HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-83 CCMLAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1983
Mayor Eder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Councillors present: Fraser, Mazzara, Morgan and Dunn
1. AGENDA:
Additions - 2. February 23, 1983, minutes
6. C. Fees for Clean Up Day
8. D. EPA Informational Meeting on Landfill Proposal
9. A. Dave Morgan -
1. Hearing Procedure Notification Clarification
2,, EAW for C&NW Facility
B. Laura Fraser-
1. Informational Meeting on C&NW Facility
C. Gordon Moseburger- C&NW Rezoning
M/S/P Fraser/Morgan to approve the agenda, as amended. Carried 5-0.
2. MINUTES: April 5 and February 23, 1983
M/S/P Fraser/Morgan to approve the minutes of AprS_1 5, 1983, as
submitted. Carried 5-0.
M/S/P Morgan/Mazzara to approve the minutes of February 23, 1983,
as submitted. Carried 3-0-2. Eder and Fraser abstained.
3. CLAIMS:
M/S/P Morgan/Dunn to approve Claims 83645 thru 83672. Carried 5-0.
4. LICENSES: *softball team
M/S/P Morgan/Mazzara to -approve a 3.2 Beer Licence for the State
,amended Bank of Lake Elmo*for May 20, 21, 22 and June 3, 4, 5 for
5-4-83 tournaments to be held at Lions Park. Carried 5-0.
5. PARKS COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT:
Chairman Sue Dunn distributed agendas for the presentation.
Arlyn Christ gave the presentation for Tablyn Park and Pebble Park
Tablyn Park -Christ reviewed the 1983 Work Plan, Budget
aid sciedule; and outlined the additional possibilities for
improvements to Tablyn Park. Playground equipment will be similar
to what is in Pebble and at Lake Elmo Elementary. He emphasized
that it is the intention of the Commission to utilize volunteer
manpower to do all the described work.
--Morgan - suggested ty Ug the maintenance access to the walking
path system for better accessability.
Pebble Par], - PAC is considering a proposal to create a multi-
purpose field by pulling the existing field back into the hill
and constructing a concave retaining wall that would serve as the
backstop. The Tri-Lakes Association reviewed the proposal and
approvedthe concept. The Association's main concern is the broken
glass throughout the park. They also asked if a drinking fountain
could I be installed near the tennis courts. The Commission
believes greater use of the park will control the vandalism. The
Commission will discuss the fountain idea and make a recommendation
to the Council. Christ also noted that they need soil donated
for the ballfield.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1983 -2-
5., PARKS COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT - Continued;
Sunfish Park - Ed Nielsen reported that a great deal of trail work
will be done in the park. The ski trails will be widened to
accomodate the use of a two -track groomer; also, all the trails
will be brushed out and sprayed for weeds. A trail from the
parking lot to the corn field is proposed. This would provide
interior access to the park field without having to use the
Friedrich property.
The Vita Course is proposed for the trails in the NE corner.
Volunteer help is planned for building the course stations.
The stations will be designed and constructed next to the ski/
walking trail. This area is adjacent to Sunfish Lake, The PAC
believes the Vita Course concept will grow in popularity as did
cross country skiing and may be placed throughout the park system.
Mr. Nielsen indicated that the Park Commission would take over
the responsibility for trail maintenance, feeling the cost would
be minimal to them. He also mentioned that the area of City
Park Pond will be cleaned and brushed out.
The Commission has inquired about stocking Sunfish Lake - noted
there was good fishing until the lake froze out 2 years ago.
DNR will not stock a lake unless there is a boat access. The
only boat access to Sunfish is a carry over for conoes. The
Commission does not want to develop any other type of access.
--Kay Hilpish, 10732 Stillwater Blvd - lives on Sunfish Lake -
Questioned the stocking proposal, When the lake freezes out
there are multidutes of dead fish that wash up on shore. Shallow
lake - 12-15 ft. deep,
--Ed Nielsen - could aeriate - just asking is the Council would
be receptive to the idea. The Council gave no response.
--Kay Hilpish - questioned the use of firearms in or around the
park.
--Eder - City Ordinance prohibits the use of firearms within
the park or transporting them through the park to get to a
non-public area. He noted that hunting is permited on private
property only as provided by City Ordinance.
--Bill Eder, City resident - asked about an -over -population of
deer in the park„and the probability of a deer hunting season.
--Ed Nielsen - Any deer season would be a limited bow and arrow
season. A DNR official will be walking the park area with
park commissioners in May to determine if there is a population
problem.
--Mayor Eder - recommended that additional signs reading "No
Motorized Vehicles Allowed in Park" be installed.
Demontreville Park - Sue Dunn outlined the two park areas.
The park off Demontreville Trail presently has hiking and cross-
country ski trails. Also the bridge crossing the creek area is
now in. The park off Highlands trail will be filled(with donated
material) to create a sandlot ballfield. The Commission would like
to have basic grading done. The Jaycees have indicated that they
will take on Demontreville Park as their next project on the
completion of improvements to Tablyn Park.
Reid Park - Sue Dunn explained the improvements that will be
completed with LAWCON Funds in 1983.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1983
-3-
'5, PARKS COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT - Continued:
Parks Survey - The Council reviewed the proposed survey that will
Be Tsent to all City residents. Ed Nielsen said the intent of the
survey is to determine how many residents know where the City
parks are, what is offered at each and what facilities they use.
May need to develop a pamphlet to better inform and'familiarize
residents with the park system.
--Eder - survey may be too open, too general. Park Bond Issue
identified certain uses for each park that should considered
before anticipating alternate suggestions.
--Fraser - recommended using an alternate distribution method for
the survey other than the City Newsletter. Suggested that
survey list activities presently provided in each park and
survey which ones are used. Question 4_- suggested wording
ask what other activities would be desirable in each park;
and delete ItemssV. &_'G. (City owned Swimming Pool and Public
Swimming on Lake Elmo). Question 5. - no purpose in making
inquiries about the Regional Park - this is not City territory.
Question 6. Does not feel this is a question residents can
answer.
--Ed Nielsen - concurred with several of the suggestions. The
Commission will review the suggestions and redraft the survey.
6. MAINTENANCE FOREMAN - DAVE WISDORF:
A. Weed Sprayer - Because the cost to contract weed spraying($600)
on park trails, Widdorf recommended that the City purchase
its own weed sprayer for $450. It could be pulled behind the
Cub tractor and could be also used at Lions Park to fertilize.
M/S/'P Morgan/'Mazzara to approve the purchase of a Weed Sprayer
based on the inspection of the equipment by the Maintenance
Foreman. Carried 5-0.
B. Civil DefenseRadio Connection to Fire Department - For the
purpose of communication between the Maintenance Foreman, who
is also Civil Defense Director, and the Fire Department during
a Civil Defense or natural disaster emergency, Wisdorf and
the Fire Chief, Bruce Kuettner, proposed modifying the Fire
Department radios to carry the Maintenance Department radio
frequency. Cost for this modification is $2,624.17 with funds
appropriated from the Equipment Reserves of both departments.
Wisdorf further explained how the equipment would be modified.
--Bill Eder - Firefighter - noted that the Fire Department would
like an open channel (presently, they share a channel with
the Washington County Sheriff Department)in order to
increase communication between firefighters at'. -a Fire scene.
Could communicate with more people if it were just a Lake
Elmo Channel.
--Morgan - concerned about the cost. Suggested purchasing
one radio for the Eire Department that would provide
communication between the Maintenance Department and Fire
Department.
--Whittaker - could modify the Fire Department Base. This
would permit the Fire Department to have communication -
with the Maintenance Department and would cost about $200.
/ LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1983
i
B. Civil Defense Radio Connection - Continued -
M/S/P Morgan/Dunn to approve modifying the Fire Department Base
Radio to open a channel between the Maintenance Department and
Fire Hall for Civil Defense purposes, for an estimated cost of
$200.
Discussion -
--Fraser - would prefer to .see all the radios modifyied.
Carried 5-0.
C. Clean 'Up Days Fees - Wisdorf recommended that fees for
Clean".Up Days e app ied across the board. In the past, the City
waived the fee for the Tri-Lakes Association. Wisdorf said that
this action caused problems with other residents at last year's
clean up and also felt it resulted in $300/$400 in lost revenue.
He recommended that the Association charge a percentage of the
load to those utilizing their service which would off -set the
Clean -Up Day ;fee.
--Eder - discussed this with an Association committee member
who expressed no o$zjection to the fees. The member did ask
if the Tri-Lakes trucks could get right in as their trucks
fill up.
--Wisdorf - will decide how to handle this at the time. If the
line is very long may need to take two Tri-Lakes trucks for
each individual vehicle.
--Dunn - recommended some type of receipt system. System needs
more accounting in order to avoid criticism.
M/S/P Fraser/Dunn to apply , the fees for Clean -Up Day to all
individuals using the service.
Discussion -
--Morgan - in the past the Tri-Lakes Association had crews cleaning
up the entire area of winter debris. Association should not have
to pay for dumping trash cleaned up off the right-of-ways.
Carried 3-1-1. Morgan opposed. Mazzara abstained.
7. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Klawitter Zoning Violation -
The Council reviewed the Building Inspector's memo outlining
the history of the Klawitter operation, which is continuing
to operate,,in violation of the City Zoning Ordinance. The
Cit_v Attorney asked that the Council be made aware the
situation still exists and asked if they want him to continue
action against their operation.
--Dunn do not see this operation as anything different than
what goes on all over Lake Elmo. Problems with actively
pursuing these witch hunts.
--Fraser gave the background of the situation and stated the
Council should support the Building inspector and Ordinances.
M/S/P Fraser/Eder instructing the City Attorney to proceed
with the necessary legal steps. Carried 4-1. Dunn opposed.
-Eder - noted that these situations should be handled more
quickly. The violation identified, violator notified to
cease , if no response, immediate enforcement of the Code.
/ LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1983 -5-
7.' OLD BUSINESS:\
B.,hxtexision,,w�,M3*land,geadoWs,RI'at
_ -
i adopt Resolution 83-30, a resolution granting
l M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to*c3rant a one year extension, until
*amended April 19, 1984, for;'Fina1 Plat Approval for Midland Meadows.
5/3/83 Carried 5-0.
C, C'otttage`•GroVe,,Ra.v ne .- Whittaker reported that a meeting with
the property owenrss is scheduled for April 26. To date, the Joint
Powers meeting has not been rescheduled. He will notify the
Council when an alternate date is set.
D. The Council approvedthe schedule.
8, ENGINEER'S RE'PORT:.
A. S'ealco'ating�Hearin�q - The Council reviewed the draft notice.
Eder recommended-ci§anging the wording to state "all City
maintained streets"'. The Council agreed. Notification will
be sent to property owners, published in the legal newspaper,
and City Newsletter
*amended M/S/P Fraser/Dunn to adopt* Rn83:--29, a Resolution*accepting the
5-3-83 Feasibility Study and calling a public nearing on the Sealcoating
Program for all City maintained streets. The public hearing will
be held May 11, 1983 at7:00 p.m. Carried 5-0.
D. Gontam xaatat• emova7-�.Ynke g�ine^.L-and'f'ill Whittaker reported
that` -he and t i y Engirieer met vith THe County to discuss
the proposed decontamination testing program. He also noted that
the PCA wants to hold an informational meeting for City residents
to explain the proposed testing program and. how -it would work.
The Administrator will setup a meeting date and notify the Council.
The City Engineer explained the decontamination/aeriation process
proposed by the County. The County is looking for City approval
to initiate the program. The testing program will enable the
County to deterinine the feasibility of setting up additional
decontamination systems to remove the contaminated water on a
larger scale. A PAC permit will be required. Bohrer reported
that the process has been 90°% successful in other areas where it
has been used.
Morgan , some of the contaminate are not as volatile as others -
some are not volatile at all. A rigid monitoring system is
necessary to make sure no contaminats remain. Proposing to out-
let the "decontaminated" water next to the Valley Branch/Lake
Jane outlet pipe, which travels overground to City 'aark Pond.
This is a high perc area and aTiv "decontaminated" water should
remain in +he test area and not move any closer to the City
--Whittaker - they do not believe the water will reach City Park
Pond but will seep into the ground and quickly perc away.
--Eder - concerned about moving this much water in conjunction with
the Lake Jane pumping. There is no way this 'water should 'Leave
this site (approx. 100.'A- original landfill site). At the time
the landfill was developed the Counties guaranteed this situation
would not happen they should solve the problem on -site.
Morgan agreed - acceptable to discharge the ".decontaminated"
water onto the landfill property, want more technical discussion
before approving the testing program.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1983 -6--
8. ENGINEERC'S REPORT.
D. Contamination Testing Program •- Continued
M/S/P Fraser/Morgan instructing the City Administrator to notify
Washington County that tl_e City requests that they prepare an
alternate proposal to the one presented. Carried 5-0.
The PCA Informational Meeting will be postponed until a method
of decontamination is established and approved.
B. Water Tower Alarm Bids The Council reviewed the Engineer's
bid summary sheet. Bo rer recommended that the bid be awarded to
Honeywell.
MIS/ Fraser/Eder to accept the bid of Honeywell for a Water
Storage Central Station Alarm System as outlined on the summary sheet.
Discussion:
--Dunn - do not think there are problems significant enough to
spend this amount, nor, will there be such problems in the future.
--Morgan - not convinced of the need at this time.
--Eder - have had tower monitored by a nearby resident over the
years - so tar, this has been adequate.
Motion failed 1-4. Mazzara, Morgan, Eder and Dunn opposed.
M/'S/P Morgan/Dunn to reject all bids received for the Water Tower
Alarm System. Carried 5-0.
C. Demontreville Park - Bohrer reported he discussed the fill for the
ball ieldmin Demontreville 6th Add. with the Park Commission...
A nearby resident will donate the fill provided the City will
transport the material„ This is agreeable with the PAC and will
take about 1-1 1/2 days to complete. The PAC also requested and
recommended that up to $100 be allocated to strip the top soil
from the field area where the fill will be deposited.
M/S/P Morgan/Dunn to approve the fill operation for the ballfield
in Demontreville 6th Addition as follows:
1. Donated fill will be accepted from Gary Bance.
2. City Maintenance crew will transport the material from the
Bance lot and deposit it in the low areas of"the ballfield.
3, Up to $100 will be allocated to strip the top soil from the
area to be filled.
Carried 5-0.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1983 7,
9. COUNCIL REPORTS:
A. Dave Morgan -
1. Hearing Procedure Clarification"- Hutchinson Rezoning -
MIS/ Morgan/Dunn to amend the agenda placing Item C. Statement
from Gordon Mbosibrugger be placed before Item A.
--Fraser - asked the reason for changing the agenda order.
--Morgan - talked to property owners adjacent to the Hutchinson
property who stated that they had not been notified of the
public hearing for the rezoning request. Mr. 'Mbosbrugger
going to address this subject.
Motion carried 5-0.
Gordon Moosbrugger, Attorney -_ ;Made the -following statement to the
Council:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council - If you sometimes feel
lonely because you do not have a lot of public interest in what
you are doing, look around (noted the number of people present)
and it is obvious that the people of the community are very
interested in what their local government is doing when the
word gets around. The first question is getting the word around.
Based on converstations with a large number of people during the
past week it is clear that there was not sufficient public input
into the City Council decision to rezone the property to permit
the rail car unloading yard on the Hutchinson property. Public
input into a matter of that scope affects the community,as greatly
as that does, is a legal right. Technically, recognize that notice
of the public hearing was published on the proposed rezoning and
did state that it was in reference to a rail car unloading operation;
but, the fact that the notice was published and had little or no
interest - when you have a turn out as tonight makes it obvious
that the notice did not serve its intended purpose and the
technicality does not over -ride the obvious. Also, technically
there was a fatal flaw in the procedures with respect to senct%xig
mailed notice to affected property owners. This, of course, is
a fatal flaw in the jurisdiction cf the City to the entire
proceeding of the rezoning. Have been satisfied that there was
a failure in that respect.
The second issue to be addressed is the fact,that based on every-
thing I have been able to lea,rn,about the reccrd that you made
before the City Council, you did not support the decision to
rezone for this use with sufficient findings of fact to enable a
reviewing court to determine whether or not the proposed use is
reasonable under all the circumstances. This is the test that is
applied in determining whether or not the Ordinance is valid. It
is the test of reasonableness of the proposed use under all the
existing circumstances.
Not here to threaten you with a law suit, although, there are
people whom I represent who are prepared to go to whatever length
is necessary to protect their legal rights in this matter. Am
here to ask in behalf of these people to reconsider your action,
to rescind the zoning amendment resolution, to remand the matter
back to the Planning Commission for a new public hearing and
save these people and the City the time and expense of other
procedures. Think this is the right way to do it and respect the
fact that this is a closely knit community in which the Council
members are very close to their neighbors who are their constituents.
Think that you can all see that your neighbors and your constituents
want to be heard on this matter. Weren't heard before because word
did not get around.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 29, 1983
2
9. COUNCIL REPORTS:
C. Moosbrugger Statement - Continued-
_..
7,
Basic obvious fact is that there is tremendous public interest
in this and these people deserve the right to be heard.
Respectfully ask you to rescindthe rezoning resolution, remand
this for a public hearing to the Planning Commission.
A. Dave Morgan -
1. Hearing Procedure Clarification - After finding out that
proper notice -had not been given, called Mr. Barthelmy and
Mr. Quast, both were home and there was no problem at all in
getting in contact with them. They said they had received
no notification of this hearing. After personally reviewing
the Ordinance, feel the action taken by the Council was not
according to due process of law. Surely the Council in this
City wants public participation. A proposal so significant
as this one, demands that the public be informed before any action
be `taken and the action that is taken be lawful. Therefore
submit this following motion:
M/S/ Morgan/Dunn that the City Council admit its error and rescind
the action taken at the April 5, 1983 meeting, adopting Ordinance 7949,
and instructing the Planning Commission to notify adjacent property
owners and hold a public hearing in a lawful way.
Discussion:
--Fraser - requested the opinion of the City Attorney. Essence
of what is being brought up is legal technicalities.
--Mazzara would like the City Attorney's opinion on the specific
questions brought up — test of reasonableness, due process and
where the City lies in admitting error and rescinding the rezoning.
--City Attorney, Ray Marshall - not in a position to comment on
a lot of the factual items that were mentioned. As far as the
adequacy.of the notice, it is my understanding that proper
procedures were followed, as they normally are. Administrator
may be in a better position to speak to this item. May be
appropriate to discuss this initially.
--Administrator Whittaker - Certain there was published notice - have
the affidavit of publication. Do not personally mail out notices.
Edna (Beers) recalls doing it and noted it on the office record
sheet, but apparently the adjacent property owners did not receive
the notice. The names of the adjacent property owners are on
the list of property owners within 350' who are to be notified.
Appears, from what has been learned from these people around town,
that these residents were not notified. Notice was published,
and understand that adjacent property owners were present either
at the Planning Commission and/or Council meeting where it was
considered.
--Bill Barthelmy,property owner within 350' - was not present at
the Planning Commission meeting/hearing because was not notified.
Was at the Council meeting two weeks ago.
--Bruce Dunn - two weeks ago was not the hearing. The hearing was
the Planning Commission. Quoted Section 301.060 E. 4, of the
City Code relating to hearing procedure. Asked the City Attorney
for an interpretation of this requirement.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1983
9,
9,- COUNCIL REPORTS:
A. Dave Morgan - Continued
--Ray Marshall— There are several cases would like to look at before
giving an opinion,"`Wasn''t aware,Gordon-that-l_was aware that you were
coming, but this was the first I was made awarethatthere may have
been some inadequacy of the actual notice. As to whether that's
defective or not - would like an opportunity to look at cases
in order to define it adequately." Know there is a savings clause
in the ordinance and that may or may not control,
--Bruce Dunn - when talked to the Administrator two days ago,
specifically asked about this section and asked that Ray have
an answer on it. Personal interpretation is that the entire
process is invalidated because the procedure was not followed.
Where it states "a bonafide:attempt to comply with the provisions
of the section have been made" - this sentence does not make
sense because it says there is a set of provisions, but if they
are not applied it doesn't really matter. That is one of the
provisions and that is this notice. It is unfortunate that we
overlooked this - the point is not to blame someone, but my
interpretation is that the property has not been rezoned. This
is the reason for favoring Councillor Morgan's motion, Have to
start the process from square one, hold the hearing with the
Planning Commission and bring it before the Council again,
--Ray Marshall - not prepared to answer the question without taking
the opportunity to research the case>and the time to do that
and respond as quickly as possible. Not prepared to answer the
question as to whether or not the ordinance has been complied
with as far as notice or :its adequacy, Appears that an effort
was made, whether or not it was legally sufficient is the question,
--Dave Morgan - this question is going to have such an impact on
the City. If there is any doubt at all that we did not follow
the legal procedure, we should declare our action null and void.
More importantly, the fact that the people did not have alpchance
to participate in the decision because they were not notified.
--Whittaker - all the people that would have been notified were at
the City Council meeting and given an opportunity to speak -
or the Planning Commission meeting.
--Morgan- they were not at the Planning Commission meeting because
they did not receive proper lawful notice. Been on the Council for
six year and do not recall,ever, that people were not notified
when something was going to happen in their neighborhood. Have
spent hours over much lesser subjects and this whole proposal was
passed in less than one-half hour,
--Fraser - asked the attorney what the legal implications would be
should this motion pass.
--Ray Marshall - have seperate questions - the question of the notice
is a threshhold question;, but it also seems that action was taken
You did vote to rezone;and it seems that the applicant is entitled
to rely on that. Will have to look At ;the notice question -
think that the applicant, assuming the Council meant what it said
when granting the rezoning, could rely on that, Would
assume that they incurred various expenses in reliance upon the
granting of that rezoning. To rescind that now, I think, could
obligate the City to damages,
--Fraser - believe the prudent move would be to allow our attorney
time to give us an op #ion on the notice question before we take
a definitive posture,
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1983
10.
91 COUNCIL REPORTS:
A. Dave Morgan - Continued
--Morgan- dnnot think there is any question that we did not
follow the law in holding that hearing before the Planning Com-
mission. Picked up the phone -took 10 minutes to call three
people and they did not get notification. Surely we have more
concern about our citizens then to nit-pick at this. Were
concerned abut the developer why are we not concerned about
the people that we are talking about.
--Eraser - dm not feel it will harm the citizens to take
adequate time to resolve this problem. Welrer;concerned about
the City and need to resolve this in a proper manner. Do not
see any need to take hasty action.
--Morgan- Hasty action was taken at the last meeting.
--Richard Ostlund;--Attorney C&NW - important to note that the topics
discussed at both meetings (Planning Commission and Council) were
rather extensive about the facility, its operation, and potential
environmental impact that the facility could pose and the rezoning
that was granted contemplated going before Valley Branch Watershed,
the City Engineer and planning people to make sure we complied
with the Site and Building Code Requirements. More important
item to consider is that actually notice was given and had
published notice and at the second hearing the City Council was
fully aware of the fact that the Planning Commission denied the
rezoning request and the City Council was acting on its own
initiative upon the information that was provided for it on the
record. It did not simply rubber stamp a Planning Commission
decision based upon a hearing in which arguably there is not
technical compliance. The people present at.ths meeting in
front of the City Coupcil were those people who would have been
notified if, as they say, technical notice would have been
complied with - not saying it was't. However, they were here.
Several of the people in the area were here. The Council acted
know the Planning Commission had turned the request down and that
hearing stands on its own merits regardless of technical defaults
that might have gone beforehand.
--Gordon Moseburger - situation the status -quo is
that if they applied for a Building Permit you would really be
in a jam, if you think you are in a jam now, if they apply for
a building permit while this rezoning is still in effect then you
are really in a jam. If you want to get yourself off the hook
my,�:suggestion would be, before they do something to incur costs
and reliance on what you have done, would be to reconsider and
rescind your action - hold things right where they are before
somebody does apply for a building permit.
--Mazzara - appreciate the resident turn -out and their concern
about Lake Elmo. Have some real concerns about the City's pos-
sible"liabilities as far as the actual rezoning of the property.
Although the people here have stated a strong statement to me and
regardless of the legal risk everyone appears to be willing to
take,,would have to go along with the people who are here.,
--Eder - lived in the City many years and have a great deal of
respect for many of the residents -
Commend Councillor Fraser's suggestion for an informational
meeting concerning the facility that would give residents the
opportunity to hear the Council discuss the facility and its
operation so that a reasonable judgement could be made as to
the decision to approve the facility. Want residents aware that
before the proposal would move into the development stage there
would be an informational meeting on exactly what the proposal is.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1983
11.
9. COUNCIL REPORT:
A. - Dave Morgan Continued,
--E'der-'DoUFt that any of the residents present tonight have seen
a copy of the lay -out, how it will operate, what the proposal
is, number of train cars, etc, many issues. Unfortunately,
by not being at the hearing or Council meeting you are unaware
of any of this information. Believe this will bring about an
awareness in the Community - may get lax sometimes about following
what is going on in the City. Yes,ought to be concerned as
everyone here is tonight. went back in the Newsletter and the
notice about rezoning was in the Newsletter any issue handled
by the City Council would not be handled differently except maybe
the question about notice to the people within 350 feet. This
seems to be the issue. Think it behooves our citizens to notify
the City Office if they do not receive the Newsletter, so that
they can get on the mailing list and look at the City calendar. -
See what is going to happen and if it it -affects you.
Eraser think the key issue in the vote two weeks ago was the
legality of the matter of rezoning, which in the opinion of the
City Attorney, was if the City denied the rezoning that eventually
it would he granted in court and that a great deal of City money
would be spent defending a case that couldn't be defended. Sorry
that the basis having to deal with tonight is a narrow technicality
but think very clearly the people do need to have all the information
which the Council had and think it is very appropriate that we
should hear from the people. But, this is not the issue being
presently decided. Think to vote in favor of the motion will:`:.
be to open the legal quagmire - think will be spending many dollars
on legal counsel and think the end result down the road will be
the same. Will vote against the motion,inspite of the fact that
know it will be an unpopular vote,!-b6cause believe it will be
the right thing to do for the City.
--Motion was repeated.
=D�fth -- questioned if the motion should mention the fact that the
property has not been rezoned - we're not rescinding a rezoning
we F;re:xescindinga motion. Morgan agreed this was his intent.
--Eder - there has been a ordinance. adopted which rezoned the
land - have to either leave it stand or - appears that the
action is trying to pass a resolution to negate an earlier
resolution
-a-Whittaker - earlier action was an ordinance to rezone - weruid have
to rescind the ordinance.
-Dunn - believe there are two interpretations of this one, it was
never rezoned in the first place
--Mazzara - disagreed, Council took action 4-1, this makes it rezoned.
--Dunn - this is a court decision - if have not followed the procedure
have in effect not rezoned.
--Eder - in absence of getting an exact answer needed to really vote
up or down on the motion, agree with Fraser's position that the
issue should be tabled pending proper legal advice. Either way
it is a serious matter.
--Morgan - just a legal a matter to hold an unlawful_ hearing in
something that has such a+.?major impact on the City - more concerned
about that. Want to start where we should have started in the
first place.
Motion carried 3-2. Fraser and Eder opposed.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1983
12.
9, COUNCIL REPORT:
A. Dave MbVan - Continued
--Vance-" rannis, Willis Hutchinson Attorney
By passage of this motion, effectively rezoning the land such action requires a 4/5 vote, Based on the action two weeks
ago, the land is now. zoned. As understand what the motion is
doing, it is trying to rezone what was rezoned and by State'
Law that takes a 4/5 vote,
--Gordon Moosbrugger - not rezoning - reconsidering a motion that
was passed at the last meeting,
--Ray Marshall seems that the result will be just that - a
rezoning, unless misinterpret the action, believe the statement
is correct and action would take a 4/5 vote just as the original
rezoning,
--Morgan - cannot see when the due process of law is not followed
and then say need a 4/5 vote to undo what was not legal - not
talking about rezoning - talking about following the proper,
lawful procedure for holding a public hearing.
--Eder - appreciate what;g.ou are saying, but right or wrong a
motion passed at the last meeting by a 4/5 vote that officially
rezoned the land.
,-Ray Marshall - only question is the propriety of the notice -
Morgan - would request that another legal opinion be secured
besides that of the City Attorney. Have some reasons that have
been stated a number of times. I think there is a possibility
of a vested interest in that development.
--Dunn - warned and advised the Administrator that the City Attorney
should be prepared specifically for the question on the notice.
--Morgan - requested that Item A. 2. EAW be deleted.
--Fraser - requested that Item B. 1. Informational Meeting and a
public hearing be deleted.
Council agreed to both requests.
--Whittaker - asked the City Attorney to comment on the effect of
the Council action.
--Ray Marshall - think we're right back where we started from.
Seems if there wasn't a 4/5 vote nothing can be done about the
previous action. Essence of the motion was to rezone and cannot rez,
without published notice, notification of the property owner and
a 4/5. Council approval.
--Fraser - going.to._.accept the view of the City Attorney that a 4/5
vote is required to undo the action taken on April 5.
--Morgan- disagrees, previous action was taken in error, therefore,
a 4/5 vote does not relate
M/S/P Fraser/Eder directing the City Administrator not to take
further action on this matter at this time. Carried 3-2. Morgan and
Dunn opposed.
--Morgan - should establish a policy whereby consideration of
large rezonings Ise doiisidered over a two meeting period.
M/S/ Dunn/Morgan to instruct the Administrator to present the
proposal and actions of the City Planning Commission and City
Council to Attorney Jim Lammers for legal opinion.
Discussion-
--Fraser thinks thiswillonly be needless legal expense.
'harried 3-2. Fraser and Mazzara opposed.
--Eder - Advised the Council that he expects that they will
accept and follow the opinion of Mr. Lammer.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL -13-
10. ADMINISTRATOR''S REPORT:
A. Ordinance 795'0 Am'en'd'ing MiningO'r'd'in'an'ce -
M/'S/P Mazzara/Morgan to approve Ordinance 7950, an Ordinance
amending Section 901.020 B of the 1979 Municipal Ccde. Carried 5-0.
B. Demontreyille'Acce'ss Extra Duty Police -
M/S/P Mazzara/Fraser to authorize $600 for extra duty deputy patrol
at the Demontreville Access. Carried 5-0.
C. Clean U19 Days Charges - Handled earlier
D. Building Inspector's Report - The Council reviewed the Building
Inspector s report, The Council accepted the report as
presented.
E. Assistant' Administrator Interview 'Sch&dtiiIb - The Administrator will
meet May 7 at 8 a.m, to screen t e ape ications with the
Personnel Committee.
The Interview team and date for interviewing applicants was
acceptable with the Council.
F. Raleigh Tire Damage - The Council reviewed the letter from
Cif Raleig . W ittaker informed the Council that the claim
was .rejected by the contractor's insurance company. The
Council agreed the claim should be submitted to the City's
insurance company.
G. Satellites Lake :lane Access - The Council instructed the
Administrator to contact tH DNR and request that satellites
be placed at the Lake Jane Public Access.
ADJOURN: M/S/P Morgan/Dunn to adjourn at 10:25 p.m.
RESOLUTIONS: 83-29 - Sealcoat Feasibility Hearing
83-30 - Midland Meadows Plat Extension
ORDINANCE: 7950 - Mining Ordinance
R-83-29
RESOLUTION
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT
FOR THE CITY'S OVER-ALL SEALCOATING PROGRAM AND ORDERING
A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FEASIBILITY OF THIS PROJECT.
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has
recently considered the possibility of rehabilitating certain
streets within said City during 1983; and
WHEREAS, the City Council. concluded that a more intense
program of sealcoating may postpone the need for street
rehabilitation; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer, at the direction of tie
City Council, has prepared a Feasibility Report for the.'seal-
coati.ng of all paved streets in the City and submitted°this
Report to the City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Lake Elmo as follows:
1. The City Council will. consider the proposed improvements
of City streets in accordance with the Engineer's Report and the
assessment of abutting property for all. or a portion of the cost
of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improve-
ments on the llth day of May, 1983, in the Oakland Junior High
School Auditorium at 7:00 o'clock p.m. and the Clerk shall give
notice of such hearing and improvement- as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo this
19th day of April, 1983.
Mayna66 L. Eder, Mayor y��
ATTEST:
Laurence E. Whittaker, City
Administrator
R-83-•30
RESOLUTION
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
_...A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY
PLAT APPROVAL FOR MIDLAND MEADOWS
WIiEREAS, the Preliminary Plat of Midland Meadows was
approved by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo on
December 11, 1979; and,
WHEREAS, Section 401.240 G. required the Subdivider
to submit a Final Plat within 1.80 days of the approval of the
Preliminary Plat; and,'
WHEREAS, Chapter 401. of the City Code provides that
the City Council may grant an extension of Preliminary Plat
approval upon the request of the Subdivider; and,
WHEREAS, the Subdivider has requested a £ourt,� one
year extension for the approval of the Preliminary Plat because
the current economy makes development of the property very
difficult;
NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council
of the City of Lake Elmo that:
The Preliminary Plat approval of Midland Meadows is
extended for one year from April 19, 1983, within which time
the Subdivider will be required to submit a Final Plat.
ADOPTED this the 19th day of April, 1983, by the
City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Washington County,
Minnesota.
SIGNED:
$ e.
Mayn d L. Eder, Mayor
ATTEST:
i�v�v`�-'✓DLL ( � W V,lv1ALi�fL2--�..._
Laurence E. Wza.ttr
City Administrator
CLAIMS TO BE APPROVED AT APRIL 19th LARE ELMO COUNCIL MEETING
83645 David Eder - office & fire hall cleaning
83646 Cragun's Conference Center - City Manager's Conf.
63647 Government Training Service- City Manager's Conf.
83648 State Treasurer - lst Quarter Building Surcharge
83649 Mary Meyer - 4/12/83 newsletter
83650 St. Paul Dispatch - Adm. position
83651 Lillie Suburban Newspapers - legal publications
83652 MN Ass'n of Civil Defense Directors - 1983 dues
83653 Junker Sanitation
83654 City of North St. Paul - Animal Control Vehicle
83655 Brockman Motor Sales - Fire Dept truck repair
83656 MN State Fire Department Assn - Fire Dept. 1983 dues
83657 Lake Elmo Oil - Fire Dept. $ 48.79
Maint. Dept. 1,112.15
83658 Meyer Mercantile - Fire Dept. 11.Tu
Maint. Dept. 77.45
83659 Carlson Tractor & Equipment - Maint.Nept._- trk repair
83660 Moelter Construction Co. - gravel
83661 Metro Waste Control Com. - sewer service chgs.
41.04
119.91
95.00
99.46
200.00
58.50
121.08
3.00
42.00
125.00
10.75
30.00
1,160.94
88.85
105.40
700.49
67.25
83662 thru 83672 April 29th payroll 4,500.00
7,568.67
R83-2 6
RESOLUTION
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE FORMATION
OF A WATER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION BY
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE COTTAGE
GROVE RAVINE.
WHEREAS, the 1982 Metropolitan Surface Water
Management- Act requires the creation of a Watershed
Management Organization to Dlan for water management
in the southern. part of Washington County; and,
WHEREAS, the Act provides three different
methods for creating an. organization.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that it is the in-
tent of City of Lake Elmo to form a Water Management
Organization for the Cottage Grove Ravine Watershed
via. a Joint Powers Agreement with other effected Com-
munities/Townshi.ps; and,
BE IT FURTHER
be a formal request to
for preliminary review
boundary developed for
shed.
ADOPTED, this
by the City Council of
County, Minnesota.
RESOLVED that this resolution
the Water Resources Board asking
and comments on the preliminary
the. Cottage Grove Ravine Water -
the 5th. day of April, 1983,
the City of Lake Elmo, Washington
SIGNED: 4 e � /
Mayn6td. L. Eder, Mayor
At-est: � ,UvCtit'C,e � �, /��
__e- ._ _
Laurence E. Whittaker
City Administrator