HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-02-86 CCMSince 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 aware of
information that hasn't been discussed, please fill out a "Request to
Appear Before the City Council" slip; or, if you came late, raise your
hand to be recognized. Comments that are pertinent are appreciated.
Items requiring excessive time may be continued to another meeting.
AGENDA
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 2, 1986
7:00 p.m. MEETING CONVENES
1. Agenda
2. Minutes: August 19, 1986
3.
Claims
4.
Public
Inquiries
- Stillwater Area Chamber
Business & Industrial
Development Committee
7:30 p.m. 5.
Public
Hearing :
1986 Sealcoating Assessment
8:00 p.m. 6.
Public
Hearing :
Orin Score-8811 Lake Jane Trail
Variance to a Side Yard Setback in an R-1 District
7. Requests for Variance to the Development
Moratorium
A. Joe Rogers - Rezoning from RR to Industrial.
B. Ken Sovereign - Simple Lot Subdivision and
Preliminary Plat in an R-1 District.
C. Richard & Jackie McNamara - Variance to Size
of Accessory Building in the RR District.
--------------------------B R E A K---
8. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
A. Amendment No. 5
B. 1986 Maintenance Overlay Project
C. 201 Land Acquisition
D. Future Street Thoroughfare Plan
9. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Reconsider City's Fill Policy
10. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
A. 1987 Budget Work Session
1. Approve Capital Improvement Plans
2. Review Preliminary Budget
B. Representative on County Task Force on
Pipeline Safety
C. Resolution Ordering Interfund Audit
Adjustments
D. Other
11. Adjourn
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 2, 1986
Acting Mayor Christ called the City Council meeting to order at
7:05 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: Morgan (arrived
9:15 p.m.), Armstrong, Dunn, Mazzara, Christ, City Administrator
Overby, City Engineer Bohrer and City Attorney Knaak.
1. Agenda
Add: 10D. Approval of Election Judges
M/S/P Dunn/Mazzara - to approve the Agenda for the September 2,
1986 City Council meeting as amended. (Motion carried 4-0).
2. Minutes: August 19, 1986
M/S/P Armstrong/Dunn - to approve the August 19, 1986 City Council
minutes as presented. (motion carried 4-0).
3. Claims
M/S/P Dunn/Armstrong - to approve the September 2, 1986 claims
#87699 thru #87745 as presented. (Motion carried 4-0).
4. Public Inquiries - Stillwater Area Chamber Business
& Industrial Development Committee
Agnes Ring and Jim Schaefer serve on the Stillwater Area Chamber
of Commerce Business and Industrial Development Committee. They
have extended an invitation to their 3rd Economic Development
Symposium on Thursday, October 30, 1986 at the Oak Glen Country
Club. Their main purpose is to promote sound economic development
in the Stillwater area. Phase II of the Economic Development
Strategy will be presented.
Councilman Christ asked where does Lake Elmo fit into this plan.
Agnes Ring responded that this is determined by Lake Elmo's
zoning, but the committee is interested in a planned approach to
what happens. The committee has no control over what any of the
municipalities do, but they want everyone to know what is going on
in each of the other communities.
Oak Wilt
Mr. Bob Krostue, who represents about 40 people from the Eden Park
area, stated that this area has lost fifty trees because of oak
wilt. The residents have consulted Dr. D.W. French, a Forest
Pathologist with the University of Minnesota, who has studied oak
wilt disease for the past 18 years. Dr. French, along with Steve
Kunde, a forester who is experienced in preventing the spread of
this disease, and Lynn Steiner, assistant horticulturist in the
Washington County Conservation Department, will hold an
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 PAGE 2
informational meeting on Thursday, September 11, 1986 at 8:00 p.m.
in the City Council chambers. This meeting is to inform residents
of this problem and offer suggestions for controlling this
disease.
Property Owners and Residents Opposed to Project 201 Disposal Site
Mike Severin, 8012 50th St. N., presented a petition from five
property owners and residents of what is known as Lanes
DeMontreville Country Club Addition stating their opposition to
the City's 201 Septic Program.
5. Public Hearing : 1986 Sealcoating Assessment
Acting Mayor Christ opened up the public hearing in the City
Council chambers at 7:37 p.m.
The following tabulation shows the actual costs and proposed
assessment rate for the 1986 Sealcoating Project. The assessment
rate is different than that estimated at the August 19th City
Council meeting because of an error in counting the number of
assessable parcels. The August 19th information did not take into
account the streets which were deleted from the program at the
feasibility hearing.
Total Cost $41,248.07
General Funds (80%) 32,998.45
Assess (20%) 8,249.62
Benefitting Parcels 206
Assessment Rate $40.05
Hugh Madson, who has one of the benefitting parcels, asked what
the job of the City Engineer was regarding the Sealcoating
project. Bohrer responded that he determines what streets need to
be sealcoated, prepares cost estimates for the work, prepare a map
outlining which streets are to be sealcoated, and then the City
Staff sends out the notices and a public hearing is held.
Mr. Madson stated that there are two streets that have very large
holes that were not patched before the Sealcoating. He asked who
was responsible for supervising this project; was it the City
Engineer or the Maintenance Crew. Mr. Madson feels this is a
waste of money, and he should not have to pay for this. He also
questioned assessing for maintenance versus assessing capital
improvements because he felt it didn't make sense to go through
all that work for only 20% assessment. (Amended 9-16-86) See Page 10
The public hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m.
M/S/P Armstrong/Dunn - to adopt Resolution 86-44 accepting the
proposal as presented by the City Engineer and order the
assessment for the 1986 Sealcoating Project. (Motion carried
4-0).
6. Public Hearing : Orin Score, 8811 Lake Jane Trail
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 PAGE 3
Variance to a Side Yard Setback in an R-1 District
Acting Mayor Christ opened up the public hearing in the City
Council chambers at 8:00 p.m.
Orin Score, 8811 Lake Jane Trail, has requested a variance to a
Side Yard Setback in an R-1 District. The application for a
variance was received by the City after Mr. Score had started
construction of a concrete deck and a shade structure which both
abut the property line of the adjoining lot to the east.
Background information is given in his handout of 9-2-86. In this
handout are stated his reasons he feels would be a hardship to
come back to the 5' limit. (See Appendix A)
Mr. Dennis H. Obermueller, 87771 Lake Jane Trail and neighbor to
Score on the westside, agrees with the support of the above
request for a variance contingent on the following conditions be
met. An agreement between neighbors was signed. (See Appendix B).
Acting Mayor Christ closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
City Attorney Knaak stated that there are factual peculiarites
involving the existence of the swimming pool and lot configuration
which would suggest to him that under these circumstances granting
a variance might be met.
M/S/P Armstrong/Dunn - to approve granting a variance to a side
yard setback in an R-1 District for Orin Score at 8811 Lake Jane
Trail based on the hardship of the damage to the usefulness and
beauty of the area and the absence of a shade area could
contribute to a potential safety hazard; and contingent upon it
meeting Mr. Dennis Obermueller's conditions stated in his variance
agreement between the neighbors. (Motion carried 4-0).
7. Requests for Variance to the Development Moratorium
A. Joe Rogers - Rezoning from RR to Industrial
Attorney Don Raleigh was representing Joe Rogers. He presented
Mr. Rogers' request for a variance to the Development Moratorium.
This request was referred to the Planning Commission for their
consideration as to what impact the proposed variance would have
on the new Comprehensive Plan. Their motion recommended that Mr.
Rogers' variance request be denied, due to their opinion that the
proposed rezoning would have an adverse impact on the proposed new
Comprehensive Plan.
In spite of this motion, the appliciant is requesting a public
hearing for rezoning from RR to Industrial. The reasons for the
request is Mr. Rogers has a buyer and the contract provides a
condition requiring a rezoning or else they will not buy it. Mr.
Raleigh added that the proposed use is a reasonable and
appropriate use for that land. Brockman Trucking would like to
store semi -trailer trucks on approximately 2 to 5 acres of the 17
acre tract of land. Because of the limited use, it should not
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 PAGE 4
create a problem with the nearby residential areas. It is not the
most accessible site for traffic purposes, but for their storage
purposes and eventually their repair garage they do not anticipate
much traffic. If the proposed Future Land Use Map does not contain
Industrial use, Raleigh assumes that this type of use would still
be permitted under a General Business or Highway Business
classification perhaps with a Special Use Permit.
Richard Quinn, 8929 36th St., strongly objected to this rezoning
proposal. Quinn stated this is not an industrial community, but a
"bedroom" community that has been planned this way. He would
welcome new family homes, but he would not like to see any type of
Industry from his house. He feels this rezoning would start a
precedent. Another concern was how large this business could
expand in the future.
City Attorney Knaak and Councilman Dunn stated that economic
hardship alone is not enough to grant a variance.
(City Attorney Knaak suggested that a public hearing for the
variance request by Joe Rogers from the Development Moratorium be
set up for October 7th, 1986.)
M/S/P Dunn/Armstrong - to deny the request for a variance by Joe
Rogers to the Development Moratorium. (Motion carried 3-1<Mazzara:
He would have no problem hearing the rezoning request and finds
the requested use reasonable>).
B. Ken Sovereign - Simple Lot Subdivision and
Preliminary Plat in an R-1 District
Mr. Ken Sovereign's request for a simple lot subdivision and
Preliminary plat was referred to the Planning Commission for their
consideration as to what impact the proposed variance would have
on the proposed new Comprehensive Plan. Their motion recommended
that Mr. Sovereign be given the variance, as it was felt that his
request would have no effect on the proposed new Comprehensive
Plan. (Amended 9-16-86 See Page 10)
City Attorney Knaak suggested authorizing a public hearing for the
moratroium variance on October 7, 1986 and a request by Ken.
Sovereign for a Simple Lot Subdivision & Preliminary Plat.,
C. Richard & Jackie McNamara - Variance to Size of
Accessory Building in the RR District
The applicants came before the City Council on August 19, 1986 to
request a variance to the size of an accessory building in the RR
zone. The discussion then turned to whether a rezoning to
Agricultural would solve the applicant's problem more
expeditiously than granting the variance for building size.
The applicant and the Council were advised by the City Attorney
that this variance request would first need to have a variance
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 PAGE 5
from the Development Moratorium. The City Council voted to send
the moratorium variance request to the Planning Commission for
their consideration. The Planning Commission decided at their
August 25th meeting that the propsosed variance for size of
accessory building would be compatible with the proposed new
Comprehensive Plan. They also suggested that the City Council
make its decision to grant the building size variance be
contingent upon the McNamara's applying for a rezoning from RR to
Ag.
City Attorney Knaak stated that the request for a 12,000 sq.ft.
building is a judgement call, but this request is for a building
four to six times larger from what the City code allows. In order
to get around the moratorium to grant this variance, there is
included the express condition that you make application by a
certain date to the City for downzoning to Agricultural. Knaak's
concern is the potential precedent setting value at this point in
terms that you have granted a variance for four times larger than
the maximum allowed in the code, when all I am asking is two times
greater. He recommended that the quickest, easiest and clearest
way to resolve this problem is through rezoning.
Mrs. McNamara expected her land was zoned Agricultural, but was
surprised when they made out a builing permit application, that it
was not zoned Agricultural. It was the moratorium that prevented
her from seeking application for rezoning to Agricutural at that
time. She stated that her hardship is that her herd of horses has
grown and she has no where to put them. She cannot be assured
that she will be able to sell them before the snow falls and needs
shelter for them in the winter.
M/S/P Dunn/Armstrong - to grant a variance for an accessory
building in an RR zoning to not exceed 12,000 sq.ft. based on the
hardship of the horses needing shelter because of inclement winter
and contingent on an immediate application for rezoning of their
land from the current Rural Residential category to the
Agricultural category. (Motion carried 3-1<Mazzara: He would like
to see her put the building up, but doesn't feel a 12,000 sq.ft.
building in RR is a good variance, it could cause trouble for the
City, and he feels the land should be rezoned to Agricultural>).
8. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
A. Amendment No. 5
At the August 5, 1986 City Council meeting, City Engineer Bohrer
provided documentation showing the actual cost to complete the
Step 2 Engineering was $164,955.18. This amoount is $12,955.18
more than previously authorized by Amendment No. 4. This
additional amount is almost entirely attributable to the requests
of the MPCA for additional soil tests, exploration pits,
information, and re -design. This amount is a direct cost to TKDA
for which no professional fee has been added. TKDA respectfully
requested that the City consider proposed Amendment No. 5 which
would reimburse TKDA for its additional cost.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 PAGE 6 .
M/S/P Christ/Dunn - to approve Amendment No. 5 to the Step 2
Engineering Agreement payable after January 1, 1987 when the bond
money is available. (Motion carried 5-0).
B. 1986 Maintenance Overlay Project
At the time the proposed Street Sealcoating Project was discussed,
the Council was advised that portions of some streets were beyond
the point where sealcoating would be effective, but were not yet
in need of total reconstruction. For those areas, City Engineer
Bohrer suggested that a bituminous overlay would extend the life
of these areas. These areas were the north end of Laverne Avenue
at TH 5, Upper 33rd Street at the Lake Elmo Oil property, 20th
Street and others.
The following bids have been received from Tower Asphalt and T.A.
Schifsky & Sons.
Tower T.A. Schifsky
Base Bid 7,170.75 9, 9 .00
Alternative #1 581.00 800.00
Alternative #2 975.00 1,125.00
$ ,7� 75 $11,4T900
The Base Bid consisted of the work generally in the "old'village"
area: Laverne Avenue south of Highway 5 by the Twin Point Tavern,
Upper 33rd St. by the Lake Elmo Oil storage tanks and 20th Street
from Lake Elmo Avenue to Manning Avenue.
Alternate #1 consisted of paving the parking strip of 6 or 8
parking spaces in front of the new City Hall. The Maintenance crew
will do the gravel base.
Alternate #2 consisted of two areas up in the Tri-Lakes area;
Hidden Bay Trail and two spots on Hilltop Avenue.
This work will be paid for out of three possible sources of
maintenance funds:
Capital Outlay (allotted for road gravel
for road improvements that are not
anticipated to be used) $6,000
Supplies (gravel for maintenance) 1,500
Contractual Services (cleanup day) 850
Councilman Dunn asked Bohrer in regard to the Lake Elmo Oil
property where the truck trailers pivot on the City streets, if he
has talked to Bob Novak about working out a price or any agreement
to resolving this problem. Bohrer responded that he has not
talked to Mr. Novak and felt at this point the City Council could
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 PAGE 7
ask him for a voluntary contribution.
M/S/P Dunn/Mazzara - to accept the bid from Tower Asphalt for
$8,726.75 for the proposed street maintenance overlay project as
recommended by City Engineer Bohrer and paid for out of the
Maintenance funds as discussed by the City Engineer. (Motion
carried 4-0).
C. 201 Land Acquisition
There were seven parcels of land that are necessary for the joint
or off -site drainfield sites. The sites were appraised and those
offers have been made to the seven property owners. William
Schwab, the appraiser hired by the City to handle land acquisition
for the off -site cluster systems, has submitted a status report on
his efforts and the responses from the landowners. A copy of this
letter written to Robert Overby is dated 8-26-86.
The following parcel owners have indicated that they are not
interested in selling their property to the City. These parcels
will have to be condemned in order to be acquired.
Parcel #1 Mrs. William Herzfeld (southeast of Legion Avenue)
Parcel #4 Edward Gorman (south of the White Hat)
Parcel #5 Joseph Rogers (east of the old Meyer Hardware bldg.)
Parcel #6 Mike Severin (8012 50th St.)
In his letter dated 8-27-86, Mr. Schwab stated that Mr. Rogers has
offered five alternatives for the City to consider. City Engineer
Bohrer feels this warrants more investigation due to the magnitude
of difference in the possible appraised values and suggests Parcel
#5 not be considered for condemnation at this time.
Mike Severin, 8012 50th St., objected to the fencing of a
collective disposal site in the middle of his neighborhood because
"not only would it be unsightly, but would devaluate adjacent and
surrounding property in the area". Bohrer responded that there
are no lights and it is not a secured area. The purpose of the
fence is to keep snowmobiles and other kinds of traffic from
driving over this area.
Mr. Severin and neighbor, Dorman Jones, both stated that the 201
Program is going right past faulty systems. They are not taking
his property to benefit everybody, but they're taking it to
benefit only two people. Bohrer responded that if these faulty
systems are not on the program, the code enforcement officer will
determine whether a violation exists. If a violation exists, that
property owner will be notified that the violation will have to be
corrected within so many days or action will be taken.
City Attorney Knaak explained to Mr. Severin that the issue is one
of public health which makes the sewer program a public project.
City Enginer Bohrer stated that from the three percolation tests
on Mr. Severin's piece of property, one was 48 and the other two
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 PAGE 8
were near 120. This data told him if you wanted to build a home
on this property today, you could not get a permit to construct an
in -the -ground drainfield on that property. Bohrer added that on a
new installation for a new house, you are only allowed to
construct a trench type drainfield system. If you are
reconstructing or replacing a septic system, you are allowed under
City code to go to alternative systems.
M/S/P Dunn/Armstrong - to proceed with the condemnation process to
acquire the recommended sites, with the exception of Parcel #5
owned by Joseph Rogers in order to allow the City Engineer to
further investigate this site. (Motion carried 4-1<Mazzara: He is
not in favor of condemnation and would like to see some other
agreement worked out between the property owners and the City>).
D. Future Street Thoroughfare Plan
City Engineer Bohrer addressed a letter received from the MnDOT
District 9 Right-of-way Engineer. The letter advises the City
that MnDOT will begin offering for sale the old I-94 Northern
Route right-of-way between County Road--r and CSAH 15. The letter
also advises that some or all of this right-of-way can be given to
the City for roadway purposes at no cost. (Amended 9-16-86 County Road 13)
Bohrer believes this offer warrants further consideration. If the
City feels that at any time there might be a need for a street in
that area., it might be wise to acquire the right-of-way from the
Highway Dept. at no cost at this time. Bohrer feels that the City
should have a thoroughfare plan, so that as plats come in, we can
show developers that the street is planned for as a through
street.
Councilman Armstrong stated she felt this would be a mistake
because part of the problem with the northern route was the
number of wetlands and it is time to get it off the map.
M/S/P Morgan/Mazzara - to direct the City Engineer to inquire if
MnDOT would transfer 125 feet of the right-of-way to the CIty for
street purposes. (Motion carried 4-1<Armstrong>).
9. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Reconsider City's Fill Policy
Mayor Morgan stated that the City would stick with the present
fill policy until a situation merits new discussion.
10. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
A. 1987 Budget Work Session
1. Approve Capital Improvement Plans
2. Review Preliminary Budget
In order to be more realistic, it was suggested to raise
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 PAGE 9
Engineering Services to $20,000.
Finance Director Banister stated that the reason we assess is
because we bonded for the first 6 year project. When you bond you
have to assess 10% to the benefitting property owners. This is
the only legal way to do it.
(Amended 9-16-86)
In order to get around assessing, there is a special levy allowed called
Infrastructue. Now we have the option because we are through with
the six year cycle, and we can remove the assessment part of it
and levy the $20,000 a year in order to pay for the Sealcoat
Program.
City Administrator Overby was directed to look into leasing a car
versus buying a car to be used by the Lake Elmo Building Inspector
for inspections. This could be put into a package for budget
purposes.
Banister suggested raising the mill rate from 12.5 to 13 which she
felt was very minor. One mill equals $37,000. She felt it was
unhealthy for the mill rate to go down. Councilwoman Armstrong
did not want to see the mill rate go up.
B. Representative on County Task Force on Pipeline Safety
Washington County is requesting the City's participation with a
recently designated Task Force on Pipeline Safety. The Task Force
will try to develop detailed maps of pipeline routes in the
County; to consolidate all information regarding the pipeline
routes for single source access by local agencies; to develop a
method for dissemination of pipeline route information to local
government agencies; and to develop a directory of contact and
resource persons knowledgable about the pipelines in the County.
They propose to finish their work by December 31, 1986.
City Administrator Overby has been following the events in Mounds
View since the accident and volunteered to be the City's
representative to the County Task Force on Pipeline Safety.
C. Resolution Ordering Interfund Audit Adjustments
This resolution lists adjustments that were recommended in the
1985 audit report of the City's 1985 financial statements by Voto,
Reardon, Tautges & Co., Ltd. The audit report was accepted by the
City Council. Therefore, the adjustments described in the
resolution are in order.
M/S/P Dunn/Mazzara - to adopt Resolution 86-43 ordering Interfund
Audit adjustments as recommended in the audit report of the City's
1985 financial statements by Voto, Reardon, Tautges & Co., Ltd.
(Motion carried 4-0).
D. Election Judges
Florence Swanson and Doris Tauer were previously approved as
election judges, but were unable to serve this year. State law
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 PAGE 10
requires that election judges are to be appointed by the governing
body a minimum of 25 days prior to an election. Therefore,
approval of the following residents to serve as election judges is
requested for the November 4, 1986 General Election.
Judy Morris Vicki Nielsen Richard Opland
99759 45th Street N. 9498 Stillwater Blvd. N. 2811 Irish Avenue
M/S/P Mazzara/Dunn - to approve Judy Morris, Vicki Nielsen and
Richard Opland as election judges at the November 4, 1986 General
Election. (Motion carried 4-0).
Mayor Morgan advised the Council that he will not be attending the
September 16, 1986 City Council meeting.
M/S/P Christ/Armstrong - to adjourn the City Council meeting at
10:30 p.m. (Motion carried 5-0).
Resolution 86-43 - Ordering Interfund Audit adjustments as recommended in the
audit report of the City's 1985 financial statements by
Voto, Reardon, Tautges & Co., Ltd.
Resolution 86-44 - Ordering the 1986 Sealcoating Project
----------------
Amended 9-16-86
Page 2.
City Engineer Bohrer explained that the City for several years has been at its
levy limitation as far as the ability to tax or gain additional revenue by taxing.
There has not been enough money available through the general revenue to sealcoat
the streets. There are a few ways that the City can get the additional money
it needs by law. If the City has some bonded indebtedness it can add additional
tax above the levy limitation to pay for those bonds. When you sell general
obligation bonds you must, according to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, assess
a minimum of 20%. He agreed with Mr. Madson that it does seem alot of expense
and effort, but the City doesn't know any other way to do the necessary maintenance
without using this procedure. Bohrer added that there is some legislation due
to this term called Infrastructure which alla-7s a City to exceed its levy
limitations for these type of improvements.
Page 4.
Their motion recommended that Mr. Sovereign be given the variance to -,the
development moratorium.
Page 8
County Road 13
APPENDIX A
Request for Variance by Orin Score
9 -.2-8�
8811 Lake Jane Trail i /_
Background:
The architect who drew up the plans for me was familiar with
Washington County requirements and mistakenly assumed Lake Elmo was
similar, thus the deck was poured to the property line at the same
time the pool was installed.
2. I received approval from all my neighbors to install a fence on the
property line.
3. Last fall I informed Dennis Obermueller, my neighbor to the west,
of my intentions to build a shade area next to the fence. There is
approximately a 20' gap between my fence and the fence he has built
around his pool. He has planted three evergreen trees in this space.
4. I have removed approximately 25 truckloads of dirt from my backyard
to insure that the drainage of my back yard goes through my yard and
not through my neighbor's yard to the west. There is less drainage
now to the west than there was before the pool was installed.
5. Dennis Obermueller and I have discussed the requested variance and
have an agreement (attached) which allows us to mutually support
the granting of the variance.
Variance Requested:
A. Request for variance to allow cement pool deck to run up to fence
which is on property line.
It would be a hardship to come back to the 5' limit for the following
reasons:
1. Removal would be a hardship because of the esthetic damage
to the overall plan and rendering useless a very potentially useful
area of my property. It will also lower the property value by
decreasing the symmetry and beauty of the area.
2. It was not possible to move the entire pool structure further east
because of the location of my well in the backyard.
3. It is desirable for safety to have adequate room near the shallow
end for parents to watch young children in comfort. This needs to be
close to the steps yet far enough away from splashing. Removal of
cement to the 5' area would leave only 7' of room and no shade.
This could create a safety hazard if parents moved elsewhere.
B. Request to construct a shade area as part of the fence.
1. While I question if this should be defined as a structure since
it does not have solid walls, solid roof, or footings; it would be
a hardship to eliminate this area because of the damage to the
usefullness and beauty of the area. In addition, its absence .au d
con ribute to a po en ra sa .e�y FazarcT see item a3�ove)
For these reasons I request a variance.
-Ori-n Score
September 2, 1986
VARIANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN NEIGHBORS
I, Orin J. Score, 8811 Lake Jane Trail, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 do
plan to build a shade structure next to the property line on the
west side of my lot. In order to do this, I require a variance
from the local ordinance which requires a five foot setback for
both the cement deck and the shade structure.
I, Dennis H. Obermueller, 8771 Lake Jane Trail, Lake Elmo, MN
55042 agree to support the above variance request if the
following conditions are met:
1. There will be no run-off of rain water from the roof of
the shade structure now or at any time in the future.
2. In order to accomplish item 1, the roof of the shade
structure will be of 2x6's set on end with no closer than six
inches center to center. A solid roof will not be placed on
the structure either now or at any time in the future.
3. There will be no overhang of the roof structure over the
property line.
4. Sod will be laid for two feet adjacent to the cement deck
by Orin Score on Dennis Obermueller's property in order to
eliminate any potential erosion from water run-off.
5. Orin Score will be responsible to repair any lawn damage
occurring on Dennis Obermueller's property due to water
erosion coming from the cement deck on the Score property.
These conditions are agreed to by both homeowners and will also
apply to any future owners of the two properties in question.
Signed:
Orin J. Score Date
8811 Lake Jane Trail
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Dennis Obermueller Date
8771 Lake Jane Trail
Lake Elmo, MN 55042