Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-83 CCMSPECIAL, JOINT COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE lly 1983 Mayor Eder called the Council meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Councillors present: Dunn, Fraser, Mazzara, Morgan (7:15). Also present Administrator Whittaker, AGENDA: Additions — 3. Interest Rate for Sealcoating Project Bonds M/S/P Fraeo /Mazzara to approve the agenda, as amended. Carried 4-0. 1. BOARD OF RMEW: Whittaker reported that the tax revenue decrease to the City, resulting from the market value decrease proposed by the Assessor for homes affected by or in the designated area of the landfill contamination, would be $2,284. Loss of revenue to the County would be 417,922, based on this years mill rate. Fraser offered the following motion based on review of the Assessor's recommendation and her impression of how the Assessor arrived at the proposed percentage from resident comments at the Board of Review: M/S/ Praser/Mazzara to approve the following percentage decreases in market value for the homes listed by the Assessor: 10%, as proposed by the Assessor reduce 50% proposed reduction to 4094 and 30% proposed reduction to 15%. Discussion: --Fraser — value reduction is appropriate, but feels assessor's figures may be -too high for homes where no contamination or traces have been identified. No basis for determining percentage — assessor puebed residents to come up with a percentage decrease — many did not seem to have a figure in mind. --Dunn — would favor supporting the Assessor's figures with a yearly evaluation established and the understanding this situation will not be forever. Sympathetic with the residents and the psyeological- devaluation that has also been created. --Eder — reviewed information on well replacement compiled by the Administrator. Easier to relate to a solutuion to a problem that has a specific amount rather than :lust attaching an arbitrary figure. Suggested Calculating 86600/ $7000, the well replacement figure, as the percentage decrease in place of the 30%. --Morgan — residents have lost market value of their homes based on something they had no control over. Presently, cannot imagine any market for these homes even at 50% decrease. Supports the Assessor's figures, with the hope that this is resolved by the next assessment ,year. --Mazzara — obvious there is some devaluation — agree with the 50°/o — 30% may be high, but not out of. proportion. Believe the Assessor's figures are fair. Would not create a great tax loss to the City this year. --Eder — would rather go with a fixed dollar amount rather than a percentage. --Fraser — withdrew motion to permit introduction of an alternate proposal. Mazzara approved. —Mrs. Towns — noted that although Weldon Richert had a new well drilled he is unable to use it until the test results on that well are back. To date, these are not in. She also noted that although it is understood that residents who have been notified their well are contaminated are receiving bottled water from the County, this is not a fact. She.asked that both these facts be taken into consideration by the Council. SPEDIAL JOINT COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 11 1983 —2- 1. BOARD OP REVIEW"CONTINUED: M/S/ Dunn/Morgan to accept and approve the market value percentage decreases as outlined by the County Assessor, per his list, with the stipulation that all the residences included on this list shall be reviewed and valued each year until the problem is solved. Carried. 5-0. --Dunn — Although $2,284 appears to be a small loss, over a, period of time it can become substantial. Qestioned possible reimbursement from Ramsey/Washington Counties, since they are the responsible parties. Believes City has some leverage because of the proposed landfill siting and Waste/Enerey Plant proposed :for the City. 2. LICENSE: 3.2 License for 3M Party Green Acres June 17, 1983 — 50 people M/S/P Dunn/Morgan to approve a 3.2 license .for Green Acres for 3M pasty on Carried �-0. June 17, 1983 3. INTEREST RATE POR SEALCOArT BONDS: M/S/P Eder/Dunn to establish a 9% interest rate for assessments on the 1983-84 Sealcoat Project bonds. Carried 5-0. Mayor Eder adjourned the Council meeting at 7:35 p.m. SPECIAL JOINT COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN'P9 JUNE 14, 1983 Chairman Prince opened the joint meeting at 7:40 P.M. Commission members present: Graves, Lyall, Dreher, Lundquist-9 Peterson, Nazarian Gifford, :Michels, and Moe, Absent Ryberg. Also present Administrator Whittaker and all City Council members, R-1 RECOMMENDATIONS: Chairman Prince referred the Council to the Zoning Map and outlined the R-1 areas that the Commission recommend.: be deleted from the Comp Plan, Ibis recommendation is based on the suggestion of the Met Council, which indicated that Lake Elmo had too many infi.11 areas planned. They consider all areas under 5acres as urban density and will require metro sewer at some point in the future, As Lake Elmo has no sewer plans, they will not provide sewer service should planned urban density Lots be planned and developed and sewer problems arise. Therefore, they sigggested that the City delete all 11-1 planned areas that are not actually in —fill areas. (Specific areas were outlined in PZC minutes of March 28, 1983 ), Comments: --Eder — no problem in changing -the plan — have to have the property owners in and find out what their commitment of the property is. --.Whittaker. — outlined the areas that will remain planned R—l. --Fraser — questioned the planned_R-1_area -around _Legion Pond. — should this be planned R-1 because of potential water problems. --Whittaker — each plat would have to be carefully reviewed. Explained PZC rational —Nelson/Hageman Propose deleting the planned R-1 and. keeping -the RR zoning. Area, to the east is Ag — presently no plan for other use. Property to west is Gun Club and the Regional Park is to the north — R-1 appeared to be spot zoning at this time. —Deaubi.en—Seeler Area — retain as RR -- no present concentration of R-1 in this area Presently larger lots — no need to encourage R-1 now. --Schaefer (mining parcel off Jamaca) — presently zoned Ag and used for mining. If 11-1 is desired in the future, owners can come in and apply for a rezoning. Population projections for the City have not, come to pass. Presently 250 platted and not 'built on lots in the City. Met Council feels City has too much planned densi t-y. --Fraser — would support this recommendation. This would give strong reason to plan higher density and/or moderate cost housing in Section 32 where sewer is available. --Eder. — explained the Land Planning; Act. Agrees with the 10 ,year foreast; but also sees the need for an ultimate development plan. --Morgan — Concerned — Believes 1 1/2 acre lots can sustain themselves indefinately, therefore, does not see a problem with. planning 1 1/2 acre lots. Can see this would he a problem should sewer come in though. Generally agrees with Eder — may see over—all development by year. 2010 — but this can be done on 1 1/2 acre lots. --Mazzara — generally supports proposal. Concerned about Old Village area. --Dorm — Sees this proposal as acceptable. --Eder — in order to continue the on —site septic systems so that sewer is never required, residents are going to have to accept and participate in a mandatory septic inspection program. Residents will have to accept the responsibility of keeping their systems in prime operational condition so as not to pollute the ground water thereby negating the possibility of necessity of metro sewer. T-914 RECOMMENDATIONS: Prince outlined the planned business areas along I-94 and the recommended changes proposed by the Commission. The Commission is suggesting enlarging the commercial/ business areas around the hi gfiway intersections to encourage development in these - areas and get away from the commercial highway "strip". SPECIAL JOINT COUNCIL/PLANNING MEETING, JUNE 1.4, 1983 —2— PLANNING COMMISSION — COMP PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS- I-94 RECO'MMENDATIONS — Continued —01aser. — supports idea of getting away from the commercial. 11strip" concept; but, not sure this can be successfully enforced. --Eder — thinks the I-94 area should go slowly until the MUSA line .is extended. Recommended less commercial/industrial uses and more high density living area such as apartments. --Prince — feels it would be better to do some up —front planning rather that continue with the wait and see what is proposed policy. Many uses that are not desirable still may qualify for an area. --Eder — suggested showing no commercial strip — ,just show commercial areas around the two intersections — 19 and, 13. Access to land is what opens it up. Prefer to see mixed uses — this would deter just a commercial strip. —01aser — going to have to keep an open mind on how this area, will develop — property owners are going to have many ideas on planned use. Present plan calls for highway Business. --Lyall — questioned if the City has the right to change the planned use contrary to what the property owner wants. --Eder — this will have to bd considered after the public hearing. --Whittaker — without sewer commercial areas tend to be alot of pole barns. --Eder — should proposed race track go into Woodbury, this may dictate what happens in Lake Elmo, --Prince — options include: leaving area as planned; change plan to just provide commercial zoning around the inters6otions of 1.3 and 19 this would not ,affect established business; or change the plan to provide for mixed Urban Uses. --Morgan — Believes MUSA line is a good determining factor on the size of the commercial area — thinks area should be reduced, Need to have more control and. say over the business that come into Lake Elmo — want businesses that are good and desirable for the City, Need better definitions for zoning uses. Section 32 is the logical commercial area; but it is expensive, therefore, developers go to the non—sewered less expensive areas, in the middle of a cornfield. Not a shortage of land for commercial development in Lake Elmo, The group briefly discussed desired uses for the City. --Mazzara — suggested the Council and Commission members write down what they consider to be good, desirable, feasible and realistic uses. --Gifford — would like to hear what the property owners, business people and developers forsee as reasonable and desirable uses. --Dunn — feel the City should do nothing, at this time, should wait and see if a horse track does come to this area and all see what the impact of the Regional Park. --Prince — -this might prove a dangerous approach. --Morgan — need to do whatever it takes to get more control. --Whittaker — should be specific in planning what will happen in Sec. 32. --Graves — suggested developing the proposed recommendation with specific development around the intersections and a clearly defined Fixed Use Area with the stipulation that development cannot take place for these specific uses until sewer is available. The Commission requested that the Planner develop a list of mixed uses. --Michels — sees this as creating a problem — since the plan cannot go beyond 1990 how can a sewered area be planned for. now. ---Whittaker — explained the reasons why the Camp Plan amendments have to be completed by September. This primarly applies to the R-1 areas. The I-94 question can be resolved later, SPECIAL JOINT COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MLETINT' JUNE 114, 1983 -3-. MUSA LINE; Prince confirmed that both bodies agreed that the MUSA line should be moved / to the east boundary of the Section 32-33 planning area. There were no l additional comments. She also informed the Council of her desire to delete the planned Industrial, areas along Highway 5 and included such use in Section 32. She does not think these are good Industrial areas. --5`raser - can see no justification to change the planned Industrial area around the Animal Inn. -.-Mazzara - appears to be a reasonable area for Industrial because of the location. --Morgan - does not see Industrial as the only use just because the land is between a railroad track and highway. Prince summarized, the action to be taken; The Commission will proceed with a public hearing on the 1 1/2 acre lot areas planned post 1990; and also hold a hearing on moving the MUSA line to the east planning boundary of Sections 32 & 33. The Planner will be requested to respond to the I-911.. situation and provide a list of Mixed Urban Uses for that area and potential businoss/commercial uses for the old village. The Joint Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.