Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-12-83 PZM( LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1983 Chairperson Prince called the meeting to order at 7:38 City Hall. p.m. at the COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dreher, Lyall, Lundquist, Michels, Moe, Nazarian, and Peterson. (Absent: Gifford, Alternates Graves and Ryberg.) Also present, City Administrators Whittaker and Klaers. 1. MINUTES - Consensus was to table approval of the 8/22/83 Plan- ning Commission minutes until the 9/26/83 meeting when changes/ corrections/etc. will be turned over to Ilene Johnson for revision. 2. PUBLIC HEARING, I-94 COMP PLAN PROPOSED CHANGES - The public hearing was opened at 7:43 p.m. by Chairperson Prince to hear responses to the proposed amendments to the I-94 Comprehensive Plan. Prince explained that this issue had been discussed many times with no consensus reached; City Planner came in with the present plan (time period 1983-1990) which met general agreement. Whittaker explained what proposed changes were and why they were made. Property owners in Sections 32 and 33 have met over a period of time and agreed upon a plan for that area which is more detailed, precipitated by waste -to -energy plant. Blue areas --future industrial; green --residential (R1 to R4); red --general business; brown stripes --highway business. Plan also calls for moving the MUSA line 1/4 mile east in Sec. 33 and 1/4 mile deep to Inwood as approved! by the City Council. The Planning Commission and Planner agreed that Lake Elmo couldn't have 4 miles of unsewered commercial property or highway business. Proposal is to concentrate commercial in Sections 32 and 33 and around Intersections 13 & 19. Balance of property, up to 1990, would be planned for general rural use which permits agricultural and rural residential--yellow--which was previously shown as highway business. All other areas shown as RR are already in that zoning definition in Comp Plan and Zoning Ordinances. None of the properties that would be affected by this amendment are zoned general business or highway business; they're zoned RR. Principal reasons for changes are: (a) we feel we're not going to be able to attract a quality commercial development to this area once they are sewered if the area is covered with a lower grade commercial or low -density commercial, (b) we're having a hard time coming up with an "interim use" that can be easily moved when the conditions are right for some higher quality development -- either commercial or residential, and (c) we feel that City needs to concentrate its service demands in fewer areas instead of having a strip 5 miles long that we have to provide fire and police protection, highway maintenance, and potentially sewer and water, and would like to concentrate those services to areas that are most likely to develop (Sections 32 and 33 and two major intersections). ♦ John Bannigan, attorney for 94 Investment Company (fee owner of S 1/2-SE 1/4, Sec. 36, T29N, or NW quadrant of Intersections I-94 and 15) - Owners are concerned as to why comprehensive or use plan is being changed from freeway or highway oriented business to rural LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 9/12/83 Page 2 residential. What we hear from your planning advisor here is that your trying to gain control and match up your MUSA line and comp plan uses with your existing zoning which would be appropriate if developer brings in quality devlopment, but I can't think of RR as being the long-term use at the NW quadrant of 15 and 94 and ultimately the County plans to put in another ring road on 15. Apparently, you're not shuting door but are acknowledging what is fact. We do have some approaches now for uses in the NW quadrant which are not consistent with RR but are with highway oriented business and would not want to be stopped from coming in and presenting these to you if, in fact, they're self contained and provide their own sanitary sewer and water. I guess that's your concern that you don't have to start stringing major trunk lines out especially when you're not going to get them from M.W.C.C. We have a sod farm now that will be put into some other use later on and we don't want to be stopped from coming into you with our proposal. Total parcel in question in Lake Elmo is <80 acres (1,500' frontage on Highway 94 and 1/4 mile deep on Highway 15). ♦ Joel Solomon, representing Dayton Hudson Corp. - Our company owns parcels which stretch down to Highway 12, one comprised of about 80 acres (1,100' frontage) and one about 60 acres (650' frontage), both of which are in the RR yellow areas on your map. I would like to find out if the issue is for control of commercial development or if you just don't want it in these areas because the company believes we have been good developers and good citizens wherever we've been. On the matter of control, I think there's another alternative you can loo]c at as opposed to RR zoning; and that is, you can build into your zoning laws controls under a business -type zoning that would guarantee the right type of development; e.g. we would have to bring a site plan to you that would have to be approved, if that's the issue. (Prince - we're a small town and have a downtown commercial zone and a plan for commercial in Section 32 and want to concentrate on those two areas where we can provide services that properties need; we don't want things spread out at this point. If someone brings in a plan worth looking at, we would be open to seeing it; but right now we have enough commercial planning for the size of our town and don't think we need any more.) (Dreher - this plan goes to 1990 only.) ® Joel Solomon -- What is sewer or utility plan for stretch of Highway 12? (Prince - there is none.) Does it make sense to have RR applied to frontage on a service road on an I -system freeway? (Lyall - only to the extent to keep from haphazard building as we've had along there.) I keep hearing a concern for haphazard development; I guess that's why I'm here since I feel you can accomplish well planned development without going to extreme RR zoning and could put things into your zoning laws. (Prince - this - is a plan, not rezoning; and rezoning will not necessarily follow the plan = hard to foresee what will happen after 1990.) (Lyall - what you're saying is that it's inevitable that business will be there someday; it's a question of how soon. I believe its foolhardy to sit and say this is an interstate that isn't going to ( ( ( ( LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 9/12/83 Page 3 be developed; we know it's going to be developed in due time.) Concern is that well -conceived commercial -type development will be denied because of RR type plan. (Lyall - if someone came in with plan that was acceptable perhaps there would be another alternative and that's really what we're saying.) (Lundquist - there hasn't hardly been any action down there for the past 20 years.) (Nazarian - I believe your point that there should be no problem with a "well conceived" plan bears repeating and that's what we want to see.) (Prince - we have to keep in mind though that there's not going to be any sewer there or it will be a long, long time because the rest of the town doesn't need it.) Is this a policy of Lake Elmo? If you have a RR plan, you can always say you don't need sewer because it's a RR plan; if you add commercial zoning then you're going to see a need a lot sooner. (Nazarian when development takes place sewer will be a logical thing to look at, but right now there are no plans for sewer to go beyond the MUSA line. Anybody that puts in any kind of commercial development will have to have a totally self-contained system.) Let me get back to my original statement - if you're concerned about the quality of development along that stretch, isn't it plausible to place upon that property a plan or zoning that will allow that type of development and to build in controls that you need to ensure that the City will have the right type development there? (Prince - instead of having development all along 94, we would prefer it starting in Section 32 and developing around interchanges and then it can spread in between; and that's the way we would like to stage it and if you have property in between you may have to wait.) Now I'm hearing a deviation from a well planned development to staged development in certain areas. (Michels - isn't that what it really is --well planned or staged--i.e., to fill in around intersections and then let it expand.) But a developer who would want to buy 15 or 30 acres with a very nice development plan, self-contained and whatever, I preceive your response would be that's fine but right now we're concentrating on interchanges so will disallow this. ♦ John Bannigan - What I'm hearing is that this is a community that's been burnt in the past (e.g., premature announcements on right-of-ways); and as long as you don't have to spend any money on extraordinary expenses such as fire protection, extending sewer and water lines, you'll only be looking at the quality of the development. If we come up with some decent land uses, I like the idea of creative zoning if you'd be willing to spend some time and devise one where the ultimate repositore of granting the zone or the use is in the Council finding submission of a quality plan. I don't see that in what you have before you; all you've got is a holding zone and are waiting for us to come in with quality plan that has access that you don't have to duplicate or utilities you don't have to provide. I think it would be a lot easier for us to entertain developers if we had more encouragement from City saying yes, we acknowledge that there's going to be commercial and industrial along that strip and here's a performance standard package that you're going to have to meet. (Joel Solomon - that's what I'm talking about.) (Lunquist - we don't know how to write LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 9/12/83 Page 4 that. It took us 10 years to get our Comp Plan through; there's no way you can teach us before 1990 to write such a development standard.) p John Blomquist, John Blomquist, Inc. - My company owns piece of land in Section 34; and although nobody has told me this, I suspect that one of reasons for the Planning Commission and Council's concern's in this matter may relate in part to a development on our part when we put up a pole barn to serve as part of the Ultra-Lite Air Park. Although I don't think we can argue the merits of that particular use for the land; I would like to echo the comments of some of the people here to establish, if possible, a land use classification that would contemplate the ultimate likely uses of the property but give enough control to the Planning Commission and the Council, even if it were some kind of arbitrary control dealing with aesthetics and any number of things. That would be preferable from my standpoint to a zoning or plan change that would not recognize those ultimate uses. When a developer comes forward with a plan, it seems that a rezoning plan action is often times an adversary kind of situation that tends to bring out the worst in all of us. I would suggest that a land use plan with a classifica- tion that itemizes or contemplates some of the likely uses while retaining very strong controls would be a preferable situation and accepts the reality of the direction that development is likely to go, and the Planning Commission and Council have the necessary controls to make sure that it's the kind of development that's in the long-range plan. (Prince - we can't foresee in the year 2000 what houses will be where; I think we should stick to what we have to do and that is to make a plan through 1990. I feel it's impossible to make an ultimate plan for what we want to see along the interstate; perhaps someday it will be commercial because the cities will start creeping out this way but perhaps it won't. What we have done is respond to what we're required to do, and what we want to see is development of Section 32 and development around those intersections.) I would suggest that when you remove a certain amount of uncertainty --obviously nobody knows what's going to occur in terms of development --you encourage the best creative thinking on the part of landowners and developers if over a period of years you can bring together the thinking of the planners and elected officials with the landowners and not have divergent expectations which often times happens when the zoning classifica- tions are quite different from what individual landowners expect ultimately. (Prince - that's one reason for having this hearing is to get your ideas for what you'd like to see.) • Brad Gunn, with R. J. O'Neil (owner of Vali-Hi Drive In) - His property is zoned general commercial business and would like to confirm that it is still zoned that. (Prince - We are not altering any present zones.) (Whittaker - It's general business and there'll be standards, but anything that's permitted in that zoning district will still be permitted. You have to have site plans, etc. Property that's already zoned will not be changed because of this process.) LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 9/12/83 Page 5 • Gene Peltier, property in Section 35 on edge of cloverleaf - I see you have highway business between 19 and 17. My question is that it's marked out for general and highway business, and why is this proprty excluded from it since it's off the cloverleaf? (Prince - Plan is to put highway/commercial business on two sides of County 19.) (Whittaker - plan is 1/4 mile back from present Highway 12.) How is this business going to get onto the freeway from the cloverleaf? (Whittaker - That's a frontage road which will have accesses.) I hope I live long enough to see this great year 1990. All of a sudden, are the doors going to open and we're going to do something? Can't we back the plan up a bit from 1990? I guess the Planning Commission figures by 1990 Woodbury will be pretty well developed and people will have to build to Lake Elmo. o Prince - What would you prefer that we do with this plan? * John Solomon - That you not place a RR zoning on property in question here tonight, but place it in commercial zoning but having controls written into that zoning where people have to come into the City with well -designed plans that meet City requirements. (Prince - those controls are already in our plans.) It concerns me that with RR zoning, you'll face problems with haphazard and non -quality development. O John Hannigan - We have every confidence that we'll be coming in with a quality development, but as part of my practice of representing municipalities it's rather a deceiving situation knowing that you're just sitting back and waiting for quality development that you can pick and choose between. Granted you should have more of an open indication that the area has been identified for development. If your worried about drawing that, I can plagiarize all kinds of performance standards from communities that we represent; there's all kinds of definitions and uses. That's not a big task, it's recognition of the reality of the situation in your community; if you get the consensus I think you can handle that. We are aware of and sensitive to what this community has gone through with the highway department, but let's put that behind us and press on with the future. I understand where you're coming from; however, I don't think you're being realistic in the approaches you're taking using it as a holding zone and then entertaining development at certain locations. It's your community and we're willing to work with you, but those are our suggestions. o John B.lomquist - Woodbury had a category called Special Impact District which recognized the unusual sensitivity of certain parcels for a period of time, particularly as the freeway develop- ment was emerging and some other things were happening. As I read that ordinance, it seemed to be a type of planned district ordinance that gave very, very extensive controls to the Council and yet contemplated ultimate/general types of uses so people could be directed in a certain direction. Landowners were brought in and an agreement was reached at that time so their wasn't a lot LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 9/12/83 Page 6 of acrimony about ultimate uses and there weren't some of the rezoning problems as to those parcels. They actually rezoned some of those parcels. Woodbury was able to pull those landowners into the plan and get their agreement that it was an orderly process. I think it's going to offer more future potential for high quality development because everyone knew what type of use people wanted to see there. With respect to our piece, we'd like to see our land and everything around it classified and zoned to give the Council a lot of control; I wouldn't like to see someone come in with a poor quality RR development that would likely be around and affecting our property for a long, long time. 0 John Klein, representing R. J. O'Neil Company - I would like to ask a couple of questions. In your comprehensive plan, isn't business your ultimate use along the Highway 94 strip? (Prince - Right, for plans to 1990.) Your ultimate use for the community is that you want to see commercial along 94? (Prince - no, I can't say ultimate since the plan approved by Met Council is up to 1990.) You people on the Planning Commission aren't contemplating residential land fronting on I-94, are you? (Prince - some people think it should be all commercial and some do not; that's why we've had trouble coming up with a plan to this point. Personally, I do not since this town is so little I don't see any pressure for commercial development and don't see a need for it.) I was chairman of the Eagan Town Board for 9 years, 10 years on the Dakota County Planning Commission, so I've been sitting on your side of the fence several times. From what I've seen here tonight it seems that commercial is going to be in this 25 square miles, and someday in the future this probably will be a saturated community. In general, any kind of residential development along a high-speed interstate freeway or frontages is not good planning. The intent of some of you people that inject RR into that atmosphere is to try to discourage people from coming into that area before you can actually provide the public services for it. If it's your intention to stop the applications for commercial along the areas you utlimately feel will be commercial, then I would suggest you do it in a different way than changing the plan zone. If you have your comprehensive plan laid out and it makes sense to keep commercial up against the high -action roads, then I would suggest you keep that and control it by putting the burden of proof upon the applicant when he comes in to develop that land. You can ask how the developer is going to provide sanitary sewer and water. We thought for a long time that in Eagan nothing would happen along the eastern boundary because the river was closer to the westerly boundary, but things changed. You can extend a trunk line out into an area economically if you get enough activity into the area because collectively they can afford that; the rest of the City is not going to be paying that since it's a direct assessment. Once I-94 is open and you see that type of activity there, don't close the door on it. Eagan has been one of the 5 lowest in taxes in the 7-county area since 1960 because we prepared and accommodated for industrial growth. In the beginning stages, we tried to bring a 50:50 ratio into our LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 9/12/83 Page 7 community between the assessed valuation of the industrial, commercial and residential, since residential development is generally a tax liability and demands more services. So if you can bring commercial and industrial in before those people, you're going to create for yourself a very nice tax base. When that development comes in along 94, it may be a great idea to run a trunk line out there and then the other things will flow into it. So my suggestion is don't undo your plan if that's what you utlimately want it to be; if you're really going to have it commercial why don't you keep it that way. • Gene Peltier - You stated a while ago that this community of 5,000 couldn't support any more commercial business down there. I agree with you; I think if you took a poll you'd be lucky if you had 5% of the 5,000 people doing business down there. And any commercial development isn't going to depend on a little group of 5,000 to make it flourish. Now, they're certainly looking at the traffic flow that goes by this highway every day. (Michels - absolutely, Gene, and that's why we figured the natural expansion would be around the intersection since it will come from the traffic flow. The other portion is that the sewered section up there has been there for years and hasn't gone anywhere. We don't want to get into building a house here and there, but want to control it a little bit.) • Prince - One other point I'd like to make is that when we talk of services, it's not only sewer and water but police protection (we don't have 24-hour protection) and a volunteer fire department headquartered in town. • John Klein - When I came on the Eagan Town Board, we had no fire department or public works (20 years ago). But what we found happening is as these other industries that would call for these kinds of services came into being, we started building these departments and it's worked out very well. And we could afford this without having our taxes go up because of industrial and commercial tax bases. And you don't put a burden on people. • Michels - Do you think we're trying to discourage commercial development? • John Klein - I think you're at the point where you think you can't provide the sewer and water for it, and you're trying to discourage what you think would be leap -frogging. What I'm suggesting is when you do that you're liable to discourage com- mercial entirely, and what I'm suggesting you do is keep your zoning as you've got it but control what you're trying to achieve by putting the burden of proof on the developer when he comes in --not to zone it out of there. If services cannot be provided by the developer, you have sound grounds for denial because of the health, safety and well-being of the community. With this plan, you'd be discouraging people from looking at it and investigating it. It'll help you reach the decision to run a line out by LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 9/12/83 Page 8 starting to reach out to these areas if and when there's enough action in it. Collectively, 2 or 3 developers could be enough to run it out there. (Prince - we can't run the line out because we don't have any more sewer capacity beyond the MUSA line.) • John Blomquist - What would be the mechanism the Planning Commission or Council would use to stop me from coming in with a RR proposal on my property for a clustered residential development? Property owners on both sides might be furious, but what kind of controls would the Planning Commission or Council have against that type of development? (Whittaker - none.) Is that what Lake Elmo wants? Houses are not going to be torn down such as the pole barn could be; they're going to be there forever. It seems that you're giving up a chance right now to control the way this whole area looks 15 to 10 years from now by down -zoning it to a lesser use and encouraging people to come in with plans that you don't like but can't stop. (Prince - But if we leave it all commercial then someone can put up something commercial that's inappropriate and we can't stop it.) (John Solomon - that's where your controls come in.) It seems to me that even if you got into fairly arbitrary things --aesthetics, etc. --and have a panel or retain so-called experts to render judgments on even the most subjective of criteria, developers would rather come in and convince the experts that what I'm doing is high quality. • Lundquist - Would somebody give us some drafts of controls that you think might work? • Dorothy Lyons - I use to be on the Planning Commission and City Council here and I'm irritated*by hearing "no, we don't want any type commercial development." I concur with Messrs. Klein, Blomquist and Solomon that we'd better start thinking about a better tax base because property owners are getting tired of increasing taxes. Why can't you keep it commercial instead of putting in RR that can't be stopped? • Gene Peltier - I think we should leave porch door open so that we can at least get some encouragement to do some development. We're going to have to do some fast moving because we have 2,200 acres in this park out here that isn't generating 5 cents and we have some other proposed parks that are doing the same thing. Something should be looked to in the future and not wait until 1990 to get some tax base generated before we get in a bind. • Prince - The people aren't here tonight but I got so many phone calls from a lot of homeowners that want this to stay a quiet bedroom town and not have any industrial and little commercial. • Lyons - Nobody will be able to afford to live here if we keep going the route we've been going. I'm tired of hearing of police and fire protection because of the Regional Park which will need these services. Have you seen sewer plan for the Regional Park? LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 9/12/83 Page 9 (Prince - no.) Why haven't you? (Prince - it hasn't been presented to us yet.) You set up barriers to people who come in here for development, yet let a regional park for 3,000-4,000 people come in here without a sewer plan. Daytons went down to Woodbury, and now Woodbury is talking about having a race track right across 94 on 19; and you're sitting here telling us we shouldn't have development on 19? I think everyone in this audience should get together and organize like they did in Section 32 and come up with a plan. (Prince - that would be very helpful to us.) Why can't Woodbury and Lake Elmo work together on a sewer plan? Oakdale is putting in a gravity fed sewer system and that's what we should have in this community while we have the opportunity, not after Regional Park is put in. John Klein - In Eagan, we were in same situation you are. But we have 1 out of every 5 acres set aside for parks, made possible by encouraging commercial and industrial. We made a commitment to provide a trunk sewer line for the MN Zoo through our community. We started right off and determined we didn't want to be a bedroom community and thought if we planned our community well, it would be a good place to live, work and play and we could provide all those things within it. Those communities who wanted to stay bedroom communities (e.g. Mendota Heights)have regretted it when it comes down to their taxes. (Prince - I realize that and wish the people who holler over the phone would be here to respond to this plan.) One thing when you're talking about your growth, I believe in the projection that Met Council came up with that we will have to provide 220,000 new houses a year between 1975 and 1985. (Prince - projections for Lake Elmo were way off base.) But that's going to come; and I've never felt you can keep people out of a community but have to provide for that growth. If you try to attract the kinds of tax bases talked about here tonight, you'll have a good community and a good mix. Courts cannot make you give a building permit when you have a good reason not to, but you have to take advantage of your assets from getting mileage from tax base along major arteries. Anything you do to discourage that, you'll regret down the road. Look over that hill. You people are the planners. (Lyall - the reason we haven't had development is that we have been in an economic decline and are just coming out of it now.) • Dorothy Lyons - We can jointly work with border communities, such as we've done with mutual aid, to put in sewer, etc. The hearing closed at 9:05 p.m. • Prince - Personally, I would like to think over what we've heard tonight. I thought I had my mind made up but feel we're back to square one. I would like to talk to people in town and neighbors and find out how they feel about it. • Michels - In our original plan, our idea was not to encourage any development of residential and had it listed as post 1990, LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 9/12/83 Page 10 using it as a holding area and retaining it for future develop- ment past 1990. Why did we bother to change it? (Prince - can we say to people, you can't build now and have to come back after 1990?) No, you have to do it through some other means. Section 32 has been sitting there for years waiting for commercial development and we haven't seen it; then we get in an uproar because we say we're going to control it a little bit around the intersections. • Joel Solomon - Lake Elmo's image today all over the Metro area is no growth. (Prince - But I sure hear a lot of people in town saying they don't want growth.) (Michels - It's probably 50:50, but the controlling vote has always been conservative.) • Lyall - In the last 3 years, we haven't had many people coming in here to develop commercial or residential property. (Joel Solomon - it's because of Lake Elmo's image to discourage any kind of growth.) Tonight people are here because a change in our plan is being presented; I believe it's a gross misconception that Lake Elmo has been negative in the last 2 or 3 years. • Michels - What has occured on Highway 12 in Woodbury? Nothing. (Moe - Woodbury all along Highway 12 is zoned industrial.) • Joel Solomon - Woodbury solicits development of property. (Lyall - we may be remiss in soliciting, but we're here to listen to ideas.) • Prince - We have had enough discussion tonight; we now have to think it over and discuss it with people in town. It'll be put on the 9/26/83 agenda for more discussion, not necessarily a decision. Things required for Met Council have been done and this is extra and something we initiated. BREAK - 9:14 to 9:25. (Moe left at 9:14 p.m.) 3. CITY CODE, SECTION 502.090, Moving Buildings into City - • Pat Klaers - City Attorney said that an addition to the Code that "the City can require, as a condition of the permit, that the applicant must live in the moved structure" would be unreasonable. He felt we should strictly enforce what we have. 4. WHITTAKER A. Public Hearing - M/S/P Michels/Nazarian to hold a public hearing September 26 at 7:45 p.m. to discuss Steve Potts' request to subdivide 30 acres into 2 lots on 43rd Street. (Carried 7-0) B. Code Books - are to be brought in for update if not already done so. LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 9/12/83 Page 11 5. FAREWELL CELEBRATION - Prince invited Commissioners to an informal farewell gathering for the two secretaries leaving on Friday, September 30, from 2:30 - 4:30 p.m. at the City Hall. 6. OTHER A. Hearing Tonight s Michels - they talked about our negative attitude or reputation. I think we have so many water problems here that creates a negative reputation. (It was suggested that Marine - Big Carnelian also has problems.) (Lundquist - Maplewood for over ten years has required that any developer has to arrange for his own water runoff.) (Whittaker - You're right, that's a problem that has to be resolved.) • Lyall - Regarding what Dorothy Lyons said, why should we be doing anything with Regional Park since now it's raw land. (Whittaker - sewer plan is going to come in as they develop public facilities. They have State parks all over the state without one line of sewer in them.) B. Home Occupations O Michels - I read in the paper where in Chicago operating a home computer in a residential area runs contrary to zoning laws. (Whittaker - Our home occupation ordinance covers that; if a business is run by members of the immediate family, is run entirely within the home, and there are so many parking spaces, it is okay.) The meeting adjourned around 10:00 p.m. Submitted by: Ilene Johnson, Acting Secretary Additional couments made by Dorothy Lyons at the 9/12/83 Planning Commission Meeting: Page 8 - Paragraph 4 - The Commission members should attend the Council Budget meetings and have an input so that taxes can be kept down. Don't want to see Lake Elmo end up like area around Rosedale where poor planning resulted in poor street design or Richfield where, because of poor planning and lack of selective commercial, the only business desiring to locate there was trucking. Page 8 - Paragraph 7 - Want to live here and see my family continue to live here. Do not want to be pushed out because of high taxes. If things continue as they are cannot afford to stay. Questions the logic of having only one access to the Regional Park. Ridiculous to say commercial is not feasible without nearby police and fire protection since the entrance to the regional park is only a mile north of I-94 in a non - convenient emergency service area. This area (along 1-94 in Sec. 32) has not developed before because of the indecision surrounding the location of I-94. Lake Elmo did not have a say on the highway location - the legislature made this decision. Why change the planned zoning to RR when in the future the City may desire Business in this area - Keep the General Business plan as it is today in the Comp Plan. Planned GB in the past for the future because it is in the Comp Plan. + CITY Of LAKE ELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 + + 3880 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION September 12, 1983 7:30 P.M.--- Meeting convenes 1. Minutes, August 22, 1983 7:45 P.M.--- 2. Public Hearing, I-94 Comprehensive Plan proposed changes 8:20 P.M.--- 3. City Code - Section 502.090, Moving Buildings into City (per request from last Planning Commission meeting). - CITY OF i ELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 3880 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 MEMO September 8, 1983 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Pat Klaers, City Administrator RE: September 12, 1983 Planning Commission Agenda 1. MINUTES: The August 22, 1983, Planning Commission minutes have been previously sent out to all members and therefore is not included in this packet. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - I-94 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPOSED CHANGES: City Planner, Rob Chelseth, will not be attending this meeting as he will be out of town on other business. These proposed changes along 1-94 was discussed at the last Plann- ing Commission meeting and there was a consensus that the presented changes and map were acceptable with some very minor alterations. Attached is a 8-24 memo from Rob and the 1-94 material that incorporates these minor changes. I ran this concept by the City Council at the 9-6 meeting and they generally agreed with the planned changes. How- ever, there was a request that this I-94 plan not closed the door on the possiblility of a future development obtaining municipal services (sewer and water) from Woodbury. I be- lieve that the proposed changes leave this option open. 3. MOVING BUILDINGS INTO CITY: Toward the end of the last Planning Commission meeting there was a brief informal (not included in the minutes) discussion on this topic. The at- tached section 501.090 of the City Code address this issue. I was requested to ask the City Attorney if "the City can require, as a condition of the permit, that the applicant must live in the moved structure". I discussed this section of the Code with the City Attorney and he felt this would not be a reasonable condition as part of issuing a permit. He further indicated that the problem is not with the Code but with the enforcement of the Code. Please review this section of the Code and I think that you will find that the Code offers enough protection for the City. 4. OTHER INFORMATION: A. JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH THE CITY OF OAKDALE: At the 9-6 City Council meeting I provided the Council with some background information about these meetings. They approved the use of our Consultants (City Engineer and City Planner) for these meetings. MEMp - continued September 8, 1983 The next joint Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 29, 1983 at 7:30P.M., at the Oakdale City Hall, 1584 Hadley Ave. North. B. NEUDAHL PRELIMINARY PLAT: At the 9-6 City Council meeting the Council approved this preliminary plat. C. OTHER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES: At the 9-6 City Council meeting the Council officially adopted the 12 acres and MUSA line changes. These items were before the Planning Commission at the August 8, 1983 meeting and an update was given to you at the 8-22 meeting.