This transcript features the **Lake Elmo City Council** meeting. I have corrected phonetic errors (e.g., "Hearn" to **Matt Hirn**, "Jaguchich" to **Nick Dragisich**) and identified speakers based on the provided official list and contextual cues. *** **[00:00:00] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Um, second order of business is approval of the agenda. Council member Hirn, did you want to add something to the regular agenda? **[00:00:20] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Nope. **[00:00:21] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Hirn holds. Okay. Sorry. Did I... Holtz? **[00:00:24] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Yes. Uh, can we add as number 16 uh a performance review summary for administrator Miller? I think that would be good. Thanks for reminding—remembering that. **[00:00:35] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Anything else? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion to approve the amended agenda. **[00:00:40] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Motion to approve the amended agenda. **[00:00:41] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Second. **[00:00:42] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion and second for approval of the amended agenda. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. **[00:00:47] Council Members:** I. **[00:00:48] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Agenda is hereby approved. Approval of minutes from June 3rd, 2025. Is there anything that's outstanding? If we're good with it, I'll entertain a motion for approval of the uh minutes from June 3rd. **[00:01:00] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Motion to approve minutes from June 3rd, 2025. **[00:01:02] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Second. **[00:01:03] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. **[00:01:07] Council Members:** I. **[00:01:08] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right. We get to the public comments and inquiries. We do have one gentleman that would like to speak today. Uh, please when I say your name, come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. You'll have six minutes if needed. And, uh, would Paul Fitzpatrick please come forward? **[00:01:25] Paul Fitzpatrick:** Mayor Cadenhead, city council members. Uh, on June 2nd of this year, I sent out an email request to my neighbors at the Fields at Arbor Glenn, the independent living town homes and apartments right behind you on 39th Street, requesting that I speak to the city council on their behalf. And a significant majority of my neighbors said yes, they would approve what I had to say to the city council, which I wrote out for them. And so they all agreed that I should say the following to you. On behalf of your neighbors at the fields at Arbor Glenn, I thank the leaders of our town of Lake Elmo for the construction of the crosswalk and the signage with it. We know that this will not make all autos on 39th Street stop when we cross, but it is a start. Thanks to our leaders hearing the needs of citizens and responding to our request. What's next, you may ask? You never know what motivated senior citizens can do. So stay tuned. Thank you. **[00:02:30] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Thank you. Uh don't believe we have any presentations this evening. Uh our consent agenda reads as the following. Number two, approve payments and dispersements. Number three, approve state performance measure measures resolution 2025-047. Number four, approve crossroads east first edition landscape security reduction. Number five, approve hiring of public works operator. Number six, approve special event permit for Fourth of July parade. Number seven, approve CDA grant for ULI tap resolution 2025-044. Number eight, approve pay request number four for well number two, PFAS water treatment plant. Number nine, approve change order number one for well number two, PFAS water treatment plant. Number 10, approve pay request number three for well number two, PFAS removal equipment. Number 11, approve change order number two for the Hudson Boulevard improvements segment A. Number 12, approve pay request number four for the Hudson Boulevard improvements segment A. I'll entertain a motion on approval of the consent agenda as written. **[00:03:45] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** So moved. **[00:03:46] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Support. **[00:03:47] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All those in favor of approving the consent agenda, please signify by saying I. **[00:03:51] Council Members:** I. **[00:03:52] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Uh consent agenda is hereby approved. Getting into our regular agenda number 13 is set sale resolution 2025 bond issuance resolution 2025-045. Is this yours? **[00:04:05] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** All right, get my mic on. Um, I will uh very quickly introduce Tammy Amdoll of Northland Securities, but just as some quick background on our bond issuance tonight. Um, this is solely for the 2025 street uh improvement project. The total bond issuance will be 2,185,000 um which is about a million less than what we originally planned um for this project because the project was significantly cheaper than we had expected. Um so the bond sale is set um tentatively set for July 15th. Um, in addition to the bond resolution, there's also a motion to approve the service agreement with Northland um for $31,388.50. Tammy, take it away. **[00:04:55] Tammy Amdoll (Northland Public Finance):** Mayor, council, good evening. Tammy Amdoll with Northland Public Finance serving as advisor to the city on the sale of the bonds. Tonight is the start of the process. This resolution calls for the sale of the bonds. The actual sale of the bonds would happen on July 15th. Clarissa, finance director, reviewed the purpose of it and noted that this um amount is smaller than what was originally anticipated. The pledge on the bonds will be property tax levy and special assessment. There are no utility or enterprise um revenue bonds as part of this. It's solely related to streets. So that's also a change from more recent history for Lake Elmo. With respect to interest rates for purposes of planning and tonight, the estimated true interest cost which is the basis that we would use to evaluate the bids that are received on July 15th is estimated at 4.18% for planning purposes. The actual rate will depend on market conditions on the date of the sale. We are recommending as in the past that the city seek a rating on these bonds and the current rating outstanding from Moody's is double A1. So that will be part of the process and when I am here on July 15th I can speak to the results of that rating review process. With that, Mayor and Council, um there is a resolution before you calling for the sale of the bonds and the approximate amount of 2,185,000. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have for me. **[00:06:30] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Questions for Miss Amdoll? All right. No questions at this time. Thank you. We do have a recommendation. I'll entertain a motion. **[00:06:40] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Motion to approve resolution 2025-045. Resolution providing for competitive negotiated sale of 2,185,000 general obligation improvement bonds series 2025A. **[00:06:50] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Second. **[00:06:51] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** We have a motion and second. Discussion. Council member Dragisich. **[00:06:55] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** I'm not opposed to the sale of the bonds, but I'm not supporting the $2,185,000. We levied special levies for this year: $600,000 for street maintenance levy and $93,000 for our improvement uh reserve fund levy. We did that because we're trying to get our debt level down. We have $60 million in outstanding debt. Based on our CIP and our discussion then, our debt would rise about 65 million and come back down to 60 million 10 years from now. The impact of that debt is significant on our residents and businesses. We levy about a little over $5 million to pay our operating costs—public works, public safety, fire, all the normal city operations with the exception of our utilities. We levy a little over $3 million just to make the debt service payments on our outstanding bonds. So if we didn't have that debt, our property taxes would be one-third lower than they are right now. So, I would like to see us—I know we have to fund our capital improvement, but I'd like to see us use the money we've levied to reduce the amount of that bond and reduce the fiscal impact of debt service on our residents and try and get that burden down. We need to get that debt level down over some period of time over the next 10 years to something much more reasonable like 30 million. We can't be in the 60 million range forever and ever and ever. And I know we can't solve that problem tonight, but if you remember during our CIP, we talked about getting that debt down. And that was what the purpose of the levies were. And so I support us selling a bond, I just think we need to reduce it by about $700,000 and take the money we levied and use that to reduce the debt. By reducing that debt, you know, we would save about $183,000 in debt service payments over the life of the bond. Based on the estimate, we'd save about $91,000 a year in debt service, which we won't have to levy on our residents and businesses. I mean, as we look at our CIP coming in, I think it would be incumbent on us to develop a plan to get that debt level down. Um, we're better off actually to levy more dollars and save the interest costs than to keep selling two, four, five, six million every year. Have to have some plan. But I—I said when we put those levies in place, it was specifically to reduce our debt level. And I think we should apply it to that because that's what we told folks during the truth and taxation hearing. **[00:09:40] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Mr. Mayor? Yes. If I could—sorry, if I could clarify. The street maintenance fund levy is for street maintenance specifically: mill and overlays, seal coats, chip sealing. The only portion that we levied for major projects is the infrastructure reserve fund 409 for $93,333. And the CIP document that was adopted specifically stated that this project would be bonded for. So using that cash is not part of the long-term plan that I have. And I would also address that the strategy that we've been talking about isn't fully adopted nor fully thought out. That's part of that long-term strategic financial plan that we've been kind of working towards. So yes, it is in the plan going forward. We do not have the levies to support that right now. **[00:10:35] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** So the $600,000 that we levied for streets is chip seals and maintenance? That's spent during 2025? **[00:10:43] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Correct. It's spent. **[00:10:44] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Interesting. Because in our budget it says it's for capital—just for capital expenditures in our budget. **[00:10:52] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Well, the street maintenance fund is set up as a capital fund in that it's a larger project fund. We moved away from doing the large transfers out of the general fund into more of this CIP type setup, but it is like large maintenance type items. **[00:11:10] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** And what did we spend it on in 2025? $600,000. **[00:11:14] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** I'm gonna let Nate speak to that. **[00:11:15] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Yep. So, it's—it's not completely spent yet. Um, but it's gone to the park parking lots. Um, and then the rest of it's going to, as finance director stated, mill and overlay project that's coming later this year and um chip seals and crack fill projects. **[00:11:35] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** So, why would the park parking lots come from the street fund as opposed to the park fund? Why would we pay them from a street fund? **[00:11:43] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Uh, I'm not entirely positive about that. **[00:11:46] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** But how much was the street and the mill and overlay project? **[00:11:51] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Uh, it's—it's still actually being scoped, but we anticipate it's going to be on the order of, you know, $400,000 or $300,000. **[00:12:00] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Wasn't there a larger project that was almost a million dollars? **[00:12:03] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** I'm—I'm not recalling. **[00:12:05] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Okay, we can we can review that, but my understanding is that in within the last couple years that we've kind of maxed out that street maintenance expenditures from those projects. That money is budgeted for projects this year already. **[00:12:20] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Okay. And and so I guess I just when I read it and said "capital outlay," I assume that meant capital outlay. **[00:12:28] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Well, I would consider the—maybe it's just a nuance in the jargon, right? And I can certainly understand reading it that way. Um, but as long as we know that that money is outlaid for the maintenance for public works department on our system—and you know we can talk at a different time if that money for a parking lot, which would be a city parking lot, whether it's parks and rec or city function, to me it's just moving—it's the same amount of money, it's going to be gone somewhere. So, um, and that parking lot is definitely in need of it. **[00:13:05] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** So, and then we have storm water improvements included in all of these projects and they're not being paid from the storm water utility fund. We're going to bond for them as well. **[00:13:14] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** The storm water fund is also for MS4 and cleanouts and things of that. It's not to replace catch basins and storm pipes. Not generally in a storm water fund. Not that I'm aware of that that gets done. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. That's part of capital projects that get designed to get done. **[00:13:30] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Well, this is a capital project. **[00:13:32] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Right. Right. But I don't think that's—and it's storm water. I think the storm water fund pays for like MS4 and cleanouts and maintaining the system that's in place, not necessarily redoing pipes or the pipes that are part of a project. I don't think that you're—when we're doing our city projects like we would in a state project, that the funding is coming from different buckets. I think it's coming from the one bucket and the drainage system is in there, but it's not part of what—that doesn't get paid from the storm water fee. **[00:14:00] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** So, we pay for water components and sewer components from those utilities, but we don't pay for storm water improvements from the storm water utility. Like, we're replacing that culvert that's and we're paying for that from the storm water utility. That's as I understand it. We're replacing a culvert on Hudson Road and we're paying for that from the storm water utility. It's in the CIP. When I ask the question, it's about $400,000. **[00:14:26] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Which one? **[00:14:27] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** And the one we're approving tonight for the—yep. That's coming from the storm water utility. It's a storm water pipe part of a street project. I guess then I'm I'm confused. Typically a city uses storm water utility to pay for storm water utility improvements. **[00:14:45] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Yes, Clarissa. Um, to Nick's point, that's correct. So it's—it's not that we don't pay for CIP projects. It's just that we don't normally break those storm water expenses out of the street projects. That's not to say that we can't. I personally feel like it's maybe a little bit of overcomplicating for no reason in that everyone in the city uses the storm water and it's kind of um funded largely equitably across the city. Whereas water and sewer are very specific to those people, those users. Only some properties have water. Only some properties have sewer. **[00:15:20] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Right. Everybody pays for storm water, right? You know, I guess my experience is different. And we have the $93,000 we levied to put into the infrastructure fund that's specifically for infrastructure, right? And I, as I understand it, isn't that a pot of money that we set aside and that that should be growing, right? **[00:15:40] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Yes. In theory, the long-term plan shows us—well, the long-term plan that is in the works with our CIP, essentially the goal is to even out the levy, get these pots of money started, and figure out how we can decrease debt using that pot and comparing to this giant list of projects that Nate sends over to me every year. So that's sort of what we're doing and what we're going to talk about at that workshop in July is all of these projects, where's the funding coming from, what do these CIP levies need to look like moving forward so that we can kind of get us to where we need to go and get to that decrease in debt over time. So, I mean the decrease in debt already, um the impacts, you know, just being able to decrease the project scope, just having the conversation about moving in that direction. Um, we've got the utility studies, so we're choosing to use cash on a number of those things. So, overall, as a percentage of projects, we're definitely bonding for fewer projects than we have in the past. 2.1 million versus um what was it, 5 million last year. So we're headed in the right direction. **[00:16:55] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** And what's planned for next year? 8 million? **[00:16:58] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** You know, I don't have that right in front of me. **[00:17:00] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** But yeah, I just think we spent a lot of time talking about trying to get it down. And here we are, you know, bonding again and not bringing any additional levy money into it. **[00:17:10] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Well, I think we've—what I'm understanding, Council Member Dragisich, is that the levied money is accounted for in projects that are being used in the city. So that money—that $693,000 indicated from the levy—is accounted for maintenance and chip seals, crack sealing, things of that nature in our city. **[00:17:30] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** I didn't get that from the $600,000 that they talked about in fund 408 which was to avoid transfer from the general fund to cover those projects. They said they had about $400,000. But I guess I just think that we were going down a different path and it's not the path I thought we agreed to when we did this levy, but you know, I'm just one voice and I think um I think we'll be, you know, backed up. 3 million plus levy for debt service and 35% of our tax is going to pay debt. Don't—not so sure that's doing our residents a favor. **[00:18:05] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I think as we progress forward and decrease the amount that we've bonded versus what has been bonded in the past, we will see incremental gains on that—on decreasing the debt levy. Well, if you look at—certainly it would be nice to get rid of it all in one fell swoop, but I don't know that that's financially feasible. **[00:18:25] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Well, our CIP actually, like I said, raises our debt to 65 million and comes back down to 60 million 10 years from now. We have a chance to review the CIP this year in the next workshop. **[00:18:35] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Any other discussion? All right. Uh, I'll call the question. All those in favor of resolution 2025-045, please signify by saying I. **[00:18:45] Council Members:** I. **[00:18:46] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Nay. **[00:18:47] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right. Uh, resolution passes 3-1. Motion to approve of the municipal services agreement with Northland Securities, Inc. **[00:18:55] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Second. **[00:18:56] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Any discussion? Call the question. All those in favor to approve the municipal service agreement with Northland Securities Inc. please signify by saying I. **[00:19:07] Council Members:** I. **[00:19:08] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Any nays? Hearing none. Motion passes. Item 14, approve plans and specifications and order add for bids for I-94 lift station and force main improvements resolution 2025-046. Mr. Stanley. **[00:19:25] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Mr. Mayor and Council, uh I'm back before you uh tonight with an item to um approve the plans and specifications for the uh lift station and force main improvements to the I-94 lift station. Um, as you recall, this is the force main that runs along Hudson Boulevard and Inwood Avenue that has experienced a number of breaks over the last decade and has exceeded its useful service life. So, I'm here asking for to move to that next step and order bids. Um, so, just a few things tonight. I'm going to talk about—we'll go over the location, the scope, the schedule, and the budget. Um, and then I also do have—it was just referenced here in the previous discussion—but there has been an addition to this project to replace a failing culvert that is right in close proximity with the lift station. The culvert project was a separate CIP project this year that we're simply adding now to take advantage of the fact that we're going to be opening up the road to do this work. So, we'll get to that, too. Location of the lift station is actually down on Hudson Boulevard, just east of Eagle Point Boulevard. Uh and the the force main runs from this lift station westward to Inwood Avenue and then south to an existing Met Council discharge location. Right now it ties in with the Met Council force main and that's what it's going to do in an interim condition when it's reconstructed. But the Met Council has a project working towards this location with the gravity sewer line that this will ultimately discharge to. Um, one thing—it's it's a little hard to see on the aerial—you'll notice that the red line, that's the existing path of the force main. Um, there's a crossing of Inwood Avenue that is slightly farther south than what we're proposing now. And that is because the existing line has to remain in service while we build the new one. So, we need to offset that crossing in order to keep everything undisturbed. So, we're replacing approximately 3,000 feet of of the 8-inch force main. Uh, the 8-inch force main material is a PVC pipe. Um, I think I shared some photos of the pipe condition in a previous presentation. Um, and through analysis of ultimate flows in the area, uh we've determined that the line should actually be upsized to a 16-inch line. Now, that's 16-inch outside diameter, slightly smaller inside, but the pipe material we're going with this time is a high-density polyethylene (HDPE). So, this is a thicker-walled material and it's really the standard for all force mains that are bored in these days. Um, the material that was put in before—I know there are some questions and concerns about that. So, I just wanted to reassure council that we are using something different that should sustain and have a longer life. Um so the upsizing was based on a review of ultimate service area. So all that area kind of north of the lift station—eventually it's going to come there. You know it's only the area's only been partially developed. So working with planning staff um you know we determined that um in order to meet the future service flows, the 16-inch main was appropriate. Um, we did also review the lift station components, the controls and electrical system. Um, and it was determined that new pumps will be needed to transmit the sewage in the new force main. Now those pumps will not work with the existing force main and the existing force main will not work with these new pumps. So, um, that was originally—you may recall from a previous presentation—but that was previously something we were unsure of and it was not included in the scope. That cost was not. Um, I'll get to costs here further down the presentation and talk about the plan to procure those pumps and what costs are associated with that. But the new pumps will be appropriate for the new line in the interim and final condition. And when I say interim, that's the new main hooked to the Met Council force main that exists today, which it will have to for some period of time, as well as when the gravity line is there for us to connect to. Lastly, there—during development of the Amira site, which is just north of Hudson Boulevard there, kind of where the lift station is—it was discovered that there was a 90-inch corrugated metal culvert going beneath Hudson Boulevard that was starting to rot out. And when I say rot out, I mean rust, crumble, collapse. And um it was put into the CIP last year as an emergency project. Um and initially, you know, staff not knowing that these two projects would intersect like this, were investigating a trenchless solution—so lining the pipe. Um, also working with the watershed district, it was determined that the pipe was oversized for what it actually needs to be. It does not need to be 90 inches. Um and through some analysis it was determined a 72-inch pipe would serve the drainage needs of the area. So moving further as as the lift station project progressed and we found out how the pipes are configured out there, it just made sense since we have to open the road up to bring in the force main into the lift station to also install this culvert while the road is closed and just do one closure, get rid of everything, take care of everything, and and then open it back up. So, we should be good in the area for years to come. Um, the big thing is the new force main actually goes underneath the existing 90-inch culvert and it it will need to go back underneath the new culvert because if you think of 72 inches, that's how tall I am. Okay, it's six feet. So, there's not a lot of room between the roadbed and the top of this culvert. Um, and so that pipe needs to continue underneath, otherwise you run into cover issues and there's also just a web of utilities above it. So, I'm back here before you today on June 17th looking for plan authorization and bid authorization. Um, if if we move forward, we'll be accepting bids on July 8th and then coming back to council on July 15th with a recommendation for contract award. The project is anticipated to start a couple weeks after that in early August and be substantially complete by mid-October with any sort of final completion by the end of the year. So, at the time that I was preparing this presentation and council item, we didn't have really hard exacting costs for the improvements. Um, we had our CIP budget for the force main is $900,000 and for the culvert is $400,000. So, 1.3 million. Now, knowing that we don't want to—those funds are specific for those improvements—you know, we really had to be careful. So, I've just got some numbers I'll share with council. The total estimated project cost right now is about $940,000. So, that's the force main and the culvert. Splitting those out, the force main is anticipated to be approximately 615,000 and the culvert approximately 325,000. When contingencies and engineering is applied across these projects equally, it pretty much works out exactly to 900,000 and 400,000. Um, the one thing on here that's not within this budget that I want to talk about is the pumps. So there are three pumps that need to be installed. Three new pumps that need to be installed in the lift station. We have a quote from a pump supplier to sell those to us for $150,000. Um, I anticipate coming back to council at a future meeting with a plan to procure those pumps and a little more information, but right now that number, I just want to make very clear, is not included in this $1.3 million CIP number. **[00:27:00] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Was that one pump? **[00:27:01] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** That's three pumps. That was the price for three. Yep. Um, before I get to the recommendation, I want to talk about this project in a little more detail. I'm going to jump back right to here. Um, this is the best map I've got for us right now because this will entail a fairly significant closure at the lift station site. Uh, the road, Hudson Boulevard, will need to be closed for—we're anticipating upwards of a month. So 3 to 4 weeks is a pretty rosy estimate we think. But we think that closure will allow for both the culvert install as well as the installation of the force main to the lift station and other work as necessary to adjust utilities. Um, there is a traffic control plan that detours cars from Hudson Boulevard up Julia Avenue to Fifth Street and over to Inwood. Um, now you may be thinking, what about those businesses there by the Machine Shed and those other buildings over there, the hotel? Um, westbound lanes on Hudson Boulevard between Inwood and Eagle Point Boulevard will remain open during construction. So there will be access there while the work is going on. **[00:28:15] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Just is it one-way or control? **[00:28:17] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** That would be a one-way, but you'll be able to get out via Eagle Point up to Fifth. **[00:28:22] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Nick, the schematic there shows the new force main underneath the roadway, but I'm assuming it's not going to need to be underneath the roadway. **[00:28:30] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Uh, actually, it is going to be underneath the roadway. **[00:28:34] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** So all that road needs to be redone? **[00:28:36] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Nope. There it's going to be boring. There'll be pits. There'll be localized pits. Now, yeah, I'll speak to that a little bit, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. Um, the issue is there's been so many breaks on the existing force main—that's a plastic pipe—that it's virtually impossible to trace the location of that pipe and locate it. Public Works knows where breaks have occurred. Um but seeing as how the road's kind of got a curvilinear geometry as you come around there, we don't have good information where the existing force main is and we have to make sure that that pipe stays in service while the new force main goes in. So as a factor of safety, we're moving that pipe into that northern part of the roadway. Um, there will be—like I said, there will be limited patching, but a wholesale reconstruction of the road or even a large amount of replacement is not anticipated. And we are aware that's a new roadway and this is a bummer. Um, with that, I'm asking council to consider approving a resolution approving plans and specifications and ordering the advertisements for bids for the I-94 lift station force main improvements. **[00:29:45] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Questions for Mr. Stanley? Uh, Council Member Hirn. **[00:29:49] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Did you include what would the price look like if these were done at separate times? So, if we decided not to do both at the same time, then what kind of price tag are we looking at for that culvert later on? **[00:30:00] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Right. So, I'll—I'll say a couple things. Right now, I think I've mentioned this to council before this year, we're in a very favorable bidding environment all across the metro area. Um, so I definitely think that when you package these together, you get to take advantage of kind of an economy of scale. Um, especially when you're talking about traffic control, patching the road, mobilization costs for a contractor to come in and working around all the utilities that are going to need to be worked around and put in this culvert. I think that if you separated the culvert out and did it under a separate project, um it would cost more money. A standalone project for the culvert would definitely cost more. Um, as far as the lift station goes, it's hard to say. Um, it's kind of a specialty when we get into boring pipes, you know, large-diameter force main. Um, it's not something that every contractor does, but I definitely think that packaging them together, you'll get a more favorable price for both projects. **[00:31:05] Council Member Matt Hirn:** I know it's challenging, but I mean with the culvert, I mean, do you think are we talking double the price? Are we talking 50%? **[00:31:11] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** I don't know about double. I think you could assume anywhere between 15 and 20% though, you know, reasonably. **[00:31:18] Council Member Matt Hirn:** And lifespan if we didn't do it. When do you see it failing and needing to be replaced? **[00:31:22] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** That's the million-dollar question, right? Um, you know, the inspection that's been done on the pipe gives us pause because we can see the inside of the pipe, we can't see the deterioration on the outside of the pipe. And that's also a major factor here. Uh, we suspect there's voids that have developed because when a pipe gets holes in it, moisture runs through those holes and it just can create like an unstable condition around the pipe, which in turn can create an unstable condition in the roadway. So we feel like this open cutting and replacing the pipe is a much more—it gives us a higher degree of certainty of a successful rehabilitation than lining the pipe. And lining the pipe, believe it or not, with a pipe that diameter, would probably be more expensive than just open cutting in the situation we're in now. **[00:32:15] Council Member Matt Hirn:** And if it fails, is that more of an emergency type situation where then we have to act quickly? **[00:32:20] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** It would absolutely be an emergency. Obviously, not as much of a favorable bid at that point. Right now, what we're doing is we're being intentional and proactive. And when you get put into an emergency situation, you're forced to be reactive. And you're not able to do the best that you can. So, that's why we're looking at this in the way we are now. **[00:32:45] Council Member Matt Hirn:** All right. Thank you. **[00:32:46] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Stanley. With that, I'll entertain a motion. **[00:32:53] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Motion to approve resolution number 2025-046 approving the plans and specifications in ordering the advertisement for bids for the I-94 lift station and force main improvements. **[00:33:05] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Second. **[00:33:06] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** We have a motion and second discussion. Council member Dragisich. **[00:33:10] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** I'd only point out the fallacy in our argument. It's okay to pay for the storm pipe replacement from the storm water utility but not the storm pipe replacements on the street improvement projects. Seems like there's a convenience of choice, not a clear and concise direction. And I'll let it go with that. **[00:33:30] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I guess I would agree. I didn't know that they were separated that way. And certainly we can address that in the future. We are at a time now when we don't really get a choice on fixing this. It's required. So, um, I'm in favor of doing it and your point is not lost on me, Council Member Dragisich. Any other comments? Discussion? Council member Holtz. **[00:33:55] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I was just going to say thank you to staff for number one being able to fast-track this, do the due diligence on it to make sure that we are fully aware and cognizant of it because the report was thorough. Number one, because the public needs to know as well. Why is that road about to be closed for another month? They're going to be asking the questions validly. So this—there's a very thorough presentation and we need that information. It still defies belief that that force main failed as many times as it did. It defies belief. We had a thorough discussion about it last time around. We still don't know the answers and that that's the troubling part. But the fact that it's going to the 16-inch and now is, as far as we can tell, the best material now in the year 2025, that's what we have to do. I'd rather do it right the first time. Well, second time now, but this is what we do. **[00:34:50] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Better not—third time's the charm. Seriously, don't—don't. But I do appreciate staff's time on this because it needs to be done correctly. **[00:34:58] Council Member Matt Hirn:** I'll just add, you know, and thank you for answering the questions and just try to get a little bit more information and because it is—it's always one of those, "do we want to do it now? Do we want to wait?" And usually this is the situation where the opportunity presents itself and that repair is going to be needed in the near future. And um like you said, could be more of an emergency situation. Um, I think being proactive—unfortunately, it's a $400,000 proactive decision, but probably better than what it would be two, three years down the road and then more road closures and the hassle with that. So, I do appreciate the proactivity and the proactive approach and seeing that including this in the presentation tonight. **[00:35:45] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right, I'll call the question. All those in favor of resolution number 2025-046, please signify by saying I. **[00:35:55] Council Members:** I. **[00:35:56] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Those opposed, same sign. Hearing none. Motion passes. Item number 15, Inwood 8th edition Preliminary Plat PUD and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Ordinance 2025-12, Resolution 2025-048, 2025-049, and 2025-050. **[00:36:15] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** All right. Good evening, mayor, members of the council. So, we're here tonight to talk about Inwood Townhomes—or Inwood 8th edition, 8th edition of Inwood rather. Uh a preliminary plat, planned unit development (PUD), and comprehensive plan amendment have been requested by M/I Homes. So um just to talk a little bit more precisely about the planned unit development request, um this project has come forward with a request for private roads and some other flexibility requests for the townhome units that are proposed with this part of the project. Getting into the land use side of things here, uh the zoning map is up on the screen. Uh currently this entire project area is zoned high-density residential (HDR). It is shown to have a PUD overlay currently. Although I will note that as staff have gone back and reviewed all the approvals for this area, uh there are no existing PUD flexibilities or benefits that were previously granted through other approvals. So you're looking at effectively kind of like a fresh opportunity with this PUD for those flexibilities. We've also looked at the shoreland overlay, understanding there's a small amount of the project area in that city shoreland overlay and um have effectively ruled out issues with that part of the ordinance. Uh on the comprehensive plan side of things, uh this site in the city's 2030 comprehensive plan was guided for what was then called urban high density, which allowed a mix of units between a range of 7.5 and 15 units per acre. The 2040 comprehensive plan kind of split the guidance for this area into a mix of different categories including the high-density residential district, the mixed-use commercial district, and the business park district. And so this project is requesting to bring everything back to the same future land use guidance, which is now called high-density residential; uh and the density range—the ceiling of that density range—is the same as it was in the prior comp plan. Looking at the background, Inwood was, at the time it was approved, the largest PUD that the city had approved at that point. Um, it was to be built in a number of different phases. Uh initially it was approved in December of 2014. Uh there was an EAW, an environmental assessment worksheet, that was completed for the project and is still considered to be in effect. At that time, the EAW envisioned a number of different units in in the areas that weren't single-family detached. In short, it anticipated more units than are proposed now. Inwood first through fifth editions, those are the single-family parts of the project; they were approved and and have been built largely within the span of 2015 to 2017. And Inwood sixth edition was—and is—the QuickTrip site. On the screen you can see the proposed preliminary plat. You can see one lot for the proposed apartment building that's on the west side of the project and then all the individual attached townhome lots. Here's another plan view. This is the landscaping plan. It kind of shows you a little bit more of the spacing on the development. We'll talk about some of the particulars here that are being proposed as I get through the presentation. In reviewing the preliminary plat, we look at a variety of different standards as you know, starting with land use, the bulk standards like setbacks and that type of thing, landscaping, grading, storm water, wetlands, public infrastructure, and parks to name a few. Looking at the bulk standards, uh there are a couple of requirements that are shown in blue that are being requested for flexibility. This is not very uncommon with the way that this type of townhome development is being platted where you have individual lots that are surrounding the individual attached townhome units. The multi-family dwelling—the apartment building—is on a lot that is basically too small according to the city code at approximately 1,600 square feet per unit. And I would also point out that the impervious surface coverage for the attached townhome side of the project—the entire project—is about 60%, which is under the city's maximum. But on an individual basis, those units which have a small lot around them are higher, at about 84% at the top end. We have a couple of setbacks flexibilities that are requested in order to plat the development in this manner. There's also lastly here a setback to a public road, Fifth Street North; uh that's from the front of the units to the actual curb—that flexibility's being requested for. Um, but because of the orientation of those units, staff do not have concerns with that setback. The buildings will actually front all of the public streets that surround this project. Here you can see the units that are proposed are double-fronted, meaning that on—for example—on the Fifth Street North side of the project you'll have the units facing with a public face towards the public street corridor, and then internal to the development that's where you have the rear-loaded townhomes. So, this project was informed by some of the specific performance standards that are in the city's ordinance and in the design standards manual. For single-family attached townhomes, buildings need to be smaller than 10 units without a CUP, front a public street, or receive a conditional use permit. No parking is allowed in front yards and shared open spaces have to be equal to or greater than 300 square feet per unit. For apartment buildings, parking cannot be located in front yard areas and common open spaces also need to be provided for those units. Here's your design standards manual. So we look at both site and building design. Uh getting into just the attached townhomes for design, those are shown on the screen in that red box. Um, so thinking about the building placement, the project has been revised over the course of the review period starting in basically in the new year and up until now to make sure that the project most closely is able to meet the—or conform with—the city standards. So the building placement was one of those points of conversation. The buildings are now oriented towards the public street wherever it's possible. The unit types are basically those double-fronted units in order to do that. Interior to the development, the entrances of the buildings aren't on a public street because the development will have private streets. In terms of the streetscape, concrete sidewalks are available to all units, but they don't necessarily run along a public street. There is a more traditionally designed street that runs through this development that was added as part of a redesign. Um, so buildings along most of the other streets will have driveways facing the private road. In terms of landscaping, we think about preservation of the existing trees along that Fifth Street North corridor in addition to having overstory trees where we can include them in the actual internal attached townhome area. Here is one rendering of those attached townhome units. When we look at the actual building design standards for those units, we're looking at the form and the facade, the materials for the buildings. In this case, the project is showing us colors that generally are consistent with the code. But when we looked at the actual materials that are proposed, that's where we have an issue. So, the city's design standards manual is pretty specific as it relates to the actual materials that can be put on a townhome unit or any type of unit that's proposed in an HDR area. Well, I'll talk about that in more detail. Uh, the other parts of the design review for these units appear to be acceptable according to the manual. On the screen you see—this was another rendering of the attached townhome units that was provided. It's kind of tough to see on the screen, but there is a kind of a delineation in the materials. Anything that's shown in white is a fiber cement product that would be consistent with the manual. What is shaded in purple is vinyl siding. Vinyl siding is in a list of materials in the city's design standard manual that are prohibited as a primary facade material. Um, in some in some cases, cities might try to interpret their design standards to say like if it's primary, that means it's just 51%; it's got to be a majority of the facade. In this case, that's not how staff interpret the manual. Uh, we have a list of prohibited materials from being primary included as a primary material on facades, whether it's 10% or 100%. Those materials include vinyl siding. They also include unpainted galvanized metal, corrugated metal, plain unpainted or painted concrete block, or prefabricated concrete panels. So those are the types of materials that we would not really want in any amount on a primary facade. Uh so being that vinyl was included in that list, that is why staff identified this in the review and at this point have a condition of approval requiring that the vinyl be switched out with a conforming material. As to what other materials the developer has that they can incorporate, I would have to have them speak to that question and certainly they'd be happy to speak to that—they're here tonight. Looking at the apartment building, we reviewed this also for conformance. It was a little bit more straightforward. The building, streetscape, landscaping, and parking all meet. Here you see another rendering of that apartment building. When we reviewed the architectural plans, the form, facade, building materials, and other elements of the building all meet the city standards. **[00:46:55] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Was there a rendering of that from Fifth Street? **[00:46:58] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Um, they may have included it somewhere in the packet in the application materials but it will look very similar from Fifth Street. There will be no parking between the building and the road and you'll have a sidewalk and landscaping between the road and the building, but no, I don't have anything on the presentation. So, parkland dedication. Uh this development does, as you know, create a demand for parks and trails. Uh there are two nearby parks to this project, Ivywood and Stonegate. Um, there are no existing trail corridors that would require connections to be made by this development. So, the parks commission did review this earlier this year and recommended cash in lieu of parkland dedication for this project. Moving on to tree preservation/landscaping. Tree preservation is very simple—there are no trees to be removed. So there's no mitigation. In terms of landscaping, uh the overall project meets the number of plantings that are required. Um one of the things that's been a point of conversation is overstory trees along the boulevards of the public streets and private roads. Um the private roads having so many driveways on them precludes the ability to meet that 50-foot spacing of overstory trees. But because a more traditionally designed street was run through the attached townhome area, we are suggesting a requirement to have that be planted with 50-foot spacing so at least some part of that part of the development can meet. Uh another thing I want to mention is buffering. So, when we reviewed this site, we noticed that the Bremer Financial site to the south doesn't have any screening or landscaping of any kind. There is a power line easement area that runs through that part of the city. So, it's natural that there may not be trees there, but um being that there's a large parking lot, it felt like maybe there should be some screening. And so the developer actually did go back to the drawing board in their resubmittal and provide screening in the new plans. Parking and circulation. So uh this site has, in short, enough parking with the uses that are proposed. The visitor parking for the townhomes is a common question—that is provided in the driveways for those units and there is on-street parking in the private drives throughout the townhome area. Uh a note on access and circulation. There are existing access points along Fifth Street North and Island Trail—no, just Fifth Street North, sorry. That's being used by this development. Island Trail will receive an approved access location by the engineering review. There will be turn lanes required along that corridor. And lastly, staff are recommending pedestrian connections—the southeast and southwest parts of the attached townhome part of this development lack a little bit of connectivity to the surrounding sidewalk network. A lot of review comments here. City's fire department, engineer, landscape architect all reviewed and provided comment memos. Um the watershed district also did provide comments. Um because this is a comp plan amendment, we circulated it to all affected and adjacent jurisdictions and got all the appropriate comment memos. Basically, there's no comment from any adjacent jurisdiction. This slide summarizes the flexibilities that are being requested by the developer for the project. We can get into this in more detail if you'd like. Um I've mentioned all these throughout the presentation. I also mentioned staff's design concerns, but they're summarized here. So, number one—actually, I didn't mention this one—parallel parking is suggested where on the plans it was shown to have 90-degree parking in the attached townhomes. There are a few areas in the attached townhome part of the development where the angled parking doesn't work very well. So, that can get fixed and I think the developer is working on that. I've mentioned the other two pieces here: connectivity and building materials. So, the council's options this evening: approval, approval with conditions, and denial. Um because of the long review timeline associated with the resubmittal, we're at the very end of our review period. Uh the statutory deadline for 120 days ended on June 14th. However, the developer did extend the review period through this evening in order to be able to get a decision from the council. At this point in time, staff are comfortable with recommending approval to you with conditions. There are 15 conditions that are proposed. Most of them are pretty standard. Um some of the unique conditions are things that I've already discussed: parking, sidewalk connectivity, vinyl siding, and landscaping. The planning commission had a public hearing on April 14th. Generally speaking, the public had a number of comments; a lot of them related to traffic, frankly, along Fifth Avenue in particular—vehicle speeds, those types of things. There was also a conversation about where people can cross to get to the parks nearby. And there's also comments on the storm water reuse system that I believe was retroactively added to the Inwood project to the north. Ultimately, the planning commission recommended approval 5-0 of the comprehensive plan amendment and 4-1 of the preliminary plat and PUD. So, I do have some example motions for you up on the screen. These would of course approve the project as proposed with conditions. Resolutions are in the staff report if you need the number. I would also mention that the applicant is here this evening and did have a presentation for you that they'd like to talk about. So with that, I'm happy to stand for questions. **[00:53:10] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Questions for Nathan? First, Council Member Holtz. **[00:53:13] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** A lot of information. Uh let's just start with irrigation. So the plan mentions that it's not proposed at this time to utilize storm water reuse. Obviously, there is already in place to the north. Why? That I presume also means there's no plan to use storm water reuse that's developed on the southern site. **[00:53:35] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Yeah. So that's a good question and something that staff did raise through the review process. Um as you probably know, there's the regional ponding for this site. The storm water pond is located just west of this subject property. Um I—we've mentioned that to the developer and I think that'd be a great question for them as to whether they have plans to incorporate that. **[00:54:00] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Fantastic. What are your thoughts then—because I agree with the concerns that were raised regarding—I'm going to stop there because that's a comment. What are your thoughts then on getting people across Fifth Street to access parks because there are no stoplights in those locations? There are no traffic signals along Fifth Street at either of those two intersections. And obviously, we have our new crosswalk policy, but what are our thoughts as to improvements? **[00:54:30] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Yeah, this is the part where I get over my skis and have to look at the engineering folks. But I think I'd just start by saying I know that Fifth Street North is intended to be a higher traffic volume corridor. So I think to some degree that needs to be kind of understood. Um to that effect, I know that the city has a crosswalk policy and don't really know exactly how that might impact this particular area. So I don't know if the City Engineer has any comments. **[00:54:58] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Uh mayor and council, I would actually have to review the policy. I haven't had a chance yet being kind of new to the role, um and come back to you with some sort of recommendations or ideas. **[00:55:10] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** I would—I would also add that because the road is curved in some areas, it would have to be something that's thought through, like a thoughtful suggestion to where crossing should go. **[00:55:23] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Absolutely. Because obviously by the QuickTrip you have the curve on the eastern side; of this you're just coming up from a 90-degree curve. Obviously, the most gentle one is going to be on the western side, but it is something that will have to be addressed. And presumably when the time comes, it likely is going to qualify for a crosswalk based upon the numbers that we have, but we would still have to have a study done to show the number of people. But the problem is I don't want to have to have a study in this case showing 800 kids cross Fifth Street with no crosswalk, therefore we need a crosswalk. I don't want to be at the point where we're saying that's after the fact because we know what's going to happen. I'd rather be a bit more proactive on this one. But that would be my two cents. I'll reserve questions for after others. **[00:56:15] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Could we—could we add a conditional approval for the crosswalk based on the study? Could that be a conditional approval? You know, the council discussed it. Is that something that could be added as a condition? So, I know the study has to be done, but we have that laid out—what the parameters are—and then if it shows that a crosswalk needs to go in based on our policy, that has to happen. **[00:56:45] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Yeah. I don't see why it necessarily couldn't be added. The question that I would have, I suppose, is what is the type of crosswalk that's installed and what is the cost so that we just understand what we're requiring. Um, but beyond that, I don't know if there would be any concern with adding a condition like that because the hard part is when it got installed this past two times, it was based upon a study of activity that is already occurring. Right now, there's no people living on the south side. So, yeah, you'd be studying nothing. **[00:57:15] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Well, that's why you do a traffic study. Yes, it'd be hypothetical—a hypothetical on the number of vehicles, number of people. **[00:57:22] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** There was—there was a—I'll call it like an amended traffic study that was resubmitted with this project that basically stated that the traffic volumes that would be generated by this project were at or below what was initially projected for Inwood. But beyond that, I can't speak to the study. **[00:57:45] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Okay. Couple clarifying questions here. So then with the tree situation—just make sure I'm understanding that correctly. They have quantity-wise, based on the acreage, enough trees, but the concern is they're not meeting the one tree per 50 feet on the Boulevard. Staff is recommending that they do stick with that? **[00:58:05] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Yeah, I think we've gotten to a point where staff's pretty comfortable with the landscaping that's proposed. Um there is—and there are enough trees to satisfy the city's requirements, but to your point, the private drives are difficult to meet the 50-foot spacing requirement with these attached townhomes because you've got six units that have 20 or so foot driveways each with 5-foot spacing between. And so that's a pretty wide swath of the private drive that you can't plant a tree. They do have trees interspersed between the buildings where they can. Um, in addition to that, staff are thinking that they very well could provide some type of landscaping that's not necessarily a tree planting between the driveways. So, they did revise the plans and include a more traditionally designed street—we'll call it—through the development that can and will through these conditions have 50-foot spacing for those boulevard trees. So you'll at least have one boulevard that kind of runs through the spine of the attached townhome area that meets. **[00:59:15] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Okay. And then on the buffering and screening—so like on page seven it talks about the—make sure I'm saying this right. Maybe it's not even there. My computer's going slow. There was the change, it sounds like, from when this was presented to the planning commission to here where the garage door location has changed from the front to the back. **[00:59:40] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Yeah, that's a good question. So, to just clarify, the city received an initial application in February that was complete. We processed that at the first planning commission we had in the April meeting. At that time we had identified some issues with the design, which included the lack of buffer and there were also units that kind of backed up against the Bremer use. And the plans were then revised and resubmitted. We looked at them with the planning commission again in May and that's where we had—now this switch—the garage doors for the units. Maybe you can see the cursor on the screen if I move it around. Okay, maybe. The street—the private drive that runs on the south of the attached townhome site—that now has units that have their garages pointed towards the Bremer lot. Which is so that street "C" that you're talking about—this street "D" at the bottom—if you can kind of see. So that's where those garage doors open up towards Bremer and it just—the site's not oriented towards Bremer anymore. So it helps I think to buffer those two uses. **[01:00:55] Council Member Matt Hirn:** And then so then my next question is about the private drives. Um which on there I'm assuming that's like Street A, B, C, D, E. I guess if you could just help me understand that a little bit. I guess what is the implications of that? How does that—like with the sidewalk policy, with snow removal, with tax levies in the future for reconstruction—you know any repairs? How does that work? Are the residents of this property paying 100% of that levy then? How does that work? **[01:01:30] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** That's a great question. So yeah, private drives are actually permitted through a conditional use permit in the city's ordinance. This project came in with a PUD and so we would simply permit private drives through that tool instead of requiring a separate approval. Um the implication of private drives is: number one, this project will have an HOA that manages the entire property. So all snow removal, landscaping—all of that—is handled by that entity. Um the HOA is also responsible for the long-term maintenance costs of all the infrastructure on the site. **[01:02:08] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Do we have any other neighborhoods that or developments that have utilized that? **[01:02:13] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Yeah, there are a handful. Um I can't name them unfortunately off the top of my head, but I do know that there are a few that are existing in the community. **[01:02:22] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Any issues that have arisen from that that you're aware of? **[01:02:27] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** I don't know. I think you know with private drives the issue can sometimes be in the long long term when things begin to fail and I'm not sure we're there yet with any of our developments. **[01:02:38] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Cimarron has all private drives. **[01:02:40] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Cimarron has all private drives. It's working out well. Council member Holtz. **[01:02:45] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** In terms of sewer and water—so utilities with private roads—where are the utilities going? **[01:02:52] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** So, we have public utilities that run through the site under the private drive. There will be easements for the city to have those utilities running through the site. **[01:03:00] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** And they're going under the road, not necessarily maybe sidewalk curb? **[01:03:05] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** No, it's under the roads. And so the City Engineer had the developer submit a cross-section of the private roads with the application to better understand—do we have enough space, right? Because we need a wide enough easement to ensure that we can maintain these utilities, get in and fix them if we need to. At this point, I believe we're satisfied with what we have in terms of the width of those easement corridors. **[01:03:32] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** In the hypothetical where a repair has to occur because it's not our street—but we have an easement—who pays for the street repair when a digging has to occur? **[01:03:45] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** That one I'm going to have to look at. That actually hasn't been a point of discussion. **[01:03:52] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Um, just as you started speaking, I started—I knew you were going that direction. I didn't know I was going that direction. I'm glad you did. **[01:04:00] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Yeah, I think we're on the same wavelength then. Um, but that's a point of discussion. I honestly um—here's the way it works when when we are in county right-of-way where they're by permit, that's a little different. Um so if like you know we need to excavate something, we get into county road, we have to repair the county road or pay to repair it. Um but in an instance where we are there by easements um and there's an improvement on top of it, I'm not exactly sure. That might be something that still needs to get worked out. **[01:04:40] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Any experience? **[01:04:42] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Uh, typically, um, I've only dealt from the public side repairing it and if if it's a private road, I haven't had that experience. **[01:04:50] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** If you—I have not on private road but generally when you even across private property if you have to excavate to repair you—you're responsible for restoring a property. I know that utilities generally if they—let's say it's Excel buried or something like that and they're crossing a city street—Excel is responsible for repairing that right? So is it— **[01:05:12] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** My only—and that's logical, that's kind of what I would have presumed. My concern 25 years from now is what if they as an HOA have not properly maintained the streets? We're digging it up to repair sewer all of a sudden are we responsible for bringing it back to where it was or for actually we're kind of fixing that section too and so that there could be a cost difference down the road again 25 years from now. **[01:05:38] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** But that's something that would be addressed in a developers agreement. **[01:05:41] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Yeah, I—that would be subject to the agreement when they grant the easement. We would have to dictate who is responsible for repairing and to what extent. **[01:05:52] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Usually repair to the condition it exists when you tear it up. Tear it up. Yeah. Have—have you run into this before, council? Uh, Mr. Mayor or members of the council? **[01:06:05] Nicole Miller (City Administrator):** I have run into it. I mean, usually it is that we restore it to the condition that it was in, but we could craft the easement so that it makes it clear that they're going to be responsible for restoring it. **[01:06:17] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Uh, yeah. I think if it's our utility that fails, I'm okay with that. But that we repair it to what it is in kind. Yeah. Right. We're not there to fix their streets above and beyond what it was at the time the repair was made. Yes. **[01:06:33] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Could you just also point out there—I was having a little trouble with the the sidewalk um where that's going to be located on. **[01:06:40] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Sure. So, the the one area where it seems like there's a lack of connectivity is again on the attached townhome side of this project on the southeast and southwest corners. See if I can get the cursor to show up on the screen. Having a hard time with that. **[01:06:55] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Is that sections like uh what are they labeled, one and two there? **[01:06:58] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Yeah. If you look at uh where—so street "D" is that street that runs along the south side of the project. Where that street on the west side of street "D" where that curves to the north, um I—it looks like there wants to be or should be a pedestrian crossing there. There is a sidewalk that terminates on the, I'll call it the east side of street "D" where it curves to the north in that location and it kind of dead-ends. And so getting folks over to the Island Trail corridor is kind of what what I'm thinking. **[01:07:35] Council Member Matt Hirn:** And in order to walk south at this point the way it's designed, they have to go north. **[01:07:40] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** They have to go around a block—basically around the block to stay on the sidewalk. **[01:07:44] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Is it this—is it the dashed line? **[01:07:48] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Depends on what dashed line you're—sorry. **[01:07:51] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Yeah, if you hit "Escape," you should be able to make it smaller then we'll be able to see the mouse. **[01:07:56] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Okay, that's a great—that's—oh, there we go. Okay. So, where the cursor is right now, there is—there appears to me to be kind of a lack of of continuity from the sidewalk that ends about here. And so just punching it through here, getting it over to this Island Trail corridor so that people can go south or north more easily. Because you—you have a fair amount of people that live along this street. **[01:08:25] Council Member Matt Hirn:** There's the dotted line I was thinking about. **[01:08:28] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Per—you have great vision then. Thanks. Um on the on the east side of the project, it's kind of the same story. I you know you have a good sidewalk connectivity that goes up to about this location along the Fifth Street North corridor, but how about getting some—getting folks kind of more directly straight to the east to connect to that existing sidewalk. **[01:08:52] Council Member Matt Hirn:** And with Fifth Street, is there already a sidewalk or trail on Fifth Street? **[01:08:58] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** There is. It is on the south side. Okay. North and south. So, this would connect right in north and south. Yeah. It would connect right into an existing network. **[01:09:10] Council Member Matt Hirn:** And then with the the crosswalk discussion, um obviously the on Fifth Street there, I mean, is there a preference too for—I guess that comes back to the study maybe. **[01:09:22] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Yeah, here's maybe a—here in this image you can see that part of the area. That's—this is an existing aerial and you can see kind of—that's a pretty tight turn or curve. I'm without more review not quite sure where you'd want to locate a crossing here. **[01:09:40] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** So other than Island Lake intersections is what I was— **[01:09:42] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Yeah. Yeah. Island Lake is the one where you have the most visibility both west and north. I don't think you want to cut across the median in the mid—mid-curve. That does not seem very safe. No. Um, so yeah, just this is just more of a connectivity question for me and I think just making sure that it's easy for people to get out in whoever—whatever destination they want to get to in the community. **[01:10:10] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Any further questions? Developer here? Did the applicant want to say something, present something? **[01:10:18] Emily Becker (M/I Homes):** Thank you, Mayor and Council. Thank you for your consideration of this project. My name is Emily Becker. I'm with M/I Homes. Um, so, as Nathan alluded to, there has been a number of changes that we've made since the last planning commission meeting that we first presented at. And before that um we have been working with staff since about July 1st of last year going through a number of renditions with the project. So this is the first plan that we had presented at at the April planning commission meeting. With the revised submittal as Nathan had talked about, one of the biggest changes is we have a 28-foot wide street going through the center of the development, which as we reluctantly like to admit is a better design. So we do thank staff for that. That will allow the entrance to showcase the front of the buildings as opposed to a sea of driveways and garages. Um we removed the stub streets. We, as Nathan had mentioned, we replaced all the front-loaded carriage product with our City Collection, which is a rear-loaded product. Um so they're all going to be that City Collection. We added a number of landscape features, one that's within the center of the development. And then at the northwest corner of the townhome lot, um we are going to try our best to mimic the entrance landscaping that's within the single-family portion of the development just to allow for a nice entrance. Um we did align the access points on the east and west of Island Trail and we will add turn lanes. This is just to show how the landscaping currently looks within the single-family portion of the Inwood development. As Nathan had mentioned, there were concerns from the planning commission about traffic. Uh just to reiterate, Island Trail was designed and constructed as a minor collector street designed to handle the multi-family portion of the whole entire comprehensive plan of this community. And also, as Nathan had mentioned, we did have a traffic engineer do an analysis of the 2014 traffic study that was completed and compare it to today's numbers and how it would look like with the proposed numbers of the development. And as you can see, it's significantly lower than what was anticipated in 2014, ranges in 9 to 42% lower than what was anticipated with that study. This again just sums up—it's saying that the numbers are lower than what was anticipated. It's well within Washington County's planning level and most of the traffic is going to come from the south from I-94 in retail and the west I-94 in retail. Another point that Nathan had brought up—um we do have some respectfully differences and opinions on the interpretation of the lake standards and guidelines. Um staff believes that vinyl siding is prohibited, but it does state that it's prohibited as a "primary facade material." So we are absolutely willing to make a compromise and we would utilize Hardy where the board and batten is shown. So in this depiction, it would be where the white is. The Hardy would be where the white is and the vinyl would be where that periwinkle purple color is shown. Um, so that's going to account for about 33% of the front and about 37% of the rear and 42% of the entire product. So there's a couple reasons for this that we're pushing to allow vinyl at least on a portion of the building. One is maintenance. So with—with Hardy siding, it does require to be caulked and painted in order to prevent moisture, which of course causes damage, which then in turn adds cost to the HOA, and obviously it adds cost to the units. Um which is going to be obviously passed down to potential residents. Um it's about $7,000 more a unit to cover the entire building with Hardy, which I know it's kind of not great for a developer to be talking about cost, but at the same time, it is something that we know within the market that buyers don't see value in it. So, they're going to be paying $7,000 essentially for nothing that they see value in. Um, and then there was a question about storm water reuse with the irrigation—did want to address that. So, um we did hear staff and we understand, you know, the importance of storm water reuse. Um with the whole comprehensive plan of Inwood, we do have storm water reuse. We did install it with the single-family portion of the development. Um I think it took a number of years for us to kind of figure out with City staff on how that could get approved. It—it wasn't utilized for a number of years. I think it's utilized now, but that was after we left as a declarant. Um and then additionally, those outlots were platted not considering storm water reuse at that time. So, I don't even—I don't think that there's even capacity. The townhomes don't drain to that outlet that's to the west of the apartment site. Um so essentially I just don't think that there's going to be capacity or even a possibility at this time um to utilize storm water reuse. So I think that was all of the questions that were for me. So if you have any further questions, I would be happy to answer them. **[01:16:30] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Welcome back to Lake Elmo. Where do these parcels drain to for watershed? **[01:16:35] Emily Becker (M/I Homes):** Um, I believe it's north of Fifth Street to that uh to ponding near the park, I believe. **[01:16:42] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** So, there's culverts going under Fifth to get there? **[01:16:45] Emily Becker (M/I Homes):** I'm not sure. I would have to verify that, but I know it does. The townhome—the east portion of Island Trail—does not drain to that outlot that's to the west of Island Trail. **[01:16:56] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** And the outlot to the west is owned by the city? **[01:16:59] Emily Becker (M/I Homes):** Correct. Which we deeded to the city at the time of the master plan. I guess I can't recall a time when we had a preliminary plat where there wasn't any ponding at all on the site. **[01:17:15] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Um other question would have been: so there's a couple I wouldn't call them large green open spaces, but I know there's the power lines on the south. I assume that means literally both those two parcels like they're .4 acres and .5 acres—no use is allowed whatsoever on those, correct? But on the apartment site, like there's a little bit of green space on the northwest side of it, and within your proposed design there's a couple green spaces along the main corridor. Is there any plan for any type of activity? **[01:17:48] Emily Becker (M/I Homes):** Um, I believe—I mean there's obviously that landscape feature that's within the townhome site that's to the east of Island Trail. Um we could certainly add benches. Um I—I'm not sure what other sort of activities we would add to the apartment site. I mean off the top of my head, I mean basketball courts are not significantly large. Um I mean obviously playgrounds are large, but I would just be curious like what are some of the small features that can be done in isolated areas? Just because it is going to be—if it's approved—it's a significant challenge to get people across Fifth. And they're going to, whether there's a crosswalk or not. Kids don't—if they're my kids, they're not going to listen anyway. But we have a responsibility to make sure that those safety components are in place, but they're still going to go there. So any and all opportunities to add assets and features on the south side of Fifth is advantageous and helps for their safety. **[01:18:50] Emily Becker (M/I Homes):** Yeah. I mean, we'd definitely be willing to work with staff to add small recreational features within that open space. **[01:18:58] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Thank you. **[01:18:59] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Thank you. **[01:19:00] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Yeah, thanks for the presentation. Um can you just maybe talk a little bit from the developer standpoint on um you know obviously the the western portion zoned for the mixed-use commercial, why the desire to move away from that to to switch that to HDR? Um maybe we could start there and a couple other questions kind of around that point as well. **[01:19:20] Emily Becker (M/I Homes):** Yeah. So I was actually working with the city at the time of the comprehensive plan amendment that changed that from HDR to mixed-use commercial. Um I think originally the thought process was with with mixed-use commercial that there could be some more flexibility in uses of that particular parcel. However, since that time, the Metropolitan Council changed their—I don't know if you would say interpretation or I don't—guidelines. I'm not really sure, but that you can't mix across differently... a new S-T-E designation's density. Prior to that—prior to a couple years ago—at the time of adoption of that comprehensive plan, you could mix densities across parcels. **[01:20:15] Council Member Matt Hirn:** So, so it was more to do with the the Met Council's interpretation versus it was originally the thought—again, that process when when that was amended was just to provide more flexibility on use of that particular parcel. Um it wasn't for really anything else. **[01:20:30] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Okay. Is staff—anything on that you can add on? **[01:20:35] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Yeah, I would add that that's correct. So the Met Council does not allow for density to blend unless you're in the same future land use category. So the apartment side of this project is a little heavy density-wise. It might be over 15 units per acre. The townhome side is a little bit lighter. They balance out, but in order to blend them, you have to have the same future land use category. So that's part of the reason why staff is comfortable with the the future land use amendment that's proposed. **[01:21:05] Council Member Matt Hirn:** So it would be more for being able to increase the density on that western portion versus there was no demand for commercial units or— **[01:21:14] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Yeah, I think to be fair, the city in 2014 approved the Inwood PUD and vision, and knowing then what we know now about the Met Council's guidelines and rules as one, we would have—it would have been wise to keep it as one because we we would know that you know this is this mix of uses is coming forward as is expected based on the plan that was approved. So, we probably would have guided it in that way to begin with had we known. **[01:21:45] Council Member Matt Hirn:** That makes sense. Um, sorry, if I keep going. Um so, maybe—I know we had the discussion about the private versus the public roads. Again, from a developer standpoint, if you could talk us through why you'd prefer to go that direction versus having it be city-owned. **[01:22:05] Emily Becker (M/I Homes):** Yeah, there's a number of reasons for that. So, I mean, first and foremost, I'm going to be honest. It does provide a little bit more flexibility in setbacks. That was the number one reason. However, there are also added benefits to that. First of all, from an HOA standpoint—yes, do—does the HOA have to pay for plowing? Yes. But they also get plowed probably quicker than what a public street would. So, there's that added benefit. Also, we are willing to haul out snow as opposed to just, you know, shove it anywhere we can find it. It just allows for better services. Um, and yeah, I think that those are—those are the main reasons. **[01:22:50] Council Member Matt Hirn:** And how does that—I mean, as far as like, you know, early on when the units are still, you know, you're not at full capacity, how is that covered? And the reason I bring this up is a lot of the HOAs and developments, we—there's been a lot of issues brought up before the HOA is turned over to the residents. And there's a lot of issues of the the things that they were promised getting done. **[01:23:15] Emily Becker (M/I Homes):** And that's usually the situation is early on. It's set up. It's obviously anticipated in this many number of years that the street's going to need to be replaced or there's going to need to be certain improvements. And that's all um anticipated within the budget. And then we set up the assessments or dues based on that. And then when it's first getting started, we as a developer have to pay those shortfalls to account for the plowing, maintenance. **[01:23:43] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Correct. Okay. Yes. All right. Um do I have to keep going? **[01:23:50] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Yeah. **[01:23:51] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Okay. Um and then if you could just talk with the variances that are being requested. Um talk us through a little bit as far as like why those are needed. Um from the PUD, you know, the PUD is intended to be—it's not intended for just increasing density. And so with those variances, they're increasing density. Um so if you can talk me through, help me understand better why those variances are needed versus decreasing the the density. **[01:24:20] Emily Becker (M/I Homes):** Yeah. Well, I'll start with the private streets, of course. So, that I already have spoken to. Um the setback along Fifth Street—you know, one of the guidelines within the the city's guidelines and standards is that they want buildings as close to the public street as possible to create, you know, a better neighborhood. Um so, that flexibility is—is we're looking for... the tree spacing—I mean, as Nathan kind of alluded to, some of that is not able to be met because of utilities. Um there is a little nuance within the code that does allow for clustered areas of those trees in the case that that spacing is not able to be met. Um I think—I mean I think that those were the main—I'm sorry. **[01:25:05] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Did you hit—you did—did you mention the minimum lot size for the multi-family apartment buildings? Was that— **[01:25:11] Emily Becker (M/I Homes):** Yeah, I mean one of the—it was already platted that way and I don't—I don't even know if those standards were in place at the time. It was platted as an apartment building. In fact, it's actually less than what was anticipated with the original development. **[01:25:25] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Okay. Thank you. **[01:25:26] Emily Becker (M/I Homes):** Thank you. **[01:25:28] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Nathan, so regarding vinyl and materials—and I'm—I'm hearing a bit of a difference of opinion here—but in our conditions of approval and moving forward, it seems like we're still saying there's no vinyl. **[01:25:40] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** That's correct. Uh staff are proposing a condition of approval that would require the developer to revise their plans and remove vinyl as a facade material in exchange for getting a PUD. Correct. **[01:25:55] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Okay. Anything else? **[01:26:00] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Not as a question. All right. Then I'll entertain a motion. **[01:26:05] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Move to adopt resolution 2025-048 approving the comprehensive plan amendment request by M/I Homes for the subject property with the findings and conditions herein. **[01:26:18] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Second. **[01:26:19] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Discussion. Council member Holtz. **[01:26:22] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** In terms of the comp plan amendment, I mean it to me this is logical. It's not about approving a development yet or not, but the argument is pretty straightforward. I I guess it makes sense that if at the time in 2014 we knew then what we know now... so I I get that, makes sense. I don't have an issue for the comp plan amendment per se. **[01:26:45] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Was this the same site when we were on planning commission that came with like a four-story apartment building? **[01:26:50] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** No, that was a different location. I didn't even live in the city yet at that time. This is 2014. **[01:26:55] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** No, no, but there was something—there was a council member that was not a fan of what was being proposed. I thought that was across the street. Was it? Are you remembering the same thing? You may remember better than me though. Am I remembering it correctly, council? **[01:27:10] Nicole Miller (City Administrator):** Mr. Mayor, I do remember there being an apartment building proposed sometime after 2014. Yeah. And and people were upset about it. I think it was due to the size—the size. I think it was four-story or something larger. **[01:27:24] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** I must have been gone that meeting. I literally have no memory of that. **[01:27:28] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Just—just to clarify. As far as for the comprehensive plan, kind of like Council Member Holtz mentioned there, um I'm fine with that. I—I was I guess um I know we've had this discussion a lot about, you know, bringing in more commercial is obviously nice for the city. So it would have been nice to see that. Um but that's good, you know, clarity as far as when this was originally put together, why that was, and um how the Met Council's interpretation of that um could make it challenging. So I—I have no issue proving the comprehensive plan um amendment here. **[01:28:05] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right. Well, I'm going to call the question on the comprehensive plan resolution. All those in favor to adopt resolution 2025-048 approving the comprehensive plan amendment request by M/I Homes for the subject property with findings and conditions therein. Please signify by saying I. **[01:28:20] Council Members:** I. **[01:28:21] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Resolution 2025-048 is approved. Anybody want to make a motion on the preliminary plat? **[01:28:28] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Move to adopt resolution 2025-049 approving the preliminary plat and PUD for the Inwood Town Home Development requested by M/I Homes with the findings and conditions therein. **[01:28:40] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Second. **[01:28:41] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Discussion. Council member Hirn. **[01:28:43] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Yeah, I—I have concerns with this. I just—I can't—I don't see myself voting for it and I think I've been pretty consistent with this in any development where if the density is above the minimum limit and variances are being requested. I just—I can't put those two together. I—I feel like— **[01:29:05] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** The above the maximum limit or minimum? **[01:29:10] Council Member Matt Hirn:** So we've had like one situation where without variances they wouldn't have been able to achieve the minimum density, right? **[01:29:17] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Right. **[01:29:18] Council Member Matt Hirn:** In this situation, they're sitting above the minimum density, so they have room to—to decrease it. Okay. So, I'd rather see the density decreased, not have to ask for variances. Um, got it. I, you know, again, PUD is not intended to increase density. Um, and it—I guess it's hard for me to—to look at these variance requests and not see it as for that. Um, you know, I think there's some great points as far as like, you know, some changes that were made to make the design better. I think those things could be maintained as the density is decreased. Um, so I—that's just where I stand. I've been pretty consistent with that where um if there's room for the density to decrease, I—I just—I can't—I can't vote for a variance. **[01:30:10] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Clarifying question. So this net density is 14.06? **[01:30:15] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** 14.06. **[01:30:16] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** And with the comp plan amendment, it's 8 to 15 range? **[01:30:20] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Correct. **[01:30:21] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So it's within the range. And and so I'm saying they should drop the density and not ask for a variance. So which variance got—can I just clarify really quick? **[01:30:30] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** So yeah, the density range would be between 8 and 15 units per acre. Um, and the one standard that I think you're potentially considering with the flexibility is for the multi-family dwelling; that lot area is required to be 1,800 square feet per unit and as currently proposed it's at 1,600 square feet per unit. **[01:30:52] Council Member Matt Hirn:** So yeah, I mean for the impervious cover as well, the setbacks, I just don't think we should be giving variances if the density could be decreased to potentially—and and maybe it—maybe it can't, but I don't think that's been shown to us that these have to be um implemented to make it work for the design of the layout of the land. Um I—again my thought is, okay, well you could increase the square foot per unit by having less units and just make them bigger. Right. So do that before you ask for a variance. **[01:31:30] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** What do you think about the impervious cover being 84% per lot but meeting the requirement overall? **[01:31:38] Council Member Matt Hirn:** I would go back to—I mean it's in our code. **[01:31:41] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So would you go per lot or would you say the whole development's 60%, which is— **[01:31:46] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Well, if it's in our code that it has to be 75% per lot, then it should be 75% per lot. **[01:31:52] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** And I'm assuming that's why it's highlighted in blue is—yeah, these are challenging um variances to or flexibilities to discuss because um the flexibilities—the need for those arises from the shape of the lot that surrounds each individual unit. And so when the applicant is requesting a setback variance, for example, or flexibility, it's from the the side of the building, front, side, or rear, to the immediately adjacent property boundary. So in other words, if this were platted in a different manner, the applicant could increase the size of the lots surrounding the units with not a huge functional change to the rest of the development and still meet some of those standards. But they're proposing to plat it in this way because they want each individual unit to be owner-occupied but the common areas to be owned and maintained by an HOA. So there's some logic, in at least my mind, to staff, to the setback variances for the attached townhome units where I um you know think the discussion is definitely fair for the council is um potentially to the impervious—although the overall development meets that—but then I think the discussion about density may land on that multi-family standard that I'm— **[01:33:15] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** So sorry, could you—so the the thought that you were saying there is if you increase the footprint of the building, there's going to be less shared green space? **[01:33:28] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Well, if—yeah. So, if the lot—so the boundaries of the lots... you know, they're owner-occupied. So, when you when I buy a townhome, it's—I get the, you know, just the small area perimeter around the unit, but then the rest of the area is open space. Um, that's pretty common for townhome plats. And if the developer wanted to like meet the strict letter of the law for setbacks, for example—a front yard setback is 20 feet—they would just push the lot boundary out. Now, that would create some issues for how this development is platted and they may have to go back to the drawing board if they were going to try and do it that way because we've got concerns with, you know, dry utility corridors and other utilities and things of that nature. So you couldn't just do that everywhere, but that's why staff have been comfortable at least to this point in recommending those flexibilities. **[01:34:25] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** So in that hypothetical—because one of the requirements is 300 square feet of green space per unit—correct—does that start to be—when does that start to become an issue if you—again—because it's you know 150-200 square foot less for those units than the standard? I mean, where are they at right now for the amount of green space per unit? **[01:34:50] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** So, the PUD minimum standards require at least 20% open space for the entire project and that more than meets the 300 square feet for a townhome unit and 200 square feet for an apartment unit. So, in other words, they're they're way over what they would have to do as a minimum. **[01:35:10] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I suppose on the flip side if you start reducing the green space you have less of an opportunity for a couple of outdoor activity spaces. I mean, was there ever any discussion—because to your point there are a couple variances, and on my end for consistency, we have in the past looked at the total percentage throughout the site and honestly maybe this is something that we need to look at from our policy standpoint how we set this up because we have multiple times said it's not based upon per lot, it's based upon the entire area. So, unless there's another reason why we have to... **[01:35:50] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Were there ever discussions of—it might actually be two apartment buildings and then fewer owner-occupied townhomes? **[01:36:00] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Um, as in all of the kind of concept plans and sort of more informal, I'll call it informal review that happened preceding this project, uh it's primarily just been the one apartment building and the townhomes. And just going back to how Inwood was initially envisioned—of course, nothing was ever approved or set in stone—but, you know, at every point along the way, that seems to have been kind of the thinking and how this would go because in that hypothetical, again, it's not that it's right or wrong. If you did that and you had more density in your apartments, then your owner-occupied ones could be larger footprint for the building and it might be potentially a larger parcel as well because you're shifting more of that population for your 10—your up to 15 units per acre—more than those. **[01:36:55] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Emily, would you like to answer that question? **[01:37:00] Emily Becker (M/I Homes):** Yeah. So, unfortunately, I don't have the slide up, but um with the preliminary plat that was approved with the master plan for Inwood, um there were certain impervious surfaces that were allotted throughout the entire development. This was presented at the April 14th planning commission meeting, but it did show that we're well within the allowed impervious surface that was granted with the master plan of Inwood. Um so, I think it's just an interpretation thing. If you're looking at an individual townhome lot, that's going to be a lot different than if you're looking at a single-family lot, right? **[01:37:45] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Yeah. Okay. Um and just you know I guess I didn't bring this up, I was more focused on the variances, but I guess the other big concern of mine is obviously the no storm water um reuse for irrigation. I know you know previously we had kind of used the premature development is—is kind of a concern of why we we can't move forward with development because of the water quantity, and as a result of that I'd say the water quality issues, especially with irrigation during the summer causing us to have to mix wells. Um you know I guess I see this again—that this would be—if there's not—especially if there's not going to be storm water ponding used for irrigation—as premature development. I mean, that is we know that is the biggest use of our water during the summer. Um that's a big reason that we have to mix wells during the summer and again obviously it's still within the MPCA's um limit where it's it's safe to drink. Um but it raises concern with residents and so I think—you know I know we've kind of moved past that premature development—but I feel like this is the first development that's been brought to us where the openness to use storm water reuse for irrigation has not even been considered. Um so I just think that's another, you know, I guess another reason for me. I think that changes need to be made to this plan. **[01:39:10] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** When we talk about per capita use, right, and we're striving to go 75 gallons per day per capita, I think that on average when we look at townhome units when we get a per capita because of the decreased irrigation needs because of the density and the less pervious surface—I think we're talking—and somebody can call me on it—but I thought we were talking in the order of 35 to 40 gallons per capita in a townhome unit versus what it can reach in a single-family home. So to that extent, on the water use, when you regard that—I believe that in my opinion the townhome model helps out the city on an overall basis with the usage of water per capita, right? So that—that guess that's the way—the lens—that I look at when I see these different medium-density, high-density coming in versus large family lots and water reuse being used in those locations. That's just—that's just my— **[01:40:10] Council Member Matt Hirn:** No, I think that's—I think that's fair. I think that's a—it's a good point. Um again, I just go back to—right, there is there is room for them to decrease their density. Um you know, that could be—a storm water pond could be put in in place of one of the units. Um and I so I just I feel like I think there could be some compromise there. Um where we're taking away a little bit of the density for some of these features, you know, still as like a PUD, you know, we're looking for things that are going to go above and beyond, provide increased value. Um and again, I think that's been a big one for us with the water situation that we're in. Um so if they put in a storm water pump by taking one unit out, it wouldn't have capacity to be used for reuse for irrigation? **[01:41:00] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Correct, it would have to be more than that. **[01:41:05] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** And in my experience, yeah, these this type uses less water. Um absent the irrigation requirement, generally units use about 20% less water than a single-family residential because they don't have car washes and gardens and things like that, but I don't know about the on the irrigation side—I'm not—don't—don't recall what you know what that decrease would be since lots are smaller. **[01:41:35] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Yeah, sure. Okay. Any other discussion? **[01:41:38] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Clarifying question then for Nathan: it what's being irrigated at the site besides the common spaces? I mean, there's—are the yards—the yards between the street and the homes being irrigated or is it really the common spaces? **[01:41:55] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** So, I think I—I'd have to have the applicant to speak to that, but you see a fair amount of open areas in the attached townhome part of the development. I would assume that some of those green spaces get irrigated by an irrigation system. **[01:42:15] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I mean, I hate talking about how we can save water for an absolutely flawed lawsuit that was beyond terribly decided, but it is a good conversation to have because we're required to. Um, you both are correct. Look, these units use less per capita even without storm water reuse. They do. So technically it brings down our per capita usage as a city which in her flawed decision is what she's basing upon—is per capita. She's not basing upon total usage. If she was smart she would have done that. But so it does help. On the flip side, I can't—have we approved one in the last couple years without storm water reuse? I feel like there was one that we did because it wasn't possible... At Home Apartments. At Home Apartments. That's what I was trying to think of. We did approve one because it was not possible on site. Correct. So I—I guess for me that is the difference. If it was possible on this... if the site has already been designed and platted to shed its storm water to a different pond that already exists, I feel like from an engineering standpoint, you don't want to change that. That you don't want to suddenly redesign the entire site, especially when the—the EAW was already done, taking the site into account for how it's going to function. I don't know if it'd be wise to suddenly change that entire design. So, does the storm water go to an existing pond that has storm water reuse? **[01:43:45] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Yeah, I don't know that I have a far enough zoomed out image in this slide deck, but in my understanding based on the comments from the developer just a little bit ago is the storm water in this whole development is regional in nature. It goes to different ponds. Apparently, this site drains to the pond that's adjacent to the single-family part of the on the northwest. **[01:44:10] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** If that pond's used for reuse, then they have water reuse. It might not be for this site but they're using it—it—they're using it environmentally in the overall development. **[01:44:20] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Yes. So we have storm water reuse and on the impervious—I guess it is asking for consideration but again my to for me to be consistent, we have in the past looked at the total percentage throughout the site. And honestly maybe this is something that we need to look at from our policy standpoint how we set this up because we have multiple times said it's not based upon per lot, it's based upon the entire area. So, unless there's another reason why we have to... **[01:44:50] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Yeah. Well, just one thought for you with impervious surface. So, um often you'll have an impervious surface limit for single-family lots because people will have driveways and pools and decks and things tend to grow over time. And so, with this development, I—I would have significantly less concern that you're going to have those impervious surfaces grow. So from that perspective, um I wouldn't be as concerned because if we have like a 40% maximum for a single-family lot, we're able to review that as a planning department over time against everything they request in the future. **[01:45:30] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Somebody's not going to build another shed. **[01:45:32] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Well, and they're not going to be putting an 800-foot patio in their backyard. They can't because of setbacks. They couldn't do it to begin with. **[01:45:41] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** And the city will be obviously ensuring that the storm water for this site that's—is planned for, right? **[01:45:48] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Yeah. **[01:45:50] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I—I guess I—I remain concerned and I would want it in the developers agreement (DA) that there is—the crosswalk is looked into and that there is a study—is not the right word—but analysis for where one *shall* be installed, is not where one *could*, where one *shall* be. And I do want there to be some type of recreational activities for kids to do to at least try to offset and try to keep kids on the site. Um, but in terms of—I appreciate that the requirements do have the reinforcement that vinyl is not a part of this. Um, to me, I don't care what the style is—everyone has their different style, right? We've gone through this before. But there needs to be a style. And the initial images that we were shown, there wasn't—there wasn't anything. It was a building. So, what—whatever is going to be the characteristic, the story for this neighborhood, there needs to be one. Um, this is going to be a very specific place, their own HOA. It sounds like its own miniature village, if you will. But uh yeah, I mean, it is within the 15 units. They are asking for limited exceptions, but I—I don't think they are outside the norm of what um we've done in the past. And honestly to me, some of them are the nature of what's being proposed to begin with. In order for certain these things to happen, some of these are going to be natural outcroppings of if you do these townhomes that are permitted, you do this density, it's going to cause a little bit of a bumping up against this rule. And I—I plan on voting for it, but those specific changes and requirements are going to be in there. **[01:47:30] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right. I'll call the question. And again, my computer—give me a second please. All those in favor of resolution 2025-049, please signify by saying I. **[01:47:45] Council Member Jeff Holtz & Mayor Cadenhead:** I. **[01:47:46] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** I. **[01:47:47] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Those opposed, same sign. **[01:47:49] Council Member Matt Hirn:** I. **[01:47:50] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion passes 3-1. All right. The next one is move to adopt ordinance 2025-12 establishing PUD standards for the Inwood Town Home Development requested by M/I Homes. **[01:48:05] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Support. **[01:48:06] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** We have a motion and a second for ordinance 2025-12. Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor to adopt ordinance 2025-12 establishing PUD standards for the Inwood Town Home Development request by M/I Homes, please signify by saying I. **[01:48:25] Council Members:** I. **[01:48:26] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion passes. Move to adopt resolution 2025-050 approving summary publication for ordinance 2025-12. **[01:48:35] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Support. **[01:48:36] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** We have a motion and second for resolution 2025-050. Basically uh getting this public—published for the record. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. **[01:48:48] Council Members:** I. **[01:48:49] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion passes. Thank you very much. **[01:48:52] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Can I ask a clarifying question then for staff while we're still on this? Regarding that impervious moving forward in the standards: because what you said makes sense right there. You don't want to go at 90% on an individual parcel. If you insert the word "or" to say like, "it's this percent at a parcel *or* this percent throughout," then it could be that discussion, right? This is that type of neighborhood where this one fits better. No, *this* one is the one that fits better. So, at least then we're—that would be my thought. But we're not comparing oranges and apples. **[01:49:30] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Yeah, because it— **[01:49:32] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Can we take that into consideration and make a recommendation to council, please? **[01:49:36] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** Absolutely. **[01:49:37] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Thank you. Uh we added the item for performance review summary for our city administrator Nicole Miller. I had asked uh Council Member Holtz to uh upon our closed session meeting uh come up with a summary of that discussion and um he's very kindly done so. Would you like to read it or do you want me to? **[01:50:00] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I'll—I'll use the radio voice. The Lake Elmo City Council had a performance review for city administrator Nicole Miller. The council found administrator Miller's performance in the last year to excel in areas of communication, leadership, professionalism, accountability, and community engagement. The council looks forward to continuing to work with administrator Miller on carrying out the city's long and short-term goals, continuing progress on employee retention and development, and developing a culture of excellence through public service throughout the city. **[01:50:40] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Perfect. Thank you. I think that does summarize our discussion fairly well. Um next we have council reports. Council member Dragisich, anything to report? **[01:50:50] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** No report. **[01:50:51] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Council member Holtz. **[01:50:52] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** The Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission had a meeting last Monday and I am one of the co-chairs. Uh Council Member Kragness is a member as well and joined the team. And we had a thorough discussion about noise complaints from a very specific neighborhood. There's several thousand complaints from 17 households. And we also then had pretty good discussion about um what are ways that the airport community—which is pilots, it's the MAC, it's the neighborhood, it's the neighboring cities—can try to increase engagement, education, activities. And so there's going to be many conversations moving forward. It might mean a council member asks staff if we can insert an airport event in some of our outgoing communication, like there's a barbecue coming up. It might be that there are additional education opportunities where the airport or maybe some of the members reach out to school districts to see if there are ways to have more field trips there. They are finishing up a place kind of right in the middle with a viewing place where you literally will be able to go there, have a place to sit, and you watch airplanes go and take off. So again, if you have a 10-year-old child who loves seeing airplanes take off, that's going to be the place to be. Currently, you shouldn't do it because it's under construction. But it's those types of opportunities. Um I reached—one of the airport members who's a pilot reached out to Chief Kalis. Long story short, they're going to reach out to Bayport first to see if fire trucks and the fire crews can come out for an event they have coming up. And Chief Kalis was fully on board with it if a different process happens. Uh so it's those types of things of trying to make sure that we have a better—better engagement with the airport. So, we're focusing on the positives that it brings and not focusing on um other aspects. **[01:52:50] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I'm assuming you might talk about... yeah, just want to address it. Obviously, this last weekend was a horrific instance for politics in Minnesota especially. And uh we just want to uh you know give our condolences to the Hortman family and um—I'm drawing a blank on—the Hoffman family. And uh hope that they get a good recovery. Uh thankfully, law enforcement captured the individual and um he'll have his his day in court. There's really no sense in—no—making sense of the actions that took place and it it certainly is unconscionable to think that somebody thinks that that's the answer. So um the couple other things that are less traumatic was uh I was able to go to the Lake Elmo Farmers Market. It's in full swing on Saturdays from what, 9:00 to 1:00 in the morning? 9:00 to 1:00. Great vendors there. Uh that group always does a good job. So, uh if the weather's decent, go out there and and get some fresh vegetables and bread, some meat, and all that stuff. The other thing is that uh as we like to have the community get together, the Fourth of July kitty parade is—as we saw, we had a consent agenda item for that. I know that um the Connect Lake Elmo group is looking for volunteers to to help out the public works department and the the law enforcement with some of the um just standing at different stations for traffic control and things of those nature. So, um if you are so inclined to be a volunteer for maybe a couple hours on one of your—on—on the 4th of July, I think that would—or the the day before—that would be greatly appreciated. It'll be here. **[01:54:45] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Council member Hirn. **[01:54:46] Council Member Matt Hirn:** No report. **[01:54:47] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay. Staff reports. **[01:54:50] Nicole Miller (City Administrator):** Sure. Last night, I had the opportunity to attend the fire department badge pinning ceremony and their recognition of their current membership with their families. Um it was really really touching to see everyone there. They had over a hundred attendees. One group I forgot to thank was the fire department leadership. So I want to say thank you; they did a great job organizing it and it seemed to be a very good event. **[01:55:20] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Great. Julie? **[01:55:23] Julie Johnson (City Clerk):** No report. **[01:55:24] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Clarissa? **[01:55:25] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** No report. **[01:55:26] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Pete? **[01:55:27] Pete Tholen (Public Works Director):** No report. **[01:55:28] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right. Nothing for me. Nathan? **[01:55:30] Nathan [Staff/Planner]:** No report. **[01:55:31] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** No report. **[01:55:32] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Nathan, for the public, can you let them know the timeline for well number two? Um for when we're talking about the um to be online? **[01:55:40] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** I wish I could. I don't have that off the top of my head right now. **[01:55:45] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** All good. So, sorry for randomly throwing that. **[01:55:48] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** No, it's all good. Here, let me throw you something that's gonna not be true. **[01:55:50] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right. Appreciate it. Uh going to adjourn the meeting here at 9:06. Thank you, everybody. I just can't even think what goes through somebody's mind.