08-03-99 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

B. Open Space Preservation (OP) Concept Plan —Emerson Tim Freeman, Folz, Feeman, Dupay, representing Terry Emerson, explained the development does not have a name yet, but consists of 50.5 acres with 21 new single family homes and one existing home. Most of the lots are one acre and the proposed pathways will be paved and maintained by the Homeowners Assoc. Freeman felt if you walked this piece of land you could see how the OP cluster is the best use of this land. Preliminary perk testing has been done and he was confident that this plan would work. George Crocker, 5093 Keats Avenue, asked for some light shielding, possible lilac bushes, to protect his garden and provide privacy and some berming or conifers for noise and light abatement. He asked the developer to avoid monuments at entrance of development. The Council and developer noted that Mr. Crocker's concerns would be addressed at the public hearing for the preliminary plat. Council member DeLapp asked if the developments provide land that has conservation value. The turnaround is not a significant village green for a gathering area for people. Council member Dunn voiced her concern with people moving in and wildlife don't mix, didn't want to loose trees, and male sure there is an alternate drainfield site. Armstrong asked the developer to take Mr. Crocker's needs into consideration and don't create any visual impact. She like the houses set back. Hunt would like to see less of a "snake" development. Would like to change the OP ordinance to get rid of long and thin lots. M/S/P Armstrong/Siedow — to adopt Resolution No. 99-47, approving the Emerson OP Concept Plan upon the Findings and subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and the comments made by the City Council. (Motion passed 5-0). C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment— Open Space Preservation At its July 20°i meeting, the Council directed staff to bring a portion of the Planning Commission recommended amendment to the OP Ordinance back to the Council for consideration. The Council made the following comments: Siedow suggested the developer only be able to select 3 out of the 4 bonuses. Armstrong felt there were too many bonuses Hunt liked the choice of 3 bonuses because it allows the developer freedom. Village green needs to be better defined, something reasonable not little strips of land. The developer wants to have a reasonable tract of land for a Conservation easement for the Land Trust to take and then they would get the bonus. Tim Freeman. Folz, Freeman, Dupay, indicated Lake Elmo, through committees, input from residents and citizens, did a good job developing a cluster ordinance. They are high quality developments. Incentives are proper. If you talked about overall low residence density, it doesn't increase the lot size, doesn't make the houses any further apart. From an economic standpoint when you take away units from the development, you take away dollars that can be spent on the development. He asked the Council to take a look at the restored buildings in the OP developments and look at how much money was spent on these buildings because the developers had money available. Without these Village Greens and separation in roadways, you have Oakdale style houses with houses on both sides of the street, no visual separation. If you don't have a bonus for a Village Green, you won't get one. Freeman voiced his concern on the concept plans already approved because the Attorney has stated if you don't have preliminary plat, you don't have anything. Council member DeLapp responded the Council is talking about future developments. We should be meticulous about our definitions in order to show benefits to existing and future residents, need definition of trail or qualify open space...what's going to happen in that open space, and make Village Greens viable. Armstrong: too intense, not what Lake Elmo has traditionally done, lots too small, too close, Haven't looked at what problems will Fields of St. Croix 2 create for Highway 5. Too much too soon, need to pull back a little. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999