HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-12-81 PZMJOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 12, 1981
Chairman Michels called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Prince, Dreher, Heiden, Lundquist, Nazarian,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 Highw y Plan - the Administrator strongly
urges the neeeseity 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"Elmo's positibn,''opposing -
landfi_lis,- landfills in par]c 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 usedefor 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, OCTO33ER 12, 1981 -2-
1. 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 additionto 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 ]Hill 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 or(,.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
That - 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 thing 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 original 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 enoughc adequate landfill.
- q
PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL JOINT MEETING, OCTOBER 12, 1981
1. -Continued
--Hauser - Thinksthe thing we are all concerned about is that
the sites be enviomentally safe as possible and that we discomfort
as few people as we can. in the process. Does not think the County
has any different motives in its choice then the rest of us.
--Gifford - Asked if all concerned parties aware of the possibly
contaminated wells - how geographically close they are to the
proposed Regional Park landfill,
--Ilauser - IIas to do with the hydrology of the area and other
factors that I am perfectly ignorant of.
--Discussed who does the well testing and what is tested for,
2, .Status, Lake Elmo Comp Plan .-
T.-Whittaker explained that the issue that is holding up review
of Lake Elmo's plan is the sewer question, Met Council would
like the City to be more definite about the sewer that we reserved
in the System Statement four years ago, Lake Elmo's position is,
we believe, we need it, We are in the process of doing a sewer
study that will better:Lidentify the areas that need sewer; and
if there are no areas that need sewer other than Section 32 and
we expect to expand, then, we are going to use that. allotment
in Section 32, within the MUSA line;° as proposed in our Comp Plan.
Whittaker explained the City's position on trunk sewer lines
and its requirements for installation by developers.
Two questions What area are we going to sewer and how much
sewer are we going to get out of it.
City does not feel it has been in a position to predict sewer
flows. Do not expect any increase in sewer flows before 1985.
Have attempted, in discussion and correspondence, over the past
16 months to clarify the alternatives we see. The City maintains
all sewer will go into the same metropolitan pipe. - This will not
be beyond the capacity appropriated initially to Lake Elmo, Will
not exceed 6,000 units and will not have a big impact on Metropolitan
planning, Final issue is that because of the delay in 201 funds
and the staging of I-94, most likely nothing will be done about
sewer until 1985. Therefore, the City cannot have a capital improve-
ment program that indicates sewer construction before 1985. Feel
we have given as much information as we can and would like the
Met Council to continue with review -of the Comp Plan. Has discussed
this with Vic Ward, briefly with Mary Hauser, and Bob Mazanec,
Want to know where the Met Council staff is at,
--Hauser - Back at square one. Want to know what Lake Elmo wants
reserved, Question no different than before,
--Whittaker - Always wanted to reserve what we indicated 3 years
ago, 6,000 units. Will go into the same pipe no matter where it
comes from in Lake Elmo, Do not see the Met Council or the
Waste Cbntrol Commission building any pipes through Lake Elmo.
There is no place beyond us that the Met Council would serve.
--Fraser - Asked the Met Council reps if Lake Elmo's response
was adequate, if not, what is an adequate response.
--Mazanec, Met Council, just read the Administrators letter of
October 9, 1981, to Charles Weaver, and feels it moves the issue
a long way to resolving the problem. Why the dif_ficu1tys-
Cour:cil is planning beyond 1985 vs Lake Elmo's position to plan
only up to 1985, Have to balance the needs of all the communities
and need as many specific commitments as possible on the service
needed so that the:necessary reserves can be made,
PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL JOINT MEETING, OCTO}3ER 12, 1981 -4-
P
2. Comp Plan Status
--Mazanec - Noted that in communities where estimates are higher
than the need they can reallocate the difference tb 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 :ok,: 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 configuration of development or
how much it might be or whsther 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 impact,
--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. Want.tto 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 th e 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. FIave
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 he
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 itlement will be
jeopardized.
PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL JOINT MEETING, OCTOBER 12, 1981
r.
2. Cam% flan Status
Whittaker will 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 delays stemmed 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 allocating the population
to Section 32, where the sewer projection i.s,.indicates no•use 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 m numbers never came from. Lake
Elmo.
---Ward - Explained how the Council takes a region and tries to
determine how to hest 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 because
et 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
would automatically 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.
--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.
Comp Plan Status -
The City's policy of designating 1 1/2 acre lots in small arts
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 up -dated 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 land for lake access) although
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 hie
land.
Whittaker - indicated. that the owner is dissatisified with the price offered
by DNR,
--Ilauser - Thinks this should be discussed with Mr. Alexander. Recently put
emphasis on funding for lake accesses. Said would be happy to speak to Charles
Weaver, Chairman of the Met Council, who)she feels, would be happy to speak with
Joe Alexander, about this issue.
---Senator ffughes - 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`o^,mers 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 access on November 30.
Berle Garloff, Demontrevi_ll Tr, - Enforcement is a major issue. A lot of over -
parking in the area which creates a safety hazard..
—Greg Foucks, 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, nal negative comments should
be referred directly to the D.NR.
--Levi - Asked if the City ham made a commitment to insure that parkin, safety
and enforcement will occur if the parking area is expanded. Does not think the :DNB
will or can enforce or control another access, Noted. that ihe-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 thht 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.
--boucka- 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 will lose our opportunity to solve the problem now and
be creating a bigger problem.
s
PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL JOINT MEETING, O1TOI3ER 12, 1981
-7-
).4. 201 Funding -
Whittaker 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 - I.f Federal money dries up and the standards do not,si.mply to comply with
Federal law in some cases, the State will have to help,
5. Metro Watershed District - 1006
Whittaker asked Mary nruser about her interest in having a District Watershed
District,
--Hauser - 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 quality
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 PGA to enforce noise standards for the State. Much eontroveraary,
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 he parameters set up.
--Levi -• in testimoney that was heard many did not want State regulations -
many communities want to set their 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 PIRA on questions concerning
problem areas with Lake Elmo's Gun Club - they were of no help on the noise or
safety factors and did not 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 locations, terrain, and use of
gun clubs vary so much that local special use permits better lay out what is
acceptable.
7, PBA Variance and Plans
Mayor Eder explained Lake Elmo's request for a MSA variance, under. the new procedure
authorized under a change in State Statute, that was denied.
--Whittaker - Issue is does the standard make any sense - Be 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 JOINT MEETING) OC'PONW 12, 1981 —8—
T
MSA — Continued
Whittaker asked Levi and IIughes to review his letter to the Commissioner of
Highways and contact Mn/DO`.0 about making their procedure alternatives clearly
available to all applicants.
—Elder. — suggested the legislature should give some direction to Mn/DOT as to
the application of their standards. Different situations deem variation of the
standards. Discussion of how speed limits are determined.
---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 wi.11 send
a listing of Highway rules and regulations to Senator. Hughes.
8, State Aid Changes
Whittaker — real concern on !decrease in State Aid without giving Cities an opportunity
to levy or make up the difference. Makes it impossible to Manage the business
of the City — fiscally and physically impossible to manage the City with no money.
Put the responsibliiies back on the Cities to decide how to best finance their
activities — don't leave them in a position of no options.
Levi — has been proposals to let the levy 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 Eder extended appreciation,to Iteprentative Levi, Senator Hughes, and Mhry Hauser
for attending this joint meeting and discussing Lake Elm o's concerns .
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
15, Conn —Co Public Hearing —
M./SIP Prince/Nazarian to schedule a
October 26, 1981, at 8:15 p.m,
Runz oil
M S%P Prince/Nazarian to schedule a
to permit convenience groceries with
at 7:45 p.m.
public hearing for Conn -Co Rezoning for
public hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance
gas station in HD Zone for October 26, 1981,
The Planning Commission tabled discussion
26 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m.
of items
9 thru 13 until. the October
10:15 P.M.
CITY OF
LAKE
likELMO
City of Lake Elmo
777-5510
P. 0. Box J / Thirty-third and Laverne Avenue / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
AGENDA
Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting
October 12,1981
7:30 P.M. --Meeting convenes
Minutes
7:45 P.M. --Guests: Mary Hauser ---Metro Council
Connie Levi --State Representative
Jerome Hughes ---State Senator
1. Landfill --Regional Park Reserve
2. Status --Lake Elmo Comp Plan
3. Lake Access --especially Demontreville
4. 201 funding
5. Metro Watershed proposals--1006
6. Gun Club Standards
7. MSA Variance and plan
8. State Aid changes
9:45 P.M. 9. Vacation of 15th. St. in. Park Reserve
10. 50th. St. Plan
11. Highway Plan
12. City Code Amendments
13. New Housing--Impact-on Zoning
14. General Contractor's License --Heating Installer Licensc
Bruce Fehr Homes
1294 Ingerson Road
Arden Hills, Minn.
Forrest Heating Co.
995 Burns Ave.
55112 St. Paul,Minn.55106
15. Schedule Public Hearings:
A. Conn -Co Rezoning, Oct. 26, 8:15 p.m.
B. Amend Zoning Ord. to permit convenience
groceries with gas station in HB Zone --
October 26, 7:45 p.m.
CITY OE
LAKE :
jLELMO
City of Lake Elmo
777-5510
P. O. Box J / Thirty-third and Laverne Avenue / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
DATE: September 21, 1981 CC:
10: Planning Zoning Commission Members
FROM:
Larry Whittaker
SUBJECT: September 28, 1981 Meeting
Since there are no specific Agenda Items NOW;
M for the September 28th meeting, there will be
no meeting until the Joint Planning Commission/
E
City Council meeting October 12, 1981, - unless
M something very important comes up in the next
two weeks.
0
R
A
D
U
M