12-13-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 13, 1962 -7- 4. WASTE/ENERGY PLANT: ---Whittaker - Property owners will have to define many of the ( improvements and react to them from a review standpoint. --Eder - property owners want to meet with all Section 32 owners review the proposal and prepare some input. --Dave Johnson - what the property owners would like the Council to address is the issue of Section 32 - what do you see as use - is the commercial/industrial use desired by the property owners compatible with the City's thinking. Met with Bob Lockyear, he recommended looking at the Comp Plan and determine if the plan agrees with the property owners desired uses. When Lockyear reviewed the plan he was not sure that it. --fully provided for commercial/industrial uses. --Whittaker - Mixed Urban Uses permits commercial/industrial, but there will be more specific planning on the Comp Plan. --Novak - Comp Plan is very specific on what it says the City wants in the future. Have not pre -zoned anything - present use is Ag until someone comes in requesting a rezoning. This is how the entire City is planned - zoning is done as it is requested. This area is not zoned for this use, but this us- is;,,:ant c,ipated. --Dave Johnson - property owners want to hear, yes, the types of things being discussed are compatible with the Comp Plan or if they are not the City thinks they should be and the Comp Plan will be amended. --Whittaker - Council will review all propo:sedruses;:submitted by the property owners. --Rob Chelseth, City Planner - The Comp Plan, in the most general sense, addresses the kinds of uses that would be permitted. What needs to be done hext'''is to look at some of the natural built-in limitations that will affect this property such as sewer capacity, roads, cost and availability of water, etc. The City will have to review all these considerations and determine what is and is not realistic. The City can then develop a set of policies that will apply to this area and select the land uses. The City will not come with a specific plan and say this is what has to be done, rather prepare a list of options and things that will work. --Mottaz - in response to a question on who will pay for this - have to face the reality this plant will happen and will have tremendous impact on the City of Lake Elmo and surrounding communities. This will double or possibly triple the assessed valuation of the City - tremendous thing the Council has to deal with and continually be actively involved. When submitted request for $90,000 to the County for planning and".engineering costs that could be contributed directly to the plant, it was with the understanding that it was for all the work ;that -has to be done because of how the plant will impact.the area. This is all they can pay for. Regarding assessments- only- those- iimprov'ements= that: can be legitimately assessed to the plant property will be paid. Confirmed that Lake Elmo is now recog- nized and accepted as a viable force in this process by both Ramsey and Washington Counties. --Prince - would recommend that a detailed map of the area with wet- lands indicated be include& in the planning. --Bohrer - explained what TKDA suggested to the County regarding topo graphip photos Of the:[ section!,() M/S/P Lyall/Dreher supporting the City Council efforts in the development and planning of a Waste/Energy Plant in Section 32. Carried 9-0.