HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks Commission Packet Nov 2017 Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public
Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner
While Preserving the City's Open Space
'n I I" crrti' O Character
LAKE
NOTICE OF MEETING
City of Lake Elmo Park Commission
3800 Laverne Avenue North
November 20, 2017 6:30 PM
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a) October 16, 2017
4. Wyndham Village Sketch Plan
5. Legacy at North Star Preliminary Plat and PUD
6. Washington County Landfill Land Use
7. Mountain Biking in Lake Elmo Parks—Update and responses from 3rd parties
8. Multi use trials in Sunfish Lake Park—Winter Use
9. 2018 Work Plan
10. December 2017 Meeting Agenda
11. Staff Reports& Commission Update
12. Adjourn
'Note:Every effort will be made to accommodate person or persons that need special considerations to attend
this meeting due to a health condition or disability. Please contact the Lake Elmo City Clerk ifyou are in need of
special accommodations.
MINUTES
City of Lake Elmo Parks Commission
October 16, 2017
Members Present: Chair Frick, Commissioners Ames, Mayek, Nelson, Olinger, Pearce, Steele,
and Zeno
Members Absent: Commissioner Nuenfeldt
Staff Present: City Administrator Handt, Public Works Lead Worker Colemer, Planning
Director Becker, City Planner Prchal
The meeting was called to order by Chair Weis/Commissioner Frick at 6:30 PM.
Approval of Agenda
Motion by Olinger to approve the agenda as amended, seconded by Frick. Motion passed.
Approval of Minutes
Frick requested that there be a change to the minutes, to add 'motion passed', in the Village
Park Preserve section. Frick also suggested that a change to the Staff Reports section regarding
the Sunfish Lake Park Guide not the Sunfish Forest Management that was previously approved.
Steele requested a change to the Village Park Preserve section to remove expressed from his
comments.
Motion by Frick, seconded by Olinger to approve the minutes with the changes suggested.
Motion passed.
Recognition of Shane Weis
Frick stated that the Parks Commission had requested that we provide recognition to Shane
Weis for his years and hours of service. Frick mentioned that the Parks
Commission is a volunteer board and thanked the Commission for spending the
evening volunteering. She also thanked staff for putting the recognition
together.
Steele suggested the addition of the Chair and Mayor signing the recognition.
Frick made a motion to approve the Resolution recognizing Shane Weis. Pearce seconded the
motion. Motion passed.
Adopt-a-Park Program
Colemer stated that Public Works has decided to take over the Adopt-a-Park Program. They will
keep track of who is adopting the parks and recognize them. Three parks within
the city have previously been adopted; however, the families are no longer in
the city.
Zeno said he is a supporter of the program. He stated that it provides community ownership of
the parks. He would also like to see the signs with the names of the individuals
that adopted the parks located near the park signs so they are more visable.
Frick asked if it would just be families that would be allowed to adopt parks or if HOA's could.
Steele suggested that protocol information is established and added to the City website.
Frick made a motion for staff to further explore the program, draft a policy and bring it back
before the Commission. Motion passed.
Central Greenway Regional Trail Update
Becker presented that the County selected SRF Consulting from the Request for Proposal to
develop routes for the trail. A technical advisory committee will be established
and meet 3-5 times to providing updates on the trails and getting feedback from
residents. Staff would like to see someone from the Parks Commission on the
technical advisory committee.
The study will be completed by December 31, 2018.
Mayek volunteered to be on the committee.
Sunfish Lake Forest Management Plan
Becker stated that at the June 19t" Parks Commission meeting the breakdown of the Sunfish
Forest Management Plan was discussed. At that meeting two members had
volunteered to go out and do an assessment of the park. Frick sent an email to
staff mentioning the location of the greatest amount of windfall damage in the
north and south in the park. The restoration of the south site and buckthorn
removal were recommended.
Frick further explained she is not an arborist and did not identify trees except if obvious, like
laying across the trail. She mentioned that she would be happy to send Public
Works a map of trees that have fallen along the trail. She described the area in
the most need as the north part of the park near the Tapestry neighborhood. It
is esthetically displeasing and is likely a fire hazard. She said she identified this
section in the north as first priority, then another section in the south, followed
by addressing oak wilt. She said that Buckthorn is a huge issue within the park
especially to the south and west, however since it is such a large amount,the
manual removal methods would take a long time. She suggested that in talking
with the Mayor and City Administrator the idea of using goats had been
discussed and would likely be the best way to address the issue, but it takes time
and planning to rent the goats.
Olinger mentioned that she looked at the park more as a whole. She determined the same
location as Frick, near the Tapestry neighborhood, that has the most dry dead
wood that should be removed from the park as a starting point.
Handt said that this information could be taken back to the Public Works Director and
determine if this work could be handled by staff this winter in January or
February. Public Works will have to prioritize snow removal this winter but will
work on tree removal when they can.
Colemer requested that Public Works be provided access from Tapestry to do the tree removal
in order to cut a lot of time off the project, since that is the location the trees.
The City was never given access easement to the park from the neighborhood.
Continental Concept PUD Plan Review
Becker shared that the City has received a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Concept Plan
Review for a PUD for a 300 unit multifamily development. There are no parks
planned within the development and no trail is designated along the future road.
The trail plan does indicate a trail should be installed there. The City would
require a trail along the street that connects 5t" Street to Hudson Blvd.
The Planning Commission requested that the Parks Commission review this application to
determine if there is a need for a private Tot Lot within the development,
maintained by the Property Management. And have it be a condition of
approval, provided the development moves forward.
Continental provided statistics on their typical demographics within the state with 9%of
residents being between the ages of 0-17.
Continental is providing amenities including a dog park, pool, clubhouse, fitness center, outdoor
bbq.
Frick made a motion to support staff recommendation to approve a trail over a sidewalk and
that we would not recommend the need for a Tot Lot or land dedication, but
accept the park dedication fee
Zeno stated that if the trail is constructed along the road, it will be used as a sidewalk and not a
trail. He recommended that it would be safer for bikers to have a lane on the
road, not a trail next to the road.
Steele asked if it was unrealistic to request that the road be 6 ft. wider and a sidewalk be
installed.
Staff stated that the motion did not get seconded and the motion failed.
Steele made a motion to approve an extra 3 ft. wide striped shoulder lane on each side along
the road for bikes and approve a 6 ft. wide sidewalk for pedestrians, that the City
would accept the fee for the Parkland Dedication, and not require a Tot Lot.
Mayek seconded the motion.
Pearce said he agrees with the staff recommendation of a trail for consistency with the area.
The motion failed with a vote of 3 to 4.
Pearce made a motion to approve staff recommendation of a trail instead of a sidewalk, that
the City would accept the fee for the Parkland Dedication, and not require a Tot
Lot. Frick seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 3. Dissenting were Zeno,
Steele, and Mayek.
Fire Arm Hunt in Sunfish Lake Park
Colemer stated that he has received a number of calls from hunters regarding hunting in
Sunfish Lake Park, wanting to know if it will be happening again this year.
Colemer said staff is considering allowing bow hunting instead of firearm.
Frick mentioned that archery season is longer than firearm season.
Zeno asked if the park would be closed during hunting season.
Colemer stated that the City in the past couple years has followed the dates the County allows
hunting in the park reserve.
Discussion about the number of deer in the area, the need for the hunt, if data was available to
support the need, how many hunters would be allowed, type of hunt. Discussion
to table or deny the hunt in Sunfish Lake Park due to lack of data to support the
need. Additional discussion about timing and if it would need Council approval
and be past the firearm season.
Motion passed to deny the two-day hunt in Sunfish Lake Park.
Sunfish Lake Park Biking
Handt mentioned that this item was scheduled for the September meeting, which was
cancelled and that the Council has been discussing the Sunfish Lake Park
Development and Usage Plan at their workshops. The Council gave direction to
staff to contact the MN Land Trust to let them know the City would be looking at
different usage of the park. Last week at the Council Workshop, the Council gave
the direction of staff to work with the Parks Commission to develop a plan to
allow mountain biking on separate trails from walkers, runners, and horseback
riders in in the park. There is information in your packet discussing biking and in
1992 was prohibited. There was a recodification of the City ordinances in 2007
and there is nothing in there prohibiting mountain biking. After meeting with
the MN Land Trust, there is nothing that prohibits mountain biking in the
conservation easement, but they did point out that that there are erosion
control requirements.
Frick stated that in 1994 Council voted to ban mountain biking in Sunfish Lake Park.
Handt explained that when the City recodifies the City Code that they repealed the old code
and adopted the new code, verified by the City Attorney. If it is not included in
the current code, that means that ordinance no longer exists.
Frick asked about how this may affect the CIP.
Handt stated that council will have the last say on the CIP. She mentioned it just came out of
the Finance committee last week and will go to the Planning Commission in
November and to the Council in December. If it is something the Council wants
to pursue, then they could amend the CIP in December for which year they want
to allow for it.
Pearce asked if there are any mountain biking parks.
Handt said she thought the County Park Reserve allows mountain biking, but none in City parks.
Steele stated that he feels there is a 25 year precedent of there not wanting mountain biking in
Sunfish Lake Park and that the council has decided to not consult the Parks
Commission in the decision to move forward with the ability to mountain bike in
the park. Steele feels it is a larger issue that the Council went around a volunteer
body of residents and not able to provide public feedback. Steele is concerned
about the rush on the process. He is also concerned with maintaining the park.
Frick stated that there has been some residents expressing concern about being left out of
meetings and not having their opinions heard. Frick also mentioned that there
was not a formal decision regarding mountain biking in Sunfish Lake Park, there
has been no public input on this decision despite years of an understanding that
there is no biking.
Rolf Larson, mentioned this process is moving quickly and something that isn't being discussed,
but should be considered is that a portion of the park is currently reserved for
wildlife habitat. If a trail is run through the middle of this section it will ruin the
protected habitat.
Zeno suggested that a moratorium be placed on bikes using Sunfish Lake Park at least until May
strictly on an erosion control perspective. He would like feedback on the soils at
the park. Zeno feels the park is already dense with trails and adding more for
separate mountain biking trails takes away from the park. Zeno enjoys mountain
biking and would like to see a park in the city, but does not feel this is the park
for the trails.
Mayek said he feels the trails were designed for multi-use. He feels a lot of the erosion comes
from equestrian use. He also feels the trails were poorly designed for Nordic
skiers, the hills are too steep and curves are too sharp. If these were smoothed
out it would also cut down on the erosion happening in the park and would cut
down on the need for maintenance.
Frick said that she is a trail runner and frequents Sunfish Lake Park, county, and regional parks.
She feels that she experiences the same level of traffic in all of the parks she
frequents and is concerned there is a desire to increase the usage of Sunfish Lake
Park, partially due to safety reasons since visibility in the park is lower than some
of the other trails she uses.
Olinger said that although we do have a tradition of no biking in Sunfish Lake Park, there have
been other things that have changed over the last 25 years. There has been
growth and change within the community. Olinger also mentioned that since
this topic keeps coming up over the years, there is clearly a population that is
interested in this. She stated that it is something she feels obligated to
thoughtfully consider, including taking safety, habitat, and other issues into
consideration. Olinger said she would like to see the Commission move forward
on developing a plan and not focus on whether they agree or approve of the use.
Zeno would like to take the focus of putting bike trails into Sunfish Lake Park and put the effort
into installing mountain biking trails into Lake Elmo.
Frick made a motion for the City Staff to solicit Trail Source and other appropriate trail experts
to provide advice on mountain bike trail areas within the City, looking at
potential parks and providing analysis of our options. Steele seconded the
motion. Motion passed.
Pickleball
Frick stated that John Ames had read an article in the Pioneer Press and asked if the Parks
Commission should reconsider putting Pickleball courts in our parks. Frick said
she thought this would be more of a discussion than adding it to the 2020 plan.
Handt stated that in the 2020 plan that it was kept generic to allow the construction of a new
park, not a specific location, type, or what it would entail. This could be rolled
into that funding.
There was discussion that Pickleball was discussed for the Wildflower development briefly.
Frick said that an Inwood neighborhood resident has mentioned there is interest
within their neighborhood for a Pickleball court.
Mark Ruppert, an Inwood resident discussed that Pickleball is one of the top fastest growing
sports in the country, especially for the 50+ demographic. Ruppert said that he
had developed a program in Oakdale where he lived previously, including
teaching Pickleball. He also stated that he would like to help with the
development of the park near Inwood.
Steele mentioned it would be good to know where existing Pickleball courts are located in the
area. Handt replied that Becker included a list of them in the staff report to the
Commission.
Colemer said that he thinks putting Pickleball in Lion's Park would be a good use of the seldom
used tennis courts.
Zeno stated that he loves the idea of Pickleball courts. Zeno would like to stripe some of the
existing tennis courts to allow for Pickleball.
Handt said that restriping courts with good surfaces could be considered maintenance on the
park and would not need to go through the CIP process. Anything that is
$25,000 or more goes into the CIP approval process.
No motion needed on this item.
November Meeting
Preliminary Plat for Gonyea West
A development southwest of the Northport development
Work plan for 2018
Staff Reports and Commission Update
Handt gave an update on the Royal Golf Park Dedication fee. Handt stated that the fee was
increased to over$600,000.
Handt reported that Savona Park is being graded where the playground equipment will be
located.
Colemer reported that the rubber mulch was installed at Easton Village and that there will be
minor restoration to do at the park due to equipment being used to install the
mulch.
Colemer stated that mulch was delivered for Ridge Park.
Handt mentioned that Lions Park is on track to be completed by next month so that it can be
ready for spring to complete.
Meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tanya Nuss
THE CITY OF STAFF REPORT
LAKE ELMO DATE: 11/20/17
REGULAR
AGENDA ITEM:
TO: Parks Commission
FROM: Emily Becker, Planning Director
ITEM: Wyndham Village Subdivision Sketch Plan Review
REVIEWED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner
BACKGROUND:
The Parks Commission is being asked to review and make recommendation on the proposed sketch
plan for Wyndham Village and provide feedback.
REVIEW/ANALYSIS:
Park Dedication. The proposed development is to the east of Reid Park. With recording of the
Northport plat,the City received approximately an additional 12.5 acres of parkland for an extension
of Reid Park. The Neighborhood Park Search Area map of the Comprehensive Plan's Parks and
Recreation Plan does not identify this area for a neighborhood park. Therefore, Staff would not
recommend that parkland be dedicated within this development and that the City accept fees in lieu
of parkland dedication. Per the City's Subdivision Ordinance, 10%of the fair market value of the
land will need to be paid as the parkland dedication fee. The fair market value of the land is
determined by current market data, if available, or by obtaining an appraisal from a licensed real
estate appraiser, and the subdivider is required to pay for the appraisal. In this case, if the owner of
the property will be selling the land to the Applicant to be developed,there will be current market
data available. If the owner is not selling the land, an appraisal to determine the fair market value will
likely be required in order to determine the amount of parkland dedication the City will receive. The
Parks Commission will review the proposed sketch plan on November 20, 2017.
Trails.No trails are being proposed within the development, only a sidewalk on the west side of
Liberty Court North. There is already a trail along the south of 30"'Street, and the developers of
Northport will be constructing a segment of a trail from the southern edge of that development off
Liberty Court North. This trail segment will not connect to the existing trails in Reid Park, however,
as approved by Council. The City may extend this trail through to the existing trails in Reid Park in
the future. The City's trail plan indicates a trail along 30th Street North,which already exists on the
south side of the street.
2
,
1 ,
I ,
I 0 I
zits
IT.11
i i li -d- II
,
, I
~ 8 Proposed sidewalk
30th St W
a
Trail Plan
a
i"
}
..: d 4
Existing Trail
et—Norih
7 �
FISCAL IMPACT:
The developer would be required to pay 10% of the assessed value of the land,which would go to the
park dedication funds.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Subdivision Sketch Plan
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 5A
I / / c RA C.M.BY: Cow NO BY:
HCKD BY.
J.
{ C.W.P. 17 1724
ORIGINAL/\ OCTOBER 13,2017
/ 21.76
O
/ _31 TREET /
.... ..............
i
I
..\
I
r
1
Z
.63
_ > > /
460:5f.......9zo...
I I I ti°
I
Emt N
T�`
�Z-oo PROPOSED a c z
Q INFILTRATION y 'm
2 Q BASIN
1 f N (NORTHPORT) =z_
ad 3
ti
m
OUTLOT H L a
92¢s Za I_ T _
(CITY OWNED)
X92&QQ ,• —
a5ILI
/
m
a ; N
9?so 250°
~ _
= O z
uu IP P°`
�) 9Z /1 CD Z Q
i�T23.510
h 0
922.80 >1
CB m ^ •..0 ti - PREPARED FOR:
9 " RE 921.8 �.. �.
Ei s,s.o J.P.BUSH HOMES
921.9
I ,
22.50
1 _. I 0,ys
\
Oy
F6 F�
SITE PLANNING
- 8 ENGINEERING
15" APRON
9,8.55�E� PLOW S
N F.B. ti ENGINEERING,INC.
➢ _o .' -'- 6776 LAKE DRIVE
110
a 919.6 r LINIO LAKES,MN 55014
a 27.0 PHONE:(651)361$210
"' — FAX:(651)361-8701
c X926.50 ,c
NORTH
30TH STREET NORTH
- /_ 139.50 M u 460.51 O
1 --
p 600.01 -------------------
< • ........ ,INCH=40 FEET
Know what's below.
PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN Ch
�
Cal l before you dig. LAKE ELMO RESIDENTIAL
STAFF REPORT
rkFErMo
PARKS COMMISSION
LA DATE: 11/20/2017
ITEM#:
TO: Parks Commission
FROM: Emily Becker, Planning Director
AGENDA ITEM: The Legacy at North Star Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Plans
REVIEWED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner
BACKGROUND:
GWSA Land Development is requesting Preliminary Plat and Development Stage (Preliminary)
Planned Unit Development(PUD) Plans for a 276 single family residential development on+/-
98.9 acres acres (net).
ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION:
The Commission is respectfully being requested to review and provide feedback to the developer,
and make a recommendation on proposed parkland to the City Council for the Preliminary Plat and
Planned Unit Development to be called Legacy at North Star.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Parks.
• Park Dedication Requirement. The park dedication requirements for a 98.93 acre
development is 9.893 acres of parkland, or a combination of parkland or fees in lieu of
parkland.
• Park Dedication Partially Satisfied. With the recording of the Northport plat,the developer
will deed over Outlot D of that plat. The City entered in to a Memorandum of
Understanding that allowed the developer to receive park dedication in the amount of 6.51
acres (the net acreage of Outlot D) for the subject development. Therefore, the developer
is still responsible for 3.383 acres of park dedication.
• Neighborhood Park Search Area. The Comprehensive Park Plan identifies a neighborhood
park search area over the proposed development area.
• Parks Commission Review of Concept PUD Plan. The Parks Commission reviewed the
Concept PUD Plan on May 15, 2017, and while knowing that the proposed development
is within a Neighborhood Park Search area (see below), voted 6-1 to recommend that the
City accept fees in lieu of parkland dedication for the development. The Parks Commission
was in favor of the proposed park as presented with the Concept PUD Plan(as shown below
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
Parks Commission Meeting
November 20, 2017 Page 2
the map of the Neighborhood Park Search area) but was concerned about the number of
neighborhood parks the City already has and the increased maintenance the addition of
another neighborhood park would create. They recommended that the park proposed in the
Concept PUD Plan be a private park and HOA-maintained.
Neighborhood Park Search Area
• Changes since Concept Plan. With the Preliminary Plat and PUD Plan application, the
applicant has removed the park that was near the center of the development and replaced a
previously 3.3 acre proposed public park area in the southwest corner. Additionally, the
previously 0.9 acre totlot area has been moved from the northeastern area of the
development to the southeastern corner. The sizes of the proposed park areas have also
increased as explained below.
------ t-,
�y L.r W 1.1 Ll 1.l:J;t�- .o �: '• •�r1. • 3
• -�• �w3 1� Formerly proposed
0.9 acre totlot �"
•� I Formerly Proposed .j �.
r — 3.3 acre park _ ( '
$ �y YYYY� W E-7y T •� � �_�•
,a I � • `_ , - W..N lal..a.Lr W- • -Jf• � • �• I 6- • •'.•'=L � - I
Concept PUD Plan ''�_��,���'•-`� '' �
Parks Commission Meeting
November 20, 2017 Page 3
• HOA Park. With the Preliminary Plat and PUD Plan,the developer is proposing a 4.85 acre
site with a small playground, swimming pool, sport court, and clubhouse near the
northeastern entrance to the development to be Homeowners' Association (HOA) owned
and maintained. The park is screened with a landscaping berm but is near a stormwater
pond. The applicant should provide some sort of fencing or something of that nature to
protect children from wandering in to this pond. There is parking proposed within the park,
as this was a condition of approval of the Concept PUD Plan. However, this parking lot
will need to be screened as explained further in the Landscaping and Tree Preservation
section of this report.
• Proposed Public Park. The developer is also proposing a 4.24 acre park/open space area
on the southwest portion of the site. This land includes stormwater ponding for the
development. Staff does not recommend that the developer receive credit for all of this land
because the stormwater pond is required to retain the stormwater for the development.
Additionally, this park is located in the shoreland district. The City's shoreland ordinance
does indicate that outdoor recreational facilities for use by owners of lots in the subdivision
and general public, but it may not include road rights-of-way, or land covered by roads,
structures, or parking surfaces and would need to adhere to the open space maintenance
and administration requirements which require deed restrictions, covenants, permanent
easements or other instruments that prohibit future vegetative and topographic alterations
other than routine maintenance, construction of buildings or storage of vehicles and other
materials, and ensure preservation and maintenance of open space. If the City took this
space on as parkland,the City would need to provide these instruments,but if the park was
HOA-maintained,the developer would need to provide it. Additionally, Staff feels that the
park proposed in the Concept Plan was much more desirable for the development because
of its central location. If the City wishes to accept this park as parkland, Staff recommends
that the developer still not receive credit for parkland dedication and provide the parkland
as an amenity in exchange for PUD flexibility. Additionally, the stormwater pond should
be fenced for safety.
Parks Commission Meeting
November 20, 2017 Page 4
Aerial of
approximate
proposed public park
area
Trails. The Comprehensive Trails Plan identifies a needed trail along the north edge of the
development to connect to the private Sunfish Ponds HOA trail and an east-west trail connecting
Lake Elmo Avenue near 39th Street east to the private Hamlet on Sunfish Lake HOA trails on the
north side of Sunfish Lake.
Note: According to City records, the Hamlet HOA trails were paid for by the City and were
supposed to have been dedicated to the City when the plat was recorded. The Hamlet HOA
currently maintains the trails.
sunfish �•
Like � ►
Parks Commission Meeting
November 20, 2017 Page 5
• Parks Commission Review of Concept PUD Plan. At its May 15, 2017 meeting, the Parks
Commission stated (with a vote of 7-0) that they would like to see the trails connecting to
the private Sunfish Ponds trail and to the private Hamlet on Sunfish Lake trail, provided
the City is able to obtain ownership and maintenance responsibility for those trails. The
Parks Commission indicated they would put forth an effort in helping obtain this
ownership. Commissioner Ames has made some progress on this, but Staff has not heard
an update since before August of 2017.
• Trail to Hamlet on Sunfish Lake. The developer has proposed a trail that will connect Lake
Elmo Ave N to the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake Development trail,however, approval has not
been obtained from the Homeowners' Association as of yet. If this trail is still desired and
if the City does not wish to accept the southwest corner park as park land dedication and
still desires the trail connection to Hamlet, park dedication credit would be given for the
value of the land under which the trail is located (30-foot wide corridor) and the
construction of the trail, unless the developer is willing to provide this as an amenity.
• Trail Along CSAH 17. The Planning Commission should also consider the need for a trail
along CSAH 17 to provide safe pedestrian connectivity from this development to
developments north and to the Village area to the south. The Washington County
Comprehensive Plan 2030,Planned Trail System,does not identify a trail along this section
of CSAH 17; however, future plans and county road projects may incorporate trails.
• Safe Routes to School. The development will connect to 391h Street, which would loop
across and connect to Stillwater Blvd N,which does not currently have an off-road trail. A
pedestrian ramp should be required to get safely across Lake Elmo Ave,possibly with some
sort of pedestrian crossing signal to get kids across safely.
OPTIONS:
The Commission may:
• Recommend the public park on the southwest corner of the site be dedicated to the City
and that the developer receive credit for the value of this land to satisfy the remaining 3.383
acre requirement of parkland dedication.
• Recommend the public park on the southwest corner of the site be dedicated to the City
and that the developer not receive credit for the value of this land to satisfy the remaining
3.383 acre requirement of parkland dedication and pay fees in lieu of park land dedication
for the value of these remaining acres.
• Recommend the public park on the southwest corner of the site not be dedicated to the City
and that the developer pay fees in lieu of park land dedication for the value of the remaining
3.383 acre requirement of parkland dedication.
• Recommend the public park on the southwest corner of the site not be dedicated to the
City and that the developer pay fees in lieu of park land dedication for the value of the
remaining 3.383 acre requirement of parkland dedication, less the value of the land under
and cost of construction of the trail.
The Commission should also recommend whether or not there should be a trail connecting the
development to the Hamlet on Sunfish Lake Development.
RECOMMENDATION:
Parks Commission Meeting
November 20, 2017 Page 6
Staff recommends the Parks Commission review the proposed Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans
and make recommendation to Council, choosing one of the options listed above.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans
2. Parks Commission meeting minutes from Concept PUD Plan review(May)
Gonyea West Plat
Becker shared that the City has received an application for a development called Gonyea West.
It is located west of Lake Elmo Avenue, across from Village Preserve. They are
proposing 279 units. They will need to dedicate 10% of the land or about 10
acres. However they also have preliminary plat approval for land south of
Easton Village and have proposed 15 acres for a Reid Park extension. They are
being given a credit for this development of approximately 6 acres for this
development. They are proposing a neighborhood park of.9 acre that will not
be maintained by the City and a 3.4 acre open space. The park land dedication
fund would not be receiving any additional funds for this development.
Becker said staff is looking for feedback regarding this concept plan. Staff would like feedback
regarding the proposed parks and trail that will connect to the Hamlet at Sunfish
Lake neighborhood, where the trails are private. This development falls within a
neighborhood park search area and this is also called out as needed trail
connection. Your feedback could go to Planning Commission and City Council.
Ames asked about the other development they want credit for, did we approve that?
Becker answered that the other development received preliminary plat approval with the
additional land for future credit.
Ames asked about the land near the pool. Would that be land that they are counting toward
park land?
Becker answered that it would not be dedicated land and would not count. Since they are
looking at doing a Planned Unit Development, that area may account for amenity
points toward this type of development. Becker said that they are requesting this
a Planned Unit Development and they are required to have 20% open space.
Ames asked for clarification on the location of the trail connection. Ames recalls that Sunfish
Ponds was open to some connections to trails if we maintained them. Is there a
way to discuss this with the neighborhood?
The mayor said he attended their HOA meeting this year and last year and they have not
expressed interest in connecting, but in remaining private. It would be
something to discuss with them.
Discussion around park land dedication versus park land fees. They discussed having to
maintain the open space proposed within this development and the cost. They
talked about the amount they could collect in dedication fees in lieu of land.
The commission voted on whether they supported the developer's proposal for parks and land.
The commission voted in favor with the exception of Weis.
The commission voted to support the trail connection if the adjoining neighborhoods to the
west would open up their trails for this type of connection. Otherwise no trail
connection would be supported. Motion passed unanimously.
WETLAND -
AREA:39370 SF I
NWL-960.0
HWL-962.0 —
IEj
_ ED _ .
/ 4
POND
NWL-939.0
HWL-942.0
1 � -
—
i SPACE' z
0
CA Cl Cl Cl CAL'I Cl
- ® — I
i o
p —
"$ pII o
_. _.
o
J — a '' a p p O p I `�,
"� p
I o °
0 o p o p o p
—__— -- I ° I o ° I I PUD CONCEPT PLAN
---- i,
- � ° -- 55'VILLA-72
_ _� -- �\ \� ❑ ,I ° _ ❑ (55'x+/-141
� �w IL ❑ L ❑� 55 55'SINGLE FAMILY
i
(55'x+/-121
66'(SINGLE FAMILY-128
` .I ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®IX ® ® .® \� .\ ��\ vl ❑ TOTAL UNITS-276
JI�LJ ® � ❑ I
i
i
POND E I I €
... ... .. .o NWL-937.5 ' a. —
® HWL-943.0 ® _
® I
° L2 i2
o
Zoning Zon PUD
Fysb-25 It
Fysb(sideload)-15 It
\ O� � �-�--- ---�_ SYsb 20ft 7.5ft
4.24 ACRES � � � � � /
- n
OPEN SPACE � E:l ,� �� //- -
I I
Corner
o2 20 It
13 B Streets
POND A
POND D NWL-936.0
NK-942.0 �J ED � CII I� HWL-940.5
O
I I
HWL140.8 O
100 50 0 50 100 200
61E�El El El El
SCALE IN FEET
DRAWING NAME NO. BY DATE REVISIONS USE(INCLUDING COPYING,DISTRIBUTION,AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS CITY PROJECT NO. FILE NO.
xxx _ __ ___ ___________ INFORMATION)OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I ERS S� — LOT TYPES
AMA DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE RAF' 3120-047-200
DRAWN BY SATHRETHRIZATIO,ICONEXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT ° o SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.
— —— ——— ———————————————— SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. w m
CHECKEDBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGQUIST,INC.OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. o LAKE ELMO, PARCEL A- SCHILTGEN X
—— ——— ———————————————— SATHRE-BERGQUIST,INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE m y 150 SOUTH BROADWAV WAYZATA,MN.55391 (952)47G6000
xxx — USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING s �� MINNESOTA GWSA LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC. X
Date: Lic.No
DATE FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE. Name,P.E. cNF Pd`'
—— ——— ———————————————— RS P�
��� .
THE CITY OF STAFF REPORT
LAKE ELMO DATE: 11/20/17
PUBLIc HEARING
AGENDA ITEM: 4B
TO: Parks Commission
FROM: Emily Becker,Planning Director
ITEM: Creation of new Landfill Land Use Category within the Comprehensive Plan
Re-guiding Land Management Area of Washington County Landfill to Landfill
Land Use Category
REVIEWED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner
BACKGROUND:
The Minnesota Legislature,in 1994,adopted a Landfill Cleanup Act(LCA)(M.S. 115B.39-115B.45)which
created the Closed Landfill Program(CLP),designating the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)
responsible for clean and long term care of 112 closed,municipal, solid waste landfills throughout the state,
making it responsible for managing risk to public health and environment associated with landfills.M.S.
115B.412, Subd. 9 requires the MPCA to develop a Land Use Plan for each landfill and that local government
units(LGUs)make their land use plans consistent with the MPCA's plan for the site.
The Washington County Landfill within the City of Lake Elmo is subject to the statute that requires the MPCA
develop a land use plan with which the governing body's land use plan must be consistent.
ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION:
Should the fenced off portion of the landfill be guided and zoned consistently with the MPCA's Closed
Landfill Use Plan(CLUP)as required per State Statute?
DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Areas of Concern.The CLUP was created due to the following areas of concern:
• Groundwater Areas of Concern. The presence of activities that require use of groundwater may
be impacted or precluded by contamination from the landfill or may cause groundwater flow
direction to change thereby impacting the user or others nearby.
• Methane Gas Areas of Concern. Methane gas is an odorless gas produced when municipal solid
waste decomposes,and can be explosive in confined spaces such as basements when mixed with
air. Presence of certain activities, such as construction of enclosed structures,may be impacted or
precluded by subsurface migration of methane gas.
Current Restrictions to Subject Parcels.Declarations of Restrictions and Covenants for the site already
restrict constructing, excavating,placing any structure
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b—ACTION ITEM
2
What is proposed to be re-guided and rezoned? A lot line adjustment will be processed that will
create a parcel that includes only the fenced in area of the park. Only this parcel will be re-guided and
rezoned. The public is not allowed to access this site as it is.
What is it being proposed to be re-guided and rezoned to?A Closed Landfill Restricted category
will need to be created in the Comprehensive Plan as well as a Closed Landfill Restricted zoning
district. The rest of the area will remain Parks and Open Space/Public and Quasi-Public Open Space
and will still be a part of Sunfish Lake Park.
Reason for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment.While the restrictive covenants
restrict the property in regards to well installation and the construction of buildings,the MPCA also
requires a Land Use Plan to be developed that identifies uses that commensurate with the MPCA's
obligations to take care of the landfill and manage risks the landfill poses to the public, as well as to
protect the remedial infrastructure the state has invested, including equipment, landfill cover, etc. Public
access or recreation is not allowed on its landfills. Designating the entire Land Management Area as
Parks and Open Space would give the impression that all of the site was accessible to the public as park,
which is exactly what cannot be allowed.
Next Steps-Parkland Conversion. There are four parcels that make up the Washington County
Landfill site located in the City of Lake Elmo. In 1978, these properties received a Land and Water
Conversion Fund(LAWCON)grant, which is a federal grant used for the development of outdoor
recreation facilities. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible for tracking
compliance of the conditions to which this grant was given. In 1990,the DNR determined the
Landfill Park was unavailable for public outdoor recreation use because of landfill remediation
systems, specifically spray irrigation system. The City then began with the required conversion
process to convert the land to non-recreational uses to find other land to replace it,but the City has
yet to complete this process. The City will need to complete this conversion process, and this may be
done with future parkland dedicated with development or through a different process (purchasing
parkland, designating donated parkland, etc.). The dedicated land must be equal in value to the land
that is no longer usable for recreation purposes.
The next step in this conversion process will be to have a federal appraisal completed for Parcel A
which will no longer be available for public recreation use. If the expected value is under$25,000, a
waiver valuation can be submitted,but the appraiser preparing the waiver must have sufficient
understanding of the local real estate market to be qualified. Staff has received a quote of$3,000 to
perform the appraisal provided the expected value is under$25,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Parks Commission recommend approval of the re-guiding within the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan and the rezoning of the area only within the fence to Closed
Landfill Restricted in order to adhere to State Statute Requirements.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Aerial of property showing fenced-in area that will be re-guided and re-zoned
• Timeline of events
• CLUP Report
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B —ACTION ITEM
Washington County Landfill Timeline
Year Event Details
1969 Landfill permitted.
1975 Landfill closed.
1978 & Land and Water Conversion Fund(LAWCON)grant LAWCON is a federal grant that is used for the development of outdoor recreation facilities.
1979 agreements signed by City and State. The Department of Natural Resources(DNR)is responsible for tracking compliance.
1990 DNR determines Landfill Park unavailable for public outdoor DNR informs City of this determination and recommends the City begin with the required
recreation use because of landfill remediation systems, conversion process to convert the land to non-recreational uses and to find other land to
specifically spray irrigation system. replace it.
1993 City Council accepts this determination. City informs DNR the City will begin appraising new land to replace the Landfill Park.
1994 MN Legislature adopts the Landfill Cleanup Act(LCA)(M.S. • Mission:Manage risk to public health and environment associated with landfills.
I I5B.39-115B.45)which created the Closed Landfill Program . Strategy:M.S. 11513.412,Subd.9 requires the MPCA to develop a Land Use Plan for
(CLP),designating the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency each landfill and that local government units(LGUs)make their land use plans consistent
(MPCA)responsible for clean and long term care of 112 closed, with the MPCA's plan for the site.
municipal,solid waste landfills throughout the state. . Issue:Current City of Lake Elmo local land use plan conflicts with MPCA's land use
plan.
1995 MPCA takes over responsibility of the Landfill. An agreement is made with MPCA,Washington County,Ramsey County,and the City
entered in to a Landfill Cleanup Agreement(LCA).
1995 DNR informs City the required conversion process is not Informs the City no further funds will be received until the process is completed.
complete.
2010 DNR again requests the City to complete the conversion
process.
2011 City informs the MPCA of the issue for the first time and • City claimed the property would remain designated public outdoor recreation use except
meeting is held between City Administrator,Engineer, for the fact that the MPCA has determined a portion of it to be unsuitable for public
Attorney,Special Projects Assistant and a Parks Board Member, recreation/use.
representative from DNR and representative from MPCA. . MPCA argues that the DNB's determination that the land was unsuitable for public
outdoor recreation,as well as City's acceptance of this and its early willingness to begin
the conversion,had nothing to do with MPCA's determination and that this determination
was made before the Landfill Cleanup Act was enacted.
2013 MPCA drafts a Closed Landfill Use Plan that identifies future In addition to closed landfill management,certain areas may be suitable for certain civic
land uses that are acceptable to MPCA for the site,or parts of uses related to city maintenance,parks or open space,or use as a solar energy farm.
the site.
Today The City has yet to adopt the MPCA land use plan nor has it had
the land recently appraised or replaced with other suitable
public outdoor recreation use to meet DNR requirements.
Next Action Steps for City of Lake Elmo: Washington County Landfill
PID#s: 10-029-21-33-0001, 10-029-21-34-0001, 15-292-12-10-0003, 15-292-12-20-0001
City creates revised map showing
property boundary that will be City verifies with the MPCA that City replats parcels,creating one
maintained for public outdoor these boundaries properly reflect City gives the revised map to the > parcel that delineates land no
recreation use and the portion that the area that is no longer suitable DNR for review. longer suitable for public outdoor
is no longer suitable for public for public outdoor recreation use. recreation use.
outdoor recreation use.
If appraisal firm determines
City amends Comprehensive Plan by property to be$25,000 or less,a
be
creating a new land use category and property t the can DNR submitteedd to the .
o .
re-guiding the property no longer City contacts certified or If the roe is determined to be
suitable for public outdoor recreation professional appraisal firm to p p
use and rezones properties with a determine if property value is more than$25,000,City must have
an appraisal completed to federal
newly created zoning district consistent expected to be$25,000 or less. "yellow book"standards.
with MPCA's land-use plan for the site,
a Exact costs of these are unknown,
s is required by State Statute.
but the appraisal could be around
$5,000.
City replaces land for public Until the City proceeds with the
outdoor recreation use elsewhere in replacement of the landfill area
the city.The value of this land land deemed unsuitable for public
must be equal to the value of the outdoor recreation use,the DNR
landfill area parcel that has been cannot provide additional grants.
deemed no longer suitable for
public outdoor recreation use. > Additionally,the State could be
This land must be property not held responsible by the National
currently owned by the City or Park Service to satisfy the contract
identified for recreational use.It requirements.The efforts to have
can be future parkland dedication the City comply with their contract
land and would be owned and between the City and State are
operated by the City as parkland. unknown.
CLOSED LANDFILL USE PLAN
WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013
Minnesota Pollution do'.
Control Agency it#
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................. 1
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................................2
GROUNDWATER AND METHANE GAS AREAS OF CONCERN ........................................................................2
CURRENT ZONING/LAND USE PLAN FOR THE LMA ......................................................................................4
DECLARATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS...................................................................................4
STATE BOND FINANCED PROPERTY..............................................................................................................5
MPCA'S LAND USE PLAN FOR THE LMA........................................................................................................6
DISCUSSION /CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................6
DISCLAIMER...................................................................................................................................................7
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: MINN. STAT. §§ 115B.412, SUBD. 4 AND 9
APPENDIX B: SITE LOCATION MAP-WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL
APPENDIX C: LAND MANAGEMENT AREA-WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL
APPENDIX D: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL LAND MANAGEMENT AREA (LCA
PARCELS)
APPENDIX E: LCA PARCELS-WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL
APPENDIX F: GWAOC-WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL
APPENDIX G: MGAOC-WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL
APPENDIX H: CLOSED LANDFILL MANAGEMENT USE-WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL
APPENDIX I: CIVIC AND PARKS &OPEN SPACE USE-WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL
APPENDIX J: SOLAR ENERGY FARM USE-WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL
APPENDIX K: CLOSED LANDFILL RESTRICTED ZONING ORDINANCE TEMPLATE
CLOSED LANDFILL USE PLAN
WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL
INTRODUCTION
In 1994,the Minnesota Legislature adopted the Landfill Cleanup Act (LCA) (Minn.Stat. 11513.39 -
115B.45)which created the Closed Landfill Program (CLP). Under the CLP,the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency(MPCA) is responsible for the cleanup and long term care of 112 closed, municipal, solid
waste landfills throughout the State.
The mission of the CLP is to manage the risk to public health and the environment that is associated with
these landfills. Landfill gas migration and groundwater contamination can be serious issues at some
landfills. These problems can pose a threat to the health and safety of those living or occupying land
nearby. In addition, chemicals leaching from landfills can degrade groundwater and surface water
resources surrounding them. The MPCA addresses the risk to public health and the environment at the
closed landfills by undertaking cleanup actions, operating and maintaining remediation systems
(engineered covers, gas-collection and groundwater-treatment systems) and by monitoring
groundwater, surface water, and landfill gas.
The risk to public health and safety is also mitigated by implementing land-use controls that minimize
public exposure to landfill hazards and protect the state's response action equipment. In other words,
future use of land at and around closed landfills needs to be planned carefully and responsibly.
Minnesota Statutes 11513.412, Subd. 9 of the LCA requires the MPCA to develop a Land Use Plan for each
of these landfills and for local government units (LGUs)to make their local land use plans consistent
with the MPCA's plan for the site. Minnesota Statutes 11513.412, Subd. 4 requires the MPCA to provide
LGUs certain information about the landfill and to incorporate this information in to their local land use
planning. These statutes are provided in Appendix A.
The MPCA considers these statutory requirements,when put together, as a Closed Landfill Use
Plan (CLUP). The purpose,then,for preparing a CLUP for each landfill is to:
• protect the integrity of the landfill's remediation and monitoring systems;
• protect human health and public safety at each landfill; and
• accommodate local government needs and desires for land use at the qualified facility with
consideration for health and safety requirements.
To meet the requirements of subdivision 9 of the statute, LGUs that have land-use authority must make
their land-use plans for the landfill consistent with the MPCA's plan for future use of, and obligations
for,the facility. One way to accomplish this is for LGUs to make certain that their land-use designations
and/or zoning ordinances are compatible with the MPCA's future responsibilities and uses for the Land
Management Area. To meet the requirements of subdivision 4 of the statute, LGUs must consider the
information about the landfill's contamination and methane gas migration in its land-use planning and
also make this information available to those that want to develop the affected property. Also, LGUs
may wish to adopt certain land-use controls in order to better protect public health and safety.
1
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Washington County Landfill (Landfill) is located in the city limits of Lake Elmo (City),Washington
County, Minnesota (Appendix B). A landfill's Land Management Area (LMA) includes the property
described in the Landfill Cleanup Agreement between the MPCA and the landfill owner/operator, and
may include adjacent property that contains waste, adjacent buffer property(land acquired for the
purpose of restricting use by the public due to landfill gas or groundwater concerns), and adjacent
property where response action equipment is located. At a minimum,the LMA will be comprised of the
property in the Landfill Cleanup Agreement. In addition,the LMA is the property that is subject to
Minnesota Statutes 11513.412, Subd. 9 of the LCA that requires the MPCA to develop a Land Use Plan for
the landfill and with which the LGU's land use plan must be consistent. The LMA for the Landfill consists
of approximately 129 acres as shown in Appendix C and legally described in Appendix D. The waste
footprint is about 24 acres.
The Landfill was permitted in 1969 and closed in 1975. The MPCA took over responsibility of the Landfill
in 1995 when the MPCA, Washington County, Ramsey County, and the City entered into a Landfill
Cleanup Agreement(LCA) and the MPCA issued the Notice of Compliance. The LMA is divided into four
parcels (A, B, C, and D) in the LCA for purposes of describing certain and required remedial response
actions (Appendix E shows the location of the LCA parcels). These parcels, in terms of their shape and
legal description, are not necessarily the same as the parcels identified by Washington County's
property records (i.e. tax parcels). Currently, LCA parcels A, C, and D are owned by the City and parcel B
is owned by the State of Minnesota, MPCA.
GROUNDWATER AND METHANE GAS AREAS OF CONCERN
Groundwater Area of Concern
The Groundwater Area of Concern (GWAOC) is defined as the area of land surrounding a landfill where
the presence of activities that require the use of groundwater may be impacted or precluded by
contamination from the landfill, or may cause the groundwater flow direction to change thereby
impacting the user or others nearby. The GWAOC is used to inform the public about the current and
potential risks to users of groundwater contaminated by the landfill. In most circumstances this area is
not equidistant around the site. The GWAOC is shown in Appendix F.
The surficial aquifer beneath the Landfill consists of glacial sand and gravel. Depth to the water table at
the site is approximately 50 feet below the ground surface. The surficial aquifer is contaminated with
perfluorochemicals (PFCs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including tetrachloroethene,
trichloroethene, and vinyl chloride. The plume of VOCs extends south to the railroad track that is north
of Highway 5.
The groundwater area of concern around the Landfill is the Special Well Construction Area (SWCA)
established by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). The area is defined by the environmental
monitoring system that includes 40 monitoring wells and 253 residential wells. This area was expanded
by MDH on March 8, 2007 in response to PFC contamination and is approximately 5.3 million square
meters. The SWCA includes the plume of mounded groundwater from the Landfill that travels to the
2
south and southeast and the co-mingled plume to the southwest that includes a plume from the
Oakdale Disposal Site through Raleigh Creek and a former plume from the Landfill that discharged to
Raleigh Creek from a Tri-Lakes outlet in the early 1990s. The contaminant plume from the Oakdale
Disposal Site is identified by PFOS (a type of PFC)that has impacted areas south and west of Raleigh
Creek, Eagle Point Lake, the area between Eagle Point Lake and Lake Elmo that is in the Lake Elmo Park
Reserve and residential developments that are south of this area to 1-94. The bedrock aquifer of the
Prairie du Chien and St. Peter Formation are impacted with PFCs to a depth of 200 feet below the
ground surface.
Methane Gas Area of Concern
The Methane Gas Area of Concern (MGAOC) is defined as the area of land surrounding a landfill waste
footprint where the presence of certain activities, such as construction of enclosed structures, may be
impacted or precluded by subsurface migration of methane gas. Methane gas is an odorless gas
produced when municipal solid waste decomposes, and can be explosive in confined spaces such as
basements when mixed in air. The MGAOC is used to inform the public about the risks to current and
future land owners regarding certain uses they may want to consider. The MGAOC is shown in Appendix
G.
Soils in the vicinity of the Landfill are generally very well drained sands and gravel with some silty sand.
The Landfill waste footprint is about 24 acres and contains approximately 2,000,000 cubic yards of
waste.The closest enclosed structure off the LMA is approximately 350 feet west of the waste footprint.
The Landfill has been reconstructed by building a triple lined system to segregate contaminants present
in the waste from direct contact with the environment. A geosynthetic cover has been installed and
welded to the top of the liner to seal landfill gas and leachate in the waste mass. An active gas
extraction system and a leachate collection system have been installed to manage gas and leachate.
The active gas extraction system has 20 vertical gas extraction wells connected to an enclosed
blower/flare unit. There are two gas monitoring probe nests currently located on the west side of
Jamaca Avenue west of the Landfill. Monitoring of these gas probes has shown non-detectable
concentrations of methane before and during the Landfill reconstruction. Additional gas probes are
anticipated to be installed during the latter half of 2013 to gather additional methane data.
Based on the waste being sealed within the liner/cover system, but also recognizing the permeable soils
in the area, the large mass of waste present in the Landfill, and the potential for gas to migrate under
seasonal low permeable (frozen) conditions, the MGAOC extends 200 feet beyond the waste footprint.
The MGAOC is within the LMA property boundary except for a small area on adjacent property
southeast of the Landfill.
It is important to note that these Areas of Concern can change over time. Therefore, updated
information will be provided to the County when the existing information becomes obsolete or
misleading.
3
CURRENT ZONING/LAND USE PLAN FOR THE LMA
LCA parcels A, C, and D are zoned Public and Quasi-Public Open Space (PF) while LCA parcel B is zoned
Agricultural (A).
Permitted uses in the Public and Quasi-Public Open Space (PF) district include uses allowed in the zoning
code that are in existence within the City at the effective date of the zoning code. Conditional uses in
the PF district include: cemeteries, places of worship, government facilities, libraries and museums,
public and private schools, and historic sites and interpretative centers. Interim uses in the PF district
include: keeping of horses in conjunction with churches.
Permitted uses in the Agricultural (A) district include: agriculture, farm, poultry facilities, farm buildings,
farm drainage and irrigation systems, forestry, one farm dwelling per 40 acres not already containing a
farm or non-farm dwelling,wayside stands, and joint ownership of property or by association or rental
for the purpose of providing private gardens and forest plots. Conditional uses in the A district include:
greenhouses, kennels, stables, commercial recreation, agricultural service establishments, open space
development projects, and non-agricultural low-impact uses. Interim uses in the A district include:
agricultural sales businesses, and agricultural entertainment businesses.
DECLARATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS
Three Declarations of Restrictions and Covenants were signed by the City and one by both Washington
and Ramsey Counties that restrict certain uses on the four LCA parcels. Each Declaration was recorded
with the Office of the County Recorder,Washington County, on December 14, 1995. The Declarations
run with the land and are described below.
Document No. 866616; prohibits the City from the following on LCA Parcel A:
• constructing, excavating, or placing any structure, material, personal property, equipment, or
any other items on the parcel without the written approval of the Commissioner of the MPCA;
and
• installing any drinking water wells on the parcel without the prior written approval of the
Commissioner of the MPCA and the MDH.
Document No. 866617; prohibits Washington and Ramsey Counties from the following on LCA Parcel B:
• constructing, excavating, or placing any structure, material, personal property, or equipment on
the parcel without the written approval of the Commissioner of the MPCA; and
• installing any drinking water wells on the parcel without the prior written approval of the
Commissioner of the MPCA and the MDH.
Document No. 866618; prohibits the City from the following on LCA Parcel C:
4
• constructing or placing any structure on the portion of the parcel that lies south of a line that is
125 feet south of the north boundary of the parcel without the written approval of the
Commissioner of the MPCA; and
• installing any drinking water wells on the parcel without the prior written approval of the
Commissioner of the MPCA and the MDH (any approved well installation must follow Minn.
Rules 4725.4450).
Document No. 866619; prohibits the City from the following on LCA Parcel D:
• constructing or placing any structure on the portion of the parcel that lies approximately within
the west 200 feet of the parcel without the written approval of the Commissioner of the MPCA;
and
• installing any drinking water wells on the parcel without the prior written approval of the
Commissioner of the MPCA and the MDH (any approved well installation must follow Minn.
Rules 4725.4450).
STATE BOND FINANCED PROPERTY
The MPCA used proceeds from the sale of State general obligation bonds for capital costs of
environmental response actions that MPCA undertook at the Landfill. As a result of this expenditure of
State bond proceeds,the publicly owned property where the environmental response actions were
taken became "State Bond Financed Property' as that term is defined by Minn. Stat. § 16A.695. As the
owner this State Bond Financed Property,the City and the MPCA are subject to the requirements of
Minn. Stat. § 16A.695 and any orders or rules adopted by the Commissioner of Minnesota Management
and Budget(MMB) under that statute.
Minn. Stat. § 16A.695 and the MMB Commissioner's Fourth Amended Order Relating to the Use and
Sale of State Bond Financed Property (the Order) impose certain requirements on any sale, mortgage, or
other disposition of State Bond Financed Property, or any lease or contract for the use or management
of the property entered into by the City or the MPCA Commissioner. The statutory requirements
include, but are not limited to, obtaining the approval of the Commissioner of MMB before the City or
the MPCA Commissioner enters into any such transaction (sale, lease, etc.)with respect to the property.
In order to assure that the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 16A.695 and the Order are carried out with
respect to all State Bond Financed Property,the MMB Commissioner requires that a Declaration be
recorded on the property records indicating that any sale of the property may be subject to the MMB
Commissioner's approval. Such Declaration, pertaining to LCA parcel B,was signed by the MPCA and
filed with the Office of the County Recorder, Washington County, on February 8, 2011 as document no.
3830248. However,two other Declarations, pertaining to LCA parcels A, C, and D, were sent to the City
for signature but have not yet been signed or recorded against the corresponding property.
5
MPCA'S LAND USE PLAN FOR THE LMA
The MPCA's first and foremost responsibility regarding the Landfill is to manage the risk to public health
and safety. It does this by taking response actions, maintaining the Landfill, and working with local
governments to assure land use is commensurate with landfill conditions and MPCA's obligations on the
LMA, as well as the conditions on the affected land off the LMA. Therefore, land uses associated with
the MPCA's obligation to protect public health and safety take precedence over other possible land
uses.
The MPCA has identified land uses for the LMA. It has done so by considering the methane gas and
groundwater areas of concern, the types and locations of response actions and associated equipment,
the amount of the LMA occupied by landfill waste, and local land-use desires. The land uses on either
the entire LMA or portions thereof that are acceptable to the MPCA are:
• Closed Landfill Management;
• Civic;
• Parks and Open Space; and
• Solar Energy Farm.
Appendices H through J show where these uses would be allowed within the LMA.
Closed Landfill Management is the use associated with the MPCA's responsibility and obligation to take
necessary response actions on the property as provided in Minn. Stat. §§ 11513.39-43. Civic is the use
associated with the City's need for building infrastructure related to city maintenance, fire service,
public safety, etc.
DISCUSSION /CONCLUSIONS
Land Uses on the LMA
Minn. Stat. § 1156.412, Subd. 9 requires all local land-use plans be consistent with the MPCA's land-use
plan for the LMA. The MPCA's future obligations for the LMA conflict with the current local land-use
plan; specifically the City's Public and Quasi-Public Open Space and Agriculture zoning ordinances for
this property. The MPCA believes that most of the uses within the current zoning for the LMA are not
compatible with the MPCA's future responsibilities for the site as well as the risks associated with the
Landfill. As a result,the MPCA recommends that the City adopt a new zoning district and ordinance for
the LMA. The MPCA recommends the City adopt a zoning district called Closed Landfill Restricted (CLR)
with an ordinance similar in form to the one included in Appendix K.
The new zoning, however, should reflect the land uses identified above—Closed Landfill Management,
Civic, Parks and Open Space, Solar Energy Farm—and as shown in Appendices H through J. The City may
want to consider Closed Landfill Management, Civic, and Parks and Open Space uses as permitted uses
6
for portions of the LMA while Solar Energy Farm be considered a conditional use (conditioned upon
location and plans approved by the MPCA and the City).
Regardless of future land use on the LMA, provisions within the Declarations of Restrictions and
Covenants prohibit the construction and placement of structures and other materials as well as the
installation of drinking water wells on certain portions of the LMA without prior written approval of the
MPCA and/or MDH.
Affected Property off the LMA
Minn. Stat. § 115B.412, Subd. 4(b) requires local units of government to incorporate information about
the landfill and associated groundwater contamination and landfill gas migration into any land-use plans
and to notify persons applying for a permit to develop affected property of the existence of this
information and, on request, to provide them with the information.
Certain land-use controls pertinent to groundwater use and well construction within the GWAOC
currently exist to protect public health and safety. First, Minn. Rules Chapter 4725.4450 requires that a
water supply well cannot be constructed within 600 feet of the Landfill. Second, MDH has established a
Special Well Construction Area south and east of the Landfill that prohibits the installation of wells in
this area unless approved by MDH to be constructed in certain aquifers and following certain
construction methods.
A majority of the MGAOC is contained within the LMA except for a small portion that is on adjacent
property southeast of the Landfill. However,the City's existing zoning ordinance for the adjacent
property, upon which the off-LMA MGAOC is present, prohibits structures from being built within 200
feet of the property line. Therefore, based on the monitoring data collected by the MPCA, no specific
land-use controls are being recommended for properties outside the LMA.
DISCLAIMER
The MPCA makes no representations or warranties to the user of the accuracy, currency, suitability, or
reliability of the data presented in this report. Any recommendations made by the MPCA in this report
are based solely on the data it has, or its contractors have, collected, and only from data collected at
specific locations and times. Other sources of contamination or methane, unknown to the MPCA, could
exist off the Landfill property. The MPCA recommends that any person interested in developing
property near the Landfill first consult with an environmental consulting or engineering firm, and/or an
environmental attorney, regarding the possible risks associated with the Landfill.
7
APPENDIX A
Minnesota Statutes 1156.412
Subd. 4. Affected real property; notice.
(a) The commissioner shall provide to affected local government units, to be available as
public information, and shall make available to others, on request, a description of the real
property described in the original and any revised permits for a qualified facility, along with a
description of activities that will be or have been taken on the property under sections 115B.39
to 115B.43 and a reasonably accurate description of the types, locations, and potential
movement of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants, or decomposition gases
related to the facility. The commissioner shall provide and make this information available at the
time the facility is placed on the priority list under section 115B.40, subdivision 2; shall revise,
provide, and make the information available when response actions, other than long-term
maintenance actions, have been completed; and shall revise the information over time if
significant changes occur that make the information obsolete or misleading.
(b) A local government unit that receives information from the commissioner under
paragraph (a) shall incorporate that information in any land use plan that includes the affected
property and shall notify any person who applies for a permit related to development of the
affected property of the existence of the information and, on request, provide a copy of the
information.
Subd. 9. Land management plans.
The commissioner shall develop a land use plan for each qualified facility. All local land use
plans must be consistent with a land use plan developed under this subdivision. Plans developed
under this subdivision must include provisions to prevent any use that disturbs the integrity of
the final cover, liners, any other components of any containment system, or the function of any
monitoring systems unless the commissioner finds that the disturbance:
(1) is necessary to the proposed use of the property, and will not increase the potential
hazard to human health or the environment; or
(2) is necessary to reduce a threat to human health or the environment.
Before completing any plan under this subdivision, the commissioner shall consult with the
commissioner of management and budget regarding any restrictions that the commissioner of
management and budget deems necessary on the disposition of property resulting from the use
of bond proceeds to pay for response actions on the property, and shall incorporate the
restrictions in the plan.
Appendix B: Site Location Map WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL
CD
2 g 2 asp
m 50th St N ?. < 51gt St N 50th St.N
Z a .lane N Z ,
Rd 47th St N ? Z '
o— Z 45th St N o
y 2 Lake Jane Tr N Y 0
m � Y
-4 M ; 42rvd
40thStN I Z f J - • - •
> 39th St
b 38th St N Q Y
37th St N l� 36t
h N E !�!C
Z I ' Q 1� ,?
m ' 34th St N 34tl; t N
>
>, +ram S2nd 5t _ - St A� SSWwa b�• 3 end St N
m
�131st9" a Elmo
> 3
Q A 27th St fah fh Sf o
zdale 3: 1 w � 26thStN HE '
CD
- �23rd St N Q �` o M-236
i2oth Si
18t� St,N
4----�,, 1
17th S�� 16th St N .
Appendix C: Land Management Area WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFIL
- Minnesata Pollution
Control Agency
Site Contacts
Land Afastager: Shawn Rutrtain*
Engineer: peter Tiffanv
H,drugeulugL+t: Jue.lubk
I „
I I Site Features
I I Legend
L _ j LandManagemenWea
Waste Footpnnt
I I
41NOAA
I
I
I KAMSKY
L J _ WAPHINIiTON
= - '�-
l:fi211
Created June 14,2013 Meters o on iF0 213
t)AKtf7A
UlSt:1J1MER.The ytaae of Mmaesoo males no repruentarttons or wirnoves to Fit
the user as to the accuracy currency.suwtandlty or reluhtllty of thts data for any purpose. 0 01.) 5�. 840
APPENDIX D
Legal Description of the Washington County Landfill Land Management Area (LCA Parcels)
Parcel A:
All that part of the South 40 acres of Government Lot 5, Section 10, and the Southeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 10, and the North 30 acres of the North One-Half of the Northwest
Quarter of Section 15, all in Township 29 North, Range 21 West,Washington County, Minnesota,
described as follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of said Section 15,thence South 00 degrees, 18 minutes, 30 seconds
West, bearings are based on the Washington County Coordinate System NAD83, along the west line of
said Section 15, a distance of 501.27 feet to the south line of said North 30 acres of the North One-Half
of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15,thence North 89 degrees, 51 minutes,00 seconds East, along
said south line, a distance of 1808.59 feet, thence North 00 degrees, 02 minutes, 32 seconds West and
parallel with the east line of said Northwest Quarter of Section 15, a distance of 501.26 feet to the north
line of said Section 15,thence South 89 degrees, 51 minutes,00 seconds West, along said north line a
distance of 105.52 feet,thence North 00 degrees, 53 minutes, 21 seconds West and parallel with the
west line of said Section 10, a distance of 650.00 feet,thence South 89 degrees, 51 minutes, 00 seconds
West and parallel with the south line of said Section 10, a distance of 200.00 feet,thence North 00
degrees, 53 minutes, 21 seconds West and parallel with the west line of said Section 10, a distance of
656.24 feet,to a point on the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section
10,thence South 89 degrees, 45 minutes, 24 seconds West, along said north line, a distance of 193.17
feet to the northwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter,thence North 00
degrees, 42 minutes, 39 seconds West, along the east line of said Government Lot 5, a distance of 29.52
feet to the northeast corner of said South 40 acres of Government Lot 5,thence South 89 degrees, 51
minutes, 00 seconds West, along the north line of said South 40 of Government Lot 5, a distance of
706.92 feet,thence South 00 degrees, 53 minutes, 21 seconds East and parallel with the west line of
said Section 10, a distance of 200.00 feet,thence South 50 degrees, 54 minutes,08 seconds West, a
distance of 127.25 feet,thence South 89 degrees, 51 minutes,00 seconds West and parallel with the
north line of said South 40 acres of Government Lot 5, a distance Of 500.00 feet to the west line of said
Section 10, thence South 00 degrees, 53 minutes, 21 seconds East along the west line of said Section 10,
a distance of 1055.45 feet to the point of beginning, containing 65.9 acres, more or less.
Parcel B:
The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter(NW%of NW%) of Section 15,Township 29, Range
21, except the following described parcels: EXCEPTION 1:The North 501.5 feet of the NW%of the NW
of Section 15,Township 29 North, Range 21 West, being the northerly 15 acres thereof. EXCEPTION 2:
The North 220.0 feet of the South 396.00 feet of the West 330.00 feet of the NW%of the NW%of
Section 15,Township 29 North, Range 21 West, containing 1.33 acres, more or less. All subject to a road
easement for Jamaca Avenue over the West 33.00 feet thereof. EXCEPTION 3:The South 176.00 feet of
the west 330.00 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter(NW%of NW%) of Section 15
(15),Township Twenty-nine (29) North, Range Twenty-one (21)West, containing 1.33 acres, more or
less.
Parcel C:
All that part of the South 40 acres of Government Lot 5, Section 10,Township 29 North, Range 21 West,
Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 10,thence North 00 degrees, 53 minutes, 21
seconds West along the west line of said Section 10, a distance of 1055.45 feet to the point of beginning,
thence continuing North 00 degrees, 53 minutes, 21 seconds West along the west line of said Section 10,
a distance of 280.00 feet to the northwest corner of said South 40 acres of Government Lot 5,thence
North 89 degrees, 51 minutes,00 seconds East along the north line of said South 40 acres of
Government Lot 5, a distance of 600.00 feet,thence South 00 degrees, 53 minutes, 21 seconds East and
parallel with the west line of said Section 10, a distance of 200.00 feet, thence South 50 degrees, 54
minutes, 08 seconds West, a distance of 127.25 feet,thence South 89 degrees, 51 minutes, 00 seconds
West and parallel with the north line of said South 40 acres of Government Lot 5, a distance of 500.00
feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.8 acres, more or less.
Parcel D:
All that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, and the North 30
acres of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, all in Township 29 North,
Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Section 15, thence South 00 degrees, 18 minutes,
30 seconds West, bearings are based on the Washington County Coordinate System NAD83,
along the west line of said Section 15, a distance of 501.27 feet to the south line of said North 30
acres of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, thence North 89 degrees, 51
minutes, 00 seconds East, along said south line, a distance of 1808.59 feet to the point of
beginning, thence North 00 degrees, 02 minutes, 32 seconds West and parallel with the east line
of said Northwest Quarter of Section 15, a distance of 501.26 feet to the north line of said
Section 15, thence South 89 degrees, 51 minutes, 00 seconds West, along said north line a
distance of 105.52 feet, thence North 00 degrees, 53 minutes 21 seconds West and parallel with
the west line of said Section 10, a distance of 650.00 feet, thence South 89 degrees, 51 minutes,
00 seconds West and parallel with the south line of said Section 10, a distance of 200.00 feet,
thence North 00 degrees, 53 minutes, 21 seconds West and parallel with the west line of said
Section 10, a distance of 656.24 feet, to a point on the north line of said Southeast Quarter of
the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, thence North 89 degrees, 45 minutes, 24 seconds East
along said north line, a distance of 1113.64 feet to the northeast corner of said Southeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence South 00 degrees, 31 minutes, 57 seconds East, along
the east line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 1307.98 feet to
the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence South 00
degrees, 02 minutes, 32 seconds East, along the east line of said Northwest Quarter of Section
15 a distance of 501.26 feet to the south line of said North 30 acres of the North One-Half of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 15, thence South 89 degrees, 51 minutes, 00 seconds West, along
said south line, a distance of 800.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 39.5 acres, more
or less.
Appendix E: LCA Parcels WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
r --- ----- - ---- -----I Site Contacts
I Land Manager: Shawn Rucamncya
r 5 Engxnrer: peter ivfan_y
Hydrt>deulogini: JueJuhk
,I I
Site Features
�r
I � I Legend
I j LandManagementArea
I
A\u A.A
4
II WAMHINOTON
1_�4<IS
l_reated lune 19,2013 8a 160 tin
Meters D A K Q T A
DrA-IAIMpR.Me Skate of Minresata makes no represeitamns or warranties to Feet
the user as to the accuracy currency,suitability nr reliability of this data fnr any purpose 0 .2.0 sno so
6W Appendix F: GWAOC WASHINGTON1LANDFILL
x � ` fi fit_ Minnesota Pallutivn
°'� Control Agency
Site Contacts
I-and Manager Shawn Rutitsin(ma
35! � r�- Kaginter: Prter Tiffany
N>drogeuiogud: Joe Juli
L�.!.�J"Y_�L Site Features
� Z
s -< �" ,c Waste Footprint
.�_
s �r �' w s Land Management Area
Designates the property that
L is under the responsibility
and control of the MKA.
_ -
�--1�--�I
L '^ l: Groundwater Plume
�
it -'��� '-
i Appra►rimate area of the sub-
w�
terronean contaminated
r Y 7r groundwater plume.
Groundwater Area of Concern
�^Z An area where the
S ^�' ' • Z, ,J groundwater may be affected
by landfill contamination,
_ r
DISCLAIMER.I%e State of Mi nnesota makes no representations or warranties to the user as to Created 6/1 9120 1 3 by CLP fiydroVeotoglst Ingrid Vertugen
the accuracy,currency,suitability or reliability of this data for anv purpose. Phis map depicts a o D A 1t O T A
reasonabk clm approtanon of impacts from the landtili only and males no inference about
teeters ?90 s, 4.*0
impacts from other porrnml sources_ LS8,190 feet 0 t.9no iploo ri7oo
• LANDFILL
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
— — — — Site Contacts
laud Manager: 5iu•wn itu<>LKtnujn
!' • ' _ - I Engineer: PrterTiffany
a H,,dml;et)kigisU J<wJulik
- _ Site Features
r
_. r! I Waste Footprint
I ;- Land Management Area
r Designates the property that
L _J is under the responsibility
and control of the MPCA.
• ,1 'L � I
Methane Area of Concern
Area surrounding the landfill
�j
that may be impacted by
f I - subsurface migration of
A * q, methane gas.
'•z I t
1 ANOKn
Ilk
L
DISC LAIMM.The Pate of Mi nnesota makes no representation or warranties to the use (xeated 6/19/2013 by CLP Engineer Pew Tlffarry
the accuracy,currency,"Itablhty or rdlal>tlrty of this data for any purpose. l'hls map depicts a Meters o so •6o 240 D A K O T,
reasonable approximation of impacts from the landfill only and makes no inference about 'NI�1
impacts from otter potential sources. 1.L•,1H6 feet 0 280 .rite R.te
Appendix H: C1landfill ' LANDFILL
lMlinnesata Pollution
Control Agency
— — — Site Contacts
I land Manager: 5ltaw11 RwAsinuja
a
Engineer: Peter Tiffanty
Hydrogeulogist J wJulik
I
Site Features
Landfill Management Use
Waste Footprint
r Land Management Area
r Designates the property that
L J is under the responsibility
and control of the MPCA.
- I —
+� ANkA
10
r
Rt * y • �
L
DISC.�IMFR.In a 4ate of Minnesota makes no representations or warranties to the u am
user as to Clamed 6/20/2013 by(:IP Engineer Peter l'iffany
ry,the accura currency,suitability or rellabrLty of this data for any purpose. 1'his map depicts a �Ieoers o so An 240
neasonabie approxlmabon of impacts from the landfill only and mattes no inference about
impacts from other potential sources. 1:6,170 Feet 0 280 560 840
Appendix 1: Civic and Park : Open Space Use WASHINGTONCO. LANDFILL
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
Site Contacts
tAmd Manager: Shawn Ruotstnuja
L Engineer: Peter Tiffany
HydtvgeulugLtU ,J<wJulik
Site Features
I
r Parks and Open Space
I L�:::] Civic Use
I Waste Footprint
I
r I Land Management Area
_ Designates the property that
is under the responsibility
and control of the MPCA.
3 �
K -
DISCLAIMER.The State of Minnesota males no representat.ons or warrandes to the user as to Created 6/20/2013 by UP Engineer Peter Tiffany
the acnnacyt currerxx suitability or rellablltty of'thls data for any purpose. This map depicts a Meters o so 360 24n V A K U T A
reasonable approxlnution of Impacts frown the land811 only and males no inference about
Impacts from other pomerttlal sources. 1:6,170 Feet o 280 St- �Wn
Appendix 1 • CO.
Minnesota pollution
Control Agency
— — — — — Site Contacts
Land Manager: Shawn Rutxssnuja
IFrigineer: Peter Tiffarnv
Hydnjgeulugist: JucJUU
Site Features
7.
U Solar Energy Farm
Waste Footprint
1 Land Management Area
r- — (designates the property that
I L- —J is under the responsibility
and control of the MPCA.
IANOKA
M �
DISCLAIMER:1U 4ate of Minnesota makes no represmtatmw or warranties to the user as to Created 6/20/2013 by UP Engineer Peter 1'tffa y
the aocta•ary�curremcX suitability or reltab ibty of this data for am purpose- i'hls map depicts a Metiers o So 2rwi seo V A K O T A
reasonable appmtdmaaon of impacts from the landfill only and makes no inference about
tmpwm from other poaenaal sources. 1:6,1H11 Feet 0 280 SGn Tito
APPENDIX K
District CLR—Closed Landfill Restricted
A. Purpose
The Closed Landfill Restricted (CLR) District is intended to apply to former landfills that are
qualified to be under the Closed Landfill Program of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA). The purpose of the district is to limit uses of land within the closed landfill, both
actively filled and related lands,to minimal uses in order to protect the land from human
activity where response action systems are in place and, at the same time, are protective of
human health and safety. This district shall only apply to the closed landfill's Land Management
Area, the limits of which are defined by the MPCA. This district shall apply whether the landfill is
in public (MPCA, County, City,Township), Indian tribal, or private ownership.
For purposes of this ordinance,the Land Management Area for the Landfill, a
qualified facility under the MPCA's Closed Landfill Program, is described as:
B. Permitted Uses
The following uses are permitted within the CLR District:
C. Accessory Uses
Accessory uses allowed in this district include outdoor equipment or small buildings used in
concert with gas extraction systems, other response action systems, monitoring wells or any
other equipment designed to protect, monitor or otherwise ensure the integrity of the landfill
monitoring or improvement systems. Fences and gates shall apply under these provisions.
D. Conditional Uses
Conditional uses shall be limited to uses that do not damage the integrity of the Land
Management Area and that continue to protect any person from hazards associated with the
landfill.
Any application for a conditional use must be approved by the Commissioner of the MPCA and
the (LGU) . Such approved use shall not disturb or threaten to disturb,the integrity of
the landfill cover, liners, any other components of any containment system,the function of any
monitoring system that exists upon the described property, or other areas of the Land
Management Area that the Commissioner of the MPCA deems necessary for future response
actions.
The following conditional uses are permitted within the CLR District:
E. Prohibited Uses and Structures
All other uses and structures not specifically allowed as conditional uses, or that cannot be
considered as accessory uses, shall be prohibited in the CLR District.
F. General Regulations
Requirements for (parking, signs, area, height) and other regulations are set forth in
G. Any amendment to this ordinance must be approved by the Commissioner of the
MPCA and the (LGU)
3
I
t
Al V
.oo ;:
Area
Area: 2711092.4 Square F
Perimeter: 7743.3 Feet
t AV
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B -ACTION ITEM
THE CITY OF
LAKE ELMO
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 11/20/17
REGULAR
ITEM#: 7
MOTION
TO: Parks Commission
FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Mountain Biking—Sunfish Lake Park
REVIEWED BY: Emily Becker, Planning Director
BACKGROUND:
Staff was asked to reach out to other organizations,requesting them to perform an assessment of the Lake
Elmo Parks system. The assessment was done to determine which, if any of the parks would be suitable
for mountain biking. It was recommended by the Minnesota Land Trust that I reach out to MORC
(Minnesota Off-Road Cyclists). I also asked Tim Wegner who owns Trail source to perform the same
assessment. He was the individual who visited Sun Fish Park with City staff.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION:
How would the Parks Commission like to proceed with developing a plan for mountain biking throughout
the Lake Elmo Parks?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Tim suggested that Reid and Ridge Park could support a tail system,but both Tim and Ryan from MORC
agreed that Sun Fish had the most to offer the City in terms of mountain bike trail development.
Both assert that Reid and Ridge Park,at less than 30 acres and with programming with ball sports that takes
up a considerable amount of space, aren't large enough to support the trail length required for a mountain
biking trail. Additionally, Sunfish Lake has great topography,adequate space,soils and location to support
a mountain biking system.
RFP. Depending on how the parks commission would like to proceed. The City can send out an RFP
requesting consultants to develop a preliminary trial on paper for the commission to further review. Tim
from Trail Source said he could recommend other organizations for us to send this request to as well.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Cost of preliminary trail mapping and cost of trail construction and maintenance to be determined through
the design and build process.
OPTIONS:
1) Begin working with Trail Source on a concept plan showing the layout of possible trail locations
2) Develop a Request for Proposals(RFP)for firms to design,build and/or maintain mountain biking
trails
3) Do not develop a plan for mountain biking trails
Parks Commission
11/20/2017
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend starting by sending out an RFP to trail experts to develop a concept plan, or work
directly with Tim to develop the plan
ATTACHMENTS:
• Current Trail Map
• Email response from MORC
• Tim Wegner's evaluation
Page 2
Sunfisli 1--.. 11?ark rlF
— " KEY _
� •�. Lake or Pond — • • — Camel Back 2J K NORTH
'• ''2►,, Open Space Ernie's Trail 3*7 K
`z R �' Wooded Area Linda's Loop .6 K This map is available for download at
www.lakeelmo.org
� — Fence Morgan Lane .3 K
� Sledding Hill — • • — Oak Run 1o5 KTHE CITY OF
�
♦, ID Parking J • • � Pond 1o8 K ( , LAKE ELMO�
ww"M=-— • • — Rabbit 199 K• Ed51e5t3800 Laverne Ave. N., Lake Elmo, MN 55042
■ More Difficult Sunfish Point .6 K
• � 651 - 747-3900 www.lakeelmo.org
� � � ♦ Most Difficult
` 2p �. To Tapestry
1,14, 0 NNW
0 10
'019 N 0 ftmof 0
:N**
�23 • ♦ � �
12 0
24 ♦ A5
8
18
0
` � �I � ' � �►.� Sunf ish Lake
22
ONO No"* *#
16 1 12
*VM60
0 #
7 6 0
14 0% 0
,Jk1 4
01 IBM mom
%<U ft Un
Farm Fields
25 � (Park Property) Private Property
Tanya Nuss
From: Ryan Lieske <Ryan.Lieske@innovativeblood.org>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:52 AM
To: Tim Wegner; Ben Prchal
Cc: ryan lieske; Ryan Lieske (rynolieske@gmail.com)
Subject: RE: Evaluation of Parks
Hi Ben,
I haven't had the first hand viewing of the park that Tim had, but after reviewing the description and map of every Lake
Elmo parkland you provided, MORC agrees with Tim,the only park that would have the space to adequately provide for
a mountain bike trail is Sunfish Lake. You have two others that are interesting but at less than 30 acres,just aren't large
enough to support the trail length required for a trail. Sunfish Lake would not only work, but would be a phenomenal
park to build a trail. Thanks Tim for the great evaluation and summary!
Ryan Lieske
MORC Board.
From:Tim Wegner [mailto:twegner50@gmail.com]
Sent:Sunday, November 12, 2017 8:12 PM
To: Ben Prchal <BPrchal@lakeelmo.org>
Cc: ryan lieske<ryan.lieske@lycos.com>; Ryan Lieske<Ryan.Lieske@innovativeblood.org>
Subject: Evaluation of Parks
Please see attached evaluation from Trail Source
i
ask
EST! 2001
Ben Prchal
City planner,Lake Elmo MN.
Ben
Thanks for asking my opinion on which of the city parks would be most appropriate for supporting a
mountain bike trail system.
Overall most of the parks are too small to support a trail system that would attract riders. Reid and Ridge
park do have some space but they also have some programming with ball sports and that takes up a
considerable amount of space. The only park in your system that I believe holds potential for mountain
bike trail development is Sunfish Lake Park.
The reasons I believe Sunfish Lake Park offers the greatest potential for the development of trails are as
follows:
1. Great topography: During my visit I was impressed with the multiple ridges that run through this park
and the elevation change on each of the ridges. The ridges would allow Lake Elmo to build trails that
would appeal to a multiple skill level audience. Families could ride together as well as the more
experienced riders and all user groups could have a trail that would meet their expectations.
2. Adequate space: The average rider likes to ride for around 1.5-2 hours on local outing. With the
average speed of riders being approximately 7 MPH that would mean that you need a trail of
approximately 7-10 miles in length. Just for reference Lebanon Hills mountain bike trail is about 12
miles long and is located on a parcel of land that is approximately 120 Acres in size.
3. Soils: I checked the soil types in several locations around Sunfish Lake Park and believe that they
would do a very adequate job of supporting properly sustainable trail construction.
4. Location: This location is ideal. It is centrally located, offers space for adequate parking and does not
have a lot of developed user areas as of this time.
Summary: Sunfish Lake Park offers all of the parts that could be developed into an above average
mountain bike trail system. I believe that the park would support a trail quite easily in the 7-10 mile
length which is what most riders would like to ride. Also,with the high school team looking for a
location where they can practice this would provide the ideal venue for them to practice in to develop
their skills. It is important and I cannot stress this enough that the trails be professionally designed and
constructed by a company that has experience building these types of trails.
Thanks for giving me this opportunity to review that parks within the City of Lake Elmo. Please let me
know how I can be of further service to you or the City of Lake Elmo.
Sincerely,
Tim Wegner
Trail Source LLC.
THE CITY OF
LAKE ELMO
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 11/20/17
REGULAR
ITEM#: 8
MOTION
TO: Parks Commission
FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Groomed Ski Trials—Sunfish Lake Park
REVIEWED BY: Emily Becker, Planning Director
BACKGROUND:
Sunfish Lake Park has been used for walking and skiing in the winter months. There have been some
complaints by residents stating that the walkers have been disrupting the groomed portion of the ski trails.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION:
How should the Parks Commission address the issue of walking trails and groomed ski trails in Sunfish?
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
OPTIONS:
1) Designate certain trails for walking and certain trails for skiing.
2) Do nothing and leave the trails as they are.
RECOMMENDATION:
Groom the trails as usual and address the issues as they persist. If walkers continue to disturb the Nordic
tracts we can consider designating trails for specific uses.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Email from Mary Frick
Tanya Nuss
From: Kristina Handt
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:19 PM
To: 'Mary Frick'
Cc: Tanya Nuss; Rob Weldon; Ben Prchal
Subject: RE:Walking/Snowshoe and/or Multi-Use Winter Trails in Sunfish Lake Park
Thanks Mary,
I'll let Ben know since he is heading up Parks Commission items as the new planner.
Kristina Handt
City Administrator, City of Lake Elmo
khandt@laleelmo.org
651.747.3905
From: Mary Frick [mailto:maryfrick@LIVE.COM]
Sent:Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:14 PM
To: Kristina Handt<KHandt@lakeelmo.org>
Cc:Tanya Nuss<TNuss@la keel mo.org>; Rob Weldon <RWeldon@lakeelmo.org>
Subject: Walking/Snowshoe and/or Multi-Use Winter Trails in Sunfish Lake Park
Kristina,
I'd like to make a request that the November Parks Commission Meeting agenda address the need in Sunfish lake Park
for winter designated multi-use trails or additional trails to accommodate walkers and/or snow shoeing enthusiasts in
addition to the groomed ski-trails. I've received a complaint from a resident that walkers are messing up groomed ski
tracks and making it difficult for skiers. Many parks with groomed ski-trails are expanding trails or having multi-use trails
as an amenity for walkers. This need is included in the "Guidance for the Development and Usage of Sunfish Lake
Park", recognizing those non-skiers who want to use the Park during the winter.
Thanks much for this consideration,
Mary Frick
1
THE CITY OF
LJA K E ELMO
PARKS COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
DATE: November 20, 2017
REGULAR
ITEM#: 9
MOTION
AGENDA ITEM: 2018 Parks Commission Strategic Plan of Work
SUBMITTED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Emily Becker,Planning Director
Rob Weldon,Public Works Director
BACKGROUND:
As discussed at the October 2017 Parks Commission meeting,the Parks Commission is required to develop a
work plan each year which includes a list of projects,points of interaction on projects,programs,and goals for
the year. This is to be created by/in January of each year and will be discussed during the yearly joint meeting
between the Parks Commission and Council.
ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION:
The Parks Commission is respectfully requested to review the attached,Draft 2018 Parks Commission Strategic
Plan of Work. Staff would like to know if there are other priorities which the commission would like to focus
its attention on.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Edited Draft 2018 Strategic Plan of Work
THE CITY OF
LAKE ELMO
2018 Parks Commission Strategic Plan of Work
The City of Lake Elmo Park Commission has affirmed their overall goals to be:
1) Ensure that our parks and trail system are constructed / maintained.
2) Provide recreational amenities that will attract more taxpayer use of public lands.
3) Create a safe environment in all our parks.
4) Serve as a review body to make sure the "open space" character development is preserved in new
developments.
With the broader priorities defined, the 2018 Park Commission Strategic Plan of Work has been broken
down into six segments: Planning &Audit; Park Development & Equipping; Maintenance & Refurbishing;
Nature & Conservation; Park Awareness; and Finance.
Status and Timeline (projected months in which project will be brought to Parks Commission meeting)
are also indicated in order to better manage goals and objectives.
Assess future park needs.
Project Specific Tasks Status Timeline
Work with the County • Recommend alternative routes for SRF was selected to County has yet
on updating the regional trail, as CSAH 17 in downtown develop the Master to determine
Central Greenway Lake Elmo may no longer be best route, Plan hard dates—
Trail Master Plan. and County now has jurisdiction over Co. John Mayek—was expected to
Hwy. S. chosen to represent start in
the Lake Elmo December
Update City Trail Plan • Work with staff on outlining missing trail In Progress Dependent on
connections in order to create a plan consultant
that can effectively communicate to timeline
developers planned trails within the
City.
• Part of Comp Plan 2040 update.
Work on the Parks • Work with staff and consultant to gain In Progress per the Dependent on
and Open Space public input on Parks and Open Space CPAP meeting on consultant
component of the component of Comprehensive Plan. September 27th timeline
2040 Comprehensive • Consider recommendations from Staff
Plan update. and consultant based on community
input sessions.
• Make recommendation to Council on
specific changes needed to
Comprehensive Plan.
Mountain Biking • The process of contacting a 3rd party to Communicating Ongoing
Within Parks perform an assessment on Lake Elmo's with 3rd party for
parks assessment
parks for Mtn biking/biking—Oct 18,
2017
Development Review . Continue to make recommendations on Ongoing Ongoing
development applications with a focus
on proper equipping of parks and
available park funding.
� - • • • • •
IF
Begin work on approved projects(those in the Capital Improvement Plan or have received a form of
funding approval).
Project Specific Tasks Status Timeline
Demontreville Park Requesting$75,000 to grade existing field Not yet requested 2018
and add new back stop
Hammes Park • Review planned equipment/amenities Approved 8/21/17 Dependent on
planned for Hammes Park before construction
installation timeline
Lake Elmo Regional • Trail investments for 2021-22 with the Regional Unknown
Trail City funding an estimated $398,000 Greenway trail is
• Grants and County participation would in the beginning
be necessary. Spending for stages
0 2021 -$827,316&2022-$765,600
Lions Park . Bids were received—Rachel Active To be
Renovation Construction was the awarded bidder completed
(8.1.17) Nov 2017
• Phase 2—add pavilion and tables but Phase 2-
only if donated 2018
Pebble Park • Obtain quotes for approved Approved 4-4-17 Projected
Improvements improvements in 2017 (restrooms, start/complet
lighting, and security features). ion 2019
• $72,000
Reid Park • $50,000 for mountain bike trails(grant Phase 1 in progress Phase 1—
or in-kind donation) and widening of 2018
trails (Phase 1) Phase 2-
• $25,000 for adding multiple amenities- 2019
tot lot, outdoor gym, bleachers
(phase 2)
Savona Park • Funding approved for phase 1 not to Obtained February
exceed $150,000 recommendations
from Savona
residents
Sunfish Lake • Improvements—including paving of Not yet in progress Projected for
trails for ADA compliance$90,000 2019
Tablyn Park • Address lighting and parking issues- Not yet in progress Phase 1—
$55,000 (Phase 1) 2018
• Install skating rink$45,000 (Phase 2) Phase 2-
2019
50th Street Trail • Obtain quotes September
Maintenance : Refurbishing
Maintain and upgrading park facilities in a manner that increases park use for a relevant experience.
New soccer and • Funding approval? Recommended by July
tennis nets, replace . Public works to carry out maintenance. Public Works
swing seats, add
benches and garbage
cans.
Move play equipment . Funding approval? Recommended by July
at Ridge Park to . Public works to carry out maintenance. Public Works
higher area that does
not have standing
water.
Replace plastic edging . Funding approval? Recommended by July
at existing parks with . Public works to carry out maintenance. Public Works
concrete.
Look at options to • Staff to create plan for thistle removal. July
replace wood chips& . Gain input on alternative options for
remove thistle woodchips.
• Staff to carry out thistle removal and
wood chip replacement.
Pickleball • Refurbish current tennis courts to In Progress as of Unknown
accommodate pickleball 10.16.17
Develop a 5-Year • Create plan based on necessity July
Maintenance Plan of
parks
Make • Establish standards to follow when a In progress Ongoing
recommendations on park adoption takes place
maintenance
priorities.
Mission Statement:To promote the open space character and commitment to the environment via
nature observation amenities and targeted conservation programs.
Project Specific Tasks Status Timeline
Sunfish Lake Forest • Break down plan in to measurable goals In motion as of 2019
Management Plan Phase 1 north and Phase 2 south 10.16.17
• Implement plan.
Sally Manzara Nature • Review and make recommendation on In Progress Must be
Center Nature Center lease agreement and completed
plans. July 4, 2019
• Explore opportunities to work with per contract
Friends of Lake Elmo on new programs
and/or events in Sunfish Lake Park.
Mission Statement: To promote the utilization of City Parks.
Project Specific Tasks Status Timeline
Create a park • Special events, publications,website As needed As needed
awareness plan. update, e-blasts
• Public input sessions for Comprehensive
Plan updates and adding new uses into
the current parks
Mission Statement:To effectively spend parkland dedication funds to meet the objectives of each year's
Strategic Plan of Work while maintaining a minimum fund balance of$100,000.
Project Specific Tasks Status Timeline
Update Capital • Reassess funding priorities as needed. As needed Ongoing
Improvement Plan if
needed to accomplish
goals outlined herein.
Formal Policy on How . Draft and make recommendation on a Update as of April March
Parkland Dedication formal policy on: 17, 2017 meeting:
Should Be Used . How parkland dedication funds should The Parks
be allocated for new developments. Commission did
• Sizing of parks within developments. not wish to pursue
• $500 per home for a neighborhood park such a policy at
has been used in the past. this time.
Tablyn Park CIP • Add rest of Tablyn Park improvements to Not included on May
Amendment CIP 2017-2021 draft