03-07-89 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 7, 1989 PAGE 5 Councilman Hunt stated there appears, according to the minutes, an intent was made. At the same token, there may have been other conversation that was inadvertently not included. A Resolution was passed that was in conflict with these minutes. Therefore, Hunt felt it was unreasonable to deny any rezonings based purely on that resolution. Hunt felt our Comp Plan and Future Land Use Map show this land RR and to rezone this land would be in conflict with that plan. Hunt believes this land is currently zoned for residential housing, RR, and there is a reasonable use of this land. The land inventory provided, only shows one class of lots, R1, which is not the only buildable lot class within this City. Larger lot sizes are desired by the Met Council and also by our Comp Plan as witnessed by our Future Land Use Map. Hunt stated "I intend over my tenure to be consistent with the Comp Plan and not to deviate and I believed to take any action, other than to deny this, would be conflict with our current Comp Plan." Councilman Graves stated there are no problems caused that they can substantiate through engineering data, or otherwise, that would show that putting this area into R1 zoning would be in conflict with what would be a proper use of the land. Graves referred to City Engineer Bohrer stating there was no basis for denying this application based on concerns of water moving toward the Downs Lake area. Graves agrees there are water concerns about that area and action has been initiated by the City with the VBWD. R1 zoning for that property does not appear to represent a significant threat to the Downs Lake/Eden Park area. When looking at resolving the water problem in the Eden Park area, having other road access out of the area in case the main access road was flooded, was suggested. Approval of this Addition would give us this road. Rezoning would be consistent with the action taken on Packard Park 1 and 2 Additions, therefore, he felt it would be appropriate to rezone the property. Councilman Williams agreed with Councilman Hunt that our comp plan does call for this area to be RR. He was in favor of a Residential Estates zoning classification in the future. If this R1 proposal is turned down, he would like to consider the entire City for what areas might be appropriate R1 and what areas might be appropriate for RE, or RR zoning. Williams felt just looking at one specific parcel was a mistake and not good planning for the whole City. M/S/F Graves/Moe - resolved that the Council hereby approves the Rezoning, from RR to R1, for Packard Park 3rd Addition, and further, that the Council directs the City Attorney/Staff toprepare the appropriate Ordinance for the Rezoning for future Council action. (Motion failed 3-2 Hunt: he believes the Comp Plan we are currently operating under is in conflict with this rezoning, the land is currently zoned for RR and is a reasonable use of this land, the land inventory only shows one class of lots, R1, and believes there is an adequate supply of lots for the coming year because larger lot sizes are buildable lots, in terms of consistency with the Comp Plan, he had to vote against the rezoning. Williams: agreed with Councilman Hunt's reasons, but he indicated that he wants to be looking at the entire City, not just one parcel, in terms of future zoning to Residential Estates as well as Rl possibilities.) B. LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION/REZONING (G. SULLWOLD)