HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-91 CCMDATE APPROVED: 8-6-91
DATE ISSUED: 8-16-91
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 16, 1991
Mayor Johnson called the City Council meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in
the City Council chambers. Present: Mayor Johnson, Hunt, Dick
Johnson, Mottaz, Williams, City Engineer Prew, City Attorney Filla and.
Administrator Kueffner.
1. AGENDA
Add.: 7A. Inf_ormation on Census, 7D. Update on Oakdale/Lake Elmo Joint
Surface Water Management Meeting
Postpone: Items 4D,E,F, until the August 6th meeting.
M/S/P Hunt/Dick Johnson - to approve the July 16, 1991 City Council
agenda as amended. (Motion carried. 5-0).
2. MINUTES: July 2, 1991
M/S/P Dick Johnson/Williams - to approve the July 2, 1991 City Council
minutes as amended. (Motion carried 5-0).
3. CLAIMS
M/S/P Dick Johnson/Hunt - to approve the July 16, 1991 Claims #95003
thru #95061 as presented. (Motion carried 5-0).
.4. PLANNING/LAND USE & ZONING:
A. Final Plat: John Day Farm Addition
The Planning Commission considered this final plat at its July 8th
meeting and recommended that the City Council grant final plat
approval based upon the recommendations of the City Engineer and City_
Planner.
M/S/P Hunt/Dick Johnson - to adopt Resolution No. 91-23, as amended.,
(2nd WHEREAS, Add: "and recommended approval of the plat"; Item 2,
Add: "as recommended by the City Parks Commission") granting Final
Plat approval for the John M. Day Farm Addition; conditioned upon the
applicant meeting the conditions set forth in the city planner's
review dated July 2, 1991 and the conditions set forth in the City
Engineer's review dated June 28, 1991 and that the park dedication fee
for this subdivision be 86,720 or $960 for each newly created lot.
(Motion carried 5-0).
M/S/P Williams/Hunt - that the City Council establish a new policy
that the city sta`_f supply the Council at the appropriate time with a
succinct report specifying that all conditions of a Final Plat
Approval have been met prior to the signing of the hard shell.
j (Motion carried 5-0).
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 16, 1991 PAGE 2
B. Rezoning from RR to RE: Stonegate
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the rezoning and
preliminary plat on July 8, 1991.. On a vote of 9-0, the Commission
recommended that the City Council grant this rezoning.
MIS/ Williams/Hunt - to adopt Ordinance 8054 rezoning the property so
described as Stonegate in said, ordinance based on the following
findings of fact as determined, by the Planning Commission:
1.) Subject property is designated as RED on the Future Land
Use Map;
2.) Residential development is compatible with surrounding
properties;
3.) This development will not have a negative impact on the area;
4.) The configuration is suitable;
5.) There are more than 20 acres.
M/S/P Dick Johnson/Hunt - to amend the motion by deleting Item No. 4
because this finding does not deal with the rezoning. (Motion carried
5-0).
During the discussion, Mayor Johnson read a prepared statement giving
his philosophy about this development and stating he would vote
against it. Mottaz also stated he was opposed to the rezoning and
agreed with the Mayor. In response to questions directed to him, the
City Attorney indicated that a Court would look at the existing
Comprehensive Plan and find that "the Comprehensive Plan clearly
indicates that this kind of density is permitted in this area."
Councilmen Hunt, Johnson and Williams called on Mayor Johnson and
Councilman Hottaz to support the rezoning as being consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and warned that failure of the motion would put the
City at legal risk.
M/S/F Williams/Hunt - to adopt Ordinance 8054 rezoning the property so
described as Stonegate in said ordinance based on the following
findings of fact as determined by the Planning Commission: (fiction
Failed 3-2: Dave Johnson: See Appendix A for reasons; Mottaz: I concur
with the statement of the Mayor about rezoning Stonegate. This change
would not be compatible with surrounding property. It could have a
negative impact on the area. There should be a buffer or transition
area between commercial and residential areas.. I feel that changing
the zoning would riot be in the best interest of the City at the
present time).
1.) Subject property is designated as RFD on the Future Land
Use Map;
2.) Residential development is compatible with surrounding
properties,
3.) This development will not have a negative impact on the area;
4.) There are more than 20 acres.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 16, 1991 PAGE 3
C. Rolling Hills: Letter from developer regarding road alignment
The City Council received a letter from Quentin K. wood. & Assoc., the
engineers for the proposed Rolling Hills subdivision indicating that
Chuck Nelson, owner of Rolling Hills, tentatively agrees to consider
meeting the desires of the City in providing access to the west
two-thirds of. the Korhel property provided that a public right-of-way
and a temporary grading easement be provided on the Korhel property
for the construction of the road.. The temporary grading easement is
r.eauired to allow the side slopes of the roadway to be constructed, to
City standards of 4 to 1 maximum slope outside of the road
right-of-way.
Steve Korhel indicated this was the first time he heard of this
proposal and he was just at the meeting to listen.
M/S/P Williams/Mottaz - to postpone consideration of this matter until
the August 6th Council meeting, and the city staff be directed to
solicit comments from Steve Korhel to be received in time for the next
meeting. (Motion carried. 5-0).
D. Ordinance amending Chapter 1602.070 relating to driveways in
the RE Zoning district.
Postponed until the August 6th meeting.
E. Ordinance amending Section 401.280 P.2. relating to street
construction and improvements in the RE Zoning District
Postponed until the August 6th meeting.
F. Ordinance adding Section 401.240 B.4.H. (1) thru (3) relating
to landscape standards.
Postponed until the August 6th meeting.
G. Rhonda Smothers Development Application
Councilman Hunt and Mottaz indicated the City did not need to be
involved in this issue, that it was a civil matter, and should be
handled privately. If the applicant would like a response from the
city, a variance(s) application is needed if there is a stated
hardship and the council could react to this.
M/No Second/ Mottaz/No Second - to direct the City Admin. to send a
letter to both parties instructing them they should first demonstrate
to the City that they have made an honest effort to resolve this
matter on their own and failing to come to an agreement Mrs. Smothers
should be instructed as to the proper procedure for filing for a
variance.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 16, 1991. PAGE 4
M/S/P Hunt/Williams - to direct the staff to write letters to both
parties indicating the City Council has decided not to consider this
request, that this situation is not the fault of the City, therefore,
the city feels it is proper for the parties to settle this issue
privately. (Motion carried 5-0).
5. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT:
A. Approve plans and specifications and advertise for bids
for improvement of Hytrail Avenue N.
M/S/P Hunt/Dick Johnson - to adopt Resolution No. 91-24 approving the
plans and specifications for the improvement of Hytra.il Avenue from
Highlands Trail N. to 59th Street N. and the .parking lot (25' x 75', 6
parking spaces) for DeMontreville Park, and to order the advertisement
for bids. (Motion carried 5-0).
B. Update Engineer Standards
M/S/P Motta.z/Dick Johnson - to instruct the City Engineer to proceed
with updating the engineering standards for roads, storm sewer,
sanitary sewer, watermain, pond design with the first draft submitted.
to the Council at the August 20th meeting. (Motion carried 5-0).
The Council suggested that the Maintenance Foreman and Fire Chief be
given copies of the engineer's proposal before the Council considers
them so the Council can receive their (Foreman and Chief) written
comments at the same time.
Tom Prew recommended in the RED zoning 24' bituminous surface (9 ton)
with 2' gravel and. a 2' earth shoulder so this allows people to drive
off the road.. Prew anticipated having two standards; the rural section
as described above and urban section with the engineer's approval on
slopes greater than 4-6% having 28' bituminous surface (9 ton) with
curb and gutter.
6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
A. Cottage Grove Ravine Watershed Joint Powers Agreement
M/S/P Williams/Hunt - to direct the city staff to instruct our
representative (Tom Armstrong, Jr.) of the Cottage Grove Ravine
Watershed Commission to appear at the July 18th meeting at Woodbury
City Hall relaying the fact that the City is still studying the
amended Joint Powers Agreement and is yet not in a position to
approve it, furthermore, the Council has reserved. a time slot (1-hour)
for discussion of agreement with our representative at the August 20th
meeting. (Motion carried. 5-0).
The Council suggested the Valley Branch Watershed. District and. the
Cottage Grove Ravine Watershed submit quarterly reports to the City.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 16, 1991 PACE 5
7. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
A. Mayor Johnson pointed out in the 1990 Preliminary Census Data
Lake Elmo has a population of. 5,903 and 2,016 total housing units.
B. Councilman Hunt --No Report
C. Councilman Johnson informed the Council the Oakdale/Lake Elmo
Surface Water Management Committee met Monday, July 15th. Attendance:
Lake Elmo -Mayor Johnson, Councilman Johnson, Administrator Kueffner,
City Engineer Tom Prew and Barb Holm, resident of Lake Olson;
Oakdale --Councilman Mary Merle, Councilman Pat O'Hara, City Engineer
and Administrator. Whitaker. Al Dornfeld, from the VBWD, chaired the
meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to deal with the problem of
waterflow during the 100 year event out of Olson Lake Estates into
Lake Olson. The status is the overflow line from the pond is plugged
and there was no recommendation made that this plug should be removed
until such time as downstream improvements can be made to take care of
the water.
D. Councilman Mottaz made the following suggestions:
In regard to the first Town Meeting, publish or make available to the
public a report on items discussed and attendance number. As part of
the announcement for September meeting this informaton could be
listed.
Add section for "Old Business" on Council agendas to serve as a
reminder of issues that have not been acted upon.
E. Councilman Williams explained he has consulted with Jim
McNamara on a joint purchase of septic tank, rings and lids, as a
result of our ordinance change, and found that the cost of rings are
$25 ea. and lids are $12-15 ea. They came to the consensus that the
cost savings is not worth the effort for a joint purchase, but would
wait and see if there will be such requests from our residents.
At the last workshop Councilman Williams volunteered to work up a
possible scenario for street assessment formulas which were handed out
at the meeting and to be discussed at a future date.
8. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
A. City Attorney (civil.) Probationary Evaluation
M/S/P Hunt/Williams - to appoint Jerry Filla, Peterson, Frain, &
Bergman, as Lake E.lmo's civil attorney for the remainder of the year,
1991. (Motion carried 5-0).
M/S/P Mottaz/Hunt - to adjourn
(Motion carried 5-0).
------------------------
Resolution No. 91-23: Approval -
Plat
the Council meeting at 10:00 p.m.
of the John Day Farm Addition Final
Resolution No. 91-24: Approve plans and specs and advertise for bids
for improvement of Hytrail Avenue N.
APPENDI)( A
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPEMENT REZONING: STONEGATE
WHAT ARE 'THE ISSUES?
S_TONEGATE 1S THE FIRST_LARGE SCALE_DEVELOP_EMEN_T OF L_ARGE_-L_OT_(_AC_TU_ALLY._,
SOME_WCI_!I_D_SAY_MnSSI'J_F,_L(I'r)_ SUBDIVISIONS _(I,Ems_IT_IS_NOW _'THE _POLICY _OF -
LAND USES),
1) DOES STONEGATE OR, FOR THAT MATTER, A DEVELOPEMENT POLICY OF 3.3
ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZES MEET THE TEST OF RURALNESS THAT ALL FACTIONS
MAINTAIN THEY WANT TO PRESERVE?
2) WILL THESE FUTURE HOMES CARRY THEIR WEIGHT IN TERMS OF TAXES PAID?
3) ARE ADJACENT USES UNNECESSARILY INTIMIDATED OR COMPROMISED BY SUCH
A DEVELOPEMENT?
4) WILL THERE BE A LONG TERM BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE?
THAT IS, HOW DOES IT SERVE THE EXISTING RESIDENTS OF THE CITY AND HOW
DO THEIR NEEDS STACK UP AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF LANDOWNERS TO HAVE
APPROPRIATE USE OF THEIR LAND?
IN SHORT, ARE THE HEALTH AND WELFARE NEEDS OF THE CITY SERVED BY THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPEMENT?
RURAL SUGGESTS TWO THINGS TO ME:
A. FIRST, IT SUGGESTS OPEN VISTAS OF GRASS OR TREES AVAILABLE FOR
AGRICULTURE OR, AT LEAST, MUTUAL HABITATION BY MAN AND SOME OF THE OTHER
CREATURES WE SHARE THIS EARTH WITH. AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE_ OF 3.3 ACRES OF
ADJACENT HOUSING DOES NOTHING TO PRESERVE THE RURAL. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT
WE PUICKLY EAT UP THE AVAILABLE LAND IN PARCELS THAT ARE TOO BIG TO MOW
AND TOO SMALL TO PLOW! IF THERE IS ANY DESIRE IN THIS CITY AT ALL TO
MAINTAIN RURAL PHYSICAL FEATURES FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME, THIS IS NOT THE
ANSWER! THIS R.E. ZONING METHOD, SPREAD ACROSS 'THE CITY, TAKES LAND OUT
OF RURAL AND INTO SUB -URBAN 2 TO 3 TIMES FASTER, THAN THE PREVIOUS R-1
ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
FOR -WHAT PURPOSE? SIMPLY TO HAVE DEVELOPEMENT THAT IS LESS DENSE?
HOW DOES THAT SERVE OUR INTERESTS IN THE RURAL. IF THERE IS ANY THOUGHT
THA1' THE WEEDS THAT WILL INEVITABLY GROW UP IN THE UNMAINTAINED PARTS OF
SUCH LARGE_ PARCELS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO OUR RESIDENTS OR THEIR CHILDREN TO
FROLIC IN, FORGET IT! IF THERE IS ANY THOUGHT THAT THIS WILL SOMEHOW
PRESENT A MORE. AESTHETICALLY PLEASING ENVIRONMENT OR THAT THESE HOMESITES
WILL BE SUPERIOR SOMEHOW TO MANY OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS OF 1 TO 1.5
ACRE HOMESTEADS IN I._Ak:E ELMO, FORGET IT! IF THERE IS SOME THOUGHT THAT
THIS WILL ULTIMATELY PREVENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES (SEWER AND WATER) FROM
E','ER BEING ECONOMICALLY EXTENDED TO RESIDENTS WHO MAY FIND 'THEMSELVES IN
NEED - YOUR RIGHT! THE MILLION DOLLAR EXTENSION OF WATER FROM OAKDALE TO
RESIDENTS WHO HAVE HAD THEIR WATER. COMPROMISED BY THE LAZE JANE LANDFILL
MIGHT WELL HAVE RESULTED IN THE CONDEMNATION OF THEIR PROPERTY HAD THAT
PROJECT DOUBLED OR TRIPLED IN COST DUE TO MASSIVE FRONTAGES. SEWER AND
WATER IS NOT EXTENDED INTO EXISTING COMMUNITIES BECAUSE PEOPLE JUST LIKE
IT! I'T IS SIMPPLY TOO EXPENSIVE TO DO ON 0 WHIM!
B. SECONDLY, RURAL SUGGESTS A KIND OF RUSTIC AMBIANCE WHERE PEOPLE
GET TO KNOW ONE ANOTHER, TREAT EACH OTHER WELL, SHARE HOPES AND
ASPIRATIONS, AND CARE ABOUT ON ANOTHER'S WELFARE. IN THE OLD DAYS, THE
GLUE WAS A COMMON OCCUPATION — FARMING OR FARM SUPPORT. TODAY, THAT IS
NOT THE CASE. THE GLUE IN MOST COMMUNITIES MUST BE NEIGHBORHOOD
(GEOGRAPHIC) INTERESTS. THE TRI—LAKES ASSOCIATION IS A MANIFESTATION OF
THAT, THE =._, ACRE ARRANGEMENTS TRULY INSURE THAT NEIGHBORHOODS WILL NOT
DEVELOPE. THE SOCIOLOGICAL AMBIANCE OF THIS CITY WILL BE LOST ON
DEVELOPMENTS LIKE STONEGATE.
'' WILL_THESE HOMES CARRY THEIR WEIGHT TAX —WISE^ AGAINS MY CONSIDERED
OPINI�N_I5 N0�
A. THE AVERAGE VALUE OF HOUSES IN THIS CITY IS ABOUT $125,000 WITH A
PREDOMINANT RANGE OF $00,000 TO $250,000. THESE HOUSES SIT ON LOT
FRONTAGES THAT AVERAGE ABOUT 100 FEET WITH A PREDOMINANT RANGE OF 70 TO
150 FEET. THERE ARE AP'PROX.IMATELY 1500 OF THESE HOMES IN LAKE ELMO THAT
CONTRIBUTE $632,000 TO THIS CITY FOR IT'S OPERATIONS. THAT IS ABOUT a<410
PER YEAR PER HOME FOR CITY OPERATIONS. I KNOW, SOME OF OUR RESIDENTS PAY
10 TO 20 TIMES THAT AMOUNT IN TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES BUT THIS IS THE AVERAGE
OF ALL HOMES FOR CITY SERVICES ONLY. THAT ALL AMOUNTS TO ABOUT $4.10 PER
FRONT FOOT PER HOME IN LAKE ELMO AS CURRENTLY COMPRISED. IF WE ARE TO GET
AN EQUIVALENT REVENUE PER FRONT FOOT FROM THESE 3.3 ACRE DEVELOPMENTS LIKE
STONEGATE, THERE AVERAGE VALUE WILL HAVE TO BE ABOUT $313,000. I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT THAT IS REALISTIC IN THE AREA IN QUESTION AT THIS TIME.
B. THE SITUATION, HOWEVER, IS REALLY MUCH WORSE! MOST OF OUR LARGE
LOT DEVELOP'EMENT AND A GREAT DEAL OF OTHER DEVELOP'EMENT IS NOW LOCATED ON
COUNTY HIGHWAYS (10, 13, 15, 17, 19) OR STATE HIGHWAYS (5, 36, I-94
FRONTAGE). MUCH OF THE CITIES MAINTENANCE_ RESPONSIBILITIES (REMEMBER, WE
PROVIDE LITTLE IN OTHER DIRECT SERVICES TO RESIDENTS) ARE CURRENTLY ON
DENSER DEVELOPEMENT (100 FOOT FRONTAGES). WHEN WE START DEVELOPING LOCAL
STREETS THAT RESEMBLE COUNTY AND STATE ROADS WE CAN EXPECT OUR MAINTENANCE
BUDGET FOR THOSE AREAS TO START LOOKING LIKE COUNTY AND STATE MAINTENANCE
BUDGETS. YOU KNOW WHO WILL BE EXPECTED TO KICK IN FOR MAINTENANCE OF
THESE LIGHTLY POPULATED EXPANSES OF STREET — THATS RIGHT, EXISTING
RESIDENTS,
C. TO iuoi::: AT IT ANOTHER WAY, CONSIDER'WOODBURY'S POSTURE OF SITING
ABOUT 2.5 HOMES PER ACRE. THEIR AVERAGE EXECUTIVE HOMESITES SELL IN THE
$300,000 RANGE. AT THAT RATE, EACH HOUSE PAYS ABOUT $7220 IN PROPERTY
TAXES PER YEAR. AT 2.0 HOUSES/ACRE, THEY GENERATE ABOUT 000500CR'E OF
EXECUTIVE HOUSING. WHAT 19 PROPOSED FOR LAKE ELMO IS 1/.3 HOME/ACRE. THAT
AMOUNTS TO ABOUT s2400/ACRE/YEAR OF TAX REVENUE FROM THIS EXECUTIVE
HOU;:SING. "THE FOREST", THIS CITIES LAST R-1 DEVELOP'EMENT OF SIMILAR
QUALITY WILL GENERATE MORE THAN TWICE THAT AMOUNT (ABOUT k 000/ACRE/YEAR).
D. IF WE WANT LAKE: ELMO TO REMAIN A VIABLE CITY, ACCEPTANCE OF
CONTINUED LARGE SCALE USE OF R.E. ZONING AND STONEGATE TYPE DEVELOPMENTS
19 IMPOSSIBLE. THESE DEVELOPMENTS WILL BREAK: THE REST OF THE CITY, THE
PEOPLE WHO ALREADY LIVE HERE, UNLESS WE FIND REVENUES ELSEWHERE. I
GUARANTEE", THE STATE IS NOT PUMPING UP REVENUE SHARING FOR THE FORESEEABLE
FUTURE - IT WILL CONTINUE TO FALL! FISCAL DISPARITY AID IS UNDER
PRESSURE! OUR CITY AUDITOR HAS 'WARNED US SEVERAL_ YEARS RUNNING THAT IF WE
DON'T EXPAND OUR TAX BASE WE WILL HAVE TO SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE TAXES.
OF COURSE, WE ARE PRECLUDED BY STATUTE FROM DOING THIS IN 1992 AND 'BY 1993
THE RATES ON HOMES WILL HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM THE EXISTING RATES (1% OF
THE 1ST $68,000, 2% OF THE NEXT $42,000, AND 3% OF ASSESSED VALUE OVER
110,00") TO 1% OF THE 1ST #72,000 AND A FLAT 2% ON AMOUNTS OVER THAT.
THE AMOUNT THE CIT`( WILL. HAVE TO LEVY ON WILL BE GREATLY RESTRICTED. THE
PAST NEGLIGENCE OF RESERVES IS NOW BEGINNING TO HAUNT US. WE HAD TO
CONSIDER GOING TO RESERVES TO PAY FOR A SIMPLE PICKUP TRUCK FOR THE PARKS
DEPARTMENT! WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ESTABLISHING RESERVES FOR ROAD AND
SURFACE WATER WORK THAT NEEDS DOING. WE ARE AT RISK WITH A NUMBER OF
ITEMS, GREAT AMONG THEM BEING THE LACY; OF REDUNDANCY IN OUR MUNICIPAL
WATER SYSTEM (IF OUR WELL FAILS OVER 240 FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES WILL
SUFFER ENORMOUSLY). WE ARE NOT MEETING CERTAIN STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AS
RELATES TO FINANCIAL. REPORTING TO THE COUNCIL AND OTHER BECAUSE OF
EXISTING STAFF SHORTAGES, OUR STAFF IS THE LOWEST PAID IN THE METRO AREA
AND ONE OF THE LOWEST IN THE STATE. OUR RATIO OF STAFF TO CIT'IZENS IS
ABYSMAL. OUR CITY OFFICES ARE INADEQUATE! WE ARE UNDER INCREASING
ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES: OUR TRI-LAKIS IS THE END OF A LONG SURFACE WATER,
SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES DISTANT AREAS OF RELATIVELY HIGH URBAN GROWTH - IF
REGIONAL AUTHORITIES WILL NOT OR CAN NOT ASSIST IN MEDIATING THE
PRESSURES, THE CITY WILL HAVE TO!. WE ARE NOT AN ISLAND. WE ARE NOT GOING
TO HAVE LESS ECONOMIC_ PRESSURE, WE WILL HAVE, THE WAY I SEE IT, FAR
GREATER PRESSURES. WE DON'T NEED SEWER AND WATER TO PUMP UP THE TAX
PRESSURE, THE FUTURE HAS, I BELIEVE, ENOUGH OTHER THINGS IN STORE FOR US!
3�_ ARE_EXISTING USES COMPROMISED___AGAIN_I MUST_SAY YES!
THIS DEVELOPEMENT IS TO BE PLACED DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO AN OPERATING
GRAVEL MINE, NOW, ALL THE COVENANTS AND ALL THE PROMISES FROM THE
DEVELOPER OR THE FUTURE RESIDENTS WILL NOT STILL THEIR .DISAFFECTION WITH A
MINING OPERATION, MIMING IS NOISY, DUSTY, AND UNKEMPT IN THE HEST OF
CIRCUMSTANCES. THERE WILL BE IMMEDIATE PRESSURE TO REMOVE SUCH AN
OPERATION FROM THEIR MIDST UNLESS EFFECTIVELY BUFFERED.
IN ADDITION, STONEGATE ABUTS WHAT I HOPE_ AND THE CITY FATHERS, WHO
OVERSAW THE: CONSOLIDATION OF EAST OAKDALE AND LAKE ELMO IN 1969 HOPED,
WILL, BE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT WILL PRODUCE THE REVENUES THAT MIGHT
ALLOW US TO REASONABLY ATTAIN THAT COMMUNITY OF OPEN VISTAS AND RURAL
AMBIANCE: CF WHICH I SPOKE EARLIER. THE COMMERCIAL USES ALREADY EN PLACE
IN THAT ;AREA ARE SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE CASE, AS WITH THE MINING
OPERATION, THERE ISN'T A SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HELL THAT AN UNBUFFERED,
VIBRANT BUSINESS DISTRICT CAN CONTINUE TO DEVELOF'E WITH ADJACENT RESIDENTS
WHOSE DESIRE FOR ISOLATION IS MANIFESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF A 0.3 ACRE
LOT..
BETWEEN THIS DEVELOPEMENT AND THE _MINING -OPERATION AND CURRENT_ AND FUTURE_
-------------------------------
BUSINESS USES ALONE THE_FREEWAY_
IN SHORT, THIS DEVELOPEMENT, AS CURRENTLY BEFORE THIS COUNCIL, DOES NOT
MEET THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 301 OF CITY CODE. MOST PARTICULARLY WITH
THE 'GENERAL PURPOSE' THAT REQUIRES THIS COUNCIL TO PROTECT THE ECONOMIC
STABILITY OF THE CITY AND ALSO WITH 301.020(B-3) WHICH REQUIRES US TO
PROTECT AND PROHIBIT USES, BUILDINGS, OR STRUCTURES WHICH ARE INCOMPATIBLE
WITH THE CHARACTER OF DEVELOPEMENT IN AN AREA. UNLESS CHANGED
SIGNIFICANTLY TO PROVIDE BUFFERS, I CAN NOT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE APPROVE
THIS PLAN AND CONSIDER IT, ON THE BOTTOM LINE OF OUR CITY CODE, NOT IN THE
"GENERAL WELFARE" OF THIS CITIES' RESIDENTS. THE AREA IS SIMPLY NOT
APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME FOR DEVELOPEMENT 13F RESIDENTIAL UNITS OF THIS
TYPE!
Since we do not have time to discuss every point presented, it may
i' seem that decisions are preconceived. However, background information
is provided for the City Council on each agenda item in advance from
City Staff and appointed Commissions; and decisions are based on this
information and past experiences. In addition, some items may also
have been discussed at previous Council meetings. If you are aware of
information that hasn't been discussed, please fill out a "Request to
Appear Before the City Council" slip; or, if you came late, raise your
hand to be recognized. Comments that are pertinent are appreciated.
Items requiring excessive time may be continued to another meeting.
AGENDA
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
JULY 16, 1991
7:00 p.m. MEETING CONVENES
1. AGENDA
2. MINUTES: July 2, 1991
3. CLAIMS
4. PLANNING/LAND USE/ZONING:
A. Final Plat: John Day Farm Addition
B. Rezoning from RR to RE: Stonegate
C. Rolling Hills: letter from developer
regarding road alignment.
D. Ordinance 80- amending chapter 1602.070
relating to driveways in the RE zoneing district
E. Ordinance 80- amending Section 401.380 P.2.
relating to street construction and improvements
in the RE zoning district
F. Ordinance 80- adding Section 401.240 B.4.H.
(1) thru (3) relating to landscape standards.
G. Rhonda Smothers Development Application
H. Other
(OVER)
5. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT:
A. Approve plans and Specifications and advertise
for bids for improvement of Hytrail Ave. N.
B. Update Engineer Standards
C. Other
6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
A. Cottage Grove Ravine Watershed Joint Powers
Agreement
B. Other
7. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Johnson
Councilman Hunt
Councilman Johnson
Councilman Mottaz
Councilman Williams
8. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
A. City Attorney (civil) probationary evaluation
B. Other
9. ADJOURN