This transcript is from a **Lake Elmo Planning Commission** meeting. While the prompt provided the Mayor and City Council members, these individuals typically do not sit on the Planning Commission. Based on the dialogue, I have identified the City Engineer (**Nate Stanley**), the Developer (**Emily Becker**), and specific Commissioners mentioned by the Chair (**Commissioner Wchar** and **Commissioner Hammond**). [00:00] **Chair**: Yes. Good. anymore. The feel. But for him to have All right, 6:30 we will call the uh May 12th, 2025 Lake Elmo Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30. Uh first item of business is to stand for the pledge of allegiance. [00:15] **All**: I pledge 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. Amen. [00:30] **Chair**: All right. Next item is to approve the agenda for tonight's meeting. If I get a motion? [00:35] **Commissioner**: I'll make a motion to approve the agenda for the May 12th meeting. [00:38] **Commissioner Hammond**: I'll second that. [00:40] **Chair**: Okay. Motion by Wchar and second by Hammond. All in favor? [00:43] **Commissioners**: I. I. [00:45] **Chair**: And motion pass. Agenda is approved. Uh, next item is to approve the minutes of April 14th, 2025. Do I have a motion? [00:52] **Commissioner**: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as of April 14th, 2025. [00:58] **Commissioner Hammond**: I second. [01:00] **Chair**: All in favor? [01:01] **Commissioners**: I. [01:02] **Chair**: The minutes are approved. All right. Um, no public hearing tonight. Next item is unfinished business. Is the item tabled from our 4/14 meeting. [01:10] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: All right. Uh, good evening and thank you chair and members of the commission. So, uh, as as you all know, this item was tabled on the April 14th meeting where we had a public hearing and a discussion. Uh, so, uh, since that time, the developer, uh, MNI Homes and Rachel Development have, um, resubmitted a new plan set for the city's review after some discussion with staff, and we have reviewed that. And so, in this presentation, I'll talk a little bit about uh, what's changed and and then provide a recommendation to move forward. [01:45] **Nate Stanley**: I'm going to cover a little bit of the same ground just as a refresher so that we're all on the same page. So, as as you uh will remember, we have three different requests in front of the city with this project. Right now, we have a preliminary plat, a planned unit development. Uh, and in particular, the flexibilities that would be received through that are to have private roads and some bulk standards flexibility we can talk about. Lastly, a conditional—or sorry—a comprehensive plan amendment. and you can see the location and the project site on the screen. [02:15] **Nate Stanley**: As an overview, we have four different parcels constituting almost 20 acres. All of that land is buildable and uh was previously mass-graded in a former phase of Inwood. Uh from a zoning perspective, this area is currently zoned high-density residential and that's how this uh project is proposed to move forward as with high density residential base zoning and a planned unit development overlay. Uh currently there is no flexibility that was provided through the prior phases of the inwood development and this site is uh as as you know part a very small part is in the shoreland. [02:50] **Nate Stanley**: Looking at the comprehensive plan, uh we do have a comprehensive plan amendment in front of us and um pretty much what what that would do is to bring this area back to what it was in the 2030 comprehensive plan which was what is now the city's high-density residential district. Right now we have three different future land use categories. The developers proposing to just have one uh with a maximum of 15 units per acre. [03:20] **Nate Stanley**: A little bit of background again here. The Inwood initial Inwood preliminary plat and master planned PUD was approved in December of 2014 by the city. Uh at that time the city also did environmental review and and what you see on the screen was what was initially planned at the time of that approval in 2014. Uh since the 2014 approval, uh the single family portions of the Inwood development were built uh between 2015 and 17. And then Quicktrip also uh was part of that commercial plan development. [03:50] **Nate Stanley**: Here's a little bit of a closeup. And you can see in the closeup uh south of Fifth Street North. Uh again, we were at the time looking at uh generally the same land uses and at approximately the same uh density or intensity as the developer is currently proposing. And here's just another figure from the Inwood project in 2014. [04:15] **Nate Stanley**: So this image on the screen is what the developer uh had initially um prepared for the city and submitted to the city and uh this is what we discussed at our last meeting in April and the developer has as I mentioned made some changes. So I'm going to the next slide with the revised site layout. Um the the primary thing that I would note to you, the primary change is that there is now a street uh that kind of runs through the center of that town home area on the east side of Island Trail. Uh that's a little bit more of a traditional street style, I suppose. Uh they're all private streets as proposed, but that uh provides a little better connectivity through the site. [05:00] **Nate Stanley**: We'll talk about some of the other benefits to that as well. Uh the developers also removed a couple of those stub drives that are a challenge from an engineering and fire service perspective. So on the screen now you can see the uh landscaping plan just this is the same uh revised plan but with some landscaping on it. And you'll see that in that um street that goes through the development uh there is a better tree spacing that is the only area where this uh development is able to meet that boulevard tree spacing requirement of 50 ft. So uh they're they're doing better at meeting that standard with this revision. [05:40] **Nate Stanley**: Going back to our PUD minimum criteria, uh this development does meet those criteria. It's over five acres. It's providing open space and it's providing a street grid that maintains our existing layout of the area. Uh there are several PUD objectives that the planning commission uh can use to support the project as it would appear to meet them and we can talk about those if you have questions. [06:05] **Nate Stanley**: Preliminary plat review. So again we looked at land uses proposed, bulk standards which is setbacks and things like that, tree preservation and landscaping grading, public infrastructure, and parkland dedication. Going back to our setbacks and lot area minimums, uh this is virtually the same slide as last time that we looked at this, they're still requesting flexibility to have these attached town homes on their own lots. This is pretty common with this form of development because the developer wants to plat individual lots over the units so that they're all owner occupied but they have a common open space that's maintained through an HOA. [06:45] **Nate Stanley**: Naturally there is some uh need for flexibility with that way—that method of platting. We also have private streets. Uh so we are looking at some flexibility though to those setbacks for front and rear yards for the units. We're also uh looking at a request for flexibility from the curb along Fifth Street North to the front of the units that are along Fifth Street North. The city has a 40 foot setback and at a minimum we're looking at near 30 feet. Um and then there is an on the apartment side of things there is one need uh request for flexibility which is the lot area being just a little too small for the number of units. So that's what that—that is kind of a summary of the flexibilities that are being requested. [07:30] **Nate Stanley**: Last time I presented this slide the uh project had two different types of attached town home units. Uh the one on the left side of the slide is no longer uh being proposed by the developer. So all of the units would be those that are on the right side. Uh that's an attached town home building that has—it's basically double fronted, meaning that the front of the unit is on a different side than uh the the rear—the garage—which is on the rear of the unit. So they're double loaded kind of. All right. [08:00] **Nate Stanley**: So, I do want to talk about some specific performance standards that are in the city's ordinance. Um, for single family attached town homes in the high-density residential area, buildings have to be smaller than 10 attached units, which in this case they are. Uh, public street frontage is required unless the development requests a conditional use permit. That is satisfied through the planned unit development that's requested by the developer. No parking is allowed in front yards and uh that has been addressed through only having these double fronted units. And lastly, shared open spaces have to be at least 300 square feet per unit which is exceeded by the attached town home development as proposed. Uh for multi-family dwellings, parking cannot be located in any front yard areas which it is not and common open spaces have to be at least 200 square feet per unit which is being proposed. [08:55] **Nate Stanley**: Getting into the design standards review. Uh this is the city's design standards manual. It looks at both site and building design. when we look at just the attached town home units, looking at design standards—so building placement, buildings and entrances are oriented towards the street where possible. Interior to the development the building entrances aren't really—it's not possible to have all of them oriented directly onto a street and so uh they are they are facing a public or open space—it's a private development but it's a common area. Uh for streetscaping, you have concrete sidewalks that uh don't run along a public street but are running throughout the development providing good connectivity. [09:40] **Nate Stanley**: Buildings along that um street running through the development are located with on the streets and then site furnishings have been provided on the site plans and the developer can talk a little bit about how the open space has been modified to do that. As mentioned, overstory trees now do meet the uh tree spacing requirement in that street that's been proposed through the development. Uh but the tree spacing along the other parts of the private streets still requires some flexibility and there is enough parking to meet the city's uh standards in in the areas where parking is acceptable. Uh however, staff do recommend uh converting the 90-degree angled stalls, which you can see on this site plan. [10:20] **Nate Stanley**: If I can get the cursor to show up, there's a few 90-degree stalls um that are proposed throughout the development here and here. These are in areas that are going to be a little bit uh tough from a circulation perspective. There are some concerns with people pulling out and coming around a corner at the same time. Uh so staff are recommending that those be removed and replaced with parallel parking bump-outs elsewhere. Maybe not in turning areas where there may be turning movements. Uh again you can see the units that were previously uh reviewed last time. You're only looking at the units on the bottom part of this slide. [11:00] **Nate Stanley**: Design standards for these style of units—buildings have to be uh consistent with with their architecture throughout the project which is the case here. Um parking should be either rear loaded or recessed which these units are rear loaded. Building materials—um, last time we did mention that vinyl siding is not allowed as a primary material in the HDR—the high-density residential district—and that is still proposed. So, the developer has submitted a little bit more detail on what's proposed. And it might be tough to see on the screens here, but there is a differentiation in the coloring on the facades in this image. [11:40] **Nate Stanley**: Um, there's a purple color. You can see maybe it's easiest to see on these side elevations. Uh that purple color is what would be the vinyl and the the white color here is is proposed as a fiber cement board and batten siding. Fiber cement is an allowed product under the city's design standards manual, but vinyl, as a reminder, is not. And so, a breakdown was provided. I've shown that on the next slide here. So, a breakdown was provided on the right. I don't expect everyone to read everything on on this um slide. In total, the elevations kind of fluctuate in terms of how much vinyl there is as a percent of the facade. The vinyl ranges from 30% to 70% depending on the the side of the building that you're looking at. [12:30] **Nate Stanley**: On the left side of this slide is the text directly from the city's design standard manual. Uh the top point on this slide (E) says that primary building materials for residential structures shall include brick, finished wood, fiber, cement, stone, quality materials, glass, cast stone or pre-cast concrete panels... with aggregate banding, texturing or other similar decorative finish. And then the bottom bullet point (G) mentions prohibited materials which includes vinyl siding. So that's what we're looking at when we provide that direction or guidance. [13:00] **Nate Stanley**: Looking at the apartment building—this one's a little bit more straightforward from a design review perspective. The building placement is acceptable within the area that is proposed. The streetscaping is is pretty um good, meeting the city's standards for connectivity to sidewalks and things like that. The landscaping is exceeding the minimum requirements and the parking is positioned interior to the site. So, here's a rendering again of that apartment building proposed on the west side of the development. In terms of the actual building's design, the facades do have articulation and not a lot of blank space. So that's meeting the city's requirements. The building materials are generally consistent with those that are allowed. Uh the mass and the scale of the building—um, is in the building's located in an area where there's a transition from strictly commercial to residential and the other elements of the building do meet the code as well. [14:00] **Nate Stanley**: Just a reminder about Parkland dedication—uh, there is a credit that was um provided to the developer through a previous phase of Inwood. So uh that would be deducted from any cash that's required through this project through a cash in-lieu fee. Uh for tree preservation, the one tree removal went down to none. So no trees are proposed to be removed through this project. So no mitigation is needed. Here again is a reminder of that landscape plan. And one of the things that you'll notice on the the plan as a result of the redesign—if I can get the cursor to show up again... yeah. Um, you can see this open space here. Uh that's been reoriented, I'll call it, because of the the way that the street moves through the property. This would be the communal open space. It's been programmed a little bit more by the developer and it's a little bit more of a community amenity in this case as it's been revised. [15:00] **Nate Stanley**: All right. So, in terms of a landscaping review, the overall number of plantings has been met by the developer. Um, there are fewer plantings now in areas with spatial constraints, meaning they're not located in things like drainage swales or in in areas that might be tight. Um, in terms of buffering as well, we we did talk about buffering from the use to the south, the Bremer Financial, where there's a pretty large parking lot. The developer redesign has allowed for some tree plantings along that southern property boundary to help screen that use. Parking—in some, the parking proposed with this project meets the city's requirements for both stalls per unit and visitor stalls. [15:45] **Nate Stanley**: Um, access and circulation continue to be a point of review. Um, in this case, the existing access points along Fifth Street North are fixed and they're aligned now on the island trail. So, that's good. Uh, and then we're still working through other engineering standards as at this point in the game. A number of review comments were received on this project and these are all the review memos that we have attached to the staff report. Um, some of these review comments are not reacting to the current redesign. The project is under engineering review right now and we will expect to receive updated engineering comments before we bring it to the city council for their review. [16:30] **Nate Stanley**: So on this slide I've got the PUD flexibilities all kind of summarized on one page and uh you can see a couple of them have been scratched off with strikethrough because they're no longer needed as a flexibility as a result of the redesign. So we are down from—we'll call that nine to seven. In addition to that, staff had some design related concerns that we've again gone through and with the redesign plans, scratched off a number of them. Um what I mentioned though to you are still concerns: the parallel parking instead of the 90-degree angled parking. Um one thing that I didn't mention is it seems like we can have some better sidewalk connectivity on the southeast and southwest parts corners of the attached town home area. That would help pedestrian circulation to or through the site. And then lastly, we did talk about vinyl siding. [17:25] **Nate Stanley**: So, findings can be made to support a recommendation for this project. Staff are considering the revisions that have been made to date supportive of the project with conditions. Okay. So we can talk about findings if you have any questions. The options that the city has at this stage or the planning commission has are to make a recommendation to council for approval or denial. If approval, staff are recommending conditions for that. Um I don't recommend that we table the project at this stage. I think gotten quite a bit more information. Um and our statutory deadline is June 14th as a result of our review window here. [18:10] **Nate Stanley**: And if the city does approve the project, staff at this time are recommending 15 different conditions for approval. Um many of them are standard conditions like meeting review memos and getting permits or paying fees. There are some unique conditions to this project that you'll see are related to those design concerns: So parking, sidewalk connectivity, and vinyl siding. As a reminder, we did have a public hearing at our last meeting after we posted that meeting in the paper and sent mailed notice. Generally speaking, the public did have some some comments. Most of them were related to traffic, whether it be the volume or the speed, crossing opportunities along Fifth Street North or other streets. And there were also some comments on storm water reuse at that meeting too. So that brings me to my recommendation. Staff are comfortable at this point recommending approval of the project. That's the preliminary plat, PUD, and comprehensive plan amendment with conditions. So I have some example motions on the screen for you and I am happy to take your questions. I would note that we have the developer here and they do have a presentation as well to share with you some of the changes. [19:35] **Chair**: Can you go back to uh the schematic design, not the profiles, but just of the overall development? I—when we're talking about sidewalk access in the southeast and southwest corners... [19:50] **Nate Stanley**: Yep. [19:51] **Chair**: Is the question kind of where—what am I talking about? [19:53] **Nate Stanley**: Yeah, sure. So, got the cursor showing here. So, starting on the southwest side, uh, we've got a sidewalk that kind of runs—or runs down in this area here and then through this open space. It kind of stops right here. And so, what I'm saying when I'm looking for a connection is just to move that to get a sidewalk connection over to the sidewalk on Island Trail. Um on the southeast side of the development, we do have a sidewalk that serves the front of these units. Stops right here. Um it's got a connection up to Fifth Street up here. But when I'm talking about that connectivity, what I'm thinking is the sidewalk could be potentially connected back over to Fifth Street north, a little bit further to the east and south of the existing trees. Of course, um, you know, there—that's a design question is if it can be done. I think it can be done, but the question could be can it be done without removing any trees? I'm not sure. [20:50] **Chair**: What are crosswalks over to the park from the development? Is that—would that lie on the city responsibility with our new sidewalk guidance? [20:58] **Nate Stanley**: Yeah. So chair, the question I would be looking towards the engineering department or public works department to see if there are um areas where there—there may be you know an alignment with the crosswalk policy. [21:10] **Chair**: All right. Any other questions for Nathan? [21:12] **Commissioner**: Yeah, back on your chart, Nathan. I just—I know you went through at the very end with what you are still re-requesting, but I just want to go back and make sure you guys are okay with the fact that the setbacks—that's a huge difference from what's required and what there is, and you guys are okay with that? [21:30] **Nate Stanley**: Yeah, staff are comfortable with the setbacks that are proposed and the reason for that is that functionally we have um setbacks that are more in line with what the code requires. But because of the way that we're—these lots are platted, the boundaries—the boundaries around each individual unit... the way that they're drawn, it's really close to the unit and it allows for each unit to kind of be on its own lot so it can be owner occupied, but the rest of the area around the unit can be— [22:00] **Commissioner**: Okay. I just want to make sure you guys were comfortable with that. And um there was a comment about the um space was a little bit too small for the number of apartments. [22:10] **Nate Stanley**: Yeah. So that has to do with the minimum lot area per—on a per unit basis. But another good question. I I think staff are comfortable with um the amount of open space provided in the overall development for all of the units. [22:25] **Commissioner**: Okay. And my last one is—as usual—trees. Yep. That's always my thing. Um the fact that there's areas where it's not meeting the number of trees. I understand that it's a dense unit with dense numbers, but it's still just— [22:40] **Nate Stanley**: It's a good question and something that staff have kind of looked at um and the area where it's not—the development's not meeting the overstory tree requirement. And just to as a refresher, it's a tree every 50ft along a road. Where that gets tough is when we've got these private streets um that have a bunch of driveways on them. And so you can't really fit the trees in between the units, the driveways for each unit. And so the trees are spaced on either side of the building. [23:10] **Commissioner**: I see. [23:11] **Nate Stanley**: And then in in the area um where you've got all of the driveways, I think the developer is intending to plant, we'll call it landscaping that doesn't have as deep of roots, so it won't impact the—basically there's water services running in those areas as well. [23:25] **Commissioner**: You go forward one slide, Nathan. [23:27] **Nate Stanley**: Yeah, thank you. [23:28] **Commissioner**: It's clear. [23:29] **Nate Stanley**: So that was the old design. [23:31] **Commissioner**: That's the old design. All right. I'll have to just squint a little bit. I do that every day. Anyway, so Nathan, quick question. Um, I'm not sure if I caught the staff recommendation as it relates to the vinyl siding and deviating from the city building standards that we had? [23:50] **Nate Stanley**: Yeah. So, a good question, Commissioner. Um, staff are not supportive at this time of deviating from the vinyl requirement. That is a policy decision that the city planning commission or city council can make. So if there's thoughts on that, we're certainly happy to take those into consideration. [24:10] **Commissioner**: The assumption is it's a cost issue, right? [24:13] **Nate Stanley**: Yeah. So you want to hear that perspective, you want to ask the developer as well. [24:17] **Commissioner**: Nathan, quick question. It's more of a general question, but I think it applies here. When calculating impervious surface, is there any credit for storm water retainage ponds in that impervious surface calculation or is it just impervious surface is impervious surface? Does it matter where the storm water's going? [24:35] **Nate Stanley**: Yeah, that's a good question. So, there's kind of two ways that we'll often look at impervious. The one way is just kind of from a planning lens. It's how intense is the use of the site. Um, in this case, the attached town home area is like 52% impervious on a whole and then on a per-unit basis, it's because we have these tiny lot areas, they're, you know, 80 to 84% at the high end. [25:00] **Commissioner**: Yeah. Jacks it up. [25:01] **Nate Stanley**: So, uh, the other way that cities will look at impervious is to be able to understand what amount of storm water ponding is required and that's why the developers have to submit a storm water basically report on that. And so that's where we'll take into consideration all of the impervious that's shown, but they don't necessarily receive a credit for storm water ponds. [25:25] **Commissioner**: Okay. All right. Thanks. [25:27] **Commissioner**: I have a question pertaining to the traffic and the access. I see here that the city engineer anticipates a need for the turn lanes. Has that been worked into the plan for the island trail? [25:40] **Nate Stanley**: Yes. So there—the city engineer does have that comment in the engineering memo. Um, we've communicated that one to the developer and what staff are recommending is a conditional approval that the development plans have to be revised to be consistent with the engineering memo. [25:55] **Commissioner**: I got a few quick questions. Uh, first off, on the agenda, it's 272 homes is what that adds up to, but really that's only 271. [26:05] **Nate Stanley**: So, they did take one away. [26:07] **Commissioner**: They did take one away. Yep. Okay. And uh just to correct the record—Washington County also did send a letter March 7th of 2025 uh just saying this area they reviewed it... the development proposed is located in a DWSMA and is known area PFOS contamination; best management practices as outlined by MDH and MPCA should be implemented to protect public health. So that wasn't listed in the articles that you had up on the screen. So, I just wanted to make sure that you had that included somehow in your presentation to make sure it's all up to the snuff. [26:45] **Nate Stanley**: I did not see it on that. It was from county staff indicated there were no comments on the comprehensive plan amendment is what I have on my side. [26:55] **Commissioner**: But on the project itself, they did have something. [26:57] **Nate Stanley**: They did and they were provided in the packet and I would tell you that it didn't look like they were necessarily material to the land use review. Of course, they're important. [27:08] **Commissioner**: Yeah. Okay. Very fine. And and once again um—the concerns—I always worry about the people that live around the area as you well know and as I recall they really had concerns about the height of the building, the traffic safety, pedestrian crossings, parking, water supply, loss of green space and congestion. And I believe the developer had an LLC that did everything on the traffic thing and it said it hasn't changed... and how—when if you're going to be adding 500 more people to that area it's going to change. So any of the safety improvements need to be made. And trees—of course I like the trees so that's good too. And how how large is that supposed green space that they have? And with the HOA, they're supposed to pile snow somewhere in the winter and then haul it out. Do you have any idea where they're going to pile snow from their private streets? [28:05] **Nate Stanley**: I will let the developer speak to that question. And I I did measure the open space just in this—we'll call it kind of triangular area south of that newer street—and it's about an acre in area. [28:20] **Commissioner**: Okay. So, there's more open space throughout the development, but that one area—I was curious what... and and the vinyl siding is not appropriate at all. I mean, we're supposed to have quality development and people are going to be buying these units. I understand these are going to be for sale. They're not rentals. [28:38] **Nate Stanley**: My understanding is they would be owner occupied. Yep. [28:41] **Commissioner**: So, you want top quality on whatever you're going to be selling. I'm going to go back to the parking. Um, I—How would you recommend? I mean, these are so tight and so far from all the units. Where would you put guest parking or how would you accommodate parallel parking in there when there's— [29:00] **Nate Stanley**: Yeah, good question. So, that new street—I'll call it street C—it's the one that kind of— [29:05] **Chair**: Is that wide enough for parallel parking? [29:07] **Nate Stanley**: Yes, this is wide enough for parallel parking. So, that's a start— [29:12] **Chair**: That's allowed by the fire department? [29:14] **Nate Stanley**: Correct. Yes, we've worked with engineering, public works, and fire. Uh the other thing is you could add parallel parking along the south side of this street on on this part of the development. It might eat into the area where you could have tree plantings, but that is an option to to explore. [29:30] **Chair**: Hate to trade the trees for parking, but the parking is really looks very inconvenient for guest parking here. You've got—these are all double garages, correct? [29:39] **Nate Stanley**: Yeah. So, chair, to your question, you've at least got two or four in your driveway. There's a total of two parking spaces in each unit and then there would be two available in the driveway. [29:50] **Chair**: All right. Should we hear from the developer? Thank you, Nathan. [29:53] **Commissioners**: Thanks, Nathan. [29:55] **Emily Becker (MI Homes)**: Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I'm Emily Becker with MI Homes. Thank you so much for giving us the time for the reconsideration of this request. We really do appreciate it. Uh Nathan did a great job. I'm just going to reiterate some points. Um go over some of the changes that we did. So um the major change probably is a 28 foot wide street through the center of the development. So that really is going to orient the fronts of the town homes towards the entrance. It is going to give a better look and feel for the development as a whole. Reluctantly. It was a good recommendation. We don't like to admit it, but you guys did good. [30:40] **Emily Becker**: Um it's going to prevent just going through the development and seeing a sea of driveways. So, did that—aligned the access points on the east and west of Island Trail. We did add a landscape feature in the center of the development. And then in the entrance, we are going to try and mimic the entrance of the Inwood single family residential area... make it look nice. As Nathan mentioned, the stub streets are removed and we are going to all city collection rear loaded town homes. Um this is the entrance of the current Inwood single family residential area that I had mentioned that we are going to do our best to mimic for the town home and apartment sites. Um that's just the plan that you had previously reviewed. [31:25] **Emily Becker**: Island trail—also, Nathan had mentioned that within the engineer memo, um there was recommendation that there be turn lanes going to both the apartment site and the main town home site. It does say that because there's more than 35 units that a turn lane is warranted. However, that's not actually in the engineering standards memo. So, we are going to try and contest that. We don't feel like a turn lane is warranted. We did plan—obviously for—as we had mentioned in the last meeting, we had planned for this amount of multi-family units with the preliminary plat for the Inwood development as a whole and we designed and constructed this street and we really don't want to have to rip up everything that we've already done and create turn lanes. [32:15] **Emily Becker**: I'll go into this a little bit more, but we did hire a traffic engineer that doesn't feel that turn lanes are actually warranted for this development. She feels like the cost would much outweigh the benefit of any turn lanes. And then I know that there was concern about traffic from the existing Inwood residential single family residential area. Island Trail is designed as a collector road, so it is designed to handle a significant amount of traffic. I'll go into how much traffic that this proposed development will actually create into that development—it's not a significant amount. Uh this is just going over that traffic analysis that was included within your packet. It is significantly lower than what was actually anticipated with the 2014 study. [33:05] **Emily Becker**: As you can see, the numbers here were lower almost as much as 42% within the island trail. So the area is going into the single family residential portion of Inwood really only generating 57 trips within that area. Most of the traffic that is going to be generated from this development is going to be on Inwood Avenue as you can see with 1,460 trips a day and then Fifth Street with about 1,800 trips a day. Um in her summary and conclusions, she does outline that it is less intense than what the 2014 traffic study had anticipated. There are no adverse traffic impacts. It is within the planned volume capacities for the roadway types and most of the traffic is going to be going to the south with the I-94 area and to the west with I-694. [34:00] **Emily Becker**: Design comments—I know that was kind of a big point of discussion. So respectfully, we do have a different interpretation of the design guidelines. Staff has seen that vinyl is completely prohibited. However, the design guidelines say that vinyl is prohibited as the primary facade material. We would concede it a little bit and we would agree to do Hardy on the board and batten area. So that's the white area of the town homes. Um and all in all overall, it's 42.6% of the entire facade with only 33.7% of the front and 37.4% of the rear. We are extremely hesitant and really do not want to do Hardy on the entire facade. [34:50] **Emily Becker**: Number one—going to be honest—it's financial reasons. To for the end units, it's $9,000 more per unit. That's significant. And also our buyers really don't see an actual value in that to be honest. Actually on the other end of the spectrum it's more maintenance. So you have to paint it, you have to caulk it in order to prevent moisture from actually letting it deteriorate. So that also adds to the HOA maintenance fees which again decreases value. Um also vinyl just has a higher energy rating. So, we would ask that, you know, we do vinyl in that kind of like purple blue area and then we would agree to do Hardy in the board and batten area. So, that's all I have and if you have any other questions, I would be happy to answer them. [35:45] **Chair**: Island Trail—you can get out onto Eagle Point Boulevard on that street? Looks like it goes through— [35:50] **Emily Becker**: Yeah. So, they would have two exit points they could get. [35:53] **Chair**: Okay. Go back to your vinyl slide. Your vinyl siding slide. So, vinyl is 42.6, but it would still be the primary material, right? [36:05] **Emily Becker**: I would argue that 42.6% is not primary. I would say anything over 50 is primary. Um that is I totally understand—that's up for interpretation. It's subjective. [36:18] **Chair**: It's not a complete—and what I'm saying is like, okay, you've got windows, you've got board and batten, you've got other... what is over 50%? [36:25] **Emily Becker**: I think that the board—well the combination of board and batten and the windows and doors would be over 50%. [36:31] **Chair**: Are there vinyl clad windows? [36:33] **Emily Becker**: No. [36:34] **Commissioner Wchar**: Now that—I first of all I want to say I appreciate you going back and reworking and giving... you know, give and take is appreciated and I have to say I do like the way it looks better. It just looks—if I was going to move in there it just it does look good. Um, but on, you know, when I have to look at a resident of Lake Elmo, it's hard for me to see the building coming in, all of the building, but it's—you know—this is high density. I don't have a choice. You know, this is what it's zoned for. But I do want quality for what comes in. And by the percent or two—you know—whether it's Hardy or vinyl, the Hardy looks nicer. [37:15] **Commissioner Wchar**: And when we put Hardy on our house, they negate the warranty if you paint it. You don't paint Hardy. If you do, your warranty is out the window, they told us. So, it's not maintenance um I don't think. And it just looks so much better. And so, that's why I would like to see it—the majority being Hardy Board because I think it just adds to the the class and the quality of our area here. So, I like the idea of more Hardy board. [37:45] **Commissioner**: I have to pile on on that as well. I think, you know, you're you're thinking about the initial cost of building and putting it on, but then you you go away and the homeowner is left with vinyl siding and when the storms come through, that vinyl just splits and cracks and it it's really garbage and it's bad for our environment. It just—I'm I just have to believe there are other products that can that can be used that would be more durable, more appealing... something that looks a little higher standard. [38:20] **Emily Becker**: I would say that the vinyl of today is not the vinyl of 20 years ago either. [38:25] **Commissioner**: It's still ugly. [38:27] **Commissioner**: I like to also voice a thing against the vinyl and for the Hardy board. We have Hardy board. We've had it for like 30 years. Never had to paint it. So, it is durable and it's fire-resistant. And they just put a fourplex beside me and the entire thing is Hardy board and it was required there. So I don't know why we should be given preferential treatment somewhere else. [38:50] **Chair**: Questions? All right. Thank you. [38:53] **Emily Becker**: Thank you. [38:55] **Chair**: All right. So, we need a motion. Can you put that back up, please, Nathan? Thank you. What was—Can you go back up—up the screen? You had your 15 items there. Let's see. Right there. Uh no, that—I guess that wasn't—must have been that next page. Let's go to that next one. Okay. I lost—I lost what it was. So we need a motion to approve or deny and if we deny we need to provide findings on why to deny but we can also have a motion to approve with conditions. Would lean toward the conditions. [39:40] **Commissioner Wchar**: I move to recommend um the approval of the comprehensive plan amendment request by MI Homes with conditions. And how do I— [39:50] **Chair**: We've got—we've got two motions that have to be filed. Correct. One is the comprehensive plan amendment. The other one is the preliminary plat and PUD. [40:00] **Commissioner Wchar**: I goofed it up already. Sorry. [40:02] **Nate Stanley**: Chair and commissioners. The order is not necessarily an issue here. So that— [40:08] **Chair**: Okay. The comprehensive plan should be a separate motion. [40:11] **Commissioner Wchar**: Okay. So I can keep going. Um with the 15 conditions um is listed by the city staff. Is that good? Is that complete? [40:20] **Chair**: Won't just say that over— [40:22] **Commissioner Wchar**: Oh, I don't know why. Sorry. Sorry. I move to recommend the comprehensive plan amendment request by MI Homes with the 15 conditions proposed by the city staff. I get it all. [40:35] **Chair**: It's two separate things. I think the— [40:37] **Nate Stanley**: Move to recommend city council approve the comprehensive plan amendment requested by MI Homes for the subject property with the findings proposed by city staff. [40:48] **Chair**: Do we have a second? [40:49] **Commissioner Hammond**: Second. [40:50] **Chair**: Seconded by Commissioner Hammond. Do we want discussion? All in favor of the comprehensive plan amendment? [41:00] **Commissioners**: I. I. I. [41:02] **Chair**: Any opposed? All right. The comprehensive plan amendment motion has been passed. Now to move on to the preliminary plat and PUD. [41:10] **Commissioner Wchar**: Oh, you want me to try this again? [41:12] **Chair**: Yeah, I think you should. I think you should reset the record. [41:15] **Commissioner Wchar**: All right. Back up. I move to recommend the city council approve the preliminary plat and PUD for the Inwood town home development requested by MI Homes with the 15 conditions discussed by the staff. Is that okay? [41:35] **Chair**: I'd like to be clear on what the 15 conditions are. [41:38] **Commissioner Wchar**: Well, I didn't write them all down because we have a list of eight that got reduced to seven. [41:43] **Nate Stanley**: Chair, they're in the packet, page 101. There are 15 conditions. [41:48] **Chair**: Okay. [41:49] **Commissioner**: I'll second that motion. [41:51] **Chair**: Discussion. [41:53] **Commissioner Wchar**: Um, as I said previously, I appreciate that MI Homes coming back um with their changes. Um we—it is approved or it is set out to be a high-density area and I would love to see um some things like the vinyl siding, the—maybe the parallel parking, and especially the connectivity without removing trees just because that is a high density area and I just worry about pedestrians and kids. I would like it as safe as possible for them. [42:25] **Commissioner**: I appreciate the work. Uh, it's a lot of work to do in a short amount of time and MI homes went back and did it and Nathan, thank you for your work on it reviewing it too. Um, it's not perfect and no development ever is in someone's eyes, but I think it's as good as it can get given the constraints on the size of the property and the developer needs to make a buck too or else there's no point being a developer. Um, there is still some conditions to work through um as outlined by city staff and and I'm sure that those things will get done but um that's why I'm generally in support. Anyone else? [43:05] **Commissioner**: Yeah, one—once again they did come back. This was originally denied by us at our other meeting. [43:10] **Chair**: It was not. It was tabled. [43:13] **Commissioner**: It was—but it was denied first and then it was tabled. That was recently withdrew the deny motion. [43:18] **Chair**: Withdrew with officially it was denied. Correct. Well, I was sitting here and so I know what happened too. But nevertheless, they did come back with it. I still have quite a bit of concern on safety—health, safety, and the other residents that already live here and what this impact is going to be with the construction traffic and things like that. Going into this large of an endeavor is just makes me really feel bad for the residents that are already there with the Hanshogen development that went in initially. And uh this is quite dense and I understand this is the high density stuff that everybody wants now but it's difficult for me to vote for it. Thank you. [44:05] **Commissioner**: I guess my only comments are on those 15 items. I think I would put the most emphasis personally on the item number two in um revising the 90-degree parking, creating a sidewalk connectivity and replacing the vinyl siding. I think if if those things are achieved um that really improves the development in my mind. [44:28] **Chair**: My two cents—I think M&I has done a really nice job coming back again and and working with the city and staff and trying to meet all the conditions that were initially placed upon them over a month ago. I believe this development meets the initial plan that was laid out, although that did expire, but uh they're within the scope of what was initially planned here for this area. So it should be—I don't think it should be a surprise to anybody that this was coming as it was always part of the plan. Um, with that I I agree with the the 15 conditions that are placed—recommendations are placed by staff. And it really has improved since the last time we saw it. So thank you. Uh with that uh we'll move to a vote. All in favor? [45:15] **Commissioners**: I. I. I. [45:17] **Chair**: All opposed? [45:18] **Commissioner**: I. [45:19] **Chair**: And with that, the move to recommend the city council approve the preliminary plan and PUD. Motion has passed. And on to our next agenda item. Thank you. If you'd like to stick around and hear the rest of our fun meeting, you're more than welcome to. [45:35] **Emily Becker**: I would, but I have to another meeting. [45:38] **Chair**: Good choice. And uh next on the agenda, communication updates. [45:43] **Nate Stanley**: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh city staff recently updated the language within the mailed public hearing notice mailers. Um that ties into one of your items on the annual work plan. Um and the city I believe is rolling out a new website within the next few months and that will also have more opportunities for communicating um items and public hearings. Um city council updates: at April 15th, the milestones daycare which was in the old Rasmosson College site... that CUP passed. And then your next meetings are May 27th which is a Tuesday and June 9th. [46:25] **Chair**: Do we know if we're gonna have a quorum on the 27th? [46:28] **Nate Stanley**: We will. [46:30] **Chair**: All right. Very good. Very good. All right. Any other last minute discussions? [46:35] **Commissioner**: There is no plans for this item—there is no—that we just discussed. It's not on council yet? [46:40] **Nate Stanley**: Correct. It's still waiting for an engineering review. Once we have all the reviews in, we'll schedule it for city council. But it'll be before that June 14th deadline. [46:50] **Commissioner**: Okay. [46:51] **Chair**: Very good. Or the developer will have to request more time. Right. All right. With that, we will adjourn the Monday, May 12th, 2025 Lake Elmo Planning Commission meeting.