Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/1979 P&Z MinutesOctober 10, 1979 The special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:18 p.m. October 10, 1979 by Chairman Ken Gourley. Members present: Jerome Heath, Bob, Doocey, Vi Schwankl, and Lawrence Johnson. Members, absent: James Shearen, Vernon Reinert, and Council Iiaision John McLean. Also present were Mr. Short„ City Planner, and his assoc- iate, Kevin Locke; Mr. Got;wa I d, City Engineer; and Mayor ;Ka rth ., , Mr. Gourley indicated that thoroughfares, sewers and drainage would be. discussed, and there would also. be some information on the land use plan. The meeting was turned over to Mr. Short, for his presentation on thoroughfares. Mr. Short indicated the thoroughfare system was the first of three public facilities that would be covered according to the land Planning Act, the other two being parks and sewers. He had prepared map ,illustrations of the 1,974 Thoroughfare (transportation) Plan,, the Metro Systems Plan, ,which, was the system summarized in the systems, statement (1977), and the updated thoroughfare plan which he was proposing. He also had available for re- ference,the 1974 County; Thoroughfare Plan, and noted that the county was, going through the process of updating this. In, general, the term thorough- fare referred collectively to the hierarchy of roadway systems. ,Mr.; Gourley noted that Ordinance No. 56 referred to thoroughfares in relation to setbacks, and that this terminology would need to be redefined. Mr. Short indicated that in reviewing subdivisions, he had interpreted that to mean anything from a collector on up; however,.Mr.Gotwald's definition did not include collectors, but everything above that. Mr. Short was asked to make a note of the need to revise the language; in Ordinance No.56. Mr.- Short had a list available for P & Z,member entitled "Functional Classification System Criteria for Roadways," which had been adopted by Metro, and defined the road system terminology according. to several criteria. These were standard terms, as one of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan process was to have all communities using the same nomenclature on a number of different issues. One of the reasons .for so many changes be- tween plans was that the vocabulary had changed. Mr. Short reviewed the criteria and terminology in the table. There was a hierarchy of thoroughfares, starting with principal arterials, which would be the interstates like 35-W and 35-E, connecting subregions. The Metro area was broken down into a number of subregions which got smaller as they got closer to .the metro area. Lino lakes, for example, was in the same subregion as Marine -on -St. Croix. Access to pri;mcipal arterials was usually by another arterial through a grade change and interchange, which would be a clover leaf or diamond. Intermediate arterials, of which there were none classified in Lino Lakes, would be most state highways like 65 as it went through Blaine; a four -lane divided highway with access not quite as limited as in a principal arterial. These would accept traffic from other arterials, but not from local streets. There were minor arterials proposed for the city, such as Lake Drive, Highway 49 and Main Street, which connected adjacent subregions and active centers within subregions, but basically did not move traffic through the whole region. Access was from higher arterials as well as collectors, and in rural areas, local streets as well. Control would be by traffic signals and stops at cross streets. Collectors collect neighborhoods within the city, for example, Birch Street, which really began and ended within the city, Collectors were handled either with stops at intersecting streets, or four-way stops where necessary. Mr. Short noted that one of the criteria, spacing, should Page 2 Planning and Zoning Commission October 10, 1979 �? be extended for Lino Lakes to be meaningfulii,n view of the layout of the city. The two principal arterials or freeways, in addition to the good minor arterials, served the purpose of, or substituted for the lack of intermediate arterials. County roads were intended.to serve normally as collectors, and were on a one -mile grid. Another criteria, land access, referred to the type of land, immediately adjacent .to the thoroughfare; for example, land along,the free- way would not have access to it other than through the whole system of road- ways. This became meaningful when reviewing subdivisions, asin the case of areas adjacent .to collectors or minor arterials,; where driveways should not back right on to the thoroughfare for reasons of safety and :function .of the roadway. It was preferable that they back on to local streets, which in turn fed into the arterial or collector —Mr. Short indicated that local streets would not be covered in depth as .it was difficult to plan these on a city-wide. scale. Another criteria, right-of-ways, generally became larger as the capacity of the roadway increased. Mr. Gotwald noted that ; Anoka County;was asking developers to dedicate a full 150-ft right-of-way, , and that the ,City had realized that developers who platted were being forced to give the additional land, whereas his neighbor with meets and bounds was boi.ng compensated for that additional land when the county made an improvement. Mr. Gourley indicated that the Councilhad recently taken action to not require that width any more, but to ;require a 100-ft setback from centerline to insure that 'fire county could expand. Mr. Gotwald felt this kind of situation could be handled with slope easements or ditch ease- ments rather than the large right-of-way. Mayor Karth indicated that the county had also requested 150 feet on Elm Street; the county's rationale for this was discussed and generally felt to be insufficient. Mrs Short noted that Elm St. was not even designated a collector in the Metro System, although it was a minor arterial in the 1974 county plan. He noted the county would be updating their system to be consistent with Metro, and :. there were some adjustments that would have to be made between the city, county and region. He recommended that in the meantime Elm Street be classified as as collector. In answer to a question, Mr. Short indicated that the city and county plans would not necessarily have to agree, but hopefully would; otherwise they would have to be negotiated out. Metro's major concern was principal and intermediate arterials, although they had an interest in any conflict between communities and would try to resolve it. Mr. Gotwald indicated that the City would be concerned with county desig- nations in cases where there was a direct impact on the local street system, particularly where development occurred, and where the City would want to limit the amount of acreage the county took in right-of-ways,ie., off the tax rolls. Mayor Karth indicated that according to the County Attorney's Office, there was no state statute which gave the county the authori+ty to take the land without going through condemnation proceedings; yet in this case the city would be liable rather than the county because it was the city that was enforcing the demand. Mr. Short reviewed someof the revisions to the 1974 plan. One,of the big- gest changes was that Anoka County had proposed Main Street be a.principal arterial, and that an: interchange occur between Main Street and 35-W. That plan had since been dropped. Mr. Short recommended that Main Street be classified as a minor arterial, which also had implications as far as the collector service roads that had been proposed to serve the properties ad- jacent to Main, and which would no longer be needed. Mr. Heath notedthis had been intended to serve the airport, which was not going to be built. Mr. Gotwald indicated that Main would have been constructed to freeway standards, yet with access not quite as limited, such as Highway 61 and 65. Page 3 Planning and Zoning Commission October 10, 1979 He felt that there had apparently been some plan involving principal arterials through this area, because there had been the interchange pro- posed, the overpass on 80th, and an upgraded road,in Washington County similar to Birch Street with a dedicated wide right-of-way all the way to the St. Croix River; also, there was some right-of-way directly in line. with this on the Wisconsin side of the river. Mr. Short noted that the changes in terminology had affected the .classification ,of several roads in the 1974 plan, without changing ,their function. The plan had indicated intermediate arterials for County Rd J, Highway 49, Lake Drive, and the.. rest of Main Street; the current Metro System Plan showed Main St.,Lake Drive, and Highway 49 as minor arterials, and County Rd J as a.collector. In the 1974 plan, Birch Street, Holly and Centerville Road had been des- ignated minor arterials, and they were now designated collectors.. This again would be a change in terminology rather than .function. The 1974 plan showed the two existing interchanges, Lake and 35-W, and Main and 35-E, as well as the interchange at Main and 35-W and the full diamond at County Rd J and 35-E. It also showed the completion of the Zink from, Pine to Sunset which provide a collectorconnection up around the north- west corner; this had changed, and the•county proposal was now to have Sunset intersect with a future arterial in Columbus Township rather than connecting with Pine. In the Metro plan, Sunset was proposed as as a collector stopping at Main. Mr. Short next reviewed the Metro Thoroughfare System. The region thoroughfares were reviewed by a group called the Transportation advisory Board, which consisted of representatives from communities, counties and other municipalities within the region in addition to Metro Council staff, and made recommendations to Metro Council as to the; functional classification of thoroughfares. For Lino Lakes it showed a reduction of what was shown in 1974 on the thoroughfare plan, as well as i- the Anoka County plan; itshowed only two and a half interchanges, which were the existing ones built as a part of the interstate system. The situation.,in respect to improvements to the interstate system was that federal funding had fallen away, and any new improvement had to be funded mostly by the state; anything not already built as far as freeways, of not shown as part of the interstate system, would probably not get built. Therefore, the interchange at 80th, the one at Main and 35-W and the ex- pansion of the County Rd J diamond had been recommended to be dropped. Other changes basically downgraded roads in the city, such as inter- mediates to minors, and minors to collectors. The problem with limited freeway access for the east area was discussed, and Mr. Short felt that the alternatives, 20th Ave. and County Rd 54, would be sufficient. The, traffic on County Rd 54 was not a problem,it was fairly close to the inter- state, and its function would be similar to a sort of service road. He indicated that there were 21 criteria to be met if any interchanges other than the existlmg oneswere recommended ---and one of the thingsthat would have to be proved was that there was no logical alternative. He felt that, until 1990, either 20th Ave. or County Rd 54 would provide this alternative. Mr. Short next reviewed the proposed thoroughfare plan. He recommended that County 14 be changed from its 1974 designation to be consistant with the region and county plans. Also, County 14 from 35-W to 35-E was des- ignated as an intermediate.. arterial in the 1974 plan, and he recommended this be dropped to a minor arterial, serving the same function, but con- sistent with the Metro System, and also making the roadway consistent throughout its whole trip. Page 4 Planning and Zoning Commission October 10, 1979 Mr. Short indicated that the Anoka County Park people did not feel an inter- change at Main and 35-W was needed to serve the park; they felt that the ex- isting interchanges_woWld provide adequate service to.the relatively low- key activities planned for the park, and the expenditure would not be warr- anted -by the number of trips they expected. Mayor Karth felt that the golf course would not be a low-key activity, and that the traffic flow through the city to the park would be a major problem. -When the city had requested funds to upgrade West Shadow Lake Drive, they had indicated that this was only a temporary entrance to the golf course, and would be closed off when the main entrance went in. If the interchange was not put in, traffic .,C,'_; would come down lake Drive, and over on Main, which would make that an in- . termediate arterial because of the increased traffic flow.: There would also be traffic coming through Centerville from 35-E, and Highway 49 and Birch Street would also be affected by the increased traffic. If the interchange were put in,, it would only. be a mile and a half to the park, and traffic would not flow through the city. Mr. Short agreed that there would be: an increased traffic flow, but the city would have to decide if it would warrant the work on the criteria, when the county and region were not will- ing to spend the money on an interchange for thatrelative amount of traffic increase. In reference to traffic, the suggested amount for a minor arterial was 5,000 to 30,000 ,vehicles per day, or average daily trips. Mayor Karth indicated that counters had been put at the Lake Drive/Main Street inter- section last fall; the highest number of trips per day was about 6800 going west, and the lowest about 3800 going east. . However, he felt this would be nearly doubled now considering the Tom Thumb and other development. Mr. Locke felt that presently, with,the exception of the freeways, Lino Lakes had a minimal amount of traffic, which would:increase as the,park developed, and as development occurred., At present the idea was.to;identify theistreets that would be upgraded .in,the future) and it was not necessary to go into detail in estimating the.amount of traffic:that:would be occurring on any one of these roads now. Mr. Gotwald felt the Count''s;program was somewhat confusing, i especially in relat.i,on.to upgrading Birch`Street, which realy didn't go any- where, when nothing was scheduled for Main Street, which was.carrying a:lot more traffic. Mayor Karth indicated that there had never really been a suffic- ient reason given for this at the hearing. It was suggested that the work on Birch Streeticould be connected with park entrance plans,,which would.be a : block oritwo,north of the existing street,,just within Centerville boundaries. Mr. Gotwald felt that the topography and soils were poor for any road extension in there. The park plan map was consulted, and;it was noted that funding fora the beach and beach house was set for next year. Mr.:Short.felt that it.woUld also be hard to plan for anlinterchange to serve the park before the actual park plans as far as the,entrance,,etc., were known.; In summary, Mr. Short did not foresee the need for an interchange based on number of trips, safety, orin connection with the park,:other than for convenience, in view of the amount of effort the city would have.to go through in order to get.it built. ..Also, park traffic would be seasonal, which would make it:hard to justify.,,He. suggested that this interchange,the one at 80th, and the full diamond at,County Rd J be proposed as long range. Mr. Gotwald felt that in view of a similar, situation,he had experience with,.there would be no chance of getting an inter- change there at this point, and agreed with showing it as a future: interchange. Mr.:Short was;requested.to,change the wording,to "possible future interchange". - Mr. Gotwald suggested the possibility of serving the park with a service road off, the existing interchange as an alternative short of another interchange; this would be cheaper, and also serve the purpose of getting traffic,to the Page 5 Planning and Zoning Commission October 10, 1979 park without running it through the city. Mr. Short indicated that Main Street east of the freeway was. proposed as a collector in the Metro System plan; in other words, it would be a minor arterial until: it reached the interchange, at which point it was downgraded to a collector. Mr.. Short had contacted Anoka County on this, and they had indicated they would Ii:ke to see it as a minor, arterial. He recommended this change from collector to minor arterial on Main St. east of 35-E be made. In reference to the interchange on 80th Ave., Mr. Shortfelt that the mobility to the east was good, but that the mobility to the west, was fairly res- tricted unless something happened between Main Street and 80th Ave., although this was: impractical due to the topography.. Mr.. Gotwald felt that the possibi+ I i t i es for an interchange .here were much better, as there. would be a .fairly sub- stantial growth pattern along both sides of the freeway, and also to the east. Mr. Short noted that, if the cityshowed more than a possible future interchange here, it would conflict with the land use plan, which showed the area as agricultural with a one unit per ten acres density. Mayor Karth felt that it was important for the city to keepthe options open by indicating these.in the plan as possible future interchanges. There was some further discussion on Birch Street .and its function, and Mr. Gotwald noted that County Rd J cut across Ramsey. and Anoka Counties, whereas Birch Street was contained within the city. The Metro. plan had designated County Rd J as a collector, and Anoka County Classified it. as a minor arterial. :Mayor Karth noted that Shoreview had been trying to coordinate a meeting with Lino Lakes in reference to .improvements to County Rd J because of the increased development in the area --a large plat of single family residences, as well as the existing.residential development/. Mr. Gotwald noted that there were additional units --townhouses, fourplexes, and single family residential --in the process of being platted for the area as well, and that the truck terminals should also be considered; thus, County Rd J would become well -traveled in both directions, and it would be logical to designate it as a minor arterial. It also had links to Otter Lake Road, County Rd 54,, 20th Ave., which had been upgraded to county state aid standards, and several others. It was noted,that 80th and 20th Ave were both in very good shape, and there was perhaps some plan.involving these. Mr. Short indicated that Lake Drive was proposed as a minor arterial in the Metro plan and the regional plan.. It had beendesignated an intermediate arterial in the 1974 plan, and due to terminology changes, he recommended it be revised to a minor arterial. Lilac Drive and Highway 49 were shown as collectors in the 1974 plan, and although they were not in the Metro plan as �. such, Mr. Short recommended they be designated collectors based on the current and proposed development in the area, as well as the type of development -- industrial, commercial and single family. Mr. Gotwald indicated that as of the 1980 census, the city would reach the 5,000 population mark, and be el- gible for the state aid system. Certain streets would qualify for state aid construction funds, the criteria being that they go from one major point,of interest to another,or one county state aid road to another. Fourth Ave from Lilac, which was a county road, over to Main Street, which was a minor arterial, would qualify, as well as Holly. Under the formula the city would probably be eligible for 4 or 5 miles of county state aid designations. For example, Little Canada had 32-4 miles, for which they annually received $1,500 a mile for maintenance plus about $65,000 a year in construction funds, which could be accumulated. A road could be bonded, and then as the state aid money be- came available, the bond could be paid off. Mayor Karth suggested that County Rd 54 east of 20th over to the freeway be shown as a collector in the plan. 67 Page 6 Planning and Zoning Commission October 10, 1979 It was shown on the county plan as a local street and although Metro and the 1974 plan had not shown it as a collector, it would fall within the rural resi- dential area, and would function as a collector. Mr. Heath felt that Bald Eagle Blvd. would also primarily serve as a collector, and Mr. Short noted that White Bear township was upgrading this from a local street, as shown on the Metro plan, to a collector. He had overlooked it because it represented'such a small area, as well as County Rd 54, but felt they would be' logical to add, along with Elmcrest as well.' Mr. Short indicated he would review these to see if they are viable as collectors, and if not, will show them as proposed collectors. The 1974 plan had shown an existing category and a proposed cat- egory, and perhaps the updated thoroughfare plan could do this as well with the proposed interchanges and proposed collectors. Birch' Street, Holly, and Centerville Road were listed as minor arterials in the 1974 plan,'and as collectors in the Metro plan; Mr. Short 'recommended these be collector status, again reflecting the change in terminology rather than function. County Rd J was shown as a collector in the Metro plan, and in view'of the considerations previously discussed, Mr. Short recommended it be upgraded to a minor arterial. Elm Street was not shown as anything other than a local street except in the 1974'county plan, which showed it as a minor arterial. Mr. Short recommended this be classified as a collector. Mr. Short will refine the update on the thoroughfare plan and add some descriptions and so forth, and have it reduced' to a handout for the next meeting. A two minute recess was taken, after which Mr. Gotwald reviewed the wetlands map he had prepared, copies of which were available for each member. The map showed the major wetlands, basically identified by water and cattails. These had been taken from the USGS map and verified and modified by field trips. Mr.Gotwald had been careful to show only the actual wetlands, as in some cases the areas shown on the USGS map were not wetlands, but low flat plains which,, although within a foot or two of ground water, could be altered by a developer. Average elevations had been shown, with anything below that elevation designated wetland therefore not developable. The existing ponding areas were shown, and as a. -result of development, there were 25 to 30 ponds, representing about 40 acres of land. Two additional things not on the map yet would be shown. The boundary of Anoka County Open Space would be indicated, and no wetlands or elevations .:iT within that would be shown. In addition, each pond on the map would show a bottom elevation and a high water elevation. All additional ponds as a result of development would be added as well. All county ditches and drainage ditches would also be shown as a dashed line. Mr. Gotwald read a suggested statement he had prepared to accompany the map, which was required as a part of the Compre- hensive Plan process. Mr. Short indicated that the restrictive soils map would also fit into the statement. As a result of a question on botton elevations, Mr. Gotwald indicated that Rice Creek Watershed by state law controlled the fact that every time a piece of land was developed or platted, that it provided some ponding. Under their criteria, ponding would have to provide the difference between the existing runoff, that is, in its natural state, and runoff after it was developed. This amount of water had to be ponded, or held back for a period of 24 hours based on a 100-year storm (2 ft in 24 hours). These ponds then , become the responsibility of the local community to maintain. In response to a question from Mr. Heath on centralized ponding, Mr. Gotwald indicated it would be no real problem in the southern area because the ponds were overflowing into the larger wetland areas, which were a part of the county ditch system; however, the situation in the northwest area posed more of. a problem. Eventually a piece of marginal land would have to be set aside there to provide contralized ponding. Page 7 Planning and Zoning Commission October 10. 1979 This would be a large effort unlesssometime in 'the future Rice Creek Water- shed undertook a local drainage study. Mr.'Gotwald noted that Rice Creek Watershed's criteria Were workable fora large development, but impratical for anything smaller, such as a local grocery store, a few lots, and so forth. He felt that although'the large amount Of wetlands within the city could be considered a detriment, it becarne4an asset when dealing with drainage be- cause there was no problem with finding areas to drain to. The large majority were already connected'by'existing ditches, which finally drained into the lake system. The area south of Equity Estate's, the old'dry lake' bed, could become a holding pond for everything from County Road J to just north of Birch Street, and possibly from Centerville Road over to Ware'Road. The water had to be held'and not run off -directly in the lakes' to protect downstream communities. In answer to a question on whether the county'maintained these ditches, Mr. Gotwald in- dicated that they had been put An by the' county on an assessment basis, but the law had made provision that at no time would the maintenance costs exceed the original cost of the ditch'. At present,'in order to'make an improvement, it would probably be the town Council who would have to hold hearings and have the cost assessed back to the benefiting' property owners. There was some dis- cussion as to Brian Dobie's problem with County Ditch No. 22, which was under Rice Creek Watershed's jurisdiction;and the situation with the ditches at the airpa rk,'where 42-inch concrete pipe was'eventually put in. Mr. Short noted that Rice Creek Watershed did have some influence then, other than'the county, in the administration of improvements, although the issue .;was still somewhat confused. Mr. Gotwald indicated that their concern was with any waterway or drainage, and in Brian Dobie's case, the issue had become somewhat complicated, which he further explained. He noted that county ditches were in need of maintenance because of erosion, trees and brush clogging them. Also, the sod farms had been moving those ditches around, and there was a lot of water -involved although their system was very clean; part of the problem lay with the south end of the city and the older ditches there. Mr. Short asked if this was something that the city would have to address as far as the capital improvements plan. Mayor Karth noted that in seven years the city would own those 40 acres of ponds, plus any additional ones as development occured, which represented a. lot of loss in acreage for the city. Mr. Gotwald indicated that forrthis reason he had included only actual wetlands on the map, and had left out those areas that were marginal and could possible be buildable with alteration by a developer. The elevations on the lakes all ran within a foot or two of each other--879 to 880--and fairly well established where the ground water was. The function of the ponding study at this point was to map out and preserve the wetlands; at some time in the future, the city would have to do a detailed ponding study for the areas where most of the development was taking place. Mr. Johnson brought up the point that ultimately the ponds could cost the city more in maintenance than the initial cost of the study; Mayor Karth also felt the study was vital, pointing out a problem with fencing. that had already occurred.Mr. Gotwald suggested this study be added as part of the implementation phase. He also indicated the city would be dealing with the'zoning of wetlands, which would either be zoned'as conservation land, or as Mr. Short suggested,drainage retention area. He pointed out that this zon•img could have legal implications, as it would have a direct impact on the owner of ' the land, who was paying taxes on it and perhaps considering filling and develop- ing on it. There would also be an impact on assessments as these areas, sometimes a quarter or half mile long, could not be assessed for improvements. Mr. Short noted there was some opportunity whereby the developable rights could be trans- ferred to other developable land;.in other words, credit for the number of units that could have been developed on wetland acreage, so there was some flexibility. 69 Page 8 Planning and Zoning Commission October 10, 1979 Mayor Karth indicated that the city should be careful when insisting on one acre of dry land, as the ordinance only specified one acre,,dry or not. Mr. Short re- ferred to the implementation paragraph of the Comprehensive Plan, to the effect that the city would have to adopt a wetlands ordinance for the purpose of add- ressing the drainage problem. There was some discussion about an area off old Highway 8 near the Woodshed, where part of the shoreline was being filled in, which Mr. Gotwald noted was against the state of Minnesota Lakeshore Development Ordinance; however, Mr.Gourley thought they had permits for this. Mr. Gotwald indicated that the city would have to include a section on mining operations as part of the wetlands ordinance when that was adopted. Mr. Gourley asked that a note be made of this, and they indicated that they would obtain a typical wet- lands ordinance as a model. Mr. Johnson asked if this fell under the Shoreline Management Act, and Mr. Short indicated it would be in addition to that. Mr. Gotwald's wetlands map was approved, and Mr. Gotwald will give his two statements, one in reference to the map and the other on implementation; to Mr. Shortito review. He'read the implementation statement and briefly discussed it. The map was complete with the exception of the county park boundaries and the design elevations of the ponds. Mr. Short indicated that only one comprehensive plan so far had been approved by Metro out of 189 total, as well as school dis- tricts. Mr. Gotwald said he had seen a few, and Lino Lake's was as detailed as any. Mr Short indicated that Metro had published a list of criteria that they would be looking for, which he read; Mr. Gotwald felt the wetlands map was ad- quate. Mayor Karth noted that Metro Council had sent a letter incicating that the interim sewer plan had been approved, and it had been sent on to Metro Waste Control. This released about 300 connections east of Highway 49, in Urban Sewer District 1. Mr. Gotwald had maps available of the urban sewer districts, which showed no change from the previous one which had been agreed upon. The interim plan had shown the actual number of connections expected in the two service districts, and although it was not a part of the comprehensive plan, it was part of the re- quirement. Mr: Gotwald read the paragraph he had prepared to accompany the map, which briefly explained the two urban service districts, and copies of this were available for each member. Mr. Gotwald had a second map, the Sewer Service Schedule, to pass out, which was next discussed. He indicated bids had been taken on the improvement, and the Council had ordered the sale of bids for the,area remaining in Lakes Addition on the east side of Reshanau Lake, which was in the 1979-1980 schedule. Baldwin Lake Mobile Home Park had notified him that they intended to start their improvement next year, so this would be actual fact as well. For 1981-1982, there was a possibility that Shenendoah 11 would be developed, and there was also some activity both commercial and otherwise in the strip directly across from Rehbein. For 1983-1985, the Lakeview area and the state Correctional institute were scheduled, but the area in-between was slated for 1985-1900. Mr. Gotwald explained that the area further up, the Correctional Institute, would take care of their own problem with no one else tied into it if Lakeview didn-'t want sewers. There had been a public hearing, and he felt the issue was about �v even, considering those who did't show up as being not opposed. The main trunk line under the gravity system would have pipes designed to service all the way up to thenorthern boundary. If this followed the ridge along old Highway 8, it would have to be about 30 feet deep which would be extremely expensive, so it was better to go up 2nd. Elm, and 4th. ' Page 9 Planning and Zoning Commission October 10, 1979 This could always be changed when the,time came, but from the standpoint of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan, it would have to be shown the way it should be done. To serve the area now, the lift station would.be located in the vicinity of old Highway 8 and 2nd. Ave., and everythng from the northwest section would flow,over the hill and down to the capacity by Centennial school. Twenty-five years from now or whenever. Metro decided to build the interceptor, it would probably follow the east edge of Highway 8 along the lakeshore and eliminate the lift station. It was generally felt that it was more important to have, the commercial area sewered first rather than the residential development. Mr. Gotwald felt there was not that much commercial activity,presently,and the zone was only 300 feet deep; however, Mayor,Karth felt that sewer was,vital,-. to future commercial development and should be put in the 1983-85.time slot. Mr. Gotwald indicated that if the city waited for a petition, the time frame would be 1985-1990, but if the city wanted to take the initiative and: put the entire area from the Correctional Institute down in one program, it would not be too,.popular, but would save a lot of money. He will show this entire area as requested for 1983-85, keeping Hodgeson Road,and Highway 49 for 1985- 1990, although he felt the connections were there whenever development took, place.In all probability, the do districts would be developed by 1985. Mayor Karth later suggested this area. be listed for as early as possible, as Metro planned on the basis of the time slots indicated. Mr. Gourley questioned the timing for the Lakeview -Lexington area,which.he doubted would go with the sewer by 1985. However Mayor Karth indicated that plans for Urban .Service District 11 should be made for the immediate future, or the city would lose the capacity. Mr. Gotwald noted the plan did not commit the city to a connection schedule, and Mayor Karth felt it would be better to run over the time frame rather than to lose the capacity. Mr. Gotwald also felt that Metro had some concern over the Lakeview area, as it was the oldest residential development in the city and was pinpointed as a;potential on -site sewer system trouble spot; if it was not shown in the near future, Metro would question it, which could perhaps create a problem. In review, Mr. Gotwald indicated the sewer plan would include the actual location of the various sewer lines, sizes and directions of flow, and a report based on total capacity and so on would accompany that. The sewer lines had been designed and public hearings held, and now all that had to be done was check to see if they were all large enough to take any future flow. This had been a part of the earlier very complete report made some years ago, although the zoning and development patterns had changed, with densities de- creased from 10 to 22 units per acre, and the Anoka County Open Space had come in. Presently the plan was about 70 percent complete, and when it was finished, Mr. Gotwald would submit it to Mr. Short for inclusion in the comprehensive Plan. Mr. Short indicated they would need to get a list of the current Metro requirements, as this had been updated and changed. Mr. Short.had handouts on the land use plan, along with some suggested policies and descriptions of each of the land use categories. He suggested the members review these for disscussion at the end of the next special meeting. Something to review would be enlarging the boundaries of the areas adjacent to the urban service districts (urban expansion) in view of the fact that the Comprehensive Sewer Plan was designed eventually to take care of the capacity of Urban Service District 11 as well as extension up to the north city line; if so, there would have to be controls extended outside of the lines shown, for resubdivision of one acre lots. Mr. Gourley indicated he thought the resubdivision controls would apply to the whole city. However, Mr. Short felt that some areas like the 71 Page 10 Planning and Zoning Commission October 10, 1979 southeast corner would probably never get sewers at all, so the boundaries of the controlled areas would have, to be decided on accordingly; in other words, those areas of the city where it was feasible to extend sewer service. Mr. Short will also talk this over with Mr. Gotwald. He indicated there were a number of ways this control could be,effected, and that some communities were doing it, now. It was noted that Sunset Oaks.,had been:platted that way, with a one -acre plat, and 8 11,250 sq. ft. overlay;.the deeds were going to be restricted. to allow for this,, but there was some question,as to whether; this had actually been done. Mr. Gourley noted that the next regular meeting was October 17, and requested that members; arrive early, as Ati was along agenda. October 24, was thenext special meeting, at which time the park plan would be addressed. The Clerk is requested to mail.all P.& Zmembers copies of the.Fiver-Year Park Plan and , that,.the Park. Board liaison be contacted and requested to attend the October 24 meeting. Mr. Short was asked if he could have some material available on the housing implementation plan for that meeting; he indicated that if there . was extra time; he would like to work on the land use plan. Vi Schwankl moved, to adjourn at 11:30 p.m. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All were. -in favor. Motion declared passed.