HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-2013 CCMLAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2013
Page 1 of 10
CITY OF LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 2013 Mayor Pearson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Mayor Pearson, Council Members Nelson, Smith, and Bloyer.
ABSENT: Council Member Reeves Also Present: City Administrator Zuleger, Associate City Attorney Brekken, City Engineer Griffin, Finance Director Bendel, and City Clerk Bell.
PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Pearson asked that Item H be postponed until next Council meeting when Council Member Reeves returns; to move Item 4 to immediately before Item 9; and to move Item 8 to the end of the Regular Agenda.
MOTION: Council Member Bloyer moved TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 1, 2013 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AS AMENDED. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0.
ITEM 1: ACCEPT MINUTES
THE SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES WERE APPROVED AS AMENDED BY
CONSENSUS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
PUBLIC COMMENTS Library Director Orsted spoke on partnering with local businesses; Joni Fletty COO of Retail Construction Services, spoke on a giving garden and sustainability; library now has a red worm compost bin – “Wormy Acres”; Oktoberfest partnering with Lake Elmo Wine Company. There will be education as well as sampling microbrews.
PRESENTATIONS
ITEM 2: QUALITY STAR AWARD – ALYSSA MACLEOD City Administrator Zuleger presented the Quality Star Award to Alyssa MacLeod for her effort to improve communication with taxpayers, promote civility with Civility Project, and work on Lake Elmo Days.
CONSENT AGENDA 3. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll in the amount of $198,617.76 4. Authorize certification to Washington County Auditor for the Unpaid Storm Water Utility Bills; Resolution 2013-79 5. Approval of Resolution Appointing 2013 Election Judges; Resolution 2013-80 6. Keats MSA Street and Trunk Watermain Improvements – Call for Final Assessment Hearing;
Resolution 2013-81 7. Keats MSA Street and Trunk Watermain Improvements – Change Order No. 4. 8. Approval of Gates for Sunfish Lake Park
MOTION: Council Member Nelson moved TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Public Comments
Bob Cusick 5470 Highlands Trail: spoke on lot next door parking issues. He was not happy that City issued a permit to his neighbor to park a trailer on his property. Mayor Pearson said that he
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2013
Page 2 of 10
may visit the site and acknowledged that the issue is difficult. City Administrator Zuleger explained the City’s actions. Mayor Pearson asked if the issue is resolved as far as the city is concerned. Mr. Zuleger said Building Official Chase says it is. Mayor Pearson said it he would stop by and take a look.
ITEM 4: AUTHORIZE CERTIFICATION TO WASHINGTON COUNTY AUDITOR FOR THE UNPAID STORM WATER UTILITY BILLS; RES. 2013-79
Gaylen Springborn 8989 55th St.: spoke on his appeal of storm water fees. His complaint is that he maintains all the water of his area. Mr. Zuleger said $265.69 was reduced to $66.42. This was the maximum reduction in credit policy. There is intentional retention and regional retention. This is the maximum credit that the City employs. Mr. Springborn invited the Council to personally view the property. The Council discussed whether action on the item should occur now or later during the meeting. It was decided to postpone the item to the end.
MOTION: Council Member Smith moved TO POSTPONE THE ITEM UNTIL THE END OF THE AGENDA. Council Member Bloyer seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0.
REGULAR AGENDA
ITEM 9: VARIANCE - 09.029.21.22.0025 (HILL TRAIL NORTH); RES. 2013-82 Planning Director Klatt provided overview of the variance application and background. The proposal does not meet the buildable lot size requirement imposed by City Code. It was determined that 60% of one acre is 26,136 square feet (43,560 * 0.6). The site is 0.27 acres short. The proposal does meet all other code requirements. Washington County did determine that there is enough room for a suitable septic system even though it does not meet the City requirements. Staff limited its review to the immediate area and not the larger tri-lakes area. Council Member Smith asked if all the smaller lots that do not have lake access were used to arrive at the average. Mr. Klatt stated that staff used all the lots of the neighborhood. Ms. Smith does not believe that the smaller lots should be used to calculate the average. Mr. Klatt explained the required variance findings: 1) practical difficulties; 2) unique circumstances; 3) character of the locality; and 4) adjacent properties and traffic. It was explained that the state also requires two other findings: variance is in harmony with the general purpose, and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the comp plan. Staff received letters from neighbors opposed and the applicants and owners supporting the variance. Mr. Klatt explained that the Planning Commission found that the application did not meet three of the findings: 1) was not consistent with comp plan; 2) there are no unique circumstances; and 3) the variance would lead to a degradation of water quality. Planning Commission vote was 5-2 to deny the variance. Clarification was given on the adjacent vacant lots and the ability or inability to split the lots for building. Ms. Smith asked if the lot was buildable at the time of purchase. Whether it was buildable at the time of purchase was discussed; however, due to the amount of time that has passed and the lack of specific records, the original build-ability cannot be easily determined. Council Member Nelson asked how many houses were built in area since 1979. Mr. Klatt thought 2 had variances granted. Mr. Nelson asked to confirm that out of 64 lots, 3 would meet the 1.5 acres size. It was explained that staff could not determine exactly what rules were in place back in 1978. The 1979 Municipal Code was the first adoption of a City Zoning Code. It was explained that the previous rules are not really relevant because the City does have rules in place now that must be followed.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2013
Page 3 of 10
Ms. Smith asked if it would be more appropriate to amend the code and comp plan rather than grant variance. Assistant City Attorney Brekken stated that that was definitely an option, but that which path to follow is the Council’s discretion. Mr. Nelson asked about another 1 acre lot that apparently did not need a variance. Mr. Klatt said that two things could happen. Reconstruction or meet 60% rule. Another neighbor obtaining a variance was brought up. Ms. Smith asked how it was relevant.
Public comment:
Dean Dworak 12325 Upper Heather, Hugo: Variance applicant. Mr. Dworak takes issue with finding #2 regarding the aquifer impact. He does not believe that the addition of two more residents on his property would have any impact on the aquifer. He provided some water use statistics. He also alleged a conflict in the land use plan with the ordinances regarding the number of units per acre. Ms. Smith noted that this was for sewer. He respectfully requests that City approve the variance or change the ordinance.
Paul Hansen 8024 Hill Trail North: Lived in Lake Elmo almost 50 years. When they purchased the property, they could not get a straight answer from City whether the lot was buildable. He asserted that multiple variances have been granted to nearby properties to build houses in last 8-10 years. He claimed that this lot is one of the last vacant lakeshore lots. Council Member Smith asked about how recent the variances were granted. Her recollection is that Mayor Johnston was the last home built back in 1983. The length of time since the last variance was debated. Mr. Hansen recommended approval of variance.
Steve Iverson 8108 Hill Trail: He has concerns that the efforts to keep the character of Lake Elmo will be lost if the variance is granted. Mr. Iverson proceeded to read his letter that he had previously submitted and is included in the packet. He is concerned about Council setting bad precedent and running out of space for septics. Mayor Pearson believes that there is not a compelling reason to grant the variance. He also believes that the current owner was on notice that the lot may not have been buildable. Septic systems are a problem and will continue to be a problem especially for this area. Mr. Nelson believes that the rules have been changed and that he agrees with the original staff recommendation to grant the variance. Ms. Smith asked if there were already houses on the lots with the more recently built houses. Ms. Smith said that the letter is not the ordinance, but it is just a letter. The City should change the ordinance if the City decides to allow building on these lots. Ms. Smith noted that the planning staff and the planning commission simply provide guidance to the Council. Thinks that the Planning Commission did a good job fleshing out the issues and reasons to deny. Noted that three meetings took place and a lot of consideration went into the issue. Council Member Bloyer – aquifer two houses are not going to draw down the aquifer. Septic meets Washington County. New technology allows for smaller septics with less impact. Messrs. Nelson and Bloyer noted that the applicant is only asking for what others have been granted. Mayor Pearson said he is empathetic to the intricacies of the variance requests, but the rules are in place for a reason. Ms. Smith concurred with
MOTION: Council Member Bloyer moved TO TABLE THE ITEM UNITL NEXT MEETING. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. MOTION FAILED 2-2 (SMITH AND PEARSON – NAY). Mr. Nelson said he just visited the area and the applicants request seems reasonable given the recent building activity and circumstances.
MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2013-082, DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUESTED AT 09.029.21.22.0025 (HILL TRAIL NORTH) TO ALLOW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A LOT THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED A BUILDABLE
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2013
Page 4 of 10
LOT OF RECORD, BASED UPON FAILURE TO MEET ALL REQUIRED FINDINGS NECESSARY TO GRANT THE VARIANCE. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. There was discussion of voting requirements and effect of the motion failure. The variance is not granted by the motion to deny failing. The variance request will remain before the Council until it is formally approved or denied.
MOTION FAILED 2-2 (BLOYER AND NELSON – NAY).
MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO POSTPONE ITEM. Council Member Bloyer seconded the motion.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
ITEM 10: 2012 STREET AND WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS – FINAL ASSESSMENT
HEARING; RES. 2013-83 City Engineer Griffin gave overview of the project. The project came in under bid for quantities of materials. Expected to cost about $861,000. The actual const cost about $800,000. The project came in under budget for total cost at $995,792.98. Initial assessment costs were $3,200. Final proposed assessment came in at $3,000. Mr. Griffin explained the assessment payment options.
MOTION: Council Member Bloyer moved TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0. Public Hearing opened at 8:32PM
Jeff Nichols 8170 59th Street North: believes the City did a great job getting done under cost. However the quality of workmanship left something to be desired. Curbs and landscaping are not great. Mr. Griffin said that the city has been working on addressing issues that have been noticed. Mr. Nichols said he has not called the city to complain specifically, but expected that the city would monitor is on its own without having to be called. The mayor requested that any specific issues be brought to engineers’ attention. Mr. Griffin said that there is still work being done on various rain garden issues.
MOTION: Council Member Smith moved TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Bloyer seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0. Public Hearing closed at 8:35PM Mr. Bloyer asked about the rain gardens, and if they are federally mandated. Mr. Griffin said no they are not. The street projects have included voluntary rain gardens. Mayor Pearson asked if there is a quid pro quo with the installation. Mr. Griffin said that certain water quality levels must be met to maintain compliance with watershed rules. Valley Branch Watershed has been used for the funding and the Washington County Conservation District for design.
MOTION: Council Member Smith moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2013-83, ADOPTING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE 2012 STREET & WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0.
ITEM 11: WELL NO. 4 CONNECTING WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS – PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING; RES. 2013-84 City Engineer Griffin gave overview of the project. Resident meeting was held on 9/18/2013. Only one property represented at meeting. Mr. Griffin explained which properties will receive a benefit. Current lateral benefit fee is $5,800. Total estimated project cost is $617,000. Options: #1) $5,800 each property – city picks up balance. $252,000 would come out of $1Mil. DEED grant. #2) assess $2,900 and the balance would be carried by city. Other half would be charged at time of connection. Mr. Griffin explained the total charges and the breakdown of the cost estimates per property. There are additional $2,000 costs after soft costs to install stub. However, if stubs are done at later date, because of tearing up road, costs can skyrocket. Mr. Griffin explained the benefits of water service, the payment schedule, and the final assessment roll. Mr. Griffin provided overview of the construction schedule. He noted that because it was initiated by council, there is a 4/5 passage requirement.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2013
Page 5 of 10
MOTION: Council Member Smith moved TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0. Public Hearing opened at 8:49PM
Don Slinger 4620 Lake Elmo Ave: asked if the reductions in growth by the Met Council make the water expansion not necessary. Mayor Pearson stated that contrary to what has been published and what he may have heard, the City is still subject to the MOU. Mr. Griffin explained that the improvement is still needed for the entire system both in growth and redundancy. Well #1 will eventually be taken offline. Ms. Smith noted that there is a comprehensive water system. She reiterated several of Mr. Griffin’s points. At some point nearby development will need the water. Mr. Slinger said that he does not understand how the land can be developed. Ms. Smith explained how they can be combined for Open Space Preservation developments. Mr. Slinger also took issue with 11180 50th St. not being assessed. Mr. Griffin said that it does not meet the criteria. Mr. Slinger took issue with that determination. Mr. Slinger said if no current house, means not being assessed, that is not fair. Mayor Pearson stated that in the future that owner would pay entire cost. Mr. Slinger stated he wants to pay the same as the undeveloped lot owners. Mr. Slinger also stated that according to his information, there is no benefit to insurance. Ms. Smith noted that the current users are paying a heavier share because of the low number of users, so it is not just the proposed assessed properties. The water fund and whether it will be flush was discussed. Mayor Pearson disagrees with some of Mr. Slinger’s assertions, and asked Mr. Griffin to respond. Mr. Griffin explained that the initial buy-in is much cheaper up front. Vacant lot assessments are a policy decision, and that some cities do it differently. Some assess the total cost divided by the number of properties. Lake Elmo is not trying to encourage growth, and that assessments can force development. The cost of the later connection charge was discussed and clarified. Mr. Griffin noted that another benefit to the early hook-up.
Margaret Schmidt 4525 Lake Elmo Ave: thanked Council for not charging for vacant lots. She was out of town for the neighborhood meeting. She has three lots. She wants to know if at any point she is going to be forced to connect. She also wants to know if she will be forced to stop using her well and what about future owners of her other lots. Will they be forced to connect as well? Discussion of what future OP lots could be. Mayor Pearson said his belief was that there would not be a forced connection. An OP development probably would. Vacant lots getting stubs at early point was discussed.
Doug Williams 3946 Lake Elmo Ave: does not want to have to hook up or be assessed. Does not believe that he will want to connect and does not believe he is receiving a benefit. He asserted that he already has the same water. If was going to spend that money, it would not be to connect to water.
Kathy Flicek 4890 Lake Elmo Ave: asked when water would begin being used. Mr. Griffin said 2014. The entire system will be using it immediately once pump station is built. Mr. Griffin explained again that the assessment is a very small portion of the entire project cost.
MOTION: Council Member Smith moved TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Bloyer seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0. Public Hearing closed at 9:23PM. Mr. Bloyer said his perspective has changed as his role has changed. He sees multiple benefits in the water service. He is in favor of taking the same action as done with Keats Ave.
MOTION: Council Member Smith moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2013-84, ORDERING THE WELL NO. 4 CONNECTING WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS WITH ASSESSMENT OPTION #2. Council
Member Bloyer seconded the motion.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2013
Page 6 of 10
Ms. Smith explained that the one property Mr. Slinger asked about will never be able to connect, so it does not make sense to assess that property.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
ITEM 12: 2014 STREET IMPROVEMENTS – AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY REPORT; RES. 2013-85 City Engineer Griffin presented the 2014 streets improvements plan. He also touched on some of the anticipated 2015 projects. Mr. Griffin identified what streets were included: Packard park neighborhood, Deer Pond Trail/Court, 20th Street North, and Manning Trail. The prioritization considerations were also explained: Condition of the street (salvage reclaim option); potential for future watermain; potential for significant storm sewer / drainage improvements; other potential issues / project readiness. Mr. Griffin then explained the anticipated costs and the proposed schedule. The fact that the City has put off various projects over the years and the resulting poor condition of many of the roads was discussed. It was noted that the Council is taking a more aggressive approach now to catch up and also putting in higher quality streets, which should prolong the durability.
MOTION: Council Member Bloyer moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2013-85, ORDERING
PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE 2014 STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NOT
TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $13,000. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. Council Member Smith asked about the micro-surfacing street. She hoped that it is not wasting the money and will require the City to have to fix it soon after. Mr. Griffin reiterated that MNDOT was brought in for consultation. This will provide a good test of the process. Hopefully the process will be successful and be able to save the City money in the future.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Mayor Pearson made point of personal privilege and recessed the meeting at 9:44PM
Mayor Pearson reconvened the meeting at 9:53PM
ITEM 13: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - LANDUCCI PROPERTY; RES. 2013-86 Planning Director Klatt provided overview of the Comp Plan amendment request by Ryland Homes for the Landucci property. It is located in the I94 corridor. Planning Commission recommends approval. Mayor asked about the reduction in RECS and not needing to be transferred. Mr. Klatt confirmed that because of the size, there are is no resulting transfer.
MOTION: Council Member Bloyer moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2013-086, APPROVING REQUEST BY RYLAND HOMES TO AMEND THE LAKE ELMO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0.
ITEM 14: SKETCH PLAN REVIEW - LANDUCCI PROPERTY Planning Director Klatt provided explained the item and introduced the representative from Ryland Homes. Mark Sonstegard and Tracey Rust from Ryland Homes were present. Mr. Sonstegard provided a summary of the proposed development. Mayor Pearson asked if the plan had changed from the Planning Commission submission. Mr. Sonstegard said it had not. Mr. Sonstegard pointed out the proposed trail plan that was not on original plan. Council Member Smith asked about the need for a park. Sonstegard said that Ryland is looking for direction on where the park dedication funds go and whether cash or pocket park is desired. Council discussed park options.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2013
Page 7 of 10
Council Member Nelson asked about the number of façades. Mr. Sonstegard said about 5 floorplans and then multiple options for each. The proposed pricing was explained: base $325K-400K; 370K-430K with options. Mayor Pearson asked about taking it to Parks Commission. City Administrator Zuleger said staff would like to meet to discuss parks before submitting it to Parks Commission. Mayor Pearson asked if turning a section into a common area that the neighborhood maintains, similar to what was done in his neighborhood. Council Member Bloyer noted that Public Works has commented that maintenance is difficult with number of parks as it is. Mr. Sonstegard explained some options for secondary access to development and said Ryland is looking forward to discussing secondary access with staff. Mayor Pearson asked about the collector road buffer. Mr. Zuleger said that the road is not desired to be any farther south. Ms. Smith asked if there was another community that she could look that is similar to proposal. Mr. Sonstegard explained a community in Mahtomedi and Prior Lake. Council can also visit Ryland.com to see all current sites.
NO FORMAL ACTION REQUESTED
ITEM 15: OFFICIAL LIST OF STORM WATER APPEALS / ASSESSMENTS Finance Director Bendel gave overview and background of appeals. City Administrator Zuleger explained the policy in place. Council Member Nelson asked if the charge was based on square footage. Mr. Zuleger explained that it depends on what the zoning is. Base fee starts with equivalent run-off units of $50 per standard residential lot. There was an inquiry about the religious organizations proving hardship. Mr. Zuleger explained the process under the current policy that was used for the various properties. Mayor Pearson commended staff’s work on the issue. He then inquired about the situation where all the water is retained. Mr. Griffin explained that water quality is also a factor in addition to conveyance, so there would still be issues to consider. Over half the fees are to cover the permitting aspects. Mr. Griffin noted that the two options are to either have the fee collected through the tax levy or create the utility. The utility actually allows the agricultural properties to pay less than they would be based on tax value. Ms. Smith noted there are properties that do more than their fair share. Changing the policy going forward was discussed. Mr. Nelson asked about who would be responsible in future if there is a required remediation. Mr. Griffin explained that it would be the City, but the City can assign that responsibility to property owners.
Gaylen Springborn asked about other cities’ practices. Mr. Zuleger said some cities have credits and some do not.
George Dimmick 8465 Demontreville Trail: said he has asked for minutes from when the ordinance was passed. He has not received anything yet. The scope and of the request and the nature of his appeal were discussed.
MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO CONTINUE TO RESPOND TO ALL STORM WATER APPEAL
APPLICATIONS AS OUTLINED IN ORDINANCE 2012-057. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. Council Member Bloyer said on principal he cannot vote for this item because it is unfair. Council Member Nelson asked that the policy be revisited. Mr. Griffin cautioned that the more the Council seeks a perfect policy more time and money will be expended. Suggested that the City needs to be careful about too much detailed critique. Ms. Bendel explained statistics and that policy is working pretty well. Mr. Nelson stated he wants to know the hardship standard.
MOTION PASSED 3-1 (BLOYER –NAY).
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2013
Page 8 of 10
ITEM 4: AUTHORIZE CERTIFICATION TO WASHINGTON COUNTY AUDITOR FOR THE UNPAID STORM WATER UTILITY BILLS; RES. 2013-79 – (CONTINUED) No discussion.
MOTION: Council Member Smith moved TO APPROVE CERTIFICATION TO WASHINGTON COUNTY AUDITOR FOR THE UNPAID SURFACE WATER UTILITY BILLS. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. Ms. Bendel asked if Mr. Springborn was going to be included. Ms. Smith said no, and that council members will be looking at process. Mayor Pearson said that this year is done, but that the Council will review the policy.
MOTION PASSED 3-1 (BLOYER –NAY).
ITEM 16: APPROVE SUNFISH LAKE PARK NAME CHANGE – SUNFISH LAKE NATURE PRESERVE; RES. 2013-87 Parks Commissioner Pam Hartley urged council to change the name. The park is subject to the terms of conservation easement with the MN Land Trust. Not like any other park. The Parks Commission thinks that changing the name would better reflect the intended use. Council Member Bloyer asked how the park came about. Council Member Smith explained her opposition to the name change: the easement was supposed to include a 5 acres in Area 2 with greater use. Ms. Hartley said the Parks Commission is creating a task force to discuss the use within the easement. Mayor Pearson wants to know more about how it was purchased. He would like to postpone taking action to see what is proposed by the Parks Commission. Ms. Hartley asserted that mountain biking is specifically not allowed under the easement. Mr. Bloyer asked about scope of the item before the Council. City Administrator Zuleger said it is limited to the proposed name change. He noted that the Parks Commission is serious at looking at the park and its use.
MOTION: Council Member Bloyer moved TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO LOOK INTO HOW TO REMOVE THE LAND TRUST CONSERVATION EASEMENT. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. Ms. Smith has spent 9 years working on park. She was part of keeping the water tower out. She also kept the ball fields out. Carol Kriegler understood her desire to have Area 2 and its additional uses. Ms. Smith wants to know where it went and what happened. Parks Commissioner Sarah Hietpas said the commission is willing to look at suggestions, but that is not relevant to the name change. Ms. Smith said the name does matter as the use will be further limited by changing the park to a nature preserve. Council discussed the conservation easement vis-à-vis the park. Opinions differ on whether the public land should even be in the Land Trust and whether removing the easement is required. City Clerk Bell confirmed that his research thus far has found that the easements are written to be permanent and difficult to remove. Mr. Zuleger explained that Ms. Smith is correct in her beliefs of what was agreed to, but somehow those items did not get into the easement. The issue of using eminent domain was discussed. Because the City already owns the land, that option is not Ms. Smith wants to work with the Parks Commission and the Land Trust to find a solution to use Area 2. Mayor Pearson prefers to not change the name. He wants to work with the Land Trust to see what can be done to expand use. Council Member Nelson is troubled that a public park was put in the easement. He thinks that it is reasonable to ask and negotiate. Mr. Zuleger’s opinion is that working within the easement is probably more likely to be successful than removing the easement. It was noted that legal costs alone would not be cheap.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2013
Page 9 of 10
MOTION FAILS 1-3( PEARSON, NELSON, AND SMITH – NAY).
MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE PARKS COMMISSION BRINGS BACK THEIR USE SUGGESTION. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND. The Council – Parks Commission relationship was discussed. Ms. Hietpas noted that the name change has been in the works for a long time. Mayor Pearson asked if all the impact concerns were met, would mountain biking even be considered? Ms. Hietpas said probably no, but that possibly other areas could be considered.
NO FORMAL ACTION TAKEN.
ITEM 8: APPROVAL OF GATES FOR SUNFISH LAKE PARK City Administrator Zuleger explained that the Washington County Sheriff’s Office has requested that gates be installed at the park to limit access afterhours. Due to the location and nature of park, it is difficult to patrol. Mr. Zuleger described the recommended gates. Mayor Pearson voiced his support for the gates. Council Member Smith asked about the entrance and whether it was part of an easement. City Clerk Bell confirmed that it was City land. Council Member Nelson believes that this is premature until the task force proposes its use plan. Ms. Smith concurred. Mayor Pearson stated the security concerns will be prevalent regardless of the proposed uses; therefore, the gates are appropriate.
MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A 24’
AUTOMATIC BARRIER GATE AT SUNFISH LAKE PARK FROM, SECURITY ACCESS SYSTEMS, FOR
THE NOT TO EXCEED PRICE OF $11,075.00. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. The scenario of trying to get out of park after the gate closes was discussed. There is a safety feature that would allow exit only for an additional 30 minutes, but after that period, the sheriff would need to be contacted to provide egress.
MOTION PASSED 4-0. Council Member Nelson asked about also taking steps to make Reid Park safer. The Council consensus was that this can and should be done.
SUMMARY REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Nelson: attended a sensible land use coalition meeting. The bottom line that he took away from it is that developers want to know the rules and their fees; resident meeting discussed Speak Your Peace. Resident is bringing it back to her board; received two resident phone calls on sewer for peninsula. Wants to bring it up for discussion and get it on agenda.
Council Member Smith: spent some time perusing the lakes. Glad there have not been any problems; call on culvert at end of 28th. She hopes that the completion includes some possible clean up. Project has been a long time coming.
Mayor Pearson: trails meeting; meeting with fire chief; developer meetings; resident meetings; attended Planning Commission meeting; participated in Met Council discussions. Stated the goal is lower RECs and eliminate MOU; commended staff on healthcare costs maintenance due to lower utilization.
Council Member Bloyer: wants discussion on amending the OP rules; he has 4TB of data on Lake Jane use and would like it reviewed when the lake use review occurs.
City Administrator Zuleger: had outstanding parks retreat. Commended Parks commission and Council Member Mike Reeves and Alyssa MacLeod; bonding strategy meeting; working with Lowell
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2013
Page 10 of 10
Johnson letter for Lake Elmo Ave/Village sewer and non-compliant septics; focus newsletter is out; invited council to sit down and discuss the approach of storm water appeals.
Associate City Attorney Brekken: no report
Planning Director Klatt: Village workgroup will be looking at the mixed use in village; airport zoning making some progress. Continuing to work with MNDOT aeronautics and MAC.
City Engineer Griffin: no additional report. Mayor Pearson asked about 30th street construction. Mr. Griffin said the impact should be limited due to directional drilling.
City Clerk Bell: no report.
Finance Director Bendel: working on storm water assessments and appeals; street assessments; upcoming budget workshop; working on CIP; wrapping up bonding documents; working on escrow updates.
Mayor Pearson adjourned the meeting at 11:37PM. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
ATTEST: _______________________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ______________________________________ Adam R. Bell, City Clerk