HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes 3-24-14 City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of March 24, 2014
Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Dodson, Kreimer, Larson and Haggard;
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Yocum, Dorschner, Lundgren and Morreale;
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt and City Planner Johnson.
Approve Agenda:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Approve Minutes: March 10, 2014
Williams requested three changes to the minutes.
M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to approve the minutes as amended, Vote: 5-0, motion
carried unanimously.
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit Amendment – 901 Lake Elmo Avenue
Johnson started his presentation by explaining the request by Family Means. The
applicant would like to amend the existing conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a
4,000 square foot community center to serve as an accessory use to the park. The
community or youth center would be used for after-school and summer programming
for youth in the Cimarron Park community. Johnson further described the request by
presenting the various plan sets that were submitted by the applicant. Johnson also
confirmed that there is enough parking remaining on the site to serve all of the users.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the CUP
Amendment request.
Dodson shared his concern that the lease space did not include and parking area. He
noted that if the property owner of the manufactured home park changes, the parking
situation could be an issue.
Kreimer asked about the existing situation of the parking lot. Johnson noted that the lot
is currently under-utilized. Kreimer asked if any busses drop students off. Johnson did
not think so, but he deferred to the applicants who are in attendance. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-14
2
Larson asked if people from the greater Lake Elmo community can sign up for
programming. Johnson again deferred to the applicants.
Brian Larson, representing Family Means, addressed the Planning Commission regarding
the discrepancy of parking. He noted that when using the City’s new required
dimension of 9x18, they were able to site 108 parking stalls.
Tom Yuska, the Family Means program director, talked about how most of the
participants traveled to the site. He noted that Lake Elmo Elementary does route a bus
in front of the existing clubhouse. Yuska also shared that other participants are
welcome beyond the Cimarron Park population, but that the program is focused on this
population.
Larson asked if the center planned on providing before school care. Yuska noted that
they do not have the capacity to provide before-school care.
Dodson asked how many students could be served by the facility. The program director
noted that they likely serve 50-70 kids per day. Dodson asked what would happen to the
building if the
Public Hearing opened at 7:26pm.
No one spoke.
The City received no written comments.
Public Hearing closed at 7:27pm
Williams stated he supports the request.
M/S/P: Larson/Kreimer, move to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit
Amendment submitted by Family Means to allow for the construction of a 4,000 square-
foot youth center based upon the request meeting the City’s 12 required findings for a
CUP, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing: Variance - 09.029.21.11.0015 (Lot 9, Krause’s Addition at Jamaca and
Jane Road)
Klatt started his presentation by explaining the request for a lot size variance. The code
requires the lot size to be 0.9 acres and the subject property is 0.785 acres, 0.12 acres
short of the minimum. The applicant has also requested a variance from the 12-month
time limit for the commencement of work associated with the lot size variance. The
applicant does not plan to build on the lot within a one-year period of time.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-14
3
Klatt continued by providing background information about the parcel, starting with the
location. The parcel is on the northwest corner of the intersection of Jane Road North
and Jamaca Avenue North. The parcel is just north of Lake Jane. He moved on to
present the site plan, describing the topography of the lot. Klatt noted that the
northwest portion of the lot collects drainage, and that if the Variance were granted,
the City should require that a drainage easement be provided where the water collects.
Klatt then described the general area, specifically noting the parcel sizes of the
surrounding properties. He noted that the properties that are located close to Lake Jane
are all smaller or similar in size as the subject property. The properties to the north of
the subject parcel were platted at a later date.
In terms of history, he noted that the subject property was granted a variance in 1985.
The applicants purchased the property at this time, when the lot was likely considered
buildable. However, variances are typically valid for a one year period of time. It should
be noted that according to current zoning rules, the lot is not considered buildable. In
terms of additional info, Klatt described two road reconstruction projects, one in the 80s
and one in 2012. In the 80s, the lot was assessed as buildable. In 2012, staff
determined that the lot was not buildable.
Klatt discussed the required findings related to a variance. He noted that Staff has
provided draft findings in the Staff Report. Klatt noted that the lot is able to site a septic
system that will meet Washington County approval.
To wrap up, Klatt noted that Staff is recommending approval of the variance with 5
conditions of approval:
1. Staff is recommending that the driveway for the future home be located on Jane
Rd. N.
2. The applicant must provide drainage easements on the site.
3. Staff is recommending that the Variance be valid for 5 years, as opposed to the
indefinite approval that the applicant is requesting.
4. The variance is conditioned upon the approval of a future building plans.
5. The future building plans must meet the approval of Valley Branch Watershed
District.
Haggard asked why there is a one year valid time period for variances. She also asked if
the site will be able to be built upon with the condition that the driveway must be on
Jane Rd. Klatt noted that the one year time period is standard because if the variance
were open ended, there could be a lot of changes of City policy in the long interim
period between when the variance is granted. Also, the site can change over the years.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-14
4
Regarding the second questions, Klatt noted that the septic design that was submitted
to the City included a septic system on the eastern side of the site. Staff is confident
that a home can be built with the driveway access condition.
Dodson asked what the risks might be related to the Valley Branch Watershed District
approval. Klatt noted that the risks are not great, that meeting VBWD standards are a
common part of the process. Staff is recommending the condition so that the applicants
are aware that a VBWD permit is likely.
Dodson asked about the northwest corner of the lot, where water pools at this time.
Klatt noted that the City does not have topographic information of the surrounding
properties. However, when the building permit is submitted, staff would work to
ensure that the existing drainage condition is not exacerbated by the construction of the
home.
Kreimer asked if the property was assessed in 2012. Klatt noted that it was not.
Williams asked if the septic system has been approved by Washington County. Klatt
noted that the system has yet to be approved. Staff did send the variance and proposed
system to Washington County for review. The County did not respond, which they
typically would if they had concerns.
Following up on Kreimer’s earlier question, Klatt noted that if the variance were
granted, the City may wish to revisit the 2012 assessment. Haggard noted that the
assessment should be triggered as soon as the variance would be granted.
Larson asked about the impacts to adjacent properties. He asked if constructing the
home would be an improvement to the drainage situation. Klatt stated that without a
plan to review, it is difficult to be sure. However, there will be an overall decrease in
impervious surface.
Christine Cirilli, representing the Horning Family, provided some background
information on the request. She noted that the applicants have been paying taxes and
assessments for the lot from 1985 to 2012 as a buildable lot. The status change to non-
buildable in 2012 was a surprise to the applicants. The representative of the family
noted that the applicants understand that they have to comply with all of the other
zoning and building requirements. They intend to build a home that is consistent with
the character of the neighborhood.
Public Hearing opened at 8:06pm.
Greg Zeipelt, 4940 Jamaca Ave. N., noted that his property is directly north of the
subject property. He noted that he was not aware of the plans to possibly build a home
on the property. He shared that he is lived in the neighborhood for 16 years. When his
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-14
5
family purchased their home, their realtor researched the subject property and
determined that the subject property was not a buildable lot. He continued by talking
about the drainage issue. He noted that since the road project in 2012, the drainage has
gotten worse in the northwest corner of the site.
Bill and Valerie Brass, 8930 Jane Road North, stated that they live to the immediate west
of the subject property. She noted that she is concerned about the precedent of
allowing variances for additional homes in the neighborhood. She also noted that all of
the smaller parcels in the area are on the lake, not to the north of Jane Road. She
finished up by stating her concern about the drainage issue. Bill added that they built
their house in 1980, and the subject parcel was always the low spot in the area. He
agreed that the drainage issue has gotten worse since the road project in 2012. Williams
asked a question…the applicants answered
Jason Brash, 9030 Jane Road North, noted that he just moved to Lake Elmo. He noted
that they moved here for the open space and large lots. He suggested that it stay that
way.
Public Hearing closed at 8:18pm.
Williams asked if staff were aware of the drainage issues. Klatt noted that the City
Engineer was aware that PW staff had visited the site. However, the Engineer did not
note that any future action was pending.
Dodson noted that he is concerned about the drainage. However, he noted that the
property owner does need to be considered. He feels that the property owner has a
right to sell their property. It is clear that they have been paying taxes on the property
as a buildable lot. Dodson noted that he is in favor of the variance and the 5-year
timeframe.
Larson noted that due to the drainage problem, it is not yet determined if a home can
be built on that site. It should be the responsibility of the City to ensure that the land
can drain properly to serve all of the properties. Williams asked if condition #2 in the
staff report would address his concern.
Kreimer noted that he does have some concerns related to the lack of a building plan.
Haggard wanted to clarify that this requested action is not a lot split. Klatt confirmed
this fact.
Haggard also noted that she is concerned with the drainage. She would like the
ultimate drainage situation to be improved. In addition, she does have concern about
runoff to the lake. Also, she added that she would not like to see additional variances in
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-14
6
the future. Klatt noted that any future variance would have to go through the Planning
Commission and Council, and staff is not anticipating any future requested variances.
Williams noted that in general he supports granting the variance. However, he would
like to offer additional or different findings. Williams noted two proposed changes to
the findings. He also recommended two additional conditions:
Condition #6: The applicant will submit a letter from Washington County that an
approved septic system can be located on the site at the time of building permit.
Condition #7: The owner shall pay an assessment comparable to other properties in the
area related to the Jane Road reconstruction project.
Williams asked if everyone was agreeable to these changes. Everyone agreed.
Larson asked if some additional information should be added to better address the
drainage concern. Klatt suggested that some additional language could be added to
state that the post home construction conditions not be worse than the existing
condition related to the drainage area on the northwest corner of the site. Williams
stated that the overall impervious coverage will be reduced. Klatt noted that is correct,
but it is hard to note what the future condition will be without a plan. Williams asked if
it would be helpful to add to condition #2. Klatt suggested adding language to condition
#4 to state that the post-construction condition will not exacerbate the existing
drainage situation.
Haggard asked if everyone was agreeable to the five year timeframe. Everyone agreed
that the five-year timeframe is reasonable.
Larson asked about the ability to request an extension. Larson wanted it noted in the
minutes that the request to extend the time period beyond 5 years should be legitimate
and warranted.
M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, move to approve the variance from the minimum lot area
requirements for 5 years for 09.029.21.11.0015 based upon the findings of fact as
amended by the Planning Commission with the conditions as amended by the Planning
Commission, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously.
Haggard asked if the City is setting any precedent with the five-year timeframe. Klatt
noted that each variance must be considered by its own merit.
Public Hearing: Zoning Map Amendment and PUD Concept Plan – Launch Properties
(PID: 09.029.21.11.0015 - Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson Boulevard)
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-14
7
Klatt started his presentation by stating that there are two requests, both warranting a
Public Hearing. Request #1 is a zoning map amendment to change the zoning of the
property from Rural Development Transitional District (RT) to Business Park (BP). In
addition, request #2 includes the submittal of a PUD Concept Plan for a business park of
a total of 380,000 square feet of warehouse/light manufacturing space. Klatt presented
the City’s Future Land Use Map and Official Zoning Map, showing the location and
designation of the subject parcel.
Moving forward, Klatt explained the PUD Concept Plan. Klatt noted that they are
requesting a planned development because they are requesting flexibility from the
City’s zoning ordinance in two areas:
1. They are requesting a zero lot line situation for the parking areas in the middle of
the two proposed buildings.
2. They are requesting reduced setbacks for the principal buildings and parking
areas. More specifically, these reduced setbacks relate to the area along the
northern property boundary.
Klatt provided an aerial view of the area. The site is currently used for agricultural
purposes. He then proceeded to present the existing conditions map and concept plan
that were submitted. Klatt talked about PUDs generally and the aspects of the
proposed project that warrant consideration. Klatt shared some of the Engineer’s
concerns related to the access along Hudson Blvd. In addition, the County reviewed the
plan and wanted to ensure that the access road along Lake Elmo Ave. is not used for
truck traffic. Washington County has requested a traffic impact study, which will be
provided as part of Preliminary Plans. Klatt also described a review comment of the
engineer that relates to storm water management. Klatt then presented the elevations
for the buildings that were submitted. He noted that the applicants have incorporated
elements from the City’s Theming Study into their plans, including fencing and a
possible monument sign at the key gateway of Lake Elmo Ave. and Hudson Blvd.
Staff is recommending approval of the Concept Plan with conditions related to the City
Engineer’s review comments, the traffic impact study, additional permits (VBWD),
detailed landscape plan, final architectural plans, signage, park dedication fees,
easements, storm water ponding and infiltration areas and, finally, a PUD development
plan.
Dodson asked for clarification regarding proof of parking. Klatt noted that the applicant
anticipates that the provided parking to the south of the office in building number 1
should address the parking needs. However, if additional parking is needed in the
future, they are providing a proof of parking for the area that can be improved as
additional parking at a later date.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-14
8
Haggard asked about the setback to the proof of parking area to the west. Klatt noted
that the same setback would not apply because the proof of parking area is not adjacent
to a residential zone. There was a general discussion of setbacks.
Dan Regan, Launch Properties, noted that they are hoping to provide a clean and low-
nuisance light industrial business park. He stated that he hopes the use will be
beneficial to the I-94 Corridor and stimulate additional development and jobs in the
areas. Regan noted that they are committed to working with City Staff and Washington
County to address the access spacing issues. Regarding recs, he estimated that the first
phase will include 18 or 19 rec units. He estimated that the total site could go up to 90
recs. Regan also noted that the likely tenant is a tire storage and distribution
warehouse. The applicants will work on a high powered sprinkler system to address any
concerns over fire safety.
Haggard asked how much truck traffic will be generated by the first phase. Regan noted
that truck traffic is less than would be expected. The likely use is more storage than
distribution, such as would be associated an amazon.com distribution center or similar
use.
Williams asked about the berm planned for the northern property boundary. Regan
noted that the berm is 4-6 feet in height with evergreen planting to provide year-round
screen. The berm would include irrigation, and a cross-section will be provided with the
Preliminary Plan to demonstrate the berming and screening.
Williams asked the applicant if there was any concern about restricting parking within
the fire lane. Regan noted that there are no concerns about restricting parking in this
area.
Williams asked about the trailer parking for the 2nd phase building. Regan noted that
there is enough space, 185’, to allow for full turning movements for tractor trailer
trucks. He added that he does not anticipate all of the spaces to be filled with trailers at
all times.
Williams also asked about the green stripe running down the center of the site. Regan
noted that there likely would not be a median or physical barrier. The lot would be
striped to designate the lot line or boundary. Dodson asked about the center island.
Regan noted that the island would be necessary to direct internal traffic appropriately.
Public Hearing opened at 9:30pm.
Linda Anderson, 275 Lake Elmo Avenue North, noted that they are concerned about
traffic noise from trucks. More specifically, she notes that tucks tend to arrive early in
the morning and idle until the building opens. She asked if there was any restriction of
time for trucks to be operating. She noted some concerns about the traffic speed along
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-14
9
Lake Elmo Ave. She also shared some information about existing drainage that slopes to
the south onto the applicant’s property in the northwest corner. To summarize, she
noted that the truck traffic is the biggest concern.
Public Hearing closed at 9:35pm
Dodson stated that he is not excited about the design of the building, as it still
resembles a large concrete block. He would suggest additional berming in other
locations. As presented, Dodson noted that he does not support the building.
Haggard noted that she like the truck area is internal to the site and the landscaping and
other components are nice. However, she does have concerns about the façade, that is
should be more broken up. In addition, she thinks that the office should be oriented on
the main street. Finally, she noted that she does not support the reduced setbacks.
Dodson wanted to clarify his earlier comments that he thinks that the proposed berms is
too small. Larson stated that the berm in Fields of St. Croix is 10 or 12 feet high.
Williams noted that the use is appropriate and the size of the buildings is fine. However,
he would like to see the elevations tweaked, as well as greater variation in the roof line.
He thinks that the fire lane setback is appropriate, however, the building setback is a
problem and should be greater. Williams suggested planted islands within the truck
court to break up the monotonous pavement. Williams also felt that the berm should be
increased and irrigated. Moving on, Williams noted that the drainage in the northwest
corner can be registered as a concern. Finally, regarding the fire lane, Williams
suggested an island, as well as signage, at the entrance to discourage truck traffic.
Williams asked staff how to best address the comments of the Planning Commission.
Klatt offered some direction as to how best incorporate the Planning Commission’s
concerns into a motion. Some concerns can be included as conditions of approval, and
others can be simple suggestions to the applicant.
Williams suggested that the setback from the north property line be maintained at 150
unless a design of a berm can be provided that would sufficiently mitigate the reduced
setback. He added that he is not concerned about the location of the fire lane or the
location of the parking as shown. Haggard noted that she does have concerns about the
reduced setback for the fire land and parking, and she does not support the reduced
building setback.
Larson asked that the applicants look at meeting the intent of the design standards
manual, but on a larger scale due to the size of the building. He also stated that it looks
like a wonderful business park. Anything that can be done to make it more “Lake Elmo”
would be appreciated. Larson also noted that there could be a designated truck waiting
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-14
10
area so that the idling does not negatively impact neighbors. Larson also commented
on the drainage.
Dodson asked Chairman Williams about the setback issue. He noted that it may change
the allowed square footage of the building. Williams noted that the Planning
Commission can change the recommendation, and it does not need to contain a square-
footage for the building.
Williams asked if they could separate the motions for the zoning map amendment and
PUD Concept Plan. Klatt noted that they can separate the actions.
M/S/P: Larson/Dodson, move to recommend approval of the zoning map amendment to
change the zoning of the subject parcel from RT to BP, Vote: 5-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Williams suggested that the proposed exception for the building setback be denied
unless a letter of support from the neighboring property owners to the north is received
or if the berming and landscaping is increased to mitigate the building setback concern.
Haggard asked if the location of the driveway and fire lane must be in that location. The
applicants noted that the fire land must be in that location to gain access to the
northern side of the building and meet County spacing guidelines. Todd Erickson, the
civil engineer, noted that they may be able to sweep the fire lane further south to allow
for more room for berming and screening adjacent to the residential parcels to the
north. Regan also added that trucks are not able to use the fire lane because the
turning radius is not large enough for tractor trailers. In addition, trucks cannot access
the trailer court from the north. Finally, Regan noted that the size of the berm can be
increased.
Williams proposed to add additional language to condition #5 to break up the
continuous and flat roof line.
Williams also added a condition, condition #11, that the exception for building setback is
denied unless either a letter of support is received from the adjacent property owners
to the north or the berm is increase to mitigate the building setback concern.
Haggard note that there are two setback situations. Williams noted that he is not
concerned about the parking setback.
M/S/P: Williams/, move to approve the PUD Concept Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
for Launch Properties PID #36.029.21.33.000 at Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson
Boulevard with the conditions of approval as amended by the Planning Commission,
motion fails for lack of a second.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-14
11
Haggard asked if condition #5 could be amended to include considerations related to
the façade and entrances. Dodson noted that the main entrance is on Hudson Blvd., so
it is compliant with the design standards. Williams discussed the possibility of
protrusions and recessions along street facing facades. Erickson suggested additional
plantings and berming along these facades. He noted that with this type of
construction, it is difficult to make substantial recessions and protrusions. Dodson
suggested additional plantings or berming along the western and southern portion of
the site. Williams summarized by stating that the roof line is still a concern, and that the
façade can be mitigated by additional plantings and berming. Haggard suggested that
they understand the intent of the Planning Commission’s comments. They will improve
the plan the next time they bring it forward. She also asked that the condition related
to the building setback be amended to state that they need both the property owner’s
consent and additional berming, as opposed to either or. Erickson noted that this
amendment would make it difficult to move things forward. Regan stated that he is
committed to working with the Anderson family to come to a reasonable solution.
Williams asked for a straw vote to determine whether the fire lane must meet the
parking setback. The straw vote was 3-2, with the fire lane not needing to meet the
parking setback. Klatt discussed normal setback requirements for driveways.
Klatt reread the original motion to the Planning Commission.
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to approve the PUD Concept Plan with condition 5
amended and Condition 11 added, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously.
Williams wrapped up by stating that other areas of concern include the drainage in the
northwest corner and internal island landscaping in the trailer court.
Business Item: Outdoor Wedding Venue Ordinance
Klatt started his presentation by reviewing the changes incorporated into the draft
ordinance of the Outdoor Wedding Venue Ordinance that was discussed at the last
meeting. He noted that staff is proposing a public hearing on the ordinance on April 14,
2014.
Haggard stated that she feels that the property owner should be in attendance to
ensure accountability of the conditions or rules. Dodson agrees with this idea.
Haggard asked about larger parcels, such as 40 acres. She asked if they could they have
additional events or guests. The Planning Commission discussed the topic, noting that
the total number of events allowed per week is two.
Staff suggested that the City needs to define wedding ceremonies.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-14
12
Haggard suggested that there should be a limit to the number of total events per year.
Klatt noted that the number of events per year can be regulated under the interim use
permit process, allowing the City to better address frequency concerns on a site-by-site
basis.
Haggard asked some questions about the City’s noise ordinance. Klatt relayed the exact
standards in the noise ordinance, noting that the allowed level is based on duration.
The Planning Commission discussed the required parking for outdoor social events.
Klatt noted that the 1 space per three attendees is consistent with other parking quotas
of similar uses, such as place of worship and community center.
Klatt asked if they would like staff to move forward with the public hearing. The
Planning Commission noted that they are comfortable setting public hearing for the
next available meeting.
Business Item: Site Plan Review Ordinance
Johnson explained the purpose of the proposed ordinance amendment. He noted that
the action does not require a public hearing.
M/S/P: Dodson/Kreimer, move to strike the site and building plan review ordinance,
Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously.
Business Item: Easton Village Sketch Plan Discussion
Klatt noted that the Planning Commission requested to discuss the updated Sketch Plan.
He shared that the applicant has been working to prepare a preliminary plat application.
Providing a general overview of the changes, Klatt noted that there are less cul-de-sacs,
greater pedestrian connectivity, and the park areas have been modified based on
feedback from the Park Commission.
Williams asked why there are no connection between the centrally located streets and
Village Pkwy. Todd Erickson, the civil engineer, noted that the road is a minor collector
road and does require access spacing. Johnson noted that the access spacing per City
standard is 1/8 of a mile. Williams noted that the separation between the southern
cross street and the property to the south will not meet the spacing. Erickson noted
that the access to Manning may be more permanent. Johnson spoke generally about
access spacing guidelines and how they are put into practice.
Williams presented the Village Master Plan. He noted that there are no cul-de-sacs in
the plan. Erickson noted that cul-de-sacs are highly desirable to families purchasing the
homes. In addition, the Easton Village design accounts for the difficult drainage of the
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-14
13
site, as well as the location of the natural gas mane. In addition, the builder has
requested to have some cul-de-sacs.
Williams noted that he is presenting the Village Master Plan to the Planning Commission
for discussion purposes. He prefers greater inter-connectivity between neighborhoods,
particularly in the Village. Kreimer notes that he prefers and supports cul-de-sacs, as
long as they have trail connectivity. Erickson noted that the connectivity has been
improved, especially to Reid Park. He added that he is attempting to balance the needs
of the developer and the input of the Planning Commission, Park Commission and City
Council.
Haggard shared her concern that if the connection to Manning is permanent, that road
should be upgraded to handle that traffic. Klatt noted that these properties may register
concern latter down the road if this access is permanent. He stated that the Engineer’s
recommendation will to make the access temporary or restricted, such as right-in/right-
out. With this restriction, more traffic would likely go down to 30th Street, which may
have a signal at Manning in the future.
Referring to the Village Master Plan, Dodson asked how a more grid layout improves
livability. Williams noted that it would function more like a traditional residential area,
where a grid-pattern is more common. Dodson asked if the current old village is what is
trying to be emulated. Williams noted that the Laverne and Layton area is more grid
like, whereas the areas to the west of Lake Elmo Ave are dead-ends or cul-de-sacs.
Williams noted that if the blocks are smaller, there is more human interaction and a
more neighborhood-feel. Dodson felt that people interact differently today, and the
layout would not prohibit or reduce human interaction.
Haggard shared a concern about speeding in the Easton Village neighborhood. Johnson
Kreimer asked about the density of the project, being that the lot widths proposed are
65 feet. Klatt explained that this project is on the high end of the density range, and the
Gonyea project is on the low end of the medium density range. There was a general
discussion single family neighborhoods and density.
Updates and Concerns
Park Commission Update
Larson provided background information about the last Park Commission meeting,
where the Schiltgen Farms and Wildflower (Engstrom) developments were discussed.
Council Updates – March 18, 2014 Meeting
1. Zoning Text Amendment – Accessory Building passed as presented.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-14
14
2. The City Council Reviewed the Schiltgen Farms, Parcel B Sketch Plan.
Staff Updates
1. Planning Commission Discussion Series – “Meaningful Dialogue with the Public”
2. Upcoming Meetings
a. April 14, 2014
b. April 28, 2014
3. Lake Elmo Ave (CSAH 17) Open House was held on March 13, 2014, where 50-70
people attended.
Commission Concerns
Dodson asked about how many lots are in the community that are unbuildable
according to the zoning but are being taxed as buildable. Klatt noted that it is hard to
know, that this generally doesn’t come up unless an assessment is proposed. There are
not that many of the unbuildable lots out there. Johnson noted that the tax
classification is determined by the County.
Meeting adjourned at 11:38pm
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Johnson
City Planner
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-14