HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 2, 2009 Council packet LF
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Jane 2, 2009
7:00 p.m.
A. CALL TO ORDER
B-. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
C, ATTENDANCE: Johnston DeLapp Emmons Park Smith
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: (The approved agenda is the order in which the City
Council will do its business.)
E; ORDER OF BUSINESS: (This is the way that the City Council runs its meetings
so everyone attending the meeting or watching the meeting understands how the
City Council does its public business.)
R GROUND RULES: (These are the rules of behavior that the City Council
adopted for doing its public business.)
G. APPROVE MINUTES:
1. Consider approval of May 19, 2009 minutes—POSTPONED to June 16, 2009
H. PUBLIC COMMENTSANQUIRIES: In order to be sure that anyone wishing to
speak to the City Council is treated the same way,meeting attendees wishing to
address the City Council on any items NOT on the regular agenda may speak for
up to three minutes.
I.: CONSENT AGENDA: (Items are placed on the consent agenda by city staff'and
the Mayor because they are not anticipated to generate discussion. Items may be
removed at City Council's request.)
2.
pprove paym�en ^ofdzs ursemen s payro
3. Approval of employment status change for Firefighter Chris Klein
4. Presentation of service award to Firefighter John Eder
J.s REGULAR AGENDA:
5. Public Meeting: Annual Report for 2008 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
(MS4s) Systems Permit
6. County Road 13 (Inwood Avenue)/15t' Street N. Intersection Proposal;
Resolution No. 2009-024
7. Consider a revised plan for a variance application from Mr. & Mrs. Hugec,
2931 Jonquil Trail N., Resolution No. 2009-022
8. 2009 Street Improvements: Approval of plans and specs and ordering
advertisement for bids;Resolution No 2009-023
9. Roseville Accounting Services
K. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:
(These are verbal updates and do not have to be formally added to the agenda.)
• Mayor and City Council
• Administrator
• Planning Director
L`. Adjourn
UPCOMING EVENTS:
May 30 Tree Planting& Arbor Day Celebration, Fields 2"d Addn-Little Bluestem Trail
June 6—Clean Up Day,Public Works Building, 8 a.m.-Noon
City Council
6/2/2009
CONSENT
Item: 2
ITEM: Approve disbursements in the amount of $ 129,447.04
SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director
Claim # Amount Description
ACx $ 7,309.14 Payroll Taxes to IRS 05/21/09
ACH $ 1,228.42 Payroll Taxes to Mn Dept.of Revenue 05/21/09
DD2206 - DD2219 $ 18,087.71 Payroll Dated 05/21/2009 (Direct Deposit)
34246 - 34254 $ 8,803.31 Payroll Dated 05/21/2009 (Payroll &Benefits)
34255 - 34292 $ 94,018.46 Accounts Payable Dated 05/19/2009
Total: S 129,447.04
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to approve disbursements
in the total amount of $129,447.04
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
User:}ulie
Printed:0512812009_11:00 AM
Cheek slumber Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor blame Amatint
34290 06102/2009 General Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 631.87
34290 06102/2009 General Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 6360.46
34290 06/02/2009 General Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc, 560.35
34290 06/02/2009 Infrastructure Reserve Engineering,Services TKDA,Inc, 3,524.81
34290 06/02/2009 Surface Water Utility ,Engineering Services TKDA,Inc, 3,986.18
34290 06102/2009 Water Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 2,123.36
34290 06/02/2009 Sewer Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 115.71
34290 06/02/2009 Water ) ngine6ring Services TKDA,Inc. 3,587.12
34290 06102/2009 Water Engineering Services TKDA,1nc. 3,554.26
34290 06/02/2009 Development#~und Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 547.10
34290 06102/2009 Development Fund Engineering Services TKDA.,Inc. 46.28
34290 06/02/2009 Development fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 962.73
34290 06/02/2009 Development Pund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 138.85
34290 06/02/2009 Development Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc_ 2'1 g9.02
34290 06/02/2009 Development Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 138.85
34290 06/02./2009 Village Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 274.46
34290 06/02r2009 Surface Water Utility Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 3,378.17
34290 06/02/2009 Infrastructure Reserve Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 8,126.20
34290 06/02/2009 Infrastructure keserve Engineering Services TKDA,In.c. 756.90
34290 06102/2009 infrastructure Reserve Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 9,553.11
34261 06102/2009 General Fund Contract Services City of Roseville 937.50
34281 06/02/2009 General Fund Postage Pitney Bowes Reserve Account 1,500.00
34280 06/02/2009 General Fund Miscellaneous Michael Reinhardt 40.00
34279 06/02/2009 General Fund Cable Operation.Expense Steven Press 62.71
34279 0610212009 General Fund Use Tax Payable Steven Press -3.83
34275 06/02/2009 General Fund Cable Operation Expense Nicholas Anderson- 58.58
34275 06/02/2009 General Fund Use Tax Payable Nicholas Anderson -3•58
34269 0610212009 General Fund RepairsJMaint Bldg Greg Malmquist 374.67
34279 06102/2009 General Fund Cable Operation Expense Steven Press 62.71
34279 06/02/2009 General Fund Miscellaneous Steven Press 47,03
34279 06/022009 General Fund Use Tax Payable Steven Press -6.70
34284 06102/2009 General Fund Repair.Naint Contractual Bldg Diane Rud 340.80
34284 06/0212009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Bldg Diane Rud 255.60
AP-Checks for Approval(05/28/2009- 11:00 AM) Page
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account blame Vendor Ngme Amount
34284 06/02/2009 General Fund Use Tax Payable Dune Rud -36.40
34262 06/02/2009 General Fund Radio City of Woodbury 260.00
34260 06NV2009 Water Water Utility City of Oakdale 4,924.20
34277 06102/2009 General Fund Legal Services Peterson Fram& Bergman Corp 1,594.00
34277 06/02/2009 General Fund Attorney Criminal Peterson Fram&.Bergman Corp 4;299.05
34287 06/0212009 General Fund Physicals Stillwater Medical Group 75.00
34282 06102/2009 Genera.!Fund Fuel,Gil and Fluids River Country Cooperative 130.20
34283 06/02/2009 General Fund Miscellaneous Rogers Printing Services,Corp 351.45
34270 06102/2009 G6neral Fund Conferences&Training Metr6politah Area Manager Asociadon 25.00
34271 06/02/2009 General Fund Refuse Maroney's Sanitation,Inc 103.66
34271 06102/2009 General Fund Refuse Maroney's Sanitation,Inc 45.62
34271 06/02/2009 General Fund Refuse Maroney's Sanitation,Ire 103.66
34271 06/0212009 General Fund Refuse Maroney's Sanitation,Inc I98.87
34259 06/02/2009 General Fund Conferences&Training Century College 2,880.00
34291 06/02/2009 General Fund Miscellaneous Valley Trophy Inc. 150,10
34264 06/0212009 General Fund RepairVMaint Eqpt Emergency Apparatus Maint.£NC 1,040.00
34264 06/02/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maict Eqpt Emergency Apparatus Maint.JNC 1,040.00
34264 06/02/2049 General Fund Repairs/Maint Fgpt Emergency Apparatus Maint.INC 993.00
34264 06/02/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Eqpt Emergency Apparatus Maine.INC 980.00
34264 06/02/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Eqpt Emergency Apparatus Maint.INC 237.00
34264 06/02/2009 General Fund Repahi ,aint Eqpt Emergency Apparatus Maint.INC 237.00
34264 06/02/2009 General Fund RepairshMaint Eqpt Emergency Apparatus Maint,INC 893.00
34264 06/02/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Eqpt Emergency Apparatus Maint,INC 245.00
34264 06/02/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Eqpt Emergency Apparatus Maint. INC 192.25
34288 06/02/2009 General Fund Street Maintenance Materials T.A.Schifsky&Sans inc 117,68
34268 06/02/2009 General Fund Fuel,Oil and Fluids Lako Elmo Oil,Inc. 31..50
34268 06/02/2009 General Fund Fuel,Oil and Fluids Lake Elmo Oil,Inc_ 30.47
34268 06/=009 General Fund Fuel,Gil and Fluids Lake Elmo Oil,Inc. 34.50
34268 06/02/2009 General Fund Fuel,Oil and Fluids Lake Elmo Oil,Inc. 31.50
34268 06102/2009 General Fund Fuel,Oil and Fluids Lake Elmo Oil,Inc. 46.30
34268 06/02/2009 General Fund F"L Oil and Fluids Lake Elmo Oil,Inc. 46.00
34266 06102/2009 General Fund Small Tools&Equipment RSBC Business Solutions 57.56
34286 06/02/2009 General Fund Contract Services St,Croix Tree Service 4,370.00
34285 06/0W2009 General Fund Repairst'Maint Bldg Sam's Club 11.85
34285 06/02/2009 General Fund Miscellaneous Sam's Club 53.59
34285 06/0212,009 General Fund Miscellaneous Sam's Club 32.94
34265 06102/2009 General Fund Assessing Services FXL,Inc. 2,000.00
34257 06/02/2009 General Fund Uniforms Aramark,Inc. 36.14
34257 06/02/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg Ararnark,Inc. 75.96
34292 06/02/2009 General Fund Radio WASH INGTONCOUNTY 1,066.88
34272 06/02/2009 General Fund Contract Services McCombs Frank Roos Assoc Inc. 2.586.60
34289 06102/2009 General Fund Telephone TDS METROCOM-LLC 162.23
34289 06/02/2009 General Fund Telephone TDS METROCOM-LLC 154.44
34289 06/02/2009 Sewer Telephone TDS METROCOM-LLC 103.29
34289 06/02/2009 Water Telephone TDS METROCOM-LLC 41.72
AP.Checks for Approval(05128/2009-,11:00 AM} Page 2
Check.Number Check Date Fond Name Account Nine Vendor Name Amount
34273 06/02/2009 General Fund Equipment Parts MTI Distributing Inc. 19.44
34253 06102/2009 General Fund Inrormation Technology/Web American Legal Publishing Corp 262.50
34274 06102/2009 General Fund Telephone Nextel Communications 101.08 ,
34274 06/02/2009 General Fund Telephone Nextel Communications 115.23
34274 06/02/2009 General Fund Telephone Nextel Communications 35.85
34274 06102/2009 General Fund "Telephone Nextel Communications 58.59
34274 06102/2009 General Fund Telephone Nextel Communications 17.16
34268 06/02/2009 General Fund Fuel,Oif and Fluids 1,ake Elmo Oil,Inc. 43.75
34268 06/02/2009 General Fund Fuel,Oil and Fluids Lake Elmo 0111 Inc. 20.00
34268 06/0212009 General Fund Fuel,Oil and Fluids Lake Elmo Oil,Inc. 42.60
34268 0610212009 General Fund Fuel,Oil and Fluids Lake Elmo Oil,Inc_ 28.34
34268 06/02/2009 General Fund Fuel,Oil and Fluids Lake EImo Oil,Inc. 55.00
34268 06102/2009 General Fund Fuel,Oil and Fluids Lake 51mo Oil,Inc. 28.05
34268 06102/2009 General Fund Fuel,Oil and Fluids Lake Elme Oil,Inc. 28.60
34268 06/02/7009 General Fund Fuel,Oil and Fluids Lake Elmo Oil,Inc. 40.70
34258 061D2/2009 Capital Aquisitions Other Equipment Aspen Mills,Inc. 194.03
34258 06/02/2009 General Fund Uniforms Aspen Mills,Inc. 185.75
34258 06102/2009 General Fund Uniforms Aspen MiUs,Inc, 169.95
34258 06/02/7009 General Fund Uniforms Aspen Mills,Inc. 53,90
34258 06/02/2009 General Fund Uniforrs Aspen Mills,Inc, 60.50
34256 06102/2009 Capital Aquisitions Other.Equipment ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS,INC. 1,222.12
34256 06102/2009 General Fund Radio ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS,INC. 105.12
34267 06/02/2009 General Fund Contract Services Kern beWenter Viere Ltd 2,592.00
3427E 06/02/2009 General Fund Contract Services PLANT HEALTH ASSOCIATES,INC 1,248.00
34263 06/02/2009 General Fund Mileage Craig Dawson 43.10
34276 W02/2009 Water Water Meters&Supplies Northern Water Works Supply IN 92.41
Total for this Date: 94,01 SA6
Report Total: 94,018.46
AP-Checks for Approval(0512=009- 11:00 AM) Page 3
City Council
Date: June 2, 2009
Consent
Action Required: Motion
ITEM: Approval of employment status change for Firefighter
SUBMITTED BY: Chief Malmquist
REVIEWED BY: Craig Dawson, City Administrator
Tom Bouthilet, Personnel Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Move Chris Klein from Probationary Status to Regular
Firefighter Status.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
• Chris has met all the probationary requirements. He has successfully completed
Firefighter I & il, HazMat Awareness and Operations, First Responder and CPR as well
as maintained his call percentages.
RECOMMENDATION and SUGGESTED MOTION:
Motion to move Chris Klein from probationary to regular Firefigher status.
City Council
Date: June 2, 2009
REGULAR
Item: 5.
MOTION
ITEM: Annual Report for 2008 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)
Permit
SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Mike Bouthilet, Public Works
Carol Kriegler, Project Assistant
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to accept the
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)Annual Report for 2008, and authorize staff to
submit this report to the MPCA by June 30, 2009.
The City is required to conduct a Public Meeting on the City's Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Program (SWPPP) to encourage public discussion and participation regarding its storm water
quality and the steps that the City is taking to address the six minimum control measures.
Both the public meeting and the submittal of the Annual Report are required by the City's NPDES
permit.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
A 1987 Amendment to the Federal Clean Water Act required implementation of a two-phase
comprehensive national program to reduce pollution from storm water runoff. A National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) is required as part of this program.The permit identifies a number of measures that must
be met or implemented by each community. The six minimum measures are:
• Public Education and Outreach
• Public Involvement and Participation
• Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
• Construction Site Storm Water Controls
• Post-Construction Storm Water Management for development and redevelopment
• Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
In addition to these minimum measures, the City of Lake Elmo must address any impaired waters
as identified by the USEPA list and review whether changes may be warranted in the City's
SWPPP. Also, the City of Lake Elmo does ultimately discharge to outstanding resource value
water(ORVW)(the St. Croix River) and must work to identify all discharges to the ORVW.
The City's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) specifies best management
practices intended to satisfy the permit requirements for each of the minimum measures. As part
of this program, the City is required to hold an annual meeting to encourage public discussion
and participation regarding its storm water quality and steps it is taking to address the six
minimum control measures. A copy of the SWPPP is available by contacting the City Engineer.
An annual report for 2008 MS4s must be submitted to the MPCA by June 30, 2009. The minutes
of the annual public meeting will be incorporated into the City's annual report. The meeting will
be held as part of the regular City Council meeting at City Hall. The agenda for this meeting will
include:
1) A Presentation about implementation of the City's Surface Water Pollution Prevention
Program in 2008,
2) Affording interested persons an opportunity to make oral statements concerning the
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program,
3) Consideration of relevant written materials that interested persons submit concerning the
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program; and,
4) Consideration of public input in making adjustments to the 2009 implementation plan for
the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program.
RECOMMENDATION
After the Council conducts a Public Meeting and receives Public comment;
Suggested motion for consideration:
Staff recommends a motion to accept the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)Annual
Report for 2008, and authorize staff to submit this report to the MPCA by June 30, 2009.
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Introduction City Administrator
Staff report Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer
Questions from council to staff Mayor facilitates
Receive public comment Mayor facilitates
(Public Meeting)
Discussion Mayor and Councilmembers
Action on motion City Council
ATTACHMENTS:
1. MS4 Annual Report for 2008
ANNUAL REPORTfor li :
MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS (MS4s)
Reporting period January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008
Due June 30, 2009
USE OF THIS FORM IS MANDATORY By completing this Annual Report form, you are providing the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency(MPCA) with a summary of your status of compliance with permit conditions, including an
assessment of the appropriateness of your identified best management practices (BMPs) and progress towards achieving
your identified measurable goals for each of the minimum control measures as required by the MS4 Permit. If an MS4
determines that program status or compliance with the permit can not be adequately reflected within the structure of this
form additional explanation and/or information may be referenced in an attachment.This form has significant limitations
and provides only a snap shot of MS4 compliance with the conditions in the Permit. After reviewing the information
MPCA staff may need to contact the MS4 to clarify or seek additional information. MPCA enforcement policy is to
provide the opportunity to respond to any alleged violations before any enforcement action is taken.
Submit your annual report by.dune 30, 2009 to:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Municipal Division
520 Lafayette Road North
St.Paul,MN 55155-4194
This Annual Report may be submitted electronically via email to the MPCA MS4 Program mailbox:
ii s4permita2 pea..state.m.n.us.If submitting electronically,this form must be sent via email from the person that is duly
authorized to sign this form under the Owner/Operator Certification section.A confirmation email will be sent in
response to electronic submissions.If you would like to obtain an electronic copy of the MS4 Annual Report for 2008
form,please visit: www.pca.state.iiin.us/water/stonnwciter/stonnwater-ms4.11tml.
If you have fiuther questions,please contact one of these MPCA staff members (call toll-free 800-657-3864).Note new
numbers effective November 2008:
• Keith Cherryhohnes 651-757-2270
• Joyce Cieluch 218-846-7387
• Scott Fox 651-757-2368
• Amy Garcia 651-757-2377
Mir imum tyontr�l Measure {Public c uoati_on and Qutrledd G.1- J `'
City of Lake Elmo
Name of MS4
Craig Dawson, City Administrator _
Name of Contact Person
(651)233-5401 cdawson@lakeelmo,org
Telephone(including area code) Email Address
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Mailing Address
Lake Elmo Minnesota 55042
City State ZIP code
A. The permit requires each MS4 to implement a public education program to distribute educational materials to the
community or conduct equivalent outreach activities about the impacts of stormwater discharges on water bodies and
steps that the public can take to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. [Part V.G.l.a] NOTE: Please indicate which
of the following distribution methods you used during the 2008 calendar year. Indicate the number distributed in the
spaces provided(enter"0"if the method was not used or"NA"if the data does not exist)::
wq-strm4-06 Page 1 of 8 12/08
Media type Number of media Number of times published Circulation/Audience
Example:Brochures: 3 different brochures published 5 times about 10,000
Multiple brochures and flyers Distributed at events and year- Washington County Pair(500
(Blue Thumb brochures,list of round at the Lake Elmo flyers),Library kiosk(200
local Blue Thumb retailers and Library and City Hall brochures and 30 raingarden
resources,map of watersheds manuals),WCD tree sale(50
and grant info,native plants brochures),Lake Elmo Park
Brochures: lists,buckthorn brochure, Rain hike (30 brochures)
barrel info and where to buy,
Washington County impaired
waters map,buffer brochure,
Blue Thumb Guide to
Raingardens book)
Washington County newsletter, WashCo newsletter(4 times Wash Co newsletter(7966 in
Newsletter: Washington Conservation yearly),WCD newsletter(3 LE),WCD newsletter(312 in
District newsletter,Lake Elmo times yearly),Lake Elmo LE) , city newsletter(7966)
city newsletter newsletter(4 times yearly)
Posters: 0 0 0
Pioneer Press; Stillwater Pioneer Press(5 articles Pioneer Press(79,000 in
Newspaper articles: Gazette, Oakdale—Lake Elmo yearly); Gazette and Review Washington Co.), Stillwater
Review (52 articles yearly) Gazette(20,993), Oakdale-Lake
Elmo Review(11,066)
Utility bill inserts: 0 0 0
1 through Clean:Water MN 26 radio ads on MN Public 4PR-544,000 impressions;
Radio ads: media campaignRadio; 60 radio ads during MN vins- 1.3 million impressions
Twins baseball games (statewide)
Television ads: 2 through Clean Water MN 200 ads on prime time cable 7.2 million impressions
media campaign TV,multiple channels (statewide)
Cable Access Channel: 0 0 0
Billboards 16 Streets to streams— 292,000 impressions per day for
cleanwatermn.org billboards one month
Other: throughout the metro area;16
Blue Thumb—Planting for
Clean Water billboards
throughout the metro area
If you use a stormwater Web site as a tool to distribute stormwater educational materials:
What is the URL: www.lakeelmo.rog:,www.cleanwatermn.ora, and www.bluethumb.org
How many hits to the stormwater page during 2008:unknown
Did you hold stormwater related events,presentations to schools or other such activities ®Yes Q No
If yes,please describe:
a.Training workshop for 40 master gardeners(Blue Thumb
b.2 training workshops for landscape professionals 137 attendees
c. Qty council presentation on conservation development
d.Presentation to McDonald Lake Association 30 people)
e. 2 training worksho s for public works staff 3-4 staff from Lake Elmo attended
f. Smine Seminar"Landsc ng for Wildlife" 25 people)
wq-strm4-06 Page 2 of 8 12/08
R.Miuhwpy 5 landscapinLI Droject L20 people)
h.Buckthorn Bustling at Pebble Park-education and active participation CigAgownj
1.2 Rain garden design workshops at Mahtomedi unknown
B. What stage of development would you assign to each area of your stormwater education program?(If there are multiple
components for a Minimum Control Measure (MCM) check the one box that most accurately reflects the overall stag
for that MCM). You may include an attachment if further explanation is desired.
MCM 1: ❑Not started ❑Research ❑ Development ® Early Implementation ❑Program in place
MCM 2: ❑Not started ❑Research ❑ Development ® Early Implementation ❑Program in place
MCM 3: ❑Not started ❑Research Z Development ❑Early Implementation ❑Program in place
MCM 4: ❑Not started M Research 0 Development ®Early Implementation []Program in place
MCM 5: Q Not started ❑Research ❑Development ® Early Implementation ❑Program in place
MCM b: ❑Not started ❑,Research ❑Development ®Early Implementation ❑Program in place
C. Have you developed partnerships with other MS4s,watershed districts,local or state governments, ®Yes ❑No
educational institutions, etc,to assist you in fulfilling the requirements for Minimum Control
Measure 1?
D. List those entities with which you have a partnership to meet the requirements of this MCM and
describe the nature of the agreement(s)(list if level of effort exceeded 10 hours):Lake Elmo is a
member of the East Metro Water Resource Education Program(EMWREP)and contributes$2000
per year to the program EMWREP is a artnershi_p formed to develop a comprehensive water
resource education and outreach program for the east metro area of St.Paul MN.Members of
EMWREP include Brown's Creek, Comfort Lake-Forest Lake Rice Creek Ramsey-Washington
Metro, South Washington,and Valley Branch Watershed Districts Lower and Middle St. Croix
_Watershed Management Organizations,the cities of Cottage Grove Dellwood Forest Lake Lake
Elmo, Stillwater,West Lakeland Twp and Willernie,Washinfdon County and the Washin on
Conservation District,The EMWREP region covers all of Washington County as well as a small
portion of Ramsey and Anoka Counties.The goal of EMWREP is to reduce non-point source water
pollution from storm water runoff and illicit discharges by educating citizens municipal staff and
officials developers and businesses Lake Elmo attends two annual meetings per year to helmsguide
the direction of the EMWREP program(5 hours total) and also corresponds via e-mail and phone
throughout the year.The EMWREP 2008 Annual Report is attached for reference.
M.
t = ' WK
' _ A
M�nimurn i Me---.—e� Public Parti�� sit�or�llnvo'Iv�ment G.2, �-
A. Did you hold a public meeting to present accomplishments for calendar year 2008 and to discuss ® Yes ❑No
your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program(SWPPP)? [Part V.G.Le] If no, explain:N/A
B. What was the date of the public meeting? June 2,2009
C. How many citizens attended specifically for stormwater(excluding board/council members and
staff/hired consultants)?
D. Was the public meeting a stand-alone meeting for stormwater or was it combined with some other [] Stand-alone
function such as a City Council meeting? ® Combined
E. Each MS4 must receive and consider input from the public prior to submittal of your annual report. ❑ Yes [:] No
Did you receive written and/or oral input on your SWPPP? [Part V.G.2.b.1-3].
F. Have you revised your SWPPP in response to comments received from the public in calendar year ❑Yes ❑ No
2008 or early 2009(if meeting held in 2009)? [Part V,G.2.e] Ifyes,describe.Attach a separate sheet
if necessary:
In]tmum oxatrol Measuee;3 iliicit Discharge Detection and<Eiimfit .[V.G:'
,.
The permit requires MS4s to develop, implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges as
wq-strm4-06 Page 3 of 8 12/08
defined in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(2)in your SWPPP.You must also select and implement a program of appropriate BMPs and
measurable goals for this minimum control measure.
A. Have you completed a storm sewer system map in accordance with the requirements of the permit? ®Yes ❑N
(MPCA assumes that completed maps will still need updates and corrections as changes occur).
If yes,describe the form in which the map is available:
❑Hardeopy only Z GIS system ❑ CAD ❑ Other system:
If no, please explain:
NOTE: The storm sewer system map was to be completed by June 30,2008. [Part V.G.3.a]
B. Has an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism been adopted to prohibit illicit discharges or other ❑Yes ® No
non-stormwater discharges from entering your system? Provide the date for the most relevant part
of the regulatory mechanism that was adopted or estimated date of adoption: December 31,2009
C. Have you completed the tasks associated with the schedule listed on BMP Summary Sheet 3c-1 in ❑ Yes ® No
your program for illicit discharge detection and elimination? (attach additional information if
needed)
Indicate the status of development for tasks associated with BMP Summary Sheet 3c-1:
❑Not started ❑Research ®Development ❑ Implementation ❑Program in place
D. Have you completed the tasks associated with the schedule listed on BMP Summary Sheet 3d-1 for ❑Yes Z N
your Public and Employee Illicit Discharge Information Program?
Indicate the status of development for tasks associated with BMP Summary Sheet 3d-1:
❑ Not started ❑Research Z Development ❑ Implementation ❑Program in place
�n�mu Co rot' sasuir 4ansfructionSite Stormwatel-tunoffi=Co tral �} f,G4� `
._ _
_ = _ t
The permit requires that each MS4 develop,implement,and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in any
stormwater runoff to your small MS4 from construction activities within your jurisdiction that result in a land
disturbance of equal to or greater than one acre,including the disturbance of less than one acre of total land area that is
part of a larger common plan of development or sale if the larger common plan will ultimately disturb one or more acres
(include if your MS4 established a smaller site size). [Part V.G.4.]
. Have you adopted an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism that regulates stormwater runoff from ®Yes ❑No
construction activities that results in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre and/or less
than one acre that is part of a common plan of development or sale that will ultimately disturb on
acre or more? NOTE: Your regulatory mechanism must be fully developed and implemented within
six months from the extension of permit coverage.
B. A complete copy of your erosion and sediment control ordinance or other regulatory mechanism ® Yes ❑ No
addressing the requirements of Part V.G.4 of the Permit must be submitted with this Annual Report.
This documentation may be submitted in hard copy, as a separate electronic file, or electronically
attached to this Annual Report. Have you submitted a copy of your erosion and sediment control
ordinance or other regulatory mechanism?
Check here if you have No Regulatory Authority❑
C. The following are among the criteria used to evaluate the effectiveness of this program. Which of the following BMP
components and pollution prevention management measures have been incorporated into your regulatory mechanism?
Check all that apply and include a citation for each checked measure outlining specifically where it can be located in
the documents submitted with this Annual Report. If you are utilizing the "Other Regulatory Mechanism" option,
please respond in the same manner and follow the above submittal procedures.
Citation(Ordinance,Rule, Statute,Code,MOU, or other
BMP Component/P2 Measure official agreement,pne 4,paragEaph,line item, or other
wq-strm4-06 Page 4 of 8 12/08
reference)
®Temporary erosion controls Chapter X -- Storm Water and Erosion and
Sediment Control Ordinance (Adopted 6/16/2009).
❑ Record keeping for rainfall and inspections
®Permanent erosion controls Chapter X
❑ Waste controls for hazardous waste
® Waste controls for solid waste Chapter X
® Dewatering and basin draining Chapter X
® Regular inspections by site operators Chapter X
® Site plan submittal including erosion and sediment Chapter X
control BMPs
® BMP maintenance Chapter X
® Site plan review and approval prior to activity on site Chapter X
Permanent stormwatermanagement facility approval Chapter X
❑ Other:
D. Your ordinance or regulatory mechanism must include sanctions to ensure compliance and contain enforcement
mechanisms.Which of the following enforcement mechanisms are contained in your ordinance or regulatory
mechanism7 Check all existing and added sanctions for 2008. Include with each checked measure a citation outlining
where each mechanism can be located in the documents submitted with this Annual Report.
Citation(Ordinance,Rule, Statute,Code,MOU,or other
official agreement,page#,paragraph,line item,or other
Enforcement Mechanism reference
Verbal warnings Cha ter X
®Written warnings Cha ter X
❑ Stop-work orders
❑Fines
®Forfeit of security bond money Chapter X
❑ Withholding of certificate of occupancy
❑ Other:
E. Identify which of the following types of enforcement actions you used for construction activities during the reporting
period, indicate the number of actions or note those for which you do not have authority:
Number of action
®Yes Notice of violation #5 No Authorit ❑
❑ Yes Administrative fines #0 No Authority❑
®Yes Stop Work Orders #5 No Authority El
❑ Yes Civil penalties #0 No Authority❑
❑Yes Criminal actions #0 No Authority❑
❑Yes Administrative orders 40 No Authority Cl
wq-strm4-06 Page 5 of 8 I2/08
i
s
F. Does your regulatory mechanism address the regulation of construction sites which disturb less than ❑Yes ®No
one acre?
If yes please cite where this is addressed in the documents submitted with the Annual Deport
G. How many construction sites were inspected for compliance with your erosion and sediment control 20
regulatory mechanism during the 2008 calendar year .
H. On average, how many times each, or with what frequency, are construction sites inspected 1 per week
(e.g.,weekly,monthly, etc.)? --
I. Do you prioritize certain construction sites for more frequent inspections? ® Ves ❑ No
If yes, based on what criteria? Depending on size of disturbance and proximity to
receiving water bodies.
inmurn-Contr_o! Measure�S Posf-construction Stormu�ater Mana�em��t n�New Deueloprnent and
Re�leve�opment jV G s5]�
The permit requires each MS4 to develop, implement, and enforce a program to address stormwater runoff from ne
development and redevelopment projects within your jurisdiction that disturb an area greater than or equal to one acre
including projects less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale that discharge into your
small MS4. Your program must ensure that controls are in place that would prevent or reduce water quality impacts. You
must also select and implement a program of appropriate BMPs and measurable goals for this minimum control measure.
NOTE: The MS4 permit requirements associated with this minimum control measure were required to be fully developed
and implemented by June 30, 2008.
A. Have you developed and implemented strategies which include requirements for a combination of. ®Yes ❑No
structural and/or non-structural BMPs appropriate for your community?
B. Is an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism currently in place to address post-construction ® Yes D No
runoff from new development and redevelopment projects to the extent allowable under law?
Provide the date the regulatory mechanism was adopted or estimated date of adoption: June 2009.
C. Is a plan in place to ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance of BMPs installed as a ® Yes ❑No
result of these requirements?
How are you funding the long-term operation and maintenance of your stormwater management system?.,(Check all
that apply)
❑ Grants
® Stormwater utility fee
❑Taxes
❑ Other:
i
Minimum-Control Measure 6 Pollutron.PreventEonL ood=Housekeeping for Allun opal Operat ons
-  -0.
_
The permit requires each MS4 to develop and implement an operation and maintenance program that includes a training
component and has the ultimate goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal operations. Your program
must include employee training to prevent and reduce stormwater pollution from activities such as park and open space
maintenance, fleet and building maintenance,new construction and land disturbances, and stormwater system maintenance.
A. Is your MS4 current on development of all the BMPs listed in the BMP Summary Sheets for MCM ®Yes ❑No
6 as indicated in the timeline/implementation schedules? If no,explain:
B. Indicate the total number of structural pollution control devices(for example-grit chambers, sumps, floatable skimmers,
etc) within your MS4, how many were inspected,and calculate the percent inspected.Enter"0"if your MS4 does not
wq-strm4-06 Page 6 of 8 12/08
contain structural pollution control devices or"NA"if the data does not exist:
Total Number Number Inspected Percentage
Structural Pollution Control Devices: 0 N/A N/A
C. Did you repair,replace,or maintain any structural pollution control devices? ❑yes Z No
D. For each BMP below, indicate the total number within your MS4,how many of each BMP type
were inspected, and calculate the percent inspected:
Structure/Facility Type Total Number Number Inspected Percentage
Outfalls to receiving waters 32 10 31%
Sediment basins/ponds 69 13 19%
TOTAL 1 101 23 23%
Section 1 pa etl WatersRe�' w
}
_
_ ..The permit requires that any MS4 that discharges to a Water of the State which appears on the current U.S. EPA approved
list of impaired waters under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act review whether changes to your SWPPP may b
warranted to reduce the impact of your discharge[Part IV.D]
.MPCA has provided an MS4 Mapping tool which provides information for compliance with the permit and water quality
rules.It can also help MS4 staff and stakeholders view relationships between an MS4 and various other water features in the
layers including impaired waters. Please go to the MS4 Mapping tool located at
htt ://www. ea.state.mn..us/water/stormwater/stolmwater-ms4.htm.1 by clicking on"MS4 mapping tool"under"Maps of
S4s"and rate this web mapping tool for its usefulness in helping you identify impaired waterbodies your MS4 may
discharge to,including impaired waters as defined on the 303d listing(This request is optional)
❑Not Useful at all ❑ Somewhat Useful N Useful ❑Very Useful❑Other:
Check.here if your MS4 has no impaired wvaters:'❑
Additional Comments on the MS4 Mapping Tool can be emailed to: paul.leegard@pea.state.mn.us
�ect'ion S'-At ditronal:S1NP'I'P Issues - - - -
-: T� - _
A. Did you make a change to any identified BMPs or measurable goals in your SWPPP since your last ❑Yes N N
report? [Part V.H.] If yes, explain:
B. Briefly list the BMPs using their unique SWPPP identification numbers you have changed in your
SWPPP or any measurable goals that will be changed in your updated SWPPP, and why they have
changed: (Attach a separate sheet if necessary)N/A
. Did you rely on any other entities(MS4s, consultants or contractors)to implement any portion of ®'Yes❑No
your SWPPP? If yes, please identify them and list activities they assisted with: Lake-Elmo is a
member of the East Metro Water Resource Education Program(EMWREP)and contributes$2 000
per year to the program EMWREP is a pggggrship formed to develM a comprehensive water
resource education and outreach program for the east metro area of St Paul MN The CjV also has a
consulting Ciky Engineer and contracted Building Inspector who assist with the SWPPP
Implementation.
wq-strm4-06 Page 7 of 8 12/08
Rl-
he person with overall administrative responsibility for SWPPP implementation must sign the annual report. This perso
must be duly authorized and should be the person who signed the MS4 permit application or a successor.
certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision mi
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information
submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible fo
gathering the information,the information submitted is,to the best of my knowledge and belief,true,accurate, and complete
(Minn, R. 7001.0070). 1 am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment(Minn.R. 7001.0540).
X
Authorized Signature(This person must be duly authorized Date
to sign the annual report for the MS4.Electronic submissions must be
sent from this person's email address to qualify for Authorized
Signature status)
Dawson Craig City Administrator
Last Name First Name Title
3800 Laverne Avenue
Mailing Address
Lake'Elmo Minnesota 55042
City State ZIP code
(651)233-5401 odawson@lakeelmo.org
Telephone(include area code) E-mail Address
wq-strm4-06 Page 8 of 8 12/08
City Council
Date: June 2, 2009
REGULAR
Item: C.
Motion
ITEM: County Road 13 (Inwood Avenue) / 15th Street North Intersection Proposal
SUBMITTED BY: Craig W. Dawson, Interim City Administrator
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: On April 21, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution 2009-015,
giving municipal consent to Washington County's proposal to add left-turn lanes on County Road 13 (Inwood
Avenue) at its intersection with 15th Street North. This approval was conditioned "upon the final project
providing for safe bicycle traffic through the intersection." Washington County believes that the plan as
presented is safe for cyclists, and wishes to address the Council on this matter. If the Council decides to
approve the plans as the County proposes, it would be appropriate to adopt a resolution amending Resolution
2009-015.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Washington County staff will make a presentation at the Council meeting; it
has not provided any materials in advance of the meeting. It will explain how safety is properly addressed in
the plans considered by the Council in April. The direction of the Council's discussion was that there be
additional paved shoulder width to accommodate bicyclists' need for safety. While it may be deemed that the
plans originally presented do provide for safe bicycle traffic, it would be clearer and less confusing if the
Council adopted an amending resolution to this effect. This proposed resolution has been prepared for
Council's consideration.
RECOMMENDATION: If Council takes no action, Resolution 2009-015 remains in effect with the condition of
municipal consent to providing safe bicycle passage through the intersection. If the Council were to agree with
the County's position as presented at this Council meeting, staff recommends the Council adopt the resolution
amending Resolution 2009-015
SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
If Council agrees with the County's position as presented tonight, Move to adopt the resolution amending
Resolution 2009-015.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution No. 2009-015
• Proposed resolution to amend Resolution No. 2009-015
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
• Introduction Craig Dawson
• Report by staff and presenter Jack Griffin
Washington County staff
• Questions from City Council members to the presenter Mayor facilitates
• Questions/comments from the public to the City Council Mayor facilitates
• Action on motion City Council
CITY OF LAKE ELMIO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-016
A RESOLUTION APPROVING COUNTY PROJECT
WITHIN MUNICIPAL CORPORATE LIMITS
WHEREAS, .Washington County has completed the design and plans, dated February
26, 2009, for Project No. SAP 62-613-27, showing proposed excavation,.grading, alignment,
cross=sections and bituminous paving for the improvement of County State Aid Highway (CSAH)
No. 13 (Inwood Avenue), and
WHEREAS, the plans have been reviewed by City Staff and presented to the City
Council, and
WHEREAS, the project is necessary to improve safety along CSAH 13 at the intersection
oaf 15th Street by adding a left turn lane in each direction.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
1. The City hereby approves said final plans for the improvements of CSAH 13 within the
corporate limits, contingent upon the final project providing for safe bicycle traffic through
i the intersection.
2, The City Engineer is hereby authorized to sign the County Construction Plans on the
City's behalf.
Date:April 21, 2009 CITY OF LAKE ELMO
! f
By:
Dean A. Johnston
Mayor
ATTEST:
opjkZ�V/Z,
Craig;W meson
lnteri ity Administrator
Resolution No. 09-019 1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION.NO. 2009-0'15
APPROVING COUNTY PROJECT
WITHIN MUNICIPAL CORPORATE LIMITS
WHEREAS, Washington County has completed the design and plans, dated February
26, 2009, for Project No. SAP 82-613-27, showing proposed excavation, grading, alignment,
cross-sections and bituminous paving for the improvement of County State Aid Highway (CSAH)
No. 13 (Inwood Avenue), and
WHEREAS, the plans have been reviewed by City Staff and presented to the City
Council, and
WHEREAS, the project is necessary to improve safety along CSAH 13 at the intersection
of 15'h Street by adding a left turn lane in each direction, and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-015, approving the project
,contingent upon the final project providing for safe bicycle traffic through the intersection", and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a presentation from Washington County on June 2,
2009, and determined that the project should proceed without the contingency stated in the
whereas clause immediately above,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
1. The City hereby approves said final plans for the improvements of CSAH 13 within the
corporate limits.
2. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to sign the County Construction Plans on the
City's behalf.
Date: June 2, 2009 CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By:
Dean Johnston
Mayor
ATTEST:
Craig;Dawson
Interim City Administrator
1
VVa.s ton
Count
Inwood Avenue N & 15th Street N
Center Left Turn Lane
Jacob Gave
Public Works
June 2, 2009
-
LocatioProJ'ect
_ n
tl ti.
a
Project LAKE ELMO
Location
15 St N
V
1 Fth St N
1
III D
I
lI
i
Washington
�=County
Existing
tij Z
a)
— a)
U)
it E
12'
12'
1,15 TAPER 12 4" L 12'
- 12'
- 12' ,y 12� 1.15 TAPER
12' 12'
Inwood Avenue N
'I ! t i
li v
Washington
County
Existing
N N
7
Q)
I c/)
L
r
12' t
12'
12' �
12' 12'
"r
~ 12'
Inwood Avenue N
�l
I
11
l N N II
I II
Washington
ounty
Yi
Y -
ypy
'yw
�M
I
i
Center Left Turn Lanes
z
L
vJ
Z1. L
LO
r�
! t
12. 12' F 12•
12• ------ --- -- 12
12' y 12' H 12'
m�_-_ e 12• _�.
Inwood Avenue N
li
Washington
County
Center Left Turn Lanes
z
-4-
Q)
N N L
VJ
L
Y J
L 12' -
12' 12'
12, -► 12`
12, Z _
j/
Inwood Avenue N
ii N N
,I
1 �I
Washington
County
Additional Pavement?
• Unconventional design
• User confusion
• Right-of-way impacts
• Conflict/legality
— Who has the right of way?
• Separated trail
— Redesign
— Right-of-way impacts
— Construction schedule
Washington
>County
Additional Paveme nt/Se pa rated Trail
• Would require redesign
• Would require addition right-of-way
• Construction would not be this year
Was ognon
tY
Schedule
• Funding for 2009
• Six weeks to construct
• Start in August
• Completed in September
Washington
=':-::County
Summary
• Illegal passing on the right
— Travelling at full speed
• Proposed design improves safety
— No illegal passing
— Right turns are decreasing speed
— No right-of-way impacts
• Additional Pavement
— Unconventional
• Separated trail
— Redesign
Washington
— Right-of-way impacts County
Thank you !
Any questions?
City Council
Date: 6/2/09
Regular
Resolution 2009-022
Item:
ITEM: Consider a revised plan for a variance application from Mr. and Mrs.
Hugec to allow construction of a pool and spa within the required 100 foot
buffer setback in Open Space Preservation (OP) developments at 2931
Jonquil Trail North —A zoning - PID 22-029-21-21-0024.
SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
Dave Snyder, City Attorney
Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED
The City Council is being asked to consider a variance request from Vladimir and Silvia Hugec to
allow the construction of a spa and in-ground pool within the required 100 foot buffer setback
from the edge of an Open Space Preservation (OP) development at 2931 Jonquil Trail North.
The City Council previously reviewed this application on March 17, 2009 and tabled and
continued the request to this time. The applicants have since submitted a revised site plan
(Option D)and alternative(Option E)that is consistent with the plan reviewed by the Planning
Commission and addresses the Commission's recommendation that a fireplace and pergola be
moved to different locations on the site.
With both options being presented to the Council, the applicants have revised the site plan to
remove the pergola and fireplace and have reconfigured the pool shape into a more traditional
rectangle. The applicants are proposing Option D which proposes to keep the pool and spa the
same distance into the setback as the original application, or Option E which moves the proposed
spa outside of the setback completely for consideration by the Council.
The Hugecs' property is located in the Farms of Lake Elmo development which was approved as
an OP development in 2005. The Lake Elmo OP development requirements include a provision
for a buffer setback from the edge of the development for any structure or driving surface. At the
time of the review for the Farms of Lake Elmo development, the required buffer setbacks were
addressed. The City Council at that time had approved a reduction from a 200 foot buffer
setback to 100 foot buffer setback from the West, South, and East edges of the development
because the neighborhood was adjacent to the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve to the south
and east and would not be developed.
Although the Hugecs' property does not abut the edge of the development and is buffered from
the southern edge of the development by sixty feet of Outlot A of the development, the buffer
setback still extends into their rear yard by forty feet.
For variance applications, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate why this situation is
unique and necessitates flexibility to Code requirements. To make this case, a variance can only
be granted by the City when strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship on a
property owner. "Hardship" is broken down into the following three components:
a. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question cannot
be established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and
no other reasonable alternative use exists;
b. The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land,
structure, or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or
buildings in the same zoning district;and
c. The unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner
after the effective date of the city's zoning regulations.
In reviewing the request against the three criteria listed above, staff determined all criteria were
NOT met, as explained in the staff report dated March 17th and presented by staff at that meeting.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
■ The property currently has a home, garage, deck, and screened porch on the
property which conform to the setback requirements.
■ The Planning Commission held a public hearing at its March gth meeting. The
Commission voted 5:3 with 1 abstention to recommend approval of the variance
application subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report and discussed at the
meeting. However, its recommendation was conditional on the applicant moving the
proposed pergola and fireplace to be no further into the setback than the proposed
pool and spa.
• One of the commissioners who voted against the application suggested that the City
Council may review the ordinance to ensure that its implementation meets the intent
of the regulation.
■ The proposed hardcover is over the allotted 20%; therefore, the applicant is seeking
ways to mitigate the extra allowed impervious surface through rain gardens. This
calculation will be reviewed with the City Engineer through the building permit
process should the variance be approved. (it falls within the allowed amount
provided mitigation is done)
• The DNR and Valley Branch Watershed District did not submit any comments
concerning the application.
■ The Washington County Parks and Planning Department submitted a letter with
some concerns regarding the view of the proposed pergola and fireplace from the
park. This concern is no longer in effect as the applicants have removed those
structures from their site plan.
■ The Minnesota Land Trust, which co-holds a conservation easement over Outlot A
with the City, submitted a letter stating its only concern would be the storage of
material during construction on the adjacent outlot. It expressed no concerns
regarding the proposed structure locations.
RECOMMENDATION:
As mentioned, by majority the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance
application subject to conditions and provided that the pergola and fireplace would be located no
further into the setback than the proposed pool and spa. This condition has been accommodated
or is less intrusive in both Option D and E. Consequently, neither option would need to be
considered again by the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Although this application does provide some substantive arguments for approval of the variances
requested, in following a strict review of the variance criteria outlined in City Code, staff is
recommending that the City Council deny the proposed variances for Vladimir and Silvia Hugec to
allow construction of a pool and spa within the 100 foot buffer setback in OP developments at
2931 Jonquil Trail North.
A resolution of approval is provided should the Council choose to approve the application
following the Planning Commission's recommendation. A resolution of denial is also provided for
consideration. Either resolution may be approved by a simple majority of the Council.
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction................................................................Craig Dawson, City Administrator
- Report by staff.............................................................................. Kelli Matzek, Planner
- Questions from the Council..................................................Mayor&Council Members
- Questions/Comments from the applicant.............................................Mayor facilitates
- Questions/Comments from the public..................................................Mayor facilitates
- Call for a Motion
(required for further discussion; does not
imply approval of the motion ................................................................Mayor facilitates
Discussion ...........................................................................................Mayor facilitates
Action on motion.................................................................................................Council
ATTACHMENTS (9):
1. Area Map
2. Aerial Photo
3. Revised Site Plan: Option D
4. Revised Site Plan: Option E
5. Letter from Applicant's Attorney dated 5-22-09
6. Letter from Mr. Randall of Randall Pool &Spa dated 5-26-09
7. Draft Resolution of Approval
8. Alternative Draft Resolution of Denial
9. March 17th Staff Report
r
Ij IIIIIIIIIIrIIII �l,`a`k r -� �P y�+
,i IIIIIII IIII r ry,i+ir:� h ,tiw
-
°I h,Pj l'll l Wed
' Illah'll�Iil�lSllllplh pll I I11�I II I' ,h.h r
II III IIII I III __ (IIIIIII lSrll h'I{I���I IIIIIII I III IIII Ill�flll1111 I�� .: ,,,j � � �L�,�� �� � �I
IIIII Illlllli ljl Il�f l Vllllllllq II Illy i
• F'� , '� I IIII I'ijiVll 1t III IIII {. 1,, ��.
+� ... '.IIIII rl _�IYHiIi I it IIIII i Ip,1111 III��II�Illil III I III III _I ,�6 t �.
' _ � IIhlliplllllll �.ryfllll Iilli�ll;iYrIIuIYur�III�III�IIIjIII�pi�I�lllllll iI, 1i111--j,�. :' ���rly .p .1$T-��'�
+ ylf,,,l llilllli ll ._i�li IIII III IIII::�ljl49pIi IIIIyll-IIIII VYII�II III-ihlll il�I�'rylj,.. ,,Ida r„ hk :. ''ff
:IJI UII'I I,:rll IIII 4II III .: III IIIII Ii III IIIIIII IaI 9ls yI II III II IIII lyrygl l:. I !�r� i
,����I' � ,I 1.- III III III = tll 11 Iill0.la'II`I GI'`�I IjiI IIII ljllll�Il I'll. d``i`
' I WA'I II I III� 5 III j' III 'III IIIII 'l 1' �h lip J III r M III arr J J• - a
i... . �I � �hlurljlJ II I �•ii ,ul I�,�
IIl�lldllyllll° `r wIp114�IIlY Illlhl
III IIIIIII�J ;..1 III Milk
IrI1npI{d IIIII �I
'IIII -
- e
{ Fp
•;._ n +.,�;' �` �,r"rs�pl'F3"5r'�=Y�dh�fi U'>sF xsx�1 I rr,�7
JIM,
•.� � 4' sY;,y �' h.. 7�^ UI «IMit�ufihl ll p ,trh,
* �fis III r I�IryI rr ;1 7h�a
v
S'
r� I
. _ t''-:•' � Ay �4,r�,I'.�J,'F Iti 4pYW�,k4i
hgl
PA,
{.,+"lT�l� ' I n I �I S� !.• 1F 2. �'q �I �u J;;hh�1'd4 A�4a "�}'� ka�ryOw . f A�� 5 N.'.l
r r�
c - 3 IF �Y
em
g E s, I�h1��1'S
��•y`+ � k p
2931 Jonquil Trail North ^ �
Lake Elmo, MN
-
mo v �1x
I,rrl x� =fi•l
rl �t � II I,'f n
�� l I P ' lhl
nil
Q"FAIV",
_J,
no
4i
U W�7
I U7
ffi-Pi
it
kr_ OUR
LA
7-
AM
WIN.!
�q,'#ISI��111_1i!RIIPO
MR M
UZI
�Q- gik'
Mm
I (HOOL)
..........
..........
-flop
FROM
war
A
J-0 -
MOW
T-4k-N
aT
F_ !q• Lij
,
5.0
FR
...............
16MOTIrIfFIVIALMR rCUR T-7
2 FMT IMIVIVAX M111OUR f1jW It]- NIE.
K M
RAR PHOIT CM)WDA AW ormssi'ON JUMN 11,11,
1.111i.............
1*111 1410101SWATMOUTISE nASITOCOUTOURSIND
MMICIML IM)NDMY NORTH
At.ant4cy Pop 1*(jfTadPJ0VEaErAIIEX4 46 '.Alp
PARK HOLMOAFTY
L NO)ry
I
JONQUIL �� ,�-
D V�a)ir " ad' and Shia
2J3 g
FL ake Emo; it l' 5042 `4:
DEGIGNLEIj NK i _ CL P -777-
2-04-08 ugec@grn lco
t a �
4f
67 Ck
i
pporosEn
�22 x sp Paste %� f0i PARK BOI�DARY
6� /• 94'PARK HaNDARY SETBACK
__ P•��C,//. 88'?ARK BIXTDARY
77
sm
«..,� a ,� �//:rim/� •ii•'' �r �y �j// /iii/ �f ,i/ `.. � ... n �
AL�LR•s V! lT� I.� _� nJ- ^` �7'"'. .. . ,•. n _ne•*t"'^3-�__..,f.Ln;rin��in_ i_ "?_±
(NO : :I x 5o Poo_ wi � 12 oXNM FNMOACHNENT
LAKE ELI
LAKE. E-IT PARK RESERVE
- - r
# i y H1 . AN
._. OU VNA
ff
4^ JONQUIL T n A �
4.
t P D Vic it ' ` d'',and SNo Huge
" �F=R rl:z—�.; oke Elmo; P 042
CESIGNE �� NK , M. CLP
-???- '
2-0 -08 -: .. s,is gec@gr I.cor
.,
^� `q_ S' a�y'yvµi�irWNW+�� .AiwV4.r _�•'4C�s.•/y_� ,`� ••Y.1'f�.. �u . /'�` �
.2211
22x SO'POOL
�_, o• W PARK BOLWAPY BACK'•
r.•u
!• 94 PARK BWNDART
6
PPZe,,D TREES PR(P0.5PD ic26�
,wws iii
ALTERNATE, E-`
� X 501 POOL N�H 6I NAXINUN ENCRo,A Ciro �� �� F
P4 !
-- LAKE ELMO PARK RESERVE
- - A,�� i
*eUILDER 70 VEA Fes ` '����
HOUSE I
MA. LKERSON GILLILAND MARTIN LLP
1900 19.S. BANK PLAZA SoUTH TOWER
2.20 S-..OUTH SIXTH -STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA ;554-02
TELEP14ONE 612--344- 1 1 11
FA,LSIMILE 612-344-I414,
May22, 2009
Dean Johnston -Steve DeLapp
Mayor Coundhnember
City of Lake Elmo City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North 3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo,MN 55042-9629 Lake Elmo,MN 55042-9629
Liz.Johnson Nicole Park
Councilmember Councilmember
City of Lake Elmo City`ofLake Elmo
3.800 Laverne:Avenue North. 38.00 Laverne Avenue North
Lake.Elma,'MN 55042-9629 Lake Elmo,MN 55042-9629
Anne Smith
Councilmember
City ofLakc Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North.
Lake.Elmo,MN 55042-9629
RE_ Application for Permit and Variance by Dr. Vladimir and Dr. Silvia Hugec To Be
Heard on June 2,2009
Dear Mayor Johnston and.Councilmembers of the City of Lake Ehno:
I. EVrRODUCTION
This letter is offered on behalf of my clients Dr. Vladimir and Dr- Silvia Huger,
("Hugecs")who reside at 2931 Jonquil Trail North, Lake Elmo,Minnesota(the Property).
As you may recall, the Hugecs appeared before the Planning Commission on March 9,
2009. The application at that time included a proposal (Plan A) for an in-ground irregular
shaped pool, spa, pergola, and fireplace. As presented to the Planning Commission, Plan A
proposed using 30 feet of Hugecs' property that is located within the 100 foot buffer setback
from Lake Elmo Park Reserve. The Planning Coanmi:ssi.on voted to approve the Plan A proposal
by a vote of five in favor:,three opposed and one abstention subject to the conditions stated in the
minutes "that the pergola and the fireplace be placed to the side or outside the setback so as to
not further encroach on the setback."
{1Z7861_DOC)
Mayor and City Council
May 22,2009
Page 2
The Hugecs modified their application in response to the input from .the Planning
Commission to remove :the .pergola and fireplace (Alternate B), or-to move the pergola and
fireplace from 30 :feet within the setback to 20 feet within the setback, with additional tree
.plantings to:buffer the pergola and fireplace-from Lake Elmo Park Reserve (Alternate C).
The Hugecs later appeared Before the City Council on April 7, 2009, at which time a
motion to adopt"Resolution No. 2009-014:as amended, incorporating.Alternate C and variances
pertaining in Alternate C to allow construction of-the same irregular shaped pool, pergola,
fireplace and spa," failed on .a 2-33 emote. The City Council then voted 5-0 "to continue the
variance application :and extend the variance review, ;period for consideration to the June 2nd,
2009 City Council meeting!' and City-Council and staff recommendedthat the applicants work
with City Staff"during:the extended`review period to reconfigure the layout .of the pool, spa,
pergal .on this.property."
In response to.input from the City Council on April 7, 2009, the Hugecs have :again
modified the variance request as foIlow.s.
.Proposal .fox Alternate D which removes the pergola and fireplace from the
application, and proposes a 22 x.50=foot rectangularr iri-ground.pool with an.adjacent
spa located along the east side of:the pool. Alternate D proposal will not include
-structures of height within the setback, :only the in=ground.pool and spa_ The
encroachment into the 100 foot buffer setback'from Lake Elmo Park Reserve will be
limited to 8 feet for the in-ground pool and an additional 8 feet for the spa(a total of
16.feet'into the setback for the:spa),
In the alternative, if the Council does not find Alternate D above acceptable; the
Hugecs offer which removes the pergola, and fireplace from the application, -wd
proposes a 22.x 50400t rectangular in-ground pool with:an adjacent spa located.along
the width of the pool at the northerly end of the pool. Alternate E proposal will not
include structures .of height within the setback, only the in ground pool. The
encroachment into-the-100 foot buffer setback from Lake Elmo Park Reserve will be
limited only to 8 feet of the in-ground.-pool.
II. REASONS WHY THE HUGECS NEED A VARIANCE.
The reasons for a variance are the same.for Plan A,.Alternate B,Alternate C, Alternate D
and Alternate E.
The Hugecs are now only asking the City Council to grant the variance for Alternate D
(pool and spa), and failing that,to approve'the variance for Alternate'E(pool only).
The City Staff report to the City Council for the April 7,2009, Council meeting stated:
127861
Mayor and City Council
May 22, 2009
Page 3
The applicant has stated that the variance.is justified dueto the following:
a. They bought:the existing home with<the intention of building a pool in the back
yard for their children to practice for competitive swimming. The back yard was
chosen as the windo-ws at the back:of the home allow viewing the pool for safety
purposes.
b. They were not;aware of the 1.00 foot buffer-setback from the time they purchased
the home in 2007 to the time of the initial designs of the.pool,.-spa, pergola., and
fireplace in 2009.
U. Sixty feet of Outlot A .exists between their property and.the Lake Elmo Regional
Park Reserve and effectively serves.as :a preserved, undisturbed space. The land
slopes uphill approximately T:to 6' over a 60' distance to the park boundary.
d. The neighbor directly to the east was allowed to build their home and pool within
the .100 foot buffer setbacks from both the south and eastern borders of the
development. The,Property has a much smaller outlot between the,property and
the.Park Reserve.
e. The placement of the home to the east pushed the building of their home further
back on the lot to be in Fine with the-neighboring.property., thereby redducing the
amount of buildable area in their rear yard.
f. The neighbor directly to their west also has a pool.
g. The proposed pool would be completely obscured from view of the street -and
greatly obscured from many adjacent .properties with existing trees. Additional
trees that would further,reduce any visibility are being proposed in the new pool
landscape as well.
h. No other location on the Property is free from both restrictions and undesirable
conditions.that prohibit a pool. Due to the 30 feet between the house and setback
line, which given the shape of the floor plan of the house, the setbacks needed,
and the proper drainage needed from the house,the pool.and landscape would be
impossible.
Additional reasons that a variance is needed include:
i. Property value at 2391 Jonquil Trail has declined by almost 1 5% since the Hugecs
purchased the home in 2007. Enforcement of this setback also means that they are
restricted from adding any significant value back into their property with a new
swimming pool. This greatly restricts them from investing in their property and
results in a reduced tax base for the City,the County and the School District.
127961 3
Mayor and City Council
May 22,.2009
Page 4
j. Existing landscaping and mature trees and shrubs along the backside of the house
will meed to be destroyed.and removed to build a standard sized pool.
k. There would be insufficient space to-walk-and sit between-the pool and the house,
even after destroying the=trees and shrubs next to .the.house. This .would be.a
safety concern for young children if the pool is located-within only 6-8 feet from
the back.door-of the house.
1. Property values-might-otherwise decrease if the pool ds disproportionately close-to
the house or:forced to be poorly designed, in a way-such that future buyers will
find the pool.a detriment.to.thehouse.
m. The pool excavation would otherwise come dangerously close to the foundation
of the house, creating .an unnecessary and -avoidable risk of damage during
construction
n. Runoff.along the pool deck,:drainage along the foundation of the house, and water
discharged from local downspouts along the'back of the house will also cause
unnecessary risk-to the basement.level of the house.
a. The-prpperty at 2391 Jonquil Trail was purchased as a model home and located on
the:lot pursuant to.the conditions established'hythe builder. The house is-existing
and can not be remodeled or moved in order to provide a deeper backyard that
would allow, a reasonable size pool and spa to be compliant with the rear yard
setback.
.III. THE APPLICATION FOR THE VARIANCES. AS PREVIOULSY PRESENTED
(TO THE PLANNING-COIVMMISSION ON MARCH°9,2009,AS PLAN A,.AND TO
THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRI'L -7, 2009, AS :PLAN A, ALTERNATE B, -AND
ALTERNATE -Q AND AS NOW MODIFIED :IN ALTERNATE D AND
ALTERNATE E COMPLIES WITH THE.STATE AND-CITY STANDARD FOR
APPROVAL-OF THE VARIANCE.
At this time, the Hugecs are asking the City-Council to-approtie Alternate D, and if the
Council will not do so,then to approve Alternate E.
A. The City Has Ample Discretion. To Grant The Requested. Modified Variances for
Alternate D or Alternate E.
A state statute gives cities broad authority to grant variances from zoning requirements.
Minn. Stat. §462.357, subd. 6,provides-in relevant part that cities have the authority:
". . . to hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the .ordinance in
instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of
12786.1 4
Mayor and City Council
May 22, 2009
Page 5
circumstances unique to the individual property under.consideration, and to grant such
variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the.spirit
and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of
a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a.reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character_of the locality. Economic considerations
alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists
under the terms of the ordinance.., ."
The City of Lake Elmo must follow the above .statutory standards. The variance
provisions:in most city ordinances are identical to the:above mandatory provisions. The City:of
Lake Elmo's ordinance provisions relating to variances state as follows:
As outlined in.the City Staff report to the City Council, "Hardship" is broken down into
the following three components:
"a. The proposed .use of the property and associated structures in question cannot be
established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and no
other:reasonable alternative use exists;
b. The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land,
structure, or building involved and are-not applicable to other lands, structures, or
buildings in the same zoning district; and
C. The unique conditions of the site were:-not:caused or accepted:by the landowner
after the effective date of the city's zoning regulations."
As can be :seen from the above language, City's specific standards fora variance are
similar to the-state.standards,but also provide additional considerations. I do not believe'that-a
City :can legally adopt standards that .are different from the State standards adopted by the
Minnesota Legislature. When the Legislature has wanted to allow cities to adopt different and/or
more stringent standards, it has so stated. .For example, as to variances in a subdivision
ordinance,Minn. Stat. § 462.3.58,subd. 6, states:
"Variances. Subdivision regulations may provide for a procedure for varying the
regulations as they apply to specific properties where an unusual.hardship on-the
land exists, but variances mav-be.granted only upon the specific rounds set forth
in the rc- lations. Unusual hardship includes, but is not limited to, inadequate
access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems." (emphasis.added)
Moreover, municipalities have no authority to establish criteria for variance approval that
are inconsistent with or exceed the scope of the criteria established:by Minn. Stat. § 462.357,
127961 5
Mayor and City Council
May 22,2009
Page 6
subd. 6. Kismet Investors v. County of Benton, 617 N.W.2d 85, 90 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)
(Confirm). For this reason, I could lir-riit my analysis to the criteria set forth in Minn. Stat. §
462057 without a detailed discussion of the particular provisions of the �C.ity's Zoning
Ordinance.
Nevertheless, for purposes of this letter, I will assume that the City's ordinance is
enforceable in the case of the variances requested by the'Hugecs. As stated-previously, those
City standards in relevant part are as follows:
.As outlined in the City-Staff report to the City,Council, "Hardship" is broken down into
the f6ilowing.1hree.components:
"a. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question,cannot be
established.under-the conditions allowed by-the city's zoning regulations and no
other reasonable alternative use exists;
b. The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land,
stracture;'-or building.involved and are not:applicable to:other lands, structures, or
buildings in the same zoning district;and
C. The unique conditions of the site were not caused gar accepted by the landowner
after the:effective date of the city`s zorfing�regulations."
Minnesota cities have broad discretion to grant variances. ,S.apsitetter v, City of St. Paul,
529 N.W.2d 488, 490 (Minn. App. 1.995) (a court "will not invalidate a city's zoning variance
decision if-the city acted in good.faith and within the broad discretion accorded it by statutes and
ordinances'. -Minnesota courts rarely disturb the variance decisions of approval of:city councils.
Until the Rowell case was-decided in 1989, most city 1 attorneys, planners, planning commission
members and council members erroneously believed that it was very difficult under the statute
and, therefore, under the.-ordinances -adopted pursuant thereto to grant variances, except in the
most extreme cases, Such situations typically were, for example,when because of tbe.ravine on
a preexisting lot, a house could not hav,$.beeq,built unless a variance from a setback were
groted, etc. Also variances-were granted,twhen,' a setback variance were not granted as to,for
example,numerous lovely old trees would have to be removed.
However, many,attorneys andyplann fs`had always understood that the strict application
of phrases, such as "undue hardship "reasonable use", "circumstances unique to the property
not created by the landowner", etc. were not tests to be as strictly applied as was typically
happening in the municipalities througliout the State. In fact, many planners previously thought
(erroneously)the tests in the statute should be so strictly construed, that if a city,found that it was
granting variances, that-the city should amend its ordinance so that variances were not necessary
in the-future, That,however, is not required by State law and, in fact, as a review of recent case
127861 6
Mayor and City Council
May 22,200-9
Page 7
decisions will show, the Courts have found that the Legislature never,intended to so restrict the
flexibility of the.cities.
Quite frankly,in.this matter I believe the City Staff erroneously believedthat the City did
not have the flexibility to grant the:previously requested variances. 1n any :event, as outlined
above'the Hugecs have-substantially reduced the requested vanances.in response to input by the
Planning Commission:and<Council., so-I hope,that.the City Staff will acknowledge that the City
Council can legally-grant the variances if it chooses to do so.
B. STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF TIIE 100 FOOT SETBACK'WOULD CAUSE 'UNDUE
HARDSHIP UNDER TIIE S-rATUToRy TESTS BECAUSE Or,. CIRCUMSTANcris
UNIQuE To THE'.PRoPERTY.
Variances are.available where a zoning provision will cause undue hardship. Regarding
the:request fora variance to:°allow a-924bot setback to allow the pool,:and u.84 foot'setback.to
allow the.spa, instead of the'required l0.0-foot*b&fer setback, the City clear3y naay and. should
grantAhe requested variances. Three statutory factors:are considered iti evaluating whether there
is.undue.hardship. Other factors also must be addressed. Each of -factors applies In this
case and each is considered below.
1. The Property CannotBe Put To A Rgaggngble 11,%Without A Rear Yard Setback
Varta ces As nested for Alternate D or Alt=ate E
Based upon a 'Minnesota Court of Appeals decision, Rowell v. City .sf Moorhead, 446
N:W:2d 917 (Minn..App. 19.89)the Hugecs do not.need to show that there'is no other reasonable
use in order to meet the standards for a variance. The Court in.Rowell approved a setback
variance for the expansion:of a church. The Court-noted that where there is-no reasonable use of
property without a variance, the constitutional requirement .prohibiting takings of property
without:compensation:requires.the grant of the variance. .Row611, 446 N..W. 2d at 922: See also
Lucas Y South Carolina Coastal Council, 112S.Ct. 288:6, 2895 (1:992) (zoning requirement
constitutes-a taking if it denies :a landowner "all economically viable or beneficial use of the
property");-Wheelerv. -City-of Wa N ta, 511 N.W..2d. 3% 41-42 (Minn. App. 1994). That-was
not the situation.in Rowell.or present in this case. In Rowell the Court found that-in enacting the
statute authorizing cities to-grant,variances that the Minnesota Legislature intended to give-cities
greater discretion to-grant variances than they would have-in any event under the,provisions of
the Constitution addressing takings. Rowell 44-6 N.W.2d at 922. Thus, the Rowell :Court
concluded that the Legislature did :not intend to 7authorize variances only when there was no
reasonable use witlout a variance. Id. Instead, according to the Court, the statute authorizes
variances whenever-the property owner intended to use the property in a reasonable way,
"The statute is clearly intended to allow cities the flexibility-to grant variances incases
where the Constitution does not compel it. Thus, we. read the first part of the definition
lZT861 7
i
i
Mayor and City Council
May 22, 2009
Page 8
of".undue hardship" as requiring a.showing that the property owner would like to use the
property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance," Dowell, 446 N.W.
2d at 9.22.
The principles established in Dowell were-restated and affirmed in the case of Nolan v,
City of Eden prairie, 610 NX 2d 697 (Minn. App..200.0). In Nolan,the Court emphasized that
:statutory undue hardship"does not mean that the property owner must show that-the land cannot
be put to any reasonable use without the variance but that the focus should be on the
reasonableness of the-intended use."Id at-701.
Thus, the question in addressing the.first part of the .definition of-undue hardship is a
simple one: Is the Hugecs' request for a variance cif 8 :feet to allow a.standard size.poor and a
variance of 16 feet to allow a ospa as requested a reasonable one? The answer is "yes" for all.of
the reasons set forth in Section Il ofthis letter.
2. The Variance Is Needed Because Of Circumstances Unique To The.Property,
Which Were Not Created Ry The.Landowner.
Please see findings set forth in Section II above.
1
3. The:Requestel Va�'iance WiII Not Alter the Fssentia] Character of the LocaTit
There are numerous examples of pools being permitted as an •accessory structure and
numerous buildings, even houses, adjacent to and within the 100-foot setback in this
development and other Open Space Developments bordering the Lake Elmo Park Reserve (see
prior infoirnation.submitted by applicants).
Moreover, given the location-of the Hugees' home on one side of the pool, homes on
each side.of the pool, and the gradual incline up to the east, it will be difficult-if:not impossible
for anyone'not on the Hugecs' property to realize that the,pool has extended 8 feet and the spa 1.6
feet into the.100 foot.setback.
4. The Detwested Variance Is Fully Consistent With The Statute's Provisions.4n
Econotnic Considerations.
Minn. Stat. 4.62.357 provides that:
". Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue
hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the
ordinance." (emphasis added) . ...
127861 8
i
Mayor and City Council
May 22,.2009
Page-9
The requested variance is fully consistent with this,provision. First, the variance request
is not premised alone on economic considerations, though the strict enforcement .of this
setback does the create economic consideration that the Hugecs. are restricted .from
adding value back into their property with.anew swimming pool and spa, as the property
value has been dropping due to overall market conditions. Nor:are they in a position to
put their home on the market to sell so that they can relocate to a ,property where a
variance is not needed for a standard size swimming pool and spa.
As outlined in Section 11 above,there are.numerous non-economic-'actors to support this
variance request. The Hugecs purchased the property in a desirable new .development
with'the intention. f�being able to-build, (and spa) in the backyard for
their family and friends,,just.-a:s their neighbors to the east have done. They were.never
aware of a 100-foot setback from Lake Elmo Park Reserve.-that extends 40.feet onto their
property,leaving 24 feet along a staggered portion of the house-which is too small to
build a pool of any:reasonable shape or size. Any such pool-without a variance and thus
"shoe horned" into this location will destroy 'the existing landscape, create the unsafe
situation of a pool.d.to 8~feet:from a door an the house, impose the risk of damage to the
foundation,tf the house, and-create drainage issues with stormwater runoff:along the:back
of the house. The space between-the Hugecs' residence and the 100-foot setback:clearly
cannot be<put to reasonable use for a standard size swimming pool and spa without a
variance.
5. Issuance Of The Vahance.Is F 'lly Consistent With The S. irit And Intent Of The
Zo�zn�,:O�dinance ]{or The easons Discussed Herein.
1n.order.to determine the spirit and intent of the zoning:ordinance it,is important to'look
at sections.-of the zoning ordinance for the Use District-in which-the Hugecs' property is
located. The Property is located in the Farms of Lake Elmo Development, an. Open
Space Preservation Development.
Section 150.17.5 of the-City's:zoning ordinance states.:
"(A)The purpose of the Open -Space Preservation Development-is to maintain the
rural character of Lake Elmo by preserving the agricultural land, woodlands,
corridors, -and other -significant natural features while allowing residential
development consistent With the goals.and objectives of the city's Comprehensive
Plan. This type of development will allow an alternative to large lot, single-
family housing and will reduce the cost of.constructing and maintaining public
facilities-and infrastructure.
(B) Protected open space will enhance and preserve the.natural character of
the-community and create distinctive neighborhoods."
i
r2�abt 9
i
i
Mayor and City Council
May 22, 2009
Page 10
Nothing in the Hugecs' request for variances interferes or is inconsistent with the
purposes of the ordinance. Quite frankly, if the lots had been larger in size, -there.would
have been ample room to the rear for a pool :and spa without the need for a variance;
however,such larger lots would nothave,preserved the common open space as is the case
in this development. The resulting smaller'lots limit the area behind the homes for uses
commonly found with:homes of this size and quality.
C. CITY REQUIREMENTS
City Standard:
a. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in
question cannot be established under the conditions allowed by the
city's zoning regulations iand no other reasonable alternative use
exists;"
Response:
Alternate D and Alternate E meet this test for reasons outlined.in
Section 1.1 .of this letter. The most relevant reasons are that; the
Hugecs purchased the property .in .a desirable .new :development
with the intention of being able.to build an in-ground pool in the
backyard for their family and friends,just as-their neighbors to the
east have done so in response to the Park Reserve that extends 40
feet onto their .property and leaves 24 feet along a staggered
portion-of the house, which is too small to build a pool of any
reasonable shape or size; any such pool "shoe horned" into this
location will destroy the existing landscapes; it will .create the
unsafe condition to construct a pool 6 to 8 feet from the.house and
a patio door; it will impose the risk of-damage to the foundation of
the house during-construction; it will create.a drainage.con:cern of
stormwater runoff from the pool deck and from the rain gutters on
the house; the space between the Hugecs' residence and the 100-
foot setback can not be put to reasonable use for a swimming pool.
City Standard'
"b, The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions
unique to the land, structure, or building involved and are not
applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same
zoning district; and"
Response:
12,7861 10
Mayor and City Council
May 22, 2009
Page 11
Alternates D and E satisfy.this test for reasons outlined in .Section
11 .of this letter. The most relevant reasons are that the Farms of
Lake Elmo Development was approved with the design of
development as it exists today; the property:at 2391 Jonquil Trail
was purchased as a model home,placed on the'lot in the conditions
established by the builder; the location of the :homes on the
adjacent properties, especially with the location of the home on the
southeast corner lot, caused the builder to align the home in a
unique way.-where 2/3 of the back yard is deemed unbuildable for a
swimming pool in the back yard., while"both neighbors have been
allowed to have swimming pools;the home is existing and can not
be remodeled'or moved-in order to be compliant-with the code.
City Standard:
"c. The unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by
the landowner after the effective date of the c Ns zoning
regulations."
es onset
Alternate D and Alternate E meet this test. for reasons outlined in
Section III of this Letter.. As-to the prior Plan A which involved
more intrusion.into the 100'foot setback, the City Planner opined
that:
"The applicants bought-the property after-the.existing home, deck,
and screen porch was built in the-summer of 2006. The home was
built further back on the lot to 'be more in line with the home
directly to the east, which was built in the rear yard of the property.
Therefore., :staff finds this cr..iteTia:is met." 1 agree. Alternates D
and E are less intrusive so-we assume City Staff will attain agree
this standard is met.
' D. THE MURE RECENT SSA"GSTETTER Am N.oLAN DEasIoNs 'FULLY SUPPORTS
THE GRANnNG-OF THE VARIAN-CE:FOR ALTFRNATIVE:D OR ALTERNAATIVE E.
The Court's statements in Rowell were endorsed again and expanded upon in the 1995
Sagstetter decision and affinn:ed in the 2000 Nolan decision cited previously. A thorough review
of the regarding eases is very instructive and supports granting the -variance :application for
Alternative D or Alternative E. In S�ettej:
.1. The City owned a parcel of land with nine softballs fields, which certainly
was an-existing reasonable use of the parcel.
127861 1 1
Mayor and City Council
May 2.2, 2009
Page 12
2. The City wanted, however, to-build a dome over-a softball field, which
Would be 90-feet nigh.at the peak. The ordinance-allowed for only 30 feet
without a variance. The :City also needed a 20-foot :side yard setback
vat-lance.
3. The parcel was immediately surrounded by residential development. The
proposed dome w.as only 49 feet :from the :garages of an apartment
building. The adjacent property owners objected and introduced
uncontroverted.expert.testimony that a 90-foot'high dome would.adversely
affect their property valu-es. (There is no .evidence to suggest that your
construction of Alternative D or Alternative E will adversely affect
property values.)
4. The Board of .Zoning Appeals approved the variances. The Council
denied the variances based on .the testimony. The Council, at a 'later
meeting, reversed itself and approved the variances even 'though no
additional testimony had been provided. The District Court upheld the
grant of the variances.
In affirming-the grant of the-variances,the Minnesota Court ofAppeals:showed again
that the variance tests,sbould not be narrowly applied to limit flexibility.
As-to"Reasonable Use,"..the:Court stated:
Appellants construe the statute :and Ordinances sections, which
state that the property `cannot be put to a reasonable use" under
.the strict:provisions of the code, to mean that if the property can be
put to any reasonable use, then granting avarianee.is unreasonable.
This Court has previously construed.this language to mean that the
landowner would :like to put the land to a reasonable use, but that
the proposed reasonable use is prohibited under the strict
provisions of the code.
Here, the city wants to put the land to a reasonable.use: placing a
dome over the field to enable year-round use. The design of the
entire park results from -the city's desire to ameliorate local
problems by adding parking spaces, concession facilities, and
public restrooms. These are reasonable responses to valid
concerns. Id.
As to"Unique Circumstances,"the Court stated at 492:
127861 12
I
Mayor and City Council
May 22, 2009
Page 13
Evidence was presented :that soil conditions and .a sewer main
prohibited excavation that would Allow.the:field to-comply wit the
30-foot height limitation in .the ordinance. The .plan alleviated
parking problems, and if a different design were used, the plan
would:not provide as many parking spaces. The evidence.supports
the city council's :determination that unique -conditions justify a
vanance:in this situation.
(There was no evidence-that the dome could not.have been-erected<over•one of the other fields.)
As to"Spirit and-Intent of the Zoning-Code,".the Court stated:
Appellants argue the neighborhood,petitions show that the domed
field is.not in keeping with the spirit-of the code:or consistent with
health,safety, comfort,-morals.and welfare of the inhabitants ofthe
City of St. Paul. The dome would allow local residents to take part
in year-round activities such as playing_softball on lighted fields,
and a.golf driving range. These factors show the city councils'
determination,was reasonable.
As to "Increase of Value or income Potential,"the Court stated.:
Although increased revenues :likely played a role in the city
council"s decision, it also considered other factors :supporting the
decisions, The plan responds to several valid concerns. 'We
conclude the city council's decision was:reasonable.
Id. at 49243
Based upon the above analysis of the facts. and law, it is clear that-the City would be
acting well within the requirements of Minnesota Statutes and case law to grant the variance
requested to allow the pool:quad spa as:shown:in Alternate:D or Alternate E:(pool only).
IV. THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK :FOR
ALTERNATED OR ALTERNATE.E WOULD NOT CREATE A, PRECEDENT
THAT`'WOULD"LIMIT-THE-CITY'S DESCRETION IN THE FUTURE.
Municipalities sometimes believe -that the granting of a variance, interim use permit,
conditional use permit or amending the zoning ordinance will set some sort of adverse-precedent
that will.force the municipality to grant some future variance, interim use permit, conditional use
permit or requested zoning ordinance amendment for some other-party. Minnesota courts have
127861 1.3
Mayor and City Council
May 22,2.009
Page 14
concluded that land use decisions do not create>a precedent that a municipality is compelled to
follow when considering subsequent applications for a variance because every -application
involves facts, circumstances and time periods different:from prior situations where variances
may have been :granted. For example, in Stotts v. Wright County, 478 N.W. 2d 802 (Minn.
App. 1991), the Minnesota Court of Appeals refused to consider a property owner's argument
that a county zoning board was required to grant him a setback variance because the zoning
board.had granted his neighbor a.similar setback variance. Id. at 806, citing In re,Johnson, 404
N.W.2d:298, 301 (Minn. Ct..App. 1987,).,rev'd:on.other-grounds 562 N.W.2d 21 (Minn.-Ct. App.
1997). It:is worthwhile to note that both the'Stotts and In.re Johnson:eases cited above-arose
from local government:decisions related to zoning variances. -For the above reasons, the-City
should also have no reason to fear that the approving Hugecs' request as outlined above will
create a precedent that wi.11 1iniit the City's di:scretion<to act on.future-land use applications from
other property owners in-the City.
V. KNOWLED+GE:OF EXISTENCE OF THE SETB.r+,CK,ORIIINANCE
Finally; it should be noted that the fact that the City's requirements in the zoning
.ordinance regarding-the 200 foot rear yard setback.as previously modified by the Council to`be
100 feet could have been .ascertained prior to acquisition of'the property 'by the Hugecs 'is
irrelevant in determining if a:variance should be granted to the Hugecs. In Myron v. -City of
Plymouth,.562 NW2d.21.,.23 (Minn, App. 1.997), the Court stated:
"One of those prerequisites is that-the need for the variance not.be "created by the
landowner.." If that includes mere ;purchase with .knowledge, a municipality
would, in effect, be prohibited from granting a variance to every subsequent
owner who purchased with knowledge that a variance would be required for
development. This blanket.bar to granting variances is not in accordance with the
legislature's general intent to ,give municipalities broad discretion in the land
development area."
Thus, the fact that the 100 foot rear yard setback restriction may have been in place at the time
the Hugecs purchased their home in.2007 is irrelevant. Moreover, in any event, my clients did
not know of the 200 or 100 rear yard setback when they:purchased their.home and based upon
development patterns in the neighborhood, they had good reasons to believe they could build a
pool and spa in the backyard as they later proposed to the City.
VI. CONCLUSION
For Alternate D or Alternate E, the City of Lake Elmo has ample authority to grant the
variances as requested for the rear yard setback if the City Council wants to do so. This is a de
minimis request with no potential for adverse or visual impacts by others. Moreover, the City
should grant the variances for the legal and factual reasons set forth above. My clients believe
127861 14
O'
Mayor and City Council
May 22, 2009
Page 15
they have addressed the concerns previously expressed by the City Council. In order to obtain
approval, they are willing to consent to virtually any conditions as to additional screening, etc.,
that.the Council may.decide to impose. Instead of possibly voting"No" as to the variances, nay
clients respectfully request that the Council approve the variances for Alternative D., or failing
that to approve,Alternative E, with any conditions necessary in order to obtain a majority vote to
approve the variances.
If you have any questions please call the undersigned at 612/51 8-6075 or Dr. Vladimir
Hugec at 6.12/581-7167 or Dr. Silvia Huger at 651/777-3333. The Hugecs have caused a
surveyor to locate their rear lot line and their landscaping contractor has outlined on the ground
the 100 foot setback line and the perimeter of the proposed pool and spa. Please inspect the
property with or without prior notice to the Hugecs.
I apologize for the length of this letter, but by:setting forth the facts and law hopefully
there will be less time needed at the Council meeting to discuss this matter.
Very;truly yours,
Bruce D. Malkerson
cc: Craig Dawson, Interim City,Administrator
Kelli Matzek, City Planner
David Snyder, City Attorney
Dr. Vladimir Hugec
Dr. Silvia Hugec
David Sonka, Landscape Designer for the.Hugecs
127861 15
725 TOWER DR.• P.O. BOX 145 , HAMEL,MN 55340
(763)478-9567 - FAX (763)478-6910
UWALL POOL & SPA randaltpools@aol.com
5-26-2009
To whom it may concern,
Vladimir and Silvia Hugec are pursuing having a swimming pool installed in their backyard. They would like it to be a
diving pool. In order for the pool to conform to the latest industry safety standards, the pools deep end needs to be 8.5
feet deep and the distance from the back wall to the 5 foot mark (water depth) should be no less than 28'. This would
leave a shallow swimming area of 22'. The shallow area would also have steps leading into pool down to 4' depth (thus
taking up more room). It is not unusual for a diving pool to be 50' long for safety and swim ability.
The customer would like the pool to be useable for three lanes of lap swimming, and is also considering having a water
park quality slide installed. The minimum width for safety is 22' from the end of the slide. This is the reason for a pool to
be of at least 22' of width.
In my twenty-five years experience of building pools in Minnesota, the size of pool that the Hugecs are pursuing
is very typical for the use they hope to gain from it. Both of the neighbors on each side have pools of almost identical
size. This is a common sized pool.
Regards,
Mike Randall
President
Randali Pool & Spa
RECEIVED
MAY 7 2ao9
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASIUNGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-022
A RESOL UTION APPRO VING VARIANCES FROM THE 100 FOOT BUFFER SETBACK
REQUIRED FROM THE EDGE OFAN OPEN SPACE PRESERVATIONDISTRICT TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OFANIN-GROUND POOL AND SPA AT 2931 JONQUIL
TRAIL NORTH.
WHEREAS,the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Vladimir and Silvia Hugec, 2931 Jonquil Trail North (the"Applicants"),
have submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the"City") for a twelve foot variance
from the 100 foot buffer setback from the edge of an Open Space Preservation development at
2931 Jonquil Trail North to allow the construction of an in-ground pool and spa, a copy of which
is on file with the City; and
WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo
Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter
on March 9, 2009; and
WHEREAS,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its recommendation to
the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated March 17, 2009; and
WHEREAS,the City Council discussed the application on March 17t' and reconsidered
said matter at its June 2, 2009 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE,based on the testimony elicited and information received, the
Board of Adjustment makes the following:
FINDINGS
1) That the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning
Ordinance, Section 154.017.
2) That all the submission requirements of said 154.017 have been met by the Applicant,
3) That the proposed setback variance of twelve feet is to allow the construction of an in-
ground pool and spa at 2931 Jonquil Trail North.
4) That the Variance will be located on property legally described as Lot 12, Block 1,Farms
of Lake Elmo,Washington Co., Minnesota.
S) The proposed structures would be in keeping with the neighborhood as the two adjacent
properties currently have in-ground swimming pools and other accessory structures in
their rear yards.
6) The home directly to the cast currently encroaches further into the 100 foot buffer setback
than the applicant is proposing. The home and pool are closer to the Lake Elmo Park
Reserve than the applicant is proposing to place the structures.
7) The rear yard of the property abuts Outlot A which is restricted by a conservation
easement and intended to be utilized.for open space. The Lake Elmo Regional Park
Reserve is located directly to the south of Outlot A.
8) Existing and proposed vegetation, the slope of the rear yard, and the location of the
proposed structures in the rear yard reduce, or in some cases, eliminate the visual impact
to others.
9) Outlot A serves as a sixty-foot open space buffer and undisturbed area between the
Hugec's property and the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve which.meets the intent of the
buffer setback outlined in the Open Space Preservation development regulations.
10)The proposed in-ground swimming pool and spa cannot be established under the
conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and no other reasonable alternative
use exists. The applicant's bought the existing home in its existing location with the
intention of building a swimming pool in the rear yard. The applicable setback
requirements outlined in the Open Space Preservation regulations and swimming pool
requirements leave little area in the rear yard of the property to be built upon.
11)The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land and are
not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district. The
existing home was built further back on the lot to be in line with the permitted non-
conforming home to the east thereby reducing the amount of buildable area in the rear
yard of the property. Although the lot abuts Outlot A which functions as preserved open
space within the development, approximately forty feet of the buffer setback encroaches
on the rear yard of the applicant's property. The forty foot encroachment is an
unbuildable area.
12)The variance will not change the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed
pool and spa are similar to the structures in the neighbor's yards. Approval of the
variance would not change the character of the neighborhood.
i
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A revised landscape plan approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a
building permit.
2. Outlot A must not be used for material storage, vehicle travel, or other activities that
would be in violation of the conservation easement during the construction process.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the foregoing, the Applicants' application for a Variance is approved.
Passed and duly adopted this 2nd day of June 2009 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo,
Minnesota.
Dean A. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
CITY OF LADE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-022
A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES FROM THE 100 FOOT B UFFER SETBACK
REQUIRED FROM THE EDGE OF AN OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION DISTRICT TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANIN-GROUND POOL AND SPA AT 2931 JONQUIL
TRAIL NORTH.
WHEREAS,the City of Lake Ehno is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS,Vladimir and Silvia Hugec, 2931 Jonquil Trail North (the"Applicants"),
have submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City")for a twelve foot variance
from the 100 foot buffer setback from the edge of Open Space Preservation developments at
2931 Jonquil Trail North to allow the construction of an in-ground pool and spa, a copy of which
is on file with the City; and
WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo
Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017; and
WHEREAS,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter
on March 9, 2009; and
WHEREAS,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its recommendation to
the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated March 17, 2009; and
WHEREAS,the City Council discussed the application on March 17th and reconsidered
said matter at its June 2,2009 meeting.
NOW,THEREFORE,based on the testimony elicited and infonnation received, the
Board of Adjustment makes the following:
FINDINGS
1) That the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning
Ordinance, Section 154.017.
2) That all the submission requirements of said 154.017 have been met by the Applicant.
3) That the proposed setback variance of twelve feet is to allow the construction of an in-
ground pool and spa at 2931 Jonquil Trail North.
4) That the Variance will be located on property legally described as Lot 12,Block 1,Farms
of Lake Elmo,Washington Co., Minnesota.
5) The proposed in-ground swimming pool and spa can be established under the conditions
allowed by the city's zoning regulations and reasonable alternatives exist. The applicant
has reasonable use of the property as it is currently used far residential purposes. Given
the setback and location requirements set forth in the Open Space Preservation
development and swimming pool regulations, there remains area available for a building
or structure, though not in the size or configuration proposed by the applicant.
6) The plight of the landowner is not due to the physical conditions unique to the land and
are applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district. Thirteen
lots within the Farms of Lake Elmo development are subject to the 100 foot buffer
setback, Ten lots within the same development have a shorter distance between the edge
of the development (from which the setback applies) to their front property line.
Therefore these ten properties have the 100 foot setback affect more of their rear yard
than the applicant's property.
7) The variance will not change the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed
pool and spa are similar to the structures in the neighbor's yards. Approval of the
variance would not change the character of the neighborhood.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the foregoing,the Applicants' application for a Variance is denied.
Passed and duly adopted this 2"a day of June 2009 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo,
Minnesota.
Dean A. Johnston,Mayor
ATTEST:
Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
i
I
: City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
Variance Review
To: City Council
From: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
Adeeting'Date: 3-17-09
Applicant: Vladimir and Silvia Hugee
Location: 2931 Jonquil Trail North
Current Zoning: A—Agricultural(Open Space Preservation Development)
Introduclotry Information
Request. The applicant is seeking approval of a variance from the required 100 foot buffer
setback from the edge of the Open Space Preservation development to allow the
construction of a pergola, pool, fireplace and spa at 2931 Jonquil Trail North.
Specifically,the pergola and fireplace would be located 31 feet within the setback, the
spa would be 12 feet, and the in-ground pool would be 6 feet.
Background: Farms of Lake Elmo Development
The applicant's property is Lot 12,Block 1 within the Farms of Lake Elmo development
which was approved on October 18, 2005 as an Open Space Preservation (OP)
development. OP developments are allowed by code as a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) in the Agricultural,Rural Residential, and Residential Estate zoning districts.
Application
The applicants have provided a description of their request for a variance as a part of the
application materials submitted to the City. The existing house, garage, and screen
porch at 2931 Jonquil Trail North was built in 2006 with an approved building permit
from the city.
Outlot A Adjacent to the Rear Yard of the Property
The property at 2931 Jonquil Trail North has a rear yard that abuts Outlot A of the
development which is restricted by a Conservation Easement. The easement is co-held
by the City of Lake Elmo and the Minnesota Land Trust. In that area, Outlot A is
approximately sixty feet wide and serves as a contiguous open space buffer to the Lake
Elmo Regional Park Reserve.
Applicable § 150.175 PURPOSE.
Codes:
(A) The purpose of open space preservation (OP) is to maintain the rural character
Variancefletiiew; IlNgec; Page 2
Clty Courtc°il Report; 3--.1 09
(tong) of Lake Elmo by preserving agricultural land, woodlands, corridors, and other
significant natural features while allowing residential development consistent with the
goals and-objectives of the city`s Comprehensive Plan. This type of development will
allow an alternative to large lot, single-family housing and will reduce the cost of
constructing and maintaining public facilities and infrastructure.
(B Protected open space will enhance and preserve the natural character of the
community and create distinct neighborhoods.
§150.180 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(B) (1) Land area. Applications for a residential development in the OP District
shall meet all the following criteria.
(c) Dwelling units shall be grouped so that at least 50% of the buildable land
area of the proposed development remains preserved open space. The preserved open
space shall consist of agricultural lands, natural habitat, pedestrian corridors, or
neighborhood or community recreational areas.
(2) Open space easement required.
(a) Preserved open space standards.
1. All preserved open space shall be subject to a conservation easement
and used for the purposes as defined by §§ 150.175 et seq. ....
(d) Buffer zones. Where a proposed OP development abuts an existing
residential development or a parcel of land not eligible for future development under the
OP ordinance due to insufficient parcel area, a 200 foot setback shall be provided
between the property line of the abutting parcel and any structure or driving surface
within the OP development. Driving surfaces that cross the setback area at a 90 degree
angle shall be the only exception. Where a proposed OP development abuts an existing
OP development, or a land parcel eligible for future development under the OP
ordinance, a 100 foot setback from any structure within the proposed OP development
and the property line of the abutting parcel may be substituted. The setback substitution
shall only be approved when there is existing mature vegetation and/or changes in
topography occurring on the site proposed for development; and/or where the OP site
developer introduces the physical features that provide an effective year round buffer of
the structures proposed for the OP site from existing residences or development. The
determination of the buffering effectiveness of existing or introduced physical features
that qualify a site for a 100 foot buffer shall be at the sole discretion of the City Council.
(h) Minimum district requirements. The requirement states that a side yard setback
for a single-family home is 15 feet or 10% of lot width, whichever is greater.
1:/�rrul i%ses l'ari�rrrces`:2S'31 Jonquil TrI N. I-huv??Rep('C, Nugeec root, slur,perrgola fir'eplar.e Marlarrce 3-17"09.clot.
i irrlrurc a preview, Huge(! Page 3
Cty C."ounedReport; 3-1-09
(coat.) §151.085 SWIMMING POOLS; GENERALLY.
(C)Application for permit,
(3) Pools shall not be located within 20 feet of any septic tank/drainfield nor
within 6 feet of any principal structure or frost footing. Pools shall not be located within
any required front or side yard setbacks.
(K)Location,
All Swimming pools or appurtenances to swimming pools shall be located in the
rear yard and meet the setback requirements of the district in which it is located....
Find_ in s & General Site Overview
Site Data: Existing Zoning—A(Agricultural); OP use with a CUP
Land Use Guidance--RAD—0.45 DU/Acre(Rural Agricultural Density)
Parcel size---0.94 acres
Property Identification Number (PID): 22-029-21-21-0024
Application Review:
Applicable §11.01 DEFINITIONS
Code
Definitions: ACCESSORYSTRUCTURE. A use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature
customarily incidental and subordinate to,the principal use or structure.
BUILDING SETBACKLINE. A line within a lot parallel to a public right-of way line,
a side or rear lot line, a bluff line, or a high water mark or line,behind which buildings
or structures must be placed.
BUILDING Any structure, either temporary or permanent, having a roof and used or
built for the shelter or enclosure of any person, animal, or movable property of any
kind, When any portion of a building is completely separated from every other part of a
building by area separation, each portion of the building shall be deemed as a separate
building.
HARDSHIP. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question
cannot be established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and
no other reasonable alternative use exists; that the plight of the landowner is due to the
physical conditions unique to the land, structure, or building involved and are not
applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district; and that
these unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner after
the effective date of the city's zoning regulations,
SETBACK The minimum horizontal distance between a structure, sewage treatment
system, or other facility and an ordinary high water level, sewage treatment system,top
5:'sLrrPtd:t:%se t�yriances=2�,�/donquil TWA!, lhigt%!Iq p C"(: Hutve;pool., sra perg-Na.Trepl"we I'41•4ance 3-17-09.clac
f�zrir�rtcc;:lr,v/crrv; ltrtre�c Page 4
("ity (",'nail Re pore; .347-09
(cont.) of a bluff, road, highway, property line, or other facility. Distances are to be measured
perpendicularly from the property line to the most outwardly extended portion of the
structure at ground level.
STRUCTURE. Anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground
or on-site utilities, including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached
garages, cabins, manufactured homes, signs, and other similar items,
SWIMMING POOL, PRIVATE OR RESIDENTIAL. Any pool which is used,or
intended to be used, as a swimming pool in connection with a single-family residence,
and which is available only to the family of the household and private guests.
USE,ACCESSORY. A use subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure on
the same lot and customarily incidental to the principal use.
VARL4NCE. A modification of a specific permitted development standard required to
allow an alternative development standard not stated as acceptable in the official control,
but only as applied to a particular property for the purpose of alleviating a hardship as
defined in the zoning code, Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a
hardship,
Variance The applicants are proposing to build an in-ground pool, spa, pergola, and fireplace
Review. within the required 100 foot buffet setback from the edge of the development.
Farms of Lake Elmo Development Review History
The city staff report for the Farms of Lake Elmo development identified early on in the
development review process that the lots in the west, east, and south side of the
proposed development would not be buildable with the 200 foot buffer setback required
from the edge of the development.
In the March 28, 2005 staff report, the planner noted:
"It appears that several of the proposed lots along the east and south
peripheries of the Concept would also fail to meet the 200 foot buffer
requirements once house pads are identified. In both cases the lots
will back onto the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve. In a recent
similar situation lots of the Tapestry OP backed onto the City's
Sunfish Park. In that case staff found that the Intents and Purposes of
the OP ordinance would be complied with without a buffer to a major
natural park environment,"
The City Council approved a 4/5 waiver of the requirement(as outlined in the city
code), The City Council minutes from April 5, 2005:
"M/SP Conlin/.Johnson—to waive the 200 foot buffer requirement and
require the 100 foot buffering setback standards to the west, south and
east based on the findings of the size of lots, adjoins the majority of the
Regional Park, trees are planted on the top and the elevation difference.
S:'Grrnrl L4(?Varirara vs.+:229.'.l.knquil T'4A,; tlu€v(>c cq-)(:C Hwle>c;cool, spa, re)golcr.fireplace Variarrue 34
Variunce,Review fhlgev Page 5
C'tl�.'C:owrivi1 Report, 3-17-09 g
(cont,) (Motion passed 4-0," [Sic]
Therefore,the City Council reduced the setback from the edge of the Farms of Lake
Elora development and Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve border from 200 feet to 100
feet.
Purpose of'the 100 foot buffer setback
In reading through section 150,180 B 2 D regarding buffer zones in OP developments,
the implied intent of the buffer area is to provide a physical and visual buffer of
structures from existing residences of development.
This property and others on the southeast side of the development abut an open space
outlot and the regional park,which will not be used for residences or development now
or in the future. However, as mentioned previously, the City Council was made aware
of this situation and made the decision at that time to require a 100 foot buffer setback.
Other homes in the Farms Neighborhood
Of the twelve properties in the neighborhood currently with homes,two were built
within the buffer setback, Five properties subject to the same 100 foot buffer setback
were built on and currently meet that requirement. The remaining five homes were built
on lots that were outside 100 feet(or 200 feet from the north) of the development
borders.
Vacant Lots to be Affected in the Future
Staff has identified an additional rune lots in this development that are impacted to any
degree by the 100 foot buffer setbacks from the west, south, or east edge of the
development or by the 200 foot buffer setback from the north edge of the development.
Although staff has not conducted a full analysis at the time of this report, it is possible
that some of those lots may have limited building area which may result in future
variance requests.
Additional Information
Outlot A as mentioned before is restricted by a conservation easement co-held by the
Minnesota Land Trust and the City of Lake Elmo. Within the easement document, it
outlines as one of the Conservation Values that "The Protected Property provides
continuity with nearby Lake Elmo Regional Park Preserve, which preserves wildlife
habitat within the wetlands and open space in this region of rapidly developing
residential communities." The applicant is not proposing to add any improvements
within the outlot,nor are they proposing any improvements within 9 feet of the outlot.
However, it is important to establish that the rear yard abuts the outlot and the intent of
the MN Land Trust's easement on'the outlot.
:iC crnr�.t.;'se,�i%r7r^iunens`29 i1 J6ucladl7''r N; llugt�cIRep CC,-l-lugec;pool, spcl,per^goh flreplaee 1'rariance 3•4 i'...(19Aw
f'rzP rldccr t�N,L'CC?IAF; '�7h>d(' Page 6
(:r'ly(,'ouncil Report; .3.1"-)9
(cone,) Application Submittal
The applicant has stated that the variance is justified due to the following;
➢ They bought the existing home with the intention of building a pool in the back
yard for their children to practice for competitive swimming. The back yard was
chosen as the windows at the back of the home allow viewing the pool for safety
purposes.
➢ They were not aware of the 100 foot buffer setback at the time of the initial
design of the pool, spa, pergola, and fire pit.
➢ Sixty feet of Qutlot A exists between their property and the Lake Elmo Regional
Park Reserve and effectively serves as a preserved, undisturbed space. The land
slopes uphill approximately 2' to 6' over a 60' distance to the park boundary.
➢ The neighbor directly to the east was allowed to build their home and pool within
the 100 foot buffer setbacks from both the south and eastern borders of the
development. This property has a much smaller outlot between the property and
the Park Reserve.
➢ The placement of the home to the east pushed the building of their home further
back on the lot to be in line with that home, thereby reducing the amount of
buildable area in their rear yard.
➢ The neighbor directly to their west also has a pool.
➢ The proposed pool would be completely obscured from view of the street and
greatly obscured from many adjacent properties with existing trees. Additional
trees that would further reduce any visibility are being proposed in the new pool
landscape as well.
➢ No other location on the property is free from both restrictions and undesirable
conditions that prohibit a pool. The 30 feet between the house and setback line,
which given the shape of the floor plan of the house, the setbacks needed, and
the proper drainage needed from the house, the pool and landscape would be
impossible.
Criteria Review
A review of the City's variance criteria follows, focusing on the information submitted
by the applicants. By code, a variance can only be granted where the city finds the
request can successfully address all three criteria as outlined below for the proposed
structures.
1. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question cannot be
established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and no
other reasonable alternative use exists,
The property is currently used for residential purposes by the Hugec family;
therefore the applicants are allowed a reasonable use of the property.
5:`,I rrrZrl£'sc':T xr^iarrc s`2931,hrigrall7'r1 N 1121u>ciRep(C;HiTyc-pool,spa,per,(olty.lirr.:pluce i`ariaarcF3 1;''-U.4.tltrt'
Varid new Review; Hut ee Page 7
City Council Report, .3-1 7-o
(Cont.) The design and location of the proposed pool, spa, fireplace and pergola was
established by a professional landscaper. At the time of his design, the contractor
was not made aware of the 100 foot setback from the edge of the OP development.
However, although the proposed pool, spa,fireplace and pergola are unable to be
built in a conforming location on the lot in its current configuration, there is a small
conforming location in which at least the in-ground pool could potentially be
constructed. The city's pool ordinance calls for a six foot setback from a building or
frost footing. The result is approximately 24 feet between the existing home and the
100 foot setback line. Without consideration to aesthetics and pending conformance
with other requirements (impervious surface,building/structure separation, grading,
etc.),and if revisions,to the size, design and location were redesigned, a pool, spa,
fireplace and pergola may be placed in a conforming location on the site. It should
be noted that an alternate site plan was not designed by staff and this alternative
located is based on the knowledge that a typical rectangular in-ground pool is often
20 feet by 40 feet in size.
The property is currently allowed a reasonable use and other locations on the site
could be an option so this criteria is not met.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land,
structure, or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or
buildings in the same zoning district;
The applicants' property is not unique. Ten other properties within the Farms of
Lake Elmo development have a shorter distance between the edge of the
development(from which the setback applies)to their front property line. Therefore
these ten properties have the 100 foot setback affect more of their rear yard than the
applicant's property. All ten properties are similar in shape to the applicant's
property and all ten are smaller in lot size, providing additional challenges,
Three of these ten properties are built on, one of which currently has a structure that
encroaches into this 100 foot buffer setback. [An additional property adjacent to the
Hugec's was also built within the buffer setback, but was not included in this
calculation due to the lot's size and shape.] However, although the setback was not
enforced on previous properties in this development and most likely other
developments,this is not considered a hardship as defined in the city code. City staff
must enforce the city code requirements as they exist.
Twelve lots in the development are not impacted to any degree by a buffer setback.
As mentioned on page 4,this development was reviewed in a similar manner to the
Tapestiy at Charlotte's Grove OP development which abuts a City Park. The 200
foot buffer setback was reduced by the City Council to 100 feet to aelmowledge the
adjacent preserved open space:
Recent applications made by other property owners in the OP developments have
been required to comply with this regulation.
1:',1..arnd`t>'se i�arF.rruc,s� .31.i 3,�r�►�r 7W N. llugevlRep CC;lhgec;.pool, •spry.prrigola.,n'J."lave Mariance 3.-P?-09.dlac
Variwice,:Review; Hugec Page 8
Oly Council Report; .3-1'-09
(cont) Therefore,this criteria is not met.
3. The unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner after
the effective date of the city's zoning regulations.
The applicants bought the property after the existing home, deck, and screen porch
was built in the summer of 2006. The home was built further back on the lot to be
more in line with the home directly to the east, which was built in the 100 foot buffer
setback. This reduced the area available for a structure to be built in the rear yard of
the property.
Therefore, staff finds this criteria is met.
Variance Based on our analysis of the review criteria in City Code and because all three criteria
Conclusions: are not met, staff recommends denial of the variance requests for 2931 Jonquil Trail
North.
Resident The city has received no objection of the proposal by any neighbor within the Farms of
Concerns: Lake Elmo. The applicant submitted as part of their application a letter signed by three
neighbors in support of their application.
Additional ■ The Department of Natural Resources and the Valley Branch Watershed District did
lri fornration: not provide any comments on the application.
■ The Minnesota Land Trust has reviewed the application and has no specific
comments or concerns with the variance being requested. Staff has added as a
condition of approval,per the Land Trust's written submittal,that the easement area
must not be used for material storage, vehicle travel, or other activities that would be
in violation of the conservation easement during the construction process.
■ The Washington County Parks manager submitted a written statement with concern
regarding the intensity of the proposed uses and the potential visual impact of the
pergola and outdoor fire place structure as viewed from the Lake Elmo Park ResQrvc
boundary. They suggest placing the pergola and fireplace structure outside the
required setbacks to minimize the visual impact from the park. Additional screening
with fencing,berms and coniferous trees may also lessen the visual impact of the
pool facility.
■ The City Engineer has submitted a review with comments regarding the application.
The items outlined can be addressed at the building permit stage if the variance is
approved and is thus not added as a condition of approval.
S;',1.anc1 C='.rc l rarivncex`1 31./u�tt}uii frl N Hugec;pool,spa,pergotp.frexriurE i'crriuucn,34 7(nl,clnc
!irirarace Review,; Hjip>c Page 9
City C:ourned Report; .i-.1;-09
Conc'l union
The applicant is seeking approval of a variance from the required 100 foot buffer
setback from the edge of the Open Space Preservation development to allow the
construction of a pergola,pool, fireplace and spa at 2931 Jonquil Trail North.
Specifically, the pergola and fireplace would be located 31 feet within the setback, the
spa would be 12 feet, and the in-ground pool would be 6 feet.
Commission The Planning Commission reviewed the variance application and held a public hearing
Rec.: at the March 9ch meeting. The commission recommended by a 5:3 vote, with one
abstention,to approve the variances with the conditions outlined in the staff report and
with the additional condition that the applicant move the proposed pergola and fireplace
to a location which would not be located any further into the 100 foot buffer setback
than the proposed pool and spa.
One commissioner who voted against the application suggested that the Council has the
ability to alter the regulations by a 4/5 vote (as outlined in the OP regulations)and may
want to consider that option.
Council The City Council must examine the proposed variances to determine whether it meets
Options: all conditions of approval outlined by city code. The City Council should consider the
following options:
A) Approve the requested variances based on the applicants' submission and
findings of fact.
B) Approve the requested variances based on the applicant's submission and
findings of fact with the conditions outlined in the staff report and recommended
by the Planning Commission
C) Deny the requested variances based on the applicants' submission and findings
of fact.
D) Table the request and ask for additional information.
The deadline for a Council decision on this item is April 10, 2009 which can be
extended an additional 60-days if needed.
Recommended Staff recommended option C: Denial of the requested variance with the following
Action: findings of fact:
1) The applicant has reasonable use of the property as it is currently used for
residential purposes.
2) A swimming pool, spa,pergola and fireplace of a different configuration and
S,6L rnd t,r*.W Varianuo:;293.1 Jonquil 7'rt:fir;Hur,cyoRet,C'C,';1-k ec;,pr3ol,spry, rariance 3.4-..119.doc
I
variwle- Review; Nrt„ec Page 10
I City Council Ra porl; ,3-1"-0.9
(conO size could potentially be located on the lot in a conforming location.
3) Thirteen lots within the Farms of Lake Elmo development are subject to the 100
foot buffer setback. Therefore, this property is not unique.
4) Although two homes within the Farms of Lake Elmo development were
permitted to be built within the 100 foot buffer setback,this does not constitute a
hardship as the city staff must enforce the existing regulations.
Should the City Council choose to approve the requested variances, the following
findings of fact may be used in addition to any found by the council at the meeting.
1) The proposed variances would be in keeping with the neighborhood as the two
adjacent properties currently have in-ground swimming pools and other
accessory structures in their rear yards,
2) The home directly to the east currently encroaches.further into the 100 foot
buffer setback than the applicant is proposing. The home and pool are closer to
the Lake Elmo Park Reserve than the applicant is proposing to place the
structures.
3) The rear yard of the property abuts Outlot A which is restricted by a
conservation easement intended to be utilized for open space. The county park
is on the other side of Outlot A.
4) Existing and proposed vegetation,the slope of the rear yard, and the location of
the structures in the rear yard reduce or in some cases eliminate the visual
impact to others.
5) Outlot A serves as a sixty foot open space buffer and undisturbed area between
the Hugec's property and the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve which meets
the intent of the buffer setback.
6) The home on the property was built further back on the property to be in
keeping with the property to the east, thereby reducing the buildable area in the
rear yard.
7) The home at 2931 Jonquil Trail North was built to match adjoining setbacks and
is thus located further back on the lot than required.
8) The applicable setbacks from the edge of the development, from existing
structures, and from the property lines leave limited room in the back yard of the
property for the proposed structures. By city code, swimming pools are required
to be located in the rear yard of a property, further reducing the potential
conforming locations on the property.
S;:/.rr,a�;l.(:sr`.1 arirxrtces'•2S�31 Jonquil M A;Hug,,LiRep(I'l- Haigee;pool,spa,,pergola freploce Variame 3-1 7-09,doe
Variance Review;lhi ec: Page I 1
Cily Council.Report;347 09
Denial Motion To deny the requested variances as recommended by staff, you may use the following
Template (as motion as a guide:
recommended
by staff): Move to deny the variance application for 2931 Jonquil Trail North based on the
findings provided in the staff report: (or cite your own findings)
Approval To approve the requested variances, you may use the following motion as a guide:
Motion
:Template: Move to approve the variances with the additional condition that the proposed
pergola and fireplace be located so as not to encroach further on the 100 foot
setback than the proposed pool and spa for 2931 Jonquil Trail North based on the
findings listed in the staff report and as articulated tonight, subject to the
conditions recommended by staff. (use staffs findings provided above or cite your
own)
with the following conditions:
1. A building permit must be received from the city prior to any work taking
place. A certified survey in addition to any information requested by the City
Engineer, City Planner, and Building Official must be provided before a
building permit is issued.
2. The City Engineer must review and approve mitigation measures for the
increase of impervious coverage beyond 20% prior to issuance of a building
permit.
3. A revised landscape plan approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of
a building permit.
4. Outlot A must not be used for material storage,vehicle travel, or other activities
that would be in violation of the conservation easement during the construction
process.
5. All structures must be located outside the drainage and utility easement.
cc: Vladimir and Silvia Hugec, 2931 Jonquil Trail North
David Sonka, Applicant's Contractor
S:. rznd:(,JseVI n1•iaw*,e-4293I lonquil THAT;llztgeclRep CC, lb gjvc;pool,spn.per,�oia.,frwplace I'ariance 3-I5'•ARdoc
City Council
Date: June 2, 2009
REGULAR
Motion
ITEM: 2009 Street Improvements—Approval of Plans and Specifications and Ordering
Advertisement for Bids
SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer
Mike Bouthilet, Public Works
Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to approve the Plans
and Specifications for the 2009 Street Improvements and order advertisement for bids.
TKDA has completed the Plans and Specifications for the 2009 Street Improvements including
the residential streets in the Myron Ellman, Eden Park, Eden Park 2nd, and The Forest
subdivisions. TKDA will present to the City Council the final Plans together with an updated
estimate of project cost. The detailed Plans and Specifications are available for review at City
Hall. Staff is seeking approval to advertise the project for competitive bids, with a bid date set for
July 6, 2009. The tabulated Bids will be presented to Council for award on July 7, 2009.
Additionally, TKDA has completed the design and included the reconstruction plans for the
Tablyn Park Entrance and Parking Lot within this Plan set to be bid and constructed by the same
contractor. The improvement of the Tablyn Park Entrance and Parking Lot was included in the
Park Capital Improvement Plan for the past few years. With the opportunity to complete the 2009
Street Improvements, TKDA was approached by Staff to include this area in the 2009 Street
Improvements Project. The project costs associated with the Tablyn Park Entrance and Parking
Lot will be funded from the park fund.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
At the April 7th City Council Meeting, Council authorized the preparation of plans and
specifications for the 2009 Street improvements, and further directed TKDA to work with
interested residents and look for opportunities to potentially install rain gardens as part of these
improvements. TKDA has identified 7-11 potential sites where rain gardens could be
accommodated and have contacted residents in these areas to determine resident interest.
Staff is looking to utilize cooperative resources and has contacted the VBWD to discuss design,
coordination, funding opportunities, and implementation. The VBWD has expressed an interest
to participate and is willing to discuss assistance on the rain garden program, as it provides water
quality improvements to the watershed. A meeting has been scheduled with VBWD Staff on
Tuesday, June 2nd. Staff will provide an update on the rain gardens, the extent of resident
interest received to date and will discuss the next steps for rain garden implementation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Plans and Specifications and order the
advertisement for bids for the project.
SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
Move to approve Resolution No, 09-023 Approving the Plans and Specifications for the 2009
Street Improvements and Ordering the Advertisement for Bids.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 09-023
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
• Introduction Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
• Report by staff or other presenter Ryan Stempski, Asst. City Engineer
• Questions from city council members to the presenter Mayor and council members
• Questions/comments from the public to the city council Mayor facilitates
(a maximum of three minutes per questionistatement)
• Action on motion City Council
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-023
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE
2009 STREET IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolutions passed by the council, TKDA, Inc. was directed to
prepare plans and specifications for the 2009 Street Improvements in accordance with the 2009
Street Improvements feasibility report approved April 7, 2009;
WHEREAS, TKDA, Inc. has completed the plans and specifications for these
improvements and has presented them to the to the City Council for approval on June 2, 2009;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file at Lake Elmo City Hall and made
a part hereof, are hereby approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the
Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvements
under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for
at least 21 days, shall specify the work to be done, and shall state that sealed bids
provided to the City Clerk prior to the specified bid date and time and accompanied by a
bid bond or cashier's check made payable to the City of Lake Elmo in an amount not less
than 5% of the amount of such bid will considered,
Date:June 2, 2009 CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By:
Dean A. Johnston
Mayor
ATTEST:
Craig W. Dawson
City Administrator
Resolution No. 2009-023 1
City Council
Date: 06/02/09
REGULAR
Item:
MOTION:
ITEM: Roseville Accounting Services
SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director
REVIEWED BY: Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
Joe Rigdon, KDV
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to re-evaluate the
accounting service agreement with the City of Roseville, consider terminating the contract and
authorizing the addition of a part-time position to perform these duties.
BACKGROUND: In February of 2008, the Finance Department was reorganized which included
the elimination of a full-time accounting position. In order to accommodate some of those duties,
Staff recommended contracting accounting services to the City of Roseville. During the July 15,
2008 City Council meeting, The City approved an Agreement for Accounting Services with the
City of Roseville through end of 2008 with the understanding that the efficiencies and value of
contracting for this service would be evaluated as part of the 2009 budgeting process. The City
budgeted $ 10,000 from the General Fund and $ 10,000 from the Enterprise Fund in 2009 for this
service. All accounting services performed are charged on an hourly basis ranging from $50.00-
$ 80.00/Hr.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Due to the limited time between the start of the agreement and the
completion of the Budget, the City did not have the opportunity to evaluate the efficiencies and
value of this service. Sufficient time has now past to review this service and have come to some
basic conclusions.
1) Material Delivery The then City Administrator lived in the vicinity of Roseville which facilitated
delivery and pick-up of documents and eliminated carrier expenses. The Administrator has since
left the City resulting in additional time, travel and expense associated with delivery.
2) Schedule Roseville's staffing schedule and associated deadlines can cause delay in timely
payments resulting in potential late fees or additional time to dispute late fees with the vendor.
3) Overall Efficiency Efficiencies or savings of time have not materialized and have not been as
expected. Considerable time is required to prepare invoices and materials so that Roseville is
able to process them with accuracy and efficiency. This is actually an inefficient process as
additional preparation time is necessary on things that City Staff is already familiar with. There is
also additional Staff time required due to increased vendor inquiries regarding payments.
4) Flexibility Finance has been limited to responding to special or last minute requests by City
Staff.
5)The Auditors have reduced or eliminated the"segregation of duties" clause in the 2008 Audit.
It is anticipated that the addition of a part-time accounting position will maintain this status.
RECOMMENDATION: Since the start of the Agreement the City has paid $8419 or a monthly
average of$ 1403.The expenditure covers services for Accounts Payable and Payroll only and
does not cover other services such as Utility Billing called for in the agreement. Staff
recommends termination of the Roseville Accounting Services Agreement and hiring a part-time
accounting clerk, at a suggested rate of pay up to $20.00 per hour without health, vacation and
other City benefits. This rate of pay including taxes etc. $22.90 per hour for maximum average of
18 hrs per week=$412.20 or an annual cost would be $20,610. Roseville's agreement requires a
30-day notice of termination. City staff suggests that we begin search of the accounting clerk with
a hire date that coincides with actual termination date of services.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION: Move to approve termination of Agreement for Accounting
Services with the City of Roseville and hire part-time
Accounting Clerk at a maximum annual wage of$18,720.00
ATTACHMENT: Minutes from Council Meeting dated July 15, 2008
Agreement for Accounting Services with the City of Roseville
MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to extend the City Council meeting 15 minutes.
Council Member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously,
Consider approving contracting for routine account processing services
Susan Hoyt, City Administrator, asked the City Council to enter into an agreement with
the city of Roseville for routine account processing services for: accounts payable,
payroll, utility billing, reconciliation of accounts,routine monthly and quarterly financial
reports and data input into the budget to be charged on an hourly basis.
MOTION: Council Member Johnson moved to authorize into an agreement with the city
of Roseville for accounting processing services for an estimated$10,000 to be funded
through the general fund and utility funds through the end of 2008 with the intent to
evaluate the efficiettcies and value of contracting for this service as part of the city's
2009 budgeting process. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
Review the timeline for the 2009 Budget Process
Susan Hoyt, City Administrator,provided a timeline for the 2009 budget process.
Finance manager, Joe Rigdon, of KDV will lead the city staff and City Council on the
budget initiative.
REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Johnston attended the monthly meeting of the Regional Council of Mayors. One
of the groups there'is working on best practices recommendations to aid cities in using
the principles of"Green Development." The best practices should be available in the
next few months.
The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Sharon Lumby,City Clerk
Resolution no. 2008-012 approve claims
Resolution no. 2008-033 Accept developer-installed public infrastructure improvements
for the H.O.A. 2nd Addition (Eagle Point Circle)Development
LAKE ELMO COUNCU_MINUTES JULY 15,2008 4
City of Lake Elmo
Agreement for Accounting Services kwoply
with the City of Roseville
The agreement for accounting services between the city of Lake Elmo and the city of
Roseville for accounting services to include:
• Accounts payable (twice monthly)
• Payroll (twice monthly for regular employees, once monthly for firefighters)
o Answer payroll related questions from the city of Lake Elmo employees.
• Utility billing for water, sewer and surface water (quarterly for water and sewer
and annually for surface water)
• Managing the updates to the utility billing data base
• Month end reconciliations
• Monthly revenue and expenditure reports to the city administrator
• Quarterly revenue and expenditure summary reports for the city administrator to
distribute to the city council
• Input into the budget document (as needed from August through December)
• Recommendations on financial accounting software and efficiency
improvements in the financial accounting systems( as needed) including the
chart of accounts and report formats
The city of Lake Elmo will:
• provide the required information to the accountant to process these tasks and
update the systems in a timely way so the accounts can be processed on
schedule.
• provide accurately coded accounts payable
• provide data to update the utility billing accounts
• provide access to the city of Lake Elmo's accounting systems on an on-going
basis so there is no delay
• answer calls and questions related to accounts payable and utility billing
• provide the budget document format and the budget information to be input
into the budget document
• provide work space, a computer, a copier, and other routine office supplies at
the city of Lake Elmo, when required to provide these services by the city of
Roseville staff
• provide access to the city administrator and finance team in a timely fashion to
answer questions and give direction as needed
The city of Roseville will charge an hourly rate as identified in Appendix 1.
• Appendix 1 is annually subject to change based upon a change in costs for
providing this service by the city of Roseville that is mutually agreed upon by the
two parties.
• Additional charges may include: 1) travel time, 2) copies, 3) postage, 4) other
miscellaneous out of pocket expenses that the city of Lake Elmo would typically
cover as part of these processes.
• Payment will be made monthly.
Draft 7-1 1-08
City of Lake Elmo
Agreement for Accounting Services
with the City of Roseville
The accounting work will be assigned to accounting personnel by the city of Roseville in
consultation with the city of Lake Elmo administrator and finance team.
The city of Roseville is responsible for the quality and accuracy of work performed
through this contract.
All personnel providing this service from the city of Roseville are city of Roseville
employees and are not employees of the city of Lake Elmo.
The city of Roseville is not responsible for errors and omissions that the city of Lake Elmo
makes in providing information or in its accounting software.
The city of Roseville is not responsible for policies related to the payments, payroll, fees
and charges made by the city of Lake Elmo.
Tp,e,Rgreeme be'termi ted by either party with a 30 day written notice.
City of Lake Elmo City of Roseville
Draft 7-11-08
City of Lake Elmo
Agreement for Accounting Services
with the City of Roseville
APPENDIX 1
Assistant Finance Director Services $80/hour
Accountant $50/hour
Mileage rate as required
Draft 7-11-08