HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-03-83 CCMLAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 3, 1983
Mayor Eder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall.
Councillors Present: Dunn, Fraser, Mazzara, and Morgan.
1. AGENDA - Additions:
7.F. Speed Zoning on 42nd Street and Children Playing sign
by Lake Jane Trail
M/S/P Fraser/Mazzara to adopt the agenda as amended. (Carried 5-0)
2. MINUTES - M/S/P Fraser/Morgan to approve the 4/19/83 City Council minutes
as amended: Page 5, 7.B. "M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to adopt Resolution R-83-30
granting a one year...."; and Page 5, 8.A., 2nd Para. "M S P Fraser/Dunn to
adopt R-83-29, a Resolution accepting a Feasibility Study and... (Carried 5-0)
3. CLAIMS - M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to approve Claims 83673 thru 83724.
(Carried 5-0) Whittaker will check into claim adjustments for overtime pay.
4. LICENSES - M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to approve 3.2 beer licenses for the
following:
a. Green Acres Recreational Center, Iowa Pork Ind., 7/30/83 all day.
b. No. Maplewood Lions Softball Tournament, Julie Beutel, 6/10-12/83.
(Carried 5-0)
5. PUBLIC INQUIRIES - Carol Kuettner was present to express dissatisfaction
with Council's lack of sympathy (re 2% issue) for City employees and that the
Council should represent all the people. Since I live on a street with potholes
and people don't want to pay for this, the problem will remain. I'm not willing
to pay for Chicago NW lawsuit. I've heard dissatisfaction with the city
engineer and attorney; if there's recurring problem, find another one.
Generally, I expect more leadership and more representation for all the people.
6. PELTIER HOUSE MOVING PERMIT - Bruce Peltier was present to answer any
questions regarding this permit to move a 2-story house onto Gene Peltier's
property in Sec. 35 and .fronting Lake Elmo Avenue. Whittaker said the Planning
Commission had reviewed this permit and felt it would fit in with the neighbor-
hood, the building inspector says the building is sound and could be brought up
to code, and sewer could be put in. Only problem is that depth of lot could
make future subdivision difficult.
M/S/P Morgan/Mazaara to adopt Gene Peltier's permit for house moving.
(Carried 5-0)
7. ENGINEER'S REPORT
A. Cottage Grove Ravine Plan - Engineer Bohrer and Whittaker met with
property owners in Cottage Grove Watershed with 15 people attending. Council's
concern is potential assessments for improvements downstream. TKDA has provided
cost estimates for: existing flows generated in Lake Elmo, anticipated flows,
and what is necessary to retain those flows. Property owners would not wish to
pay for it but can see some benefit for study and have appointed Tom Armstrong
to represent them.
Tom Armstrong indicated since there is not enough money to do the study, he
would be willing, on behalf of the Council, to work with appointed representa-
tive on the formation of this particular organization (joint powers agreement,
hopefully). What I think can be worked out is: the City gives a guarantee that
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MTG. - 5/3/83 Page two
( there will be no increase in rate or volume of flowage and that any future plans
which Woodbury and Cottage Grove might devise for piping would not include any
anticipated runoff from Lake Elmo. Flowage from Oakdale comes from Minnehaha
across my property, and there are several other culverts further on down where
the flowage goes out of Lake Elmo and crosses into a big ravine. It would seem
that for a lesser amount of money, some monitoring and other things can
establish what the flowage is (Highway Dept and County would have information
from establishing size of culverts). The actual bill and intent of legislation
passed doesn't say anything about cement and pipes such as Woodbury and Cottage
Grove are proposing, but was passed to prevent flooding and erosion as needed,
for ground water recharge and to protect or enhance wildlife and water
recreational facilities. I would propose to work on this on behalf of the City
and in addition that the City look toward establishing separate overlay zoning
for this particular watershed, that the City put on extra controls to guarantee
that new building require an extra study to see what effect this would have on
the runoff. We have the perfect possibility here with ponding to store all the
water. Whittaker has said that Cottage Grove and Woodbury won't buy this and
will come back and assess us (about $218/acre), which would mean the end of
farming in Woodbury. I talked to city attorney and he said he doubts if Cottage
Grove would ever sign anything like that because they want to keep the price as
low as possible. I think if we take a hard line and explain this to other city
governments and explain that intent of bill is to promote ponding, they would be
hard pressed to continue the "engineer's pipe dream." Basically, your
philosophy is right and in agreement with the philosophy of the bill; and the
solution at this point is to hammer out a legal contract that Lake Elmo will
( guarantee to the lower cities, that we will not increase the rate of flow over
what is established, enforce it rigidly, and then we will not be forced to pay
for pipes in Woodbury and Cottage Grove. We can't pursue philosophy that people
living here now are going to pay for a pipe plan that generations from now might
utilize. We need the water here now. I am willing to offer my services as
representative of property owners in reaching an agreement with cities down
there.
Only constraint for elevation of lake is how high the water can go on north
end of roadbed. When water level falls and lake is dry, it could be mucked out
making for more storage capacity.
• Eder mentioned man-made outlet that flows to south of 213B; Armstrong said
ditch is very hard to find and spreads into field.
p Fraser - Feels it would be desirable to pursue this and need written statement
that staff members could review. What is legality of Tom Armstrong representing
us?
® Whittaker - Don't know if we can legally use a citizen to represent the City
in negotiating a joint powers agreement. The support would be nice.
• Armstrong - Would "assist" the City in negotiating this philosophy which the
City supports.
• Morgan - I think we should take advantage of Tom's offer and vast experience
he is willing to donate free of charge; nothing in the statutes prevents the
Council from appointing a citizen advisory committee even if one person.
• Bohrer said policy in design standards could be further defined.
• Armstrong - Only thing I've proposed to add to former policy is overlay zoning
district to ensure City that they could enforce more stringent requirements to
promote ponding. Option could be put in that if development does increase rate
of flow, then money would have to be added by property owner.
-
•
r' (:'ir.,` t,•_ � �; 1 Gi i-r.<�.-L. (-C...._.� ffC' /; _,�(.iC �yii (�. �� LC _ � .l .
(:o
� ' -. s .•i.'VI � 1, .. b. ..
f
�a�'" �'` �(.'�✓�r'�t�� `-/ `I�.+v,;,,,•r-{. ;:L•-Z;�,L•,• rJJ .:j(F` 4rs
i
C�
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MTG. - 5/3/83
Page three
fM/S/P Fraser/Morgan to delay a decision on this subject to the agenda under
Old Business. (Carried 5-0)
B. Erosion Control Project, Lake Elmo Regional Reserve - Bohrer said
Washington County has submitted plans and specifications for this third erosion
control project. Since the project meets the Shoreland Ordinance's requirements
for grading and filling, we recommend the issuance of a Shoreland Permit for the
work. Elevations have been submitted in the construction drawings. Recommenda-
tions that should be transmitted to the County are:
1. The retention dikes are designed on the basis of a 10-year storm. If
much larger storms occur, portions of the dike may fail causing 3 to 4 acre-feet
of water to move downstream rapidly. The County should not allow activities
such as camping downstream of these structures.
2. Part of the work seems to extend onto Dayton -Hudson property. The
County should acquire the necessary easements prior to construction.
3. The pipe outlets are not furnished with any rip rap or energy dissipa-
tion. If erosion occurs, the County may have to perform some remedial action at
a later date.
M/S/P Morgan/Mazarra that the City approve a Shoreland Permit for the erosion
control work in Washington County Regional Park and that the recommendations,
Items 1 thru 3, in Larry Bohrer's letter of 3/3/83 be submitted to Mike Fox of
Washington County. (Carried 5-0)
C. Assessment Policy, Sealcoating - The public hearing for the proposed
6-year sealcoating program is scheduled for May 11 at Oakland Junior High.
Should discuss proposed method of assessing, provide public with more accurate
information, and explain that we could be included in Washington County's 1983
open -bid sealcoating program at a 10% savings over feasibility study if decision
is made by May 13. Project must be assessed at least 20% up to a maximum of
100%; if we sell general obligation bonds to pay for improvement and assess less
than 100%, the difference can be made up as an ad valorem tax over the entire
community, which has been done in other communities. Reasoning for ad valorem
is that people who do not live on these streets still use and benefit from City
street network and lessens tax on individual. From $62-72,000 is allocated each
year for a 3-year period.
• Whittaker - we're probably going to have to use what we normally budget for
sealcoating to pay for unpaid assessments (Green Acres - can't collect these
assessments).
• Eder - should start with a minimum of 10% paid by the City so we can get all
streets in timeframe, therefore assessing 90% to abutting property owners.
• Fraser - would consider going down to 80%.
• Morgan - certainly 90% would be max, would like to get it lower. What would
90% assessment be on the average? (Bohrer - rates would vary from $.61 to .73
per front foot and would be a one-time assessment every sixth year.)
• Tom Armstrong - My assessment would be $3,100 at 100% every six years, or
$500/year forever. I think there should be footage limits (say, 200 feet) for
streets going through farms since we were assessed $4,000 for gravelling in
1964; and the Council should consider large tracts since the public utilizes
these through roads. Green Acres creates a time bomb since the interest which
will have to be paid later adds up. Also, these assessments are not tax
deductible.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MTG. - 5/3/83
Page four
• Eder - the most urgent problem we have to address now is the residential
streets for the hearing. Guidelines are needed for maximum people would pay.
o Whittaker - decision we have to make quickly is if we want to get in on the
County sealcoating program; assessment hearing can be held after improvements
are made.
♦ Morgan - perhaps we should work out the two options, 20% and 90% assessments
and something in the middle.
♦ Eder - same theme in localized area was Hidden Bay where assessments were
divided equally amongst number of parcels.
♦ Whittaker - MSA project is handled by dividing number of zoning lots per
parcel. This is policy decision - what's the fairest way to spread this cost.
♦ Eder - fairest way to go into this hearing is to have several options on how
to handle densely populated areas and get comments on how to handle this.
M/S/P Morgan/Mazarra to take items discussed here to public hearing and which
are to be presented as various alternatives of financing. (Carried 5-0)
V. anorelana rermir a variance, harry nngiana - nonrer expiainea applica-
tion for Shoreland Permit by Harry England at 9429 Jane Road North. Permit was
reviewed for conformance with Shoreland regulations and individual septic system
section of the City code. The Englands' proposal to replace their failed septic
system meets the sewer system ordinance and also meets the setback requirements
on Lake Jane. However, the Shoreland Ordinance is more restrictive and the
proposal does not meet the required horizontal setback of 75' from the High
Flood Mark (elevation 928) or minimum building elevation of 931. If Council
( wishes the new septic system to be installed because of the various economic
hardships, etc., the following variances would be required as spelled out in
Larry's Bohrer's letter dated 3/3/83:
1. Variance to locate the drainfield less than 20' from the home.
2. Variance to construct bottom of drainfield trenches at elevation 928
where 931 is required.
3. Variance to construct drainfield within 30' of High Flood Mark where
75' is required.
Larry Bohrer has contacted DNR, and this application would meet the State
shoreland regulations; they have given their okay. Report will be sent on to
them.
M/S/P Morgan/Mazzara to grant Shoreland Permit and variances as recommended by
Engineer, Mr. Bohrer. (Carried 4 ayes, Eder abstain)
Bohrer - DNR procedure has been that building official receives application;
shoreland permits are sent to Bohrer for review and then he sends review to DNR.
Would suggest building official send application to DNR concurrently with
engineer.
E. 201 Update - In February when we applied for grant, we anticipated we
would receive a grant offer from the EPA in May. We been notified that they are
reviewing this application and concur that there is no environmental impact of
this project. They must publish their findings and they're going to wait 30
days for public comment. This puts date of offer back to as late as July which
won't affect 1984 construction of these improvements.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING - 5/3/83 Page five
E. Speed Zone and Children Playing Sign - 42nd Street does not fall under
the statutory 30 mph speed limit in urban areas, therefore the Council will have
to pass a resolution to have DoT do a study and establish a speed zone at no
cost.
M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to adopt Resolution R-83-32 requesting a speed study and
establishing a speed limit on 42nd Street equivalent to Lake Jane Trail.
(Carried 5-0).
Consensus of Councillors was that a "children playing" sign should be put
up on top of the grade.
8. JAMES LAMMERS, LEGAL OPINION ON C&NW REZONING - M/S/P Eder/Mazarra that
Council go in temporary executive session and get whatever advice is necessary
regarding potential lawsuit for a maximum of one-half hour. (Carried 5-0)
Mayor Eder reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m. M/S/P Mazarra/Fraser that the
executive session be continued to 9:40 p.m. (Carried 4 ayes; Morgan nay)
Mayor Eder reconvened the meeting at 9:46 p.m.
M/S/P Fraser/Mazarra that any Council member who wishes to do so be given an
opportunity to comment on their beliefs in regard to the legality of the
ordinance. (Carried 5-0)
• Morgan - My position hasn't changed; I feel that we acted unlawfully by not
following the City ordinance giving written notice to the property owners within
350' of this proposed development. And therefore, I think we should start back
and hold the hearing by the Planning Commission in a lawful way. And the
letter that I received from the railroad threatening me certainly does not speak
well for the railroad as a good citizen in this City. And I don't feel that I
am doing anything wrong in carrying out the charter in which I was elected and
protecting the laws of this City.
• Dunn - About all I can add to that is an amen.
s Fraser - I continue to believe that the ordinance is in effect. I think there
has been a question raised on a technical flaw; I don't think the flaw is one of
substance.
s Mazarra - We've got, as City Council members, various opinions and feelings on
exactly what direction we as a City Council should take as far as the rezoning
of the railroad tracks is concerned. I've received some papers here stating a
possible lawsuit of substantial amounts of money. I'm not convinced that we as
a city have done anything wrong. My gut feeling is that we differ too much as
far as the Council is concerned. What I would like to do is remand this or have
a declaratory judgment, in other words move this to the courts, allow the court
to decide if the option we took was actually valid or not valid. From that
point, if they declare that it was valid, the rezoning would stay. My feeling
is that they're probably going to declare it invalid. At that point, the City
will take the procedure to the Planning Commission, rehear it, come back a month
from now and hopefully resolve the situation. The only reason I'm doing this is
that we're not going to have a consensus here; and to me, because we don't have
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MTG. - 5/3/83 Page six
a consensus, my feeling is that it's better to let the courts decide. And maybe
that's a cop-out but that's my feeling. Declaratory judgment or mandate - the
City would decide to bring it to the court system —could I ask Ray?
• Ray Marshall - No, that's correct. If you're talking about declaratory
judgment procedure, the City commences that action in the district court
requesting a declaratory judgment on the validity of their procedure.
• Mazarra - My feeling is that beyond anyone's doubt that this will certainly
clear up the issue --for the railroad, the home owners, and for the people on the
City Council; and it will make the decision that what we did was either valid or
not valid and what our next step is. There are some risks in taking that
approach, but that's my feeling.
e Eder - On the issue of the defect, I think that the action taken by the
Council on April 5 had some question of defect but there was not the total
answer as to whether there was or wasn't a defect. And I think the Council
acted generally by trying to evaluate the merits of the case, and at this point
there may or may not be a defect; I don't know how that's totally going to be
proven. But I think we made a conscious effort to look at the merits of the
case and to look at what was in the Comprehensive Plan, to try and evaluate
whether or not this particular use met established zoning ordinances of the City
of Lake Elmo, whether it's fortunate or unfortunate, at least in my opinion and
at least from information given to us, acted in good faith on that rezoning and
made some very long-term commitments. It's a little different than if we issued
someone a building permit and then they start building a house and then we have
to solve it if there's some error in the technical aspects of it. I wish there
was a way we could settle all the arguments simultaneously, but it appears that
we can't unfortunately. I guess I'm generally in favor of at least putting the
burden --and I don't like to do this personally but I'm looking at it as a public
official for the best interests of the community as a whole --on those seven
property owners to justify that the notice does invalidate the actual rezoning
of the land and that the merits of the case do not warrant sufficiently that
that defect not be considered for example. That's my position.
• Gordon Moosbrugger, Attorney - Mr. Mayor, I don't want to talk to the merits
of this issue but since you don't have a motion on the floor...
® Eder - I'm waiting for a motion.
MIS Morgan/Dunn that the City Council declare that the Council acted without
jurisdiction to change the zoning on the Hutchinson property because no notice
was mailed to the adjoining property owners to inform them of the public hearing
at the Planning Commission. That the petition for rezoning be sent back to the
Planning Commission and Zoning Commission so that a legal public hearing can be
held pursuant to the Ordinance. That the action of the Council in approving the
rezoning is null and void because the ordinance was not followed and notices not
mailed to the property owners.
o Eder - One of the things that this Council is going to have to do is that when
the zoning code was adopted, and I don't know the precise time, it uses just one
word for a phrase in the State statute; and when I read it when the question
came up, I interpreted it that any bona fide attempt or if people were aware
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MTG. - 5/3/83
Page seven
of it and they showed up would satisfy it, but the State statute doesn't say it
quite that way and I think one of the things we have to do is clear up our City
zoning to conform to the State statute. I think on that basis I could
reasonably determine that some effort was made because if the people were here,
if it wasn't direct there's some indirect response.
• Fraser - I would like to speak to this from the point -of -view of what I see
the City facing. My belief is that if this motion passes, the railroad will
follow through as they have informed us in a very specific detailed way and that
they will sue the City for damages of many millions of dollars. I also believe
amended *fey ion a very good solid case. I have believed this from the start of this
5/17/83 'sM4 : The City carries insurance of approximately $1 million; the amount
that the City has at risk if we pursue that action is many millions of dollars,
and I think it would be a great detriment to the taxpayers. Now the other
alternative if this motion is defeated is that the landowners, if they believe
that they were really not informed and that this was a seriPus matter, may go to
court. And I think they should go to court. Then the City °&LbEbe ordered to,
if the court decided in that way, to repair it and would not face those damages.
I cannot make a decision where I think the law, the Constitution and procedures
will get the City into a situation where we would be liable for many millions of
dollars. Vhe the alternative, even though there is a question there, is of much
lesser Aa So I think the only responsible decision here is to defeat the
motion.
e Mazarra - I will reiterate my stand. I think Laura's reasoning is possibly
valid in that the City does stand less of a risk if Mr. Moosbrugger decides to
go ahead with his suit. Again, we obviously are not going to reach a consensus
with the City Council. I would again bring it back and say my feeling is that
we ought to have the courts make the decision. In order to make a proper
decision, we would probably have to make a 4-1 vote; we're obviously not going
to get that and my feeling still stands it ought to be left up to the courts so
I would vote against it.
Motion failed. (Morgan and Dunn ayes; Eder, Fraser, Mazarra nays)
• Gordon Moosbrugger - I don't want to address the merits of anything tonight;
but I think you should complete the record, however, by incorporating into the
minutes the letter of advice that you saw and obtained from Mr. Lammers and from
your own City Attorney, Mr. Marshall, and the letter threatening the lawsuit
which each of you Council members would, I'm sure, indicate for the record that
you received from the attorney for Chicago & Northwestern Railroad. I think it
is essential to complete the record by incorporating these things by reference
in the minutes of tonight's meeting; and this is necessary for a full
pesentation of the tapes and will have to be done one way or another.
M/S/P Morgan/Dunn that the documents Mr. Moosbrugger mentioned be included
with the minutes of tonight's meeting.
s Eder - Mr. Lammers, since we requested it in the record and it is referred to
in the memo, the response, and so forth, are they in fact a part of the record
without a motion?
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MTG. - 5/3/83 Page eight
` 6 Lammers - It would be my opinion that any letters you received would be a part
1 of the official record and would be available for any purpose. The motion isn't
necessary but would do no harm.
• Fraser - I find one potential problem in officially incorporating those things
into the record. First, they are available as Jim has said. But by incorporat-
them into the record, what does not appear in the record are the things that
took place in the executive session with the attorneys and that would not be
available to the public in the future so that the official record would have
only portions of that. So I would prefer that they be available but I would not
want to vote in favor of the motion.
(Motion failed - Morgan and Dunn ayes; Fraser and Eder nay; Mazarra abstain)
*People in the audience indicated
amended that they should hear Mr. Lammers'
5/17 /83 opinion since that's what they were waiting for and it was on the agenda.
• Dunn - Same as Morgan's motion.
• Fraser - The reason for an executive session --I don't have any objection if
people on an individual basis want to talk to others, but I really question this
as a procedure.
After the 10:07 p.m. break, Mayor Eder reconvened the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
M/S/P Mazarra/Morgan that the City of Lake Elmo bring to the district court a
request for declaratory judgment on the validity of the Council's procedure in
this matter. (Carried 3 ayes; Fraser and Eder nay)
e Fraser - effect will be the same as if we remand to the Planning Commission.
(Eder agrees with Fraser.)
• Dunn - If we do nothing, citizens will file, so why do we have a motion?
• Gordon Moosbrugger put the Council on notice to preserve tapes for this
meeting and all previous meetings dealing with this subject since they would be
subject to subpoena.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet - M/S/P Morgan/Fraser that a mandatory
list should be started and Environmental Quality Board notified regarding the
assessment worksheet for (a) parking lot for 1,000 cars and (b) taking 80 acres
of farmland out of farming to include ponding. (Carried 5-0)
• Morgan - The State has been notified of this. There's 30-day period of public
examination when DNR and all concerned governmental bodies can examine this.
Other option is 3-2 vote if those things are not on mandatory list which I think
they are, but let's try it this way first.
• Whittaker - I've talked to the EQB and notified the railroad, and it was the
opinion of a staff person there that this would fit into a mandatory category
for a 1,000-car parking lot.
Legal Counsel - M/S Dunn/Morgan that we retain Mr. Lammers as our
legal counsel in this entire matter.
e Eder - I think the opinion of our City Attorney on the basic question was no
different than Mr. Lammers. Personally, I think that in every case the City
Attorney has represented us, he has done an exemplary job and I don't know of a
case he's lost for the City. I don't really think we should go to another
attorney myself, unless we want to decide that.
e James Lammers - As I understood it, the Council was just asking a second
opinion on the procedural requirements the Council followed. I would be uncom-
fortable if I were to represent the Council in full-blown proceedings since you
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MTG. - 5/3/83 Page nine
�- do have an attorney retained. Also, I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the
City asking for a declaratory judgment on the action that they took; that action
should be coming from adjacent landowners.
Dunn withdrew the motion; Morgan withdrew second.
• Eder - I appreciate your patience and cooperation and you've been helpful to
the City Council by controlling yourselves; I want to commend you and hopefully
as I mentioned earlier, whether this issue is right, wrong or indifferent, it is
a sense of awareness as to what's happening to the law and the world around us.
Hopefully, you'll increase the participation. Procedures we've followed have
been the same going back several years, but maybe we need to look at them,
rethink them. If you have comments in that regard, you're welcome to send them
to the City Office as to what should be changed in the code; plus if you're get-
ting information and how the Newsletter could be improved for greater awareness.
9. OLD BUSINESS
Item 7.A., Cottage Grove Ravine, Cont'd...
• Whittaker - Framework for joint powers hasn't been discussed yet, most of the
discussion was that each city would have one vote.
• Eder - Couldn't a city have more than one representative and still have one
vote?
• Tom Armstrong - You should try to get in there a complete veto. There are a
lot of things that could be negotiated and the agreement could be worked out in
a number of ways. I'm willing to work on that and I've got the resources to do
it. I've put together here a 3-page handwritten motion which I'll give to
Larry. Basically it quotes the statute on the first page and states the
philosophy and policies for adoption by the City of Lake Elmo. A lot could be
added onto later, but if this could be accepted in principle and if the Council
would adopt this motion with whatever changes you'd like, then from that
position we could do some negotiating and be in a position to come up with a
favorable agreement.
• Tom Armstrong - (In answer to Mazarra's question regarding engineering costs),
you can't assess it out because it's not an improvement under 429; you can't put
a tax on that particular area because it can't be done until it's too late
legally; and the thing would be to take voluntary donations but it's never going
to raise the money needed. You may be able to negotiate this entire agreement
without the engineering cost of determining the amount; engineering figures are
what they are.
• Eder - you could put them on notice that you would expect in that budget the
cost of determining this.
• Whittaker - I think we should give it a try; my feeling is that they're going
to ask us to have that engineering data before they negotiate the agreement.
• Eder - we don't know until we try it. (Fraser agrees.)
• Tom Armstrong - Either in that motion or a separate motion, I would appreciate
the appointment basically to assist the City in their negotiations of this.
• Fraser - Let's state here that those meetings the City Administrator would
attend he would continue to attend.
M/S/P Dunn/Fraser that Tom Armstrong be appointed City representative to
assist in negotiating this agreement with the Cottage Grove watershed district.
(Carried 5-0)
M/S/P Morgan/Dunn that the policy statement written by Tom Armstrong be
accepted by the City for a negotiating position. (Carried 5-0)
Page ten
POLICY STATEMENT WRITTEN BY TOM ARMSTRONG ON COTTAGE GROVE RAVINE
1) Whereas, Mn. Statute 473.875 et requires the adoption of a water
management program for each minor watershed in the City of Lake
Elmo; and,
2) Whereas, the purpose of the Statute is to require the preservation
and use of natural water storage and retention systems in order to:
a) reduce to the greatest practical extent the public
capitol expenditures necessary to control excessive
volumes and rates of :run-off.
b) improve water quality.
c;) prevent flooding and erosion from surface flows.
d) promote ground water recharge.
e) protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and
water recreational facilities, and,
f) secure the other benefits associated with the proper
management of surface water; and,
3) Whereas, the City of Lake Elmo has adopted policies to require
the use of ponding to limit the volume and rate of run-off; and,
4) Whereas, the City of Lake Elmo, on behalf of its citizens who
are landowners in the Lake Elmo portion of the Cottage Grove
Ravine Watershed, intends to restrict the rate and volume of
water leaving Lake Elmo and flowing into Woodbury; and,
5) Whereas, the City does not want any increase in the size of piping
or other improvements in Woodbury or Cottage Grove to accomodate
any increase in flowage from Lake Elmo.
Now, therefore, the City adopts the following policy as to
the Cottage Grove Ravine Watershed:
1) The City of Lake Elmo shall pursue the question of adopting
and overlay or other type of zoning restriction in the
Cottage Grove Ravine area of Lake Elmo so as to strictly
enforce limiting the rate and volume of run --off to an
amount to be set by agreement with the other cities in the
Cottage Grove Ravine Watershed.
2) To negotiate a joint powers agreement with the other
communities whereby the City of Lake Elmo will not be
assessed for any inprovements downstream from the City of
Lake Elmo.
3) To determine the present amounts of rate and flow from the
City of Lake Elmo to Woodbury from the City of Oakdale into
Lake Elmo and to determine the historical natural flow from
Oakdale and Lake Elmo.
4) To reach an agreement as to a set amount of rate and flow
from Lake Elmo into Woodbury which will be the maximum allowed
from Lake Elmo by agreement.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MTG. - 5/3/83 Page eleven
A. Lake Jane Landfill - Whittaker said the Washington County Planning
Department has agreed in principle that none of this water will leave the site.
They want to postpone the public meeting until the final report is done;
however, they are sending out a informational letter to all the people around
the landfill to advise them of the current status of activities. Hopefully by
the first of June, the report will have been received and accepted by the County
Board on the whole contamination problem and then they would hold a public
informational meeting. I'll send a copy of that letter to you.
e Eder - Suggested that Whittaker ask the County for an update, say every other
month.
B. Cleanup Day Permit - Will provide for people who are organizing.Tri-
Lakes Association cleanup to get their trucks in and out without charge. Fees
are $5 a car, $6 small trailer, $10 for a truck, and about $25 for a big
trailer.
M/S/P Dunn/Morgan that the City let Tri-Lakes dump free as outlined by
Whittaker. (Carried 5-0)
C. Section 32, Concept Plan - M/S/P Fraser/Mazarra that we defer this
item to the next meeting. (Carried 5-0)
10. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
A. Resolution on Comprehensive Sewer Plan - M/S/P Fraser/Mazarra to
adopt Resolution R-83-31 that the sewer section in Lake Elmo's Comprehensive
Plan is our Comprehensive Sewer Plan until the issues around the waste -to -
energy plant are resolved. (Carried 5-0)
B. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission - The Planning Commission has
reviewed the areas in the Comprehensive Plan that they have had a problem with
and would like to present their recommendations to the City Council, after which
they would schedule public hearings on the amendments of the Comprehensive Plan.
Consensus of Councillors was that the meeting would be held June 14. Whittaker
will send Councillors packet of what Planning Commissioners want to bring up.
C. Ordinance 7951, Subdivision Amendments - The only substantive change is
a limit on the number of lots one can create by simple lot division which is
basically a limit of two lots in platted areas. The amendments recommended are
primarily just to update the number of copies required for an application,
spelling out of fees by ordinance in lieu of resolution, and be more specific
about simple lot subdivision. The subdivision ordinance doesn't require a
public hearing but one can be held for variances.
M/S/P Eraser/Mazarra to adopt Ordinance 7951 to amend the subdivision
ordinance. (Carried 5-0)
D. Use of City Hall - Use of City Hall has previously been basically
reserved for public and quasi -public meetings. Concern has been that we
couldn't possibly accommodate all City groups.
• Fraser - It would be perfectly reasonable to look at other requests that come
in; and if the Council deems it appropriate, we should change the policy to
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MTG. - 5/3/83 page twelve
include that type of group and do it in a 2generic, categorical way *-Rtl-igtova
groups-*aeuld net be-appxwprfate,-kcxsever-a group such as "Concerned Citizens"
*amended would be appropriate.
5/17/83 • Dunn - I have no problems with this but there would have to be accountability
for security, etc.
• Whittaker - we could have groups fill out forms applying for use of City Hall.
• Morgan - should have simple guidelines and should eliminate groups totally out
of context with a public service or public interest; requirement could be non-
profit group, Lake Elmo group, etc.
• Eder - Make sure that, with the application, we get a copy of the guidelines
so that we know what has to be amended.
* • -Fuse-r =Doalt-t-ARk--we-ean--get--too-egeei44:&.
E. Park Survey - The Park Commission suggested several changes after their
meeting with the Council last Tuesday; do they satisfy the questions that were
raised?
• Fraser - My concern is that I don't see the Newsletter at this time as being
sufficiently widely distributed to use it this way. There's been some
discussion in the past of putting the survey into boxes at places like the post
office, Hagbergs, Brooks Superette at Cimarron, the White Hat, the bank, etc.
• Whittaker - 1900 Newletters are printed and distributed and we probably have
about 2200 to 2500 homes. It cost $300 to mail out sealcoating notice to 1500
residences.
• Fraser - Although to mail out a flyer, it costs $150, and this would spruce
up the Newsletter mailing list.
• Whittaker - We would have to use someone's permit. Possibility is to send it
to every boxholder. Survey could be finalized and distribution worked out
later. Will check with other people we have so we can put boxes out for
Newsletter and get back to you on distribution.
M/S/P Morgan/Dunn to accept the Parks Questionnaire as modified in the 4/19/83
Park Commission minutes. (Carried 5-0)
F. Personnel Committee - My choice of sixteen of the best applicants were
given to Councillors; Personnel Committee and any Councillor interested would go
through for preference and pick top three.
• Fraser - There isn't a lot there on any of the applicants. We might want to
work out on Saturday some standard things that we can ask each of the best
candidates.
• Whittaker agrees to some more objective criteria; meeting is May 7, Saturday,
at 8:00 to 10:00 a.m.
G. Richard Seeder Vacation, Highway 5 Right -of -Way - Mr. Seeler came in
three years ago and asked the City Council to clear up a problem with an old
right-of-way on Highway 5 (now Stillwater Lane). At that time, the Council
approved it and authorized a quit claim deed to get rid of this little piece of
triangular property. We waited 2 1/2 years for Mr. Seeler to get a legal
description of the property, and then his attorney recommended that it be
vacated. So tonight I'm asking that a public hearing be held for this vacation
and that a surveyor check the legal description to make sure we're not giving up
any part of Stillwater Lane.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MTC. - 5/3/83
Page thirteen
♦ Consensus of Councillors was that Mr. Seeler should pay for the vacation and
survey since he is the benefitting party.
M/S/P Morgan/Mazarra to call a public hearing for Mr. Seeler's vacation of
part of the old right-of-way for State Highway 5 and that a survey be made to
make certain a part of Stillwater Lane is not being given up. (Carried 5-0)
The public hearing will be held May 17 at 7:30'p.m.
H. Oakdale Plan - Fraser thought Oakdale's response was impressive and
very accommodating.
♦ Whittaker - I feel they did address all the questions we raised and the
Council should acknowledge that.
M/S/P Eder/Fraser that the City Council send Oakdale a letter acknowledging
their comments and their desire to cooperate. (Carried 5-0)
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Submitted by:
Ilene Johnson, Acting Secretary
RESOLUTION: R-83-31 Comprehensive Sewer Plan
R-83-32 Speed Study and Establishing
Speed Limit on 42nd Street
R-83--31
RESOLUTION
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SEWER ELEMENT OF THE LAKE ELMO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE 201 FACILITIES PLAN AS THE
LAKE ELMO ELMO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN AND REQUESTING
THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION TO REVIEW IT,
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is required to submit a
Comprehensive Sewer Plan to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
by Minnesota Statutes, 1978, Cahpter 473.513; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo has set forth all required
policies and programs for sewer in the sewer element of the Lake
Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the City's 201 Facilities Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City cannot determine the timing and extent
of the sewer demand for the Waste to Energy Plant until 1984;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Lake Elmo:
THAT, the sewer element of the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan
and -the City°s 201 Facilities Plan are the Comprehensive Sewer Plan
until the plans for the Waste to Energy Plant are confirmed; and,
TIiAT, the City of Lake Elmo reserves the right to amend
this Comprehensive Sewer Plan when the timing and extent of sewer
for the Waste to Energy Plant and the surrounding area are resolved;
and,
THAT, the City of Lake Elmo respectively request that the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission review this Comprehensive
Sewer Plan.
ADOPTED this the 3rd day of May, 1983, by the City Council
of the City of Lake Elmop Washington County, Minnesota,
SIGNED:
ATTEST:
Laurence E. lytta er
City Administrator
�ayn tT"L-� L�r, Mayor
R-83-32
RESOLUTION
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
-:ID: RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION TO ESTABLISH SPEED ZONES ON 42ND STREET
WITHIN SAID CITY,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo is
concerned about vehicular traffic on its streets and that said
vehicular traffic should travel. at speeds which are not excessive;
and,
WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the City Council
that there currently is vehicular traffic on 42nd Street in the
City which is traveling at excessive speeds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Lake Elmo as follows, to -wit:
1, The Council hereby requests the Minnesota
Department of Transportation to perform a
Speed Zone Study on 42nd Street from Jamaca
Avenue N. to Lake Jane Trail N; and,
2, The City Council requests the Minnesota
Department of Transportation to establish
a thirty (30) mile per hour speed zone on
a portion of 42nd Street between Lake Jane
Trail N. and Jamaca Avenue N., so that it is
the same as 'Lake Jane Trail N.
ADOPTED this the 3rd day of May, 1.983, by the City Council
of the City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minneoota,
SIGNED:
O2ax � ;f
Mayn L,� Mayor
ATTEST:
Laurence
City Administrator
CLAIMS TO BE APPROVED AT MAY 3, 1983 LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MEETING
80673 Postmaster
83674 David. Eder - Cleaning
83675 Lake Elmo Repair - Maint. dept. truck repair
83676 Menards - Landscape Timbers for hockey boards
83677 St.Treas. - Water Certification application
83678 15 of M - Fire Dept. - school
83679 Lee''s Auto Supply - Fire Dept. truck repair
83680 St. Paul Area Red Cross - Fire Dept. packets
83681 Ind. School Dist. # 834 - Sealcoating hearing
83682 Postmaster - mailing for Sealcoating hearing
83683 Laurence Whittaker May expense
83684 Washington Nat'l Ins. Co.
83685 Allied Group Ins. Trust
83686 Minn. Benefit Assn
83687 Lake Elmo Associates Ltd. - May rent
83688 Ilene Johnson - Park minutes 4/19/83
83689 Interstate office Systems - Cassettes
83690 Mpls. Star & Tribune - Adm,ad
83691 St. Paul Pioneer. Press & Dispatch - Adm.ad
83692 Mary Meyer - 4/26/83 newsletter
83693 Washington Cty. Data Processing - assessment book
83694 if " - I1a.bels for sealcoat hearing
83695 Multi -Print Co. - printing for sealcoat hearing
63696 Gerald Dahlberg - April Animal Control
83697 T K D A - General - attend 3/1 & 3/15 council meetings
83698 Lawson, Raleigh & Marshall - General $ 756.00
Prosecutions 1,1066.00
Pass Thru 90
83699 U of M - Fire Dept. film rental
83700 Kunz Oil Co, r Fire Dept, gas
83701 MN Fire Inc. - Fire Dent, air tank repair
83702 American Heart Assn. Fire Dept. CPR materials
83703 General Safety Equip. Co. - Fire Dept. equipment
83704 James McNamara - April mileage
83705 Northwestern Bell
83706 Northern States Power
83707 Countryside Towing - Snowstorm towing
83708 Dan Olinger Trucking - Snowstorm plowing - 4/14/83
83709 :Minnesota Toro, Inc. - Toro parts
83710 Four Seasons Services - cups & coffee
83711 Commissioner of Revenue - April State wh.
83712 St.Treas.-Social Security Contribution Fund - April
83713 State Bank of Lake Elmo - April Federal wh.
200.00
41.04
958.85
17.88
20.00
275.00
8.64
15.00
9.50
300.00
50.00
1,020.46
92.67
26.40
1,689.00
45.90
56.50
153.60
58.50
200.00
64.50
78.74
55..10
286.00
70.00
2,002.00
16.00
50.87
53.50
61.54
77.70
168.84
50.33
1,441.49
250.00
390.00
54.67
41.65
867.00
1,718.60
1,721.30
83714 thru 83724 May 13th payroll 5,000.00
$ 19,758.77