Laserfiche WebLink
9. PLANNING, LAND USE & ZONING: <br />A. Planned Unit Development Concept Plan: Hiner Development <br />The Council tabled the application and directed clarification as to the land <br />use classification of the North 2/3 of the site as it appears on the 1997 Land <br />Use Plan. It is confirmed that the classification on the 1997 plan is RE, not <br />RAD as first reported. The 2000 Land Use Plan reclassifies the North 2/3 of <br />the site from RED to RAD. Planner Dillerud advised that the concept plan <br />where the office portion is consistent with the 1997 Plan, but the golf <br />practice facility would not be consistent with the 1997 RED. The reverse is <br />true with reference to the adopted, but not "in effect" 2000 land use Plan. <br />The golf practice facility would be consistent, but the office portion would <br />not. Mr. Hiner understood the confusion and said he was willing to adapt to <br />whatever is necessary. <br />Council member Armstrong stated she would deny this application based on <br />non-compliance with the comprehensive plan. She thought the golf course is <br />a good use for that location, but the small office buildings were not <br />appreciated <br />Council member Siedow thought the concept for both commercial and <br />residential was a good idea and lilted the offering of small office buildings. <br />Council member Dunn stated we are bound by our comprehensive plan, and <br />what is proposed in not in compliance. She liked the idea of the golf course, <br />but had a concern on amount of impervious surface for the individual office <br />concept. <br />Marilyn Durrow explained her family bought the property in 1910. We were <br />forced out because the freeway took our building site. Her children went to <br />school in Lake Elmo. The site was originally 80 acres and now it is 56 <br />acres. She asked the City to be open minded to land use proposals. <br />M/S/P Armstrong/DeLapp - to deny this concept plan presented by Rich <br />Hiner based on the concept plan is inconsistent with either the 1997 and the <br />2000 Comprehensive Plans as stated. (Motion passed 3-1: Siedow lilted the <br />concept, didn't agree with comp plan for this reason, and this proposal is a <br />good example. People wanting to develop every piece of land is a lie. <br />Council member DeLapp responded that there is a process those proposals <br />LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 17, 2001 5 <br />