Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL JOINT MEETING, OCTOBER 12, 1981 -5- <br />2. Comg 'Plan Status <br />67771111 notify the Council of where the sewer will go <br />into the system and flow quantities, He also emphasized that <br />Lake Elmo's plan was in on time and delaysstemmed from communication <br />gaps with the Met Council,, <br />-=Chelseth asked Vic Ward. and Bob Mazanec if there was anything <br />else they would anticipate that would hold up the final completion <br />of the review. <br />--Vic Ward explained the review process. Big debate has been <br />with population projections and by not_aliocating the population <br />to Section 32, where the sewer projection is „ indii ates na.vse for <br />the sewer. Logic of the review. <br />In terms of reviewing the rest of the plan the concept behind the <br />Lake Elmo plan is completely different from what the Met Council <br />envisioned based on the forecast, Their forecast assumed 10,000 <br />15,000 employment by 3M located within the City and assumed, <br />based on meetings with representatives of the Lake Elmo Council <br />in 1967, that the whole western side of the City would be inside <br />the MUSA. When this happens the City is forecast much higher <br />this is what they did, Now have to find some way of reconciling <br />a plan that began assuming high density (e.g. Oakdale on the west <br />side). This caused much confusion, Read the plan - from his (Ward's) <br />viewpoint thinks the plan tried accomodating growth that won't be <br />there. All of the assumptions that went into the forecast for <br />this City are wrong, <br />--Eder - Wants to clarify where most of those forecasts have come <br />from over the years. They have not come from the City of Lake <br />Elmo, Been involved with the City since 1961 and most of the <br />data has come out of other agencies .numbers never came from:.,,Lake <br />Elmo: <br />--Ward - Explained how the Council takes a region and tries to <br />determine how to best serve the kind of development they see. <br />This>; requires they distribute spatially in the region they think <br />development will occur. In 1977 met with three representatives <br />from the City who indicated they felt they were short becauve <br />of 3M locating in the City -- this has changed. Because of this <br />forecast tremendous amount of confusion has been caused - all <br />of the issues related to this confusion come up when the plan is <br />reviewed compared to the development framework. There will be many <br />things in the plan that are inconsistent with the development frame <br />work, such as the 1 1/2 acre zoning, Addressed Whittaker's concern <br />about whether or not Ag preserves could be done on the land. As <br />he understands it, even if it was inconsistent with the development <br />framework, as long as the requirements of the Ag Preserve Act were <br />met anybody.who met these requirements from the City's viewpoint <br />wouldautomatically meet them, Inconsistencies comes up with funding <br />for a project where the Met Council would be bringing Federal money <br />in. Will- be about 1 1/2 months after the plan is taken off <br />suspension that a copy of the preliminary review will be ready. <br />T-Mottaz - What did you mean about the 1 1/2 acre zoning? <br />;Ward - The forecast for a City like this were based on the <br />idea that the current existing land would be taken with.very <br />minor infilling and put the rest of the growth in a high density <br />area - 4 households per acre with sewer. 1 1/2 acre zoning is <br />inconsistent with the general classification this area has. <br />Where the City has proposed breaking the areas there is alot of <br />land that -is not considered infilling. The Met Council interprets <br />infilling as fill in vacant lots within a subdivision when its 85% <br />complete, <br />