HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 08-07 PC MINUTESGEM LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION
DAVID K. GARDNER, CHM.
1399 E. COUNTY ROAD "E"
GEM LAKE, MN 55110-5231
(612)429-9288 FAX 429-5034
AUGUST 7, 1996
TO: PAUL EMEOTT, PLANNING COMMISSION
RE: MEETING WITH MET COUNCIL REPS RE COMP PLAN 8-6-96
PRESENT WERE DICK THOMPSON AND JIM UTTLEY OF THE MET COUNCIL,
ROGER BROMANDER OF SEH, ROB HANSEN, AND ME.
THE OVERALL COMMENTARY ON THE PLAN IS VERY POSITIVE. THEY FEEL
THAT WE HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB OF UPDATING THE DOCUMENT, AND HAVE NO
PROBLEM WITH OUR GOALS, ETC. THE PROCESS FROM HERE IS: 1) COMPLETE THE
REVIEW BY THE TECHNICAL STAFF (TRANSPORTATION AND AVIATION), 2)
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL, 3)
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AFTER PUBLIC HEARING, 4) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE OF MET COUNCIL APPROVAL IN SEMI-PUBLIC FORMAT (PUBLIC CAN
MAKE LIMITED SPECIFIC COMMENTS, AND CITY MAY ALSO ANNOUNCE OBJECTIONS,
IF ANY), 5) MET COUNCIL APPROVAL.
THE PLAN IN DRAFT FORM SHOULD IMNE;DIATELY BE SENT TO NEIGHBORING
COMMUNITIES, WATERSHED DISTRICTS, ETC., FOR COMMENT AND OBJECTION.
SINCE THE LAW ALLOWS THEM 6 MONTHS TO RESPOND, WE NEED TO ENCOURAGE
THEIR IMMEDIATE POSITIVE RESPONSE TO THE MET COUNCIL. SEH HAS BEGUN
THAT PROCESS TODAY.
THE MC'S PRIMARY CONCERNS IN REVIEWING A COMP PLAN ARE THE IMPACT
OF THE CITY'S PLANS ON REGIONAL SYSTEMS, THE CONSISTENCY OF THE CITY'S
PLAN RELATIVE TO REGIONAL POLICIES, AND RELATIVE TO OUR NEIGHBORS'
PLANS AND POLICIES. IN OTHER WORDS, ARE WE IN LINE?
ATTACHED IS A TWO PAGE MEMO FROM UTTLEY DESCRIBING SOME MINOR
ISSUES, AND ANOTHER TWO PAGES FROM THE HOUSING TECH STAFFER. THERE IS
A REAL CONCERN THAT WE ARE NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES
ACT, AND IT WAS STRONGLY SUGGESTED THAT WE FORMALIZE SOME AGREEMENT(S)
WITH A LARGER NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY TO SHARE/COOPERATE IN THE ACT.
BOTH NORTH OAKS AND SUNFISH LAKE HAVE RESOLVED THE ISSUE, AND WE SHOULD
INVESTIGATE THEIR SOLUTIONS.
HANSEN STATED THAT REPS FROM THE MC HAD TWICE VISITED THE CITY
COUNCIL TO TRY TO PERSUADE GEM LAKE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ACT, AND HAD
"RECOMMENDED" THAT THE CITY DOWN -ZONE TO ACCOMODATE LOW-INCOME HOUSING
AND GET IN LINE WITH OTHER MORE DENSELY DEVELOPED COMMUNITIES. I
STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THOSE REMARKS AS A TOTAL FABRICATION AND HE
CEASED. HE THEN RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO 60% GREEN
SPACE IN LDB AND ASKED THE MC REPS IF THAT WAS NOT UNREASONABLE. THEY
SAID THEY HAD NO OPINION AND THAT IT WAS NOT IN THEIR DOMAIN TO
CRITIQUE LOCAL ZONING, SO HE ATTACKED BROMANDER AS THE PROTAGONIST. I
SUGGESTED THAT THIS WAS NOT THE FORUM FOR THIS DISCUSSION, THAT WE TOOK
HIS CONCERNS SERIOUSLY, AND ASKED BROMANDER TO DO SOME ADDITIONAL
RESEARCH TO DETERMINE AN ACTUAL RANGE OF GREEN SPACE IN OFFICE PARK
DEVELOPMENTS.
HANSEN THEN FOCUSED ON THE ZONING FOR TOM HANSEN'S PARCEL,
IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE LDB DISTRICT, AND REQUESTED JUDGMENT FROM THE
MC REPS AS TO THE APPROPRIATENESS OF VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN
THAT LOCATION. UTTLEY RESPONDED, AGAIN, THAT LOCAL ZONING WAS NOT
THEIR CONCERN AND "HOUSING IS NOT A REGIONAL SYSTEM" AND, THEREFORE,
"NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW" IN THIS FORMAT. THE MC DOES NOT HAVE A POLICY
REGARDING DENSITY.
THOMPSON EXCUSED HIMSELF.
HANSEN PERSISTED IN ATTTEMPTING TO INVOLVE UTTLEY IN A DISCUSSION
OF LOCAL ZONING AND I EXCUSED MYSELF. I RETURNED, BRIEFLY, TO REMIND
BROMANDER THAT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION SHOULD BE BILLED TO HANSEN, NOT
THE CITY.
HANSEN PROBABLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE, BUT I WAS UNCERTAIN OF
THE LEGALITY. HE HAD SPOKEN WITH THOMPSON EARLIER IN THE DAY. SHOULD
THIS SITUATION OCCUR IN THE FUTURE, AND THE MEETING IS NOT PUBLIC (NO
QUORUM AND NO PUBLIC ISSSUES), I WOULD SUGGEST THE CITY OFFICIAL SIMPLY
TERMINATE THE MEETING.
IN SUMMARY, THE PLAN SEEMS TO BE ON TRACK AND IN GOOD SHAPE. MR.
BROMANDER WILL COMMUNICATE FURTHER WITH US REGARDING DETAILS TO BE
CLEANED UP, HOPEFULLY PRIOR TO LABOR DAY, AND SUPPLY US WITH AN UPDATED
DRAFT. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL BE PROVIDED WITH COPIES
OF THIS CURRENT DRAFT SO THAT THEY MAY COMMENT IMMEDIATELY.
cc: BROMANDER