09-16-2014 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 Page 4 of 8 Council Member Bloyer asked what benefit would be gained. Mr. Kriesel said that is what the study is for. The economic development is one claimed benefit. Commissioner Lisa Weik explained some of the other benefits that the project will include and further explained some of the financial breakdown. Traffic lanes and other transportation options were discussed. Council Member Nelson asked about who is doing the study. County Senior Planner Andy Getzlaff explained who would be doing what in regards to the study. Community Development Director Klatt read letter from business owners along corridor who support the public transportation benefits. Mr. Klatt also explained the Met Council does not see any increase in density due to transit. Mr. Nelson asked why all four alternatives are listed in the resolution. It was explained that the crossing location will be studied in depth. By leaving the other alternatives in the resolution it allows the most flexibility for future stations. Council consensus was in favor of adding the E3 alternative language. It was clarified that light rail is no longer an option. City Attorney Snyder suggested now is the time that Council should add any language that they want. MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2014-71, TRANSMITTING THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO’S SUPPORT OF THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) TO THE RAMSEY COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY, WASHINGTON COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY, AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. Mayor Pearson wants the E3 alternative language added. Mr. Getzlaff suggested adding city also supports an E3 alternative. “The City of Lake Elmo would also support an A-B-C-D2-E3 alignment and continued evaluation as part of the Draft EIS.” Council member Reeves believes there is a benefit for Lake Elmo if the City’s requested conditions are met. He supports the resolution as it keeps the City involved in the process without granting formal approval. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Council Member Bloyer requested a point of privilege at 8:59 pm. Meeting reconvened at 9:05 pm. ITEM 16: INWOOD PUD CONCEPT PLAN; RES. NO. 2014-72 Community Development Director Klatt presented the PUD proposal by Inwood 10, LLC. Concept plan includes a mixed-use planned development consisting of 157 Acres including 273 single family residential lots, 144 townhomes, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse units and approximately 68,814 sq. ft. of commercial/office uses. Mr. Klatt explained the Planning Commission conditions of approval updates. Council discussed Condition #20 regarding the western placement of the trails, Condition #18 regarding prohibiting multifamily north of 5th street, and Condition #19 regarding sidewalks in cul-de-sacs. The Council consensus is to have those conditions re-evaluated as to whether they are necessary. Council Member Smith stated that she had not received this item in her packet. Mr. Klatt explained the number and type of units included in proposal. The density numbers were explained. It was noted that the northwestern 150 multifamily units would be eliminated and revert back to commercial. Mr. Klatt also explained the PUD was being sought for more flexibility in design. Pam Morreale, 785 Jasmine Ave. N., read letter from neighbor Tom Fitzgerald (877 Jasmine Ave. N.), who could not attend meeting. He requested that the council deny the PUD based on the density. He also demanded that the city rewrite the comprehensive plan. Ms. Morreale read the petition that Stonegate submitted to the Planning Commission. John Rask from Hans Hagen Homes presented the proposed development. Wayne Prowse, 697 Julep Ave. N., spoke about preserving the Lake Elmo heritage by denying development that does not fit the character of the City.