03-15-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MARCH 15, 1983 6.. NELSON/HAGEMAN REZONING: Eder offered the following comments based on his review of the Planning Commission minutes and discussion of the proposal with the City Administrator: -Confirmed the Comp Plan provides for this use in the future - yet, there is alot of R-1 zoned land that is not developing which makes one believe that the time is not right to change this zoning to R-1- not inclined to accept rezoning. - Rural section streets are not acceptable - Requested attorneys opinion on arguments necessary to uphold the PZC recommendation to deny the rezoning. --City Attorney, Ray Marshall - City can deny the rezoning provided Stated the -there is legally sufficient reason.*xrst=- reasons cited Amended_ by the Planning Commission would e deemed legally sufficient by 4/5/83 a court. Reitterated that legaffxrr sufficient reason must be stated in order to support denial. *not Fraser - appears there is no real basis for denial - Comp Plan amended provides for R-1 - present R-1 areas.that are not selling does V5/83 not appear.to be an adequate reason to deny an individual the opportunity to develop his property. Fail to see a justifiable reason to say no. --Eder - feels the Comp Plan is in error regarding zoning of this parcel. In terms of providing a periphery to the Gun Club, the City should have provided a buffer zone to step down the density of housing close to the Club. --Ray Marshall - failure.to comply with the Comp Plan has been upheld as sufficient reason for denying a rezoning. This request does comply with the Comp Plan - plan may be in error, but applicants are entitled to rely on the plan as it is adopted or as they believe it to be adopted. Based on what Counsel has reviewed, sufficient reason for denial has not been evidenced - this is the critical factor. --Nancy Prince, PZC Chairman.- stated her position at the last Council meeting - additional point to consider is that many usesmay have fit the Comp Plan when it was first adopted in 1979; but ideas may have changed and do not fit what the City should be doing in 1983. Feels this property may be such an example to reconsider. Although the plan was recently approved by the Met Council, it has been four years since it was adopted by the City. Do not agree that we would be bound by the Comp Plan for use of this property. --Al Borshei:m, Oakdale Gun Club Representative - Club is concerned about the impact of the rezoiUnq on the Club. Request appears to be premature consideration. Cited the proposed changes to the area - area.in a state of f-lUx7, R--1 across the street has been field in abeyance because of financial constraints on development. Area:.apipears,to have some severe on -site soil limitations. Club thinks this is a premature consideration and would impact the Club and have a detrimental effect. --Fred Waterous, Oakdale Gun Club - supported Mr. Borhheim's comments. concerned about the question of noise because of the topography of the property - would have severe problems dealing with noise generated toward the east. --Tom Loucks, Nelson/Hageman Representative - Shared the, same concerns of the Council and PZC - secured a Comp Plan and documentation regarding requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and long range City planning. Aware that the Comp Plan evolved over a number of years, but the plan was recently approved by the Met Council. Therefore, this is to be what the City submitted to be their planned program for this area.