Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-87 CCMLAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 Mayor Christ called the City Council meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: Christ, Johnson, Armstrong, Graves, Moe, City Engineer Bohrer, Attorney Carlson and City Administrator Overby. 1. Agenda Add: 7B. 201 Assessment Hearing, 8C. Youth Service Bureau M/S/P Graves/Johnson - to approve the agenda for the September 15, 1987 City Council meeting as amended. (Motion carried 5-0). 2. Minutes: September 1, 1987 M/S/P Graves/Moe - to approve the September 1, 1987 City Council minutes as amended. (Motion carried 5-0). 3. Claims M/S/P Graves/Moe - to approve the September 15, 1987 claims #89225 thru #89283 as presented. (Motion carried 5-0). 4. Stillwater Jaycees Request for Donation Mike Pohlena made a request on behalf of the Stillwater Jaycees for a contribution to help complete the Stillwater Jaycees athletic complex in Stillwater. Pohlena reviewed the donations made by area businesses and the Lake Elmo Jaycees. City Administrator Overby indicated that the Parks Commission had recommended against a contribution because city children would not be using the Stillwater facility. It was also pointed out that Sunfish Park was used by people from outside Lake Elmo without financial support. The City Council postponed a decision on the donation request until they discussed the budget. 5. Landfill Committee Update Dan Novak was present to answer any City Council questions. Discussion was waived until the Special Meeting Council meeting to be held with Attorney Charles Dayton on Wednesday night, September 16, 1987. 6. PLANNING, LAND USE AND ZONING A. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for Variance to the R-1 Zoning Side Yard Setback. Thomas Tennis, 2855 Lake Elmo Avenue Mayor Christ opened up the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council chambers. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 PAGE 2 Mr. Thomas Tennis proposed to construct a new garage and construct both vertical and horizontal additions to the house at 2855 Lake Elmo Avenue. Setback variances are being requested for the garage and the horizontal house addition. This property is located east of Lake Elmo and Shoreland Regulations apply. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Lot size is not part of the variance request because this is a previously developed parcel. (The lot east of Lake Elmo Avenue is 0.7 acres.) 2. Side Yard Setback for Garage The applicant proposed to construct the garage six feet from the property line where ten feet is required. 3. Side Yard Setback for House An existing addition to the house is within six feet of the south property line. The applicant proposes to construct a three season porch in line with the existing non- conforming addition. A ten foot setback is required. 4. The applicant proposes to add a story to the house. No variances are required for this vertical addition. 5. No bedrooms are being added, therfore, the septic system is not required to be evaluated. Willard Griffin, 2835 Lake Elmo Avenue, objected to the approval of the sideyard setback variance allowing the porch to be within six feet of the the property line, because he felt this would take value away from his property. Mayor Christ closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Councilwoman Armstrong stated the Council has approved previous requests like this before, but she was not in favor of the garage. Councilman Graves had no problem with the improvements to the house, but did have a problem with the porch and deck being 6 feet from the side property line. Councilman Johnson was in favor of the house variance because upgrading the house would be an improvement. No hardship was found for the garage. M/S/P Armstrong/Graves - to approve the sideyard setback for construction of a porch on the house (not the garage) at 2855 Lake Elmo Avenue North based on the hardship being it does not increase the non-comformity because it already exists; contingent on the addition not exceeding the sketch plan without further consideration from the City Council. (Motion carried 5-0). LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 PAGE 3 M/S/P Graves/Moe - to deny the request for the variance for the sideyard setback for the construction of a garage on the property of 2855 Lake Elmo Avenue North. (Motion carried 5-0). B. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for Variance to the Number of Size of Accessory Structures in the R-1 Zoning District. Bernard Meyer, 3303 Lake Elmo Avenue Mayor Christ called the public hearing to order at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Mr. Bernard Meyer wishes to construct a 30' x 60' (pole barn) accessory building to house construction equipment for his existing on -site business. In 1965 when he bought this, it was zoned "Light Industrial", but now he has new neighbors who have children that have been playing on the equipment that is parked on the site. City Administrator Overby stated the following in his review: 1. The business has operated at this location for many years and should be considered as a "grandfathered" non -conforming situation in th R-1 zoning district. The City Ordinance does not allow expansion of an existing non -conforming use. The question here is whether the construction of an accessory building to house existing construction equipment already stored on the site could be considered an expansion of the non -conforming use. 2. The second issue is the size of accessory buildings allowed in the R1 zoning district. The City code allows: "for parcels over twenty thousand square feet in land area, on building with a total area not to exceed one thousand square feet". (Section 301.130C.114). Mr. Meyer's lot is approximately 5.1 acres in size. Thus, he would be allowed a building of up to 1,000 square feet in size. However, there already exists one accessory building (25 x 45 = 1125 sq.ft.). This is why a variance is requested on the size of accessory buildings allowed. 3. The third issue concerns the number of accessory buildings allowed in the R1 zoning district. There is already one accessory building on the property, thus a variance is needed to allow the proposed new building. Marjorie Williams, 3025 Lake Elmo Avenue, added a caution that even though Mr. Meyer has been a good neighbor, if you do too much expansion of light industrial uses in a Residential neighborhood those people move out and leave this, the next owner may not be as good a neighbor. Then we are stuck with some non -conforming uses. She would like to see Lake Elmo Avenue maintained as a viable residential neighborhood. Mr. Meyer responded that there would not be an expansion of this business. The old barn will stay, but he still needs this size of building in order to keep all of his equipment inside. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 PAGE 4 A neighbor commented that their new pond is not going down and was concerned if there are any new buildings in that area of the back lot, would cause the water to go up. Mayor Christ closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Mayor Christ was in favor of this variance because he felt in this situation there is a distinct grandfathered application and Mr. Meyer has been a one-man operation for twenty some years with equipment stored outside causing much more of an eyesore than a structure that would enclose the equipment and make it much more esthetically pleasing. Christ believed by the "grandfathered clause" it would not be in any way construed as an increase in the non -conforming activity, but rather an esthetically pleasing addition to an already existing business. Councilman Moe was in favor of granting this variance because of the safety factor with the children that might get hurt that are playing on his equipment which could be housed indoors and out of reach of the children. Councilman Graves addressed his concern of granting two variances; the number of accessory structures and the size of accessory structure. He did not know how to define expansion of an existing non -conforming use. It isn't permitting Mr. Meyer to increase the number of pieces of equipment or taking on new partners. In appearance, it clearly makes it less an R-1 area than it is now, but he has not heard any negative comments from that standpoint. Russ Anderson asked Mr. Meyer if the building would be strictly for equipment and not for antique cars? He would hate to see the building up and the equipment still stored outside. Meyer responded that he already has a pole building in West Lakeland for antique cars. Mr. Meyer said he would be willing to have both parcels combined into one parcel which would clear up the question that if the property is sold and someone might try to develop the rear lot to the east. Councilwoman Armstrong stated that the equipment that will be housed already exists, this would clean up the yard, the other building is being used for this business which everyone in Lake Elmo knows has been there for a long time. Therefore, she made the following motion based on the hardship that the equipment is already there and it would not be expanding his business, they would be planning a place to put the existing amount of equipment he has. Councilman Graves would vote for the motion with the interpretation that this is a grandfathered business and this would just be supporting an existing business and there is no intent to expand the business with the erection of the building and all existing equipment, that is presently stored outside, will be stored inside. accessory building in an R1 zoning district; to grant a variance for a 1800 sq.ft. accessory building at 3303 Lake Elmo Avenue N. for Bernard LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 PAGE 5 Meyer with the intent of housing all the existing equipment and no expansion of the business, contingent upon both of the parcels being combined into one parcel and assure that the easement does not go along the entire length of property (tax number 5350). (Motion carried 5-0). C. General Business Zoning District Amendment The proposed amendment to the General Business Zoning District ordinance was discussed at the Council meeting of 9-1-87. Action was tabled and the Staff was directed to prepare a revised draft ordinance amendment for this meeting to include catering as an "allowed incidental and subsidiary use". M/S/P Johnson/Graves - to remove the motion from the table. (Motion carried 5-0). Councilman Graves called for a vote on the motion, but the Council wanted to discuss it further. Marge Williams, Vice -Chair of the Planning Commission, commented that the Planning Commision had drafted a new General Business ordinance which reflects discussions that the Council has had. Williams asked the Council to hold off voting on this amendment until they review the entire new General Business ordinance. Ed Gorman indicated he was before the Planning Commission four different times. The existing ordinance draft before them already had a public hearing and was not opposed by anyone, the City Attorney agreed with the language and he (Gorman) could live with the boundaries. Councilman Johnson did have a problem with the way the ordinance was written. He did not know why they are tieing a bakery operation to a restaurant. Why shouldn't somebody who wants to open up a bakery and sell retail bakery goods and has nothing to do with a restaurant operation, be allowed in the City in the General Business area in Lake Elmo? Johnson stated he was in favor of a bakery in Lake Elmo. City Administrator Overby explained that the original concern raised by the City Attorney is that a bakery is considered by the code as a manufacturing use, but if they are supportive or incidental to a restaurant business you have a different situation. This was a means of allowing a use without a conditional use permit. Overby added that it was explained to the Planning Commission as being a city-wide ordinance amendment and it was not Ed Gorman's application. Councilwoman Armstrong did not see any reason why they could not let the Planning Commission incorporate their language into the amendment. There was no reason to duplicate this. The Council should wait to see what the Planning Commission wants and do it only once. Mayor Christ stated that there is nothing stopping Mr. Gorman from proceeding with what he intends to do. All that the Council is saying is instead of this ordinance we are going to have one much more LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 PAGE 6 comprehensive and desirable one. He trusts the Planning Commission has put a lot of work into it and certainly hopes that when the amendment comes out, that it allows a bakery in the restaurant across the street. Councilman Graves agreed it would be worthwhile to see a comprehensive unified ordinance brought before them, since they are only looking at a month delay and he apologized to Mr. Gorman for the circle he feels he has been going through trying to get something accomplished. Graves withdrew his motion made at the last meeting. Councilman Johnson would like to vote for this amendment because he would like to have a bakery in Lake Elmo, but would not because the PZC wants to discuss this more and would like another re-examination of the ordinance that comes before them which would allow a bakery or a catering operation not tied to a restaurant. Johnson feels this is too restrictive and sees no problem with a retail bakery operation as a General Business operation without a CUP. M/S/P Graves/Armstrong - to table the General Business Zoning District ordinance for further discussion until the October 20th City Council meeting. (Motion carried 5-0). D. Presentation by Section 32-33 Landowners Dave Johnson of the ConnCo Shoe Company presented a Section 32-33 land use map and updated the City Council on several items a group of property owners of Section 32 and part of Section 33 have been considering. Johnson indicated that there has been an active group of property owners in this area that have been meeting with the City in terms of identifying what the realistic land use is for that area. They were very actively involved when the Waste Energy Project was proposed and came up with a land use concept plan at that particular time. When that went south, the group met again and adjusted the plan to what is currently in place. As they followed this progression, they came before the Council a year ago requesting consideration for sewer and water to be brought in that area, recognizing that sewer and water is a necessity to develop that area commercially as the land use concept plan would indicate. Many of them that are involved in this have received numerous overtures from interested people in doing something here, but their primary question is "Where is the sewer and water?" A feasibility study was done and a cost of $3.2 million was identified. The City's proposal to the property owners was to use a 100% assessment procedure where the property owners would be paying for the improvements going in. There were some Green Acre issues that were involved. The property owners have reviewed individually and as a group, as what this meant. The consensus was that economically it does not work to make this kind of investment up front, not knowing when or who weuld be a prespeet te buy it. A couple of property owners took it upon themselves to initiate a conversation with the City of Oakdale to address the issues on how LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 PAGE 7 they would approach the development of this area. With the reception they received, these owners came back to the other property owners and asked them to talk to Oakdale also. A number of them went to Oakdale and found them receptive to giving consideration to looking at this area and willing to share with them their thoughts if it was in their City. The property owners then came up with a game plan which is to actively pursue the City of Oakdale for specific terms of what they would be willing to do. It was during this process that the Mayor of Oakdale, recognizing the political sensitivity, saw fit to let Lake Elmo know what was going on. As this progressed, they decided that they would take a concensus to determine how much foundation there is in terms of support for consideration of this kind of thing in order to accomplish what they feel they are motivated to do. A property owners meeting was held in July where this overview was presented. A petition was circulated that meets all the standard requirements of the municipal board and the signatures are in. The strong consensus of the property owners there were to seriously consider this. There is no one that is interested in leaving Lake Elmo for the sake of leaving Lake Elmo. The motivations here are purely economic. The economic inducements the City of Oakdale is willing to afford the property owners in this area are very significant. They have a City that is constructed for sewer and water, tax increment financing districts, etc. The accomplishments they have to show for it bear them out. Johnson explained that they were before them to ask the Council, knowing this information, if there is a willingness on the part of the City of Lake Elmo to give serious consideration to getting into the game and competing with what Oakdale is offering. Mayor Christ recapped what Mr. Johnson was stating with "you are asking the City if they are willing to get into a contest with Oakdale as to who will give you the most?" Johnson responded that he is asking whether the City is interested in competing. He added that it would be a lot easier to do it in Lake Elmo and asked the Council to give them some serious consideration. Councilman Dick Johnson asked Mr. Johnson to elaborate on what the City of Oakdale was offering. Johnson explained the approach Oakdale has taken. No document has been written, but it would be similar to the Fleet Farm and Zycad projects. Oakdale would be willing to look at minimal assessments of 200. They are willing to defer the assessment, having the property owner paying interest only for as long as 5 to 7 years; willing to create a tax increment financing district which would provide the property owners within that area the opportunity to potentially pay "zero" for assessments. They would intitially go in and order the improvements, sewer and water, at a less cost than $3.2 million dollars because they have a trunkmain already across the highway. As development comes in, they would establish a development district whereby the total tax changes as a function of property improvements can be utilized to first pay off the assessments of the sewer and water. They are creating a tremendous inducement for those interested in coming in and LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 PAGE 8 developing into that area. Once all the improvements are paid for, then the community gets the full benefit of the property taxes. Mayor Christ summed it up with "you want to develop your property there, you want the City to take the risk and the property owners reap the profits." Johnson responded that Oakdale's philosophy differs from what is here, but he was not there to criticize the philosophies that are here. Councilwoman Armstrong indicated that Mr. Johnson does not live in Lake Elmo, but lives in Stillwater Township and enjoys a lower tax rate living in a rural area. She asked Johnson if he would be willing to pay the higher taxes that would amount to what the kind of developments do if he lived in Oakdale. Johnson responded that the tax differential between Lake Elmo and Oakdale is about 3 mills. The mill rate range, according to the County, Lake Elmo is 106-121 depending on the area and Oakdale is 115-130 total. Graves pointed out that the mill rate for Lake Elmo is t:3-9 where Oakdale is in the 20+ range. (14.29 amended 10-6-87) Bob Dreher spoke for himself, stating it was purely economics. The package looks nice, he hates to do this, but economics says he has to do it. He does not care to leave Lake Elmo and likes living in Lake Elmo. He thinks there is a tax dollar to be had for the City and Lake Elmo should get on the band wagon. Dreher feels they can be very selective as to what type of commercial or industrial that wants to come in that has a good tax base. Mayor Christ was adamantly opposed to "giving away the store." He interprets what was said is that the City would want to take a risk that we are going to pay millions of dollars for improvements, then we are going to want someone to come in there and help pay them off these assessments. But now you are saying you are going to be very selective and only take the good stuff. This does not happen. You see the junk that comes in when you prostitute yourself. Christ added he was overwhelmed and wondered how many of the people in Oakdale realize what the governing fathers are doing in Oakdale. This is incredible --we cannot compete. Christ asked if anyone in the audience would want to put the City at risk for 800 of a $4 million project. Councilman Graves felt there were things that can be done to work with these people. The City has shown that they had an appetite to identify ways of potentially developing the area and he would like to see that pursued. He would have to look at this information before he would put the City at risk for such an enormous amount of money compared to our annual City budget. Graves voiced major reservations about putting the City to a $2.5 million obligation for 5 to 7 years because we may encourage the type of development we really do not want to see just so we don't get stuck with that bill. This could be worked out. City Administrator Overby felt that the presentation sounded to him that the only way you can get development into that site presumes that you have to offer the incentives, as the location itself is not good enough to attract quality development or that a developer could not LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 PAGE 9 come in and have his own financing or work a larger deal than an individual property owner can do. Overby is suggesting that there might be other options than what was stated. Councilman Graves did not feel the Council was in a position to respond intelligently to this request within 30 days. He would like the Council to direct the City Staff to look into different options that may exist with the impact of these types of financing alternatives are for us. Councilwoman Armstrong did not think that the large landowners in Section 32 represent alot of people that live in Section 32. Most of the people are on small lots and do not need a sewer and are not looking at it as a financial investment. One of Oakdale's proudest moments was opening the Zycad building and that has become a failure. She does not think that the tax increment financing is the answer to all their problems. The City is on a budget of $600,000 a year and not prepared to utilize Section 32 at our initiative. We have to depend on the people who owned that land to come and do that. Marge Williams explained that the Planning Commission has discussed Section 32 many times. In order for Oakdale to allow this great amount of development they had to increase their infra -structure and this has driven up their tax dramatically. This is one of the major complaints of the citizens of Oakdale is to pay higher taxes in order for the developer to develop. A developer who spoke at a planning conference said "there are three things that draw developers -- money, money and money". All you have to do is buy some land and build a better mousetrap. One of those mousetraps are townhouses. Woodbury, Oakdale, and the east metro area have a 30-40% vacancy in townhouses. Councilman Johnson supported the plan to help the property owners in developing this property because it has been said all along that there is to be a commercial development area within the MUSA Line. He could not accept the financial burden that is being offered here, but feels it is important enough to look for means of trying to accomplish this. Johnson suggested a volunteer citizen advisory committee consisting of a couple of people from each area, and some planning commission members to work with the staff to not only get facts but to get some public opinion city wide to give the Council more guidelines. An article will be in the newsletter asking for interested people to contact the City Administrator. M/S/P Graves/Moe - to set up an advisory committee comprised of members representing a cross-section of the Lake Elmo Community (planning commission members, homeowners, business people) and in cooperation with the City staff, to look into different alternatives or approaches the City might take to assist the property owners and report back to the City Council at the end of 1987. (Motion carried 5-0) . LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 PAGE 10 7. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT A. Partial Escrow Release: Lake Elmo Heights, 2nd Addition City Engineer Bohrer reported that the grading, gravel base and storm sewer for Lake Elmo Heights 2nd Addition is complete. The Developer has requested a partial escrow release to pay for this work. Bohrer recommended that the escrow can be released in the amount of $65,053.00. A summary of the escrow account is as follows: Original Escrow per Developer's Agreement $121,967.81 Amount of this release-65,053.00 Remaining Balance $ 56,914.81 M/S/P Graves/Moe - to approve Partial Escrow Release #1 for Lake Elmo Heights 2nd Addition in the amount of $65,053.00. (Motion carried 5-0). B. 201 Assessment Hearing The Joint Powers Agreement that the City signed with the County gave the County the authority to hold the assessment hearing for the City. City Engineer Bohrer, reading from a letter from Washington County Planner Bob Lockyear, indicated that the City has the option to hold a local hearing on the 201 assessments. The City has to inform the County prior to November 1st in which manner they choose to have the Lake Elmo portion assessed. Bohrer explained that he did not see any savings in work because the City would have to prepare the mailing list, the amount to be assessed and turn this information over to the County. Bohrer recommended the City hold its own assessment hearing because with a smaller group of just Lake Elmo residents, they could be more responsive to questions or concerns. M/S/P Graves/Moe - to inform Washington County that the Lake Elmo City Council will hold the 201 assessment hearing in February of 1988. (Motion carried 5-0). Bohrer added that the County would like assurance that the amount assessed will be passed onto them. This will be addressed in a letter written by the City Administrator to the County. 8. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT A. Improvements to Fire Station No. 2 Greg Malmquist of the Lake Elmo Fire Department presented three different options for repairs and improvements to the new fire station building on Jamaca Avenue. The following categories were broken down: 1. Miscellaneous steel & door jambs repaired 2. Windows LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 PAGE 11 3. Insulating 4. Ceiling insulation 5. Wall remodeling M/S/P Moe/Graves - to approve the requested improvements for fire station number 2 in the amount of $18,160. (Motion carried 5-0). B. Continue Discussion on 1988 City Budget Discussion with Finance Director Marilyn Banister on the 1988 City Budget continued. All three CIP's were approved with the exception of the Parks CIP where the DeMontreville Park tennis courts for $40,000 has been changed to 1993. There was discussion on how they could lower the mill rate to 13 mills. One of the suggestions was to take out the $25,000 for patch and overlay under Public Works. The consensus of the Council was that no money was budgeted for the Youth Service Bureau, and City Administrator Overby will inform the Youth Service Bureau of this. The following motion reflects the discussion on the funding of the new fire truck. M/S/P Armstrong/Graves - to rescind the April 7th, 1987 motion to take out an Equipment Certificate in the amount of $75,000 for purchase of a new fire truck, but instead to take out the $75,000 out of the General Fund for this purchase. (Motion carried 5-0). M/S/P Graves/Johnson - to adjourn the City Council meeting at 11:25 p.m. (Motion carried 5-0). Since we do not have time to discuss every point presented, it may seem that decisions are preconceived. However, background information is provided for the City Council on each agenda item in advance from City Staff and appointed Commissions; and decisions are based on this information and past experiences. In addition, some items may also have been discussed at previous Council meetings. If you are aware of information that hasn't been discussed, please fill out a "Request to Appear Before the City Council" slip; or, if you came late, raise your hand to be recognized. Comments that are pertinent are appreciated. Items requiring excessive time may be continued to another meeting. AGENDA LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 -- 7:00 p.m. MEETING CONVENES 1. Agenda - 2. Minutes: September 1, 1987 3. Claims 7:05 p.m. 4. Stillwater Jaycees Request for Donation 5. Landfill Committee Update 6. PLANNING, LAND USE AND ZONING 7:30 p.m. A. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for Variance to the R-1 Zoning Side Yard Setback. Thomas Tennis, 2855 Lake Elmo Avenue 8:00 p.m. B. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for Variance to the Number of Size of Accessory Structures in the R-1 Zoning District. Bernard Meyer, 3303 Lake Elmo Avenue 8:30 p.m. C. General Business Zoning District Amendment -8:45 p.m. D. Presentation by Section 32-33 Landowners =9:00 P.M .------------------B R E A K----------------------------- - 9:05 p.m. 7. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT A. Partial Escrow Release: Lake Elmo Heights 2nd Addition 8. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT A. Improvements to Fire Station No. 2 B. Continue Discussion on 1988 City Budget 9. Other Business 10. Adjourn Regular Session EXECUTIVE SESSION: 201 Condemnation Award Appeal