12-02-2014 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 2014 Page 3 of 6 ITEM 12: INWOOD EAW – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, RECORD OF DECISION, AND DECLARATION OF NO NEED FOR AN EIS; RES. NO. 2014-93 Community Development Director Klatt provided overview of the EAW responses. Council Member Bloyer asked about who pays for the studies. The reports reviewed by staff are paid for by the developer. Council Member Smith asked if the Metropolitan Council response was based on the current numbers. It was explained that the original numbers were submitted of the submission timing. The updated numbers have been amended, but as they are lower, they do not impact the finding. MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-93, APPROVING THE INWOOD EAW AND FINDING NO NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. Council Member Bloyer seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ITEM 13: INWOOD PUD PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS; RES. NO. 2014-94 Community Development Director Klatt provided overview and background of the proposed development. He explained the changes to the concept plan based on conditions of approval: elimination of 150 units of multifamily homes; reconfiguration of Bremer/Stonegate park curve; additional details of Outlot P public gathering area; park concept for SE park adjacent to Stonegate; modification of commercial dev access; maintenance of 100 ft buffer; sidewalks added to both sides of street B; incorporated design standards for single family homes. Mr. Klatt provided overview of the proposed preliminary plat and some of the nuances of the PUD. Access to the proposed park was clarified. There would be no access directly from 5th St. Access from proposed Street C would be shorter. Council Member Smith suggested that direct access may be better as it would not involve users from accessing through the neighborhood. Council Member Reeves noted that the Parks Commission’s main concern was about adequate parking. It was explained that the loop roads would not have sidewalks. The easternmost loop road lots have been left in a configuration that follows concept plan. No additional trails are shown along county roads. Mr. Klatt explained some of the benefits of a PUD. The flexibility requested in concept plan proposals was explained. The design standards were explained. They are intended as guides. The critical path issues were explained. Two significant items are the Water tower site and 5th street minor collector road. The water tower site was discussed. The trail and its proposed placement was also discussed. One issue was whether it made more sense to locate the trail on the north or south side. Council Member Reeves asked if there are any current proposals of a trail expansion on 10th St. The County currently does not include a trail there. City Administrator Zuleger clarified that the County did afford greater width and shoulders due to use. So while it is not an actual bike or pedestrian lane, it will accommodate greater use. Ms. Smith asked why the water tower was located near the road instead of further back. It was explained that the infrastructure costs would be greater. It also provides developers a known entity with regards to one side of the development and the road. Expected timing for build-out is seven years. Mr. Reeves noted that the commercial and multifamily design standards will still apply. Mr. Klatt summarized the Planning Commission findings and the 19 conditions of approval. Council Member Nelson asked for clarification as to why the Planning Commission members who voted no, voted no. Mr. Klatt responded that he did not have that information. Sue Dunn spoke about her concerns with the proposal.