Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-91 CCMLAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DATE APPROVED: 9-17-91 DATE ISSUED: 9L.0-7-91 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING ( (Continuation of September 3, 1991) SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 Mayor Johnson called the City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: Mayor Johnson, Dick Johnson, Mottaz, Williams, City Engineer Tom Prew, City Attorney Filla and Administrator Kueffner. Absent: Councilman Hunt. 1. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT: A. Partial Payment #2 to Kenko, Inc. for SW-1 Water Main Construction. M/S/P Williams/Mottaz - to approve Partial Payment #2 in the amount of $334,677.62 to Kenko, Inc. for SW-1 Water Main Project. This amount to be paid upon receiving payment from Washington County. (Motion carried 4-0). M/S/P Dick Johnson/Williams - to direct the City Engineer to write a letter to Kenko, Inc. advising them in writing of complaints the City has received and copy to appropriate authorities (such as, Professional Engineers Society, Board of Registration). (Motion carried 4-0). B. New Engineering Standards As directed by the City Council, the City Engineer has revised the City's Engineering Standards. These changes are listed in Tom Prew's letter dated August 26, 1991. M/S/P Williams/Dick Johnson - to postpone consideration of this item until the Council receives a copy of the full engineering standards with the proposed changes indicated. (Motion carried 4-0). C. Additional Connections to Old Village Drain Field City Engineer, Tom Prew, has reviewed the request to add additional users to the Old Village Drainfield. Currently the Old Village Drainfield is operating at about 80% of its 4,440 GPD design capacity. The proposed new users, (the old hardware building, MicroSota, Trimold and possibly the Post Office) would add about 1,600 gallons per day to the drainfield which would exceed the design capacity. Prew indicated additional flow could be added on a temporary basis, but did not recommend connecting these buildings permanently to this drainfield because additional flow will shorten the life of the drainfield. M/S/P Mottaz/Dick Johnson - to instruct the City Administrator to have the Building Inspector identify all possible users of the new system in the Old Village and report back to the City Council. (Motion carried 4-0). The Council asked the City Administrator to have the Building Inspector report back as to the severity of the problem and give them some indication of his judgement on what action should be taken. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 2 2. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: A. Mayor Johnson: Municipal Heritage Committee Mayor Johnson explained he would like to take the first step in establishing a Municipal Heritage Committee and submitted a copy of State Statutes 471.193 Municipal Heritage Preservation. MIS/ Mottaz/Dave Johnson - to establish a Municipal Heritage Preservation Committee M/S/P Mottaz/Williams - to postpone consideration of motion until the next meeting provided the Mayor submits a list, to be provided in the Council packet, addressing makeup of committee structure. (Motion carried 4-0). B. Councilman Hunt C. Councilman Johnson D. Councilman Mottaz E. Councilman Williams asked the Council as to how they should handle O1D BUSINESS. Councilman Mottaz noted the normal procedure for Old Business is entered as an agenda item before the body of the meeting and items are brought forth and discussed. The remainder of items not discussed are added to Old Business and serves as a reminder. The City Administrator will write a brief memo updating the Council on the status of items under Old Business. 3. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: A. Vacation of westerly 185.65 ft., Lot 8 Krause's Addition City Attorney, Jerry Filla, reviewed the various documents which were provided and offered his comments in his memo dated August 23, 1991. M/S/P Williams/Dick Johnson - to instruct the City Attorney to send a letter and background information to Tom Skalbeck and property owners abutting the parcel in question stating the city maintains its right to the blacktop portion of Lake Jane Road, but that it feels it has no legal interest in the portion to the west which is currently not blacktopped, and the city feels the ownership of the non-blacktopped portion is a matter for the private property owners to settle. (Motion carried 4-0). The City Engineer reported in his letter, dated August 15, 1991, that in order for the Bloyer/John Driveway and the Maistrovich driveway to remain on Jane Road only the west 160' of Lot 8, Krause's Addition should be vacated. The City Attorney will confirm the figure of 160' with the City Engineer if this figure is the measurement from the end of the blacktop to the property line on the west. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 3 i B. Carmelite Monastery Proposal The City Attorney reviewed the Carmelite Development Proposal with Rev. Burns and submitted answers to the Council's questions in his letter dated September 6, 1991. The Council indicated a variance is needed to the public frontage access (301.090I) in order to develop the site as proposed. The Council indicated the following concerns: Road design (tonnage of road), Intersection of new road with the existing road leading to the Carmel of Our Lady of Divine Providence should be structured to allow for turning of long fire trucks, Turnaround at the proposed building should be structured to allow for turning of large fire trucks (conform to the city code for cul-de-sac radius), and access to the gate (keys provided) to the Police and Fire Department. Because of the safety standpoint on the long driveway, the Council asked Rev. Burns about obtaining a 200' easement from Tom Skalbeck and/or his neighbors and put in a shorter driveway off their property. Rev. Burns answered they would have to secure an easement over private property, a road would be detrimental to their privacy because you would be coming up into their backyard and they are trying to keep the public portion to the monastery up front, and in his opinion, the incline of the hill is steep and area is wooded which would be much more difficult for emergency vehicles to handle. Rev. Burns indicated if they are delayed with this project they will have to forgo building this fall because of winter construction. Therefore, a hardship for the community is created because the present quarters they are occupying are not adequate and they have two more members who wish to join them. Rev. Burns felt this was unfair given the Council had this information in adequate time to review and did not bring these issues up at the Council meeting when the Council gave them approval. M/S/P Williams/Mottaz - to bring back for consideration the approval of the Carmelite proposal. (Motion carried 4-0). Councilman Mottaz indicated he would accept comments from the City Attorney and allow the applicant to proceed with construction providing proper wording in the variance be contingent upon the city being satisfied with the conditions before granting occupancy. Also, the PF Zoning requirements have to be addressed. M/S/P Mottaz/Dick Johnson - to grant approval of site plan on the condition there be no occupancy until the City reviews and approves conditions to granting a frontage access variance. (Motion carried 4-0). LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 4 C. Trail Head Development Jerry Filla advised the Council the District Court granted a Default Judgement. The District Court's order directs the City to grant a rezoning of property from RR to RE based upon the Courts determination that what the city did in this case in denying the request was unreasonable. This puts the City in a position of having to consider an Ordinance which effectuates the rezoning. If the applicant for Stonegate is ready with the preliminary plat, this item could be on the September 17th Council agenda. Mayor Johnson explained he filed a Motion to vacate the Default Judgement on behalf of the Mayor of the City of Lake Elmo and on behalf of the citizens of Lake Elmo. A hearing is scheduled for September 27th. This filing was based on his belief the state law requires 4/5th vote on a rezoning and a simple majority of the Council cannot circumvent the requirements of the statutes and of our city ordinance. D. Jamie Olson: Sign Filla advised the Council he received a letter from Attorney Jim Hanton indicating he thought it a good idea to start constructing a sign on September 11th. Filla contacted him and objected based on the Court Order directing the City to grant the variance and CUP is not the same thing as granting the variance and a permit and the applicant has to come back to the Council for action. Until the Council takes that action or until someone appeals the District Court's decision, there is no authority from the city to do anything on that site. E. Annexation Proceedings: Filla advised the Council the Appellate Court decided to uphold the District Court's decision that the petition for review was not filed within the appropriate time; therefore, the District Court had no jurisdiction. Filla will pursue this decision to the Supreme Court. 4, CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: A. LMC Conference Planning Committee If any Council members are interested in serving on the Conference Planning Committee, they are to submit their completed form into the City Administrator. B. Valley Branch Watershed District The Council was asked to bring in names of nominees for consideration to fill the vacancy within the VBWD. M/S/P Mottaz/Dick Johnson - to adjourn the Council meeting at 9:40 p.m. (Motion carried 4-0). LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DATE APPROVED: 9/17/91 DATE ISSUED: 9/27/91 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 Mayor Johnson called the City Council meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: Mayor Johnson, Dick Johnson, Mottaz, Williams, City Engineer Tom Prew, City Attorney Tom Prew and Administrator Kueffner. Absent: Councilman Hunt. 1. AGENDA According to Robert's Rules of Order No. 21 as to adjournment Mayor Johnson suggested at 11:00 p.m. he would announce the time and ask the Council to move to adjourn the meeting of this session to a specified date and time. Add: 6I. Carmelite Proposal approved at August 20th meeting, Municipal Heritage Preservation Committee, 6F. City Attorney: Trail Head Development, Executive Session on Jamie Olson. Interchange City Council Reports and City Attorney Reports Delete: Resolution for Lake Elmo Jaycees M/S/P Dick Johnson/Mottaz - to approve the September 3, 1991 City Council agenda as amended. (Motion carried 4-0). 2. MINUTES: AUGUST 20, 1991 M/S/P Mottaz/Dick Johnson - to approve the August 20, 1991 City Council minutes as amended. (Motion carried 3-0-1: Abstain: Williams). 3. CLAIMS M/S/P Williams/Dick Johnson - to approve the September 3, 1991 Claims #95181 thru #95227 as presented. (Motion carried 4-0). 4. PUBLIC INQUIRIES: Barry Weeks, 3647 Lake Elmo Avenue N., voiced his concern on the new septic ordinance. He indicated he knew where his tank was, but a side walk, steps or deck may have been built over the manhole because his 201 septic system was put in four years ago. Since this project was funded by the government, should these repairs not be funded by them also? Steve Continenza, 3686 Layton Avenue N., asked why this ordinance was made retroactive to 1984 and not just for new systems being installed? The City will be sending out more information regarding the reasons for the change in the ordinance. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 2 Jeff Stanway asked at what point in time will the blacktop be going down on this project and where is the SW-1 project on schedule. He indicated the project is not being managed properly in the aspects of safety. The Mayor and Councilman Johnson noted the unsafe conditions they have encountered with this contractor's work. The Council noted they will remember this in the future when bids go out. The Mayor asked Mr. Stanway to submit his questions to the City Engineer and these questions will be answered at the next Council meeting. Steve DeLapp asked what the status was on the Stonegate Rezoning. The Mayor explained the District Court granted a default judgement. This order directs the City to grant a rezoning of property from RR to RE. 5. INTRODUCTION OF CRAIG MORRIS, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL and MARY HAUSER, WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMISSIONER 6. PLANNING/LAND USE & ZONING: A. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance for Second Accessory Building, James Peterson, 2751 Jamley Avenue Mayor Johnson opened up the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. in the Council chambers. The public hearing notice was published in the August 21, 1991 St. Croix Valley Press and abutting property owners were notified. James Peterson, 2751 Jamley Avenue N., is requesting a variance to the number of accessory buildings and a variance to the maximum 1000 sq.ft allowed, in order to construct a second unattached (24' x 401) garage. The hardship related to this variance was Mr. Peterson owns several older cars, plus snowmobiles and lawn equipment, that need to be stored. There was no one to speak for or against the application. Mayor Johnson closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. M/S/P Mottaz/Williams - to deny the variance requests of James Peterson, 2751 Jamley Avenue N., based on no demonstrated hardship. (Motion carried 4-0). Mr. Peterson indicated the definition of a hardship was not clearly explained to him when he applied for the variance; otherwise, he would have change his reason for a hardship. Peterson stated Jim McNamara had given him verbal approval for building a 725' building. Therefore, he cut down 15 year old oak trees to make room for this building. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 3 Since there was a misunderstanding between Mr. Peterson and the City that a variance would be granted and he would be permitted to build this garage, Councilman Johnson made the following motion: M/S/F Dick Johnson/Dave Johnson - based on extenuating circumstances the City would repay the $400 fee submitted by James Peterson for this variance application. (Motion failed 2-2: Williams: it was noted in the discussion that the $250 escrow fee would be refunded to Mr. Peterson, the payment of an application fee does not assure the award of such a variance, the staff does spend time on an application and this cost has to be paid, Mottaz). B. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance to setback from NOHWM for replacement of drainfield, David Johnson, 9287 Jane Road N. Mayor Johnson opened up the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. in the Council chambers. The public hearing notice was published in the August 21, 1991 St. Croix Valley Press and the abutting property owners were notified. A letter was received from Tom Prew, City Engineer, dated August 28, 1991. David Johnson, 9287 Jane Road N., is requesting a shoreland permit and variance to the setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark on Lake Jane for the purpose of replacement of faulty septic system. Jim McNamara, Building Official, reported Molly Shodeen, DNR, indicated her concern was making sure there was a functioning septic system and to preserve lake quality. Mayor Johnson closed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. M/S/P Williams/Mottaz - to grant a shoreland permit and variance to setback from the OHWM to David Johnson, 9287 Jane Road N., for replacement of drainfield based on no other suitable place on lot for a septic system to be installed and to preserve lake quality; conditioned upon the City Engineer's recommendations of August 28, 1991 and the manhole cover being preserved at new grade surface so adequate pumping can be obtained. (Motion carried 4-0). C. Robert Gardner (Continuation), 2898 Legion Avenue N. Variance for front yard setback for garage The Council postponed consideration on this item until the Building Official and homeowner could confirm the front yard setback measurement and look into the option of building a garage behind the house. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 4 Jim McNamara reported he visited the site and found the septic system takes up the entire area in the back yard. He did not recommend a garage be built in the back yard because the soils are questionable and the area may be needed for drainfield. McNamara reported the correct footage from the original front of the house to the front of the proposed garage addition is 24' leaving 16' to the front property line. There is no garage on the property at this time. However, Mr. Gardner stated he had converted an existing garage into living space. MIS/ Dick Johnson/Mottaz - the variance from the required front yard setback requested by Robert Gardner, 2898 Legion Avenue N., be denied based on no demonstrated hardship M/S/P Williams/Mottaz - to amend the motion to include: the degree of variance is unacceptable because there is a uniform structure setback in the neighborhood. (Motion carried 4-0). M/S/P Dick Johnson/Mottaz - the variance from the required front yard setback request by Robert Gardner, 2898 Legion Avenue N., be denied based on no demonstrated hardship and the degree of variance is unacceptable because there is a uniform structure setback in the neighborhood. (Motion carried 4-0). The City Attorney will clarify the issue regarding driveway used as off-street parking. D. Building to be moved into City Dennis Geffre, 9140 10th St. N., has applied for a permit to move a 57' x 24' x 14' building onto his property consisting of approximately 21 acres. This building will be used as a barn for horses and hay. At their August 26th meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the Council grant a permit to move a 57' x 24' building based upon there are no other out -buildings on the property, the size of accessory building does not exceed the 2,000 sq.ft. allowed in RR Zoning and building placement is 600' from 10th St. Jim McNamara reported the building was in good condition. M/S/P Williams/Dick Johnson - to approve the request by Dennis Geffre, 9140 10th St. N. to move a 57' x 24' x 14' building onto their 21 acres based on the Planning Commission's Finding of Fact of August 26, 1991. (Motion carried 4-0). LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 5 E. Width of Driveway in Residential zoning, Tom Jasicki, 5221 Isle Avenue N. Tom Jasicki, 5221 Isle Avenue N., has requested the city review the rules and regulations it has for the width of driveways in the residential zoning district. Mr. Jasicki explained that if his contractor, Mike Muellner & Sons, had come in for the required permit he would have been advised of the driveway standards. Mr. Jasicki's driveway is 33' x 130' which exceed the allowed 241. M/S/P Williams/Mottaz - 1. Mr. Jasicki and the contractor who installed his driveway be notified that some modification of Mr. Jasicki's driveway will be required. 2. The modification of that driveway will be postponed until he Planning Commission (posthaste) thru proper deliberation can develop a design standard to allow for a 24' maximum driveway width with a minimum flared area to accommodate a larger than 2-stall garage. 3. The Building Inspector is directed to survey the alleged existing violations of our driveway ordinance and determine whether or not proper permits were issued and who the contractors were involved for each of those alleged violations, 4. Investigate the need and amount of impervious surface used by Horseshoe driveways that exist and if they should be allowed. (Motion carried 4-0). F. Rolling Hills: Rezoning from AG to RE, Ordinance No. 8057 M/S/P Dick Johnson/Williams - to direct the City Administrator and Mayor to sign Ordinance No. 8057 rezoning from AG to RE. (Motion carried 4-0). Mayor opened the Executive Session to discuss the Jamie Olson lawsuit and closed the executive session at 10:00 p.m. G. MUSA Extension Recommendation from Planning Commission Councilman Johnson stated many questions have been raised which require answers and he didn't see the Council making a decision until there was a full Council. Councilman Williams stated he felt the PZ did an admirable job with listing of questions, the pz held the proper public hearing and gathered concerns and thoughts from the public. However, questions have not all been answered. Williams indicate he believed the PZ came to a recommendation lacking important information about long term consequences of the MUSA extension to the area. Therefore he didn't feel the Council was in a proper position at this time to make a decision about this proposal. Therefore the following motion was made: LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 6 M/S/F Williams/Mottaz - the matter of the MUSA Extension be returned to the PZ until complete answers to the accompanying questions (list consists of 10 questions submitted by Councilman Williams and/or any changes the Council feels appropriate) have been obtained with a status report submitted to the Council within a month. (Motion Failed 1-3: Mayor Johnson, Dick Johnson, Mottaz). Councilman Johnson indicated the PZ has discharged its responsibilities and came up with a recommendation. Most of the questions being asked are technical questions that our consultants or staff can answer. MIS/ Mottaz/Dick Johnson - to postpone the matter of the MUSA extension until the next council meeting consisting of a full compliment of Council members M/S/P Mayor Johnson/Dick Johnson - to amend the motion to include a special order for this to be the first item on the agenda and dealt with in its entirety no later than 9:00 p.m. (Motion carried 4-0). M/S/P Mottaz/Dick Johnson - to postpone the matter of the MUSA extension until the next council meeting at which all members of the Council can be assembled to be dealt with as a first item of business on that agenda. (Motion carried 4-0). H. Economic Development Committee, Recommendation from Pz MIS/ Dick Johnson/Williams - to add the matter of commercial economic development and residential economic development in the City and how it affects the taxes, quality of life and character of the City be added to the PZ's work plan M/S/P Dave Johnson/Mottaz - to amend the motion to direct the PP to form a subcommittee that would specifically deal with these issues and act as a liaison with the Mayor's advisory committee. (Motion carried 3-1: Williams: This is an ill advised motion because it is attempting to micromanage the PZ activities and they should be given a task and carry it out the way they see fit. The Mayor's self-appointed committee did not involve and does not involve the Council and therefore should not be given any status whatsoever). M/S/P Dick Johnson/Williams - to add the matter of commercial economic development and residential economic development in the City and how it affects the taxes, quality of life and character of the City be added to the PZ's work plan and to direct the PZ to form a subcommittee that would specifically deal with these issues and act as a liaison with the Mayor's advisory committee. (Motion carried 3-1: Williams: For the same reasons as listed in the above motion.) LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 Carmelite Proposal Councilman Mottaz brought up the following questions regarding the Carmelite Monastery Proposal: 1. Do we allow two entities or organizations to develop on one single described property. 2. What is being approved does not meet the requirement of a Church in PF Zoning. Suggested adding PF Zoning to the PZ Work Plan. Church is defined in our code "as a place where the public meets to worship". It was specifically stated this was not for public worship. 3. What is the boundaries of the 30 acres? Does any part of these 30 acres abut a public road by 1501? If not, a variance has to be considered. 4. What about the requirement of park dedication for developments? Mottaz asked the city attorney what they could do to allow this development to go in, but still not place the City in a situation where someone else in the future can use in a lawsuit in demanding that they get these certain exemptions. M/S/P Mayor Johnson/Dick Johnson - to reconsider the approval of the preliminary site and plan of the Carmelite monastery addition. (Motion carried 3-1: Mottaz: A letter described by the attorney should be sent out to the Carmelites instructing them the Council is making further review of this matter. This motion has nothing to do with any matter that was taken by the Council. This only involves the Building Inspector issuing permits.) M/S/P Dick Johnson/Mayor Johnson - to postpone consideration of motion and direct the city attorney and applicant to investigate these questions and discuss how this may be resolved and no building permits will be issued. This item will be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. (Motion carried 4-0). CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT: A. Resolution No: 91-28: M/S/P Dick Johnson/Williams - to adopt Resolution 91-28 adopting and passing on assessment for the improvement of Hytrail Avenue. (Motion carried 4-0). M/S/P Mottaz/Dick Johnson - to adjourn this meting until 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 10, 1991. Motion carried 3-1: Williams: The Council should deal with Trail Head Development and the rezoning of Stonegate). Ordinance 8057 Approve Rezoning from A to RE for Rolling Hills Resolution No. 91-28 Passing on Assessment for the improvement of Hytrail Avenue N. Questions about the proposed MUSA extension to be answered by the Planning Commission before a recommendation is returned to the Council. 9/3/91 1. What impact will various kinds of commercial development along I-94 have on the existing businesses in the City, especially those in the Old Village? 2. What must Lake Elmo give to Oakdale or Woodbury to be able to tie into their respective sewer or water systems? Short range? Long range? 3. What should the City do about the property owners within the proposed area who have expressly indicated they do NOT want City utilities? (Lamperts, Dolan Boats, Durows, others) Are they to be forced to pay? Are they to be bypassed? 4. The only engineering study has been done on supplying sewer to the entire 640 acres in the original proposal. Similar engineering studies need to be done on supplying both sewer and water to the whole area and to smaller areas. How can utilities be supplied to a small area with the'possibility of extension along I-94 at a later date? What is the smallest area which could feasibly be served? Could a package treatment plant be used for sewer? Are there available "modular" treatment facilities which could be used to start small and be expanded by addition later? 5. What would happen if Lake Elmo did not apply for any extension of the MUSA? 6. If the MUSA is extended, what costs will the City face and what development schedule would have to be met in order for there to be an overall net tax benefit to the City? 7. What will happen in. the year 2010 (or so), when existing sewer capacity for Oakdale, Woodbury and Lake Elmo has been used? Will Lake Elmo be stuck with installation costs it cannot recoup through assessments because no one else can hook up? Will Oakdale or Woodbury "take back" their allotments? Will the MWCC put in the Cottage Grove Ravine Interceptor, but put it all the way up through Lake Elmo and into Grant Township, forcing all of Lake Elmo to be sewered? 8. What will be the City's policy regarding payment for utilities: will the City put in utilities all at once, assessing everyone in the path, whether they want it on not? Or will the City put them in incrementally in response to development proposals? 9. What policies for utility installation, assessment, etc, will be required in order to avoid another problem with detachment and annexation? Are there legal questions which must be answered here? 10. It is a fact that nearby cities with sewered commercial development have higher tax rates than does Lake Elmo. What should Lake Elmo do differently than these other cities to avoid our tax rate's going up, instead of down, as a result of any MUSA extension and the accompanying development? THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT QUESTION! 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 SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 7:00 P.M. MEETING CONVENES 1. AGENDA 2. MINUTES: AUGUST 20, 1991 3. CLAIMS 4. PUBLIC INQUIRIES 7:15 P.M. 5. INTRODUCTION OF CRAIG MORRIS, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND MARY HAUSER, WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMISSIONER 6. PLANNING LAND USE & ZONING: 7:30 p.m. A. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance for Second Accessory Building James Peterson, 2751 Jamley Ave. B. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance to setback from NOHWM for replacement of drain field David Johnson, 9287 Jane Road N. C. Robert Gardner (Continuation) 2898 Legion Avenue N. Variance for front yard setback for garage D. Building to be moved into City Dennis Geffre, 9140 10th St. N. (over) 9:00 p.m E. Width of Driveway in Residential Zoning Tom Jasicki, 5221 Isle Avenue N. F. Rolling Hills: Rezoning from AG to RE ORDINANCE NO. 8057 G. MUSA Extension recommendation from Planning Commission H. Economic Development Committee Recommendation from PZ I. Other 7. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT; A. Resolution No. 91-28: Adopting and Passing on Assessment for the improvement of Hytrail Ave. B. Partial Payment #2 to Kenko, Inc. for SW-1 Water Main Construction C. New Engineering Standards D. Additional Connections to Old Village Drain field E. Other 8. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS; A. Mayor Johnson: Resolution No. 91-29 Thanking Lake Elmo Jaycees B. Councilman Hunt C. Johnson D. Mottaz E. Williams 9. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT; A. Vacation of westerly 185.65 ft. Lot 8 Krause's Addition B. Other 10. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT; A. LMC Conference Planning Committee B. Valley Branch Watershed District Vacancy C. Other 11. ADJOURN