I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right, we did have uh we do have the agenda in front of us. I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. >> Motion to approve the agenda as written. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> The agenda is approved. We do not have any presentations [clears throat] this evening. Uh we do have somebody that wishes to have public comment. Uh when you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and you will have 6 minutes for discussion. Uh Connect Lake Elmo, Tara Cadenhead, and Kaylee Likday. >> Hello, council members, mayor, city staff. Um we just wanted to um come and provide a few updates on the 4th of July, which is probably no surprise to you, um as well as the 250th celebration for the United States that's coming up and what we'd like to do for that. Um but um first I would like to just introduce myself, Tara Cadenhead. I live at 12190 Mark Cassell Lane North. Um and Kaylee. >> Yeah, hi. I'm Kaylee. I'm Connect Lake Elmo's first intern and I live right outside um the neighborhood in Baytown Township. >> Awesome. >> So, before we dive into the details, I just wanted to say thank you. I think when I look back at the last 5 years, um we've actually been formalized for four. I can't thank the city enough for all of your partnership. So, I wanted to just kind of step back and say how many comments we've received about how great the gardens look. Um, so that investment last year of I think it was $60,000. We're just really seeing a lot of good excitement and and appreciation from the community. Um, even the trash bins, the recycling bins, the partnership with public works on that. Um, collaboration on communication has been just excellent. Of course, the event planning and support for all of the 4th of July and um, Light Up Lake Elmo, Lake Elmo Night Out, which is a different organization, but um, just the attention to detail, we so appreciate it. Um, I think when I just look back at all of these investments that we're making together, it just result The [clears throat] result is is just so much stronger when we've worked together. So, I just wanted to say thank you on behalf of the board. Um, I'm going to turn it over to Kaylee to give a quick, um, update just for everybody watching on the 4th of July. >> Yeah, so for the 4th of July, we have new banners out, so keep an eye on those. And then we will have activities that are by our sponsors. There'll be face painting, crafts, and middle races. And then the Rotary Club will actually be serving ice cream. And we will have a youth band that will perform patriotic music, so check that out. And then we also have spent a lot of time with the fire chief and the public works. So, huge thank you to them for making sure we have the safest route and best experience possible. And of course, we need volunteers to make all this possible. So, if anyone could help us out, it'd be hugely appreciated. And you can visit connectlakeelmo.org to sign up there. And then, again, we are looking forward for a great 30th annual 4th of July parade. Reminder that this parade is for the kids, so no commercial solicitation, commercial signage, and handouts. >> [clears throat] >> Awesome. And I again just want to give a shout out to our business community because um as Kaylee mentioned, she's our first ever intern. So, we will all see a lot of a lot more support from Connect Lake Elmo going forward. She'll be with us for an entire year and has just really hit the ground running. So, we couldn't be more thrilled um to have her on our team. >> given me a greater appreciation of this Lake Elmo community. >> Good. Awesome. Um so, just a quick highlight on what's coming up for the 250th. Similar to what we did for the 100th anniversary of Lake Elmo, we are opening it up to businesses, nonprofits, as well as neighborhoods to sponsor events throughout the month of July, actually starting now if they want. Um so, I know somebody had mentioned a um medallion hunt. So, it's really open and we would love to engage the community in sponsoring events. We will compile them and promote them. So, yeah, just let us know. Um you can find out more information on social media and our website. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next item on the agenda is approval of minutes. >> [clears throat] >> I'll entertain a motion. >> Motion to approve the minutes from the 5th. >> There a second. >> Second. >> Thank you. We have a motion by Council member Holtz, a second by Council member Dragisich. All those in favor favor of approval of the minutes from the May [clears throat] Am I reading that right? Sorry. Stupid getting old. The May 5th City Council meeting. Please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> All right. >> [clears throat] >> The consent agenda is consists of approved payments and disbursements, approved Metropolitan Council water efficiency grant agreement, approved massage therapy license renewal, approved Northport first, second, and third >> [clears throat] >> addition landscape security release, accept bids and award contract for Elmo's Pup Park parking lot improvements, approved Lake Elmo baseball special event permit and temporary liquor license, approved Chama Mission LLC agreement license agreement for entering Lion's Park, approved pay request one for the 2026 street and utility improvements, accept quotes and a and award a contract for the 2026 crack seal project, approve the local road improvement program grant agreement terms and conditions for the Trunk Highway 36 and Lake Elmo Avenue uh CSAH 17 improvements. That is the consent agenda. I'll entertain a motion on approval of the consent agenda. >> Motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Sup- support. >> Okay, we have a motion by Council Member Cragnuss >> [clears throat] >> and a second by Council Member Draguicevich. All those in favor in approval of the consent agenda, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> The con- the the consent agenda is hereby approved. [clears throat] We just like to note that that uh item number 10 there did save the city a significant amount of uh tax dollars in payment for that intersection improvements, which will start, I believe, in earnest next week. So, um start looking and we also have our main uh Stillwater Boulevard sewer main project starting next week as well right water main so if you haven't found alternate routes I advise you to start thinking about that. On our regular agenda item we have Inwood commercial preliminary plat miss Jensen. >> Thank you mayor. So the applicant for tonight's application is Venice Associates LLC the property is out lot K within the Inwood development the property is just over 17 acres it is currently zoned commercial with a partial Shoreland overlay is guided in the city's comprehensive plan [clears throat] is commercial. And then a little history on this area it was a part of the Inwood master development which was planned in 2014 in this area in that plan was guided as commercial. [clears throat] And the request before you tonight is for a five lot subdivision to get your bearings of the site to the north is 10th Street to the south is 5th Street and quick trip to the west is the city of Oakdale a golf course and Inwood Avenue and then to the east is the Inwood residential component. >> [clears throat] >> So here is the proposed plat it is flipped on its side due to the length of the parcel so north is on the left and the south is on the right this is a relatively simple subdivision that includes one north south street one east west street and I would note that those curb cuts are already installed in the street in both the county road and the city road. And there are five lots ranging between two acres and about 4.2 acres. >> [clears throat] >> When reviewing a prelim plat staff is looking at land use and zoning bulk standards tree preservation and landscaping grading storm water wetland impacts public infrastructure Parkland dedication and consistency with existing master plans if applicable. And then I will note this is not a PUD it's a just a plat so all standards are proposed to be met here. Specific items to highlight for this application include land use and [clears throat] performance standards. So, the applicant is just proposing to do the five lots with this request. No buildings, no parking lots. The future tenants will need a review and necessary approvals at the time that they come in. They did show ghost plats of the buildings and parking lots. That's not necessarily the set layout of the buildings and parking lots, just more to show that the lot can fit something similar. And then, they did note that one of the lots is proposed to be a gaming cafe. That would need a full review and necessary approvals. >> A what? >> Gaming cafe. >> I mean >> More to come when they formally submit. >> I need to Google that. Okay. >> Uh next item that we reviewed is traffic access and parking. So, again, there are two streets with this development. The curb cuts are already installed in the county road and city road. Right of way is proposed to be 60 ft. The roadway width would be 28 ft. And we would review off-street parking for the users as they come in. >> Question on that. Um I noticed in the Washington County review. Now, so all this would have been done before any of our time here. Did the [clears throat] cuz the the cuts are very close to 10th and Inwood. So, and they commented on the space. Is there a way we address that? >> The the intersection with 10th Street? >> Well, yeah, because the the curb cuts for the west access to the parcel and the access to the north They didn't have a problem with the Fifth Street access cuz it's obviously not on the county road. So, they they were concerned about the distance access points from the intersection on Inwood and 10th. >> So both So working with the county, both um the access to 10th Street and the 9th Street access to Inwood are right turn onlys, um but they are allowing the left turns into the developments from those roads. Um and then the 9th Street one on Inwood, there is a there is a plan >> [clears throat] >> long-term that that could be a full access intersection so that so in our review of the development, we asked for additional right-of-way to allow for additional lanes to be built out >> Okay. >> in the event that that becomes a full access intersection. >> Yeah, I just want to make sure that those concerns are addressed. Appreciate it. Thank you. >> Next item that was reviewed was signage. There's no signage proposed here, so we'd review that with the tenants as they come in. And park dedication is outlined in the fee schedule, $6,000 per acre for commercial development. Other items that were reviewed were stormwater management. So again, this property is part of the 2014 master plan and as such capacity was included in those regional pond systems to accommodate [clears throat] for this type of development. Um so that has been addressed. If there are changes to standards or tenant lots, it's possible more ponding would be required, but not at this time. Shoreland Overlay. So due to the proximity in the Shoreland Overlay district, these lots are only allowed 30% impervious surface, which is significantly less than our typical commercial development, which is allowed up to 75% hard cover. Um so naturally you'll have more green space and room for landscaping on these lots. And CUPs are required for commercial uses in the natural environment Shoreland Overlay. Looking at landscaping, minor revisions are required to the landscape plan. No tree preservation plan is required since the site was master graded and no significant trees exist on site. They would be providing boulevard trees, um and I listed the species in case we need to circle back for any questions. Screening and buffering will be reviewed um per each tenant as they come in. Since a more intense land use [clears throat] needs to buffer from a less intense land use. So, this slide shows the layers of landscaping associated with the Inwood development. In 2016, the trees outlined in purple were installed um with this project right here, those trees in green would be installed as part of the subdivision improvements. And then, just generally in the red polygon is most likely where the tenant landscaping would be focused to screen. So, all three of those layers stack on top of each other to achieve screening. At the Planning Commission meeting, there was discussion [clears throat] on connectivity, so I added a slide to help visualize the sidewalk and trails that would be associated with this development. Uh green shows existing trails, orange is sidewalks, and purple would be new trails with this development. >> [snorts] >> So, the application was sent for agency review. We received the following comments from the fire department regarding drive lanes, access points, signage, hydrants, fire suppression, addressing, EMS systems, Knox systems, and EV charging. We did touch on the landscape architect comments, but I can circle back if there's any questions. The DNR provided comments regarding the 30% impervious surface limit and the CUP requirement. City of Oakdale provided the comments regarding the 9th Street full access. Washington County provided comments that their preliminary comments were addressed. South Washington Watershed District has indicated that they are coordinating with the applicant. And as this moves into final plat, the city attorney would provide a plat opinion. Staff is recommending four findings. First is that the request is consistent with the 2040 comp plan and future land use map. Second is that it's that it complies with the subdivision regulations. Third is that it complies with the city's zoning code, and lastly, that it complies with the city's design standards. Staff is recommending 17 conditions of approval, most of which are standard relating to review memos, agreements, fees, permits, expiration, and future reviews. Um staff did add a new condition based on planning commission review and public comment uh regarding enhanced screening on the east side of Irene Avenue, subject to review by city staff, and I'll get into that a little further with the planning commission slide. A public hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette on May 18th, sent to surrounding property owners on May 22nd. We did send it out via the push notification tool on the city's website. We received the following comments. [clears throat] Lou and Alan Stoker provided comments in support of the development, but requested consideration for additional screening of vehicle headlights and additional tree [clears throat] plantings. An what petition was submitted by 32 different resident residential partial parcels, um and noted concerns with traffic, light, and noise. They requested a soundproof wall or structure and traffic calming measures. Paul Prior spoke at the meeting providing comments about berming and how the elevations may be insufficient for screening headlights. Additional measure measures such as a berm, fence, and retaining wall should be taken into consideration [clears throat] to screen headlights and roadway. They would like to see lighting tenant lighting considered of the adjacent residential use, and the trail connection should be extended. Dolly Ladner spoke at the public hearing providing concerns with safety and privacy with the roadway adjacent to the residential area. She requested a wall be installed, um noted concerns with tenant build-out and parking lot locations, and requested something more substantial than just landscaping and screening, and noted the city's article in the Business View magazine. Dan Morales provided comments at the meeting uh regarding existing trees, that they are sparse and scattered. He does not believe that landscaping alone will fix the headlight screening. There are grading issues and concerns regarding construction traffic using Island Trail. Tim Dwyer spoke at the public hearing in agreement with Dolly and noted concerns uh and requested uh fencing to buffer the residential from the commercial uses. So, the Planning Commission reviewed this at their June 8th meeting. They did recommend approval of the request subject to the findings and conditions with an additional condition regarding screening on the east side of Irene Avenue. That vote was 6 to 0. The reason for this amendment was to address neighborhood comments regarding vehicle headlights. The developer has indicated that they will review feasibility of enhanced landscaping and screening prior to final plat submittal and will make revisions where applicable. Screening improvements will become a city responsibility due to location in the right-of-way. A structure to achieve screening is not recommended by city staff due to long-term maintenance and the limited space in the uh right-of-way. Uh and again, a condition of approval was added regarding that screening on the east side of Irene. >> [clears throat] >> So, staff is recommending approval with conditions of the preliminary plat and I can stand for questions. We do have the developer here also. >> I have a question. Do I don't have a scale with me, but I'm just curious from the east side of the curb line to the property line, >> [clears throat] >> what kind of availability does that give for uh berm in >> [clears throat] >> area? Do we know what the width is of that? >> Back of curb to right-of-way in a 60-ft right-of-way is um 16 ft. So, that segment that has the trail, um you'll have a 5-ft boulevard and then the trail in there, so that that's pretty limited for vegetation in there. Once Once the trail goes away, then you have that that boulevard available. >> Yeah. So, 16 ft. Really doesn't provide much for burn probably enough for headlight cover maybe. With a 3:1 >> It'd be hard to get up and down. And then yeah. >> Yeah. All right. [clears throat] Thank you. Questions for Ms. Jensen. >> From a design standpoint if you go back to the one more. Um, buffering to be provided with future users. I assume there is a very smart engineering reason why the red buffer is not flip-flop with the road. Like obviously you'd make the turns at the top a bit more. But why won't the buffer be first along the property line and then the road? >> [clears throat] >> I guess it was designed in 2014, so I can't speak to why they picked that layout, but it's consistent with that original drawing. >> Got you. And hypothetically on the spot engineering team can it or is that just is that also something cuz with preliminary plat once it's platted a certain way, it's generally speaking going to be that way. >> Yeah, it's one big outlot right now. Um, it this was the preliminary design that it had before, so the the intersections with 5th Street and 10th Street are pretty fixed. So, even if you try to swap them, you and on the ends, you you really can't come any closer. >> Correct. >> Um for access spacing. Um I would say, to answer your question very directly, it probably hasn't been looked at because as um Sophia mentioned, it was it was they they just moved forward with the layout from 2014. >> Gotcha. I will save additional things during comment unless anyone else wants to >> question that amazing idea. >> It's a good idea. >> I don't have a question on that, but that's a really good idea. I like that. Um Sophia, I have a question about um the as 30% impervious surface, do you feel like that is going to be >> [clears throat] >> difficult for people to come into and deal with, you know, putting in a parking lot and a building when they have 30% of that space to use? >> Given the size of the lots between two and four acres, I think it will work. I don't think you're going to get a large large business in there. >> Sure. >> more towards small businesses. Um and the additional green space would allow for more room for landscaping, so they're complimentary. >> Okay. >> All right. I'll entertain a motion. >> Move [clears throat] to adopt resolution 2026-041 approving the preliminary plat requested by Badness Associates on the subject property based on the findings of fact and recommended conditions >> [clears throat] >> approval listed in the staff report. >> Discussed. Oh, I need a second. >> Yeah, discussed it, second. >> All right. We have a motion from Councilmember Cragnell, second from Councilmember >> [clears throat] >> Holtz. Discussion. So, hypothetically, if one were interested in that concept of flipping the buffer with road, cuz I I I get it on the where the curb cut is, it changes it, right? Like, that's not an easy situation. But, for for the other 95% of that stretch, I'm trying to think of what type of amendment would be applicable to look into or it shall be switched. Like, cuz we can't say here, "Yes, it's totally feasible. Do it." Um but, I fully understand and appreciate the the screening concern. The the same concern came up uh Southeast uh along 5th Street with um Help me out. >> The town homes? >> Town homes and the commercial development along uh Hudson Boulevard. Same same concern. >> [clears throat] >> This is what it's zoned for. This is exactly what it's aligned for. Um I but, I fully understand, especially uh traffic headlights, just making sure that those are mitigated based upon how the zoning code applies and what tools are in the toolbox to shift things in a certain way. So, I I don't know if this would be appropriate as an amendment to say to look, you know, it shall be determined or looked into to see the usability of switching those two. Um I guess >> Viability? >> Viability. That's a much better word. I guess I would be curious as to our engineering team's thoughts on that or other members of council. >> Can I just note a a planning item that I identify with that amendment? Um because the lots are only at 30% impervious surface, if you're pushing the roadway down further, you're further limiting how large those lots are and the impervious surface that's allowed with them. >> [clears throat] >> Um just a note that's unique to this site. >> Cuz right now the buffer is a part of their land and that buffer is not impervious. >> Correct. >> [snorts] >> Would there be a way to include the Well, cuz the buffer would be on the other side of the road, so the parcels would Well, you can have a parcel that extends to the other side of a road. >> So, there's no HOA proposed here, so the city would be maintaining whatever is in the right of way or in the opposite side. >> Got you. >> So, that's something to consider. >> Councilmember Drainage. >> I think if the buffering is done appropriately, it will provide the protection that people are looking for. I know it's going to be it's going to be tricky and maybe you know, the buffer has to be wider to get greater height um to make it workable and block the the headlights so we're not having the headlights shining across the street into people's yards and homes at night and I think that's one of the primary concerns. Um and it can be, you know, made to be fairly attractive at the same time. I don't know if a a wall is the best piece aesthetically, but that's a matter of opinion. I think though the buffer needs to be set up so that it addresses the neighbors' concerns of of street lights and and noise to the extent that you can. Um noise is a little more difficult, of course, but um even a wall won't stop the noise. Just ask anyone who lives on the freeway. But at least we can ensure the buffer does um the best job it can to protect those residential properties. And I think whether it's on this side or the other side of the street, you we can accomplish same goal regardless of its of its placement. >> [clears throat] >> In reviewing some of the photos and driving by the site, there is substantial trees, substantial number of trees in the area already. I think you have a few pointed areas where headlights could be an issue where they are going [clears throat] around the corner or coming out of a parking lot entrance. I think it's possible to screen for those in addition to what's already there. I'm not in favor of a wall type structure from the status point of the future maintenance. It's a headache for many government entities that I know of in in Minnesota whether they're along an interstate or a state highway. So, I think we'd best addressed it through the buffering that we require along the roadway. >> Councilmember Jackson >> a good point because we have 9th Street coming out in in into Irene Avenue and those lights would shine directly across into the lots and maybe something we need to do on that opposite side of the street with some buffering and planting within the right-of-way that would provide an effective screen. That would be a city obligation. It would be not usually have done by the developer or the city, but again there's some houses right right directly straight line from from that 9th Street North and cars coming out at night would shine directly into those and we should look to what we could do to shut those down. >> Right. >> Yeah, that's that's where I would see it when you're turning in onto Irene and you're going that way then your lights are then shining at >> Right. >> Right. >> And again with with the impact of noise to your point Councilman Dragicevich, walls don't really contain noise waves. Um really the best uh What's the word? Block for noises is our coniferous No. Deciduous trees, right? Coniferous? >> Coniferous Deciduous lose their leaves in the winter. >> Yeah, we want deciduous. So they don't lose their green. Pine trees and things like that can dampen the noise quite a bit. But leave that to the experts that are landscape architects, right? >> [clears throat] >> Just for awareness cuz I mean the last time we really did a >> [clears throat] >> had this discussion about impacts and noise study and light study. Just staff, can you um for public's awareness for our memory's sake, when the time comes, what are the requirements in the code for in terms of the view shed and how those analyses are done? >> Correct. Uh so the city's screening ordinance is 6 ft in height, could be up to 8 ft in height and 90% opaque year-round, typically achieved between landscaping combination of landscaping and either a berm or fence or a wall. Um so those that would come when the tenants come in. Um the city doesn't typically recognize a road as a land use that requires that level of screening. >> And in the case of that buffer, >> [clears throat] >> do you think the intent is that it's a berm with vegetation or that it's flat and quality vegetation on there? >> That's most likely going to be a berm with vegetation on top of it. >> All right. I would also suggest we get to that nice street intersection that we have the the engineer and landscape architect come up with something that would be appropriate to shield those homes and that we share that with the neighborhood so we give them some level of comfort that we have forgot what we're saying this evening and we truly want to protect them. >> Concur. >> All right, I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed same sign, hearing none, motion is approved for resolution 2026-0 41. >> [clears throat] >> Sketch plan review. Bridgewater Village Town Homes. Mr. First. >> [clears throat] [snorts] >> All right, thank you mayor members of the council. Also, we're going to talk about a concept plan review this evening for this item. So, you'll recognize on the screen the Bridgewater Village development. Holt T has come in with a concept plan to propose attached town homes that would fill in the medium density residential village medium density residential that is area of this development. So, looking at this, the the site includes a num actually it would include four parcels, two of which are outlots that have storm water ponds on them so there are really two parcels that are proposed for development. Those are outlots of the Bridgewater Village first edition plat. The existing use of those lots, they're currently vacant. The request here for the concept plan review is to take a look at the 80 82 unit single family attached or town home development. This site does not have any wetlands on it. It's approximately 16 acres in size. So, uh here is that concept plan. This was included in the packet this evening. Uh you're seeing here um on those two outlots those 82 attached townhome build uh townhomes. Uh those townhomes would also have a uh some open spaces shared or common areas that are shared by all the units in addition to one kind of a monetized open space area that's intended to serve this as like a private amenity. Here are just some examples that were submitted with the concept plan review of what those buildings [clears throat] can look like. Uh Pulte has worked with planning staff to understand the kind of requirements for development in the village area. And so, in the village area, the the city is looking for those rear-loaded or double-fronted um homes. So, their faces are a more traditional townhome look on the public street, and then they're served internal to the development for parking. >> [clears throat] >> So, this evening the primary questions that we're looking to work through are related to the flexibilities that are going to be requested by this project. So, this would be a planned unit development with a couple of flexibilities. The the biggest one I think that we call to your attention is the uh requirement that's in the city's code uh to have a 100% to allow only a maximum of 25% attached townhomes. And so, in uh 2024-2025, the city adopted uh an ordinance amendment in the village medium-density [clears throat] zone uh that put a cap on the number of attached townhome units that would be allowed in a development project. Uh specifically what that the intent of that um ordinance amendment was [snorts] was to bring in more traditional like detached or smaller lot single family as more traditional kind of historic neighborhood design. [clears throat] So, in this particular case, uh we do have a request to go up to 100% of attached townhomes as opposed to being capped at 25. There are a couple of other flexibilities requested here or that we would anticipate uh due due to minimum lot area and lot width being smaller than what's uh envisioned in the city's zoning code. And there are a couple of lots because this would have this concept is proposed to have private streets. There are a couple of those units that would have their primary entrance that are facing a public street. >> [clears throat] >> So, uh just a a quick recap of the land use >> I'm sorry. You just first kind of trailed off there. Could you repeat? So, there's a couple of them that would have access onto a public street? >> Yeah. So, let me back up a second to the concept plan. The city code uh does have a standard for attached townhomes to have access to a public street. And so, if you look at oops, I just advanced the slide. If you look at um bring the laser pointer up. You can see the cursor. There we go. So, there are a couple of units, like for example, these here, which aren't actually facing a public street. They're served internal, right, with that private drive. >> Got it. >> So, that's the code requirement uh that they would be looking for flexibility to as an example. >> Okay. >> [clears throat] >> So, uh we do anticipate obviously that the flexibilities through the PUD. The big one I think in my mind is that 25 to 100% um change. So, want to get into some land use analysis. The future land use map is shown on the screen on the left. That's uh consistent with the zoning uh village medium density residential. Bridgewater Village, when it was initially platted, they did provide some ghost plat level idea of what could take place on this on these two out lots. Um, those all of those units shown in the ghost plat were envisioned to be attached town homes and that's because at that time the city did not have the requirement for or maximum of 25% of attached town homes. >> [snorts] >> So, um, relative to performance standards, one thing we talked about was having the primary entrance on a public street. That's one of the big ones in code. Uh, the rest of the performance standards that are for those attached town homes are generally met. So, you're looking at this development would meet the open space per unit requirement. Parking [clears throat] not being allowed in the front yard because they're meeting the design standards for for being front or rear loaded. So, those are those are the big ones. >> Is out lot A included in that open space per unit? >> Are you referring to >> On the north side. >> Yes, I believe that is included in in the open space for the overall development, but I I think they're >> At four >> far enough over their open space that they would be meeting even without out lot that's the question. >> [clears throat] >> So, uh, jumping into the utilities, roads, and access, um, this site would be served by pub- private roads, but with public utilities. So, there would be easement corridors running uh, along those private streets or [clears throat] private drives. Um, private roads, there there is a city standard now for for private roads with respect to the utility corridor width that's needed on them. Uh, there is a city engineering memo [snorts] uh, that will be shared with the applicant uh, following this review that does articulate some of those city standards. The expectation would be that the pri- the project can meet those standards should it move forward. Um there are a couple of fixed access points. There's curb cuts that were created with Bridgewater Village. And so, I do note that there currently is as shown proposing to I'll bring that pointer back up. They're proposing to not utilize this existing access location. And currently there is a little bit of a mis- alignment here with where the access currently is located. So, there will be some items to work through moving forward with access. So, this particular area of the development could look a little different should this move forward. Landscaping and screening. So, again, concept level review, but we do have existing landscaping on the public streets within Bridgewater Village. There will be an expectation for some street trees to be planted along Stillwater Way where there currently aren't those street or boulevard trees. One thing that's rather unique to this site is the location or proximity to a cemetery. And so, state statute does, you know, regulate or protect private burial sites in Minnesota. And so, there are a couple of things that we might consider as this project or if it moves forward into construction. One thing to consider is just maybe requiring some sort of a literature review to understand if there's the possibility that remains in the cemetery might be outside of the property boundary. Or potentially even including on-site grading observation where work is occurring near the cemetery. >> [clears throat] >> Parkland dedication. The city's Parks Commission reviewed this project at last night's meeting. They did end up recommending cash in lieu for uh Parkland dedication for this site. So, um just coming back to those key considerations, we've talked through everything here on the slide. Uh really the the the big thing is just understanding what the council's uh feedback is regarding the PUD flexibilities that we anticipate from the developer. Representatives from [clears throat] Pulte are here this evening if you have any questions for them. And I am happy to take your questions right now. So, thank you. >> I have a question about um back on slide nine. You went over quickly, but were you saying that this was a proposed plan before the 25% cap was in place? >> Yeah, so to dig into that a little further, um this was what it was included in what we would consider to be a ghost plat, which is basically a sketch of what it could look like. So, um yes, the the Bridgewater Village development was platted before the 25% cap was um in effect. And so, um the Bridgewater Village development, at least the residential portion of it was designed with this unit type in mind. >> Well, wasn't it 0% before the 25 though? >> Yeah, there was no cap on There was no cap on the cap. >> to it. >> It wasn't. Okay. Got it. >> Any other questions? >> No. >> Question. I don't know who this would be for. I'm when we're looking at, you know, a proposed visual of the style, and I would say the chances are it meets our requirements. But, as I recall in our old village survey, when we did the moratorium, we asked for feedback on styles that preferred within the old village. One can argue this is outside the old village, but I To me, it's west of Manning and along 14. Correct me if I'm wrong. I feel like this style was not one of the top ones for this level of density for the ones that were preferred in the survey. Am I wrong in my memory? >> [clears throat] >> I feel like a different style, a different look was preferred. >> The detached small lot was the preferred rear loaded. So, this is rear loaded, so it meets some of the standard, but the number one was the detached small lot. >> Councilmember Day, I asked that question or to refine how we understand the question. Are you saying the architectural features that are shown on like the renderings here are aren't consistent or the style of the of the actual um >> The architectural features. >> Okay. >> Cuz I understand the density is the density. Like it's in medium density. So, the quantity and the size is one thing, but I feel like the style and the architectural features are not necessarily what the community had provided feedback on when it comes to that type of density, but my memory's [clears throat] also not that great, so >> And I think you know, the the developer can speak to some of the considerations that went into what they're proposing for style and whether there can be any modifications. >> In terms of the private park amenity, um cuz we have instances, Northport as an example, where they have a park and it is privately owned and is maintained by their HOA, but in their case, it's a full playground. Um I didn't see necessarily anything in here about a playground per se, there is a fire pit and a couple of other things. I'm wondering >> Yeah. >> Can you expand on that? >> For sure. So, this site is obviously proposed to have somewhat amenity sized open area that's shown in the concept plan right now. Staff have talked to the development developer about potentially considering like a tot lot. For example, which in in developments can include just a small very small playground feature that's maintained [clears throat] by the HOA. It's a private amenity and can help kind of bridge the gap a little bit where you know, you might have to travel a little further to get to a a community park. >> I presume it was never discussed a pickleball court. >> We've not talked about a pickleball pickleball court. >> See how I phrased that as a question without being a comment? >> [snorts] >> Do you know when this was originally platted like around like was it in '23? Was it before that? Like when was this platted out? >> I want to say the plat was recorded in 2024. >> Okay. >> For Bridgewater Village. >> Any more questions? Do we want to ask questions of the uh developer? >> One question confirm for that irrigation reuse. I in seeing some of the explanation there in engineering lingo. When we're starting to get now to the point of second set of use here to pull from that outlaw. Um do we have concerns in a given drought year? I presume it's going to be a realistic possibility at certain times it would then pull from city water, correct? Like this this is not it's not fully capable of supplying irrigation for all when it's a dry year. Like they're still connected to city water. >> Yeah, I think that's the case with all your reuse systems. You're you can have drought years and you can have heavy years where the ponds are too too full. >> We've never really had that conversation in terms of would we ever then put when they do have a reuse, would we ever put then restrictions to say when you do then have to use city water here you shall only you you literally will only use it in this way as a part of the DA, as a part of whether it's a planned use, you know, it's it's [snorts] in the agreements to say here's how limiting and obviously we have our city ordinance anyway for two days a week at certain times. But would this be another way to say look, not only are you doing reuse, but we're going to put this in these agreements to say when it you do a turn on city water, you shall do this as an enforcement tool. >> What is this? >> Literally putting in the city ordinances and then maybe saying additionally for an X amount of time cuz we're going to be getting to some point where we have to start talking about the amount of time that one out waters for. I'm just wondering if that's if this would be an opportunity to start having that conversation cuz it it's dry right now. This could easily be a year where yeah, it does start to pull from city water and our entire our entire drive the last couple years has been to leverage the water reuse. But there will be instances where they are on city water. So is this an appropriate time or is that so far off and crazy that's not worth discussing? >> Why wouldn't you allow them the right to use city water like every other resident twice a week? They have reuse whenever they can and when the reuse isn't available, why would you restrict them beyond what other residents are allowed to do? >> Throwing it as an idea to help with an absurd lawsuit. >> I think that's a discussion for another day. >> And can I ask a couple questions to the developer, please. >> [clears throat and cough] >> Mr. Mayor, council members, Haley Daily Sievers, Pulte Homes, Minnesota. Our address is 1650 West 82nd Street, Suite 300, Bloomington, Minnesota. >> Thank you, Haley. Can you tell me what this looks like if you're if you're if you have to stick with the 25% attached? >> Mr. Mayor and council members, that makes this very difficult of a project to make happen. The actual land available for the residential portion is small. It's about 8 acres, which to make public streets and a detached product work on it is not something that I think the site would necessarily be efficient for. Additionally, we're adjacent to the commercial uses and major highway or major roadways, which tend to lead to a more dense product, which is why we're showing our rear-loaded attached townhome product. >> Can you talk about the 22 ft first I mean, the 3-ft difference minimum lot width? >> Mr. Mayor and council members, that's our product with this product. We have a few different townhomes, but the only our rear-loaded product is the 22 ft. So, we prioritized having rear-loaded garages with the front facing being facing towards public streets. >> So, you don't have engineers that could figure out a 25-ft >> Correct. Our home product's not designed for that width. >> Got it. Okay. Any other questions for the developer? Thank you, Haley. >> Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> Sketch about the flexibilities they're requesting. I'd like to hear from you guys. >> I personally think that we have a 25% max for a reason, especially in the old village, and I for that reason would be opposed to 100% attached attached town homes in that area. >> Is this considered the old old village area? >> Technically speaking, it's not considered to be within, yep. >> Okay. What what what what do you think about the fact that that came in after the parcel was kind of ghost platted? >> It's tough. I mean, I was thinking about that, too, but I mean, you said it was ghost platted in '24 and we changed the in in '24 we changed the allotment. >> Later. >> It's like it comes down. >> Later. >> Yeah. >> I I don't know. That's what concerns me is the we went through this present presentation on development, those of us who were on the council at the time, and they came in and showed us this, and we all shook our heads yes, and kind of agreed in concept, and now they're coming in to actually do it, and I think we did change it to, you know, max 25%, but at that time you're proposing a bank commercial and the residential development, and we went along with the concept. I think to close the door now would be kind of saying, "Well, you tricked us. We would have had a different concept if we had have said no then." >> Yeah. So, it wasn't as preliminary as I'm as I'm thinking with that ghost plat. I mean, was it The was that pretty much the main reason why they picked that area with the town homes and that ghost plat being we gave them a nod in saying, "Yep, that would work." >> There was >> Yeah, it was kind of presented as this is what we're thinking. >> Got you. >> And given the zoning at the time, right? >> Mhm. >> It appeared to meet what was thought to be, you know, to be there in the future. >> Yeah. Yeah, I don't want to be in favor of a bait and switch at all. I was just looking at this 25% and trying to explain that to the residents of like what what happened here. So >> On a bright side, it would help our density with the Met Council. >> Um yeah. It would. It's like everything is uh well one's a 75% more than it's supposed to be, one's less than 50% than it's supposed to be. 22, 25 ft. I don't know. 220, 221, whatever it takes. Um you know. >> I guess I would not be overly paired but we saw this kind of concept and I wonder if they would have went ahead with whole bridge bank Bridgewater bank thing if we had said no it was well it doesn't work out without you know this potential. They were looking at the numbers before they came in here and how they're going to make this work economically for them. >> Sure. Correct. >> And that's my concern is >> That's a fair >> Yeah, and that and that was before my time, too. So I think I would with that knowledge, I think I would change my tune Councilman Dragicevich on having this be with with what my vote would be for the 25% max. >> Well, I think for that location, it's busy corner. Um boy. Given what was said before based on the ghost plat, it's hard for me to really say anything differently. It's more than I like. The lot area is smaller than I like, >> [clears throat] >> being honest. 3 ft, okay, doesn't seem like a lot, but 25 is pretty freaking narrow. Um I do like the the back loaded and that the few that aren't, you know, facing a city street, I think it's just a uh just an issue with how the the lots are there and you can't make them 100% there. But, those are my thoughts. >> I don't have an issue with number four. I find number three to be curious because you can put a couple engineers in a room and make it 25, you'd think. Um engineers tell me they're very smart, so the number two with the lot area, I mean, to me this is that's an outcome of our own zoning. To fit the density there, that's the outcome. And we've faced this before where the minimum lot area is not being met, but the density is, which is counterintuitive, but that's just simply an end outcome. I fully agree on the concern with number one, but I also being here for those conversations about the ghost plat, I think it'd be very wrong of us to it's not an intentional bait and switch, but it would have the outcome of being a bait and switch, and I don't I I think that's right. Um not to do as as a city it's not fair to do to any business entity. And I I know the term developers gets used in a bad way. So, I'll just say this is for a business development. There's for the business side and now for the second piece which is residential. And I don't think that would be fair to do that kind of a switch. Even if you're it's technically lease legally permittable. That's not even a word. Legally permissible. It's still not the right thing to do. >> Uh, council member Craighead did have a question for if Miss Haley would come to the podium again. >> So, [clears throat] my only question for this I I agree with counselor Holt. I think switching this now would be not advisable. Um, so my question just looking at this though I've lived in an area like this where you got townhomes stacked on each other. Do you have any place for like additional parking if people have guests? >> Sure. I'm Aaron, council member. So, each of our units have four spots. So, two can fit in the garage and then two can fit in the driveway. And then city of Lake Elmo has a code that we have to provide 10% visitor parking which we're showing nine parallel parking spots meeting that visitor requirement. >> With those parallel spots on could you identify those? >> difficult to see. Sorry, Nathan. So, if you can see Sorry, do you have a laser? >> There's a There's some there. Right on that upper level. >> Where it's bumped out. >> there's a bump out. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So, you have them like in three different spots. >> Correct. >> Three, four. Four different spots. All right. Did I answer your question? Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Council, I'd remind you there was a question on design. If you did have that question still for the developer, now would be a good time to ask that as well. >> Do I don't even know where that picture was that So, years ago at least 2 years ago, we did do a survey for the community and my recollection is for this level of density that from an architectural style, you know, the choice of the community led with was not this. But again, and I might be wrong, but I think it's a Yes, sir. >> it up. It's in the study. Uh 59% and this isn't like up to 100% cuz people can have multiple responses preferred the brick townhome with not the the white vinyl windows. And then there was another classic rear-loaded different type of brick, a little bit um still with not the like typical white vinyl windows. So, that's what was in that visual preference survey. >> was not this. So, I guess my my emphasis would be this is not what our community has been asking for when it comes to this level of density. We have many residents who don't want this density at all, but this is what it's zoned for. So, we I fully understand that. But from a visual standpoint, this is not what they've asked for. >> Sure. Mayor and council members, it is a very small site which does make it difficult, especially meeting the rear-loaded. So, that's why we are proposing this product cuz it fits that rear-load three stories. I do understand um the previous comments about the neighbors' concerns. Um one thing I do want to mention, um these elevations we would do four-sided LP on all of the um building elevations, which again, I understand it's not necessarily exactly what was mentioned previously, but that is one benefit and kind of an upgrade to this product that we would propose as part of this development. >> Thank you. I guess that's kind of our comments. Thank you, Ms. Haley. Anything further on that, Mr. First? >> Nothing. Nothing for me. >> Next we have the 2040 comprehensive plan update for community forecasts. >> All right. So, uh this item was in front of the city council at a recent workshop. So, uh there are elements that I'll go a little bit more quickly through, uh but certainly looking to um recap a little bit in certain areas. So, uh background here, the 2025 system statement was released in in September of last year. System statements are really the kind of the big, you know, kickoff to the comprehensive planning process. Uh there is a limited time to appeal system statements. Most communities do not find that they need to appeal their system statement, although in some cases they do. Uh the White Bear Lake case in particular has caused uh what it seems to have caused the the Met Council to kind of artificially deflate, I would say, the population estimates in the White Bear Lake area. And so, uh we're in front of you this evening to discuss uh potential change to the city's 2040 comprehensive plan with the idea that that's going to then carry forward through to the 2050 comprehensive plan as we kick that off. So, what are system statements? Uh really quick, these are individualized documents provided to each community on, you know, basically conformance with regional plans. The city's 2025 system statement has uh a number of tables in it. One of them is the population forecasts. This is the really critical thing that we're here, you know, talking about tonight. Uh and you can see that population forecast estimates by the Met Council uh in 2020 terms and then 2030, 40, and 50. There are other areas that the system statement does provide information on uh for regional requirements including affordable housing. Um, that's just one of one of the requirements. So, the really big thing here as I mentioned is the forecast. The community's forecast is really a guide to the how the city will have to address regional requirements in its comprehensive plan update. So, the city basically needs to demonstrate that it can accommodate um its you know, the the proportionate share of regional growth across the metro in compliance with the forecasts. Um, the forecasts also serve as a aid in long-range wastewater system planning. So, the Met Council basically says, "We expect you to grow by this amount. Therefore, we expect that have to provide this amount of sewer capacity." Uh forecasts can also sometimes in or in certain cases be used by other agencies which could include the DNR for understanding a community's growth trends. So, in September as I mentioned, the system statement was released. Uh in October, city staff met with the Met Council and uh you know, pro- pro- provided some initial concerns about just, "Hey, it looks like these are a little low. What happens if we exceed the forecast growth?" Uh and then we're you know, basically told by the the Met Council staff, "Hey, this is something that can be typically worked through at the staff-to-staff level." And so, at that point, it was decided that an appeal to the system statement wasn't necessarily required. Um and so, staff moved forward and then ultimately that appeal period closed and then came to find out in January of this year that there was a White Bear Lake methodology memo which has some policy positions that we will talk about uh that do create a challenge for us moving forward. [snorts] And so, that policy memo is really the the key issue part of this part of this discussion about forecasts. Getting into February, staff immediately, you know, worked with the Met Council to understand the implications of that memo and what the city's options are. At that time, Met Council staff did agree that a solution would be needed for more reasonable forecasts for the city of Lake Elmo. So, part of that conversation with the Met Council staff did include us sharing information with the Met Council. I think you you all remember this from the workshop. Uh this is data that was provided uh development projections based on what we understand to be in the pipeline for new development. And what the city's uh growth areas look like moving forward to 2030, 40, etc. So, uh based on the number of building permit or building starts, the city's staff generally estimates that you'll have 15,000 people approximately this year, approximately 19,000 people by 2030, 20,000 thereabout by 2035, and then uh by 2040, somewhere in the area of 22,000. Again, this is just based on projections of what we know to be in the pipeline for new development. The system statement would, uh if you look at that 2030 column, restrict the city to having 15 basically an expectation of 15,000 in population by 2030. So, that's a fair a fair amount lower than what staff currently expect to be at by 2030 based on what we know uh to be in the pipeline right now for developments such as the one that you just looked at tonight. So, >> So, we're currently, as of May, we're over 15. >> It very well could be the case that the city's current population >> from the Met Council. >> We are. We've received a 2025 population that puts us over 15. I think we received that last week. >> Yeah, right. >> Yep. >> So, okay, they're already way off. All right. >> Yeah, so we're already we're already not aligned. That's that's the that's the big concern. And as you [clears throat] you know, as you know, you've got development that's been under review now, which will you know, serve to increase the population as as we move forward. Uh we also then did provide data to the Met Council not only on the projected demand, but also looking back at the last 10 years, what is the permitting history? What has that looked like? Uh what you can see on the screen is just detached and attached units. If you just look at the detached, these are single-family homes. You're averaging somewhere between 1 and 200 units per year every year for building permits over the last 10 years. So, there there is a strong I would say based on this data, there appears to be a very strong trend of continued demand for for new housing in Lake Elmo. So, there should be an expectation that if there's supply, that it would continue. Uh moving forward, uh in March the city did get some feedback from the Met Council as uh as it relates to amended forecast numbers. So, those are um I'll I'll talk through those a little bit. Don't don't expect you to read the screen here, but uh Met Council staff provided numbers that uh they're proposing to have the city amend the existing 2040 plan to have those numbers implemented now, and then the idea is those numbers will then carry over to the 2050 plan. So, we'll talk about what those numbers are. The Met Council has not changed its position relative to the White Bear Lake memo. Okay, so what is that memo? It was included in the report, so you can read it in full, but I will refer you to the bold pieces here uh that I think are the most important. So, um the first one is the Met Council determined it prudent to withhold its consent of additional growth in local jurisdictions affected by the Wiper Lake area court decision until the city council is sorry until the Met Council is assured additional growth does not conflict with court orders that cities must abide. The second one is if a request is made to increase population it may only be considered after modification of the court order, a change in local conditions, or a solution to water supply constraints are determined and implemented. So effectively, if we understand this correctly, it says that the Met Council will not consent to raise the population forecasts in the Wiper Lake area. So really the bottom line for that that that creates is that first of all, we're already misaligned with the forecasts that they provided us and this could cause us issues as we move forward, especially with sewer capacity. Not necessarily water, but if the city is going to need that extra sewer capacity, that that's an that's an issue. So uh on the screen here and provided in the report is just a side-by-side comparison of the numbers that are in our current 2040 comprehensive plan and the numbers that would be they would be amended to change. Uh the new numbers are in bold. So there's a change proposed in households unsewered, households MUSA the total households and then total population. So if we just look at the total population uh by 2030, uh the proposed change is from 18,000 to 19,000 and then by 2040, the change would be 22,300 to 21,000. And so the reason you're seeing that that population kind of difference is that there's an assumption here, if you look up at the households line um there is an assumption that there will be more households, but less population. The fact is the average household size is just decreasing. That's the That's the difference. So, households are in anticipated to increase and population will stay roughly the same. The timeline for an amendment, should the city wish to move forward this evening, would be that we start looking at submitting an approved comprehensive plan amendment to the MAC Council for their review. We expect that it would be approved based on the fact that these are the numbers the MAC Council has suggested. Moving back just one Just want to note that you're not seeing 2050 2050 column here. We don't have a 2050 column in the 2040 plan. Uh, if this is approved, the MAC Council would provide some number that's generally in line with this trend. They wouldn't drop us back down or anything like that. Um, the other thing that I want to note here is the unsewered households in in this this change are a little bit They seem like they're going They're going lower. And so, we're working with the MAC Council to understand what are the assumptions specific to that, and this could be in back in front of you possibly if there's a need to amend that specific number in a different way. Okay. So, the city did hold a public hearing. This was at the city's planning commission last week. Uh, they There were no public comments on this. Planning Commission did provide a recommendation to approve the comprehensive plan amendment to change these numbers. So, I do have an example motion on the screen for you, and I'm happy to take questions. >> So, just trying to understand that. So, if we hit this number that's created by the MAC Council, does that ostensibly mean that if developers come to us for development, we just say it's premature? And they can't develop? Is there a moratorium? How does that work? >> That's a good question. So, what the initial response would be is um if the cities if if a city in the Met Council not like Elmo specifically, but if a city finds that it's growing faster than the projection, typically the practice is that staff just work with the Met Council and say, "Hey, you know, the development that's coming in is actually consistent with our comp plan, but it's just coming in faster than we thought." And so, in that case, the Met Council would work, you know, on a staff-to-staff basis and increase the forecasts. In some cases, if the forecasts are increasing by a lot, um but the develop the city's anticipating this development, uh the Met Council could require some sort of formal review process for an adjustment. But really, it's the challenge here is created that we can't have that regular coordination because of the White Bear memo. >> What do you do with the properties that are currently zoned for development and not before 2030, but after 2030? And then you do the 2050 comp plan, and then that 2030 date doesn't exist because the adjustments made by the Met Council. Do those people that hold that land now, are they being told that they have to hold out till 2040 or 20 >> 50. So, I guess I'll Jason, you're welcome to jump in here, but the one thing I'd say is um people are still able to come in if their property is within the current development decade. So, it's whatever is shown by the MUSA phasing map. If you're in the current development decade, you can come in for development. Um I don't know that the city would or the city hasn't um used its premature subdivision ordinance in that manner. I don't know if that's a criteria. >> Well, we have >> Oh, okay. >> We have >> So, we asked if we had to come back every time a development exceeds the population and do an adjustment. And they kind of we don't want to do that, right? We don't want to have to sign off and everything. What they're guaranteeing though is the population capacity. So, if it stays at 189 and we hit that number and their planning side is probably going to be okay with increasing it, but their sewer side needs to now invest and that's off a couple years. That's really the problem. And then if they want to tell us like we're not going to make that investment because the plan doesn't align, they don't have to make that investment. >> Sure. >> That's really the challenge that >> So, then then we're stuck telling the developer and the land owner sorry. No can do. Essentially. >> Essentially. Yeah. And if there are proposals like you would you might be um you might scrutinize a proposal to change or move up a development in in its phasing if there are you know you're already pushing the forecast numbers or something like >> Yeah. I'm just thinking some of these uh single family and high density medium density notwithstanding you know, Limerick that's been on the plan and this one we just talked about but the area in and around old village area that's that's all platted and people have bought property associated with [clears throat] that. Feels like it creates unnecessary complications. >> Are you talking about like what phasing what phase development phase they're planned in? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> [clears throat] >> I don't know. But in any way with regards to this, yes, I think we should go for an amendment. I agree with the planning commission. I mean, I shouldn't be discussing cuz we don't have a motion, do we? I'm sorry. Can you back to the memo? >> Yes. >> Curiosity. Do you Do we know yet how the memo came to exist as in did the council itself direct staff to talk about to figure this out? Did staff just on their own say, "I have an idea"? >> Well, I don't know that I have all the answers, but my my understanding for that question is the Weaver Lake memo was available in some form somewhere on the Met Council's website prior to release of the system statements. That is what we have been told. Um in all of the conversations that we had with the Met Council while the system statement was under review during the appeal period, there was no mention of the Weaver Lake memo. And Lake Elmo staff were um alerted to the existence of that memo only after the the appeal period expired early this year uh by other communities in the Met Council area that are having similar challenges. >> Wow. >> To add to that, too, it's our understanding that some board members weren't aware of it, also. So, it seems like this was staff-led. So. >> Can they Cuz this isn't a memo. This is a an official policy position {slash} procedure using whatever It has a regulatory effect. Did this get approved by their council? >> We I don't I My my understanding, I guess, is that it was a staff initiative. >> Okay. Well, I guess the question would be we would like to see if Met Council has approved that as a policy decision. Also, I would like to ask that somebody contact our Met Council representative. And if they're not aware of this, that they be brought up to speed on what is happening at the Met Council regarding uh comp plan numbers as it relates to the city of Lake Elmo. >> Cuz I I guess my question arises because I I know in state government and quasi-executive branch agencies like Met Council, well, I'll phrase this as a question. I would be curious if our council or the council of Hugo as example have a concern that official rule making was done without being done through the rule making process. In this case, it didn't go through their council. It appears to be a staff level decision that has the impact of being a council level decision. And so, I guess I would be curious if others have concerns about that, phrased as a question. Um based upon this memo then, what does it mean to say to withhold its consent of additional growth? What does that mean? And I guess I ask that question because they can't withhold anything. If it's already in our zoning and it's already in our comp plan, they can't withhold consent say we're past the 2030 mark. We obviously have our our phasings in the comp plan, but if if we have a couple developments that are on the higher end of what the density allows for, we will surpass what is in there their timeline, their whatever they're trying to make up here. How can they withhold? What are they withholding? We're not asking for their consent. >> Well, to answer the question, um what we understand that to mean is that they will not consent to a higher population forecast. >> Does that So, does that relate to their sewer capacity? >> Correct. So, and they've effectively tied that position to the White Bear Lake issue. So, that that's what we understand this to to mean. So, That's why the >> the sewer's associated with the white bear now, too. >> Yeah. This is great. >> Where [snorts] did the water come from? >> Well, I just like to remind the council, too, the other tie here is these populations have to be the populations we use in the water supply plan that gets approved by the DNR, and then the DNR is not going to appropriate water beyond those populations. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> So, so as an example, like if we look at the possible amendment here for 2040, it'd be 20 and change, correct? >> Yeah, 21, 4, or something like that. >> Their memo in which 21,400, in which technically we can be above that even with things that are permitted within each zoning, say it's on the higher end, right? Cuz if something's zoned for 5 to 10 and development's coming at 9, and this one's zoned for 3 to 5 and development comes at a 5, we will be technically above that 21,4, is my understanding, correct? The 21,4, our zoning is designed based upon ranges. >> You're you're you're right. So, the way that the city will set up its future land use map, and the way that this was done in the existing comp plan, is to use the the lowest Typically, it's the lowest um number in that density range that we have to use to meet the requirements. The Met Council typically assumes the lowest density, and so >> Okay. >> in low in low-density residential situations, you might be at that low density, but in certain situations, as you've seen with the high-density residential, they're usually pushing the upper end of that range. >> Yeah. So, do we need to consider changing some of the dense Cuz that's a that's a city city ordinance thing, what our densities are within each zone. >> Well, it it >> It's a comp plan and ordinance, and that's something we've talked about, because if you look at medium density, it can range in village from like three to eight. >> Yeah. >> You could add >> So, tightening that >> and maybe add >> Yeah, yeah. Got it. Got you. Thank you. Sorry to digress. >> There's a lot to digress here. >> I'll entertain a motion. Move to adopt resolution 2026. This approving the amendments proposed to the forecast found in the Lake Elmo 2040 comp plan with the findings and conditions therein. >> Support. >> Discussion. I'll just say that uh Yeah, absolutely. I I I support this 100%. Um again, it just fuddles me the amount the extent that recreational use on a lake confounds the complexities for an entire community bounded with PFAS and water use when the DNR itself's research indicates an effect on the lake of was it 2/10 of 1 in over a 20-year period. It's completely absurd. Uh concert that with the ability to try and get water for a water treatment plant to help the the residents of the city to have clean water is is uh it's confounding for me. So, I think this is the start of something. I I do expect that we'll have further conversations with the Met Council regarding this issue and the DNR and the MPCA and whoever will listen. So, um yeah, I'm in support of this motion. >> Councilmember Mr. >> Mayor, I think you're you're very correct in in what you're saying. I think this is going to get further complicated by um a reduction in future average water use per capita. Um that's just the trend where we're going and and we're have we're going to have a formal challenge in front of us to meet all of these when you combine together between the population growth and in a relationship with the water and the diminished per capita consumption, it's um it's going to keep us uh actively discussing how we're going to achieve all those things for some time. >> Any other discussion? >> I have nothing original to add to this. I support it. You both are correct. I This is No, I do have something original to that of this. I am very concerned the fact that Met Council was able to put forth something like this without it being officially voted upon by their governing body. If I as a civil servant did that for my state agency, there would be serious legal repercussions. And the same statutes apply to them. So, I have serious concerns about that. And I I don't consider this memo to be legally binding whatsoever. But, with that said, I support the motion. >> All right. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed, same sign. Hearing none, motion passes. Moving on to approve the revised crosswalk policy and 2026 crosswalk improvements. >> Uh thank you, Mayor, members of the council. I have with me here today Chris Brown from SRF to present our recommendations for the 2026 crosswalk improvements. I'll give you just a quick uh summary background of where we've been and how we've got here. Um we started getting requests for crosswalks really in this area, LaVerne Avenue and 39th Street, back in 2023-2024. In December 2024, we passed uh uh we adopted a policy for when to mark crosswalks. So, just quick high-level, even though a crosswalk's not marked, it is a a legal crosswalk and and has all the same rights and obligations. So, the real the policy was how often do we want to mark them? And so, we came up with a policy of how to identify that. Um after we adopted that, we did mark a couple crosswalks that met that policy in the in the surrounding area. Um meanwhile, some additional requests came in from some constituents down in the 5th Street area, and they were they were asked actually asking for them on multiple intersections along 5th Street. We staff evaluated those against the new policy, and there were two crosswalks immediately adjacent to parks, which met our crosswalk policy without doing counts. Um but due to speeds and the wider widths and things like that, then it started to trigger the concept of do we need to do additional enhancements over just pay just pavement and signage and things like that. So, what we did is we're bringing forward today a review of three crosswalks, two on 5th Street, one at Ivywood across the park there, one at Julia Avenue and 5th Street, and then we have we were looking at one on Village Parkway and Lower 31st Street, which has the private park in in the Northport subdivision. And while we were doing the this evaluation, we also mended our policy, so we're bringing forward an amended policy that was specifically looking at that and that that added enhancement of rectangular uh rapid flashing beacons. Um we have one of those installed across from the Dairy Queen on Hudson Boulevard, but that's also becoming a height a request from the constituents too of when to put those in. So, our policy that will be presented here tonight um addresses our recommendations of how of when to do that. So, with that, I'll I'll turn it over to Mr. Brown. >> [clears throat] >> All right. Good evening, uh mayor and council members. Appreciate the time and the opportunity uh to speak again with you all. My name is Chris Brown, and I'm the project manager for this effort from SRF Consulting Group, and I was the author and manager for that crosswalk policy about a year and a half ago. And so, I've been working with Jack um over the last 6 months or so on uh devising a context-sensitive solution for the city of Lake Elmo to update the the policy um for RRFBs, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, as Jack noted. Um and so, I'll go through that policy update, um how that could apply to these three uh case study crossings, and then some next steps um regarding these updates. So, uh friendly reminder for the adopted policy from 2024. So, we just uh devised a solution um to identify the potential locations where greater enhancements, i.e. marked crosswalks and other signage or infrastructure, um should be considered based upon volumes, destinations, uh uh documented safety issues. And so, the the thought here is that, you know, this RRFB policy and process would build upon this by first continuing to identify where locations should be marked, and then if they should be further enhanced um with RRFBs. And if no location is not appropriate, you know, for a crosswalk, it obviously then would not be appropriate for an RRFB. But this is the flowchart that can be found in your existing crosswalk policy. Uh a little bit of background just on RRFBs. Um so, on average, um for a basic uh crossing with RRFBs, it's about $40,000 per crossing. So, it is an investment, um which is why we want to make sure we're carefully placing these, not only because of their cost, but also because of their effectiveness. If they're on every street corner, um they will no longer be as effective as they are where they, um, matter most. Their advantages, they obviously increase driver awareness and have been shown, um, with nationwide research to to increase driver yield compliance for people trying to cross the roadway by walking or biking. Um, the FHWA does identify them as having a crash reduction of up to 50%. Um, and they are cost-effective compared to even more intensive solutions like traffic signals and other, um, pedestrian hybrid beacons and and other, uh, infrastructure that are just something more expensive than than RFBs. Um, the disadvantages is that the effectiveness can vary and that's heavily dependent upon the roadway design, the context, the speeds, and the traffic volumes. Um, and they are something you'd have to maintain obviously after you put them in. So, there's a maintenance component there. Um, a majority of them, if not all of them nowadays, are solar-powered, so there's less maintenance for the conduit and electrical cost, but there's still, you know, obviously, um, you know, routine enhancements, you know, over the years of keeping these signs up-to-date. So, the evaluation process, um, we went through was trying to be trying to balance, you know, um, obviously, uh, allowing them to be placed in in key locations. And so, um, I'll show you in the next slide kind of, you know, how this all folds together into some recent MnDOT guidance. Um, but essentially, an RFB would only be considered if if the following conditions are all met. And so, that would mean, obviously, there has to be identified for a marked crosswalk in your existing policy. >> [snorts] >> It has to be found to be appropriate for consideration in this step chart that I'll show you in a in a minute here. So, it's, um, uh, safety for transportation, uh, effective measures for a pedestrian. Um, the crossing is located a minimum of 1,000 ft from an existing RFB. So, again, technically, the minimum within, um, the manual of uniform traffic control devices is 200 ft. Obviously, you know, this is though context-specific. So, in more of a suburban exurban area, it's fair to say that a further distance um with your trailer sidewalk network is not, you know, um an unreasonable uh distance requirement. And so, working with Jack, we devised a 1,000-ft solution between existing RFBs, and then also demonstrating some sort of demand. And so, this 20 um pedestrians or and cyclists uh crossings per peak hours an industry standard that many cities use nationwide as kind of a benchmark to understand is demand appropriate enough to make this further um enhancement. And that's, you know, tens of thousands of dollars. So, if they meet all of these um items, then that crossing would be considered for an RFB. Um if it's not met, then obviously the RFB would not be installed. Um but that doesn't mean that other improvements couldn't be considered. Working across the state in pedestrian crossing solutions with many communities, um I think, you know, many citizens desire RFBs cuz it gives you the power to push the button and start the lights, and and hopefully folks will stop for you, but there's actually even more effective solutions with the RFBs or on their own with curve extensions, medians, and other infrastructure enhancements that all cost money. Um but there's other opportunities to change the context of the roadway as well and and improve uh compliance in pedestrian crossing safety. >> [snorts] >> So, here's that um that chart. So, this is uh recently released MnDOT guidance that is frankly using FHWA guidance and slightly tweaked um for the state here. So, what this is showing, and I know it's a little bit hard to read, but essentially it's saying, you know, there's a bunch of infrastructure you can consider. So, that number seven there is is RFBs. Um and dependent upon the design of the roadway, the number of lanes um on that on that Y axis, and the X axis, dependent upon those vehicular buckets, so that's the number of vehicles per day on a roadway, as long as well as the posted speed limit, how does all this factor into where you should appropriately apply certain treatments? >> [snorts] >> Those that are in gray um would not have RFBs recommended for them because they are so low volume and were so narrow that it's just an enhancement that's above what would actually be needed to get safely across the street. Those that are in red are roadways that are too large, uh too high speed, or have too much volume where the RFB would not be appropriate um to actually have folks safely cross um with the RFBs activated for drivers to stop. Those in green are kind of that middle space where an RFB could be considered. And I use the word considered carefully cuz this guidance is not saying you shall, it's saying you should consider with engineering judgment. So again, there's other context-sensitive um items, you know, and further study that would have to occur before an RFB is just placed because this chart says it should be. There's other you know, other factors that would need to be considered. And you'll see that kind of as we're talking through these case studies. So this is 5th Street and Ivywood. Um we went through um this review process, determined that um you know, RFBs could be considered in the future, but it seems premature to apply them right now given again talking about the context-sensitive solutions and engineering judgment. There is development [snorts] going on the south side, but that development hasn't been fully built out. So that kind of demand piece is likely not there um currently. Um if you go back to that that chart that MnDOT has, um it would say that this roadway has too high of a posted speed limit and too many lanes currently in its configuration for an RFB to be placed based upon industry standards and best practices. And so in talking with Jack, you know, this would require um greater infrastructure interventions and and and much more investment. And that cost-benefit just isn't quite there yet in our recommendations due to um you know, the again it's being slowly built out. In 5 years perhaps this is another solution that should be reevaluated 100%, but we would devise a more we would recommend a more phased approach to this. Um and so that would be to still mark this crosswalk cuz it would be relevant given the um adjacent park, adding in just basic pedestrian warning signage. Um we do feel that, you know, this would be an adequate improvement in the interim. >> [snorts] >> Um uh and some curb ramp improvements to create a uh fully ADA accessible crossing, specifically north-south, cuz those curb those curb ramps do not quite align to facilitate that north-south crossing. So, that's why you're seeing like an estimate of about $65,000 to do the curb ramps, the markings, and the signage. Obviously, the curb ramps are a bulk of that cost. Um and so, that is the recommendation um for Fifth Street and Ivywood. At Fifth Street and Julia, um a much more a very similar story. Um again, we we feel like RFBs are probably becoming a bit more relevant at this crossing, but not quite yet. Um we'd rather focus on improving the signage markings, and you can see it's going to be kind of hard to see, but extending that median out a little bit to create a refuge and shorten that crossing distance. And so again, we felt like investing in those infrastructure solutions now would be a higher cost benefit, and then um leaving this one again in that queue for further study in, you know, two, four, five, however many years when it would um become appropriate from staff's opinion to review for RFBs, but the RFBs, you can see the difference between this crossing and the other. This one has more lanes to cross, so that's where it's kind of tipping into that um threshold from this chart of saying, "Nah, maybe you should narrow this crossing before we would recommend RFBs." It's four lanes here. With this one, it's three lanes. You can see that cutoff point where if it's three lanes instead of four, that guidance would say that RFBs would be appropriate. So, this question is less or this, you know, location is less of a question of distance as demand, which is why we're still recommending no RFBs, but um in the future, if that demand increases, it would be definitely appropriate from infrastructure standpoint for RFBs. And finally, at Village Parkway here, uh much more lower lower volume street, so it would be in that gray area where RFBs would not be recommended because it is a low enough volume street, a narrow enough street, and a slow enough street um where they would not be an effective solution beyond those more basic marking and signage improvements. And so, we're recommending um adding in curb ramps east-west where they do not currently exist to get across the roadway and adding marking and signage. Um upon request from staff, we did show a a opportunity to add curb extensions that could narrow the roadway here. You can see the cost differentials about $30,000 um to add curb extensions with those with potential stormwater impacts as well as the additional curb um uh and and associated infrastructure improvements. So, just showing here, there is two options. Um there's obviously a bit of a cost differential, but those curb extensions, you know, could obviously narrow the roadway and provide some other benefits, which I'll touch on here in my last slide. Um you know, curb [snorts] exten- extensions highly dependent upon location, but are generally about $20,000 per corner. So, you get the whole intersection, it'd be about $80,000 to add curb extensions at one intersection. Um but they have a variety of benefits of obviously reducing crossing distance, again providing some safety um benefit, encouraging slower speeds, but do have challenges with maintenance, drainage, and impacts to turning vehicles if it's a freight route or something that needs to have larger vehicles safely turning. So, I think that is the conclusion of my slides and um invite any questions or thoughts. >> Councilmember Reynolds. Thank you for that, both of you. Um first question cuz it's the most recent slide, the curb extensions, that that visual [snorts] of that. I mean, I've seen in other neighborhoods, seen in other cities. I assume it's advantageous long-term. There's a reason people do it. I'm curious, within our city standards, have we considered that being a part of our standards for future developments? I know it's not part of the conversation here, but in seeing that, obviously there's a construction cost here cuz it doesn't exist, but have we >> Yeah, it is something we want to start taking a look at more. I mean, obviously retrofitting something's more expensive than getting it put in initially um as part of a development. Um sometimes it's uh hard to understand exactly how a development's going to be used initially when it comes to pedestrians in particular, but to the extent that we can identify that and um and be more proactive. Um that I want I I did want the council to see this as an option. Um you know, there's two ways you can look at this. The the real The difference between the two is obviously the speed of the vehicle and and and whether you have a speed issue. And I I do want to I've stood by these things and watch them operate and um you know, if you want if you're thinking that this is going to slow the speed down of the vehicle in the intersection before or after, that's not true. The vehicles they will they will be going slower through this crosswalk. Um but very quickly after uh either side, they're back they're right back up at their other speed. So, it's not a it's not a uh speed control device for the length of the roadway. It's a it's a spot treatment. And we need to understand that when we decide to use them or not use them. >> Got you. Thank you. Other question. Um the first intersection where you'd mentioned if, you know, speed limit were to reduce, then that'd be a different story. >> [clears throat] >> And I get that's explicitly based upon DNR's chart, right? >> Mendota. >> Yeah. DNR. >> Yeah. >> Department of Revenue, MDs. Okay. Based upon Mendota. Help me understand this. This this intersection qualifies right now based upon our our own guidance for a crosswalk because it's being used. What difference does the speed limit make in terms of if it has enough use and if RR FPs have a benefit of increasing in by drivers, Whether they're going 40 or 30, what difference does that make for me as a pedestrian? I just want cuz this is going to be a question someone's going to ask and I'm going to have to be able to answer. Well, they're driving too fast for you to for it to qualify for this. That doesn't make sense to a person watching. So, help me understand that. >> Yeah, I would say that you're you're hitting the nail on the head for kind of um the gray area that continues to be a challenge with the RFPs. And so, um the the speed factor um I would say here it's less in my professional opinion the speed factor and more the number of lanes. And that creates what is termed as a multi-lane threat. So, if a car was stopped in that left turn lane for someone crossing, but the the car coming through did not see them, that's where the number of lanes become the biggest concern. Um and that's why when you have more lanes, the RFP becomes uh not the solution because it's a warning device, not a traffic control device, which is a really important um differential in the MUTCD, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. It's it's technically you could be standing on the curb ramp and push the button, but until you put a foot forward on the roadway, the driver is not legally required to stop for you. So, that's the really big differential. So, all that aside though, to your speed question, um yes, I would say from a speed standpoint to fully improve this crossing, it would be recommended to lower the speed. Right now, based upon engineering judgment discussions with staff, we're comfortable with marking and signing the crosswalk and and doing a more phased approach to see before you spend $40,000, is the demand going to warrant a greater investment? Um but we are comfortable with it being a safe solution in the interim as recommended. >> Got you. Thank you. >> And how far of a stretch is that lowering the speed limit? And if you're lowering the speed limit, by how much? Is it 5 mph, 10, 15? >> Yeah, in this case it's a it's the posted speed is 40 mph >> Okay. >> Um and then it'd be posting at 35. The The problem with that is just putting a different sign out doesn't change the speed of the vehicle. So, it's not it's not real. If you really want to start uh changing the speed of the road, you have to start changing the road itself in certain ways. Kind of like we did with the curb extension or whatever for that one spot. You Um so, it's you want to make your speed reductions real, not not just a sign. >> Yeah. >> Um so, like the option on this one that SRF prepared for me that had the RRFB, um it showed eliminating the right turn lane onto Ivy there. Um was So, it's really taking your curb out and making that three lanes of crossing instead of four um was the more realistic way to to propose putting in RRFB at this intersection. >> Okay. >> And I just one more point of clarification because Councilmember Holtz hit on it is um we aren't looking at marking this one because of demand We don't have the demand or know that we have the demand here. We didn't do counts because it already qualified because of the park. Um we know the demand's coming cuz this is the Inwood Townhomes uh going in right there. So, we know we're pretty certain the demand's right around the corner. Uh but we didn't do a count here to show that there's a current demand. >> Got [clears throat] you. Thank you. And I would say to answer the question about the the curb cuts uh traffic calming devices [clears throat] in and of themselves and spot locations are much less effective than if you have a coordinated traffic calming system throughout like if you had Central Court the the the Parkway not just curb extensions there, but you would have it at the next one and then maybe you would have a hump or you would vary that and create a more vertical kind of make it feel tighter with some trees along there. Like like um um Jack indicated, they slow down at that one spot. And it's kind of like stop signs. Well, they speed right up to try and get back the time they lost from having to stop or slow down. So. Thank you. So, then Yes, cuz uh oh, I'm on the wrong >> Move to approve the Lake Elmo Crosswalk Policy revised June 2026. >> Second. >> Thank you. Uh any discussion? >> I mean, I I appreciate the work on this. Obviously, it's an extension of previous conversations, but this is something that residents specifically took the time to come to multiple council meetings to enforce this, to email to reinforce it, to email. So, I I appreciate that this due diligence was done and the updates it seems rational, logical. Um thank you for that. >> Agreed. Call the question. All those in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying I. >> I. >> Motion passes. Thank you. >> Move to authorize design construction phase engineering services for the 2026 crosswalk improvements, including option one for the Village Parkway and lower 31st Street in the estimated amount of 18,000. >> Second. Do we have a tie? >> Motion by Councilmember Holds, second by Councilmember Kragnes. Any discussion? I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed, same sign. Hearing none, motion passes. Thank you. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you. Um just real quick, so we'll be proceeding with the design, um but the because this is all new and we're kind of creating this from a finance system, whether they get installed in 2026 or 2027, we'll have to look at the construction costs and come back with the recommendation. >> Yeah, if it's if it's not in the budget, I would put it in the '27 CA. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Thank you. Moving along to council reports, Council member Dragisich. >> No report. >> Council member Holtz. >> Uh had a robust and magnificent meeting with uh members of Connect Lake Elmo and Kathy a couple days ago to discuss banners to hang in downtown. And an amazing, beautiful banner was picked for July 4th area. Administrator Miller sent an email out with a picture of it, but thank you to Connect Lake Elmo for participating in that. Feedback from Community Matters. Um we had an EDA meeting earlier today. I would recommend fellow council members uh watch it. There is some interesting conversation and there was a motion made by the EDA for the council to consider something. So, I will leave it at that. >> Uh I have nothing to report. Council member Cragnuss. >> Uh the only thing I have to report is we've been reaching out about um food trucks for our 250th celebration. Been getting good response there, so just trying to whittle down which food trucks we want. We think in six again, seven of them. >> Yeah, somewhere in that ballpark. >> Okay, sounds good. >> Staff reports, Ms. Miller. >> No report. Ms. Jensen. >> No report. >> No report. >> No report. >> You guys already talked enough anyway. >> Yeah. >> Ms. Handler. >> Nothing. >> All right. Adam. >> And I'll just quick update, um I presented last month we're looking for funds in order to get our booster station up. Uh we did get that up and running today, so we're back in full swing there. Irrigation enforcement's kind of been in full swing. Um we're tagging probably about 50 to 70 people a day. This is continued issue of of irrigation abuse, so yeah. >> All right. Jack. >> Uh no report. >> No report. >> Okay. >> No report. >> Thank you. Um please if you do look online, take a look at the possible future agendas. I will note that uh sometimes those do move around based on timing, so uh with that, I am going to adjourn the meeting here at 8:49.