07-15-2014 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 15, 2014 Page 3 of 6 Tom Wolter, developer for the project, asked for 5 year duration after final plat for Manning Ave. access. Council inquired how they can address the temporary access issue. Todd Erickson addressed the drainage and grading conditions as well as the temporary access. The costs associated with street/signal lights and the railroad crossing were discussed with the applicant. City Attorney Snyder advised that adding additional clarifying language does enhance the City’s position. Mr. Wolter was reluctant to include language regarding the crossing as the current plat does not include it. Mr. Snyder noted that the crossing is inevitable, so it is appropriate to address. MOTION: Council Member Nelson moved TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-58, APPROVING THE EASTON VILLAGE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH 15 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. The council discussed adding language regarding the timeframe for the temporary access. Mr. Snyder recommended using the most restrictive language as it is easier to open it up later. The converse is not true. Mr. Nelson offered a friendly amendment that the “TEMPORARY ACCESS IS GRANTED FOR FIVE YEARS FROM FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.” This language was changed upon advice of counsel that “THE COUNCIL WILL ESTABLISH THE TIME FRAME AT FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.” For condition #14, THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RAILROAD CROSSING SHALL BE BORNE BY THE APPLICANT UNLESS OTHERWISE PERMITTED IN A SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL RESOLUTION” was added. Condition #22 was added regarding the 30th Street and Manning Ave. intersection that included the language similar to #14 and added: THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNALIZATION AT INTERSECTIONS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE APPLICANT UNLESS OTHERWISE CHANGED BY A SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL RESOLUTION.” Council discussed how much of the costs this applicant should bear. It was noted that other parties will likely have to pay a share of these costs as they also will be causing the impact. Council consensus was adamant that the drainage issues be addressed before final approval. Council Member Smith explained her concerns about the proposal not matching the 2007 Old Village Master Plan design, the area drainage, the uncertainty of who the builder will be. She wants the entire Village area to seem more fluid. Council Member Bloyer voiced his approval of what is being proposed in the Village area. He said the opportunity to further control what was being proposed, in regards to larger lots, has passed. Now they must move forward. Council Member Reeves took issue with any accusations that the current council doesn’t want development to be special or unique. Council Member Nelson noted that the decision should be about land use. If the proposals meet the land use standards, the proposal should be approved. He also voiced his frustration with past planning expenses that are still being paid off. Ms. Smith explained that she wants potential developers to consider the work that has been done in devising what the City designed for the Old Village area. Mayor Pearson noted that the proposal meets the land use plan. The current proposals appear to be quality developments, and there is infrastructure that needs to be paid for, which these developments achieve. Not responding to these plans places the City at greater risk. MOTION PASSED 4-1 (SMITH – NAY). Council Member Smith left the room at 8:40pm. ITEM 15. VILLAGE PRESERVE PRELIMINARY PLAT; RES. NO. 2014-59 Community Development Klatt provided summary of proposal. Proposal by GWSA Land Development, LLC (Gonyea) includes 39.8 acres consisting of 97 units with 2.64 units per acre net density. Stormwater management is a critical issue. There are ongoing collaborative efforts between the applicants, Robert