04-25-89 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP APRIL 25, 1989 The agenda was set forth: NOTES 1 GS I. DISCUSSION: Direction of Future Land Uses a. Common Viewpoints/Goals b. Differing Viewpoints/Goals II. DISCUSSION: Future Land Use Scenarios III. CONCLUSION: Definitive Direction/Action Toward Adoption of Future Land Use Map/Comprehensive Plan I. COMMON VIEWPOINTS/GOALS: Councilman Moe: Who are we:protecting prime Ag land for-- the owners or other residents of the City. If RE is put in the City, how can we say we are protecting Ag land. Recommended commercial development along I-94 corridor, 1/4 mile in, with a timeframe of: 694 to 19 commercial applicable now; Co. 19- Co. 17, 1995; Co. 17-15, 2000. Commercial businesses do not take as much public services (police, fire, street maintenance) as residential areas do. Councilman Hunt: Demand for people to move into Lake Elmo; little demand for commercial development; Planning Commission's version of RE should be put into Comp Plan now, RE first, then Section 32; no pressure for commercial development on I-94. Councilman Graves: Do not want to create high density community; agricultural properties are being divided and sold as farmers cannot afford to farm such high priced properties; most of existing Ag land is rented; would like to see us take advantage of vegetation and topography for R-1 and RE areas. Question of how to preserve Ag land; I-94 assessed at $2,000/acre--Hwy 5 and Hwy 36 at $2,500/acre, and area within City at $1,500/acre; people are not going to move into Lake Elmo to farm with these economic realities. I-94 Concept: don't feel it is wise to look at planning as a piecemeal operation; believe we should have performance criteria; we have had three proposals for development along I-94 in a few years I have served; requests not in Section 32; glad we are doing something constructive in Section 32, but there is potential for commercial along I-94.