Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05-2016 City Council Meeting Packet 2 of 2 MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: 1/5/16 REGULAR ITEM 13 AGENDA ITEM: Gateway Corridor Route and Station Locations in Lake Elmo SUBMITTED BY: Clark Schroeder THROUGH: Jan Lucke REVIEWED BY: Clark Schroeder SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .......................................... Jan Lucke, Washington County - Report/Presentation……………………………Jan Lucke, Washington County - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council POLICY RECCOMENDER: Staff POLICY BEING SET: Three possible options have been identified as a potential route for the Gateway Corridor between Lake Elmo Avenue and Manning Avenue. The action is to identify the preferred route between Lake Elmo Avenue and Manning Avenue. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The City of Lake Elmo is not committing to any fiscal responsibilities for the proposed action, beyond the already approved money for a market analysis of the I-94 corridor. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Three options have been identified as a potential route for the Gateway Corridor between Lake Elmo Avenue and Manning Avenue. The action is to identify the preferred route among the three options in the form of a resolution of support (attached). Details on the process and technical considerations are included in the following pages. The action is NOT a vote to construct the corridor, rather to amend the locally preferred alternative (LPA) that is already in the Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan. City Council Meeting -- page 2 -- The LPA action is a statement of support from each community to confirm they are in agreement with the proposed route and type of transit. A statement of support means that each community is willing to assess in more detail what transit could mean for their community. This includes investigating scenarios for land uses and development around each transit station. Lake Elmo will have access to support in developing such scenarios. The Gateway Corridor was recent awarded a $1 million grant from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Oriented Development Pilot Program allowing for more support and collaboration on decisions that will be made related to the transit stations in 2016 and 2017. In addition, the Gateway Corridor is fortunate to be undertaking this process with the support of East Metro Strong, a public-private partnership of businesses, cities, and counties working together to bring more and better transit investment to the East Metro. Lake Elmo is currently engaged in an East Metro Strong-supported study; East Metro Strong will provide an update on this work at the January 5, 2016, City Council meeting. If approved by all cities and counties in the corridor, the complete LPA will be included as one of the routes in the Gateway Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted to the Federal Transit Administration in February 2016 for technical and legal review and released for public comment in summer 2016. The preferred alignment would also be included in the next phase of study to take place over a 24-month period between mid-2016 to mid-2018 that would bring the project from its current 1% design to approximately 30% design and include robust station area planning. Background In September 2014, based on technical, policy and community input, the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) was identified for the Gateway Corridor project. The Gateway Corridor will provide for a dedicated guideway for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) from Union Depot in Saint Paul to Manning Avenue generally along the I-94 corridor. The far eastern portion of the LPA was depicted as a ‘yellow bubble’ generally on the Hudson Road-Hudson Boulevard alignment that crosses to the south side of I-94 somewhere between Lake Elmo Avenue/Settlers Ridge Parkway and Manning Avenue. The yellow bubble area is called the E-Segment. This route option was not finalized due in part to the fact that Metro Transit had not yet determined the location of an express bus park-and-ride facility that is being planned in the vicinity of Manning Avenue and I-94. Local partners also wanted to have further conversations with elected officials, property owners, and stakeholders before this section was finalized. All Gateway Corridor cities and counties, including Lake Elmo, adopted a resolution for the LPA with a yellow bubble generally on the Hudson Road-Hudson Boulevard alignment in fall 2014 (Attachment 1). This same LPA was adopted by the Metropolitan Council as part of the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan in February 2015, with the expectation that the route in Segment E would be further analyzed and refined over the next year. A map of the LPA that was adopted in fall 2014 is below. City Council Meeting -- page 3 -- Approved Locally Preferred Alternative (Fall 2014) City Council Meeting -- page 4 -- Technical Analysis Over the past year, additional analysis and coordination has taken place so the preferred route could be refined to determine a more defined route between Lake Elmo Avenue/Settlers Ridge Parkway and Manning Avenue. Key factors considered in the refined LPA include cost, flexibility, ridership, economic development potential, and operational efficiency/system integration. Several proposed routes were considered by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Community Advisory Committee (CAC), and Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) taking these factors into consideration. The following options were considered for inclusion in the refined LPA process. You will note that the station locations remain constant in each option. Option A The route crosses I-94 on the existing Lake Elmo Avenue/Settlers Ridge Parkway overpass in mixed traffic, where there is a proposed station location in Woodbury. The route then heads east on Hudson Road to Manning Avenue. The route goes north on Manning Avenue in mixed traffic to Hudson Boulevard to the end/start of the line station location in Lake Elmo. This station location also coincides with the proposed location of the Metro Transit express bus park-and-ride. Option B The route stays north of I-94 in Lake Elmo along Hudson Boulevard to Manning Avenue, where there will be a station location (as well as the express bus park and ride). It then travels south on Manning Avenue in mixed traffic, then west along Hudson Road to the end/start of the line station location near Settlers Ridge Parkway in Woodbury. Option C This route involves a one-way loop whereby the route stays north along Hudson Boulevard in Lake Elmo to Manning Avenue, then heads south into Woodbury on Manning Avenue in mixed traffic. It then heads west on Hudson Road to Settlers Ridge Parkway, where there is a station location. It then goes north across the freeway into Lake Elmo turning east onto Hudson Boulevard, to the end/start of the line station location near Manning Avenue. Option C was eliminated from an operational perspective, as loops have been proven to cause confusion to riders and Metro Transit has refused to accept any additional loop routes given these challenges. City Council Meeting -- page 5 -- Options A and B were compared against each other using the following metrics: lowest travel time to Union Depot, lowest cost for Segment E, highest ridership gain, and overall transit rider experience. Based on the analysis and the metrics noted above, Option A was selected as the preferred alignment for the purpose of holding the public hearing and receiving comments. Option A had the lowest travel time from Union Depot, the lowest relative cost, the highest ridership gain, and a better overall transit rider experience. This option was recommended by the CAC, TAC and the PAC for public comment. Details of the analysis are in Attachment 2 and will be included in the presentation to the Council. Public Input and the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Approval Process The PAC and Gateway Corridor Commission recommended the refined LPA be released for public comment on August 13, 2015. At the public hearing on September 10, 2015, held at Woodbury City Hall, the public was provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed route. Additional comments were accepted at an open house in Lake Elmo on August 19, 2015 and via email or mail through September 24, 2015. The cities of Lake Elmo and Woodbury (note: Woodbury acted on 12/9/15) and the Washington County Regional Railroad Authority are now asked to provide resolutions of support for the refined LPA, so that it can be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for adoption into the Transportation Policy Plan. All comments received can be found here: http://thegatewaycorridor.com/documents/2015/2015%20LPA%20Comments.pdf After the Gateway Corridor Commission, Cities of Lake Elmo and Woodbury, and Washington County pass resolutions to confirm the LPA the information will then be sent to the Metropolitan Council and an administrative amendment will be done on the TPP. City Council Meeting -- page 6 -- Additional Considerations for the Action What a “yes” vote means: • Does not come with an implicit or explicit expectation for future action. • Continues down a path of providing a transportation alternative for those that live in Lake Elmo and cannot drive, including seniors and persons with disabilities, or choose not to drive. • Allows Lake Elmo to continue to explore a range of residential and commercial development opportunities/visions in the Old Village and along I-94 and test whether the market place can deliver those opportunities/visions with or without a transit investment. • Distinguishes Lake Elmo from other communities that are trying to attract high quality commercial development. • Provides more options to work with the residential and commercial market and through those options have more control over Lake Elmo’s destiny • Includes Lake Elmo in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to be submitted to the Federal Transit Administration in February 2016 for technical and legal review and released for public comment in Summer 2016. Also includes Lake Elmo in the next phase of study to take place over a 24-month period between mid-2016 to mid-2018 to bring the project from its current 1% design to approximately 30% design. • Does not change the accepted Metropolitan Council residential forecast of 18,200 residents, 7,100 households, and 3,800 jobs in 2040. The total of existing and approved but not yet constructed households are below the forecasts, as are residents and jobs. Taking into account the roughly 1850 housing units approved by the city there are roughly 2200 more housing units that would need to be planned for by 2040. These housing units will be planned in both sewered as well as non-sewered areas of the city and will need to be accounted for in the 2018 comp plan. The housing units which will be planned for sewered areas of the city will need to have a density of at least 3 units per acre on average. The transit area planning densities would need to meet the Met Council expected densities; this density could be made up of employment, students, residential or a combination of any of them. Finally, the Met Council expects the city to plan for sufficient land to accommodate forecasted growth and land to meet the Cities affordable housing allocation through 2040. What a “no” vote means: • Removes Lake Elmo from consideration of all day bus rapid transit service and forecloses on the exploration of the benefits and protections bus rapid transit service may City Council Meeting -- page 7 -- bring Lake Elmo. • Because the East Metro Strong-supported study is to help study issues related to transit, stopping consideration of transit would also result in termination of the contract with East Metro Strong and payment of 20% of costs incurred to date. The discussions held with the City as part of the East Metro Strong-supported study raised—and began exploring—a variety of issues that will affect Lake Elmo’s future. The loss of the planned work supported by East Metro Strong and the loss of access to the support available through the FTA grant together would mean the loss of substantial resources which would help the Lake Elmo understand these issues and shape its response to them. • Delays submittal of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the Federal Transit Administration while the Gateway Corridor takes time to establish a route and termini that the remaining local partners support. Summary: Yes and No Voting yes or no on studying the “E2” Gateway Corridor rapid transit alignment Yes Environmental studies Conceptual design studies No Route must be reassessed Subsequent planning occurs without Lake Elmo City Council Meeting -- page 8 -- RECOMMENDATION: A resolution transmitting the city of Lake Elmo’s support for the locally preferred alternative – segment E alignment refinement in Lake Elmo and Woodbury to the Gateway Corridor Commission, WCRRA and Metropolitan Council. Updated Locally Preferred Alternative (Recommended by PAC November 2015) ATTACHMENTS: 1. City of Lake Elmo Resolution No. 2014-71 Support for the Locally Preferred Alternative 2. Analysis for route options in Lake Elmo and Woodbury 3. Resolution 2016-2 Support for LPA -E2 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2016-02 A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO’S SUPPORT FOR THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SEGMENT E ALIGNMENT REFINEMENT IN LAKE ELMO AND WOODBURY TO THE GATEWAY CORRIDOR COMMISSION, WCRRA AND METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, the Gateway Corridor is a proposed project that will provide for transit infrastructure improvements in the eastern portion of the Twin Cities, and; WHEREAS, the Gateway Corridor is located in Ramsey and Washington Counties, Minnesota, extending approximately 12 miles, and connecting downtown Saint Paul with its East Side neighborhoods and the suburbs of Maplewood, Landfall, Oakdale, Lake Elmo, and Woodbury, and; WHEREAS, the Gateway Corridor Project received the important Presidential designation as a Federal Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard Project, and; WHEREAS, resolutions of support for BRT Alternative A-B-C-D2-E2 were provided by the PAC, GCC, each of the Gateway Corridor cities, and Ramsey and Washington County Regional Railroad Authorities in 2014, and; WHEREAS, the Gateway Corridor (Gold Line) was officially included in the Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, and; WHEREAS, the LPA alignment from Lake Elmo Avenue/Settlers Ridge Parkway to Manning Avenue required further refinement to determine the crossing location of I-94, and; WHEREAS, several alignment and station location configurations were prepared and assessed from Lake Elmo Avenue to Manning Avenue, and; WHEREAS, the TAC, in a technical advisory role to the PAC, provided the following input on the LPA Alignment refinement between Lake Elmo Avenue/Settlers Ridge Parkway and Manning Avenue:  BRT Alignment A-B-C- D2-E2, which on the east end begins and ends at the Manning Avenue park and ride in Lake Elmo, travels on Manning Avenue to Hudson Road, proceeding on Hudson Road to Settlers Ridge Parkway, with a station in the vicinity of Settlers Ridge, then proceeding north on Settlers Ridge to Hudson Boulevard in Lake Elmo. The LPA alignment from this point west remains unchanged. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on September 10, 2015 in Woodbury on the preliminary LPA alignment refinement, at which time four comments were received, and; WHEREAS, the comment period on the LPA refinement remained open through September 24, 2015, during which time 26 comments were received NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Lake Elmo has taken into consideration the technical information on each of the alignment options for the segment of the LPA between Lake Elmo Avenue/Settlers Ridge and Manning Avenue, along with the TAC and public input and identifies BRT Alternative A-B-C-D2-E2 ( see map on page 3) which on the east end begins and ends at the proposed Manning Avenue park and ride in Lake Elmo, travels on Manning Avenue to Hudson Road, proceeding on Hudson Road or in the vicinity of Hudson Road to Settlers Ridge Parkway, with a station in the vicinity of Settlers Ridge, then proceeding north on Settlers Ridge to Hudson Boulevard in Lake Elmo as the refined LPA alignment in Lake Elmo and Woodbury. The LPA alignment from this point west remains unchanged, and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Lake Elmo commits to working with the Washington County Regional Railroad Authority (WCRRA), on behalf of the Gateway Corridor Commission, and the Metropolitan Council to address the comments submitted by agencies, adjacent communities, the business sector, and the following areas of particular importance to the City of Lake Elmo 1. . The ownership and maintenance responsibilities of Hudson Boulevard were recently turned back to the City of Lake Elmo from MnDOT. If Hudson Boulevard is expanded to accommodate a BRT guideway or additional travel lanes for the exclusive use of buses it may increase the demands on the City to properly maintain the roadway. The City of Lake Elmo requests analysis of appropriate jurisdictional control over Hudson Boulevard and robust consideration of a possible turn back to Washington County. 2. Maintaining access for current land owners along Hudson Boulevard and planning for access for future development needs to be part of a functional ingress - egress policy. The City of Lake Elmo requests the development of an access management plan for Hudson Blvd. that is supported by property owners, the City of Lake Elmo and Washington County. 3. The City of Lake Elmo supports an easterly station in the proximity of the NW comer of Manning Avenue and I-94 to support economic development, including job creation, tax value, and traffic efficiency associated with the creation of a business park as guided by the City's Comprehensive Plan. Incorporating a Gateway station in Lake Elmo will require station area planning resources to ensure that Lake Elmo is maximizing economic development potential and ridership. The City Lake Elmo requests thorough analysis of economic development potential to assist in guiding the placement of Gateway stations in the corridor segment from Keats Avenue to Manning Avenue as well as planning resources from the Gateway Corridor Commission and Washington County to assist with transit oriented development/station area planning. 4. Lake Elmo Avenue serves as an important access point to downtown Lake Elmo. Due to the proximity of the road to both the Lake and developed neighborhoods, future expansion is constrained through the downtown area and the roadway cannot functionally handle additional growth in the regional movement of traffic beyond what is currently forecasted. The City of Lake Elmo recognizes that while the Gateway Corridor project will likely not preclude an interchange in this location, it would like to take this opportunity to state to Washington County, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Federal Highways Administration that an interchange is NOT desired in this location. 5. Safety and security at BRT stations for transit patrons and surrounding businesses and neighborhoods is very important to Lake Elmo. BRT Stations should be designed to be safe and secure environments that incorporate design elements to deter crime such as good lighting, visibility, security monitoring. The City of Lake Elmo requests a safety and security plan to ensure that adequate resources are provided at a regional and local level to effectively address safety and security concerns at Gateway Corridor facilities. NOTE: THE PLACEHOLDER FOR CITY OF LAKE ELMO TO IDENTIFY PARTICULAR AREAS OF IMPORTANCE IN RESOLUTION IS OPTIONAL. CITY SPECIFIC ITEMS COULD ALSO BE ADDRESSED THROUGH SEPARATE TRANSMITTAL. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution adopted by the City of Lake Elmo be forwarded to the Gateway Corridor Commission, WCRRA and the Metropolitan Council for their consideration. Date: Attest City Clerk Date:____________________________ Mayor __________________________ Refined Locally Preferred Alternative with E-2 end point Refinement of Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) DRAFT Why is the LPA being refined? In September 2014 based on technical, policy, and community input, the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) was identified for the Gateway Corridor project. This alternative was described as bus rapid transit (BRT) generally on the Hudson Road-Hudson Boulevard alignment that crosses to the south side of I-94 between approximately Lake Elmo Avenue and Manning Avenue. The LPA was adopted by the Metropolitan Council as part of the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan in January 2015. In order to determine the route between Lake Elmo Avenue/Settlers Ridge Parkway and Manning Avenue, additional analysis and coordination has taken place. What were the key factors in defining the refined LPA? Cost Flexibility Ridership What is the refined LPA alignment? Multiple routes were studied (see back of handout) and community, technical, and policy input was collected. Based on the information gathered to date, the Policy Advisory Committee made a draft recommendation for public comment that Option A should be included as part of the refined LPA alignment. Option A has the fastest travel time, lowest cost, and highest ridership out of the routes studied. The refined LPA route is shown on the back of this handout. Station locations are included as reference and are not adopted as part of the LPA. The LPA refinement is limited to the proposed route from Lake Elmo Avenue to Manning Avenue. What is the LPA and why is it important? The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) is the transitway alternative that the Cities and Counties in the corridor prefer and expect to be competitive and achieve support at the federal level. The LPA is a general description of the type of transit that will be used (mode) and the location (route). The LPA definition is general; design specifics and definition of additional elements of the project, including station locations, are decided during subsequent engineering and planning efforts. What are the next steps? The Gateway Corridor Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) and Gateway Corridor Commission (GCC) recommended the refined LPA for public comment on August 13, 2015. At the public hearing on September 10, 2015, the public will be provided an opportunity to comment on the refined route. Comments will also be accepted via phone, email, or mail through September 24, 2015 (see contact information below). Based on the input received, the PAC and GCC will make a final recommendation at their October 2015 meetings. Contact Information If you have questions or would like to submit a comment on the refined LPA, please contact: Lyssa Leitner, Senior Planner 11660 Myeron Road North Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-4300 gatewaycorridor@co.washington.mn.us Economic development potential Operational efficiency/ system integration Routes Considered Between Lake Elmo Avenue/Settlers Ridge Parkway and Manning Avenue 1 Travel time to Union Depot 2 Cost represents LPA refinement area only; does not add to overall project cost Refined Locally Preferred Alternative Metric Option A Option B One-Way Loop Lowest Travel Time1 33.2 min33.5 min -- Lowest Cost2 $16.7 million$23.5 million -- Highest Ridership Gain 275 riders225 riders -- Overall Transit Rider Experience Stops at future express bus park-and-ride at Manning Avenue in Lake Elmo Stops at future express bus park-and-ride at Manning Avenue in Lake Elmo but would backtrack Loops have been proven to cause confusion for riders Supported by Technical, Policy, and Community Advisory Committees Recommended for refined LPA Not recommended for refined LPA Not recommended for refined LPA Option A Option B One-Way Loop MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: January 5, 2016 REGULAR ITEM # 14 AGENDA ITEM: Appointment of 2016 Acting Mayor SUBMITTED BY: Julie Johnson, City Clerk THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator - Report/Presentation…………………………………………City Administrator - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: This item is mandated by state statute. FISCAL IMPACT: None SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Pursuant to Minn. State Statute §412.121, the City Council is asked to select an Acting Mayor on the City’s behalf, should Mayor Pearson be unavailable or unable to attend a meeting, sign an agreement, or attend functions on behalf of the City. Any member of the council is eligible for this position. The recommended motion to act on this organizational function is as follows: “Move to appoint Council Member _______________ as Acting Mayor for 2016” LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: Minnesota State Statute § 412.121 reads: “At its first meeting each year the council shall choose an acting mayor from the council members. The acting mayor shall perform the duties of mayor during the disability or absence of the mayor from the city or, in case of vacancy in the office of mayor, until a successor has been appointed and qualifies.” This requirement is also prescribed in Lake Elmo City Code § 31.01(E)(3). Councilmember Smith was appointed Acting Mayor for 2015. City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item] January 5, 2016 -- page 2 -- BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): Strengths Appointing an “Acting Mayor” makes the City compliant with state law and provides a back-up for when the mayor is unavailable. Weaknesses There are no identified weaknesses. Opportunities The Acting Mayor is able to learn more about running meetings and serving the City/Council in a slightly different role. Threats There are no identified threats. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council appoint an Acting Mayor for 2016, pursuant to state statute, by making the following recommended motion: “Move to appoint Councilmember _______________ as Acting Mayor for 2016” AUTHORITIES: 2014 Minnesota Statutes: § 412.121 ACTING MAYOR “At its first meeting each year the council shall choose an acting mayor from the council members. The acting mayor shall perform the duties of mayor during the disability or absence of the mayor from the city or, in case of vacancy in the office of mayor, until a successor has been appointed and qualifies.” Lake Elmo, MN Code of Ordinances (2008): § 31.01 MEETINGS (E) Initial meeting. At the first regular Council meeting in January of each year, the Council shall: …. (3) Choose 1 of the Council Members as Acting Mayor, who shall perform the duties of the Mayor during the disability or absence of the Mayor from the city or, in case of a vacancy in the Office of Mayor, until a successor has been appointed and qualifies; MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 1/5/16 REGULAR ITEM #: 15 MOTION AGENDA ITEM: Appoint City Attorney - General Counsel SUBMITTED BY: Clark Schroeder THROUGH: Clark Schroeder REVIEWED BY: Clark Schroeder SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .................................................................................................... Staff - Report/Presentation .................................................................................................... Staff - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................................ Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate ................................................................... Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion .............................................................................. Mayor & City Council - Discussion ..................................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................................. Mayor Facilitates PUBLIC POLICY STATEMENT APPOINTMENT OF CITY ATTORNEY SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Appointment of City Attorney needs to be done with an effective start date of 1/6/16 BACKGROUND AND STAFF REPORT: An RFP was sent out requesting services for a City Attorney and Prosecution Services. The city received 3 responses, two for City Attorney and one for Prosecution Attorney. The two law firms which submitted proposals for City Attorney are Callies Law and Kennedy & Graven. Interviews were held with council and council has the proposals detailing services and costs. Council is encouraged to pick one of these two law firms to be City Attorney. RECOMMENDATION: As the City Attorney reports directly to the Council, Staff have no recommendation concerning this appointment. ATTACHMENT(S): Proposals from Callies Law and Kennedy & Graven MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 01/05/2016 REGULAR ITEM #: 16 MOTION AGENDA ITEM: OP-Open Space Preservation Ordinance Amendment Discussion SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman THROUGH: Clark Schroeder REVIEWED BY: Ben Gozola SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .................................................................................................... Staff - Report/Presentation .................................................................................................... Staff - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................................ Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion .............................................................................. Mayor & City Council - Discussion ..................................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................................. Mayor Facilitates SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: On November 4, 2015, the City Council passed a motion, 3-1, directing staff to have the Planning Commission look at changes to the OP Ordinance. Staff held an informational session with the Planning Commission on November 9, 2015 and from the discussion it became apparent that the Planning Commission and the City Council had a divergent vision/goals for the ordinance amendment. Because of the divergent nature of the comments between the Planning Commission and City Council, the Planning staff is requesting clarification and direction from the City Council for the future amendment. DISCUSSION ITEMS On November 4, 2015, the City Council briefly discussed several issues related to the OP – Open Space Preservation District and requested that the Planning Commission discuss the ordinance referencing certain aspects of the ordinance. The staff report requested the Planning Commission specifically discuss the following: • Overall Purpose of the OP District – Review the overall purpose. • Density – should density be increased? • Density calculation – Should the density calculations be based buildable or gross land area. • Buffer zones – what buffer or buffers are appropriate (maintain 200’ around RR, but no buffers against adjacent OP’s). • Septic system options. • Minimum lot size. • Qualifying property size, i.e. 20 acres vs. 40 acre minimum. • Lot Design. On November 9, 2015, the Planning Commission recommended the following: • No community septic systems. • 1 acre minimum lot sizes. • Allow the 50% open space requirement to be based on gross acres, rather than buildable acres. • Remove lot design criteria (not enforceable). • Density 18 units per 40 gross acres of buildable land. • Buffer: supportive of waiving the buffer between OP developments, if potential for OP, then 100’ buffer, and potential for berms and trees to buffer in lieu of 100’ buffer might be acceptable. • Remove 4/5th vote to waive requirements to allow more flexibility. In addition to the Planning Commission comments, staff has identified some additional issues that warrant examination with the ordinance amendment to the OP District regulations. Staff’s considerations are as follows: • Remove redundancies between OP Ord platting requirements and regular subdivision platting requirements. • Restructure OP Ordinance as a PUD with Overlay Zoning rather than a CUP process. • Hardcover regulations may need to be updated, depending on the changes. • Street minimum standards. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests the City Council discuss the divergent goals for the potential ordinance amendment and provide direction to staff for an amendment to the Open Space Preservation Ordinance. ATTACHMENT(S): • November 4, 2015 City Council Minutes • November 9, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes • Open Space Preservation Ordinance Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11-9-15 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2015 Chairman Dodson called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dodson, Dorschner, Haggard, Larson, Griffin Kreimer and Williams. Fields joined at 9:15 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Fields until 9:15 STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Stephen Wensman Approve Agenda: The agenda was accepted as presented. Approve Minutes: None Presentation – Public Safety and Response Time Chief Malmquist presented data regarding public safety and response time. They identify those things that they can control and make the response time quicker. Chief Malmquist went over the County street naming system. It is a grid pattern. This has been complicated with the winding roads in the new developments. The other problem we have in Lake Elmo is the one access point in Developments. Chief Malmquist also talked about the street widths. He stated that he had sat down with Engineer Griffin and came up with some standards and would like the City Council and Planning Commission to support those standards. Malmquist talked about connectivity. There is a reason that the City put in stubs. These neighborhoods need to be connected for response time. If they are on a call, they may get another one and have to go around to the next one. One argument against connectivity was that it creates a safety issue for children. Malmquist stated that for how dense Cimarron is, there has never been a call for a child being struck by a car. Chief Malmquist would appreciate the Planning Commission supporting his recommendations for safety issues moving forward. 2 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11-9-15 Business Item – General Discussion of Open Space Preservation Ordinance City Planner Wensman introduced the topic of the Open Space Preservation Ordinance. There is currently a project in the works, and the City Council thought this would be a good time to discuss if some changes would be appropriate. The topics that have been suggested for discussion are to review the purpose and possible flexibility. Should the density go from 18 to 20 homes per 40 acres? How should the density be calculated and how should the buffer setbacks be dealt with? Should there be a buffer between two OP developments. What should septic system options be? Should community systems be allowed going forward? Should there be a minimum lot size for individual septics? Should we allow the community septic? How should lot design be determined? Should the septic be the most important? Dorschner stated that we need to decide if we want to stay rural. If that is the case, we need to consider the environment and the impacts of septic if we are not going to have sewer. He would like to hear from U of M or Washington County on what is acceptable. The Commission likes the OP, but some would like more choice such as RE. Dodson mentioned that with RE, residents would use their property more for things such as gardens etc. In some OP developments, the open space is not accessible or even usable. Larson would like to talk about the land trust documents as well and what kind of uses would be allowed. Williams thinks the first sentence of the purpose statement is fine, but would like the second and third sentence to read “This type of development is intended to provide additional flexibility of housing styles in the City. It provides an alternative to large lot, single family housing and will reduce the cost of constructing and maintaining costly infrastructure.” Dodson asked what single family attached would mean. Wensman stated it is 2 or more single family homes that share a common wall. Haggard would like to add “natural Habitats” and have the first line read “The purpose of open space preservation (OP) is to maintain the rural character of Lake Elmo by preserving agricultural land, woodlands, corridors, natural habitats and other significant natural features, while allowing residential development consistent with the goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.” Planning Commission would like an update from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Washington County regarding septic design and why there are failing systems. 3 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11-9-15 Dodson would like on page 3 Item (2) 4 to change “deed Covenants” to “CIC Declarations”. There was a general discussion regarding septic systems. What type should be allowed and who should oversee. There are several items that need to be discussed, but the Commission would like a presentation from the County and MPCA before a decision would be made on which way to go. Wensman asked if the Commission felt it was appropriate for septic systems to be located in the preserved open space. Some members thought it was fine, but others wanted to think about it. Williams is not in favor of increasing the density. The density already reflects a bonus that was intended to stimulate development. The smaller lots already provides a bonus by having fewer roads and infrastructure when the homes are clustered. Dorschner and Dodson do not believe that we should increase the numbers in the rural areas for OP to relieve the numbers in the sewered areas. This is where the higher numbers belong. We need to think about the environment and how we are managing these septic systems. The Planning Commission as a whole is not in favor of increasing density. They also are not in favor of changing the density calculation. They would like to leave it at buildable acres. Wensman stated that buildable land is usually how all developments are measured. Williams suggested that the Commission consider changing the 50% open space to be based on gross acres vs. buildable acres. Dodson feels that minimum lot size is linked to the type of septic that it has. Others are interested in what Washington County has to say regarding septic. Williams might like to see larger lots to preserve the rural character in the OP. Kreimer is concerned that the 1 acre for individual well and septic might not be big enough. He feels that there should be a requirement at preliminary plat to prove that the lot perks when they come before them for primary and secondary drainfields and where the house is going to be. The majority of the Commission still would like to see a 1 acre minimum even with a shared sewer system. Williams mentioned that there is such a variance in buffer zones because in the past, there was not enough oversight. He would like the existing rules to be enforced. The Commission was interested in exploring using discretion with the buffers. They would like to explore a possible list of things that could be used for deciding when and how large of a buffer to employ, instead of just requiring one. 4 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11-9-15 Dodson feels that anything less than 40 acres is too small for an OP development, especially if there is a CIC. Other Commissioners felt that anything smaller than 40 acres might require private septic. The Commission wanted the Planning staff to explore if it is even viable to do less than 40 acres for OP. Some thought anything less than 40 acres should possibly be RE. The Planning Commission discussed the lot design objectives and their relevance. There was no real consensus on this. Dodson asked that the boulevard landscaping be checked for consistency with our landscaping code. If it is a higher standard we would keep it in, if not we should probably defer to the landscape code. Williams asked about the impervious surface allowed and thought 20% of gross seemed high and possibly should be buildable. Williams thinks the review process should follow that of any other development within the City. This section needs to match what we are already doing, or possibly it should be one section for all types of development. Also the wording in 150.179 should probably be changed from “development stage plan” to “Preliminary Plat”. 150.183 (2) (e) should also include trails. 150.184 should be reviewed for public hearing and stage requirements. Williams would like to add something to the effect that an application is not complete until all of the City Engineers comments are met. Commissioners would like these met before the preliminary plat moves forward. Dodson would like “Homeowners Association” changed to “Common Interest Community” wherever it appears in ordinance. Council Updates – October 20, 2015 Meeting 1. Hammes Plat Extension – Passed Staff Updates 1. Upcoming Meetings a. November 23, 2015 b. December 14, 2015 Commission Concerns Haggard asked if the staff has a chart regarding all of the developments that have passed and all of the conditions of approval. Have they all been met? How is this tracked? Wensman stated that it is an issue that they are going to be working on. 5 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11-9-15 Dodson stated that Fields, Rolf and he went to a seminar. He went to energy planning which was very interesting and they talked about how this should be part of the planning. Williams stated that his packet did not arrive until Monday at 5:00. He would like to see packets arrive on Thursdays before the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 10:15 pm Respectfully submitted, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant CITY OF LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2015 A. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Pearson called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. PRESENT: Mayor Mike Pearson and Council Members Julie Fliflet, Anne Smith, Justin Bloyer, and Jill Lundgren. Staff present: Interim Administrator Schroeder, City Attorney Snyder, City Engineer Griffin, City Planner Wensman, and City Clerk Johnson. B. PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEW Susan Dunn was interviewed for a vacancy on the Planning Commission. Councilmember Bloyer, seconded by Councilmember Fliflet, moved TO APPOINT MAYOR DUNN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. C. PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Items 4, 7, 9 and 11 were removed from the Consent Agenda and Item 12 was moved to the beginning of the Regular Agenda. Councilmember Smith, seconded by Mayor Pearson, moved TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. E. ACCEPT MINUTES Minutes of the October 20, 2015 Regular Meeting were accepted as presented. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Pearson: Thanked Washington County for hosting neighborhood meetings on the Olson Lake Road project, met with owner on 33rd Street regarding right of way concerns, met with Fields of St. Croix residents, announced the upcoming Meeting with the Mayor, noted that the ISD 622 election process went well, and welcomed Stephen Wensman to the City staff. Councilmember Smith: Met with Ellie Hammes, met with Fields II residents regarding realignment of County Rd. 5, met with Focus Engineering and took calls from developers. Councilmember Fliflet: Met with residents regarding various issues, noted Kyle Klatt’s last day with the City and thanked him for his service, welcomed the new City Planner and thanked Ben Gozola for his high quality work during the transition period. Recognized and thanked the administrative staff team (Patty Baker, Joan Ziertmann, Cathy Bendel, and Julie Johnson) who for the past 6 months have continually stepped up and done whatever was needed with great attitudes. Councilmember Bloyer: Received a lot of emails from Fields II residents, met with League of Minnesota Cities with Councilmember Fliflet. Councilmember Lundgren: Met with Fields II residents, thanked staff for meeting with Councilmembers prior to the Council meeting to answer questions and welcomed City Planner Wensman. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2015 Page 2 of 7 PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES Mike Reeves, 11075 14th Street North, commented on City Council effectiveness and interaction with each other, and censure of Councilmember Bloyer. Christine Nelson commented on her application to serve on the HR Committee and comments made concerning her experience. PRESENTATIONS None FINANCE CONSENT AGENDA 2. Approve Payment of Disbursements 3. Approve 404 Lake Elmo Avenue Assessment Agreement 5. Wildflower at Lake Elmo – Approve Release of Grading Security per the Site Grading Agreement 6. Eagle Point Boulevard Street Improvements – Change Order No. 2 Councilmember Bloyer, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO APPROVE THE FINANCE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. OTHER CONSENT AGENDA 8. Receive Building Department Report 10. Motion to Request Being Added to the County CIP for 2017 Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO APPROVE THE OTHER CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ITEM 12: 2016 STREET IMPROVEMENTS – IMPROVEMENT HEARING, ORDER PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICAITONS AND PUBLIC HEARING City Engineer Griffin provided an introduction of the history of the project and planning. City Engineer Stempski reviewed the project schedule for each of the three portions of the project, providing details on the improvements proposed for each area. Stempski also reviewed the assessable properties and the costs for each neighborhood with the City share and per unit assessment rate for the proposed street project and optional water project. Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Bloyer, moved TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:00 P.M. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. Curt Monteith, 331 Julep, requested clarification on the project area and suggested squaring off the parking area at the park. Wayne Hector, 5110 Kirkwood, provided a written statement in favor of the project. David Loos, 3567 Kelvin, spoke in favor of the water main improvement due to pollution from the landfill and plume, adding he is not in favor of the road project unless the water portion is included. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2015 Page 3 of 7 Dick Hedquist, 3440 Kelvin, questioned the expense for the water connection and additional cost for looping. Bill Rogers, 3490 Kelvin, spoke against the water project and stated the road project should be paid from tax dollars due to City neglect in maintaining the road. Joe Chaves, 3505 Kelvin, stated that street maintenance has been lacking. Allen Kristenson, 5230 Kirkwood, spoke in favor of the project. Councilmember Bloyer, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:22 P.M. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. Discussion was held concerning the water utility portion of the project and funding options. City Engineer Griffin reviewed the 2030 Comprehensive Water System Plan as it relates to the Kelvin project. Councilmember Bloyer, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO AMEND RESOLUTION 2015-82 TO INCLUDE STONGATE AND KIRKWOOD AREAS AND REMOVE THE KELVIN AVENUE AREA FROM THE PROJECT. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. Discussion held concerning the Kelvin Avenue area of the project. Citizen input was considered and allowing payment on the water connection as was done with the Keats Avenue project was discussed. Councilmember Fliflet stated that the road is not well traveled and the project could be postponed. Councilmember Lundgren, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO ADOPT 2015-82 ORDERING THE 2016 STREET, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AS AMENDED, WITH REMOVAL OF THE 6” WATER MAIN LATERAL TO THE EAST, AND TO AMEND THE WATER LATERAL ASSESSMENT TO $2,900 WITH AN ADDITIONAL $2,900 DEFERRED TO THE TIME OF CONNECTION. MOTION PASSED 3 – 2. (Bloyer, Fliflet – Nay) Councilmember Bloyer stated he was opposed to the motion due to the $12,000 assessment on the north portion of the project. City Engineer Griffin reviewed the bids received for engineering design and support services. Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT WITH SEH AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. ITEM 4: APPROVAL FOR GASB 67 & 68 VALUATION ACTUARIAL SERVICES CONTRACT LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2015 Page 4 of 7 Councilmember Fliflet reported that it is a new requirement to approve actuarial review on an annual basis. Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT FOR ACTUARIAL SERVICES AND ACCEPT AS AN ANNUAL POLICY NOT REQUIRING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL EACH YEAR. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. ITEM 7: RETAINING WALL FOR LIONS PARK Interim Administrator Schroeder explained the need for a retaining wall in Lions Park needed to support the trail as a result of a change in grade with the downtown project. Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO APPROVE THE RETAINING WALL CHANGE ORDER FOR LIONS PARK. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. ITEM 9: APPROVE MASSAGE LICENSE RENEWALS Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Fliflet, moved TO APPROVE THE LICENSE RENEWAL FOR RENEW AND RECOVER MASSAGE. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO TABLE THE LICENSE RENEWAL FOR NIRVANA MASSAGE & SPA. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. Councilmember Lundgren, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO APPROVE THE LICENSE RENEWALS FOR BODY & SOUL AND JENNIFER MERTES. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. ITEM 11: REASSIGNMENT OF INWOOD DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS Interim Administrator Schroeder reported that M/I Homes is acquiring the assets of Hans Hagen Homes. Schroeder explained that Hans Hagen Homes will continue to construct the homes and there will be no design changes. Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO REASSIGN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS FROM HANS HAGEN HOMES TO M/I HOMES, LLC. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. ITEM 13: HAMMES PLAT EXTENSION Interim Administrator Schroeder reviewed the request for an extension of the plat approved in 2014. Councilmember Fliflet requested clarification on how the moratorium affects this request. City Attorney Snyder stated that the moratorium does not apply to previously approved plats. Discussion held concerning outstanding special assessments and property taxes. Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Bloyer, moved TO EXTEND THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR TWO YEARS THROUGH OCTOBER 7, 2016 WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2015 Page 5 of 7 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BE PAID AT PLAT, AND THAT THE DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT BE EXECUTED BY A DEVELOPER AS A CONDITION OF RECORDING THE PLAT. MOTION PASSED 3 – 2. (Fliflet, Lundgren – Nay) Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved THAT ASSESSMENT ARREARAGES AND BALANCE BE PAID WHEN OTHERWISE DUE UNDER THE CONTRACT. MOTION PASSED 3 – 0 – 2. (Fliflet, Lundgren – abstain) ITEM 14: RFP REQUEST FROM PARKS COMMISSION FOR BALLPARK REDESIGN Parks Commission Chair Weis explained the scope of the RFP request and presented photos of ball parks in other Minnesota cities. Weis explained that the Parks Commission has placed Lions Park on the Parks Commission CIP and has incurred significant cost for repairs, prompting the need for further planning. Curt Monteith, 331 Julep, asked for denial of the request and stated that future parks should include long space, not just tot lots. Barry Weeks, 3647 Lake Elmo Avenue, stated that the ball field is a tradition in the area and is heavily used. Pam Hartley, 10010 Tapestry, spoke as a Parks Commissioner, stating that the Commission was unanimous in its decision to move forward toward making Lions Park a focal point and asset for the community. Nadine Obermueller stated she loves Lions Park and baseball is great for the town but the park needs freshening up. Jerry Kromschroeder, 3517 Lake Elmo Avenue, stated that Lions Park is an icon and anything that can be done to improve it would be a good thing. Parks Chair Weis discussed a potential timeline for receiving plans and initiating a project. Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Bloyer, moved TO ISSUE AN RFP FOR ARCHITECTURAL WORK TO REDESIGN THE BALLFIELDS IN THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. ITEM 15: BUILDING DEPARTMENT TRUCK Interim Administrator Schroeder reviewed bids received for two vehicle options under leasing and purchasing plans. Councilmember Lundgren stated that a leased vehicle would be cheaper for the City in the long run. Councilmember Fliflet stated she is in favor of leasing and allowing staff to turn in leased vehicles for new leased vehicles without City Council approval. Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Bloyer, moved TO PURCHASE A 2016 JEEP COMPASS WITH A LOAN FROM LAKE ELMO BANK AT 1.99%. MOTION PASSED 3 – 2. (Fliflet, Lundgren – Nay) LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2015 Page 6 of 7 ITEM 16: OP ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION Interim Administrator Schroeder reviewed the general requirements regarding density in the OP zoning district and questions concerning potential revisions. Councilmembers noted restrictions in the current code and potential for improving it. Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO DIRECT THE OP ORDINANCE BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION BASED ON THE AREAS IDENTIFIED IN ORDINANCE THAT WERE DISCUSSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION PASSED 3 – 1 – 1. (Bloyer – Nay, Pearson – Abstain) ITEM 17: PARLIAMENTARIAN DISCUSSION Councilmember Fliflet stated that she would like the Council to hire a parliamentarian to run the City Council meetings while the Council continues to work toward better relations. Discussion held concerning the current Council meeting procedures and decorum. Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO DIRECT THE ADMINISTRATOR TO HIRE A PARLIAMENTARIAN OF HIS CHOICE FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION PASSED 3 – 1 – 1. (Bloyer – Nay, Pearson – Abstain) Dale Doerschner – 3150 Lake Elmo Avenue – questioned the cost and effectiveness of hiring a parliamentarian. ITEM 18: RFP PROCESS FOR ENGINEERING AND LEGAL CONTRACTS Councilmember Fliflet asked staff to look into the current contracts with City consultants to determine if the City needs to start an RFP process as part of year end planning. ITEM 19: INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR CONTRACT City Attorney Snyder stated that he prepared a letter to the Council and provided a copy of the Interim Administrator’s contract for Council review. Councilmember Bloyer suggested the City Attorney negotiate with the Interim Administrator for an extension to allow the City time to stabilize. Councilmember Fliflet stated the City needs to finish the process and conduct a search for a permanent Administrator but noted she is against using a search firm. Councilmember Smith stated she is in favor of using a search firm and offered to gather additional information for the next meeting. ITEM 20: PROFORMA UPDATE Interim Administrator Schroeder reported on follow up he conducted on questions from the previous Council meeting. Schroeder explained that the document is a very complex, interlinked spreadsheet with issues in calculations that occur after the year 2021. Schroeder reiterated his recommendation from the previous meeting for the City to purchase software from an outside vendor and hire a contractor to input the information to replace use of the spreadsheet. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2015 Page 7 of 7 Wally Nelson, 4582 Lilac Lane, thanked staff for admitting errors in the spreadsheet and offered assistance to the Finance Director and Finance Committee Chair. STAFF REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Interim City Administrator Schroeder: Attended a library meeting, Washington County municipal water meeting, League of Minnesota Cities Meeting, met with developers, attended an in-service regarding livable communities. City Clerk Johnson: Reported that the ISD 622 special election went very smoothly with a 25% voter turnout, and thanked City staff and election judges for their help. Attended an HR training last week, preparing for HR Committee meeting Monday, November 9th, posted Community Development Director position opening, interviewing candidates for the Office Administrative Assistant position later in the week, working on license renewals and assisting residents with special assessment questions. Noted City Hall will be closed on Wednesday, November 11th in observance of Veteran’s Day. Meeting adjourned at 12:26 a.m. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ATTEST: ______________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor _______________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk