Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-83 CCMLAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1983 Mayor Eder called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the City Hall. COUNCILLORS PRESENT: Dunn, Fraser, Mazzara and Morgan. Also City Administrator Klaers. 1. AGENDA - M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to adopt the agenda as amended: 10.B. Morgan -- Report on Watershed Committee ll.E. Public Hearing set for Federal Revenue Sharing (5 ayes) 2. MINUTES - M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to approve the 8/16/83 City Council minutes as amended: Item 3 re Claim 83997 - "The Council decided that the contribution will not be provided until a Treasurer is elected and a budget is developed and the Council take specific action on the matter." (5 ayes) 3. CLAIMS - M/S/P Fraser/Morgan to approve Claim Nos. 84039 thru 84109 with Claim 84093 for $4,507.00 being deleted and replaced by "Patrick Klaers - Airfare for ICMA Conference - $184.00." (5 ayes) 4. LICENSES - M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to approve a 3.2 beer license for Guardian Angels Church Fall Festival, 8260 Hudson Boulevard, to be held 9/8/83. (5 ayes) 5. PUBLIC INQUIRIES A. Petition for "No Hunting" - Mayor Eder read the petition signed by 31 residents requesting that hunting be banned in Section 24, Lake Elmo, for safety reasons. • Jim Marnie, 2189 Legion Lane - If the ordinance were followed there would be no problem, but there seems to be a significant amount of trespassing and shooting. There are a lot of children, especially in the Downs Lake area, and there is concern for their safety. Regarding Mr. Bird's problem, people are shooting from their cars and shots go onto his property. More activity now because Washington County opened up area for Canadian geese hunting, and geese population in Tartan Park attracts hunters. • Pam Marnie - Two years ago there was no problem, but last years' season heard shots, saw two men jump from tree house where Higgin house is within 500-ft gunshot restriction and run into fields. • Bob Freese, 2470 Lisbon Avenue North - To enforce ordinance would require that 3 officers be there at all times. Also concerned with children's safety. • Jeff Richert, 3864 Oakgreen Avenue North - We have hunted on grandfather's land (i.e., Peter Durand's property across Legion Ave.) since little and there's never been a problem with safety. • Doug Richert, 3864 Oakgreen Avenue North - same comment. • Jerry Bartel, 3415 Jamaca Avenue North - I could have area checked out, and perhaps posting a few more signs would help. If person is shooting out of car, license number should be taken down and reported since this is illegal. LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MINUTES - 9/6/83 Page 2 • Harold Richert, Oakgreen - Mainly family hunts on Durand's property and houses are well within 500-foot distance. People can't get into Downs Lake area to hunt because property owners won't give them permission. • Peter Durand, 11332 20th Street South - I have 58 acres, have been there since '49, and have never caused trouble for anybody. I don't let outsiders hunt on property, only family; and they are a long way from houses. • Don Durand, 2901 Lake Elmo Avenue North - Biggest problem is when County opened up goose hunting in this area. Feel petition was poorly circulated (we didn't get a copy) and represents a small area. Mr. Bird is feeding geese, etc. (unlawful in itself.) and feel he is behind all this. • Bill Herzfeld , 2960 Manning Avenue North - We own 105 acres and my sons like to hunt. If no hunting, can I still shoot my hogs? • Mervin Nippoldt. - How many game wardens do we have in County? (Eder - one.) No wonder we don't have better protection. • Ed Nielson, 9497 Stillwater Blvd - Jim Marnie spoke of legitimate problem, but if "no hunting" incorporated same people would violate ordinance. Laws have to be enforced. Petitioning for one area infringes on larger property owners. We can do something better on signs throughout whole city. • Tom Armstrong - On my property I've had 15-20 violators arrested in the past couple years, mostly out-of-town people. Could raise present $200 fine. Currently, deputies are getting stricter in enforcing ordinance; but no hunting only eliminates the good hunters and the bad will still be there. ♦ Tom Boardman, 2377 Legion Lane North - Regarding Nielson and Armstrong suggestions, people will continue to violate law. First started to have problems last year when shells were flying over my house and it wasn't safe for my children to be outside. Sheriff's office refused to do anything about it and said to take it to DNR. Now Legion area is more populated; don't intend to impose restric- tions on others but question is one of safety. • Jon Olson, 2134 Legion Court North - I and lots of friends ride bikes through cornfield and I don't like shotgun shells going over my head. • Jim Marnie - Perhaps compromise could be made, i.e., densely populated areas (1 to 1 1/2 acres) have no -hunting restrictions. (Eder - State already gives property owners power to put up no - hunting signs on their property.) • Tom Armstrong - Signs could say "no hunting without permission." • Mr. Richert - Agrees with Armstrong. Council comments: • Mayor Eder - City code hasn't changed for many years; situation changed when County opened up goose hunting is this area. I feel signs should be posted where people want them posted. • Klaers - If there is special problem area, we should notify Sheriff's Department and they could watch that area. (Eder - think we should send them a letter) • Morgan - There is problem in Legion Park area and need better enforcement. Feel things people have suggested should be done at least. LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MINUTES - 9/6/83 Page 3 s Fraser - Focus should be on enforcement of present ordinance, more publicity given to this issue (Newsletter could carry article on regulations), Sheriff's office to be alerted by letter, City Administrator to address issue with Sheriff, and City Administrat- or could come back with more specific approach to +signage. • Mayor Eder -- Also send letter to West Lakeland asking for their cooperation since on Lake Elmo border. Suggestions made by Councillors as to what citizens could do to prevent hunters from hunting on their property: they could go into house and call sheriff, be willing to testify, and let City Administrator know of any problems. Tom Armstrong said evidence is needed and he runs out with camera. Consensus of Councillors was to do the things as suggested in comments above, basically that is to step up enforcement of and publicize present ordinance, have Administrator communicate problems with Sheriff's Department, and to improve and increase signage. B. Tom Armstrong, Cottage Grove Ravine Watershed, Joint Powers Agreement - Major problems aren't in Lake Elmo, Oakdale or Afton but in Woodbury and Cottage Grove. Watershed District is not popular because local communities would lose a lot of power; it was written so that if Cottage Grove and Woodbury wanted to go together on a project they could do it without Lake Elmo being notified at all. Agreement favors Lake Elmo's position since we're on top of Watershed ladder and gives Lake Elmo maximum control. Any project ordered would take four votes and require few changes in ordinance. If power is given to Watershed District, Board would make appointments and not be within Lake Elmo's control. It is agreed that all want to do everything at a minimum. Regarding attorney Ray Marshall's comments, concerns will be brought up at October 6 meeting where agreement will be hashed over, and within month or two a final draft will be recirculated and an agreement written that all cities would be willing to accept. If Lake Elmo abides by its ponding policy, there'll be no problems downstream. On withdrawal procedure, one hopes this will work out; if not, agreement would have to be rewritten by Watershed District which would be a disadvantage to Lake Elmo regarding control and tax difficulties. After adoption, plans will be put together with standards and cities will approve. City Engineers would have to say city's standards are met, therefore this is more a creature of the cities so expenses are kept to a minimum (administrative expenses would level out to about $.1,500 a year). Consensus of Councillors was that they were not opposed to the agreement as presented by Armstrong. 6. MAINTENANCE EXPENSES, DAVE WISDORF A. Radio - Consensus of Councillors was to approve $25 expenditure for mounting unit as suggested by Wisdorf. LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MINUTES - 9/6/83 Page 4 ( B. Gravel - Wisdorf said that this would be paid out of MSA funds. Roads will not be gravelled in next year's program. ♦ Fraser - would make sense to get with it according to Agenda Memo and since city engineer has been consulted. ♦ Dunn - my recommendation is that there is plenty of gravel; roads have to be graded up. ® Morgan - Can gravel be used for future bituminous? (Bohrer - if paved, takes major grading operations and 1 1/41' gravel base will have been pounded into subsurface.) ♦ Eder - would recommend expenditure for equipment to take out washboards in roads. (Wisdorf - overlay of gravel would suffice. M/S/P Fraser/Mazzara to approve Gravel Program as outlined by Dave Wisdorf in Agenda Memo, 9/6/83. (4 ayes; Dunn nay) C. Budget (Grader vs,Loader/Dump Truck) - Dave Wisdorf's comments in Agenda Memo are to be reviewed by Councillors for next Budget Meeting. 7. SPRAY IRRIGATION PROJECT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL NO. 1, BOB LOCKYEAR - Mr. Lockyear presented slides depicting history and remedial measures indicated in May 1983 report. Proposal we have before DNR is gradient control. • Paul Josephson of Hickok explained slides showing where monitor- ing wells are located, topographic levels and ground water movement in area, total number of analyses (compounds, measurable, and exceeding CPA criteria), where most of the contaminants were found (monitoring wells-60 and residential wells-7), summary of remedial measures (Phase IV -Design and Phase V-Construction) per May 1983 report, and map showing proposed measures--i.e., gradient control well with spray and irrigation system. • Lockyear - Do you endorse actual spray irrigation as proposed by County which will evaporate (25%) and seep into sand/gravel (75%)? ♦ Eder. - What is impact on Lake Jane and Sunfish Lake? (Lockyear we're doing interim pumping to see what response we get. PCA is also concerned with long-term solutions, and right now we have to discover those solutions. We want to determine rate of flow and cause -and -effect [will perhaps take about 6 months].) ♦ Lockyear - During winter, will try to work spray. We will not pump any more water than we have to. Spray site is about 3.4 acres. This proposal doesn't have any ramifications on present/future lawsuits. Proposal will be given to Watershed District Thursday night for approval. ♦ Eder - Our role would be to not endorse what you're doing but to recognize that your're trying to find out and solve problems and that Lake Elmo should be kept apprised of progress. ♦ Morgan - Can simple computer program be used to monitor wells? (Lockyer - we can pursue those kinds of things.) (Eder - U of M Hydrological Department may be of some help also.) Consensus of Councillors was that copy of County's day-to-day operating plans should be provided Lake Elmo and that County should pursue present course of experimentation without Lake Elmo's endorsement. 1. LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MINUTES - 9/6/83 9:20 - 9:30 BREAK 8. ENGINEER'S REPORT Page 5 A. Jane Road North Street Improvement Project (Continued From 8 16 83 Meeting- s Bohrer - As stated at the 8/16 meeting, proposal is to construct a 32' wide road in accordance with City standards. A petition was received 9/l/83 from Residents of Jane Road North with 100% of residents on Lake Jane Road (excepting Mr. Holmberg who favored petition but was away when signed) endorsing that the road be a 22' paved continuation of Jane Road, parking be banned on the road, and the road be slanted in one direction so a single curb or gutter could be used to cut costs. I would consider the slanted road a hazard in spring when runoff would occur across the road and favor the crown in road for runoff and favor the 32' paved road since it complies with City standards. Also, it would apply as continuation of Lake Jane Road only if it remains a deadend road. Concept plan for land development to north would probably require that Isle Avenue be a 32' paved road to meet City standards. Traffic coming from 32' Isle Avenue onto 22' Lake Jane Road would not be good because of crest in road. No special circumstances exist for a 22' road and 22' road will deteriorate with more use. Lake Jane Road is also curvy and 32' would be safer. • Morgan - I am in favor of petition because people have requested it; 20th Street is 22' with no more traffic than Lake Jane has. q Eder - I think we want to work out some kind of compromise, e.g., crown in road, etc. • Morgan - Here we have a chance to satisfy citizens and compromise. M/S Fraser/Mazzara that Lake Jane Road be improved to 32' in accordance with City standards. M/S Eder/Morgan that motion be amended to accept conditions as spelled out by property owners for 22' road and work out some type of solution of engineering practicality as to water flow over road, etc. Amendment passed 3 ayes; Fraser and Mazzara nay. Motion failed 3 ayes; Fraser and Mazzara nay. 4/5 majority is needed. • Eder - Extension of public hearing has been acted upon. Now it would again take petition from you since road remains unmaintained and it would take a hearing to act on present petition. M/S/P Morgan/Dunn that in response to the petition from Lake Jane Road residents, a hearing is to be held. (3 ayes; Fraser and Mazzara nay) Eder informed public this would be held first meeting in October. B. Jamaca Court Bid Consideration - (REF: Larry Bohrer, TKDA, letter dated 9 1 83 re Jamaca Court Improvements ... Commission No. 8017.) Bohrer recommended that the low bid be accepted since to not accept the low bid would require Council to show low bidder as not being responsible which has no basis in this case. LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MINUTES - 9/6/83 Page 6 Adopt Resolution 83- 58 M/S/P Fraser/Morgan to accept engineer's recommendation to award work for Jamaca Court improvements to low bidder (Ashbach Construction Company). (5 ayes) C. Valley Branch Watershed District Request to Modify Olson Lake Outlet - REF: Larry Bohrer, TKDA, letter dated 9/l/83 regarding "BVWD Request to Modify Lake Olson Outlet... Commission No. 7113-83.") • Bohrer reported that City Council alternatives had been reviewed and most realistic would be to slow water rate flow from Lake Olson at reasonable rate to Lake Jane by cutting hole in the side of the Lake Olson weir and, by means of a valve, be able to lower Lakes Olson and DeMontreville to elevation 918.0. This will gain about 400 acre-feet of storage upstream of Lake Jane and allow the electric lift pump to operate sooner and longer. The Board of Managers have applied to the DNR for the work. There may be some objection from shoreland owners on Olson and DeMontreville since lakes will recede to elevation 918 faster than at present. Due to strong feelings from the audience on alternatives, Eder suggested a hearing be set. M/S/P Eder/Morgan to set hearing (nonofficial) so that all sides can be heard and to extend DNR time period for submission of comments from Lake Elmo. (5 ayes) D. Lake Jane Estates, Neudahl Preliminary Plat - (REF: Larry Bohrer letter dated 8/22/83 regarding "Preliminary Plat Review ...Commission No. 7113-83.") Bohrer said that engineers' conclusions have been calculated as to amount of runoff and that drainage meets City and Watershed requirements. Adopt Resolution 83-59 M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to accept recommendation of City Engineers and Lake Elmo Planning Commission regarding approval of the proposed preliminary plat for Lake Jane Estates, 2nd. Add. (5 ayes) E. Shoreland Permit, DNR Access, Lake DeMontreville - Bohrer said two issues have yet to be addressed: a landscaping plans and (b) all dimensions. Recommended that staff meet with DNR and public meeting be held. M/S/P Morgan/Mazzara to defer this item until all proper information has been received. (5 ayes) F. Shoreland Permit, Tom Osborne, 10891 32nd Street North • Bohrer - Mr. Osborne is proposing to construct a 16' x 16' utility room addition onto his residence since basement has seepage problems. A variance would be required since floor is above minimum building elevation on Lake Elmo. (REF: DNR letter dated 8/31/83 stating they have no objection to granting the shoreland permit.) 9 Eder - Surveyor has to put elevations in as required by code. M/S/P Eder/Morgan to grant Mr. Osborne a Variance and a Shoreland Permit for an addition, to be used for utility purposes only, to existing house. (5 ayes) LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MINUTES - 9/6/83 Page 7 Concensus of Council to extend meeting time. ! G. Shoreland Permit, Donald Butler, 8416 Hidden Bay Trail No. - (REF: DNR letter dated 8/31 83 regarding "Review of Shoreland Permit Applications" where it states the DNR has no objection to granting the Shoreland permit. M/S/P Mazzara/Dunn to grant a Shoreland permit to Mr. Butler for an addition to existing home. (5 ayes) 9. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT A. I-94 Corridor, Updated From 8/22/83 Planning Commission Meeting - Klaers will pass following information onto Planning Commission: • Eder - there is concern about intersection 19. (Fraser - if racetrack comes into picture, whole area will have to be reeaxamined.) • Eder - would say that this does not mean Woodbury services could not be extended. B. Lake Elmo/Oakdale.Joint Planning Commission Meetings with Staff Consultants, Updated from 8 22 83 P.C. Meeting - Eder recommended, and consensus was, that Lake Elmo Planning and Engineering Consultants should be available for these meetings. C. MUSA Line for LAWCON Grant, 1984 Pebble Park Application - Consensus of Councillors was that Council agrees to MUSA line but that rejection of grant for Pebble Park should be done by LAWCON. Eder suggested that rural free-standing area argument could be used for procuring grant. D. Comprehensive Plan Amendments - M/S/P Fraser/Mazzara to adopt Resolution 83-56 relating to MUSA line and 1 1/2-acre lot changes. (5 ayes) E. Final Comprehensive Plan - M/S/P Fraser/Morgan to adopt Resolution 83-57': A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE LAKE ELMO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS AMENDED. (5 ayes) 10. COUNCIL REPORTS A. Mayor Eder, Composting Septage in Regional Par], - Eder was concerned that Lake Elmo did not approve plan for hauling of human waste. e John Mcdole, Washington County Planning Department, said that septage waste is pumped out of septic tanks and would like to get 5-10% from septage pumper since it aids in composting leaves. Consensus of Councillors was that this would be acceptable. B. Morgan - Watershed Committee - Morgan stated he would like to resign and make Tom Armstrong a representative to Valley Branch 509. Armstrong would attend the next meeting. LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MINUTES - 9/6/83 Page 8 11. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT A. Dumpster for Storm Damage - Consensus of Councillors was that no action be taken on dumpster as suggested. B. Recommendations for Deputy Clerk and Secretary Positions - M/S/P Fraser Mazzara to authorize the City Administrator to proceed with recommendations for Deputy Clerk and Secretary as outlined in his Agenda Memo, 9/6/83. (5 ayes) C. Isle Avenue North R-of-W Quit Claim Deed - Item deferred. D. Deed for Hagberg Property - M/S/P Eder/Fraser to defer this item until most current drawing by Bruce Folz is received which City should have before Council makes a decision. (5 ayes) E. Public Hearing, Federal Revenue Sharing - M/S/P Fraser/ Morgan to hold the second public hearing for 1984 Federal Revenue Sharing on September 20 at 7:15 p.m. a-n-d te-a-dep-t-a.-r-eso-l-utionz (5 ayes) The meeting was adjourned at 10:46 p.m. Submitted by: Ilene Johnson, Acting Secretary RESOLUTION 83-56 MUSA Line and 1 1/2-acre Lot Changes 83-57 Adopting Comprehensive Plan as Amended 83-58 Jamaca Court Improvements 83-59 Lake Jane Estates R-83-56 I RESOLUTION CITY OF LAKE ETMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, REDUCING THE AREA PLANNED FOR Q ACRE LOTS AND EXPANDING THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA INTO SECTION 33. WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo submitted the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council as required by State law; and, WHEREAS. thg Metropolitan. Council received said Plan and commented in their January 13 letter, that the City should not plan for the development of 1,200 acres to accomodate lz acre lots; and, WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission, by working with the property owners in Section 32 and 33 have more clearly defined the "mixed urban uses" and sewer needs for that g° area; and, WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo notified all adjacent com- munities and school districts,_ Washington County and the Metro-- politan Council of our intent to consider these amendments; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 8, 1983, to take comment on proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to address these two problems; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of these two amendments to the City Council,; and the City Council re- viewed and approved these amendments at the September. 6 City Council meeting, and, WHEREAS, the two amendments necessitate changes on Pages 85, 87, 891 94, 95, 96 and 97 of the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, THAT, :Pages 85, 87, 89, 94, 95, 96.and 97 are hereby amended to provide as follows; 1. The areas planned for expansion of Residential 1z acre lots in Sections 14, 15; south 2/3 of 16, 22,.west Z of 24 and 26, in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan, which are not already zoned R1, shall be planned for General Rural Use through 1990; and, 2, The concept plan for Section 32 and 33 is hereby in- corporated as the land use plan for that area through 1990. 3. The Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) line is moved 4 mile east, to include the Western k of Section 33 and all that area west of CSAH 13 that is k mile north of State Highway 12 (194), R-83-56 -� ADOPTED this the 6th. day of September, 1983 by the City Councll­67 the City of Lake Elmo. Attest: Patrick D. Klaers City Administrator A SIGNED: y, Maynard Eder, Mayor R83- 57 RESOLUTION CITY Or LAICE ELMO ( WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE LAKE ELMO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, the City of take Elmo is required. by Mn. Statutes 473,175 to develop and adopt a Comprehensive Plan and submit it to the'Metropolitan Council; and, WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo did develop said plan and adoptdd it by Resolution 79-41; and, WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo submitted said plan together with amendments adopted by Resolutions 80-12 and 80•24, the Capital. Improvement Program, a debt service summary, the M.S.A. Street plan, and the Parks Plan and Capital Improvement Program; to the Metropolitan Council, WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo submitted five additional minor amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. in- cluding Resolution. 82-34, 82-58, 82-43, 83-31 and 83-54; and, WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council approved said plan and amendments by Council Resolution 82-231 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, THAT, the 1979 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan to- gether with the following amendments: 1. Resolution 80-12 2, Resolution 80-24 3. The Capital Improvement. Program 4. The debt service summary 5. The M.S.A. Street Plan 6. The Parks Plan 7. The Parks Capital Improvement Program 8, Resolution 82-34 9. Resolution 82-43 10..Resolution 82-58 11. Resolution 83-31; and, 12. Resolution 83-56 is hereby adopted as the official Comprensive Plan for the City of Lake Elmo; and, THAT, the City of Lake Elmo hereby submits said Comprehensive Plan together with all amendments to the Metropolitan Council, as required by Minnesota Statutes 473,175; and, R83-57 T THAT, the City of Lake Elmo will further investi- gate provisions for Solar access and moderate cost hous- ing, ADOPTED, this the 6th day of September, 1983 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota. SIGNED : J Maynard../L. Eder, Mayor ATTEST: Patrick Klaers City Administrator P R-83-58 RESOLUTION CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF ASHBACH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of Jamaca Court North, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law; and WHEREAS, it appears Ashbach Construction Company is the lowest responsible bidder for this project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo as follows: 1. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Ashbach Construction Company in the name of the City of Lake Elmo for the improvement to Jamaca Court r North according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file with the office of the City Clerk. 2, The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall, be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo this 6th day. of September-, 1983. J ' Maynar Lm F,Er, Mayor ATTEST: jPatriek D. Klaers, City —� Administrator I I. i i j� I R-83-59 RESOLUTION CITY OF LAIKE ELM WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LAKE JANE ESTATES AND THE 2ND AND 3RD ADDITION, A SUBDIVISION PROPOSED 'UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 401 OF THE CITY CODE REGULATING THE SUB- DIVISION OF LAND, WHEREAS, H. Kenneth and.Sherrill Neudahl, as owners Have filed a. Preliminary Plat for the proposed subdivision.of.Lake Jane Estates, and the 2nd, and 3rd. Addition for approval prior to incurring engin- eering and other expenses for the design of streets, utilities, and storm water controls for the preparation of a plat; and, WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plat of the proposed subdivision, now on file with the City Clerk, has been reviewed by the City staff and considered at a public hearing held by the City Planning Commission on August 22, 1983, all as required by the City's Subdivision Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has considered said Preliminary Plat, the recommendation of the City Planning Commission and the recommen- dations of the City staff thereon; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined; 1. The Preliminary Plat for the proposed subdivision, now on file with the City Clerk, is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare, 2, The Preliminary Plat for the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and other applicable regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that the Preliminary Plat for the Lake .Jane Estates, and the grid, and 3rd. Addition subdivision, as filed with the City Clerk, is hereby approved subject to the following conditions; 1. The approval of the Prel.imunary Plat for the Lake Jane Estates and the 2nd, and 3rd. Addition subdivision is limited to those matters set forth in the Preliminary Plat and does not constitute approval of the design standards for any of the streets or other public im- provements required by the City's Subdivision Ordinance, 2. Detailed engineering data, as required by the City Engineer for evaluating this plan, shall be.submitted to the City Engineer or prepared by the City Engineer at developer's expense as a pass -through cost. R-83-59 3. In addition to detailed engineering data as may be required by the City Engineer, the developer shall submit such data as is re- quired to be submitted with a Plat under the provisions of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 4. The approval granted by this Resolution is subject to compliance with all conditions imposed by Valley Branch Watershed District in their Permit for this subdivision. Adopted by the City'Cotncil of the City of Lake Elmo this 6th. day of September, 1983. / L fL p7jc Maynard L;! Eder, Mayor ATTEST: Patrick D. K aers City Administrator