My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-25-89 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1980's
>
1989
>
04-25-89 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2025 7:22:30 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:14:35 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mayor Dunn: what about development along Hwy 36; consensus that <br />Hwy 36 was more appropriate for residential than commercial. <br />Mayor Dunn suggested the old village area would be appropriate <br />j ) to draw people into Lake Elmo --that we should look at it as our <br />City center and felt the new bank will be helpful. I-94 development <br />would be more highway -oriented, whereas, the old village area <br />should not be run over by large scale development. <br />Councilman Graves: One of my prime objectives is preservation of <br />integrity of our municipal boundaries, believe we should take this <br />into consideration in planning -- do we want our southern boundary <br />to be 10th Street. <br />Dick Johnson: I would find it compatible to have some commercial <br />development along I-94, low service demand businesses; objection to <br />Erickson proposal was sewage capacity. <br />Councilman Hunt: Due to traffic counts, believe I-94 bad spot for <br />retail; would need to look at passing through type traffic; office <br />would be nice. <br />Councilman Moe: Don't feel retail much different than other commercial <br />as will be highway type business; should eliminate truck storage. <br />Councilman Williams: I favor never having any more sewer in Lake Elmo <br />other than Section 32; my development philosophy would be aimed at <br />that as a primary goal; heard desire for commercial development along <br />I-94; have yet to be convinced of tax benefits of I-94; don't believe <br />there would be a next tax benefit to the City with commercial, believe <br />voters have made it clear since late 70's that people want large lot <br />residential community without sewer; development of city oriented <br />businesses in old village would be good, such as professional services, <br />retail operations such as Brockman, Lake Elmo Inn and specialty shops. <br />Mayor Dunn: Old village should be the viable area; should have more <br />large lot residential; good businesses are fine; biggest problem is <br />pollution; will work on I-94 with County, don't think we sould <br />hastily make wrong decision on I-94 corridor; believe we should look <br />at full corridor; we should be competing for "Waterford -type" development, <br />believe this is market driven now. <br />Councilman Hunt: Don't think we need to worry about houses taking <br />prime commercial area; RE viable zoning districts. <br />Councilman Graves: supportive of RE concept, should have areas for <br />R-1; have not seen a reason demonstrated to give up R-1; have no <br />problem with some form of RE with average of 2 1/2 acre lots; allow <br />fluctuation between 1 1/2 and 5 acres, with relatively uniform <br />density; (Mayor Dunn suggested could be based on soils limitations). <br />Not sure R-1 should be contiguous to existing R-1. (Mayor Dunn agreed <br />and suggested use of buffered areas). Graves: maybe use islands or <br />pods; R-1 and RE mixed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.