Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-11-02 CCMMINUTES APPROVED: July 2, 2002 LAKE ELMO SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 Vice -Mayor Dunn called the special meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. in the Council chambers. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the City's response to the Metropolitan Council's staff review of Lake Elmo's 2000 Comprehensive Plan and to discuss internal planning with Sand Creek. PRESENT: City Council: Siedow, Dunn, Hunt (arrived 5:30 p.m.), DeLapp, City Administrator Kueffner and City Planner Dillerud. ABSENT: Council member Armstrong Planning Commission: Julie Bunn, Mark Deziel, Todd Ptacek. Old Village —_ Commission: Wyn John. Environmental Commission: Dean Johnston. Met Council Representative: Marc Hugunin`9 Planner Chuck Dillerud: On February 8, the 2000 Comprehensive Plan was complete. There was a 60 day review by Met Council staff and Board. An extension of 60 days was taken by the Met Council as State Statute permits -to about June 8. The Met Council requested and the City Council agreed to an additional 60+ day extension to mid -August. At the request of Mayor Hunt, the Regional Administrator took the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan off the June 12 Met Council agenda and agreed to instead consider at the June 26 Met Council meeting. A city staff memo was provided with excerpts of the Metro Digest (a METC publication of actions the Board has recently taken); and, a second one from State Statutes. The city attorney was asked to check case law regarding METC actions against local governments responsive to both of the sections of State Statutes, and he found there is no case law either on an appeal or of any city being taken to District Court for the purpose of changing a City comprehensive plan to conform with the regional systems supported by the Metropolitan Council. The purpose of the workshop is to determine in what manner to respond to the Met. Council staff review comments attributed to the Comp Plan. The Planner stated that the State Statutes permit the Met Council to compare Comprehensive Plans to the four Regional Systems: transportation, wastewater, parks and aviation. The Met Council Staff has attempted to make a case that by non -development; the City is impacting the regional systems. Highways: They write because Lake Elmo is not developing at the pace Oakdale and Woodbury, we are not using the capacity I-94 and Hwy 36 is being built to accommodate. Wastewater: Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan does not show any MUSA line extension which would utilize the Council's budgeted $10,000.000, for what our City has just learned is called the new Lake Elmo Interceptor. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 Parks: Lake Elmo has built, and paid for, a 500 acre park system, which is in addition tc the 2,100 acre Lake Elmo Regional Park. The City's park system can accommodate a significantly grater population and the Regional Park is underutilized in part because the City has not increased the housing density surrounding the Park. The Planner suggested the City respond initially by taking the high road approach, and put together a concise position statement rather than attack the Council Staff position point by point. He asked if the Council agreed that staff could go to the Met Co. Board with a PowerPoint presentation showing the character we are trying to preserve and how we are doing it by the cluster ordinance development, and why this is not contrary to the four Regional systems. Mayor Lee Hunt: The Staff could bring work we have done with the Minnesota Design Team and the Calthorp Study, funded by the Met. Council, and validating our approach. Council member Dunn: The Council's 1996 Regional Blueprint for Growth anticipates a substantial amount of urban development in the City while the City's vision calls for rural development. The Met Council is looking at something seven years in the past, and prepared under the direction of a different administration and Chairman. She thinks that the Met Council has made positive strides in appreciating the value of lower density options and environmental protection. She strongly believes in local land us control. The City can continue to assist the Council define the issues as it has in the formulation of the rural issues document reviewed in draft form. She agrees with the Planner about going to the Met Council Board with a positive approach, but asked that the Planner be very firm in support of our current policies. Marc Hugunin, Met. Council Representative: He thought the City Planner's analysis was good. He noted that the Plan was reviewed on the basis of consistency with the 1996 Blueprint and not on the 2030 Blueprint which will not become policy until December of 2002. Wyn John, Old Village Commission Member: The statement that the City did not object to the 1996 Plan is untrue. The City did object, and was told by Council staff that it was only a concept, don't worry about it. Council Member DeLapp Noting that some of the strongest proponents for urban development of the 3 '/2 square miles south of I Oh Street, believe that if Lake Elmo doesn't promote this development, the Woodbury City Council will annex it without Lake Elmo's concurrence. He thought we should meet with the Woodbury Council, whose written policy is to only consider annexation if requested by adjacent property owners and their city or township. He said this meeting would put to rest the threat to our City and make it clear to everyone that Woodbury will not annex Lake Elmo. He noted that if Lake Elmo were to build a LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING JUKE 11, 2002 parallel 13 wells upstream in the aquifer Woodbury is proposing to build 13 wells, they may not have an adequate water supply. Four years ago the Met Council came up with plans for light rail and transit where people want to live, work, bathe in bunch of apartments, and co -mingled stores, offices and other business establishments. The Smart Growth mode they have for us is the one Woodbury started with their prime outlet center and continuing with 500 affordable housing units on 50 acres north of Markgraf Lake. The Plan called for having 13,000 people living in that intersection half of Woodbury and half in Lake Elmo. The residents would be represented by two Cities but would both be in the Stillwater School District. Planner Dillerud: Responding to Councilor DeLapp's continent about the smart growth node at I-94 and Keats, the Planner said that he saw what looks like a spider with feet that is their new regional growth policy. They are going to try to smart growth at hubs and along major transportation corridors. The plan is not as geographic specific as Council member DeLapp believes. Council Member Siedow: He voted against the draft Comp Plan because of the I-94 development corridor. He would like commercial for the first one-third of a mile with the next one-third for multi- unit residential and the remainder for Open Space single family housing. Lake Elmo should have some responsibility for having this utopia in a metropolitan area. We share benefits of a big city, but we do not pay our fair share. If services were along the I- 94 corridor, commercial would be the least taxing to our citizens. We could use 1-94 as a commercial tax base. The vast majority of our residents work out of Lake Elmo and use services outside the City. With some commercial along our border rather than a house every 2.5 acres, we would be protecting the City from being annexed. He stated that the impact of the sewer would be to increase the underlying values to where the existing 2.5 acre housing south of 101h Street would be redeveloped at urban densities. Todd Ptacelc, Planning Commission Member: A financial reality, the I-94 money is a trade off from Eagle Point Blvd for sidewalks, improvements in the Old Village. We have to move forward with a positive approach. If we didn't supply our information on OP developments, this would be a perfect opportunity to show the Met Council staff by a tour. Council member DeLapp: The Met. Council in the seven county regional areas takes off the top 40% of all commercial taxes. Tax money never comes back. If they build commercial in Woodbury, Lake Elmo actually get some taxes. Marc Hugunin: The City Staff could come to the Board with the Big Picture showing what explaining Lake Elmo's values are and how the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with, and enhances these values. He wouldn't rule out a tour of the City by the Council. Mr. Hugunin agreed with the Planner that taking a high road approach with the Council LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DUNE 11, 2002 would be more effective than condemning the Council Staff and confronting the Council on each area of dispute. He said that there isn't any question that the current Council has a strong regard to local prerogative. That would bring conflict to some other values. He suggested that the City could try to get on Council Chair Ted Mondale's schedule to allow the City Staff to discuss the 22 points of contention. Examples: I-94 is going to be improved in front of 3M in a few years and there is an opportunity to expand the WONE interceptor capacity for 10 million dollars. If Lake Elmo doesn't support this infrastructure improvement concurrently with the highway construction, the future cost to bring in this urban service would probably be double. The policy question is if Lake Elmo is willing to pick tip that extra 10 million in the future. Or does that mean that the opportunity for bringing urban density to Lake Elmo is eliminated? This question needs discussion. The other issue is traffic calming on Highway 5. The Council will not allow this to take place. Mary Kueffner, City Administrator: I believe what the Met Council is looking for is an explanation as to why Lake Elmo apparently changed its mind on the proposed downstream upgrade to the WONE Interceptor that would have given the City enough capacity to serve the 440 acre Business Park proposed in our original comprehensive plan amendment (which was denied), and later resubmitted for 120 acres and approved. At City Council direction, staff negotiated with Met Council for this change to prevent the new Cottage Grove Interceptor from being "driven" under I-94 to Lake Elmo's border, which would have opened up the City to uncontrolled urban development. Both the 440 and 120 comprehensive plan amendments submitted to the Met. Council were for Business Park uses only. Neither amendment include any provision for housing as several audit reports received from Tautges & Redpath urged the City to better balance the ratio of housing to commercial tax base. Mr. Hugunin responded that it's not so much the why that is critical, but what are the implications of making such a change. Wyn John: If the WONE Interceptor was increasing capacity, then it would allow us to continue control development going eastward along I-94 rather than go in the middle and in an uncontrollable way. In that stem going N-S, there should be some long term capacity in that route should the timing be appropriate that Lake Elmo would like to tie into in the future. Chuck Dillerud, Citv Planner: He has been hesitant to negotiate the sanitary sewer issue and traffic calming issue. He cannot make a commitment for the City Council. Staff could come back to City Council with what I think their position would like to be. Their position might be move MUSA out to the WONE expansion. The Met Council may say that if we give you that sewer, then you will take affordable housing over part of that land. Mayor Lee Hunt: LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 4 We should invite the Met Council Board Members to take a tour of the City and set up a workshop for staff and Council to hammer out issues. Mary Kueffner, City Administrator: There may be no "case law" where the Met Council has gone after a community for being inconsistent with the Met Council's Regional Growth plans, but the (Met) Council was a strong proponent of sewering the area we annexed (by joint resolution) from Baytown Township, and the Screaton property south of 55a' Street. Met. Council had staff representation as well as legal representation from the Attorney General's office testifying in favor of a concurrent detachment/annexation of the already commercially platted land from Lake Elmo to Oak Park Heights. Council Member Dunn: We should go with the 2030 Blueprint Plan as we now understand it, and there will be no problem. What do we have to lose if we are not accredited with the Met Council? Marc Hugunin• He encouraged the City Council to authorize staff to meet with Met Council staff to discuss issues; some issues discussed are not directly discussed in this report, such as, the potential of walking away from the sewer capacity in the SW corner forever. Housing is not a system. He didn't see much emphasis at all in the Exec Summary on that. Planner Dillerud: He recalled when the comprehensive plan was done, the City Council chopped the MUSA back with the understanding that if staff could do something about improving the quality of the development you have seen so far in the sewered area, you would potentially reconsider. Council member DeLapp: He agreed with the City Plainer if that he would support the expansion of public sewer if certain changes were made such as substantially reducing the density, providing landscaping to block the view from the freeway and the enforcement of current material and signage standards. The last commercial buildings that have come into the City have been wonderful, but we should get rid of the commercial stuff like the restaurant and hotel. Council member DeLapp said he would submit a complete list in writing to the Planner. He also stated that his support of this level of development was opposed by many residents who participated in the Minnesota Design Team overview of the City. Marc Hugunin: The first thing he is going to do is find out if statutory authority exists to extend review period again. He will be gone for three weeks in July. Look at a meeting in September. Try to get a tour in June. On the June 26u' Met Council agenda, this is an informational item. Present the Big Picture in July. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 M/S/P Dunn/Siedow — to direct staff to find out statutory timeline for the Comprehensive Plan review process, and then to meet with Met Council Staff for clarification of issues of concern brought up in Met Council's Executive Summary. (Motion passed 4-0). M/S/P DeLapp/Dunn — direct the staff to set up a tour with Met. Council Chairman, Ted Mondale and Met Council members for early July or earlier. (Motion passed 4-0). Council member DeLapp asked if the City should hire a Land Use Attorney. Mayor Hunt wanted to wait because was concerned what message we would give. Planner Dillerud asked if the Council wanted this discussion of criteria for the 440 comprehensive plan amendments on the June 18 agenda. Mayor Hunt confirmed the request, adding if it is a busy agenda, then Council could meet earlier. The Council could send their comments to Chuck earlier on this item. Mayor Hunt announced there is a workshop with a Sand Creek representative at 6:30 p.m. on June 1 Sol. Adjourn at 6:45p.m. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 6