Laserfiche WebLink
Sod Farms based on the Planning Commission recommendation and positive comments of staff in July 12, <br />1999 staff report. (Motion passed 5-0), <br />B. Amended OP Development Plan/CUP/Preliminary Plat— Tamarack Farm Estates <br />At its July 12th meeting, the Planning Commission, following a Public Hearing, unanimously adopted a <br />recommendation to approve several procedural actions that would result in converting a portion of the <br />Tamarack OP from single family attached to single family detached. The applicant proposed to convert <br />four of the eight SFA units to SFD units. A reconfiguration of the plat and permanent open space is <br />required to accomplish the conversion. The CUP for SFA units must be amended to reduce the approved <br />number from 8 to 4. The applicant has been working with the Minnesota Land Trust to accomplish the <br />permanent easement "trades" required to adjust the plat as requested. No certification to the County of the <br />new plat would be forthcoming from the City until new executed easements are presented. <br />M/S/P DeLapp/Siedow- to adopt Resolution No. 99-44, A resolution amending the OP Plan, SFA <br />Conditional Use Permit and Plat of Tamarack OP to substitute four single family detached lots for four <br />previously approved single family attached lots; and, to rearrange property lines related to the substitution <br />contingent upon successful negotiations to accomplish the permanent easement request to adjust the plat as <br />requested with the City or Minnesota Land Trust. (Motion passed 5-0):Armstrong: this is a step in the right <br />direction, but still yields smaller lots.). <br />C. MFC Properties — Minor Subdivision <br />At its meeting of July 12, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted a recommendation to approve <br />this Minor Subdivision of a parcel that has been physically divided for many years, as the result of the I-94 <br />project. County records show an existing parcel of about 51 acres with a single tax number, of which 45 <br />acres lies north of Hudson Road; and 6 acres which lies south of Hudson Road. The minor subdivision <br />would authorize separate tax numbers for each parcel. <br />City Planner Dillerud reported the issue raised was that of the size of the south parcel. While the current <br />(and incorrect), RR zoning of the site would suggest a 10-acre minimum parcel size, the Comprehensive <br />plan designates this site as Limited Business. This is one of the numerous inconsistencies between <br />Comprehensive Plan Land Use and current zoning. The Commission concurs that a citywide <br />comprehensive plan/zoning map conformance action be undertaken following completion of the Plan <br />update. <br />M/S/P DeLapp/Siedow — to adopt Resolution No. 99-45, A Resolution approving the Minor Subdivision of <br />PID 34-029-21-44-0002, as recommended by the Planning Commission. (Motion passed 5-0), <br />D. Helmo Avenue Extension - Oakdale <br />The Planning Commission unanimously adopted a recommendation that the Council take the necessary <br />action to deny the use of an existing easement that runs parallel to the west line of Lake Elmo Heights 3" <br />Addition as right-of-way for the extension of Helmo Avenue North to Stillwater Blvd, as proposed by the <br />City of Oakdale based on the finding regarding the relationship of the proposed project to the existing <br />physical characteristics of the land. <br />The City during the approval of the Lake Elmo Heights plat in 1995 addressed this issue. An easement was <br />established, but the Council directed the wording to preclude road construction without further Council <br />action. Oakdale staff has advised that it is their intent to construct the Helmo extension in 1999. <br />M/S/P Dunn/DeLapp —to direct the staff to respond to Oakdale regarding the proposed extension of Helmo <br />Avenue along the Lake Elmo/Oakdale border and into Lake Elmo based upon the Planning Commission <br />findings: 1. The result would indicate an increase in traffic volumes, 2. Disruption of an established stand <br />of oak trees, 3. Concerns regarding existing stream and wetland on the easement, 4. The road extension <br />doesn't meet the Comprehensive Plan, 5. Residents oppose the road extension based on safety issues, <br />LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 20, 1999 <br />