|
•
<br />•
<br />EXCERPT OF COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 25, 2001
<br />The City of Lake Elmo has a policy to preserve their rural character. They have a policy to do what
<br />we say we want to do in our Comprehensive Plan but they actually have one that has validity and they
<br />are opting against urban growth and they're going with other types of development. Now, developers
<br />are making money, land owners are selling their land for profit, they're protecting the environment,
<br />everybody comes out happy. I don't know why we wouldn't want to do that here. And, I certainly
<br />don't know why we'd want to move forward with a Plan that doesn't provide for those things when
<br />we know, when we have these tools available to us, we have this knowledge available to use, that
<br />wasn't available 10 years ago. That we can do these types of things and preserve the very things that
<br />we want to preserve.
<br />Another concern I have, and this is kind of a side step, but, umm, we do have a notification ordinance.
<br />If land use is being changed, and I think it's tied into the word "rezoning" so maybe there's a
<br />technicality here but, but notification is suppose to go out to residences within a certain distance of a
<br />land use change. And, I guess I question whether not, the City not sending out letters to anybody
<br />who's land is near anything that's changed on that map, ahh, whether e. 's in conflict with the spirit
<br />of the ordinance or with the letter of the ordinance. Certainly, I thi it's "^ onflict with the spirit of
<br />the ordinance which is to send a letter out to make sure everybo se changes are being
<br />planned because not everybody reads the Quad. In fact, I do` th v., many people do.
<br />If you absolutely have to pass a Plan, you should at lea
<br />acres of overage in the Comp Plan. But, that's 359 a
<br />dangerous scenario. We don't have the greenway
<br />questions and entanglements. If we need to mo
<br />We could take out all references to the gro
<br />that we've got 359 acres, we were reque
<br />based on these parameters that are ou
<br />concern that I think we should all
<br />s out. Because, we have 359
<br />ared to 2,500 acres here. And, that is a
<br />rly • o' e, we have a lot, it leaves a lot of
<br />with a Plan, we could take out the map.
<br />e could simply send in the document saying
<br />9 acres more MUSA bank, we'll put it where we want
<br />an. And, that would eliminate a huge, huge
<br />uld be point number one.
<br />Point number two would be t + s e h . . sing goals. We've got a 147 year rate and if you guys truly
<br />believe in a 147 rate and . ou trul ' t to live by the 147 rate, then what you do is, you take that total
<br />of homes every year, so f . ! as such and such, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but
<br />you'd add 147 each year u . o gh the years. And, then you'd look at our current home count. And,
<br />when you get to the point w `` . e the goal, that number, that 147 keeps adding on every year, when you
<br />get to that point where that year, in that year where we actually have fewer homes in the City than
<br />what the 147 projects out to, that would be the point to add the 359 acres. Don't add, please, don't
<br />add 2,500 acres right now. This is untried territory. This is completely risky. It has all kinds of
<br />negative potentialities and it certainly does nothing to limit the growth that you say you want to limit.
<br />The way it stands? Basically, it's a blank check, business as usual, and let the developers plan the
<br />City. It's the way it's been going and that's basically more of the same. We can do better. We have
<br />the knowledge. We have the tools and all we need to do is make an effort. Thanks.
<br />MR. STADUM: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. Ahh, my name is Raymond
<br />Stadum and I live at 663 Andall Street. Mr. Mayor, you'd be gratified to know I probably don't have
<br />that many remarks to make tonight even though I've caught my breath. But, I would like to read a
<br />
|