My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-07-79 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1970's
>
1979
>
08-07-79 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2025 6:41:56 PM
Creation date
10/1/2019 3:58:01 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, AUGUST 7, 1979 -3- <br />V�nce,D2uglas continued - years and proposes areas where they <br />w==-Vvc"go=n the next 10 years. <br />Bill Boylan - Supports the idea of clustered housing. <br />Questioned what would happen to the remaining 30 acres <br />after 10 acres has been clustered. He is concerned the <br />remaining 30 acres may be abandoned or fall into absentee <br />ownership. He suggested the 5 acre minimum may be of <br />some merit here. The land will be in control of the land <br />owner and he has an option open to him if he chooses to <br />exercise it. <br />Martin Cohn - Federal Land Co. - Requested the City include <br />t eaTi r lanT-in the Comprehensive Plan in the manner proposed <br />by his plan. The proposal is in conjunction with a letter <br />sent to the City from their planner. Carl Dale. They ask <br />the City's consideration for this proposal. <br />George Kreiger - Still feels the City should sit down <br />with--resi"-""dents and discuss what the people want. He is <br />against the 1 per 40 acre zoning. <br />Maynard Eder - Many of the projections in the previous plan <br />d3 not happen for good reasons: energy, inflation, etc. <br />Washington County has had consistant development with very <br />good planning. Requests the Council look at all the factors. <br />Sit down with two groups in the City, the large land owners <br />and residents in the northeast area; and, work out a plan <br />they all can live with. <br />Councilman Johnson - questioned if this plan is significantly <br />a-ifTerent than w at we have worked under in the past. IIe <br />does not see the changes being discussed. <br />Ed. Whittman - Does not feel Lake Elmo has to worry about <br />a 50,000 population. They have all this open land and no <br />one to propagate it. He feels this plan is creating a <br />hazard for land owners. How can a land owner dispose of <br />his property with all these restrictions on it? He feels <br />much of the property will end up land -locked and road costs <br />will make sale of the property prohibitive. He suggests <br />the minimum lot size should be 13 acre and he feels the <br />minimum restrictions should apply.throughout the City. <br />Lake Elmo could not be filled up with people in 50 years <br />These restrictions do not address the needs of older residents <br />who desire to sell their land. <br />Mr. Jim Barton - Metropolitan Council - Lake Elmo is not <br />uniq eueu as many communities are going through the same <br />planning questions. Planning is -now getting more realistic. <br />The Metropolitan Planning Act requires communities to plan <br />for only 10 years. The S!+stems Statement identified the <br />capacity reserved for Lake Elmo; and, planned for the Lake <br />Elmo sewer availability. The capacity is 6,000 units. The <br />3M capacity was also allocated and the City should plan <br />within these capacities. If the City needs additional <br />capacity, the regional agencies might need as much as six <br />years lead time. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.