Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-20-12 CCMP
City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 City Council Meeting March 20, 2012 7:00 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER: B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C. ATTENDANCE: Johnston Emmons Park Pearson 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 conducts its public business.) F. GROUND RULES: (These are the rules of behavior that the City Council adopted for doing its public business.) G. ACCEPT MINUTES: 1. Accept March 6, 2012, City Council minutes H. PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES: 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,) REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: (These are verbal updates and do not have to be formally added to the agenda.) • Mavor and Council Administrator • City Attorney • City Engineer • Planning Director CONSENT AGENDA: (Items 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. 2012 Seal Coat Project - Agreement for Joint Services with West Lakeland Township 4. 2012 Seal Coat Project - Preparation of Plans and Specifications 5. Professional Engineering Support Services - Adopt Consultant Pool 6, Approval and Reading of Arbor Day Proclamation REGULAR AGENDA: 7, DPW Multi -Use 2012 Pickup Purchase (Per MAC Recommendation) 8. Olson Lake Trail Sanitary Sewer Extension - Joint Sewer Project with the City of Oakdale 9. Council - Staff Goal Setting Retreat 10. Surface Water Utility Fee Appeal Process / Credit Policy 11. Lot Area (Size) and Width Variance — 5577 Lake Elmo Ave. N. Adjourn LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MINUTES DRAFT City of Lake Elmo City Council Minutes March 6, 2012 Mayor Johnston called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Council Members Emmons, Park, Pearson, and Smith Also Present: City Administrator Zuleger. Attorney Snyder, City Engineer Griffin, Planning Director Klatt, and Interim City Clerk Luczak APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION,. Council Member E117177017S moved to approve the March 6, 2012, City Council Agenda cis amended. Council Member Pearson seconded the motion. The motion passed ACCEPTED MINUTES: The February 21, 2012, City Council minutes were accepted as amended by consensus of the City Council, PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES: Government students of Still -water Area High School, Ben Williams, 361 Cimarron, Lake Elmo, Joe Bush. 191.1 Pine St, W, Stillwater, Christy Prentice, 8151 Hill Trail N. Lake Elmo, T. J. Hughes, 5470 Marquess Trail, Lake Elmo. attended their first Council meeting as a class assignment. REPORTS: Mayor Johnston reported that he had attended the celebration approval by Congress of a new Stillwater bridge which promotes regional economic development transportation monies, legislation regarding waste collection being discussed. and preliminary growth, Council Member Pearson attended the Fire Relief Association, 10th Street and Village meetings. City Administrator Zuleger updated City Council on debt service and investment; City Newsletter and Website: HOA meetirw, scheduled for March 15, 2012; Community Development Workshop on April 10, 2012; Board of Equalization scheduled for April 25. 2012. 5-7 p.m. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 6, 2012 LAKE ELMO CG,NCIL MINUTES DRAFT Planning Director Klatt informed the Council about the upcoming meetings: March 8th is 1-94 buffering. March 15 is Village Work Group large landowners, March 22nd is Work Group, March 28th 6-9 pm is Public Open House; March 12th the Planning Commission will be addressing the lighting ordinance; attended the Gateway Corridor meeting. City Attorney Snyder reported that library facility options were being eviewed, code enforcement and compliance has been voluntary cooperation; detachment litigation had been appointed to the Courts. City Engineer Griffin reported the Test Well No. 4 test results showed high capacity and closing on property is March 13, 2012. CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION: Council Member Emmons moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Council Member Pearson seconded the 17101i011. The 1710li011 passed 5-0. Approved Disbursements and Payroll in the amount of $119,849.02 Authorized Signatures for the Grant Fund and Regular Savings Account from the Lake Elmo Bank Approved 2012 Fee Schedule Approved Appointment of Finance Director Approved Reestablishment of Precincts and Polling Places Administrator Zuleger and City Council welcomed Cathy Bendel as the new Finance Director, REGULAR AGENDA: MnDNR Watercraft Inspection Grant Administrator Zuleger requested the Council adopt Resolution 2012-009 to expend $2,000 from the City's undesignated fund balance as a matching grant to secure a MnDNR Watercraft Inspection Grant. The Council had approved the funds at the February 21, 2012, Council meeting. Council Pearson commented that non -lake shore homeowners take onus of the City; people who enjoy the benefits should pay for it. A better option would be a split with cost between the City and Lakeshore owners. Council discussed that it should be addressed year by year; lakes are assets: beneficial to protect what we have. MOTION: Council Member Emmons moved to adopt Resolution No. 20 1 2-009 to expend from the City's undesignated limd balance as a matching grant to secure a MnDNR LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 6, 2012 2 LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MINUTES DRAFT Watercraft Inspection Grant to prevent the spread of invasive aquatic species in Lake Elmo lakes. Council Member Smith seconded the MOU017. The inotion passed 4-1. Council Member Pearson voting agaimst--lakeshore owners responsibiliiv and residents alreadv pay fi- lake concerns thru their property taxes. Lot Area (Size) and Width Variances — 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue Planning Director Klatt informed the Council that due to miscommunication, Steve Weber (applicant) requested tabling his variance request until the March 20, 2012, City Council meeting. Fire Relief Association Raffle Drawine Steve Rutkowski, Firefighter, requested the City Council draw the winning raffle tickets from their Annual fund raising raffle. New Finance Director Cathy Bendel drew the names. Demontreville Highlands Area Street improvements — Public Improvement Hearin e and Resolution No. 2012-011 Orderin)z Improvement and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications City Engineer Griffin provided a brief overview of the Feasibility Report of the recommended street reclamation improvement project. Total cost estimates for two alternatives were provided. At Council's direction, cost estimates reflect bituminous gutter and curbs. Council. discussed road widths; narrowing of roads affects storm water runoff, drivers tend to slow down, and waiting can be very costly. Engineer Griffin stated there are five cul-de-sacs and will meet with residents durii design process. All residents must agree. Public Hearing, Opened at 8:01 p.m. Tim Roden. 8080 59th Si., was not in favor of narrowing 5911 Street stating the road provided traffic to the Trail. Larry Ptasienski, 5715 Highlands Trail N., expressed concerns about the speed near the park and inquired about a walkway on one side. He asked about the total debt to tax revenue to the City. Administrator Zuleger stated the funds were available and stable; General Obligation debt ratio was good. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 6, 2012 LAKE ELMO C6 ,NCIL MINUTES DRAFT John Fremont, 7741 53 St., stated the road needs repair; requested the same road width; looking forward to a new road. Mike Groetsch. 5675 Highlands Tr.. requested the same road width; expressed concerns for the safety of residents; speeding problems with a newly paved thoroughfare: questioned why County did not keep the road. David Nielsen, 5680 Highlands Tr., stated the road traffic increased since 1994, not as safe. wider road is better, and inquired about traffic calming options. Gary Peltzer. 5747 Highlands Ct., requested same road width, as he's been walking it for 33 years; commented that the bituminous curbs are gone due to snow plows. Mary Noreen, 7960 Demontreville Tr., stated it is hard economic times and plans need to reevaluated; maintain road width: aware that Highlands Tr. in tough shape due to high traffic but why not all of Highlands Tr. Michael Miller, 5810 Highlands Tr., requested same road width, commenting that streets narrow during winter (snowy) months; walking and bicycling lanes would be helpful. Public Flearing Closed at 8:40 p.m. Council discussed the new Stillwater Bridge and preserving frontage road access to the City: City would not pay additional costs for concrete curbs; costs cannot increase if concrete comes up after closing; explore "red zone policing" regarding ticketing; sensitive to cost less street maintenance, speed concerns and parking. Engineer Griffin stated quantities are managed which help save disturbance of properties; pedestrian safetv; emergency vehicles. MOTION: Council Member Pearson moved to adopt Resolution No. 20 1 2-0 1 1, ordering the Improvement and the Preparation of the Plans and Specifications for the Demontreville Highlands.4rea Street Improvements. Council Member Park seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Keats Avenue North: MSA Street and Trunk Watermain Improvements — Public Improvement Hearing and Resolution No. 2012-012 Ordering improvement and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications City Engineer Griffin updated the Council on the Feasibility Report for the Keats Avenue North and Trunk Watermain improvements project. Keats Avenue is a major north and south collector roadway and a designated Municipal State Aid route within the City. The pavement surface showed significant distresses including subgrade failure, indicating that a street reclamation process could not be utilized as a low cost payment rehabilitation option. The project improvements include the reconstruction of Keats Avenue together with a 16-inch diameter trunk watennain extension. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 6, 2012 4 LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MINUTES DRAFT The City Engineer then presented an alternative project schedule that would allow the Council time to review the capital water system investment. The new schedule allows the Council to postpone ordering the improvement until August 21. 2012, with the project construction being moved back to 2013. City Council discussed temporary road closures during construction, various design alternatives, use of State Aid funds; for the watermain project, the pros and cons of chargin2, lateral benefit charges. Public Hearing Opened at 9:14 p.m. George Crocker, 5093 Keats Ave., lived there since 1958; appreciates Hwy. 36 and Keats Avenue interchange: road improvement needed; assessment does not fit reality; traffic ratio inaccurate and to reconsider ratio and assessment; not interested in hooking up to water and residents should not need to pay, Jim Dver. 5435 Keats Ave., requested clarification of subdividing into two lots and a second access; two hookup charges if service stub is placed in front of home. George Dege, 5193 Keats Ave., commented that it would be cheaper to put in another well or repair than the proposed watermain assessment charge; keep existing road bed. Robert Meyer, 5220 Keats Ave., maintain street width; existing street needs improvements: expressed safety concerns about speeding with new road; not interested in hooking up to water and assessment fees: issue is about the City wanting to extend water service. Bill Vogel, 5055 Keats Ave., appreciates the benefit of City water but unable to afford hookup and assessment charges; too expensive to justify a community benefit. City Council discussed the waten-nain investment; possible lateral benefit charge in lieu of an assessment; State Aid funds will bear majority of street project costs; traffic ratio; City-wide benefit of watcrmain extension, but the goal is not to pay anything until hookup. City Administrator Zuleger stated that the City is doing a water fund analysis and was currently reviewing operations. including water fee. rate case and storm water concerns. MOT/ON.. Mayor Johnston moved to continue the Public Hearing to the August 2, 2012, Council meeting. Council Member Park seconded the motion. The 1770a017 passed 5-0. Council — Staff Goal Settin. / Development Retreat City Administrator Zuleger requested the City Council authorize funds, not to exceed $3,300, for the purpose of conducting a Council -Staff Developmental Retreat to be held in April 2012 utilizing Don Salverda and Associates. It has been the desire of several LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 6, 2012 LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MINUTES DRAFT City Council Members to facilitate a forum/retreat to define and improve the relationship between the City Council and appointed operational staff. Administrator Zuleger stated the goals are to build trust, team building, develop goals and engage citizenry. It will help develop the Council and Staff strengths and build on the positive attributes. MOTION: Council Member Pearson moved 10 authorize ,fUnds not to exceed 53,300 Ibr the purpose of conducting a Council -Staff Developmental Retreat to be held in April 2012, utilizing Don Salverda and Associates. Council Member Park seconded the motiorL The 17101 1017 passed 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m, Respectfully submitted by Carole Luczak, Interim City Clerk Resolution No. 2012-007: Resolution No. 2012-008: Resolution No. 2012-009: Resolution No. 2012-010: Resolution No. 2012-011: Ordinance No. 08-056: Authorized Signatures for Grant Fund and Regular Savings from the Lake Elmo Bank Approved Reestablishing Precincts and Polling Places Approved Disbursing Public Funds for the Purpose of Protecting Surface Waters Within the Confines of the City of Lake Elmo from Certain Aquatic Invasive Species Approved Denying Lot Area and Width Variances to Allow a Minor Subdivision at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue Approved Ordering the Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Demontreville Highlands Area Street Improvements Approved Setting Municipal Fees for Calendar Year 2012 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 6, 2012 6 LAKE L 0 YOR & COJ1)1c14...CQA4 VU CAW " I DATE: 3/71/7012 CONSENT ITEM #: MOTION as part of Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM: Approve Disbursements in the Amount of $95,705.35 SUBMITTED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Joan Ziertman, Finance Consultant AND ACTION REOUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to approve disbursements in the amount of $95,705.35. No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda. BACKGROUND INFO ATION: The City of Lake Elmo has fiduciary authority and responsibility to conduct normal business operation. Below is a summary of current claims to be disbursed and paid in accordance with State law and City policies and procedures. Claim # ACH ACH ACH DD3838 — DD3872 38169-38171. 38172-38224 1.353-1373 Amount $ 6,410.36 $ 1,071.73 $ 3,714.01 $ 24,280.33 $ 567.43 $ 58.401.49 $ 1.260.00 TOTAL $ 95,705.35 Description PayrollTaxes to IRS 3/8/2012 PayrollTaxes to MN Dept. of Revenue 3/8/2012 PayrollRetirement to PERA 3/8/2012 Payroll Dated 3/8/2012 (Direct Deposit) Payroll Dated 3/8/2012 (Payroll Paper Checks) Accounts Payable Dated 3/21/2012 Accounts Payable Dated 3/21/2012 (Library Checks) City Council Meeting Approval of Disbursements March 21. 2012 Consent Agenda Item #2 STAFF REPORT: City staff has complied and reviewed the attached set of claims. All appears to be in order and consistent with City budgetary and fiscal policies and Council direction RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve as part of the Consent Agenda proposed disbursements in the amount of $95.705.35. Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to remove this item from the Consent Agenda or a particular claim from this item and further discuss and deliberate prior to taking action. If done so, the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to approve the March 21, 2012, Disbursements as Presented land modYiedJ herein." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Accounts Payable Dated 3/21/2012 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (jfremoved from the Consent Agenda): Questions from Council to Staff ........ ....... ....... ..... . ..... Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion . ...... .......... ....... ......... ............... ..... ..... Mayor & City Council Discussion ...... ........... ........ . ...... ..... ....... ........ ..... Mayor & City Council Action on Motion__ ..... ........ ...................... ........ . ..... ..... Mayor Facilitates -- page 2 -- Accounts Payable To Be Paid Proof List Uscr: joan z Printed: 03/15/2012 Batch: 005-03-2012 2:48 PM Invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # ARAM Aratnark, Inc. 629-7444314 03/15/2012 22,91 0.00 03/21 /2012 Uniforms No 0000 101-430-310(1-4417(1 Uniforms 629-7444314 Total: 22.91 629-7446141 03/05/2012 169.93 0.00 03/21,121)12 Linen City Hall No 0000 101-410-1940-44010 Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg 629-7446141 Total: 169,93 629-7449263 03/1512012 19,19 0.00 03/21/2012 Uniforms No 0000 101-430-3100-44170 Uniforms 629-7449263 Total: 19,1 9 ARAM Total: 212.03 ASPENNI I Aspen Mills: Inc. 118609 02/29/2012 172.78 0:00 03/21/2012 Uniforms No 0000 I 01-420-2220-44170 Uniforms 118609 Total: 172.78 118610 02/29/2012 132.83 0.00 03/21/2012 Uniforms No 0000 101-420-2220-4417(1 Uniforms 118610 Total: 132.83 118611 02129/2012 110.83 0.00 03/21/2(112 Uniforms No 0000 101-420-2220-44170 Uniforms 118611 Total: 110.83 118612 02/29/2012 133.90 0,01) 03/2112012 Uniforms No 0000 101-420-2220-44170 Uniforms 118612 'Iola]: 133,90 ASP ENMI Total: 550:34 BATTYPL Batteries Plus Woodbury, Corp 32-746210 03/05/2012 13.84 0.00 03/21/2012 94 Lift Station Alarm Battery 602-495-9450-44030 Repairs\M aim Imp Not Bldgs 32-7462 I() Total: 13.84 NTo 0000 AP - To 13e Paid Proof List (03/15/12 - 2:48 I'M) Page I lovoice # htv Date :kutount Quantity Prot Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # BATTY PL Total: 13.84 BIFFS Biffs Inc. W456577 0311512012 61.29 0.00 03/21/2012 Portable Restroorns No 0000 101-450-5200-44120 Rentals - Buildings W456577 Total: 61.29 BIFFS Total: 61,29 BOYER Boyer Trucks 612613 03/15171112 29.72 0.00 03/21/2012 Fuel Line and Seal 98-2 No 0000 1111-430-3125-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 612613 Total: 29.72 BOYER Total: 29.72 C&J CONS C & J Consulting Services, LEI' Feb 2012 03/01/2012 4,875,00 0.00 03/21/2012 Monthly Accounting Services - Feb No 0000 101-4 I 0-1520-43150 Contract Services 2012 Feb 2012 Total: 4,875.00 C&J CONS Total: 4,875.00 COMCAST COMCAST 02127/2012 02/27/2012 I 01-420-2220-44300 Miscellaneous 02/27/2012 Total: CUMCAST Total: 7.90 0.00 03/21/2012 Monthly Service 7.90 7.90 No 0000 COM P ENSA Compensation Consultants, Ltd 03/31/2012 03/06/2012 40,00 0.00 03/21/2012 Monthly FSA Adrnin Fee March 2012 No 0000 101-41 0-1320-4430(1 Miscellaneous 03/31/2012 Total: 40,00 C'OMPENSA Total: 40.00 CTYI3 LOOM City of Bloomington Feb 2012 02/27/20 I 2 40,00 0.00 03/21/2012 I.ab Bacteria Tests No 0000 601-494-9400-42270 Utility System Maintenance Feb 2012 Total: 40.00 CTYBLOON1 Total: 40,00 - To Be PP;.I Proof List (03/15/12 - 2:48 PM) Page 2 !Invoice liar Dale CTYOAKDA City of Oakdale 10000460-01 02/29/2012 601-494-9400-43820 Water Utility 10(100460-01 Total: Multiple 03/09/2012 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt Multiple 03/09/2012 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt Multipte 03/09/2012 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt Multiple 03/09/2012 101-420-2220-44040 Rcpairs/Maint Eqpt Multiple Total: CTYOAKDA "total: (TYROSEV City of Roseville 215841 ()3/15/2(112 101-410-1450-43180 Information Technology/Web 215841 Total: CTYROS EV Total: CUMMINGS Cummings Mary Jo 03418/2012 03/08/2012 206-450-5300-43150 Contract Services 03/08/2012 Totah CUM NI INGS Total: ECN Networks. Inc. Emergency Communica 03106/2012 03/0612012 I 01-420-2500-43 150 Contract Services 03/06/2012 Total: ECN Total: EMERGAUT Emergency Automotive tech, Inc ,W030612-2 03106/2012 101-430-3125-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt JC030612-2 Total; EMERGAUT Total: Amount Quantity Part Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # 2,694.98 0.00 03721/2012 Water Service 1-94 2,694,98 225,00 0.00 03/21/2012 Brake Repair, E2 29.00 0,00 03/21/2012 Oil Change, CV! 86.76 0.00 03/21/2012 Replace interior vehicle compartment 45 I .36 0.00 03/21/2012 Install Battery seperator/Replace Batt 797.11 3,487.10 1,652.08 0.00 03/21/2012 Monthly IT Services - March 2012 1,652,08 1,652,08 1,800,00 0.00 03/21/2012 40 hours of Library Consulting 1,800.00 1.800.00 5,250.00 0.00 03/21/2012 Code Red Services 5,250.00 5,250.00 18.92 0.00 03/21/2012 Amber Lenses for 86-1 98-2 18,92 18.92 No No No No No 0000 (1000 0000 0000 000( No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Al' - To Be Paid Proof List (03/15/12 - 2:48 PM) Page 3 Invoice tt Inv Date Amount Quantity Prot Date Description Reference EN VENT'S ENV LNTIS 738507 03/1272012 101-410-1940-43210 Telephone 738507 03/12/2012 101-430-3100-432 10 Telephone 738507 Total: ENV ENTIS Total: EQUINOX Equinox Software 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 206-450-5300-44370 Conferences & Training 03/06/2012 03/06/20 12 206-450-5300-44370 Conferences & Training 03/06/2012 Total: EQU[NOX Total: FASTEN AL Fastenal MNOAK I 133 02/22/2012 WI -430-3125-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt MNOAK 1133 Total: FASTEN AL Total: FIORILLO Fiorillo Megan 03/05/2012 03/05/2012 101-410-1450-4362(1 Cable Operations 03/05/2012 Total: FIORILLO Total: GRL1B ER Gruber's Power Equipment 105380 03/07/2012 I 01-430-3125-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt I 05380 Total: GR.UBER Total: HAGBERGS Hagbergs Country Market (13/(11/2(112 03/01/2012 101-410-1320-44300 Miscellaneous 03/01/2012 Total: HAGBERGS Total: AP - To Be Po;r1 ('roof List (13115112 - 2:48 PM) 572.04 0.00 03/21/2012 Telephone/Data Service CH March 2(/1 2 456,22 0,00 03/21/2012 Telephone/Data Service PW March 2012 1,028.26 1,028.26 500.0(1 0,00 03/21/2012 Intro to Koha Training 250.00 0,00 03/21/2012 Cataloging Training 750.00 750,00 30.58 0,00 03/21/2012 M isc Hardware UB Plows 30,58 30.58 27,50 0.00 03/21/2012 Cabled Live - Training 3/5/12 27.50 27.50 25.60 0.00 03/21/2012 Throttle kit for V-Box Sander 25.60 25.60 55.92 0.00 03/2112012 Workshop Mtg - 2/14/2012 Box Lunches 55.92 55,92 Task Type PO # Close POLine # No No No No No No No No 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 Page 4 Invoice # Inv Date iNTERSTA Interstate All Battery Ctr 44930 02/27/2012 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/1M aint Eqpt 44930 Total: I NTERSTA Total: Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine 428.89 0.0(1 03/21/2012 Replace Batteries on E I No 0000 428.89 428 89 JOHNSON& Johnson 84 Turner Attorneys Feb 12 03/13/2012 1,638.50 0.00 03/21/2012 Legal Services - Civil No 0000 11)1-410-1320-43040 Legal Services Feb 12 03113/2012 4,315.00 0.00 03/21/2012 Legal Services - Prosecution No 000' 101-420-2150-43045 Attorney Criminal Feb 12 03/13/2012 65.00 0.00 03/21/2012 Legal Services - Infrastructure No 0000 420-480-8000-43040 Legal Services Feb 12 03713/2012 422.50 0.00 03/21/2012 Legal Services - Library No 0000 206-450-5300-44300 Miscellaneous Feb 12 03/13/2012 2,379.00 0.00 03/21/20 12 Legal Services - 3M No 0000 601-494-9400-43040 Legal Services Feb 12 Total: 8,820.00 JOHNSON& Total: 8,820.00 KDV Kern DeWeiner Viere Ltd 141971 02/29/2012 7.735.50 0.00 03/21/2012 Financial Services - February 2012 No 0000 I 01-410-152(1-43150 Contract Services 141971 Total: 7,735.50 KDV Total: 7,735,50 Lillie Newspapers Inc. Lillie Suburban 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 274.45 0.00 03/21/2012 Publish of Res & Ord 2012 No (100. 101-410- I 410-44300 Miscellaneous 02/29/2012 Total: 274.45 Lillie Total: 274.45 I,INNER Linnet- Electric Company, Inc. 22162 03/02/20 I 2 2,708.00 0.00 03/21/2012 Well house II Electrical Work - No 0000 601-494-9400-43150 Contract Services Chlorina 22162 Total: 2,708.00 LINNER Total: 2,708.00 TOFF Loffler Companies, Inc. 1371086 03/02/2012 I 01-410-1940-44040 Repairs/Maint Contractual Eqpt 217.67 0,00 03/21/2012 Copy Machines Overage & Base 3/31/12 No 0000 Al' - To Be Paid Proor List (03/ I 5/12 - 2:48 PM) Page 5 Invoice # Inv Date 13711)86 03/02/2012 101-410-194(1-44(14(1 Repairs/Maim Contractua) Eqpt 1371086 'Total: LOFF Total: _Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # -45,00 0,00 03/21/2012 Credit on invoice 81304113 No 0000 172.67 172.67 LUCZAK Carole Luczak 03/08/12 03108/2(1)2 129.65 0.00 03/21/2012 Reimb Mileage for Conference 101-410-1320-43310 Mileage 03/08/12 03/08/2012 76.21 0.00 03/21/2012 Reimb Meals for Conference I 01-410-1320-44370 Conferences & Training 03/08/12 Total: 155.86 LUCZAK Total: 155.86 No 0000 No 0000 M ARONEYS Maroney's Sanitation, Inc 42611/7 03/02/2012 108.32 0,00 03/21/2012 Waste Rernoval - City Hall No 000v, 101-410-1940-43840 Refuse 426107 113/(12/2012 47.68 0.00 03/21/2012 Waste Removal - Fire No 0000 101-420-2220-43840 Refuse 42611)7 03/02/2012 207,82 0.00 03/21/2012 Waste Removal - Public Works No 0000 101-430-3100-43840 Refuse 4261(17 03/02/2012 207.82 0.00 03/21/2012 Waste Removal - Parks No 0000 101-450-52(10-43840 Refuse 426107 Total: 571.64 MARONEYS Total: 571,64 MARVS Marv's Prolesssional Tools 246669 ((3/08/2012 5.27 0.00 03/21/2012 Wire Brushes No 0000 101-430-3100-42400 Small Tools & Minor Equipment 246669 Total: 5.27 MARVS Total: 5.27 MENARDSO Menards - Oakdale 69294 03/01/20 12 7.37 0.00 03/2112012 Misc Office Supplies No 0000 101-410-14 I 0-44300 Miscellaneous 69294 Total: 7.37 72056 03/12/2012 16.01 0.00 03/21/2012 Fire Station 11 Draintield Pipe Repair No 0000 101-450-5200-44010 Repairs/Maint Bldg 72056 Total: 16.01 M EN ARDSO Total: 23.38 AP - To Be Poi,' Proof List (03/1 5/12 - 2:48 PM) Page 6 Invoice it Inv Date Amount Quantity Pnit Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # MENARDST N1C1VdRIS - Stillwater 56325 02/24/2012 22.41 0.00 03/21/2012 Containers for Uniform Storage No 0000 101-420-2220-44170 I Miforms 56325 Total: 22.41 NIENARDST Total: 22.41 M ES Municipal Emergency Services 00299276-SN V 02/29/2012 1(11-42(1-2220-424(11) Small Tools & Equipment 00299276-SN V Total: MES Total: 176,17 0,00 03/21/2012 Replacement fitting for T2 No 0000 176.17 176.17 METCOU Metropolitan Council 983683 03/02/2012 1081.28 0.00 03/21,12012 Monthly Wastewater Service - March No 0000 6(12-495-9451)-43820 Sewer - Met Council 2012 983683 Total: 1,081.28 METC011 Total: ,081,28 M ERA McCombs Frank Roos Assoc Inc. 70169 02/29/2012 101-410-1910-43150 Contract Services 70169 Total: M ERA Total: ,869.30 0,00 03/21/2012 Planning Services - February 2012 ,869.30 ,869.30 No 0000 N111,LEREX Miller Excavating, Inc. 16100 0212912012 1,566.84 0.00 03/21/2012 Water Main Break Excavation & No 000(' 601-494-9400-44030 Repairs\Maint Imp Not Bldgs Material 16101) Total: 1 ,566.84 MILLER EX Total: 1,566.84 M IN NESOT Minnesota Abstract & Title Coin Ck Reg 03106/2012 424.65 OM 03/21/2012 Refund Overpayment of Reg Water No 0000 601-000-0000-37100 Water Sales Acct Ck Req Total: 424.65 MINNESM Total: 424.65 MSECB MN Firc Service Cert. Board 101525 03/09;7012 t 01-420-2270-44330 Dues & Subscriptions 101525 Total: 20,00 0.00 03/21/2012 FEll Recertification '2 0.0 0 No 0000 AP - lo Be Paid Proof list K13115112 - 2:48 PM 1 Page 7 tu voice # Inv Date Antolini Quantity Pint Date Description Reference Task Type P() # Close POLine # NISI:CB Total: ON ECALL Gopher State One Call 33977 03/01/2012 101-430-3100-43150 Contract Services 33972 Total: ON ECA LI, Total: PLUNKETT Plunkett's Pest Control 3048494 113/01/2012 101-410-1940-44010 Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg 3(148494 Total: P LUNK EFT Total: PRESSA Anastasia Press 03106/20 I 2 03106/2012 101-410-1450-43620 Cable Operations 03/06/2012 Total: 03/12/2012 03/12/2012 101-410-1450-43620 Cable Operations 03/12/2012 Total: PRESSA Total: PROSTAFF PROSTAFF 1(12-84956(1 03/01/2012 101-410-1320-41010 Full-time Salaries 102-849560 Total: 102-850330 03/08/2012 101-410-1320-41010 Full-time Salaries 102-85(133(1 Total: PROSTAFF Total: R1CHTMAN Ricliumni Karen 11202 03/05/2)312 I 01-430-3200-42100 Recycling Supplies 11202 Total: RICHTMAN Total: AP - o Be PP''l Proof. List (03/15/12 - 2:48 PM) 20.00 30.55 0.00 03/21/2012 Line Located - February 2012 30.55 30.55 83.56 0.00 03/21/2012 Pest Control Svs - City Hall 83.56 83.56 55.00 OM 03/21/2012 City Council Meeting 3/6/12 55.00 55.00 0.00 03/21/2012 Planning Commission Meeting 55.00 110,00 472.75 0.00 03/21/2012 Temp Help WE 2/26/2012 472.75 604.5(1 0.00 03/21/2012 Temp Help WE 3/4/2012 604.50 1,077.25 261.10 0.00 03/21/2012 Recycled Newspaper Pencils 261.10 261.10 No No 00 0 0 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Page 8 Invoice ft Inv Date RIVRCOOP River Country Cooperative 02;2912017 02/29/2012 101-420-2220-42120 Fuel, Oil and Fluids 02/29/2012 'Total: RIVRCOOP Total: ROGERS Rogers Printing Services, Corp 18496 02/2912012 101-410-1320-42030 Printed Forms 18496 Total: ROGERS Total: S&I S&T Office Products, Inc. 010B4401 02/29/2012 101-410-1320-42000 Office Supplies 01PB4401 Total: 01PB7844 03/08/2012 101-4 I 0-1320-42000 Office Supplies 01P B7844 'Fotal: S&T Total: Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # 652,14 0,00 03/21/2012 Fuel No 0000 652.14 652.14 363.91 0.00 03/21/2012 Thank you cards No 0000 363.91 363,91 22,12 0,00 03/21/2012 Office Supplies - Signature Stamp No 0000 22,12 54,62 0,00 03/21/2012 Office Supplies No 0000 54.62 76,74 SAMSCLUB Sam's Club 112/06/2011 02/0612012 37,48 0.00 03/21/2012 Rehah Supplies 101-420-2220-44300 Miscellaneous 02/06/2012 02/06/2012 28.98 0.00 03/21/2012 City Hall Supplies 101-41(.1-1320-443(10 Miscellaneous 02/06/20 I 2 Total: 66.46 SAM SCLUB Total: 66.46 No 0000 No 0000 TDS Tus METROCOM - LLC 651-779-8882 03/13/2012 167.73 0,00 03/21/2012 Analog Lines - Fire No 0000 101-420-2220-4321(1 Telephone 651-779-8882 03/13/2012 152,75 0.00 03/21/2012 Analog Lines - Public Works No 0000 101-430-3100-43210 Telephone 651-779-8882 03/13/2012 106.77 0,00 03/21/2012 Analog Lines - Lift Station Alarms No 0000 602-495-9450-43210 Telephone 651-779-8882 03/13p012 42,90 0.00 03/21/2012 Analog Lines - Well House 42 No 0000 601-494-9400-43210 Telephone 651-779-8882 Total: 470.15 TDS 'Fowl: 470.15 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (03/15/12 - 2:48 PM) Page 9 Invoice IV Inv Date TREGILGA regilgas Michael 03/05/2012 03/05i20 1 2 101 -4 10-1450-43620 Cable Operations 03/05./2012 Total: TREGILGA rota!: TRKU'ri Truck Utilities Inc. 237045 03/01/2012 101-430-3 100-42210 Equipment Parts 237045 Total: TRKUTI Total: V ISALF.40 VISA 02/0312012 03/15/2012 101-410-132(1-44300 [Miscellaneous 02/03/20 I 2 03/15/2012 I 01-420-2220-44040 RepairsAlaint Eqpt 02103/2012 Total: V ISALE40 Total: WATERCON Water Conservation Svs Inc. 3026 03/06/2012 601-494-9400-44300 miscellaneous 3026 Total: WATERCON Total: XCEL Xcel Energy 51-0117417-0 03/15/2012 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 51-0117417-0 Total; 51-4504807-7 03/15/2012 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 51-4504807-7 03/15/2012 602-495-9450-43810 Electric Utility 51-4504807-7 03/15/2012 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 51-4504807-7 Total: 51-4572945-7 (13/15/2012 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 51-4572945-7 Total: 51-4576456-3 03/15/2012 I 01-470-7720-43810 Electric Utility d ^, 36,69 54.34 Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference 27.50 0,00 03/21/2012 Training for cable operator 3/5/12 27.50 27.50 32.70 0,00 03/21/2012 Hyd Hose Ends UB Plow 98-2 32.20 3220 35.43 0.00 03/21/2012 Springstead Meeting 101.72 0.00 03/2112012 Part for the Ranger 137.15 137.15 241.42 0.00 03/21/2012 Leak Detection Service 241,42 241,42 36.69 0.00 03/21/2012 Welcome Sign 0.00 03/21/2012 Lights at Legion Park 70.96 0.00 03/21/2012 Lift Station 32.01 0.00 03/21/2012 Traffic Lights 157.31 58.33 0.00 03/21/2012 Street Lights 58.33 841.97 0.00 03/21/2012 Fire Station 42 Task Type PO # Close POline # No No No No No 0000 0000 0000 0000 No 0000 No 00C No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Al - To Be P-* ' Proof List (03/15;)2 - 2:48 PM) Page 1(1 Invoice # Inv Date Automat Quantity Pnit Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # 51-4576456-3 (13/15/2(112 341.67 0,00 03/21/2012 City Hall 101-410-1940-43810 Electric Utility 51-4576456-3 4-otal: 1,183.64 51-4580376-5 03/15/2012 28,87 0.00 03/21/2012 Traffic Lights I 01-430-3 [ 60-43810 Street Lighting 51-4580376-5 03115/2012 824.39 0.00 03/21/2012 City Hall 101-410-1940-43810 Electric Utility 51-4580376-5 Total: 853.26 51-4733556-8 (13/15/2(112 10.17 0.00 03/21/2012 Tennis Courts 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 51-4733556-8 Total: 10.17 51-5044219-0 03/15/2012 266.75 0,00 03/21)2012 Parks Building 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 5 I -5044219-0 Total: 266.75 51-5275289-3 03/15/2012 10.17 0.00 03/21/2012 Pebble Park 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 51-5775289-3 Total: 10.17 51-5356323-8 03/15/2012 817.02 0,00 03/21/2012 Wells 1 601-494-9400-43810 Electric Utility 51-5356323-8 Total: 817.02 51-5522332-2 03/15/2012 41.82 0.00 03/21/2012 Traffic Lights 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 51-5522332-2 Total: 41.82 51-5747685-4 03/15/2012 192.91 0.00 03/21/2012 Arts Center 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 51-5747685-4 Total: 192.91 51-5916043-7 03/15/2012 19.74 0.00 03/21/2012 Lift Station 602-495-9450-43810 Electric Utility 51-5916)143-7 Total: 19.74 51-6429583-8 03/15/2012 16,04 0.00 03/21/2012 Lift Station 602-495-9450-43810 Electric Utility 51-6429583-8 Total; I 6.04 51-6433976-2 03/15/2012 535.77 0.00 03/21/2012 Fire Station 41 1(11-420-2220-4381(1 Electric Utility 51-6433976-2 Total: 535,77 51-6625457-1 03/15/2012 285.20 0.00 03/21/2012 Legion Park 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 51-6625457-1 Total: 285.20 51-6736544-2 03/15/2012 1,96129 0.00 03/21/2012 Street Lights 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 51-6736544-2 Total; 1,963.29 51-6928283-3 03/15/2012 28.1 I 0.00 03/21/2012 Traffic Lights 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 51-6928283-3 Total: 28.1 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 AP - To Be Paid Proof list (03115/12 - 2:48 PM) Page 11 Invoice # Inv Date 51-6956201-4 03115/2012 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 51-6956201-4 Total: 51-7538112-1 03/15/2012 101-430-3100-43810 Electric Utility 51-7538112-1 Total: 51-8126(193-5 03115/2012 601-494-9400-43810 Electric Utility 51-8126093-5 Total: 51-8711719-3 03/15/2012 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 51-8711719-3 Total: XCEL Total: ZULEGER Zuleger Dean 03/04/2012 03/04/2012 101-410-1320-43310 Mileage 03/04/2012 Total: ZULEGER Total: Report Total: Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine 50.12 50.12 2,032.63 2,032,63 148.78 148.78 11.26 11.26 8,719.01 39.96 39.96 39.96 58,401.49 0.00 03/21/2012 VFW Ballfield Lts No 0000 0.00 03/21/2012 Public Works No 0000 0.00 03/21/2012 Water Tower 2 No 0000 0.00 03/21/2012 Speed Sign Hwy 5 No 000(1 0.00 03/21/2012 Mileage No 000(1 AP - To Be P"' ' Proof List (03/15/12 - 2:48 PM) Page 12 clr! ELM IL,t,1 dld ded' '',Ifdde.T.ddliadddAddudd, addd dad,dvddedd' AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: & COLN C T 0 DATE: 3,(20/2012 CONSENT ITEM #: 3 MOTION as part of the Consent Agenda 2012 Seal Coat Project -- Agreement for Joint Services with West Lakeland Township Ryan Stempski. Assistant City Engineer Dean A. Zuleger. City Administrator Jack Griffin, City Engineer Dave Snyder, City Attorney SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving the 2012 Seal Coat Project Agreement for Joint Services with West Lakeland Township. No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Conseni Agenda. STAFF REPORT: Staff has prepared a Joint Services Agreement with West Lakeland Township to allow West Lakeland to contract with the City for seal coating services again in 2012. Through a joint project effort, it is anticipated that project cost savings can be realized through an economy of scale. The agreement addresses the terms and conditions upon which the City of Lake Elmo prepares and administrates a contract for seal coating services for streets within both the City and the Township. Each jurisdiction then pays its portion of the contractor costs and shares in the engineerin2, design and construction administration costs. For construction observation services performed during the construction duration. each jurisdiction contracts these services directly, The City of Lake Elmo is defined as the lead entity and prepares the plans and specifications with input from the Township's engineer. The City bids the project and enters into a contract with the selected contractor for all the work. West Lakeland will pay a fee to the City in the amount of 6% of the Township's construction costs as received at the time of bid. The 6% is considered reimbursement to the City for the design, bidding and construction administration services related to the project. The Township will also reimburse the City within 30 days of receiving contractor invoices for the work performed by the contractor on West Lakeland streets. In 2011. the City of Lake limo and West Lakeland Township jointly bid and constructed street seal coating. The 2011 unit price was $1.00 per square yard. Staff feels that this price was in fact page City Council Meeting March 20, 2012. 2012 Seal Coat I- ,ct — Agreement for Joint Services with West Lakeland Township Consent Agenda Item 3 a reduced price that translated a cost savings to both communities. By competitively biddint, both the City and Township projects together, we hope to continue to promote a favorable bidding environment as well as share in the fixed costs associated with the preparation of the specifications. contract documents, and facilitating the bidding process. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above Staff Report. it is recommended that the City Council consider approving as part of tonight's Consent Agenda the 2012 Seal Coat Project Agreement for :John Services with West Lakeland Township. Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to remove this item from the Conseni Agenda, table this item tor future consideration. or further discuss. deliberate and/or, if appropriate. amend the recommended motion prior to taking action. If the latter is done so, the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to approve the 2012 Seal Coat Project Agreement for Joint Services /as amended and/or modified at tonight's ineetingl" ATTACHMENTS: . 2012 Seal Coat Project Agreement for Joint Services with West Lakeland Township SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Azenda): Questions from Council to Staff ......... Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ........ _ ... Mayor & City Council Discussion.... ..... ...... _________________ Mayor Facilitates Action on Motion ..... .. Mayor & City Council -- page 2 -- 2012 SEAL COAT PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR JOINT SERVICES Thio/\i-nrccmcn1 ismade this day of_ 2012. by and between the West Lakeland Township (hereinafter re|'encd to as "West Lakeland") and the City of Lake Bnno (hereinafter referred to as "Lake Elmo"). VVH[KE/\S. it is the desire of' the pm-tk:s, and it is the purpose of this Agrrcuucul that certain road -related services be performed or contracted by Lake Eli -no on behalf of West Lakeland� W()VV, THfKEF()kE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set [hrith hc|nw.the above parties hereto agree us1b||ovrs |� Term: The term of this /\�roen�cnt shall commence upon the date o[oxccu|ionand shall be for the duration of' tile 2012 Sco| Coat Project as specified by the Contract documents, inc|udino the |-YearY/urranlv Period. 2. Services. For the term o[this Mrc#nent, Lake Elmo shall provide West Lakeland with the k`Uovving services in and nn hchui[ of West Lakeland and at tbn direction of West Lokulund'sBn�inccc u. Lake Elmo will prepare Plans and Specifications and Contract docomcn<uthat includes seal couiio-1 for grccTs located in VVcx1 Lukc|und' in addition /o the streets within Lake Elmo for which Lake Elmo is otherwise contracting. Prior to April 10. 201I, VVus{ Lakeland will provide Lake Elmo with o plan suituhab|c for inclusion in the Munu. along nkh o iohu!udmn of the cxiinnutcd quantities (in squurc!urds) shor/ing the seal coating work tohrperformed in West Lakeland 3, Punocnc/. West Lakeland mhu|| make payments to Luke Elmo for services reu|tcdiu tile project or directly for services as follows: u. West Lmkc|ood will pa} Lake Bnoo a hec in the amount of 61/6 of the West Lakeland construction cost as iohu(mzd at the dnnc of bid, 6mrcn�incc,in�und administration ('ecx performed b� Lake Bnoo for the seal coat project. Lake Bnoo will invoice this amount to West |.ukc|aod once the Lake Onuo City Council accepts the bids and awards the Construction contract. b, Luku E(nx, will ooukc Cunirucinr payments for all work completed in accordance with [lie Contract. West Lakeland will reimburse Lake C|mu for the Nvork completed in accordance with the contract for the quanbdcs ofxork performed on West Lakeland streets. c, At its sole cost and expense. West Lakeland will provide u construction observer to inspect tile seal coat work preformed oil West Lak-einad streets. d� Lake 2|nno will invoice West Lakeland for services to be ncinnhocsed by West Lakeland as Outlined above and West Lakeland will pay all invoices within 30 days after rccci[n of the invoice. Lukr Elmo shall include with its invoices copies of the contractor's claims showing the annount charged h/r the work pzrhmrmcdand materials used in West Lakeland. 4. Insurance. Lake Brno shall require its contractor(s) to provide insurance as specified b6un'. and West Lakeland ohuU be named as an additional inyured on such insurance: Comprehensive General Liability Auto Liabi|il! \Vorkers compensation $|.00O,00Oper occurrence, $2,000,000aggregate S|.Z00.OV0per occuncnocc Statutory amount 5. Indemnification. Lake Bmnagrees oodefend, iodcnonif\ and hold hunn|cys West Lakeland. and its o0idu|s, agents and employees honu and against all c|uinun, actions, damages. |nsoco and expenses. inu|udin, aUunnevs fccs, arisinc, out of' or ncou|dn- From Lake E|mo'x performance of the duties required under this &grccnuenl, provided that any xuch c|aim, action, daonugc. loss or expense is caused in whole or in part by an alleged negligent ucL omission. or willful misconduct (including. but not limited to, u claimed breach of contract made by the contractor) of' Lake Elmo, Lake Elmo mgrcco to require, as part of its contract with the contractor used to provide thc seal coaling. to include West Lakeland in the contractor's indemnification nhUuatioo under the contract, West Lakeland agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold hm�nkcss Lake Elmo. and its officials, u,)entuand employees hom and against all claims. actions. damages. losses and expenses, including attorneys' 1ec� urisin2 oul of or resulting from VVca( Lakc|ond'x p«d'onnnncc u[thr duties required o[i1 under this Agreement. provided that any such duino, action. doono,vc. loss or expense is caused in whole or in part by an nUcgod negliorent act oronnisuioo or xi||{u| misconduct of West Lakeland. This provision shall not he construed as u waiver by either party of any defenses. immunities or limitations on liability to which they are entitled, under Minnesota Statutes, Chnptcr466 or otherwise, Under oocircumstances shall a party he required to pay on behal C of itself and other parties, any allIOLints in excess of the limits of liability established in Minnesota Statutes. Chapter 466, applicable to any one party, Tbr limits of liability for some or all o[[hcparties may not hcadded together 0ndetermine the mozinnumamount nfliability for anv puny. 6. Service Contract. This in uservice contract. The parties do not intend to create, and nothing herein shall be construed as croolin�� o joint powers u�rccmunl, 'joint venture., or joint enterprise. However. tnthe extent ucourt ofcompetent jurisdiction may find such urelationship exists, Lake B|nno and West Lakeland shall be considered usingle governmental entity onprovided in Minnesota Statutes. section 471.59. subdivision }u for the purposes o[determining total liability. Thc limits nf|iabiU\v for Lake Elmo and VVczi Lakeland shall not be added tovothcr to determine the maxiML1111 amount of liabil ity for either part), or for any occurrence. 7, CnntmoinL, Procedure and Oversight. Lake Elmo shall be solely responsible tbr letting tbe contracts for the services to be provided hereunder in accordance with all upp|icuh|o laws. rules, and rc'u|u/iuns. Tile bonds obtained b'um the contractor for the work shall include the work to be performed in West Lakeland, Lake E|nou shall, to the e/Jcn\ reasonably ncccoxory' usdg West Lakeland to drux upon the performance bond as needed to complete orcorrect any work the contractor fails to perform in VVeol Lakeland in accordance with the contract. VYcot Lakeland viU be responsible for iuxpec|ino the work to he pcdhnnod in \fcmi Lakeland. but Lake E\non shall be , - responsible [orocnumU) ovone600 the contractor's purfoxrinuouo of' services in accordance with the contract. S. Miscellaneous. This /\�!rcconcru is solely for the bcnoDto[ibe portico hereto and no other person shall have any right, claim. orinterest in it. Y� i.cLo| Conon|iance. Both parties ug,cz to comply with all applicable state, federal and local \uwo, rules and vcLu\oIi000 in curryio- out their respective ob\i-udoxx under this f\�rcenncni. 10. Endo Aurecmcnt. This Agreement represents the Lake Elmo and VVesi Lakeland and supersedes and uanoc\s any and all prior agreements or proposals. v/ri/ieo or oral, between the parties relating to the sub co1matter hereof Muamendments. oddcndo, alterations. ormodifications <o the terms and cnndiiiooso[this Agreement shall be effective un!csy in writim-, and signed by both parties. IN VV|lNE5S \AIHERE(}F. the parties have set fhdhtheir hands onthe day and year first written above, CITYOF LAKE ELMO TOWN OF WEST LAKELAND By: Its mayor By: Date Date Its Town Chairperson By. By: Its City Administrator Its Town Clerk -Treasurer Date Date 3 pskY110.60,M.M.U.94,KGVA, , CM OF LAKE IHELlitg AYOF CTI DATE: 3/20/2012 CONSENT ITEM #: 4 MOTION as part of the Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM: 2012 Seal Coat Project — Preparation of Plans and Specifications SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer THROUGH: Dean A Zuleger. City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Mike Bouthilet, Public Works SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider authorizing the preparation of Plans and Specifications for the 2012 Seal Coat Project. No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND STAFF REPORT: As part of the annual street maintenance program, certain street and roadway segments are routinely treated with crack sealing and seal coating to preserve and extend the useful life of the pavement. The City maintains a 5-year street maintenance plan which identifies and programs each paved city street with a proposed maintenance application and designated year. Best management practices .for street maintenance are followed to maximize benefit on the City's investments. One year in advance of the scheduled maintenance application, public works and engineering staff jointly perform a field review to verify the scheduled maintenance activity. The proposed 2012 Seal Coat project will consist of 4.6 miles of City streets (see attached Street Maintenance Program Map), The approved 2012 City budget for seal coating and crack sealing is $125,000 (Fund No. 45300). includirw, construction and engineering. The actual mileage of roadway to be seal coated is managed to remain within the adopted budget once Contractor bids have been received. Crack sealing was authorized and applied to each of these street segments in 2011 in preparation of the scheduled seal coating. Crack sealing will be completed in the fall of 2012 for those streets to he seal coated in 2013. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above Staff Report, it is recommended that the City Council consider approving. as part of tonight's Consent Agenda, the preparation of Plans and Specifications for the 2012 Seal Coat Project. -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting 2012 Sealcoat Project — Preparatio, . Plans and Specifications March 20. 2012 Consent Agenda Item # 4 Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to remove this item from the Consent Agenda, table this item for future consideration, or further discuss, deliberate and/or, if appropriate, amend the recommended motion prior to taking action. If the latter is done so, the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to authorize FOCUS Engineering, Inc. to prepare Plans and Specifications and provide Construction Phase Services for the 2012 Seal Coat Project in the amount of 93,500 las amended and/or modified at tonight's meetingl." ATTACHMENTS: Street Maintenance Program Map SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Ap.enth0: uestions from Council to Staff.. ..... .................... ...... ............ Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ...... ___________________ Mayor & City Council Discussion. ..... ___________ ..... ..... .............. ... Mayor Facilitates Action on Motion__ ....... ...... Mayor & City Council page 2 -- 1W5 k L1.1,1,11' IlUk ven sld...„.4 L 4 - dorFet.s4,4 SEALCOAT YEA ----- 2013 2012 THE Cl" -- AKE 0 ' 110 ,L541:0 knq ad _ _ = * •°""" za =4:1 City Hall 3800 Laverne Avenue N 6511777.5510 www.lakeelmo.org Public Works Building 3445 Ideal Ave N 851(233-5414 Fire Stations Station No. 1 1510 Laverne Ave N 6511770-5006 Station No, 2 4259 Jamaca Ave N 651/779-6882 Schools - ;14 Parcels Subdivisions City Parks Golf Course Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve Park Office 6511430-8368 Lakes 11 1 tar, s =a-L 0 25 0, Map Date: March 2012 Created By: la.4411 14 t111 ,116.1.11 ENGINEERING, inc. &COUNCILCO UVC TO DATE: CONSENT ITEM #: 5 MOTION crs part of consent agenda 3/20/2012 AGENDA ITEM: .Professional Engineering Support Services — Adopt Consultant Pool SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin. City Engineer THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger. City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its consent agenda, the City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving the Professional Engineering Support Services Consultant Pool as presented in the attached Table 1. No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda. STAFF REPORT AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: From time to time, it is necessary for staff to retain outside Professional Engineering support services from various consultants in order to meet the needs of the City. It is customary for Cities to develop a predefined pool of qualified firms that offers staff the ability to access this support in a cost effective and timely manner. At the January 17, 2012 Council meeting the City Council authorized staff to send out a Request for Qualifications from various firms, Twenty three (22) firms submitted a Statement of Qualification for consideration by the City. Staff has reviewed each proposal. completed reference checks, and contacted firms to obtain clarifications when needed. Table 1 outlines the selected Consultant Pool for consideration. The establishment of the pool does not commit the City to using any of the firms nor does it guarantee any work to any of the firms. The Pool establishes a list of prequalitied firms for staff to turn to for specialized engineering. architectural, landscape architectural, surveying and other support services when the need arises. The prequalification step only serves to streamline the process for staff to access the available support and to simplify the Request for Proposal (RFP) process when a specific project need is requested. In the end the Consultant Pool model saves considerable staff time and resources. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above staff report and background information. the City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving, as part °fine Consent AgelUhl, the Professional Engineering Suppon Services Consultant Pool as presented in the attached Table 1. City Council Meeting, Professional Engineering Support Servh—s — Adopt Consultant Pool March 20, 2012 Consent Agenda Item # 5 Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to remove this item from the Consent .4gemia to further discuss, deliberate anckor, if appropriate, amend the recommended motion prior to taking action. If done so, the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to Approve the Professional Engineering Support Services Consultant Pool as presented in the attached table." las amended and/or modified at tonight's meeting-1" ATTACHMENTS: . Table I: Professional Engineering Support Services Consultant Pool SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Azendo): Questions from Council to staff._ ..... Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion .............................. ....... ............. ...... .....,. Mayor ek. City Council Discussion (if needed).... ....... ........ Mayor Facilitates Action on Motion (if needed) ........ ......... Mayor Facilitates TABLE 1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO - PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES CONSULTING POOL General Municipal Traffic Engineering & Municipal Buildings & Parks, Landscaping, Urban Water System Wastewater Surface Water Services Transportation Planning Facilities Design Bolton & Menk Inc. SRF Consulting Barr Engineeringnc Barr Engineering Inc Barr Engineering Inc No Award No Award FOTH Infrastructure Spack Consulting, Inc. SEH Hydromethods STANTEC KLM Engineering Inc, Solution Blue Stevens TKDA General Services - Specialties Surveying / Easements Cornerstone Land Survey E.G.Rud and Sons, Inc, Folz, Freeman and Erickson Water Tower Maintenance / Antennas KLM Engineering Inc. GIS / Mapping Flat Rock Geographics ' Or AY NCIL C C TO DATE: CONSENT ITEM #: MOTION AGENDA ITEM: Approval and Reading of Arbor Day Proclamation SUBMITTED BY: Dr. Kathy Widin, Forestry Consultant THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger, CityAdministrator REVIEWED BY: Carole Luczak, Interim City Clerk 3/20/12 6 SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is respectfully requested to approve the Arbor Da) Proclamation for 2012. No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda, BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Lake Elmo has authority to make public proclamations, when appropriate and consistent with applicable City policy, state statutes and federal law. Traditionally, the City has made an annual Proclamation in observance of Arbor Day. STAFF REPORT: City staff has reviewed the Proclamation. All appears to be in order and consistent with policies and past Council action. It is suggested that, following approval of the Consent Agenda. the Mayor read the attached Proclamation. RECOMMENDATION: 11 is recommended that the City Council approve. as part of the Consent Agenda, the proposed Arbor Day Proclamation for 2012. "Move to proclaim April 28, 2012,.as Arbor Day in the City of Lake E11710 and the month of May 2012, to be Arbor Month, and request the Mayor to public read said Proclamation." ATTACHMENTS: 1, Proposed Arbor Day Proclamation for 2012 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item ..... ..... City Administrator Report/Presentation ........ ......... ............ City Administrator -- page I -- City Council Meein 4uhorie Signatures for PcnmitsJ»om the Lake Elmu Bank February 21, 2012 Consent Agenda Item # Questions from Council to Staff Public Input, if Appropriate ..... .................................,. Call for Motion ..... ....... ........ ....... Discussion.......... ..... .... ..... ..... Action on Motion ...,............ ...... ..... ..„ ...... -- page Mayor Facilitates Mayor Facilitates Mayor & City Council Mayor 8.: City Council Mayor Facilitates WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: CITY OF LAKE ELMO ARBOR DAY/MONTH PROCLAMATION Minnesota is home to many of our nation's natural resources, foremost among them are our beautiful and abundant forests; and Trees are an increasingly vital resource in Minnesota today, enriching our lives by purifying the air, conserving soil, water and energy, creating jobs through a large forest products industry, serving as recreational settings, providing habitat for wildlife of all kinds, and creating beautiful landscapes to make our cornmunities more livable; and Human activities such as construction damage, pollution and neglect, as well as climatic extremes, disease and insects threaten our trees, creating the need for concerted action to ensure the future of community and rural forests in our state and throughout the country; and Each individual can act locally to improve the environment by planting trees and ensuring that these trees are protected and receive proper maintenance in the years ahead; and Each year on the last Friday in the month of April and throughout the month of May, the people of Minnesota pay special tribute to the vital natural resource that our trees represent and dedicate themselves to the continued vitality of our state's community and rural forests; NOW, THEREFORE I, Dean A. Johnston, Mayor of the City of Lake Elmo, do hereby proclaim April 27, 2012 to be ARBOR DAY and the month of May, 2012 to be ARBOR MONTH in Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Signed this 2012 Dean Johnston, Mayor Tree City U.S.A. AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: & COU C C DATE: REGULAR ITEM #: MOTION 7 March 20, 2012 DPW Multi -Use 2012 Pick -Up Purchase (Per MAC Recommendation) Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Superintendent Dean Zuleger, City Administrator Dean Zuleger, Administrator, Cathy Bendel, Finance Director, Maintenance Advisor). Commission SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Purchase a new utility pick-up and put the 1985 Dodge pick-up on public auction. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The CIP has programmed a replacement lbr the 1 998 GMC pick-up. STAFF REPORT: The 1998 GMC pick-up replacement was scheduled for replacement on the CIP for 2010. We have been able to delay the purchase primari1y. due to the acquisition of the 1985 grass rig from the Fire Department. The grass rig was used for hauling park mowing equipment and personnel. The current plan is to sell the 1985 Dodge, utilize the 1998 GMC in the parks. and the new truck in the general fleet. The MAC met and reviewed the truck purchase. including options and accessories. With the exception of Fury. Motors and lettering. all prices are from the AIN State Cataract Listed below are the total costs which include; Base Truck Options on 1 .Plow • Warning Lights and City ID Lettering • External Accessories • Sales 1 'fransit Tax, License, and Document Fees Midway... „ ....... Ford F-250.. _ ..... .......... .$32,997.14 Hawkins Cher 2500 S33,065.15 Burnsville . „ „ ...Dodge 2500 ..... .$33,436.00 Fury.. _ .... „ ....Dodge 2500_ ..... „ .......... ..... $35,926.10 pau,e 1 -- City Council Meeting March 20. 2012 DP0' Alultl-Llse 2012 Pick-zg, P. 4S(' (Pcr AlAC Recvingreociationi Regular Agenda Item 47 STAFF REPORT: The MAC motion to recommend the purchase of the Ford F-250 included a request for swift° get pricing on adding additional warning lights to the truck. The additional warning lights would amber flash in the head and tail lights. Cost: $738.16 The CIP has a S35.000 line item for this purchase. RECOMMENDATION: Purchase the 2012 Ford F-250 off the AINSTATE CONTRACT from Midway Ford and al] staff proposed accessories for $32.997.14 (or include MAC recommended additional warning lights for $33,735.30) and auction 1985 Dodge. ATTACHMENTS: MAC Minutes, Midway Ford Contract MOTION: Authorize the purchase of the 2012 Ford F-250 off the MN STATE CONTRACT from Midway Ford and all staff proposed accessories for $32.997.14 and MAC recommended additional warning lights for a total of S33,735.30, and auction 1985 Dodge. SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item ...... ...... ........ ...„..,.„ ...... .......... City Administrator Report/Presentation... ..... ..... ..... .........,... Public Works Superintendent Questions from Council to Staff Mayor Facilitates - Public Input. if Appropriate ..... .................... Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ....... ..... ............. Mayor & City Council - Discussion..... ....... ..... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion...................... .... ..... ..... ........ ......... Mayor Facilitates DRAFT COPY CITY of LAKE ELMO MAINTENANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of March 7th, 2012 Present: George Dege, Dick Gustafson, Dave Moore, Steve Ziertman. Also present: Administrator Zuleger, PVV Supt. Bouthilet, PW Staff Duddeck and Gustafson The meeting was called to order at 5:13 PM by George Dege. Agenda: Public Works Utility Pick -Up Purchase (no additions or changes) 2. No Minutes Presented for Review 3, Public Works Utility Pick -Up Purchase Superintendent Bouthilet presented specifications for the MAC to review. Three trucks, a Ford F-250, Chevrolet 2500, and Dodge 2500 were presented with a price, specification and option comparisons. All options outside of the State Contract Base Price were discussed for need and value. Bouthilet advised that since this was State Contract Pricing all three trucks were competitive financially; in addition Fury Motors was also presented our pricing for an opportunity to purchase locally. Due to the competitive nature of State Contract Prices, it was determined that the purchase would be based on specifications, options, and overall utility. This led to a significant conclusion, which was, only the Ford had the rating necessary to pull our Bobcat trailer and vacuum excavator. This is not a requirement, but clearly an advantage. The Chevrolet and Dodge would have to move up to the 3500 category resulting in a significant price increase. A reverse camera system installed in the rearview mirror prompted discussion about the value of the camera and whether it would be better to have an after -market version or the video display in a GPS unit, Administrator noted that in VVeston they installed the cameras and it resulted in insurance savings. The group consensus was to add the camera and check the price differential of a GPS video screen. One significant option that was added to the Ford, but still kept it the low quote, was the addition of heavy duty rear leaf springs. The Ford met our towing requirement before it was determined the value of adding this heavy duty spring. Between the snow plow prep package in the front and extra springs in the rear, the truck essentially meets all the specifications of a Ford-F350, The options review led to a brief discussion about our current CIP, future purchases, and retention vs. trade-ins on equipment. Administrator Zuleger noted he has tackled these issues in the past. and given some time, he will be reviewing all the City equipment needs, and viability of service, with a fiscally responsible approach for planning the future. 3a. Public Works Utility Pick -Up Purchase (cont.) With the consensus of the MAC to recommend purchase of the Ford F-250, discussion continued reviewing all proposed accessories, including plow, warning lights, and box amenities, Box amenities included a "Back -Rack" for warning light installation, cab protection, and a side box rail for load securing. All were deemed appropriate. Steve Ziertman asked if we looked in adding additional warning lights (commonly called hide-aways) in the head and tail lights. Price quotes were not obtained, but we were told by a recent purchaser that they were approximately $800 a truck. Ziertman asked if we could obtain a quote for the City Council, because you cannot underestimate the importance of warning lights in adverse conditions. The type of plow was established as a straight reversible, but discussion ensued about the brand to purchase. All the plows reviewed were on the State Contract, but pricing is determined by brand. The Public Works recommendation was to purchase a 9 foot Leo Plow, It was noted that it had heavier gauge steel, manufactured locally, and received positive reviews from three employees who have utilized them in the past. It was determined that the total cost of a new Ford-F250 (built out to F-350 specs) with plow, warning lights, accessories, sales tax, transit tax, licensing, and document fees is $25,730.48 (excluding hide -away light option, additional cost TBD for Council) M/S/P: Moore/Gustafson-Recommend to the City Council the purchase of the Ford F-250 complete as presented in the amount of $25,730.48 and obtain a quote for hide -away lights for the City Council presentation. Motioned Passed: 4-0 Without Exception Meeting Adjourned at 5:57 PM Midway Ford Commercial Fleet and Government Sales 2777 N. Snelling Ave. Roseville MN 55113 ,ee Woitas -315-0960 T-69 Contract # 37667 F250 4X4- Regular Cab- 8' Box 8650 GVWR Travis Swanson 651-343-5212 Standard Vehicle will include the following required OEM equipment if not part of standard base package. Automatic Transmission Dual Front Air Bags AM/FM Radio Tow Hitch Tilt Wheel Split Bench Front Seat Seating Standard Base Upholstery 4-Wheel ABS Brakes Air Conditioning Options Select 4x4 Shifton Fly Brake Controller Cloth eat'46/29/40 Sr-i-o-W-016„w„-E5kg„-„„„„- Cab Steps 'Upfitter Switches Roof Clearance Lts 'Power Grp 'Spray -In Liner E-Locking Rear Diff X3E $312 : x Oxford White 21 l'.,T245'f'75r17EAT" " $100 InteriOr Colors Code Price 'gate Step Mud Flaps ruise Control 'Upgraded rear Springs !Option Total Base Price 6.2 Gas Options Price Totals Extended Warranty Transit Impr Excise Tax Tax Exempt Lic Sales Tax (6.5%) 'Document fee 'Sub total per vehicle 'Number of Vehicles 'Grand Total for all units 1PO # Acceptance Signature Print Narne and Title Front Tow Hooks Base Package Floor Covering Bumpers w/Rear Step Matching Full Size Spare Tire 213 $148 52B $184 x :Exterior Colors 1 $80 x :Dark Blue Pearl Metallic 473 $68 x Vermillion Red 18B I $256 x Forest Green Metallic 6• 6S 1 $100 x Pale Adobe Metallic 5• 92 $44 x Tuxedo Black Metallic H 9• 0L $716 x Sterling' Grey Metallic IUJ $360 x Ingot Silver Metallic UX Steel only color for XL —._erview Camera $376 x Ektended Service COntrectsICost $104 x 15yr/100000m F250/350 Gas 4x2 525 $188 )'( 5yr/100000m F250/350 Gas 4x4 I $1,015 $60 x 5yr/100000m F250/350 Diesel 4x2 $935 $3,936 5yr/100000m F250/350 Diesel 4x4 $1,080 More time and mileage options available Totals You must have a active FIN code to participate in this $20086.82 purchase contract: FIN code # $3.936.00 Purchase Order required prior to order placement Payment due upon agreed vehicle acceptance $20.00 $$1.6 $12561,48 Name of Organization $75.00 $25,730,80 Address Select Date $25730.80 !City, State, Zip 'Contact Person/ Phone # Contact'se-mail address and fax Mid Select 1 ay Ford Acceptance Signature Date AGENDA SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: gc COUNCIL COT I T 0, DATE: REGULAR ITEM #: DISCUSSION/MOTION /20/2012 TEM: Olson Lake Trail Sanitary Sewer Extension — Joint Sewer Project with the City of Oakdale Jack Griffin, City Engineer Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer Kyle Klatt, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is requesting Council direction in regards to an invitation from the City of Oakdale to participate in a joint sanitary sewer extension project. aloni, the shared City border of Olson Lake Trail. The City Engineer will present a brief overview of the Oakdale project and the request being made, together with some background information on the project area for Council discussion and deliberation. STAFF REPORT AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Oakdale is proceeding with a sanitary sewer extension project along Olson Lake Trail to provide municipal sewer service to Oakdale properties residing along the west side of the road. The Oakdale project will initially he constructed for a length of 550 feet to serve the two properties located at 4656 and 4678 Olson Lake Trail. The sewer main will be placed so that it can be extended further north at some future date to provide municipal sewer service to an additional 9 properties, See attached Project Map. There are 15 existing residential homes located in Lake Elmo along e easterly side of Olson Lake Trail that will be immediately adjacent to this sewer line once it is constructed. The City of Oakdale has approached Lake Elmo staff to inquire if the City of Lake Elmo has any interest in pursuing this as a joint project by adding the Lake Elmo properties to municipal sewer service. Staff has briefly reviewed the City files regarding individual sewage treatment systems for the subject properties and has also contacted the residents to determine the level of potential interest in havinLL municipal sewer service. This information is summarized in the attachments to this agenda report and will be further summarized at the mectima. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above staff report. the City Council is respectfully requested to consider the request for a joint sanitary sewer extension project with the City of City Council Meeting March 20, 2012 Oakdale a Oakdale, 0 Olson Lake It, Sanitary Sewer Extension Joint Sewer Project with the City of Oakdale Consent Agenda Item son Lake Trail, and provide direction to staff for responding to the City of ATTACHMENTS: 1, Olson Lake Trail Sanitary Sewer Project Map 2. Lake Elmo Property Map 3. Property Owner Information and initial project comments if reached 4. Property Septic System Information on File at City Hall SUG 'ESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item ...... ...... ..... ........ Report/Presentation of Item ............................................. Questions from Council to Cal] ibr Motion. ifAppropriate....................................... ..... Public Input, if Appropriate ............................................. Action on ..... City Administrator .,...... ..... City Engineer ....... Mayor Facilitates Mayor & City Council Mayor Facilitates ....... Mayor Facilitates ....... ,Mayor Facilitates -- page 2 -- Olson Lake Trail Petition for Sanitary Sewer to Serve 4656 & 4678 744 5156 ;1655187 1997497 r77466 77490 750 0 5321 r 5291 5260 % 52()1 0 0, -30 749 , y 5231 '3627445h} 5230 J201 7872. 7481 5200 y 531.r1 5170 0 5171 7854 53195150 5151 7855 5130 5131 7848 5110 5111 78110 5090 5091 7832 7827 529 % 6071 /821 5070 j051 7816 C. a a 7808 crJ IC, CC Ca r n 0 o-) (), 7818 iT 1 4998 p 7978 7972 7945 7934 0 7805 0 49b ' ,,;,;, 7831 4974 0 4954 cx i 4853 0 4824 4860 4816 £ 4806 4842 4788 4772 4 l .5 47004613 6087 408 0 4644 17497 :74854312 4334 4771 4731 4715 4697 4669 4623 7555 7545 7525 7535 4550 4538 O ,3 4526 7624 04774 0 AO 4599 p�� 45604548 4435 4535 0© 0 0 8034 0 0 8032 0 8015 © 08038 © 00 8048 n in © © 8056 r � 8051 0 © ; 8061 8066 8084 8076, 8098 Q^ 0 8098 0 8027 0 80170 7814 7833 4430 co c 0 r. 4460 r 0 7709 7721 0 0 4 ,8108 02©, 130 64 8181 0 8195 8199 8200 8420 8400 8321 8186 8190 0 8290 f� ©, °° 8282 c 8Z78 ';44 8274 0 0 8270 8264 8258 4460 4446 co 4404 4388 8242 4346 oryo 8554 8548 8450 88/0 C9 s:9 d 4465 , N 4 385 c1'v� 0 8455 0 0 0 8431 0 8402 0 8415 8409 8405 2' 8552 y 8546 85/1 8,cn City of Lake Elmo, Minneosta Olson Lake Trail Sanitary Sewer Project - Joint Sewer Project with Oakdale Project No. 2012.107 INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC SYSTEM INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER NAME(S) Nicholas & Joan Winkel Richard Graham Joyce Kvaase Rebecca Taylor Charles Shultz & Marsha Anderson Catherine Coles Fred & Carol Schmiesing Roy & June Brogren James & Elizabeth Gergen Thomas & Judith Koppy Bruce & Beth Ketzner Dennis & Susan Hawkinson Richard & Wendy Gimpel John Seffl Harold & Jane Revoir ADDRESS PHONE NO. INFO ON FILE YEAR BUILT SYSTEM AGE COMMENTS 4575 Olson Lake Trail 779-6389 4635 Olson Lake Trail 777-0893 NO 1976 36 4655 Olson Lake Trail 777-3586 YES 1979 33 4671 Olson Lake Trail 777-2514 YES 1998 14 Mound System w/ 2 tanks 4709 Olson Lake Trail 748-9299 YES 1985 27 Inspected in 2001 at point of sale 4719 Olson Lake Trail 777-4129 NO 1974 38 4751 Olson Lake Trail 770-1065 YES 1984 28 4769 Olson Lake Trail 777-3564 NO 4823 Olson Lake Trail 777-5547 YES 1988 24 4849 Olson Lake Trail 773-2148 YES 1999 13 4863 Olson Lake Trail 426-6308 YES 4891 Olson Lake Trail 770-0220 YES 1985 27 4911 Olson Lake Trail 330-8623 YES 1995 17 Inspected in 2009 at point of sale 4941 Olson Lake Trail 777-5661 YES 2008 4 New system installed in 2008 ($20,000 investment) 7803 50th Street 777-6468 NO 1973 39 PRINT DATE:3/14/2012 City of Lake Elmo, Minneosta Olson Lake Trail Sanitary Sewer Project - Joint Sewer Project with Oakdale Project No. 2012.107 PROPERTIES TO BE POTENTIALLY SERVED - EACH PROPERTY WAS CONTACTED TO INQUIRE INTEREST IN REGARDS TO MUNICIPAL SEWER SERVICE PROPERTY OWNER NAME(S) ADDRESS PHONE NO. CONTACT DATE COMMENTS . .., . . . ,.........,.. „ . . Nicholas & Joan Winkel 4575 Olson Lake Trail 779-6389 3/12/2032 U Phone 8 has been temporarily disconnected Richard Graham 4635 Olson Lake Trail 777-0893 3/12/2012 U Left message 3/12/2032 Joyce Kvaase 4655 Olson Lake Trail 777 3586 3/12/2012 U Left message 3/12/2012 Interested, mound system w/ 2 tanks, would like to not worry about septic, would improve Rebecca Taylor 4671 Olson Lake Trail 777-2514 3/13/2012 Y lake Moved in during 2001, in original system, grinder pump would be necessary, interested in Charles Shultz & Marsha Anderson 4709 Olson Lake Trail 748-9299 3/13/2012 Y sanitary sewer connection Daughter (Mary Florence Brink( to Rebuild in 2 yrs and is interested in sewer connection, Catherine Coles 4719 Olson Lake Trail 777-4129 3/13/2012 Y does not know condition of septic system Fred & Carol Schmiesing 4751 Olson Lake Trail 770-1065 3/13/2012 U Phone 8 not in .service Roy & June Brogren 4769 Olson Lake Trail 777-3564 3/13/2012 Y Getting house ready for sale, interest in project depends on 5$ cost James & Elizabeth Gergen 4823 Olson Lake Trail 777-5547 3/13/2012 U Hung up Thomas & Judith Koppy 4849 Olson Lake Trail 773-2148 3/13/2012 N Not interested, new home built in 2000, they have area for a back-up system Bruce & Beth Ketzner 4863 Olson Lake Trail 426-6308 3/12/2012 U Updated Phone rt on 3/12/2012 (residents on vacation week of 3/12) Dennis & Susan Hawkinson 4891 Olson Lake Trail 770-0220 3/12/2012 U Left message 3/12/2012 Richard & Wendy Gimpel 4911 Olson Lake Trail 330-8623 3/12/2012 U Phone 4 no longer in service Resident installed a new septic system 2 years ago (520,000 investment), not interested in John Seffl 4941 Olson Lake Trail 777-5661 3/12/2012 N sanitary sewer connection Concerned about the Lake contamination related to septic systems, interested in sanitary Harold & Jane Revoir 7803 50th Street 777-6468 3/12/2012 Y sewer connection Y YES 5 33% N NO 2 13% U CONTACT UNSUCCESSFUL 8 53% 15 PRINT DP0E:3/15/2012 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: •-• , ; r". rTh i Council — Staff Goal Setting Retreat Dean Zuleger, City Administrator Dean Zuleger, City Administrator Dean Zuleger, City Administrator DATE: 3-20-12 REGULAR ITEM #: 9 MOTION / S$ Fiscal Impact SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: To affirm April 20-21s'. 2012 as the date for a Lake Elmo City Council — Staff Retreat at the Wildwood Lodge in Lake Elmo. Minnesota. FISCAL IMPACT: 5 3200 (incl. Speaker/Workbook/Meeting Lo sties) BACKGROUND INFO' TION: The City Council of Lake Elmo has approved the development of a Council — Staff Retreat to be held on a Friday evening and Saturday morning for the purposes of creating a mission statement and setting long-term goals for the community. The approved motion (March 6. 2012) also mandated that the cost of the retreat was not to exceed 53285. STAFF REPORT: The City Administrator. via Council Schedule Coordination. has arranged with Don Salverda & Associates & Mo French. CEO of the Wildwood Lodge to conduct a retreat on April 20'1' — 21at the Wildwood Lodge in Lake Elmo. The retreat will begin at 5:30 PM with orientation and conclude at 9:30 PM on Friday. Then retreat will resume at 8:30 AM on Saturday and conclude at Noon. Don Salverda & Associates will facilitate the retreat and provide an after -action report for the City Council. Mo French of the Wildwood Lodge has agreed to waive the room charge for the event. The retreat will focus on four main areas: Public Sector Leadership, Team -Building. Behavior Styles S.:- Communication, Understanding External influences on Lake Eimo. and Creating a Mission Statement and 1-3 Year Goals. Those participating in the retreat include: City Council. City Administrator. City Clerk, Finance Director. City Planning Director. Director of Public Works, Focus Engineering and the Fire Chief. City Council Meeting March 20, 2102 Regular Agenda Item # 9 RECOMMENDATION: The City Council affirms April 20- 2ls1 at the dates for the Lake Elmo City Council -Staff Retreat to be held at the Wildwood Lodge, Lake Elmo. MN for a cost not to exceed. S3200. SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item ..... ... Report/Presentation ....... ............. Questions from Council to Staff Public Input, if Appropriate ..... . Call for Motion .......................... Discussion ......... ..... ... Action on Motion....................... .. ....... ..... ............ ..... ........ City Administrator .............. ................. .......... City Administrator ................ ............ ...... ..... Mayor Facilitates ................ ...... ....... ..... Mayor Facilitates ....... Mayor & City Council ......... ....... Mayor & City Council ........ ................ Mavor Facilitates -- page -- „,,J18441¢.40eJJ,Jr4J suarsztsz.,,aur,...wastr'' DATE: 3-20-12 REGULAR ITEM #: 10 MOTION / $$ Fiscal Impact AGENDA ITEM: Surface Water Utility Fee Appeal Process / Credit Policy SUBMITTED BY: Dean Zuleger. City Administrator THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: City Engineer / Planning Department SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: To create a formal appeal process and equitable credit policy for the City of Lake Elmo's Surface Water 'Utility Fee Schedule” "To Adopt a Surface Water Utility Fee Appeal Process Based on Individual Property Impact On Surface Water Run -Off - AND - to establish a Surface Water Utility Fee Credit Policy Based on Intentional, Measureable Retention Efforts by the Property Landowner". FISCAL IMPACT: S 56.317.82 Current Appealed Receivables (2(109-2011) 15,000.00 Estimated Annual Revenue Reduction Due to Credit BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Lake Elmo has established a Surface Water Utility with the intent to manage surface water flow and mitigate any effects of suspended solids and other adulterants traveling in surface water run-off to lakes, ponds and streams in the community. The Surface Water Utility also serves a vital role in the prevention of erosion caused by surface water run-off. The current base fee is S50 /per resident and for larger parcels increases based on an equivalent run-off unit that correlates to impervious surface impact. As part of the management of utility fee collections 1 management, the City of Lake Elmo allowed for property owners to appeal the allocated fee. However, no formal process has been established to arbitrate appeals. STAFF REPORT: At the request of the Council, the City Administrator and the Finance Director -Designee began a review of the Surface Water Utility Account with special attention given to past due balances and property owner appeals dating back as far as 2008. Specifically. 21 appeals have been left unattended with balances as high as +$20,000 without any formal review-. The City Administrator has been handling each of these appeals personally to develop City Council Meeting March 20, 2102 Regular Agenda Item0 10 benchmarks for appeal and to establish a prudent credit policy for those property owners who intentionally retain surface water or whose property has minimal impact on surface water run- off. A financial hardship consideration has also been examined where the property has a negligible impact on surface water. The most difficult task in the review process has been the fact that many of those who have appealed have not been informed of a decision or kept current on their annual obligation to the surface water utility. This lack of information has caused uncertainty and confusion among residents and many believe that their obligation has been waived when in fact their outstanding balance has continued to accrue. This has led to a total outstanding balance of S56.317.82. After a week of field work. analysis of credit policies of other MN surface water utilities and individual case analysis to be able to approach the appellants with a credible rationale for their participation in Lake Elmo's surface water utility, it became that there were three types of appeals: A property owner that has intentionally retained surface water on their land either through government mandate or voluntary efforts: 7. A property owner that has not been explained the purpose of the surface water utility and has refused to pay for principle purposes: 3. A property owner who has not contributed to the surface water utility based on an arbitrary decision or omission of assessment. In the first ten appeals, there were three specific cases where there was an intentional effort by the property owner to retain water not only for their own property but for others as well. There were two instances of financial hardship from religious non-profit groups located in Lake Elmo. There were was one appeal where the property had extenuating circumstances in the original billing. There was one appeal where natural ponds on the property hold at least 60% of the property run-off based on topographical analysis. Finally, there were three properties where there was a measureahle contribution by the property to surface water run-off and the appeal was denied. Since Lake Elmo is home to a variety of surface water features that make the determination of impact more complicated than most surface water utilities. It is inevitable that 90% of property assessed will have an impact on drain -ways / ditches, road system or surface water — therefore reducing the number of appeals and lessenini.-,, the degree of credit. The first 10 appeals acted as a beta test for a tangible appeal and credit policy listed below. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information and staff report, it is recommended that the City Council undertake the following action to create a credible appeal process and credit policy for the Surface Water Utility: 1. Establish a definition of intentional effort to retain on -site surface water; 2. Establish a one-time credit policy for the installation of rain barrel; 3. Establish a one-time credit for the construction of a rain garden. In the case of a rain garden constructed in the right-of-way as part of a street improvement City Council Meeting March 20, 2102 Regular Agenda Item 74 10 project, establish an annual credit of 25% provided the affected landowner agrees to perform annual maintenance on said rain garden; 4. Establish an annual credit (25%-75%) for the construction of an on -site surface water retention facilities (swale, pond, et al), that is based on facility holding capacity and effective metering of water enter municipal drain -ways. 5. Establish an economic hardship policy for the reduction of surface water utility fees. The following policy will be adopted no later than June 1, 2012 to allow for adequate time for policy implementation. In addition, staff is directed to use their best judgment in negotiating and collecting past due receivables using the aforementioned five -point policy structure as a guideline for settlement. Alternatively, the City Council may agree to eliminate the appeal process and use the current formulaic calculation to assess / collect all current and future surface water fees. SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item ................ .......... City Administrator - Report/Presentation..................... .......... . ......... ...... ......... City Administrator - Questions from Council to Staff ...... ........................ Mayor Facilitates Public Input. if Appropriate ......... ....... ..... ....... ........... Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ...................... ................... ..... ........... Mayor & City Council Discussion .............................. ..... ....... ....... Mayor & City Council Action on Motion ............ ....... ....... ............ .............................. Mayor Facilitates A AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: NCH_ C u CT DATE: 3/20/12 REGULAR ITEM #: MOTION: RESOLUTION 2012-XX Lot Area (Size) and Width Variances — 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue Kvle Klatt. Planning Director Dean A. ZuleEfer. City Administrator Planning Commission Nick Johnson, Interim City Planner SUMMARYAND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a request from Steven Weber, 12729 22nd Street North, West Lakeland. MN to allow the subdivision of a 5.1 1-acre lot at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue into two new lots of 2.27 and 2,84 acres in size. One of the newly created lots would contain an existing home, while a new buildable lot would he created on the northerly portion of the site. A variance has been requested from the minimum lot size requirement of 10 acres in a RR — Rural Residential zoning, district and the minimum width requirement of 300 feet for lots in this district (the proposed lot widths would be 195 and 95 feet respectfully). The applicant has previously requested a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment on the same property, but has withdrawn that request in favor of the current variance application. 'The public hearing on the variance application was opened at the February 13, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, and was continued until February 27, 2012 because the applicant was not able to attend on the prior meeting date. The Planning Commission recommended denial ofthe variance request based on the draft findings prepared by Staff The recommended motion to act on this on this request is as Ibllows: "Move to adopt Resolution Nu. 2012-XXX denvuzg a request by Steven Weber for variances to allow the subdivision of a 5.11-acre lot at 5577 Luke Elmo Avenue into two new lots of 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size" BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached Planning Commission report includes a detailed review of the application along with the original Staff recommendation to the Commission. Should the Council support the Planning Commission recommendation, the attached resolution reflects the findings that were adopted by the Commission. If the Council decides to approve the variance, it will need to work with staff to develop findings of fact that 1 -- City Council Meetin,4 320: 12 Regular Agenda Item 8 Lot SLe Clad Width Jar es — 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue are supportive of this decision. Staff has suggested how such findings could be constructed under the alternate actions presented below. PLANNING COMIVIISSIONREPORT : The Planning Commission reviewed the variance requests at its February 1 .3tb and 27th meetings, and conducted a public hearing on this matter over the course of these two meetings. At the prior hearing, the Commission received public testimony from one neighboring property owner against the granting, of the variance and noted receipt of a letter from another adjoining property owner opposed to the variance requests. Al the latter meeting. the Commission heard testimony as follows: Eileen Bergman (5500 Lake Elmo Avenue) reviewed the history of the surrounding land, and restated her opposition to the proposed variances and lot split. She expressed concern over setting precedent for other rural property owners to subdivide their land. James DeLaplain. Attorney at Law, representing the applicant, indicted that all of the surrounding lots are consistent with the lots that would be created through the variance. He disagreed with the draft findings prepared by Staff, and expressed concern that the standards in the code had not properly been applied in this situation, noting: o That the shape of the lot is much more important to determine unique circumstances than lot size. o That the proposed lots would not be any different than surrounding parcels, many of which are actually smaller. o That the "adjacent properties and traffic" finding in the staff report does not address the issue of congestion. which is the term referenced in City Code. Steven Weber discussed the history of his family's ownership of the parcel. and noted that the character of the surrounding land is not rural. He discussed future plans for a frontage road in the area. and explained that he would look at other options for the driveway access if needed, The Commission generaily discussed the proposed variances, and offered the following comments in support of the staff recommendation: Not being able to subdivide a lot further than allowed under the zoning regulations does not represent a practical difficulty. It was noted that the lot was created under a 5-acre minimum standard, and could have been subdivided into two 2.5-acre lots if that had been the requirement at the time. The lot was created by the landowner, and therefore any proposed hardship due to the shape of the lot would have been created by the property owner. The proposed variances would take an existing non -conforming lot and create two non- conforming lots, neither of which would come close to otherwise being considered a buildable lot under the Zoning Ordinance. page City Council Meetiny., Lot SI:e and Via.fr:C111(117CTS - 5577 Lake Elmo A ve1711C 32OI2 Regular Ayencla Item k8 The Commission recommended denial of the variance requests, and suggested that Staff revise the first finding to better reflect that the Planning Commission does not consider the creation of a new 2.5-acre parcel within a 10-acre zoning district to be a reasonable use of the property. It was noted that the configuration of the lot does not have any relationship to this first finding because the split of any 5-acre lot in the Rural Residential District would be considered unreasonable. The Planning Commission vote on the recommendation was unanimous, with one abstention. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information. staff report and Planning Commission recommendation, it is recommended that the City Council deny the request from Steven Weber, 12729 22nd Street North, West Lakeland, MN to allow the subdivision of a 5.11-acre lot at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue into two new lots of 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size by undertaking the following action "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2012-XXX denying a request by Steven Weber for variances to allow the subdivision of a 5.11-acre lot at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue into two new lots of 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size" Alternatively, the City Council may consider the other actions that were suggested as part of the Planning Commission report, which includes the following: A. Recommend approval of the variance request. and developing appropriate findings of fact to support this action. These findings would need to address the following: 1-lhat the inability to subdivide the property will cause practical difficulties for the propert) owner. and that the proposed subdivision is a reasonable use of the property. 2. That the plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, and specifically that the odd shape of the lot and the disconnected area of the parcel make it difficult to use. 3. That the variance will not alter the essentially character of the locality, and that the surrounding properties are similar in size, shape, density, and usage. Furthermore. the surrounding land is comprised of smaller residential lots and commercial activity and is not rural in character. 4. That the proposed variance will not negatively impact the adjacent properties and traffic in the area. B. Table taking action on the variance in order to request additional information from either staff or the applicants. C. Direct Staff to consider the request as part of a broader Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Map amendment that would look at a change to the entire area, and in particular. the other non -conforming lots that were created in this area before the City' s1979 -- page 3 -- City Council Meetin2, Lot SLe and Width Van, - 5577 Luke Elmo Avenue 3'20./12 Regular Agenda Item # 8 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This action does not appear to be supported by the City Council based on its discussions concerning the applicant's previous request. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2012-XXX 2, Planning Commission Staff Report (2/27/ 3. Application Form 4. Legal Description 5. Application Narrative 6, Proposed Lot Split Dra 7, Location Map 8. Septic Site Evaluation Report 9. Washington County Comments 10„ Aerial Photograph 11. Lake Ehno Access Analysis Map 12. Letter from Mike and Mary Jo Neuman 13. City Engineer Review Letter 14. League of MN Cities Variance FAQ Sheet ing) SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of item ......... ........... ....... .......... City Administrator ...... . ...... Planning Director Questions from Council to Staff ....... ........ Mayor Facilitates Public Input, if Appropriate ......... Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ..... ..... ..... ...... Mayor C.S. City Council Discussion ........ ....... ...... ........ . .......... . ...... Mayor S.: City Council Action on Motion............... ...... ......... Mayor Facilitates -- page 4 -- To: From: Meeting Date: Applicant: Owner: Location: Zoning: City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Variance Review Planning Commission Kyle Klatt, Planning Director 2/27/12 Steven Weber Steven Weber 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue RR — Rural Residential Introductog information Application The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request by Steven Weber, Summary: 12729 22" Street North, West Lakeland, for variances to allow the subdivision of a 5.11 acres lot at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue into two new lots of 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size. The applicant is seeking to create a new buildable lot while retaining the existing single family residence located at this address. The specific variances that have been requested are as follows: A variance from the minimum lot size requirement of 10 acres in a RR -- Rural Residential zoning district. The proposed lots would be 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size. • A variance from the minimum width requirement of 300 feet for lots in this district. The proposed lots would be 195 feet and 95 feet in width, which arc 05 and 205 feet narrower than allowed in an RR zoning district. The applicant has previously requested a Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would have allowed the proposed lot split without variances, but decided to withdraw this application after the Planning Commission had completed its review and forwarded its recommendation to the City Council. The review requirements for consideration of a variance are different than those for zoning amendments, and the Planning Commission should keep this in mind while considering the present application. Staff has included the relevant background information from the Commission's previous review in this report, but updated the analysis section to reflect the specific aspects of the variance request and subsequent findings that must be considered. Should the requested variances be approved for the subject property, the applicant would then be able to apply for a Minor Subdivision to officially split the property into two parcels. Property The applicant's property is located along Lake Elmo Avenue approximately one-third Information of a mile south of Highway 36. The property was split from an adjoining parcel to the and Site west owned by the Bergmann family in 1978, and at the time the City Zoning Background: regulations allowed for a minimum lot size of 5 acres. In looking back through the City records for this parcel, it appears that the request was intended to allow the subdivision of the portion of the property that was not suitable for agricultural purposes to be split off from a larger farm site to create a new residential lot. The current boundaries of the applicant's parcel were therefore the result of the original owner's intent to keep any tillable acreage as part of the larger farm operation. as well as to meet the minimum lot area requirement of 5 acres. The result was the "U" or "C" shaped parcel that is presently owned by Mr. Weber, who inherited the property from his father (who originally purchased the land when it was subdivided). As part of the City's approval of the subdivision, the Bergmann's were required to grant easements to the City over a 60-foot wide segment that is located immediately to the south of the applicant's property, and to further allow the newly subdivided parcel to use this strip of land as its access to Lake Elmo Avenue. The easement agreement that is of record in the City files provides for an emergency vehicle access. installation and maintenance of public utilities. and the provision of public service, but does not otherwise appear to grant any rights of the public to use the property for access purposes. The agreement does provide for an option by the City to acquire this land if it is needed for a public street in the future. but otherwise only describes the potential for a private roadway to be built on this strip of land (not a public road). Shortly after the subdivision was approved, the applicant's father applied for a building permit and constructed the house that is on the site today. This house is located on the southern leg of the "C" shape. about 45 feet back from the Lake Elmo Avenue right-of-way, and centered in the middle of the 96-foot wide sement. The driveway providing access to the house does cross into the 60-foot wide segment still owned by the Bergrnann's Staff is not aware of any private easements that exist for such access. and would consider this a private matter between the two affected property owners. There are three other single family homes in close proximity to the applicant's property. and all of these are very close to one acre in size. In addition to the residential lots. there are two other parcels of one acre in size that do not have any buildings on them, one of which is owned by the neighboring property owner and the other of which was retained by the Bergmann family. All of these lots were split at a time then the City's (or township) zoning regulations allowed for the creation of these smaller lots. in 1977. the City of Lake Elmo adopted a zoning ordinance that closely followed the township zoning requirements. allowing: for 5-acre lots in rural areas, but revised this code in 1979 in conjunction with the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan that changed the standards for rural development areas. The code after 1979 required a minimum lot size of 10 acres in rural areas. which is the standard that is still in place today. Applicable Section 150.017 Variances. Codes: (A -I) Variances. Identifies procedures and requirements for the processing and review of a variance application. Please note that this section was recently updated by the City to comply with revisions to Minnesota State Statutes. Section 154.036 — Rural Residential Outlines the general requirements for the RR Rural Residential Zoning District in Lake Elmo, and includes the following minimum requirements: Lot Size: Nominal l 0 acres. A 10-acre parcel not reduced by more than 10% and/or a 10-acre parcel located on a corner or abutting a street on 2 sides not reduced by more than 15% due to road right-of-way and survey variations Lot Width: 300 feet Septic Drainfield Regulations: All lots must have at least 1 acre of land suitable for septic drainfields and area sufficient for 2 separate and distinct drainfield sites. Placement of the second required drainfield between the trenches of the first drainfield is prohibited. Findings & General Site Overview Site Data: Lot Sir.e: 5.11 Acres Existing Uses: Single Family Residence Existing Zoning: RR — Rural Residential Future Land Usc: RAD — Rural Agricultural Density Property Identification Number (PID): 01-029-21 -23-0001 Variance Review: Variance As part of the report concerning a previous zoning request on the applicant's property, Analysis: Staff provided the Planning Commission with information concerning the future land use desi.wiation of this site. It was noted that this site is located in a portion of the City that is guided for RAD — Rural Agricultural Density, which represents the hulk of the rural development areas within the City. With the current application, Mr. Weber is not requestingany changes to either the future land use or the zoning classification for the property, and has instead requested a variance from the current zoning requirements for a RR — Rural Residential Zoning District. The RR — Rural Residential Zoning district specifies a minimum lot size of 10 acres and a minimum lot width of 300 feet, and the proposed variance would allow two lots to be created that fall well under both of these requirements. The existing lot is considered a legal non -conforming lot since it was created prior to the adoption of the current standards, and splitting it into two separate parcels would not be allowed without a variance. In this case, the resulting lots would be 7.73 and 7.16 acres smaller than required in the RR zoning district. Moreover. the resulting lot widths would also fall 105 and 205 feet shorter than required. The criteria for consideration of a variance is found in the Zoning Ordinance, which includes the following provision: A request for a variance from the literal provisions of this chapter may be granted in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. All requests for variances shall be reviewed in accordance with the required findings listed [below]. A more detailed analysis of the variance findings form Staff is included a little later in this report. The applicant has provided a narrative (attached) describing their request, which includes the following general comments: The proposed usage if the variance were granted would be consistent with the surrounding lot sizes, shapes, density, and usage. The existing parcel is very odd in its shape. The existing configuration of the parcel is inconsistent with the surrounding ot sizes, shapes, density. and usage. The proposed densities would be consistent with the surrounding land use and would not alter the character of the locality. The proposed land use and zoning would be in substantial conformity with the policies goals, and standards of the Comprehensive Plan. The soil has been perk tested and the size of the proposed parcels and soil type allow for a suitable septic system. • The proposed variance would have no impact on an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. • The proposed use under a variance would ot substantially increase the congestion of public streets. • The proposed use under the variance would do nothing to diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood All of the other information that has been submitted is either the same or substantially similar to the materials submitted as part of the previous request. Staff Review In reviewing the present request for a variance. Staff would like to note that most of Comments the general comments that were provided during the Commission's previous review are relevant as well. In particular Staff is concerned that the proposed variance would allow and augment a pattern of development that is contrary to the purpose and intent of the City's Rural Residential zoning requirements. In addition. the creation of smaller lots within rural areas presents numerous planning issues related to traffic, safety. provision of future services, and maintaining the character or rural areas. Staff has &so found that the proposed request also does not meet the four criteria that must be met in order for the City to grant a variance. In particular, the applicant's lot was created to meet the minimum district requirements at the time, and the inability to further subdivide the lot does not constitute "practical difficulties". It is not reasonable to allow a subdivision that would otherwise not he permitted on a piece of property that already is five acres smaller than allowed in the underlying zoning district. Staff also does not support the argument that the property is unusable and therefore the City must allow the property to be split. A person's definition of usability can vary substantially from one individual to another, and there are many properties in the City's rural development areas that are larger parcels with large areas that have limited use options (which can be seen as an intentional restriction to help preserve rural areas). The shape of the property clearly is unusual for Lake Elmo, but was created and eventually purchased in this configuration with the clear understanding that only one house could be built on the property. The City Engineer has submitted review comments for consideration by the Planning Commission. and has augmented his previous review by noting additional concerns regarding the location of the driveway and the current and future traffic levels along Lake Elmo Avenue. Lake Elmo Avenue is classified as a Minor Aerial (A) roadway in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and this designation is defined as follows: "Minor arterials also emphasize mobility over property access and connect cities with adjacent communities and the metropolitan highway system. "A" minor arterials are roadways that are of regional importance because they relieve, expand, or complement the principal arterial system." This designation specifically notes that mobility be given emphasis over access along these streets, and in this case, the creation of an additional driveway access to Lake Elmo Avenue would not be consistent with the roadway classification. Please also note the existing and future traffic counts that are included in the Engineer's report. Traffic levels along Lake Elmo Avenue are forecast to increase nearly four times beyond the current amount, and the continued operation of individual driveway accesses along this road segment will present serious safety concerns in the future. Although the County has stated that it will issue a permit for the new driveway, if requested, the County does rely in local jurisdictions to regulate access in accordance with their respective plans since it does not have land use authority over a city like Lake Elmo. Other comments from Staff pertaining to the variance request. some of which were also applicable to the previous request, are as follows: The subdivision of lots less than 10 acres in size that are not otherwise part of an OP development is not consistent with the City's goal of preserving it rural character. The 10-acre minimum lot size in rural areas has been in place for over 30 years, with the RED zoning representing the only development allowed before the Open Space zoning regulations were adopted by the City in the mid 1990's. Lots less than five acres in size are not as efficient to serve with public services as lots that are planned and developed as part of a broader subdivision. Some of the surrounding properties have been developed as an OP subdivision. which included plans for providing water and sanitary sewer services, roads. and other utilities. • Adding another access to Lake Elmo Avenue is not recommended by the City Engineer, and could present problems for managing, traffic in the future. Although the County would issue a new driveway permit for a lot along Lake Elmo Avenue. it is up to the City to plan for its future access needs and to ensure that the overall transportation network is planned in an efficient and safe manner. Considering current traffic levels, and with the increases projected in the Comprehensive Plan for Lake Elmo Avenue, individual driveways will not he a safe option for new homes. • The applicant is not losing any rights to use his property in the way it was initially approved by the City, and the lot is already much smaller than would he allowed for a single family home on a separate parcel in this portion of the City (except for OP development lots). • There have been no changes to the City since the applicant's lot was originally subdivided that would warrant a consideration of a request to further subdivide this lot. For example. the City has not implemented any transportation improvements near the applicant's property that would provide for more efficient and safe access to this portion of the City. • The City Engineer has provided the Planning Commission with a recommendation to deny the applicant's request along with information to support this recommendation. • The proposed driveway to serve the new lot would be located along an incline along Lake Elmo Avenue, which would reduce the visibility for vehicles entering and exiting the site and for vehicles that would be stopped and waiting for turn into the property. • The City's access spacing standard for the distance between local streets on a Minor Arterial road is mile, and as traffic increases on Lake Elmo Avenue in the future (once the counts exceed 7,500 average daily trips). no direct access for residential driveways is recommended. The attached access analysis map depicts all of the present driveway and road connections to Lake Elmo Avenue. which shows 12 existing (and the one proposed) road/driveway accesses over a distance that would support one such connection point under the City's guidelines. • Staff does not support the creation of any new access points along Lake Elmo Avenue unless some of the existing driveways could be consolidated into one new public roadway. For the reasons noted above. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request. and is proposing findings to support this action in the section that follows. f`ariance Criteria: An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to city code requirements can be granted. These criteria are listed below, along with comments from Staff regarding applicability of these criteria to the applicants' request. Practical Difficulties, A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment upon the application by the 01,1,11e1 of the affected property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical difficulties - "Practical difficulties as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable Manner not permitted by an official control. The language concerning "practical difficulties" is the first standard that must be met in order for the City to consider granting a variance. Under this standard, the Planning Commission would need to find that the subdivision of an existing non- conforming lot is a reasonable use of the property not otherwise permitted under the zoning ordinance. The appropriate findings for this standard would therefore need to note the subdivision is a reasonable request within a Rural Residential zoning district. Using this standard as a basis. Staff is suggesting that the Planning Commission consider the FINDINGS: That the proposed subdivision is no reasonable because the property as it exists can be used for a single family residential home. Reasonable use of the property already exists. and the variance is not needed in order to make use of the parcel under the Rural Residential zoning district requirements. The current configuration of the lot is not relevant to the establishment of reasonable use because the lot would not have been usable for a single family home without this additional area. Unique Circumstances. Thc plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. In order to demonstrate compliance with this standard, the Planning Commission would need to note those aspects of the applicant's property that would not pertain to other properties within the same zoning classification. In this case. all Rural Residential property is subject to the same area and width requirements. and the current lot presently does not meet these standards. Again. Staff is suggesting some findings that could be considered by the Planning Commission as follows: FINDINGS: That the applicant's property is not unique because the property is able to support a single family home, and the vast majority of parcels in the Rural Residential zoning district are required to have a larger area than that owned by the applicant. The ability to find a suitable use for the areas outside of the immediate building location is not something that is unique to the applicant's site since the intent of the Rural Residential district is to promote the preservation of open space and rural character, and therefore. the uses and densities allowed in the district are intentionally limited. 3. Character of locality, The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. The subdivision of rural residential lots, by definition, changes the character of the City's rural areas by introducing higher densities into areas that have not been planned for more intensive uses. A more formal set of findings related to this standard is suggested as follows: FINDINGS: That the proposed variance wiU alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. The applicant's property is located in a portion of the City that is guided for Rural Agricultural Density (RAD) development. which corresponds to the City's Rural Residential Zoning District. This district requires a minimum lot size of 10 acres. and the applicant's request to create two lots of under 2.5 acres in size represents a substantial departure from the district requirements. Although there are existing non- conforming, lots in the vicinity of the applicant's property, the continued subdivision of lots less than 10 acres will continue to alter the character of the area and create a denser, more urban environment in an area that is not intended to be served by municipal water. sewer services. 4. Adjacent properties and traffic, The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diMilliSh or impair property values Ivithin the neighborhood. A large part of the Staff report above is devoted to transportation and access issues, and based partially on comments from the City Engineer, Staff is suggesting the following findings pertaining to this criterion: FINDINGS: The proposed variance will have a negative effect on adjacent properties and traffic because the proposed driveway to serve the new home would not comply with the City's access management policies and guidelines. In particular. new driveway accesses are discouraged along streets classified as Minor Arterials (such as Lake Elmo Avenue) at the traffic levels that are forecast for this road. The proposed driveway would also fail to comply with the City's use of best management practices for spacing guidelines, which include: minimizing new access locations and reducing/consolidating existing access points. protecting and improving intersection functional and sight distance areas, and proper design of driveways and intersections. The creation of a new driveway/lot will create a safety concern by adding an access point to Lake Elmo Avenue in a location that has reduced visibility dues to an incline in the roadway. Considering the potential findings of fact as suggested in the preceding section, Staff is recommending denial of the variance request based on the findings noted in items l - 4 above. Conclusion: Based on the report and analysis provided above. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request by Steven Weber for variances to allow the subdivision of a 5.11 acres lot at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue into two new lots of 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size. Additional Valley Branch Watershed District did not submit any comments specific to the Information: applicant's variance request. but did note that a Minor Subdivision would require a permit from the watershed district. The City Engineer's comments are included as part of the attached memorandum. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request by Steven Weber for variances to allow the subdivision of a 5.11 acres lot at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue into two new lots of 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size. Commission The Planning Commission should consider the following options with this request: Options: A) Recommend approval of the variance request, and developing appropriate findings of fact to support this action. B) Table taking action on the variance in order to request additional information from either staff or the applicants. C) Direct Staff to consider the request as part of a broader Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Map amendment that would look at a change to the entire area. and in particular, the other non -conforming, lots that were created in this area before the Citys1979 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This action does not appear to be supported by the City Council based on its discussions concerning the applicant's previous request. cc: Steven Weber, 12729 22nd Street North, 'West Lakeland. MN City of Lake Elmo DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 0 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1 Zoning District Amendment 0 Text Amendment Flood Plain C.U.P. Conditional Use Permit 0 Conditional Use Permit (C.I.J.P APPLICANT: TELEPHONES: FEE OWNER: TELEPHONES: Variance " (See below) Minor Subdivision Lot Line Adjustment Residential Subdivision Sketch/Concept Plan 1 0 Site & Building Plan Review Sl'eae", (Name) (651) 3 05-qt (Home) Set. Age cit.c1 (Name) (Mailing Address) SC4, nn-e_ ciAxiki-e. (Home) (Work) Fee S FORM Ej Residential Subdivision Preliminary/Final Plat O 01 — 10 Lots O 11 — 20 Lots O 21 Lots or More ri Excavating & Grading Pen -nit LI Appeal Li PUD 612.r, 'a729 a-a.4 sr A). , Goe5 (Mailing Address) (?5-411-1 - n& z (Work) (4(2)6/9-65-5---- (Mobile) (Zip) (93-4 76 7— 5.3 (Fax) (Zip) (Mobile) (Fax) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Complete (Long) Legal Description): E,1 wur iAe_rk LAe.,Le r-e. IMUJC5--e, 01,0/9. 11 13 oar) aj oka-5 r: p f-i isa-cLcAl kc2-d "1-e— A. DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST: *VARIANCE REQUESTS: As outlined in Section 301,060 0. of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code. the Applicant must demonstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related to this application is as follows: In n signing this application. 1 hereby acknowledge thatl have read and fully understand the applicable prov ions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application/ rocedurcs and hereby agree to pav all statements received from the Ciro pertaining to additional apnlicatilivre-xpe.nse'.'l Signature of Applcan D 1' Signature of Applicant Date i '1004 Ciry ofL Elmo • 3800 Lavcmc Avenue N ortil • Lai,: Elmo • 55042 • 651 -777-5510 • Fa N ri5i -777-9615 Schedule "A" Legal Description All that pa of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1, Township 29 North Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence North 01 degrees 31 rnnutes 43 seconds West (recorded as N 00 degrees 00' 46" W) along the West line of id Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of 334.70 feet to the North line of tne South 334.70 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, and the point of beginning of this description; thence continuing North 01 degrees 31 minutes 43 seconds est (recorded as N 00 degrees 00' 46" W), a distance of 494.71 feet; thence North 87 degrees 32 minutes 27 seconds East (recorded as N 89 degees 03' 24" E) a distance of 613,20 feet to the West line of the ,at,695.22 feet of':5aid Southwest 1/4 of the North- west 1/4; thence South 01 degrees 19 inthutes 29 second East, along said West line of the East 595.22 feat, a distance of 502.85feet to the North line of the South 334.70 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence South 88 degrees 17 minutes 37 seconds West, along said North line of the South 334.70 feet, a distance of 616.33 feet to the point of beginning, together with an easement for roadway purposes over and across tne North 60.00 feet of the South 334.70 feet which lies West of the East 695.22 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, excepting therefrom the North 209.00 feet of tne South 639.40 feet of the West 417.42 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 SCHEDULE B Variance Request Application .5577 Lake Elmo Avenue PIN 01.029.21.23.0001 Owner: Steven Weber Detailed Reason for Request: Summary of Request. .Applicant property owner requests a partition of the existing 5.11 acre parcel into two new parcels, 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size. with one single family residential unit allowed on each parcel. All existing and intended future use would conform to the zoning requirements of R-I. Practical Difficulties. The applicants submits that the strict enforcement of the city code zooming restrictions in regard to the affected property would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. The requested use would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the chapter. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. Namely. the applicant wished to use the property in a way not inconsistent with the dwelling unit density allowed under the comprehensive plan, and with dwelling density in conformity with the majority of the surrounding parcels. In short, the proposed usage if the variance were granted would be consistent with the surrounding lot sizes, shapes, density. and usage. Unique Circumstances. The existing parcel is very odd in its shape. It is unknown to applicant why the parcel was configured as it is. One of the members of the family of the original seller of the property around 1978 reports that it was shaped as it is to comply with a then existing 5 acre code requirement. At any rate, the parcel as it exists is a little over 5 acres and, if a map is oriented to the North, is in the shape of a backwards C or a horseshoe. The two ends of the horseshoe from onto Lake Elmo Avenue. On the South prong of the horseshoe there is an existing single family home. with a driveway crossing over a City easement allowing access to Lake Elmo Avenue. There is no other access. The north prong of the horseshoe is not developed. In the interior of the horseshoe shape there are two 1 acre parcels owned by a single property owner one home on two one acre parcels owned by the occupant of the home). If one were traveling north on Lake Elmo Avenue. one would see the north portion of the parcel at issue, with a driveway and a single family home, then a neighbors parcel. with a driveway accessing two parcels, then the south portion of applicants parcel, without a driveway or access. The existing configuration of the parcel is inconsistent with the surrounding lot sizes. shapes. density, and usage. The majority of surrounding lots are 1 to 2 acres in size, each with one single family home. Applicant proposes a new boundary line between the north and south portions of the existing parcel. allowing the north parcel to be developed with a single family residential unit. rendering both the existing and new parcel consistent with the surrounding parcels and use. Character of the locality: The proposed densities of the site would be consistent with surrounding land use and would not alter the character of the locality. The existinv density of the parcels surrounding applicants parcel is in the range of 1 residential unit per one or two acres. Additionally, directly on the other side of Lake Elmo Avenue. in Discover Crossing, the residential lot sizes appear to be .75 acres. The proposed partition would result in two new parcels. approximately 2.27 and 2.84 acres each. with each anticipated to contain one residential dwelling unit. The existing parcel makes contact with 8 other parcels (ignoring the City Easement to the South). 7 of these 8 parcels are smaller than the two new proposed parcels. The two parcels surrounded on three sides by applicant's lot. the ones on the interior of the "horseshoe," are each one acre in size. (lots 01-029-21-23-0006 and 0007). The two parcels to immediate north are 2 acres (01-029-21-23-00i 1) and 1 acre (01- E9-21-23-0002). The three parcels to the south are 1 acre (01-029-21-23-0010), 1 acre (01-029- 21-23-0009) and 1.2 acres (01-029-21-23-0005) . The proposed land use and zoning would be in substantial conformity with the policies goals and standards of the Comprehensive Plan Future land use map for the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. 2005-2030, shows the area designated as RAD - 0.45 DU/Acre. Petitioner understands this to mean a maximum dwelling unit density of .45 per acre. The proposed use and development is consistent as the new south parcel would contain one residence on 2.27 acres (0.44) and the north parcel would contain one residence on 2.84 acres (0.35). The soil has been perk tested and the size of the proposed parcels and soil type allow for a suitable septic system. The proposed variance would have no impact on an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The proposed use under a variance would not substantially increase the congestion of public streets. The County will issue a permit for a new driveway for the proposed new north lot to access Lake Elmo Avenue. The County has not indicated any danger or hazard created by the new drive. The County suggested that if feasible a driveway across the City Easement currently runnirii2. on the south side of the south parcel would be preferable. The logistics of this appear difficult. but applicant is open to that suggestion if the City requires. The proposed use under the variance would do nothing to diminish or impair property ‘'alues in the neighborhood. 02-029 21-12-0002 (0003) Igton ty 7dF NAFF WM' (itoStOPtt LEGE1i0 --- W,A FaxECIEDW'41EA5 • , , :"bN FltOtEMIMETLAN) p!1{i.(101F1410W41PIMU4^E tAll:'CI�A: P611111>4At 0404 M u kA:tr CROSSIiNG 01-029-21-32-0005 (0007) (0001) (0 01) two w 01-029-21-31- IPi:S Ls:.40440) r5 IRE ABSt21 CV A CC'Tl1400Pt AtYfl 00R5CU? t-rt;14P0)1001?9 AS WI' AFAFAn A+WRDOs tiO5tat TM 114) )0 S.'4S0051540) CL M15 15 IX1T .ES,V,S,PtE MP • 0 04504044C ES pat;=r01) P ^.:5 AC SWAN,Vif ftx< NF)4)10 11 P(, itt-,65 Atf7 lcir ftE.'A= t;t AP}LU9r 40011`1'i5 tie LAST 07RA)EO FMnraT'a, T111 ry'{) U)11•a!A?)54'40f5 ))4)08FENREI 4Elf tC)C-0TE t'A)ECt rVerv0)1 An^',41JM MTF ry')0141)}^,ndP,n' 0fl 4 4-^ yrd-,,=="-;.-144 •Sr'r'41-4- V.& , tInclivided Parcel is 0 Proposed n- '.)otliklary line )). Annro\inizik, /C or new North Parcel P3,903 sq. It l'.84 acres) ---- 616.12 08,70 V,,,,,7t) OCifq it 2 ) (1()1111 • f)-oposeLl new drive ziy literitiL, onto [Ake [lino Avenue No ,,pproximate location olcxisting entrance 1)1110 1_uke Hui North Ed Eklin Septic System Design & inspection LLC 2303 County Road F East White Bear Lake, MN 55110 651.485.2300 November 7, 2011 Steven Vveber 2826 E. 82qo St., Suite 105 Bloomington, MN 55425 Dear Steven: At your request, a site evaluation was performed at the property located at 5577 Lake Ave, N., Lake Elmo, MN, Since you propose to divide the lot into two parcels, I have established a sewage treatment area of at least 10,000 square feet on the north east part of the property. It appears that a trencn drainfield could be installed in the area and there is plenty of area for a possible house site. This is a preliminary evaluation of the lot, a sewage treatment design and specific house plans will be needed before a building permit can be issued. The proposed septic area must not be excavated, compacted or filled and must remain as t is. This site evaluation must be reviewed and approved by Washington County Public Health, If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call me. I would be glad to help. Sincereiy, Ed Eklin ,",,APCA Liceny? -i43321/(1-ertificaii(>r IS,C326S S S?'STEM DES7(oN'S rt70,7_;:)Lij/ilifN TsrS Sc.. Bosi PLANNJN.. (:11;tJ3 . • ; • .13% T itgts H 1-7 ,14 ) IF, <Yt oP cL.,ojj. 1;•Titt: • A , ' ITV FA •</, 1,• t'-fr„ (t1;4,1;;A rt,c) Lit'rfk,t-t ) OM) .0 7( fp(cnY,"4"-.4,1-*4a Cler TP.,. 14e,(Q.,/ e (-C- tr., 1%6, Icr7, r(ti Prt Lte_ b r tt.t- ()Ploy: 111 c fc?, ,/^.1 e (1 „ k , T S 11 1 ' 51-co<v• tocbc 557 7 1-tal-c't E-GetclAvl IA- 14=100/ JeI-!t yhe (4, yy Z vs Prolot-11—/LI,e ftt 3t L; NORTH Public Works Department Donald J, Theisen, P.E. Director Wayne H. Sandberg, P.E. Deputy Dire ctorlCounty Engineer �0QTH November 10.2O11 James NiDelapbin The Lowry- Rose Building 2124Dupont Avenue South Minneapolis, MN554O6 STEVEN WEBER RESIDENTIAL ACCESS REQUEST TOCOUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY Y7(LAKE EL&UOAVENUE) CITY {3FLAKE ELMOMINOR SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PUQQ1-029'21-23-00U4 Dear Mr. Delaplain.- WasNngtonCounty has reviewed the residential driveway location along LakElmo Avenue fora proposed new parcel cfrecord based onaconcept plan for aminor subdivision ofo5acre parcel of property owned by Mr. Steven Weber, in the City of Lake Elmo, the county process in cities within Washington County is to respond to formal applications submitted to the local government since we do not have land use authority, Also, when a subdivision is proposed, iiiscommon practice toseek alternative access locations bnlocal streets withinmunicipality. If those alternatives are not feasible, access to a county highway would be permitted. Alternatives in this case would be to consider a shared driveway and the feasibility of access to the 60 Ft wide City Utility Easement shown onthe plan that could beimproved toprovide local auoesa. FinaUy, as you are aware, Washington County requires driveway permits for ecoeau to a county road. In this case, once the property owner has gone through the appropriate review and approvalprocess ctthe |noa| leve|, the minor subdivision has been recorded and m permit application is filed with our office, an access permit can he issued. Please feel free togive mea call any questions sd851-430-4313oremail meet Si erely . V Carol Hanson Office Specialist � Joe Gustafson, Washington County Transportation Engineer Ann Pung-Tenwmdo, Washington County Senior Planner Kyle Klatt - City of Lake Elmo Community Development Director 116ODMyemnRoad North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55O82-9573 Phone-. 651'4304300 ^ Fax-. 051-4304358 ^ 7TY: 051-430-6246 vm*w'zo.wwahinyhun.mnum Location Map - 5577 Lake Elmo Ave ake Jmo Ave N Access Analysis TI II: CITY (1)1' LNK E ELMO 0 200' Legend Existing Access Point Proposed Access Point Parcel Boundary Distance Between Access Points 0 150 300 600 t II N City of Lake Elmo 2/23/2012 Data Source: Washington County, MN February 12, 2012 To: City of Lake Elmo Subject: Variance for 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue FEB 1 3 21112 To whom it may concern: We are mposind the division/variance of the property at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue North. Sincerely, Mike and Mary Jo Neuman 5685 Lake Elmo Avenue Lake Elmo, MN 55042 ����|����|�� inc. |nc. MEMORANDUM Cara Gehe��P.E Jack Griffin, P.E. Ryan Stempski, P.E. Data February 22,2OlZ 651.300.4261 651.308.4264 651'300.4267 To: Kyle K|att, Lake Elmo Planning Director Re: City ofLake Elmo 5577Lake Elmo Avenue Cc: Ryan Stempski, P.E. Lot Split Variance From: Jack Griffin, P.E.,City Engineer We have received the Variance Request Development Application for 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue North; P|NOI.O29.2l.Z3D0Ul. The following items were received: • Application with Schedule [Legal Description] and Schedule 8 [Request Narrative]. • Plat Drawing; NT5.PIN OI.O29.ZI.23.OQ0I. • Sketch drawing showing proposed Lot Split. • Septic System preliminary site review letter by Ed Elkin Septic System Design, dated II-07'20II. • Washington County Review Letter dated 21-10'2011. The engineering department continues tmfind that this Lot Split proposal and Variance Application remains inconsistent with the Cit/s Comprehensive Plan, including the Transportation Plan, and therefore isrecommending denial mfthis request. Coordinated, Efficient Infrastructure: The Comprehensive Plan has guided the zoning in this area to a||ovv development at I unit per lO acres unless completed as part of cluster type development with supporting infrastructure. When development is allowed to occur at higher densities, it is important to require the development to occur through a coordinated approach to allow for adequate and efficient supporting infrastructure. Adequate and efficient infrastructure will not occur ifparcels are allowed lot splits, completed on an independent basis. For this application, the proposed infrastructure is not consistent with the requested higher density development /I unit per 2.5 acres). Surrounding development that allows higher density (i.e. Discover Crossing) was required to plan infrastructure differently toserve individual properties. The Transportation Situation: The Transportation issue relates to Access Management. Access management is the balance between corridor mobility and property access. Increased access results )na decrease in mobility and a decrease in safety. The City is responsible for creating and implementing Access Management policies as part of its Transportation Plan. While both the State and County own or local authority to manage the proper access spacing along State and County roadways through its land use controls. In the vicinity of the proposed private driveway, there are currently 10 existing private driveways and two intersecting local roads. In accordance with the City Transportation Plan, private driveway access to Lake Elmo Avenue (A Minor Arterial Road) is to be prohibited. Lake Brno Avenue is a County owned roadway that supports the City's transportation needs including mobility, safety, efficiency, and the local economy. This roadway is classified as an "A Minor Arterial" in the Oty's Transportation Plan. Minor Arterial roads are one step higher than collector roods in the Transportation hierarchy. They are intended toprioritize mobility, efficiency and safety over property access. Collector roads supplement the arterial roadway system by providing access between neighborhoods and to the arterial system. Local Streets have the primary purpose to provide direct access to local properties within neighborhoods. Therefore future development along this corridor needs to require a collector or local roadway to be constructed from Lake Bnno Avenue into the developed property. The local property access may then extend to this new road. As traffic increases along this corridor and other access points are needed, future corrective improvements may be required to actually remove the number ofprivate driveways inthis area. Access Spacing Guidelines from Transportation Plan: w Principal Arterials: No direct access to local properties. Access from Minor Arterials only. * Minor Arterials (i.e. Lake Elmo Avenue): No direct access to local properties. Y4 K4i|p spacing between Collector Roadways. 1/8 Mile spacing between residential street intersections. • Collector Roadways No direct access to local properties. }6 Mile spacing between Collector Roadways. 1/8 Mile spacing between residential street intersections. Water and Sewer Treatment Systems: In a similar manner, the extension of municipal water service needs to be planned in an efficient and cost effective way. TvpicaUyvvatenmain is expanded along public roadway corridors to avoid easement acquisition costs. When higher density development b allowed without a planned supporting road network, the future expansion of other city services to the area results in significantly elevated costs. Future water system hookups become more costly and prohibitive for property owners due to easement acquisition costs and/or longer water services. Higher density development places greater pressure on the private infrastructure in a rural area, such as private wells and septic systems. With greater densities, the probability of failure for private wells and/or septic systems is increased. When septic systems fail, the available }and needed for replacement LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CONNECTING & INNOVATING SINCE !913 VARIANCES Frequently Asked Questions (Reflects 2011 law change) What is a variance? A variance is a way that a city may allow an exception to part of a zoning ordinance. It is a pel mined departure from strict enforcernent of the ordinance as applied to a particular piece of property, A variance is generally for a dimensional standard (such as setbacks or height limits). A variance allows the landowner to break a dimensional zoning rule that would otherwise apply. Who grants a variance? Minnesota law provides that requests for variances are heard by a body called the board of adjusmient and appeals; in many smaller communities, the planning commission or even the city council may serve that function. A variance decision is generally 'appealable to the city council, For more information. see viinn, Stn. 4,,'C2357. When can a variance be granted? A variance may be granted if enforcement of a zoning ordinance provision as applied to a particular piece of property would cause the landowner "practical difficulties." For the variance to be granted, the applicant must satisfy the statutory three -factor test for practical difficulties, If the applicant does not meet all three factors of the statutory test, then a variance should not be granted. Also, variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. For more information, see Mimi, 462.257. What kind of authority is the city exercising? A city exercises so-called "quasi-judicial" authority when considering a variance application. This means that the city's role is limited to applying the legal standard of practical difficulties to the facts presented by the application. The city acts like a judge in evaluating the facts against the leg -al standard. If the applicant meets the standard, then the variance may be granted. In contrast. when the city writes the rules in zoning ordinance. the city is exercising "legislative" authority and has much broader discretion. What is practical difficulties? Practical difficulties is a legal standard set forth in law that cities must apply the when considering applications for variances. It is a three -factor test and applies to all requests for variances. To constitute practical difficulties. all three factors of the test must be satisfied. For more information. sec This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice, Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST MONT:. (651) 281-1200 FAX: (651) 283-1298 INSURANCE TRUST ST. PAIP., MN: 55105-2044 TOLL FREE (8001925-1112 WFL www.uoc.oRc; What are the practical difficulties factors? The first factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance, it does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is for a building too close to a lot line, or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable. The second factor is that the landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property, that is. to the land, and not personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner. When considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular piece of property, such as sloping, topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees. The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Under this factor consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale. out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding. area. For example, when thinking about the variance for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to a lot line and if that fits in with the character of the area. Are there are other factors a city should consider? Yes. State statute provides variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. So, in addition to the three -factor practical difficulties test. a city evaluating a variance application should make findings as to (1) whether or not the variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. and (2) whether or not the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. What about economic considerations? Sometimes landowners insist that they deserve a variance because they have already incurred substantial costs or argue they will not receive expected revenue without the variance. State statute specifically notes that economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties. Rather, practical difficulties exists only when the three statutory factors are met. What about undue hardship? "Undue hardship" was the name of the three -factor test prior to a May 2011 change of law. Effective May 6. 2011 Minnesota Laws, Chanter 19., amended ! to restore municipal variance authority in response to Krunimenacher v. Cin' of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010). In Krummenacher, the Minnesota Supreme Court interpreted the statutory definition of "undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" prong of the "undue hardship"' test was not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is a reasonable use in the absence of the variance. What did the 2011 law change? The 201 l law changed the first factor back to the "reasonable manner understanding that had been used by some lower courts prior to the K17,1777117e110C17er ruling. The 20] 1 law renamed the municipal variance standard from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise retained the familiar three -factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. The 2011 law also provides that: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terns of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan." Can a city grant a use variance? Sometimes a landowner will seek a variance to allow a particular use of their property that would otherwise not be perrnissible under the zoning ordinance. Such variances are often termed "use variances" as opposed to "area variances" from dimensional standards. Use variances are not generally allowed in Minnesota state law prohibits a city from permitting by variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for the zoning district where the property is located. For more information, see Minn. Stat., 462:if 7. Is a public bearing required? Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied, but many practitioners and attorneys agree that the best practice is to hold public hearings on all variance requests. A public hearing allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors. What is the role of neighborhood opinion? Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While city officials may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors, Residents can often provide important facts that may help the city in addressing these factors, but unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. lf neig,hborhood opinion is a significant basis for the variance decision, the decision could be overturned by a court. What is the role of past practice? While past practice may be instructive, it cannot replace the need for analysis of all three of the practical difficulties factors fOr each and every variance request. In evaluating a variance request, cities are not generally bound by decisions made for prior variance requests. if a city finds that it is issuing many variances to a particular zoning standard, the city should consider the possibility of amending the ordinance to change the standard. When should a variance decision be made? A written request for a variance is subject to Minnesota's 60-day rule and must be approved or denied within 60 days of the time it is submitted to the city. A city may extend the time period for an additional 60 days, but only if it does so in writing before expiration of the initial 60-day period. Under the 60-day rule, failure to approve or deny a request within the statutory time period is deemed an approval. For more information, see How should a city document a variance decision? Whatever the decision, a city should create a record that will support it. In the case of a variance denial. the 60-day rule requires that the reasons for the denial be put in writing. Even when the variance is approved, the city should consider a written statement explaining the decision. The written statement should explain the variance decision, address each of the three practical difficulties factors and list the relevant facts and conclusions as to each factor. Can meeting minutes adequately document a variance decision? If a variance is denied, the 60-day rule requires a written statement of the reasons for denial be provided to the applicant within the statutory time period. While meeting minutes may document the reasons for denial. usually a separate written statement will need to be provided to the applicant in order to meet the statutory deadline. A separate written statement is advisable even for a variance approval, although meeting minutes could serve as adequate documentation, provided they include detail about the decision factors and riot just a record indicating an approval motion passed. Can a city attach conditions to a variance? By law. a city may impose a condition when it grants a variance so long as the condition is directly related and bears a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance. if a variance is granted to exceed an otherwise applicable height limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the affect of excess height. For more information, see Minn. What happens to the variance once granted? A variance once issued is a property right that "runs with the land" so it attaches to and benefits the land and is not limited to a particular landowner. A variance is typically filed with the county recorder. Even if the property is sold to another person, the variance applies. Jed Burkett 2011/06 4 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2012- A RESOLUTION DEMING LOT AREA AND WIDTH VARL4NCES TO ALLOW A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 5577 LAKE ELMO AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existi under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Steven Weber, 12729 22T Street North, West Lakeland, MN (the -Applicant") has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City-) for variances to the minimum lot size and lot width requirements for a Rural Residential Zoning District to allow the subdivision of a 5.11-acre parcel at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue into two new lots of 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size: and WHEREAS, notice has been published. mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on February 13, 2012 and continued this hearing until its February 27, 2012 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated March 6. 2012; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its March 6, 2012 meeting. and tabled discussion on said matter until its March 20. 2012 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS 1) Thai the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in the Lake Elmo Zonin Ordinance. Section 154.017. That all the submission requirements of said 154.017 have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed variances are to allow the subdivision of property at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue into two separate lots that do not meet ihe minimum requirements of the RR - Rural Residential -zoning, district, and include the .following components: a) Variances from the minimum lot size requirement of 10 acres in a RR — Rural Residential zoning district in order to create two new lots of 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size. b) Variances from the minimum lot width requirement of 300 feet in a RR — Rural 'Residential zoning district in order to create two new lots that are 195 and 95 feet in width. 4) That the Variance kvill be located on property legaily described as follows: All that part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. Washington County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence North 01 degrees 31 minutes 43 seconds West (recorded as N 00 degrees 00' 46- W) along the West line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of 334.70 feet to the North line of the South 334.70 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, and the point of beginning of this description; thence continuing North 01 degrees 31 minutes 43 seconds West (recorded as N 00 degrees 0046" W) a distance of 494.71 feet; thence North 87 degrees 32 minutes 27 seconds East (recorded as N 89 degrees 03' 24" E) distance of 618,20 feet to the West line of the East 695.22 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4: thence South 01 degrees 19 minutes 29 second East. along said West line of the East 695.22 feet, a distance of 502.85 feet to the North line of the South 334.70 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence South 88 degrees 17 minutes 37 seconds West, along said North line of the South 334.70 feet, a distance of 616.33 feet to the point of beginning, together with an easement for roadway purposes over and across the North 60.00 feet of the South 334.70 feet which lies West of the East 695.22 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, excepting therefrom the North 209.00 feet of the South 639.40 feet of the West 417.42 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest i. More commonly known as 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue. That the strict enforcement of Zoning Ordinance would not cause practical difficulties and that the property owner does not propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. Specific .1ings: a) That the subdivision of an existing 5-acre parcel into two smaller parcels in a zoning district that requires a minimum lot size of 10 acres is not a reasonable use of the property. In That the proposed subdivision is not reasonable because the property as it exists can be used for a single family residential home. Reasonable use of the property already' exists, and the variance is not needed in order to 'nuke use of the parcel under the Rural Residential zoning district requirements. The current coiijigui atia,, of the lot iS not relevant to the establishment of reasonable use because the lot would not have been usable for a single family home without this additional area. 6) That the plight of the landowner is not d le to circumstances unique to the property and was created by the landowner. Specific findings: a) That the applicant's property is not unique because the property is able to support a single family honze, and because a large majority of parcels outside of Open Space Preservation developments in the Rural Residential zoning district are larger than the lot owned by the applicant. The ability to find a suitable use for the areas outside of the immediate building location is not something that is unique to the applicant's site since the intent of the Rural Residential district is to promote the preservation of open space and rural character, and therefore, the uses and densities allowed in the district are intentionally limited. b) That the proposed lot was created by the land owner and met the minimum lot size requirements vhen it was subdivided. The land owner was able to build on the lot and has been able to use the property as a single family residential lot for over 30 years. 7) That the proposed variance will alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. Specific findings: a) That the applicant's property is located in a portion of the City that is guided for Rural Agricultural Density (RAD) development, which corresponds to the City's- RR - Rural Residential Zoning District. This district requires a minimum lot size of 10 acres, and the applicant's request to create two lots of under 2.5 acres in size represents a substantial departure from the district requirements. Although there are existing non -conforming lots in the vicini of the applicant's property, the continued subdivision of lots less than 10 acres will continue to alter the character of the area and create a denser, more urban environment in an area that is not intended to be served by municipal water or sewer services. 8) That the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question but will substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood, Specific dings: a) That the proposed variance will have a negative effect on adjacent properties and traffic because the proposed driveway to serve the new home would not comply with the City's access management policies and guidelines. in particular, new driveway accesses are discouraged along streets classified as Minor Arterials (such as Lake Elmo Avenue) at the traffic levels that are forecast for this road. The proposed driveway would also fail to comply with the City's use of best management practices for spacing guidelines, rvhich include: minimizing new access- locations and reducing/consolidating existing access points, protecting and improving intersection functional and sight distance areas, and proper design of driveways and intersections. The creation of a new driveway/lot will create a safety concern and add to congestion on Lake Elmo Avenue by adding an access point to Lake Elmo .4venue in a location that has reduced visibility dues to an incline in the roadway. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the Applicantsapplication for a Variance is denied. Passed and duly adopted this 20th day of March 2012 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota, Dean A. Johnston, Mavor ,VITEST: Dean A. Zuleger. City Administrator