HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-13-82 CCMCITY COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 13, 1982
Mayor Eder convened the meeting at 5:08 p.m.
Councillors Present: Novak, Fraser, Mottaz (5:35) Morgan was absenL.
Also present, Administrator Whittaker, Councillors Elect Dunn and
Mazzara and Engineer Bohrer
AGENDA: Delete - 41),
Add: 4A, Non -intoxicating Off Sale License - Brooks Superette
4G. Shelter Workers
M/S/P Fraser/Novak to approve the December 13, 1982 Agenda, as
amended. Carried 3-0.
Tile Council deferred items 1„ 2„ and 3. until Mottaz was present,
COMPLETE OLD BUSINESS:
A. Temporary Beer License - Green Acres
M/S/P Fraser/Novak to approve a temporary non -intoxicating malt
liquor license to Green Acres for. Ruben Meats for party to be held
December 17, 1982, Carried 3-0,
M/S/P Fraser/Novak to approve an axinual Off -Sale Non -intoxicating
Malt Liquor License for Brooks Superette, Store #32, 11025 N.
10th Street, Lake Elmo. Carried 3-0.
B. Claims -
^./S/P Fraeer/Eder to approve Claims 83310 thru 83330. Carried 3-0.
C. Road Rehabilitation Program - Engineer Bohrer reported on
repaving costs-i.00rstrect rehabilitation similar to what will be
needed for streets n Tarn Paribllk, Bordner/Gardner Farmettes and
Kendridge Addition, Costs to property owners could, vary between
$324 and $2,000 per lot or $3,60 per front foot on each side of
a street. He rioted that there is a large lot size difference
between Tablyn Park and Bordner/Gardner subdivisions, The
enginecring cost to prepare the feasibility study and documents
prefacing the Feasibility Hearing would not exceed $900. Bohrer
reported that the Maintenance Foreman requested that Jamaca Court,
off of Highway 5, be included in the rehabilitation area. He estimated
the'totalecost,'of-tM project at_$95,000.
--Whittaker.- have to decide. -how this -project will'_be finaneed:.a:}u/or
assessed- = who_benefit,s_.- who should pay.. This cannot be_financed
out of .the General:, P.=44e ,:L -glo:in .to have'to _assess,
---.Eder::- recommeded developing an over-all seal coating program
that.evaluates-seai.coating needs, patching needs, crack sealing
and, pothbhe=filling needs,
--Bohrer - a list of streets that were seal coated over the past
7 years is available.
--Fraser - should prepare the feasibility study, then present
the findings to the affected property owners with the fact the
project will have to be assessed and what problems will occur
if the work is not done,
M/S/P Fraser/Eder to adopt R-82-84, a Resolution authorizing the
(- Engineer to prepare a Feasibility Study on Street Rehabilitation
in Kendridge Addition, Bordner Garner Farmettes, Tablyn Par], and
Jamaca Ct, N. at a cost not to exceed $900. Carried 3-0,
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 13, 1982 -2-
4. COMPLETE OLD BUSINESS:
E. Authorize '$'50'O PreliminaryFund for Energy Park Planning
Eder reported that he and the Administrator authorized $300
for the Engineer to prepare a basic information plan including
a preliminary map, sewer connections, water system, etc.
as -a foundation for planning for the energy plant in Sec. 32.
$6,000 was budgeted for plant planning in the'1983 Budget.
Eder received a verbal commitment of $300 from Dave Johnson,
Section 32 Property Owners Representative, for this work.
He ou.fiis„meeting with the Section 32 property owners, and
how they:think the p3ant'w 11v.a,ffeetLdevelopmenp;::in this section.
--Whittaker - hard to know how much to commit - have no
petition from the land owners, yet do not want to be ur.--
informed when the ball starts rolling. Before committing
more than this $500 should talk with the landowners and
get a financial commitment for planning from the County
so that the City will know what it will have to deal with.
Councillor Mottaz arrived at 5:35 p.m.
M/S/P Fraser/Eder to authorize a Prel urinary Planning Fund up
tc $500 for the Energy Plant. 'Carried 4-0.
F. Partial Payment - Keats Avenue MSP_ Project - Engineer Bchrer
- -
dastri uted a sweet itemizing 'Periodical Estimate for Partial
Payment" which outlines the work completed to date. 95% of
the project has been completed and partial pairmert 43 for
$36,343.44 is recommended for payment. $58,000 remains to be paid.
--Fraser - commented that the contractor's performance during the
extension period was less than ccnmendable and asked what
assurance the City has that the work will take priority and be
completed on schedule in the spring with so low a balance due.
--Bohrer -- explained the contractor has one month in the spring
-to complete -the project before the -penalty clause is initiated -
this is a strong incentive for completion of the work.
M/S/P Eder/Fraser to authorize partial payment #3 to Husting and
Engstrom in the amount of $36,343.44 for the Keats Avenue MSA
Project, as described by the City Engineer. Carried 4-0.
G. Shelter Workers - wages- The Council reviewed the Administrator's
e � — that re Eder b
memo c.� Dec-mber , l ts2, recommending t..u.. Dave �R,.r _e paid
the Federal Minimum Wage of $3.35/hr, with the other three shelter
works earning a minumum of $3.10. Mr. Eder has worked for the
City three years and oversees the other workers.
M,S/P Novak/Fraser to approve anehourly wage of $3.35/hr for
Dave Eder. Carried 4-0.
1. AGENDA FOR FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY:
The Council reviewed the Administrator's list of agenda items that
have to be taken care of at the January meetings. The Administrator
recommended scheduling few discussion items for :.these. meetings=
so that yearly appointments, CUP's etc, can be completed. He asked
the,Gounni7 torreznmseda�tle,`poposed items and notify him how they
would like the agenda drafted. Fraser recommended that the Adminis-
trator arrange the agenda in priority groups, as items 1, 2, 3, 4,
21, and 24 have to be addressed immediately. Engineer Bohrer
recommended that item 14, Helmo Ave. right-of-way, be deferred until
more planning is done for Section 32ah,d the energy plant.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 13, 1982
-3 -
2.
The Administrator will draft an agenda of immediate concerns:r
(
for the January 4 meeting.
Fraser referred the Council to her memo of December 13, 1982,
suggesting a "Do -it -Ourselves" organizational workshop(s) for
Council members to discusskrs ,h^^ to-e�i�u; isr,�� _� *h s
wou-l-d--b4a-4io-t-4-n--&qp�---+ cLSGUUGs-i on--0n n--a- i - jz1 nr
*amended
mat-be-r.*procedures, not issues, how we would organize and function
1/4/83
as a City Council in relation to committees and staff.
3.
COUNCIL ORGANIZATION AND MEETING PROTOCOL:
Fraser recommended a';:moee.=fesmal meeting format be followed
by the Councillors and between the Council and residents. She
felt the Council has somewhat strayed from the format established
earlier in the year, and recommended reestablishing and following
the procedures set forth by City policy. The Council agreed.
The
Council xepess:ed.. for Dinner at the White Hat at 6:30 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
Chairman Michels convened the Planning Commission at 7:35 p.m. and
Mayor Eder reconvened the Council meeting.
Commissioners present: Lundquist, Nazarian, Moe, Dreher, Prince, Lyall
Mazzara and Gifford. Absent - Peterson.
1. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 8, 1982:
M/S/P Moe/Lyall to approve the minutes of November B, 1982. Carried
7-0-2. Gifford and Prince abstained as they were absent from this
meeting.
"2. Deferred until 7:45 - The Commission addressed other agenda items
until the Public Hearing could be opened at 7:45.
7. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Council Action - Administrator Whittaker aprised the Commission
of the C0 1's action on the following: Enright Rezoning;
Orchard Subdivision; Richert Subdivision and the Krueger Subdivision.
2. PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE TO INCORPORATE NEW
LANDSCAPE STANDARDS:
Chairman Michels opened the hearing at 7:45 p.m. There were no
residents in the audience for the hearing.
The Council, after reviewing the proposed standards, had no
additional comments or questions. The Administrator will draft
the final -Ordinance, based on the Planning Commission recommendation,
for Council approval in January.
Chairman Michels closed the hearing at 7:50 p.m.
M/S/P Nazarian/Moe to recommend approval and adoption of the
Landscape Standards as outlined in the Administrator's memo of
September 10, 1982. Carried 9-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 13, 1982 -4-
3. MANFACTURED HOUSING -
A. Review Policies 'and 'Pos-s'ibilities'for New
. firma' -7_v Mni 9 r' vmn,6 'n're+rrr,+ -
Stephen Taylor and Mike Ahrens, Cimarron Park owners, Willard
Morton, developer Tartan Meadows, Dick Stockstead, developer
Midland Meadows, and several Cimarron residents were present
for discussion on the new ordinance. Chairman Michels opened
the meeting to questions and comments from the audience.
--Judy Clausen, 63 Cimarron - No specific questions - favors
having an attendent on duty, in a mobile home park, and on
the site 24 hours a day.
--Whittaker - this is one of the items discussed in the
amendment to the Mobile Home Code.
--aim Beaver, 664 Cimarron - C,imarrbn.. Sales - sells manfactured
housing, new and the units in Cimarron. Interested in seeing
an ordinance that would allow manfactured housing in Lake
Elmo. Referred Council and Commission to the Attorney
General's opinion on manfactured housing. The manfactured
housing industry is asking for manfactured housing to be
allowed in any area as stick built housing. Mr. Beaver
offered his services to work with the City and the services
of the Mn. Manfactured Housing Association to provide input
for the type of housing that would be allowed. He explained
the different types of manfactured housing would like to
see Lake Elmo permit this type of housing and feels there
will be a'lot of interest.
--Whittaker - asked Mr. Beaver's opinion on the Cottage Grove
Ordinance.
--Jim Beaver - finds the ordinance restrictive to permitting
this type of housing outside of an area not exclusively
provided for manfactured housing. May find people want
to put a manfactured unit on a part of the family farm -
the Cottage Grove Ordinance limits or would not permit this.
Has seen manfactured housing accepted in single family
areas - would caution against a small lot,•no smaller lot
than any other house would be permitted to have. Would
caution against a junky appearance. Factory built houses
can be built by two standards - the Uniform Building Code
and the Manfactured Home Standard. The UBC standard is
what stick built homes have to meet.
-Eder - his understanding that the same building code is
__7appl.ied tor: conventionally built„homessas is applied to
mobile or manfactured homes. Mr. Beaver agreed with this
statement.
--Whittaker - one distinction is that there is manfactured
housing that meets the State Building Code (UBC) and there
..,is manfactured housing that meets the Federal Standard.
There is a difference between these two standards. Mr.
Beaver is saying that mobile (manfactured)homes'are built
as well as a stick built home, but they do fall under dif-
ferent codes - State permits both types of housing, but one
or the other code has to be met. Wausau Homes are a type
of manfactured house that has been built throughout the City,
These are distinguished from the manfactured housing defined
in the statute thathave to meet the federal standard.
As defined in the new statute, manfactured housing could
include double wide or standard mobile homes through Wassau
homes.
PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 13, 1982 -5-
3. MANFACTURED HOUSING - Continued:
--Moe - presented an example of a passive solar manfactured unit
that would cost $31,000. The. -unit is 16' wide and 80' long -
1200-1 300 sq. ft.
KristineMoe - 61 Cimarron - present ordinance would not permit
the junky appearance, abandoned cars, excess of animals, etc.
that the preconcieved idea of mobile homes has had in the past.
Nor would the new ordinance permit this.
--Whittaker - issue is how much of a difference does housing style
make within a zoning district - does it make a difference - should
therei!be discrimination between various type of housing or con-
struction. In the past, aside from mobile home, there has been
none. Presently people can build whatever type of home they want
but the ordinance does not permit the typical mobile home in
residential neighborhoods. This is the starting point for this
discussion.- an idea session.
--Charles Clausen, 63 Cimarron - statement -on behalf of the
Cimarron Homeowners Association - did a survey two years ago
of mobile home parks - comments on a proposed change in the
present City Ordinance on_oompliance with State regulations
for having an attendent on duty within a mobile home park.
Against the proposed change - need a manager or someone in
charge at Cimarron Park more hours than is presently provided.
Survey of 32 parks in the metro area indicated that 83.7 of the
parks surveyed had a 24 hour manager - 16.3 did not have a
manager on duty 24 hours/day - Cimarron has 504 homes and
such a large area should have someone on duty at all times.
Gave an example of why a manager should always be on the premises.
City should not change the exisiting ordinance, but retain
and enforce it.
--Mike Ahrens - explained Cimarrons present policy.
--Charles Clausen - when did the survey asked if there was a
resident manager, on duty, 24 hours a day - Cimarron does not
have a resident manager on duty 24 hours a day.
--Whittaker - verified the language of the State and City regulations.
City cannot have something diffenent than State law mandates -
question is how it is enforced. Does a responsible attendent or
caretaker mean, someone is in residence at all times or that
the attendent or caretaker just have to be able to be reached.
in the past, it has been interpreted that the management have
someone on call available to come for emergencies. City could
be more specific and require someone on the premises 24 hours
a day. City ordinance says " a person in charge" State law
says "attendent". State law does not specifically state the
attendent has to be physically on the site.
--Stephen Taylor, Cimarron Owner - read the State Code and further
explained their procedure for handling emergencies. The Washington
County Sheriff has several numbers of park representatives to
call after hours when the park attendent is not on duty. Believe
this system works, complies with State law, and a 24 hour on
duty is overly restrictive and an unnecessary burden..
--Charles Clausen - reported that the Sheriff's Department has
informed residents that have called in emergency situations to
call the park manager, they do not handle these problems.
-Don Moe - reported that he has talked to Captain Green of the
Sheriff's department, who indicated that his department is not
set-up to handle problems that arise in Cimarron other than those
endangering the residents (murder, robbery, domestics, etc.)
--Whittaker - will follow-up with the Sheriff's Department. Additional
discussion was deferred until 9 p,m.
PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 13, 1982 -6-
4. WASTE/'ENERGX.PLANT:
A. Di'scu'ss Energy Park - The Administrator up -dated the group
on t ei County°s action,
Engineer Bohrer passed out material outlining preliminary cost
estimates of providing municipal services to Section 32, and
reviewed- the planned use for this area. Questions -to be addressed
included what is the.best use for this area, sewer capacity, sewer
to areas outside of the energy plant location should the plant
require all the reserve units, Battle Creek Watershed Plan covers
a o of this area,- their involvement, City's role toward this
development - will the City plan for, work with or react to develop-
ment,possibilities in this area, can there be compatible industries that
derive benefit from the plant - what type of other uses. Bohrer
indicated that total planning could approach $4 million and indicated
that it is important that the City actively become involved in
planning this area.
--Eder - attended last property owners meeting and supports their
preliminary work - they are interested in working with the City
to insure that compatible uses are planned for the area. Eder
will urge these owners to submit their ideas for use so that
they can be compiled with the City planning and submitted to the
Joint Powers Committee.
--Dreher - questioned what provisions will need to be made for storm
water run-off by both Valley Branch and Battle Creek.
--Bohrer - still will need a permanent ponding area in this area -
Battle Creek has'devblaoped- an.over-all plan which requires about
165 acre ft. of surface water run-off storage or about 28 acres.
Bohrer indicated,.on A.00lored map"y.-.the pondsaand�2-wetlands that
holdowater year-round and hhe.wetland areas that are intermittent'ly
wet and dry. A surface water management plan would identify the
best areas to permanentlystore this water in compliance with the
Battle Creek Watershed Plan.
=®Lyal1.- suggested additional ponding rather than letting more
of the run-off go into the sewer system.
--Novak - should development plans be based on sewer usage.
--Bohrer - have to believe that the energy plant will be built -
City should look at the rest of the section and determine what
is the highest and best use for the remainder of Section 32.
--Whittaker - City still;_mdi.htains-thb:po"si iou-1,hhat-the developer
share in the cost of development.
--Dave Johnson, Conn -Co - City is on the threshhold of a tremendous
opportunity and urged the Council to expedite their planning and
use this area to develop a unified commercial/industrial area in
this section thereby eliminating scattered industrial development
throughout the City where services are not available.
--Prince - not sure that extensive planning will bring an influx
of commercial to Lake Elmo - area has been planned for commercial
use for many years and to date there has been no great interest.
--Whittaker - Comp Plan permits what Mr. Johnson is proposing -
call for urban mixed use, it is anticipated here, area is expected
to be sewered by 1990 and capacity is here. Council is interested
in following through with this - still have to answer who initiates
a plan for this area, who petitions, how do we go about getting from
this point to the conclusion of this study. Believe that this plant
is forcing us to provide services not otherwise provided and think
these cost ought to be borne by the County or the plant operators/
developers. Need to know what the property owners want to do with
their propery in order to design street and water systems and
determine the capacity of those systems. What do the property owners
see happening, what are they willing to commit to over and above what
the County will pay for with the plant.
PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 13, 1962 -7-
4. WASTE/ENERGY PLANT:
---Whittaker - Property owners will have to define many of the
( improvements and react to them from a review standpoint.
--Eder - property owners want to meet with all Section 32 owners
review the proposal and prepare some input.
--Dave Johnson - what the property owners would like the Council
to address is the issue of Section 32 - what do you see as use -
is the commercial/industrial use desired by the property owners
compatible with the City's thinking. Met with Bob Lockyear, he
recommended looking at the Comp Plan and determine if the plan
agrees with the property owners desired uses. When Lockyear
reviewed the plan he was not sure that it. --fully provided for
commercial/industrial uses.
--Whittaker - Mixed Urban Uses permits commercial/industrial, but
there will be more specific planning on the Comp Plan.
--Novak - Comp Plan is very specific on what it says the City wants
in the future. Have not pre -zoned anything - present use is Ag
until someone comes in requesting a rezoning. This is how the
entire City is planned - zoning is done as it is requested. This
area is not zoned for this use, but this us- is;,,:ant c,ipated.
--Dave Johnson - property owners want to hear, yes, the types of
things being discussed are compatible with the Comp Plan or if
they are not the City thinks they should be and the Comp Plan
will be amended.
--Whittaker - Council will review all propo:sedruses;:submitted by
the property owners.
--Rob Chelseth, City Planner - The Comp Plan, in the most general
sense, addresses the kinds of uses that would be permitted. What
needs to be done hext'''is to look at some of the natural built-in
limitations that will affect this property such as sewer capacity,
roads, cost and availability of water, etc. The City will have
to review all these considerations and determine what is and is
not realistic. The City can then develop a set of policies that
will apply to this area and select the land uses. The City will
not come with a specific plan and say this is what has to be done,
rather prepare a list of options and things that will work.
--Mottaz - in response to a question on who will pay for this -
have to face the reality this plant will happen and will have
tremendous impact on the City of Lake Elmo and surrounding communities.
This will double or possibly triple the assessed valuation of the
City - tremendous thing the Council has to deal with and continually
be actively involved. When submitted request for $90,000 to the
County for planning and".engineering costs that could be contributed
directly to the plant, it was with the understanding that it was
for all the work ;that -has to be done because of how the plant will
impact.the area. This is all they can pay for. Regarding assessments-
only- those- iimprov'ements= that: can be legitimately assessed to the
plant property will be paid. Confirmed that Lake Elmo is now recog-
nized and accepted as a viable force in this process by both Ramsey
and Washington Counties.
--Prince - would recommend that a detailed map of the area with wet-
lands indicated be include& in the planning.
--Bohrer - explained what TKDA suggested to the County regarding topo
graphip photos Of the:[ section!,()
M/S/P Lyall/Dreher supporting the City Council efforts in the
development and planning of a Waste/Energy Plant in Section 32.
Carried 9-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 13, 1982 -8-
5. TIRE RECYCLING PLANT SECTION 32:
Mayor Eder reported that he contacted Mr. Wolfgang Kupsipe who
was to present his proposal for a tire recycling plant and asked
him to pospone his request until January. Mr. Kupsipe agreed.
Eder briefly described 'now this type of recycling plant works.
BREAK- 10 minutes
3. MANFACTURED HOUSING - CONTINUED:
--Mike Ahrens, Cimarron Representative - indicated that he will
prepare a written statement on the park operation policy for
discussion at a later Council meeting.
--Dick Stockstead, Developer of Midland Meadows - appreciated
being invited to comment.,- has no strong opinions at this point.
Questions the economics of placing a$,"s6,0U0-�3'S,Ouu_,i�ouse-onx_�
$20-000 lut. Lots in Midland Meadows are priced from the Nigh
teens to the low twenties. Is it economically feasible to place a
manfactured home on a platted lot:?
--Whittaker - landowner would have to want this type of development
and request the appropriate type of zoning.
--Willard Morton & Ed Johnson, Midland Meadows - as a landowner
sees the cost of the land as a big problem in providing this
type of zone. Maybe more economically feasible if the land area
were smaller - 1 to 1 V2 acre may be too high.
--Whittaker - biggest problem with altering the lot size is the
area needed to'treat on -site sewage. Need the 1 1/2 acres to
protect the property owner and the sewer system. Two districts
have been suggested - urban area where sewer is available and a
rural area with 1+ acres. Questions to be addressed - how do we
comply with State Statute and how do we handle manfactured housing
outside of mobile home parks and the proposed new district. Policy
issue - do we want single family lots with manfactured housing and
how best to make it happen and how do we deal with lot size and
manfactured housing in other districts.
--Prince - requested comments from the PLC on MP housing on Single
Family lots. Personally does not have an opinion yet.
--Dreher - depends on the type of manfactured housing. Would be
opposed to a mobile home (trailer) on a City lot - would not oppose
a manfactured home that looks like a stick built home - many of
these around.
--Whittaker - if talking about a mobile home, such as is in Cimarron,
do we want to draw a line or should any home that meets the State
Code be permitted on any lot in the City. If want to draw i.a: line,
where should the line be drawn?
--Dreher - would draw the line on a manfactured house less than 16'
wide. Would not like to see a 12' wide mobile home in a residential
area.
--Mottaz - asked, if under the present ordinance, a plan was brought
in for a home that looked like a home in Cimarron, but was to be
built on a development lot, not moved in, and had similar dimensions
would a building permit be issued.
--Whittaker - if it meets the UBC a permit would have to be issued.
A permit would not have to be issued if it just met the standard
for manfactured housing.
Discussion followed on the shape of manfactured housing, square vs
oblong.
--Dreher - appearance is important - units should be compatible to
the area.
PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 13, 1982 -9-
4. MANFACTURED HOUSING - CONTINUED
--Dreher - if units are less than 16' wide should be in a
special district.
--Whittaker- also talking about property values - one of the
purposes of zoning is to protect property values - this can work
both ways and is not necessarily discrimination. Until this type
of housing is uniformally accepted in all areas of the metro area
this mixture of manfactured and stick built housing would likely
have an effect on property values. This is a consideration that
should be kept in mind.
--Charles Clausen - tracked this law through the legislature -
idea behind the law was to provide affordable housing in communities.
Biggest issue seem to be the 1 1/2 acre lot size. Why couldn't
the developers of Midland Meadows and/or Tartan Meadows and develop
it similar to a townhouse or condominum complex where residents
buy their lots and buy a part of the central sewage system.
--Whittaker - economics for this not very good.- sewage treatment
standards are very high and very expensive.
--blottaz - Met Council and the Metro Sewer Board have taken the
position that no more interim sewer plants will be allowed.
--Gifford - sympathizes with the Cimarron homeowners - additional
affordable housing within the City is necessary. Would like to
see what other communities have done. This is a need for Lake Elmo
and should be further considered.
--Mottaz - issue that will have to be addressed is what is Lake
Elmo going to be required to do by the State. This is what should
be dealt with, If the City is mandated to do something, then
will have to deal with how to make the best of the situation.
--Eder - suggested breaking the issue into two objectives:
1, can we provide low cost housing where and how can it
be provided.
2, what will be the minimum standards for manfactured housing
Whittaker requested that additional comments be forwarded
to him for continued discussion on January 10.
6. COMP PLAN - REVIEW MET COUNCIL COMMENTS:
The Commission reviewed the Administrator's response to the Met
Councilscommentson the Comp Plan, and asked for Commission
comments on his response.
--Michels - ordinance -should be more specific on the area required
for drainfield sites. Questioned reducing the lot size to 1A.
--Gifford - should consider high density housing for Section 32
when reviewing the plans for the energy park. This could address
item 4 under Deficiencies.
The Commission agreed to review the infilling area between platted
areas, moderate cost housing goal, solar access plan and the
reclassification of 40th Street in Oakdale and agreed the Administrator
should forward his comments to the Met Council as outlined in
his memo of December 9, 1982.
ADJOURNMENT: 10.50 p.m.
CLAIMS TO BE APPROVED AT DECEMBER 13, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
83310
University of MN - Bldg. Official course ( $
75.00
83311
North Hennepin College - voided ch# 83232 & replace (
18.25
83312
Lake Country Chapter - Building Official - 1983 dues
20.00
83313
Four Seasons Services
34.65
83314
J'unker Sanitation
42.00
83315
Croixside Press - Ballot printing
193.20
83316
St. Paul Dispatch - Notice of Insurance Bids
77.04
83317
Lillie Suburban Newspapers - Legal Publ. -- insurance bids
56.23
83318
E. K. Quehl Co. - Animal control- impound books-2 yrs
119.45
83319
City of North St. Paul = Animal Control vehicle usage
125.00
83320
Spartan Specialties - mugs
140.84
83321
Rose Floral & Greenhouse - council expense
26,25
83322
Mary Meyer - 12/14/82 newsletter
175.00
83323
MN Assn of Civil Defense Directors - 1983 Dues
3.00
83324
Metro Area Management Assn - 1983 dues
5.00
83325
Siegfried Construction -- Park Shelter - 10% wh. $ 1,431.20
Office remodeling - 10%,. 1,002,68
"w-7,433,88
83326
Mid Central Fire - fire dept - updating Scott P/D
690.00
83327
B. F. Friedrich - fire dept - repair doors
55.00
83328
Brookman Motor Sales - fire dept - truck repair
135.87
83329
Lake Elmo Oil - fire dept
65.62
83330
Metro waste Control Com - 1983 service chge
67.25
$ 4,558.53
R-82-64
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION ORDERING A FEASIBILITY STUDY BY THE CITY
ENGINEER FOR 1983 STREET REHABILITATION.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has
recently considered the possibility of rehabilitating certain
streets in said City during 1983; and
WHEREAS, the City engineer has prepared a proposal to
conduct a feasibility study to determine what street rehabilitation
program best serves the City's needs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Lake Elmo as follows:
1. The City engineer is hereby directed to prepare a
feasibility report- for the rehabilitation of city streets within
the following subdivisions in said City, to -wit:
Tablyn Park Addition, Kenridge Addition, Kenridge ,
2nd Addition, Bordner's Garner Farmettes, Friedrich
and Friedrich Heights Addition.
( 2. In addition, the City engineer will conduct a visual
inspection of the street surfaces in the these areas and inventory
those areas needing repair.,
3. This feasibility report wil.lbe prepared with estimated
costs and in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 429.
4. The City engineer is authorized and directed to expend
not more than $900.00 in the preparation of this feasibility
report without the additional authorization of the City Council.
Adopted the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo this 13th
day of December, 1982.
ATTEST:
C ' 'W
Mayor ynard E. Eder
urence E. Whittaker, City Adminis
L
,