February 7, 2006 CCP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APPROVED AS AMENDED JANUARY 17, 2006 M/S/P Johnson/Conlin — to adopt Resolution 2006-003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -Trails Guide Plan as amended. (Motion 5-0) B. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Resolution 2006-004 . City Planner Dillerud provided the following: Draft Planning Commission minutes from December 19, 2006, Resolution by Tom Armstrong, and redraft with edits of Old Village with text. City Plamier Dillerud noted that he had provided City Council with this information on December 20, 2005. Resident Susan Dunn addressed the need to modify the Old Village Master Plan and the need to add verbiage for buffers to existing developments, to respect the environment of the Old Village, maintain the rural character, and spare the trees in our urban forest. Council Member DeLapp said that he wants to see buffers between the existing Old Village homes/businesses and new developments. M/S/P DeLapp/Smith — Approve edited document (9A-6) by adding language assuring reasonable buffers between new developments and existing Old Village, and to respect environmental conditions. (Motion 5-0.) City Attorney Filla provided the City Council amended draft text for Chapter III of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan that addressed the remedial measures that appear as conditions to Metropolitan Council Resolution 2005-20, He recommended the draft text as a substitute for the text prepared by the City Planner. Council Member DeLapp stated that the proposed text amendment is not in the best interests of the City and amounts to a punitive measure by the Metropolitan Council. City Planner Dillerud said that the Lake Elmo City Council did not approve the remedial measures found in the December 29, 2005, Metropolitan Council Resolution 2005-20. He advised the City Council that the Metropolitan Council requires the remedial language from Resolution 2005-20 be in the Comprehensive Plan. Resident Tom Armstrong said he opposed remedial measures as they are a penalty for being granted an extension. He explained the motivation behind the Planning Commission Motion. He asked why METC needs to put this language in the Comprehensive Plan regarding penalties for the City of Lake Elmo and no other city. It would be a contractual agreement that the City must then honor. Resident Susan Dunn stated MEW reminded the Council that they already rejected the WIF condition of Metropolitan Council Resolution #2005-20 on a 5-0 vote. She Lake Elmo City Council Minutes January 3, 2006