Laserfiche WebLink
M/S/P Johnson/Conlin — to adopt Resolution 2006-003 Comprehensive Plan <br />Amendment -Trails Guide Plan as amended. <br />(Motion 5-0) <br />B. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Resolution 2006-004 <br />City Planner Dillerud provided the following: Draft Planning Commission minutes <br />from December 19, 2006, Resolution by Tom Armstrong, and redraft with edits of <br />Old Village with text. City Planner Dillerud noted that he had provided City Council <br />with this information on December 20, 2005. <br />Resident Susan Dunn addressed the need to modify the Old Village Master Plan and <br />the need to add verbiage for buffers to existing developments, to respect the <br />environment of the Old Village and maintain rural character <br />Council Member DeLapp said that he wants to see <br />Village homes/businesses and new developments. <br />M/S/P DeLapp/Smith — Approve edited d <br />assuring reasonable buffers between new <br />to respect environmental conditions. <br />(Motion 5-0.) <br />City Attorney Filla provided the City <br />the 2030 Comprehensive Planthattadl <br />conditions to MetropolitarnCounciIA <br />text as a substitute for th&'text DreP0 <br />Council Member <br />interests ofthe,C <br />the existing Old <br />adding language <br />existing Old Village, and <br />triended�draft text for Chapter III of <br />e remedial measures that appear as <br />2005-20. He recommended the draft <br />itv Planner. <br />the proposed text amendment is not in the best <br />i punitive measure by the Metropolitan Council. <br />City Planner Dillerud said that the Lake Elmo City Council did not approve the <br />remedial measureftund in the December 29, 2005, Metropolitan Council Resolution <br />2005-20. He advised the City Council that the Metropolitan Council requires the <br />remedial language frornY'Resolution 2005-20 be in the Comprehensive Plan. <br />Resident Tom Armstrong said he opposed remedial measures as they are a penalty <br />for being granted an extension. He explained the motivation behind the Planning <br />Commission Motion. He asked why METC needs to put this language in the <br />Comprehensive Plan regarding penalties for the City of Lake Elmo and no other city. <br />It would be a contractual agreement that the City must then honor. <br />Resident Susan Dumi stated METC reminded the Council that they already rejected <br />the WIF condition of Metropolitan Council Resolution #2005-20 on a 5-0 vote. She <br />noted that METC has never had a WIF fee before; it is extortion and the City should <br />say no to a Comprehensive Plan with WIF. <br />Lake Elmo City Council Minutes January 3, 2006 <br />