08-21-2012 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2012 Page 11 of 15 Council Member Pearson explained and attested to the level of work that was put into the comprehensive plan document in front of council. Council Member Emmons inquired who would be purchasing these larger lots and inquired whether we are we missing the 20-39 age group demographic. Planner Johnson responded there are areas included in the plan where the housing has targeted this demographic. Council Member Emmons inquired about the Forest neighborhood and asked whether we had received feedback on the higher density housing from homeowners. Planner Johnson explained the feedback has been positive for the compromised medium density housing and stated the biggest concerns were about tall multi-family housing which is not planned for the area. Council Member Park explained the southern Forest area has a view of commercial development and encouraged in the future to ensure a good buffer between residential and commercial structures. Council Member Pearson explained he would support a concrete way of handling these types of decisions in the future. Council Member Emmons inquired about the Forest neighborhood and the buffers and Planner Johnson stated the design standards cover much of the landscaping buffer areas and the expectations of the developers. Council Member Emmons asked for clarification on densities. Planner Johnson explained the density ranges and explained base densities and density ranges and how they are applied to areas within the zoning districts. He stated they are flexible therefore are a more effective way to work out future development. He added Staff plans to work closely with developers in the future and all of these types of decisions will come before the public in the way of a public hearing. Council Member Emmons supported the mixed use and especially supported the interdependence and walk-ability components and expressed his concern not to limit mixed-use areas as they support a community feel. Discussion was had by Council Members discussing these and additional details and general consensus was in support of the plan proposed. Wayne Prowse of 697 Julep Avenue, located in the Stonegate neighborhood approached the council and explained people in Stongate basically just have one issue: the high density housing and the previously developed language with regard to screening and buffering which has been replaced by the green belt around Stongate which is a compromise to put it mildly. He expressed concerns regarding the number of people the project will support residing south of 10th Street and how all of the people proposed would fit into one area. He expressed concerns with thousands of residents utilizing just one park path in the neighborhood. He expressed concerns for giving up the original language the neighborhood residents proposed in exchange for the 100 foot buffer – although he stated they are happy with the 100 foot buffer but are concerned over the lack of park land in the area included in the plan. He expressed they are happy about the requirements of 2.5 versus the previous 3.5 but wanted to verify that it is in fact 2.5 and that 4 units will not be allowed in some areas. Planner Johnson stated there will be parkland dedicated to this area and the neighborhoods to the east will contribute also. Council Member Park inquired whether design standards for south of 10th Street would support each community having its own park and whether this would be included in all neighborhoods. Planner Johnson explained this open space will be included in the plans. Planner Johnson explained in answer to Mr. Prowse’s question 2.5 is an average and will be the lowest it may come in at but may include various requirements such as 2.3 in one area and 2.7 in another averaging out to 2.5 overall. He stated Staff will continue to track rec units to not over extend the commitment to Met Council. Mayor Johnston inquired if 7.5% was the current standard for dedicated park land could we discuss raising this amount to 10%, stating there needs to be