Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 5, 1983 -6- <br />6. HUTCHINSON REZONING: <br />Audience Comments: <br />- Fraser noted that several neighbors were in the audience <br />and asked if they had any comments. <br />- Jerry Panning, Division Manager-C&NW - addressed the noise <br />question - there will be no more noise than that generated <br />by a train going through town. Not a switching operation - <br />noise will not be a breaking or coupling of cars. Cars <br />will be pushed onto the spur track. <br />- Leona Jacobson, Stillwater Boulevard - home is directly north <br />of the facility. Going to be affected by the noise and the <br />trains - against the facility. <br />- Morgan - questioned problems with traffic going west on Co 5 <br />from Manning.headiug west to 694. <br />- Railroad Rep - do not anticipate any problems - anticipate <br />majority of the traffic going or coming north and south <br />from I-94. Truck traffic is projected at 5/hr out of the <br />facility. Sightlines on Manning good. <br />- Frank Jenko, C&NW Market Manager - in response to Councillor <br />Morgan's question, Mr. Jenko explained the contracting <br />operation within the facility. Approximately 5500 cars will <br />be parked in the facility. Lighting requirements of the <br />will also be worked out. <br />- Dunn - asked the railroads response to the County''s March 3 <br />letter. <br />- Richard Ostlund - none of the suggestions or concerns in this <br />letter cannot be worked out. Roger Knutson indicated that <br />he did not see a problem in meeting County requirements or <br />suggestions concerning the turn lanes or crossing. <br />- Roger Jocobson, Stillwater Boulevard north of the facility - <br />Where will the on -site holding pond be located. <br />- Richard Osterlund - indicated an area next to the tracks <br />also a possibility of acquiring additional property south <br />of the tracks, if necessary, or acquiring property from <br />Mr. Hutchinson for a minor ponding site to the north of <br />the tracks. Capable of arranging enough property either <br />on -site or immediately adjacent to meet VBWD requirements. <br />Explained negotiation situation with GM. _Requesting the <br />conditional rezoning because of the internal engineering study <br />being done to meet the requirements of VBWD and the City. If <br />property cannot be rezoned will have to assess rights or seek <br />a different facility or different community. This is not a <br />viable or feasible alternative - GM has viewed this-ste.and <br />determined it is a very favorable location which meets their <br />needs. , <br />- Dunn - confirmed that the railroad will absorb whatever <br />costs the County deems necessary in improvements for this <br />facility. <br />- Richard Ostlund - do not anticipate any problems in working <br />out such details with the County. <br />- Mayor Eder - directed to the City Attorney - can the City <br />restrict the rights of an individual to develop this property <br />solely on the agricultural use agrument. What would make this <br />argument valid. <br />