HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-17-83 CCMLAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 17, 1983 D R A F T
For June 7 approval
Mayor Eder called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m.
Councillors present: Fraser, Morgan, Mazzara and Dunn
1. AGENDA:
9.
A.
11.
C.
11.
D.
12.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Additions -
City Employee Back-up for VBWD Pumping Project -Lake Jane
Mike Mazzara - W/E Plant Report
Dave Morgan - EQB Letter from Richard Ostlund
Nelson/Hageman Letter on Zoning Reconsideration
Lawsuit - Residents vs City, C&NW Railroad & W. Hutchinson
Utility Bill Default
AMM Annual Meeting
Interviews - Saturday Morning Schedules
Pump Purchase Offer from Cimarron
Authorization for Purchasing Play Equipment Material for
Tablyn Park
Lawsuit - Third Party Suit - Landfall Contamination
Street Project Petition for Jamaca Ct. N.
M/S/P Fraser/Morgan to approve the Agenda, as amended. Carried 5-0.
2. MINUTES - MAY 3, 19.83 - Corrections
• Page 7,.Paragraph 2, Fraser - "I have believed this from
the start of this eesa4iesu'e'stion" "Then the City weald
could be ordered to,..... ``_.__..'there is a question there,
is.-ot much lesser 4mpst\impact" '.
° Page, B,,Paragraph, 3,.,"'6e�eese�e-a€-�asg-e€-ekes-peep3e-p�e;sea��.
was' P'e'opl'e' in, t'he\ 'audi'enc'e' 'indicated. .. "
° Page 12,, Pgragalap , "`Re }glerxs-g eaps-wesld-set-be-apgrepriate,
kewever" "'A group. ."
° Fraser --- Bea1t-t-h4nh-we-eas-qet-tee-speel#}e.
M/S/P Mazzara/Morgan to approve the Minutes of May 3, 1983, as
corrected. Carried 5-0.
3. CLAIMS:
Overtime pay role will be noted on the Claims list in the future.
Additions: Ray Childers - Deputy Demontreville Access $216.00-83757
Rich Peterson- Deputy Demontreville Access $ 75.00-83758
M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to approve Claims 83725 thru 83758. Carried 5-0
4. LICENSES:
3.2 beer license Green Acres Rec Center for Graduation Party -
Fraser asked to defer action until the type of graduation (high
school, college) is clarified. Council agreed.
5. ENGINEER"S REPORT:
A. Drainage Policies - Bohrer referred the Council to his letter
of May 17, 1983, that contained suggested policy statements
resulting from proposed policy Item 3, in Tom Armstrong's
policy statement regarding drainage in the Cottage Grove
Ravine. He answered Council questions concerning implementation
and enforcement. Also, ponding requirements 6or impervious areas.
Whittaker suggested hmeitding the wording -,concerning enforcement
by adding Site and Building Plan Procedures in place of
Building Permit procedures. The Council agreed.
LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 17, 1983 D R A F T -t-
or 6 7 83
approval
5. ENGINEER'S REPORT:
A. '-D'r'ainage\.Polic1!es - Continued
M/S/P Mazzara/Morgan to adopt A-83-34, a resolution setting
forth the basic .drainage policy for -the Cottage Grove Ravine
Watershed, as presented by_"the City Engineer in his May 17, 1983,
letter. Carried 5-0.
Carried 5-0.
B. D'em'ontre illl'e\Aeb'e-s's\P<1an - Bohrer reviewed the DNR''s
oncept Y a ou� dining the changes from the previous
concept proposal. The Council had no..objections to the
proposed lane alignments on Demontreville Trail; but wanted
the parking provisions in the lot to be restructed since no
provision was made for single cars without trailers (shore
fishermenJ. The Council offered the following plan changes:
1. 12 car/trailer parallel stalls and 6 single car parallel
stalls be provided.
2. A satelite shelter be provided to accomodate a satelite
unit as previously proposed.
3. Landscape screening of the DNR parking lot and vacant DNR
lot be provides, ,as previously proposed.
M/S/P Morgan/Mazzara to forward the Council's comments and
recommendations on the DNR Concept Plan for the Demontreville
Access to the DNR. Carried 5-0.
Whittaker noted that the DNR did not expect to take possession
the property until August 15, thereby, indicating no construction
until next spring.
4. LICENSES':
Cl'ari'fi)cation',on`Spr,ih,gKsormZG°raa'duat�im'n,\3LYcense - Howard Springborn
indicated tTtat this was a rlig Sc ool"Graduation Party. It was
a family affair and would have adult supervision.
--Fraser - would not vote in favor of the City granting a 3.2
beer license for a rligh School Graduation party.
M/S/P Morgan/Dunn to approve a 3.2 Beer License to Green Acres
Recreation Center for June 5, 1983, for a Graduation Party -
Mary Springborn. Carried 4-1. Fraser opposed.
6. PUBLIC HEARING - RICHARD SEELER - VACATION OF OLD HWY 212 RIGHT-
OF-WAY:
Mayor Eder opened the hearing at 7:41 p.m.
Administrator explained the request and stated that Bruce Folz
checked the survey and verified that no part of Stillwater Lane
was vacated. In..i.verifying the Seeler request, Folz found two
discrepancies. The City never obtained a formal dedication from
Lahart Friedrich for Stillwater Lane and more of old Highway 212
is on the Merle Olson property. These items do not affect the
Seeler vacation, but should be cleared up.
Audience Comments:
--Fonda Olson - asked about the location of the property to be
vacated. Mayor Eder and Administrator Whittaker explained.
Lake Elmo Council Meeting, May 17, 1983 D R A F T -3-
For 6 7 83
approval
,6. SEELER VACATION'- Continued -
There were no other questions from the audience. The findings
and recommendations of Bruce Folz were outlined in his letter
of May 14, 1983, to Administrator Whittaker,
There being no further comments or discussion, Mayor Eder closed
the hearing at 8:46 p.m,
M/S/'P Dunn/Fraser to adopt R-83-35, a Resolution to vacate that
part of the W 1/12 NW 1/6 Sh 1/4 of Sec 14, T29N R21W as outlined
on the elevation survey prepared and documented by Barrett M.
Stack, Reg, No, 13774, 3-31-81 for Richard Seeler, All pass -
through costs will be paid by Mr. Seeler, as previously agreed.
Motion carried 5-•0.
7, PUBLIC HEARING - GRACE COLOSIMO - APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES:
As notice to adjacent property owners was not documented with the
new affidavit verification (notices were sent out prior to adoption
of the affidavit policyi, Mayor Eder declared the hearing could
not be held, Ms. Colosimo requested that the Council still
consider her requdest and discuss the situation,
--Grace Colosimo - informed the Council that since the Planning
Commission would require platting as part of their recommendation,
the variance request to the Simple Lot Division was withdrawn,
--Wyn John, Jane Road N, - lives on unimproved section of Jane
Road right-of-way, Residents on the unimproved portion of Jane
Road N. are not prepared to.peition for an improvement until
an estimated cost ks determined, Mayor Eder explained the
petitioning process,
--Grace Colosimo - many questions concerning costs - Bernie Meyer
estimated from $7,000-$16,000 to do the unpaved portion of r-o-w.
Would like her request considered aside from the Jane Rd. N.
improvement question.
--Morgan - recommended sooking an approximate estimate
for an amount within 10% of the cost - not Jo into a
detailed study or spend. a lot of money -do r-o-w location later.
--Engineer Bohrer - need to determine the right-of-wav, drainage, etc.
Could estimate a cost just based on length and width of the road.
Cost to prepare estimate would be abort $150-$200, using
current information, viewing the property and doing calculations.
--Morgan - Recommended that the City pay for the $200 estimate -
if the estimate is reasonable, residents may petition the project.
City has been trying for years to resolve this situation.
--Mazzara - $200 for cost estimate is a small amount for benefitting
residents to pay.
--Fraser - not enough justification to waive $200 payment by
residents and not follow the City's usual procedure,
--Dunn - asked Mr. John if the residents have a strong feeling
to get this area improved,
--Wyn John - small portion of the residents were present - has
talked to the Engineer who outlined the steps involved in
establishing the road, Engineer Bohrer again outlined the
steps and costs of the petitioning procedure.and costs that
the property owners would be responsible for, Mr. John indicted
he was reluctant to make any response until all the residents
expressed an opinion.
--Morgan - stressed reasons why City should pay the initial $200,
cited examples,
CITY COUNCIL OF LAKE ELMO, MEETING MAY 17, 1983 D R A F T -4-
f0r 6/7 83
approval
7. COLOSIMO PUBLIC HEARING - Continued
Mayor Eder asked for a.poll concerning adhering to Cty policy
for varing the requirements for creating a lot on an unimproved
street and creating a lot on a private road.
--Fraser reluctant to deviate
--Mazzara - not familar, with situation or background. Whittaker
explained the road access requirement, private road policy
and the Colosimo request..
--Grace Colosimo - talked to Don Raleigh - not proposing to
have this a private driveway - understood the non -dedicated
right-of-way would have to be dedicated. Colosimo's have been
maintaining Jane Rd. N. and their private road since 1979.
Would like to continue to live in this area, but, cannot
afford to keep present house. Want to sell and rebuild on
this property - this is the hardship - believe variance can
be granted because of hardship. Cannot afford to pave the
present private driveway. Also, Mr. Maistrovich abutting
property to Jane Rd. N. and private driveway does not want
to pave the private driveway.(Mr. Maistrovich was present, but
did not commentp
--Eder - explained that hardship cannot be considered in terms of
hardship to the individual, but hardship of the land.
{-Grace Colosimo - what is next step - do not want to go to expense
of platting and not get lot/road variance.
--Whittaker - key question is improved public right-of-way off
of the driveway/road access to the existing Colosimo home.
PZC has asked if the Council will allow a subdivision with
the existing situation.
--Howard Springborn - owns the Colosimo driveway over which
they have easement rights. Keeping road so to have the
option of developing lots on his property north of the
road/driveway.
--Whittaker r explained that by dedicating this driveway to the
City he would not forfdat his access to Jane Rd. N. as the
area would be preserved as public right-of-way - it does not
have to be paved in order to be dedicated right-of-way,
--Eder - gave the history of property situation.
Poll:
--Fraser - reluctant to make regulation changes -
--Mazzara - inclined to approve a variance - still like more
information, but inclined to allow.
--Morgan - favors approving the variances. Would do no harm to
the dnvironment. Would like to see Jane Rd. N. brought up to
City Standard - already 12 homes serviced off the unimproved
portion.
--Eder - regulation should be ahered to. This should not have
been allowed initially. Not the same situation as when it was
approved in 601's . Equability of hardship - land is not the
hardship - any one else would have to spend equal dollars to
develop 'r.a lot.. and meet the requirements.
--Dunn - no problem in granting the variance.
--Eder - again explained why the hearing was not held.
8. PUBLIC HEARING KEN SOVEREIGN —APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES:
Eder explained that the public hearing could not be held because
affidavit verification was not made on the public notices that
were sent out,
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 17, 1983 DoR A 83 -5-
approval
8, PUBLIC HEARING KEN SOVEREIGN n Continued
Whittaker explained the request and said the PZC would like
the Council."s feeling on the variance requests before making
a recommendation. He noted the Commission recommendation
of May 9, 1983.
--Ken Sovereign - after considering the Planning Commission suggestion,
from:an engineering point, this was not a good idea since
it would lock in the rest of the property for future development
by reducing the area needed for a cul-de-sac. Also, does not
feel it is a good idea to place another access onto Olson Lake
Road, He explained lot configuration relationships for an
1 1/2 acre and 1.15 acre lots. By requiring an 1 1/2 acre
lot the City is asking for the largest lot on Demontreville
and Olson Lakes, Determined that PZC suggestion would not
make sense,
--Eder - asked for a plan for proposed future development.
--Ken Sovereign - just want to plat one lot not the entire parcel.
--Whittaker - recommended that Sovereign"s develop a preliminary
plat and request a variance for the lot size of this lot.
--Ken Sovereign - not going to spend any money unldss Council
will give assurance of varying the 1.15 lot size.
Engineer Bohrer - this request almost identical to Crombie and
Neudahl requests. Recommended that Mr. Sovereign also
address ponding requirements for single lot platting.
--Morgan - would consider a variance After reviewing a preliminary
sketch plan and a request for variance.
---Ken Sovereign - disagreed this would require ponding. Will
Orppar6 a layout - makes no sense to require 125 ft for this
lake lot.
9, BRAD FARNHAM, J'URAN & MOODY - SEALCOAT PROGRAM FINANCING;
Administrator Whittaker requested that Mr. Farnham attend the
meeting and explain financing approaches and options for the
Sealcoat Program.
Mr, Farnham distributed three alternative schedules - 1983
Sealcoat Programl 1984 Sealcoat Program; and a combined 1983-
1984 Program. After reviewing the alternatives, he outlined
the Tax Impact Analysis for each, per his schedules of 5/17/83.
He noted that the City would have to order both the 1983 and
1984 Project in order to get the combined bonding advantages,
provided, of course, the City intends to go ahead with the 1984
project,
M/S/P Fraser/Mazzara adopting R-83-36, A resolution ordering the
1984 Sealcoat Program as outlined at the public hearing of May
11, 1983, and the Sealcoat Feasibility Study. Said project
being ordered to allow the City greater bonding flexability
options. Carried 5-0.
M/S/P Mazzara/Dunn setting dune 7, 1983, 7:15 p,m. as the selling date
for the 1983-84 Sealcoat Project Bonds.
BREAK
LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 17, 1983 D R A F T -6-
'or $3
approval
9. A. LAKE JANNE PUMP BACK-UP:,M'a n`teOha)lceba�'k-UO,fbr'die'sel pump.
Dick Murray presented the Wiate.rshed's request for City crew
back-up when Watershed maintenance employee, Elmer Richert
requires leave time (eg. sick, emergency, personal, etc.J Tie
City'crew will be given advance notice when they will be needed
for back-up. He explained the daily maintenance routine;and,
gave a brief up-da.te of the flood condition on Jane. He also
reported that 'sandbags were not put on the weir at Lake Olson.
Valley Branch will pay the wages of the City Employees,,and Elmer
Richert, but requested that the'City administrate the pay roll.
Administrator Whittaker said the City had a previous letter of
agreement defining administration, overhead costs, etc.
M/S/P Morgan/Mazzara authorizinq the City Maintenance Crew to
serve as diesel pump maintenance back-up-for-Watershed=,mantenance
employee Elmer Richert; and following previous payroll -
procedures for paying employees of 'Walley Branch working
on the hake Jane Pump. Carried 5-0.
]D. OLD BUSINESS:
A. , Sect'iton` 32"- 'Con'cep't', Plan - Whittaker explained the plan
and tie 'ideas and'"intents of the Section 32 residents
in developing the proposal. The property owners asked
for a general response from the Council before further
refining and incorporating the natural amenities of the
area into the plan.
M/S/P Morgan/Fraser accepting the Concept Plan for Section 32
as developed by Section 32 property owners and outlined by the
City Administrator. Carried 5-0.
B. ordin'ah'ce' ,1'9;52'=�,,Ras','8`p't�irig'��'9rdinence\\79'17 - Section 1404.101
was omitted when Section Y4QO was�reoodi-fied. Ordinance 7952
readopts this Section into the Code.
M/S/P Fraser/Mazzara to adopt Ordinance 7952, an Ordinance readopting
Ordinance 7917 - Section 1404.010 - Other Animals. Carried 5-0.
C. Newsletter Distribution - Brooks Superette, Haeberg`s Country
Store -an—LE Bank have agreed to have a distribution rack
for the City Newsletter, No additional costs should be
incurred and this would provide better circulation of the
Newsletter. The Council agreed to this=additional means
of distribution.
n. COUNCIL REPORTS:
A. Mayor Eder Represenitatlive -
er explained the importance and necessity bf-having a
representative and alternate on this Comm-.ttee. Work
will include.. developing a plan for the Valley Branch
Watershed District.
M/S/P.tiFraser/Mazzara appointing Maynard Eder, Representative,
and David Morgan, Alternate Representative, to the VBWD
Planning Committee. Motion carried 3-0-2. Morgan and Eder abstained.
LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 17, 1983 D R A F T -7-
For 6 7 83
ll, COUNCTZ . REPORTS Approval
B,' Coun'cJll'or', Dunn r� D'�'scu's's\,R\ich'ar'd,.'Ostlund' ,Letterof 5/'5/"8'3' to City
Councillor Dunn made the following comments and motion:
--Letter represents Mr. Ostlunds opinion and nothing more.
--Council has an obligation to protect the right of all parties
in this matter, that is, our silence or lAck. of response
implies agreement with the Ostlund letter,
MIS/ Dunn/'Morgan directing the City Administrator to inform
Willis Hutchinson, the C&NW Railroad and its attorney, Lundquist
& Vennum, that the City is awaiting a court decision on the
validity or invalidity of Ordinance 7949 and that neither the
C&NW Railroad nor Willis Hutchinson should take any further
steps or incur any further liabilities in reliance upon the validity
oif(,said ordinance until a court determination has been made.
Also, the City should take no further action in this matter
until we receive a court decision,
Discussion:
-Mazzara - requested a legal opinion from the City Attorney,
-Eder - would need a motion for an executive session for legal advice,
-Morgan - have asked for legal advice and everytime we have gotten
legal advice we have not followed i_t, This letter implies that
the original ordinance, which has caused all the legal advice,
was an action. .If we don't take exception to that, it is an
indication that we would incur liability if anything happens
from this point. We all agreed we were going to accept legal
opinion and we did't last time. All this motion is saying
is 'put it on the record that we are doing nothing and nothing
is happening until we get a legal opinion.
-Eder - very touchy in terms of the fact that we started legal
action as a City.
-Fraser - have no desire to seek legal opinion. Don't agree
with the judgement that Councillor Dunn has expressed,
-Mazzara - would like to have legal counsel - don't think would
like to go into private council. Seems what Bruce is saying
is not totally irrelavent. Although given the fact we are in
a judicial situation - don•".t know the ramifications and would
like to know - don°t know if we have to go into private session
to find this out,
-Eder - because of the legal situation, any strategy or anything,
has to be handled in a lawyer/client relationship. We cannot
share it with anyone else.
-Morgan - believe there has to be some response to this letter.
-Dunn - just saying we are going to do nothing until the court
clarifies this matter, and askiAg_them to do nothing also.
Don't know how this can cause trouble. Do not know what is so
sacred about the Executive Session. Nothing was said in there
that is secret. Have a tape of the session - just about ready
to get it typed up and hang it in Hagbergs, Post Office, every-
where - there is nothing secret or confidential about it,
-Eder- disagree with this position - at some,pont this can be
revealed, but, I think, that it is no different than any
normal client/'lawyer relationship.
-Dunn - all I am saying is to tell them we are going to do nothing
because what they are saying is not true,
LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 17, 1983 D R A F T -8-
For 6 7 83
Approval
A. COUNCIL REPORTS-
B. • 'Councillor' -,Dunn
Motion failed - Vote 2-2-1. Eder and Fraser opposed.
Mazzara abstained.
C. Councillor' Mazzara W'/E\.Plant\Roport --
DDR9, Engineers for the propose plant, is sponsoring a 3-day
tour of similar plants, both operational and under construction.
They are providing the air transportion to interested Board
representatives and other interested parties. Mazzara
indicated he would like to go and asked the Council to
authorize food and logding expense of $150.
Dunn - don't see any reason to send an elected official -
don''t think would gain that much - reason for going on any
of these field trips is technical - do not see where it is
that important - like Tip O'Neal's junkets all over the world.
- Fraser - had an opportunity to view the plant in Boston, on
personal time - no cost to the City - and found the tour
of the facility very helpful in getting a sense of what is
involved and understanding the operation of such a facility.
Support Mazzara's interest to go for $150 of City expense.
Eder - agree with Dunn if it were only the technical aspects
of the operation, but based on the feedback from Fraser and
Jess Mottaz, who also visited the plant, the experience gave
ai.'feeling of how to relate to the technical aspects, what type
of questions to ask, what is significant about the process,
location - creates a whole different sense of awareness.
Would support his touring the plants.
M/S/P Fraser/Eder authorizing Councillor Mike Mazzara to attend
the HDR W/E plant Tour at City expense in an amount not to exceed
$200. Carried 3,2 Morgan and Dunn opposed.
D,, Council lo'r,"Morgan ,Complaint\,Er'rors v Omissions
korgan d str1bu et d a memo to the Mayor and City Council, from
himself, listing errors and ommissions he found in the
Complaint filed in District Court on behalf of the City He
asked that the listed items be corrected as indicated.
-- Eder - again cautioned that this may fall under the lawyer/
client relationship and necessitate executive session.
-- Dunn - the adjacent land owners received copies of the
memo and have made it public.
- Morgan - these are minor technical omissions that change the
gist of the complaint eg. Page 4, item 9 states "at that
time at least one of the landowners present, to wit, William
Barthelmy was entitled to a mailed noticeV% all of the land-
owners present were entitled to mailed notice - not one, all
of them. Should say all of them. Public knowledge that none
of them got written notice.
M/S/ Fraser/Eder that all of Councillor Morgan's complaints
be forwarded to the City Attorney and that he be asked to review
them and act on them if he feels it. -:is appropriate.
Discussion:
,-Morgan - not talking about professional judgement - talking
about what is public record and what has happened, not
someone's watered down opinion - that's nothing legal about
that.W,hen none of the people got written notices,why say one
didn't,
LAKE EL'MO COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 17, 1983 D R A F T -9-
For 6 7 3
approval
D. Gpul E 1?l;p� Norg'an .:\CoM `l'Wt11t Continued
"-Morgan amity Attorne-shiourd be representing the City.
This is our case.
-Eder - point being made is once beyond the first step
is where all the details are put in - point to be made
is that he (City Attorney) was making a point - this is
the way T read it, not that it was all inclusive or non -
inclusive.
Morgan - extremely disappointed in the complaint. Did not
think it represented,in strong enough langiage, the position
of the City. Facts were not presented accurately. Have
listed them and feel they will not get the proper attention
that they should have.
--Eder - the specifics are what are brought out in a court of
law. Complaint provides the framework - judge will ask.
the people the questions or they will come and testify.
Amendment: Fraser and Eder agreed to include the statement
that the Complaint Errors and Omissions will be reviewed
by the City Attorney and Councillor Morgan.
Motion carried 5-0.
E. Councillo'r' Morgan �EQBI\`Letter\ from\'R� chard' Gs't'lund
Morgan referred the Counci to` r; Ostlund e letter of May 9,
1983 to Mr. Gregg Downing of the Environmental Quality Board.
Questioned Mr. Downings opinion that any effect or potential
effect on the environment can be handled by the local and
regional agencies.- Wants the record to indicate that
the City does not feel this way. Every State agency that
has any jurisdiction in this matter should be involved.
This has a major impact on the environment of this City
and impact evaluation isn"t going to be handled by just
local government. Should instruct Mr. Downing that the
City has some very serious concerns and want a full
evaluation by every agency that normally gets involved in
this type of activity.
-Eder - made a request to the EQB to evaluate this request
in terms of its applicability to State Statute. This would
involve all normally involved agencies.
--Morgan - in my opinion, we seem to be representing the point
of view of the developer - it is our responsibility to
represent the point of view of the citizens. Not imagining
things - when you read the complaint it is watered down -
letters do not address the issues
--Mazzara , what else do we do other than ask for EQB opinion?
--Morgan - talked to Ms. Pile - she wasn't aware of what was
going on out here except for what Mr. Ostlund told them.
Send a letter to Ms .Pile and Mr. Downing, expressing our
concern about what this potential development will have on
the environment of the City of Lake Elmo,
Whittaker - sent a letter to Greg Downing asking them to
determine if an environmental worksheet was necessary, per
Council instruction. Listed two sections of the regulation
that had been brought up as potential mandatory EAU.
Received letter from State May 13 - Whittaker read the response
from Gregg Downing, Environmental Review Coordinator, Letter
was dated May 11, 1983, and received May 13.
LAKE EL'6MO COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 17, 1983 D R A F T -10-
For 7 83
. , ..�: ..
E'.
--Vraser response sounds like the proper steps being taken -
maybe not as quickly as desired.
Dunn � what Dave is saying is right - this is having too much
impact on the City , Personally, do not feel we are getting
good representation from our staff - wish Mr. Ostlund were
working for us.
MIS/ Dunn/Morgan to direct the City Administrator.to give the
Council any and all correspondence relating to the -Hutchinson
rezoning, environmental issues, anything relating to the issue
and send to the Council on a timely basis, which means, it be
mailed.out the same day it is received,
Discussion:
--Dunn - Council needs to know what is going on. Don't feel
comfortable with the woold thing very disappointed in the
total staff.
Motion carried 5-0.
M/S/ Morgan/Dunn to require that the Administrator submit
all correspondence, on behalf oftheCity relating to the
Hutchinson rezoning and/or C&NW facility, to the Council for
their review and approval, before mailing it.
Discussion:
--Fraser - what contrary action on the part of the Administrator
precipitated this motion? What has been sent that is contrary
to what the Council.requested.
—Dunn - cited letter dated October 7, 1979, to Willis Hutchinson.
--Whittaker - letter was the position of the Council, at that
time,as indicated in the minutes,- II.,._ ,,
-Dunn , not according to -Tom Armstrong, who was Mayor.
--Mazzara -.would support the motion provided there is a
reasonable reason or example of where the Administrator has
not upheld his job.
-Dunn - referred to letter of April 28, 1983, to Dunn from
Whittaker. Goes back to April 19, 1983, meeting where Larry
Whittaker was informed (by Dunn) that Gordon Moosbrugger was
coming in, the citizens were concerned. During discussion
Attorney Marshall said he was unaware of & not in a position -;to re:
Asked Larry, at this point - did you tell Ray - got a yes, be it
a grunt or whatever. April 28, 1983, letter from Larry
Whittaker, denies everything he said at the meeting - which
was namely yes. Do not think Larry is giving his full support
on this matter - Whittaker was fully aware of what was going
to be discussed at the Council meeting - he did not prepare the
case - either he didn^t or Ray - somehow our staff did not prepare
the case when they knew what was coming up. This is why (I) do
not fully trust the staff.
--Mazzara one of the problems is direct communication with the
Administrator and Attorney with Council members. Have to sit
down and talk with them and:find out where they are coming from.
--Eder - need to band together - no more or less concern on the
part of any Councillor. Public meeting is not the place to debate
the issue when there is a lawsuit.
Motion failed 2-3. Fraser, Eder and Mazzara opposed.
LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 17, 1983 For 67778
^11-
approval
12., 'ADMINISTRATOR''S REPORT:
A. Nelson Hag'emah'•.Letter - Whittaker referred the Council to
a fetter from Glenn E. Hageman and David Nelson requesting
reconsideration of their rezoning request lest litigation
be initiated based on the Council's recent decision. A
legal opinion from their attorney, Morse, Clinton & O'Gorman,
Ltd, was attached.
M/S/P Fraser/Mazzara to take the Nelson/Hageman request and
legal opinion under advisement until the June 7, 1983, meeting,
Carried 5-0.
B. Moosbrugger'Summon's°'&,Ccmp'laint - Whittaker reported that
Mayor Eimer was serve a summons & Complaint initiatedr.hy
,several residents requesting the Court to declare the hearing
and subsequent', rezoning of the willis Hutehinsom property
invalid and requesting -damages of $25,000,•000,from the C&NW
Railroad that would result from their proposed auto unloading
facility on the Hutchinson property, The City has 20 days
from date of service, May 13, 1983, to respond. The City
office received copy on May 17, 1983. The complaint was
filed with the District Court,
Whittaker asked the City Attorney how to respordto the Complaint;
--Attorney Marshall - this action is completely separate
from the city's request for a declaratory judgement.
Prohibited -from discussing.this,.at an-open`meeting-because of
of the Laywer/Client privilege, The client can waive this .;_
prividedge, but the lawyer cannot. When talking about pending
litigation, prohibited from and not at liberty to discuss
the litigation at an open meeting. Happy to discuss with
the Council in Executive Session, but cannot advise the
Council on this litigation at an open meeting. Action has
to be taken before the next Council meeting.
MIS/ Fraser/Mazzara to move for an Executive Session with
legal Counsel to discuss the pending lawsuit -served on Mayor
Eder,
Discussion:
--Mazzara - would like to read over the complaint before making
any decisions,
--Eder - explained why the Council did not receive a copy of the
complaint until today - was unaware when he was served that no other
Council members or the City Administrator were,served. Erred in
not asking Attorney Moosbrugger - essentially he stood for the City
in being served.
--Mazzara - Because of the time factor, agreed to. the Executive
Session
Motion carried 3-2. Dunn and Morgan opposed. The Council
recessed for a 15 minute Executive Session with the City Attorney.
Utility Bill Default -'The Council reviewed the City
Attornw's lather uprdating the Louis Tuccito past due
Water Bill. Council approval is requirad to declare
r_.he bill in default.
M/S/P Fraser/Morgan to declare the delinquent water bill of
Louis Tuccitto in the amount of $167.20 in default and uncollectable.
Carried 5-0.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 17, 1983
Z2.. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
D. AMM Annual Meeting
attend -the meeting
D R A F T -12-
For 6 7 83
approval
- Councillor Fraser and Mayor Eder will
on May 26, 1983.
E. Personnel Committee - Whittaker reported that two of the six
Assistant Administrator candidates withdrew. The four other
candidates will be interviewed Saturday morning. Councillor
Fraser urged Councillors Morgan & Mazzara to attend the
interview meeting, if possible. The Personnel Committee will
make a recommendation to the full Council June 7.
F. Pump Purchase Offer from Cimarron - As Lake Rose is nearing
Tic condition again and Cimarron wants to head -off the
situation of previous years, they are interested in purchasing
the City's portable pump for $2500. The pump was previously
used for Lake Jane.
--Morgan - feels $2500 is too low an offer since the City paid
$3500.
M/S/P Eder/Dunn to counter negotiate the pump price with Cimarron
for $3,000. Carried 5-0.
G. Tablyn Park Playground Equipment - The Jaycees are ready to
purchase the iaterial for the playground equipment :in
Tablyn Park, and request authorization of $1,000. The
Capital Improvement Park Fund has budgeted $2500 for this
purpose.
M/S/P Morgan./Fraser to authorize up to $1000 for the purchase
of playground equipment material for Tablyn Park. Carried 5-0.
H. Landfill Contamination - Third Party Lawsuit - The City has
been named as a third party in the Weldon Richert/Washington-
Ramsey County Landfill Contamination Lawsuit. Whittaker
reviewed the background of the suit'. The City is presently
waiting for a response from its insurance carrier concerning
defense of the City against this complaint. If the insurance
company will not cover the City's defense, the City Attorney
will have to respond within the designated 20 day period.
Attorney Marshall informed the Council that the City has been
granted an extension for preparing its response.
I. Street Project Petition - The City received an improvement
petition for a street project for Jamaca Ct. N. signed by
6 property owners.
M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to accept the petition and instruct the
Administrator to determine the adequacy of the petition (that
being 30% of abutting property owners requesting the improvement).
Carried 5-0.
Mayor Eder reported that he and Tom Armstrong will hold a meeting
June 1, 1983, in the Council Chambers for any interested party
who whishes to participate or contribute ideas for the 125th
Anniversary Celebration of the Town of Oakdale. The anniversary
date is November 1, 1983..All of Lake Elmo was Oakdale at one time.
ADJOURNMENT: M/S/P Mazzara/Dunn to adjourn at 10:55 p.m.
RESOLUTIONS: 83-34 - Drainage Policies ORDINANCE:7952 - Readopting
83-35 - Old 212 Vacation (Seeley)
83-36 - 1984 Sealcoat Program Ordinance 7917
0
R.-83-3G
RESOLUTION
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASIIINGTON COUNTY, MIN'NESOTA
A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTII THE'BASIC
DRAINAGE POLICY FOR THE COTTAGE GROVE
RAVINE WATERSHED,
WHEREAS, it has been the policy of the City of
Lake Elmo to control the rate and volume of surface
water run-off in Watershed.s.that have no natural out-
let; and,
WHEREAS, the Cottage Grove Ravine Watershed has
no natural outlet to the Mississippi River and any
outlet would be very expensive; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo finds that it is more cost-effective to use pond-
ing to Limit the volume and rate of runoff from the
Cottage Grove Ravine than to provide an. outlet to,.the
Mississippi River. 11 °
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City
Council of. the City of Lake Elmo ,
i
THAT, 1. It shall be a policy of the City of
Lake'Elmo to limit the runoff generated
by new development- to a rate no greater
than that which "occurs presently.
2. It shall also be a. policy of the City
of Lake Elmo to limit the runoff gen-
erated by new development to a volume
no greater than that which, occurs presently.
3. These policies shall be enforced through
Subdivision. Ordinance and Site and Building
plan procedures of the City of Lake Elmo.
ADOPTED, this the 17th. day of May, 1983, by the
City Council of the City of Lake Elmo.
SIGNED:
IGNLD;
Maynar Fder,�Mayor
ATTEST:
( Larry Nitta ecerr�
City .dministrator
R-83-35
(
RESOLUTION
CITY OF .LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF OLD MINNESOTA
HIGHWAY NUMBER 212 IN THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WHEREAS, Mr. Richard Seeler has submitted to the City of
Lake Elmo a Petition praying for the vacation of a portion of
a public street in said•City, legally described as follows,
to -wit:
All that part of Old.Minnesot.a.Hi_ghway Number 212
running over, under and across all that part of the
following described parcel;,
The West Half of that part of the Northwest Quarter of
the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 29 North,
Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota, lying
northerly of the northerly right-of-way of Minnesota
Highway Number 5 (formerly Minnesota Highway 212)
as the same is located and described on Document Number
444019 on file and of record in the Office of the
County Recorder of: said Washington County, Minnesota,
which lies 33.00 feet on either side of the following
described centerline, to -wit:
Commencing at the:northwest corner of the Northwest
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14,
Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington County,
Minnesota, thence South 00 degrees 57 minutes 15
seconds East, assumed bearing, along the westerly
line thereof, 862.05 feet to the centerline of Old
Minnesota Highway 212; 'thence North 86 degrees 28
minutes 18 seconds West along said centerline 50.00
feet to the point of beginning of the centerline being
described; thence South 86 degrees 28 minutes 18
seconds East along said centerline 300.00 feet to
the end of the centerline description.
WHEREAS, said Petition came on for hearing before said
City Council at a regular, meeting thereof held Tuesday, May
17, 1.983, pursuant to notice thereof published and,posted as
required by law; and
s
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this Petition
with concern for the interest of the public; and
WHEREAS,.the street proposed for vacation is no longer
needed -as a public street; and
WHEREAS, for the foregoing reason it appears to be in
the public interest.to vacate the street as described above;
NOW, THEREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED the above described
street be and the same hereby is vacated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk shall prepare
a Notice of Completion.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo
this 17th day of may, 1983.
ATTEST:
Laurence E. Whittaker,
City Administrator
Mayna L. Eder, Mayor
_2-,
(11
I
R-83-36
RESOLUTION
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
I
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT.' KNOWN AS THE 1984
SEALCOATING PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO AND
DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE PLANS FOR THAT
IMPROVEMENT.
WHEREAS, a Resolution of the City Council adopted April
19, 1983, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed
improvement known as the:1984 Sealcoating Program; and
WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through
two weekly publications of"the .required notice was given
together with mailed notice to all affected property owners
of the hearing; and the hearing was held thereon on the ll.th
day of May, 1983, at which all. persons desiring to be
heard were given an, opportunity to be heard thereon;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Lake Elmo as follows:
1,. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed
by the City Council. in their Resolution of April
19, 1983, known as R-83-29.
2. Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates, Incorporated
are hereby designated as the Engineers for this
improvement. They shall prepare plans and specifica-
tions for the making of such.improvement.
3. The sealcoating work shall, be carried out by the
Washington County contractor, after bidding, with the
County Sealcoating Program.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo this
17th day of May, 1983.
ATTEST:
Laurence E. Whittaker, City
Administrator
Maynar ~L.__Eder, Nlhyor_r
CLAIMS TO BE APPROVED AT MAY 17, 1983 LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MEETING
83725
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission - sewer charge
$ 67.25
83726
Oakwood Animal Hospital
81.00
83727
City of North St. Paul - animal vehicle usage
125.00
83728
Ilene Johnson - 5/3/83 council meeting
159.04
83729
Mary Meyer - 5/10/83 newsletter
200.00
83730
I.C.M.A. - 1983 dues
214.90
83731
Stillwater Book & Stationery
226.13
83732
Interstate Office Systems - cassettes
56.50
83733
First Bank of St. Paul - park bonds service chg.
25.00
83734
Junker Sanitation
42.00
83735
Bellaire Sanitation - 5/7/83 clean up days
750,00
83736
Lillie Suburban Newspapers
43..19
83737
DeLaHunt Voto & Co. -1982 audit
8,900.00
83738
Lake Elmo Oil - Maint. $ 482.47
Fire Dept 39.48
521.95
83739
G.A.Meyer Mercantile - Maint Dept. $ 98.98
Fire Dept. 9.42
108.40
83740
Moelter Construction - Gravel
292.32
83741
Bernard Meyer - Snowplowing
2,322.00
83742
Bathke Company - Maint. Dept. Oxygen
35.52
83743
T. A. Schifsky - MC mix
314.82
83744
BBT Equipment, Inc. - Maint. Dept. parts
76.85
83745
Kunz Oil Company - Fire Dept. gas
68.53
83746 thru 83756 May 27th payroll 5,000.00
$ 19,630.40