03-05-2013 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5, 2013 Page 4 of 9 Council Member Nelson expressed concerns that the entire cost of building in Lake Elmo has not been considered or researched enough. He wants to be competitive. Lake Elmo has higher additional costs (water/sewer). Wants to know all in costs compared to competitors. Council Member Smith reminded everyone that council just had a workshop. The fee is lower than Woodbury and she believes Lake Elmo is competitive. Council Member Park hopes that the Economic Development Authority can look at this. She believes it is competitive. Mayor Pearson believes it is competitive and acknowledges that it is still a significant fee. The fee is almost 10%. He would like staff to list all fees city has. Council directs staff to revisit in 3-4 months after determining all fees. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved TO APPROVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 08-072 CONCERNING AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION 2013-17, AMENDING THE 2013 FEE SCHEDULE TO REFLECT THE REQUIRED PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. Council Member Park seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ITEM 11: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN [Council Member Bloyer left 7:43PM. Returned at 7:44PM] City Administrator Zuleger introduced the overview of the comp plan process. He described the history of the work that has been done. Staff has met with all the affected landowners who are looking to develop. The Plan allows landowners to control own destiny and focuses on the downtown Lake Elmo Ave area. The Plan does call for a village green or center/public gathering area; the Plan addresses the buffer zone issue, and staff invites Council to address that item; lastly, the Plan provides a framework to allow market development. It was noted that Planning Comm. has many other tools to control development. Planning Director Klatt presented a broader overview of the work done. Council is being asked to approve plan to submit to adjacent communities and then Met Council review. Each will have set time to review it. This review should go quicker due to no MOU issues to address. The Village Work Group and the Planning Comm. have both approved the Plan. A public hearing was held. The entire process has included workgroup meetings; council members; planning comm., citizens at large; stakeholder meeting; technical groups (public agencies, MnDOT, Washington County) Planning comm. Meetings; an open house; town hall meeting; and council workshops. Mr. Klatt described the overall comp plan update process. The Village area plan will be merged with the I-94 plan. Mr. Klatt explained the key decision points: REC units; consideration of a village green; elimination of HWY 5/County Road 14 realignment from current comp plan; establishment