1996 08-07 PC MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

GEM LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION DAVID K. GARDNER, CHM. 1399 E. COUNTY ROAD "E" GEM LAKE, MN 55110-5231 (612)429-9288 FAX 429-5034 AUGUST 7, 1996 TO: PAUL EMEOTT, PLANNING COMMISSION RE: MEETING WITH MET COUNCIL REPS RE COMP PLAN 8-6-96 PRESENT WERE DICK THOMPSON AND JIM UTTLEY OF THE MET COUNCIL, ROGER BROMANDER OF SEH, ROB HANSEN, AND ME. THE OVERALL COMMENTARY ON THE PLAN IS VERY POSITIVE. THEY FEEL THAT WE HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB OF UPDATING THE DOCUMENT, AND HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH OUR GOALS, ETC. THE PROCESS FROM HERE IS: 1) COMPLETE THE REVIEW BY THE TECHNICAL STAFF (TRANSPORTATION AND AVIATION), 2) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL, 3) CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AFTER PUBLIC HEARING, 4) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF MET COUNCIL APPROVAL IN SEMI-PUBLIC FORMAT (PUBLIC CAN MAKE LIMITED SPECIFIC COMMENTS, AND CITY MAY ALSO ANNOUNCE OBJECTIONS, IF ANY), 5) MET COUNCIL APPROVAL. THE PLAN IN DRAFT FORM SHOULD IMNE;DIATELY BE SENT TO NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES, WATERSHED DISTRICTS, ETC., FOR COMMENT AND OBJECTION. SINCE THE LAW ALLOWS THEM 6 MONTHS TO RESPOND, WE NEED TO ENCOURAGE THEIR IMMEDIATE POSITIVE RESPONSE TO THE MET COUNCIL. SEH HAS BEGUN THAT PROCESS TODAY. THE MC'S PRIMARY CONCERNS IN REVIEWING A COMP PLAN ARE THE IMPACT OF THE CITY'S PLANS ON REGIONAL SYSTEMS, THE CONSISTENCY OF THE CITY'S PLAN RELATIVE TO REGIONAL POLICIES, AND RELATIVE TO OUR NEIGHBORS' PLANS AND POLICIES. IN OTHER WORDS, ARE WE IN LINE? ATTACHED IS A TWO PAGE MEMO FROM UTTLEY DESCRIBING SOME MINOR ISSUES, AND ANOTHER TWO PAGES FROM THE HOUSING TECH STAFFER. THERE IS A REAL CONCERN THAT WE ARE NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT, AND IT WAS STRONGLY SUGGESTED THAT WE FORMALIZE SOME AGREEMENT(S) WITH A LARGER NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY TO SHARE/COOPERATE IN THE ACT. BOTH NORTH OAKS AND SUNFISH LAKE HAVE RESOLVED THE ISSUE, AND WE SHOULD INVESTIGATE THEIR SOLUTIONS. HANSEN STATED THAT REPS FROM THE MC HAD TWICE VISITED THE CITY COUNCIL TO TRY TO PERSUADE GEM LAKE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ACT, AND HAD "RECOMMENDED" THAT THE CITY DOWN -ZONE TO ACCOMODATE LOW-INCOME HOUSING AND GET IN LINE WITH OTHER MORE DENSELY DEVELOPED COMMUNITIES. I STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THOSE REMARKS AS A TOTAL FABRICATION AND HE CEASED. HE THEN RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO 60% GREEN SPACE IN LDB AND ASKED THE MC REPS IF THAT WAS NOT UNREASONABLE. THEY SAID THEY HAD NO OPINION AND THAT IT WAS NOT IN THEIR DOMAIN TO CRITIQUE LOCAL ZONING, SO HE ATTACKED BROMANDER AS THE PROTAGONIST. I