HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-84 CCMLAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 4, 1984
Mayor Eder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers. Present: Dunn, Fraser (arrived 7:05), Mazzara, Morgan,
City Engineer Bohrer, City Administrator Klaers.
1. Agenda
M/S/P Morgan/Dunn - To approve the agenda as amended: Add 6G1 - 509
Question on Engineering and 6G2 on Bond Sale. (Motion carried 4-0).
2. Minutes
Approval of the minutes of the August 21, 1984 City Council was
deferred.
3. Claims
M/S/P/ Morgan- Dunn - To approve claims 85184 thru 85225 as
presented. (Motion carried 5-0).
4. Licenses Guardian Angels Church for September 16, 1984.
M/S/P Dunn/Morgan - To approve a one -day 3.2 beer license for
Guardian Angels Church on Sunday, September 16, 1984 for its Fall
Festival. (Motion carried 5-0).
5. Public Inquiries
.There were no public inquiries.
6. Engineer's Report
A. Public Hearing for application by James Tobin, 4180 Irvin
Circle for a zoning side yard setback variance for the
surfacing of an existing driveway.
Pursuant to published notice, this public hearing was opened at 7:20
p.m. in the council chambers.
Mr. Tobin stated that his garage was constructed in the fall of 1983.
The dirt driveway that is presently there has been there since 1978.
His reason for wanting to surface the driveway is to clean-up the
area. There is a row of trees (approximately 25 to 30) that would
have to come out to meet the five foot setback from the adjacent
property line. The driveway comes at an angle from the curb, so
approximately halfway up the driveway, it would meet the required five
foot setback. It is from the curb halfway up the driveway that it
would not meet the required five foot setback.
Mr. Tobin further pointed out that in the immediate area of his home
there are several homes owners that have recently paved their
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9-4-84 PAGE 2
driveways, and these driveways do not meet the required five foot
setback. Mr. Tobin further stated that the garage that was
constructed last year is used only for storage. There is no
electricity there and the point is that he will not be driving back
and forth to this garage.
Mr. Paul Boyer, 4140 Irvin Circle (adjacent property owner directly
south of Mr. Boyer's property) urged the council to deny this request
for the following reasons. The driveway, due to the way the fence
posts and trees are positioned give the appearance to neighbors and
guests that not only the driveway, but the commercial and domestic
vehicles parked in the driveway are his. The dirt driveway is used on
a regular basis and feels that having a service driveway near his
property would lower the value of his home and make it hard, if not
impossible to sell. When he purchased his lot, they were all one acre
lots with no trees. He positioned his house to center it between the
existing houses and driveways on his block. When Mr. Tobin built his
garage at the specified ten feet over from the property line, Mr.
Boyer was assured by the building official that Mr. Tobin's driveway
would have to be the required five feet from the property line. Mr.
Boyer further stated that at the time Mr. Tobin was planting his
trees, he informed him that he was not allowing enough room for the
driveway or the trees. Mr. Boyer presented some pictures of the
driveway showing that it does look like the driveway belonged to the
Boyer home rather than the Tobin home. Mr. Boyer further presented a
letter from another adjacent neighbor (Chris and Kathy Berg, 8625 42nd
St. N.) indicating they feel "That zoning ordinances as they stand
exist for the common good and should not be varied from without
exceptional reason to do so". (A copy of this letter is on file in the
city office).
The City Engineer asked Mr. Tobin what he did with the snow from the
driveway, and Mr. Tobin responded that this driveway was not used in
the winter time and there is no problem with snow removal.
The public hearing was closed at 7:37 p.m.
Fraser stated that as she understands this situation, it really is a
good example of why the rule was made. Originally what Mr. Tobin was
requesting sounded reasonable, yet after looking at the driveway she
realizes that Mr. Tobin makes his home look fairly attractive at the
expense of his neighbors. The setback rule is good and reasonable and
sees no justification for varying the rule.
Dunn stated he would not support the request. The landscaping could
have been laid out better in the initial planning stage. If both
neighbors agreed with Mr. Tobin's proposal, he could possibly go along
with the request; but based on their objections he cannot go along
with this request.
Morgan concurs with Fraser and Dunn. There is plenty of land here and
it should be utilized in such a way that it does not take advantage of
the neighbors. Furthermore, there is no hardship here and no
justification for a variance.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9-4-84
PAGE 3
Mazzara questioned why the building official would recommend approval
of this application. The council surmised that the building official
offered his comments based on the fact that the driveway was already
there.
M/S/P Dunn/Morgan - To deny a zoning side yard setback variance to
James Tobin for the purpose of surfacing his driveway at 4180 Irvin
Circle. (Motion carried 4-1 <Mazzara>).
B. Final Plat for one (1) lot in Teal Pass Estates plus a
shoreland permit for Kenneth Neudahl.
The Engineer stated that in addition to his letter of August 27, 1984,
he has reviewed the plat and it is in conformance with subdivision
ordinance. He has also reviewed the developer's agreement and finds
no suggested modification to that. Mr. Neudahl has provided the
appropriate escrow amount to cover the road improvements in front of
this lot and feels that should be inserted as the dollar amount in the
developer's agreement.
M/S/P Fraser/Dunn - To adopt Resolution 84-50 approving a one lot
final plat for Lot 1, Block 1 Teal Pass Estates 2nd Addition
contingent upon the applicant entering into a developer's agreement
with the City which will include the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission (these conditions are attached as part of these
minutes). (Motion carried 5-0).
Regarding the shoreland permit, the Engineer stated that no variances
are required. He did have one concern regarding the septic system
design. The design is adequate but questioned the excavation that may
be taking place over the area the drainfield would be placed, and
suggested that the excavation be done with a tracked vehicle rather
than a rubber tired vehicle to avoid compacting the soil and changing
the percolation rate. With no other concerns, the Engineer
recommended approval of this shoreland permit.
M/S/P Morgan/Mazzara - To approve a shoreland permit for Mr. Neudahl
at Lot 1, Block 1 Teal Pass Estates 2nd Addition, contingent upon
compliance with the City Engineer's recommendations. (Motion carried
5-0).
C. Public Hearing for application by Roy Schmoeckel, 10997
32nd St. N., for a shoreland.permit and zoning code
variance for the number of and total square footage of
accessory buildings on a lot in the R1 zone.
Pursuant to published notice, this public hearing was called to order
at 7:45 p.m. in the council chambers.
Mr. Schmoeckel stated that the lot is quite steep and he would like to
locate his garage closer to the street so that it is easier to get to,
especially in the winter.
The Administrator stated that no written report was received from the
DNR, but they did call and indicated they had no problems or concerns
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9-4-84 PAGE 4
with this shoreland permit application.
There were no residents present to express an opinion for or against
this application.
The public hearing was closed at 7:52 p.m.
The Engineer stated that in this case, a variance may be warranted
because the hardship is the terrain.
Dunn concurs with the Engineer in that the terrain at this location is
a hardship. Anything the City can do to accomodate off-street
parking, especially in the winter, would be beneficial to the City.
Fraser stated that under the circumstances this is a sensible way to
go. This proposal is similar and comparable to what some of the other
people in the area have.
Dunn stated that from his perspective there are four aging buildings
on this property. If we would deny this application we would still
have four aging buildings; but if we grant this application we would
have three aging buildings and one new one, so the City really cannot
lose by granting this request.
Morgan feels that the new garage would only improve the property and
is not concerned with the setback from the street in this particular
area.
Mazzara stated he visited the site and has no objections to the
proposal.
Morgan/Dunn - To approve a shoreland permit and variances (number of
accessory buildings in the R1 zone, the total square footage for
accessory buildings in the R1 zone, setback and lot size variances) to
Roy Schmoeckel at 10997 32nd Street for the purpose of removing an
existing garage and replacing it with a larger garage. (Motion
carried 5-0).
Eder suggested that Mr. Schmoeckel work with the building official and
if the setback could be 21 feet rather than 20 feet that it be that
way.
D. Public Hearing for 1984 Special Assessments for the
Jamaca Court Street Improvement Project and the 1983
1984 Sealcoating Program.
Pursuant to published notice, the public hearing for the Jamaca Court
Street Improvements was open at 8:15 P•m. in the council chambers.
The City Engineer reviewed the proceedings leading up to the Jamaca
Court improvemnts and also the work that was completed. The
construction cost of the project was $14,385• The engineering cost of
$2,135 covers the preparation of the plans, specifications, receiving
bids and inspecting the work. The City Administration cost of $719,
is for the preparation of the assessment role and some of the work
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9-4-84 PAGE 5
that the city office must do for this specific project. The total
project cost is $17,240. It is proposed that the entire cost be
assessed. The method of assessment is called a unit charge method
where we are saying there are 18-1/3 assessable or benefiting units on
this street. Dividing the total project cost by the number of
assessable units brings the cost, per unit, to $940.39. It is also
proposed that the term of the assessment (if the property owners do
not wish to pay it up without interest) would be spread over a period
of four years at 10% interest. There is a period of thirty days from
the public hearing in which the assessment can be paid up if the
property owner desires, with no interest charge. (This is contingent
upon the council acting on this hearing at this meeting). After this
thirty day period, it is turned over to the County to be placed on the
real estate taxes as a special assessment.
The Engineer reviewed the method in which the number of parcels to be
assessed was determined. The two duplexes were suggested to be
assessed as two units as opposed to the single family homes being
assessed as one unit. There is one corner lot which does not front
upon nor does the driveway exit upon Jamaca Court. In corner lots
such as this, there is usually an adjustment made since it has the
potential of receiving two assessments at some time. It is proposed
that the side which abuts or the garage enters upon the street, be
charged as one unit, but the non -fronting side be charged something
less. If and when Jamaca Avenue is every improved, it would be
proposed that the lot that fronts upon and its driveway enters upon
Jamaca Avenue, that it would then be charged a one unit assessment on
whatever that assessment rate would be. The lot that fronts and the
driveway enters upon Jamaca Court would receive a 1/3 assessment if
and when Jamaca Avenue was ever improved. One other parcel of
property which has sixty-six feet of frontage upon Jamaca Court is
proposed to be charged a one unit assessment.
Jerry Bartel, 3415 Jamaca Avenue North feels that it is unfair to pay
for the assessment of Jamaca Court as he gets no use out of this
street.
The Engineer responded that it is generally felt that there is some
benefit to the corners. Just because there is not an access at this
time does not mean that a person could not apply for an access. There
is the possibility of having an access from either location. It is
generally felt that the improvement of the street increases the value
of the property.
Mr. Friedrich, owner of the sixty -foot access to Jamaca Court
questioned why there was only 1/2 inch of blacktop in spots. The
Engineer stated that there is a one year guarantee on the work, and he
will inspect the work. Mr. Friedrich further stated that he never
uses the driveway which accesses his farm.
Mr. Friedrich also stated that he does not use the access onto Jamaca
Court and does not feel that he should pay the assessment.
The public hearing on the Jamaca Court Street Improvements was closed
at 8:30 p.m.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9-4-84
PAGE 6
Morgan agreed with the concerns expressed by Mr. Bartel and Mr.
Friedrich.
Fraser understands the concerns expressed by Mr. Bartel and Mr.
Friedrich, but keeps in mind that if those two assessments are
decreased, the sum of money that must be paid by the other people is
going to increase.
Eder stated that there is some benefit to the corner lots and also to
the parcel with the access to Jamaca Court, but it is difficult to
determine benefit when you are assessing on a per unit basis.
Dunn stated he does not like the 1-1/3 suggested assessment formula
for the corner lots. It does improve the the market value of the
home, but what that does is give you the privilege of paying more
property taxes and he cannot see where the homeowner benefits by
paying more taxes.
Mazzara stated there are corner lots in Lake Elmo that are on County
roads and they will not be assessed this 1-1/3 lot assessment.
M/S/P Fraser/Mazzara - To adopt Resolution 84-51 accepting the system
for assessments as presented by the City Engineer as the basis for
assessments on Jamaca Court. (Motion carried 5-0).
M/S/P Morgan/Dunn - To amend the previous motion assessing the corner
lot that does not have access onto Jamaca Court (Bartel) and the
Friedrich lot which accesses onto Jamaca Court but according to the
City Code is an unbuildable lot (not enough road frontage) at 25%
rather than the proposed 33%. (Motion carried 4-1 <Fraser>). \
M/S/P Eder/Morgan - To amend the previous motion stipulating that if
Mr. Friedrich's lot is built on within the next ten years, the full
assessment is due. (Motion carried 5-0).
M/S/ Dunn/ To amend Fraser's motion to include the stipulation that
the total assessment on corner lots not exceed the assessment for one
lot (so as to eliminate assessments of 1-1/4, 1-1/2, etc). (Motion
failed for lack of a second).
Mazzara asked the Engineer to explain how assessments are determined
on corner lots in other cities. The Engineer responded that in his
experience, all of the cities that he is aware of provide some
additional charge to the non -fronting side of a corner lot. The usual
procedure would be to charge fully either the short side of a corner
lot or the side which is determined to be its frontage. There is
usually some portion of the second side that is also considered
benefiting. The percentage varies for this second charge, but there
usually is some additional cost on the corner lots.
The final figure for this assessment is 17-1/2 total units. The new
rate of assessment is $985.17 per lot. Mr. Bartel's and Mr.
Friedrich's assessment will be $246.29 and the two duplex units will
be $1970.34 each.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9-4-84 PAGE 7
Pursuant to published notice, the public hearing for the 1983 and 1984
Sealcoating was opened at 8:50 p.m. in the council chambers.
The City Engineer reviewed the program that was adopted in 1983
whereby every City street would be sealcoated once every six years.
Bohrer stated that the 20% of this construction charge that is being
assessed to the property owners on the streets that were sealcoated is
the minimum amount that the City can assess. The total amount to be
assessed for these two projects is $19,800. Bohrer pointed out that
the total amount of the 1983 and 1984 Sealcoating projects was
considerably less than estimated as the City was able to get this work
done by the County as they did the Sealcoating of the County Roads,
rather than contracting the work out to a private contractor.
The proposed method of assessment is the unit charge method. The
number of assessable lots or parcels which abut the sealcoated streets
is 762 which results in a cost per lot or parcel of $25.98. If the
City Council takes action on this proposed assessment at this meeting,
there will be a thirty day period in which that amount can be paid up
with no interest cost. If it is not paid up within thirty days, it is
proposed that it be assessed over one year at a 10% interest charge.
John Leslie, 20th Street North stated that it would have been smart to
patch the soft holes on 20th Street North before it was sealcoated.
The Engineer indicated that the maintenance crew did spend some time
on 20th Street. However, 20th Street is at the point where pretty
soon that street is going to have to be reconstructed. It is a
Municipal State Aide Street, but it is not in the immediate program.
If it continues to deteriorate, plans may have to be changed and the
street reconstructed in certain areas sooner than anticipated
Wyn John pointed out that there were some parcels on Jane Road North
that were unadvertently put on this assessment role.
Joseph Timmers objected to the amount of taxes that he pays.
John Leslie, 20th Street North stated that at the time 20th Street was
surfaced the agreement was reached if the property owners paid for the
surfacing, the City would maintain the road thereafter. He asked if
that agreement was binding.
Eder stated that would be the standard statement that would be made in
terms of if the street is improved it will be then subject to City
improvements. What is being proposed here is the uniform treatment
throughout the City so that it would not, in effect, violate that
generalized statement. That means if it is a public street maintained
or accepted by the City, the City will maintain it, as long as they
can do so.
Mr. Leslie stated his second point was that he has requested the
County combine his property all under one parcel. The notice that he
was sent for this public hearing indicated that this change had not
been made and he would be charged for three parcels. Mr. Leslie was
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9-4-84
PAGE 8
assured that he would be charged for only one parcel for this
assessment.
Mr. Solseth questioned how many parcels he would be assessed for. He
feels his lots are unbuildable as they do not meet the 60% rule. The
staff will review this concern and Mr. Solseth will be charged
accordingly.
The public hearing for the 1983 and 1984 Sealcoating Program was
closed at 9:20 p.m.
M/S/P Fraser/Mazzara - To adopt Resolution 84-52 accepting the
proposal as presented by the City Engineer and order the assessments
for the 1983 - 1984 Sealcoating Program; and to delete the residents
on Jane Road North that were inadvertently placed on this assessment
roster. (Motion carried 5-0).
E. 201 Program
Draft Plan of Operation
The Engineer presented a Preliminary Plan of Operation and draft
Wastewater Service Charge Ordinance. These documents are required to
be submitted to the MPCA with the Plans and Specifications. They are
not formally adopted until after MPCA review and approval.
The Plan of Operation is required to assure the grant agencies that
the grant funded improvements will be operated and maintained
properly. The Preliminary Plan of Operation for Lake Elmo is based
upon the Plan of Operation Guidelines issued by MPCA in February,
1984, and should, therefore, meet MPCA requirements. According to the
MPCA Guidelines, three copies of the Preliminary Plan of Operation
should be submitted with the plans and specifications in a Step 2 and
3 grant project.
The final Plan of Operation must be submitted and approved before the
Step 3 grant payments exceed 50 percent of the total. It must include
specific dates where the preliminary version cites "percent of
construction" when various activities take place. The work required
to implement the Plan of Operation is grenerally grant funded.
2. Draft User Charge Ordinance
A Wastewater Service Charge Ordinance is required to assure the grant
agencies that sufficient funds will be collected to operate, maintain,
and administer the grant funded improvements. Two types of
maintenance and fee procedures are discussed.
"Passive" maintenance is required for individual on -site treatment
systems. The charge would only be for administrating the "reporting
card" system as had been discussed previously by the Council.
"Active" maintenance is required for any individual of any individual
or joint off -site treatment system. In this case, the City performs
the maintenance of those treatment units not on an individual's own
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9•-4-84- t: -- PAGE 9
property. The charge would be higher and include operation,
maintenance, administration,and replacement costs.
Plan and Specification approval by the City Council is not required
prior to submitting them to the MPCA. However, the Engineer feels it
is important to thoroughly review the plans with the Council. He
suggested that sufficient time be set aside at a future Council
meeting so that this review with the Engineer can be made.
M/S/P Morgan/Mazzara - To apprAthW PYreliminary' Plan of Operation
and., the DraftUserCharge Ordinance, as presented by the City Eq ineer.
`jMd lbn dear iei 5r 0 ) � S :
3. Other
The next Open House will be held for residents of the Old Village area
whose systems will be upgraded on -site on Wednesday, September 5, in
the Council Chambers between 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. The only
remaining group to meet will be those residents who will be served by
off -site systems. That open house has not yet been scheduled.
F. Partial Payment #2 to Forest.Lake Contracting for 1984
Street Improvements.
The Engineer reviewed the work that has been done on the 1984 Street
Improvements. The landscaping has not yet been completed, but all of
the bituminous surfacing and other work has been completed and
recommended payment #2 in the amount of $63,762.77 to Forest Lake
Contracting. He further stated that there remains about $10,800 left
on the contract, and that work will all be completed in September and
estimates that a recommendation for final payment would be made in
October.
M/S/P Morgan/Dunn - To approve partial payment #2 in the amount of
$63,762.77 to Forest Lake Contracting for satisfactory work completed
in the 1984 Street Improvement Project. (Motion carried 5-0).
C. .Other ,.
��;� o.� J1.: _ �_� v._ orY:;
1. 509 Update - City Administrator
The Administrator stated that the plans are for the 509 Plan to
proceed as originally presented. They are going to try to install it
in stages and hope that the first stage may be all that is needed.
The first stage would involve obtaining relief for the Lake Jane area
by pumping wanter into Park Pond and moving it to or around Sunfish to
Lake Elmo. They are going to attempt to challenge the NOHW of Lake
Jane which has been at 924 feet as many people feel that that is too
high - that the flood level should be a little lower. He further
stated that Mr. Moosebruger presented alternates to the 509 Plan
indicating how this project can move forward in stages instead of
doing the entire three to four million dollar project at one time.
The 509 Committee and the VBWD concurred that we keep looking at the
total problem, and this program be implemented in stages.
LAKE ELMO CITY'ICOUNCIL MINUTES 9-4-84
PAGE 10
1A. OHWM set by the DNR
Eder stated that there is some question raised about these OHWM's and
if we can get a meeting between the City Engineer and the VBWD
Engineer and exchange information as to how they set the OHWM.
-Be.cause the :most criticaltione is.:on Lake Jqne, the:Engineer'.s can
either -tell us they-agree--with--how they set them or they can help
negotiate and point out that the DNR has made an error and get the
right OHWM s,o.--that question can -.be and we can move on with
the 509 Plan:.
M/S/P Eder/Morgan - To authorize the City Engineer to participate in
negotiations to review the OHWM set on Lake Jane. (Motion carried
5-0).
2. Joint Powers Agreement regarding the Bond Sale for
the 201 Program.
A copy of the Joint -Powers Agreement was-d-istributed.at the Council
table. The Engineer felt he_has.not had enough time to review this
agreement; but did .point .out.- one -area- of concern which is "Disbursements",
which indicates. -how the City•is.goingto get their money:,- The agreement
says, that "The County..sha-11 not le-ss often than;semiAhinually di-sburse
these funds". The Engineer feels we.should have our funds more often
than semiannually.-
M/S/P Morgan/Mazzara - To enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with \ `
Washington County on the Bond Sale for the 201 Program, contingent
upon a favorable review and recommendation by the City Attorney, City
Engineer and City Administrator. (Motion carried 5-0).
3. Pebble Park Tennis Court
The Engineer reported that the improvements to the Pebble Park Tennis
Courts has begun and is expected to be completed in one week.
7. City Council Reports
There were no City Council Reports.
8. City Administrator's Report
A. Recommendation to Washington County for appointments
to VBWD.
The Administrator advised the Council that Dick Murray and Allen
Dornfeld have expressed -interest. in being reappointed -to the. .VBWD.
The Administrator further pointedoutthat some changes in the process
to be used for appointment of managers to watershed district boards
have been made. Previously, managers had been appointed through
Washington County's open appointments process in which any citizen
residing within the affected watershed district could submit an
application to the County Administrator's Office. The County Board
then made an appointment from those applicants.
LAKE .ELMO CITYI'GOUNCIL'"MINUTES 9-4-84 PAGE "1'i
The new law provides that County Commissiopers must s 1 ct watershed
district managers from a list of nominees 'submitted Toiently or
severally", by the municipalities that are wholly or partially in the
watershed district. Such a list must be submitted to the County at
least sixty days prior to the expiration of the term of office of a
manager. If no list is sumbitted, the County Board will then proceed.
to appoint a manager through its open appointments process.
Dunn asked if any other area residents have expressed an interest in
appointment to this board. The Administrator stated that the
vacancies have been noted in the City Newsletter, but there have been
no inquiries.
Eder stated he would not like to see a term go on for too long. i
would, however, like to see Mr. Dornfeld continue on thru the 509
Program, but would like to see him relinquish the presidency.
Morgan stated he has expressed his concerns that the watershed
district has been going on for years and years, and is not very
anxious to support either Mr. Murray or Mr. Dornfeld.
Dunn concurs with Morgan - does not feel strong towards either Mr.
Murray or Mr. Dornfeld.
Fraser stated she has been favorably impressed with Mr. Murray. He
has often been a useful go-between - taking things the Council has
said and bringing them to the VBWD.
M/S/P Mazzara/Eder - To recommend to Washington County the
reappointment of Dick Murray and Allen Dornfeld to the Valley Branch
Watershed District. (Motion carried 3-0-2 <Dunn, Morgan>).
B. Addition to list of judges for 1984 primary and
general elections.
The administrator advised the council that one previously approved
election judge in Precinct II (Marcie Eichens) is unable to work
either the primary or general election and recommended appointment of
Phyllis Cram as replacement to this position. He further requested
approval of one additional altnernate judge, Donna Herman for Precinct
II.
M/S/P Dunn/Morgan - To appoint Phyllis Cram, 8251 Deer Pond Court,
Lake Elmo, as a replacement for the previously appointed election
judge, Marcie Eichens, for the 1984 primary and general elections in
Precinct II; and to appoint Donna Herman, 7990 Hudson Blvd., as an
alternate election judge in Precinct II. (Motion carried 5-0).
C. Update on Durrand application.
The Administrator reviewed the letter from the City Attorney which
indicates that the only way a final determination can be made
regarding the ownership of the road is for the property owner to bring
a proceeding in District Court, called a Proceeding Subsequent. As a
result of bringing of such a proceeding the Washington County Examiner
of Titles Office would render an Opinion and make a recommendation to
LAKEIELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES•914-84 " " PAGE 12
the court and an Order would follow. It �vod__be� �i�f,,o;tk�e, city
s mply,make ar d6tdrmihatidth A 'ihs "own wi Bout a Proceeding
Subsequent. The attorney, therefore, stated it would appear to be
premature for the city to act on Mr. Durand's proposal until a final
determination is made as to the ownership of the strip of land in
question.
The Administrator further suggested, and the council was in agreement,
that it should be the responsibility of the applicant to determine the
ownership of this strip of land at the applicant's (Mr. Durand) sole
expense.
M/S/P Morgan/Eder - The City Council concurs with the opinion of the
legal staff and instructs the City Administrator to advise Mr. Durand
of this action. (Motion carried 5-0).
Resolution 84-50 - Final Plat - Teal Pass 2nd Addition
Resolution 84-51 - Jamaca Court Assessments
Resolution 84-52 - 1983 - 1984 Sealcoat Assessments
Since we do not have time to discuss every point presented, it may
seem that decisions are preconceived. However, background information
is provided for the City Council on each agenda item in advance from
City Staff and appointed Commissions; and decisions are based on this
information and past experiences. In addition, some items may also
have been discussed at previous Council meetings. If you are dare of
information that hasn't been discussed, please fill out a "Re uest to
Appear Before the City Council" slip; or, if you came late, aise your
hand to be recognized. Comments that are pertinent are app eciated.
Items requiring excessive time may be continued to another;meeting.
AGENDA
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 4, 1984
######################################################################
5:00 p.m. Committee as a Whole - 1985 Proposed Budget Workshop
7:00 p.m. Meeting Convenes
1. Agenda
2. Minutes: August 21, 1984
3. Claims
4. Licenses: Guardian Angels Church for
September 16,- 1984.
7:15 p.m. 5. Public Inquiries
6. City Engineers Report
A. Public Hearing for application by James Tobin
4180 Irvin Circle for a zoning side yard
setback variance for the surfacing of an
existing driveway.
B. Final Plat for one (1) lot in Teal Pass
Estates plus a shoreland permit for Kenneth
Neudahl.
7:45 p.m. C. Public Hearing for application by Roy Schmoeckel
10997 32nd St. N., for a shoreland permit and
zoning code variance for the number of and total
square footage of accessory buildings on a lot in
the Rl zone.
-------------------------BREAK--------
8:15 p.m. D. Public Hearing for 1984 Special Assessments for
the Jamaca Court Street Improvement Project and
the 1983 and 1984 Sealcoating Program.
E. 201 Program
1. Draft Plan of Operation
2. Draft User Charge Ordinance
3. Other r
F. Partial Payment #2 to Forest Lake Contracting
for 1984 Street Improvements.
G. Other
7. City Council Reports
8. City Administrator's Report
A. Recommendation to Washington County for
appointment to VBWD.
B. Addition to list of judges for 1984
Primary Election.
C. Update on Durand application.
D. Other
i( August 29, 1984
To: Mayor and City Council
Fr: Patrick D. Klaers, City Administrator
Re: Informational Material for September 4, 1984, Council Meeting
1. Attached for your information is the most recent City Newsletter
dated August 28, 1984, which highlights articles on the election
equipment and CIP needs.
2. Wish to once again inform the City Council that I will be out of
town for the September 18, 1984, City Council meeting. At this point,
the agenda for this 9-16 meeting includes a public hearing for citizen
input on the Revenue Sharing and General Fund Budget, a public hearing
for a simple lot subdivision and zoning/lot size variance for Daniel
Dickhausen and may include review of Mr. Peltier's application for a
rezoning in Section 35 to Commercial and also consideration of a
Preliminary Plat from David Nelson. These last two items may or may
not be on the 9-18 agenda depending upon the review by the Planning
Commision on September 10 and the material that is sbmitted to he City
staff. Additionally, the staff anticipates other items to be added to
the agenda as we approach the meeting date.
3. Attached for your information is a letter from Carol Kuettner,
Chairperson of the "Light Up Lake Elmo" Committee. This letter
provides you with a status report of the fund raising efforts of the
committee and informs you of an important meeting to be held on
Wednesday, September 5, at the White Hat Restaurant at 7:30 p.m. You
should note that the financial figures included in this letter do not
include any revenues obtained during Huff & Puff Days.
4. Wish to acknowledge that the Council approved 1984 CIP needs for
the Maintenance Department are in the process of being purchased.
Maintennce Foreman Dave Wisdorf is receiving quotes and he has infomed
me that the radios will be less than anticipated. The washer should
be approximately the $1,800 discussed by the committee and the wing
itself will cost approximately $6,000 but, there will be additional
expenses for delivery and installing this wing on the dump truck. The
total estimated cost for equipment and installation is expected to be
approximately $11,500 instead of the previous estimated amount of
$10,000 that was presented to the CIP Committee and Council.
5. Attached for your information is some material relating to the
Lakeview Ambulance application . The material indicates that the
application was recommended for approval by health systems agencies
but that the Department of Health staff recommended denial and the
Commissioner concurred with the staff in determining that this
application should be denied. Unless we hear otherwise or there is a
mechanism for Lakeview Hospital to appeal this decision, it appears
that the application for Lakeview Hospital Ambulance Service is now a
dead issue. Therefore, the City of Lake Elmo will be continuing to
receive its ambulance service from the new owners of the Cropp
Service.
CLAIMS TO BE APPROVED AT SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 LAKE EL'MO COUNCIL MEETING
85184
State Treas.-Social Security Contr.Fd. - August Soc.Sec. $
1,788.44
85185
State Bank of Lake Elmo - August Federal wh.
2,463.20
85186
Commissioner of Revenue - August State wh.
1,290.00
85187
Postmaster - postage meter - sealcoat assessment notices
300.00
85188
Brooks Superette - Fire Dept.gas at OakLand fire
95.72
85189
Patrick Klaers - September expense
100.00
85190
Lake Elmo Associates Ltd. - Sept. rent
1,689.00
85191
LMCIT - Sept. Hosp.
1,359.78
85192
MBA - Sept. hosp
52.00
85193
Allied Group Insurance Trust - Sept, disability
69.69
85194
Laurie Waterman - newspaper
5.40
85195
Satellite, Inc. - Marcellus & Paul residences
114.00
85196
Mary Meyer - 8/28/84 newsletter
250.00
85197
North St. Paul Plg. & Htg. - park shelter
6.60
85198
Washington County Parks Dept. - Trail Grooming & Maintenance
1,474.23
85199
James McNamara —August mileage
165.76
85200
American Typewriter - Dictating Machine $ 30.9.95
Office Supplies 59,05
369.00
85201
Curtis 1000 - Office Supplies -envelopes
283.59
85202
Craig Corporation - maint.agreement for dictating machine
6.00
85203
Interstate Office Systems - Office supplies
13.25
85204
Healy -Ruff Co. - Maint. Dept. supplies
34.00
85205
Vern's GTC - Maint. Dept. Truck parts
97.63
85206
Gerald Dahlberg - Animal control officer for August
372.00
85207
Oakwood Animal Hospital - August
304.00
85208
Northern States Power
1,119.02
85209
A t & T
57.79
85210
Northwestern Bell
327.63
85211
Lawson, Raleigh & Marshall - Prosecutions $ 1,808.60
Other General 705.60
2,514.20
85212
TKDA - General $ 769.28
Park Tennis Cts, 144.90
Jane Road 528.08
MSA 6,403.59
201 Sewer 3,038.12
10,883.97
85213
thru 85225 September 14th payroll
6,000,00
Totals $
33,605.90