03-02-93 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

c_( `?13 1`\ems OAKDALE IS AN ACTIVE SYMPATHISER OF LAKE ELMO? • The proposed agreement covered detachment and annexation of Section 32 land to Oakdale with reimbursement of 35% of sewer availability charges and 50% of park dedication fees to Lake Elmo. Estimated worth is unknown. • Annexation of Bishop property in Lake Elmo, previously the subject of a cluster development outlot agreement, was proposed to Mr. Bishop by Oakdale. • The annexation of the Bishop property failed on a 3/2 vote in Oakdale Council. Mr. Bearth voted for the annexation. • Oakdale supplied water to Lake Elmo properties that had water supplies contaminated from the Washington/Ramsey County landfill No 1. The contamination was a Washington/Ramsey County problem to be resolved by them. Mr. Bearth resisted, and voted against this project at council level. • The proposed Lake Elmo extension of the MUSA along the I-94 corridor was actively resisted by Oakdale, in spite of Oakdale having "enough" sewer capacity for its own needs. • Oakdale actively pursues development. Lake Elmo prefers to manage development to maintain a rural ambience. Oakdale developments utilize wetland mitigation to the full. Surface water run off is approved by their surface water management plan. Development is allowed to continue in spite of construction problems associated with downstream percolation ponds, as in Olsen Lake Estates. In this case, potential flooding is expected to be mitigated by discharge into Olsen Lake, located in Lake Elmo. • Lake Elmo Council recently agreed to an upgrade of CSAH 10 to a ;our lane divided highway to avoid unnecessary dual disturbance of a lake and associated wetland area. These areas are located in Lake Elmo, but the new roadway will relieve a major communication concern of Oakdale's. • Lake Elmo Council supported Oakdale in its Hadley/Hwy 36 traffic light controversy with MinDoT and opposed blocking off the cross over to divert traffic through residential neighborhoods.