Laserfiche WebLink
<br />development to occur. It presents issues for preserving trees and other natural amenities on the <br />site in order to get roadway in. There is a balance that goes with that and he is not opposed to <br />looking at that. He requested staffs thoughts on why 1 in 10 is the right answer. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler explained infrastructure, long range planning and the Metropolitan <br />Council recommendation are the reasons this recommendation has been brought forward. If the <br />Planning Commission is interested in something else staff needs to hear that as well. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt questioned how the Metropolitan Council's support of the 4 in 40 is balanced <br />against their mandate for increased density in Lake Elmo. He stated this is not consistent. <br />Looking ahead to 2008 and the summer of 2007 there needs to be a decision to get aggressive <br />about the planning. They should have ideas on what will be suggested for this area. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler explained the intent is to go to 4 in 40 until they can get into the <br />Comprehensive Plan process and talk about the vision for the rural part of the City. They are <br />hearing tonight there are different needs for different portions of the rural area, and a one size fits <br />all solution is not working, whether it is 4 in 40 or cluster. Different options will be looked at, <br />but there is a need to get into the Comprehensive Plan process with public involvement and hear <br />from the City Council. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt observed staff has done a good job of pointing out the issues. He noted <br />Council has discussed options and concerns have been expressed regarding going back to 2 ~ <br />acre lots. He requested information regarding what those concerns are. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler replied concerns have been expressed regarding infrastructure and that <br />by allowing 2 ~ acre development they will be limiting options for future development. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt questioned how the infrastructure issues will be addressed between now and <br />2008 when the Comprehensive Plan would come into play. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler replied 2 ~ acre development may come back as part of the 2008 <br />Comprehensive Plan. The residents will be part of the Comprehensive Plan process. Her <br />understanding of the Council's direction is to go to 4 in 40 to take a more complete look at the <br />rural area. There will be more public input and larger property owners will be provided with <br />certainty for what they can do with their property in the future. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated the problem he has with 40 in 40/1 in 10 is that it just defers the reality <br />that the City has to deal with infrastructure issues. He does not think they will solve those <br />problems between now and the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. To say they will defer until 2008 is <br />not addressing the reality they have as a City, and it is inconsistent with what he sees that the <br />City's obligations are. <br /> <br />Commissioner VanScoy observed it sounds like the direction was given to go back to 4 in 40/1 <br />in 10, basically to put a moratorium on development of these smaller lots, and the concept is that <br />there is an issue with 2 ~ acre lots. He assumes a good portion of the concern regarding 2 ~ acre <br />lots relates to what they tried to fix with the cluster ordinance with the difficulty for future <br /> <br />Planning Commission/January 4,2007 <br />Page 25 of 35 <br />