 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 19
860 18 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 18
861 14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 14
862 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 12
863 13/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 25
864 13 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 13
865 18 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 50% dead excl
866 12 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 12
867 13 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 13
868 20 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 20
869 17 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 17
870 15 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 15
871 12 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 12
872 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 12
873 14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 14
874 15 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 15
875 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 12
876 14/13 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 27
Tree Tag #Size (" dbh)Common Name Scientific Name Native/Non-
Native Notes Remove
(inches)
Save
(inches)
877 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 12
878 15 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 15
879 24/18 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 42
880 12 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 12
881 16 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 16
882 15 American Elm Ulmus americana Native 15
883 12 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 12
884 18/15 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 33
885 20 American Elm Ulmus americana Native 20
886 17 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 17
887 12 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 12
888 15 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 15
889 17 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 17
890 13 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 13
891 18 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 18
892 16 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 16
893 18 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 18
894 16 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 16
895 13/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 25
896 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 50% dead excl
897 16 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 16
898 13 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 13
899 16 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 16
900 26 American Elm Ulmus americana Native 26
901 16/12 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 28
902 16 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 16
903 16 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 16
904 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 12
905 16 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 16
906 12 Box Elder Acer negundo Native 12
907 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 12
908 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 12
909 24 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 24
910 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 12
911 13 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 13
912 12 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 12
913 14 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 14
914 12 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 12
915 13/12/12 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native major damage at base OS
916 12 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 12
917 12 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 12
918 13/13 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 26
919 12 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 12
920 12 White Mulberry Morus alba Non-Native 12
921 16/16 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 32
922 12 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 12
923 12 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native OS
924 12 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 12
925 12 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 12
Tree Tag #Size (" dbh)Common Name Scientific Name Native/Non-
Native Notes Remove
(inches)
Save
(inches)
926 12 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 12
927 12 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 12
928 12 American Elm Ulmus americana Native 12
929 12 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native OS
930 12 American Elm Ulmus americana Native 12
931 16/15/14/13 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 53
932 12 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 12
933 13 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native major internal decay excl
934 7 Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Native 7
935 12 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 12
936 13 American Elm Ulmus americana Native 13
937 12 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native OS
938 13 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native OS
939 15 American Elm Ulmus americana Native OS
940 19/12 American Elm Ulmus americana Native 31
941 24 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 24
942 22 Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 22
Total Inches:2356 3261
excl=dead, dying, or severly damaged or hazard trees are excluded from calculations
Total significant inches on site: 5617
Total inches to be removed: 2356
Total Inches to be saved: 3261
Total Inches allowed to be removed (30% of total inches):1685
Total Inches removed over threshold:671
All trees proposed to be removed fall in the common tree category
Mitigation required:
1/4 inch for every inch removed over threshold: 671/4=168 inches to be mitigated on site
168 inches = 67 2.5" trees or 56 3" trees
OS=off site (off site trees are excluded from all tree calculations)
Evergreens along the eastern edge of the property are not included in this inventory or these
calculations. None of the spruce in this area meet the 8" requirement for significant trees and the
majority of the pine do not meet the 8" requirement for significant trees. The majority of this area will
not be impacted by development. These trees were planted within the last 15 years likely for
commercial purposes as evidenced by the rows, spacing, and tree spade holes.
In
W
o
o
d
—
St
r
e
e
t
N Pa
r
k
Co
n
c
e
p
t
29
,
1
8
5
Sq
u
a
r
e
Fe
e
t
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 11/24/2014
AGENDA ITEM: 5A – BUSINESS ITEM
CASE # 2014-50
ITEM: Halcyon Cemetery - Sketch Plan Review
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to review a Sketch Plan for a proposed cemetery within the
Rural Planning Area submitted by Mr. Lee Rossow. The proposed cemetery would be located at
11050 50th Street North, on the northeast corner of 50thth Street and Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17).
The Sketch Plan includes three main areas for in-ground burials, space for columbarium, and a
parking area. The existing home and accessory building would be repurposed to serve as
administration and maintenance of the cemetery. Because this is a Sketch Plan review, there is no
formal action required by the Planning Commission.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Lee Rossow, 11050 50th Street North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Property Owners: Lee Rossow, 11050 50th Street North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Location: Part of Section 01, Township 29 North, Range 21 West in Lake Elmo,
immediately north of 50th Street and immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue
(CSAH 17). PID Number: 01.029.21.33.0003
Request: Sketch Plan Review
Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached
Existing Zoning: RR – Rural Residential
Surrounding Land Use: North – single family home (RR); west – single family home (RR); south
– Agricultural (RR); east – single family residential (RR) and Municipal
Well Site #4.
Surrounding Zoning: RR – Rural Residential; PF – Public Facilities
Comprehensive Plan: Rural Area Development
Proposed Zoning: RR – Rural Residential
History: The 10-acre site has historically been used for a single family home. According to
County records, the existing home was built in 1984.
Deadline for Action: N/A – No action required by City
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
2
Applicable Regulations: Article IX – Rural Districts
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo is in receipt of a Sketch Plan from Mr. Lee Rossow for a proposed cemetery
that would be located within the Rural Planning Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed cemetery would be located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 50th Street North
and Lake Elmo Avenue North. Under the City’s Zoning Code, cemeteries are a permitted use in the
Rural Residential (RR) and Agricultural (A) zoning districts. The subject property is zoned Rural
Residential. However, in order to sell burial plots, the property must go through a formal platting
process.
Per State Statues, cemeteries must be formally platted under the appropriate regulation of the State
and local jurisdiction. The Lake Elmo Subdivision Ordinance specifies that as part of the pre-
application process for a subdivision of land, the applicant must first submit a Sketch Plan for review
by the Planning Commission. The Ordinance notes that the purpose of the Sketch Plan review is as
follows:
Sketch plan. In order to ensure that all applicants are informed of the procedural
requirements and minimum standards of this chapter and the requirements or limitations
imposed by other city ordinances or plans, prior to the development of a preliminary plat, the
subdivider shall meet with the Planning Commission and prepare a sketch plan which
explains or illustrates the proposed subdivision and its purpose. The Planning Commission
shall accept the information received, but take no formal or informal action which could be
construed as approval or denial of the proposed plat.
Based on this wording, the Planning Commission is not being asked to take any formal action as part
of its review other than to accept the information received. Staff has completed an internal review of
the Sketch Plan, and general comments from Staff are included in this memorandum and applicable
attachment.
BACKGROUND
The proposed Sketch Plan is located in the north-central portion of the Rural Planning Area at the
intersection of 50th Street North and Lake Elmo Avenue North (CSAH 17).
The applicant’s submission to the City includes the following components:
• Application Forms
• Existing Conditions. The applicants have submitted an existing conditions plan, showing an
aerial image of the property and the existing single family detached residential use. As
shown in the existing conditions plan, the house and accessory building are currently existing
on the property. These structure would be repurposed as part of the proposed cemetery as an
administration/caretaker building and maintenance garage.
• Sketch Plan. The Sketch Plan for the proposed cemetery shows three larger in-ground burial
areas, several sites for columbaria, a gathering space, a parking lot, a network of private drive
lanes or driveways to access the various sites, and the existing buildings and drainfield.
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
3
The Staff review comments that follow are all based on conducting a very high level review of the
Sketch Plan since there is not a lot of detailed information that is required at this stage in the
subdivision process. Staff has focused its review on the elements of the site plan that
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS:
Staff has reviewed the proposed Sketch Plan and provided comments in the following areas:
• Land Use: The proposed Sketch Plan does conform to the City’s Land Use Plan in that the
site is guided for Rural Area Development. Under this designation, Rural Residential is a
typical zoning for sites of this size and character.
• Zoning. The current zoning for the parcel is Rural Residential. Under this zoning
designation, a cemetery is a permitted use. In the Zoning Code, cemetery is defined as the
following:
Land used or intended to be used for the burial of the dead and dedicated for
cemetery purposes, including columbarium’s, crematories, mausoleums, and
mortuaries when operated in conjunction with and within the boundaries of such
cemetery.
Under this definition, it is staff’s interpretation that the proposed use would be permitted
under the City’s ordinance. It should also be noted that the Zoning Code does not include any
specific development standards for cemeteries at this time. The only other reference to
cemeteries in the Zoning Code is in the PF – Public Facilities zoning district, where
cemeteries are identified as a conditional use.
• Public Utilities. The site is currently not hooked up to City water, but does have access via a
watermain extension from Well #4 and down Lake Elmo Avenue North. Should the proposed
use require City water, it does have access to service.
• Private Utilities. It should be noted that an existing septic system serves the site. The
property is not in the City’s Public Sanitary Sewer Service Area. If any expansion of the
septic system is required for the cemetery use, the applicant will need to secure the applicable
permits from the Washington County Dept. of Health.
• Access. The applicants are proposing to reduce the total accesses to the property from 2 to 1,
accessing the site off of 50th Street North. The current driveway configuration includes
accesses on both Lake Elmo Ave. and 50th Street North. The proposed access on 50th Street
would be move to the west, while the access on Lake Elmo Ave. would be eliminated. As
proposed, the access on 50th Street would be located approximately 150 feet from Lake Elmo
Ave. Staff recommends that the proposed access be reviewed by the City Engineer in
consultation with Washington County in order to ensure that the proposed access spacing is
appropriate for the conditions on 50th Street and Lake Elmo Avenue.
• Landscaping and Tree Protection/Preservation. The applicant has not provided any details
concerning landscaping for the site, which must be submitted at the time of Preliminary Plat
submission. In addition, a tree preservation plan or woodland evaluation report must be
submitted with preliminary plat to document any impacts to significant trees on the site. The
City’s landscaping provisions require 5 trees for every one acre of land that is developed, as
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
4
well as 1 tree per 50 feet of street frontage. These requirements should inform the landscape
plan for the site.
• Screening and Fencing. The Sketch Plan also includes fencing around all four boundaries of
the property. The north and east sides of the property include a regular fence, whereas the
west and south sides include ornamental fencing. Significant detail of the fencing is not
provided with this submittal, but Staff would assume that the northern and eastern fencing is
provided for screening purposes for the adjacent residential properties. The ornamental
fencing is likely provided for aesthetic purposes along the street frontage sides of the
property. In addition to fencing, staff would recommend that some landscaping and trees be
utilized to add additional screening along the property boundaries.
• Park Dedication. The City’s subdivision ordinance requires parkland dedication for
subdivisions. Residential subdivision require a land dedication as a percentage depending on
the zoning or land use, whereas commercial projects are required to post a fee in lieu of land
dedication. For example, subdivisions on Rural Residential land require a 4% dedication, or
equal market value in fees thereof. The current commercial rate for park dedication is $4,500
per acre. Staff is still conducting some research to determine if and how much parkland
dedication would be appropriate for this type of use. Staff will consult with the City Attorney
in determining what the appropriate precedents are for a similar case such as the present
application. If any dedication were appropriate, staff would recommend a fee in lieu of land
dedication.
• Subdivision Review Process. In order to proceed with the subdivision of the land included in
the Sketch Plan, the applicant will need to next prepare a Preliminary Plat application. At the
Preliminary Plat stage, there is more information required as part of the submission process,
which also requires a public hearing.
RECCOMENDATION:
No formal action is required at this time. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
accept the Sketch Plan provided by Mr. Lee Rossow for a cemetery at 11050 50th Street North and
provide feedback.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Application Form
3. Existing Conditions Plan
4. Cemetery Sketch Plan
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director
- Report by Staff ..................................................................................... City Planner
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN , IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Data S ource: Washington County, MN11-17 -2014
Location Map: Proposed Halcyon Cemetery
K
50th St. N.
L
a
k
e
E
l
m
o
A
v
e
.
N
.
0 300 600150 Feet
1"=300'
11050 50th Street N.
456717