HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-91 PZMThe Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City
Council. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings
and make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes
all final decisions on these matters.
Lake Elmo Ordinances require that certain documents and
information be included in applications. The Planning Commission may
postpone consideration of an application that is incomplete and may
for other reasons postpone final action on an application.
For each item, the Commission will receive reports prepared by
the City Staff, open the hearing to the public, and discuss and act on
the application. If you are aware of information that hasn't been
discussed, please fill out a "Request to Appear Before the Planning
Commission" slip; or if you came late, raise your hand to be
recognized. Comments that are pertinent are appreciated.
AGENDA
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 25, 1991
7:30 p.m. MEETING CONVENES
1. AGENDA
2. MINUTES: February 11, 1991
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to Comprehensive Plan
4. PRE -APPLICATION - PRELIMINARY PLAT: Day Property
5. LIMITED BUSINESS (Continuation)
6. Other
7. Adjourn
* This item has been postponed until the March 11 meeting.
Date Approved: 2-25-91
Date Issued: 3- 8-91
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 11, 1991
Chairman John called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:40
p.m. in the council chambers. Present: John, Johnston, Thomas,
Stevens, Bucheck, DeLapp, Conlin, Enes (arrived 9:10), Administrator
Kueffner, City Planner Black. Absent: Wilfong.
Chairman John welcomed 'reappointed members, Ann Bucheck, Steve DeLapp
and Karen Johnston.
1. AGENDA
M/S Bucheck/Stevens - to add item #8.a. - Airnort Commission Public
Hearing.
M/S/P DeLapp/Conlin - to approve the agenda as amended. (Motion
carried 7-0.)
2. MINUTES: January 28, 1991
M/S/P John/Bucheck - to delete Councilman Williams comments from the
January 28 minutes. (Motion carried 3-1-3, against: Thomas, abstain:
Johnston, DeLapp, Bucheck.)
M/S/P Stevens/DeLapp - to approve the January 28, 1991 Planning
Commission Minutes as amended. (Motion carried 3-1-3, against: Thomas,
abstain: DeLapp, Bucheck, Johnston.)
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Fox Fire Mannor Preliminary Plat & Rezone
Chairman John called the Public Hearing to order at 7:50 p.m. The
public hearing notice was published in the St. Croix Valley Press
January 30, 1991 and all property owners within 350 feet were
notified. A report was submitted by the City Planner and City
Engineer. Larry Liles, representing Pacesetter Management Inc.,
presented the Preliminary Plat of "Fox Fire Mannor", legally described
in part as that part of the SE QTR of the NE QTR; that part of the NE
QTR of the NW QTR; all in Section 3, Township 29 N, Range 21 W.
Keith Raleigh, 5435 Keats, stated he is against the the long
cul-de-sac ending 55th Street also, the lots on the preliminary plat
map are only 2.5 acres not 3.33 acres. He'll be living with the city
in the country. He said he is mad.
Karin Schubert, 5222 Keats, asked what the land is currently zoned?
The Planning Commission answered RR - one house per 10 acres. Karin
asked then why are you looking at 12 houses on something that should
have 4? Why are you wasting your time. The Planning Commission
answered because the Future Land Use Map has allowed for this new zone
and there is an applicaion before them. Karin then asked if after the
Met. Council approves the Future Land Use Map will everyone that comes
in to ask for rezoning automatically get rezoned? The Commission
answered they must meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance
first. Karin then asked why the Planning Commission was looking at
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1991 Page 2
plats before the RED zoning ordinance was completed? Karin asked if
when the Future Land Use Map is approved by Met. Council and someone
requests to be rezoned, does there have to be a public hearing? The
Planning Commission answered yes.
Steve Korhel, 5540 Keats, asked if this public hearing will be closed
tonight?
The Planning Commission answered no.
City Planner Mike Black clarified that the Future Land Use Map has
been adopted by the City Council and the Planning Commission is an
advisory board that can make recommendations to the City Council, but
nothing can be rezoned until the Met. Council approves the Comp. Plan.
Mike then went over his review and recommendations of "Fox Fire
Mannor" preliminary plat and asked Larry Liles about park land
dedication. Commissioner DeLapp stated there is no landscaping shown
nor has it been addressed by Mr. Liles. City Planner Black stated a
request can be made for a landscaping plan to be submitted by Mr.
Liles. Commissioner Bucheck stated the cul-de-sac far exceeds the
allowed length by the City ordinance and it appears there will be a
cul-de-sac off a cul-de-sac (Brogrens driveway).
Steve Korhel stated he is concerned about development himself and has
been giving some thought to doing something with his back 20 acres and
feels he is getting land locked with the development to the south,
west and north of him. He is concerned about having to get a
cul-de-sac to his back property.
Larry Liles stated he is in the process of soil tests. He stated he
prefers the cul-de-sac and Roger Kolstad, developer for Northern Lakes
Diversified, has discussed a through road connecting 55th street with
Keats. Mr. Liles stated he does not wish to hamper Mr. Korhel's
future right to develop by placing the road where it is on the
preliminary plat, but Mr. Korhel would still have this problem if Mr.
Liles did not develop his property.
Ruben Lauseng, 9591 60th St. N., is concerned about what may happen to
the wetland on his property and the adjoining property where the
proposed development will be.
M/S/P Thomas/Johnston - to table this Public Hearing until such time
as it is brought back to the Planning Commission and request all the
adjoining property owners be renotified and the developer is to
address the City Engineer's and the City Planner's comments. (Motion
carried 7-0.)
Commission Stevens stated the Planning Commission should review this
area on the Future Land Use Map, and for the record he thinks a
mistake has been made.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1991 Page 3
4. PROPOSAL TO MOVE HOUSE INTO THE CITY
Tony Collett, 1125 Roselawn Ave., Roseville, has applied to move a
house and garage into the City. The house is currently located at
1075 Hadley Ave. N. in Oakdale and is proposed to be moved to 1100
Lake Elmo Ave. N. (the corner of 10th St. and Lake Elmo Ave.). Mr.
Collette submitted the site plan and explained the lot size is 4.09
acres. Mr. Collette stated there are no covenants on the property
according to River Estates, and road restrictions may go on as early
as March 1st this year so the house must be moved by then, if
possible. The City Building Inspector has looked at the house and in
a written report stated it appeared in excellent shape and should
transport without major problems, and that no variances are required.
M/S/P Stevens/DeLapp - the Planning Commission finds this structure is
compatible with other development in the area and recommend the City
Council approve the moving of this house into the City. (Motion
carried 6-1, against: Thomas - does not feel it is compatible.)
5. CONCEPT REVIEW: ROLLING HILLS
Roger Kolstad, representing Nelson Properties, Inc., presented the
concept plan for a 40 acre, 12 lot subdivision to be known as "Rolling
Hills". Mr. Kolstad stated all the zoning rules have been met.
City Planner Black went through his report with the Commission adding
one more comment to the report: access from this plat to other
property such as Steve Korhel's (directly to the South of this plat)
should be given consideration. Also, the park land designation is not
practical. Kolstad stated he is working on other ideas for the park.
M/S/P Thomas/Stevens - to move onto the next agenda item. (Motion
carried 8-0.)
6. & 7. LIMITED BUSINESS (Continuation) & ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS
With the permission of the Planning Commission Chair, Mayor Dave
Johnson gave a short address to the Planning Commission in regards to
the Limited Business Zoning Ordinance. The Mayor expressed concern of
the recommendation by the Auditor on December 31, 1989 regarding
improving the tax capacity base of the City. The City will be losing
$30,000.00 in tax revenue every year due to loss of Section 32. On
July 20, 1991 the State will cut $17,000.00 in State Aid to our City.
The City must expand its commercial tax revenues. The Mayor stated we
must consider extending our MUSA line and encourage development along
our I-94 boarder in order to get quality development and to
effectively use this land. We have some major budgetary problems
confronting the City right now that must be taken care of. We must
take action.
Commissioner Conlin commented that she would like to see an unbiased
survey taken of the general public on this issue due to the magnitude
of this suggestion.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1991 Page 4
The Commission discussed City Planner Black's report on maximum lot
coverage dated January 24. Three SAC units per 3.5 acre site is very
restrictive (it would only allow 24 people in a restaurant). It was
discussed that the SAC units and the type of businesses allowed may
unduly restrict development. The Commission should encourage some
development. The City Engineer has suggested to not allow one or two
or three buildings using one septic system that would treat more than
5,000 gallons a day.
M/S/P John/DeLapp - to change E (8) in the LB ordinance to have one
standard of 40% for impervious surfaces. (Motion carried 8-0.)
M/S/P Enes/Johnston - to table discussion of the Limited Business
Zoning Ordinance. (Motion carried 8-0.)
Commissioner DeLapp handed out some comments he and some architects at
his office have put together.
8. UPDATE ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Bucheck & DeLapp)
Commissioners Bucheck and DeLapp attended a meeting of the Met.
Council subcommittee. There were nine Findings of Fact. Mike Black,
who also attended this meeting, addressed these findings. The Met.
Council made two recommendations: (1) - the council adopt a staff
report on findings as stated as part of these recommendations, (2) -
the Met. Council approved the 1990-2010 Lake Elmo Comp. Plan with the
exception of the City's policy in opposition to the potential landfill
in the Park Reserve since this is inconsistent with the council's
solid waste policy plan. Councilman Johnson, also in attendance,
responded to this. The Planning Commission requested City
Administrator Kueffner contact Chauncy Case and set up a meeting
between him and the Planning Commission to establish a joint zoning
board as per one of the Findings of Fact by Met. Council.
8a. AIRPORT COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
M/S/P Thomas/DeLapp - to support the City Council's resolution to
oppose the extenstion of the Lake Elmo Airport and to have Wyn John
speak at the public hearing on behalf of the Planning Commission in
support of the council's resolution of opposition. (Motion carried
8-0.)
M/S/P Johnston/Conlin - to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at
10:40 p.m. (Motion carried 8-0.)
(
(
The following public hearing was rescheduled because of an error in
the hearing notice.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RESCHEDULED
The Lake Elmo Planning Commission will holda public hearing on
Monday, March 11, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 3800 Laverne
Avenue N, Lake Elmo, Minnesota to consider an amendment to the
1990 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan; to wit, amend the Future Land Use
Map to show the future land use of the parcel, legally described
in part, as part of Government Lot 3 and 4, Part of the SE 1/4 of
the SW 1/4, Section 24, R29, R21, from SRD (Suburban Residential
Density) to RED (Residential Estates Density).
All persons who wish to be heard regarding this proposed Comprehensive
Plan Amendment will be given that opportunity at this public hearing.
Written comments are welcomed and will be accepted until the closing
of the public hearing.
By Order of the Lake Elmo City Council
January 15, 1991
Mary Kueffner, City Administrator
Published in the St. Croix Valley Press on February 27, 1991
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
Meeting Date: February 25, 1991
AGENDA TOPIC: Pre -Application Preliminary Plat.
ITEM 4
NO.
Attached is a sketch plan for a proposed subdivision consisting of
10 acre lots.
This application complies with our Future Land Use Map, and (very)
preliminary review indicates that there will be no variances required.
The action the Commission should take is to call a public hearing
(March 25, 1991) to begin the process.
INII•022,=•••111Mell.
Q./
REVISIONS
0 dlnunc• clouvlfle•Ifon
chans•
11/ ///// it ull •I•ellen lel* Mop.
0MM Peel 12-II le 21.1
t/8/82 1010
1/22/111 Mit 8-11 le 0-1
CORDITIOUAL USE PERMITS
44.74 r pelncIpl• 48•11 p•rmIlled
Orio•u Ao••
I. • el•n•
1 ..'"*"
a Ilmon•le
4 FM'Annuls
• mining
• ...••• .1 AnOrnelll••ellal
1 • enlre•I In..
3 "" M" """ -0.0
pl... Pellli
ib Osid•l• dun Club
ii 1/•••••8 lifutni
T.17
104
- CUP 1
CUP CUP 5
3F.1.11 I
1 R-R
•
CUP-1 '
. ,.. .
JL - •,. .. • .. • -- -
,..,,scuFr-er. --.
• i ,_..F. ii..1. „.... .,. ......
_•,---
[.--;r-----7--t-7.- - • -
-7__----_-- ;.iii111•1_-__ P
__• : ,-
,, elm...mg 41e/I C•VI be
12 RC; Solve WWI. 14•1.... ---..----.—.---- 1.!,__.-..--.--.--
qiit
I
jl 11••41• IV Trull*. Iglu.
la V.II HI Iltbr• la
1--1; sh••••• wpm-
.48 I.n4Il - Frl•
•
.
R-R
t _ CUP -
V 2 /)
1
p
R-R
! 1
Of
1
A
. AP
1:1
(
'1 CI
6),
11
•••••111. 1
•
• Trn
! (PiI I
- C
OD
R-R.
c2-•
GB
•
•
•
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
(
AGENDA TOPIC:
Meeting Date: February 25, 1991
Limited Business (Continuation)
ITEM
NO.
5.
The Commission made some changes to the draft LB zoning district, and
they are reflected on the attached draft (Revision 2-11-91).
(I think) we are now into the architectural standards of this
ordinance.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
LB - Limited Business District Revised 2-11-91
(A) Purpose
The purpose of the Limited Business District is to establish a
comprehensive planned framework for development along I-94.
The City has determined that it is in the best interest of the
City and the region to responsibly manage growth in this district.
It is the intent of this district to promote a high quality of
business design and development that produces a positive visual
image and minimizes adverse impacts from traffic congestion,
noise, odor, glare and similar problems. Specific development
goals within the district include the following:
(1) To encourage a high quality development standard for
structures within the district properties, which are
among the most visible in the City.
(2) To protect the natural environment, in accordance with
City Ordinances.
(3) To allow development to comply with the capacity of
regional and local road systems.
(4) To guide development by setting stringent requirements
for on -site sewer systems.
(5) To establish permitted, accessory and conditional uses
in order to stimulate local economic prosperity along the
interstate corridor and within the Metropolitan Rural
Service Area while closely monitoring the magnitude of
development so not to prematurely demand the expansion
of local governmental services.
(B) Permitted Uses Permitted uses are as follows:
(1) Clinics for human care including medical, dental,
osteopathic, chiropractic and optometric offices.
(2) Finance, insurance, real estates, investment offices
banks (with no drive -up windows --permitted under C.U.P).
(3) General offices including administrative, executive,
and corporate headquarters.
(4) Professional offices providing services such as legal,
engineering, architectural, accounting, auditing and
bookkeeping.
(5) Travel and empolyment agencies.
Page 1
(C) Conditional Uses Conditional Uses are as follows:
(1) Banks and financial services with drive -up windows.
(2) Health clubs including tennis, racketball, aerobics,
weight lifting, swimming, weight loss clinics (all
facilities to be housed inside).
(3) Limited retail uses including:
(a) retail sales clearly accessory to the permitted
principal use of the land, for example: the
compounding, dispensing or sale of drugs,
prescription items, patient or proprietary
medicine, sick room supplies, prosthetic devices
or items relating to any of the foregoing when
conducted in the building occupied primarily by
medical, dental, osteopathic, chiropractic or
optometric offices.
(b) The retail sale of commodities marketed to the local
area such as:
(1) Greenhouses and nurseries, landscaping services,
flowers and floral accessories.
(2) Art sale and gallery.
(3) Furniture, home furnishings and related equipment.
(4) Vineyard and winery produce and sale.
(5) Sporting goods, skiing, bicycles, motorcycles,
snowmobiles, boats and fishing gear (all storage
restricted to inside).
(4) Full service restaurants where food is served to a customer
and consumed while seated at a counter or table.
(5) Golf courses, Club houses, Golf sales, Driving ranges.
(D) Permitted Accessory Uses
Permitted accessory uses shall include required off-street
parking, loading areas and signs as regulated in this ordinance.
Only accessory structures which are clearly incidental and
subordinate to the business will be permitted.
Page 2
(
(E) Minimum District Requirements
(1) Lot Area:
(2) Minimum Lot Width:
(3) Minimum Lot Depth:
(4) Building setback from property
(a) Front
(b) Side
(c) Side (street)
(d) Rear
(e) any line adjacent to
a residential zone
(5) Parking setback from property
(a) Front
(b) Side
(c) Side (street)
(d) Rear
(e) any line adjacent to
a residential zone
(6) Maximum Building Heights:
(7) Maximum Lot Coverage by
all structures:
3.5 acres
300 feet
400 feet
lines:
100 feet
50 feet
100 feet
50 feet
150 feet
lines:
50
50
50
50
feet
feet
feet
feet
100 feet
35 feet
25%
-fs•}--MaxSum-area-ta-be-eavered-Hp-Haleliags;-paEkixg-lets;
elriseways-asd-ether--haE4-saaeest-
-bet-size
-3.r5-aGPSS.
-eavered-hrea -
_45%-of_1ot-s e-
-Barger -hare -3 : 5 -see s
-tv-.-aeres
-Barger-thane--acres-25r-o€-Iet-aize-
(8) Maximum area to be covered by buildings, parking lots,
driveways and other hard surfaces: 40%
(9) Sewer Discharge: No sewer discharge shall exceed a ratio
of 3.0 SAC units per 3.5 acres. SAC units shall be
determined according to Section 309 h. and i.
(10) Minimum Building Floor Size: 4,000 square feet
(F) Special District Requirements
Due to the high visibility of the
following architectural, parking,
standards shall be in addition to
zoning code relating to the same:
Limited Business zone, the
landscaping, lighting and glare
other existing standards in the
Page 3
(1) Architectural Standards
(a) It is not the intent of the City to restrict design
freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in
connection with a site and building plan. However, it
is in the best interest of the City to promote high
standards of architectural design and compatibility with
surrounding structures and neighborhoods. New building
proposals shall include architectural plans prepared by
a registered architect and shall show the following:
(1) Elevations of all sides of the buildings.
(2) Type and color of exterior building materials.
(3) Typical general floor plans.
(4) Dimensions of all structures.
(5) Location of trash containers and of heating,
cooling and ventilation equipment and systems.
(b) Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block
and unfinished metal shall not be permitted as exterior
materials. The City may at its sole discretion allow
architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels.
(c) All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and
exterior trash storage areas shall be enclosed with
materials compatible with the principal structure.
(2) Parking
All drives and parking lots shall be constructed with
concrete or blacktop, and with concrete curb and gutters.
Where appropriate, sidewalks may be required.
Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands
shall be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot
area so as to break up expanses of paved areas.
(3) Landscaping
All yard area shall either be landscaped green areas or open
and left in a natural state. Yards to be landscaped shall
be landscaped attractively with lawn, trees and shrubs in
accordance with a plan prepared by a landscape architect.
Areas left in a natural state shall be kept free of litter,
debris and noxious weeds. Yards adjoining any residential
zone shall contain a buffer area consisting of berming,
landscaping and/or fencing for the purpose of screening
noise, sight, sound and glare. A reasonable attempt shall
be made to preserve as many existing trees as is practical
and to incorporate them into the site plan.
Page 4
.
Where areas abut residential districts, a buffer area of a
minimum depth of 100 feet will be required. Such a buffer
area shall be completely constructed and approved by the
City prior to all final City inspections for construction
on site. Prior to the issuance of a builing permit or
commencement of any improvements on site, the owner shall
provide the City with a financial security for a minimum of
24 months, approved by the City Attorney, to assure
construction of the buffer area.
(4) Lighting and Glare
Plans for new developments shall include a lighting plan
denoting the location, type and height of lighting fixtures
and the illumination patterns shown on a site plan. Glare
whether direct or reflected, such as from floodlights or
high temperature processes, and as differentiated from
general illumination, shall not be visible at any property
line.
(5) Traffic
No use shall be allowed unless the property owner provides a
road plan acceptable to the City, which shall demonstrate,
at a minimum, that the proposed use and resulting traffic
will not adversely affect the then existing traffic of the
City. All private roads must comply with existing City
Ordinances, with construction and maintenance being the sole
responsibility of the property owner.
Page 5
Steven C. DeLapp
0468 Lake Jane Trail
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Lake Elmo Planning Commission
Lake Elmo City Offices
3800 Laverne Ave.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
February 1 0, 1991
Dear Fellow Commissioners,
I thought it would be useful to address some new approaches to a few items in
completing our recommendations to the Council for the Limited Business Zoning District:
1. Why not accept the suggestion of the residents who used stationary from the
Lake Elmo Business Association to propose a 60 foot maximum building height.
a. If the City Fire Department telesquirt and code required fire suppression systems
are are capable of providing the same or a higher level of protection than 35 foot
buildings without fire supression systems, then this cannot be a fault.
b. If the building height is balanced with proportional changes in setback distances
and if landscaping requirements and strong, then the visual aspects are covered.
c. A 5 story building will probably be well thought out, be a top tax generator, and
set a high quality standard for the area.
2. I suggest defining "high quality," as specified in the Comprehensive Plan on
page 28. Here are a few of my recommendations as an architect:
HIGH QUALITY MEDIUM QUALITY
Building Exterior Characteristics:
low maintenance
long lasting
weather resistance
durable
color stable
high tax value
good workmanship
LOW QUALITY
high maintenance
many caulked joints
frequent resurfacing
easily damaged
color fading
low tax value
poor workmanship
HIGH QUALITY MEDIUM QUALITY LOW QUALITY
Buildina Exterior hvta.teria lc.
field stone
cut stone veneer
baked enamel panels
common brick
glass curtain wall
stainless steel panels
metal clad composite
clay tile veneer
architecturally designed
cast -in -place concrete..
stucco
architectural rnetai panel
burnished concrete block
jumbo brick
<architecturai grade
precast panels
veneer brick on metal
studs over 25 feet high
earth sheltered
<ceramic tile
<spray -on stucco*
painted wood
<stained mod
decorative concrete block
plain concrete block
<prefinished metal panels
smooth or raked precast
panels
precast "tee" panels
monolithic cast -in -place
concrete
vinyl sheeting
adobe
urethane foam
*(Designations are mine. Arrows indicate position change by one (<) or two («) other
architects registered in Minnesort:
Dick Blundell (Rosemount, with house on 5 acres)
Bob Joslin (Stillwater, designed Church on front page of Free Press two weeks ago)
Ralph Olson (Woodbury, would like to move to Lake Erna)
Larry Weinzetl (Richfield, grew up in St. Paul East Side))
Uses (commercial outside city center)
colleges
Corporate headquarters
office buildings
corporate training centers
corporate retreats
think tanks
limited access libraries
regional institutions
professional offices
corporate consultation
Very Truly Yours,
Steve
golfltennis clubs
hospitals
medical clinics
zero -emission
research centers
individual consultation
telephone switching
gas stations
restaurant
billboards
retail sales
driving ranges
health clubs
warehouses
storage
sales offices
research laboratories
light manufacturing
product distribution
wholesale sales
product servicing
TO: Elected and Appointed Officials within the Valley Branch Watershed
District
FROM: Al Dornfeld, Valley Branch Watershed District President //,e
SUBJECT: Revision of the Water Management Plan of the Valley Branch
Watershed District
DATE: February 22, 1991
When the State Legislature enacted the Metropolitan Surface Water
Management (509) legislation, one of the requirements of the law was that 509
plans be reviewed and revised every five years. Our plan is now five years
old.
To help us start the process, we ask that you complete the enclosed
survey and return it before APRIL 1, 1991 to:
Karen Chandler
Barr Engineering Co.
7803 Glenroy Road
Minneapolis, MN 55439-3123
We will hold a meeting on Wednesday April 17 at 8:00 p.m. at the Lake
Elmo City Hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue North to report and discuss the survey
results.
meeting.
It is our goal to identify the high priority issues at this
ALLEN DORNFELD RUSSELL KIRBY GORDON C. MOOSBRUGGER RAY BRENNER WILLIAM ROHRER
VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 838
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042-0538
(
(
MEMORANDUM: February 22, 1991 Page 2
Valley Branch Watershed
District Officials
We expect it will be necessary to meet several times to develop a
version of the revised plan which meets with the approval of all the
communities. These meetings are tentatively schedule to be held on the 3rd
Wednesday of the month, which we hope will fit into your schedule.
We expect each community to designate a representative and an alternate
to attend the meetings. The individual representing the community should be
in a position to speak on behalf of their community. As always, these
meetings are open to all who are interested in this process.
If you have any questions regarding the survey or plan revision, feel
free to contact either me at 777-5590, or Karen Chandler at 897-5503. Thank
you for your cooperation.
2382045\ELECT.MEM\KAH
VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED DISTRICT
SURVEY OF COMMUNITY
WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Minnesota Statutes require that the Watershed District revise its Water Management Plan
every five years. The input of each community is important as the Watershed District begins
the revision process. The issues identified by the communities will be considered for
inclusion in the revised Water Management Plan. The Watershed District can only undertake
those projects which are identified in the Water Management Plan.
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM BY APRIL 1, 1991 TO OUR ENGINEER AT THE
FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
KAREN CHANDLER
BARR ENGINEERING CO.
7803 GLENROY ROAD
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55439-3123
Please check the appropriate answers. Feel free to make additional comments.
1. Water Oualitv Problems Location of Problem
weeds
algae blooms
water clarity
odor
malfunctioning septic systems
groundwater contamination
Comments:
2382045/VHWDSURV.WP/KAH 1
2. Water Ouantity Problems Location of Problem
_ flooding
short-term
_ seasonal
_ long-term
_ low water levels
_ other
Comments:
3. Do water problems impact any of the following, and if so, how?
YES NO
Impact
_ wildlife .
fishing
swimming
_ boating
_ aesthetics
other
Comments:
4. Is farming a major land use in your community?
YES NO
If yes, are the farmers using good conservation practices in your community?
YES NO
2382045/VSWDSURV.WP/KAH 2
If the farmers are not using good conservation practices, should the Watershed District
take measures to encourage good conservation practices?
YES NO
Comments:
5. Do you feel the Watershed District is protecting the water resources in the District in
relation to:
_ development
_ agricultural operations
homeowners
— municipal streets, roads, highways
parks
Comments:
6. Enforcement of erosion and sediment controls has been a problem in the District. Is
your community willing to help enforce these controls by adopting ordinances to ensure
erosion control?
YES NO
Comments:
2382045/VBWDSURV.WP/KAH 3
7. Valley Branch Watershed District plans to apply the ad valorem levy (real estate tax)
only to the subwatershed area where improvements are made and may also apply special
benefit assessments where necessary. Do you agree with this policy? Explain.
8. What future problems do you see as development continues in the District?
9. What is the most important issue in your community regarding water management
(including groundwater) that you feel should be addressed when the Valley Branch
Watershed District plan is revised this year?
2352045/VBWDSURV.WP/RAH 4