06-11-02 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Parks: Lake Elmo has built, and paid for, a 500 acre park system, which is in addition tc the 2,100 acre Lake Elmo Regional Park. The City's park system can accommodate a significantly grater population and the Regional Park is underutilized in part because the City has not increased the housing density surrounding the Park. The Planner suggested the City respond initially by taking the high road approach, and put together a concise position statement rather than attack the Council Staff position point by point. He asked if the Council agreed that staff could go to the Met Co. Board with a PowerPoint presentation showing the character we are trying to preserve and how we are doing it by the cluster ordinance development, and why this is not contrary to the four Regional systems. Mayor Lee Hunt: The Staff could bring work we have done with the Minnesota Design Team and the Calthorp Study, funded by the Met. Council, and validating our approach. Council member Dunn: The Council's 1996 Regional Blueprint for Growth anticipates a substantial amount of urban development in the City while the City's vision calls for rural development. The Met Council is looking at something seven years in the past, and prepared under the direction of a different administration and Chairman. She thinks that the Met Council has made positive strides in appreciating the value of lower density options and environmental protection. She strongly believes in local land us control. The City can continue to assist the Council define the issues as it has in the formulation of the rural issues document reviewed in draft form. She agrees with the Planner about going to the Met Council Board with a positive approach, but asked that the Planner be very firm in support of our current policies. Marc Hugunin, Met. Council Representative: He thought the City Planner's analysis was good. He noted that the Plan was reviewed on the basis of consistency with the 1996 Blueprint and not on the 2030 Blueprint which will not become policy until December of 2002. Wyn John, Old Village Commission Member: The statement that the City did not object to the 1996 Plan is untrue. The City did object, and was told by Council staff that it was only a concept, don't worry about it. Council Member DeLapp Noting that some of the strongest proponents for urban development of the 3 '/2 square miles south of I Oh Street, believe that if Lake Elmo doesn't promote this development, the Woodbury City Council will annex it without Lake Elmo's concurrence. He thought we should meet with the Woodbury Council, whose written policy is to only consider annexation if requested by adjacent property owners and their city or township. He said this meeting would put to rest the threat to our City and make it clear to everyone that Woodbury will not annex Lake Elmo. He noted that if Lake Elmo were to build a LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING JUKE 11, 2002