Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-12-81 CCMJOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 12, 1981 Chairman Michels called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. ROLL CALL: Prince, Dreher, Halden, Lundquist, Na;zarian,Gifford, Moe, Lyall, and Mazarra. City Council - Novak, Mottaz, Fraser and Eder City Administrator Whittaker. MINUTES: September 14, 1981 M/S/P Lundquist/Prince to approve the minutes of September 14, as amended. ° Page 1 - Outline for Highway Plan the Administrator strongly urges the neeess-ity development of a Highway Plan. PLANNING CONFERENCE: The following Commissioners will attend the Planning Conference at the Maplewood Holiday Inn: Nazarian, Moe, Mazarra, Lyall, Gifford, Prince and Dreher. INTRODUCTIONS: Mayor Eder introduced the following guests: Mary Hauser, Met Council Representative, Vic Ward, Met Council, Bob Mazanec, Met Council, Connie Levi, State Representative, Senator Jerome Hughes and City Planner Rob Chelseth. AGENDA ITEMS: 1. Landfill - Regional Park - The Council asked the Met Council representatives and the legislators to react to Lake"rlmols positib4-.:opposing landfills, landfills in park reserves -.more specifically, in the Lake Elmo Park Reserve. --Hauser - there is no land that cannot be considered under the statute. --Levi - feeling in the legislature is that public land ought to be as likely for siting as private land - reason why the provision is in the statute,- no land should be excluded from consideration. This allows for park reserve land to be considered along with farm land. Provides for fairness. --Hauser - regarding siting'- much public controversey� pro and con, on the use of public land :vs acquiring additional land. --Lyall - no trading considered - just want to acquire the land. --Levi - legislation has been proposed to sell off surplus land and restrict additional acquisition. Can't afford to maintain what we have. Working on a remedy. -- Whittaker - concerns not related so much to,if the land was public or private initially,but the fact that land acquired for regional park was done with assumptions and assurances that it was going to be used for regional park with government funds, for park purposes. Nature of the park is a park reserve - landfill use would impact wildlife and ecological structure of the area. Antithesis of a park reserve to put in a dung -it will not longer be a park reserve - it will be a dump. Noted the Met Council rated the Lake Elmo Park Reserve 23 out of 23 sites for a sludge and ash disposal site while the County still is considering it as a regular landfill. A sludge and ash disposal would be more controlled, more manageable generate.less traffic, less damaging than a landfill. Asked how the County and the.pCA can 'continue to consider it. Want to get this message through to the Met Council JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 12, 1981 -2- -Landfill - Continued, - Mottaz — Lake Elmo has one landfill site have problems with that site now. Concerned -have this one potentially explosive problem from a sanitary landfill site and now we may be blessed with another one. Do not see any honest,sincere effort on the part of the State Legislature, Met Council or PCA to come up with alternative to burying these poisonous chemicals in the ground. In addition.to not wanting the Park Reserve being made a dump/ we're very concerned about having two time bombs in Lake Elmo. --Levi - When passed the Waste Management Bill in 79-80 put into motion the first step in a scenario that will lead to resource recovery and energy generation from our solid waste. Takes time for these things to become cost effective - cannot pass in 79-80 and expect to see results in 81. Funds in the legislation for pilot studies, various experimental cases, also the mechanism for flow control. Inaccurate to say no one has recognized the problem orr%.that no steps have been taken to deal with the problem. Takes time - dealing with the short term solutions right now, which is our landfills are filling up and we have to deal with -.:hat - are going to have to find other sites. No one wants them in their community - but short term is what we are going to have to deal with. Mottaz - Its a cop-out to say it is not cost effective now. It is cost effective. Charge the individual what it costs to dispose of the trash safely. It is cost effective if handled properly. Charge has to be according to what it costs. --Levi - Feels if individuals were notified they would have to pay what it actually cost to safely dispose of refuse -would cause a very negative reaction. Agrees should be looking for better ways of disposing of trash; but there are some realities that have to be dealt with. Realities are -no mechanisms, up until now have just put in place the basis to begin to look at this. All takes time. --Whittaker - What happens when the Met Council get this? The Council has to make two decisions: 1. Are the sites that the County submits, ok. 2. Have they submitted enough. Understands that the County should submit 5 - at this point there are only 2 sites that are ruled suitable. --Hauser - Not sure could hang the County up on enforcing 5 sites. --Whittaker - Not trying to hang them up; but are trying to encourage them to look for alternatives. One way to do that is to require they have those other three sites. --Hauser - Noted has talked to Artie Schaefer, who has indicated that some of the alternate sites have been washed out, Some of County Park members are chipping away at the same theme as Lake Elmo about. siting in the Park Reserve area. Cannot answer the number of sites question. Most crucial thinq is finding a suitable site. Does not know what the legalities are on requiring the County to identify 5 sites. --Whittaker - hard to believe that in a County this size, and this rural that there are not 5 sites. And that of the oriqinal 30 sites.originally chosen 25 were eliminated politically and 5 had to have an enviromental review, which eliminated three of those. Feels if they went back and looked again at the ones politically eliminated they might find they were enviromentally suitable even though they may not please the folks in the neighborhood, and come up with 5 sites. Understands Ramsey County is going to have no sites, so it cannot be narrowed down to far or we are not going to have near enqugh!A adequate landfill. PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL JOINT MEETING, OCTOBER 12, 1981 -4- 2. Comp Plan Status =_Mazanec --Noted that in communities where estimates are higher than the need they can reallocate the difference ibb communities who need more. Clarified that Lake Elmo maintains that all the capacity that has been allocated to Lake Elmo would come out of Section 32 into the WONE intercepter and current flows would be increased between 1985--1990. Whittaker this is what Lake Elmo thinks, Have always made this type of clarification - feel need to leave the option open presently in the middle of a 201 Study that will not be completed for 6 months. --Mazanec -- Main concern is that the flow volume is ok. If this is .'o.k,, will not pursue farther on the 6,000 units. Other question that needs clarification is the location of the trunk sewers that are built in Section 32, The letter indicates the City has several unknowns such as the exact configurationof development or- how much it might be or whFt_her it may be necessary to reallocate to other parts of the City They normally have to know where the trunks would be, if built, even if built by private developers. Need this to assess the impart, --Whittaker - the only way the City can get to the main system is through the intercepter that goes under the highway at Crossroads Ford. Can state this in a letter. City has to presume that all of the City's sewer will go through that pipe, --Mazanec - This may be the only clarification other than natural flow amount that may be need beyond the letter. A statement to this effect with the letter would probably enable them to go ahead, Could restart the process and get into the substance of the plan. w.ant,ito emphasize the fact that if there are adjustments to be made on reallocations of the flow,,can amend the plan. Does not see this as a problem, something that can be done down the pike when 201 studies are done, Thinks this clears it up with the afore mentioned clarifications. Would encourage the rest of the staff to look at it this way; Whittaker -- Explained the reason for the tone of the letter was the deadline, basically 17 days to correct a problem that has been discussed for 16 months. Aware this is a part of the new procedures that were adopted for plan review, but .feels the City should have been given 30-60 days or some prior warning that this was going to happen aside from the notice of amendment to the procedure which was received 60-90 days ago. Hoping this does not permanetly affect the City's eligibility for planning assistance funds. If review the correspondence over the past 16 months, will find the City has responded to all the Met Council''s letters within 1 month of receipt and waited 12 months between letters for any further resolution of the problem. Have had meetings during the interim but no clarification in writing of what the staff was seeking. Does seem unreasonable now to take the City off the entitlement list for funds when every effort has been made to respond as quickly as possible upon receipt of any correspondence from the staff on what more neddsto be submitted before the plan was adequate. Would like this to be considered, ---Mazanec - With the October 9 letter can basically say that the City has replied within the time that was given. Only important item left is to get the additional points clarified before the end of the week. Council will act later in the week on the list as to who might lose their entitlement. Will forward this information to the Council. Does not think the City's entitlement will be jeopardized. PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL JOINT MEETING, OCTOBER 12, 1981 -5- 2. Comg 'Plan Status 67771111 notify the Council of where the sewer will go into the system and flow quantities, He also emphasized that Lake Elmo's plan was in on time and delaysstemmed from communication gaps with the Met Council,, -=Chelseth asked Vic Ward. and Bob Mazanec if there was anything else they would anticipate that would hold up the final completion of the review. --Vic Ward explained the review process. Big debate has been with population projections and by not_aliocating the population to Section 32, where the sewer projection is „ indii ates na.vse for the sewer. Logic of the review. In terms of reviewing the rest of the plan the concept behind the Lake Elmo plan is completely different from what the Met Council envisioned based on the forecast, Their forecast assumed 10,000 15,000 employment by 3M located within the City and assumed, based on meetings with representatives of the Lake Elmo Council in 1967, that the whole western side of the City would be inside the MUSA. When this happens the City is forecast much higher this is what they did, Now have to find some way of reconciling a plan that began assuming high density (e.g. Oakdale on the west side). This caused much confusion, Read the plan - from his (Ward's) viewpoint thinks the plan tried accomodating growth that won't be there. All of the assumptions that went into the forecast for this City are wrong, --Eder - Wants to clarify where most of those forecasts have come from over the years. They have not come from the City of Lake Elmo, Been involved with the City since 1961 and most of the data has come out of other agencies .numbers never came from:.,,Lake Elmo: --Ward - Explained how the Council takes a region and tries to determine how to best serve the kind of development they see. This>; requires they distribute spatially in the region they think development will occur. In 1977 met with three representatives from the City who indicated they felt they were short becauve of 3M locating in the City -- this has changed. Because of this forecast tremendous amount of confusion has been caused - all of the issues related to this confusion come up when the plan is reviewed compared to the development framework. There will be many things in the plan that are inconsistent with the development frame work, such as the 1 1/2 acre zoning, Addressed Whittaker's concern about whether or not Ag preserves could be done on the land. As he understands it, even if it was inconsistent with the development framework, as long as the requirements of the Ag Preserve Act were met anybody.who met these requirements from the City's viewpoint wouldautomatically meet them, Inconsistencies comes up with funding for a project where the Met Council would be bringing Federal money in. Will- be about 1 1/2 months after the plan is taken off suspension that a copy of the preliminary review will be ready. T-Mottaz - What did you mean about the 1 1/2 acre zoning? ;Ward - The forecast for a City like this were based on the idea that the current existing land would be taken with.very minor infilling and put the rest of the growth in a high density area - 4 households per acre with sewer. 1 1/2 acre zoning is inconsistent with the general classification this area has. Where the City has proposed breaking the areas there is alot of land that -is not considered infilling. The Met Council interprets infilling as fill in vacant lots within a subdivision when its 85% complete, -6- Comp Plan Status The City°s policy of designating 1 1/2 acre lots in small areas between subdivisions is inconsistent, and will be -written' up this way. 3. Lake Access - Demontreville Lake Mayor Eder gave the background of this area dating back to 1974. Administrator Whittaker updated the group on current correspondence between the affected, parties and area residents. --Whittaker - The only way it appears to get lake accesses in the Metro area , or at least on Lake Demontreville, is to condemn them. In may instances there will be lack of cooperation from the land owner by using the friendly condemnation procedure. The DNR is hesitant to enforce their legal right to condemn laud for lake acoeastalthough it is a stated policy in the Metropolitan Council and the Legislature to acquire these lake accesses, The Demontreville access has been on the priority for the Met Coucil and LAWCON Funds for five years. Everyone feels this is the right place to have a lake access and it is desired as soon as possible. Residents near the lake want the access ;developed and the parking put in because of the nuisance problems they are experiencing, The City would like to see it done for the same reasons, as well -as the people who want to use the lake. Appears to be a roadblock at the DNR, - they do not want to condemn outright because this affects the public image of the DNR. Need some political help to get the DNR to condemn the access. --Senator Hughes - Indicated he would be happy to discuss this matter with Joe Alexander, DNR Commissioner. Asked why the property owner is reluctant to sell his land. -- Whittaker - indicated that the owner is dissatisified with the price offered by DNR. --Hauser - Thinks this should be disoussed with Mi... Alexander. Recently put emphasis on .funding for lake accesses. Said would be happy to speak to Charles Weaver, Chairman of the Met Council, who1she feelsl would be happy to speak with Joe Alexander, about this issue. --Senator Hughes - Said he will take the responsibility of calling a meeting with'the Commissioner and those parties involved and interested in the access issue. He Will notify the Administrator of the date and time. --Dave Garloff, Demontreville Tr, - Noted his concerns as an area resident, asking what the status is regarding the present access, commenting on the safety issue of the present access, and explained the property'ownbrs hesitancy to sell because of the depreciation of his other lots around the parking lot, --Eder - Noted the City will reconsider the status of the aocess-on November 30, Berle Garloff, Demontrevill `Pro - enforcement Is a major issue. A lot of over - parking in the area which creates a safety hazard. --Greg Ibucks, Demontreville Tr. N. - Looking for something; to be done as quickly as possible. If the City plans to close the access - do it before spring If not, and the DNR does not act on the access, then, all negative comments should. be referred directly to the DNR. --Levi - Asked if the City has made a .commitment to insure that parking, safety and enforcement will occur if the parking area is expanded. Dogs not think the DNR will or can enforce or control another access. Noted that-b e,Public Access Program Policy did not indicate the responsible party for maintenance and enforcement. Cautioned the Council and residents to look closely at what they are asking for, until they know who is going to pay the bill. --Whittaker - In this particular access it is felt $hla* an identified access will greatly releive the problem - it will be an improvement, Then will go on and deal with the other problems of maintenance and enforcement. --Foucks- This has been going on for some years. Have an opportunity to purchase property now to resolve the problem. If the property is not purchased now and the property is sold we willlose our opportunity to solve the problem now and be creating a bigger problem. PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL JOINT MEETING, CCTOBER 12, 1981 -7- It. 20'd Fundin - MU ttaker noted Lake Elmo's concern that Federal monies may be withheld or cancelled construction grants for waste water treatment plants for 1982; and asked if any additional information was available. He reviewed Lake Elmo's status on the 201 Study. --Hughes - Unfortunate the Federal dollars will not be available and would be very difficult for the State to make up the difference; but that does not mean the State should not be concerned about Federal/State relations and let the people know at the Federal level how critical it is. State should look at it, determine what: the cost might be and possibly consider some State/Local commitment. Levi - If Federal money dries up and the standards do not;simply to comply with Federal law in some cases, the State will have to help. 5. Metro Watershed District - 1006 Whittaker asked ivied ru,,user about her interest in having a District Watershed District. .-.Hawser - .indicated she had no comment or opinion, at this time. Is interested in looking at it. Would like to see planning tied to what is happening in the Watershed -Districts. --Levi - Briefly reviewed her 7 County Metropolitan Area Storm Management Bill; and expressed her position on protecting our water resources. Discussion included jurisdiction responsibilities, water quantity and duality preservation of wetlands, community responsibility, future planning vs immediate problems. 6. Gun Club Mottaz requested help from the legislators in drawing up guidelines and/or standards in setting up, establishing, and controling gun clubs, rifle ranges, etc. He believes there should be State wide control so all rules apply State wide --Levi - Noted there was legislation in 1979 to do away with the authorization given to -the PCA to enforce noise standards for the State. Much eontroversary, bill passed unaminously, --Mottaz - Not just noise - distance from residential areas, kinds of guns used, necessary safety precautions, types of targets, lead deposits in a concentrated area. Presently No guidelines to set standards. --Hughes - .Agrees - should be looked at and ,get all expertise possible - check other States for legislation. Should be parameters set up. --Levi - in testimoney that was heard many did not want State regulations - many communities want to set thbix own standards. Felt more restrictive standards could be challenged if. the State standards were more lenient. --Whittaker - Noted that the City was referred to the RU on questions concerning problem areas with Lake Elmols Gun Club - they were of no help on the noise or safety factors and did net want to assume responsibility for setting guidelines. --Mottaz - Presently there is nothing for communities to base or draw up any standards from. --Levi - The base of the testimony was that the looations, terrain, and use of gun clubs vary so much that local special use permits better lay out what is acceptable. 7. MA Vaxiance and Plans Mayor Eder explained Lake Elmo's request for a VISA variance, under the new procedure authorized under a change in State Statute, that was denied. --Whittaker - Issue is does the standard make any sense - He reviewed the process taken by the City, following the procedure; and. noted the lack of communication and information on the part of the State on applying for a variance or appealing the denial. The operating procedure should include advising applicants that if their application is denied they can apply for a variance and if the variance is denied then advise them they have 30 days to file for a contested case hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL JOINP MEETING, OCTOBPR 129 1981 -8- M"aA - Continued Whittaker asked Levi and Hughes to review his letter to the Commissioner of Highways and contact Mn/DOI' about making their procedure alternatives clearly available to all applicants, --ikMer - suggested the legislature should give some direction to Mn/DOT as to the:appli.cation of their standards. Different situations deem variation of the standards. Discussion of how speed limits are determinAd. —Hughes - Would appreciate receiving statements of problems with recommended solutions. Suggestions of what should be done vs what is being done. --Whittaker - Philosophy behind the rules has to change. Whittaker will send a.listing of Highway rules and regulations to Senator Hughes. 8. State Aid Changes Whittaker - real concern on td®crease in State Aid without giving Cities an opportunity to levy or make up the difference. Makes it impassible -to manage the business of the City - fiscally and physically impossible to manage the City with no money. Put the responsiblilies back on the Cities to decide how to best finance their activities - donit leave them in a, position of no options. --Levi - has been proposals to let the le?w limit float, philosophy of the legislative majority has been to protect property taxes. —Whittaker - Property tax not the only alternative. If goal is to avoid regressive property taxes then should give Cities opportunity to levy some other tax or provide for some other source of revenue. Mayor Met extendad appreci:a'tkoA-,to Reprentative Levi, Senator Hughes, and Mary Hauser for attending this joint meeting and discussing Lake Elmo's concerns PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 15« Conn -Co Public Hearing - •P" S P Prince/Nazarian to schedule a public hearing for Corms -Co Rezoning for October 26, 1.9819 at 8:15 p.m. Kunz Oil S P Prince/Nazarian to schedule a public hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit convenience groceries with gas station. in HB Zone for 00tobev 26, 1981, at 7:45 p.m. The Planning Commission tabled discussion of items 9 thru 13 until the October 26 meeting. ADJOURNT4ENT: 10:30 p.m.