Laserfiche WebLink
Alan and Lou Stocker – 8680 Upper 7th Pl – Provided written comments in support of development but <br />requested consideration for screening of vehicle headlights and additional tree plantings. <br />Inwood Petition – a petition was submitted, signed by 32 different Inwood residential parcels, which notes <br />concerns for traffic, light, noise. They are requesting a soundproof wall of structure and traffic calming <br />measures for the commercial development. <br />Paul Prior 8674 Irving Cir N – Provided comments on the berming and how the elevations may be insufficient <br />for screening headlights alone. Additional measures such as a berm, fence, or retaining wall should be taken to <br />screen headlights on the roadways. Would like tenant lighting to be considerate of adjacent residents. The trail <br />connection should be extended. <br />Dolly Ladner 994 Irving Ct N – Provided comments about concerns with safety and privacy with the roadway <br />adjacent to the residential area and requested a wall. She noted concerns with the tenant build out and <br />parking lot locations. She requested something more substantial than landscaping for screening. Noted the <br />Business View magazine Lake Elmo article about development. <br />Dan Moralez 8669 Lower 8th Pl N – Provided comments on existing trees and that they are sparce and <br />scattered. He does not believe that landscape alone will fix the headlight screening. Grading issues will create <br />challenges for screening of headlights on the roadway. He also provided concerns about construction traffic <br />using Island Trail North during build out of the area. <br />Tim Duyer – 8644 Irving Cir N – Was in agreement with Dolly. Noted concerns with security and requested <br />fencing to buffer and protect the residential area which will also mitigate light and noise. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION: <br />The Planning Commission reviewed this request at their June 8th, 2026, meeting. The Commission voted to <br />recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to the recommended findings and conditions with an <br />additional condition that the developer add additional screening on the East side of Irene Ave (Vote 6-0). <br />The reason for the Commission amendment was to address neighborhood comment regarding vehicle <br />headlight screening on the new roadways. Staff would note that the developer has indicated that they will <br />review feasibility of enhanced landscaping and screening prior to the final plat submittal and make revisions <br />were able. Screening improvement will become a City responsibility due to the location in the Right of Way, a <br />structure to achieve screening is not recommended by Staff due to long term maintenance and the limited <br />space available. A condition of approval regarding enhanced landscaping has been added. <br />FISCAL IMPACT: <br />Approval of the Applicant’s requests grants entitlements to the Applicant, however there would be no fiscal <br />impact to the City at this time. A final plat is required along with a Development Agreement which will detail <br />public improvements and address fiscal impacts. When the property begins to develop it will have urban <br />services and will require development fees.