HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Packet; 03-13-17 #1
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 March 13, 2017 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. January 23, 2017
b. February 27, 2017
4. Public Hearings
a. PUD CONCEPT PLAN: A request by CM Properties 94, LP for a PUD Concept
Plan approval for a 3 commercial lot Planned Unit Development on property with
the legal description: Outlot A, Lakewood Crossing, according to the recorded
plat thereof, Washington County, MN.
b. FINAL PLAT AND PUD PLANS: Hans Hagen Homes of Mpls/St. Paul, LLC is
requesting Final Plat and Final PUD Plans for Inwood 5th Addition, a 101 lot
single family detached residential planned unit development located south of 10th
Street and east of Inwood Avenue on Outlots A, B, F and G, Inwood 3rd Addition.
c. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: A request by HC Royal Golf Course LLC for a
Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the properties from PF – Public Facilities to
GCC – Golf Course Community. The subject properties are bound by 20th Street
N, Lake Elmo Avenue, and 10th Street N and bordering West Lakeland Township
with PID’s 25.029.21.12.0001, 25.029.21.14.0001, 25.029.21.21.0001,
25.029.21.31.0001, 25.029.21.42.0001, 25.029.21.43.0001, 25.029.21.43.0002,
25.029.21.44.0001 and 25.029.21.44.0002.
d. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUD PLANS: A request by HC Royal Golf Course
Development LLC for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Development Plans
for the Royal Golf Club at Lake Elmo an 18-hole golf course and 292 lot single
family detached residential planned unit development. The subject properties are
bound by 20th Street N, Lake Elmo Avenue, and 10th Street N and bordering West
Lakeland Township with PID’s 25.029.21.12.0001, 25.029.21.14.0001,
25.029.21.21.0001, 25.029.21.31.0001, 25.029.21.42.0001, 25.029.21.43.0001,
25.029.21.43.0002, 25.029.21.44.0001 and 25.029.21.44.0002.
5. Business Items
a. None
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates – March 7, 2017
i. Hammes Estates 2nd Addition Final Plat Extension - passed
ii. Approve SHC Comp Plan Update Agreement - passed
iii. Shoreland Management Overlay District Ordinance Amendment - passed
iv. Planning Commission Appointment – Terry Emerson 2nd Alternate
b. Staff Updates
2
i. Upcoming Meetings:
March 27, 2017
a. Comp Plan Amendment hearing for Tri-Lakes Musa
b. VMX rezoning hearing
c. Possibly Hidden Meadows final plat.
April 4, 2017
ii. MAC CEP Report
c. Commission Concerns
7. Adjourn
***Note: Every effort will be made to accommodate person or persons that need special considerations to attend this
meeting due to a health condition or disability. Please contact the Lake Elmo City Clerk if you are in need o f special
accommodations.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-23-17
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of January 23, 2017
Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Kreimer, Dodson, Dorschner, and Larson,
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Haggard, Fields, Griffin, Williams and Lundquist
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman & City Administrator Handt
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Dodson/Larson, move to approve the agenda as amended to move golf course
community to “A”, Vote: 4-0, motion carried, unanimously.
Approve Minutes: January 9, 2017
M/S/P: Kreimer/Dodson, move to postpone consideration of the January 9, 2017
minutes until the next meeting, Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously.
Business Item – Zoning Text Amendment to create “Golf Course Community” Zoning.
Wensman started his discussion regarding golf course community. There was a public
hearing held on this item at the last Planning Commission. Discussion was continued
primarily to address the issue with the cottages or semi-transient structures. They are
basically large seasonal homes situated on the golf course overlooking the fairway.
They will essentially be used by Mr. Hollis and his guests for entertainment. These
cottages, as proposed,would not be counted towards the density of the neighborhood
area. If the Commission is in favor of the cottages, the ordinance will be written that
cottages would be a CUP with development standards associated with them.
Larson asked if these would be rented out, or if these were for a business purpose.
Wensman stated that it is his understanding that they are for business purpose only, but
conditions could be added to regulate them. Kreimer asked if they would each have
their own lot, or how they would be arranged. Wensman stated that he is not sure as
he has not seen a plat or any plans yet. He is not sure if there will be setbacks or they
would all be part of one overall plan.
Dodson asked about the percentage of open space and if that should be adjusted in the
ordinance. He is wondering if it is adjusted upward if that would take care of some of
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-23-17
the fears of future development. Wensman stated that the percentage probably
wouldn’t make a difference as they would need to come back and reguide it to
residential anyway.
Dorschner is wondering if the City really needs this land use designation. Wensman
stated that at their last meeting, the City Council already reguided this property. Now it
is a matter of creating the zoning district to match. This zoning district is kind of a
hybrid incorporating the golf course. Dorschner is concerned about creating the land
use designation when it probably will never be used again . He is wondering why it
wouldn’t be done through a PUD. Wensman stated that there will be a PUD, but there
still needs to be base zoning district which this creates.
Dodson asked about the density 1.4 to 2.49. Wensman stated that the numbers should
be 1.4-1.65. For some reason it did not get updated in the draft ordinance. Kreimer
asked what the current open space amount for the golf course is. Packer, the
developer, stated that it is currently at 75%. Kreimer asked about the 154.302 &
154.454 in relation to Semi-transient accommodations. He stated he went on-line and
couldn’t find them. Wensman stated that those are the new zoning code section
numbers created specific for the golf course community.
Kreimer asked about the standards for secondary dwelling on page 9. He thought
somewhere earlier, they were not allowing for a secondary dwelling. Wensman stated
that (f) doesn’t seem to make much sense and should be eliminated.
Rick Packer, Royal Golf, stated that staff has chosen a middle ground on standards and
some of the things that they would like to do might not meet those standards. They will
be bringing a PUD forward so they can ask for various things. Packer stated that the
cottages will be owned by the golf course and the golf course owners. Dodson asked if
the cottages would be on lots, or if they would just be on part of the larger golf course.
Packer stated that they haven’t quite figured that out yet. He thinks there will be a
certain lot, however they have to work that out with staff as they will not have direct
street frontage. He thinks they will probably be on one large lot or 4 smaller ones.
Dodson was wondering what might happen if the cottages end up being a financial
detriment to the golf course. Packer stated that the use of them can be addressed in
the CUP. Kreimer asked what the width of the lots would be for the villa product.
Packer stated that those are 55 foot lots. The cottages would be 65 foot lots and more
fashioned like a villa.
Ann Bucheck, 2301 Legion Ave, is wondering if the drawing that was up at the City
Council meeting is available for everyone. Bucheck stated that the developer previously
stated that the homes would be 4 sided finished homes. She is wondering if that will
specifically be in the developer’s agreement or where that would be. She feels that is
important and will make things look nicer. Bucheck suggested a few changes including
adding trees for outdoor recreation, requiring a planted landscape buffer, dark sky
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-23-17
standards for lighting, she would like to see the density at 1.4 or 265 homes instead of
306 homes and no street lights for the residential as none of the surrounding
developments have them.
Wensman stated that the lighting is already in City Code and the developer will need to
adhere to it. Dodson asked if there were different types of street lights allowed for the
different types of residential zoning. Dodson stated that in his Open Space
Development there are no street lights, which he enjoys. Wensman stated that he
believes it is part of the current engineering standards to require street lights. They are
currently proposed for Hidden Meadows and for Legends, which are open space
developments. Dodson asked about the comment regarding trees. Wensman stated
that it would be fine to include that and there are already landscaping standards and
tree preservation standards.
M/S/P: Dodson/Kreimer, move to remove Letter (f) on page 9 regarding exterior finish
as it is redundant, Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously.
Kreimer is wondering about increasing the open space from 50% - 70%. Dodson would
be in favor of that. Larson is wondering if it is dangerous to just look at this project if
the code could be used for other areas. Kreimer would be surprised if another project
for a golf course would be proposed.
M/W: Kreimer/, move to change the open space requirement from a minimum of 50%
to a minimum of 70%, Motion withdrawn.
M/S/P: Dorschner/Dodson, move to change the ranges on page 1 from what is printed
to 1.4 to 1.65 units per acre, Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Kreimer/Dodson, move to add to 4 C under resource protection the word trees,
Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously.
Kreimer asked Wensman where the 4 sided architecture would be addressed.
Wensman stated that it would be addressed and negotiated during the PUD and platting
process.
M/S/P: Dodson/Larson, move to approve the addition of a Golf Course Community
Zoning District to the Zoning Code, Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously.
Business Item – Village Parkway – VMX Zoning Discussion
Wensman stated that the Village Parkway VMX Discussion and the Village LDR/MDR
both go hand in hand and his presentation will include both. Then they can talk about
the individual changes. The things that need to be talked about are VMX zoning District
standards including setbacks, boundaries, and density. The Design of the Village
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-23-17
parkway including a cross section of road design. Th e LDR and MDR zoning districts.
This all originated from the Village area master plan. The City planned for 900 -1100
additional housing units in the Old Village. 800 were planned for VLDR and VMDR. 200-
300 were planned for VMX. There are issues within the VMX zoning regulations. For
instance, the Front yard setback is 0-20’. Residential setbacks less than 20 feet typically
work with alley access. When homes are set too close to the road, there is no place for
a driveway or cars to park. The garage really needs to be rear loaded and the standards
don’t talk about that. Some of the guidelines that need to be discussed are 1) 0-20’
setback, 2) if not 0, then plazas, patios, outdoor dining areas and landscaped entries are
encouraged in setback 3) gaps between buildings to be minimized 4) off-street parking
behind or to side of building.
Issues with VMX Zoning are 1) the VMX zoning does not differentiate where urban
design features should go and 2) VMX Zoning applies to one property so far – Arbor Glen
and soon the Zignago property.
There are 3 different areas of the Village Parkway. The section by city hall on 39 th Street
is not built to really allow for the zero lot line scenario. With giving the choice, the City
could end up with very disjointed development and not what they are trying to achieve
within the Village. There doesn’t seem to be enough guidance in the code. South of the
tracks, such as Easton Village, the parkway has an 80 foot wide right of way and 10 foot
setback. This area cannot have a zero lot line setback, because the drainage and utility
easement must be maintained. This is more of a residential standard and doesn’t seem
to be a problem. Currently the standards require irrigation and the City has
encountered lots of problems with this for 5th Street. It is an expensive proposition for
the developers and also for the City long term. There is still hypothetical theming in the
standards.
Some of the theming elements such as the lighting were changed to more closely mat ch
downtown, however, they were never officially updated. The theming is technically in
the standards, however, the City did not push to make sure they were incorporated.
The design development issues are 1) Street Tree locations 2) Street lights 3) irr igation
4) Theming elements (these were removed for the 5th street project) 5) when and where
14’ sidewalks should be required as it pertains to VMX setbacks.
Some focus questions would be 1) are there standards that should be set forth unique
to the village? 2) Does the smaller density accomplish the guiding principles of the Old
Village?
Wensman stated that there is a disconnect between the standards and the densities
being allowed. Usually when a City requires more expensive things like sidewalks on
both sides of the street, benches and things that enhance the development, a higher
density is allowed to help pay for them.
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-23-17
Wensman went through other aspects such as driveway, side or rear loaded garages,
and being pedestrian friendly. Should the new Zoning Districts refer to the theming
study? Larson is wondering if rooftop patios would be allowed. Wensman stated that
he doesn’t know of anything that would prohibit it. Wensman is wondering if the
Planning Commission thinks there should be sta ndards set forth that would be unique to
the Village such as connectivity, architectural detail, special setbacks and theming. Does
the lower density accomplish the guiding principles in the Village? The suggested
standards put more requirements on developers, but gives them lower densities than
other urban districts.
Larson likes the idea of theming. He stated that this area would not have a lot of
children, so traffic concerns would be minimal. This area is one that people would
expect to see some density. Dodson is wondering why walkability is such a strong goal.
Larson said that if the area is not walkable, parking could be an issue. Dodson stated
that he just doesn’t see the walkability and the City’s ability to draw tourists from
outside the community. Kreimer stated that he doesn’t see the walkability without
more rooftops that are more centrally located around the Village area.
Wensman stated that they should maybe look to have some base zoning and get
something on the books as projects are starting to come forward and then they could
look at some long term goals such as theming elements. Larson would like to keep alive
the concept of a more retail/commercial center. It doesn’t mean that the market will
support it, but he doesn’t want to rule it out. Dorschner is concerned about parking and
if it is not planned for within the commercial area. He is wondering if the parking will be
centrally located or if there needs to be so much. Wensman stated that he does not
believe that the VMX has required parking. He will go back and review that standard.
Wensman stated that they will need to come up with a VLDR and VMDR zoning in t he
next couple of months. He would like to come up with some base zoning and then
come back and revise it within the next year.
Dodson likes the concept of the build to line and is wondering if that can vary based on
the street. He thinks that would solve a fair number of problems for the Village Parkway
with the varying densities. Wensman stated that it could be tied to a specific street or
sections of a specific street. Wensman stated that the key piece of the Village Parkway
between 14 and the tracks, has the opportunity to be urban or residential. The design
for that section can be flexible, but the City needs to be clear on what that area should
look like.
Dorschner was wondering what is considered the Village area. Wensman stated it is the
MUSA area. The Old Village area is guided for VMX and then as you go out from the
Village, the areas are guided VLDR and VMDR. Dorschner asked if they could get maps
of these areas. Dodson stated that the map in the packet is a little too busy to cl early
see what the areas are. Kreimer stated that if you ignore the writing, it is pretty clear.
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-23-17
Kreimer asked why the Village density is lower than the density south of 10th Street.
Wensman stated that he doesn’t know why, but that is what’s in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Wensman stated that a first step will be to have the City Planner work on a basic code
with lower densities so that we have something on record for developers coming
forward. Then the city would be compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. In the
future, the code can be worked on to add some of the other items that would
incorporate more of the City vision that comes out of the Comprehensive Plan update.
Kreimer is not happy that some of the theming was removed from 5th Street. A lot of
time and energy was invested to create the theming vision. He would like to see that
theming put back in. Kreimer stated that the Planning Commission spent a lot of time
talking about cul-de-sacs connecting for walkablity. He would like to see those things
put back in. Dorschner thinks that sidewalks on 2 sides of the street are nice, but
considers them a luxury and thinks that 14 foot sidewalks are really wide. Wensman
stated that the 14’ sidewalks were to be similar to the Village.
Dorschner asked if there was any urgency to move ahead with this. Wensman stated
that Gonyea is interested in developing on the West side of Lake Elmo Ave and also the
Village Park Preserve may come forward as the City has received some application
information.
Kreimer is not crazy about the connectivity with all the intersections that could create a
lot of traffic problems. Dorschner does not see the maximum lot width being connected
to walkability. It is more about having safe sidewalks or trails to walk on.
Wensman will bring forward a refined ordinance for discussion at the next meeting and
then if it is ready, they can hold a public hearing at the following meeting.
City Council Updates – January 17, 2017 Meeting
i) Royal Golf Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) – Adopted a
negative declaration for the need for an EIS.
ii) Royal Golf Comp Plan Amendment – passed.
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. February 13, 2017
b. February 27, 2017
Commission Concerns
Meeting adjourned at 8:58 pm
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-23-17
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-27-17
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of February 27, 2017
Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Kreimer, Dodson, Larson, Dorschner, Williams, Lundquist
and Hartley
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Fields and Haggard
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman
Approve Agenda:
Planning Director Wensman asked to add a VMX Discussion after item a.
M/S/P: /, move to approve the agenda as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion carried,
unanimously.
Approve Minutes: January 23, 2017
M/S/P: /, move to postpone consideration of the January 23, 2017 minutes as wrong
minutes were included in the packet, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Approve Minutes: February 13, 2017
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to approve the minutes of February 13, 2017 minutes as
amended, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Business Item – Zoning Text Amendment – Village Low Density Residential Zoning
Planning Director Wensman gave a summary of the Commissions interest in creating V-
LDR – Village Low Density Residential zoning district regulations ahead of applications
for preliminary plats expected within the Village area. Planning Director Wensman gave
an overview of the changes since the last meeting.
Commissioner Williams pointed out that on page 1 of the draft ordinance that V-LDR
was labeled as Village “Limited” Density Residential when it should be “Low”. Williams
also thought that the allowed residential density range should be added to the Village
Mixed Use District Purpose and District Descriptions similar to the other urban districts.
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-27-17
Commissioner Dodson commented on the proposed maximum impervious coverage
amount on Table 11-2. To allow for residential structures of the same size as in the LDR
district, the impervious amount should be close to 35%. Planning Director Wensman
explained how Planner Becker arrived at the 30% number, but agreed 35% was an
improvement.
Commissioner Williams thought the Maximum Building Setback line in Table 11-2 should
be stricken. Williams also suggested the VMX allow PUDs. Planning Director Wensman
thought it was unnecessary since the PUD overlay primarily to allow for a mix of uses
and that the VMX allows for a mixed use. Williams also suggested under 154.505 A5 a
subsection should be added for multi-family residential that is not mixed use. A
discussion ensued about the proper setbacks for multi-family under different scenarios.
There was no consensus and it was suggested that this might be a discussion in the
comprehensive plan update process. Wensman offered to provide added language for
future discussion.
Dodson thought there should be build-to setback with the VMX. Wensman suggested
there could be some refinement to the VMX ordinance such that certain defined areas
of the VMX might have a build-to setback.
Commissioner Hartley questioned the new language of 154.505 B1 and Wensman
suggested amending the language to read something like …shall maintain the prevailing
front yard setback of that block, or a maximum setback of 20 feet, whichever is less.
Williams asked to strike VMX District at the end of 154.505 B6
Commissioner Hartley thought 154.504 F should state that cul-de-sac bulbs should
connect to the nearest through road or trail.
Commissioner Williams requested that 154.505 A4 be changed striking everything but
VMX Districts and suggested the comprehensive planning process include a discussion
about new single family development within the VMX zoning district, currently
prohibited.
Commissioner Hartley suggested there be a defection for “redevelopment”
Williams suggested that Section 154.507 A-F be rewritten as some other subsections
appear to be redundant.
The Commission discussed 154.507 F3 and suggested that they did not want to be
prescriptive in determining the garage setback in relation to the principle structure.
Williams suggested the garages be offset by a minimum of 2 feet from any house.
Although new single family homes are not permitted in the VMX, it was suggested that
new garages should maintain a setback of 25’ from the R/W. Williams supported the
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-27-17
existing language that limits garage width to 40% of the width of the principal structure
in the VMX.
The Commission wanted to further research into the minimum house square footage
requirements allowed in all the zoning districts and suggested looking at the zoning
codes for progressive cities, neighboring cities and a few similar cities in the west metro.
Business Item – Zoning Text Amendment – Planned Unit Development Zoning
Planning Director Wensman introduced draft changes to the PUD ordinance. He
suggested the purpose to the changes was to add the recently approved OP PUD
process to the Article I PUD regulations. The other primary change was to eliminate the
size requirement for commercial PUDs and to allow the Planning Director to waive the
Sketch Plan requirement for small commercial PUDs when they meet the identified
objectives in Section 154.751. Wensman also mentioned that Consulting Planner Gozola
had reviewed the draft and offered some additional suggested changes. Wensman
stated he will review some of Gozolas suggestions and will incorporate them into a
future draft amendment.
Commissioner Williams wanted to revisit section 154.751, Identified Objectives. He felt
the requirement that one or more of them needing to be met was too easy for
developers. It was suggested that Planning staff research what other cities do for
establishing a basis for allowing PUDs.
Commissioner Hartley suggested that 154.752 C and D be reworded to something like
120% increase from the underlying zoning requirements.
Commissioner Williams was supportive of the draft changes to the minimum
requirements, but suggested some rewording.
Commissioner Hartley wanted 154.753 B to include public trails.
The Commission discussed potential changes to the point system in Table 16-2 and
wanted to revisit this. It was felt that Trails were a requirement already if part of a
comprehensive trail plan and that otherwise the City should not award points for them.
Business Item – Zoning Text Amendment – Solar Ordinance Discussion
Planning Director Wensman introduced the Solar Ordinance discussion asking the
Commissioners what they wanted to see changed with the City’s ordinance.
Commissioner Dorschner wanted to be sure the ordinance protected neighbors from
glare, etc. related to solar facilities. Commissioner Larson also stressed that safety was
a concern.
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-27-17
Commissioner Williams thought the ordinance should address impervious surface
requirements. Williams also felt the City should be less concerned with the amount of
energy that can produced and more concerned about the area or size requirements and
the districts in which the facilities should be located.
Director Wensman offered that he would review the city’s ordinance against other
ordinances to create a draft ordinance that takes into consideration the Commissions’
concerns along with items generally addressed in other ordinances for future discussion.
City Council Updates – February 21, 2017 Meeting
i) OP-Alt Zoning District Repeal – passed
ii) Shoreland Management Overlay Ordinance Amendment – failed and tabled
to next meeting
iii) ZMA and CUP for 3549 Lake Elmo Ave - passed
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. March 13, 2017
Planning Director Wensman informed the Commission that the Royal Golf
zoning map amendment and preliminary plat and preliminary PUD,
Inwood 5th final plat and PUD and Lakewood Crossing 2nd Concept PUD
public hearings will be held.
b. March 27, 2017
Planning Director Wensman thought that Easton Village 2 nd Addition and
Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition final plat might be reviewed at this
meeting along with business items for future ordinance amendments.
Commission Concerns
Commissioner Dodson asked to review the engineering standards for street lighting.
Commissioners Dorschner and Hartley requested updated zoning maps for their zoning
notebooks.
Meeting adjourned at 9:45 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 3/13/2017
REGULAR
ITEM #: 4a
MOTION
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Emily Becker, City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition General Planned Unit Development
Concept Plan
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
BACKGROUND:
CM Properties 94, LP has submitted an application to the City for a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Concept Plan for Outlot A of Lakewood Crossing 1st Addition. The proposal is being submitted for
conceptual review before the applicant submits a Preliminary Plat and PUD Preliminary Plan application
to subdivide the existing 3.82 acre parcel in to three separate parcels. These parcels will include a full
service restaurant with outdoor patio; quick service restaurants with drive-thrus; and other retail activities.
Applicant and
Property Owner:
CM Properties 94, LP c/o MFL Properties Corp., 3460 Washington Dr., Ste 100
Eagan, MN 55122
Location: Southwest of Kwik Trip Gas Station (9955 Hudson Blvd N), PID#
3402921440015
Existing Land Use
and Zoning:
Vacant land, Commercial (C)
Comprehensive
Plan:
Commercial
History: The property has been under the ownership of CM Properties 94, LP for over 45
years, and it is the intent that this company will continue to own the property for
years to come.
Deadline for
Action:
Application Complete: 2/21/2017
60 Day Deadline: 4/22/2017
Extension Letter Mailed: N/A
120 Day Deadline: N/A
Applicable
Regulations:
Article XVI – Planned Unit Developments
Article XII – Commercial Districts
Chapter 153: Subdivision Regulations
ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION:
The Commission should review the proposed PUD Concept Plan, provide feedback, and make a
recommendation to Council.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
PUD Process. The applicant has submitted an application for PUD Concept Plan. A PUD Concept Plan is
intended to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the
general suitability of the proposal before incurring substantial expenses in the preparation of plans, surveys
Planning Commission Report Public Hearing Item #4a
3/13/2017
Page 2
and other data. Approval of the PUD Concept Plan alone does not afford the developer/applicant any rights.
The plan should include the following: overall density ranges, general location of residential and
nonresidential uses, their types and intensities, general location of streets, paths, and open space, and
approximate phasing of the development.
Identified PUD Objectives. The PUD process is appropriate for the proposed development to allow
flexibility in the location, design, and mix of commercial uses on a single large site. The City should
consider whether one or more of the objectives listed in Section 154.751 are met when reviewing requests
for approval of planned unit developments. It is Staff’s beliefs that the following objectives listed in the
aforementioned Section are met:
A. Innovation in land development techniques that may be more suitable for a given parcel than
conventional approaches.
Staff Comment: The parcel is an irregularly-shaped parcel and so meeting all of the lot dimension
requirements of the Commercial zoning district could be interpreted as a hardship. Therefore, the
proposed approach would be more suitable for this parcel than the conventional approach.
F. Coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility within the
development and surrounding land uses.
Staff Comment: The development will include additional retail and service businesses which will
supplement the gas station.
Minimum Requirements. The City’s PUD ordinance sets forth the following minimum requirements for
a PUD:
Lot Area. The City’s current Planned Unit Development ordinance sets forth minimum
requirements for lot area in which a PUD is proposed of 5 acres for undeveloped land or 2 acres
for developed land within the approved development.
o The proposed PUD is 3.82 acres.
o The proposed PUD is an outlot of an approved Preliminary Plat.
Open Space. For all PUDs, at least 20% of the project area not within the street rights-of-way
shall be preserved as protected open space. Other public or site amenities may be approved as an
alternative to this requirement. Land reserved for storm water detention facilities and other
required site improvements may be applied to this requirement.
o The applicant has not provided open space calculations, and so it is a condition of
approval that the applicant provide this. The Commission shall consider if the proposal
provides other public or site amenities that may be approved as an alternative to this
requirement.
Street Layout. The Applicant is not proposing additional public streets, and so this requirement
does not apply.
Permitted and Conditional Uses. The proposed development will include a full service restaurant with
outdoor patio; quick service restaurants with drive-thrus; chiropractic care, and other retail activities.
Medical facilities (chiropractic care) and drive-thru facilities are conditional uses within the Commercial
zoning district. The following table shows permitted and conditional uses within the Commercial zoning
district as well as the standards to which these uses must adhere.
Planning Commission Report Public Hearing Item #4a
3/13/2017
Page 3
Conditional Use to Permitted Use. Because the applicant is proposing a Planned Unit
Development, the applicant is requesting that these uses become permitted uses within this
development, and so separate applications for Conditional Use Permits would not be required.
Standards. Standards for a medical facility are met. Because the applicant has not provided the
locations of the drive-thru elements or outdoor dining area at this time, it is difficult to determine
if standards for these accessory uses have been met. Staff recommends that a condition of
approval be that the applicant provide these details, and that they comply with these standards.
Standard Required Proposed
Sec. 154.551: Permitted and Conditional Uses
Medical
facilities
Conditional Permitted (Chiropractic care)
Drive-thru
facility
Conditional accessory use Permitted accessory use
Outdoor
Dining Area
Conditional accessory use Permitted accessory use
Financial
Institution
Permitted Permitted
Standard
restaurant
Permitted Permitted
Fast-food
restaurant
Permitted Permitted
Personal
Services
Permitted Permitted
General retail
sales
Permitted Permitted
Sec. 154.304: Standards for Food Services
Restaurant
with Drive-
Thru
1. Drive-through elements shall not be
located between the front façade of
the principal building and the street.
No service shall be rendered,
deliveries made or sales conducted
within the required front yard,
although tables may be provided for
customer use.
2. Site design shall accommodate a
logical and safe vehicle and pedestrian
circulation pattern. Adequate queuing
lane space shall be provided, without
interfering with on-site
parking/circulation.
3. Drive-through canopies and other
structures, where present, shall be
constructed from the same materials
as the primary building, and with a
similar level of architectural quality
and detailing.
1. The drive-through elements are not
outlined. One of the elements appears to
be in front yard of Lot 3.
2. This is hard to determine without
knowing exact locations of speakers and
service windows.
3. Canopy detail and other structure detail
not provided.
4. Unable to determine.
5. Information not provided.
Planning Commission Report Public Hearing Item #4a
3/13/2017
Page 4
4. Sound from any speakers used on
the premises shall not be audible
above a level of normal conversation
at the boundary of any surrounding
residential district or on any
residential property.
5. Each food or beverage drive-
through business shall place refuse
receptacles at all exits.
Sec. 154.303: Standards for Services
Medical
Facilities
Access to arterial or collector street of
sufficient capacity to accommodate
the traffic that the use will generate.
Two access points shall be provided.
Two access points are provided off of
Hudson Blvd.
Sec. 154.554: Development Standards for Specific Uses
Outdoor
Dining
Accessory to
Food Services
Tables cannot block a public sidewalk
or other walkway needed for pedestrian
circulation. Minimum of 5 ft. of
sidewalk must remain open.
The applicant has not indicated on the site
plan where the outdoor dining area will be
located. It is a condition of approval that
the applicant supply the City with this
information and that it adhere to this
standard.
Lot Dimensions and Bulk Requirements. Largely, the proposed development meets lot dimension and
bulk requirement standards. Flexibility is being requested on:
Lot width minimum. The parcel that is being developed is a uniquely-shaped parcel, and so the
manner in which the parcel is being subdivided is unique.
Impervious surface for Lot 2. The overall impervious surface of the three parcels averages 75%,
which meets the Commercial zoning district’s maximum impervious surface requirement . Lot 2
individually, however, exceeds this maximum requirement.
Parking setback on Lot 1. The parking lot will cover all three lots, so there is a 0 ft. setback between
the three newly-created parcels. Also, the parking lot is connected to a through lane on the east side
of the property with an 8.7 ft. setback. Setbacks from the south and west of the parcel are met.
Standard Required Proposed
Sec. 154.552: Lot Dimensions and Building Bulk Requirements
Lot Width
Minimum
100 ft, Generally these are met, however, Lot 2
forms a sort of flag lot (not significant) that
is 22.3 ft. wide along Hudson Blvd. There
will be shared access with Lot 3. Flag lots
are not prohibited in the Zoning Code in
the Commercial District.
Impervious
Surface
Maximum
75% Lot 1: 74%
Lot 2: 80%
Lot 3: 67%
Parking
Setback
Front yard: 15
Interior side yard: 10
Corner side yard: 15
8.7 ft.
Planning Commission Report Public Hearing Item #4a
3/13/2017
Page 5
Rear yard: 10
Residential zones: 35
Lot Area
Minimum
0.459 acres Lot 1: 1.83 acres
Lot 2: 1.23 acres
Lot 3: 0.76 acres
Lot Depth
Minimum
None Lot 1: Approx. 255 ft.
Lot 2: 286.06 ft.
Lot 3: 179.78 ft.
Building
Setback
Minimum
Front yard: 30
Interior side yard: 10
Corner side yard: 25
Rear yard: 30
Residential zones
All building setback requirements are met.
Building
Height
45 ft. The applicant will need to detail all
proposed building heights in order to
ensure this standard is met.
Maximum
Building Floor
Size
None Lot 1: 14,300 sf
Lot 2: 10,120 sf
Lot 3: 3,192 sf
Driveway Standards. Flexibility is being requested for the following on driveway standards:
Distance from driveway to side lot line. Lot 3 will share a driveway access with Kwik Trip, to the
east of the property, and so will not meet this standard with a 0 ft. setback.
Curb cut. The curb cut has a much wider approach (50 ft.) than the width of the driveway.
Standard Required Proposed
Sec. 93.26: Driveway Standards
Distance from
driveways to
side lot line.
A driveway must be at least 5 ft. from
any side lot line.
0 ft. setback.
Curb cut. A curb cut must not exceed the width of
the driveway approach at the property
line by more than 10 feet.
Driveway: 24’
Curb Cut: Looks to be 74’
Commercial District Design Standards. Because the proposed development is located within the I-94
corridor and is a commercial development, the City of Lake Elmo Design Guidelines and Standards Manual
apply. The following table details significant design standards set forth by this Manual and whether or not
the proposal meets these standards. Much of the language within this Manual is advisory rather than
mandatory. The Commission should consider whether or not flexibility should be allowed from the
following standards:
Orientation of buildings. The unique shape of the parcel that is being developed resulted in a unique
shape of Lot 3. As a result, the building is oriented according to the shape of the parcel and to
accommodate better traffic circulation and proximity to the parking lot.
Landscaped open or gathering spaces. Being that this a small commercial development located in
close proximity to the highway that will likely serve quick visits, Staff does not feel it necessary to
provide this open space. An outdoor dining area is being proposed, and the restaurants will likely
provide adequate seating for guests.
Planning Commission Report Public Hearing Item #4a
3/13/2017
Page 6
Sidewalks. No sidewalk is provided along Hudson Blvd. However, there are no other sidewalks
along Hudson Blvd. to which it could connect. There is an on-road bike lane on Hudson Blvd that
will accommodate bikers.
Streetscape Lighting. No lighting is provided along Hudson Blvd. Lighting is provided within the
interior of the parking lot.
Fencing of Outdoor Dining Areas. The applicant has not indicated on the site plan where the
outdoor dining plan will be located.
Site furnishings. The Commission may wish to recommend that the applicant include these in the
site plan.
Parking. The plan provides minimal exterior parking lot landscaping and screening. Additionally,
the parking lot is located in the front of two of the buildings and exceeds 60% of the street frontage.
Standard Required Proposed
Sec. 154.555 Commercial District Design Standards
Subject to design review for conformance with the Lake Elmo Design Guidelines and Standards
Manual.
Orientation of
buildings
Buildings should be oriented front or
parallel to the street they front,
promoting continuity of design.
The building on Lot 3 is oriented at an
angle to Hudson Blvd.
Landscaped
Open or
Gathering
Spaces
Encouraged within commercial
developments.
No open space or gathering areas.
Sidewalks Sidewalks are required along primary
street frontages, unless a suitable
alternative that promotes pedestrian
access to the building from the public
street shall be provided.
There is no sidewalk provided along
Hudson Blvd.
Lighting Ornamental or bollard lighting is
encouraged to increase safety, as well
as add visual interest
Lighting is not proposed along Hudson
Blvd.
Street Trees Shall be installed at regular intervals
along the public right-of-way.
As indicated in the landscape comments,
this is not provided.
Site
Furnishings
Such as decorative fencing, trash
receptacles, planters, bicycle racks, and
benches are recommended – design
elements from Branding & Theming
Study encouraged.
The applicant has not included these items
in the site plan.
Parking Linear measurement of surface parking
areas parallel to the public street are
encouraged to not exceed more than
60% of primary street frontages. If this
cannot be met, berms and/or additional
landscaping along areas of surface
Surface parking exceeds 60% of the
primary street frontage, and there is
minimal landscaping proposed.
Planning Commission Report Public Hearing Item #4a
3/13/2017
Page 7
parking adjacent primary street frontage
are encouraged.
Parking Lot
Landscaping
Parking areas should be screened from
view of public streets by means of
grading and/or landscaping. Parking
areas should be screened from adjacent
structures with landscaping strips not
exceeding 4 ft in height in order to
ensure pedestrian safety. Landscaped
islands should be installed within
surface parking areas to break up
continuous hardscape and reduce
concentration of impervious surface.
There is minimal landscaping provided
along streets and between adjacent
structure. Landscaped islands are
provided.
Structure
Parking
Structure parking is encouraged and
should be located behind or beneath
primary buildings when possible.
No structure parking is proposed.
Service,
Storage and
Utility Areas
Should located out of view of ROW or
screened. Not allowed in setback areas.
Location should be clearly marked.
The applicant has indicated the location of
the trash room/enclosure and it is not
located in the setback area.
Building Form
and Façade
Blank façades discouraged. Significant
amount of transparent glass. Minimize
continuous expanses of walls.
The proposal includes canvas awnings,
cornices, and a significant amount of
windows.
Building
Materials
High quality, durable materials. Brick,
finished wood, stone, cast stone, pre-
cast concrete panels. High quality
synthetic materials, if approved by the
City, are allowed. Colors of subtle earth
tones.
The building materials consist of standing
seam metal roof, metal canopy, cultured
stone, face brick, and canvas awning.
Colors not indicated.
Scale and
Mass
Builds broken down into smaller parts
to avoid monotony and continuity.
Multiple roof and ridgelines.
Proposal employs varying roof heights
and is broken down in to different
building materials.
Roof Design Roof design consistent with overall
architecture or design. Parapets of
varying heights required. Rooftop
equipment screened.
Varying parapet roofs. It is a
recommended condition of approval that
rooftop equipment be screened.
Entries Accessible for pedestrians.
Architectural features incorporated.
Canopies, awnings, other sheltering
encouraged.
Accessible from the parking lot. Canopies
proposed.
General Site Design Considerations. The following table indicates how the proposed PUD meets the
general site design considerations of Commercial Districts of the Zoning Code.
Standard Required Proposed
Sec. 154.553: General Site Design Considerations
Circulation Internal connections shall be provided
between parking areas on adjacent
properties whenever feasible
Driveway access is shared between Lot 2
and Lot 3. It is a recommended condition of
approval that the applicant either include the
property to the west of the subject property
Planning Commission Report Public Hearing Item #4a
3/13/2017
Page 8
in the PUD plans and plat or that shared
access be provided.
Fencing
and
Screening
Fencing and screening walls visible from
the public ROW shall be constructed of
materials compatible with the principal
structure.
No fencing or screening walls proposed.
Lighting
Design
Lighting shall be integrated into the
exterior design of new or renovated
structures to create a greater sense of
activity, security and interest to the
pedestrian. All lighting shall be installed
in conformance to 150.035-150.038
A utility plan provided light pole locations
has been provided, but no photometric plan.
It is a condition of approval that the
applicant shall submit a photometric plan
and comply with Sections 150.035-150.038
of the City Code.
Exterior
Storage
Must be screened from view. None proposed.
Landscape Requirements. The following table outlines how the proposed Landscape Plan does not meet
the certain standards of the Zoning Code. It is a recommended condition of approval that these requirements
be met.
Standard Required Proposed
Sec 154.258: Landscape Requirements
Landscape of
Setback Areas
1. Minimum of 1 tree shall be planted
every 50’ of street frontage.
a. Trees adjacent to streets shall be
plated in the front yard and may be
arranged in a cluster or placed at
regular intervals to best
complement existing landscape
design patterns in the area.
2. Additionally, a minimum of 5 trees
shall be planted for every one acre of
land developed. Such trees may be
used for parking lot landscaping or
screening.
1. No trees are proposed along the east side
of the property abutting Keats Ave N to
WB I-94 W ramp.
2. Additionally, the trees are not planted
every 50 ft. There is only one Autumn
Blaze Maple along Hudson Blvd.
3. 3.82 acres of land is being disturbed, and
therefore 19.1 trees are to be planted. 19
trees are provided for this purpose.
Design Cons-
iderations
No more than 50% of the required
number of trees and shrubs may consist
of any one species. Minimum of 25%
shall be deciduous shade trees and
minimum of 25% coniferous trees.
There are 93 sumac proposed of the 159
trees and shrubs, which is over 50% of the
total number of trees and shrubs.
7 of 25 required trees (though more may be
required if additional trees along the ramp
are required) are coniferous (Greenspire
Linden). Provided the required number of
trees have been provided, this requirement
would be met.
There are 2 ‘D’s on the landscape plan.
This will be need to be corrected. Unable
to determine where the Greenspire Linden
and Thornless Hawthorn will go.
Minimum Size
Standards for
Evergreen: 6’ in height
Deciduous 2.5 inches caliper
Evergreen (Greenspire Linden) 2.5” caliper
(should be 6’ in ht.)
Planning Commission Report Public Hearing Item #4a
3/13/2017
Page 9
Landscape
Materials
Deciduous ornamental: 3 inches caliper Deciduous shade trees (Autumn Blaze
Maple, Quaking Aspen, Swamp White
Oak) meet 2.5” caliper
Deciduous ornamental (Thornless
Hawthorn) 1.5” caliper (should be 2”
caliper)
Interior
Parking Lot
Landscaping
1. At least 5% of the interior area of
parking lots with more than 30
spaces shall be devoted to landscape
planting areas.
2. Shade trees shall be provided within
the interior of parking lots (in islands
or corner planting beds) - 1 tree per
15 spaces or fraction thereof.
1. There are no calculations for this to know
exactly, but there are corner planting
beds and some islands provided.
2. Shade trees are provided within corner
planting beds.
Perimeter
Parking Lot
Landscaping
1. A landscape strip at least 8’ wide
shall be provided between parking
areas and public streets, sidewalks or
paths.
a. The frontage strip shall contain
screening consisting of either a
masonry wall, fence, berm or
hedge or combination that forms a
screen of 3.5-4’ in height and not
less than 50% opaque.
b. Trees shall be planted at a
minimum of one deciduous tree
per 50 lf within the frontage strip.
There is no masonry wall, fence, berm, or
hedge provided along Hudson Blvd that
provides such screening. Additionally,
trees are not planted at a minimum of one
deciduous tree per 50 lf.
Tree Preservation Requirements. There are no trees currently on the site, and so a tree preservation plan
is not required.
Off-Street Parking. The applicant meets general parking space size and aisle width standards. However,
more information is needed to determine whether the following standards have been met in regards to off-
street parking requirements.
Standard Required Proposed
Sec. 154.210: Off-Street Parking
Shared
Parking
Joint use of required parking spaces is
encouraged where two or more uses on
the same or adjacent sites are able to
share the same parking spaces because
their demands occur at different times.
The applicant must submit analysis
showing that peak parking times of the
uses will occur at different times and the
parking area will be adequate for both
uses. A legal instrument of deed
restriction that guarantee access to the
parking for both uses shall be submitted
The applicant is proposing that the parking
lot be across all three parcels, indicating that
shared parking will likely be provided. It is
a condition of approval that if the applicant
wishes to provide shared parking between
the three parcels that this analysis be
provided to the City. The applicant has
stated in the application narrative that the
three parcels will be under the same
ownership. However, because this may
change with time, it is a condition of
approval that upon the sale or transfer of
ownership of any of the parcels that a deed
Planning Commission Report Public Hearing Item #4a
3/13/2017
Page 10
restriction that guarantees access to the
parking for both uses be submitted.
Minimum
Number of
Parking
Stalls
Required
Financial Institution: 1 space per 100 sf
of usable floor area
Personal services: 1 space per 300 sf of
gross floor area
Drive-in, fast food, and standard
restaurant: 1 space per 3 customer seats
or each 100 sf of interior space (the
greater), plus 1 space per 200 sf exterior
seating area. Drive-throughs shall
provide queuing space for at least 3
vehicles in advance of the menu board
and 3 vehicles between the menu board
and pickup window
Medical facilities: 5 spaces per medical
professional, or 1 space per 200 square
feet of gross floor area
175 standard stalls
6 handicap stalls (pedestrian ramp provided)
It is difficult to determine if these standards
are met without knowing what the exact use
of each building will be. It is a condition of
approval that the applicant provide this
information along with relevant information
to determine whether or not these standards
are met.
Parking
Require-
ments
Parking spaces for uses with multiple
components shall be the sum of the
parking requirements of the separate
components.
As mentioned above, more information is
needed to determine whether or not the
parking requirements have been met.
Off-Street Loading Areas. The applicant has not provided in the site plan an off-street loading area nor an
explanation in the narrative as to why this was not included on the site plan. The restaurants will likely
require the receipt of materials or merchandise trucks or similar vehicles, and the buildings all have a gross
floor area that is larger than 5,000 square feet. It is a recommended condition of approval that the applicant
provide explanation as to why an off-street loading area is not required within this development.
Standard Required Proposed
Sec. 154.211: Off-Street Loading Areas
Off-Street
Loading
Shall be provided in all districts for any
nonresidential use which involve the
receipt or distribution of materials or
merchandise by trucks or similar
vehicles and has a gross floor area of
5,000 sf or more.
A. Facilities less than 20,000 sf may
have a designated loading zone rather
than a loading berth.
None.
Sign Regulations.
Wall signs. The applicant has indicated in the submittal letter of the application that additional wall
signage is being requested as a PUD flexibility but has not proposed in detail what sort of flexibility
is being proposed or the reasoning for the request. It is a recommended condition of approval that
the applicant submit a narrative and Comprehensive Sign Plan that details what sor t of flexibility
is being proposed and for what reason.
Pylon sign. Additionally, the applicant has indicated on the site plan that a pylon sign is being
proposed. While pylon signs are not permitted under the City’s Sign Regulations, the Commission
may wish to recommend that this be allowed as a PUD flexibility, given that the three proposed
Planning Commission Report Public Hearing Item #4a
3/13/2017
Page 11
parcels will have a significant number of tenants within a small area, a pylon sign may be
appropriate in this case in order to list all occupants. The exact dimensions of this sign have not
been proposed, and so it is a recommended condition of approval that the applicant provide this
information for review.
Directional Signage. Directional signage for the drive-thru is shown on the site plan.
Stop Sign. A stop sign is shown on the site plan for the driveway entrance on to Hudson Blvd.
No Parking and Fire Lane Signs. The applicant has not shown on the site plans where no parking
and fire lane signs are being proposed. It is a recommended condition of approval that the applicant
provide this information and obtain approval from the Building Official and Fire Chief.
Phasing. Three phases: 1st: 14,700 sf building on Lot 1 2nd: 10,120 sf building on Lot 2 3rd: 3,192 sf building
on Lot 3.
Engineering Comments. The following provides a summary of comments from the City Engineer.
Detailed comments are attached in the Engineering Memo dated March 8, 2017.
Traffic and Access Management.
Hudson Blvd is planned as a major collector road. The Comprehensive Plan’s access management
guidelines limit full commercial driveway access to 660 ft spacing for full access intersections and
commercial driveways. The proposed site plan shows approximately 250 ft. spacing between the
two driveway access points off Hudson Blvd. The owner of the property to the west of the
development has expressed interest in developing. It is a recommended condition of approval that
the applicant include this parcel, PID# 34.292.1440004 (Ebertz property), as part of the Preliminary
Plat and PUD Plans or work with the owner of this property to provide shared access.
Additionally, because Hudson Blvd is a major collector road, and because the City wishes to
maintain the road as a two-lane road, it is necessary to implement left and right turn lanes for access.
Construction of these turn lanes should be done at time of development.
Shoulder widening/improvements should also be considered as the development process
progresses.
Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plans.
Need to meet City of Lake Elmo standard specifications and other applicable standards.
Utility Plans.
The proposed site is located within the Stage 1 Regional Sewer area. The property is currently
served with municipal sewer and water, and no phasing is required for infrastructure improvements.
The developer should be required to extend the sanitary sewer and 8-inch watermain stub to the
westerly plat limits to make sewer and municipal water service available to that property.
Additional fire hydrant locations may be required.
Drainage and utility easements are required over all public sanitary sewer and w atermains not in
ROW or City Outlots.
Stormwater Management.
Planning Commission Report Public Hearing Item #4a
3/13/2017
Page 12
Subject to review by State, VBWD and City rules and regulations, and possibly MPCA (to see if
infiltration practices will be allowed.
Stormwater maintenance agreement is needed, as storm water facilities are from privately owned
and maintained storm sewer system that may not be constructed to City Engineering design
standards, and therefore should be privately owned and maintained.
Written landowner permission may be required for off-site storm water discharges to adjacent
property owners to avoid negative impacts to downstream properties.
An infiltration basin is provided on the east side of the property.
Traffic. The applications have been sent to Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT), as the
development abuts the Keats Ave N to WB I-94 ramp, and Washington County, as the County has indicated
a study will be done on the Keats Ave N and Hudson Blvd N intersection, to which this project is near. No
comment has yet been received by either of these entities.
Comprehensive Plan. The property is guided for and zoned Commercial. The proposed development is
commercial in nature. Commercial development is guided for 4.5-7 residential equivalency units (REU)
per acre. Because the development is within the beginning stages, the Met Council has not yet made a
determination for WAC/SAC Charges. However, the following outlines REU information for the proposed
uses within the development:
Restaurant
Fixed Seating (actual number of seats) 10 seats 1
Non-Fixed Seating (the greater of the square feet of dining area @ 15 square
feet/seat or number of seats shown on the plan) 10 seats 1
Outdoor patios and sidewalk seating are counted same as inside seating.
(See Section 5.2.1.7.1 for discount) - -
Drive-in (See Section 5.2.1.7 for discount) 9 parking
spaces
1
Take-out (no seating) 3,000 square
feet 1
Outpatient clinic *17 fixture
units
1
Sterilizer (4 hours x gallons per minute x 60 minutes) 274 gallons 1
X-ray film processor (4 hours x gallons per minute x 60 minutes) 274 gallons 1
Retail Store (deduct mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, stairwells, escalators,
restrooms and unfinished storage areas) (for remainder use other criteria) (i.e. Gas
Pumping)
3,000 square
feet
1
Shower (if lockers are included use Locker Room criteria) *17 fixture
units
1
PUD Density Flexibility. The City’s PUD flexibility allows for an increased density of up to 20%. Density
increase may be allowed according to Table 16-2 of Section 154.754: Density of the Planned Unit
Development Article. The applicant has not requested increased density.
Park Dedication/Parks and Trails. The parkland dedication requirement for the proposed commercial
development is presently $4,500 per acre in lieu of dedicated land. The proposed development area is 3.82
acres in size, and so the required parkland dedication based on the present fee schedule would total $17,190.
The Parks Commission will review the proposed development at the March 20, 2017 meeting.
Planning Commission Report Public Hearing Item #4a
3/13/2017
Page 13
PUD Agreement. A PUD agreement that clearly articulates permitted and conditional uses, placement of
structures, development intensity, density, setbacks, building requirements, lot requirements, signage, or
other elements of the plan that deviate from the Commercial Zoning District standards will be executed if
the PUD is approved. The PUD Agreement will provide the development regulations that prevail for the
site. Those items not addressed by the PUD Agreement will default to the underlying Commercial Zoning
standards.
RECOMMMENDED FINDINGS:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the
proposed Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Concept PUD Plan:
1. That the Applicant has submitted all application requirements outlined in Section 154.759:
Application Requirements for General PUD Concept Plan.
2. That the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Concept PUD Plan is generally consistent with the
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
3. That the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Concept PUD Plan meets at least one or more of the
objectives outlined in Section 154.751 of the Zoning Code.
4. That the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Concept PUD Plan will not conflict with nearby land
uses.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat and
Concept PUD Plans with the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall address all of the comments outlined in the City Engineer memorandum
dated March 8, 2017.
2. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits including but not limited to all applicable city
permits (building, grading, sign, etc.), NPDES/SWPPP permits, Valley Branch Watershed
District approval, and review by the MPCA if infiltration practices will be allowed.
3. The Applicant shall be required to extend sanitary sewer and municipal water service to the
westerly adjacent property.
4. Stormwater facilities shall be privately owned and maintained. A maintenance agreement in a
form acceptable to the City should be executed and recorded.
5. The Applicant shall amend the proposed Landscape Plan to comply with City standards and
obtain approval by the City’s Landscape Architect.
6. The Applicant shall provide financial security for 125% of landscaping materials.
7. The Applicant shall submit a Comprehensive Sign Plan and narrative detailing what sort of
flexibility is being proposed and for what reason and obtain approval from the Planning Director.
8. The Applicant shall detail the uses of each building and provide necessary information for the
Planning Director to review and approve that the City’s Off-Street Parking requirements have
been met.
9. The Applicant shall provide open space calculations and shall meet the 20% open space
calculation requirement.
Planning Commission Report Public Hearing Item #4a
3/13/2017
Page 14
a. Note: Alternatively, the Planning Commission may wish to recommend that this
requirement be waived, as they may see that another amenity has been provided.
10. The Applicant shall detail the location of the drive-thru elements and outdoor dining facility to
ensure standards for such uses have been met.
11. The Applicant shall submit a photometric plan, and all lighting must meet requirements of
Sections 150.035-150.038 of the City Code.
12. The Applicant shall submit a plan and obtain approval from the Building Official and Fire Chief
for the location of hydrants and No Parking and Fire Lane signs.
13. The Applicant shall work to include PID# 34.292.1440004 (Ebertz property) as part of the
Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans or work with the owner of this property to provide shared access.
14. Any new permitted access to the development, full left and right turn lanes should be constructed.
15. The City shall further evaluate shoulder widening/improvements as part of the development.
16. The Applicant shall include in the application narrative why an off-street loading area is not
required, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by Council.
17. Upon the sale or transfer of ownership of any of the parcels, a deed restriction that guarantees
access to the parking for both uses must be submitted.
18. Mechanical rooftop equipment must be screened.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The development of this currently vacant site will create three thriving, taxable parcels.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Lakewood Crossing 2nd
Addition PUD Concept Plan with the 18 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. Suggested
motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition PUD Concept Plan with the 18
conditions of approval as drafted by Staff based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Concept PUD and Preliminary Plat application.
2. Engineering Review Memo dated March 8, 2017.
Written Statements:
The following are answers to Questions 2a thru 2m on the Preliminary Plat Application
form:
a. Record Owner Engineer / Surveyor
CM Properties 94, L.P. Carlson McCain, Inc.
3460 Washington Drive, Suite 100 3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE, Suite 100
Eagan, MN 55122 Blaine, MN 55449
Attn: Bruce Miller Attn: Joe Radach, PE
(651) 452-3303 (763) 489-7912
Architect
Architectural Consortium, LLC
901 No. Third Street, Suite 220
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Attn: Kathy Anderson
(612) 436-4030
b. The property has an unassigned address but is currently legally described as Outlot
A, Lakewood Crossing, according to the recorded plat thereof, Washington County,
MN.
PID #34.029.21.44.0015
Zoning – Commercial
Parcel Size – 3.82 Acres / 166,449 Sq.Ft.
c. Subdivision Name: Lakewood Crossing
Number of Lots: Three (3)
d. N/A
e. The intent of this 3 lot, 3 building project is to create a successful retail project
providing a warm and inviting place for residents in the area to shop and dine. Our
goal is to have a quality, sit down, full service restaurant on the east side of the
project including a large patio to accommodate outside seating for restaurant
patrons. In addition to a sit down restaurant, we are targeting fast casual
restaurants with drive thru, coffee with drive thru, a hair salon, dry cleaner,
chiropractor, bank or credit union with drive thru and other similar services and
retail businesses. Our intention is to build the project in three (3) phases with the
initial plan to construct at 14,700 square foot retail building and follow up with a
10,120 square foot and 3,192 square foot building as the market dictates. Our firm
has owned this property for over 45 years and we intend to continue to own it for
years to come. Our intention is to build something both we and the City can be
proud of and that meets what the market is looking for and stands the test of time
architecturally.
f. N/A
Written Statements
Page 2
g. The property is currently served with municipal sewer and water. No phasing is
required for infrastructure improvements.
h. There are only 3 non-related, non-public property owners within 350’ and they are
also excited about the prospect of additional development occurring on this corner.
This development will have positive impact on property values in this area by
providing much needed retail and service businesses.
i. This development should not conflict with nearby land uses. As a matter of fact, it is
our intent to get tenants who enhance our neighbors property values and provide
goods and services to the residential areas in and around this intersection.
j. In the grand scheme of development occurring in Lake Elmo, this project is
relatively minor in terms of city services required and will not create a burden on
the City. As a matter of fact, commercial tax rates are significantly higher than
residential and therefore this project will only help the budgets of the City,
County and School District.
k. N/A
l. As this is a small commercial development, we are intending on providing a park
dedication fee in lieu of dedication which the City will be able to utilize to enhance
its overall parks / open space plan.
m. Our intention is to commence construction in May or June with the first phase
14,300 square foot building to be complete in later October / early November. The
Phase II and Phase III building will be constructed as the market dictates.
PAGE 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 8, 2017
To: Emily Becker, City Planner Re: Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition
Cc: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director Concept Plan Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Concept Plans. The submittal
consisted of the following documentation prepared by Carlson McCain:
Lake Elmo Shoppes Site Improvement Plans dated February 3, 2017.
Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Plat dated February 3, 2017.
Engineering review comments are as follows:
Traffic and Access Management Requirements:
1. The Access Management Guidelines per the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan requires access
spacing of 1/8 mile (660 feet) for full access intersections and commercial driveways along Hudson
Boulevard. A shared access driveway was planned as part of the Lakewood Crossing 1st Addition to allow
access to the proposed development area while maintaining the required access spacing guidelines. The
shared access location has been approved for this site.
2. A secondary access is being shown as part of the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition to be located
approximately 250 feet to the west of the shared access. This access location is well below the allowed access
spacing requirements and therefore should not be allowed, in particular, because there remains an
additional parcel west of and adjacent to the Lakewood 2nd Addition that will then request yet a third
noncompliant access to Hudson Boulevard.
3. Access management should be carefully planned and coordinated along this corridor to minimize future
roadway improvements to mitigate traffic issues. A secondary access location to the south side of Hudson
Boulevard could be considered only at the westerly end of this third parcel (PID No. 3402921440004). This
access could also be coordinated and shared with Lakewood 2nd Addition.
4. Right‐in/Right‐out access locations can be allowed at shorter intervals, spaced at 330 feet. However, RI/RO
intersections are only viable if the roadway has a center raised median to prohibit left turning movements
from the site. There currently are no plans for a center raised median along Hudson Boulevard.
5. Hudson Boulevard is a local collector roadway and Municipal State Aid route. Hudson Boulevard is expected
to receive significant growth in traffic volume as the I94 corridor develops. The road is considered to be a
major collector for serving the area but it is the goal of the City to maintain the road as 2‐lanes. In order to
achieve that goal left and right turn lanes will need to be implemented throughout the corridor to facilitate
the turning movements for the developing areas while maintaining the mobility of the through traffic.
6. For any new permitted access location full left turn and right turn lanes should be constructed at the time of
the development.
7. The shared access location (Kwik Trip entrance) already includes a westbound left turn lane into Kwik Trip.
As more traffic occurs at this intersection full left turn and right turn lanes will need to be constructed.
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. 651.300.4285
PAGE 2 of 2
8. Shoulder widening/improvements may be necessary as part of the development. Shoulder improvements
should be further evaluated as the development moves through the process.
Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan:
1. Governing Specifications and Plan Details for grading and erosion control must be in accordance with the
City of Lake Elmo standard specifications.
2. Retaining walls that exceed 4 feet in height must have a design submitted and certified by an engineer
licensed in the state of Minnesota.
Utility Plans:
1. Connection to existing sanitary sewer stub. The project proposes to connect to the existing sanitary sewer
stub located in the northeast corner of the property. A lateral extension to the south of the development is
also proposed for the connection of two additional buildings.
o The developer should be required to extend the sanitary sewer to the westerly plat limits to make
sewer service available for the westerly adjacent property.
2. Connection to existing watermain stub. The project proposes to connect to an existing 8‐inch watermain
located in the northeast corner of the property. A lateral 6‐inch watermain to the south of the development
is also proposed for the placement of a fire hydrant and the connection of two additional buildings.
o The developer should be required to extend the 8‐inch watermain to the westerly plat limits to make
municipal water service available for the westerly adjacent property.
3. The 6‐inch lateral main within the development should be evaluated to determine if an 8‐inch watermain
should be installed.
4. Fire Hydrant locations. Additional fire hydrants may be required based on future review by the Fire Chief.
5. Drainage and utility easements are required over all public sanitary sewer and watermain not located on
City Outlots and right‐of‐way, minimum 30‐feet in width, 15 feet from centerline on each side of pipe
(including 15 feet from all sides of a fire hydrant). Drainage and utility easements must be provided in the
City’s standard form of easement agreement. The underground storm sewer chamber should be moved
further west to avoid encroachment on the require City utility easement.
Stormwater Management:
1. The site plan is subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD and City rules and
regulations. Due to the proximity of the site to the Kwik Trip Service Station the applicant should review with
MPCA if infiltration practices will be allowed.
2. The proposed storm water facilities will receive storm water from a privately owned and maintained storm
sewer system that may not be constructed to City engineering design standards. It is therefore
recommended that the storm water facilities be privately owned and maintained. A maintenance agreement
in a form acceptable to the City should be executed and recorded with the County for all permanent storm
water facilities to be located on private property. The agreement shall provide a maintenance plan defining
the maintenance responsibilities for the private owner, the type of maintenance and the maintenance
intervals.
3. Written landowner permission may be required for any off‐site st o r m w a t e r d i s c h a r g e s t o a d j a c e n t
properties to avoid negative impacts to downstream properties.
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
(
Ä
Ä
&
C
V
G
4GXKUKQPU
L
N
V
L
N
V
&
G
U
K
I
P
G
F
&
T
C
Y
P
.
*
#
0
5
*
#
)
'
0
*
1
/
'
5
*
+
.
.
9
+
0
&
4
1
#
&
0
'
5
7
+
6
'
(
4
+
&
.
'
;
/
+
0
0
'
5
1
6
#
+
0
9
1
1
&
(
+
(
6
*
#
&
&
+
6
+
1
0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
Ä
.
#
-
'
'
.
/
1
/
+
0
0
'
5
1
6
#
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEVWPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC %+8+.'0)+0''45 .#0&2.#00'45 .#0&5748';145 .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65
.
#
0
&
5
%
#
2
'
2
.
#
0
0COG4GI0Q&CVG ,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQPE2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI YYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO(CZ Ä
1
(
Ä
Ä
&
C
V
G
4GXKUKQPU
L
N
V
L
N
V
&
G
U
K
I
P
G
F
&
T
C
Y
P
.
*
#
0
5
*
#
)
'
0
*
1
/
'
5
*
+
.
.
9
+
0
&
4
1
#
&
0
'
5
7
+
6
'
(
4
+
&
.
'
;
/
+
0
0
'
5
1
6
#
+
0
9
1
1
&
(
+
(
6
*
#
&
&
+
6
+
1
0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
Ä
.
#
-
'
'
.
/
1
/
+
0
0
'
5
1
6
#
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEVWPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC %+8+.'0)+0''45 .#0&2.#00'45 .#0&5748';145 .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65
.
#
0
&
5
%
#
2
'
2
.
#
0
0COG4GI0Q&CVG ,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQPE2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI YYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO(CZ Ä
1
(
&
C
V
G
4GXKUKQPU
L
N
V
L
N
V
&
G
U
K
I
P
G
F
&
T
C
Y
P
.
*
#
0
5
*
#
)
'
0
*
1
/
'
5
*
+
.
.
9
+
0
&
4
1
#
&
0
'
5
7
+
6
'
(
4
+
&
.
'
;
/
+
0
0
'
5
1
6
#
+
0
9
1
1
&
(
+
(
6
*
#
&
&
+
6
+
1
0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
Ä
.
#
-
'
'
.
/
1
/
+
0
0
'
5
1
6
#
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEVWPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC %+8+.'0)+0''45 .#0&2.#00'45 .#0&5748';145 .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%650COG4GI0Q&CVG ,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQPE2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI YYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO(CZ Ä
Ä
Ä
.
#
0
&
5
%
#
2
'
2
.
#
0
1
(
&
C
V
G
4GXKUKQPU
L
N
V
L
N
V
&
G
U
K
I
P
G
F
&
T
C
Y
P
.
*
#
0
5
*
#
)
'
0
*
1
/
'
5
*
+
.
.
9
+
0
&
4
1
#
&
0
'
5
7
+
6
'
(
4
+
&
.
'
;
/
+
0
0
'
5
1
6
#
+
0
9
1
1
&
(
+
(
6
*
#
&
&
+
6
+
1
0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
Ä
.
#
-
'
'
.
/
1
/
+
0
0
'
5
1
6
#
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEVWPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC %+8+.'0)+0''45 .#0&2.#00'45 .#0&5748';145 .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%650COG4GI0Q&CVG ,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQPE2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI YYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO(CZ Ä
Ä
Ä
.
#
0
&
5
%
#
2
'
2
.
#
0
1
(
&
C
V
G
4GXKUKQPU
L
N
V
L
N
V
&
G
U
K
I
P
G
F
&
T
C
Y
P
.
*
#
0
5
*
#
)
'
0
*
1
/
'
5
*
+
.
.
9
+
0
&
4
1
#
&
0
'
5
7
+
6
'
(
4
+
&
.
'
;
/
+
0
0
'
5
1
6
#
+
0
9
1
1
&
(
+
(
6
*
#
&
&
+
6
+
1
0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
Ä
.
#
-
'
'
.
/
1
/
+
0
0
'
5
1
6
#
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEVWPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC %+8+.'0)+0''45 .#0&2.#00'45 .#0&5748';145 .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%650COG4GI0Q&CVG ,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQPE2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI YYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO(CZ Ä
Ä
Ä
.
#
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
Sewered Development
Development Status Sheet Final Plat ApprovalDA Agreement DA Agreement Plat Recorded Updated 3/6/17
Approved Signed Total #Total # of Total # of Building CO's
Southern Developments Developer Builder Of Homes SF Homes Townhomes Permits Issued Issued Zoning
SAVONA - 310 Total
Savona 1st 2/18/2014 5/20/2014 6/18/2014 9/25/2014 Lennar Lennar 44 44 0 42 39 LDR
Savona 2nd 9/16/2014 9/16/2014 10/22/2014 4/14/2015 Lennar Lennar 67 45 22 56 49 LDR/MDR
Savona 3rd 9/15/2015 9/15/2016 9/16/2015 11/19/2015 Lennar Lennar 120 21 99 57 30 LDR/MDR
Savona 4th 3/15/2016 4/5/2016 6/27/2016 7/27/2016 Lennar Lennar 78 78 0 0 0 LDR
309 188 121 155 118
BOULDER PONDS - 162 Total
Boulder Ponds 1st 4/21/2015 4/21/2015 5/16/2015 6/5/2015 OP 4 Boulder Ponds Creative Homes 47 47 0 24 15 PUD/LDR
Boulder Ponds 2nd 5/17/2016 Extension to record final plat to May 2017 OP 4 Boulder Ponds Creative Homes 18 18 0 0 0 PUD/LDR
65 65 0 24 15
HUNTER'S CROSSING - 51 Total
Hunter's Crossing 1st 7/1/2014 10/7/2014 10/15/2015 12/18/2014 Ryland/Cal Atlantic Cal Atlantic 22 22 0 22 21 LDR
Hunter's Crossing 2nd 5/5/2015 5/5/2015 5/29/2015 8/4/2015 Ryland/Cal Atlantic Cal Atlantic 29 29 0 28 25 LDR
51 51 0 50 46
INWOOD - 537 Total
Inwood 1st 5/19/2015 5/19/2015 6/9/2015 8/3/2015 Hans Hagen/MI Homes MI Homes 40 40 0 39 38 PUD/MDR
Inwood 2nd 9/1/2015 11/19/2015 11/23/2015 Hans Hagen/MI Homes MI Homes 21 21 0 21 21 PUD/MDR
Inwood 3rd 4/19/2016 5/3/2016 5/16/2016 5/23/2016 Hans Hagen/MI Homes MI Homes 68 68 0 49 19 PUD/MDR
Inwood 4th 10/18/2016 2/7/2017 Hans Hagen/MI Homes MI Homes 60 60
189 189 0 109 78
HAMMES ESTATES - 163 Total
Hammes Estates 1st 10/7/2014 8/16/2016 8/16/2016 9/27/2016 Rachael Development 57 57 0 4 0 LDR
Hammes Estates 2nd 1/3/2017 2/7/2017 Rachael Development 37 37 0 0 0
94 94 0 4 0
DIEDRICH/REIDER - 46 Total 12 month extension to Final Plat Deadline to 12/1/17
Northern Developments
EASTON VILLAGE - 217 Total
Easton Village 1st 3/3/2015 3/3/2015 7/23/2015 8/10/2015 Chase Development Multiple 71 71 0 36 19 LDR
71 71 0 36 19
VILLAGE PRESERVE - 91 Total
Village Preserve 1st 5/5/2015 6/2/2015 8/3/2015 8/25/2015 Gonyea Homes Multiple 46 46 0 27 20 LDR
Village Preserve 2nd 4/19/2016 8/16/2016 8/19/2016 9/9/2016 Gonyea Homes Multiple 45 45 0 3 0 LDR
91 91 0 30 20
WILDFLOWER - 145 Total
Wildflower @ Lake Elmo 1st 7/21/2015 8/4/2015 8/27/2015 10/6/2015 Engstrom Companies Multiple 60 60 0 23 12 PUD/MDR
Wildflower @ Lake Elmo 2nd 12/6/2016 20 20 PUD/MDR
80 80 0 23 12
Cummulative Totals 950 829 121 431 308
VILLAGE PARK PRESERVE - 100 Total extension to Final Plat Deadline to 4/15/17.
On hold
Note: Building Permits are updated at the end of each month. CO's are updated as issued.
2895
8 2 9 0
1 1 1 6 5
2994
5790
9 0 3 2
2959
11320
8 1 0 9
9055
8 1 5 5
9 8 7 1
1 1 0 3 0
5 2 2 2
5 8 0 2
5240
7 7 3 0
1 0 9 3 8
8 8 4 0
4
2
0
1
2796
3265
445410010
9831
12088
1 1 1 2 0
3691
1 1 5 9 8
3025
1 0 9 3 1
8
6
0
3
8 0 5 0
8567
5670
568
10755
11210
8468
9 6 3 7
3308
8 3 1 2
9 0 7 0
5235
5 8 2 0
1 5 3 5
1663
7 5 8 0
1 1 3 0 6
4388
5260
3287
8249
1 0 0 7 3
1 1 2 9 2
982
3
515
0
5701
8 6 7 3
8 2 9 4
8 4 1 5
3075
8 0 9 5
4 2 6 0
4466
5724
9 7 4 5
11862
2
1
4
1
9999
2 8 4 6
5290
3490
8 9 7 0
8 0 4 5
11066
2655
8 7 0 2
9 2 0 0
9 6 2 4
9
2
9
5
11392
1
6
6
5
10079
5034
4990
5
3
2
3
1 2 2 2 6
8 6 8 1
2932
1 1 0 4 7
8 0 1 0
9515
9251
9940
1 1 2 2 7
2783
1 1 1 6 2
976
8
567
7
3597
3 9 8 1
3153
2470
8 2 9 2
5058
8 3 2 1
9 1 4 0
9
8
3
8
3271
9 4 2 0
2 3 8 0
2677
2915
1 0 9 6 3
8 1 4 1
9901
5055
4 8 6 1
1 1 2 1 1
1 0 9 9 7
11830
7972
8415
8839
4955
4 9 4 3
5 7 6 0
1 0 3 9 0
8
6
8
7
8478
2 8 9 9
5471
3 7 7 3
1 5 1 3
1709
8 0 4 8
3 7 7 8
1 1 1 8 4
2119
8 4 8 8
3078
1615
1 1 2 2 8
8
5
1
5
8 4 9 0
8405
1 1 3 5 0
8633
1668
9 9 7 1
11817
8 1 8 5
3 3 0 8
1 1 1 0 8
8572
3 8 1 2
8 1 6 7
11714
8100
8 1 7 3
3258
5038
5650
5295
8
8
7
5
8650
2491
1 1 2 7 2
9 9 5 8
9 6 0 9
9 0 3 8
1020
1 0 8 7 5
2751
4002
2790
2945
11829
3432
8991
772
1650
5237
1 2 0 3 5
5699
8 6 9 0
8 9 4 0
1 1 3 5 7
9393
8
9
3
5
2735
10191
2 7 2 2
4 3 3 5
8 5 1 0
4070
2909
2 9 0 7
5
7
9
0
9 8 2 8
8 3 3 2
7962
9 9 0 5
3 5 1 1
8 6 9 5
9913
3673
1645
2 2 0 1
8879
2151
4394
2990
9696
5630
3 3 4 3
1 1 1 2 0
4390
3567
1
1
0
9
1
5061
7 8 5 6
9 1 3 3
5 2 0 6
8517
5791
4611
8546
665
4 2 5 5
4155
4990
8470
4439
4 1 7 9
1 1 2 4 0
11351
9400
9 1 6 3
8 2 6 8
8 9 7 1
8 2 6 0
1 1 8 8 8
3 9 4 7
5
4
2
2
8644
5577
9798
9 2 5 0
9 9 1 8
12340
3045
1 1 5 2 0
9 4 5 0
1 1 6 5 8
12359
517
1
11825
5850
5200
3 5 5 4
1 1 3 5 1
8 7 1 5
1681
9
2
8
7
3570
5 2 0 1
11075
10985
2 9 7 2
5870
9 7 5 7
3537
833
1
11330
9 1 7 0
11371
9 5 7 7
9
3
6
6
1
1
6
8
6
4 7 2 0
1 0 7 5 9
3033
4190
3533
2038
2 9 0 2
4181
5025
8364
8896
1
1
0
0
2
1 1 0 6 6
5760
4 8 5 5
5222
3161
2621
9
3
3
3
488
8 9 1 9
2 9 1 9
9 0 6 0
9 9 9 5
5
2
1
0
9 1 0 9
12445
8510
11658
279
5
4620
5150
2 9 9 5
9 4 9 2
1 1 5 1 1
3124
9 8 0 5
12362
2337
8 9 7 5
9611
5 4 7 0
1 1 6 0 9
9776
8 6 2 7
368
1 0 3 5 0
1
5
8
3
9355
9
7
2
9
3536
3 4 4 2
9591 5710
1 1 1 3 6
4668
3645
1 1 6 7 9
8 5 4 9
8 4 1 1
9 8 4 3
5 8 0 5
8 9 3 9
3 4 0 5
8 7 7 5
5429
8809
1 5 2 5
1 1 7 8 4
3004
7910
3623
9 6 0 5
8
6
5
2
4
2
3
5
4375
4940
5050
814
8241
5230
7959
4 1 2 7
8 0 7 6
4120
5 4 1 0
8430
1 2 1 2 2
1876
3408
9 3 0 2
5 1 3 1
2 5 2 5
5
1
7
0
8 0 3 2
9 0 6 6
1067
10728
4336
1 1 0 1 1
3012
4389
9 6 0 4
8520
8 9 6 2
2450
7 6 1 0
8579
4 1 7 4
8 8 9 5
736
295
5
4 8 8 6
8 2 2 5
513
1
1 0 9 5 0
8 0 1 8
8 0 0 4
2 9 8 6
2340
4 0 9 1
9 9 0 4
8431
1
0
8
0
2
2450
3010
2750
1 1 4 0 7
8 9 8 0
6 9 7
4365
8
8
7
7
2 9 3 3
7
7
4
0
1 2 0 5 6
9
8
2
9
4446
4 2 8 5
9 0 8 9
3 3 4 8
1 1 1 4 8
8573
5900
2 9 0 6
3014
7808
3330
8125
12415
2769
8740
4141
5435
1 0 8 0
2
1
2
0
9 0 2 3
8470
4 9 9 5
3 5 8 2
9
1
7
9
8 9 3 8
7 8 5
6 0 5
1 1 0 9 2
8 9 5 5
8244
8 1 9 3
858
8 6 4 5
8 3 7 5
5 0 5 5
1 1 9 1 0
8 1 2 1
3 8 7 1
4855
1 0 9 4 9
7978
2655
8 0 8 5
8928
90518160
8
2
9
8 2 0
3909
5890
4365
3077
9 1 2 3
894
1
9 7 3 2
978
4
2 9 3 1
9 1 6 0
7816
9 2 2 4
8 6 2 5
4354
9 7 3 3
9314
5 7 7 5
9 7 4 0
1 1 6 7 6
8195
968
8 0 3 0
8 1 2 0
5415
1 1 7 7
8 3 9 0
4177
8727
8270
10841
1 1 5 1 4
9 0 3 0
9 2 2 0
1 1 1 2 7
418
8 9 7 5
8 9 1 6
3 4 8 1
9 0 3 3
8219
8 3 8 2
4092
3440
515
1
11035
2904
8 1 7 1
7 8 3 2
4 4 5 5
8890
2 7 6 9
1 0 2 1 2
275
9831
2175
8737
8 4 6 0
9 9 8 4
4 1 1 8
1 1 4 5 9
5052
8
4
5
0
9 5 5 0
3467
11140
10240
8 2 7 1
1 2 2 8 8
8
0
4
0
9495
1 2 1 9 0
8728
1 1 7 1 1
1 1 8 3 0
3503
1 0 9 5 0
5 1 7 1
8254
8 8 9 1
9409
10386
3 7 2 0
5695
10225
5 4 7 1
9
2
8
7
2461
12203
5011
1 0 1 7 4
4
0
5
7
3268
10278
1 1 7 6 9
9 7 5
2 7 2 1
5307
3880
2 9 2 3
1 1 2 8 6
1 0 9 0 2
4 5 8 0
5427
1326
1 0 2 2 0
2898
9 7 1 0 12167
2055
5 7 7 1
9 4 4 7
5 5 0 0
1727
11857
822
4
11610
8 0 5 6
5 7 4 7
8 5 9
9
2
5
0
9 1 7 9
2227
43488838
2 7 9 6
5038
8282
612
4558
1 1 0 7 4
1532
8
8
5
5
1 0 3 2 3
9961
1 1 2 5 6
1 1 2 5 6
4111
9
7
7
1
9 3 8 9
8500
2835
5197
2793
8 6 5 5
8528
8 0 9 8
4622
2 2 2 4
9 5 8 5
1 5 2 9
3060
7805
986
7
8 6 3 9
1 1 3 1 4
3 6 5 5
648
1 1 0 6 0
4
0
6
8
4 2 7 5
5255
8 0 2 1
4452
11761
8 4 5 5
9 5 8 1
10263
8 0 1 2
9 0 7 3
8509
8 9 8 5
2445
9 1 5 0
4 8 8 0
8 3 4 4
5080
5
4
1
9
9 5 6 2
2965
1 0 1 9 4
2
9
7
8
2 6 6 0
8 6 0 0
9 2 7 5
5615
8 8 3
8
8
5
5
5025
5130
3063
9275
3 7 0 4
5701
1 1 3 0 6
1 1 6 4 6
2069
5414
1 0 9 4 1
9965
2795
3281
9106
1 1 4 3 4
11144
4823
5673
5275
3 8 6 2
5060
10144
9519
2 7 7 0
3385
5660
2 4 1 5
7 7 6 0
2 9 3 0
8961
4 9 7 1
8251
8 5 4 4
10115
2 8 5 0
8 9 0 9
1 1 8 8 0
542
0
4 5 5 5
1304
5
3
6
1
5920
5230
9 6 7 0
1 1 7 5 3
9692
1 1 2 9 1
3 7 1 2
8 0 4 7
11225
3047
5 0 4 0
5638
2991
747
8 2 0 0
1 1 2 7 9
8394
9
7
5
0
8 2 1 5
7 5 2 0
8 4 2 0
4168
2962
9 3 4 3
1 1 9 5 0
2968
4 2 6 0
1 2 4 8 8
8 2 3 0
5090
8 5 5
5 0 9 3
8
6
4
8
5086
8
6
5
6
5250
2 2 0 4
9 5 3 9
9574
8164
3918
1 1 1 2 3
8 0 1 7
9 6 6 2
9057
3 3 1
3655
11385
5 7 8 7
2773
12176
3 5 6 0
8 9 0 9
4535
5064
1 1 6 5 7
5
4
3
9
11253
1 1 9 9 1
8 2 1 5
8 2 0 3
3131
5736
8400
9 1 1 5
9 0 5 7
2528
9 8 5 5
5640
4715
5230
8450
8 7 8 5
3053
9875
8930
1 1 1 1 5
9 0 4 6
10125
8
0
8
1
9109
4594
2921
9 5 2 4
2 9 6 5
8 8 8 0
2296
9 5 2 1
9034
8180
1 3 0 4
1 0 8 7 5
743
5 2 7 7
1 1 1 7 9
3443
1
0
7
6
3
2 3 8 9
3793
8 8 6 3
1 5 0 9
1756
2 9 1 8
5711
8 1 2 5
4759
4404
3030
8
8
9
8
3105
395
8
6
1
8
8 1 2 3
1 1 2 5 2
2875
2 7 9 3
4 7 3 2
9822
4442
4167
5
7
1
5
2813
8884
1 0 0 5 7
11240
9 6 0 5
5 1 8 7
2 9 5 8
5
4
0
9
11455
11730
1 0 6 3 9
8 4 1 4
1 1 7 3 2
4
2
6
0
3065
2901
8
5
3
0
9 5 7 0
8
4
9
8
3331
1 0 6 8 9
9 5 5 4
2949
1 1 1 2 0
4 7 6 8
2580
8
0
6
0
8
0
2
1
2778
3074
3 4 7 9
1 0 0 3 0
2966
3825
520
5272
1 1 7 7 1
8 0 6 5
3 1 5 0
8 2 3 3
12100
5 4 0 4
9788
8 8 7 0
1 1 9 9 2
5545
4143
9 3 9 7
1 1 7 9 2
5257
4 1 8 7
1 0 9 1 1
8 9 5 5
8 6 7
937
9
10735
754
2903
8 2 9 1
1 1 2 6 0
3 8 8 1
9 1 5 5
8
5
4
9
7 9 8 0
4026
8 0 1 2
3520
1
1
1
2
6
1
1
0
1
8
1 5 3 5
9568
8
9
0
9
3115
1 1 7 5 0
2 9 3 5
1 1 2 3 4
3765
8 3 1 0
8 7 4 8
9 1 6 5
2816
2731
8286
2575
10159
8555
5
3
4
6
5 6 1
1 1 7 9 4
2790
9 0 9 5
9 3 4 5
7920
2 7 9 8
3855
1 1 3 2 0
8 1 4 8
8 8 8 1
4703
2678
9 0 9 5
9 4 4 2
3 5 4 8
8529
3759
8
0
7
0
1 0 4 7 2
8 7 0 9
5960
5 8 5
8 3 6 7
4455
11628
8 4 4 9
3624
9605
1654
8
0
3
2
8 8 6 0
2656
875
9 1 3 0
1 2 4 6 0
8085
3510
3127
2 9 1 4
7
7
4
1
5 4 1 8
11975
1 1 8 3 3
3 5 6 3
1 0 0 6 9
8 1 3 9
9
4
9
8
9265
8335
4465
802
2925
9 1 1 2
8 3 8 2
9 4 3 6
8 0 0 1
1 0 8 4 7
7 9 4 9
11269
9
7
0
6
2443
1 0 9 2 9
5 0 9 1
1 1 5 8 8
1 8 0 5
10824
5165
9 4 4 5
8780
3693
4 6 7 1
4 4 9 7
4372
8388
8 7 1
8 7 3 5
5067
1446
2856
2490
357
1 1 1 9 9
5 0 4 9
8
0
6
1
4 3 7 0
1
1
2
1
7
4 4 0 5
1 0 3 4 2
3010
9161
627
1 6 9 6
2 9 2 7
8271
3 4 0 7
8 8 7 9
8
8
0
0
3 3 9 4
3590
1668
2940 2 9 7 6
8 0 8 4
8 9 1 4
3 8 1 9
3023
5688
9485
1 1 1 0 8
1 1 8 1 6
9 8 1 9
8030
9199
8899
8 8 5 0
8 7 6 6
5 6 9 0
4488
1 1 0 7 9
4 2 8 0
9 9 3 6
935
9
1 1 3 7 5
2685 2718
5065
1985
5
0
8
0
5747
1 1 6 8 6
3 9 6 0
3910
7930
4 8 5 0
4995
5
2
1
1 1 0 5 1
11834
8 6 2 1
5750
9
7
2
6
1 0 2 3 1
2930
10824
8 8 6 0
9830
1 1 2 1 2
1 2 0 7 2
4 2 4 0
1
1
2
2
7
8 3 5 1
4 6 3 4
1 1 3 7 7
8 5 8 0
4596
9571
8 2 5 5
2 8 2 3
4060
4563
5819
2 1 1 0
9455
1515
9530
5 0 4 1
3 8 5 0
4 5 6 5
9 2 4 3
9 2 4 0
5 1 2 8
9 3 5 7
2932
9330
11420
4990
9 7 7 1
5 0 5 1
8 1 2 0
11220
11220
2855
3 3 8 0
3 8 7 6
5135
9873
1 1 1 2 3
11 3 9 5
8 2 4 2
3095
8 6 2 0
8623
5 0 5 7
8 1 6 0
343
9
6
3
6
8 1 5 1
5629
1 0 3 7 6
8804
3435
8 2 8 0
1 0 8 0
4731
11063
5
6
5
5
760
1 1 0 3 3
8
9
2
5
1 1 0 7 9
5082
8 7 1 8
9 4 8 1
1 5 2 5
5 7 7 7
1
1
0
5
7
3217
5 0 7 9
8190
9 1 4 8
5279
8
3
8
4
8 4 6 4
9 4 4 0
4258
1 1 1 4 0
9 3 7 7
7
8
0
3
10376
9 3 4 0
1 1 1 0 4
11050
9 4 0 6
4 2 2 7
1 1 8 2 0
5087
2950
3 8 9 9
8 8 2 0
519
3
3647
8834
3693
2 3 8 3
4275
5367
4698
3604
1 2 2 7 6
9
3
9
9
7
8
5
1
1 1 7 2 6
5771
111 05
8633
9 6 6 8
1 0 9 4 1
3
8
4
9
5265
984
4
5647
4100
546
0
4 8 5 4
3455
8 2 4 3
3733
2767
2
4
1
0
1 0 6 9 9
8 1 1 0
3505
3
5
7
2
3 7 3 6
7821
4070
8 6 3 1
9 3 9 3
1 1 3 2 6
4044
8409
3286
8 7 7 1
7 8 4 8
8457
8255
7 9 9 0
8
8
1
5
429
9 6 1 1
1 1 0 1 5
1 0 8 2 5
5267
3276
4891
9025
402
8
4 9 2 6
2944
7 2 3
9590
5 7 1 2
1 2 5 3 2
11736
1 6 2 5
8 2 2 0
3127
5085
2715
5659
1634
8
2
8
2
9 3 1 7
9 4 8 0
9 7 9 6
9 1 8 6
9 8 7 2
1 1 3 4 7
7 9 2 0
9 7 0 0
8 3 0 1
280
5
8 2 3 9
9
3
2
0
9155
938
3
1 0 9 7 5
9 5 8 6
8 6 1 9
5 0 7 9
9 4 0 7
9747
9429
1 1 7 7 2
4061
1 2 5 1 8
2837
3326
1 0 0 6 4
5277
1 0 9 5
1 1 9 7 7
8171
1 2 4 2 5
1 1 4 3 0
4 2 1 5
3240
8 1 7 0
8
5
9
9
3551
5083
5076
1 7 7 9
8258
5124
2525
8 1 1 4
6 8 7
9 7 4
5855
8 8 7
9
9
8
3
4677
9 6 2 3
3412
1 0 3 8 0
2 6 8 4
9 8 2 5
1
1
6
4
7
9 6 8 4
2 4 1 0
5 1 0
2 7 4 9
2737
9404
1
1
6
1
9
10380
2955
2
1
3
1
4 2 5 5
1 0 3 2 1
7 9 6 0
1 2 3 8 3
9
9
0
2
8 9 9 3
1 1 2 6 7
9 0 6 0
5810
9 1 1 0
9 6 4 8
765
10380
9 9 1 5
1 1 6 8 1
8311
3373
8 2 5 5
1 1 1 5 9
1 1 4 0
4 6 2 9
5 2 6 1
4276
1 1 8 1 5
1 0 9 2 6
9 8 8 4
8 0 8 0
7824
4 4 2 1
1
0
8
8
6
8
0
5
2
1680
5 8 1 0
4 9 1 0
8 1 6 2
2 9 3 2
1 1 6 1 2
4485
5
1
1
1
5
1
7
1
3797
5048
8
6
0
9
2 6 7 2
9715
1 0 1 0 5
9 6 0 2
1 1 9 3 3
9043
11809
1 1 3 2 6
4 8 0 5
2971
8
3
0
8
4385
9804
1 1 1 5 0
9941
11050
9 2 5 5
960
1
2 9 2 8
1 1 3 1 1
9620
4 8 5 3
8247
3 8 9 0
5226
901
8263
9440
5
6
6
5
12432
5200
8 6 8 0
5
3
0
7
9 7 3 7
11490
5 2 1 7
9 5 5 7
2929
1069
9 7 6 8
1 1 2 0 0
2 4 7 9
3889
3 3 6 0
5 7 2 9
8 0 1 1
1684
9906
11580
1 1 1 0 6
4850
4 1 3 8
7 9 3 1
2 2 6 72257
4103
872
5 1 5 1
8929
8 0 2 7
4463
1 1 4 6 5
8 7 7
8010
5193
5 2 9 1
5274
2814
4 6 5 1
5445
8785
5247
8 0 8 0
674
8 9 8 0
8050
2 8 1 9
9 4 3 4
5737
8170
1 1 9 9
3
4
1
5
1 0 9 6 1
2764
12311
4 6 4 4
8 9 8 2
9 0 1
8 7 8 4
10085
4384
9 8 5 6
4 6 7 0
8455
2 9 5 2
712
5 9 3 3
671
5257
5 0 7 3
4101
8 3 7 0
5 2 3 1
2333
8 7 9 0
8
8
1
0
1 1 3 8 4
2
1
2
1
8
8
1
1
4689
721
1 0 9 6 6
9 5 2 0
11025
5190
2 8 0 5
1 0 8 3 3
5120
2311
5 0 6 3
8 3 1 1
10015
9 5 2 5
9250
1620
8260
8 3 2 0
9834
9 0 4 0
8 0 0 1
1627
9719
5
2
9
1
3080
1 0 0 1 1
8
8
9
5
9 7 5 4
5014
10390
9 4 8 0
8 3 7 5
9799
4633
9 6 1 8
8
4
2
8
5 7 6 5
1 1 1 5 0
5 11 1
1 1 2 4 0
1 0 0 7 1
1 1 6 2 2
9 9 1 5
5597
9 4 1 7
2289
8 0 8 0
8 2 6 5
8465
3036
8 2 8 1
9 1 8 1
2 7 5 9
2 8 11
2320
3109
3124
1 1 0 9 4
8 6 7 4
11185
4131
4525
9 2 0 2
8 7 4 9
4 6 5 5
8 6 8
5043
8 1 2 0
602
8
5
9
2
2359
7 9 5 1
3424
2
9
8
4
5110
8 3 3 0
1 1 5 3 0
8511
2 8 9 5
2 3 7 7
11530
546
9 6 7 6
5049
9 0 1 8
4676
7 5 5 0
1 0 9 4 0
1 0 5 5 0
4791
5055
8001
5 4 2 0
4 7 0 9
3625
4140
11455
5750
1 0 0 9 2
649
8565
2 7 5 3
8 9 4 5
11 9 0 9
4950
10325
5020
1578
1
2
2
2
9
8 9 0 3
4 1 8 0
5445
1571
2818
9 6 2 7
8015
2 9 7 9
2041
5 0 7 1
1 1 1 3 0
11130
2 1 0 1
1 0 1 1 4
4550
5 4 5 1
1 0 6 4 4
8 2 9 5 4146
8 6 8 5
1 1 3 0 7
5
4
2
9
1 1 0 4 8
8 3 5 5
9 3 9 3
3929
1 1 5 3 0
1 0 5 5 0
5682
2970
803
0
1 0 1 1 8
9386
9 1 2 3
4346
2
9
9
2
9855
4 9 9 6
9 0 7 9
694
4 1 0 2
1 2 3 1 2
3 2 0 0
9 2 4 2
8 6 4 3
3 7 4 0
9 5 4 3
1 2 2 0 2
8 6 5 9
1
1
7
0
4
5
3
1
0
1
0
8
2
3
750
8
8
3
0
9 7 9 9
8650
9 2 4 0
3509
2 8 6 7
5385
8 3 9 0
5685
9896
8 5 4
11260
9 6 1 2
7 8 9 8
1
0
7
9
1
8 0 5 1
545
0
6 5 5
1 0 1 5 0
9 5 2 4
9 3 3 7
3 2 8 4
400
5
8 8 4 5
2986
9 2 0 3
1 0 5 1 9
8247
1 2 2 0 8
1 1 2 8 4
8 8 3 0 2939
3520
9
7
1
4
3603
11202
8199
682
8 3 3 1
11787
1 2 5 2 1
8 3 0 9
1 1 3 2 5
7 8 6 4
10095
2270
4 8 8 1
8 1 0 8
5110
3 5 2 4
9818
8483
12108
8831
1 1 6 5 6
8300
2393
1786
1 1 7 0 3
5611
9 9 9 7
5 8 8 5
8 1 1 0
928
1 0 1 6 8
5170
7 9 4 5
9 5 5 9
3 7 1
8
5
0
9
4 7 5 8
8536
1589
8585
1
1
2
5
9
5 2 8
1 1 9 1 2
4236
98
11
5 7 3 4
12114
8 0 2 8
1550
8 6 8 7
8 9 4 9
4875
5833
6 1 7
4911
2797
8 5 7 0
5811
8 9 1 0
6 1 6
8181
2 8 2 0
5 4 3 1
5 0 8 5
616
1093
5230
9621
8 5 6 7
8 0 0 6
1 1 2 3 0
1 2 5 0 2
8 1 1 0
8539
10133
1 1 5 4 4
4 4 1 5
4240
3944
5 8 1 5
8665
5
7
5
0
8550
8278
5531
8344
1 1 2 4 7
8 6 6 8
8 3 7 1
11888
9 5 5 0
4 1 2 0
2773
3 5 9 7
1 0 9 9 7
9 6 0 5
914
9759
456
1 2 4 7 6
4 7 6 9
4192
8 2 6 1
9 1 4 1
5 4 8 0
8 1 1 9
4076
9 7 6 6
11109
3 0 7 0
4460
2626
5 3 8 3
3 8 9 0
3
6
1
0
1 1 3 5 5
5
7
9
1
9477
2 8 7 4
2
9
3
5
9 9 2 7
9576
8 7 2 7
2951
4515
1 1 0 5 3
3464
3 8 7 0
8200
8 4 1 6
4515
8 5 1 5
2
9
9
8
396
3 3 9 0
1 0 8 1 9
4847
8 7 7 2
9 4 4 7
11796
9 6 3 4
2 3 6 0
4 3 3 0
1 1 3 9 7
12446
9 9 1 7
11546
2 0 7 5
1 0 3 1 6
2244
1073
8051
8 9 8 9
2916
2641
8 6 9 6
4075
9 5 7 6
4 11 0
3617
3099
10830
4819
8 5 1 1
8 5 4 0
9 2 6 0
9836
8554
8 3 5 0
9 9 0 2
9 9 2 9
8
8
7
5
3351
8237
4731
8 3 7 4
2 4 5 5
9 1 7 0
9786
2
9
7
8
2269
6 5 0
5110
2211
4589
3082
9
9
1
8
4690
1 0 6 5 4
9682
8 9 9 6
8 7 2 0
8260
1 2 2 6 0
7 7 0
9 8 8 5
1 1 3 5 0
2 7 3 9
3 7 5 6
3 9 3 6
8861
10289
2 9 6 5
8080
4 8 3
5238
4577
1 0 9 2 9
8 8 9 4
7831
3203
8 7 5 0
1 0 0 3 2
11277
832
0
9 5 1 7
9655
11110
8 7 5 5
10178
8
6
2
8
3
4
0
9
2876
4508
8 5 7 0
7 9 7 0
8186
2
6
4
6
9945
2935
4989
5
1
7
0
4905
1 0 9 0 7
5761
5
8
1
0
2 9 5 9
1
8
4
9
4
8
6
0
1025
8655
8 1 9 6
3303
4 8 2 7
8 5 8 3
1 1 3 2 0
5 1 6 8
11592
8 0 1 1
4351
5247
4941
3 1 6 0
8 2 4 1
2197
5042
8469
9 8 0 0
8
6
4
3
7934
2 2 2 9
2958
2891
8770
9 9 5 7
9 1 4 9
9 7 1 9
9
3
8
5
4305
4 9 3 8
9220
3646
8
9
2
0
1
1
5
7
0
8 1 6 5
10097
565
2301
8050
1
2
2
1
1
1 1 3 6 4
1 1 3 6 5
9 2 8 0
3030
8271
1
5
7
0
8
2
8
0
1 1 0 4 0
1
1
9
2
0
4 7 5 5
8953
9 9 4 0
2866
2500
9744
1 0 2 8
8 3 9 1
8 3 9 0
4 9 3 1
2 7 0 6
9
3
2
2
3337
11332
3631
2950
8245
1 0 5 7 9
8 2 4 5
4 8 3 0
5190
2194
2939
9 2 1 9
1 0 6 8 4
399
8
4564
8 8 6 6
8
9
0
5
1 1 5 4 1
9 7 3 0
7
5
5
11233
3 5 4 9
4967
3 5 4 6
8
7
8
0
9615
4 7 1 9
8 7 7 5
8 8 8 3
1
1
1
7
8
9901
1 0 7 3 2
8 0 4 3
8801
1 2 4 0 4
187
3
8 2 4 1
5 1 8 8
1 1 2 3
4 0 0 9
4 2 1 2
4 5 5 0
9 3 2 3
4 8 3 5
5 7 6 9
1545
1 1 4 9 1
3584
7 7 8 0
9589
1 1 7 0 3
9895
8790
3
7
3
5
9 6 2 0
2 8 9 5
5751
4711
10193
11171
8 2 9 0
2345
8 6 5 7
8401
3235
1 1 6 4 9
1 5 3 9
4596
1 1 0 9 1
8586
9 1 9 8
5324
11200
9 0 9 0
3 8 0 6
1 1 0 6 0
2 2 2 5
3435
5170
1 0 6 6 4
8 2 0
5350
8321
9 6 6 8
3 8 5 7
11152
9 3 6 0
9 5 2 3
4327
11989
4574
1 1 1 9 4
8 7 0 7
8 2 0
4370
1
0
8
3
0
7 8 4 0
5010
547
0
5091
1 1 3 3 3
11361
3501
8 1 4 2
8611
4602
3316
1
1
8
6
0
5 7 2 5
5121
8717
158
4
3607
2390
8352
7 7 6 1
1 1 0 5 1
5 2 2 7
1 1 0 9 0
5680
1 1 6 7 8
5 3 2 1
8867
8042
8 3 0 9
3296
8810
2662
8 6 0 3
8 2 0 6
8 4 6 5
5
3
2
8
623
5
6
7
5
2 7 6 0
4077
1 2 1 7 2
11020
1
8
2
7
4345
1 1 2 7 0
1 1 7 6 6
1 0 4 8 3
8 4 8 5
1697
10880
8 3 5 0
4171
1 5 6 7
1 1 6 7 6
4566
2975
8 1 8 2
5 0 3 5
9768
1 1 7 1 5
8838
704
5300
4220
1 0 8 3 0
1 1 7 5 0
8 6 9 0
5 7 7
8 1 5 5
9260
8965
8890
4 8 7 3
8 1 0 0
8340
1
1
2
0
5
8 7 4 2
5 4 6 0
1 1 2 3 0
8 1 3 5
9 0 9 0
9905
8968
1 1 6 7 6
5 0 6 7
5416
2 6 3 2
5
7
4
5
4849
1 0 1 0 0
1 2 3 0 0
8 3 2 3
1
0
0
2
9
847
5
8284
1 2 0 6 7
9955
9 4 7 6
1 1 6 5 3
9
7
1
7
5620
4071
5535
5043
2618
548
0
2 8 1 1
8552
1 0 9 6 1
8 8 0 2
4966
8036
1 1 2 1 2
4387
1 0 9 0 2
9 4 9 4
1 5 4 3
11923
3603
8519
11320
5040
5 2 1 7
1 1 7 6 0
3151
5831
2430
3 4 6 9
5097
9 7 6 5
4 7 5 1
5424
1 7 4 3
8
8
4
1
4 0 3 7
1 1 4 4 3
8
9
2
5
4
0
3
3
2 4 7 0
9634
1 0 0 8 0
10380
3327
9 4 3 7
812
5
1
3
0
1 0 9 2 2
4 8 9 0
5070
1 0 9 7 8
2134
8 3 4 1
1 1 7 5 1
8 2 6 8
3466
8 6 6 3
1 0 1 2 0
9
2
8
0
2 8 4 1
8556
1
1
8
4
0
938
1
9130
1115
87708555
5211
1 1 6 7 1
8810
9 1 2 5
4 9 4 4
2174
1 0 8 6 5
9 4 0 2
7817
2 9 8 7
3 8 3 4
3 3 5 1
4
0
8
3
9486
11295
9 0 6 5
9 5 8 5
9 5 9 3
1 1 9 2 8
2329
709
4500
1 1 7 9 7
9 7 0 3
8
9
8
9
8367
1 0 9 0 3
9200
3948
9
3
0
2
1
0
8
5
8
8 4 1 9
1 1 1 9 0
9765
9 0 7 7
9579
1 1 7 8 0
5 5 0 0
3094
3669
1 1 2 5 8
9
9
2
4
8 7 3 8
2 6 9 9
4132
3309
4 9 8 7
1 8 7 5
8190
568
2936
9703
382
5693
1 0 9 9 4
5366
8989
1 0 0 7 2
9
9
8
7
9 6 0 2
5
8
5
0
9 8 2 9
9 0 4 9
8 7 6
3 9 1 4
4020
7818
5
7
3
0
4280
9885
2 9 6 4
9303
4 6 0 5
3052
8330
9606
9 5 2 2
5072
5220
5 0 9 6
8 0 8 9
8
3
6
4
8 7 2 5
3 1 0 0
5
1
8
0
8 8 1
8 8 9 6
8
8
3
5
5875
4 2 0 7
8533
4477
9461
9 4 9 8
7 8 7 2
404
4
8 1 7 1
220
354
5749
5429
9 8 5 8
3 0 7 7
8419
2 2 0
1 0 8 6 7
8 0 2 4
8 7 1 6
404
4 7 4 8
8 2 9 2
2942
2 7 6 9
1594
5853
3663
1 0 0 3 7
3 2 5 0
2543
8009
8 4 0 2
2 9 1 5
3141
2809
4030
5683
8111
2 9 7 1
2 9 6 1
9233
8066
2 9 6 0
1 2 0 2 3
7
9
8
2
2 2 4 5
4265
834
0
8555
11334
8931
4654
4863
4 1 5 6
8 1 3 0
544
0
8969
1 0 8 9 1
7 9 0
8276
2943
5337
2972
8454
4982
1019
8274 11828
5840
8 1 1 1
3081
1 0 9 1 7
2 7 4 8
3473
1 1 4 5
1 0 9 1 5
4582
1 0 8 9 5
1
0
0
5
9
5230
8 0 6 1
3 8 2 9
1 0 6 7 4
3303
9
4
0
1
8 8 1 5
3000
4424
10353
9 9 1 8
2 8 5 0
5412
8808
1 1 2 8 0
8 2 1 1
4 6 3 5
9 8 8 8
9 5 4 8
8 6 4 4
10746
8243
3 9 2 3
2 1 8 9
8 6 4 0
2 9 1 1
5 4 0 0
5 1 5 0
4415
2 4 4 0
9 8 5 6
2832
1 2 0 2 0
1694
2700
9800
8 9 3 8
9 1 8 9
5264
9849
8 1 4 0
5671
12418
772
4
8
7
0
9 3 7 7
8 1 3 1
5 1 3
4 1 5 1
8 6 2 3
8251
1 0 9 2 0
11685
9 2 8 0
9 2 1
1 6 4 3
1 5 2 1
8 6 7 0
9650
5090
1 2 0 3 8
1 0 9 1 9
4890
9
3
8
7
8 3 7 0
693
9
3
8
0
5 7 8 2
8 6 4 9
3091
4779
9 2 2 0
1 1 6 7 4
9 6 5 4
1 1 7 2 7
5040
8 0 3 4
2450
9 3 6 9
2817
656
8 9 9 6
5
4
4
9
3508
1 0 0 4 2
3 4 1 7
10356
4 4 7 3
8800
8211
3 3 3 8
8154
1 1 0 0 8
4 2 3 3
3664
1
1
6
8
0
8 1 7 0
1 7 5 7
1 1 2 5 5
9 0 3 8
9 5 3 8
7 9 9 0
1 1 4 2 1
9960
8038
1 1 1 8 0
9 4 9 8
5658
9 0 9 8
4610
8040
5770
1 0 2 4 0
2995
4 2 2 0
8 7 3
2696 8780
10149
3476
8 6 2 0
9 5 8 0
4 9 6 3
4418
8 7 2 2
5308
9350
1 1 2 9 9
2298
5730
3 2 5 3
4 1 9 9
9 0 7 8
8 3 1 2
5055
4677
11125
5830
4
9
5
5
4937
8180
4960
8 6 8 0
9 8 6 1
9 4 4 1
1 1 6 8 1
8 9 5 0
9497
8319
3 1 5 0
11180
3 0 6 0
1957
9
7
5
5
11543
8
5
6
0
8 2 9 8
1 0 1 3 8
8718
11343
4690
4 5 7 5
9 0 7 7
8 1 3 4
1
6
8
3
832
4 8 9 0
1
0
3
6
8
8110
3650
9 1 9 1
1796
4960
8 8 6 6
3291
4 5 4 5
2040
1 1 1 0 3
8
6
3
3
11345
2 7 7 0
7 9 5 5
3585
8
9
5
9
1 1 5 5 0
4 2 5 1
1 1 7 6 2
5270
9535
8 2 8 1
8 2 2 9
11839
10375
9
4
2
5
8510
1 1 7 9 0
3440
8206
5 7 3 0
3 5 1 4
3 2 8 0
2915
1 1 3 2 8
2871
3263
10021
5080
2 8 7 7
4 9 5 5
4539
2860
5235
1
1
6
9
3
3800
7 8 1
9 7 8
3686
5 7 8 4
1 1 3 1 6
9051
1 1 1 7 4
4980
4277
9 3 9 7
8605
9890
3 3 6 0
5290
1
2
2
4
5
2 3 9 5
5736
12455
8775
9586
12177
9 5 4 3
11040
5825
2315
3084
9395
8 6 4 8
5
4
4
0
3112
828
2
8 6 1 5
1 0 9 7 7
1 1 2 2 7
9 0 5 5
1 1 0 7 5
9 4 2 7
8264
3 3 2 8
9652
618
8 2 2 6
8 0 7 4
5
2
2
1
7 2 4
3982
8028
1 1 3 5 6
9880
9229
8 2 3 4
1 0 0 2 4
4033
1 0 9 1 4
5 7 1 0
10112
8 3 6 0
9
8
1
1
4 9 7 9
1027
1 5 1 7
8
2
4
0
9 9 4 9
8 0 3 3
1636
2
1
1
1
8611
11075
8
0
2
0
9075
107
7
4
8
2
6
0
5231
1412
2 8 9 0
9 6 6 0
8
4
0
4
1 1 8 0 6
5 2 0 3
10231
9 9 8 5
7 6 8 0
9 8 7 6
4190
1 1 4 1 5
9 3 9 1
864
5
5 7 5 7
9 5 9 7
9618
8410
8281
11197
8420
8548
543
0
2965
5487
3 6 8 1
1 2 1 5 4
8862
2988
8 0 0 0
1 0 7 1 1
3 8 1 7
8 3 2 0
4212
9 1 2 5
5
4
5
9
5158
940
0
4 8 8 4
8603
9 9 5 4
8521
11881
1 2 0 5 8
3 5 9 2
4 9 6 4
1
1
0
7
9
9
3
6
3
4150
4
8
6
5
9 9 8 6
5250
4 8 1 5
2989
1 2 1 3 6
10190
5 0 7 2
8
0
1
4
1 2 4 0 9
1 1 6 4 4
4009
10206
8 0 8 0
8 9 9 7
985
3
1
1
0
8
2
1 1 7 2 0
1
1
0
7
2
1 2 1 8 1
1 0 9 0 6
1
1
0
9
8
983
7
8955
8935
9594
8 9 9 5
5403
9 6 3 6
1 1 0 7 5
8 6 2 5
8 9 8 1
8 6 8 7
3699
9 9 9 7
8 9 9 1
8 6 8 5
11800
3020
696
8 6 5 3
9 9 9 1
8
9
2
1
8 6 6 9
1 1 8 2 0
8 6 3 3
1
2
1
5
3
5068
597
1 1 2 2 3
1
1
8
5
011790
8 6 7 7
1 1 0 5 5
8 6 6 5
8951
1 0 9 2 5
3081
3050 3040
1
2
1
1
5
5
3
3
7
11295
12195
12324
5388
8 6 2 3
1
1
0
9
0
8 6 6 1
12337
1 2 1 8 7 5408 1 2 4 3 5
894
5
1 1 7 4 0
11810
9 6 5 0
632
1 1 7 3 0
8957
1 2 3 7 1
3 4 5 9
9
9
1
0
9 9 8 9
9
9
8
1
1 2 3 8 6
3415
3 4 7 6
979
7
8 6 5 7
5 1 7 3
8 6 7 9
9 5 4 2
5 2 9 4
1 0 8 9 9
3515
1 1 7 7 0
783
584
8 6 4 7
9 6 4 3
1 1 1 8 89999
1 1 1 7 1
8 6 7 1
9
9
8
5
1
1
1
0
4
8 6 1 7
9 6 1 6
5288
3 5 0 4
5 0 7 3
9
7
8
5
1 2 4 9 7
3311
9 9 9 3
4
1
5
1
4
1
5
9
4
1
6
5
4
1
7
1
4
1
7
7
1 1 1 0 51109 111077
1
1
0
7
0
11078
1 1 0 8 6 4174416041464132
412441164104
4 0 9 6
4 0 8 8
4 0 8 0
4 0 7 2
4 0 6 4
4 0 5 6
4 0 4 8
4 0 4 0
4 0 3 2
4 0 2 4
4 0 1 6
4
0
0
8
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
5
4 0 1 7
4 0 2 9
4
0
4
5
4 0 5 340 6 9407 540914111
4167
4
1
8
8
4
1
8
0
4
1
7
4
4
1
6
8
4
1
6
2
32553251324732433239323 5
3
2
6
4
3
2
6
0
3
2
5
6
3
2
5
2
3248324432403236
3 2 3 2
3 2 2 8
3 2 2 4
3
2
2
0 3
2
0
8
3
2
1
2
3
2
1
2
3 2 0 4
1 1 5 0 7
1 1 5 2 5
1 1 5 4 3 11565
1 1 5 8 7
321111560 1
1
5
7
8
1
1
5
9
6
1
1
6
1
4
1
1
6
3
2
1
1
6
5
0
1
1
6
6
8
1
1
6
8
6
1 1 7 0 4
1 1 7 2 2
1 1 7 4 0
1 1 7 5 8
1 1 7 7 6
1 1 6 0 5
1 1 6 2 3
1 1
6
4
1
1
1
6
5
9
1 1 6 8 1
1 1 7 0 3
1 1 7 2 5
1 1 7 4 3
1 1 7 6 1
1 1 7 7 9
1 1 8 0 1
1 1 8 1 2
1 1 8 3 4
1 1
8
5
6
1 1
8
7
8
1 1
9
0 2
1 1 9 2 4
1 1
9
4
6
1 1 9 6 8
1 1 9 9 2
1
1
9
7
5
1
1
9
5
3
1
1
8
1
9
1
1
8
3
7
1
1
8
5
5
1
1
8
7
7
1
1
8
9
5
1
1
9
1
3
1
1
9
3
1
1
1
4
1
0
1
1
3
7
8
1
1
3
8
4
1
1
3
9
0
1
1
3
9
6
1
1
4
0
4
1
1
4
1
6
1
1
4
2
2
11374
11368
11 3 6 011352113441133611328
1137111363113551134711339
113314122
41384154
4170
4
1
7
6 4 1 7 9
4 1 6 3
41494133
4117
11359
1
1
3
6
7
1
1
3
8
5
1
1
3
7
9
1
1
4
0
9
1
1
3
9
7
1
1
3
7
9
1
1
3
8
7
1
1
3
9
5
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
4
1
9
1
1
4
0
3
1
1
4
2
7
1134711339113311131911313
1 1 3 0 1
1 1 3 1 4
1 1 3 3
2
1 1 3 5
0
1 1 3 6
6
40104022
4082406840504036
1341
5 7 T H
S
T
R E E
T
H
U
D
S
O
N
I N W O O D
J O N Q U I L
L A K E
E L M O
S T I L LW AT E R
22N D
I N W O O
D
I N W O O D
S T I L L W A T E R
50T H
43R D
10TH
E A G L E P O I N T
10TH
3 1 S T
LITTL E BL U E S T E M
I S L A N D
STILLWATER
IRIS
M A N N I N G
16T H
D E M O N T R E V I L L E
30T H
L I N D E N
W H I S T L I N G V A L L E Y
L
A
K
E
E
L
M
O
K E A T
S
1 4TH
44 T H
J A M A C A
1 4 T
H
5TH
5 7 T H
L E G I O N
I
R
I S
33R D
H I D D E N BAY
5 8 TH
T A PEST R Y
J A D E
M A N N I N G
28TH
L E G I O N
B I R C H B A R K
41ST
3 3 R D
K L O N D I K E
12TH
J
O
N Q U I L
D
E
E
R
P O N D
I V Y
3 6 T H
I V Y
S T I L LW AT E R
WINDBREAK
I R I S H
24TH
STREET24TH
JADE
L A V E R N E
5 0 T H
TA P E S
T
R
Y
3RD
TAPESTRY
3 R D STREET
27TH
I R W I N
11 TH
I R O N W O
O
D
IR
O
N
W
O
O
D
4 2 N D
K E L V I N
IVO RY
J
E
R
O M E
E A G L E P O I N T
U P P E R 3 3 R D
J
A
S
P
E
R
5 3 R D
36
D E M O N T R E V I L L E
T R A I L
1 0 T H
S T R E E T
J A S M I N E
K E A T S
K E A T S
40TH
21ST
21ST
I V Y
I M P E R I A L
55TH
J A D E
H I G H L A N D S
L
A
N G L Y
I V O R Y
5
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
60TH
4 9 T H
I R W I N
J U L E P
M A N N I N G
K E L V
I
N
M
A
N
N
I
N
G
HUDSON
I R V I N
I
R
I
S
H
L I L A C
15T H
1 0
T
H
S T R E
E T
JEWEL
L I N DEN
J A M A C A
L
A
N
S
IN
G
20T H
I S L E
3 5TH
M
A
N
N
I
N
G
2
7
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
21ST
K E A T S
L I S B O N
KIRKW
O
O
D
3 R D STREET
15TH STREET
I N N S D A L E
I N N S D A L E
J
A
S
M
IN
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
I S
L
E
D E E R P O N D
L A Y T O N
5TH
JANE
32ND
L
A
V
E
R
N
E
3 7 T H
JA
N
E
2 8 T H
H I D D E N B A Y
9 T H
JULEP
L
I
T
T L E
B
L
U
E S T E M
WHI S T L I N G
VAL L E Y
I N W O
O D
H
I
L
L
L A K E ELMO
H
I
G
H
L
A
N
D
S
LI
L
Y
TAPE
S
T
R
Y
J A N E
6 T H
59TH
J A N E R O
39T H
I V Y
3
0
T
H S T R E E T
K
E
L V
I
N
55TH
L A Y T O N
K E A T S
L A Y T O N
K
I
N D R E D
KINDR E D
4 5 T H
14
5 3 R D
LILY
J A C
K
P I N
E
LISBON AVE
N
U
E
5TH STR E E T
L
E
E
W
A
R
D
L I N D E N
JAMACA
K I M B R
O
I V Y
L E G I O N
KINDRED
47TH
36TH
37TH
J A M
A C A
STILLWATER
J U L E P
H I G H L A N D S
56TH
LAKE JANE
5 7 T H
H Y
T
R
A
I
L
59TH
50TH
I S L E
M A N N I N G
M A N N I N G
J A M
L E Y
14
K I R K W
O O D
S U N F I S H L A K
E P A R K
O U T B O
U N D
26TH
38T H
39 T H
J U L E P
51ST
47TH
34TH34TH
36
KEATS
L I S B O N
L I L Y
L I L Y
L I N D E N
K
I
N
D
RED
TAPESTRY
L
I
L
Y
L I N D E N
UPPER7TH
LOWER8TH
5 9 T H
ST R E E T
51S
T51ST
JONQUIL
J O N Q U I L
L
ISB
O
N
W H I S T L I N G V A L L E Y
W H I S T L I N G V A L L
E Y
LILY
LONG LAK E
LONG LAK E
McDONALD LAKECLOVERDALELAKE
LAKE JA NEMUD LAKE
SUNFISH LAKE
LAKE ELMO
EAG LEPOINTLAKE
DOWNS LAKE
HORSESHOELAKE
LAKE ROS EGOOSELAKE
GO OS E LA KE
KRAME R LAK E
MARKGRAFSLAKE
WILME SLAKE
CLEAR LAKE
OLSON LAKE
LAKEDEMONTREVILLE
MARG ARET LAKE
BROW N'SPOND
SWIMPOND
M
A R
Q
U
E S S
L A N
E
L
A
D
Y
S
LIPPER
KEATS AV E N TO WB I 94
3RD
4TH4TH
3RD
I S L A N D
5 1 S T
KEAT S
LILY
J A M A C A
M
A
N
N
I
N
G
LISBON
1 4 T H
A C C E S S
L I L Y
KEATS
33RD
L
I
L
A
C
P R I V A T E
34T H
LILAC
LILAC
55TH
HUM MINGB IRDMONARCH
I S L A N D
1
0
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
3 3 R D
J
U
N
C
O
KEATS
5 7 TH
S T L L W A T E R B L V D N T O J A M A C A A V E N
HIDDEN BAY
K
I
R
K
W O O D
W
H
I
S
T
L
I
N G V A L L E Y
M O N A
R C H
31ST
V I L L A
G E
W I L D F L O W ER
M A N N I N G
1 4T
H
J A M E S
LEGIO N L A N E
34TH
D
E
M
O
N
T
R
E
V
I
L
L
E
T
R
A
I
L
M A R Q U E S
S
L
I
N
D
E
N
J
O
N
Q
U
I
L
L A V E R N E
W
H
I
S
T
L
I
N GVALLEY
34TH ST N TO STILLWATER BLVD N
K
I
R
K
W
O
O
D
55T H
W H I S T L I N G V A L L E Y
M O N A
R C H
4TH
3
3 R D
7TH
3RD ST N TO WB I 94
PRAIRIEVIEW
30TH
57T H
J O N Q
U I L
LEGION LANE
2 0 T H S T R E E T
HI L L T R AIL
2 2
N
D
5
8
T
H
S T R E E T
3 5 T H
LITTL E BL U E S T E M
LINDEN
J U
N
C
O
J A M A C A A V E N T O 3 4 T H S T N
M
A
R
QU
E
S
S
T
R
A
I
L
L I L A C
KLONDIKE
5 9 T H S T R E E T
I N N
S
D
A
L
E
L A Y T O N
L I T T L E B L U E S T E M
HILTON TRL N TO EB HW Y 36
L
A V E R N E
J U N I P E R
3 5TH
SUNF LOW ER
K R A F T
3 4 T H
WB 60TH ST N TO SB KEATS AVE NEB 60TH ST N TO NB K EATS AV E N
L
A
N
G
L
E
Y
L
A
RKS P U R
B
L A Z I N G S T A R
LINDEN
JER
O
M
EAVEN U E
INWOOD AVE N TO WB I 94
U PPE R 4 2 N D
C H E R RYWOOD
5
7
T H
S T R E E T
32ND
32ND
K E A T S A V E N T O W B I 9 4
L
A M
P
E R
T
3
3
RDS T R E E T
L
I
T
T
L E B L U E S T E
M
L
I
N
DEN
M A N N I N G A V E N T O W B I 9 4
4 4 T HSTREE
T
WB I 94 TO KEATS AVE N
M A R
Q
U
E S S
WB I 94 TO INWOOD AVE N
S U N F I S H L A K E P A R K I N B O U N D
PR I V
A
T
E
M
A
R
Q
U
E
S
S
M A R Q U
E
S
S
T
R
A
I
L M A R Q U E S S T R A I L
K I N DR
E
D
K
IND R E D
T A P E S
T
R
Y
T
A
PE S T R Y
1 4 T H14T H
UPPER 7 TH
L I T TL
EBLUESTEM
LOWER8TH
L I S B
O
N
A
VE N U E
M A R Q
U
E
S
S
LA N E
LILACLILAC
LILACLILAC
L
ISBO N
L I N D E N
L I N D E N
K
I
NDRE
D
K
I
N
DR E D
T A P
ESTRY
T
A
PESTRY
LIL Y
L I N
D
E
N
L
I
N
DE N
Lake Elmo Zoning Map
E
Data Source: Washington CountyUpdated by LE Planning Dept 2/9/2017
Zoning Districts Watershe d Districts
A
OP
BP
BP-PUD
C
C-P UD
CC
GB
HDR
HDR-PUD
LC
LC-PUD
LDR
LDR-PU D
MDR
MDR-PUD
PF
R2-PUD
RE
ROW
RR
RS
RT
VMX
Browns Creek
Cottage Grove Ravine
Valley B ranch
Lakes
Shoreland Buffer
General
Tributary
2017 Planning Commission Appointments and Terms
Commissioner Term Term Expires Eligible to reapply for 3 year term?
Seat #1: Todd Williams 2 12/31/2017 No
Seat #2: Rolf Larson 1 12/31/2017 Yes
Seat #3: Tom Kreimer 2 12/31/2018 No
Seat #4: Kristina Lundquist * 12/31/2018 Yes (Eligible to serve two additional terms)
Seat #5: Dean Dodson 1 12/31/2018 Yes (Eligible to serve one additional term)
Seat #6: Dale Dorschner 1 12/31/2019 Yes (Eligible to serve one additional terms)
Seat #7: Gary Fields 1 12/31/2019 Yes (Eligible to serve one additional terms)
1st Alternate: Jesse Hartley N/A N/A N/A
2nd Alternate: Terry Emerson N/A N/A N/A
*Denotes that the current term fills a previous vacancy.
February 21, 2017 1
LAKE ELMO AIRPORT FEDERAL EA / STATE EAW
Community Engagement Panel
Meeting #1 Minutes
Lake Elmo Public Library
February 21, 2017
6:30 P.M.
Panel Attendees Representing
John Renwick Airport Tenant/User
Marlon Gunderson Airport Tenant/User and City of Lake Elmo Resident
Keith Bergmann City of Lake Elmo Resident
Mary Vierling West Lakeland Township Resident
Dave Schultz West Lakeland Township Supervisor
Stephen Buckingham Baytown Township Resident
Kent Grandlienard Baytown Township Supervisor
Ann Pung‐Terwedo Washington County Public Works Planner
Chad Leqve Metropolitan Airports Commission Director of Environment
Neil Ralston Metropolitan Airports Commission Airport Planner
Other Attendees Representing
Dana Nelson Metropolitan Airports Commission
Joe Harris Metropolitan Airports Commission
Melissa Scovronski Metropolitan Airports Commission
Brad Juffer Metropolitan Airports Commission
Evan Barrett Mead & Hunt
Laura Morland Mead & Hunt
Colleen Bosold Mead & Hunt
Absent Panel Members Representing
Stephen Wensman City of Lake Elmo Planning Director
Robin Anthony Greater Stillwater Chamber of Commerce
Michael Madigan MAC Commissioner District F
(Sign in sheet attached along with presentation and meeting materials distributed)
The attached report represents this writer's interpretation of items discussed during the meeting. Any corrections or additional information
should be brought to our attention for clarification.
February 21, 2017 2
The purpose of the meeting was to:
Provide background information on the environmental process and the stakeholder
engagement plan for proposed airfield improvements at Lake Elmo Airport.
Prepare community engagement panel (CEP) members to be the point of contact for
information sharing, both to and from the community and MAC, and to respond to inquiries
from their constituent groups.
Items discussed were as follows:
After introduction of participants, Chad Leqve provided an overview on the MAC’s purpose and mission,
as well as the primary role of Lake Elmo Airport; Neil Ralston provided a recap of the Lake Elmo Airport
Long‐Term Comprehensive Plan; Evan Barrett provided an overview of the environmental process; and
Chad Leqve concluded with an overview of the stakeholder engagement plan, a discussion of CEP
guidelines and general Q&A as described below.
A CEP member asked about airport runway lighting – whether it is generally ground lighting, whether
the lights are always on or only while in use, and whether there are any plans to change what currently
exists. Chad Leqve answered that the Airport currently has steady‐burning lights along the runway edges
and strobe runway end identifier lights (REILs). The runway edge lights are pre‐set to low intensity, but
can be increased in intensity by pilot remote control. The REILs are pre‐set to remain off unless activated
by pilot remote control. The Airport also has a rotating beacon, which is always on. There are no plans to
change the character of the lighting at the Airport as part of the project.
Stephen Buckingham asked about the frequency of the CEP meetings. During his presentation, Chad
Leqve stated that the CEP meetings will take place after each of the four public milestone events. Mr.
Buckingham asked whether this statement about meeting frequency constituted a change from the
project schedule in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan, which shows six CEP meetings held bi‐monthly
starting in May. Evan Barrett confirmed that the CEP meetings will be held once every other month,
starting in May, as shown in the project schedule. Four of the CEP meetings will occur after a public
milestone event, and two additional CEP meetings will be held that do not occur following public
milestone events.
Dave Schultz asked if the Township could put project information and updates on its own website.
Melissa Scovronski answered that they could include a link to the MAC project website and possibly a
sign‐up for the E‐news subscription, which will also be available on the project website.
A CEP member asked if City of Lake Elmo officials will be represented on the CEP. Chad Leqve answered
yes, but that the City of Lake Elmo Planning Director was unable to make it to tonight’s meeting, as were
the MAC Commissioner and Greater Stillwater Chamber of Commerce representatives.
Kent Grandlienard offered the Baytown Township community building for future meetings, possibly the
public meetings for which a larger space is needed. A CEP member asked when and where the first
public meeting will be held. Evan Barrett answered that it is shown in the project schedule for late April
or early May. The exact date, time and location have not yet been set, but will be publicized at least
three weeks in advance of the meeting.
Mary Vierling commented that the CEP composition seems unbalanced as she represents over 200
constituents who have concerns about the potential safety and community effects of the project. Chad
February 21, 2017 3
Leqve explained the rationale for the CEP’s composition and stated the intent of convening the CEP is to
bring a cross section of stakeholder voices to the table. He also mentioned that the CEP is advisory and,
because there will be no roll call votes conducted by the CEP, proportional representation should not be
an issue.
Ann Pung‐Terwedo commented that the MAC is going a lot farther with the planned stakeholder
engagement process than is required, which is above and beyond what she has ever seen, and praised
the MAC for that effort.
Mary Vierling expressed concerns that floodwater is up to the road on both sides of 30th Street North
and that because there is no sewer/drainage system there is nowhere for the water to go.
Dave Schultz asked when the Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) would be involved in the
process. Chad Leqve responded that there was a separate agency scoping meeting held earlier that day
which the VBWD representative attended. The project team received some useful information from the
agencies and will coordinate evaluation of effects on water resources with relevant regulatory agencies
throughout the process.
Kent Grandlienard asked whether there are exemptions for airports with wetlands at the ends of
runways, as the proposed alternative would move the runway end closer to an existing wetland. His
understanding was that this is undesirable for safety reasons. He asked further questions about
waterfowl and wildlife attractants, and stated that the pond in the new development across Manning
Avenue is a significant wildlife attractant. Chad Leqve said that a wildlife hazard assessment will be
developed and wildlife hazards will be evaluated during the environmental process in accordance with
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidance.
Mary Vierling stated that the Metropolitan Council submitted a comment during the LTCP process
mentioning the MAC had 36 acres of wetland on the airport. She asked if it was possible to get an
overview of where these wetlands are. Neil Ralston answered that there is a map in the LTCP in Figure 2‐
10 on Page 2‐31 that shows the wetland locations.
A CEP member asked how the environmental review will address affected farmlands. The MAC leases
land some of the Airport’s land to farmers and could at any time make a business decision to stop
leasing that land. Joe Harris replied that the MAC may need to reduce or eliminate some of the
agricultural rentals as part of this project.
A CEP member asked about the LTCP showing a re‐routing of County Highway 15 (Manning Avenue) for
one of the rejected alternatives. This highway is slated for expansion from two lanes to four lanes. Ann
Pung‐Terwedo said the highway expansion project is currently planned for some time after 2020.
A CEP member asked whether the Manning Avenue expansion issues played into the decision to move
the runway. Neil Ralston said that removing Manning Avenue from the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) is
a benefit of relocating the runway, but is not the impetus for the decision. However the expansion of
Manning Avenue will likely trigger FAA review if it is not removed from the RPZ.
A CEP member asked if there was a chance the FAA would not require Manning Avenue to be re‐routed
if the runway were to remain in its existing location. Neil Ralston answered that it is possible, but it is
difficult to predict exactly what the FAA’s response would be in that scenario.
February 21, 2017 4
Melissa Scovronski asked if she and her team, which will be designing and managing the project website,
could use the CEP for feedback on website materials as they are developed. Chad Leqve and the CEP
responded that was a great idea and they would be happy to review materials.
Next Steps
Mead & Hunt will finalize the Scope of Work based on feedback received from the CEP and agencies.
The CEP will reconvene approximately two weeks after the first public meeting, which will provide an
introduction to the environmental process. The MAC intends to schedule these meetings with ample
advance notice as described in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:00 p.m.