10-12-81 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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