My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-30-2013 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
2010's
>
2013
>
01-30-2013 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/17/2025 8:24:46 PM
Creation date
7/31/2017 3:53:41 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
Nadine like lions park and fire stn staying put. Wants city hall moved there in 20 years. Is concerned <br />about the government selecting winners and losers when acquiring property. <br />Todd believes 2.5 acres for green is plenty. <br />John Schiltz is disappointed in how long it has taken to progress. There is more leaving than coming in. <br />backwards in business. Pays large amount of taxes for little services. Wants city to consider main street <br />more. Questions impact of focusing on other parts of village. people who have to survive in lake elmo <br />are never asked. Only residents who oppose growth and change are asked what they want. <br />Smith explained that the economy played a large role in the delay, not effort by the council and <br />Bloyer and pearson want lake elmo ave to be focus. <br />Kathy said that the recent resident input struggled to identify what is the “downtown”. <br /> Take aways: <br />1) Get brown area out <br />2) Push central core <br />3) Articulate better with developers our mission of open space <br />Wally reemphasized that plan needs to be market driven and that city must focus on LE ave. should not <br />force the park land by the railroad tracks. <br />Steve limitations of le ave. pkg, distance <br />Dean asked if anyone has any issues with the proposed map and densities <br />Kathy asked if there is too much mixed use. <br />Nick explained PUD planned use development. Growing trend in metro area. The reason is that the base <br />zoning does not allow specific uses and PUD is a tool to overcome those limitations. <br />Wally asked about the high density zone. Was explained that we did not want to downzone previously <br />zoned property. <br />Ovwg tried to keep the green location near to LE ave with as little impact on existing properties. <br />Group consensus was that the distribution of density was acceptable. <br />Group consensus was that the designation of land use zoning was acceptable. <br />The park land designation was discussed for a baseball complex . staff recommended keeping the <br />designation. The buffer area should also be kept, but staff expects to average the areas instead of <br />requiring linear straight lines. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.