HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-89 CCMAPPROVED
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUT
MARCH 7, 1989
Mayor Dunn called the City Council meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the
City Council chambers. Present: Dunn, Hunt, Williams, Graves, Moe, City
Engineer Bohrer, City Attorney Steve Carlson, and City Administrator
Morrison.
1. Agenda
Add: 10C. Conference by Mary Kueffner
M/S/P Graves/Moe - to approve the March 7, 1989 City Council agenda as
amended. (Motion carried 5-0).
2. Minutes: January 17, 1989
Councilman Hunt asked for sentences regarding his views on
detachment/annexation to be added.
M/S/P Graves/Hunt - to postpone consideration of the January 17, 1989
Council minutes until the March 21, 1989 Council meeting. (See Page 3)
(Motion carried 5-0).
Minutes: February 21, 1989
Clarification on who second the motion on Page 5.
M/S/P Graves/Moe - to postpone consideration of the February 21, 1.989 City
Council until the March 21, 1989 Council. meeting. (Motion carried 5-0).
3. Claims
M/S/P Graves/Hunt - to approve the March 7, 1989 Claims #91496 thru #91537
(Motion carried 5-0).
4. REAPP REPORT
Todd Williams reported that, last Friday, Dan Novak, Vickie Reichow, and
he meet with Attornies Chuck Dayton ad Ellen Sampson. Based on their
meeting with them and on basis of subsequent comments received from some
Metro Council members, they felt it would be appropriate for the City to
continue retaining these attornies in the matter of the landfill.
Administrator Morrison, Vickie Reichow met with Genereux's assistant last
week and asked for certain stipulations in the interviewing process and
that every type of user of the Lake Elmo park be contacted. Implications
of a landfill, noise and smell impact, will be discussed prior to
questioning. Administrator Morrison explained they can only interview two
types of users because of budgetary constraints; and it is the City's
prerogative to say which two they can interview and asked for Council
direction on which two users.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 7, 1989 PAGE 2
Todd Williams preferred cross-country skiers as the wintertime users and
the picnickers as summertime users. When the county interviews
cross-country skiers on Saturday, ReAPP members volunteered to witness
these interviews.
Leslie Davis, Earth Protectors, stated, "He has worked with ReAPP and they
have done a terrific job fighting the proposed landfill, but now that the
money has been raised, the people have been taxed, and the time has come
to fight, they have become tired and want to turn this money over to
attornies that have not served the enviromental community well in the
past. Now, they are letting these attornies take this hard earned money of
the people and lobby for a bill that they admittedly know, themselves, has
no chance of passing. ReAPP has selected the wrong attorney based on a
conflict of interest. Earth Protectors has provided them with reasons for
not hiring this lawyer, but they had already made up their mind". Davis
encouraged the Council to hold off on hiring this attorney.
5. PLANNING/LAND USE/ZONING:
A. CONTINUATION OF REZONING APPLICATION (G. PELTIER)
Packard Park, 3rd Addition RR-R1 (from 2/21)
M/S/P Graves/Williams - to bring back for consideration the Rezoning
Application from RR to R1, by G. Peltier for Packard Park, 3rd Addition.
(Motion carried 5-0).
This application was continued based on analysis of available, existing
R-1 Lot survey and an analysis of the status of Resolution 83-56.
Attorney Carlson reported he has looked over Resolution 83-56 and since
that time of adoption of the Resolution, three parcels have been rezoned.
Carlson stated the City will have a difficult time justifying not rezoning
another parcel at this point. If a procedural basis can be established
and differences between these parcels can be pointed out, the City would
be in a better position, but it appears as though there has been a waiver
of the resolution which has been practiced.
Building Official Jim McNamara and PZ Chairman, Rob Enes, had compiled a
list of available R-1 lots.
INVENTORY OF R-1 LOTS
SUBDIVISION LOTS
AVAILABLE
Creekside Crombie)
7
Tartan Meadows
8
Packard Park 2nd
3
Springborn 2nd
6
DeMontreville Highlands
1
Lake Elmo Heights
3
Midland Meadows
1
29
ORIGINAL NO. OF LOTS
38
8
11
24
7
98
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 7, 1989 PACE 3
Kenridge Acres (Christ) 12
Packard Park, 3rd 8
The Forest (Engstrom) 18
Palecek 2
40
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Pending
Councilman Hunt asked "is the City bound by mistakes of the past"?
Carlson responded "it is assumed that the City knows what is done, despite
the fact that it is a different body, but from a legal standing the City
is one continuing body".
Hunt expressed his understanding if this rezoning application was passed,
it would be in violation of the 1979 Comp Plan, as amended by Resolution
83-56 and accepted by the Met Council.
Councilman Williams explained that in Oct & Nov, 86 the Council did refuse
to change the Land Use Map dated 3-15-83. That map, with the exception of
Packard Park Additions 1 and 2, did show this area as being RR zoning.
Because the Council at that time acted to retain RR as the zoning of this
area, does this have any impact on consideration of this proposal?
Carlson responded that the Council has an obligation to uphold the laws
and abide by their rules; therefore, granting a rezoning would in essence
be in variance to the original Resolution that was passed. The City could
be subjecting themselves to some difficulties that way. On the other
hand, because you have made a mistake in the past, you are not necessarily
obligated to continue making that same mistake.
Williams asked the attorney" because previous Councils have done the
rezoning, does the three rezonings, in apparent violation of that
resolution, throw out the entire resolution?" Carlson responded "he did
not think so".
Williams asked, "is the whole city, any place that is zoned RR, is that
now subject to the same claim, that this resolution does not hold water,
the comp plan doesn't hold water? Because we already zoned some RR to R1,
do we have to rezone anybody who asks for it"? Carlson answered "it
certainly would be subject to the same claim. You have to look at what was
in the mind of the Council, established from their minutes, what was the
intent, rationale behind the rezoning of Packard Park 1 and 2, when that
was arrived at, how that was distinguishable from this particular rezoning
application."
Councilman Hunt explained there are a number of conditions when one
reviews a rezoning; such as: have the conditions in the City changed, what
are the supply of buildable lots. Although this resolution could be used
for denial, therefore, we don't have to worry about other things because
this resolution states we cannot rezone until it is changed, it should not
be the sole reason for denial.
Carlson added because of an impending moratorium, if- intent is to deny the
rezoning application, the City would be in a stronger position even if it
is a pending application. This resolution that was passed in 1983 is a
valid resolution to the extent that notice by virtue of this resolution,
the public or pending applicants should be held to that same standard and
knowledge of the Council.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 7, 1989 PAGE 4
Councilman Graves referred to the minutes where the PZ recommended areas,
excluding this area, be rezoned from Rl to RR. It was his belief that the
intent of the PZ and CC was that the area being discussed for potential
rezoning (Peltier), was to have this area left as future Rl zoned aera.
It was his contention that there was a typographical error or mistake in
the way the resolution was drafted. The Resolution is in force, as
written, even though there was a mistake, but it would be easy to show it
was invalid, and the intent of the PZ and Council at the time was
otherwise.
Hunt asked what action could the Met Council bring against the City for
going against the accepted Comp Plan. Adm. Morrison responded that Pat
Paul has stated that the Met Council has no jurisdiction on zoning.
Councilman Moe believed, being on the PZ at the time, this area was to be
R1 and not left in RR zoning, and based on what happened in the past, this
is setting the City up for a lawsuit if denied.
Hunt stated the land is currently zoned for Residential, an upgrade from
one residential class to another is based on number of factors. If. the
findings were to be against that based on a finding, not entirely devoid
from this Resolution, would this be setting us up for litigation, as long
as the reasoning is sound in terms of being consistent with the
requirements for rezoning. Carlson responded, it would put the City in a
stronger position.
Mike Mazzara: He was on the Council at" the time the resolution was
passed. He remembered there were very large areas of R-1 zoning at the
time, area between 20th St. and 30th St. were R1 at the time, and the
intention was to infill the area.
Arlyn Christ: He was on the Council when the three parcels were brought
in and he voted in favor of rezoning these parcels. He looked at the
requests as being reasonable, the land was contiguous to existing R-1
zoning and appropriate to rezone for residential housing. It was not
based on previous Council's recommendation for zoning, but on the existing
Council's perception of what was the appropriate use of the land.
Dick Johnson: He was on the Council at the time when these rezonings
occurred. This resolution was not brought before them, if it had, it would
have influenced his decision at the time.
Councilmen Graves and Moe clarified, according to August 8, 1983 PZ
minutes, page 3, and CC minutes 8-16-83 (See Exhibit A & B), the idea was
several parcels of land in addition to areas that the PZ had designated on
August 8th were left, including areas that have potential for rezoning to
Rl, that the zoning not be changed to RR and Resolution 83-56 seems to be
in variance with those reommendations and stated intentions of the City
Council.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 7, 1989 PAGE 5
Councilman Hunt stated there appears, according to the minutes, an intent
was made. At the same token, there may have been other conversation that
was inadvertently not included. A Resolution was passed that was in
conflict with these minutes. Therefore, Hunt felt it was unreasonable to
deny any rezonings based purely on that resolution.
Hunt felt our Comp Plan and Future Land Use Map show this land RR and to
rezone this land would be in conflict with that plan. Hunt believes this
land is currently zoned for residential housing, RR, and there is a
reasonable use of this land. The land inventory provided, only shows one
class of lots, R1, which is not the only buildable lot class within this
City. Larger lot sizes are desired by the Met Council and also by our
Comp Plan as witnessed by our Future Land Use Map. Hunt stated "I intend
over my tenure to be consistent with the Comp Plan and not to deviate and
I believed to take any action, other than to deny this, would be conflict
with our current Comp Plan."
Councilman Graves stated there are no problems caused that they can
substantiate through engineering data, or otherwise, that would show that
putting this area into R1 zoning would be in conflict with what would be a
proper use of the land. Graves referred to City Engineer Bohrer stating
there was no basis for denying this application based on concerns of water
moving toward the Downs Lake area. Graves agrees there are water concerns
about that area and action has been initiated by the City with the VBWD.
R1 zoning for that property does not appear to represent a significant
threat to the Downs Lake/Eden Park area. When looking at resolving the
water problem in the Eden Park area, having other road access out of the
area in case the main access road was flooded, was suggested. Approval of
this Addition would give us this road. Rezoning would be consistent with
the action taken on Packard Park 1 and 2 Additions, therefore, he felt it
would be appropriate to rezone the property.
Councilman Williams agreed with Councilman Hunt that our comp plan does
call for this area to be RR. He was in favor of a Residential Estates
zoning classification in the future. If this R1 proposal is turned down,
he would like to consider the entire City for what areas might be
appropriate R1 and what areas might be appropriate for RE, or RR zoning.
Williams felt just looking at one specific parcel was a mistake and not
good planning for the whole City.
M/S/F Graves/Moe - resolved that the Council hereby approves the Rezoning,
from RR to R1, for Packard Park 3rd Addition, and further, that the
Council directs the City Attorney/Staff toprepare the appropriate
Ordinance for the Rezoning for future Council action. (Motion failed 3-2
Hunt: he believes the Comp Plan we are currently operating under is in
conflict with this rezoning, the land is currently zoned for RR and is a
reasonable use of this land, the land inventory only shows one class of
lots, R1, and believes there is an adequate supply of lots for the coming
year because larger lot sizes are buildable lots, in terms of consistency
with the Comp Plan, he had to vote against the rezoning. Williams:
agreed with Councilman Hunt's reasons, but he indicated that he wants to
be looking at the entire City, not just one parcel, in terms of future
zoning to Residential Estates as well as Rl possibilities.)
B. LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION/REZONING (G. SULLWOLD)
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 7, 1989 PAGE. 6
City Engineer Larry Bohrer stated he has researched the type of easement
the public has over the traveled road known as Kimrbo Avenue and reviewed
the drawings prepared by the surveyor which indicates that Mr. Sullwold's
propertyline in relation to the traveled gravel surface and where the
fences are pesently located, it was his engineering opinion that Mr.
Sull.wold does have frontage on a public street.
Councilman Williams, because of his concern on subdividing in the future,
suggested an easement be granted to gain access to the property to the
north, rather than the small strip shown on the survey.
Mr. Sullwold's daugther responded that her father farms both sides and
would not have direct access to north property. The future planning of
the property will be to divide the land between the children.
The City Attonrey added, if the lot were squared off, the north part would
become a legal parcel and have less than the 40 acre minimum for a lot in
the Ag zoning classification.
M/S7LP 4?i-1-1i•ami5-/Hunt msrrlroed tirat-the-CGtMd-rl"hereby .a-pp-reves lie La }e
l;et S-mbd-iv+sken &f- G-it-bert Sul.i-aoid, conti-nge-nt upon tie- a-pplican-t-s
eemp-1 anee w4�tb- t*e r-ecommendatiens- of the C+ty Engineer- i-n- Ms meme o-€
Nebrua-ry 2.7, 19L89, a-nd, f"t#i-er t.#a-t the G ty Attarney--St-af-€ a -re herebyp
&ir-ec--t-ed- t-a d-ra€t t-1 appr-oppr-a-t-e orda-na-are- for r-anon-ng 01 the 19+ asr-&
.par"l Zrom Aqr--c-rl e to Rur-a3 Reeide-nt4a-1 €er p-resen-ta�� to the
Geunci-l. (-Moti-an-ear-ri-ed--S-0 (Amended 'Motion 3-21-89)
See Page 12 for amended motion.
C. PRELIMINARY PLAT, KENRIDGE HEIGHTS
APPLICANT: ARLYN CHIRST
A representative from the Carl. Peterson & Assoc. presented the preliminary
plat for Kenridge Heights. Changes were made based on recommendations
from the Planning Commission at their February 27th meeting. The road was
changed to include an "S" type shape to the street. The plat does meet
the minimum of the l 1/2 acre lot size and the area to the South will be
platted as an Outlot. A schematic was provided showing how this Outlot,
if rezoned to R1, would fit in and adapt to this area.
He further explained that all lots meet the 1 acre requirement with the
exception of Block 3, Lots 1 and 2, for septic systems. These two lots
will meet the requirement once they place fill that is needed to bring
those lots to an elevation that is acceptable for drainage.
The have added a drainage swail to prevent drainage getting into the
backyards and affecting the septic systems. They have a request in for a
VBWD permit and have talked to Karen Chandler, Barr Eng., who indicated
everything looked fine.
Councilman Williams asked if the plat calls for a 24' wide
to the road, and our ordinance calls for a 32' wide road,
the preliminary plat have we in fact granted a variance.
paved surface
if we approve
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 7, 1989 PAGE 7
Chuck Plows, Peterson & Assoc., stated the Preliminary Plat has been
submitted with an application for a request for a 24' wide roadway.
Therefore, they are asking for a variance to the standard road width
because they do not feel a 32' wide roadway is conducive to this
development. A 32' roadway is excessive for the amount of traffic that it
will receive. Also, an advantage to the City is a narrower street requires,
less maintenance.
Attorney Carlson responded the Council should consider the variances,
separately, and all variances require a proven hardship.
A copy of covenants established for all lots in Kenrdige Heights were
provided as follows:
A. Kenridge heights lies within the Lake Jane Landfill. well advisory area
whereas the Minnesota Dept. of Health must be contacted by the well
contractor for special testing and construction methods prior to drilling
a well.
B. Each lot will require soils testing by a certified soils engineering
firm to prove suitabillty for an on -site septic system.
The City has received a letter from Mary Luth, Director of Public Heath,
stating their procedures for new construction within the well advisory
area. in Mary Luth's opinion this proposed development would have no
adverse affect on site cleanup activities occuring at SW -I, and she
believes it is unlikely that they would find evidence of VOC contamination
in the area proposed for development.
Councilman Graves brought up his concern that this will be the first
development since the contamination has been brought to the City's
attention. Arlyn Christ responded that at least 8 to 10 homes have been
built in the well advisory area. When he built his new home he was able
to use his old well.
Graves was advised by City Assessor, Frank Langer, for properties in the
well advisory area, there was an overall reduction of 20% on assessed
values from the 1988 standards and homes with a trace of contaminants, had
an additional reduction in assessed values from 1983.
The Council received a letter from Rita Conlin, PZ member, voicing her
concern on the fact the City could be held liable since we would have
allowed development in the well advisory area. Another concern, if this
plat is approved for development, this would be sending a message that the
City feels land contaminated by a landfill is acceptable. This would
start a precedent and cost credibility in our dealings with the County and
Met Council over the proposed landfill for the Regional Park.
Councilman Williams stated for the record the applicant had done an
excellent job with responding to the PZ and Engineers requests in revising
his plans taking these comments into consideration.
The Council had some questions relative to legal implications in denying
or approving this subdivision. Also to be considered was the potential
political impact in fighting the landfill in he Regional Park. The
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 7, 1989 PAGE 8
Council requested data verification on water contamination readings on the
deeper wells that have been installed.
M/S/P Hunt/Graves - to direct the City staff to obtain data verification
on water contamination readings for the deeper wells and clarification
from the City Attorney on the following, with information being available
for the March 21st Council meeting: (Motion carried 5-0).
If the Plat is approved, will the Council be indicating that they believe
there is no longer a danger of water contamination in the area, and, if in
the future, wells become contaminated, can the City be held liable for
approving the Plat.
If the Plat is denied, can the City be held liable (taking of property,
etc.) particularly in view of the fact that building and well permits have
been issued since the beginning of the well advisory area.
M/S/P Graves/Hunt - to postpone consideration on Kenridge Heights
Preliminary Plat until the March 21st Council meeting. (Motion carried
5-0).
D. GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN: ROBERT ENGSTROM COMPANIES
The Planning Commission considered this application at its February 27th
meeting and recommended approval of the General Concept Plan.
Mr„ Robert Engstrom gave a presentation on his General Concept for a
Planned Residential Development to be known as The Forest.
The Council felt it was an innovative design for this wooded area, but had
some difficulty with the narrow and long road design, but it was not in
conformance with the Comp Plan and asked if the PZ could review this area,
while they are in the process of updating the Comp Plan.
Councilman Williams was in favor of the concept, but he wanted to look at
the entire City for appropriate zoning placement. He asked the other
Councilmembers if they were in favor of some form of Residential Estates
Zoning. If they were in favor of such a zoning, RE should be included in
the update of the 1986 Comp Plan. Williams stated his decision on the
Peltier property was not based on political feelings, but based on the
Comp Plan.
In response to Councilman Williams question, if in favor of an RE Zoning,
Councilman Hunt responded he was in favor of an RE zone. Councilman
Graves worked on the committee that drafted an RE Zone, found it to be
advantageous, but wanted to see the final form before he gave his
approval.
M/S/P Graves/Hunt - to direct the Planning Corimisciion to review, oijL a
city-wide basis appropriate future R-1 placement, and within that a review
inclusion and consideration of The Forest as an R-1 site and to include
review of the Packard Park 3rd Addition, for consequent amendment of the
Comp Plan and return with their recommendation for the April 4th Council
.meting. (Motion carried 5-0).
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 7, 1989 PAGE 9
f M/S/P Graves/Hunt - to direct the Planning Commission to set up
guidelines, with the input of the City Engineer and'Pub.lic Works
Supervisor, as to when it is permittable to make exceptions from the 32'
wide road requirement. (Motion carried 5-0).
M/S/P Graves/Hunt - to postpone consideration of the General Concept Plan;
The Forest, until the April 4th Council meeting. (Motion carried 5-0).
6. PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR REPORT;
A. SPECS: 1-TON PUBLIC WORKS TRUCK - DAN OLINGER
M/S/P Williams/Graves - resolved that the Council hereby approves the
specifications, as submitted 3/7/89; but to include 4-wheel drive, for a
one ton truck, plus equipment package, and further authorizes the
advertisement for bids in accordance with the specifications. (Motion
carried 5-0).
B. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR PERMANENT PART-TIME EMPLOYHEE
The 1989 Budget incorporated $6,240 for this position; i.e, 1040 hours at
$6.00 per hour. The employee will work April 1 through November 1, four
days a week.
M/S/P Graves/Hunt - resolved that the Council hereby approves the Position
Description for Laborer, and authorizes the advertisement for the
permanent part-time position at $6.00per hour, April 1st through November
1, 1989, four days a week. (Motion carried 5-0).
7. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT:
A. RESOLUTION 89-17: APPROVING PLANS AND SPECS AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (43RD & KIMBRO)
At the last Council meeting, the issues of four foot wide paved shoulders
and the placement of a curb along Bob Wier's property were resolved. The
plans and specifications were ready for Council approval.
M/S/P Graves/Moe - resolved that the Council hereby approves Resolution
No. 89-17, Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement
for Bids for 43rd St, and Kimbro Avenue. (Motion carried 5-0).
B. RESOLUTION 89-18; RESTRICTING PARKING ON CURB PORTION
(front of B. Wier's property; Kimbro)
M/S/P Graves/Moe -;resolved that the Council hereby approves Resolution No.
89-18 Restricting Parking on Portions of Kimbro Avenue. (Motion carried
5-0).
C. AGREEMENT WITH CHICAGO NORTHWESTERN R.R. FOR 33RD STREET
DITCHING
City Engineer Larry Bohrer advised the Council that the drainage ditch,
33rd Street from Klondike Avenue to Lake Elmo Avenue, and shared with the
C&NW track, has filled in over the years and needs to be cleaned out The
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 7, 1989 PAGE 10
City will perform this work in late spring at no cost to the railroad, but
the City is seeking permission to work on the railroad right-of-way.
Larry Bohrer will add to the release form the following paragraph:
WHEREAS, at the City's or City's contractor expense, the C&NW will provide
a flagman to provide protection for the City's forces working on C&NW
property.
M/S/P Graves/Williams - resolved that the Council hereby authorizes the
Mayor and Administrator to sign the Release and enter into the Railroad
Agreement, to include the added paragraph addressing providing a flagman,
with C&NW Railroad to allow for completion of 33rd St. (Motion carried
5-0).
B. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
9. ROLE OF INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER
M/S/P Graves/Moe - to bring back to the table for consideration. (Motion
carried 5-0).
Councilman Moe asked for a specific paragraph addressing the individual
role of a Councilman from the League of MN Cities be added to our Code of
Ethics.
The Council decided a definition, duties and responsibilities for the
Mayor and Council should be added to Section 2.08.01 of the code.
M/S/P Graves/Moe - to direct the City Staff to draft a position
description, definition and duties, for the Mayor and City Council; to
include state statutes and League of MN Cities paragraph, to be inserted
into Job Descriptions in the City Code. (Motion carried 5-0).
I.O. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
A. LETTER FROM COMMISSIONER LARKIN
Commissioner Larkin asked this information relative to signaling at TH5
and Co. State Aid Hwy 17 be sent to the Council.
The Council asked that copies of this letter be sent to the Planning
Commission and to Carol Swanson of the Lake Elmo Business Assoc. A thank
you letter will. be sent by the staff to Commissioner Larkin for pursuing
this matter.
The City Staff will send a letter to Larry Bousquet, MN Dept., inquiring
if money was the reason for denial of a traffic signal at TH5 and CSAH 17,
and suggest splitting the cost of a traffic light between the State,
County and City, and ask this be added in their Capital Improvement
Program.
B. EXISTING R-•l LOTS
See Item 5. for discussion.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL. MINUTES MARCH 7, 1989 PAGE 11.
The Council requested an inventory be done on the platted available RR
lots, which will be broken down to: Platted RR No. of Lots and
Undeveloped (not been platted) RR No. of Acres. This will be inserted
into Table 11 of the updated 1986 Comp Plan.
C. REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE (MARY KUEFFNER)
Mary Kueffner has requested approval to attend the State Clerk's
Conference at Alexandria, MN. Funds are available in the Administrator
Schools/Conferences budget. Administrator Morrison recommended Council
approval of Mary's request.
M/S/P Graves/Moe - resolved that the Council hereby authorizes Mary
Kueffner's attendance at the Spring 1.989 City Clerk's Conference in
Alexandria. (Motion carried 5-0).
COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Section 32
Councilman Graves, based on the result of the Hearing on the Bill, felt
there was an increased necessity for the City to show they are willing to
work with the propertyowners. Graves suggested the following:
1. Submit an ad to the Real Estate Journal
Include a map identifying Section 32 and a statement that the
Lake Elmo City Council is willing to work with the
propertyowners and developers for proper utilization
of this land.
2. Authorize the City Planner and Financial Consultatnt put
together a proposal for utilization of this land.
(The CC, PZ, Rep. from Met Council, Twin Cities Realtors
Board have some opinions on this land).
Councilman Graves felt the quicker we get something ongoing, the better
chance we have for the Municipal Board turning down proposed annexation.
Councilman Hunt suggested a member of the CC and PZ approach these groups,
Metro East, Met Council, and direct professionals based on what they hear.
Hunt did agree with submittal of the Ad.
Councilman Williams suggested contacting Oakdale, since they want sewer,
would they be willing to work together to get the pipe into Section 32.
He also suggested approaching working with the City of Woodbury.
City Engineer Bohrer stated the Future Land Use Concept Plan of 1986 is
still valid today. The cost of the utilities were based on this, but now
the costs would have to be raised. Then the Financial Consultants could
come up with alternatives for financing. The City could contact Oakdale
and discuss the cost for sharing the pipe. An inventory of land in Green
Acres should be provided for the Planner.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 7, 1989 PAGE 12
{ The City Administrator was directed to prepare, with involvement of
Section 32 propertyowners, a proposed, flexible action plan sequencing
time of activates. This Action Plan will. be presented at the next Council
meeting for Council modification.
OTHER:
The Council asked if there was anything that could be done to help the
staff get the CC and PZ packets out earlier in the week.
Administrator. Morrison stated it was not uncommon for the Deputies to
deliver Council packets while they are patrolling the City.
M/S/P Graves/Hunt - to instruct the Lake Elmo Deputies to deliver the City
Council packets. (Motion carried 5-0).
M/S/P Graves/Moe - to adjourn the City Council meeting at 10:15 p.m.
(Motion carried 5-0).
Amended Motion for Gilbert Sullwold: March 21, 1989 Council meeting
M/S/P Williams/Hunt - to direct the City Staff to prepare a resolution
granting a large lot subdivision as proposed by Gilbert Sullwold;
legal description on file in the office of the City Clerk, contingent
upon applicant's compliance with the recommendation of the City
Engineer in his memo of February 27, 1989; and contingent upon
applicant paying a park dedication fee of $450 for the newly created
lot; and contingent upon this newly created parcel remaining in AG
Preserves until such time as the entire 100 +/- acres is taken out
of AG Preserves; and contingent upon applicant understanding that
no other subdivision will be allowed on this property based on the
"one house per forty acres" provision of the AG Preserve Act.
(Motion carried 5-0).
M/S/P Williams/Hunt - relative to the large lot subdivision granted to
Gilbert Sullwold,'..to direct the City staff to prepare an ordinance
amending the Lake Elmo Municipal Code rezoning the newly created 10+
acre parcel from Agricultural to Rural Residential; contingent upon
this parcel remaining in AG Preserves. (Motion carried 5-0).
'CLAIMS TO BE APPROVED AT MARCH 7, 1989 LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MEETING
(all claims are within budget unless otherwise noted)
91496 Al Kunde - reimbursement for material - legislation
91497 Commissioner of Revenue - February state withholding
91498thru
91500 Park Shelter Workers
91501 Postmaster - postage meter
91502 Wash. Cty Treas. - fee for recording resolution
91503 LMCIT - March hsopitalization premium
91504 Minn. Benefit Assn. - March premium
91505 Merle Eastman - February animal control officer
91506 City of Afton - Cottage Grove Ravine Watershed
91507 Lillie Suburban Newspapers - Legal Publications
91508
91509
91510
91511
91512
91513
91514
91515
91516
91517
91518
91519
91520
91521
91522
91523
91524
91536
91537
Clerical ad
League of Poi Cities Insurance - New Fire truck
Frank Langer - monthly installment assessor
James R. Hill - planner (invoice attached)
Caswell & Assoc. - legal retainer
costs
$ 62.15
48.00
insurance
General Safety Equip. - Fire Dept. equip pkg-new truck
Oswald Fire Hose - Fire Dept. - capital outlay
Richard Colemier Fire Dept. mutual aid dues
Peoples Plus - Fire Dept. gas
Battery & Tire Warehouse - Maint. Dept. parts & supplies
American Planning Assn. - membership
Northern States Power Office $ 199.62
Fire Dept. 485.07
Maint. Dept.. 461.21
Street Lites 702.59
Christmas Lites 86.29
Parks 479.87
Water Fund 330.12
Sewer Fund 16.18
US West - Office $ 178.54
Fire 35.49
AT & T - Fire Dept. $ 13.90
Maint. Dept. 23.22
AT & T - Office telephones
Dataforms, Inc. - Water Fund meter reading card forms
Browning -Ferris Industries - Sunfish park satellites
thru
March loth payroll
Rauenhorst Carlson & Knaak (Attn: F.Knaak)
$ 12.83
872.00
354.21
400.00
10.00
1,715.31
51.00
390.00
300.00
110.15
448.00
1,000.00
1,694.00
950.00
2,690.00
2,484.50
50.00
36.19
76.91
55.00
2,760.95
214.03
37.12
66.95
575.30
92.14
10,388.88
2,097.12
TOTAL: $ 29,932.59
.. r FES 1 6 1989
James R. Hill inc.,
PLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS
Lake Elmo, City of STATEMENT DATE:FEB 10 89
3800 Laverne Ave. N.
Atzn: I"Is, Patricia Morrison
Lae:e Elmo, MN 55042 CLIENT NUMBER: 5255
PROJECT DATE AMOUNT PAYMENTS BALANCE
8087F CITY OF LAKE ELMO-MISC./MUNICIPAL WORE;
DEC 88 $ 1,216.00 $ 1,216.00 0.00
JAN 89 $ 1,694.00 $ 0.00 1,694.00
PROJECT TOTAL: $ 2,910.00 $ 1,216.00 E 1,694.00
i
CURRENT
OVER 30
OVER 60
OVER 90
BALANCE DUE
1.694.00
$0.Qu
$0.00
$0.00
$1,694.00
9401 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH . BLOOMINGTON • MINNESOTA • 55431 . 612-884-3029
6
times R. Hill, inc.
PLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS
Lake Elmo, Cite of
3800 Laverne Ave. N.
Attn: Ms. Patricia Morrison
Lake Elmo, MN 5 042
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED:
CITY OF LAKE ELMO-MISC./MUNICIPAL WORK (8087P)
JAN 31 89
Printing, binding and assembling
Update city maps, zoning, utilities streets etc. '
Misc. letters, memos, phone conversations, etc.
City staff meetings
City council meetings '
1 - - Printing = $ 38.O0
`I ENGINEER TECHNICIAN I 1.00 HRS X $ 28 = $ 28.00
SENIOR ENGINEER TECHNICI 18.00 HRS -X $ 38 = $ 634.00
PLANNER. III 16.00 HRS X $ 59 = $ 944.00
1,694.00 ,
9401 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH . BLOOMINGTON . MINNESOTA • 55431 . 612-884-3029
James R. Hill, Inc.
PLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS
JANUARY 31, 1989
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
3800 LAVERNE AVENUE NORTH
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
-- MEETING (1-18-89) AT CITY HALL WITH
CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND ENGINEER.
3.0
HRS.
@
$
59/HR.
-- PREPARATION AND COMPOSITION OF
R-E RESIDENTIAL STUDY.
11.0
HRS.
@
$
59/HR.
-- 'CITY COUNCIL MEETING (1-24-89)
2.0
HRS.
@
$
59/HR.
-- DRAFTING EXHIBITS AND MAPS FOR
R-E REPORT, COPYING, COLLATING
1.0
HRS.
@
$
28/HR.
AND BINDING REPORTS
18.0
HRS.
@
$
38/HR.
9401 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH . BLOOMINGTON . MINNESOTA . 55431 . 612-884-3029
RAUENHORST CARLSON & KNAAK
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ROSEDALE CORPORATE PLAZA
2665 LONG LAKE ROAD
ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA 55113
(612) 631.10a0
February 26, 1989
City of Lake Elmo
3880 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (F)
Attention: Marilyn
Re: General '. "AM
MOW
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED
DATE
01/26/89
01/31/89
02/07/89
02/14/89
02/24/89
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
.50 Phone conference - Administration (FWK)
1.00 Review and draft of Council Summaries (FWK)
7.75 Prep and attendance at City Council Meeting (FWK)
1.00 Phone conference - Staff; Review misc matters (FWK)
.50 - Phone conference - client x 2; Review Statutes re
Comp Plan (SPC)
Retainer received 02/10/89 for January services
Attorney Hours Covered by Retainer:
General legal services
Other (Council meetings, etc.)
Attorney Fees Not Covered by Retainer:
Document drafting & opinions
Costs & disbursements
Retainer for February
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
I declare, under the penalties of law, that the ,above ac
demand is true and correct.
-575.00
3.00
7.75
10.75
.00
.00
500.00
500.00
punt, laim or
i
r
RAUENHORST CARLSON & KNAAK
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ROSEDALE CORPORATE PLAZA
2665 LONG LAKE ROAD
ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA 55113
(612) 631.1080
February 26, 1989
City of Lake Elmo
3880 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (S)
Attention: Marilyn
Re: Section 32
V5A
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED
DATE
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION
01/27/89
60.00
Review court decision; Conference with SPC (FWK)
01/30/89
60.00
Review Court Order (SPC)
15.00
Conference with FWK; Review Decision.(SPC)
! 11/31/89
30.00
Review File (SPC)
i
02/01/89
60.00
Draft Notice; Serve on opposing parties and file with
court (SPC)
60.00
Word Processing
7.50
Postage
02/02/89
105.00
Research and draft of letter to Commission (FWK)
02/06/89
15.00
Review Letter to Board (SPC)
60.00
Word Processing
52.50
Copy of Letter to Client
02/12/89
105.00
File review; Prep for meeting with Council; Client
letter; Research (FWK)
02/14/89
30.00
Review Council Memo (FWK)
02/16/89
15.00
Review correspondence (SPC)
90.00
Review Vierling letter; Council Meeting; Response to
Vierling letter (FWK)
20.00
Word Processing
17.50
Copy of Letter to Client
....• ': ... ..i-�. �i ..- '�' ....fin. .T
City of Lake Elmo— Section 32
February 26, 1989
Page Two
Total Lawyers' Services
Total Paralegal Services
Costs & Disbursements
Word Processing Services
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
655.00
.00
7.50
140.00
802.50
I declare, under the penalties of law, that the above account, claim or
demand is true and correct.
{ rederic W. Knaak
RAUENHORST CARLSON & KNAAK
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ROSEDALE CORPORATE PLAZA
2665 LONG LAKE ROAD
ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA 55113
(612) 631-1080
February 26, 1989
City of Lake Elmo
3880 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Attention: Marilyn
Re: Woodbury I-94 Annexation f- _--j
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED
DATE AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
02/01/89 15.00 _Phone conference - Mayor Dunn
02/06/89 15.00 File review
BALANCE OUTSTANDING 95.00
Payment Received - Thank You
Total Lawyers' Services
Total Paralegal Services
Costs & Disbursements
Word Processing Services
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
I declare, under the penalties of law, that t above ac
demand is true and correct.
kAm
-95.00
30.00
.00
.00
.00
30.00
, claim or
RAUENHORST CARLSON & KNAAK
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ROSEDALE CORPORATE PLAZA
2665 LONG LAKE ROAD
ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA 55113
(612) 631.1080
February 26, 1989
City of Lake Elmo
3880 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (F)
Attention:. Marilyn
Re: Derrick Y®
A V A
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED
DATE AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
01/31/89 30.00 Phone conference
- Mayor; Confirm
deposition
5.00 Word Processing
14.00 Copy of Letter to
Client
2.00 FAX Charges
02/02/89 30.00 Phone conference
- Olson and City
Hall re reports
02/15/89 20.00 Word Processing
10.50 Copy of Letter to
Client
02/22/89 240.00 Depositions
BALANCE OUTSTANDING
722.50
- Payment Received - Thank You
-722.50
Total Lawyers' Services
324.50
Total Paralegal Services
.00
Costs & Disbursements
2.00
Word Processing Services
25.00
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 351.50
I declare, under the penalties of law, the above count cla � or
�
demand is true and correct. //A , / /
LAM
RAUENHORST CARLSON & KNAAK
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ROSEDALE CORPORATE PLAZA
2665 LONG LAKE ROAD
ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA 55113
(612) 631.1080
February 26, 1989
City of Lake Elmo
3880 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Attention: Marilyn
(S)
Re: Severin
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED
DATE AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
02/07/89 45.00 Receipt and review of Response to Discovery; Letter
to opposing attorney.
f 02/08/89 5.00 Word Processing
02/08/89 3.50 Copy of Letter to Client
02/22/89 15.00 Receipt of Supplementary Discovery
BALANCE OUTSTANDING 53.50
Payment Received — Thank You —53.50
Total Lawyers' Services 63.50
Total Paralegal Services .00
Costs & Disbursements .00
Word Processing Services 5.00
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 68.50
I declare, under the penalties of law, that the above account, aim or
demand is true and correct.
RAUENHORST CARLSON & KNAAK
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ROSEDALE CORPORATE PLAZA
2665 LONG LAKE ROAD
ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA 55113
(612) 631.1060
February 26, 1989
City of Lake Elmo
3880 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (S)
Attention: Marilyn
Re: 201 Condemnation
r1�IliY ��
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED
-
DATE _ _ AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
01/20/89 9.62 Paid Dependable Courier for Delivery
01/26/89 15.00 Memo to file
-
02/10/89 30.00 Return of Liens;
Letter to client
02/13/89 5.00 Word Processing
-
02/16/89 150.00 Prepare Statement
of Case; Phone conference - B.
Schwab, Court, M.
Andrewson; File review;
Memo to
file
02/17/89 60.00 Phone conference
- L. Bohrer; Revise Statement of
Case; Memo to file
15.00 Word Processing
02/23/89 15.00 Phone conference
- L. Bohrer
02/24/89 15.00 Phone conference
- L. Bohrer
30.00 Revise, Serve and
File Statement of Case
BALANCE OUTSTANDING
528.50
Payment Received - Thank You
-528.50
Total Lawyers' Services
315.00
Total Paralegal Services
.00
Costs & Disbursements
9.62
Word Processing Services
20.00
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
344.62
I declare, under the penalties of law, z
he above(/ ccoun� claim or
demand is true and correct.
,/
rederic W. Kn
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 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
MARCH 7, 1989
7:00 P.M. MEETING CONVENES
1. AGENDA
2. MINUTES: JANUARYI7, 1989
FEBRUARY 21, 1989
3. CLAIMS
4. REAPP REPORT
5. PLANNING/LAND USE/ZONING:
A. CONTINUATION OF REZONING APPLICATION
(G. PELTIER)
Packard Park, 3rd Addition RR-R1 (from 2/21)
B. LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION/REZONING (G. SULLWOLD)
C. PRELIMINARY PLAT, KENRIDGE HEIGHTS
APPLICANT: Arlyn Christ
D. General Concept Plan: Robert Engstrom Companies
6. PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR REPORT:
A. Specs: 1-ton Public Works Truck
Dan Olinger
B. Authorization to Advertise for Permanent
Part -Time Employee
7. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT:
A. Resolution 89-17: Approving Plans and Specs and
Authorizing Advertisement for Bids
(43rd & Kimbro)
B. Resolution 89-18: Restricting Parking on Curb
Portion
(front of B. Wier's property; Kimbro)
C. Agreement with Chicago No.West R.R. for
33rd Street Ditching
B. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
9. Role of Individual Council Member.
(Councilman Moe)
10. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
A. Letter from Commissioner Larkin
B. Existing R--1 Lots
COUNCIL, DISCUSSION: Section 32 Study
Future Meetings -
Senate Committee Mtg.-Concurrent Annex/Det.
3/6 7:00 p.m. Parks Committee Meeting
3/12 7:30 p.m.. Planning Commission Meeting
3/21 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting
3/22 7:00 p.m. Waste Management Meeting
3/27 7:30 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting
Sundays REAPP Meeting