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