08-06-2013 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 06, 2013 Page 3 of 8 Condition #13 involving the Wetland Conservation Act and water shed districts and wondered if it was necessary. Mr. Klatt stated it was necessary. Council Member Reeves asked about the alignment of 5th Street. Mr. Klatt stated that the City is leaving it up to the private property owners to come up with a solution. The city does not want to get involved in the private transaction. City Administrator Zuleger stated that the City does have planned meetings coming up with the property owners. Mayor Pearson asked about streets A and B and their alignment. It was explained that staff wanted it changed a little to facilitate movement, but the Planning Commission wants it more as a traffic calming feature. City Engineer Griffin explained the transportation needs further work. He stated it was actually his suggestion to realign it, and that according to studies, intersections are poor traffic “calmers”. The curving of the streets can calm traffic. Ms. Smith expressed her disagreement with the studies based on her experience in her neighborhood. Mr. Nelson asked about Condition #10 regarding sidewalks. Mr. Klatt explained that they are on both sides in the multi-family areas due to more people are expected to use them. Mr. Pearson asked about power line easements. Klatt explained that there are easements on parts and that those areas cannot be used for the parkland dedication. Ms. Smith asked about Condition #27 (reusing trees). Klatt explained that the developer is being asked to reuse trees where they can. Joe Jablonski from Lennar addressed the council. He thanked staff for their hard work. He also stated that the comments and conditions do not concern Lennar at this point. Mr. Pearson asked about the A/E streets’ alignment. Mr. Joblonski stated that their intention was to prevent a drag strip. Mr. Reeves acknowledged the work the Planning Commission has done and that stated he appreciated the vigorous debate the Planning Commission had over the street alignment item. The trail buffer was discussed. It was suggested that the language be changed to “encouraged to” vs. “must”. Mr. Klatt stated that Council would have another review at the Final Plat stage. At this point the Council is setting their expectations. Ultimately, it is up to council. Ms. Smith stated her preference to leave it as is for now and let any. MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO AMEND SMITH’S MOTION BY AMENDING CONDITION NO. 5 TO REPLACE “MUST BE LOCATED” WITH “IS ENCOURAGED TO BE LOCATED.” Council Member Smith seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Mr. Nelson brought up his reluctance to require the tree consultation. It is his opinion that the tree ordinance should be enough. Ms. Smith disagreed that it is a penalty. It is reasonable in her opinion. This has been a standard practice and requirement. Mr. Reeves asked Mr. Klatt if the tree ordinance addresses landscaping. Mr. Klatt stated it does not. Mr. Klatt explained that the landscaping ordinance and tree ordinance and this plat all come together to achieve the desired requirements. Mr. Nelson said that the ordinances should be amended instead to require the forester approval. The City is setting precedent with this development. Mr. Bloyer said he is in agreement. He wants to know the long term economic consequences of these requirements. Mr. Klatt said that the main