HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 27, 2009 (a) CITY OF
LAKE
j ELMO
City of Lake Elmo 651/777-5510
3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, MN 55042
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, Interim City Administrator
DATE: May 27,2009
SUBJECT: Comments from Councilmembers regarding Further Updates of the Comp Plan
Last week,the City Council reviewed the staff memorandum regarding the process for amending the
Comprehensive Plan after submitting the required updates for five elements in the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The Council decided to have a special Council meeting this evening to begin
its discussion about proceeding with further amendments to the Plan, particularly relating to the Land
Use element. The Council decided that it should forward topics, questions, or comments regarding
this element to me, so that they could be compiled for Council's review and consideration. The
comments emailed to me as of this afternoon as they relate to Land Use updates are attached.
In summary,the issues are:
0 It will be important to work with Met Council on changes to the sewer REC schedule, and
everyone's time will be better spent once this is known.
• The Comp Plan calls for 8,727 housing units, but there are a variety of requirements in the
City Code that could prevent us from meeting that number. Such information should be
identified before discussing the Land Use element.
• The present land use map does not show the 320 acres required for the business park along I-
94 between Manning and Lake Elmo Avenue. [Staff note: It currently shows—280 acres.]
• In the Village area,the number of housing units in the current plan, or thought to have been
intended in the current plan, is not clearly understood and needs to be clarified.
• In the Village area,the total number of RECs, not just those from housing units, needs to be
considered.
• Is it necessary to consider the Village area and the I-94 corridor separately and phase their
j implementation separately?
0 Consider, if possible, adding a policy statement that new development must pay for [all?] of
the infrastructure up-front.
0 Timing of development and penalties related to not achieving the timetable for required
number of RECs needs to be addressed.
• Consider a three-year delay to the timetable for achieving required number of RECs and
remove allocation of residential and non-residential hookups.
• Consider policy in Comp Plan to pursue permeable pavement for City streets and facilities.
IQ printed on recycled poper
Craig Dawson
From: Dean Johnston [mailto:dandkjohnston@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:14 PM
To: Craig Dawson
Cc: Kyle Klatt
Subject: Discussions on Comprehensive Plan
Craig
Here is the information I believe is necessary for us to start discussions on modifications to the
Comprehensive Plan:
1. Changing implementation schedule due to economic conditions
Staff should meet with Met Council to discuss the issue. We could waste a lot of time if
we don't have some idea of what the Met Council sees as an appropriate process. It is
my understanding that you have a meeting scheduled for early in June. Perhaps they
could simply send us a letter suspending the development schedule for two years at
which time Lake Elmo would provide a revised schedule in a revised Comp Plan
amendment.
2. Changes in the Land Use Plan section
The Met Council has only a few major requirements for our Cornp Plan; they are total
REC units, population, housing units (calculated from population), and REC units for
jobs. In order to ensure that we achieve the 3727 housing unit requirement we looked
at how many housing units would be contributed by each acre in Lake Elmo. We have
a variety of requirements in our code which could prevent us from meeting the 8727
units depending on how the calculations were made. For example, we do not allow
parcels under 40 acres to be approved for OP development. We have restrictions on
subdividing large lots. We have land which has been placed in Conservation
Easements which is no longer available for development. Discussing the Land Use
Plan without having this information could be a complete waste of time.
3. Land planned for jobs
Calculations for land being planned for jobs requires 320 acres for the business park on
1-94 between Manning and Lake Elmo Avenue. The present land use map does not
show 320 acres for this use.
Items 1 and 2 are really pre-requisites for any discussion including discussion of Item 3. Scheduling
a workshop before information described in Items 1 and 2 is premature. I would like to see the
workshop postponed until we have the information requested in Items 1 and 2.
Dean Johnston
651-777-4444
1
Craig Dawson
From: Brett Emmons [mai Ito:bemmons@eorinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:53 AM
To: Craig Dawson
Cc: Kyle Klatt; Brett Emmons
Subject: May Workshop - Comp. Plan
The issues I would like to discuss/address in this update include:
1. Village area-Clarify what does the current text mean for#of residential units—450 or 600 (with bonus) units
or other interpretation of 900+ units? I have heard that is says 450 units unless development is clustered,
then 600 units is allowed. But I have also heard that there is another interpretation of this that says since we
had the existing units wrong and also stated a total of over 1,000 units, the thought is that we must"absorb"
the error with new units, so we need to have 900+ units to be consistent with the Comp. Plan. I would like
more background on where that 900+ units came from and why that would be the number vs. the lower
numbers (450/600), if those lower numbers are indeed stated in the Plan.
2. Village densities/units(discussion only)— I would like to better understand the total units/REGs when all
development types are included, not just residential. This is informational for me& I do not think a change
would be needed (pending understanding the numbers better). I am not currently proposing that we pick the
development amounts for the village (600, 900, 1,200, or 1,600) at this time— but would be open to discuss if
other council members feel strongly we should.
3. Phasing of Village area & 1-94 Corridor—Why is the Village before the 1-94 area, especially if the argument is
that we are concerned about the financial burden of infrastructure costs for Village development and therefore
we should be looking at high levels of development in the Village (ex, the AUAR#s of 1,200 & 1,600)? 1 am,
not promoting faster nor more growth, I just do not see why we would tie our hands to look at that option (i.e.
not leap frog over the 1-94 corridor in bringing utilities up to the Village). One possible option here would be to
use the same time window(longer) for both areas.
4. Can we possibly add a policy statement clarifying that development must pay for the infrastructure-up front?
Steve D. has brought this up, and that might address many of my financial concerns about the city paying for
large infrastructure outlays/upgrades and then being left to make bond payments even if there is no
development to pay for it(for example, like right now).
5. Timing of development—With the current recession, it seems logical to move the development timeframe
out. I believe there are a few places where timing is discussed, including penalty text(see next point).
6. Penalties timing —From my preliminary look, the penalties for not meeting MC targets are significant costs to
the city and are built into our Comp. Plan (we are proposing them—vs. being told we need to respond to a
threat). I feel this puts us in a vulnerable situation. While I feel strongly we need to pursue aggressively the
petition route to get these delayed, it also strikes me we could accomplish the same type of thing by redoing
that penalty text to use different time frames(i.e., not go through all this petition process, paperwork, and red
tape). Given the dramatic financial times, we might also be able to convince MC that some different wording
would be more appropriate. By that I mean, the days of rapid, unending, limitless growth in which that was
written may not be that realistic and a less heavy handed "accountability" clause may make more sense.
I will continue to go through the land use section and see if anything comes up, but those are the top ones on my list for
now. Note that I think#5  might even be very good grounds to tell MC that we will be another few months later with
our Comp. Plan as we address these.
Brett H. Emmons, PE, LEECH AP
Water Resources Engineer
651.203.6003, bemrnons eorinc.com
i
Craig Dawson
From: Steve DeLapp [stevedelapp@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:08 PM
To: Craig Dawson; Kyle Klatt
Subject: Revision to Waste Water Section of Comp Plan
Attachments; Alternative to Page VI-2 5-18-09.xls
Craig and Kyle,
I'm no sewer expert, so I didn't spend much time going over the Waste Water Section of the Comp Plan, but I
think is repeats a chart on page VI-2 of the current (unapproved) 2000 Comp Plan. If so, we will be far behind
on mandated SAC units to the Cottage Grove and WONE interceptors.
I am proposing that we insert the following chart to replace the table shown in Topic 1. The chart does two
things, up front and above board. It keeps our staffing levels'and resident disruption no greater than sha d in
the 2000,04 . We will not ahve to try and pack an extra 3 years housing and jobs into the remaining years until
2030. We did not bring on the recession and near population freeze in the Region.
Secondly, I am combining REC's from jobs and_housiog. The Met Council staff told me last slunmer-- I have it
in writing and sent it to the City, that they have no expectation we will come close to having 14,000 jobs in our
City by 2030 (now 2033). This way, we get the freedom to allocate housing and employment anywhere south
of 1Oth and in the Old Village as we choose. We just commit to the total REC's and the distribution between
the WONE and Cottage Grove interceptors.
If this is approved, it should be submitted with the note that this chart supercedes any contradictory information
in the 2000 Comp Plan (submitted in 2006).
It will make be happy because the City gets some freedom, the Met Council gets their sewer money and we no
longer have any misunderstanding about the text. (In case the Excel Spred Sheet does not come through, I have
pasted it below)
If the Met Council agrees, we are winners. I think they will.
Best, Steve
Requirements for Areas Served by the Regional Wastewater System
1. Community Forecast of Residential Equivalent Unit(REC) Usage
by Regional Sewer Service Treatment Plant
Year So, of 10th St. So. of loth St. Village Area
New REC's Existing and New REC's Existing and New REC's
to W.O.N.E, to Cottage Grove to Cottage Grove
2005 100 0 0
2006 152 0 0
2007 152 0 0
2008 152 0 0
2009 152 0 0
2010 204 0 0
2011 256 0 125
2012 308 0 250
1
4
2013 360 0 320
2014 384 0 390
2015 688 0 460
2016 992 0 600
2017 1296 0 600
2018 1600 0 600
2019 1600 164 600
2020 1600 398 600
2021 1600 632 600
2022 1600 866 600
2023 1600 1100 600
2024 1600 1334 600
2025 1600 1568 600
2026 1600 1802 600
2027 1600 2036 600
2028 1600 2270 600
2033 1600 3400 1100
2
Craig Dawson
From: Steve DeLapp [mailto:stevedelapp@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 8:30 AM
To: Craig Dawson
Subject: Alternative road design
This design may not be nice for roller blades and may be tough on bikes, I don't know, but it show seems to make a
mockery of the current urban design, which guarantees pollution. I'd like to see much of the winter salt water go under the
road bed instead of killing the first 3-4 feet on the edges of our roads. Please share this article. We should have
considered this for our Comp Plan as an approach we will pursue. Thanks, Steve
Shoreview experiment a eliminate storm drains
LAURIE BLAKE, Star Tribune
Shoreview is betting on a new"green" concrete paving method that lets rainwater pass right through the street surface to
prevent damaging runoff.
Pervious concrete-- made of gravel and cement minus the sand that gives regular concrete its impenetrable density--
has the porous quality of a Rice Krispies bar.
Because it will allow water to drain straight to the ground below, Shoreview will install about a mile of pervious concrete
streets without storm sewers in the Woodbridge neighborhood on Lake Owasso.
This$1 million, all-in bet on the new pavement technology has many cities looking over Shoreview's shoulder, wondering
whether they might try the same approach.
"This is the first complete commitment to using a pervious pavement on a residential street replacement" in Minnesota,
said Shoreview Public Works Director Mark Maloney,
Over the past five years, other Minnesota cities, including Minneapolis and Richfield, have been experimenting with
pervious concrete on parking lots and other hard surfaces, hoping for better storm-water management.
But in Shoreview, "We are completely replacing a storm drainage system with a pavement that will infiltrate"water to the
ground, Maloney said.
Tests"have shown that it is as durable as standard concrete for low-volume roads," Maloney said. "The science behind
that is very sound and supported."
But there are few examples of a local government saying "this is going to be our pavement in lieu of a sewer system," he
said. "We won't have catch basins, pipes and [settling] ponds,"
1
�V
Jwl,(� -
��
-2;7