02-21-89 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 1989 PAGE 4 aware of the resolution when he applied and was unfair to keep continuing the application process. Since adoption of this resolution, previous Councils have rezoned three parcels to R-1, i.e., Packard Park 1, Packard Park 2, and David Nelson Estates. Morrison suggested a possible moratorium be set on applications because there are three applications now for Rl development. Graves agreed that if we are going to look into the broader issues such as lot inventory, we should, go into a moratorium. Councilman Hunt suggested any moratorium should have an agressive cap and would be up to the PZ and the City staff as to the importance of this issue to try and get this resolved. MIS/ Graves/Hunt - to direct the City Attorney to render a legal opinion on the status of Resolution 83-56, what are the constraints of this resolution on any future rezoning or lack of rezoning of property in the stated affected area, and if we decide to have a moratorium what is the legal status of any pending rezoning applications. Bruce Folz_stated this application was 9 months old and asked the Council for a decision. Folz added, if the Council has legitimate concerns and needs or request some information, he would do that, but everytime this proposal is brought up, something comes up and more information is needed. Hunt clarified that when the proposal was originally made, it was stated that a decision would be postponed until the VBWD returned its report, which was expected in l to 2 months, but came in January. One of the reasons it was postponed and not turned down, Hunt stated, if it was turned down there is a 6 month delay before the applicant can come in with the same rezoning request. Postponement was done to attempt to aid the applicant. Councilman Williams stated "the City is under no obligation to provide R-1 land, where the City is under some moral obligation to provide residential land which could be l 1/2 acres or 10 acres." Discussion followed on whether the inventory request should include R-1 lots available in the City or all residential buildable lots available for sale in the City. Hunt gave his reason for asking for this inventory expansion was "the goal of Lake Elmo was to remain a sewer -free community, in order to retain this, we need to watch land density. With this inventory study, we can find out where we are and we can insure reaching our goal of a sewer -free City, except for Section 32." Administrator Morrison explained that the Building Official is working on an inventory of RI buildable lots available in the City, to be submitted at the March 7th meeting. Councilman Graves agreed we needed an inventory of land available for residential development as part of long range planning, but as far as ( a purpose of looking at this development, he would like the inventory be limited to R-1 lots submitted by the March 7th meeting so the Council can consider the Packard Park application, and called the question.