04-07-87 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 7, 1987 PAGE 9 ( response from the City on the request for allowing an asphalt plant to operate for up to 3.5 months on the Bergmann property. Bergmann felt his land would be replaced in better condition than it is now. He had written consent from several neighbors. The contractor was willing to post a $50,000 bond. Councilman Graves had no problem with alloiwng this and suggested the staff look into approving this. City Administrator Overby felt this could be handled under an Alternate Ag Use CUP. The only problem would be the time constraint. Councilman Johnson felt this was a serious enough operation that cannot be done without public input. M/S/P Armstrong/Moe - Because of the benefit to Lake Elmo and surrounding community, the request was directed to be handled administratively. (Motion carried 3-1<Johnson: opposed because he felt this should not be done wihout a public hearing>). 11. Public Hearing: Legion Pond Storm Sewer Improvement Project. Pursuant to publshed notice, Acting Mayor Armstrong opened up the public hearing at 9:40 p.m. The City Engineer presented a preliminary report on the proposed Legion Pond outlet public improvement project to the City Council on March 17, 1987. At that time, the City Council requested that an analysis be made of the increase in fair market value to the properties which would benefit from this project. A copy of the April 1, 1987 letter from Penfield, Inc. was enclosed for the City Council's information. According to the letter, the majority of benefit would be to the homes directly impacted by the high water conditions. The remaining properties show a smaller benefit due to increase in market value. Pond samples were taken and based on phosphorous testing and bacteria testing the transfer of Legion Pond to Lake Elmo would not degrade the water quality of Lake Elmo. (The water in Legion Pond was not degraded to the point at which it would not be swimmable.) In the letter written by William Schwab, Penfield Inc, to City Administrator Overby dated April 1, 1987 he explained that they analyzed the proposed project to see what effects it would have on the property when fully implemented. They do not take into consideration any improvements the owner may make to the property once the plan has been implemented. He used the information that was provided by the City Engineer. City Engineer Bohrer reported that there is a third alternate route, but this has not been explored. From discussions with the person involved the City may be able to obtain the easement for nothing, but there would be some replacement of a driveway and necessity to install manholes. The cost would stay about the same.