Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1992 7 <br />defending the city in part of this case, hoping there was a <br />way this case could be resolved. <br />Attorney Radio felt because of the location of the site no <br />one will develop it for RR and felt some type of commercial <br />use would be appropriate. Filla explained no commercial use <br />can be undertaken without a rezoning. <br />Filla added that the General Business zoning, that we now <br />have, allows a wider range of options than may be acceptable <br />to the city. Consequently, even if the city wanted to <br />accommodate the property owner, we don't have a zoning <br />district that would allow us to do that. <br />Councilman Hunt noted there are no more exits allowed onto <br />the state highway. Due to the logistics of that location <br />and with increased traffic going in and out of that site <br />would impose an extreme hazard. The best thing would be a <br />moderate density such as residential estate density because <br />he was not willing to put the travelling public at risk by <br />having large commercial vehicles turning in and out. <br />If RE was reasonable in that area, Mayor Johnson indicated <br />we would have to come up with special arrangements because <br />the parcel is less than 20 acres. The Limited Business <br />zoning district may be applicable to areas such as this and <br />wished we had some options under this District that we could <br />tie into. <br />Filla recommended the city not rezone this property Limited <br />Business, if this is what the city wants, until we have the <br />regulations to go along with this zoning. <br />Because of the boundary of the railroad and that being a <br />narrow strip between the railroad and the highway, <br />Councilman Johnson didn't want a commercial strip <br />development as in Oak Park Heights which created a most <br />hazardous set of highway conditions. He voted in favor of <br />denial because of the safety aspect of trucks pulling in and <br />out at the proposed entrance of intersection Hwy 5 and <br />Stillwater road and the railroad overpass. At that time the <br />council was willing to consider reasonable commercial uses <br />other than rural residential development, but we still have <br />the safety concern on egress to the property. Could <br />arrangements be done with the Animal Inn or would the state <br />allow some other entrance onto Hwy 5? <br />Councilman Williams asked the following questions: Could <br />the City condemn part of the Animal Inn property in order to <br />provide access to Mr. Rogers' property? Would it make a <br />difference if there was a single office building or 4 or 5 <br />housing units? Filla answered he was not prepared to answer <br />this now, but didn't think it would make a difference. <br />