Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-83 PZMLAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24, 1983 Chairperson Prince called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gifford, Lyall, Nazarian, and Graves; Dreher, Lundquist and Michels (7:35 p.m.); and Moe (7:45 p.m.). Also, City Administrator Klaers and City Consultant Whittaker. 1. MINUTES - A. M/S/P Gifford/Graves to approve the revised 8/22/83 Planning Commission minutes as written. (4 ayes; Nazarian abstain) B. M/S/P Lundquist/Lyall to approve the 9/12/83 Planning Commission minutes with addendum as written. (6 ayes; Graves and Gifford abstain) C. M/S/P Nazarian/Lyall to approve the 9/26/83 Planning Commission minutes as written. (8 ayes) D. M/S/P Lundquist/Michels to approve any Planning Commission minutes prior to 10/24/83 that may have been inadvertently missed. (8 ayes) 2. PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCY - Klaers reiterated that Ryberg had resigned as an alternate and that there were a couple of names on file and opening was being advertised in Newsletter. 3. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATES - A. David Nelson - Is requesting R1 zoning instead of RR for W 4335.6' of E 2006 of S 1000 of S 1/2 of SE 1/4, Section 26, T29N, R21W; five to six lots off a cul-de-sac. • Prince - "You recall that that's the Nelson/Hageman rezoning down by the Gun Club. He owns the easterly section of that property so you might,before the public hearing,look over what he wanted to do originally. . . . Previously he jointly requested rezoning with property owner to the west and directly to the west of that is the gun club property, and` they were turned down." (Gifford - I thought he was going to sue?) (Whittaker - Heard that Hageman sold his property to the Gun Club so they'd have their own buffer.) • Prince - I'll call somebody from gun club to see if property has indeed been sold. We have to ask if property is going to be used for expansion or as a buffer. M/S/P Michels/Dreher to hold the David Nelson public hearing for rezoning on November 14 at 7:45 p.m. (9 ayes) B. Change in Zoning Ordinance - M/S/P Nazarian/Graves to hold a public hearing November 14 at 8:15 p.m. to consider change in zoning ordinance--shoreland 20° setbacks to 30'--so it is compatible with other ordinances. (9 ayes) 4. REVIEW OF RESOLUTION R-83-67 - Klaers reviewed changes in revised R-83-67 and also summarized a:Previ;c?us memo where, b52t11, Oakdale and Lake Elmo Planning Commissions agreed they had LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 10/24/83 Page two issues of common concern: sewer in Section 32 to service some area in Oakdale, road system, and possibly water. When these issues come closer to reality, two Commissions would get back together and discuss things=perhaps on a semi-annual or annual basis. Racetrack is a common issue, and if it does get located in Woodbury it will impact both Oakdale and Lake Elmo. (Very shortly, we should be receiving a public notice from Woodbury regarding their plans for the racetrack.) Another conclusion is that R-83-67 is for Lake Elmo's benefit, and they will probably pass a similar resolution. • Prince - Regarding proposed pipe to waste -to -energy plant, they were talking about paying for over -sizing pipe going into section of Oakdale abutting Section 32 (north) to avoid lift stations in Oakdale. • Klaers - Basically, we agreed upon type of resolution we wanted and to keep communication lines open between cities. • Prince - We can be thinking of racetrack impact (positive or negative) and let neighbors to south know our feelings. When they have informational meeting, perhaps one or two Planning Commissioners should go and express our feelings. Believe 50th Street extension is up to Council when request is received. • Klaers - Adopted Resolution reflects that problems are not Lake Elmo's but the two Counties' responsibility, and that we're not recommending a solution but asking for quick action and to consider all solutions. • Prince - As we talked about in the meeting when they were here, we tried not to make this the major issue, but they indicated they can drill a well on their eastern edge and could jointly put a pipe in to serve those homes. There are many questions such as who pays for pipe going through area without any homes and area of homes not having problems, maybe Lake Elmo should dig their own well, and how many homes will be affected. Basically, we're handing it back to County to study most cost-effective method. • Graves - If landfill is cleaned up so that pollution is minor consideration or funds are obtained for water system through agency, how will that have impact? (Klaers - I would assume it's on the funding list and that funds may -be available.) • Lyall - Has the aeration started yet? (Prince - yes, and they don't know if that will help.) (Klaers - they're dumping it on contained area--flagged--on site.) • Gifford - Read in paper where State has been doing studies on waste -to -energy plants (only one at Red Wing) and they're finding it's polluting area with cancer -causing pollutants so they're reevaluating project. (Graves - there are a number of different technologies employed in waste -to -energy plants so that plant installed here may or may not encounter similar problems.) (Prince - antipollution stacks could be put in.) (Lundquist - If you read whole article, it said pollution was so minor it wouldn't hurt anybody. Analytical procedures are so profound today, they can find anything anyplace and that doesn't mean that it's harmful.) LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 10/24/83 Page three Prince - Can take any ideas to County Board regarding this solution. Will take a long time even though we sympathize with residents drinking bottled water. Michels - HELP organization indicated that two cities in State have put in water supplies because of contaminated dumps. It seems some precedence has been set. (Prince - should check out to see what they've done.) Moe - Have a tough time thinking of people with bad water and don't know why it should take such a long time, especially when it comes to health. What can we do to speed it up? (Prince - that's why we have resolution so that County knows we're anxious for solution and we'll cooperate in any way we can.) Lyall - Personal suits might scare County into action. Klaers - One of involved residents has sued County and we have been named by the County. Prince - Can keep contacting County Commissioner and keep asking questions. Klaers - Don't know what else we can do as a City since it's the County's problem. Issue of Resolution should be on next County Board agenda. Gifford - Make "'landfill" such a dirty name and say what it's done to our City and that we certainly don't want another one. M/S/P Lundquist/Lyall to support Resolution R-83-67 adopted October 19, 1983 by the City Council. (8 ayes) Michels mentioned that HELP meets first Monday of every month at Christ Lutheran and they would have current input and could use our support. 5. 1-94 DISCUSSION - Prince reviewed Planning Commission public hearing (9/12/83) wherein there seemed to be consensus of opinion that the scheme for 1-94 might have gone down the tubes or at least should be looked at again since the property owners didn't like what we had proposed to change in the comprehensive plan, and some felt we should leave it as planned. Since no conclusions, we should make firm commitment one way or the other. Klaers - no matter what results from this discussion, if Woodbury racetrack becomes a reality we would immediately have to reevaluate plans. Michels - have heard people complain about pole barns, block buildings, etc.; and if we don't have sewer, that's what we're going to get. We should put in plans that after 1990 we should have sewer out here (along corridor.) Maybe it's time to reassess and say corridor needs to be opened up and sewered; if that's what we really want to do we should proceed with it. Probably not popular with 45-55% of the people within the City. Lyall - If you decide to do that, you need an individual who can devote his full time to promoting that (such as Peterson in Oakdale). Whittaker - Peterson is on Oakdale's Economic Development Committee and representing himself with specific developments. I agree with Michels and think that's what Bruce Folz way saying the last time, either you make an all-out effort to get sewer in there or you end up with marginal commercial uses. They may be perfectly reasonable use`s but it's LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 10/24/83 Page four questionable whether you want the gateway to Lake Elmo, I-94, used for marginal uses,or do you want prime commercial. In Sections 32 and 33, an area of 600 acres (300 industrial/ commercial) will have to be developed between now and 1990 and that is a lot of land. If that were to be developed and sewered by 1990, it might be logical to proceed with sewer to County' Road 19, and if the racetrack goes through to ask Woodbury run the sewer up to 19 (although Woodbury has a sewer capacity prob- lem, too, and would have to run a pipe from Cottage Grove). That makes more sense to me than putting blue area along whole corri- dor and saying "have at it" because I think you're going to get more hang gliders, bus barns, horse trailers, and how many truck stops do you want. The best tool you have is sewer; and if you want it utimately commercial, put in some kind of holding zone until then or call it commercial-post-1990 or commercial-when- sewered. Developer would have to bring in sewer if he needs it. • Prince - would it be all right if someone comes in with plan to say wait, this is planned for commercial with sewer after 1990 and your great scheme has to wait for five years. (Lyall - you don't have to deny them; you can say we don't think it's going to happen so you show us how.) • Gifford - Ray's Truck Stop might be issue if he moves into Lake Elmo. • Prince - I assume we intend for highway commercial zone something like truck stops. (Whittaker - But don't know if you want it in general business zone.) • Whittaker - This information we get that nobody else plans residential along interstate highways is wrong. Eagan has most of I-35 planned for some kind of residential (494 planned commercial/industrial); better than half of land in Maple Grove and in Plymouth along 1494 and 94 is planned residential along the interstate highway; Burnsville is the same way along 35W with a lot of residential property along there. So residential is not an unheard of possibility if you can't find some justi- fication to plan 4 1/2 miles of commercial property. It may provide a better looking kind of development even if it is low -density residential than the kind of commercial you're going to get without sewer, and may prove to be a better tax base since the tax base off a tin barn on a 5-acre lot is not as good as a couple of houses. Plus you share new commercial development tax base with the whole metropolitan area (40% goes into pool so we only get 60% of assessed value). Commercial will only be good tax base if it is high -quality, high -density since you don't have school children. So that corridor could be developed in low -density residential (RR which it is now) if people put their homes on the back 40 and reserve front 1/4 mile for commercial, and then put in sewer. If you leave it planned as is you'll end up with marginal commercial uses; if you phase in commercial development with sewer you'll have a lot more control over it; and if you're interested in promoting it, see how it goes in Section 32 and talk the City into an industrial development officer, put together tax increment districts, community development block grants, small business administration loans, and all the things it takes to attract LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 10/24/83 Page five those high -quality businesses. I don't know how much value this commercial property is going to be to people without sewer except maybe it's easer to sell as commercial, but that doesn't mean it's more desirable for the City from a tax or economic growth standpoint. Regarding Section 32, we're supposed to know by mid 1984 if waste -to -energy plant is going to go up, and then they'll start planning for public improvements and promoting it. • Gifford - should we think about redrawing map and think about staging and sewer and all that? • Nazarian - let me get into manuscripts and literature I received from Minnetonka, Edina and Bloomington three days ago since I haven't had a chance to read them as yet. • Whittaker - basic decisions you have to make to help control development down there: do you want any residential; do you think it's reasonable to predict that sometime in the future all that 4 1/2 miles is going to be in some kind of commercial; what are your alternatives for holding it (if you plan it commercial and wait for sewer, someone is bound to come in and say I know how you can do it without sewer). It seems to me 10-acre residential is a better holding pattern than 1-1/2-acre commercial. • Lyall - One of obligations we have is low-cost housing and neither of those meet that. (Whittaker - no, but that could be done in Section 32 when sewered.) I believe that's needed. • Whittaker - if we're serious about sewer, we should perhaps go to Woodbury and talk to them about what they're going to do to 19 or beyond. (Lundquist - they're moving east as it develops.) That's probably what we should be doing instead of everyone putting up their pole barns which develops pattern for strip. Woodbury is calling it unsewered commercial beyond 19 to 17; sewered commercial on the other side of 19. (Lundquist - heard from one landowner that people are waiting, even if for a long time.) • Michels - I feel that Lake Elmo property owners along I-94 are waiting, too, and they aren't interested in putting up pole barns, etc. (Lyall - we heard that at the public hearing such as from 3M investors.)- • Gifford - What else can we expect besides Reegan. (Whittaker - something on the corner of 15 and I-94; you have to rezone it since it does say post 1990 in the present plan. Property next to Vali-Hi Drive -In might still be zoned general business.) • Whittaker - My thinking now is that if you want to write off an area for low -density rural commercial then let's write off the area between 17 and 15, and then control development between 13 and 19 with sewer or adequate sewage treatment. • Gifford - maybe somebody should push for sewer there like Howard said earlier or is it impossibility? (Whittaker - no, if you worked hard you could do like Brooklyn Center and get sewer on 19 in five years. I don't know how racetrack will affect development - it's sporadic around country from what I've seen.) • Gifford - it seems ridiculous to say it's all post 1990 or save it for interim residential if we don't have ultimate plan. (Whittaker - evaluate it after five years and see what happens to Section 32.) LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 10/24/83 Page six • Gifford - it seems to me if I were a business person/ Would want to put a business along a major highway because of visibility. (Lundquist - it depends upon the industry, some want visibility and some just want accessibility [such as light industry].) • Whittaker - we're talking about 155 acres on I-94 in Sections 32 and 33, and that is a lot of land for commercial business. o Lyall - But if you hold it for five years, you still have the problem of a pole barn. (Whittaker. - I think you're going to have to plan it for something other than commercial immediately to do that, and maybe you can say it's planned for commercial post 1990 or when and after Section 32 is developed. There's a real problem for setting a tone for that strip; who's going to build a high-rise next to a hang glider? I think you're better off staging the development off from Section 32 and trying to attract high -density better -quality commercial.) • Prince - looking at two maps, what we have now is 1/4 mile back between Section 33 and 19 as highway commercial and east of 19 is 1/8 mile back indicating highway commercial and it's all listed as post 1990. On Chelseth's proposed map, it's highway commercial on the east side of 13 around 19 and the rest of it is rural residential. o Whittaker - Instead of having that low -density highway commercial between 19 and 13, why don't you call it general business when sewered. Then leave rest of strip as is and post 1990 and zone it RR (saying when they come in to plat property that we don't want you to build in the south 1/4 mile so strip is left for future commercial development). o Lyall - West Lakeland is all rural and they don't any development along I-94; Afton already has commercial. • Graves - Believe Larry's idea is a good basis for us to take action at this time or at least recognize Larry's plan so it doesn't get lost. (Prince - general business when sewered between 32 and 33 and 19.) • Dorothy Lyons - I know Cimarron is planning expansion and what is sewer consideration there since it is close to 1-94, what is sewer plan for Oakland School, and what kind of buffer zone will be used when residential is adjacent to freeway? (Whittaker - noise zone is 500' so we leave 500' strip planned for commercial. Cimarron has capacity in their sewer plan for some additional homes, and Oakland School is going to be up- graded/studied along with other faulty systems in 201 study. • Gifford - would like to consult more with landowners, etc. as to what they want. (Whittaker - if they want something. different, they should come to us.) • Dreher - would like to say something about pole -barns and encourage people to look at what Menard's had done with pole - barn construction in western Eau Claire; has acres and acres of an industrial park/shopping center with pools (used for air conditioning), old mill, beautiful landscaping, etc. Has his own facilities but doesn't need a lot of sewer capacity due to steel and truss factories, etc. (Klaers - chances are they got high -quality, aesthetic development because of requirements put on by C.U.P.s, site plan review, etc.) (Prince - we have such reviews; should we be more restrictive?) (Whittaker - don't ( ( LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 10/24/83 Page seven know if places like Bloomington or Edina get those things because they have controls or because they solicit them and the developer writes the covenants.) (Klaers - those cities have economic development commissions, community development directors, people coordinating loan programs, tax increment plans, etc.) • Lyall - Years ago, however, they didn't have money to do it. (Whittaker - yes, for example, Bloomington has a lot of mismatched development around France Avenue which doesn't greatly enhance tax base.) • Klaers - I don't think it would do any harm to wait on this and take another look at it in a month. Met Council will be reviewing this next year. 9 Lundquist - some of Bruce Folz' previous statements were not entirely accurate. If you look back about ten years ago, all of Washington County's sewer plans were in a turmoil and after a study of Met Council they decided there just wasn't going to be that much development down around here. Lake Elmo hasn't really been negative that I know of. (Whittaker - our present comp plan is fairly negative on sewer past Section 32. People decided it was impractical to sewer Old Village, for instance, because you'd have to run pipe through vacant land.) • Prince - Now what do we say to the people with their great plan at the corner of 15 and I-94, planned for commercial post 1990...wait until 1990? (Whittaker - I think you should do exactly as you told them to, take a look at it and see if it's reasonable; if they can show you how to provide the sewer and it looks like something that will enhance City and tax base, then give it a hard look. It's a guideline and not set in concrete; if they really want it, they'll keep coming back.) The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Submitted by: Ilene Johnson, Acting Secretary CITY OF LAKE • AELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 3880 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 1983 7:30 - Meeting Convenes 1. Minutes: August 22, 1983 September 12, 1983 September 26, 1983 7:45 --- 2 Call Public Hearing for David Nelson - Rezoning Request for R-1 from RR for Part of SE 1/4 of SE 1/2 of Section 26 Hearing Date: November 14, 1983 - 7:45 p.m. 7:50 --- 3. Review of Resolution 83-67 - Requestion Solution to Drinking Water Problem Around Landfill Site. 8:00 - 4. I-94 Discussion a CITY OF LAKE jitELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 3880 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 TO: Planning Commission FR: Patrick D. Klaers, City Administrator DT: October 20, 1983 RE: October 24, 1983 Planning Commission Meeting I understand that there was no Planning Commission meeting on October 10 as there was a lack of a quorum. However, the minutes were sent out for the 8/22, 9/12 and 9/26 meetings with the last agenda packets, therefore, these minutes are not included. Enclosed is a request for a rezoning from David Nelson. This material is being reviewed by the City staff and the Planning Commission should call a public hearing on this request for the next meeting (November 14). In the last Planning Commission Agenda Packet was a draft resolution regarding drinking water near the landfill site. This resolution was a result of joint Planning Commission meetings with the City of Oakdale. The City Council has adopted this resolution with some minor changes. The adopted resolution is enclosed. Larry Whittaker was planning on distributing a memo dealing with the I-94 Concept Plan, but time did not allow for this to happen. Therefore, Larry will attend the meeting on Monday and will be prepared to address and discuss this issue with the entire Commission. At the previous Planning Commission meeting of September 28, I was instructed to request information from area communities regarding Performance Standards around highways. I have received material from three of the four communities I contacted and have subsequently forwarded it to Fred Nazarian. I believe Fred will be prepared to discuss these standards at this meeting. As mentioned in the last Planning Commission Agenda Memo, Larry Whittaker may want to discuss the items that remain on the 1983 Work Plan. This will be addressed if time allows.