Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP <br />APRIL 25, 1989 <br />The agenda was set forth: <br />NOTES <br />1 <br />GS <br />I. DISCUSSION: Direction of Future Land Uses <br />a. Common Viewpoints/Goals <br />b. Differing Viewpoints/Goals <br />II. DISCUSSION: Future Land Use Scenarios <br />III. CONCLUSION: Definitive Direction/Action Toward Adoption of <br />Future Land Use Map/Comprehensive Plan <br />I. COMMON VIEWPOINTS/GOALS: <br />Councilman Moe: Who are we:protecting prime Ag land for-- the owners <br />or other residents of the City. If RE is put in the City, how can <br />we say we are protecting Ag land. <br />Recommended commercial development along I-94 corridor, 1/4 mile in, <br />with a timeframe of: 694 to 19 commercial applicable now; Co. 19- <br />Co. 17, 1995; Co. 17-15, 2000. Commercial businesses do not take <br />as much public services (police, fire, street maintenance) as <br />residential areas do. <br />Councilman Hunt: Demand for people to move into Lake Elmo; little <br />demand for commercial development; Planning Commission's version of <br />RE should be put into Comp Plan now, RE first, then Section 32; <br />no pressure for commercial development on I-94. <br />Councilman Graves: Do not want to create high density community; <br />agricultural properties are being divided and sold as farmers cannot <br />afford to farm such high priced properties; most of existing Ag land <br />is rented; would like to see us take advantage of vegetation and <br />topography for R-1 and RE areas. Question of how to preserve Ag land; <br />I-94 assessed at $2,000/acre--Hwy 5 and Hwy 36 at $2,500/acre, <br />and area within City at $1,500/acre; people are not going to move into <br />Lake Elmo to farm with these economic realities. <br />I-94 Concept: don't feel it is wise to look at planning as a piecemeal <br />operation; believe we should have performance criteria; we have had <br />three proposals for development along I-94 in a few years I have <br />served; requests not in Section 32; glad we are doing something <br />constructive in Section 32, but there is potential for commercial <br />along I-94. <br />