Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-93 CCMMINUTES APPROVED: 5-18-93 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 1993 Mayor John called the council meeting to order at 5:00 p.m, in the council chambers for the purpose of discussing the annexation legislation and comments of the EAW. PRESENT: John, Conlin, Johnston, Johnson, City Attorney Filla and Administrator Kueffner. ABSENT: Mottaz 1. AGENDA Add: 2. Discussion on the Jamie Olson litigation, 3. Water skiing regulations on Lake Jane, 4A. Schedule a plan for the MnDOT land, M/S/P Conlin/Johnson - to approve the April 27, 1993 agenda as amended. (Motion carried 3-0). 2. Discussion on the Jamie Olson pending litigation on a sign along Highway I-94 Wyn John indicated he has received phone calls from Jamie Olson asking if there is any advantage to approach the new city council regarding the sign on her property along I-94 before she continues with the appeal process as advised by her attorney. Attorney Filla explained that the city has eliminated advertising signs as a permissible use of land. She is a legal non -conforming use and cannot expand. If Jamie Olson comes back to the Council, the rules have changed since the last time she was here. If the Council receives calls, they are to explain this is in litigation and that you would prefer that her attorney talk to the city attorney. 3. Water Skiing Regulations on Lake Jane Wyn John was approached by Justin Bloyer, 8881 Jane Road N., to sign a petition for placing buoys in Lake Jane so he could have a slalom water ski course running straight through the middle of Lake Jane. Bloyer had support from the Washington County Sheriff Dept, and would probably approach the council at the next council meeting requesting that this be done. 4. Plan for MnDOT Property The following discussion took place: Mayor John and Council member Conlin asked if we can buy ( that land as a City if we have no particular aim in mind? 2 Attorney Filla explained the city can buy the land if it is ( for a public purpose. A public purpose is not trying to avoid having Oakdale annex that part of the area. If you continue to control the use of the land, it does have some value. It gives you a bigger base in which to levy special assessments. Long term it gives you a tax value that you can collect some money which is why we want Oakdale to use that in the formula for any transfer of land. Mayor John understood if it is a straight forward annexation, there is never any compensation paid to the losing city for the loss of tax revenue involved. Therefore, you can't argue that in terms of this annexation. Attorney Filla didn't agree with the statement that there never is any consideration given to a city that loses property through annexation. The Municipal Board can require compensation of one party to another. Council member Conlin indicated School District #622 has been looking at a piece of land between 10th Street and 4th to build a K-5 and Community Ed facility. Can they swap MnDOT land for public school land? Filla: Yes. The best scenario for Lake Elmo is that we retain MnDOT property and it is developed privately and generate some tax revenue. Filla thought it would be great if we could get beyond the end of the legislative session before we start submitting detailed proposals to Oakdale. He thought there was some measure of persuasion attached to how a council perceives how the public is reacting to this. If we had a piece of legislation that outlined the agreement that we want, support it publicly, the public understands that we are being very reasonable. Everything we have talked about can be taken care of in a joint powers agreement between the two cities. Attorney Filla pointed out the changes Neary has made in the proposed legislation. Councilman Johnson reported that he, Mayor John and Administrator Kueffner met with Pam Neary on Friday morning on how to change the legislation so that it would be acceptable to the city. Neary's reasoning was she felt obligated to get something done because the way the two cities were going (Oakdale putting in a separate line was nonsense). She felt the only way around this was to draft this legislation which would force the two cities to come to some agreement because next session of the legislature this bill would be reintroduced by Walt Perlt and this time it would be passed because he would have done his homework. At the time she drafted this legislation, she was not aware of the letter that we authorized to the City of Oakdale. 3 Mayor John indicated the MnDOT property does not form a ( useful tract of land in itself unless it can be bargained into making a consolidated piece which would then make sense to still be in Lake Elmo. Council member Johnston felt the most reasonable thing to do is to be able to provide the sewer capacity and develop there with the most reasonable cost. Council member Johnson indicated he was not in favor of the city buying MnDOT property and liked the option of trading MnDOT land. We would want to avoid building a lift station, build it over on the east half of Section 33, so that would have to go along with the land swap plus complete the sewer lines large enough with a force main that starts over in the East half of Section 33. Another option is to give up all the land in Section 32 and West half of Section 33 in trade for dollars applied to the extended lift station and larger lines. Attorney Filla pointed out that one of the primary objectives was to provide sewer and/or water to United Properties, We did not want that to be the next annexation. In order to keep that, we needed to have some way of getting sewer and water to that site economically. If we were able to do that, we could assess most of our costs to United Properties or other property in the east half of Section 33. Administrator Kueffner felt if we have to share in the cost to get it over there, let's take our SAC units (76,000 includes Guardian Angels and MnDOT property) with us so we can extend farther down I-94 so we have a little more to assess to and come up with a reasonable joint agreement for the installation of the system. Council member Johnson indicated we have three options: we either accept the proposed Neary legislation "as -is", or we accept the legislation with changes, or we are against the proposed legislation being introduced. We own all the streets in Section 32, so Oakdale has to have our permission to cross any of our streets in install sewer lines. I think Oakdale has to negotiate with us. Attorney Filla stated our position is this is not good policy. If we are stuck with this, then we have options 2 or 3; as is, or with changes. We cannot force Oakdale to extend sewer to our border. It is either done as a joint project or not done at all. It is better for us to propose something we can endorse, even if it is not acceptable, than simply say we are not going to endorse any legislation. LF Council member Johnston stated it seemed that both cities have indicated a willingness to negotiate and talk to each other at this point, so why do we need somebody imposing conditions on us to continue to do that. Mayor John's proposal to legislation: Page 1, Line 20, Delete "any" and change "proposed" to "constructed". Page 2, Line 3, Delete "any". Line 5: change "proposed" to "future". Line 7, Delete "any". Line 8: Filla suggested Inserting: The municipal costs for sewer and water, lift stations and the tax value and special assessment value of land transferred must be shared a portion to benefits received as agreed to by each city. John suggested wording added: A review of the total SAC capacity of Section 32 and west half of Section 33 shall be conducted by City Administrative staff in relation to currently proposed development plans excess SAC capacity is to be divided between the two cities. Administrator Kueffner suggested: Page 1, Line 18: Should "may" be changed to "shall"? ...before an order shall become effective. Council member Conlin suggested Attorney Filla respond to Attorney Caswell's letter, dated April 22, 1993, (Oakdale/Lake Elmo/MnDOT Property/Sec. 3203), indicating the City of Lake Elmo welcomes this, that we will respond to this, appreciate this as a way of building trust between the two cities. Mayor John requested the City Administrator prepare an update of our response to Rep. Neary's proposed legislation and let Pam Neary know the City of Lake Elmo is not ready to support this legislation because we feel there are avenues which we can approach with Oakdale to try and get a resolution which will occur faster than what has already been done. M/S/P Conlin/Johnston - that the City does not approve any legislation in regards to allowing Oakdale to petition for detachment or annexation of any additional land in the City based on the reasons: we still feel that it is inappropriate legislation, it is a local issue, there is an indication and willingness on the part of each City to sit down and resolve this problem and are in the process of doing it and feel that any legislation could disrupt this process. (Motion carried 4-0). M/S/P Conlin/Johnston - to direct Attorney Filla to respond to Attorney Caswell's letter with direction that this is a positive sign to move ahead. (Motion carried 4-0). 1 5. Comments on EAW on proposed reconstruction of County Road 10 M/S/P Conlin/Johnston - to draft a letter to Washington County Public Works Dept. including the individual comments by the City Council and indicating the consensus of the Council is that the issues outlined in these comments should be adequately addressed and the noted errors corrected. The Council feels an adequate E.A.W. is not only in the County's best interest, but also Lake Elmo's and Oakdale's. (Motion carried 4-0). The Council adjourned the meeting AGENDA LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL APRIL 27, 1993 5:00 P.M. Meeting Convenes I. Agenda 2. Discussion on Annexation Legislation 3. Discussion of City Council comments on Environmental Assessment Worksheet for County Road 10 Improvement. 4. Adjourn rrasenr/e\oDili uI Date: April 23, 1993 To: Mayor and City Council of Lake Elmo From: Dick Johnson At Subject: Comments on Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) County State Aid Highway No. 10 Reconstruction The following comments are offered as my personal observations regarding the subject and are intended to be part of a letter from the City of Lake Elmo in response to the subject EAW. These comments offered are not inclusive of all my observations on the EAW document, but are limited to the most important environmental issues. Comments of Richard E. Johnson: Section 6. Description of proposed project. The EAW is incomplete. It states: "Construction methods used will be in accordance with the MDOT specifications." This is grossly inadequate. Of particular concern is the method used to dewat:er the area of soils removal. and construction. Is the whole watershed going to be dewatered? Is sheet piling going to be used to isolate areas? How will the adjacent wetland be protected? What is probably the most important construction issue is ignored in this document. I feel strongly that an EIS is required to adequately address this single issue and its impact on the environment if for no other reason. Nowhere does it state how wide a swath will be placed through Armstrong lake. Sec. 11a. Fish, Wildlife and Ecological Sensitive Resources The assurances of "minimal temporary disruption" and "limited disturbance to ---" are relative terms and have no technical or engineering significance. The question that goes begging here is "How is the disruption made minimal?" and "How is the disturbance limited?" Sec. 11b. Endangered Species. The box "No" is checked without any this statement. By what reference is By what credentials is 'the author of draw this conclusion? basis made for making this conclusion drawn? the EAW authorized to 1 Subsection of llb. "Construction Mitigation Measures" Here again there is no description of how the construction area is to be dewatered. Are we to believe that soils will be disturbed without dewatering? If dewatering is to occur, will the total wetland be dewatered and for what period of time and at what cost to the environment? Sec. 14. Land Use Districts It should be noted that Lake Elmo does have Shoreline Ordinances. Will the Lake Elmo ordinances be adhered to or are variances required? Sec. 22. Traffic The projected traffic counts East of Helmo are open to dispute. Sec 26. Resources There is no discussion of the rationale for arriving at the conclusions drawn in this section. This not acceptable. Sec 28. Compatibility with Local Plans The EAW states that: "Recommendations made by the two communities have been incorporated into the design of the project --". The cities of Oakdale and Lake Elmo initially agreed to boulevard design concept that was given a preliminary development effort by the County Highway Department and then apparently scrapped by the County. A more appropriate statement would be that "some of the recommendations made by the -wo communities were incorporated into the design and some were ignored or rejected". Sec 32. Alternatives The list of alternatives is incomplete. K April 23, 1993 t TO: Mayor and Lake Elmo City Council FROM: Jess Mottaz SUBJECT: Questions/Comments Concerning the EAW for Reconstruction of 10th Street 1. The City should insist that for every tree that is removed, the County should replace with another tree. 2. They are not mitigating ALL the water. 3. The method of handling Armstrong Lake. Could the bridge be built cheaper than the road going around the lake. 4. The project of the road stated 1/2 mile beyond CSAH13 and should be 1/4 mile. 5. The agreement was to go along with a parkway fashion design. The County seems to have forgotten this because there is no reference to this. April 23, 1993 TO: Mayor and Lake Elmo City Council FROM: Karen Johnston SUBJECT: QUESTIONS/COMMENTS CONCERNING THE EAW FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF 10th STREET 1. Will the excavation require dewatering of the lake? If so, how extensive will the dewatering be? If not, how will excavation be accomplished and what is impact on water quality during excavation? 2. Is the lake related to the aquifer such that disruption of lake will impact ground water quality generally? 3. Is wetland mitigation adequate to replace loss of any seasonal wetlands? 4. Has wildlife been surveyed so it is known what species will be displaced both temporarily and permanently? What plans exist for temporary and permanent replacement of habitat, other than permanent displacement? 5. What is basis or justification for statement that road runoff has no impact, as significantly broader road bed will require substantially increased salt and sand usage for safe winter driving? Analyze impact of runoff on lake water quality and wildlife habitat in detail, as well as ground water. 6. What is basis in justification for statement that there will be no appreciable increase in noise levels, given the projected traffic levels? 7. Has Armstrong Lake been designated a historic lake, if so, why is this noted? How does substantial filling relate to this designation? 8. Given statement that area contains "poor subgrade soils", has adequate analysis been done to project life of reconstructed road (in otherwords, one justification for a 4-lane road now is to avoid disturbing the lake twice), so will this road avoid that potential impact? 9. Discuss what alternates to building through the lake were evaluated, the pros and cons of each and why they were not recommended? 10. Your project title stated the road is to go 1/2 mile beyond CSAH13, I recall the proposal as 1/4 mile. Explain discrepancy (or correct). 11. Are all premises with respect to land use and traffic current and accurate for use as justification for project? 12. Has Lake Elmo Shoreland Ordinance been reviewed and does it impact this project? 13. Why will signalization be required at the CSAH 10 and CSAH13 intersection, when and at whose cost? 14. The responses marked to the questions posed in Item 26 on Page 16 all appear to be incorrect. Please justify these responses. To: Ms. Mary Kueffner, Lake Elmo City Hall From: Wyn John, Lake Elmo Mayor Date: April 22, 1993 Subject: Response to EAW on CSAH 10 General: I consider the EAW pays inadequate attention to the design details in response to the environmental challenges and remedies. It provides little attention to alternative solutions in an environmentally sensitive area. Reports are referenced, but copies should have been provided to the various cities affected by the development. These are incremental costs in relation to the administrative costs of preparation of an EIS. More work or additional information is needed to ensure that an EIS is not required. Specific Comments: Project Title: Scope of the project was originally from I-694 to 1/4 mile east of CSAH 13. There is no reason given for the additional transition requirement east of CSAH 13. Page 2, para. 6, Description, line 9. Turn lanes for future street intersections should only be provided where environmentally feasible. Page 3, Description, line 13. Construction is understood to end 1/4 Mile east of CSAH 13. Page 3, Description. There is no discussion of alternatives considered to mitigate or avoid the wetland impact - e.g. alternative routes, bridges across wet land areas, together with relative costs. Page 7, line 4. "Wet Land Impact Analysis and Design." This report should have been more readly available for inspection by having a copy distributed to the local City Halls. Without seeing this report, a proper assessment of the wetland impact and compensatory design cannot be completed. Page 9, line 17. "The excavated basin will be lined with hydric soils excavated from the project area." There is no indication of an attempt to lay an impervious clay layer of specified depth to ensure that the new wetland, when created, will retain moisture. Alternatively, if an aquifer is penetrated by the construction, there is no indication of what the impact of such a penetration on aquifer water quality, or on Armstrong Lake water levels, will be. Page 10, para. 14. The City of Lake Elmo has adopted shoreland ordinances which should be addressed when considering the project work being done on the northerly portion of Armstrong Lake. Page 12, para. 17. The subject of excavation of the old road bed does not address the method by which this is achieved. Are the waters of Armstrong Lake to be completely drained, or is a coffer dam to be installed to render the project site semi -dry? Page 13, para. 18. There is no justification given as to why road pollutants will not have a significant impact on the bordering wetlands, or on Armstrong Lake. Page 13, para. 19b. As runoff will affect Armstrong Lake, a nutrient budget analysis is surely needed? Page 13, para. 20. The depth to ground water is between 4 and 7 feet. Excavation of the old road bed will go well below this level. There are definite site hazards to ground water from spillages from construction activities even if no abandoned wells etc., exist. Page 15, para. 22, Traffic. As the project is a road reconstruction, it is surprising that the traffic study was not attached as an appendix to the EAW. This is a subject of strong local controversy, so that a study which justifies the four lane construction should have been routinely included. Page 17, para. 28. "A number of meetings have been held with the local governmental units of Oakdale and Lake Elmo." The total number of meetings held with Lake Elmo has been no more than four, which does not seem adequate for a project of this magnitude, and local concern. No ongoing meetings on design progress have been scheduled with Lake Elmo. Page 19, para. 32. The local Lake Elmo controversy centers on the degree of wetland disturbance for the construction of a four lane divided, Y. a two lane highway. Agreement from the Lake Elmo Council is based on the assumption that a future upgrade to four lanes would be necessary within five or six years. "In the very near future" is too vague a term for this claim, when the EAW is not supported by a traffic study appendix. April 23, 1993 Washington County Public Works Dept. Richard D. Herold, P.E. 1.1660 Myeron Road North Stillwater, MN 55032 Dear Mr. Herold, This is in response to review of the EAW prepared for Washington County State Aid Highway No.10 reconstruction. The following comments address the accuracy and completeness of the information. 6. Description No mention is made of Armstrong Lake, or recognition of encroachment to the North into wetlands. 11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources What is the expected disruption of wetlands on the north side of CSAH 10? How effective are silt fencing and silt flotation curtains. Statistics or studies to substantiate statements concerning minimal disturbance to wildlife. The Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Design should be included or attached to EAW for review with it. 12. Physical Impacts of Water Resources How thick will the lining of hydric soils be in the mitigation ponds? Does reconstructed ditches imply that they will be fully restored to original vegetation? If so describe. 13. Water Use Will there be dewatering? If so, describe procedure and effects. 14. Water -related Land Use Managements Districts Lake Elmo has an approved Shoreland Ordinance. Why is this not addressed? Will reconstruction be in accordance to it? What, if any, variances would be requested from DNR/Lake Elmo? 18. Water Quality -Surface Water Runoff The statement that the effect of highway pollutants will not be significant to the wetlands or Armstrong Lake is not substantiated with any supporting data or studies. 20. Ground Water - Potential for Contamination Armstrong Lake itself provides access to the ground water. This is not addressed. 26. b. archaeological, historical, or architectural. resources? Armstrong Farm is of historical significance. A thorough check of Washington County historical records should reveal this. This farm is also in green acres, which would make it: considered prime farmland. Impacts in these areas should be adequately addressed. 27. Will project create adverse visual. impacts? There is a residence on CSAH 10 east: of County Rd 13 that will be greatly impacted visually. The four lane will end almost in front of their house. 29. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services Is the future need of traffic lights at the intersection of CSAH 13 and County Rd 13 anticipated. This possibility was r not explored. 32. Summary of Issues 1. Do nothing alternative A part of this option not explored would be to abandon CSAH 1.0 from immediately after Helmo Ave to County Rd 1.3. Traffic flow would then follow Helmo to along 9th Street which is the anticipated commercial area for section 32 and 33. Three benefits could be derived by this option; 1) No wetland degradation 2) Traffic would be routed past a commercial district 3) Negligible cost. Another alternative not addressed in the EAW would be to reconstruct a two lane highway with wide shoulders, no right of way purchase. Why was this not considered an option? Summary: CSAH 10 serves an important role in the county Transportation plan. Why is it important? What is it's role? How does a mile and a half project warrant such expense and wetland encroachment to service as previously stated in EAW primarily agricultural and low density .residential areas? Justification is not addressed outside of the present road condition and traffic counts which seem to be always in debate. Cost comparisons are not provided for the listed options.