04-25-89 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor Dunn: what about development along Hwy 36; consensus that Hwy 36 was more appropriate for residential than commercial. Mayor Dunn suggested the old village area would be appropriate j ) to draw people into Lake Elmo --that we should look at it as our City center and felt the new bank will be helpful. I-94 development would be more highway -oriented, whereas, the old village area should not be run over by large scale development. Councilman Graves: One of my prime objectives is preservation of integrity of our municipal boundaries, believe we should take this into consideration in planning -- do we want our southern boundary to be 10th Street. Dick Johnson: I would find it compatible to have some commercial development along I-94, low service demand businesses; objection to Erickson proposal was sewage capacity. Councilman Hunt: Due to traffic counts, believe I-94 bad spot for retail; would need to look at passing through type traffic; office would be nice. Councilman Moe: Don't feel retail much different than other commercial as will be highway type business; should eliminate truck storage. Councilman Williams: I favor never having any more sewer in Lake Elmo other than Section 32; my development philosophy would be aimed at that as a primary goal; heard desire for commercial development along I-94; have yet to be convinced of tax benefits of I-94; don't believe there would be a next tax benefit to the City with commercial, believe voters have made it clear since late 70's that people want large lot residential community without sewer; development of city oriented businesses in old village would be good, such as professional services, retail operations such as Brockman, Lake Elmo Inn and specialty shops. Mayor Dunn: Old village should be the viable area; should have more large lot residential; good businesses are fine; biggest problem is pollution; will work on I-94 with County, don't think we sould hastily make wrong decision on I-94 corridor; believe we should look at full corridor; we should be competing for "Waterford -type" development, believe this is market driven now. Councilman Hunt: Don't think we need to worry about houses taking prime commercial area; RE viable zoning districts. Councilman Graves: supportive of RE concept, should have areas for R-1; have not seen a reason demonstrated to give up R-1; have no problem with some form of RE with average of 2 1/2 acre lots; allow fluctuation between 1 1/2 and 5 acres, with relatively uniform density; (Mayor Dunn suggested could be based on soils limitations). Not sure R-1 should be contiguous to existing R-1. (Mayor Dunn agreed and suggested use of buffered areas). Graves: maybe use islands or pods; R-1 and RE mixed.