Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-89 CCMLAKE 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. 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. Councilman Moe: not against RE, 2 1/2 acre concept; need R-1, 1 1/2 acre, lots also. Councilman Hunt: Don't believe we should stimulate residential development; plan large lots and no sewer; believe demand is for 2 1/2 acre, not 1 1/2 acre lots; should pick areas that have more pressure for 2 1/2; we should eliminate R-1 and find areas we can agree on for RE. Councilman Williams: I am not in favor of more R-1; I have concerns about 2 1/2 acre density (may be too dense) if Met Council says okay, fine with me. Would like to see clustering of homes, surrounded by open space; support Chuck's concept of R-1 with open around it. Councilman Graves: Believe if you are trying to prevent sewer look at percable soils; another factor --septic system failures in Tri-Lakes and Old Village. Councilman Moe: Olson/Demontreville area systems are failing; three ways to deal with failing systems; don't believe we should say we are never going to look at sewers any place; what can we do about existing problems; believe we should plan for these areas if systems fail. Councilman Williams: Concerned about groundwater contamination with development. Councilman Graves: Should look at effect of maximumloading of development in Lake Elmo; how do we distribute load of the community. Councilman Williams: Not in favor of rezoning whole city RE. Councilman Graves: Workable solution: I-94 commercial on future land use map, in stage sequence; coordinate with County study; define areas in city to be identified as possible RE area (8 to 10 areas); don't need 5 acre RE; need minimum and maximum size lots in RE; R-1 limited number. Councilman Hunt: Believe we need to study General Business for I-94 corridor. Mayor Dunn: Study residential and commercial and come back. Consensus to set another workshop 6:30 p.m. on May 4th, to further address future land use map/Comp Plan., Adjourn approximately 10:00 p.m.