HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 09-21 PC MinutesGem Lake Planning Commission
David K. Gardner, Chairman
1399 E. County Road "E"
Gem Lake, Mn 55110-5231
(612)429-9288 FAX 429-5034
September 21, 1996
Paul R. Emeott, Mayor
3960 Scheuneman Rd.
Gem Lake, Mn 55110
Dear Paul:
The Gem Lake Planning Commission reconvened its September meeting
on September 19, 1996, at 3:30 PM, at the offices of SEH. The meeting
was continued from September 4 to accomodate the schedule of Mr. Roger
Bromander. Present were Emeott, Gardner, Nielsen, and Titcomb. Also in
attendance was Mr. Rob Hansen. The single purpose of the meeting was
to review the August draft of the Comprehensive Plan.
The draft document has not yet been submitted to our neighboring
communities, as the maps were not complete. Mr. Bromander indicated
that such will be accomplished very soon. Copies are to be submitted
for comment to Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, and White Bear
Township. Also, VLAMO, Ramsey -Washington Water District, and the
School District will be copied.
The comments of the Met Council staff include several requests
which have been attended to by Mr. Bromander. One such is a request
for an ordinance implementing the Storm Drainage plan. As a matter of
policy, it was decided that such ordinance requirements, or other City
action, will be "dealt with within the 12 months succeeding the
completion and approval of the Comprehensive Plan."
we agreed to add language to the Water Supply Plan to deal with
emergency water shortages as per the policy of our water supplier (as
opposed to developing our own plan and to be consistent).
Regarding the revised Sanitary Sewer Plan, Mr. Emeott will verify
the numbers of households, etc., and confirm same to Mr. Bromander.
Mr. Bromander has suggested language for the Housing Plan to
suggest that the City explore various State programs for housing
rehabilitation, etc. Unless it is necessary to be politically correct,
the Commission feels that the City is not in a position to participate,
nor do we perceive an adequate need.
As previously discussed, the Met Council staff is anxious for the
City to participate in the Livable Communities Act and to provide plans
for provision of life -cycle and/or affordable housing. The City's
housing stock generally meets the "affordable" criteria, but the City
has few, if any, potential sites for multi -family development. We have
been encouraged to work in concert with neighboring communities to
assure the availability of such housing, and to accomodate plans for
life -cycle housing where appropriate. The impediments to such
development include the lack of access to public transit and other
services, the lack of appropriate space, and the basic conflict with
the City's primary goal of maintaining a low -density format to protect
the unique natural environment of the City in a rapidly developing
urban area.
Mr. Hansen takes vigorous issue with this position, arguing that
the City has a responsibility, implied if not absolutely required, to
work to provide multi -family afffordable housing. He specifically
challenges the 3-acre residential zoning of the Tom Hansen parcel on
County Road "E", suggesting an appropriate density should be 50-60
townhomes on that 18 acres. He also suggested that the Hoffman Corner
"Retail/Services" District lends itself to a PUD format of mixed
commercial/townhome development. The City has not implemented a PUD
ordinance, as there has been no need for such, although Mr. Hansen has
specifically been offered cooperation on such a development format for
his LDB parcel.
Mr. Bromander has submitted a summary of the zoning ordinance.
Commission members need to review this document for accuracy and
adequacy.
At this time, the City does not have plans for capital
improvements. However, a format for a Capital Improvement Plan should
be provided.
Mr. Hansen angrily requested who was responsible for the suggested
change in the open -space requirement in the LDB district from 45%
(current ordinance) to 60%. He had raised this issue previously, and
was informed that the number had been derived by Mr. Emeott and Mr.
Bromander as an appropriate level for an office park, particularly in
light of the historic, underlying zoning of 1-acre residential. The
Commission had discussed the suggestion within the review process and
found it reasonable. Mr. Gardner suggested that an alternative to high
open space requirements is a park dedication requirement. That concept
has been discussed but not implemented in the City primarily due to the
lack of a suitable park location, and the limited number of potential
commercial developments to be assessed. Mr. Hansen then became quite
belligerent, and made a verbal personal attack upon Mr. Bromander for
sanctioning such a "ridiculous" policy, at which point the meeting was
adjourned (5:30 PM).
Respectfu�i submitted,
Davie Gardner, Chairman
Gem ake Planning Commission
cc: Magnuson
Planning Commission