04-03-2012 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APPROVED AS AMENDED APRIL 17, 2012 Council discussed the safety concerns with another potential driveway access and future congestion. The Comprehensive Plan requires that the City bring services to that part of the City. Attorney Snyder commented that granting the variance to authorize the subdivision of the lots places minimal reasonable restrictions. Council Member Park stated that it was not part of an Open Space Development, and it would not change the character of the area. Engineer Griffin stated to bring utilities efficiently, a coordinated plan would be needed for infrastructure and that it may be expensive. Mayor Johnston commented that Council Member Smith made a compelling argument about the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION: Council Member Pearson moved to adopt a Resolution Denying Lot Area and Width Variances to Allow a Minor Subdivision at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue North. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-1, with Council Member Park voting against. Council Member Park was in favor of the lot split as it was a reasonable use of the oddly -shaped property. LAKE ELMO PARK RESERVE WEST SIDE ACCESS PLAN (Prepared by Washington County) At the request of Washington County, the City of Lake Elmo and Oakdale has been asked to review and provide comments on a plan that was prepared to identify potential opportunities for improving access to the Lake Elmo Park Reserve from the west side of the park property. The Parks Commission presented the West Side Access plan. Planning Director Klatt and Staff has participated in a stakeholder group over the past year. The Planning Commission also reviewed the Plan and provided feedback. Klatt noted that the Plan would tie into the planned greenway belt system to the Park Reserve, circling around the existing Park, and has been drafted to incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo trail plan. Council Member Pearson discussed the proposed parking lots and the opposition by residents on 15th Street. Planning Director Klatt said the County was aware of the parking concerns, and that County recognized the neighbor's request for additional enforcement of the parking restrictions along the public streets. Mayor Johnston stated it is a reserve, not a developed park, and a preserve supports the trails for non -motorized use for the region. He did not support any additional development within the park and noted that the County is allowed to develop only 20% of total park area. It was further noted that when you have a trail, it does impact the wildlife. The City Council requested that Washington County consider improving access in the northeastern portion of the park? Steven Dahly, 8955 15th St., was not expecting a path along 151h Street since the School District had determined the road was safe for children to use as a connection to a school bus stop along Inwood Avenue. He suggested that pedestrians and bicyclists could use the road, not the trail. Doug Troupe, 9250 15th St., stated there was no logic to the plan to build a trail through a development, and an off road trail system that would not lead to any specific place. Planning Director Klatt informed the Council that the Parks Commission has decided to begin studying ways to implement the City's trail plan, starting with the proposed trail alignment in the northeast quadrant of the City and connecting the Stillwater Area High School to the Village. Brad Sahr, 9170 15th St., provided a handout and petition. East of Inwood Ave. to 15th St. is .8 of a mile and two thirds more costly for Phase D. The number of visitor estimates information was not provided, and the trail would tarnish and unduly burden East of Inwood Ave. Phase E would be at the City's cost which is East of Inwood Ave_ to Keats Ave (please see attached petition and comments). Michele Houk, 1532 151h St. Ct., agreed with Mr. Sahr's comments. It is an unnecessary City expense when there is no great need to have access and does not preserve the character of the City. Ms. Houk noted there is an easement on Cardinal View but the preceding property on 151h Street North does not have an easement at this time. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 3, 2012