Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-16-00 PZMA C4TY OF LAKE AELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 f 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 The Lake Elmo Planning Commission will meet on WEDNESDAY, February 16. 2000 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota. AGENDA 1. Agenda 2. Minutes — February 2, 2000 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Update 2000-2020 Land Areas South of State Highway 5 4. Other 5. Adjourn Ill itmelpprinted on recycled paper DRAFT City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Wednesday, February 16, 2000 Meeting Minutes Chairman Armstrong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo. Present: Commissioners Berg, Brass, Gerard, Helwig, Herber, Mandel, Ptacek, Sedro and Sessing. Absent: Commissioner Lipman. Also present: City Planner Dillerud. 1. AGENDA M/S/P Helwig/Gerard - to approve the agenda, as presented. (Motion Passed 9-0). 2. MINUTES M/S/P Helwig/Gerard - to approve the Minutes from the February 2, 2000 meeting, as amended. (Cynthia Youngwill bring an amended draft back to the Commission at its February 28, 2000 meting, for final review) (Motion Passed 9-0). 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Land Use South of State Highway 5 Planner Dillerud explained the intent of the initial portion of his presentation was to inform the viewing public of the procedures and progress the Planning Commission has made regarding the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan. He said for over a year, the Planning Commission has spent many hours at early 6-7 p.m. meetings devoted to updating the plan. He noted several reasons for addressing the Comprehensive Plan at this time, including State Statutes that mandate cities in the seven county metro areas to periodically review and update their comprehensive plans. He said the completed work includes the 2020 Comprehensive Plan General Policy, which states: 1. Develop land use and infrastructure plans to accommodate household and population forecasts of the 1996 Regional Blueprint (12,500 persons in 4,700 households) by the year 2020. 2. Encourage the majority of the new households created to be efficiently developed in a rural context in the form of Open Space Development cluster neighborhoods; and, within the Old Village Area of the community, as defined by the Old Village Plan/Policies. 3. Reestablish the Regional Blueprint designation of "Rural Growth Center" for Lake Elmo 4 Limit Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) expansion to the area that can be served through the Metropolitan Council WONE Interceptor. Also completed to date are drafts of Inventory and Land Use. He presented, and described maps that illustrated planning districts, Citywide Land Use Plan, Rural Agricultural parcels of 20+ acres, remaining Rural Estate parcels and the South Districts. He discussed citywide projections and reminded the Commissioners that the Land Use plan they have developed for the entire community will accommodate forecasts, but not mandate or drive the population of the 1996 Regional Blueprint. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 16, 2000 page 1 Planner Dillerud said the Village Commission took its own planning area and divided it into areas that are surrounded by a "green -belt" in order to control the sprawl of development. He noted that a possible way to accomplish the greenbelt, purchasing or transferring of development rights could be an option. He presented graphics of the old village planning area, which illustrated the areas and greenbelt. He said the idea of PDR's and 1 DR's is NOT to tread on the rights of property owners. He suggested the Planning Commission create an overlay of the village area and look to the Village Commission for further recommendations. Chairman Armstrong opened the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 8:13 p.m. Terry Emerson 2204 Legion Lane Circle North Mr. Emerson said the last time he was in front of the PlanningCommission, they were supportive of the plan to keep his family business (E & H Earthmozers) in Lake Elmo, and possibly locate near the I-94 corridor. He said he does not see anything in the currently proposed land use guiding that reflects businesses can locate along the corridor. He asked the Planning Commission to again consider his earlier plan, and guide the land use that wil accommodate businesses. Bruce Miller - representing MFC Properties 3470 Washington Drive Eagan Mr. Miller read a prepared statement from Martin Colin, President of MFC Properties, which is a landartner of property situated along the 1-94 corridon (attached) Patrick Regan - RECO, Inc. 425 E. 31" Street Hastings Mr. Regan explained that his company owns 30 acres in the southeast district that is currently zonal Limited Business. He said in 1983, his bus company that was located in this planning district relocated to the Washington County Fairgrounds. He noted that recently, his company had received some serious inquiries, one being a concept plan prepared by Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Associates. He asked the Planning Commission to NOT tread on property owner's rights, and recognize the current business °tuners in the area. Marjorie Williams 3025 Lake Elmo Avenue North Ms. Williams stated she felt the newprrnwsal offewz'much mare density than in the past. She said she had scrod on the Lake Elmo Planning Commission in the 1980's, and the same issues were presented then. She said the City resisted the pressures of high -density development then, and that's dry so many people ranted to Lake Elmo - law density, clean miter and low taxes. She asked thePlaming Can'nrssioners to resist outside arguments for high density, stating shezwntal the future of the City to be drzvaz by the citizens, notderelopers. Todd Williams 3025 Lake Elmo Avenue Mr. Williams said he helped canpnse the 1990-2010 Comprehhensize Plan along with Mary Kueffner and Chuck Grates. He said he had a concerns regarding the following Policy Statement 1 - asked that it is clanged to CONSIDER rather than ACCOMMODATE household forcrasts for 2020. He explainai that he did not went to see city sewer in the okl village, but embraces the idea for 1-94 corridor. Transportation Policy #4 - requested non - local traffic should avoid using local streets. Transportation Policy #7 - endorses mass transit, but not clear what "transit hub" is in Lake Elmo. Public Utilities Policy #5 - urges no public sewer because it drizes dezelop ing. He said cluster is defined as "large lot residential" areas, and feels cluster should be not more that 8 units per 20 acres. He said Lake Elmo should not try to attain the Met Courxd's gads. In the Southeast District, he agreed that the I - Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 16, 2000 page 2 94 corridor should be guided Limited Business, not RAD. Regarding the Tri-Lakes District URD guiding includes city water and city setter; he is opposed to this plan. He said he is opposed to non-residential uses in the Northeast District, and said SRD guiding is not defined Mr. Williams said he is generally opposed to city roarer and city seiner in Lake Elmo. Neil Krueger 4452 Lake Elmo Avenue Mr. Krueger explained that the Minnesota Design Team solicited community commentary and the consensus was to keep Lake Elmo rural, and listen to the land He asked that building in the Village Area be kept in the existing downtown area, resulting in expansion south of Highway 5, adding senior housing and mar pedestrian accessibility. Mr. Krueger said he felt property north of Highway 5 does not lend itself to pedestrian traffic. He asked what the highest density would be within the greenbelt. He asked that nmre information regarding PDR's and 1DR's be presented He said he wants to keep city setter out of the Village area. Yvette Oldendorf 5418 N. Lake Elmo Avenue Ms. Okie ndorf presented a letter and Minority Report Proposal for Village Area Land Use Plan (attached), agreed to, and subnitted by Lake Elmo residents Ann Bucheck, Debbie Krueger, Mary Moberg. Ann Bucheck 2301 Legion Avenue North Ms. Bucheck said she is personally opposed to dense deadopmezt in the Village District She stated her other mnczms were IDR's, mass transit hub in the Village District, and water run -of in the South Area of the Village District She said city setter should be kept to the I-94 area, and the plan should eliminate 'onuses to detelopers of OP residential cluster projects. Dale Kimberly 10654 10th Street Circle North Mr. Kimberly stated he is a resident, as well as an owner of a lake Elmo business. He asked the commission to please =skier guiding the 1-94 corridor land use for businesses like his (Country Coffee). Wyn John 8883 Jane Road N. Mr. John said he had recently bmame a member of the Lake Elmo Village Commission. He suggested the Comprehensive Plan should be apprized and in place before deodopers produce proposals which are tiff ant from the City's intent. He said if you refer to the Metropolitan Council Goals for 2020, that population at build-outis similar to that proposed within 1990-2010 Comprehensive Plan, which was co-authored by Mr. Williams. He said it is wrong for Mr. Williams to indicate that indicate cluster housing is merely 11/ to 1- acre lots, when he does not take account of the preserved open space which is included in the cluster development. He said it was intended that decelopma is listen to the land and situate houses with that in mind He said he joined the Village Commission because he felt no progress was iringmaa'e since the summer of 1999. Pete Schiltgen 10880 Stillwater Blvd. Mr. Schiltgen said he is more than willing to sit dozers and discuss PDR's and 1 DR's in the greenbelt areas in the Village District He noted, "It is not going to be cheap, and zewndervdhowmany pwplewwuldwaant to pay for that." He said he would like to see the buildings along Highway y 5 remain. Todd Williams said he saw nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that indicated changes to the oldvdlage area" and asked fora separate Public Hearing in thatrrgard Deb Krueger Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 16, 2000 page 3 ' 4452 Lake Elmo Avenue N. Ms. Kmeger reported that Washington County approzd an ordinance for PDR's, and in the Nor tuber r ferozdrmn for the Green Acre Project that spans Chisago City to Cottage Grace, taxpayers will be asked if they want to spend $18.00 per each $100,000.00 value of their home to support the program. She inzztai the public to contact any Village Commission member that adurates the program if they have questions about PDR's/TDR's. Wyn John reminded the audience that the $18.00/$100,000.00 value is designated to Washington County fiord as a whole, not just Lake Elmo. He noted that the entire ford would be 2 million dollars. He also noted the PDR's in Lake Elmo alone, could easily be more than 4 million dollars. Gene Peltier 10376 Hudson Blvd. Mr. Peltier asked that his written commons (attached) be read at the February 16, 2000 Public Hearing and enteral into the public rood David Herreid 3076 Lake Elmo Avenue Mr. Heneid said he was concemedabout the businesses in the daztntozen arra, saying Lake Elmo needs a place where a person can walk dozen the strut, and it is unfortunate that is not possible now He said he felt the city could work to maintain the quaint character. Planner Dillerud recognized Pete Schiltgen for working with the City. He said the questions presented at the Public Hearing have been noted, and will answer them and address all comments as the Comprehensive Plan work progresses. Commissioner Herber said he wanted to make it very clear that no one on the Planning Commission recommends city sewer beyond the I-94 corridor. He also noted that the Planning Commission has made several recommendations to the City Council regarding lowering the unit density in OP developments. Dorothy Lyons 10072 No. 10th Street Ms. Lyons said she agrees to no city seceer, supports businesses along the?-94 corridor. Chairman Armstrong said the record for comments would remain open for two weeks. Chairman Armstrong adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Young -Planning Secretary Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 16, 2000 page 4 MFC PROPERTIES CORPORATION February 16, 2000 The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Re: MFC Properties 94 Limited Partnership Property 45 Acres CM Properties 28 Limited Partnership Property - 5.87 Acres Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: Thank you and the Lake Elmo staff for all your efforts to date in updating the comprehensive plan. I know a lot of volunteer time has been committed on your part to get this plan to where it is today. The purpose of this letter is to discuss the comprehensive guide plan designation along the I-94 corridor, specifically the area between the United Properties land to the west and County Road 19 to the east. We own fifty one (51) acres in this area on the northwest quadrant of County Road 19 and I-94 (See Attached Survey). Over the past 2-3 years we have made genuine effort to listen to the City and try and better understand how they would like to see the I-94 corridor develop. We participated in the I-94 Task Force, have attended several Planning Commission and City Council meetings, and have communicated with the staff on a regular basis to determine how the City would like to see this area develop. What we thought we heard was that the City is looking for a high quality, aesthetically pleasing, "Overland Park" type development and that it wanted to control development from west to east. With this in mind, we were very surprised to see that the designation of our property as LB and RAD on the proposed Comprehensive Plan. We were expecting to see a Business Park designation for the entire area commonly referred to as the "440 acre area". There have been numerous discussions regarding a MUSA extension to this area and it is my understanding the City Council recently voted and directed staff to initiate such action. Therefore, we question why the Comprehensive Guide Plan doesn't reflect a Business Park designation in this area. Yankee Square Office I I. 3470 Washington Drive, Suite 102 • Eagan, Minnesota 55122 • (651) 452-3303 Fox (651) 452-3362-111110--3010— It appears the Business Park designation would provide the City the control it is looking for. It would control the development from west to east, as the Business Park requires sanitary sewer service and the City would control the physical extension of the pipe utilizing the W.O.N.E. interceptor. The City would control the quality of development through the Business Park performance standards outlined in the ordinance. Furthermore, by allowing Business Park type development in this 440 acre area, due to the higher tax base, the City may be able to divert some of the tax revenue or tax credits from these developments and finance some of the improvements it wants to make in the Old Village area. However, under the LB and RAD designation, the City is essentially conceding that the area will never have an "Overland Park" quality of a development. We were also surprised to see the housing designation on the northern part of our property. A few years ago we informally presented a plan to the I-94 Task Force that showed housing on the north end of the property and we were told the City did not want to see housing in this area of the I-94 corridor. Now it appears the City would like to see housing located along the I-94 corridor. Although I do believe there is a market for housing in this area, it appears to be a severe underutilization of property which otherwise could be used for a high quality business park development. There is market demand today for both the LB uses and the residential component. However, it is just not the highest and best use of this strategically located parcel of land, The Medtronic's, Dayton Hudson's and Best Buy's of the world (all of which recently announced major corporate headquarter expansions in the suburbs) will eventually be looking for corporate facilities in the East Metro. It would seem logical that Lake Elmo would provide an area for these business park users in its Comprehensive Plan. The 440 acres along Interstate 94 and particularly the land adjacent to the freeway intersection would be the logical place for this. I would respectfully ask that you reconsider designating the above referenced parcels to Business Park I think if we work together, we can accomplish the goals of the City and its residents, as well as address the market pressures. Sincerely, MFC PROPERTIES CORPORATION Martin F. Colon President 11.1.027 CMIFICASZ. :Far ....in coact.. 109•400 In «a accordance oft. ce•417,ao. a941[1.42 F•do. 1,411,16itc.• .4aafa.4.444 , Re. 271.303 .40 13 7o7.1 JOY 4. 1431. loud Top ....• .• 4r. carsl. can SOO 'roar flood pia.. • 1,06, MibA. WO. 1095 • • t ono,. ram oms. - e•••-rwr ..,••••••••• - Thu ...on Immo,. mac Um mar. sad of Frt. 4.147 aiWTNICOINDOL• •• Eno.. ma F.041.• LideidOSildo. Ilea wed eaarmed.l. ware Cp. • ..oldar. Sucw. PT•1.4.1••4 for 4...1 1.1 coop./ by Ir.. Fe. ANAta.. a... net... 21.1043. 4 4.31C41,41130 and vls• Y. Mall of elm 1.10,4.•••4 134.[Gr. Of tn. a.... Yoalnef .3 ....... 46. T..... 40. a.. 21. ram aoontu• ...••••• oc•torly of 0740 eor• .creof onor•dad 2125,, li4421=717.• C011e07 OP MU MILT NO. ..-1•• and dart f 1.140.10. morawimm OF ...1.02117500174m7 Or .1 Mom.. 42-41, td too r sr erri.n 1.3.1.Cr rout.ou foot / 45.003. 6... sat:coc to a Cupway •• un dem. 317 of Co.d.. d33. itifC PaPCX77e5 71/ PARCEL A 044.11,13. rant P.-, .1 747 4454. cmlf of ...ore.. gum. oe 64. foLICOOSOL Cm... of ic.1. 34. S. ..... 2., County. folLooss at o 72470 . ton 0740 ane of 4.3f of roe ....aant Quart. of cm« Sou ...... 2441047 401.dtll.4IILUIOPS Lal.. fa. CrOS•CL, maul pralos alma bor.. 1▪ . cIo hooralary of -Patrol 3.3. 0.110....1141.0001.• C. 2544401.00125161. llurt 25 Mlin FLAT eilme21110 .2-43. accord..7 to coo recoro. pat. 05-4001t 14424 4027o 0 dog.. 30 ...as 16 v... • •••.••• Oa.. Cod 14o4244g•• •loo• 4010 vv. 144.4 416. it /... 14 1.14740,51 22 bob nel• v., ch.. mos. JO 03 otoo... 20 Doman. goat. aloof 321.21 00(.14.7., CO • T....1.141.• car. co ..... to tor 400524211, don.. arefle 34 ....... 22 mmooda one radt. 4411.22 fart. ALIAS fr./ to.m. Som. 40 ...464 21 din.. 21 0e0004• Fn.. 014241.42 2552d1r7. .0.19 coon. Oro. 0 2.4,470 53 slo...• 11 5502500004, saa Itean.sy. J011.0] iamer rhaor.e Samen 34 5. NYCO.. .aln 44.3 707.71 30114 41 deyrmr. 22 oicam. 54 ma.... glen. .3n boundary. 314.92 footr on • 410707.544 rar...a. so roe ...tr.., 1.•-•4.C.O. 3 dOlrOO• 44 ..... lf anat.24 404 ra e 22.11 2164.70 I amt, t0244 le.. the yam.. .41.1.0. C0..1110 255.114 Oillya.S• M.! / 5.4122. tor. rloost . 4c7214 4.0941.444 by um of 2.4010.014 10'''llC.Ft,71'45. 741.1 50 fleramos 3o. 412/50. Odeot. Iroo OLALO•lat •••.... NV not. ..... •ron =non. td....1 ManoLo• 3.4 fon. .o mot _ 71 t rco1 rcomend 07 nn. Ctrt• of •«nocsoca dor Mo. 613:3. .51.74 c Da ,An r. coo deur:. ..... Fad.. n • .• ....,23teen 1.7,.6 clam cf . vogY;740?-. 21474r:..f Tooduatfon Ur 44143 1.363.314 .o. 255..4 f5. LP3.14..1.•=••••••• ••••r•L111:1•imi. iacnoc ET al %L._ ma•r• 1.1Cann. • / 0 41.02335 ar. ./n// 2.'1214 4C. 5,21.0, 44. 9. IdrrIPt « n133. • a.r.3 •. '14 4. ta ...roe«. .... Platmmil r • Lt.' and Erl, aCE •iTI way of tn.. drmarr. ly •nd ..... «. mr•u-du . •44 .•••••.• of •« .... 4,4 and ..... ort Bale lsoo tn. tn.. rm.. n. •..nt oe no •••[ enan nonon end en.« t .... •«• •• • .• nl• 4.« on, .3./ a ..... p, ova.. nrimr • • •••• ..... •• Lie Sali1CriL •• ..... ta.• , Ai/ G.,* 1NTERSTATE f3ARCEL B XlVa27/65 5 i HIGHWAY r• ••••.. v-o AMY.F. mne . 610.•.• • 7:5 n.. 'an - NO. z I • 94 _ al•trrtai:••• MAMA. SUINVOT nt•wros for • .1.1.1-iati • Its ociauttve LAND suavrerpos. INC «ewe •••••••• z 2 §8 — . F o• f x1» T!!N gilt OAK DALE 1990 POP. 18,403 S. 1st ST, I,e0S014 WOODBU '"k 1990 POP. 26,900 g cT. LAKE ELMO 1990 POP. 5,874 sr. 10 rEXISTING MUSA AREA FIT')NTAGE rPROPOSED MUSA AREA / OTflN RLIV Rfl• 33134 413 TEEN Rl1V '7///e( 61 RESERVE N 1 1 1000 SOU II MT 2V00 101h SO. ST. N. FRONTAGE :.. n osaN i February 16, 2000 Dear Members of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission: ORgerw We herewith present to you the Minority Report Proposal for Village Area Land Use Plan. This set of recommendations is presented because we believe that there are serious flaws in the alternative plan and because we believe that it in several areas it is not in harmony with the expressed mission of the Village Commission and is in conflict with the public input provided during the Design Team process and in public hearings of the Village Commission. 1. The basis for several of the recommendations rests solely upon the use of a system of TDR (transfer of density). We wish to point out that the Commission supported options for achievement of a green belt, but the "majority" recommendations are predicated upon one option alone. While we support the implementation of a green belt, we oppose doing so when the method used will increase the existing density within its boundries and while there is an alternative with less impact. Washington County Board of -Commissioners has unanimously supported using-PDR as its mechanism for achieving its green space plan and we support this as the first choice for implementation of Lake Elmo's green belt. The Commission has not had a document defining or proposing the procedures for implementation of TDR and thus would be asked to support a mechanism in advance of its definition. We believe that all concerned parties to the adoption of this plan should have fully crafted document for such a plan considered in conjunction with any proposal to use TDR. Doing so otherwise is premature and risk ridden. Early discussions of TDR were predicated upon transfer between areas but within same ownership. The "majority" recommendations contain recommendations for transfers that would have to be between owners without assurance of agreement or defined mechanisms. Because of the variables inherent in a TDR type mechanism, the actual per acre unit density is not fixed and could result in an unacceptable rate of density. 2. The signers of this report especially oppose the density being proposed for Area One. There are several problems with the density which could result from the "transfer -in" in order to achieve a surrounding green belt. The resulting impact from the range of increased density has unexplored impacts which include water ( both run-off and need for additional water tower), public services, increased traffic, increased cost for service provision. The density which could result is in contradiction to the input of citizens who have participated in the several public forms. A. They have made it clear that they do no want an increase in density. They do not want the visual impact of density. B. Safety and traffic issues on SH 5 in the Village Area and in the area of its intersection with CR 17 were among the highest concerns. Increase of density especially with an increase of residential and retail would exacerbate and not alleviate the current problems. Traffic calming and other mechanisms are needed just to address the current problem. To increase the traffic in this area runs contrary to the sentiments of the public on this issue. C. There has been strong support expressed for building and enhancing the viability and vitality of the business district south of SH 5. Starting a new pattern of retail north of 5, in Area One will detract from that important and needed effort. Additional retail should instead be encouraged and supported in the contiguous area to the south of 5. Further, it is unwise to adopted arproposal to put -residential housing in Area -One unless there is an accompanying proposal for safely and efficiently moving the increase of pedestrian or vehicle traffic into the area south of 5. Finally, we must express our dismay with the process by which you have before you a "majority" report. The eight who have served consistently since the inauguration of this Commission were split four to four on the major issues we have outlined to you. This means that what is the "majority" report would have failed on a tie vote. It is certain, therefore that accommodations on the substance of the report would have had to be made among the members in order to put a document of majority opinion before the Planning Commission. The "majority" was, instead, made by a recent appointment to the Village Commission, who attending the first meeting in this role voted on every issue, without having the benefit of the deliberations of the last months. With this report, we express our disappointment that such an arduous process of preparing for this report should conclude in this mar and with these results. We therefore urge that you take this into consideration as you weigh these two reports. PROPOSAL FOR VILLAGE AREA LAND USE PLAN MISSION: LAKE ELMO VILLAGE COMMISSION THE INTENT, PURPOSE, AND MISSION OF THE VILLAGE COMMISSION IS TO PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND ENHANCE THE RURAL AND HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE OLD VILLAGE AND SURROUNDING LAND. THIS WILL BE ACHIEVED BY GUIDING DESIGN STANDARDS AND DIRECTION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND QUALITY DEVELOPMENT IN HARMONY WITH THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE CITY. The first report of the Village Commission was the Village Plan, present to the City Council and accepted on March 3, 1999. Its major content included a report on existing condition, policy areas to be considered and a conceptual design framework prepared by Thorbeck Architects. It was made available to the public at that time. II. It is recommended that the City undertake the establishment of a green belt consisting of undeveloped or agricultural land to surround a portion of the Village Area. Its purpose to be to demark a core center district and to preserve a green area surrounding it. This land should be set aside through the mechanism of purchase of development rights (PDR). III. Six areas have been define inside the green belt. The use of PDR should not necessitate increased density in these areas. AREA ONE: Within the area defined roughly by CR 17, 39th Ave, and what is commonly referred to as the tree line, should continue as any area of mixed use, including some residential and office and exclude industrial. The density of development should be at the level currently defined for that area. AREA TWO: The area defined by SH 5 to the north, the railroad tracks to the south, currently developed land to the east and an as yet undefined north/south line to the west should accommodate residential, with an emphasis on senior housing, retail to support a viable business community in the contiguous business district in the Old Village Area, and include some athletic fields. AREA THREE, FOUR AND FIVE: This area should be retained as residential with no change in the pattern of density. Current open space and agricultural uses should be retained. Page two: Proposal for Village Area Land Use Plan AREA SIX: The area between SH 5 and the railroad tracks on the west side of the Old Village is partially now occupied partially by Schiltgen farm buildings. These historic farm buildings should be preserved with consideration for conversion to municipal uses. IV. The Lake Elmo Village Commission has created a set of architectural guidelines for the Village Area. The content of the guidelines has been adopted but it remains to be determined how these will be applied to existing and new residential areas. V. The Lake Elmo Village Commission was selected to be part of a study sponsored by the Metropolitan Council. The " St. Croix Valley Development Design Study" was performed by Calthorpe Associates with design proposals for the Village Area north of SH 5. The Commission noted receipt of the report and has not adopted the designs or recommendations. This report has been agree to and is submitted by: Ann Bucheck Debbie Krueger Mary Moberg Yvette Oldendorf February 16,2000 February 15, 2000 From: Gene Peltier 10376 Hudson Blvd. Lake Elmo fECEIVED rtb r " 2000 CM' OF LAKE ELMO 5735 E. McDowell #85 Mesa, Arizona 55215 To: Lake Elmo Planning Commission Re: Land Use Plan — Southeast District Please read at the February 16, 2000 Public .Hearing and enter into the record. "It is not realistic to guide the land use along the 1-94 corridor residential. This property is clearly for the development of commercial businesses, NOT for houses. Why are you forcing landowners to residential development? That thinking is from the 19`h century. What you have done by this plan is impose a 100- year moratorium on commercial development. There is no way to market this property for residential, so why are you guiding it RAD? It is commercial property, and you are locking it up by guiding it RAD. It is also NOT realistic to expect this land be used for agricultural use, no one will purchase this land for anything other than commercial." ORMINAL