02-21-91 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AIRPORTS (Case) The Lake Elmo amendment appears to cover the main points dealing with land use compatibility between the community and the Lake Elmo airport. This is accomplished through control of future land uses in the airport runway approaches by recognizing the land use safety zones of MnDOT Aeronautics, and density controls on development outside the MUSA. However, the Aviation text on page 34 of the Plan does not indicate if the runway safety zoning and airspace hazard zoning over the entire community is covered under a joint MAC/Community zoning board. If the joint board is operative, it should be referenced in the system text, goals and policies, and implementation section. These matters were likely addressed in the original comprehensive plan, but should be repeated in the revised plan to ensure the control of airspace obstructions, public airport investments and safety of both aircraft operations and persons on the ground. In the event that a joint zoning board has not been established or an airport zoning ordinance implemented, all effort on the part of the Community and the MAC should be undertaken to put both into effect. This is especially important in 1991 since the Lake Elmo airport comprehensive plan is being prepared by MAC and any changes taken into account. PARKS (Stefferud) The Lake Ehno Comprehensive Plan properly identifies the regional park reserve. The plan, however, states on page 39: "Washington County has proposed to the Metropolitan Council that a landfill occupy 300 acres on the western border within the park [Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve]. The city of Lake Elmo continues to oppose this landfill." While the Council does not suggest that any part of the regional park reserve be automatically converted to any other use, the city should be aware that state law regarding the siting of solid waste facilities precludes exempting any land from the search areas for sites for solid waste facilities. The Council also has responsibilities for siting or providing for a number of regional services. For these reasons, the Parks and Open Space Plan contains a policy allowing for park land conversion when a higher public interest is served. The Council would take into consideration Lake Elmo's views and views of any other interested parties before making a determination about whether to convert some parkland to another use; however, the final determination is to be made by the Council. Policy 21: The conversion of regional recreation open space areas to other uses shall be allowed only when it is in the public interest and no alternative exists. Such a conversion shall be allowed only upon joint agreement under terms developed jointly by the implementing agency and the Metropolitan Council. Application of policy 21 directs the Council to consider whether there is an alternative site for the landfill outside Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve. If no such alternative exists, then the Council and Washington County (the park implementing agency in this case) would have to jointly develop and agree on terms for converting part of the park reserve to a landfill. Such terms would need to address protecting the rest of the park reserve and its visitors from any potential negative impacts of the landfill. Once those terms were developed and agreed upon, the Council