My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
#04 - RFP for Land
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2020's
>
2023
>
03-07-23
>
#04 - RFP for Land
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2025 1:08:35 PM
Creation date
9/29/2025 1:06:44 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
437
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />Comment Response <br />Here is my response to your offer to let residents consider development, and the 3M <br />property directly impacts at least 200 semi-rural households, including mine. <br />Instead, I am certain that my proposal, an extension of Wildflower Shores real OP <br />ordinance, is consistent with the long-time values of the City for development above <br />10th St. <br />This alternative would have many key advantages over alternative proposals. It would: <br />1. Be consistent with our desire to maintain our low public service, semi-rural <br />lifestyle <br />2. Reduce traffic impacts far below what alternative proposals would impose <br />3. Provide far more in taxes than the cost of required services from the City <br />4. Eliminate any need for Met Council sewer extension from Oakdale, which would <br />be strongly opposed by area voters when the costs and future implications were <br />made known <br />5. Provide considerably improved environmental enhancement over current or <br />alternatively proposed land uses <br />6. Greatly reduce the noise to existing city residents from train and highway traffic <br />Thank you for the comment. Scenario 4 is <br />consistent with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive <br />Plan, which permits the development of the <br />parcels south of 34th Street N for Business Park <br />uses and the parcels north of 34th Street N for <br />rural residential uses, continued agriculture, <br />and the public works facility. <br />7. Put new commercial development in the Old Village, which was planned to <br />become a viable center with a completely planned downtown, instead of <br />putting commercial business that typically provides NO BENEFITS to residents. <br />(If it did, the local taxes on my house, with no city water or sewer and a fine, <br />rural road, would not have gone up almost 40% last year.) <br />Thank you for the comment.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.