HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-21-82 CCMCITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1982
Mayor Eder convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. with the following
Councillors present: Nottaz, Morgan, Novak and Fraser. Also present
Administrator Whittaker.
1. AGENDA Additions -
8. D. Lemire
11. L. Office
Sewer Assessment Hearing Date
Cleaning
M/S/P Morgan/Mottaz to approve the Agenda as amended. Carried 5-0.
2. MINUTES: September 7 and September 13.
M/S/P Mottaz/Fraser to approve the minutes of September 7. Carried 5-0.
M/S/P Morgan/Eder to approve the minutes of September 13, Special
Budget meeting. Carried 4-0-l'. Fraser abstained.
3. CLAIMS:
M/S/P Morgan/Mottaz to approve Claims 82916 thru 8300. Carried 5-0.
4. LICENSES:
M/S/P Morgan/Mottaz to approve a Masonry Contractor's license for
Rivard Masonry, Rt 11 Box 414, St. Joseph, Wi. Carried 5-0.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED BUDGET -AND FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING
Mayor Eder opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. -
A.. Pay Plan
The io cT reviewed the Personnel Committee's recommendations as
presented in the Administrator's memo of September 17, 1982,
Re. 1983 Pay Plan.
Whittaker advised the Council that Ken Carroll is dissatisified
with his proposed 1983 salary., Mr.`Carroll believes that with
I yr, and XO months experience as a Light Equipment Operator
his salary should be closer to'khb"mid-point range; and asked
that the Council consider granting him the difference between
mid -point and the insurance benefit(.19/hr), which would bring
him up to $9.47/hr. Total cost of this change would be $395.20.
Whittaker noted that with the changes before the Council the pay
plan is at the ceiling for the 8% pay increase set by the Council.
--Fraser - acknowledges Mr. Carroll's position; but, since the
pay increases are at the 8% maximum and the pay plan was reviewed
and developed to provide equity among all the employees it is not
feasible to increase Mr. Carroll's salary.
--Eder - agreed with Fraser. Questioned the job title for the
Senior Secretary. Title should reflect more her background and
responsibilities.
M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to accept the 1983 Pay Plan as outlined in
the Administrator's memo of September_ 17, 1982 - 1983 Pay Plan.
B. CTP
(lf Pa��rks - Whittaker reported ;the -following recommendations
�. and- "-changes £roni the Part. Commission
1. The bleachers in Pebble Park and picnic shelter in Lions
Park be delayed past the 5 year CIP.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1982
-2-
B. CIP
( FParks - Continued -
2. The tennis courts in Demontreville 6th will be necessary
by 1985 and should remain in the CIP. If the neighborhood
does not fully develop by 1985 and no demand is indicated,
this can be reevaluated.
3. The ballfields planned for Demontreville 6th Add. and
Reid Park should not exceed $2500 per field. The City
should not budget the engipeer's-estimate of,$13,41.0"for
Demontreville or $5,000 for Reid. If necessary, assistance
will be secured from the Army Reserve and/or the Jaycees
to do the work. -in order to stay within the $2500 per field
cost.
4. The cost of the Vita Course to be reduced from $5,000 to
$3,000. The course should be in Sunfish Park, rather
than the landfill, as it is a passive use,rt.fits into the
natural setting of Sunfish, and would improve the use
use of the park in the summer. Additional improvement to
the Vita Course can be made in the future, if desired. CA -
Whittaker outlined a program to ensure,adequate funds will be
available to subsidize the improved CIP while minimizing interest
costs and borrowing needs.
1. Combine Fire, Maintenance and Park. Departments Capital
Improvement Reserves into one reserve. Revenue surplus
left in the.General Fund each year, after operating expenses,
would go into the Capital Improvement Reserve.
2. The reserve would be used only to purchase approved Capital
Improvements in the 5 yr plans for the three departments.
3. Balance of costs, not adequately covered, would be paid
by Equipment Certificates.
4. Donations for specific purposes (is Parks, Fire equipment)
would be used only in those departments to pay for items
in approved CIP, unless otherwise stipulated by donor.
5. Present Park Reserve and Capital Projects Fund will continue
to be used exclusively for Parks.
6. CIP's will be updated and reviewed annually before budget
is approved each year.
This is a way to balance the reserves and fund the CIP in all three
departments- would have to make sure that every year ,subsequent
to 1987®there is enough money to finance the parks. The advantage
of this program is simplifying the bookkeeping and having a total
picture of CIP expenditures.and needs.
--Morgan - likes the present breakdown by individual departments -
know what departments are in need and which are not,
--Fraser - not sure there is any great advantage in changing the
reserve program. As they are set up now/could transfer:from.one
reserve to cover an expenditure in another.
--Novak - making a process out of transferring funds from one reserve
to another makes one take a second look at the necessity of the action.
--Whittaker - final question is how the the reserves will be divided.
Only thing in'thOBudget for,reserves,-now, is $8,000 for Parks.
With Increased permit fees and other items discussed, could have
about $25,000 total going into some reserve.
--Morgan - concern of the Park Commission is that if the reserve is
run down to zero then there will be no funds to match the opportunities
to get grants; also Equipment Certificates cannot be used to
purchase capital improvements for the parks. They felt there should
be some minimum put into this reserve to support the program.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1982 -3-
B. CIP
(1T Parks - Continued
--WIi ttaker - if Park.Reserve is budgeted just to handle the
5 yr program there will be zero in this reserve in 1987.
Presently averaging $25,000/yr in expenses - State law
prohibits levying this amount in 1987 to support the
continuing development program. Should plan on having
$25,000 in 1987, unless it is demonstrated that remaining
improvements will not be built in 1987 or the next 5 yr
planning period. This can be reviewed in 1984. May have
to take any surplus from the General Fund and put it into the
Park Reserve as this is the only way to finance improvements.
Fire and Maintenance equipment can be financed with Equipment
Certificates, if need be.
The Council agreed that, Whittaker should use the present approach
for reserves,- determine the unfunded part of the park program,
including their recommendations, and assign this amount to the
Parks Reserve with the remaining balance of the levy going into
the Maintenance Equipment Reserve.
--Eder -- has no problems with the dollar changes recommended by
the Park Commission.
M/S/'P Fraser./Morgan to accept the recommendations of the Park
Commission, as outlined above, and include these recommendations
in the over-all Budget. Carried 5-0.
(2) Fire Department - No changes were made in their CIP,
M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to approve the Capital Improvement Plan
for the Fire Department.
(3) Maintenance Department -
M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to approve the CIP for the Maintenance
Department as outlined in the Minutes of September 13, Special
City Council Budget meeting. Carried 5-0.
D. Waste to Energy/Intern - No action
E. Watershed Plans - No action
F. Building Permit Fees - Eder reviewed the permit fees and
other Budget changes that were approved at the September
13, Special Budget Meeting. (Sept. 13, minutes attached.)
M/S/P Morgan/Mottaz to assigns14,582.to the Maintenance
Equipment Reserve. Carried 5-0.
M/S/ Morgan/Fraser to adopt-R-82-50, a Resolution approving the,
1983 .budget and levy.
--Whittaker - $6,000 is still included under Waste/Energy Plant
for an Intern or related use. No answer on reimbursed costs
has, been received from the County to date. The Council agreed
to leave this amount in the Budget.
*amended Motion carried*-5--0. 4-1. Novak opposed because Intern budgeted
10/5/82 without County commitment for reimbursement.
There was no audience comments on the 1983 Budget
Mayor Eder closed the public hearing at 8:50 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1982 -4-
6. JOHN MADOLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY - LEAF COMPOSTING PROGRAM;
Lisa Musiker, representing John Madole, outline the proposed leaf
composting project; after which, Brian Gulla, St. Paul Department
of Public Works, presented a slide review of a pilot program initiated
in St. Paul. Ms. Musiker said this is an opportunity for Lake
Elmo to participate with Washington County and the City of St. Paul
in this composting program; and requested the City Council's
endorsement of the project and assist in developing a flyer that
will notify residents of the program and how they can participate.
A_list of participating Lake Elmo haulers will be made available.
Mg. Musiker also requested City assistance in mailing out the flyers
to Lake Elmo residents.
--Morgan - much in favor
M/S/P Morgan/Novak to support and participate in the Leaf Composting
Program; and,-`ass`,-s--t in the prepatation df-a flyer,and notification
Qf residents. Details to be worked out with the City Administrator
and staff. Carried 5-0.
7. ALLEN DORNFELD--.VBWD - I-94 OUTLET:
Mr. Dornfeld appeared to answer questions the Council raised at
the last meeting and outlined in the Administrators letter of
September 11, 1982. Dick Murray and Ray Brenner were also
present.
1. Assessment- Area := Mr. Dornfeld referred to Section 112.501,
Waters ed Act that..prohibits assessing areas that are not directly
tributary to o.r,.bernefitted:by a.,drainage project. Therefore,
the Watershed.does"not ... feel Afton can be assessed, as there
is no land in Afton that will be going into this particular
drainage system. This is also true of the Woodbury area to
the west of Afton. There is no assessment shown for any area
south of I-94.
--Eder - can the word 'controlled' not be construed to prevent
something. Fast Watershed_ phi:lo:sophy proUlded.that'AftQn
benefitted by the prevention_of water getting to Afton. This
is an abandonment of previous philosophy; not so much based on
use of the Afton storage site, but, the potential of upstream
water getting to Afton.
--Dornfeld - Watershed position is just a reaction to the Water-
shed law.
7Eder would the Watershed consider changing its mind and
attempt to include Afton, as this has been the philosophy
up until recently.
--Dornfeld - the Watershed up -held this philosophy when talking
about Project 1006 with water going into the Afton Storage Site,
but in this case (I-94 Project) there is no plantouse the
Afton Storage Site. Believes this project is quite different
from what was proposed in the past.
--Mottaz - asked Mr. Dornfeld where the water would go if the
City does not join with the Highway Department and run the
down the freeway and face the potential of another project
to go down to County 21 - where would the water go.
--Dornfeld - As things stand now, it would eventually end up
( in Afton. The primary reason for the flow design is that it
is a cost saving measure - the primary purpose„ - most of r-o-w
is purchased and no need to enlarge existing pipes.
--Mottaz - what happens if you just let the water go.
--Dornfeld - you'll have flooding problems. If it gets high
enough at the Afton Storage Site it will back up over the highway.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1982 -5-
7. ALLEN DORNFELD - VBWD - I-94 PROJECT - Continued
--Eder - a point of clarification, the cost benefit is the benefit
of putting the pipes down through Afton to protect the Belwin
Foundation and others - this was always the cost benefit. If
just assume the Main Stem goes down through Afton, then the
protection must be in Afton - is this not still the cost benefit
rational of the District.
--Dornfeld - Yes; but are talking a different system entirely.
Would not oppose assessing Afton if it could be shown that it could
be legally done.
--Novak - theoretically, Lake Elmo could not be assessed if a pipe
eras - constructed from Oakdale or North St. Paul but not through
Lake Elmo,
G
2. Proje'ct/Pipe' Size -
=-Dornfel - until recently did not know the actual size of
the pipes. Latest information - the pipe from the West Lakeland
Storage Site to the proposed rest area along I-94 is 123 cfs
capacity. Highway Department is not talking about any outlet
from the rest area - feel there is enough seepage capacity
to handle the water. Next pipe starts at Co. 21, east of the
rest area storage site, and goes to the St. Croix. This pipe
is 16 cfs capacity. There is a possibility that things could
be regulated and use the existing 123 cfs pipe after their
flows have gone through it. This is feasible, not impossible.
The Highway Department have never given anyone the right to
use their storm drainage conveyance system without a charge.
The charge is based on peak flow. The current proposed charge
is $235,000 for the use of the pipe.
Not sure how much the State will be using the West Lakeland
Storage Site. Will be using some of the Lee Richert property
for ponding (State purchased all of the Richert property).
--Mottaz - how can the State justify charging - not like the
pipe belongs to another Country - we're all in the same camp.
When they're not using the pipe, and the pipe is sitting.An
Lake Elmo property and the City has water to discharge, why
should their be a $235,000 charge to use their empty pipe.
The Council further discussed pipe size vs pipe size costs.
--Morgan - Concerns:
1. The assessment area - Afton - Tri-Lakes
2. Size of the system = 35 cfs is a tremendous amount of water,
about 70 a-ft/day - still a very large system
3. 35 cfs is to resolve the existing systems- the new policy
for provides storage in only 1%':excess - if provided
additional storage areas upstream with ponds, streams, etc.
possibly the proposed system could be sized smaller.
--Eder - what ponding is this based on?
Dornfeld - still using the lakes and their bounce. This
system is designed for a 100 yr, event - the 35 cfs will not
be going down the pipe continually, -initially it will in order
to get the system equalized, to get the lakes down and get some
storage..
--Mottaz - not just talking about the lakes, but marsh areas
that dry up after the spring run-off - use these areas 365 days
out of the year.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1982
Q.
T. ALLEN DORNFELD - VBWD - Continued
--Eder - are certain costs reduced proportionately by going to
a 30 cfs pipe.
--Dornfeld - no great difference. Because of past problems on
several of the lakes in the City it was felt the pipe should be
sized for the 35 cfs.
--Eder - would the Highway Department accept the'City's
willingness to take a risk that we have the West Lakeland
Storage Site and the capacity to flow to the rest area and no
outlet, and pass on the County 21 to the river.
--Dornfeld - Can look into cfs capacity for 25 yr and 50 yr
events.
--Mottaz - still concerned with the assessment question.
--Eder - could strongly support if the residents in Afton wore
assessed and could make the minimum possible sizing of the pipe,
skip the pipe to the river and get the minimum West Lakeland
Storage Site possible within tolerances that are consistent with
the pipe sizing and assurances that the program for the northwest
part of the district will be adequate.
--Mottaz - if live by the 1% rule, and if the pumping of Lake
Jane is hendUng that problem, there is a strong argument against
assessing residents north of Lake Jane for this project.
Could not vote on the project without additional answers.
Not convinced that.the people-south_'of'the_ freeway are not
benefitted. They do not want the water. They have instructed
their attorney to fight against running the water down there.
If this is the case, they are benefitting,
The Council asked Mr;.; Dornfeld to ask the District's Counsel to
sustain the argument that Afton be assessed.
--Eder - request would be considered provided the cfs could
be changed, costs modified, and Aftonwereassessed..
--Dornfeld - will work on these concerns and get back to the
Mayor with a response.
8. ENGINEER'S REPORT: -
A. Final Payment and Acceptance of Tabl n Park Improvements -
Tlie'�Enginee r made a final inspection an recommended that
final payment be made.
M/S/P Morgan/Mottaz to accept the improvements of the Tablyn
Park Roadway and Parking Lot and authorize final payment for
the improvements, per the Engineer's recommendation. Carried 5-0.
B. Dean_ Johnston Shoreland Permit and Variance -
The Engineer recapped the proposa and -he---- riances needed,
and referred the Council to his letter of September 15 which
addressed 4uestions raised by the Council on September 7.
--Eder questioned the driveway location in relation to adjacent
property lines.
--Whittaker - noted that there is a five foot setback requirement
for driveways
--Mottaz - this setback severly affects the drainfield area,
as the driveway is closer than the required five feet.
--Bohrer - apprised the Council of correspondence from
Darrel Paulsrud, who owns the second lot to the west, stating
that the previous owner, Mona Cohn Bloom, that a portion of
their drainfield may be on the Johnston lot.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1982
-7-
8. ENGINEER'S REPORT
B. Dean Johnston Continued -
-=Bo rear --If the Paulsrud information is correct, the
drainfield would have to pass under the driveway of the
adjacent lot to the west (Bonestroo's) and a portion of
the blacktop on the cul,de-sac. Bohrer referred to his
September 15, letter, paragraph three, regarding his
conversation with Mrs. Bloom.
He also distributed a copy of
in response to Mr. Johnston's
the proposed septic system on
systems.
a letter from Roger Machmier
question on the effect of
the environment and nearby
--Eder - questions to the Engineer -
1, in terms of the variance for the drainfield, septic tank
area and driveway, is any more critical than the other?
--Bohrer - do riot consider any of the variances being health
related.
--Novak - when a system is close to the street, does packed
snow or snow removal affect the use or efficiency of the system?
--Bohrer - variance is to place one leg of the drainfield
closer to the righ?hof,-way.line, not up to the blacktop,
Would not anticipate that area of the ground wo rld- be frozen.
If the snow were completely removed and the area allowed to
freeze, this would interfere with the operation of the system.
Not in an area close to the blacktop or a-mormally exposed area.
-Eder -
2. In your opinion, does the individual sewer treatment system
proposed meet the minimum standards of the City's Code with
respect to the installation of such system.
--Bohrer - yes. The design and installation does meet the
standards.
3. In your opinion, will the waste treatment function of this
system be adequate to protect the health of adjacent property
owners and the body of water, also adjacent to this property,
which has the larger public interest.
--Bohrer - Yes it does, in so:far that it meets the Code.; and
the Code has safety.standards built into it to protect these
items.
4, in your opinion, is the location of this system detrimental
to the safety of adjacent property owners and the public in a
way as to affect the footings of buildings, surface of driveways
(ie the cul-de-sac), etc.
--Bohrer - No, do not believe it would be detrimental.
--Eder - clarified the purpose of his questions. -_
-Whittaker - read the Code requirement concerning off-street
parking -location,
--Bohrer - this requirement would not al-low-this:system,'as
designed, to fit into the area proposed. Do not know if it
could be redesigned to allow it. Would be very difficult to
take away five feet and still have it fit.
--Morgan - if the system were designed five feet smaller would
it still meet the code.
--Bohrer - do not think so. Driveway is only 10 ft. wide.
--Eder - five feet is quite a bit of compromise from what is
considered allot in the Tri-Lakes area - use to be 101.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1982
8, ENGINEER'S REPORT;
B. Dean Johnston - Continued
-- Mottaz - this would require a.fifth variance. These are not
( small variances - one is 50%, one 60%, another is 50%.
-- Morgan - in response to the lot 'size variance - this lot
appears to be one of the larger lots in the subdivision
being .57 acres - there is only one "larger lot.
-- Eder - one distinguishing feature, this lot has the pennisula
on it - this adds to the area, but what value does it have to
a composite lot - big projection.
-- Novak - variances are a big problem - the amount and percentage.
Have to consider Pauisrud's letter,
-- Darrel Paulsrud, 8195 Hill Trail - was told by the original
owner (Mona Cohn Bloom) that there was a septic tank and
drainfield that ran under Bonestroo's driveway and in the
direction of the old stable (no longer there), that being
in the southeast portion of the lot in question. No written
documentation as to when the system was installed or to what
is there. Only have the verbal acknowledgement of this.
Purchased the house from Mrs, Cohn Bloom.
-- Bohrer - reconfirmed this converstation with Mrs. Bloom. She
stated that she has no knowledge of any septic system on that
lot and doesn't believe there ever was one. Confused by the
conflicting positions. One of the important things is that
if you,amin-fact, dochave a septic system that crosses two other
lots what rights do you have or do not have by having that
system,located on property that is not your own,
-- Paulsrud - other than the fact that it was the original system -
the original system out there, does this not hold anything.
-- Novak--,- are we talking about rights or would this prevent
anything from happening as far as another septic system.
-- Bohrer - when this question was brought up last time, did not
quite understand the question that there was an existing
funcitioning system on the lot. Understood it to mean that
there may have been a previous system on the lot. Commented
that the only interference that would cause is if that is
encountered while excavating for a new system - would have
to either remove it(old system, as in the case of a septic
tank or some structure) or if a drainfield trench is encountered
this would have to be plugged off so the water from the new
trench will not short circuit and run someplace else that you
don't want it to.
-- Paulsrud - looking to be assured that, if his drainfield
is on the Johnston property, it won'L be shut off. Has a
working system. Has replaced one system and running out of
room to replace another one.
-- Bohrer - just about impossible to determine if all of that system
is functioning or not. Cound not see how the system could
continue to function in the winter if it ran under Bonestroo's
driveway. No way to verify unless it was --dug for,
-- Morgan - there have been variances granted in this area before.
Lot is larger than most in the area. If Mr. Johnston uses his
land with the variances and the technologies available, will
this in any way damage the environment of this subdivision.
�, -- Bohrer - in my opinion, no. In the fact that it can meet all
of the codes that are presently applicable, those codes have
safety features already built-in. As -:an example, when say the
septic system is just 50 ft. from the Bonestroo well, that 50 ft.
already has a safet' factor built in and, in my opinion, it is
not necessary to add on additional safety factors.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMB ER 21, 11982 -9-
8. ENGINEER'S REPORT:
B. .Dean Johnston -'Continued
/- =-Bo rear — This holds true with the distance that a system
1 has to be above a groundwater table or bedrock condition.
The aft. requirement to permit placement a septic system
above the water table is considered safe, based on the
bes-c available technology.
--Novak - if all the safety features are built in, then how
far do you go with a variance.
--Bohrer -- can only address the engineering features of the
septic system. Some of the other variances, set backs for
driveways, etc. do not deal with the function or design of
the septic system, and, cannot or should not advise the Council
on since it is not an engineering dec:ialon.
--Eder - what are the specifics on Lila setback of the driveway -
adjacent to or not.
--Bohrer - it appears from the site plan the edge of the driveway
is 1-2 ft away from the property line.
--Mottaz - before the Council can give a variance from the
driveway setback would have to have a statement from the
adjacent property cwner,whose property would be infringed
upon, stating he has. no objection.
Audience Comments -
--Dean Johnston, 8200 Hill Tr. - Basically what .iG being
;XMpesed isa--house that i.s sa.fe for the neighborhood, is
consistent with the other homes in the area in terms of
the setbacks, the driveway is already existing and was not
challenged at the time. This is a new issue. Think all of
r the issues raised at the public hearing have been addressed
satisfactorily.
--Eder - questioned the driveway.
--Johnston driveway exists right now _ it is there. It was
put in as a part of the access to install the retaining wall.
--Eder - do not recall any showing or agreement on a driveway.
--Bill Schumacher, 8186 Hill Tr. N. asked for clarification
on the closest well,; and asked if there would be any effect
on the Klass well that is 60 ft. away.
--Bohrer - The Klass well to the east has a lower ground surface
eteVbtion, by the well, than. '-some of the upper drainfield
runs. However, 3 ft of earth vertically is considered adequate
to remove all of the harmful substances that are in the effluent
and 3 ft. horizonitally would do the same.
--Robert Peterson, 8278 Hidden Bay Ct. N. - lives about 500 ft.
from the proposed site. In the 26 yrs has lived in this area
has only asked for one variance. See four or five variance here.
One so critical to getting closer to the lake, where we know
there has been contamination. Do not understand how more than
one variance could be considered.
--Ben Klass, 8190 Hill Tr. N. - property owner to the east -
driveway in question adjoins his property. At the time the
driveway was installed had no objection, but, was not asked
if he had any objection. Have benefitted too in some respects.
Greatest concern is contamination of his well, with drainage
that may end up on his property and into his septic system.
This is everyone's main concern. Other than that has no
objection. At the present time, would have to think over the
suggestion of signing an agreementregarding the driveway variance.
Would have to discuss it with the neighbors.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1982
-10-
8, ENGINEER'S REPORT:
B. Dean Johnston - Continued
W itta er - the principle reason for the driveway setback
is for snow piling to avoid piling snow on/in-a neighbors'
yard,
--Ben Klass - snow piling would be a concern as it would have
no place to go but into his yard.
--Jan Sovereign, 4415 Olson Lake Tr.,
1. Can this home be serviced for fire? Does not believe a
fire truck can get into this area and turn around.
2. If this were being done today, it would need over 3x's
its present acreage.
3. Should be some research into the septic tanks in that
particular area. Many homes, close together, and could
be a danger of contaminating the water.
4. The soil the system goes in is important to the drainage.
-- Lois DeLong, 8374 Hidden Bay - asked when the lot size
was determined - was it during the flood stage early in the
year or when the area is drier. Asked when the driveway
setback was changed.(Eder responded)
--Bohrer - the area was measured from the NOHM which is
elevation 930 and was not taken in any relation to where
the water was or is.
--Whittaker - rei fire protection- no worse than it would
be for the other five homes on the pennisula,
--Eder - the percent of variances and the number of variances
a large concern. If there are unknown safety factors, appears
we are giving up clot of safety factors.
--Mottaz - too much variance, not satisified with the safety
factors to health that are suppose to be built into this system
due to the variance that would be required.
M/S/ Mottaz/Eder to deny the Shoreland permit with variances
for Dean Johnston, based on the number of variances and the
percent of variances required to meet the permit and ensure the
health, safety and welfare of surrounding homes.
Discussion:
--Fraser - very tight difficult decision - many pros and cons.
Based on the discussion, would have to agree with the motion.
--Morgan - denying Mr. Johnston the use of his land. This is
nor, different than the way the land presently there is being
used. His is coming and they are there. With the modern
technology, this house in no way will damage the enviroment
any more than the existing homes. Will probably be superior
because of the modern technology. He has done everything
properly to come before the Council, got the proper technical
experts and engineers. If this is denied, the City should go
into this area and enforce the literial interruptation of all
the ordinances by the existing properties, including surrounding
areas on the lake. Have set some precedences in the past and
appear to be making an exception to those precedences.
--Novak - would like to know about the other septic system.
Wouldlike to have the driveway question cleared up. I£ not
going to give a variance for the driveway the whole picture
changes, and effects the type and location of the septic system.
Personally believes that driveways can become a problem. Will
not I
vote until these two items are addressed.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1982
-11-
3S
ENGINEER'S REPORT:
B. Dean Johnston (Continued)
--Morgan recommended that in light of the new information
on the driveway ordinance, Mr. Johnson be given time to
revise his plan so that a variance would not be required;.
and consider another type system, mound, in order to meet
the requirements.
--Bohrer - under the new Washington County Ordinance a mound
system is not permitted as a first installation. It is only
allowed as an installation after the initial system has
failed and there is no opportunity to put a covential system in.
Motion carried 3-171. Morgan opposed. Novak abstained.
C. Cost estimate for Demontreville Access Plan - The Engineer
resented t'e p propose concept p an for Council review.
The County Traffic Engineer believes 35 mph would be
appropriate zoning in this area and would possibly be
accepted by state aid people. They asked TKDA to provide
the design for a 35 mph design.
Bohrer reported this design can be prepared for submittal to
the County for a cost not to exceed $300.
--Mottaz - questioned the 35 mph design. Demontreville is
presently 30 mph from 50th to Highway 36, with 25 mph curves.
Why is the County requesting the 35 mph design?
--Bohrer - a 35 mph curve would encroach more on Lot, some
on Lot 7, and part of Lot 6, Uncertain why they are making
the 35 mph request.
--Mottaz - original motion requested 30 mph which would require
only some property be taken from lot 8 with a possible trade-
off between the owner of lot 8 and DNR property. This would
.be impossible with the 35 mph design.
M/S/P Mottaz/Fraser instructing the -Administrator to senda
letter to the County,,- Highway nepartment'requesting that they;:
seek a variance from State Aid.Standards to'permit the design
of�l.a;30mph- cuufre:'.otODemontreville for the proposed public
access. A copy of this letter to be sent to Commissioner
Schaefer. Motion carried 5-0.
The Administrator will also set up a joint meeting between
the County Highway Department, the DNR and the City.
E. Patrick Curran - Shoreland Permit and Variance -
The Caunci1_reviewed t e Engineers comments and recommendations
as outlined in his letter of September 10.
this is an aesthetic variance - from 200 ft. setback to
120 ft. from Sunfish.Lake.
-- Revisions will have to be.made to up -date the present septic
system.
Structure will be no closer to the water than it is now.
M/S/P Morgan/Novak,.to approve the Shoreland Permit and variance
for Patrick Curran, 3607 Kelvin, per the engineers recommendations.
Carried 5-0.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1982 -12-
8. ENGINEER'S REPORT:
D. Assessments for Keats Avenue -
M/S/P Morgan/Mottaz to adopt R-82�-51, calling+_a public. -hearing on
assessments for the Keats Avenue Project, on,_Dctober_20, 1982 at
7:45 p.m. Carridd'5-0.
M/S/P Morgan/Jlottaz to call a public hearing on the Lemcire Sewer
Assessment on October 20, 1982, at 815 p.m: ,,Carried 5-0
9. WASTE/ENERGY UP -DATE: No report
10. COUNCIL REPORTS:
--Mayor Eder - League Meeting - Eder requested Whittaker to make the
Council copies of Mr. Ruedels letter, setting criteria for spending
in this area.
There were no other Council reports.
11. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
A. Computer Quotes - Deferred until October 6.
B. Resolution on Highway Bonds - No action
C. Park Donations - The Council reviewed the Administrator's
recommendation, as presented in his memo of September 20.
The Park Commission concurred with this recommendation.
M/S/P Morttaz/Morgan to adopt the following Park Donation
Policy: Value of land submitted by the developer will be
compared to the assessed market value assigned by the County
Assessor. If the numbers are comparable, 100% of the County
Assessor's value will be used to compute cash park donations.
Carried 5-0. (This assumes County value is 90 of Market Value.
Will use 100% of market value)
D. EMS Meeting (Ambulance Subsidy) - Whittaker notified the Council
of t e-change in the meeting date.
E. Ordinance 7939 Parking Code - Final Adoption
M/S/P Mottaz/Fraser to adopt Ordinance 7939, Parking Code.
Carried 5-0. Typographical errors will be corrected before
the final document is copied and published.
F. Parking on CSAH 17 - Whittaker referred the Council to his
Sept em er 17 Agenda memo, explaining the No Parking zone on
CSAH 17.
G. New Street Name - Guardian Angels Avenue.
The City received a request from James Fitzpatrick, Administrator
at Guardian Angels Church, requesting that the road in front
of the Church be identified as Guardian Angels Avenue.
M/S/P Mottaz/Morgan to approve
the name of the street in front of Guardian Angels Church
as Guardian Angels Avenue. Carried 5-0
H. Ramsey/Metro Watershed Planning Committee -
M/S/P Eder/Morgan to approve the appointment of'Laurence E. Whittaker
as the City's representative on the Ramsey/Metro Watershed
Planning Committee. Carried 5-0.
CITY COUIQCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1982
-13 -
11. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
I. Kaiser Minor Subdivision rescind
t at the City as ad no response
al - Whittaker reported
.'Kaiser.
M/S/P Morgan/Mottaz to rescind Council approval for a Minor
Subdivision and Private Road granted to Joe Kaiser.
Carried 5-0.
J. County Sand and Gravel Tax - Whittaker reported that other
com�mun ties have requested a portion of this tax. He .will
secure further information and report back to the Council.
If the City qualifies for a share of this tax, it would like
to receive it.
K. Concrete Piles - Hammes - The County is holding a bond
for Tom Au�h, Leon Joyce Construction, pending removal and
disposal of the concrete presently stored on the Hammes property.
The Council took issue with Mr. Auth's proposal as presented
in his letter of September 13.
M/S/P Mottaz/Eder to encourage the County to exercise its
authority under the Leon Joyce Bond and initiate removal
of the concrete piles being stored on the William Hammes
property. Carried 5-0.
L. Office Cleaning - Whittaker reported that the office cleaning
iserferring_with the. --work of the maintenance crew. Dave
Dder has indicated that he would like to do the cleaning as
a part-time job. His salary would be $3.10/hr. The Council
question the amount of time spent cleaning the Fire Hall; and
requested that Dave keep track of the time cleaning the
Fire Hall, City Office and Council Chambers. The Council
would like to keep his salary at about $65 per month.
M/S/P Mottaz/Morgan to hire Dave Eder to clean the City Office
facility and Fire Hall at $3.10/hr. carried 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT: Mottaz/Morgan to adjourn at 10:20 p.m.
RESOLUTt(5NS: 82-50 - 1983 Budget
82-51 - Keats Avenue Assessemnt Hearing
ORDINANCE 7939 - Parking
82916
82917
82918
82919
82920
82921
82922
82923
82924
82925
82926
82927
82928
82929
82930
82931
82932
82933
82934
82935
82936
82937
82938
82939
82940
82941
82942
82943
82944
82945
82946
82947
82948
82949
82950
82951
82952
82953
82954
82955
82956
82957
82958
82959
82960
82961
82962
82963
82964
82965
82966
82967
CLALTIS TO BE APPROVED AT SEPTEMBER 21, 1982 LAIC ELND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Cub Foods - Bakery & Coffee for election
Postmaster - Postage meter
Menards - Frames for maps $ 29.08
Posts-Tablyn Park 87,30
League of Minn. Cities - 2 boo s ocal
James McNamara - Bldg. Insp. mtg.
25.13
200.00
116.38
& Regional Planning 26,00
10.00
Donald Moe - Election Judge
$ 30.15
Katherine Kamb
30.15
Ann Bucheck
26.80
Shirley Renfroa
30.15
Madeline Tegtmeier
30.15
Audrey Olsen
30.15
Marilyn Schaefer
30.15
Lucille Wohlberg
30.15
Carole Chandler
30.15
Jane Opland
26.80
Bud Schneider
26.80
Lucille Sheridan
30.15
Mary Ann Klaas
30.15
Patricia O'Donnell
26.80
Wanda Springborn
30.15
Verle Thompson
26.80
Vicki Nielsen
30.15
Emily Brenengen
26.80
Phyllis Cram
26.80
Geri Eder
26.80
Rita Schoenecker
26,80
Doris Shogren
30.15
Virginia Schneider
26.80
Florence Swanson
30.15
Suzanne Friesen
18.43
Joyce Mehsikoner
18.43
Nancy Friedrich
18,43
Grace Henning
18.43
Phyllis Nereson
18.43
Delores Radman
18.43
Angelika Menard
18.43
Anita Miller
15.08
Bill Lundquist
15.08
Doris Tauer
15.08
Edwina Lohmann
15.08
Deana Nowezki
15.08
Margie Horning
15.08
Iris Cline
15,08
Marian Konobeck
15.08
Bruce Dunn
71.23
Betty Michels
73.15 - Total
Washington County - plat map up -date
ICMA - Fire Management Package
The Croixside Press - Building Permit
supplies
Junker Sanitation
W h'
as ington County Sheriff - 4th Quarter sheriff contract
Washington County - Assessors Office -2,031 parcels @ $3.60
1,084.13
746.50
17.25
322,95
42.00
15,621,50
7,311,60
CLAIMS TO BE APPROVED SEPTEMBER 21, 1982 (continued)
82968
Mary Meyer - 9/14/82 newsletter
$ 175.00
82969
Chapin Publishing - Water Tower repainting - legal notice
80.94
82970
Metro Waste Control Commission - monthly service chg.
118,03
82971
First National Bank of St. Paul - Equip.Cert. interest
4,950.00
82972
Woodcrafter Signs - Tablyn Park sign
462,00
82973
Ace Blacktop - Tablyn Park Parking Lot - final pmt.
703.65
82974
Husting & Engstrom, Inc, - Keats Ave. - lst pmt.
41,446.41
82975
Duane Grace - Corm -Co inspections
136.50
82976
Mid -Central Fire, Inc. - fire dept.-helmets & air pak
1,336.00
82977
Brookman Motor Sales - - .fire dept. truck repairs
664.45
82978
Kunz Oil Co. - fire dept.
22.20
82979
Charles Schwartz - Bayport Fire Dept. - face shields
40.00
82980
Lake Elmo Oil - Fire Dept. $,108.87
Maint. Dept. 56.17
165.04
82981
Motorola, Inc. - Police Radios —
1,078.00
82982
U. of M. - Dave Wisdorf communications/management skills course
75.00
82983
Vern's GTC - Maint. Dept, truck repair
16.07
82984
Lake Elmo Repair - 79 Ford Dunp repairs
258,88
82985
Bahls Motor & Implement - mint dept. parts
11,08
82986
Del's Sharpening Service - maint dept - parts
20.75
82987
T. A. Schifsky & Sons - MC mix
32,78
82988
G, A. Meyer Mercantile - mint dept - misc.supplies
56.98
82989 thru 83000 October 1st payroll 4,800.00
$ 82,173.20