HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-82 CCMCITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1982
Mayor Eder called the meeting'to order at 7:10 p,m.
Councillors present: Novak, Morgan, Mottaz and Fraser. Also present
Administrator Whittaker.
1. AGENDA: Additions
13. C. Assessment Clarification on Keats Avenue Project
and Lemire Sewer
16. J. Letter from Lake Elmo Hardwood -- Drainage Problems
K. Christmas Lights
L. Computer Training Contract - Doug Banyon
M. Immunization Clinic - Fire Hall
Delete: 11. Enright Rezoning - Deferred until November 16.
M/S/P Morgan/Novak to accept the Agenda as amended. Carried 5-0.
2, MINUTES - OCTOBER 19, 1982:
Corrections -
'Page 1 - Hasse Agreement -...moved from Woodbury to
Oakdale in through Lake Elmo.
°Page 4 - Keats�enue Assessment Hearing Motion -
...to approve a-15-dap an extension to November 15...
M/S/P Fraser/Mottaz to approve the minutes of October 19, 1982,
as corrected. Carried 4-0-1. Morgan abstained
3, CLAIMS: Additions - 83118 - 83163 - Election Judges $1,425.34
83175 - Personal Business Services $6,336.06
(Computer)
M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to approve Claims 83080 thru 83175. Carried 5-0.
4. LICENSES:
M/S/P Morgan/Novak to approve the following licenses:
Heating Installer - T. J. Heating, 450 S. Rovert, St. Paul
General Contractor- Tom Dvorak, 16024 6th St. N „ Lakeland
5. CANVAS CITY ELECTION RETURNS:
The Council reviewed the summary of the City Election Returns,
M/S/P Fraser/Morgan to certify the totals from election returns
Mayor: Maynard Eder
2169
Total
Write -Ins
22
Total
Defective
5
Total
Blank
285
Total
Council: Mike Mazzara
1464
Total
Bruce Dunn
1140
Total
Jess Mottaz
987
Total
Jim Wright
683
Total
Thomas M. Allickson,
Sr. 258 Total
Write -Ins 5 Total
Defective 2 Total
Blank 431 Total
and declare these totals the result of the General City Election
held November 2, 1982. Carried 5-0.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1982
-2-
16. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
A. 'Comp Plan Amendment delete CSAH 13 by-pass -
Whittaker reported on the Planningg (",miss recommendation
to delete the proposed CSAH 13 by-pass and include the extension
of 53rd Street N. from-FOXEIVe to Keats Avenue (PZC minutes of
Oct, 25, 1982).
M/,S/P Morgan/Fraser instructing the Administrator to draft a
resolution, for Council approval, amending the Comp Plan to
delete CSAH 13 by-pass and include the extension of 53rd St. N.
to Keats Avenue N. on the Highway Plan, Carried 5-0.
B, City Sign on Brookfield II Sign -
Ia discussing the identification sign for the City Office,
the Council decided that the letter should be plain block
style, _ smaller in size than the letters on the lawyers
and insurance sign, black in color, and read "Lake Elmo
City Offices". Also, the management will be requested not
to place campaign signs under or near the identification.sign.
The Admimistrator was authorized to order the City's identification
sign, per Council motion of October 5, 1982 approving a $145
sign expenditure, and designed as indicated above,
C. Enema Seminar -
Counci_lors nterested in attending the seminar should notify
the Administrator.
D. CDBG Seminar -
Counc'iliors interested in attending should notify the Administrator.
E. Cbncrete Picnic Table - Lions Park -
ittaker reported t at the Par Commission has located an
all concrete picnic table, at a cost of $400. $500 was budgeted
for this item.
M/S/P Morgan/Novak to approve the expenditure of $400 to purchase
a concrete picnic table. Carried 5-0.
6. PUBLIC HEARING - VACATION OF KEATS & KELVIN AVENUES IN REGIONAL PARK:
Mayor Eder opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
Audience Questions and Comments:
--Dorothy Lyons, 10072 loth Street - how far south will Keats be
vacated?
--Whittaker— just to the edge of the County property - about 1/4 to
1/2 mile from loth Street. May have to plow in on Keats for
Ron Smith if he has no access to his home off of loth Street.
--Novak - stipulate that the County take care of this or provide
a temporary turn around. Also, some provision'for'.Fire Department
access.
--Morgan,- County going to have to plow these roads for uses in
the park - City should not have to maintain any of it,
Mayor Eder closed the hearing at 7:38 p.m.
M/S/P Morgan/Novak to adopt R-82-57, vacating Keats Avenue N.,
Kelvin Avenue N. and the remaining non -vacated section of 15th St. N.
within the Regional Park with the provision that Washington County
maintain for winter driving and emergency access that portion of
Kelvin Ave. ,N.-and Keats Ave.-N. between Highway 5 and loth St. N.
Carried 5-0.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1982
-3 -
7. PUBLIC HEARING - DENNIS GORMAN, 3012 LAKE ELMO AVE. < SHORELAND
PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR GARAGE, FAMILY ROOM AND KTTCHEN ADDITION:
Mayor Eder opened the public hearing at 8:40 p .m.
There were no residents present for the hearing.
The Council reviewed the DNR''s letter -of response dated Nov, 1, 1982,
addressed to James McNamara, indicating no concern from a_,:
shoreland management standpoint. (A copy of said letter to be
attached to these minutes.) The Council also were in receipt of
the City Engineers Site Plan Review. The Administrator's indicated
this was -a reasonable request and that the addition does not require
additional sewer. (Adm. memo of October 29, 1982)
The Council verified square foot measurements of the existing
structure and the proposed addition with Mr. Gorman.
Mayor Eder closed the hearing at 8:45 p.m,
M/S/P Morgan/Novak to approve a Shoreland Permit and Variance
for Dennis Gorman, per the recommendations and comments of the
City Administrator, City Engineer, and Mn/DNR. Carried 5-0.
8, PUBLIC HEARING = PHILIP TAYLOR, 4671 OLSON LAKE TR. N. - SHORE -
LAND PERMIT AND VARIANCE:
Mayor Eder opened the hearing at. 7:45 p.m. Since the hearing
was scheduled for 8:00 p.m. Eder recessed the hearing until
the appointed time.
16. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
F. Hammes - The Building Inspector reported that no progress
Has'been made on the .housemoving, also, _-the site and -
building plan has not -been -received C this was requested:
when the plat was approved). As the construction season
will soon end, the work may have to be delayed until spring.
Whittaker reported that Hammes' have not notified the City
as to the status of the other buildings that were to be
placed on permanent foundations or the other house that is
to be removed from their property,
--Dorothy Lyons - waiting for the corn to be picked on the
property were the house will be located before excavation
can begin; also, was waiting for the final revision of the
plat - this has now been received..
G. 'Ron "Smith = Extension for finishing home at 9998 10th St, N. -
Mr, SmitH_has moved its house and is requesting an extension
to November 16, 1982, to complete the exterior work.
M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to approve a..time extension for Ron Smith
until November 16, 1982, to complete improvements to his home
at 9998 loth St. N. Carried 5-0.
H. 'Funding Relief Association Bonus - Fire Department -
In order to finance the oiius proposal, monies would have to
be taken out of the Fire Equipment Reserve, This is the
only surplus that is available to pay the bonus pensions that
will be eligible in 1983. Council was concerned that this
would set a prededent of City support for bonus.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1982
®'
16. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
H. Fire Department Bonus continued -
Firemen would like to finance this themselves and could ask
the two eligible retirees to defer payment of their pension
by taking their pension + bonus in three payments (over 3 years).
--Fraser - would like to see the bonus/pension plan outlined
on a chart.
--Eder - recommended that bonus' be deferred until January 1, 1984.
This would allow the firemen to pay the pensions eli4ible in
1983.and provide time to secure the additional funds for
the bonus plan.
Whittaker will present this proposal to the firemen and bring
the final draft of the by-laws to the November 16 meeting for
approval.
I. Reid Park Grant -
T e City received notice of grant approval for Reid Park. $13,000
was approved for trail and parking area development.
--Fraser - questioned why tH�e ballfield was not included as
this was the principal im rovement that the residents around
the park wanted.
--Whittaker - the money was appropriated from.the Trail Fund,
therefore, the ballfield could not be included. Council was
notified of this change before final. -grant application was made.
--Fraser,- does._not feel it appropriate to take money and make
improvements not wanted by the residents and not do what they
want done.
8. PUBLIC HEARING - PHILIP TAYLOR - SHORELAND PERMIT & VARIANCE:
Mayor Eder reopened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Taylor was present. No other residents were present
for the hearing.
The Council reviewed the DNR's letter of November 1, 1982,
indicating disapproval of structure encroachment into
required setbacks in shoreland.-areas without a demonstration
of hardship.
--Whittaker - provided the Council with a copy of the Code
provision (301.060C, b.) citing conditions for granting a
variance.
Mr. Taylor is proposing to construct a deck along the lake
side and the south _side of his existing home. A shoreland
permit and three variances are requested.
1. Variance from Shoreland Regulation to construct a deck
within 55 feet of highwater mark where 100 ft is required.
2. Variance from Zoning Ordinance to construct a wood box
within 5 feet of the side yard property line where 10 feet
is required.
3. Variance from Zoning Ordinance to construct a portion of
the deck within 8 feet of the side yard property line
where 10 feet is required.
The City Engineer reviewed the plan and determined that the
proposed deck is well above the high flood mark and is not
located near the existing drainfield, not, .will it interfer
with an alternate drainfield site. (Engineer's letter of
October 12, 1982 - Jim McNamara - Commission No. 7113-82).
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1982
-5-
$, PHILIP TAYLOR - PUBLIC HEARING - Continued;
( --Philip Taylor - in response to Eder"s question on setbacks of
adjacent homes deck on the house to the south is in front
of the proposed deck - not sure about house to the north as
there is a wooded strip in between. Did not feel the DNR
policy concerning encroachment of structures into setback areas
for aesthetics, water infiltration, and nutrient entrapment
was applicable to his proposal,.- deck would improve the
aesthetics and fit into what exists in the area. Bob Anderson,
neighbor to the south, indicated no opposition to the deck.
Mr. Taylor explained the design of the deck, stating there is
no other location for the structure because of the design of
the house.
---Fraser - referenced the Administrator's comments (memo-10/29/82)
does not appear that any thought was given to designing the
deck to conform with the code.
--Novak - could the deck be situated so that the two zoning
variances would not be needed?
--Taylor - could eliminate the wood storage box.
--Whittaker - clarified his comments - appears the structure could
be moved over 2' to comply with the code or redesign the shape
to conform with the setback.
--Taylor - the terrain, lot drops off sharply to the lake, hinders
building a deck that would meet all the code requirements. Also
don't want to get too close to the drainfield area. Proposal
is 1'-2' above ground level - moving it over would place it
over the steep drop off. Could modify so that the deck would be
10' from the south side yard property line and eliminate the
woodbox.,
--Morgan - no problem with the request if these two modifications
are made.
--Whittaker - asked the Engineer if this would interfer with an
alternate drainfield site
--Bohrer - no, because the drainfield would have to be 75' from
the shoreline - this cannot be varied.
--Whittaker - what is the hardship that justifies the 50% variance.
suggested Mr. Taylor come back with a plan showing the deck
10" from the side yard property line, eliminating the woodbox,
and showing the two adjacent properties.
--Morgan - referred to a similar action -on Downs Lake - no problem
with the setback from the lake.- many structures around the
lakes that are closer than 100 ft.
--Taylor - cannot comply with the lake setback as the house is
92' from the watex. Hardship is that there is no other place
to put the deck.
Mayor Eder closed the hearing`at.8:20 p.m.
--Morgan - cannot see building a deck within 100' of a lake as
being harmful to the environment or the lake. Should not be
allowed to encroach more than the required 10' and should remove
the proposed woodbox.
Mottaz - familar with the property - cannot foresee a deck
causing any problems -a living addition is a different question.
M/S/P Morgan/Mottaz approving a variance -from the Shoreland
Regulation to construct a deck about 55 feet of the high water
mark where 100 feet is required, provided said deck does not en-
croach within the 10' side yard setback and the woodbox, proposed
within 5 feet of the side yard line is eliminated.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1982 -6_
8. PHILIP TAYLOR PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED:
Motion continued:
This variance is based on the following provisions of the
Lake Elmo Code Sec. 301.060 C. b. (2) That literal interpretation
of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same
district under the terms of this Ordinance. (4) That granting the
variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other
lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. (6) The
variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of
this Ordinance, or to property in the same zone. (5) The variance
requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
Carried 5-0.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1982
-7-
9. PUBLIC HEARING - ELIZABETH ORCHARD/PATRICK SINCLAIR FOR MINOR
SUBDIVISION, SHORELAND PERMIT AND VARIANCES AT 8170 HILL TR. N.
/ IN LANES DEMONTREVILLE COUNTRY CLUB:
Mayor Eder opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m.
There were no residents present for the public hearing.
Patrick Sinclair distributed a revised site plan for the house
and Grainfield site. He indicated the City Engineer received
a copy that morning (Wednesday, November 3, 1962).
David Spencer, Attorney for Mrs. Orchard, presented the proposal.
--Spencer - gave the history of the property purchase and ownership:
1968 - Mr. & Mrs. Orchard purchased the Orchard homestead, a
1.2A parcel.
1969 - Orchard's divorced - Mr. Orchard retained title to the
homestead.
1972 - Mr. Orchard purchased the adjacent .83A parcel from Max
Burke as an investment.
1973 - Title to the Orchard homestead and the .83A parcel vested
to Mrs. Elizabeth Orchard.
Parcels were purchased at separate times. The .83A was not
occupied as part of the Orchard homestead, was purchased as an
investment, and has been taxed as a separate parcel.
--Eder - questioned how the tax statement on the parcels are treated.
--Mrs, Orchard - gets three statementsfor the Sinclair lot (.83A),
believes there is one statement for the homestead. but could be
more.
--Mottaz - explained how tax statement were handled in the past
for Lanes Demontreville. He also explained homestead credit for
the combined lots.
--Whittaker - outlined the request:
1. Simple lot subdivision to create a legal lot. The .83A
does not exist as a separate lot, but is part of several
split, platted and combined lots. The Ordinance treats the
Orchard homestead and the .83A as one 2A+ parcel even
though Mrs. Orchard may never have considered them as one.
2. Variance for lot size
,,if the 2A parcel is subdivided, as
subdivision will create two lots that will not meet the
required l 1/2A minimum lot size.
3. Variances for lot width and setbacks.
--Mottaz - this situation is not unique in Lanes Demontreville
because of the 20' x 100' platted lots. Everyone in Lanes
Demontreville owns several lots - some acquired through several
purchase agreements to create a building site. Do not feel
that owners can be allowed to treat these parcels as separate
lots and separate off a chunk and declare a building site just
because the parcels were purchased at different times.
--Eder - key is that the average lot size in the area is 1 acre.
--Mottaz - average in Lanes Demontreville is much less than 1 acre.
Also, shoreland property comes under different regulations than
it did in the past.
--Eder - should have a general median for larger parcels that
are surrounded by much smaller parcels. If divided in two
would have two parcels that are greater than most of the lots
in Lanes Demontreville.
--Novak - Code requirements are specific. This is presently
something that is acceptable, conforming to the Code - subdivision
would make it unacceptable.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1982 -8-
9. ORCHARD/SINCLAIR PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED:
--Eder - more than 1 A in an area -that is alreadydeveloped is
'unreasonable. 1 1/2 A is reasonable for new development.
Mottaz -if cut out the low 10% of this area and only considered
the never built on property would get 1/2 to 3/4A as a median
in Lanes Demontreville.
--Whittaker - average of the developed lots in Lanes Demontreville
is 28 , 600 sq. ft.
--Novak - the 60% rule provides for existing lots,in existing
developed -areas.
--Mottaz - Ordinance was not written to provide for splitting
existing lots into non -conforming lots and then apply the 60o Rule.
--Dave Spencer - distributed a list of surrounding property owners
and lot sizes prepared by Lake Elmo Land Surveyors. This lot
is isolated - there are homes east and west of this vacant lot.
--Mottaz - keep referring to this as a lot - it is just a part of
the total homestead made up of many lots.
--Spencer - emphasized that the Orchard homestead was purchased
separately and that the proposed lot is a separate contigious
parcel. It is not as though the lot did not exist in seperate
ownerhip before. It was purchased as an investment. If this
parcel (.83A) were owned by someone other than Mrs. Orchard,
a home could be built on it.
--Novak - this is not the first time the City has enforced the
Ordinance in order to make a resident comply with the lot size
requirement. A property owner in Tablyn Park was required to
purchase additional land in order to meet the 1A minimum.
--Eder - does not disagree with the 1A minimum, but disagrees
with imposing the 1 1/2 A minimum when 990 of the lots in
Lake Elmo are presently non -conforming under the present minimum.
--Mottaz - these lots are not non -conforming if they existed
before the present Ordinance went into effect. Talking about
making two non -conforming lots. If the City agrees that l 1/2A
is too large than it is incumbent on the Council to change the
regulation, but should not be changing the Ordinance by
allowing this kind of division whenever it is requested. Change
the whole thing - let everyone have lA or 3/4A. If you have
something on the books live with it or change it.
--Eder - there ought to be logic for this type of request by
establishing a norm for established areas.
--Mottaz - if there is any area in the City that might require
some type of sewage disposal it will probably be the Lanes
Demontreville area. Have been forced in two other situations
to allow the situation on the "island" to become more complicated have no desire to continue to do this.
Mayor Eder closed the public hearing at 9:50 p.m.
--Whittaker - another question,in addition to basic .lot size,is
whether or not each of these lots, if subdivided, would have
the required two drainfield sites, As this is the key factor
in lot size, it is a principal concern.
- MQrgan - agrees, should -not subdivide and creates two non -conforming
lots. But, also agrees that have to look at the average lot
size in the neighborhood.. Even if the subdivision is granted,
still have to face all the variances for the building site.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1982
men
9. ORCHARD/SINCLAIR PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED:
--Novak - asked if the hearing was just to consider the subdivision.
--Whittaker - yes, but they have also requested variances and
a Shoreland Permit. City has not had the 10 days required to
review the revised plan - no response is available from the
Engineer or the DNR on the new plan.
--Pat Sinclair - the City has had more than 10 days on a.11
aspects of the application. Brought the items to the Building
Inspectors office October 3.
--Whittaker - information was not sufficient. Administrator
wrote a letter October 5 indicating what additional information
was requred. The additional information is on the revised
plan presented to the Council November. 3. Cannot consider a
Shoreland Permit without a detailed site plan of the sewer
system showing the two drai.nfields. This plan has to go to
the DN.R 10 days before it is considered by the City Council.
Previous plan just indicated a drainfield area.
--Pat Sinclair - no.comment-was made --on the previous plan that
was submitted. After the plan was submitted -to the Planning
Commission, -:no comment -was made other than it was brought up
at the Planning Commission meetingq Then
submitted another detailed plan and yesterday (November 2)
found out that that plan did not meet specs.
--Whittaker - the plan the Planning Commission asked for, which
was also asked for October 5, was submitted to the City Oct. 27.
This went to the Engineer Oct. 27 and was reviewed by the
Engineer. This pl.ar.is now changed and would have to give the
DNR 10 days to review the final -detailed site plan with a list
of all the known variances. In answer to Novaks question -
are considering the subdivision, but the applicants are asking
that the Shoreland Permit and variances be considered.
--Novak,- asked what the frontage is at the street.
--Sinclair - asking for 5' variance at the street. The Orchard
lot would still have 200' of frontage. Also need a variance
from the Ordinary High Water :setback,,for=a deck.
--Fraser - should resolve the subdivision before considering the
variances and. Shoreland Permit.
--Whittaker - if the Council agreed that a one acre lot would be
satisfactory, could the: property be subdivided so that each lot
would contain 1 acre.
--Dave Spencer - would be interferring with existing improvements
on the Orchard homestead - this is not the way this property was
developed,
--Whittaker - would -using existing plat lines,as houndary lines-interfe
with Orchard's use of the property?
--Dave Spencer - the historic dividing line between the homestead
and the proposed lot is the easterly line as proposed. Not too
far from the existing home. Line would be too close to the
Orchard home by equalizing the property.-
--Whittaker - why not go on existing plat lines,.not tax Parcel
lines, thereby 'creatinq':2-1A_lotsand meeting the frontage requirement
on a public street.
( --Dave Spencer - have a fence with a driveway, would start to
interfer with existing improvements. By trying to create two
IA lots, may create a lot line within 5-10,.ft, of -.the house.
Not willing to amend the application to do this.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1982 -10-
9. ORCHARD/SINCLAIR PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED:
RECESS: 9:05-9:15
MIS/ Eder/Morgan to grant Elizabeth Orchard a Simple Lot Division
with a variance from the 1 1/2A minimum requirement, provided that
each lot contain 1 acre of land and two drainfield sites.
Discussion:
--Fraser - feels this action would create the same situation
the City was in when it was forced to approve a building site
on a questionable lot and compel approval of additional
variations for the newly created lot. Would not favor the
motion. Also, this action would set a precedent for others
to come and expect the same consideration as well as those
who have been required to comply,,- would. -,be allowing someone
to do something that we have not allowed others to do.
--Eder - with 5 or 10 acres can come up with different variations with 2 acres there is the question of reasonabiness.: between
the requirements relating to the available right of the property
owner to develop and still meet the capability in an isolated
situation.
--Fraser - statement is correct judgement is made at
what point do you stick to the norm, in this instance 1.5A,
and at what point do you allow some leeway. Always wind up
with some people being in the fringe and suffering as a result.
Would make the call here at sticking to the 1.5A.
--Mottaz - agreed with Fraser. Can predict that the Council will
be faced with a similar situation on property in Lanes Demontreville
Country Club where an individual has a little more property
than he feels he needs and is going to ask to subdivide. Where
do you draw the line - at some point have to say the Ordinance
is good and we are going to stick by it; or, going to say the
Ordinance is not good and will consider changing it. If grant
this, going to have a difficult time in saying to the next person,
even though he has a little less property, that he cannot divide
his. Opposes the motion.
--Morgan - reason for seconding the motion is that if divided into
two lA parcels would meet both the requirements of more than
100% of the average of the area and 60% of the minimum lot size
for the area.
--Novak - agreed with Mottaz and Fraser. The intent and specifics
of the Ordinance are clear - does not provide for: -variance to
split a lot into two non -conforming lots that are owned by the
same person.
Motion failed 2-3. Fraser, Mottaz and Novak opposed.
--Dave Spencer - asked for a full determination on the whole
application.
--Fraser - do not have the information to go further.
--Ray Marshall - the Council action is the final determination.
This action is preliminary to the other requests.
--Eder - on the advice of the City Attorney, Ray Marshall, nothing
further will take place.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1982
-11-
10. EDGO'RMAN
A. Scor'eb'oard Lions Park - Mr. Gorman reported on the
decision o several local business' to contribute a
scoreboard for Lion's Park. This has been presented to
the Park Commission who endorsed and recommended acceptance(
of the contribution. Participating business' will take
care of the construction and maintenance of the unit.
M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to accept the scoreboard, as presented by
Ed Gorman, for use in Lion's Park. Carried 5-0.
B. Revised Site and Building Plan for White Hat Restaurant -
Mr. Gorman presneted a revised plan for the expansion of
his restaurant. The revision is for a smaller addition
off the south end of the building and a vestibule on the
north side. The addition meets the setback requirements.
The parking area will be increased to provide for an
additional 60 cars. The holding pond will be located more
to the south with the parking area graded to drain to the
pond. This plan still permits future expansion, as previously,
proposed, on the west side of the building.
M/S/P Mottaz/Novak to approve the revised site plans for expansion
of the White Hat Restaurant for Ed Gorman subject to review and
approval of the Planning Commission and City Engineer. The
drainage plan will be sent to the City Engineer for review.
Motion carried 5-0.
11. ENRIGHT REZONING: Postponed until November 16.
12. EMERSON REZONING:
Whittaker reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation(s).
He informed the Council that after reviewing the Planning Commission
rboommendation-to grant a variance. -to permit Mr. Emerson to move
a building onto his property with the City Attorney it was determined
such action would not meet the legal requirements of a variance -
existing law and City Ordinance would not permit a variance for
this in Rural Residential. Three options were cited:
1. Rezone the property,as requested,to Industrial to acknowledge
present use and permit the building.
2. Not rezone the property - clarify it as a non -conforming use
and identify the extent of the use.
3. Amend the Ordinance to permit larger accessory buildings in RR.
--Novak - has this business expanded in the last 5 years?
--Bruce Folz - a material/storage shed was put up 10 years ago.
identified the size and use of the present buildings.
proposing to move in 401x 100' building
outlined Emerson's property and identified all
surrounding property.
Mr. Folz stated the reason this property was not zoned for
present use when the Comp Plan and Zoning Ordinance were developed
was because it was assumed that 3M would purchase this property
for recreational use. Comp Plan notes this property as General
Rural. Use - has never been used for this purpose - has been
E & H Earthmovers for 20 years. Understood that the Comp Plan
was to show or recognize present land use and zone for same.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1982
-12-
12. EMERSON REZONING: Continued
--Whittaker there was a conscious decision to leave this
property as a legal non -conforming use because the area
was not considered appropriate for industry - no sewer
no water - not near any other industry.
--Folz - only one zone in the Ordinance where this operation fits.
in fairness to Mr. Emerson - he is there and operating just the
same as someone who has a house. Now wants to improve the
operation by putting some equipment inside and he cannot do it
without going through rezoning. He has operated this business
for 20 years, wishes to continue operation and would like to
get at least the property that E & H is on to within the new
present Ordinance and make it conform. He's only one affected
as he owns all the surrounding property.
--Whittaker - critical question,going back on thislis that at the
time he started this operation he was probably required to have
commercial zoning or industrial zoning and he never sought it
and never got it - it has always been a non -conforming use.
--Fraser - asked for reasons not to rezone.
--Whittaker - should not rezone because:
1. Comp Plan calls for General Rural Use at this location
2. The highways are not developed to serve an Industrial
area at this time
3. This area is no better suited for industrial than the area
along Highway 36. It is just as far from the fire station,
just as far away from the population center and other
commercial centers as is 36. Would have a hard time
defending the Comp Plan in other General Rural Use areas
if industrial were permitted in this General Rural Use area.
Only difference is that this exists today.
--.Mottaz - this is really spot zoning. The 9.5 A doesn't make
a decent industrial property and there is no way it can grow�
no way to get 160A industrial park - going to be stuck with a
small 9A piece of industrial surrounded by park, school and RR.
--Fraser - essentially doing nothing approach, the legal non-
conforming use - stating the limit of the present non -conforming
use appears the way to go.
--Whittaker - has a significant number of buildings that have
changed the character of the property. Has an investment in it
and therefore it will probably remain in a similar use. Would
be hard to tell someone else that they cannot operate at least
to the extent Emerson is operating.
--Mottaz - semi -permanent type of structures - nothing that will
make this use infinite. Thinks this is the wrong
place for Industrial property.
--Novak - agrees -this is the wrong place for an industrial park -
putting a clump in the middle of nowhere - not following
any type'of planning .or.order Very enviromentally un-
sound area to put industrial zoning in. Emerson uses it to
store machinery - if sold it could be used for any type of
industrial use. Would never want to see active industry next
to Horseshoe Lake.
--Mottaz - also have to consider West Lakeland and try to make
our land usage compatible with theirs. Do not have an industrial
park if West Lakeland has Single Family Residential across the
road.
--Eder - question of spot zoning is mute since just rezoned a small
parcel up on Highway 12 for a glider business. Spot zoning is
taking small pieces - 9 acres isn't spot zoning.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1982
-13-
12. EMERSON REZONING - CONTINUED:
--Mottaz - rezoning on Hwy l2fit into what is planned for that area -
did not create an industrial park. Industrial property is
150-200A.
--Folz - only choice is to ask for industrial zoning - this is
the only district this use is permitted in.
--Mottaz - -' industrial zoning, which is at the opposite extreme
of different zones, is phased into. Do not go from Single
Family Residential to Industrial - no buffer from RR to I.
--Eder - would like to find some other use other than industrial
that might be compatible with the intersections and somehow
fit something in the wording that would fit this use - that is
not totally industrial.
--Folz - Comp Plan should be looked at. Cannot believe would want
a residential or general rural use at the intersection of 10th
St. and County 15. Only two major interchanges into Lake Elmo
off I-94 one being 1 mile south of this location on Co. 15.
--Novak - purposeely did not provide for industrial/commercial at
every highway ,�ritersection - just because there is an intersection
does not mean it should be this type of use.
--Folz - this is not the case where a man has existed - it is correct
for open land. This is a business and an entity that was there
when the plan was done. Should have been addressed.
--Whittaker - this was addressed - after it was addressed it was
decided that this was not an appropriate place for industrial.
--Folz - then some provision should be made for him to exist and
operate his business.
--Whittaker - canexist at his present level under the Ordinance.
He is a. -legal non -conforming use at the present level-- nothing
to keep him from operating as he has for the past 20 years.
--Novak - has buildings there that he could use for storage in
his business that hre being used for other things not business
related.
--Folz - needs more storage to get equipment inside for repair.i.
work. Needs something close in size to the building proposed -
needs extra thic.k concrete floor - large doors - present
buildings are not adequate.
--Whittaker - the type of building that is proposed to be needed
would make this a more permanent use in an area where the City
does not want it to become more permanent - this is giving the
capability to do more and making it more difficult to get this
use in line with the Comp Plan.
M/S/ Mottaz/Fraser to deny the rezoning request of Paul Emerson
for the following reasons:
.I.-- the proposed zoning is in conflict with the Comp Plan
2. E & H Earthmovers is presently a legal non -conforming
use and can continue to operate as it has for the last
20 years.
3. an industrial zohe next to Horseshoe Lake is enviromnentally
unsound.
4. the proposed zoning is incompatible with zoning across
County 15 in West Lakeland and in the City of Lake Elmo.
5. Industrial zoning of the 9 acrescreates spot zoning as
there is no additional property for adequate expansion of
an industrial zone.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1982 -14-
12. EMERSON REZONING - Continued:
Motion cantinued:
6. Highways and other public se-rvices are not developed to
serve an 'industrial area at this time,
Discussion:
--Eder - does not agree with the industrial zoning, but,
more should have been done to determine an alternate way
to handle this situation.
Motion carried 4-1. Eder opposed
--Novak - if the Council feels the Ordinance does not provide
an adequate amount of leniency to present non -conforming uses,
recommended that a Council committee be developed to review
alternatives.
13. ENGINEER"S REPORT:
A. Acceptance '& Final Payment, Watermain Crossina -
The Engineer reported tEat all work is in connection with the
watermain crossing of the CNW Railroad has been completed.
The Watermain has been in service since October 15, 1982.
The Engineer recommended acceptance of the improvement and
frinal:,payment to Boring, Inc, in the amount of $9,820.00.
M/S/P Morgan/Novak to accept the Engineer's recommendation and
accept the Watermain Crossing Improvement and authorize final
payment for said work to Boring, Inc, in the amount of $9,820.
Carried 5-0.
B. Up -date on Keats Avenue Project_ -
The Engineer up -dated the Council on the problems with the base course
and the dispute between the contractor and subcontractor regarding
responsibility. The dispute has been resolved but it is questionable
whether the final wearing course can be completed in 1982. The Engineer
stated the following work would be completed this fall to allow maintenance
of the road during the winter with minimum inconvenience to the residents
1. Repair of the bituminous base course.
2. Leveling of the gravel shoulders.
3. Leveling and filling with gravel of all driveways.
4. Placement of hay bales around all culvert inlets to prevent
sediment from leaving the site.
5. Replacement of all mailboxes back onto Keats
Normal use of the road can continue including school
M/S/P Mottaz/Morgan to table action on the time extension until the Nover
16 meeting in order to see if additional progress can-be_made. Carriedeuu��bo.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOV'N4B.ER 39 1982
-15-
13. ENGINEER'S REPORT:
C. Keats Avenue and Lemire Assessment Clarification -
Whittaker explained his recommendation and the notice sent to property
owners on the assessments, as outlined in his memo of October 14.
Lemire was notified that his assessment would have to be paid in 1983,
IIe has had a year, since the improvement went in, to find financing; and
it is not unreasonable that he be assessed in 1983- By providing him
the 10 ,year payment schedule, he will only be billed for V10 of the
improvement costs but, will pay considerable interest at 10%.
--Eder - recommended impressing the interest savings on Mr. Lemire and
reaffirm the understanding that he would pay his total assessment in
1983. He still would have the 10 year option.
111., DEMONTREVILLE ACCESS:
Whittaker reported that the City is still waiting for final action from
the DNI3 on the acquisition of the lake access property, The City received
a letter from "Residents Around Lake Demontreville" requesting that the
City's public access be closed. Greg Foul%, 7864Demontroville Tr. N.
read the letter and requested that the City close the access as they
if no response was received from the DNR regarding
their access. Requested the access be closed this fall.
--Dave Garloyd'9'7856 Demontreville.- concurs with-tho letter.- Sees slow
movement on the part of the DNR - only present solution is to close the
present access and force these other agencies to work on providing an
access to Demontreville - this would be a solution that would have some
clout.
--Handy Zauner, 7M8 Demontreville - present access is a safety hazard and
nuisance - would like to see something done now.
—G-re4 F.oenks7864 Demontreville - more concerned with the safety - what
do we need to wait for. Very hazardous situation -because of the oars
and boats coming into residents ,yards and onto private property.
--Dave Garloff, 7856 Demontreville - still having problems down at the City.
access - related instances.
--Jan Fouks - Residents were assured something would be done come fall
if nothing concrete was done by the DNR.
-Whittaker - last word from the DNR was that they were in the process of
litigating the covenants . _Believes the language used by the Council
was that the City would consider closing the access.'
--Me rg an- reaching the point of closing the access if the DNR is not going
to act,
--Greg F'ouks - related conversation with the DNR - can wait for the DNR to
act for the next 10 years, Mere tonight to say let's close theCity access
which cannot be handled or controlled,
--Eder - would favor placing some dirt at the access; not sure how much time
can be placed in resources to make sure that the problem totally goes away.
--Fouks - increased parking fee has helped and will help the problem. No
doubt that if the access is closed that people will try and use other areas
around the lake for access; but it would be no worse a problem than it is
now and no worse if we. still enforce the $25 fees. Can do if have a
consorted effort to stop it.
--Eder- is it still your understanding that you are sati.sified with the
proposal for the access as has been previously defined,
--Forks - people in the whole area are agreeable to the proposal that was
presented at a joint meeting with the residents, DNR and the City that
provided for an access on one lot with 14 parking spaces,
They are not enthused about having a .road changed or buying
2-3 lots that 'can' be built up in the future.
This is not what the people want - agrees with. this.
--Eder - objective was to get the access, parking and launch further away
from residential and eliminate the need of crossing the road to launch
a boat anO,/off'- get to a. P�rk'ing 8xeav
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER. 31 1982
—16-
14. DI-MONTREVILLE ACCESS — CONTINUL'Da
--Mottaz —if Ym barricad.e it will move the access onto private property.
--Brian Crombie, 8120 Demontreville — lousy proposal — would be moving
the access onto his property. If barricatdea there is only one place
people are going to drive on that lake — that is across our supposedly
vacant land.
--Dave Garloff—that'sa problem; but we don!t want it where it is. It is
not appropriate where it is.
--Crombie — it is appropriate where it is because it is City owned. property.
It is where it belongs, on City property; and you're talking about putting
it on private property.
--Eder — not unsympathetic to the problem; but, people have been coming out
there for 50 years — now somehow have to find a way to stop it.
--Moxgran — suggestion for closing is -to try to get to DM
to act quicker.Would this be effective?
--Whittaker — DNR does not seem to yield to any kind of pressure. Might call
their bluff.
--Mottaz — tried in 1965 to get DNR to put an access on this lake. There
was no access there at the time and this fact didn.�t burry them at all.
--Fou,ks. — DNR indicated that Lake Demontreville is one of the lakes
mandated to have public access.
MIS/ Novak/Morgan to close the access on Lake Demontreville
Discussion -
--Novak — this is a very unsafe situation and the City of Lake Elmo should
not be sponsoring such a thing, especially since we do not do anything
except have it there. Sympathetic to private property owners — but these
residents will have to tell those in violation that they cannot cross their
land. Time to take some action and place it in the hands of the DNR.
--Praser — given the circumstances can see the need and desire to close; but
the problems brought up about the use of private property for access may
create a worse problem. Before acting on this would like to see a plan
for controlling what happens when the access is closed — how will the City
go about closing the access — when — with what publicity — what type of
signing and police coverage, etc. Would not want to vote to the closing
until this would be worked out.
--Novak — agrees this should be done but the closing should not be based
on the how and whens.
--Mottaz — recommended amending the motion to include sending a letter to
the County Commissioner and have the County determine.what their legal
limits on Demontreville Trail are and that they take the responsibility
of access or no access and of people infringing on private property. In
closing would not be relieving any problems — would be compounding problems.
--.Novak — agreed to the amendment.
--Fraser — would like to see a carefully worked out plan — when we close it
what do we expect will happen with the people who ordinarily use it —
where do we expect them to go — what controls voilMd bo_necessary — what
type and where would this action be announced — what type of public hearings
would be required.
--Novak withdrew her motion — Morgan withdrew second.
M/S/P Novak/Mottaz to set up a Council committee to discuss and determine
plan of 'action for Council consideration on closing the Demontreville access.
The Committee should include a Washington County and DNR representative.
Motion carried 5-0. Morgan and Novak offered to serve on the committee.
CITY COUNCIL MCSTING, NOVEMBER 39 1982
-17-
15, `.FREE CUTTING IN CITY PARKS;
j Morgan reported that someone has been cutting trees in Kleis Park, in Foxf.ire.
City policy does not permit any wood cutting in any City park. An item
will be placed in the Newsletter regarding City policy on the cutting of
trees and taking of wood in City parks.
16, ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
J. Drainage — Lake Limo Hardwood —
Whittaker explained the letter from Joe Rogers concerning drainage
problems onto his property. He explained that the City has no
easement or rights to the drainage ditch that flows from - LE[IL
and has no legal right to keep it open.. The only solution is for
Lake Elmo Hardwood Lumber to petition the City for a project; to relieve
the problem. The Council advised the Administrator to write a letter
to this effect to Mr. Rogers and/or have the City Attorney write a
similar letter of support.
15. COUNCIL REPORTS:
A. Mayor Eder — recommended that the City write the County requesting
permission to dam Eagle Point Lake in preparation for the spring run—
off. The Council so instructed the Administrator.
B. Councillor Pr. asar —
]. Housing Conference — advised the Council that she has a copy
of the conference summary available for Councillor use.
(2) Christm as Party — As the Fire Department will be attending the
annual. Christmas Party, 2 doxen additional cups will be needed.
M/S/P Fraser/Eder to purchase six dozen remembeianagomugs for a, total
cost of $140.84. Carried 4-0. Morgan was absent.
The Christmas party will be held December 17 at 4 P.M. in the Council
Chambers.
(3) Insurance Bids —
Fraser suggested that the City establish all insurance needs now,
so that; interested bidders have adequate time to prepare their bids.
M/S/P Mottaz/Morgan to authorize the .Administrator to draft insurance
bids and prepare spec. Carried 5-0.
M/S/P Mottaz/Novak to extend the meeting to 10:55 p.m. Carried 5-0.
K. Chri.stuian Lights —
The Business Association has indicated an interest in putting up the
Christmas Lights. They agreed that the executive committee could spend
up to $150 for the lights. LPD Electric have indicated their cost for
putting the lights up would be $2259 including 1 man free
but would do it for $150 if the Assoeiatibn could -mot raise the additional
875. Power'will cost an additional $175. Merchants along Lake Elmo Ave.
will be asked to contribute the cost of the power. If this is
agreeable, the Council can authorize putting the lights up. Council
authorization is necessary because the lights belong to the City.
M/S/P Mottaz/Novak to authorize the Business Association to take whatever
action they deem necessary to put up the Christmas lights; provided they
assume responsibility for all costs. Carried 5-0.
CITY COUNCIL MG+T ING9 NOWWBM 39 1982
-18-
L. Computer Training Contract -
M/S P Mol;taz Novak authorizing $300 to provide the necessary training
to put the Fund Accounting Package and Utility Billing on the City's
computer. Carried 5-0.
M. Immunization Clinic -
DVS0Novak Mottaz to approve the use of the Fire Hall for the Immunization
Clinic. Carried 5-0.
AW OURNMENT:
M/S/P Morgan/Mottaz to adjourn at 11:00 p.m. Carried 5-p.
R-82•-57
RESOLUTION
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA'
A RESOLUTION VACATION PORTION OF 15TIl STREET NORTH,
KELVIN AVENUE NORTH AND KEATS AVENUE NORTH IN THE
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WHEREAS, the County of Washington has submitted to the
City of Lake Elmo a Petition praying for the vacation of
portions of certain public streets in said City legally
described as follows, to -wit:
That: part of 15th Street North, commencing at the East:
Quarter Corner of Section 2.7, Township 29 North, Range
21 West; thence North 88 degrees 26 minutes 24 seconds
West (Bearing based on the Washington County Coordinate
System) for 33 feet to the Westerly right-of-way line
of Kelvin Avenue North and the point of beginning of that
part of 15th Street North to be vacated, said point of
beginning also being a point in the center line of'15th
Street North; thence continuing North 88 degrees 26 min-
utes 24 seconds West along the traveled center line of
said 15th Street North 648.76 feet; thence southwesterly
ti along a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, radius
350.00 feet, central angle 37 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds
a distance of 228.06 feet; thence South 54 degrees 13
minutes 36 seconds West 115.75 feet; thence westerly
along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest,
radius 450.00 feet, central angle 46 degrees 00 minutes
00 seconds a distance of 361.28 feet and said vacation
there terminating,
Wb
That part of Kelvin Avenue North in Government Lots 5
and 6 of Section 27, the Northwest Quarter of Section 26,
the West Half of Section 23, and the Southwest- Quarter of
Section 14 lying southerly of the southerly line of
Minnesota Highway 5 (also known as Stillwater Boulevard
North), all, in Township 29 North, Range 21 West, City of
Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota,
AND
That part of Keats Avenue North in Government 'Lot 4 of
Section 27, and the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest
U
Quarter of Section 26, all in Township 29 North, Range
✓ 21 West, City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota,
dying northerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the quarter section corner common
to said Sections 26 and 27; 'thenc6 on a grid
bearing of South 00 degrees 43 minutes 04 seconds
East, along the section line common to said Sections
26 and 27, a distance of 657.18 feet; thence South 89
degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds West to the west right
of way of said Keats Avenue North and the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence North
89 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds East to the east
right of way line of said Keats Avenue North and
said described line there terminating.
WHEREAS, said Petition came on for hearing before said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on Tuesday,
November 3, 1982, pursuant to Notice thereof published and
posted as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this Petition with
concern for the interest of the public; and
WHEREAS, the streets proposed for vacation are no longer
needed as a, public streets; and are needed for use as a part of
the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve; and
WHEREAS, for the foregoing reasons, it appears to be in
the public interest to vacate the streets as described above;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the above -described streets
be, and the same are, vacated..
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk shall prepare a
Notice of Completion.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County of Washington agrees
to maintain and keep open that portion of Keats Avenue North,
lying between Minnesota State Highway 5 and loth Street in the
City of Lake Elmo until the County of Washington shall provide
alternate access to the park and. turn -around to the City of
Lake Elmo. In addition, the County of Washington agrees to
I
dentify the park boundary and the road being vacated with the
-2-
proper signs for that purpose.
/ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake this
3rd day of November., 1982.
Maynar L. Eder, Mayor.
ATTEST:
Laurence E. Whittaker,
City Administrator
-3-
CLAI^[S TO BE APPROVED AT NOVEMBER. 3, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
83080
Postmaster - postage meter $
200.00
83081
David Eder -- 10/14 thru 10/29 Fire Hall & Office cleaning.,
32.55
83082
Dave Wisdorf - mileage to workshon and parking, 2 days
9.40
83083
State Bank of. Lake Elmo - Fed, withholding for Oct.
2,472.40
83084
St.Treas.-Soc.Sec.Contr.Fd.. - Oct, Soc.Sec.
2,413.86
83085
Commissioner of: Revenue - Oct. State wh.
1,189.00
83086
Laurence Whittaker - November expense
50.00
83087
Washington National Insurance Co.
729.56
83088
Allied Croup Insurance Trust
88.32
83089
Minn. Benefit Ass'n
26.40
83090
Mary Mever - 10/26/82 newsletter.
175.00
83091
James McNamara - October mileage
186.75
83092
Kathleen Crombie - 10/11 & 10/25 P7C mtgs.
50.00
83093
St. Paul Book & Stationery
18.86
83094
Geo. Siegfried Const. Co. - map rail, labor & materials
220.00
83095
Lake Elmo Associates Ltd. r November rent
1,689.00
83096
Four Seasons Services - coffee & cups
13.50
83097
Pitnev Bowes- postage meter ribbons
18.21
83098
Oakwood Animal Hospital
212.00
83099
Gerald Dahlberg - animal control officer for Oct.
262.00
83100
T K D A - General $ 625.34
MSA 4,408.64
Water 267.68
Pass Thru 371.11
5,672.77
83101
Eckberp, Lammers - Legal - MSA project
60.00
83102
Christopher Columbus Court reporters - Legal prosecutions
48.57
83103
Lawson,Raleigh,Marshall - Ceneral $ 804.00
Prosecutions 1,050.00
Pass Thru 120.00
1,974.00
83104
Northwestern Bell
298.39
83.105
Northern States Power
911.27
83106
First Bank of St. Paul - Park Bond
34.15
83107
Volunteer Fire Dept. - Firemen's state aid relief
8,775.01
83108
Modern Bin Equip. - fire dept. storage cabinet
306.70
83109
Bruce Kuettner - Fire chiefs convention
151.39
83110
Canitol Electronics - fire dept. radio repair
83.75
83111
Ilene Johnson - Park Commission 10/18 minutes
44,65
83112.
Kuehl Electric - tennis court lites at Lions
290.38
83113
Vern's GTC Auto Parts - maint dept. equinment repairs
13.51
83114
McMullen Company - skid shoe assembly
429.30
83115
Jim. Hatch Sales Co. - maint.dept.-batteries & back un alarm
111,18
83116
Water Products Co. - meters - water. department
345.79
83117
Watertower Paint & Repair - relief valve - water dent.
91.88
83118 thru 83128 November 12, 1982 payroll 4,500.00
$ 34,199.50