Laserfiche WebLink
M/S/P DeLapp/Siedow — to adopt Resolution No. 2000-011, as amended, A Resolution adding Section II <br />A3 of the 1990 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. (Motion passed 4-1:Armstrong; the Planning <br />Commission recommended 0.9 units and this is 1.4. This development is not appropriate for Lake Elmo <br />and so far away from what we have done. Dunn was disappointed with herself in giving in for 109 units <br />because she thought it would be less dense with the commercial development.) <br />M/S/P DeLapp/Siedow — to adopt Resolution 2000-012, A Resolution Amending the 1990 Lake Elmo <br />Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. (Motion passed 4-1:Armstrong: the development is too intense, too <br />much traffic, not in keeping with the rural atmosphere of Lake Elmo.) <br />M/S/P DeLapp/Siedow - to adopt Resolution No. 2000-013, A Resolution Approving a Planned Unit <br />Development Concept Plan of Carriage Homes IX for Wilderness Run with the new density clause of 1.4 <br />units per acre inserted in the 3rd Whereas. (Motion passed 3-2:Dunn:Her consideration for going up to 1.4 <br />units was meant as a broad range, not used as a maximum. Disappointed this is how it always happens, felt <br />she was snookered in, Armstrong: for same reasons stated, it's a common practice for developers to max <br />out.) <br />M/S/P DeLapp/Siedow - to adopt Resolution No. 2000-014 A Resolution Approving a Planned Unit <br />Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat of Carriage Homes IX for Wilderness Run, as amended, <br />(Motion passed 3-2:Armstrong:this development is too intense and not in keeping with the rural <br />atmosphere of Lake Elmo, Dunn: PUD should allow flexibility but they do not. <br />B. Open space zoning Ordinance Amendments <br />Planner Dillerud provided a memorandum and draft Open Space ordinance amendments based on direction <br />of the Council. <br />Bob Engstrom, developer, made the following comments: asked why cut out the incentive to preserve <br />historic features; with the 500' buffer what are you trying to buffer from; problems with definitions of <br />townhomes and duplexes; why go to 40A rather than 20A, keep the viewshed along the roads, keep it rural <br />no matter the acreage, l0A is a convoluted surveyors scheme. <br />Tim Freeman made the following comments: He has no problem with minimum site size change from 20A <br />to 40A. Three acres is difficult, but 10A would be impossible unless you change it to 80% in dealing with <br />Land Trusts, The 500' setback does not work. Are you trying to buffer from an existing zoning, what if you <br />have a first and 2"d addition. The densities you can get 7 units per 20 on a 2 '/z acre development. <br />Discussion followed on the four items in the City Planners report: <br />1. M/S/P DeLapp/Dunn - to accept the Minimum site size for OP as a 40acre minimum is reasonable. <br />(Motion passed 5-0) <br />2. Look at some kind of step formula, 60% of the unplatted OP must be designated to the City or a <br />qualified Land Trust. Some method of determination that the city can apply. <br />M/S/P DeLapp/Armstrong — 60% Preserved Open Space would be acceptable to a qualified non-profit <br />organization such as a donation for development rights. (Motion passed 5-0.) <br />3. The 500' buffer is severe. Are we buffering existing land? Should identify why. Have to deal with this <br />complex item at a workshop. The Planner is at a conference dealing with OP and we should wait and <br />listen to what he has to say. <br />4. M/S/P DeLapp/Siedow — The Council is split at 6 to 8 units per 20 Acres as a base density depending <br />on how other sections of the ordinance would go. (Motion passed 5-0), Did not close the door to some <br />manner of bonuses, such as preserving a barn. Dunn-7 units, Hunt-8units. DeLapp and Siedow 10 <br />units with a barn. <br />M/S/P Dunn/DeLapp — to approve amending (page 4, No. 2 criteria) by adding "no leftover unspoken <br />land". (Motion passed 5-0.) <br />LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 <br />