HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 7, 2009 council packet j
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
July 7, 2009
7:00 p.m.
A. CALL TO ORDER
B:. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE;:
C. ATTENDANCE: Johnston DeLapp Emmons Park
Absent: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.)
F. GROUND RULES: (These are the rules of behavior that the City Council
adopted for doing its public business.)
G. APPROVE MINUTES:
1. Approval of the June 16, 2009 City Council minutes
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. Approve payment of disbursements and payroll
3. Approval of swing set, borders and ADA engineered fiber surfacing
4. Approval of purchase of 24"Bobcat Planer from Tri-State Bobcat
5. Final acceptance of Discover Crossing;Resolution No. 2009-032
J.: REGULAR AGENDA:
6. 2008 Annual Financial Report
7. Request Council direction on buffer setback in Open Space Preservation
developments
Recess
Convene Board of Appeals and Adjustment:
8. Appeal request from Joe Pelletier, 4884 Lily Avenue N.;
Resolution No. 2009-030,
Adjourn
Reconvene City Council Meeting:
9. Consideration of reduced buffer setback for Tana Ridge and Parkview Estates;
Resolution No. 2009-033
10. Accept 2009 Street Improvement Project Bids and award contract; Resolution
No. 2009-031
11. Grant application for Fire Station stimulus funding
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
City of Lake Elmo DRAFT
City Council Minutes
June 16, 2009
Mayor Johnston called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Johnston and Council Members DeLapp, Emmons (arrived at 7:05
p.m.),and Smith
Absent: Council Member Park
Also Present: Interim City Administrator Dawson, Planning Director Klatt, City
Engineers Griffin and Stempski, City Attorney Snyder, Project Assistant Kriegler,
Finance Director Bouthilet and City Clerk Lumby.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to postpon���e sign ordir dn�e agenda item
until the July 21"City Council Meeting. CouncilAW ber,T Lapp secoY a'ed the motion.
The motion passed 3-0.
MOTION.- Council Member Smith movea'= aapprove tTi :Wne 16, 2009 agenda as
presented. Council Member DeLapp seco e Ah tiori he motion passed 3-0.
s e9
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
1 ,R
`�":7
GROUND RULES: a fff _
APPROVED M1N Ul'.ES :._
The June 2,20( = ity Count minutes'were approved by consensus.
�3 6,
PUBLIC COMMEM.WINQUIRIES:
CONSENT AGENDA:
MOTION.- Council Member Smith moved to approve the Consent agenda as presented.
Mayor Johnston seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
• Approve payment of disbursements and payroll in the amount of$106,179.59
• Approval of Park Meadows Final Plat Resolution No. 2009-028
• Approval of Resolution No. 2009-027 accepting a Capital Improvement Project
Grant from the Minnesota DNR cross country ski grant-in-aid program for the
construction of an information kiosk at Sunfish Lake Park
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 16, 2009 1
REGULAR AGENDA:
Consider on-sale intoxicating liquor license for Huff n Puff Days and proclaim August 6-
9`h as Huff s Puff Days
Huff)a Puff Chair reported on the events scheduled for the 33`d Huff n Puff Days on
August 6-9, 2009 and announced the need for members from the community.
Mayor Johnston proclaimed August 6-9, 2009, the official celebration for 2009 and to
urge all citizens of our community to give full regard to the past and continuing service of
the Lake Elmo Jaycees.
MOTION: Council Member DeLapp moved to grant approval of the on-sale non-
intoxicating malt liquor license and waive the liquor fee for August 6-9, 2009 Huffs Puff
Days, Council Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
Sharon Klum S rin sted Ci Administrator Search Firm =. roval of rofile and
schedule Ap_ —,_...._
,. W
Sharon Klumpp, Springsted,provided a position profifertf r the LakM no city
administrator recruitment process and a search tirn@fia`lile for e Council?review and
comment.
The Council discussed compensation andAgre.ed that tli° lary would be up to $105,000,
depending on qualifications, suitability and ei + ence a e*I- ked to accelerate the
proposed schedule.
5 : W:
Consideration of Resolution 2009=62&su r apt of a lication to the DNR Metro
Greenways Grant Progirarn for'Sunfisl t:>tw ke.Pa-
.ffi _ Tc `�n
Carol Kriegler,ProjectA A.s t-;,�sistar orted the City Council is being asked to consider a
resolution support appi can Akle to the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources Metr_.o Greenways J t pr6 ram for a restoration grant and conservation
planning grant far-Sunfish Lake, ark.
"f_ »g'
The total cost of the derJaent of a Sunfish Lake Park natural resource management
plan is estimated to be$T D75.00. Staff suggested the grant request be in the amount of
$8,30.6.25. The City would provide a match of$2,768.25 for the project that would come
from the City's park improvement fund.
Carol Kriegler noted she will make the restoration a community project and will involve
local volunteers in the process and way to keep the cost of the program as low as
possible.
MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to adopt Resolution No. 2009-026 supporting
application made to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Greenways
grant program for a restoration grant and conservation planning grant for Sunfish Lake
Park. Mayor Johnston seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 16, 2009 2
Speed Indicator Sign on CR13 (Ideal Avenue)—Status Resort
Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator, reported a resident representing the Tri-Lakes
Association asked whether a speed indicator sign could be placed on Ideal Avenue where
the speed limit drops from 50 to 40 miles per hour{just north of Hidden Bay Trail N).
Council requested staff report about what could be done at the June 16 Council meeting.
Washington County staff plans on installing a battery-powered temporary feedback sign
that would be placed on an existing pole over the next six months or so and determine
whether a permanent indicator sign is appropriate. If a permanent driver feedback sign is
the right alternative, Washington County would install the sign in 2010 or 2011,
depending on available funding.
The consensus of the Council on the proposed plan was very pos trte.
Sign Ordinance, Ordinance No. 08-015, Resolution No, 2009 c 2:5 —POSTPONED until
July 21,2009
MPCA Watermain Extension Project for Municipal, ater tofthe Olson Property—
Proposal to oversize to 12-inch trunk watermain
Ryan'Stempski, Assistant City Engineer,wed the Cif Council was being asked to
authorize the expenditure of approximately: ina&e the watermain pipe size
for the MPCA watermain extension proje( t a_V11 ng municipal water service to
the Olson property located aloe a Hi �- . —5 9524 Stillwater Boulevard in
p p y &r_ ', gh ( )
response to high levels of PFROF ont" inant ind in the private well. The City would
be responsible to own and maintain th, erm` . The cost would be paid from the City
Water Fund. The Joint Pow rment hick the City would commit to this
expenditure will be on: fiiturOl ncil meeting agenda.
MOTION: Council AIeinber SSW` ith m�`ved to approve the oversizing of the MPCA
watermain extension project 10 J`12-inch truck watermain pipe at an approximate project
cost of$10,000 (project bid casf,of$8,846), to be funded through the City Water Fund
Council Member Emmons seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
Resolution No. 2009-029 authorizing publication of Storm Water Management and
Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance No 08-016
Jack Griffin, City Engineer,reported the City Council is being asked to approve a
resolution authorizing the publication of the updated Storm Water Management and
Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. The adoption of the updated Storm Water
Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance fulfills a requirement of the
City's MS4 permit through the MPCA and fulfills a requirement of the City's Storm
Water Management Plan.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUKE 16, 2009 3
Assistant City Engineer,Ryan Stempski presented the outline and highlighted key items
found in this ordinance. Kyle Klatt,Planning Director,identified outdated Code sections
related to storm water that will be replaced.
Attorney Snyder suggested the following wording be added to section: Post
implementation requirements: The City reserves the right to impose supplemental or
additional conditions or requirements to prevent erosion or undersized runoff.
MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to adopt Ordinance No. 08-016, an ordinance
adopting regulations to govern storm water and erosion and sediment control in the City
of Lake Elmo as amended by wording submitted by Attorney Snyder. Mayor Johnston
seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
MOTION.- Council Member Smith moved to approve Resolutio o. 2009-029
authorizing publication of Ordinance No. 08-016 by title anc� to wary. Mayon-.Iohnston
seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
Appointment to Parks Commission and Planning Cotiianission
m
Sharon Lumby, City Clerk, reported Marty Dobbs, 42401V Court N. has applied and
been interviewed for membership on the parks commission. Staff will advertise to fill the
two vacancies on the parks commission.
_.
MOTION. Council Member DeLapp move v c al .arty Dobbs, 4240 Ivry Court N.,
to a 3 year term on the Parks Comfi scion. l Member Smith seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4-0.
Sharon Lumby, City Clerk, reported`� ith Tt °Ptacek's resignation,there is one vacancy
on the Planning Commission. Todd Williams and Larry Green's applications are on file
and both applicants have been inter je�:_ftres
ed. Tom Bidon, First Alternate,would be moved
to finish Todd Ptacelc's term which on December 31, 2011 and Steve Britz would
be moved to the First Alternate position.
MOTION. Mayor Johnston moved to appoint Todd Williams to the Second Alternate
position on the Planning Commission. Council Member DeLapp seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4-0.
Appointment to Metro Cities Policy Committee
Mayor Johnston reported while it is common for council members and staff to participate
by signing up for a committee voluntarily,the Council also wanted to give interested
residents an opportunity to participate. For persons who are not members of the Council
or staff,Metro Cities would like to have the Council approve their participation.
LAICE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUKE 16, 2009 4
Resident:
Jennifer Pelletier, for the Housing and Economic Development Committee
City Officials:
Dean:Johnston, for the Metropolitan Agencies Committee and the Housing and Economic
Development Committee
Anne:Smith, for the Metropolitan Agencies Committee
Craig Dawson,for the Municipal Revenue and Taxation Committee
MOTION.- Council Member Smith moved to appoint Jennifer Pelletier to the Housing
and Economic Development committee of'Metro Cities. Council Member DeLapp
seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
Roseville Accountina Services
Interim City Administrator Craig Dawson reported that for this item, which was
continued from the June 2, 2009, Council meeting, sta _is asked":tow nvcstigate
alternatives to an accounting contract Lake Elmo curl fitly has with Thew ity of Roseville
to handle accounting services.
MOTION.- Council Member Smith moved to solicit-dlferentproposals, including cost
savings, and have recommendations pres a0 the Ju l Council meeting. Council
Member DeLapp seconded the motion. T mi: passed 0.
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 " _ =
- -
Respectfully submitted Sharo ,umby, City Clerk
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DUNE 16, 2009 5
City Council
7/7/2009
CONSENT
Item: 2
ITEM: Approve disbursements in the amount of $ 226,333.79
SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet,Finance Director
Claim# Amount Description
32996 $ 5,930.00 J.P. Bush Homes-Escrow Return
ACH $ 9,342.77 Payroll Taxes to IRS 06/18/09
ACH $ 1,291.48 Payroll Taxes to Mn Dept.of Revenue 06/18/09
DD2234 - DD2269 $ 21,474.09 Payroll Dated 06/18/2009 (Direct Deposit)
34358 - 34376 $ 18,304.88 Payroll Dated 06/18/2009 (Payroll& Benefits)
ACH $ 7,390.28 Payroll Taxes to IRS 07/02/09
ACH $ 1,225.73 Payroll Taxes to Mn Dept.of Revenue 07/02/09
DD2270 - DD2283 $ 18,145.85 Payroll Dated 07/02/2009 (Direct Deposit)
34377 - 34380 $ 15,834.03 Payroll Dated 07/02/2009 (Benefits)
34427 - 34429 $ 3,468.77 Payroll Dated 07/02/2009 (Payroll)
34381 - 34430 $ 123,925.91 Accounts Payable Dated 07/07/2009
Total: $ 226,333.79
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to approve disbursements
in the total amount of $226,333.79
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
User:Administrator
Printed:07/01/2009-11:55 AM
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Amount
34381 07/07/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Bldg Ace Hardware,Inc 20.63
34381 07/07/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Imp Not BIdgs Ace Hardware,Inc 12.57
Check Total: 33.20
34382 07/07/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Contractual Eqpt American Flagpole&Flag 69.12
Check Total: 69.12
34383 07/07/2009 General Fund Contract SepAces Animal Control Services 680.00
Check Total: 680.00
34384 07/07/2009 General Fund Uniforms Aramark,Inc. 36-14
34384 07/07/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg Aramarrk,Inc. 81.37
34384 07/07/2009 General Fund Uniforms Aramark,Inc. 36.14
34384 07/07/2009 General Fund Uniforms A.ramark,Inc. 36.14
Check Total: 189.79
34385 07/07/2009 General Fund Uniforms Aspen Mills,Inc. 69.50
Check Total: 69.50
34386 07/07/2009 Water Repairs1141aint Imp Not Bldgs Buelow Excavating 1,273.00
Check Total: 1,273.00
34387 07/07/2009 General Fund Miscellaneous Carol Kriegler 70.28
AP-Checks foT Approval(07/01/2009- 11:15 Aid) page l
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Amount
Check Total: 70.28
34388 07/07/2009 General Fund Building Repair Supplies Carquest Auto Parts Store 169.46
34388 07;07/2009 General Fund Building Repair Supplies Carquest Auto Parts Store -25.40
34388 07/07/2009 General Fund Building Repair Supplies Carquest Auto Parts Store 2.69
34388 07/07/2009 General Fund Equipment Parts Carquest Auto Parts Store 36.69
34388 07/07/2009 General Fund Equipment Parts Carquest Auto Parts Store 75.00
34388 07/07/2009 General Fund Shop Materials Carquest Auto Parts Store 3.17
34388 07/07/2009 General Fund Equipment Parts Carquest Auto Parts Store 146.90
Check Total: 408.51
34389 07/07/2009 General Fund Small Tools&Equipment Catco 21.53
Check Total: 21.53
34390 07/07/2009 Water Utility System Maintenance City of Bloomington 60.00
Check Total: 60.00
34391 07/07/2009 Water Water Utility City of Oakdale 11,982.43
Check Total: 13,982.43
34392 07/07/2009 General Fund Miscellaneous Compensation Consultants,Ltd 40.00
Check Total; 40.00
34393 07/07/2009 General Fund Small Tools&Equipment Fire Safety USA,Inc. 676.28
34393 07/07/2009 General Fund Use Tax Payable Fire Safety USA,Inc. -41.28
Check Total: 635.00
34394 07/07/2009 General Fund Assessing Services FXL,Inc. 2,000.00
Check Total: 2,000.00
34395 07/07/2009 Water Miscellaneous John Hamerly 1,000.00
Check Total: 1,000.00
34396 07/07/2009 Water Chemicals Hawkins,Inc. 1,034.41
AP-Chepks for Approval(07/01/2009-11:55 AM) Page 2
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Amount
34396 07/07/2009 Water Use Tax Payable Hawkins,Inc. -63.13
Check Total: 971.28
34397 07/07/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Eqpt I-STATE TRUCK CENTER 168.57
Check Total: 168.57
34398 07/07/2009 General Fund Contract Services Kern DeWenter Viere Ltd 6,446.25
Check Total: 6,446.25
34399 07/07/2009 General Fund Conferences&Training League of MN Cities 350.00
Check Total: 350.00
34400 07/07/2009 General Fund Refuse Maroney's Sanitation,Inc 103.66
34400 07/07/2009 General Fund Refuse Maroney's Sanitation,Inc 45.62
34400 07/07/2009 General Fund Refuse- Maroney's Sanitation,Inc 103.66
34400 07/07/2009 General Fund Refuse Maroney's Sanitation,Inc 198.87
Check Total: 451.81
34401 07/07/2009 General Fund Contract Services McCombs Frank Roos Assoc Inc. 1,899.40
Check Total: 1,899.40
34402 07/07/2009 Water Utility System Maintenance Menards-Oakdale 93.53
34402 07/07/2009 General Fund Small Tools&Equipment Menards-Oakdale 33.33
34402 07/07/2009 General Fund Small Tools&Equipment Menards-Oakdale 5.27
Check Total: 132.13
34403 07/07/2009 Sewer Sewer Utility-Mgt Council Metropolitan Council 1,068.66
Chec} Total: 1,068.66
34404 07/07/2009 Park Dedicatipn Other Park Ded Prof Services Minnesota Land Trust 10,000.00
34404 07/07/2009 Park Dedicatipn Other Park 1ped Prof Services Minnesota Land Trust 198.00
Check Total: 10,198.00
34405 07/07/2009 General Fund Telephone Nextel Communicatipns 1 101.35
AP-Cheeks fo{Approval(07/01/2009-11:15 AllJ) Page 3
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Amount
34405 07/07/2009 General Fund Telephone Nextel Communications 105.17
34405 07/07/2009 General Fund Telephone Nextel Communications 34.32
34405 07/07/2009 General Fund Telephone Nextel Communications 58.86
34405 07/07/2009 General Fund Telephone Nextel Communications 17.80
Check Total: 317.50
34406 07/07/2009 General Fund Cable Operations Nicholas Anderson 5&58
34406 07/07/2009 General Fund Use Tax Payable Nicholas Anderson -3.58
Check Total: 55.00
34407 07/07/2009 General Fund Legal Services Peterson Fram&Bergman Corp 480.50
34407 07/07/2009 General Fund Attorney Criminal Peterson Frain&Bergman Corp 4,225.04
Check Total: 4,705.54
34408 07/07/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg Pitney Bowes 693.00
Check Total: 693.00
34409 07/07/2009 General Fund Contract Services PLANT HEALTH ASSOCIATES,INC 2,520.00
34409 07/07/2009 Development Fund Contract Services PLANT HEALTH ASSOCIATES,INC 72.00
Check Total: 2,592.00
34410 07/07/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Eqpt Pomp's Tire Service,Inc. 271.58
34410 07/07f2009 General Fund Use Tax Payable Pomp's Tire Service,Inc. -16.58
Check Total: 255.00
34411 07/07/2009 General Fund Cable Operation Expense Steven Press 47.03
34411 07/07/2009 General Fund Cable Operation Expense Steven Press 62.71
34411 07/07/2009 General Fund Use Tax Payable Steven Press -6.70
Check Total: 103.04
34412 07/07/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Imp Not Bldgs Webber Recreational Design Inc 206.61
Check Total: 206.61
34413 07/07/2009 General Fund Public Notices Reed Business Information 253.38
AP-Checks for Approval(07/01/2009-11:55 AM) Page 4
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Amount
Check Total: 253.38
34414 07/07/2009 General Fund Fuel,Oil and Fluids River Country Cooperative 33.00
34414 07/07/2009 General Fund Fuel,Oil and Fluids River Country Cooperative 31.00
34414 07/07/2009 General Fund Fuel,Oil and Fluids River Country Cooperative 30.50
34414 07/07/2009 General Fund Fuel,Oil and Fluids River Country Cooperative 17.25
34414 07/07/2009 General Fund Fuel,Oil and Fluids River Country Cooperative 26.00
Check Total: 137.75
34415 07/07/2009 General Fund Office Supplies Rogers Printing Services,Corp 268.38
34415 07/07/2009 Water Printed Forms Rogers Printing Services,Corp 207.68
Check Total: 476-06
34416 07/07/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg Diane Rud 511.20
34416 07/07/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Bldg Diane Rud 383.40
34416 07/07/2009 General Fund Use Tax Payable Diane Rud -54.60
Check Total: 840.00
34417 07/07/2009 General Fund Miscellaneous S&T Office Products,Inc. 75.49
34417 07/07/2009 General Fund Miscellaneous S&T Office Products,Inc. 11.59
34417 07/07/2009 General Fund Miscellanequs S&T Office Products,Inc. 244.95
Check Total: 332.03
34418 07/07/2009 General Fund Telephone Sprint 88.48
Check Total: 88.48
34419 07/07/2009 General Fund Physicals Stillwater Medical Group 248.00
Check Total: 248.00
34420 07/07/2009 General Fund Street Maintenance Materials T.A. Schifsky&Sons Inc 322.36
34420 07/07/2009 General Fund Street Maintenance Materials T.A.Schifsky&Sons Inc 130-03
34420 07/07/2009 General Fund Street Maintenance Materials T.A.Schifsky&Son,Inc 196.01
Check Total: 648.40
34421 07/07/2009 General Fund Telephone TDS METROCOM-LLC 162.05
AP-Chepks fo;Approval(07/O1/2009-11:55 Ali} Ppge 5
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Amount
34421 07/07/2009 General Fund Telephone TDS WTROCOM-LLC 153.51
34421 07/07/2009 Sewer Telephone TDS METROCOM-LLC 103.29
34421 07/07/2009 Water Telephone TDS METROCOM-LLC 41.72
Check Total: 460.57
34422 07/07/2009 Village Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 390.17
34422 07/07/2009 Development Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 162.57
34422 07/07/2009 Development Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 1,580.82
34422 07/07/2009 Development Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 732.80
34422 07/07/2009 Development Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 3,147.86
34422 07/07/2009 Development Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 485.98
34422 07/07/2009 Water Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 1,136.32
34422 07/07/2009 Surface Water Utility Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 4,847.54
34422 07/07/2009 Infrastructure Reserve Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 1,246.11
34422 07/07/2009 General Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 339.04
34422 07/07/2009 General Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 4,489.79
34422 07/07/2009 General Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 6,160.48
34422 07/07/2009 Village Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 194.48
34422 07/07/2009 Infrastructure Reserve Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 27,093.73
34422 07/07/2009 Infrastructure Reserve Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 2,970.38
34422 07/07/2009 Park Dedication Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 185.14
34422 07/07/2009 Surface Water Utility Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 5,076.39
34422 07/07/2009 Water Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 771.81
34422 07/07/2009 Sewer Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 349.78
Check Total: 61,361.18
34423 07/07/2009 City Facilities Office Equipment&Furnishings VISA 192.09
Check Total: 192.09
34424 07/07/2009 General Fund Assessing Services Washington County 4,305.06
34424 07/07/2009 General Fund Legal Services Washington County 2,200.00
Check Total: 0,505.06
34425 07/07/2009 General Fund Radio WASHINGTON COUNTY 1,066.38
Check Total: 1,066.88
34426 07/07/2009 Surface Water Utility Utility System Maint Supplies Winnick Supply 9.75
AP-Chepks foI Approval(07/01/2009-11:35 AM) Ne 6
Check Number Check Date ]Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Amount
Check Total: 9.75
34430 07/07/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Bldg Yocum Oil Company,Inc. 160.13
Check Total: 160.13
Report Total: 123,925.91
AP-Checks for Apprpval(07/01/2009-1 1:55 AM) page 7
City Council
Date: July 71h 2009
Consent Agenda
Item: 3
ITEM: Swing Set, Borders, and ADA Engineered Fiber Surfacing
REQUESTED BY: Parks Department
SUBMITTED BY: Michael Bouthilet, Public Works Superintendent
REVIEWED BY: Craig Dawson, City Administrator
Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director
PURPOSE The City Council is being asked to authorize the purchase of a swing set for Reid
Park, playground borders and ADA engineered resilient fiber surfacing for Reid
and Carriage Station Parks.
A swing set will be added to the relatively new modular play set a Reid Park.
Both Reid and Carriage Station have newer play sets installed with a fiber
surface for fall impact control. This was done at the time the play sets were
installed. It is now time for the play zone borders to be added with additional
ADA resilient fiber surfacing. 650 linear feet of border, ADA accessible ramps,
and 270 cu. Yd. of fiber will be added.
Three quotes were provided from:
• St Croix Recreation $14,399.96 (tax and freight incl.)
• Weber Recreational Design $16,454.91 (tax and freight incl.)
• Earl F Anderson $17,412.00 (tax and freight incl.)
Funding source will be the Parks CIP,
RECOMMENDATION
Suggested motion for consideration: Authorize the purchase of a swing set, play zone borders
and ADA resilient fiber surfacing not to exceed the amount of$14,399.96.
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Comments City Administrator, Finance Director
City Council
Date: July 7' 2009
Consent Agenda
Item:
ITEM: Asphalt Planer Purchase
REQUESTED BY: Public Works Department
SUBMITTED BY: Michael Bouthilet, Public Works Superintendent
REVIEWED BY: Craig Dawson, City Administrator
Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director
PURPOSE The City Council is being asked to authorize the purchase of an Asphalt Planer
from Tri-State Bobcat for$12,258.36 (plus tax)
OPTIONS Equipment rental, which was reviewed by the Maintenance Advisory Committee
and the rational for decision to purchase, is reflected in attached minutes.
Three purchase quotes were obtained from:
• Tri-State Bobcat $12,258.36
• St. Joseph Equipment $14,217.00
• Ziegler Cat $14,650.00
Funding source would be the equipment CIP.
RECOMMENDATION
Suggested motion for consideration: Authorize the purchase of the Asphalt Planer from
Tri-State Bobcat for the amount of$12,258.36(plus tax)
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Comments City Administrator, Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS: MAC Minutes
CITY of LAKE ELMO
MAINTENANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of
June 17, 2009
Present : Chuck Stanley, George Dege, Dick Gustafson
Bud Talcott, Mike Bouthilet,
Absent:, Steve Gurney, Steve Ziertman
The meeting was called to order at 7:20pm at The Public Works Building by
Bud Talcott.
The agenda was reviewed and accepted with no changes.
Mike passed around photos and reviewed the need to use a planer when doing
road.patching. As a road ages the seal coat and overlays will break up in areas
with a series of small pot holes. These must be opened up and all loose material
removed so a solid patch can be made. (similar to scraping old pealing.paint)
This area can be as large as the road is wide by many feet long. The planer will
scrap and loosen all the material down as far as needed to reach solid asphalt.
The old material is then removed and the hole swept clean so the can now apply
new asphalt over the compete area. This insures a long lasting repair that will not
need to again be done the following year.
Mike'stated they now are renting units at a cost of about $250 per day but have
had days when the weather has changed not allowing them to use it. When they
do rent a planer they try to do all the planning in one area and then come back
another day and lay the asphalt. This is not the most time affective way as it may
be a;day or so before they can get back to it and will have to again sweep and
clean out the patch area. He said we have a large number of streets now in need
of repair and more showing future need. This repair must be done before any
seal coating can be done. Mike estimates he would have use for a planer about
20days per year. At a rate of$ 250/day we will be spending about $5,000 per
year rental fees plus the cost of man hours needed to pick it up and return it. At $
5,OOO/yr we should have a payback within 3years for a purchased unit. Mike was
asked about replacement cutting teeth and he said they cost about $300 and at
the most would replace them once a year.
With the added yearly cost of cutting teeth we could still have a pay back in 3
years, possvlbly even resulting in a small net savings.
Rental $ 250 X 20eays = $5,000/yr X 3yr = $ 15,000
Less cost of Purchased unit - 12 258
$. 2,742
Less cost of cutting blades $300/yr X 3 900
$ 1,842 Savings
Page 2
MAC Meeting June 17, 2009
Mike:said he as received three (3) quotes, two were about the same as the state
contract $ 14,217 and $ 14,650, one was lower $ 12,258.36. The two from the
state contract were for units that would require some modification to fit on our
Bobcat. The third was for a unit would require no .changes as it was from Bobcat.
There was a discussion of the different widths of the cutters. Mike said he has
demoed them and the 24in seems the best fit. It was also discussed as what the
surrounding communities are using, which in most cases is the same as Mike is
suggesting.
A MOTION was made by Chuck Stanley and seconded by Geo Dege to
recommend the purchase of the 24in Bobcat Planer with the 24in high speed
drum from Tri-State Bobcat at a price of $ 12,258.36 plus tax.
The Motion passed 4-0
The damaged pickup was discussed and Mike said the insurance company said
they will give us the same amount of money with or with out the extras we have
installed. If we can take off the plow attachment, power lift gate, lights, tool box
and any other items. It was agreed there would then be no reason for us to buy it
back for parts.
A MOTION was made by Bud Talcott seconded by Chuck Stanley to recommend
Mike get bids on the cost of replacing the pickup, to strip the old one of usable
equipment and accept the insurance company offer.
The motion passed 4-0
It was discussed that past CIP plans have been to replace the pickups with hook
trucks when they came up for replacement. We will have to revisit this issue
when Mike comes back with the pickup quotes.
Hearing no objections the meeting was adjourned at 8:20pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Bud Talcott,
Chairman/ Secretary
y
t'
� t ,
r _ .. ,..
`oy
. ) �tla. o,a. M
��-: � �.�� _ •1 � � � � � Apr: �..,. l, ��
ca1
PCM _-
d
r f
,1
A
City Council
Date: July 7, 2009
CONSENT 5-
Motion
ITEM: Resolution accepting the public infrastructure improvements of the Discover Crossing
Development
SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to accept the public
infrastructure installed as part of the Discover Crossing Development. Engineering staff has
reviewed the requirements of the Developer's Agreement dated April 26, 2006, and the public
infrastructure has been installed in general conformance to City Standards. Please refer to the
attached City Engineer's recommendation letter of acceptance for this development.
RECOMMENDATION
It is hereby recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 09-032 accepting the
public infrastructure installed as part of the Discover Crossing Development.
Motion
Move to approve Resolution No. 09-032 accepting the developer-installed public infrastructure
improvements for the Discover Crossing Development.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Engineer's letter of development approval, dated July 1, 2009
2. Resolution No. 09-032
1
TKIN. A
ENGINEERS•ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS 444 Cedar Street,Suite 1500
Saint Paul,MN 55101-2140
July 1, 2009 (651)292 44DD
(651)292-0083 Fax
www.tkda,com
Mr. Robert D. Clark
Discover Crossing Investments, LLC
1.18 South Main Street
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
Re: Engineer's Recommendation for Final Acceptance
Discover Crossing
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
TKDA Project No. 13819.005
Dear Mr. Clark:
We have reviewed the Developer-installed improvements for the Discover Crossing
Development, and find that the work has been fully completed in all respects and in accordance
t With the'Developer's Agreement, the Contract, Plans and Specifications, and the applicable
standards and ordinances of the City. The Improvements are hereby declared to be complete and
acceptance of the Improvements by the City is reconunended.
The public improvemeints, except for the streets, have been in place for a minimum of 2 years
and no defective work remains. The streets were completed in November, 2008; therefore a
Warranty Bond in the amount of$194,000 to expire on November 30, 2010, has been received to
guarantee the street improvements for a period of 2 years.
Sincerely,
John (Jack) W. Griffin, P.E.
City Engineer
C. Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Superintendent
An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 09-032
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING
THE DEVELOPER-INSTALLED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE DISCOVER CROSSING DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure improvements the for the Discover Crossing
subdivision have been fully completed in compliance with the Development Agreement dated
April 26, 2006, with Discover Crossing Investments, LLC (the "Developer"), and the standards
and ordinances of the City;
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the improvements and in correspondence
dated July 1, 2009,. has declared the public infrastructure improvements to be complete and
recommends acceptance by the City;
WHEREAS, the estimated aggregate costs relating to the installation of public
improvements is $1,413,750.00; and
WHEREAS, the City shall, upon acceptance of the improvements, account for those
assets.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council accepts the Developer-
installed public infrastructure improvements for Discover Crossing; effective as of July 7, 2009.
Date: 2009 CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By:
Dean A. Johnston
Mayor
ATTEST:
Craig W. Dawson
Interim City Administrator
Resolution No. 09-032 1
City Council
Date: 07/02/09
REGULAR
Item-�f �o
MOTION:
ITEM: 2008 Annual Financial Audit Report
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 accept the 2008
Annual Financial Report.
BACKGROUND: The City retained the services of ABDO, EICK & MEYERS LLP to perform an
audit on the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business type activities, each
major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information for the year ending December 31, 2008.
ABDO, EICK& MEYERS also has provided the City with a Management Letter which highlights
some key areas of the Audit as well as information pertaining to future Statutes and Accounting
Standards changes. Steve McDonald from ABDO, EICK & MEYERS will present the report and
respond to any inquiries.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: After reviewing the reports, the Interim City Administrator, Finance
Director and Joe Rigdon have concluded that we are in agreement with the figures and findings.
The Office of the State Auditor, City Financial Reporting Form along with the management letter
has been submitted to the State Auditor. The City will submit an amended report if changes
become necessary.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION: Move to accept the 2008 audited Financial Report.
ATTACHMENT: 2008 Financial Report
Management Letter
City Council
Date: 7/7/09
Not a p Iic hearing
Item:
ITEM: Provide direction on buffer setback requirements in all OP
developments.
REQUESTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, Planner
REVIEWED BY: Craig Dawson, interim City Administrator
Dave Snyder, City Attorney
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to provide direction to
staff on how to proceed with the implementation of the buffer setback ordinance
which applies to all Open Space Preservation (OP)developments. Staff is
requesting direction from Council as we are aware that many homes and accessory
structures in existing OP developments are nonconforming to this requirement and
many vacant lots in newer platted developments are essentially unbuildable when
applying this setback. In fact, based on our research detailed in the attachments,
staff reviewed four of the nineteen OP developments at various stages of
development and found 36 homes already existing within the buffer setback and 14
vacant platted lots to be essentially unbuildable due to this setback requirement.
Other properties also had a majority of their rear yard in this setback, in many cases
eliminating any option of a permitted accessory structure.
Not taking action will result in continued variance requests being made on some lots
in most, if not all, OP developments. As mentioned, some existing platted vacant lots
in the City are also essentially unbuildable when this setback applies, which appear
to be due to errors, oversight, or an alternate interpretation made at the time of the
development review in some cases.
History of the Open Space Preservation Ordinance
The Open Space Preservation development ordinance was first written for Lake Elmo
in the 1990's. The purpose of the ordinance is to provide a developer the ability to
cluster more homes than otherwise permitted on smaller lots and to set aside land as
preserved open space in perpetuity. Originally, an Open Space Preservation
development required an additional step to rezone the property as OP before a
development was reviewed and approved. Since then, this approach has been
revised so that an OP development could be permitted by a conditional use permit in
specific zoning districts, thereby eliminating the additional step of rezoning the
property. Although the zoning district code language was repealed, the zoning of the
existing developments was never retroactively returned to Agricultural or Rural
Residential, and therefore the Open Space district remains on the zoning maps.
As a part of this ordinance from the beginning, a buffer setback (originally called a
buffer zone)was identified as an effort to physically buffer the existing adjoining
neighbors from the more densely built clustered homes. The buffer setback section
of the ordinance has been revised a few times throughout the years to its current
form, which was last approved in 2001. A buffer setback has always been required,
but has varied in depth from 100 to 200 feet and has been revised from once just
requiring"main structures" to be outside the setback to all structures and road
surfaces not at a 90 degree angle.
The OP ordinance permits the City Council to modify any of the minimum standards
outlined in the ordinance by a 4/5 vote. Staff has found this clause has been used in
altering the buffer setback requirement in some of the OP developments.
The current OP ordinance is attached at the end of this report with the buffer setback
section on pages four and five. Unless specified by a 4/5 vote of the City Council,
this is the ordinance implemented in all Open Space Preservation developments.
Current Issues:
Staff has found difficulty in implementing the current buffer setback due to its
revisions over time and its resulting impact on existing developments as well as the
unknown intent at the time of development review. Staff is seeking clarity from the
Council as this needs to be addressed in existing and future OP developments as
well as future building permits.
Staff is recommending the Council direct the Planning Commission to further study
the ordinance and provide some direction to the Commission on how to proceed with
addressing the non-conformities. Staff has identified a few options for the City
Council to consider in providing direction to the Planning Commission:
Options For Consideration:
Option 1: Adjust the OP ordinance—Setback Distance.
By reducing or eliminating the buffer setback, most, if not all of the existing homes
would be in a conforming location. This would allow existing homeowners to
potentially build a deck, porch, or addition without a variance. If the buffer setback
were eliminated entirely, an accessory structure would also not need a variance from
the buffer setback on those lots previously within that setback.
This is the easiest option to administer as it would apply across the board, with the
exception of those developments that received a specific 4/5 vote by the Council to
put in place a specific buffer setback reduction (such as Farms of take Elmo and
Tapestry).
Option 2: Adjust the OP ordinance -Structure.
A previous version of the ordinance required only main structures"to be outside of
the buffer setback. By returning to the language requiring only houses or"primary
structures" to be outside the buffer setback would open up the rear yard of those lots
near the edge of the development to structures such as sheds and pools.
This would not assist those whose homes are currently within the buffer setback who
wish to add on to the primary structure.
Option 3: Adjust the OP ordinance—Flexible Language
The buffer setback language could be altered to be more flexible to allow the buffer
setback to be set at the time of development approval. Without specific setbacks,
each development shall specify buffering and setbacks adequate to protect
neighboring uses. This option would provide the City Council the discretion to view
each development on a case-by-case basis and make decisions based on the land
and unique development characteristics.
While this option would address future developments, it would not identify how to
address existing developments with non-conformities and unbuildable lots. The
difficulty in administering this option in the future is to check building permits for the
unique requirements of each OP development.
Option 4: Review Each Existing Development Independently
There are existing developments in which the City Council at the time chose to
reduce the buffer setback, typically from 200 feet to 100 feet from certain edges of a
development. Staff has found at least one development(Tana Ridge)where no
documentation is recorded reducing the buffer setback, and therefore the 200 foot
setback is utilized.
If the City Council would like to revisit each development, a 415 vote could be used to
alter any requirements for the development that were not working for the particular
development without impacting other OP developments.
This would be the most time consuming both for Staff and Council as there is
currently no master list(other than that started recently by staff) of what reductions in
buffer setbacks were approved. Old development files, resolutions, and minutes
must be researched to see if a reduction was ever approved by the required 415 vote
of the Council. The Planning Commission and City Council would then review each
development with respect to what is already built, what the requirements are, and
what changes (if any) are warranted.
Option 5: Leave the Ordinance As is
If the City Council decides that this ordinance has been revised and should remain in
its current form, the current ordinance will continue to apply to all nineteen Open
Space Preservation developments unless otherwise approved by the City Council
(typically at the time of development approval).
This option would result in more variances being requested as many residents have
homes either partly or mostly within the buffer setback. Therefore, if they wanted to
add a deck, screened porch, or addition in the setback area, a variance would be
required. The way the code currently reads (as confirmed by the City Attorney)
would be to exclude all structures within this setback. Therefore, if a resident had a
property that had the entire rear yard fall within the buffer setback and a conforming
location were not possible, a variance would be needed for a pool, shed, or any other
structure.
Examples in Open Space Developments
See attached details on the following OP developments.
- Tana Ridge
- Farms of Lake Elmo
- Parkview Estates
- Sanctuary
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
➢ Staff has received an appeal application on the denial of a building permit
application. The applicant lives on Lily Avenue in the Tana Ridge neighborhood
and applied to build an in-ground pool in the rear yard. Staff found this would not
be permitted as it falls within the buffer setback of the OP development.
➢ The City Council recently approved a variance for an in-ground pool and spa at
2931 Jonquil Trail North. Due to unique circumstances, the pool and spa were
permitted to be 12 feet within the 100 foot buffer setback in the Farms of Lake
Elmo development.
➢ The Open Space Preservation ordinance was revised in 2008 to address
concern over the impervious surface requirement in the developments. Staff
found numerous non-conformities in existing developments. The impervious
surface requirement was raised to twenty percent with an additional five percent
permitted if mitigation measures were approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, staff is not asking the City Council to make a final decision on how to
address the non-conformities in the OP developments. Instead, staff is looking for
the following:
➢ Direction from the Council for the Planning Commission to review the OP
ordinance with regards to buffer setbacks
➢ General feedback to the Planning Commission as to what options (either
provided above by staff or suggested by the Council) should be looked at
more in-depth than the others.
➢ Intent of the existing ordinance as it relates to all OP developments.
That being said, staff would recommend a combination of the options provided
above, specifically Options 3 and 4, to address both existing developments and the
related non-conformities as well as to provide direction for future OP development
review.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Move to direct the Planning Commission to review the Open Space Preservation development
ordinance with regards to buffer setbacks in order to address both existing non-conformities and
future developments and to look more in depth at options#and#provided by staff.
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction....................................................Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
- Report by staff...................................................................Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
- Questions from the Council..................................................Mayor & Council Members
- Questions/Comments from the public..................................................Mayor facilitates
- Consider a Motion
(required for further discussion; does not
imply approval of the motion ......................... ......................................Mayor facilitates
- Discussion .................................................... ......................................Mayor facilitates
- Action on motion............................................ ....................................................Council
ATTACHMENTS (2):
1. Existing Development Summaries
2. Current Open Space Preservation ordinance.
TANA RIDGE
Zoned: OP
—,� — Residential Lots. 20
s F' Vacant Lots: None
Homes within Buffer
a t Setback (partial or
y— wholly): 14
Properties with
Accessory Structures
within Buffer
*• Setback: 2 (Pools)
Unbuildable Lots:
Although all the lots
have houses built
upon them, the 200
i
foot setback makes 6
lots entirely non-
conforming.
D
The development was
approved in 1999.
No record of the
Council reducing the
Yam .
buffer setback.
200 Foot Buffer Setback
Blue Squares represent pools built since aerial photo taken. Pools are not to scale, but
shown in the general location they were built.
FARMS OF LAKE ELMO
Y _�,Y -�-- .: • --�_= Zoned: AG
w/CUP for OP
'q`R ���Y�*ti :�.1" 1,^.:��, F � • _
'" • Residential Lots:
30
f- Vacant Lots: 20
r
Homes within
Buffer Setback
(partial or
whop 2
.F
• _. Properties with
`- Accessory
•• ,, t ! Structures within
Buffer Setback:
Unbuildable
' - ---- - ._ __ •r, Lots. 0
Although the lots
are buildable,
there is little to
no room in the
rear yard of five
lots with existing
homes near the
I - setback line.
1 The development was approved in October 2005.
Council approved a 100 foot buffer setback from the West, South, and East edge of the
development. A 200 foot buffer setback remains from the North.
Green Line- 100 foot Buffer Setback
Red Line-200 foot Buffer Setback
PARKVIEW ESTATES
,,,�` , .� ,•� ,` ', ". '. :k- Zoned: OP
_
Residential Lots: 32
Vacant Lots: None
Homes within Buffer
Setback (partial or
wholly): 14
• Properties with
•`' Accessory Structures
within Buffer
-y
Setback: 5
Unbuildable Lots:
Although all the lots
have houses built
upon them, the 200
• foot setback makes
four lots entirely
non-conforming and
eleven additional lots
�.' ` , -• _ with challenges for
any additional
improvements to the
y`•. _ property.
1� The development was
t approved in 1998.
AM
i Y _�•, '
r ` — No record of the
Council reducing or
establishing a buffer
setback.
^� Green Line - 200 Foot
Buffer Setback
ST. CROIX'S SANCTUARY
AR
1
Zoned: Rural Residential with a CUP Unbuildable Vacant Lots: 14.
for an OP
The development was approved in 2005.
Residential Lots: 63
No record of the Council officially
Vacant Lots: 38 reducing the buffer setback. The
applicant made mention in their
Homes within Buffer Setback (partial or narrative that the South and East side of
wholly): 6 the development would be eligible for
the reduced 100 foot buffer setback.
Properties with Accessory Structures
within Buffer Setback: 0 The green line shows a 200 foot buffer
setback.
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
§ 150175 PURPOSE.
(A) The purpose of open space preservation (OP) is to maintain the rural character
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.
(Ord. 97-79, passed 5-1-2001)
§ 150.176 INTENT.
(A) It is the intent of the City of Lake Elmo to accomplish the stated purpose of OP
by approving a conditional use permit for portions of property currently zoned
Agricultural,Rural Residential, and Rural Estate; and by adopting the comprehensive
development regulations contained herein.
(B) In return for requiring preserved open space as contained herein; it is the intent
of the City of Lake Elmo to allow dwelling unit density that will provide a development
density equal to or greater than the prior zoning; AG, Agricultural,RR,Rural Residential,
and RE Residential Estate.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001)
§ 150.177 DEFINITIONS.
Unless specifically defined in §§ 150.175 et seq., common definitions,words, and
phrases used in §§ 150.175 et seq, shall be interpreted so as to give them the same
meaning as they have in common usage throughout this code and are found in § 11.01.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001)
§ 150.178 USE REGULATIONS.
Within OP,the following uses are allowed.
(A) Permitted uses.
(1) Single-family, detached;
(2) Preserved open space;
(3) Conservation easements;
(4) Agriculture;
(5) Suburban farms;
(6) Private stables;
(7) Single-family, attached; .
(8) Townhouses (no more than 25%in any development); and
(9) Wayside stand.
(B) Accessory uses, Uses that are typically found accessory to a permitted use.
(C) Prohibited uses, All other uses are hereby prohibited.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001; Am. Ord. 08-006,passed 6-17-2009) Penalty, see-� 10.99
§ 150.179 OP CONDITIONAL,USE PERMIT REQUIRED.
No property may be developed responsive to §§ 150.175 et seq. unless approval is
obtained from the City Council following its approval of the concept plan, development
stage plan, conditional use permit, and final plan described herein. Applications for
Council approval shall be submitted on forms provided by the City Administrator
together with all required fees,maps, surveys, and planning data. Only completed
applications shall be referred to the Planning Commission for review.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001) Penalty,, see � 10.99
§ 150.180 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(A) OP developments shall comply with the following minimum standards unless
modified by 4/5 affirmative votes of the City Council.
(B) (1) Land area. Applications for a residential development in the OP District
shall meet all the following criteria.
(a) The minimum land area for an OP conditional use permit is a nominal
contiguous 40 acres. The ratio of parcel length to width shall not exceed 3 to 1. The total
number of dwelling units permitted shall be according to the development density criteria
contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The total number of dwelling units within an OP
development shall not exceed the density limitations contained in the Comprehensive
Plan for OP Districts.
(b) The total preserved open space area within the OP development shall be at
least 50% of the total buildable land area, as defined by§ 11.01. Areas not meeting the
definition of buildable land area shall not be not be considered to be preserved open
space in determining the amount of preserved open space proposed.
(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. The land shall be controlled
in 1 or more following manners as determined in the city's sole discretion,
a. Owned by an individual or legal entity who will use the land for
preserved open space purposes as provided by permanent conservation restrictions (in
accordance with M.S. Ch. 84C.01-.05, as it may be amended from time to time),to an
acceptable land trust as approved by the city; and/or
b. Conveyed by conservation easement to the city.
2. Not less than 60%of the preserved open space shall be in contiguous
parcels of not less than 10 acres.
3. Parks and recreational facilities shall be provided in addition to
preserved open space as specified in the Lake Elmo Parks Plan; and, consistent with the
park dedication and fees-in-lieu standards as specified by Chapter 153.
4. The preserved open space land shall be maintained for the purposes for
which it was set aside. If preserved open space was set aside for agricultural purposes or
for natural habitat, a plan shall be submitted which will indicate how the land will be
maintained or returned to a natural state and who will be responsible for plan
implementation. Developers shall provide copies of deed covenants to prospective
purchasers, and conservation easements to the city, describing land management practices
to be followed by the party or parties responsible for maintaining the preserved open
space.
S. Where applicable, a homeowner's association shall be established to
permanently maintain all residual open space and recreational facilities. The
homeowner's association agreements, guaranteeing continuing maintenance, and giving
lien right to the city if there is lack of the maintenance shall be submitted to the city as
part of the documentation requirements of§§ 150.175 et seq. for a final plan.
6. Preserved open space parcels uses shall be contiguous with preserved
open space or public park, on adjacent parcels.
(b) Lot design. Lots shall be designed to achieve the following objectives
(listed in order of priority):
1. On the most suitable soils for sub-surface septic disposal;
2. On the least fertile soils for agricultural uses, and in a manner which
maximizes the usable area remaining for the agricultural use;
3. Within any woodland contained in the parcel, or along the far edges of
the open fields, adjacent to any woodland(to reduce impact upon agriculture, to provide
summer shade and shelter from winter wind, and to enable new construction to be
visually absorbed by natural landscape features);
4. In locations least likely to block or interrupt scenic vistas, as viewed
from Highway 36 and Highway 5 corridors, and other local roads as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan; and
5. Away from woodlands in open fields.
(c) Structures. Homes shall be oriented on the site that meets the criteria of
rural hamlet. It is desired that the structures within neighborhoods convey a particular
architectural style with similar building components,materials,roof pitches.
(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.
(e) Boulevard landscaping. Boulevard landscaping is required along all
streets to consist of at least 1 tree per every 30 feet or placed in dusters at the same ratio.
A landscape plan for the entire site is required and shall consist of at least 10 trees per
building site; and trees shall not be not less than 1.5 inch in caliper measured at 54 inches
above grade level.
(f) Pathway. A pathway system or sidewalks shall be identified which will
extend through the buildable land area or through the open space land to connect to a
planned or developed pathway on adjacent parcels or to a local road. Pathways shall be
linked to the "Old Village" to emphasize the connection betweenn existing and new
development. Pathways provided shall be at least equal in length to the sum of the
centerline length of all public roads within the development. Pathways shall be
constructed of asphalt or concrete in compliance with the standard city design plate for
OP trails.
(g) Densities. The maximum dwelling unit density shall be 18 units per 40
gross acres of buildable land.
(h) Minimum district requirements.
Open Space Preservation District(OP)
Single-Family Townhouse
Maximum Building Height:
Primary Structure 2 and%z stories or 35 feet 2 and'/z stories or 35 feet
Accessory Structure 25 feet 1 story or 20 feet,whichever is less
Minimum Lot Width: NA NA
%2 acre lot;1 acre lot
Maximum impervious Surface Coverage: 20%. This percentage may be increased
to 25%provided a pervious paver or
comparable system is installed
Gross Lot Area consistent with the City of Lake Elmo
Engineering Standards Manual or storm
water mitigation measures are installed
to mitigate the runoff created by the
additional coverage above the base
district amount. All mitigation measures
must be approved by the City Engineer. NA
Minimum Setback Requirements:
Front Yard 30 feet 20 feet
Open Space Preservation District(OP)
Single-Family Townhouse
Side Yard 15 feet or 10%of lot width,whichever is 15 feet or 10%of lot width,whichever is
greater greater
Corner Lot Front 30 feet 30 feet
Corner Lot Side Yard 30 feet 30 feet
Well From Septic Tank 50 feet 50 feet
Minimum Lot Size:
Individual Well and Septic System 1 acre NA
Individual Well and Communal Drainfield '/2 acre 8,000 square feet per unit
(i) Utilities.
1. OP developments may be platted to accommodate home site lots with
either individual septic tanks and drainfields; or, with individual septic tanks and
communal drainfields. Single-family or multiple-family lots under 1 acre shall be
constructed with an individual septic tank and a communal drainfield.
2. All septic systems shall conform to the performance standards of the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's standards for sewage treatment systems WPC-
7080 and its appendices, or the M.P.C.A. standards in effect at the time of installation and
septic system regulations of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code.
3. Communal drainfields may be partially or completely located in an area
designated as preserved open space provided:
a. The ground cover is restored to its natural condition after
installation; and
b. Recreational uses are prohibited above or within 50 feet of
communal drainfields, or as approved by the City Engineer.
4. No wetland treatment system shall be allowed within the village green.
(j) Streets. Streets shall be developed according to the following standards
that promote road safety, assure adequate access for fire and rescue vehicles, and promote
adequate vehicular circulation.
1. Streets shall be designed according to the following standards;
pavement shall be 14 to 16 feet wide for 1-way streets;pavement shall be 22 to 24 feet
wide for 2-way streets; and the pavement width shall be 22 to 24 feet for streets where
homes are located on 1 side of the street.
2. The minimum street right-of-way for 1-way streets shall be 40 feet and
the minimum right-of-way for 2-way street shall be 50 feet.
3. Streets shall not be constructed with a rural cross-section.
(Ord. 97-79, passed 5-1-2001; Am. Ord. 97-184, passed 10-3-2006; Am. Ord. 97-199,
passed I 1-5-2007; Am. Ord. 08-008,passed 8-19-2008) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.181 HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
i
Historic structures on the site shall be identified.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001) Penalty, see -10.99
§ 150.182 OP DEVELOPMENTICONCEPT PLAN.
(A) Requited submittals; OP development/concept plan. The applicant shall submit
20 copies of a concept plan for a development of an OP that shall include the following
information.
(1) An existing conditions plan which identifies the following (drawn to a scale
of 1 inch equal to 100 feet):
(a) Primary conservation areas;
(b) Secondary conservation areas;
(c) Site topography at 2 foot contour interval; and
(d) Location and description of existing vegetative cover.
I (2) A general site plan to include the general location of all platted lots, streets,
II and open space areas, structures,trails, common open spaces, and parks (drawn to scale
I of 1 inch equal to 100 feet).
(3) The applicant shall submit a schedule of site characteristics, calculated in
acres,which shall include the following.
(a) Environmental resources. Include map and calculated acreage of the
following:
1. Total site;
2. Protected wetlands;
3. Wetland buffer/setback area;
4. 12% - 24% sloped area;
5. 25%+ sloped area; and
6. Woodlands.
(b) Public improvements. Include map and calculated acreage of the
following:
1. Public road right-of-way;
2. Drainage way and ponding areas;
3. Trails/bikeways and sidewalks (outside of road right-of-way)-,
4. Utility easements; and
5. Public parks.
(c) Proposed development. Include map and calculated acreage of the
following:
1. Total residential area;
2. Total commercial land area; and
3. Total preserved open space.
(d) A general landscape plan.
(e) Statement of intent. If applicable,provide a statement of intent
establishing a homeowners association with bylaws and deed restrictions to include,but
not be limited to, the following:
1. Ownership,management, and maintenance of defined preserved open
space;
2. Maintenance of public and private utilities; and
3. General architectural guidelines for principal and accessory structures.
(f) Proposed staging plan.
(g) Historic preservation plan. Where applicable, an historic preservation
plan for any historic structures on the site.
(B) Planning Commission review.
(1) Upon receipt of a completed application for an OP development/concept plan
as certified to by the City Planner, the Planning Commission shall review OP
development concept plan application at a public hearing preceded by 10-days published
notice and 2-weeks mailed notice to the recorded owners of each parcel located within
350 feet of the perimeter of the proposed development.
(2) The Planning Commission shall make its recommendations to the City
Council within 30 days of receipt of a complete application, and shall include its findings
on the following.
(a) The concept plan is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan.
(b) The concept plan is consistent with the purpose of§§ 150.175 et seq.
(c) The concept plan complies with the development standards of§§ 150.175
et seq.
(C) City Council review. The City Council shall review and approve or deny OP
development concept plan within thirty days of the receipt of a completed application.
The City Council may also table its review a reasonable time,if necessary to obtain
information that will enable the Council to make a reasonable decision, and if the
extension is consented to the by the applicant on the record. OP development concept
plan approval shall require 3 affirmative votes of the City Council.
(D) Limitation of approval. Unless an OP development preliminary plan is
submitted within 12 months from the date on which the City Council approved the OP
development concept plan,the concept plan approval shall expire. The City Council, in
its sole discretion,may extend the filing deadline for an OP development preliminary
' plan and conditional use permit if an application for extension is filed and approved by
the City Council before the OP development concept plan approval expires.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.183 OP DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT,
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
(A) Submittals. The OP development preliminary plan shall include the following:
(1) A statement of city action necessary for implementation of the proposed
plan;
(2) Twenty sets of site plans, drawn to scale of not less than 1 inch equals 100
feet containing at least the following information:
(a) Proposed name of the development (which shall not duplicate nor be
similar in pronunciation to the name of any plat previously recorded in Washington
County);
(b) Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any
significant topographical or physical features of the property that may have an impact on
the open space or the development;
(c) Location, dimensions, and number of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts,
par stalls, loading spaces,and access aisles,and all other circulation elements including
bike and pedestrian trails; and the total site coverage of all circulation elements;
(d) Location, designation, and total area of all preserved open space;
(e) Location,designation, and total area proposed to be conveyed or
dedicated for public open space,including parks,playgrounds, school sites, and
recreational facilities;
(fj Proposed lots and blocks, if any, and numbering system;
(g) The location,use, and size of structures and other land use on adjacent
properties;
(h) Preliminary sketches of proposed landscaping;
(i) General grading and drainage plans for the developed OP development;
0) The development plans shall also indicate the results of deep soil test pits
and percolation tests, at the rate of no fewer than 2 successful test results for each
proposed septic disposal area; and
1
} (k) Any other information that may have been required by the City Council in
conjunction with the approval of the OP development concept plan.
(3) An accurate legal description of the entire area within the OP development
for which development plans approval is sought;
(4) Architectural and perfonnance standards for the development;
(5) Preliminary grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to existing
topography and natural vegetation. The plan should clearly reflect the site treatment and
its confonnance with the approved concept plan;
(6) A preliminary plat prepared in accordance with M.S. Ch. 505, as it maybe
amended from time to time, Chapter.153 of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, and other
applicable laws;
(7) A Soil Erosion Control Plan clearly illustrating erosion control measures to
be used during construction and as permanent measures; and
(8) Homeowner's Association documents including bylaws, deed restrictions,
covenants, and proposed conservation easements.
(B) Planning Commission review. Upon receipt of a complete OP development
preliminary plan by the city, as certified as complete by the City Planner, the City
Planner shall refer the preliminary plan to the appropriate city staff, consultants, and
other review agencies. The Planning Commission shall review the OP development
preliminary plan and shall schedule public hearings as required for preliminary plat and
conditional use permit review within 30 days of the City Planner's receipt of a completed
application and shall make its recommendations to the City Council regarding the
preliminary plan, conditional use permit, and preliminary plat.
(C) City Council review.
(1) Within 60 days of the city receipt of a complete application, the City Council
shall review the OP development preliminary plan, conditional use permit, and the
preliminary plat. The OP development plan, conditional use permit, and preliminary plat
shall require 3 affirmative council votes for approval.
(2) Upon approval,the City Council shall instruct the City Attorney to draw up
an OP development agreement that stipulates the specific terms and conditions
established and approved by the City Council and accepted by the applicant. This
agreement shall be signed by the Mayor, City Administrator, and applicant within 30
days of Council approval of the OP development preliminary plan and conditional use
permit.
(D) Limitation on preliminary plan approval. Unless a final plan covering the area
designated in the preliminary development plan as the first stage of the OP development
has been filed within 6 months from the date Council grants approval, or in any case
where the applicant fails to file final plans and to proceed with the development
according to the provisions of§§ 150.175 et seq., the preliminary development plan and
conditional use permit shall expire. The Council may, at its discretion, extend the filing
deadline for any final plan when, for good cause shown, the extension is reasonable. In
any case where preliminary development plan and conditional use permit approval
expires,the concept plan approval and preliminary development plan approval for that
portion of the OP development that has not received final plan approval is void.
(Ord. 97-79, passed 5-1-2001) PenaltL see 110.99
§ 150.184 OP DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN.
(A) The purpose of the final plans is to provide a complete,thorough, and
permanent public record of the OP development and the manner in which it is to be
developed. It shall incorporate all prior approved plans and all approved modifications
thereof resulting from the OP development process. It shall serve in conjunction with
other city ordinances as the land use regulation applicable to the OP development.
(B) (1) Submittals required. After approval of the concept plan and preliminary
plan for an OP development, the applicant shall submit the following material for review
by the city staff prior to the issuance of any building related permits:
(a) A detailed landscaping plan;
(b) All easements and restrictive covenants;
(c) All certificates, seals, and signatures required for the dedication of land
and recording of documents;
(d) General architectural working drawings of all historic structures to be
rehabilitated;
(e) Final engineering plans and specifications for streets,utilities, and other
public improvements,together with all required development agreements for the
installation of the improvements;
(f) Any other plans, agreements, or specifications reasonably necessary for
the city staff to review the proposed construction; and
(g) Final plat.
(2) City Council review. The final plan is intended only to add administration
detail to, and to put in final form,the information contained in the concept plan and the
preliminary development plan, and shall conforin to the concept plan and preliminary
development plan. The city shall review and approve the final plan and final plat within
60 days of receipt of a complete final OP development plan and final plat, as certified as
complete by the City Planner.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.185 RECORDING OF FINAL PLAT.
The applicant shall submit to the city the recordable final plat drawings; all easements,
deeds, plans, fees, financial security, and the other documentation as may be required by
the development agreement within 30 days of final plan and final plat approval by the
City Council. The recordable Final Plat, approval resolution, and the other documents
that require recording shall be released by the city to the applicant for the recording only
upon review and approval by appropriate city staff; and, execution by the applicant and
required city officials.
(Ord. 97-79, passed 5-1-2001) Penalty, see � 10.99
§ 150.186 BUILDING AND OTHER PERMITS.
Except as otherwise expressly provided herein,upon receiving written notice from the
City Planner that the approved final plan has been recorded and all conditions of approval
satisfied,the City Building official may issue building and other permits to the applicant
for development, construction, and other work in the area encompassed by the approved
final plan;provided,however,that no permit shall be issued except upon proper
application and.after the requirements of all other applicable codes and ordinances have
been satisfied.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001)
§ 1.50.187 LIMITATION ON FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
Within 18 months after approval of a final plan for OP development, or the shorter
time as may be established by the approved development schedule, construction shall
commence according to the approved plan. Failure to commence construction within the
period shall automatically render void the OP conditional use permit and all approvals for
the final OP development plan, The City Council may at is discretion extend the
construction time as necessary when good cause is shown.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.188 METHOD OF AMENDING AN OP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
Any desired change involving structural alteration, enlargement,or intensification of
{ the use,not specifically allowed by the specific terms of a previously passed OP
II conditional use permit, shall require that an application be filed for an amended permit
and all procedures shall then apply as if a new permit was applied for.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001) Penalty, see � 10.99
§ 150.189 INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS; ADDITIONS;EXCEPTIONS.
The City Administrator shall maintain a record of all permits issued, including
information on the use,locations, conditions imposed, time limits,review dates, and the
other information as may be appropriate.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001)
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
Date: 7.7.09
REGULAR
Item: 8
ACTION
ITEM: Hold an appeal hearing on denial of a building permit application for an
in-ground pool structure due to encroachment in 200 buffer setback at
4884 Lily Avenue
REQUESTED BY: Joe and Jennifer Pelletier, property owners, 4884 Lily Avenue
SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED
The City Council, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, is being asked to hold an
appeals hearing for the denial of a building permit for an in-ground pool proposed to be located in
the rear yard of 4884 Lily Avenue. Under Section 31.10 of the city code, property owners are
allowed to appeal a determination of the zoning code if the appeal is made within five business
days from the date of the decision, order, requirement or determination. The City received a
request for an appeal hearing within the required timeframe.The appeals hearing is scheduled for
the July 7, 2009 City Council meeting for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Notices were
mailed to the property owners, the Tana Ridge neighborhood and the Planning Commission
Chair.
WHAT IS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS BEING ASKED TO DETERMINE
The Board of Adjustment is being asked to determine if the in-ground pool proposed by Mr.
Pelletier at 4884 Lily Avenue is located within the buffer setback for the Tana Ridge Open Space
Preservation development as identified by the Planning Department. The site plan showing the
proposed pool location is attached.
AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
City code describes the authority of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals in the following
manner:
The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may reverse or affirm, or wholly or partly,
or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from
and to the extent shall have all the powers of the officer from who the appeal was
taken, and may direct the issuance of the permit.
HISTORY OF TANA RIDGE AND PELLETIER PROPERTY
o April 1998—Open Space Preservation Ordinance amended, including the Buffer Zone
section. A buffer setback is required.
o July 1998 -The City of Lake Elmo received an application to rezone a property from
Rural Residential to Open Space Preservation (OP) on July 7, 1998
(Ordinance 97-32).
o August 1998—A Concept Plan for Tana Ridge for approved August 18, 1998 (Resolution
98-48).
o Feb. 1999-The OP Concept Plan for Tana Ridge was amended on February 2, 1999
(Resolution 99-11).
1
o July 1999-Council approved the Concept Plan for Tana Ridge on July 6, 1999
(Resolution 99-42).
o September 1999 -An Open Space Development Stage Plan(Res. 99-57) and
Preliminary Plat(Resolution 99-58)was approved by the City Council on
September 21, 1999.
o January 2000--Final Plat &OP Development Plan and Development Agreement for
Tana Ridge was approved on January 18, 2000 (Res, 2000-03).
o May 1, 2001 —Open Space Preservation Ordinance amended to its current language
(Ord. 97-79).
o May 21, 2001 —A building permit was issued by the City to B.M.L. Builders Inc to build a
new home at 4884 Lily Avenue (Lot 1, Block 4 Tana Ridge).
o June 8, 2009—A building permit is received for a proposed in-ground pool by Mr.
Pelletier for 4884 Lily Avenue North.
o June 9—23, 2009—Planning Department staff reviews the application and is in contact
with Mr. Pelletier regarding his building permit application.
o June 23, 2009—Planning Department staff meets with City Attorney and determines the
200 foot buffer setback applies and denies Mr. Pelletier's building permit.
o June 25, 2009—Mr. Pelletier applies for an appeal to the denial of his building permit for
the in-ground pool.
WHAT IS A"STRUCTURE"?
Also called into question with this appeal is the determination if a pool is indeed a structure. Staff
has interpreted a pool as a structure based on the definition provided in code.
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.
The interpretation that an in-ground pool is indeed a structure was confirmed by the City Attorney.
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
The Open Space Preservation (OP)Ordinance has been revised multiple times since its original
adoption in the 1990's. The Tana Ridge development was approved as an OP development
shortly before sections of that code were revised, one of which was the buffer setback
subsection. At the time of the Tana Ridge development, the Council did not take formal action to
establish a buffer setback (or lack thereof)from the edges of the development. Therefore, when
the ordinance was revised to the current version, the new section of code applied not only to
Tana Ridge, but all other OP developments except for those where the Council explicitly stated
otherwise,
As permitted by the current City Code, at the sole discretion of the City Council, a buffer setback
as required from the edge of an Open Space Preservation development, may be reduced in size
by a 4/5 vote.
Staff has found no documented indication at the time of the ordinance revision that the intent was
for the new requirements not to apply to existing OP developments.
2
IN THIS CASE:
The Board of Adjustment and Appeals is asked to examine the finding of noncompliance
with the existing code which resulted in denial of the building permit for the proposed pool
structure. Determination that staff erred in interpreting the code, and that the building permit
should be issued for the pool at 4884 Lily Avenue without a variance, must be substantiated by
findings of fact. When conducting this review, the Board is asked to keep the fallowing in mind:
1. This is not a policy decision by the Board of Adjustment and Appeal; it is a determination as
to whether the City Code has been properly interpreted as written with regards to the buffer
setback in the Tana Ridge development.
2. The Board of Appeals cannot find the proposed pool is conforming to code based on what
may or may not be present both on the applicant's property or on other property within the
City. The proposed pool structure either conforms to code as written or it does not.
3. This is not a policy decision about the clarity or appropriateness of zoning code sections
related to the proposed accessory structure. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments is not a
policy making body. Such a finding must have no bearing on the determination as to whether
the structure is conforming or nonconforming with current codes as written. Please note that
the Board may recommend that City Council direct staff to make changes to the ordinance to
address any identified concerns or the Planning Commission to further review the ordinance.
4. The Board of Appeals may also recommend that the City Council establish a new buffer
setback through a resolution approval by 4/5 vote of the members of the Council.
OPTIONS
Option 1: Find that the proposed pool structure would not be in violation of the buffer setback
as cited by staff.
- Separate findings of fact must be given as to why the structure conforms to the
section of code in question.
Option 2: Find that the proposed pool structure, if permitted in the proposed location, would be
in violation of the buffer setback requirement for Tana Ridge, an OP development, as
cited by staff and therefore the determination to deny the building permit is upheld.
If the Board of Adjustment and Appeals determines that the buffer setback is 200 feet
and does apply to this property, the property owners have the option to:
1. Proceed with a request for a variance, which requires a hardship finding. If the
variance is not granted, the pool structure would not be permitted.
OR
2. Continue to stay involved and informed of any future discussions of possible
revisions to the Open Space Preservation ordinance,
SUGGSETED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION:
Move to approve findings related to the denial of the proposed pool structure at 4884 Lily
Avenue.
3
ORDER OF BUSINESS
1. Adjourn to the Board of Appeals and Adjustment City Council
2. Open appeal hearing............................................................... Mayor
3. Introduction to the purpose of the appeal hearing................... Dave Snyder, City Attorney
- Questions to the attorney from the City Council
4. Report on determination of permit denial ................................ Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
- Questions to the attorney from the City Council
5. Response to determination of permit denial............................ Joe Pelletier, Property Owner
- Questions to Mr. Pelletier from the City Council
6. Comments—if any—from those notified of the hearing
(neighborhood property owners, planning commission Mayor facilitates
chair)........................................................................................
7. Motion on decision based upon findings of fact...................... Mayor and Board members
8. Discussion of the appeal ......................................................... Mayor facilitates
i 9. Move to approve or deny the appeal—or portions of the
appeal—based upon findings of fact....................................... Mayor and Board members
10. Adjourn as the Board of Adjustment and Appeal .................... Mayor
ATTACHMENTS:
k
1 Proposed findings of fact
2 Mr. Pelletier's Narrative and Images
4
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
Washington County,Minnesota
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-01
(City Council Resolution No.2009-030)
A RESOLUTION STATING FINDINGS OF FACT
RELATED TO AN APPEAL ON THE DETERMINATION NOT TO APPROVE
A BUILDING PERMIT FOR PROPERTY AT 4884 LILY AVENUE NORTH
WHEREAS, the owners of property at 4884 Lily Avenue North, Joe and Jennifer Pelletier,
made application for a building permit to construct an in-ground pool on June 8,2009; and
WHEREAS,the City staff determined that the building permit could not be approved due to
the following circumstances:
1) The property is in the Tana Ridge subdivision, for which is the land use is
regulated under the City's Open Space Preservation(OP) zone.
2) The OP zone requires that there be a 200-foot buffer from the edge of the
subdivision to adjoining properties, and within this buffer no structures may be
built.
3) While the City Code permits the City Council to reduce the buffer setback by a
four-fifths vote of the Council, there is no record that the City Council has taken
any action to reduce the buffer setback.
4) In Section 11.01 of the City Code, "Structure" is defined as"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."
5) As the proposed location of the in-ground pool is within the 200-foot buffer
setback and the pool is a structure and thus not allowed in the buffer setback, staff
in consultation with the City Attorney informed the applicants on June 23, 2009,
that the building permit could not be approved.
WHEREAS, the applicants submitted an appeal to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
regarding the determination not to issue the building permit for the proposed in-ground pool, and
requesting that the Board find that the permit should be issued; and
WHEREAS,the Board heard the applicants and the City's staff and counsel on July 7, 2009,
and considered the facts of this case.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments of the City of
Lake Elmo,that the Board concurs with the reasons not to approve the issuance of the building
permit for the proposed in-ground pool at 4884 Lily Avenue North, as stated in 1)through 5) above.
2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board encourages the City Council to consider whether
actions should be taken regarding the Tana Ridge OP development in terms of the buffer setback that
applies to it.
ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS of the City of Lake Elmo this
7'h day of July,2009.
Dean A. Johnston, Chair
Attest:
i
Craig W. Dawson, Interim Administrator
July 7, 2009
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: Appeal of Pool Permit for the below listed property:
Joe and Jennifer Pelletier
4884 Lily Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Tana Ridge Development
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am appealing the decision of the city planner in relation to a swimming pool permit that was
denied on the grounds of an OP buffer of 200 feet.
The OP buffer that was used for denial can not possibly exist in Tana Ridge for a number of
reasons that I will outline below:
1. The OP buffer specifically refers to roads and residential structures. In the case of Tana
Ridge, the road is within 10 feet of the development line and every residence along the Western
border of the development is closer than 100 feet. In fact, many of the residential structures are
actually within 50 feet of the development line. A similar situation exists in The Fields of St.
Croix II as well.
2. As zoned, Tana Ridge was fully plotted and identified during the approval process from the
City Council. The approval included the identification of the lots and the road that are all closer
than the specified buffer to the development line,
3. The zoning specific to Tana Ridge changed during the approval process. By precedent of
the residential structures and the city maintained road, the current buffer's that exist should be
taken into consideration due to 4/5 implied consent.
4. Previous planning staff applied the 415 rule to approve pool permits in the Fields of St. Croix 11
that is the twin in the"package"development of Tana Ridge.
5. Regarding the referenced pool permit application, the position of the pool is actually further
from the development line than the residential structures of my neighbors on the Western border
of the development. I have also included pictures that identify the position of the pool and the
"visual impact" of the proposed pool to the rear of the property.
Exhibit 1: This is the view from the development line to the rear of my property. You will notice
that the entire pool and the entire back of my property are not visible from the development line.
Exhibit 2: This identifies the actual location of the pool which is nestled near the back of my
residence. The proposed pool is compliant with impervious surface requirements and meets the
requirements for residential set-backs and fencing ordinances.
Exhibit 3: This is the view from the pool area to the West. This picture clearly demonstrates the
manner in which the pool will have zero impact on the development to the West.
Exhibit 4: This is an affidavit from the property owner on the Western border of the development.
As indicated, the property owner has no objections to the pool proposal.
Again, as outlined, the"package development" of Fields of St. Croix II and Tana Ridge have an
implied 4/5 vote for the current buffer's due to the existence of the development in its current
form. The development was presented to council, fully plotted and in its current form for
approval. This also includes the city road that is completely inside of the current buffers that
exist.
It is my contention that Tana Ridge and Fields of St. Croix II have the 4/5 implied approval, and
by precedent, we have justification for approval of this specific permit. I am aware that this does
not solve all of the obvious errors in the OP restrictions for other developments, but Tana Ridge
and Fields of St. Croix II have a unique situation due to the timing of the adoption of the
developments.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Joe Pelletier
Lake Elmo resident
Phone: (651) 275-1218
w
# t
40
1� 4_
s t
.t
4 �
,—
t k` -
., -,'
�,.. �.� .�...o.:
r 1'
'�-. '� � '
_ 4 �
;t. -
- � ..'
_ r - r
.>•��S .► 4 f J.#'S __7 ` �<<�� a'�` °t'C'r f"R��'�'§w�,^ � _Y 7E[ r - .L
_ .`$ * - r R�� �: lis" �S" o� ti`9�i��.ry d.,r A,('�r_,�..n n � r 4.
T �F ,. a c n�?� 4k � :_1 r , 7�♦11
' y., ,r,., 1 -;4 y. f r Lst�:� .�l Zy�^,���9i� F 1Y - ^f ti :.f}�H�.
F� � R!��tt�Y KT7. ' r N
_ y r� f_ Ys y '''.'S�.°�,'�t i�- .`Y+ ��r 1 � c f�.,r ..,� r-..
.� •r
;ram
F _
June 29, 2009
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: Affidavit on behalf of the Pool Permit for the below listed property:
Exhibit 4
Joe and Jennifer Pelletier
4884 Lily Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Tana Ridge Development
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
Our property is to the West of the proposed pool and we have no objections to the pool permit
that is before you.
Our address:
Brett and Janet Thompson
11491 501h Street North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Signed:
Date:�/�1��
2 0 0 Y L ka Maw) Z05-9of4q vga t)
�.S
..o-rs=ik7�'i+�G-�ti_
607F1TN—
_ T
r- �J•a � ?� �TH53N�- _ i.
J'� "•.t•�__E,t1 - y,,`sT~STN -i Z -�SSYMPf N1:
P J 0
51
sorrFsr•N_.l.
"��'� et'. 14srd sS%' err.;" ,Ir`•1y 0 �-•
iZ phi .f l i<TtYS
l F
� rN iF S
E.TRLIJ � I _. - f �•°a`+]RQSFI�Gj-�' /J% r•�t r _
1 �4.YP � 1, �1�.+,/• i isff 1T/ r
l2NOSS14
39TCI.51.fJ_-. �� .�,
+3GTH�"., z 1 i
Y
I � _ i t �
�y � L I m wriT
C
' 0. "715FHSTNfl_ I -..a ` r1. i f W,
N
t'S�1.
D 4_
t {lam
'7TH 5T•N:�,
- t -�26�H.SFN•.j I .
_ t207/45T•N— ---�
N
-n2SH.ST N\+!! --_1
/OTHIsTJNt I I I I -
- -9r.H 5FN.: �l-
/ _-} ,_ t�T�f -I �,j t � 1���t..�.wo r qRR �.•��� r
��-• ! fa-(i .JOB. 1 •3_.�..t. .�,....� ... t C
- JULE.P.%�
-9 ZONING,MAP�-•" 3
14
_.._
114TERSTATE91 INTERSTATE.
Legend
Zoning Districts
A
General i 1°'?. r25';S
Watershed Districts �• I R1 GB VR-A
"
- i Village Area Browns Creek I'�- A-Baytown n R2-PUD !�HB / VR-GB
F j Lakes Cotlage Grove Ravine L—J OP/OS I -- R3 LB VR-RR
E�_ 1�1 Lake Elmo Boundary r 4 Valley Branch f..___ BP I�RE LB-PUD VR-R1
P/PF RR = SEETHE 1-94 HOLDING
t.------ DISTRICT MAP 1
Map created by Schoell Madson on 947-07
•''t - APPLLI'rOOD HILLS
,,;' 9 !hlLit.(N, (s• --COLF-CLU4 --
--
JUDM,.(:ARV rn PRAIRIE s am DISCOVER ST CROWS
.• HAMLF SANCTUARY
DrAtON�lE 7LLE 8 MANOR r s CROSSING "
F I'ARK prW 5 � --�jrx Fz
HIDDEw MPAoDAIS =�
r 'r sE a;olt
D_fLOLI7JE4TL E+ "" _ ,, r„m.r OF LAKEELMO S4.youaryPARA yMSTrr =�
/LOL1Fli 'k 9 l i�-' ? \e LAKE ELMO VISTA �o1
"Ir°s r ° rox,4' S% sru - STACAR IIO14 W
IKE DEAfO:s'7RE17LLE 4 �fi"F-1S TAI!SARACK FARM i 0
I_3 Kr J/o- P1^K ESEYERS ESTA •S
PINERIDGE �I_4 M71GE
r UV 44 S.A770.1
. LAKE �" r•Aru:
:+ THEM Los
�^ of ST.IbROIX
TANA
(L\'\g OLSONI <a �> RIDGE cpx r_..wrun°ax
C.LAKE
uKEJANE ;:tclRmesPARK 51
-�3 E
BLUE TEM AT
zu L
a g G�" ° ssr R °I,e4 emv n sv w. S.CRTHE O)OF
\�° SUWFIS4 THE FIELDS
gd exe 5' n'Ke r TAPESTRY AT '� o PONDS OF ST.CROIX
yros � CHA.RLOTTE'S o 2ND ADDRlO
E6Rfli v,#' s 4 92 GROVE r HAMLET04 fi 4
PARKi e �,L41.2 UNFISH LAKE
.� z _rwn,
!/1LL5 k �O"eOcr C
6 i'V,AF s SUAWIS [AKE LakeEfn;o T (T•H
_� Elcmax° i PARK-
LAKE PARK1
IP �r, �"vCin,� LAKE ELAAO
SHORES
6Br .S
UT PARK
0,1FISHL-W �011 AIOKS AIRPORT
CREST MEADOWS TTMsr ,1RK
',�<
M df6LL m•„ W
- ...-. a mars REID z
EAGLE POINT ,it tJr-Y z i¢ra'{+r['IRK S
CREEK EST TES G5
3
Salf'rAffi�g1 .OBIAW < ceix
PARK RK IAKF•ELMO p NERI AG
v E
LAKE ELM a'\r PA ; z r yr REGIONAL ® 4 ton a4are�-FARM
HEIGHTS rn rn FARMS OF PARKRGSERVE (—MD \O
,=NI:IGN7S �LAVD:ELMO 4 HERITAGE
PARK PARK
40
0
& ® LAKE
p ELAIO z DOUNS
t�C 4 w "T LAKE
ra,a w
TORRE EAGLL•PORJT
PINGS 'i CARDINAL LAKE �� -1 i
RIDGE
PARI EW S l TARTAN �.
ES TES PARK
' GOL1r CLUD £
Eagle Paint RID E �2 ® i
Efwemary ter b� CARDINAL --.
1 PA K ,VIEW __ •�
THE
WHISTLING MH MESTEAD
" IGRSL•Sf10Lr
S11)"i—Community �i �o.)VAL 11DAff S1. If
g Efe..I y vAJfl P RK -----TARTAN
' 1
MEADOWS 1 d Skyd.,C4mmunify
Mfddle Sdmof -
.IRhISTRONG r. " r GOOSE L4KEROSE
I IA AM- STONEGATE 'ft,f LAKE MIDLAND g
MEADOWS @
Oak-Land
�1 •. \ .�na Juni°r Nigh
OAK'AMRSN MAE•G.I TF
GOLFO(1RSGe0un osvx PARK rr __1 17 CfAlARRON ` .
GOLF lAJL4CTIC PARKGOLF
EAGLEF01NT FA¢lLITP-� KRAMER s"O � COURSE
TOWN OFFICE I LAKE
-- -- PARK THE FOREST
® w�m+ecvn
12 � 12
Uf-' dk\e rim
.Q City Hall Golf Courses Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve
3800 tsreme Anon.PI.M rvl:DF«651AIM36s N
mia77-5510 City Parks Archery Range Playground
,r.IJ:c1m4.arg
re,z:oryammcm
Public Works T194Upper33,d SI—I
3445I&.IAwnuc N4rJ, 651-770-3015 °] Boat Ramp Primitive Camping W E
651-770-2537j Post Office Ej
Fire Station
3469 Uke Elm°A,—N4eh Equestrian Center ® Sheller
se64no1 a 651anoz19 Main Office ® Swimming
31:11--A—Nm,h School S'
6s1-770-5m6 Modern Camping FishingPier
Sedon 02 �¢� High Pointe Health Canpus p g ® 0 DA 0.2 0.3 ua 0.6
4059 Jame A—rn Nash 5650 Hudsen Dmfcmd
6 5 1-7 7 9 41CO2 0 Gateway Troll Access Summer Parking Group Camp rsla
LSd
w�:nm0;an c4u,uy,ASN 0.cvi-�-I I1V2006-IYCIJeync,C°u,yo.1.5,suppsl uak
City Council
Date: 717/09
Not a public hearing
Item: uu
ITEM: Establish Buffer Setback in OP Developments Tana Ridge and
Parkview Estates
REQUESTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, Planner
REVIEWED BY: Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
Dave Snyder, City Attorney
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider Resolution
2009—031 which would establish a lesser buffer setback for the Tana Ridge and
Parkview Estates developments. Both developments are fully developed OP
developments that were initially platted in the 1990s. Since the development
approvals, the City's ordinances on Preservation Developments have been revised
and have created a number of non-conformities that have been touched upon in an
earlier item before the Council at this meeting, and will be expanded upon slightly in
this report.
EXISTING OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
The current subsection of the OP ordinance regarding buffer zones was approved in 2001,
as shown below.
(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.
EXISTING ESTABLISHED OP DEVELOPMENTS:
Although there are many existing fully developed OP neighborhoods that would be in
non-conformance with the existing ordinance, staff has chosen two of such
neighborhoods to be more fully explored at this time. Both Tana Ridge and the
Parkview Estates OP developments have recently had building permit applications
denied due solely to the buffer setback requirement. As such, staff is eager to move
forward with clarification and a potential reduction in the buffer setback to establish a
more reasonable and enforceable setback requirement.
Tana Ridge
The Tana Ridge development is adjacent to a 10 acre parcel along a portion of the
Western edge of the development. This neighboring area would not qualify for an
OP development and therefore, by code, would not be eligible to have a reduced
buffer setback from 200 to 100 feet. However, a 415 vote of the City Council may
amend this requirement and allow the reduction of the 200 foot buffer setback to
something less than the 100 feet identified in the code.
The remainder of the Western edge of the development and the entire Eastern edge
of the development is adjacent to land either associated with an OP development or
would be eligible in terms of parcel area for an OP development. By code, the City
Council may reduce the setback from 200 feet to 100 feet. However, should the
Council choose to reduce this setback to less than 100 feet(as recommended by
staff below)the 4/5 vote would still be required.
Staff suggests the Tana Ridge development have a reduced buffer setback of 50 feet
from both the West and East edges of the development. This would reduce the
number of non-conforming houses from fourteen to zero. By eliminating this non-
conformity in the Tana Ridge development, homeowners would generally be able to
build a deck or porch off their rear yard without a variance.'Although four properties
in the development would continue to have limited space in their rear yard in which to
place a structure, a majority of the development would have their entire rear yards
available for a permitted structure. A 50 foot buffer setback continues to provide an
open area buffer for the adjacent neighbors that has already been established and
maintained over the past 10 years.
Should the City Council be interested in reducing the buffer setback from 200 feet to
100 feet(an option identified in the code), staff has provided additional analysis. If a
100 foot buffer setback were required from both the Western and Eastern edges of
the development, the number of non-conforming lots would be reduced from fourteen
to nine. While this would lessen the number of non-conformities, nine homes would
still have a portion of their house in the setback.
By definition in the code, staff is interpreting no buffer setback to be required from the
North and a 200 foot setback to be in place from the South. The Southern edge of
the development is buffered by Tana Ridge Park and Outlot D, which is subject to a
Conservation Easement. Although the Southern buffer setback could be reduced to
100 feet as identified in code, the only benefit would be to allow the City additional
room to add play structures in the park, should that ever be chosen to be done.
Parkview Estates
The Parkview Estates development is just south of the Lake Elmo Regional Park
Reserve, East of Inwood Avenue North, West of the OP development Cardinal
Ridge, and North of 15th Street.
In the Northeast corner of the development is a platted flag lot. This lot is 144 feet
deep,and is currently entirely unbuildable when subjected to the 200 foot buffer
setback. Along the North side of the development, three of the homes are within
(wholly or partially)within the 200 foot buffer setback. In an effort to make the home
in the northeast corner of the lot conforming, staff suggests a 20 foot buffer setback
i
from the Northern edge of the development. This would continue to provide a buffer
for the three homes with property adjacent to the park while still providing room for a
homeowner to utilize a rear yard and to have a home in a conforming location.
The 200 foot buffer setback from the eastern edge of the development creates 11
houses in a non-conforming location. As mentioned earlier, this development abuts
another OP development, Cardinal Ridge. The existing ordinance identifies that in
such a case, a reduced setback of 100 feet may be utilized. In an effort to continue
to utilize a buffer setback, but to provide conformance for the existing homes, staff
suggests a 50 foot buffer setback from the Eastern edge of the development.
Should the Council be interested In reducing the 200 foot buffer setback to 100 feet,
staff has provided this analysis as well. If a 100 foot buffer setback were utilized from
the East side of the development, three existing houses would continue to be non-
conforming. In addition, most, if not all of the properties along the east side would
have rear yards that were unable to support an accessory structure without securing
a variance.
In Summary.
For Tana Ridge, staff suggests a 50 foot buffer setback from the edge of the Western
and Eastern edges of the development and to maintain a 200 foot buffer setback
from the South edge of the development. Staff suggests a 20 foot buffer setback
from the Northern edge of the Parkview Estates development and
Options For Consideration_
Option 1: Approve Resolution 2009-031 as provided.
Option 2: Approve Resolution 2009-031 as Council may amend to provide a
different reduced buffer setback as specified by the City Council.
Option 3: Table the Item for Consideration at a Future Meeting,
Option 4: Decide no action is necessary.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
v Both Tana Ridge and Parkview Estates were approved at the time when the City
Code identified OP as a separate zoning district, therefore the developments
were not approved as a Conditional Use Permit and a public hearing is not
required to make a change to the buffer setback requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending Option 1 above. This eliminates all homes as non-conformities in
both developments and provides some room for most properties to utilize a rear yard for
a structure.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Move to approve Resolution 2009—033 reducing the buffer setbacks in the Tana Ridge and
Parkview Estates developments.
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction....................................................Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
- Report by staff...................................................................Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
- Questions from the Council..................................................Mayor&Council Members
- Questions/Comments from the public...................................................Mayor facilitates
- Consider a Motion
(required for further discussion; does not
imply approval of the motion ......................... ......................................Mayor facilitates
- Discussion .................................................... ......................................Mayor facilitates
Actionon motion............................................ ....................................................Council
ATTACHMENTS (3):
1. Resolution 2009-033
2. Tana Ridge Map
3. Parkview Estates Map
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION.NO. 2009-033
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A BUFFER SETBACK RED UCTION IN THE TANA RIDGE
AND PARKVIEW ESTATES DEVELOPMENTS
WHEREAS,Tana Ridge and Parkview Estates are zoned OP and were developed under
the Open Space Preservation zoning requirements; and
WHEREAS,the existing ordinance requires a setback of 200 feet from the abutting
parcel of the development for any structure or driving surface not established at a 90 degree angle
unless otherwise approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, there is no record of the City Council reducing the buffer setback for either
the Tana Ridge or Parkview Estates development; and
WHEREAS,the City Council considered said matter at its July 7, 2009 meeting.
NOW,THEREFORE,based on the comments and information received, the City
.Council finds as follows:
a) That the Tana Ridge and Parkview Estates developments were approved under the OP
zoning district requirements and were therefore not approved as a Conditional Use Permit
and can thereby be amended without a public hearing.
b) That the City Council did not provide previous approval of a reduction to the required
buffer setback at the time of the development approval.
c) That the existing ordinance as written renders construction on a majority of the properties
to be non-conforming and many remaining of the platted properties essentially
unbuildable.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of hake
Elmo,that:
1) The buffer setback will be reduced from 200 feet to 50 feet from the abutting properties
on the East and West boundaries of the Tana Ridge development.
2) The buffer setback will be reduced from 200 feet to 20 feet from the Lake Elmo Regional
Park Reserve on the North boundary of the Parkview Estates development.
d) The buffer setback will,be reduced from 200 feet to 50 feet from the Cardinal Ridge
development on the East boundary of the Parkview Estates development,
Passed and duty adopted this 7t'day of July 2009 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo,
Minnesota.
Dean A. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Craig Dawson,Interim City Administrator
r
E
2) The buffer setback will be reduced from 200 feet to 20 feet from the Lake Elmo Regional
Park Reserve on the North boundary of the Parkview Estates development.
d) The buffer setback will be reduced from 200 feet to 50 feet from the Cardinal Ridge
development on the East boundary of the Parkview Estates development.
Passed and duly adopted this 7`h day of July 2009 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo,
Minnesota.
ATTEST: Dean A. Johnston, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, Interim City Administrator
2) The buffer setback will be reduced from 200 feet to 20 feet from the Lake Elmo Regional
Park Reserve on the North boundary of the Parkview Estates development.
d) The buffer setback will be reduced from 200 feet to 50 feet from the Cardinal Ridge
development on the East boundary of the Parkview Estates development.
Passed and duly adopted this 7t' day of July 2009 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo,
Minnesota.
Dean A. Johnston,Mayor
ATTEST:
Craig W. Dawson, Interim City Administrator
Tana Ridge
►l •14 ..
- '
.31
IV
s v
i
50 Foot Setback
100 Foot Setback
200 Foot Setback
Parkview Estates
a l • 1 t
z -
i
A� t�
20 Foot Setback
50 Foot Setback
=_ 100 Foot Setback
200 Foot Setback
City Council
Date: July 7, 2009
REGULAR
Item: 10
Motion
ITEM: 2009 Street Improvements —Accepting Bids and Awarding a Contract
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 accept bids and
award a contract for the 2009 Street Improvements.
Bids will be received on July 6, 2009 for the 2009 Street Improvements including the residential
streets in the Myron Ellman, Eden Park, Eden Park 2nd, and The Forest subdivisions, and for the
Tablyn Park Entrance Road and Parking Lot. TKDA will prepare and present to the City Council
the Bid Tabulation worksheet and a Letter of Recommendation for the Award of the Contract at
the meeting.
The scope of the improvements is described in further detail below.
Street Improvements:
• Reclamation and overlay of residential streets in the Myron Ellman, Eden Park, Eden
Park 2nd, and The Forest subdivisions.
• Reconstruction of the Tablyn Park Entrance Road and Parking Lot.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
On April 7, 2009 the City Council ordered the improvements for the 2009 Street Improvements
project. On June 2, 2009 the City Council approved the plans and specifications for the 2009
Street Improvements, and further ordered advertisement for bids.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the bids and award a contract for the 2009 Street
Improvements.
SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
Move to approve Resolution No. 09-031 Accepting the Bids and Awarding a Contract for the 2009
Street Improvements per the Engineer's Letter of Recommendation for the Award of Contract.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 09-031
2. Engineer's Letter of Recommendation for Award of Contract, to be distributed at the
meeting
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
• Introduction Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
• Report by staff or other presenter Jack Griffin, 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
• Action on motion City Council
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-031
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT
FOR THE 2009 STREET IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the 2009 Street Improvements, bids were
received, opened and tabulated according to law, and bids were received complying with the
advertisement;
WHEREAS, bids were tabulated, checked and summarized to verify that all requirements of the
submittals were met;
AND WHEREAS, the City Engineer reviewed the bids and has provided a letter recommending
the award of the contract to the lowest responsible bidder;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
1. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a Contract
in the accordance with the above ordered Project, in the amount of the Contractor's
lowest responsible bid, and according to the plans and specifications thereof approved by
the City Council,
2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the
deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the
next two lowest bidders shall be retained until a contract has been signed.
Date: July 7, 2009 CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By:
Dean A. Johnston
Mayor
ATTEST:
Craig;W. Dawson
Interim City Administrator
Resolution No. 20094.31 1
City Council
Date: July 7, 2009
REGULAR
Item:
Motion
ITEM: Approval To Submit Federal Stimulus Grant Application for New Fire Station No. 1
SUBMITTED BY: Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
REVIEWED BY: Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment ACT (ARRA),
the federal economic stimulus program, the Department of Homeland Security is administering a $210 million
appropriation for a fire station construction program. Staff is requesting approval to submit a grant application
for the Department of Homeland Security's Assistance to Firefighters Fire Station Construction Grants.
BACKGROUND: This extremely recently-announced construction grant program is a $210 million
appropriation under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act(ARRA), the federal economic stimulus
funding. This program is for the funding of new construction and renovation of fire stations. We believe that
based on the previously identified need (2004 analysis of"Fire Protection Needs"for Lake Elmo done by
Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban) and subsequent capital improvement planning, this opportunity would help the
City achieve its goal of replacing and upgrading Station#1. This grant, if approved per our application, would
provide a modern facility to meet our current and future needs. It would be better located to serve our
response area into the future (and which would help improve our ISO rating), meet all current standards, and
improve safety and training. While the grant program does not require matching funds from the applicant, there
are costs that a grant would not cover and cities willing to provide funding have a better chance of receiving a
grant.
There are many departments across the country whose fire station plans are "shovel ready". They have a site
identified (and possibly acquired), have plans ready, have completed all the necessary studies, etc. Because
Lake Elmo has not completed the necessary preparation, this will make gaining approval of a grant more
difficult. We believe that building a new main station would require a 15,000—20,000 square foot structure
and cost approximately $150 -$200/sq.ft., or a range of$2.25 -$4.0 million. The City does have $1.4 million
remaining from the $4 million in bonds that the City issued for City facilities in 2004.
While some may view this grant as a long-shot for the City, we believe that it is prudent for the City to pursue
this opportunity. The grant application deadline is July 10, 2009.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council authorize staff to submit an application for the
Department of Homeland Security's Assistance to Firefighters Fire Station Construction Grants.
SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
Move to authorize staff to submit an application to the Department of Homeland Security's Assistance
to Firefighters Fire Station Construction Grants.
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
• Introduction Administrator Dawson
• Presentation by staff Administrator Dawson/Chief Malmquist
• Questions to staff Mayor facilitates
• Questions/comments from the Public to Council Mayor facilitates
• Action on Motion City Council
Fire Station Construction Grant - Overview
I (Chief Malmquist) have taken the 42-page Guidance and Application Kit and pulled some of the
most important items for your review. This will give you a good feel for the grant.
The purpose of SCG is to provide economic stimulus in the form of jobs and increase the safety of the
firefighters and the communities they serve.
Since one of the priorities of the ARRA is to stimulate the economy by providing jobs,DHS will provide
the high consideration to departments serving communities that have suffered the highest increases in
joblessness rates. To assess this criterion, the change in the joblessness rates from 2007 to 2008 in your
county or cominunity will be compared.
Highest consideration to:
Own or have otherwise already acquired the land
Applicant's land is already zoned
Already obtained the permits
State or locally required environmental assessments completed
While the type of the project is not considered (i.e., DHS will not differentiate between new construction
and modifications), the purpose of the construction or modification will have a bearing on the award
determination. In this regard, the ARRA has two, equally high priorities:
1) To replace unsafe or uninhabitable structures regardless of whether the project calls for the construction
of a new building or the rehabilitation of an existing structure. Applicants claiming unsafe or uninhabitable
structures may be required to provide documentation regarding the nature of the health or safety
deficiencies. Any health-code violations or orders to vacate unsafe structures must pre-date the enactment of
the ARRA for consideration.
2) To fund projects expanding fire protection coverage to meet increased service demand in compliance
with NFPA 1710 or 1720. In these instances, expanding fire protection coverage under a community's
capital improvement plan will receive higher consideration than expansion projects not engaged in capital
improvement planning.
Additional priorities:
Expanding existing structures to provide sleeping quarters and/or amenities for full-time occupancy
The lowest priority is to fund projects replacing or expanding habitable structures that are cramped or
inefficiently configured for operation.
Applicants serving communities not in good standing under NFIP receive lower consideration than
departments serving those communities in good standing or those which have not been mapped.
projects that will be completed on an expedited schedule will receive higher priority,
The length of time a department has been attempting to build a new station would be an indication of need.
There is no cost-share required under the SCG. However, the willingness or ability of a community to
contribute to the project is a desirable attribute. A community's contribution demonstrates commitment,
enhances the award and provides a greater cost-benefit to the project. As such, applicants who contribute
toward the project receive higher consideration than applicants who are relying entirely on the grant funding
for their project.
Additional info:
The period of performance for SCG Grants is 36 months from the date of award,
DHS anticipates between 5,000 and 10,000 applications
Within the fire stations built or modified under the SCG, the following items, activities or expenses are
eligible:
❑ Building construction
❑ Environmental assessment
❑ Building site preparation, including demolition, if necessary 10
❑ Design,planning, and engineering expenses incurred after award
❑ Expenses necessary to comply with the most current edition of NFPA1500
❑ Expenses necessary to comply with the locally adopted building, fire, plumbing,mechanical and
electrical codes.
❑ Sprinklers or other life safety and fire protection systems
❑ Vehicle exhaust extraction systems
❑ Decontamination areas ❑ Space for training (up to 600 square feet)
❑ Space for gender-segregated sleeping
❑ Gender-segregated restrooms
❑ Space for exercise equipment
❑ Kitchens
❑ Kitchen appliances
❑ Dining/eating area
❑ ADA compliance
❑ Gear racks, storage and shelving for gear/equipment
❑ Internet cabling
❑ Energy conservation systems (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design -LEEDTM) ❑ Renewable
energy for HVAC and power systems
D.2. Ineligible Items
❑ Land acquisition
❑ Cost overruns
❑ Fire station staffing
❑ Pre-award costs (including but not limited to design, planning, and engineering expenses incurred prior to
award)
❑ Grant writing fees
❑ Space for public use (ballrooms, community meetings, fund raising)
❑ Furnishings (including office/training equipment)
❑ Exercise equipment
❑ Firefighting equipment
❑ Personal protective equipment
❑ Washers/extractors
❑ Apparatus
❑ Vehicle mounted exhaust extraction systems
❑ Landscaping
0 Security systems
❑ Decorative items (curtains, wall hangings, etc.)
0 Projects that duplicate any other Federal awards
❑ Demolition costs not related to the funded project