Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-21-2012 CCM LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2012 Page 1 of 15 CITY OF LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2012 Mayor Johnston called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Johnston, Council Members Emmons, Pearson and Park Also Present: City Administrator Zuleger, City Attorney Sicheneder, City Engineer Griffin, Finance Director Bendel, City Planner Johnson and City Clerk Thone. Absent: Council Member Smith APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 5 (Approval of Probationary Firefighters) was pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Mayor Johnston requested that Item 12 (Keats Avenue) be moved to “Item 7.5” between Items 7 (Keats Avenue Public Hearing) and 8 because they are related. The Mayor asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Council Member Park requested that Item 11 (Extension for Preliminary Development Plan related to a Senior Living/Farm School project) be tabled until the September 4, 2012 meeting. The Mayor instructed the Council that before the agenda could be amended, there had to be a motion to approve it. Council Member Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Council Member Park seconded the motion. Council Member Park then moved to amend the Agenda by removing Item 11 and postponing it until the September 4, 2012 meeting. Council Member Emmons indicated he had some questions for discussion. He then seconded the Motion to Amend. Council Member Emmons asked if postponing action on Item 11 would cause any timing problems for the project. Administrator Zuleger told the council that because the Council in the past has already granted two extensions, it should not be a problem to postpone the Item. He also indicated that the applicant is out of town. He explained that the last extension was granted in order to hold a neighborhood meeting. Mayor Johnston spoke against the amendment and expressed his preference to keep the item on the current agenda due to the difficulty of successfully having five council members present. Council Member Park explained that her reason for the amendment was because she knows absent Council Member Smith wanted to speak on the matter. Council Member Pearson expressed his general support for the amendment. MOTION ON AMENDMENT: Council Member Park moved to amend the Agenda by removing Item 11 and postponing it until the September 4, 2012 meeting. Council Member Emmons seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-1, Johnston Nay MOTION: Council Member Pearson moved to approve the August 21, 2012 City Council Agenda as amended. Council Member Park seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2012 Page 2 of 15 ACCEPTED MINUTES 1. The August 8, 2012 City Council minutes were approved as presented by consensus of the City Council. PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES: 5. Approve Conditional Job Offers to Probationary Firefighters: Dominic Jara, Christopher Supan, Alexander Hilpisch, Michael Neuman, Thomas Hilpisch, Richard Gimpel, and Dan LeVasseur. District Chief Brad Winkels represented the Fire Department in presenting the probationary firefighters to the council. MOTION: Council Member Pearson moved to approve the conditional job offers to the probationary firefighters. Council member Emmons seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. District Chief Winkels also announced two retirements: Captain Bernard Sachs retired in July after 12 years and 9 months of service. Firefighter Mark Vandemmeltraadt retired in March after 18 years and 10 months service. Additionally, it was reported that Captain Mike Cornell and Firefighter Tom Steinman attended and passed the Century College Fire Apparatus Operator course. As soon as they complete the Emergency Apparatus Defensive Driving course, they will be brought to the council for approval as Engineers on the Lake Elmo Fire Department. Lastly, District Chief Winkel publically acknowledged that Recruit Thomas Hilpisch was recently honorably discharged from the United States Marine Corps and thanked him for his service. Judy Gibson of 10684 10th St. Ct. N. spoke in her capacity as Volunteer Coordinator for the library and the Friends of the Library on the Library Volunteer Appreciation Party. She reported that the party was a success. The Council thanked the volunteers for all their hard work. Mayor Johnston specifically acknowledged that all the work performed at the new library was accomplished by volunteers. PRESENTATIONS: EMPLOYEE QUALITY STAR RECOGNITION: City Administrator Zuleger presented two recognition awards for building community from the bottom up: Washington County Sheriff’s Deputy Andy Loehr and Family Means. Deputy Loehr for his commitment to the quality of life for the youth of the Cimarron neighborhood; Family Means for its commitment to the quality of life for the youth of the Cimarron neighborhood by organizing after school and summer programs for children and at-risk teens. Representatives Jamie and Katie accepted the award on behalf of Family Means. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2012 Page 3 of 15 CONSENT AGENDA 2. Accept Financial Report dated July 31, 2012 3. Accept Building Permit Report dated July 31, 2012 4. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll in the amount of $ 392,818.96 6. Resolution 2012-40 Approving State of Minnesota Joint Powers Agreements with the City of Lake Elmo on Behalf of Its City Attorney and Sheriff’s Office MOTION: Council Member Pearson moved to approve the Consent Agenda Items 2, 3, 4 and 6 as presented. Council Member Park seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. ITEM 7: KEATS AVENUE NORTH MSA STREET AND WATER MAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 6, 2012) Engineer Jack Griffin presented the feasibility report. He gave a brief history of the process and actions taken thus far as well as an overview of the project and subject property. He explained that the water main portion was included in the street project to save costs instead of doing both projects separately. Mr. Griffin also reported the past study findings and reiterated that this connection was needed in the long term anyway. Mr. Griffin explained how the properties with direct driveway access to Keats Ave. N. were included in proposed assessment. He again mentioned the proposed option of obtaining easements from several property owners near the existing water main and running the line across the properties instead of along 47th Street in order to increase cost savings. The financial reasons to change from a Rural Reconstruction to an Urban Reconstruction plan, which includes curbs and gutters, after the variance was denied, were reported. Mr. Griffin reported the total street improvement project cost of $ 1,297,000 with the Urban Reconstruction plan. The proposed assessment would be $3,400 per unit. The total City cost would be about $1,222,200. Mr. Griffin reported the total watermain improvement project cost of $1,028,000. He also explained the proposed costs for a property owner including the assessment as well as the costs to connect to the water system. Those costs were: Assessment of $5,800; individual contractor fees for connection costs; Water Availability Charge (2012 WAC): $3,900; and Connection Permit Meter Fee (2012): $440. Council Member Emmons asked Mr. Griffin what the cost of the project would be if MSA was not used and the original rural plan was used. Mr. Griffin reported $1,142,000. He explained that if the water main project was not included, there would be an additional $220,000 due to not being able to split the restoration costs between the two projects. There was back and forth discussion between Messrs. Emmons and Griffin that there was not much cost savings between the pavement versus gravel shoulders, road width, and road make up. Mayor Johnston asked if the City could use the MSA funds on another road. Mr. Griffin said that the funds can be used elsewhere; however, the City would still have to make up any difference for the Keats Avenue project. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2012 Page 4 of 15 Council Member Emmons asked what the next MSA road projects on the horizon were. Mr. Griffin said that the next project would be 20th Street from Lake Elmo Ave. east towards West Lakeland Township. Council Member Pearson asked for confirmation that reclamation was not an option due to the soil boring test results. Mr. Griffin confirmed that reclamation was not an option. He indicated that this proposal was rechecked with the geotechnical engineer. Council Member Park asked for a reminder as to the importance and justification for the project. Mr. Griffin explained that this connection must be made before the water system can grow and take on more users. Mayor Johnston reported an email he received regarding the installation of curbs and gutters. The email was in opposition to the additional cost of the curbs and gutters. Again Mr. Griffin explained that due to the rejection of the variance request, the curb and gutter option is the least expensive. Mr. Griffin made it clear that the City did not jump straight to the curb and gutt er option, but this was a reluctant decision. Mayor Johnston stated the normal assessment policy where contiguous property owners are assessed 30% of the cost and the City is responsible for 70%. He and Mr. Griffin discussed how the City Assessment Policy takes the additional step of factoring in traffic data along Collector roads in order to further reduce the burden on the adjacent owners. For this project the property owners are only responsible for 6% and the City will be responsible for 94%. This was done by factoring in the traffic volume for that road. Council Member Park asked if the Lateral Benefit Charge was included in the Tablyn Park Project. Mr. Griffin confirmed that similar charges were included, but he distinguished that project from the Keats Ave project due to the 3M grant money included in Tablyn Park. Council Member Emmons asked for clarification on why running the line down Lake Elmo Avenue instead of Keats was not a feasible option. Mr. Griffin again explained that in order to meet the 2030 growth targets, the Keats Avenue line would still need to be completed eventually. Mr. Griffin reiterated the fluid dynamics issues with the two line location options and the benefits of the Keats Avenue option. Mayor Johnston reopened the continuation of the public hearing at 8:00PM. Peter Eggen of 5250 Keats Ave. N. spoke in opposition of the high costs being assessed to him. He stated that at the last meeting all the residents in attendance were opposed to the project and did not desire water access. He also stated he felt that he did not have any input on the project at all. He said he understood that as a resident of Lake Elmo, he is subject to what Lake Elmo decides. However, he told the council that if the City had to do this project, all the residents of Lake Elmo should be responsible for the costs. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2012 Page 5 of 15 Mr. Griffin responded to the assessment issue and stated that assessments were always difficult, but this is the only practicable time to collect payment for the benefits provided to the property owners. Mr. Eggen also stated that there were three cul-de-sacs that should be included in this project but are not being included. Mr. George Crocker of 5093 Keats Ave. N. spoke in opposition to the project. He disputed the reported traffic volume. He stated that he has been doing his own traffic survey of the road since February. He threatened litigation if the City continues to use its statistics in calculating the assessment. Mr. Crocker also took issue with the water system improvements. He said that the water system problems are due to 3M pollutants. He said that 3M should pay for any improvements. Mayor Johnston announced that the City is a party to litigation with 3M for $25 Million. Mr. Crocker said that no assessments should be levied pending that litigation. In closing, Mr. Crocker warned that “there may be trouble” if the citizens of Lake Elmo are burdened with the costs. Ms. Lea Foushee of 5093 Keats Ave. N. expressed her concerns regarding the proposed widening of the road. She stated that she has a large investment in trees, landscaping, and gardens that would be destroyed by the proposed widening. She also stated her displeasure with the impact from past road improvements. Council Member Emmons clarified for Ms. Foushee that Mr. Griffin does not recommend the widening plan that Ms. Foushee referred to. Mayor Johnston closed the Public Hearing at 8:10PM ITEM 12(A): APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2012-41 ACCEPTING THE AMENDED FEASIBILITY REPORT Council Member Park requested Mr. Griffin provide clarification on the Lateral Benefit charge. Mr. Griffin explained how by assessing the property owners at the time, the city is able to recover the cost of the later benefits. Council Member Pearson asked for clarification on the typical property owner/City liability percentages. Mr. Griffin again stated that typically the property owner is liable for 30% and the City is liable for 70%. For this project, the City is liable for approximately 94% and the property owners are liable for 6%. Mr. Pearson then asked for information on the three cul-de-sacs that Mr. Eggen referred to. Mr. Griffin explained that those properties would be responsible for 100% of each future project to provide access to the water system. That 100% equates to the $5,800. Mayor Johnston asked if the cost breakdown has been calculated to include any potential 3M litigation compensation. Mr. Griffin said that those costs have not been factored in because any LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2012 Page 6 of 15 anticipated benefit received from the suit would not be enough to offset the cost of the trunk watermain system improvements. Council Member Emmons asked Mr. Griffin if he has any experience in delaying the incurred cost assessments. Mr. Griffin explained that the two assessment plans are either the split way proposed or to charge all costs at the time of connection. The risk of collecting at the time of connection is that those costs may never be recouped. Mayor Johnson also reiterated the benefit to the value of the affected properties regardless of connection to the system. Council Member Pearson noted that the City Assessor Frank Langer attested to the improved values realized by the properties with this improvement. Council Member Emmons asked why increasing utility rates were not being discussed to help pay for these projects. Administrator Zuleger stated that the current rates were actually high in comparison to the area rates. By factoring future growth, potential litigation settlements, and system connectivity charges, the water and sewer access charges should go down as more users help share the burden of supporting the system and possibly affect the monthly usage rates as well. Council Member Park asked if the Lateral Benefit charge was comparable. Mr. Griffin said that it is actually based on a 2006 figure that the City of Lake Elmo determined and has not been increased since then. Council Member Pearson asked if the assessment charge was inflated because some savings, such as using smaller pipes, could be realized. Mr. Griffin explained that the assessment charge can go down if savings are found later during the project, but it cannot go up, so the figure is the maximum. Council Member Emmons stated that he sympathizes with the affected residents and feels that the City is possibly taking on too much with the water project. Council Member Pearson responded by stating he believes this is a solution for the problem that the City has found itself in. Council Member Park wanted to make sure everyone knows that the assessment charge payments can be made over time. Mr. Griffin stated that the Road Improvement bond can be over 10 years and the Water can be over 15 years. Council Member Pearson also pointed out that there are hardship provisions available. MOTION: Council Member Pearson moved to approve Resolution 2012-41 accepting the Amended Feasibility Report. Mayor Johnston seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-1, Emmons nay. ITEM 12(B): APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2012-42 AUTHORIZING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR KEATS AVENUE NORTH STREET AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS Council Member Emmons again asked the council if it was willing to entertain the discussion of adjusting water rates. Administrator Zuleger confirmed that as soon as the Pro Forma is completed, it will be brought to the Council and rates and charges will be discussed. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2012 Page 7 of 15 Mr. Griffin asked the Council if because the project was not brought by petition, whether a 4/5 supermajority vote is needed. City Attorney Sicheneder and Administrator Zuleger both stated it did not. MOTION: Council Member Pearson moved to approve Resolution 2012-42 ordering plans and specifications for Keats Avenue North Street and Water Main Improvements. Mayor Johnston seconded the motion. Motion did not pass 3-1, Emmons nay. This decision/approval does require a four- fifths super majority vote per State Statute 429.031. ITEM 8: CONSIDERATION OF STAFF RESEARCH & ANALYSIS OF THE FEASIBILITY ORGANIZED COLLECTION City Administrator Zuleger recommended that due to the volume and scope of current projects in which the City is already involved, the Council should wait to move forward with the Organized Collection issue until Fiscal Year 2014. Mayor Johnston stated his position that he considers it a public policy matter. He believes that action on the issue should not be delayed as the potential benefits would impact the tax-payer. Administrator Zuleger confirmed that there would be potential cost savings to the tax-payer. Mr. Zuleger did note that the Maplewood conversion took a toll on the community. Council Member Pearson suggested that with all the current projects it would be better if individual homeowners and associations could handle the matter on their own. He is in favor of holding off moving forward until 2014. Council Member Park said she agreed with Mr. Pearson and felt like 2014 was not that far away. Council Member Emmons stated that while he agrees with the Mayor that the matter should be addressed now, he would be more comfortable with addressing it if the entire Council was more enthusiastic about discussing it. He has concerns about the lack of “appetite” on the council to take on this additional project. Council Member Pearson noted that Lake Elmo is different from Maplewood and the results may be different. Mayor Johnston pointed out that the chair of the Environmental Projects Commission is eager to take on this project. He also noted that he has spoken to many people supportive of the potential savings to the City and residents this project could provide. Council Member Parks is concerned that despite the Environmental Projects Commission’s willingness to head up this project, the City staff will still be overburdened. Council Member Pearson brought up the fact that the Environmental Projects Commission recommended moving forward with the issue back in 2011 but action was not taken. He also reiterated that with the number of current projects and the new staff this addition would be too much. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2012 Page 8 of 15 Council Member Emmons asked for clarification on the Environmental Projects Commission’s involvement. Administrator Zuleger indicated that they undertook a cursory review of the issue. Mr. Emmons suggested that perhaps the Commission be instructed to work on the project with the expectation that the Council will take the issue up in 2014. City Staff would have minimal involvement. Administrator Zuleger added that there are many resources available, such as the Maplewood data that do not need staff involvement to evaluate. Mr. Zuleger also noted that Maplewood is the first metro city in the past 20 years to successfully move to organized collection. Mayor Johnston asked what information Maplewood would have in a year-and-a-half that it does not have now. Administrator Zuleger said that because the Maplewood just started the collection, it would be premature to look at the data. A year and a half or two years should provide sufficient data. Council Member Pearson again reiterated that he would like home owners and associations to voluntarily investigate the issue on a smaller scale. Council Member Park agreed with Mr. Pearson’s suggestion. She recommended that Administrator Zuleger suggest this approach to the various associations when next meeting with them. Mayor Johnston stated that he was troubled by waiting until 2014 to start the investigative process with the timing restrictions already required by law. Council Member Pearson repeated his position that he believed City staff could be better used elsewhere. He continued to question why action on this issue was being pursued now after being tabled for so long. Mayor Johnston explained that he is now moving on it because he did not have the cost savings figures until recently. Council Member Park said she wants to put off discussing the issue because she does not believe they will be able to decide even by 2014. Justin Bloyer of 881 Jane Road North spoke in support of tabling the issue until 2014 in order to thoroughly discuss the issue. Citing an admittedly unnamed study, Mr. Bloyer asked how the cost per capita for road construction is the same for organized and non-organized cities. He also asked why if organized collection resulted in such great cost savings, the policy is not being extended to other areas, such as sewer pumping and grocery purchasing. Administrator Zuleger responded by citing data from Oakdale and Roseville of realized savings in road maintenance. He also said that in every study that he has seen there are general savings shown. Council Member Pearson acknowledged that there are potential savings, but wants more time to verify the claimed benefits. Council Member Park does not support the motion having the Commission perform any work on the issue during 2013 because of the staff time and resources required. Council Member Emmons clarified that the motion would limit any staff time or resources. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2012 Page 9 of 15 Christopher Delaforest, representative for the National Solid Waste Management Association, voiced concern over the reported data and already completed work. He also requested that the process be open and involve public hearings MOTION: Council Member Pearson moved to hold off on any further consideration, study, or use of staff resources on the issue of organized collection until 2014 while allowing the Environmental Projects Commission to investigate the issue. Council Member Emmons seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-1, Park nay. ITEM 9: AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ADJACENT COMMUNITY REVIEW A Brief Five-Minute Recess was observed Reconvened Meeting City Planner Johnson presented the current Comprehensive Plan as approved by the Planning Commission at the August 13, 2012 meeting. He summarized the next steps in the Zoning Amendment process. Mr. Johnson provided an overview of the Planned Land Use revisions. Mayor Johnston sought clarification on the acreage of the proposed greenbelt. Planner Johnson indicated that it was roughly 40 acres. They both discussed how this portion would be coun ted toward the total park land dedication. Council Member Emmons asked what impact this fact would have on the potential reduction to pre-existing park plans. Mr. Johnson confirmed that the Commission acknowledged this during discussion and did not have readily available numbers for this impact. Mr. Johnson stated the existing land use map has remained virtually the same with a few minor changes. Throughout the process to draft this Comprehensive Plan Amendment, significant consensus has been built around the I-94 Corridor Land Use Plan. However, some revisions have been necessary to achieve the best possible outcome for all parties involved, as well as to ensure consistency within the plan. These revisions of the plan include the following:  Refinement of the base densities of the proposed residential zones (LDR: 3.5 to 2.5, MDR: 4.0 to 4.5, and HDR: 7.0 to 7.5 units per acre) in keeping with the requirements of the revised MOU with the Metropolitan Council.  Addition of a mixed-use designation to some parcels to provide added flexibility to areas that may develop with different land uses.  Reduction of housing density near the Forest neighborhood to lower development intensity near an existing residential area.  Revisions to the guided land use of an existing property involved in light manufacturing (Trans-City Investments), designating this property with a planned land use of Business Park. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2012 Page 10 of 15  Significant efforts to better install buffer provisions, providing transition areas between rural and sewer residential development near the Stonegate neighborhood, resulting in a proposed 100’ green belt including a public multi-use trail financed through parkland dedication from development. The proposed plan allows for a much greater range of housing densities than the City’s existing plan, and the Met Council has indicated that the lower-density residential district that has been proposed will be acceptable as long as the overall densities throughout the future sewer area with the I-94 Corridor planning area achieve a minimum density of 3.5 units per acre. The section pertaining to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has also been updated to reflect the update to this document that was recently approved. Under the revised MOU the City was granted an extension of five years to meet the minimum Residential Equivalent Connection (REC) unit counts that were included as part of this agreement. Staff has created a new development staging chart to reflect the extension and to further reflect the revised land use plan. The numbers included in Table 3-C in the plan meet the requirements of the MOU for total REC units and also are consistent with the density ranges specified in the future land use map. As development moves forward within the City’s sewer development areas, it is Staff’s intent to track all future sewer connections and to document all of these connections as contributing towards the City’s required REC units. In addition to the proposed Land Use Plan, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment includes a new Housing Plan as well. By making significant changes to the Land Use Plan, the City is required to provide an updated Housing Plan that reflects the proposed changes in land use. The Planning Commission thoroughly reviewed the Housing Plan, and revisions to this section were completed to reflect the recommendations of the Planning Commission. He shared the Staging plan which identifies growth areas; utilities, sewer and water and highlights what areas the city will able to serve and in what order. It defines and protects the city from developers wishing to extend infrastructure. He explained the details of the housing plan stating with regard to future plans – no revisions were made by the planning commission. Statistics show 2779 home owner occupied properties in Lake Elmo at a 95% ownership rate. The average residential property cost: $396K for Lake Elmo and $265K for Washington County; Persons per household down in Lake Elmo to 2.9; Population over 65 years of age: 11% in 2010, showing we have an aging population; Gap of 20-39 year old demographic in city; study of adjacent communities is significantly lower compared to adjacent communities/jurisdictions. The following goals were identified: 1) Support Family Neighborhoods 2) Walk-Ability 3) Expand Senior Housing Options 4) Greater Variety of Housing/Price Points/Rental Options He stated the process would include the submission of the comp plan for adjacent community review, submission to the Met Council within 60 to 120 days and the final approval back to the City Council anticipated in December 2012 or January 2013. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2012 Page 11 of 15 Council Member Pearson explained and attested to the level of work that was put into the comprehensive plan document in front of council. Council Member Emmons inquired who would be purchasing these larger lots and inquired whether we are we missing the 20-39 age group demographic. Planner Johnson responded there are areas included in the plan where the housing has targeted this demographic. Council Member Emmons inquired about the Forest neighborhood and asked whether we had received feedback on the higher density housing from homeowners. Planner Johnson explained the feedback has been positive for the compromised medium density housing and stated the biggest concerns were about tall multi-family housing which is not planned for the area. Council Member Park explained the southern Forest area has a view of commercial development and encouraged in the future to ensure a good buffer between residential and commercial structures. Council Member Pearson explained he would support a concrete way of handling these types of decisions in the future. Council Member Emmons inquired about the Forest neighborhood and the buffers and Planner Johnson stated the design standards cover much of the landscaping buffer areas and the expectations of the developers. Council Member Emmons asked for clarification on densities. Planner Johnson explained the density ranges and explained base densities and density ranges and how they are applied to areas within the zoning districts. He stated they are flexible therefore are a more effective way to work out future development. He added Staff plans to work closely with developers in the future and all of these types of decisions will come before the public in the way of a public hearing. Council Member Emmons supported the mixed use and especially supported the interdependence and walk-ability components and expressed his concern not to limit mixed-use areas as they support a community feel. Discussion was had by Council Members discussing these and additional details and general consensus was in support of the plan proposed. Wayne Prowse of 697 Julep Avenue, located in the Stonegate neighborhood approached the council and explained people in Stongate basically just have one issue: the high density housing and the previously developed language with regard to screening and buffering which has been replaced by the green belt around Stongate which is a compromise to put it mildly. He expressed concerns regarding the number of people the project will support residing south of 10th Street and how all of the people proposed would fit into one area. He expressed concerns with thousands of residents utilizing just one park path in the neighborhood. He expressed concerns for giving up the original language the neighborhood residents proposed in exchange for the 100 foot buffer – although he stated they are happy with the 100 foot buffer but are concerned over the lack of park land in the area included in the plan. He expressed they are happy about the requirements of 2.5 versus the previous 3.5 but wanted to verify that it is in fact 2.5 and that 4 units will not be allowed in some areas. Planner Johnson stated there will be parkland dedicated to this area and the neighborhoods to the east will contribute also. Council Member Park inquired whether design standards for south of 10th Street would support each community having its own park and whether this would be included in all neighborhoods. Planner Johnson explained this open space will be included in the plans. Planner Johnson explained in answer to Mr. Prowse’s question 2.5 is an average and will be the lowest it may come in at but may include various requirements such as 2.3 in one area and 2.7 in another averaging out to 2.5 overall. He stated Staff will continue to track rec units to not over extend the commitment to Met Council. Mayor Johnston inquired if 7.5% was the current standard for dedicated park land could we discuss raising this amount to 10%, stating there needs to be LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2012 Page 12 of 15 additional park space. Planner Johnson stated that yes – it is currently 7.5% but that other communities have raised this dedication amount to 10% and that would be an option for the city as well to discuss in the future. Bruce Miller with MFC Properties, one of the property owners along the I-94 Corridor and a member of the I-94 Workgroup approached council and expressed his appreciation for staff, council and the I-94 workgroup and all the work they have done. He stated the plan has been vetted well and is an example of a positive compromise meeting the requirements of the MOU. Work with the neighborhood groups and developers has been positive and the plan will come before the public again in the future. He expressed his support for acknowledging in the plan that the 27-39 age group is a little light in the community and commented the commercial mixed-use would be a great addition – it allows much flexibility and is positive but he does not however support single family residential along the freeway (I-94). He inquired whether super majority vote was needed to pass this phase of the comp plan to which Ms. Sicheneder – Acting Counsel, replied that it would not require super majority vote but a simple majority vote and added this action was simply an approval to submit the plan for adjacent community review. Discussion ensued regarding the preliminary nature of this plan to submit for review and the chance to make changes to the plan in the future. Planner Johnson encouraged moving this phase of the process along and explained minor changes to the plan would be considered during the additional phases of the process. Council expressed their trust for staff and the planning commission and supported the plan to approve the submission to review. Council Member Emmons specifically noted for the record that approving this submission for review still allowed for council and staff to make changes to the comprehensive plan if necessary in the future. MOTION: Council Member Pearson moved to approve Authorization for Staff to Submit Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Adjacent Community Review. Mayor Johnston seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. ITEM 10: ZONING CODE UPDATE: APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION Planner Johnson presented the amendments proposed to the Zoning Code which include new sewer residential and commercial zoning districts in the I-94 Corridor that eventually will be implemented with the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He added Staff is proposing to revise the current structure of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the incorporation of the new zoning districts with the existing districts and ordinance. In order to achieve this structure, Staff is proposing to add new introductory and definitions sections to the ordinance in addition to the new zoning districts. In order to implement the proposed Land Use Plan contained within the City’s Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it is necessary to amend the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the new zoning districts that will outline the performance standards in each district. The Planning Commission held a public hearing over the course of two meetings in July and August of 2012 to receive public comment and review. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on August 13, 2012. Considering the lengthy process and significant work involved in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Staff is proposing to update the Zoning Code in a phased approach as to not be LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2012 Page 13 of 15 overwhelmed with ordinance updates at the time of implementation. In addition to presenting the proposed zoning districts necessary to move the I-94 Corridor Land Use Plan forward, the reorganization of the Zoning Ordinance will provide a framework to make the adoption of future zoning districts and performance standards more seamless. With this phased approach, the City may adopt the necessary future updates related to the Village Area and design standards at the appropriate times. It is important to understand that until the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process is complete and the City has adopted a new official zoning map, the properties in the I -94 Corridor will not be rezoned to allow for new development. In other words, these new zoning districts, if adopted, will serve as placeholders to ensure that the City is adequately prepared for growth at the appropriate time. Throughout the period of review of these proposed amendments to the Zoning Code, Staff has worked to revise these updates to reflect discussion and comment received from the Planning Commission during the review period and during the public hearings. The bulk of these revisions were related to performance standards and allowable uses within the proposed new residential and commercial zoning districts. In addition, efforts were made to better define buffering requirements between rural and sewer development through treatments know as opacity requirements. However, these revisions have since been removed in favor of a greenbelt provision within the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. In the future, buffering through the mechanism of opacity may be revisited through either performance standards or future design guidelines for these districts. Districts related to future sewer overlay will be included in future revisions. Numbering will provide greater flexibility to vet out new standards in the zoning code. He noted the existing code will remain in effect until the new code can be incorporated and implemented. The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council approve five amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to add new sections as follows: Article 1 – Introduction: current zoning code is weak in severability and validity and this addition would ensure that if one portion was invalidated it would ensure the code valid for other properties within the community. Article 2 – Definitions: expounds on the definitions and allows for definitions within various chapters of the code. Article 6 – Not included: will be amended at a later date. Article 8 – Zoning Districts: Outlining the new zoning districts and those replacing the general commercial district which include commercial (standard-large scale) and convenience commercial (smaller scale). Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts: Containing use charts of what is allowed for these residential districts. Includes allowances for commercial uses in our high density residential districts which support mixed–use. He noted lot standards have been lowered with the allowance to provide open space for the developments, allowing for smaller residential lots provided the developer provides for open space within the development. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2012 Page 14 of 15 Article 12 – Commercial Districts: Commercial district design standards come from existing code for the new commercial zoning districts. New components include the GB district will be replaced as stated above by the convenience commercial and commercial districts and the BP district will allow for light manufacturing. Planner Johnson recommended council approval of the preliminary zoning amendments presented this evening and recommended by the planning commission and for staff to bring back the actual ordinance amending the zoning code at a later date. Council Member Emmons inquired whether this was a work in progress and asked specifically about design standards. Planner Johnson stated the process that will include design standards will occur at the August 27, 2012 Planning Commission meeting and will be brought back to council in September. Mayor Johnston explained until this is actually approved as an ordinance, there is still opportunity to alter the language, although significant changes would require it to go back to the planning commission. Planner Johnson explained in answer to Council Member Emmons inquiries the process of how staff and the planning commission create zoning code ordinance amendments and utilization of neighboring community standards, taking into consideration the city’s goals. Council expressed their appreciation for Planner Johnson’s work. MOTION: Council Member Pearson moved to Approve Section 1, 2, 8, 10 and 12 Zoning Amendments and for Staff to Bring Back an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code as Recommended by the Planning Commission. Mayor Johnston seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. SUMMARY REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Emmons reported the Village Workgroup is moving forward. Council Member Park – no report. Council Member Pearson reported he attended a Fire Relief meeting, two Planning Commission meetings, expressing his appreciation of their work, a County shared services meeting looking at ideas to collaborate with them in the future, and a fire truck meeting. Mayor Johnston reported he attended a meeting with Council Member Pearson in appreciation for library volunteers and in recognition of their contributions. He attended not as mayor but part of the demolition crew. He attended a meeting with various County and City appointed and elected officials to discuss and set the stage for collaboration with them in the work that Lake Elmo will encounter in the next few years time. City Administrator Zuleger reported staff is working on the final touches for the budget, developer inquiries are on the rise, nineteen code enforcement issues have been resolved, staff made a formal offer to a new building official today, hired a communications coordinator which should help to LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2012 Page 15 of 15 resolve the extended timeline of the website, along with Mike Bouthilet been the staff liaison for the Parks Commission, which is going smoothly and lastly, will be moving this coming weekend to MN. City Attorney Representative Sicheneder reported their office appreciated the approval of the JPA and CDJN agreements approved at tonight’s meeting to provide counsel resources that will improve service levels for the city. City Engineer Griffin reported council has his report and he would be happy to answer any questions they may have and will be focusing on Trunk Highway 36 Corridor to pursue funding with regard to the project. Planner Johnson reported four new items for planning including the resignation of Planning Commissioner Joan Ziertman leaving two vacancies on the commission, a zoning amendment to planning on shore land standards consistent with DNR standards, Summit Board Shop pursuing a CUP for a demo ski hill, working on design standards and an update on the Village. Finance Director Bendel reported working on proformas with Northland, challenges in providing concrete usage data hoping to present at next meeting, working on budget, reviewing investment schedule and stepping bonds/interest income. ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 10:49 p.m. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL _______________________________________ Dean A. Johnston, Mayor ______________________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk