Aliance 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 Hearn, did you want to add something to the regular agenda? >> Nope. or hear holds. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Did I >> hold Hearn? >> 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. Anything else? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion to approve the amended agenda. >> Motion to approve the amended agenda. >> Second. >> Motion and second for approval of the amended agenda. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Agenda is hereby approved. Approval of the 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. >> Motion to approve minutes from June 3rd, 2025. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> 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? Mayor Caitton Head, city council members. U 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. >> 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, POS water treatment plant. Number nine, approve change order number one for well number two, POS water treatment plant. Number 10, approve pay request number three for well. Number two, PAS 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. Uh, read. >> So moved. support. >> All those in favor of approving the consent agenda, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> 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? All right, >> get my mic on. Um, I will uh very quickly introduce Tammy Amdall of Northland Security, 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 tenatively 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. >> Mayor, council, good evening. Tammy Amdall with North 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 um 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 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'm 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 and the approximate amount of 2,185,000. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have for me. >> Questions for Miss Homedoll? >> All right. No questions at this time. Thank you. We do have a recommendation. I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve resolution 2025-045 resolution providing for the competitive negotiated sale of 2,185,000 general obligation improvement bonds series 2025A >> second. We have a motion and second discussion. >> Council member Jagassich >> I'm not opposed to the sale of the bonds. 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 we're the impact of that debt is significant on our residents and businesses we levy about 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 will 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 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 in debt service payments >> over the life of the bond. >> Over the life of the bonded y I can't recall what's what is the bond life. >> I mean we still $183,000 in interest $183,649 based on the estimate and um and we'd save about 93 $91,000 a year in debt service based on the estimate. So about $100,000 year less 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 be incumbent on us to develop a plan to get that debt level down. Um, we're better off to actually 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, um, I said when we put those less 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. >> Mr. >> Yes. If I could sorry if I could clarify the street maintenance fund levy is for street maintenance specifically mill and overlays uh >> seal codes >> thank you seal coding the only portion that we levied for major projects is the infrastructure reserve 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 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. I we we do not have the levies to support that right now. So the $600,000 that we levied for streets is chip seals and maintenance round that's for public works department to be used. Is it right? >> Is it that's spent >> during 2025? It's it's spent. >> It's spent. >> Okay. All right. So So we spent the $600,000 in 2025 already on street maintenance. >> Correct. >> Interesting. Because in the in the in our budget it says it's for capital. >> It's for Just for capital expenditures in our budget, >> well, we're gonna the so the street maintenance fund is set up as a capital fund in that it's a larger uh 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. And what did we spend it on in 2025? >> $600,000. >> I'm gonna let Nate speak to that. >> Yep. So, it's it's not completely spent spent. Um but it's uh gone to the Reed Parking lots. Um and then the rest of it's going to as uh finance director stated Milan overlay project that's coming later this year and um chip seals and crack projects. So, why would the park parking lots come from the park fund >> as opposed to the street fund? >> Why would we pay them from a street fund? >> Uh, I'm not entirely positive about that. But how much was the street and the millan overlay project? >> 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, $300,000. Wasn't that Wasn't there more a larger project that was almost a million dollars? >> I'm not recalling. >> 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 >> Yeah. >> expenditures from those projects. >> That money is budgeted for projects this year already. Um Okay. And and so I guess I just when I read it and said capital outlay, I assume that meant capital outlay. >> Yeah. >> Um >> well, I would consider the maybe it's just a nuance in the jargon, right? And I can certainly understand the the uh reading it that way. Um but as long as we know that that money is outlaid for the maintenance of the for public works department on our system and you know we can talk at a different time if that money for for a parking lot which would be a city parking lot whether it's parks and wreck or city function to me is a uh uh it's just you know it's just moving it's the same amount of money it's going to be gone somewhere. So, um, and and that parking lot is definitely in need of it. 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. >> The >> all of the streets have >> 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 like projects that get designed to get done. >> Well, this is a capital project. >> Right. Right. But I 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 I don't think you're when we're doing our city projects like we would in a state project that the 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. >> 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 putting replacing a culvert. >> That's that's 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 400 about $400,000. >> Which one? And the one we just that 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. >> And typically a city uses storm water utility to pay for storm water utility improvements. >> Yeah. Yes, Clarissa. >> Um to Nick's point that 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 the the 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, >> right? >> Everybody pays for storm water, >> right? >> You know, I guess my experience is different, but I um 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 a pot of money that we set aside and that that should be growing, right? >> Yes. And so, in theory, the long-term plan shows us well, the long-term plan that is in the works. um with our with our CIP. Essentially, the goal is to even out the levy, >> get 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 what we're doing and what we're going to talk about at the um 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 that decrease in debt over time. So, I mean, the decrease in debt already, um, the impacts, you know, just just being able to, you know, decrease the project scope, um, just having the conversation about, you know, sort of this moving in that direction. Um, you know, we've we've got the 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 le we're we're bonding for fewer projects than we have in the past. the 2 million 2.1 million versus um what was it? 5 million last year. So, >> we're headed in the right direction. >> And what's and what's planned for next year? 8 million. >> I you know, I don't have that >> right in front of me. But yeah, >> I just think we spent a lot of time talking about trying to get it down. And here we are, you know, bond in again and not bring any additional levy money into it. Well, I think we've we've already uh what I'm understanding uh council member Dragusich 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. I didn't get the well of 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 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 I think we'll be you know backed up $3 million plus levy for debt service and the 40 35% of our tax is going to pay debt. Don't not so sure that's doing our residents a favor. >> 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. >> 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. Any other discussion? All right. Uh, we'll call the question. All those in favor of resolution 2025-045, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Any nays? >> Nate. >> All right. Uh, resolution passes 31. >> Motion to approve the municipal services agreement with Northland Securities, Inc. >> Second. >> Any discussion? Call the question. All those in favor of the why my where's my uh excuse me page moved. >> All those in favor approve the municipal service agreement with Northland Securities Inc. please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any nays? >> Hearing none. Motion passes. Item 14, approve plans and specifications and order add for bids for I94 lift station and force main improvements resolution 2025-046. 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 um force main improvements uh to the I94 lift station. Um, as you recall, this is the force main uh that runs along um Hudson Boulevard and Inwood Avenue that has experienced a number of breaks over the last decade and is has um exceeded its useful service life. So, I'm here asking for um to to move to that next step and and order order bids. Um so, just a few things tonight. I'm going to talk about um we'll go over the location, the scope, um the schedule, and the budget. Um and then I also do have it was uh 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 project, the Culver 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. So, location of the lift station is actually down on Hudson Boulevard. Um, 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 uh discharge location. So right now it ties in with the Met Council force vein 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 a gravity sewer line that this will ultimately discharge to. Um one thing it's it's a little hard to see. I know on the on the aerial uh you'll notice that the red line that's the existing uh path of the force main um there's a a crossing of Inwood Avenue that is slightly farther south than what we're proposing now and that is to um that 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, um, we're replacing approximately 3,000 ft 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 the pipe condition in a previous presentation. Um, and through analysis of uh, ultimate flows in the area, uh, we've determined that um, the line should actually be upsized to a 16inch line. Now, that's 16inch outside diameter, slightly smaller inside, but the pipe material we're going with this time is a highdensity polyethylene. So, this is a thicker walled material and it's really the standard for all force manes that are 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 are using something different that that should sustain and have a a longer life. Um so the upsizing was based on a review of uh the ultimate service area. So all that area kind of north um of of the lift station um eventually it's going to come there. You know it's 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 service the future service flows the 16inch main uh was was appropriate. Um, we did also review the lift station components, the the uh controls and electrical system. Um, and it was determined that new pumps will be needed uh to control the or to to to um transmit the um sewage in the new force main. Now, those pumps will not work with the existing force man. The existing force man will not work with these new pumps. So, um, that was originally, you may recall from a previous pre from when we brought this item forward, uh, before, 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 uh to procure those pumps and what costs are associated with that. But, um, the pumps will the new pumping or 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. Uh lastly, there uh during development of the Amira site, uh which is just north of Hudson Boulevard there, kind of where the the lift station is, it was discovered that there was a 90in uh corrugated metal uh covert going beneath Hudson Boulevard that was um starting to rot out. And when I say rot out, I mean rust, crumble, collapse. And um it was brought 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, uh we're were investigating a trenchless solution. So lining the pipe. Um also working with the wershed district, it was determined that the pipe was oversized for what it actually needs to be. It does not need to be 90 in. Um and through some analysis it was determined a 72 a 72inch pipe would um serve the drainage needs of the area. So looking so moving further as as as the lift station project progressed um and we found out how the pipes are configured out there um it just made sense since we're we have to open the road up to uh to bring in the force man into the lift station to also install this culvert while the road is in is is closed and just do one closure get rid of everything take care of everything um 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 U force man actually goes underneath the existing 90in culvert and it it will need to go back underneath the new culvert because if you think of 72 in, that's how tall I am. Okay, it's six feet. So, there's not a lot of room between the roaded 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 uh before you today on June 17th looking for plan authorization and um and bid authorization. Um if if we move forward the uh we're we'll be accepting bids on July 8th and then coming back to council on July 15th uh with a recommendation for contract award. The project is anticipated to start a couple weeks after that in in early August and be substantially complete by mid-occtober with any sort of final completion um by the end of the year. So, at the time uh that I was preparing this uh presentation and council item, we didn't have um really hard exacting costs uh for the improvements. Um we had our CIP our CIP budget uh for the forest main is $900,000 and for the covert 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 we really had to be careful. So, um I' 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 man and the culvert. Splitting those out, the force man is anticipated to be approximately $615,000 and the culvert approximately 325,000. when contingencies and engineering is applied across these projects equally as or as it should prorrate um 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 uh installed. Three new pumps that need to be installed in the lift station. We have a quote um from a pump supplier to to um sell those to us for $150,000. Um I anticipate coming back to council at a future meeting uh with a plan uh for the for to procure those pumps and a little more information, but um right now that number I just want to make very clear is not included in this $1.3 million CIP number. >> Was that one pump? >> That's three pumps. >> That was for three. That was the price. 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 um 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 four weeks is is is is a pretty rosy estimate we think. But um but we think um that should that closure will allow for both the culvert install as well as the um installation of the force main um to to the lift station and and other work as necessary to adjust utilities. Um there is a um traffic control plan that detours cars from Hudson Boulevard up Giulia 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 uh or uh or I'm sorry um yes, no that that um westbound lanes uh on Hudson Boulevard between Inwood and um Eagle Point Boulevard and Circle will remain open during construction. So there will be access there um while the work is going on. >> Just is one way or control? That would be a oneway, >> but you'll be able to get out via eagle point up to fifth. >> Y >> Nick, the the the schematic there shows the new >> the new force man underneath the roadway, but I'm assuming it's not going to need to be underneath the roadway. >> Uh, actually, it is going to be underneath the roadway. >> Um, >> so all that road needs to be redone. >> Nope. There it's going to be boarded in there 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 man, that's a plastic pipe, that it's virtually impossible to trace the location of that pipe and locate it. Public Works has uh they know where breaks have occurred. Um but you know seeing as how the roads kind of got a curve a linear um you know geometry as you come around there we don't have good information where the existing force man is and and we have to make sure that that pipe stays in service while the new force man goes in. So as a factor of safety we're moving that pipe into that northern part of the roadway. Okay. There will be, like I said, there will be limited patching, but a wholesale uh reconstruction of the road or or even uh you know, a large amount of replacement is not anticipated and we are aware that's a new roadway and this is a bummer. You know, with that, um, I'm asking council to consider approving a resolution approving plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement for bids for the I94 lift station forcement improvements. >> Questions for Mr. Stanley? Uh, council member herd, >> did you include what would the price look like if these were done at separate times? So, if we decide not to do both at the same time, then what kind of price tag are we looking at for that culvert later on? >> Right. So, I'll I'll 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 I and when you package these together, you get to take advantage of kind of an economy of scale. um especially when you're talking about, you know, traffic control, patching the road, mobilization cost for a contractor to come in and and working around all the utilities that are going to need to be worked around and put in this culvert. I I think that if you separated the covert out and did it under a separate project, um and and this culvert, I I'll I'll say again, is, you know, it needs to be replaced. It's it's it's rusted. It's it's it's rotting. Um it it it would cost more money. A standalone project for the covert, you know, would definitely cost a little 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 uh pipes, you know, large diameter force mane. Um it's it's it's not something that every contractor does, but um I definitely think that packaging them together, you'll get a more favorable price for both projects. I know it's challenging, but I mean with the culver I mean do you think are we talking double the price? Are we talking 50%. >> I don't know about double. I think you could assume anywhere between 15 and 20% though, you know, reasonably >> and kind of lifespan. If we didn't do it, when do you see it failing and needing to be replaced? >> That's that's the million-dollar question, right? um you know the the engineering that's been and inspection that's been done on the pipe gives us you know um 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 of you know when a pipe gets holes in it moisture runs through those holes and and just can create like an unstable condition around the pipe which in turn can create an unstable condition um in the roadway. So, we feel like this open cutting and replacing the pipe is a much more um uh it it it gives us a higher degree of certainty of of a successful rehabilitation than like lining the pipe. And lining the pipe, believe it or not, with a pipe that diameter or that size would probably be more expensive than just open cutting in the situation we're in now. >> And if it's I, you know, again, I'm just thinking down the road. I don't know what if the right term is if it fails. Is that more of an emergency type situation where then we have to act quickly? >> It absolutely emergency >> obviously not as much of a a favorable bit 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. >> Yeah. >> And you're not able to do the best that you can. So that's what that's why we're looking at this in the way we are now. All right. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Thank you, Mr. Stanley. With that, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve resolution number 2025-046 approving the plans and specifications in ordering the advertisement for bids for the I94 lift station and force main improvements. Second. We have a motion and second. Discussion. Council member Jagasich, >> 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, you know, it's it's a convenience of choice, not, you know, a clear and concise direction. And I'll let it go with that. >> I guess I would uh I would agree. I didn't know that that they were separately that way. And uh certainly we can address that 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 I'm in favor of doing it. And your your your point is not lost on me. Council member Dragassich. Any other comments? Discussion? Council member Holtz. I was just going to say thank you to staff for number one being able to fasttrack 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 like 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 man failed as many times as it did. It defies belief and 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 in 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. Third time's a charm. >> Seriously, don't don't don't. But I I do appreciate staff's time on this because it needs to be done correctly. >> 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, you know, it's always one of those, you know, do we want to do it now? Do we want to wait? And and usually this is the situation where if the opportunity presents itself and that repair is going to be um needed in the near future and um like you said, could be more of an emergent situation. Um, I think being proactive, unfortunately, it's a $400,000 proactive decision, but um probably better than what it would be if two, three years down the road and then more road closures and um the hassle with that. So, I I do appreciate the proactivity and our uh the proactive approach um in seeing that and including this in in the presentation tonight. >> All right, I'll call the question. And all those in favor of resolution number 2025-046, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> 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. All right. Uh good evening, mayor, members of the council. So we're here tonight to talk about Inwood uh town homes or Inwood eth edition eth edition of inwood rather uh a preliminary plat planned unit development 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, uh, town home 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 highdensity residential. 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 um opportunity with this PUD for for those flexibilities. We've also looked at the shoreland overlay, understanding there's a 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 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 um into a mix of different categories including the highdensity residential district, the mixed use commercial district and the business park district. And so this project is uh requesting to come to bring everything back to the same future land use guidance uh which is now called high density residential. uh and the density range the ceiling of that density range is the same as it was uh in the prior comp plan. So looking at the background um 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 uh a number of different units in in the areas that weren't single family detached. So you can see those on the screen. In short, it anticipated more units than are proposed now. Inwood uh first through fifth editions, those are the single family parts of the project. They were approved and and have been built uh largely within the span of 2015 to 2017 and uh Inwood sixth edition was it was and is the quick trip site. So on the screen you can see the proposed preliminary plat. You can see um one lot for the proposed apartment building that's on the west side of the project and then all of the individual attached town home lots. Here's a another um plan view. This is the landscaping plan. It kind of shows you a little bit more of the the spacing on the development. We'll talk about some of the particulars here that are being proposed as I get through the presentation. Looking at the PUD minimum criteria. This project does meet those standards for a PUD. The city also has objectives that PUDs have to meet in its ordinance and so those are shown on the screen and we can talk about those if you have any questions about which ones would apply. In reviewing the preliminary plot, we look at a variety of different standards as you know. Uh starting with land use, uh the bulk standards like setbacks and that that type of thing. uh 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 in blue that are being requested for flexibility. This is not very uncommon with the way that this type of town home development is being platted where you have individual lots that are surrounding the individual attached town home units. The multif 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 town home 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 um are higher at about 84% of the top end. We have a couple of setbacks uh 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 flexibilities being requested for, but because of the orientation of those units, staff do not have uh concerns with that setback. The buildings will actually front um all of the public streets that surround this project. So here you can see uh the units that are proposed are double fronted meaning that um on for example on the fifth street north side of the project you'll have the units facing with a public kind of face towards the the public street corridor and then internal to the development that's where you have the kind of the rear loaded we'll call it uh town homes. So, uh, this project was informed by some of the specific performance standards that are in the city's ordinance and in the design standards manual. Uh, for single family attached town homes, um, buildings need to be smaller than 10 units without a cup, front to public street, or receive a conditional use permit. Uh, 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. Uh 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 town homes for design. Those are shown on the screen in that you know red box. Um so thinking about the building placement um the 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. Uh 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 they are the development will have private streets. Terms of the streetscape, concrete sidewalks are available to all units, but they don't necessarily run along a public street. Uh 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 uh driveways facing the private private road. Uh in terms of landscaping we think about um preservation of the existing trees along that fifth street north corridor in addition to having overstory trees where we can uh include them in the actual internal to the attached town home area. So here is one rendering of those attached town home 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 project or 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 town home 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. So, on the screen you see the this was another um rendering of the attached town home 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 uh is is vinyl siding. Vinyl siding is in a list of materials in the city's design standard manual that are prohibited as like a primary facade material. Um, in some in some cases, cities might try to interpret their uh design standards to say like if it's primary, that means it's just 51%. It's got to be a majority of the of the facade. In this case, uh, that's not how staff interpret the manual. U, we have a list of prohibited materials from being primary included as a primary material on a facade, whether it's, you know, 10% or or 100. Those materials include vinyl sighting. They also include unpainted galvanized metal, corrugated metal, uh 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 um requiring that the vinyl be switched out with a conforming material. As to what other materials that the developer has that they can incorporate, I would have to have them speak to that question and certainly uh they they'd be happy to speak to that another here tonight. So 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 formal facade, building materials, and other elements of the building all meet the city standards. >> Was there a rendering of that from Fifth Street? Um I they may have included it uh somewhere in the packet but in the application materials but it will look very similar from Fifth Street. It there will be no parking between the building and the road and you'll have a sidewalk and landscaping between the the road and the building but no I don't have anything on the presentation. So parkland dedication u 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 uh connections to be made by this development. So the parks commission did review this earlier this year and recommended cash in lie 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, um the overall project, you can see the landscaping plan on the screen here. U 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 being 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 town home area, we are um 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 we noticed that the Bremer Financial uh site to the south doesn't have any screening or landscaping of any kind. There is a um 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 the developer actually did go back to the drawing board in their in their resubmitt and provide screening in the um 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 town homes is a is a common question that's provided in the driveways for those units and there is on street parking in the private drives throughout the the town home area. Uh a note on access and circulation. There are existing access points along Fifth Street North and Island Trail or no just Fifth Street North, sorry. Um that's being used by this development. Island Trail will receive uh approved basically an approved access location u 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 town home part of this development lack a little bit of connectivity to the surrounding sidewalk network. So, a lot of review comments here. Uh city's fire department, engineer, landscape architect all reviewed and provide comment memos. U 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 uh 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, um, one, actually, I didn't mention this one. The parallel parking is suggested where on the plans it was shown to have 90 degree parking in the attached town home. There are a few areas in the attached town home part of the development that the the angled parking doesn't work very well. So, that's going to get that can get fixed and I think the developer is working on that. Now, I've mentioned the other two pieces here. to decide about 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 resubmitt, 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 if you do that. 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 um Fifth Avenue in particular, vehicle speeds, those types of things. There's also a conversation about where people can cross to get to the parks nearby. And there's also uh 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 50 of the comprehensive plan amendment and 41 of the preliminary platin. So, I do have some example motions for you up on the screen. These would of course approve the project as uh proposed with conditions. Um resolutions are in the staff report if if you need the number. I would also mention that the applicant is here this evening and did have a presentation for you uh that they'd like to talk about. So with that, I'm happy to stand for questions. Questions for Mr. First Council Holtz. A lot of information. Uh you 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. Yep. >> That I presume also means there's no plan to use storm water reuse that's developed on the southern site. >> Yeah. So, that's a a good question and something that staff did raise through the review process. Um, as you probably know, there's the 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 the developer and I think that'd be a great question for them as to whether they have plans to incorporate that. Fantastic. What are your thoughts then? Because I agree with the concerns that were raised regarding I'm gonna 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 stop lightss in those location. 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? >> 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 is intended to be a, you know, higher traffic volume corridor. So I think you know some 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. >> 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. I would I would also add that because the road is curved in some areas, it you know it it would have to be something that's thought through like a thoughtful suggestion to where crossing should go. >> Absolutely. Because it obviously by the quick drip you have the curve on the eastern side of this you're just coming up from a straight a 90 degree curve. Obviously, the 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 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 we're saying where 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. >> Could we um could we add a conditional approval for the crosswalk um based on the study? Could that be a conditional approval? You know, if 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 you know what the parameters are what and then if I mean if it shows that it's crosswalk needs to go in based on our policy >> it that has to happen. >> Yeah. I I 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 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. >> Well, that's why you do a traffic study. >> Yes, it'd be hypothetical. >> A hypothetical on number of vehicles, number of people. there was a um there was a I'll call it like an amended traffic study that was resubmitted with this project that basically you know stated that um the traffic volumes that would be generated by this project were at or below what was initially projected for inwood but you know beyond that I can't speak to the study >> 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 ft on the boulevard. Staff is recommending that they do stick with that. >> Yeah, I think we've gotten to a point where staff's pretty comfortable with the landscaping that's proposed. Um there is um and there are enough trees to satisfy the city's requirements, but to your point um the private drives are it's difficult to meet the 50 foot spacing requirement with these attached town homes because you've got six units that have you know 20 or so foot driveway each with five 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, you know, staff are thinking that they they very well could provide some type of landscaping that's not necessarily a tree planting between the the uh driveways. So, uh they they did uh revise the plans and include a more traditionally designed street, we'll call it through the development that can and 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 the attached town home area that meets. >> Okay. And then on the buffering and screening um 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 the back. >> Yeah, that's a a good a good question. So, uh to just clarify, the uh city received an initial application in like February that was complete. Uh we processed that at the first uh the first planning commission we had was the April meeting. Uh at that time we had identified some issues in with the design which included the lack of buffer and there were also um 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 um now this switch the the the garage doors for the units. Maybe you can see the cursor on the screen if I move it around. Okay, maybe the street that the private drive that runs on the south of the attached town home site that now has uh units that have their garages pointed towards the Bremer lot, which >> which is so that street C that you're talking about. >> Uh this street D at the bottom >> if you can. Yeah. So that's where those garage doors open up towards Bremer and it just you know this the site's not oriented towards Bremer anymore. So it it helps I think to kind of buffer those two uses. >> 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 CDE E I guess if you could just help under help me understand that a little bit. I guess what is the implications of that? How does that um like with the sidewalk policy with um snow removal with tax levies in the future for reconstru or for you know any repairs? What's how does that work? Are the residents of this property paying 100% of that levy then? Um how does that work? >> 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 um project will have an HOA that manages the entire property. So all um snow removal, landscaping, all of that is handled by that entity. Um the HOA is also responsible for the long-term maintenance costs of the all the infrastructure on the site. >> Do we have any other neighborhoods that or developments that have utilized that? >> 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. >> Any issues that have arisen from that? um that that you're aware of. >> 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. >> Sure. >> Simon has all private drives. >> Yeah. Sim >> Simron has all private drives. >> Simon has all private drives. Okay. It's working out well. >> Council member holds >> in terms of sewer and water. So utilities with private roads. Where are the utilities going? 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 >> and they're going under the road, not necessarily maybe sidewalk curb. >> No, it's under the roads and and so the city engineer had the developer submit a cross-section of the private roads with the application to better 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. >> In the hypothetical where a repair has to occur because it's not our street, but we have an easement. How who pays for the street repair when it has when a digging has to occur? That one I'm going to have to look at. >> That actually hasn't um been a point of discussion. Um just as you started speaking uh I I started I knew you were going that direction. >> I didn't know I was going that direction. >> I'm glad you did. >> Yeah, I'm I think we're on the same wavelength then. Um but um that's a point of discussion. I honestly um here's the way it works with when when um when we are in county right of way we're there by permit um that's a little different. Um so if like you know we need to excavate uh something we get into the 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. >> Any experience? >> 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. Have you >> I have not on private role but generally when you even across private property if you have to excavate to repair you you're responsible for restoring a property >> not having under private >> I know that utilities generally if they let's say it's a excel buried or something like that and they're crossing a city street Excel is responsible for repairing that right so >> because it 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. But >> that's something we be addressed in a developers agreement. >> Yeah, I that would be subject to the agreement when where they grant the easement. We would have to dictate who is responsible for repairing and to what extent. Usually repair to the condition exists when you tear it up. >> Tear up. >> Yeah. Have Have you run into this before, council? >> Uh, Mr. Mayor or members of the council? I 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. >> 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. Yeah. I I have no issue with us repairing it. It's our utility. It's just not fixing it above and beyond what it was. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> We're not there to fix their streets above and beyond what it was >> at the time the repair was made. >> Yes. 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. >> Sure. So >> the the one area where it seems like there's a lack of connectivity is again on the attached town home side of this project on the southeast and southwest corners. Um see if I can get the cursor to show up on the screen. Having a hard time with that. Is that >> sections like uh what are they labeled? One and two there. >> 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. >> Yeah. >> Um I it looks like there wants to be or should be a pedestrian crossing >> there. There is a sidewalk that terminates uh on the I'll call it the um 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. And in order to walk south at this point, the way it's designed, they have to go north. So they have to go around a block basically around the block to stay on a sidewalk. >> Is it this? Is it the dashed line? Is that >> I'm thinking Yeah, >> the dash line. >> Yeah. Um, depends on what dash line you're >> Sorry. Yeah, if you hit escape, you should be able to make it smaller than we'll be able to see the mouse. >> Yeah. 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 uh south or north more easily because you you have a fair amount of people that live along this street. >> Sure. >> There's the dotted line I was thinking about. >> Per you have great 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. >> And with Fifth Street, is there already a sidewalk or trail on Fifth Street? >> There is. >> Is that on the south side? >> 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. >> 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. Yeah, here's maybe a here in this image. You can see that part of the 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're you'd want to locate a crossing here. So >> other than Island Lake intersections is what I was thinking. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I mean Island Lake is the one where you have the most visibility both west north. I don't think you want to cut across the median and mid curve. That does >> don't want to risk that. No, >> 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. >> Any further questions? >> Developer here. Did the uh applicant want to say something, present something? >> Thank you, mayor and council. Thank you for your consideration of this project. My name is Emily Becker. I'm with MI 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 in at the April planning commission meeting with a revised submitt 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 um 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 town home lot, um we are going to try our best to mimic the lands or 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. Uh 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, um Island Trail was designed and constructed as a minor collector street designed to handle the multifamily portion of the um 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 uh 2014, ranges in 9 to 42% lower than uh 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 I94 in retail and the west I94 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 mater 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 um that we're we're pushing to allow vinyl at least on a portion of the building. One is maintenance. So with uh with Hardy sighting, it does require to be cocked 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 um 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 a 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 these outws 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 town homes 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. >> Member Holtz, welcome back to Lake Elmo. Where do these parcels drain to for watershed? Um, I believe it's north of Fifth Street to that uh to Pondine near the park, I believe. >> So, there's culverts going under Fifth to get there. >> I'm not sure. I would have to I would have to verify that, but I know it does. The town home, the east portion of Island Trail does not drain to that outlot that's to the west of Island Trail. >> And the outlot to the west is owned by the city. >> 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. Mhm. >> Um well, other question would have been so there's a couple I wouldn't call them large green open spaces, but if I know there's the power lines on the south. Um I assume that means literally both those two parcels like they're point4 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 the your proposed design, there's a couple green spaces along the main corridor. Is there any plan for any type of activity? >> Um, I believe I mean there's obviously that um landscape feature that's within the town home 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? uh 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. Yeah, I mean we'd definitely be willing to work with staff to add um small recreational features within that open space. >> Thank you, >> Council Member Hearn. >> 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 zone for the mixeduse commercial, why the desire to move away from that to to switch that to HDR. Um maybe if we could start there and a couple other questions kind of around that point. Yeah. So, I was actually working with the city at the time of the comprehensive plan amendment that changed that from HDR to mixeduse 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 designation's density. Prior to that, prior to a couple years ago, I don't know if it was in the past year, but at the time of adoption of that comprehensive plan, you could mix densities across parcels. So, >> so it was more to do with the the Met Council's interpretation versus >> it was originally the thought again 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. >> Okay. Is staff anything on that you can add on? >> Yeah, I would add that that's that's correct. So the mech 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 town home 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. 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 >> Yeah, I think to be fair, the city in 2014 approved the Inwood PUD and kind of vision and knowing then what we know now about the Met Council's guidelines and and rules >> kept it 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 was 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. >> So that makes sense. >> Um if I keep going if you could 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. >> Yeah, there's um a number of reasons for that. So, I mean, first and foremost, I'm gonna be honest. It does provide a little bit more flexibility and setbacks. That was the number one reason. However, there are also added benefits to that. First of all, um, 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 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's just allows for better services. Um, and yeah, I think that those are those are the main reasons. >> 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 in developments, we there's been a lot of issues brought up before the HOAs turned over >> to the the residents. Yep. >> And there's a lot of issues of the the things that they were promised getting done getting done. 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. >> Correct. >> Maintenance. Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. Um do I have to keep going? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um and then if you could just talk with the 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 variants are needed versus decreasing the the density. >> 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 um guidelines within the the city's guidelines and standards is that they want um 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. Um the tree spacing, I mean, as Nathan kind of alluded to, some of that isn't be able to be met because of utilities. Um there is a little nuance within the code that does allow for um clustered areas of those trees in the case that there that spacing is not able to be met. Um I think I mean I think that those were the main >> I'm sorry did you you did did you mentioned the minimum lot size for the multif family apartment buildings was that >> yeah I mean one of the it's it was already platted that way and I don't I don't even know if those standards were in place at the time. >> Okay. >> It was platted as an apartment building. In fact it's actually less than what was anticipated with the original development. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Yes, Council Member Altz Nathan. So, regarding vinyl and uh materials, and I'm I'm hearing a bit of a 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. >> 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. Okay. Anything else? >> Not as a question. >> All right. Then I'll entertain a motion. Move to adopt uh resolution 2025 dash 4 >> 048 >> 048. Right. Approving the comprehensive plan amendment request by MI Homes for the subject property with the findings and conditions. >> Did you say second? >> All right. Discussion. >> Council member 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 I the argument is pretty straightforward. I guess it makes sense that if at the time in 2014 we knew then and what we knew now. So I I get that makes sense. I don't have an issue for the comp plan amendment per se. >> Was this the same site when we were on planning commission? They came with like a fourstory apartment building. No, that was different location. I didn't even live in the city yet at that time. This is 2014. >> 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? >> Mr. Mayor, I do remember there being an apartment building proposed >> sometime after 2014. >> Yeah. >> And that and people were upset about it. I think it was due to the size. >> The size. I think it was fourtory or >> Yeah. >> something larger. >> I must have been gone that meeting. >> I literally have no memory >> of that. >> I have no memory. >> Just just to clarify. >> Wait a minute. >> If you didn't have a memory, we'd we'd have problems. 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 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 can make it challenging. So I I have no issue approving the comprehensive plan um amendment here. >> 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. >> I. >> Resolution 2025-048 is approved. Anybody want to make a motion on the preliminary plat? >> Move to adopt resolution 2025-049 approving the preliminary plat and PUD for the Inwood Town Home Development requested by MNI Homes with the findings and conditions therein. >> Discussion. >> Need a second. >> I'll give you a second. >> Yeah, Council Member. >> Yeah, I I have concerns with this. I just I can't I don't see myself voting for and I I think I've been pretty consistent with this in any development where if the um density is above the the minimum limit um and variances are being requested I just I can't put those two together. I I feel like the uh >> above the maximum maximum limit or minimum limit. >> So we've had like one situation where without variances they wouldn't have been able to achieve the minimum. Oh, okay. Yeah. >> density. >> Right. >> Right. 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 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 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's 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 uh vote for a variance. >> Clarifying question. So this net density is 14.06. 06 and with the comp plan amendment it's 8 to 15 >> range. >> 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? Yeah. >> Can I just clarify really quick? So yeah, the density range would be between eight and 15 units per acre. Um, and the the one standard that I think you're uh potentially considering uh with the flexibility is for the multif family dwelling uh 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. 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 that I don't think that's been shown to us that these have to be um implemented to um make it work for the design of the layout of the land. Um I again I 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. >> What do you think about the uh imperous cover being 84% per lot but meeting the requirement overall? I would go back to I mean it's in our code. This is the >> So would you go per lot or would you say the whole development's 60% which is >> well if it's in our code that it's has to be 75% per lot then it should be 75% per lot >> per lot. 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 m owned and maintained by an HOA. So there's some logic in at least my mind to staff to the the setback variances for the attached town home units u where I um you know think the discussion is definitely fair for the council is um potentially to the impervious uh although the overall development meets that but then I think the discussion about density may land on that multifamily standard that >> I'm 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. >> Well, in Yeah. So, if the lot So, the boundaries of the lots or the you you know, they're owner occupied. So, when you when I buy a town home, it's I get the just the small area perimeter around the unit, but then the rest of the area is open space. Um, that's pretty common for town home 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 util, you know, 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. >> 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? >> So, the U PUD minimum standards require at least 20% open space for the entire project and that more than meets the third 300 square feet for a town home unit and a 200 square ft for a apartment unit. So, in other words, they're they're way over what they would have to do as a minimum. I suppose on the flip side if you start redoing the green re 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 so we've approved multiple ones on the in previous surface where it meted overall but not per unit >> uh legacy and northstar are examples Um, but were there ever discussions of it might actually be two apartment buildings and then fewer owner owner occupied town homes? >> Um, as in all of the kind of concept plans and sort of more informal, I'll call informal review that happened preceding this project. Uh, it's primarily just been the one apartment building and the town homes. And just going back to how Inwood was initially envisioned. Of course, nothing was ever approved or set in stone. >> Correct. They didn't get preliminary plan, but you know, at every point along the way, that seems to have been kind of the thinking and how this would develop >> because it 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 foot could be larger footprint for the building and it might be potentially a larger parcel as well because you're you're shifting more of that population for your 10 your up to 15 units per acre more than those. >> The applicant can talk to your question if you would wish to hear your discretion. if you'd like to comment on that. Emily, would you like to answer that question? >> Yeah. So, unfortunately, I don't have the slide up, but um with the preliminary plot that was approved with the master plan for Inwood, um there were certain impervious surfaces that were allotted throughout the entire development. And unfortunately, I don't have the slide. Um, this was presented at the April 14th planning commission meeting, but it did show that we're well within the allowed imperous 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 town home lot, that's going to be a lot different than if you're looking at a single family lot, >> right? >> Yep. >> 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 um uh is is kind of a concern of why we we can't move forward with development um because of the water quantity. And as a result of that, I'd say the water quality issues, especially with irrigation during the summer, you know, causing us to have to mix wells. Um, you know, I guess I see this again is 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 um wells during the summer and again obviously it's, you know, 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 um 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 um to this plan. So 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 town home units uh when we get a per capita because of the decreased irrigation needs because of the density and the the less u pvious surface I think we're talking and Somebody can call, you know, call me on, but I thought we were talking in the order of 35 to 40 gallons per capita in a town home unit versus what it can reach in a single family home. So to that extent on the water use when you regard that I I believe that in my opinion the town home um model helps out the city on an overall basis with the usage of water per capita right um so that that I 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 lot and um water reuse being used in those locations. >> That's just that's just >> 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 um for some of these features, you know, still as like a PUB, you know, we're looking for things that are going to um go above and beyond uh you know, 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 pond by taking one unit out, it wouldn't have capacity to be used for reuse for irrigate would probably very little. >> This Yeah. And like this is my like again I'm not trying to plan it tonight. I just think >> I think something else needs to be >> presented. Um if variances are being requested, if we're not going to have storm water reuse and there is density that can decrease and still meet the the limit. Um >> I just commenting on the storm water use picking out one unit wouldn't provide big enough pond for much reason. I mean >> correct have to be more than that. Yeah. >> And in my experience, yeah, these this type of uses less water. um absent the irrigation requirement generally units use about 20% less water than a single family residential um 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 but >> yeah sure >> okay any other discussion >> 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? So, I think I I'd have to have the, you know, ask the developer to speak to that, but you see, you know, a fair amount of open areas in the attached town home part of the development. I would assume that, you know, some of those green spaces get irrigated by a irrigation system. I mean, I I hate talking about how we can save water for an absolutely flawed lawsuit that was beyond terribly decided, but is a good conversation to have because we're required to. Um I 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 flaw 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 at home apartments and >> 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, >> yeah, >> 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? 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 this site drains to the pond that's adjacent to the single family part of the >> in the northwest. >> This one? >> Yeah. >> Okay. If that pond's used for reuse, then they have water reuse. It might not be for this site but it's >> they're using it on that >> they're using itely >> in the overall development. >> Yes. So we have storm water reuse >> and on the impervious I guess it is asking for cons 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 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 that's outside of our our Yes, sir. >> Yeah. Well, just one thought for you with impervious surface. So, um often you'll have an impervious surface limit for single family uh 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, you know, we're able to review that as as a planning department over time against everything they request in the future. >> Somebody's not going to build another shed. >> Well, and they're not going to be putting an 800 square foot patio in their backyard. They can't because of setbacks. They couldn't do it to begin with. >> And the city will be obviously ensuring that the storm water for this site, you know, that's is planned for, >> right? >> Yeah. I I guess I I remain concerned and I would want it in the DA that there is uh the crosswalk is looked into and that there is a study is not the right word but analysis for where one shall be installed. It's 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 in terms of I 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 it 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 um village if you will but uh yeah I mean it is within the 15 units. They are asking for uh 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 town homes that are permitted, you do this density, it's going to cause a little bit of a 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. >> All right. and 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. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed, same sign. >> I. >> Motion passes. 31. All right. The next one is uh move to adopt ordinance 2025-12 establishing PUD standards for the Inwood Town Home Development requested by Mi Homes. >> Support. >> 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 MNI Homes, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Motion passes. >> Move to adopt resolution 2025-050 approving summary publication for ordinance 2025-12. >> Support. We have a motion and a second for resolution 2025-050. Basically, uh getting this public published uh for the record. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Motion passes. Thank you very much. Can I ask clarify a question then for staff while we're still on this? Regard that impervious moving forward in the standards because it 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 the and 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 it we're having a that would be my thought, but >> we're not comparing oranges and apples. >> Yeah, because it >> Okay. Can we take that into consideration and make a recommendation to council, please? >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Uh we added the item for performance review summary for our city administrator uh Nicole Miller. I had asked uh council member Holtz to uh upon our close session meeting uh come up with a uh summary of that discussion. and um he's very kindly done. So, would you like to read it or do you want me to? >> I'll I'll use the radio voice. >> Okay. 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. >> Perfect. Thank you. I think that does summarize our discussion fairly well. Um, next we have council reports. Council member Dragassich, anything to report? No report. >> Council member Holtz. >> The Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission had a meeting last Monday and I am one of the co-chairs. Uh council member Craignes is a uh member as well and and join the team and we had a thorough discussion about noise complaints from a very specific uh 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 a airport event in some of our outgoing communication like there's a barbecue coming up. It might be that uh there are additional educational 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 a place kind of right in the middle with a uh it's not a pergola but something similar a viewing place where you literally 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 cuz it's under construction. But it's those types of opportunities. Um, I reached one of the airport uh members who's a pilot reached out to Chief Kais. Long story short, they're going to reach out to Bayport first to see if firet trucks and the fire crews can come out for an event they have coming up. And Chief Kais 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 um engagement with the airport. So, we're focusing on the positives that it brings and not focusing on um other aspects. I am assuming you might talk about Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Just want to address it. Obviously, this last weekend was a horrific instance for um politics in politics in Minnesota especially. And uh we just want to uh you know give our condolences to the Hortman family and um I've drawn a blank on this the Hoffman family and uh hope that they get a good recovery. Uh thankfully law enforcement uh captured the individual and and um he'll have his his day in court. there's really no sense in no no making sense of the actions that took place and it it certainly is uh unconscionable to think that somebody thinks that that's the answer. So um the uh 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 I think 8 to 1:00 in the morning or 9 to 1:00 in the morning in the afternoon. 9 to 1. Uh 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 and some meat and all that stuff. So, the other thing is that uh as we like to have the community get together, the Fourth of July uh kitty parade is is as we saw we had a a consent agenda item for that. I know that um there 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, uh, 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. >> Here, Council Member Hearn. >> No comment. >> No report. >> Okay. Staff reports. >> Sure. Last night, I had the opportunity to attend the fire department um, 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 and so 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. >> Great. Julie, >> no report. >> No report. >> No report. >> No report. >> All right. >> Nothing for me. >> No report. >> No report. Nathan, for the public, can you let them know the timeline for well number two? >> Um, for we're talking about the um >> to be online. >> You have to get online. >> I wish I could. I don't have that. Not that off the top of my head right now. >> All good. So, sorry for randomly throwing that. >> No, it's all good. >> Here, let me throw you on not be true. >> 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.