05-03-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MTG. - 5/3/83 Page two ( there will be no increase in rate or volume of flowage and that any future plans which Woodbury and Cottage Grove might devise for piping would not include any anticipated runoff from Lake Elmo. Flowage from Oakdale comes from Minnehaha across my property, and there are several other culverts further on down where the flowage goes out of Lake Elmo and crosses into a big ravine. It would seem that for a lesser amount of money, some monitoring and other things can establish what the flowage is (Highway Dept and County would have information from establishing size of culverts). The actual bill and intent of legislation passed doesn't say anything about cement and pipes such as Woodbury and Cottage Grove are proposing, but was passed to prevent flooding and erosion as needed, for ground water recharge and to protect or enhance wildlife and water recreational facilities. I would propose to work on this on behalf of the City and in addition that the City look toward establishing separate overlay zoning for this particular watershed, that the City put on extra controls to guarantee that new building require an extra study to see what effect this would have on the runoff. We have the perfect possibility here with ponding to store all the water. Whittaker has said that Cottage Grove and Woodbury won't buy this and will come back and assess us (about $218/acre), which would mean the end of farming in Woodbury. I talked to city attorney and he said he doubts if Cottage Grove would ever sign anything like that because they want to keep the price as low as possible. I think if we take a hard line and explain this to other city governments and explain that intent of bill is to promote ponding, they would be hard pressed to continue the "engineer's pipe dream." Basically, your philosophy is right and in agreement with the philosophy of the bill; and the solution at this point is to hammer out a legal contract that Lake Elmo will ( guarantee to the lower cities, that we will not increase the rate of flow over what is established, enforce it rigidly, and then we will not be forced to pay for pipes in Woodbury and Cottage Grove. We can't pursue philosophy that people living here now are going to pay for a pipe plan that generations from now might utilize. We need the water here now. I am willing to offer my services as representative of property owners in reaching an agreement with cities down there. Only constraint for elevation of lake is how high the water can go on north end of roadbed. When water level falls and lake is dry, it could be mucked out making for more storage capacity. • Eder mentioned man-made outlet that flows to south of 213B; Armstrong said ditch is very hard to find and spreads into field. p Fraser - Feels it would be desirable to pursue this and need written statement that staff members could review. What is legality of Tom Armstrong representing us? ® Whittaker - Don't know if we can legally use a citizen to represent the City in negotiating a joint powers agreement. The support would be nice. • Armstrong - Would "assist" the City in negotiating this philosophy which the City supports. • Morgan - I think we should take advantage of Tom's offer and vast experience he is willing to donate free of charge; nothing in the statutes prevents the Council from appointing a citizen advisory committee even if one person. • Bohrer said policy in design standards could be further defined. • Armstrong - Only thing I've proposed to add to former policy is overlay zoning district to ensure City that they could enforce more stringent requirements to promote ponding. Option could be put in that if development does increase rate of flow, then money would have to be added by property owner.