HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-94 CCMMINUTES APPROVED: May 3, 1994
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 19, 1994
Mayor John called the council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the council
chambers. PRESENT: Mottaz, Conlin, John, Johnston, Johnson, City Engineer
Bohrer, City Attorney Filla, City Planner Schwanke and Administrator Kueffner.
1. AGENDA
ADD: 4C Updates:(1) Arbor Celebration at City Hall, (2) Tree Planting Day May
7th, (3) Lake Elmo Elementary School planting at Sunfish park, 5C.
Recommendations from April 18, 1994 Parks Commission meeting,
MOVE: 6D. DNR Request Sunfish Discussion after 4C.
M/S/C Conlin/Johnson - to approve the April 19,1994 city council agenda as
amended. (Motion carried 5-0).
2. MINUTES: April 5, 1994
M/S/C Johnston/John - to approve the April 5, 1994 city council minutes as
amended. (Motion carried 5-0).
3. CLAIMS
M/S/C Mottaz/John - to approve the April 19, 1994 claims #2549 through #2615
as presented. (Motion carried 5-0).
4. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL:
A. Public Inquiries
Mary Kay Lang, President of the Tri-lakes Association, presented a resolution for
council adoption requesting the Washington County Board of Commissioners to
authorize the paving of the shoulders of DeMontreville Trail North, from Highway
36 to County Road 13.
M/S/C Johnson/Conlin - to adopt Resolution No. 94-13, A Resolution requesting
that the Washington County Board of Commissioners authorize the paving of the
shoulder of DeMontreville Trail North, from Highway 36 to County Road 13.
(Motion carried 5-0.)
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 19, 1994 2
Sunfish Park -Damage Report:
Deputy Carey reported that on Saturday night, April 16, a group of young adults
broke the Sunfish park gate and drove back to the NSP powerlines and had a
party. One of the vehicles got stuck and had to be towed out by a tow truck
which caused considerable damage from where the powerline trail crosses by
the monitor well and from there back out to the public works building. Carey is
waiting for damage estimates and will talk to Attorney Filla when she receives
the report.
B. Establishing Human Rights Commission
The Council suggested amending the resolution to read as follows: F. The
Commission shall not seek to impose penalties. Carol Banister reported the
outlay cost would be $25/year.
M/S/C Mottaz/John - to table until the May 3rd council meeting and request city
attorney review Item 3. Organization and make a recommendation. (Motion
carried 5-0).
C. Arbor Day Proclamation
Mayor Wyn John proclaimed April 29, 1994 as Arbor Day and May, 1994 as
Arbor Month in the City of Lake Elmo
Mike Bouthilet reported the following:
There will be an Arbor Day Celebration on Friday, April 29, 1:00 p.m., City Hall,
where Lake Elmo elementary students will plant a tree in observance of Arbor
Day. On May 7th, 8 a.m., approx. 12-15 shade trees will be planted in the parks
around the play equipment by the Park Commission, Lake Elmo Jaycees, and
other local volunteers. On May 12th, Sandy Fisk's class from the Lake Elmo
Elementary School will plant 250 trees on the western edge of driveway of
Sunfish Lake Park. These trees are being planted with the intention of becoming
a future windbreak.
Sunfish Park:Determine what to do with field that will no longer be planted with
corn for deer:Bouthilet reported that Lehard Friedrich did not want to continue to
plant a field in Sunfish Park with corn for the deer in the park. Mr. Friedrich
recommended that the 19 acres should now be planted with a grass or hay
cover to discourage noxious weeds from taking over. The Parks Commission
recommended the city council approve the purchase of a pasture mix to plant 19
acres in Sunfish Park. Gaylen Springborn is interested in renting the 19 acres
located in Sunfish Lake Park for one year at $35/acre.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 19, 1994
M/S/C Mottaz/Johnson - to authorize the staff to proceed entering in an
agreement with Gaylen Springborn for planting the 19 acres located in Sunfish
Lake Park for one year at $35/acre. (Motion carried 5-0).
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. Ordinance rezoning Outlot A -Lake Elmo Heights 2nd Addition from
RR to RE
In his letter to the City, dated April 15, 1994, Attorney Filla provided his review or
Resolution No. 87-33, Development Agreement, Declaration of Protection
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Outlot A, Lake Elmo Heights 2nd
Addition. Filla explained the city has the authority to allow for the redevelopment
of Outlot A which would be accomplished by changing zoning regulations and
approving a plat for the redevelopment of Outlot A. In addition, if the City wishes
to proceed in this manner, it should adopt a motion amending Section 6 of
Resolution No. 87-33.
M/S/C Mottaz/Johnson - to remove the motion back onto the table. (Motion
carried 5-0).
Larry Mann, 8301 27th St. N, presented a petition on behalf of thirteen
homeowners in Lake Elmo Heights, requesting the city council deny rezoning of
Lake Elmo Heights, Outlot A.
M/S/C Conlin/John - to adopt Ordinance 8094, An Ordinance amending Section
301.070C. of the 1979 Lake Elmo Municipal Code rezoning Outlot A, Lake Elmo
Heights 2nd Addition, from Rural Residential (RR) to Residential Estates (RE) .
(Motion carried 4-1:Mottaz felt the city allowed an exception to the zoning in the
Ist addition of Lake Elmo Heights allowing more homes on the entire parcel and
allowed clustering to reduce road construction costs, but required the developer
to establish Outlot A to be used for a single home and agricultural purposes, and
the developer accepted this proposal. The city should not now renege on this #6
provision in Resolution 87-33. This would allow a more dense concentration of
homes than what we now allow under RAD zoning.)
The majority of the Council expressed their concern with the developer's attempt
at annexing this land to Oakdale. If that occurs, this land would end up in very
high density housing. The majority of the council felt allowing the development
of Outlot A is responsible planning for the long term.
M/S/C Johnson/John - to amend Resolution No. 87-33, A Resolution approving
the Final Plat to Lake Elmo Heights 2nd Addition, by deleting Condition #6.,
"Outlot A will remain open space and nothing more than one single family
dwelling will be allowed on Outlot A." (Motion carried 4-1:Mottaz:Same reason
as stated before).
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 19, 1994
B. Alternate AG
M/S/C Mottaz/Johnston - to direct the staff to call a public hearing for May 23,
1994 to consider repealing the existing Alternate Ag ordinance. (Motion carried
5-0).
Tom Armstrong submitted the following: additional proposed amendments to
Section 301.070 D.b., Outside Storage Limitation, and Variances granted to
Trans City Investments CUP. Armstrong requested Council adoption of the PZC
proposed amendments to the Alternative Agricultural Use Ordinance.
Councilman Johnson requested that limitations be established for the Armstrong
CUP and a site plan showing the boundaries for the outside storage area be
included. Council member Conlin indicated she did not want to see outside
storage expanded.
M/S/C Mottaz/Johnson - to direct the City Administrator, Building Official,
Attorney Filla and Tom Armstrong to draft a proposed amendment clarifying the
outdoor storage limitation and the area covered in the Armstrong Alternate Ag
CUP. (Motion carried 5-0).
C. Sunfish Park (Update on Bike Trail & Damage to Park)
Petitions were submitted requesting a ban on mountain biking in Sunfish Lake
Park.
M/S/C Mottaz/Johnson - to accept the April 18, 1994 Parks Commission
recommendation that the Parks Commission and City Council have adopted the
Park Trail Plan concept, which provides for a recreational bike trail along the
southern boundary of Sunfish Park, with the stipulation that a barrier shall be
installed, at the time of development of the trail, to prevent free access of
bicycles into the woods of Sunfish Park, and that the commission will seek in the
form of future park dedication a site or trail for designation for Mountain Biking.
(Motion carried 5-0).
M/S/C Johnson/Mottaz - to accept the January 3, 1994 recommendation of the
Parks Commission continuing the ban on mountain biking in Sunfish Lake Park.
(Motion carried 5-0).
Council member Conlin explained the reason she voted for continuing the ban is
the city's liability in designating a trail in the park specifically for mountain biking.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 19, 1994
D. Water Surface Use Committee's Recommendation
M/S/C Johnson/Johnston - to direct the staff to prepare an ordinance for a public
hearing on May 17, 1994 incorporating the recommendations of the Water
Surface Use Committee, the current zoning ordinance, and the recodified
ordinance. (Motion carried 5-0).
Councilman Johnson requested any notes or minutes of the Surface water Use
Committee be submitted to city hall.
M/S/C Johnson/Mottaz - to direct the city attorney to review the water surface
use ordinance for proper wording. (Motion carried 5-0.)
E. Update on Olson Lake Estate Pond
Larry Bohrer reported Chairman Peter Zetterberg announced that he would
propose as the long-term resolution to the problem of the discharge of Olson
Lake Estates Pond to Olson Lake by some type of treatment. Larry Bohrer and
Attorney Dayton will attend a special workshop by the VBWD on April 21, 1994.
6. PLANNING/LAND USE & ZONING:
A. PUBLIC HEARING: John Nicholson/Patricia Ganly, 8975 15th St. N.
After -the -Fact Variance for setback of accessory building
Mayor John opened up the public hearing at'9:40 p.m. The public hearing notice
was published in the March 30, 1994 Stillwater Gazette Extra and affected
property owners were notified. The Council received a report from Steven
Schwanke, City Planner, dated April 18, 1994.
John Nicholson explained he submitted to the Building Official shop drawings for
all three buildings and a site plan. He feels the city has some responsibility to
grant his variance because he received the 100' setback information from the
city and requests refund of his variance application fee. Pictures were provided
showing the construction of the three buildings.
The Council received a letter from Steve Dahly, 8955 15th St. N., asking the
council to take action needed to remove the violation on the Sampson property.
Don Jeske, 8996 15th St., felt Mr. Nicholson's hardship for the variance was that
he thought the permit was for three buildings, (the house, garage, and accessory
building) because the plans were submitted to the building official for all three.
He felt the accessory building was visible to the building official when he made
the inspections on the house and garage.
There was no one to speak against the variance request.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 19, 1994 6
Mayor John closed the public hearing at 10:15 p.m.
Jim McNamara, Building Official, provided a copy of the building permit issued to
John Nicholson, 8975 15th St. N., for a house and detached garage. Inspections
were made on the house and garage. No inspections were called, nor made, for
the second accessory building.
M/S/C Mottaz/John - to deny the after -the -fact variance for'setback of accessory
building requested by John Nicholson/Patricia Ganly, 8975 15th St. N., based on
the recommendations of the city planner in memo dated April 18, 1994. (Motion
carried 5-0.)
M/S/C Mottaz/Johnson - to instruct John Nicholson, 8975 15th St. N., to
discontinue housing animals in the accessory building, or bring the building into
compliance with the city code within 90 days. (Motion carried 5-0.)
B. Request form DNR to Lower Land Elevation at DeMontreville Park
M/S/C Johnson/Johnston - to allow the DNR to lower land elevation between
Pond B & Pond C, as shown on map dated 9-3-93, approx. one foot to allow the
water to flow into DeMontreville Park wetland; contingent upon the control
structure on the outlet of Capaul's Pond be closed when the DeMontreville
wetland reaches 950 in elevation and authorize the city engineer to work with
Mike Bouthilet. (Motion carried 5-0).
7. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT:
A. 1993 MSA UPDATE
Larry Bohrer provided an update on the 1993 MSA Project in his letter to the
Council dated April 14, 1994.
M/S/C John/Mottaz - to acknowledge the individual requests received by April
22, 1994 with whatever trees remain should be used up. (Motion carried 5-0).
8. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
9. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
Mayor John submitted a memo dated April 18,1994 on the discussion of the
Joint Powers Agreement with Oakdale.
M/S/C Mottaz/Conlin - to hold a special council meeting to talk about strategies
for Section 32/33 on Wednesday, April 27, 7 p.m. at city hall. (Motion carried 5-
0).
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 19, 1994
10. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
A. 1994 Annual Conference
Council members Conlin and Johnston indicated an interest in attending the
annual conference. The Council was requested to let the administrator know if
they wish to attend.
B. City Unity Day Resolution and Rally
M/S/C Mottaz/Johnson - to direct the city administrator to send a letter to the
League, copied to the legislators, highlighting the city's position on #2 and #6.
(Motion carried 5-0.)
C. Change starting time of May 3rd meeting
M/S/C Johnston/Conlin - to change the starting time of the May 3rd council
meeting from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. as required by State Law because of the District
622 Referendum election. (Motion carried 5-0).
MIS/C Mottaz/Conlin - to adjourn the council meeting at 11:05 p.m. (Motion
carried 5-0).
---------------------
Resolution No. 94-13, Requesting that the Washington County Board of
Commissioners authorize the paving of the shoulder of DeMontreville Trail North,
from Highway 36 to County Road 13
Ordinance 8094, Amending Section 301.070C. rezoning Outlot A, Lake Elmo
Heights 2nd Addition form RR to RE
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS: Minnesota's forest treasures were a significant attraction to early
settlers because of their usefdness and the beautiful environment
they provided; and
WHEREAS: Trees are an increasingly vital resource today in Minnesota and Lake
Elmo, enriching our lives by purifying air and water, helping
conserve soil and energy, creating jobs through a large forest
products industry, serving as recreational settings, providing habitat
for wildlife of all kinds, and making Lake Elmo more livable; and
WHEREAS: Human activities such as construction damage antipollution, as well
as disease and insects, threaten our trees, creating the need for
concerted action to ensure the future of urban and rural forests in
our city, state, country, and world; and
WHEREAS: Lake Elmo is blessed with, exceptional natural resources offorests,
lakes, tree farms, parks and beautiful natural wetlands, all providing
a high quality of life for its citizens and visitors; and
WHEREAS: Each year on the last Friday in April --Arbor Day -- the people of
Minnesota pay special attention to the wonderful treasure that our
trees represent and dedicate themselves to the continued health of
our state's stock of trees.
NOW, THEREFORE, I Wyn John, Mayor of the City of Lake Elmo, do hereby proclaim
April29, 1994
Arbor Day
and
May,1994
Arbor Month
in the City of'Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Further, I urge all citizens to become more aware of the importance of trees to their well
being, to participate in tree planting programs that will ensure a green Minnesota and a
green Lake Elmo in decades to come, and to plant, nurture, protect, and wisely use
Minnesota's great treasure of trees,
n hn yor
ENT BY:PETERSON FRAM BERGMAN : 4-13-04 : 3:20PM ;PETERSON* FRAM BERGMAa
��� nn2/ 4
�I
Wan'on F PQillo n PETERSON
leronic P filly
f)lniel Will Pram � ��- —� � ....„
Cluun A. R(,rg'rnim
John MirhGul Mlilr.r G"MFRAM B E R A'
Tlm4thY I• I lalisel I' 'rli f f
MIi Itar 'I'. ObnNF•
I<9nrlcl.h A. Anuku111
April 15, 1994
Mary Kueffner
City Administrator
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: Development of Outlot A
Lake Elmo Heights 2nd Addition
Mary:
'iOl) 141i(hwm I eileral Nni Lja)y
xl L:r,l Fifth Strccl
M l'0UI,MN 171t)l 11117
luI?I 2�1I �h KS
IIi UI 22R•7i"i fdCsimir.
Melvin I `'lilven. of ccml�,,:l
By $ACSIMILE
ANDND U=L
I have generally reviewed the City's files in
development of Lake Elmo Heights 2nd
regard to
the
I have
Addition, and,
reviewed the following:
in particular,
1.
Resolution No. 87-33 approving the final
Elmo Heights 2nd Addition;
plat for
Lake
2.
The Development Agreement for Lake Elmo Heights
Addition; and
2nd
3.
Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions,
Restrictions
and
for Outlot A, Lake Elmo
Addition_
Heights
2nd
My review indicates that at the time of development, it was
intended that Outlot A, Lake Elmo heights 2nd Addition would remain
open, space for some period of time. A good summary of the
historical background behind the development o£ this property is
contained in Lake Elmo Resolution No, 91-34 which was prepared when
the City was apposing detachment and annexation of Qutlot A to the
City of Oakdale. At that time,, the City argued that by allowing
the detachment and annexation, the Municipal Board would be
Permitting the developer to circumvent the City's regulations and
the conditions attached to the City's approval of the plat.
Resolution
`includes
the approvalof LakeEmo Heights conditions 2ndAddition. Oneeeof the conditions states that "outlot A will remain open space and
nothing more than one single family dwelling will be allowed on
;Il.ly it .,.roF+l '`N19'''
"aN •rrm
5. N
Mary Kueffner
April 15, 1994
Page 2
Outlot A," Therefore, if the City intends to allow Outlet A to be
developed at this point in time, this particular condition of
Resolution 87-33 should be amended.
The Development Contract for 'Lake Elmo Heights 2nd Addition
contains a number of preambles or paragraphs that were intended to
recite some of the historical or procedural background as it
relates to the construction of or need for improvements. One of
those paragraphs indicates that the developer agreed to plat a
large portion of the property as outlet A pursuant to the then
current City regulations. There are no other references in the
Development Contract to the ultimate use or restriction of use on
Outlot A, Lake Elmo Heights 2nd Addition, Therefore, there aren't
any provisions in the Development Contract which would be violated
by the current redevelopment of Outlot A.
The Declaration of Protective Covenants for Outlet A. Lake
Elmo Heights 2nd Addition were granted for the benefit of the
owners of Outlet A, Lake Elmo Heights 2nd Addition and "for the
purpose of making and maintaining said Lake Elmo Heights 2nd
Addition a desirable residential addition," The Declaration
further states that Outlot A could only be used for agricultural
purposes "so long as the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance controls the
use of this land and does not permit any other authorized use." If
property was no longer subject to the zoning regulations of the
City of Lake Elmo as would be the case resulting from a detachment.
and annexation proceeding, or, if the City of Lake Elmo changed
zoning regulations, Outlet A could be used for some non-
agricultural purpose without violating this particular covenant,
In fact, the City is being asked to change its zoning regulations
so that Outlot A can be further subdivided.
Private property owners have indicated that representations
were made when they purchased their property regarding the future
use of Outlot A. Those claims would have to be asserted by the
property owners against the developer and/or person who sold them
the property. I did look at one of the property owner's abstracts
of title and, based upon that review, I have concluded that there
are no other restrictions of record regarding the use of Outlet A
other than those contained in the Declaration of Protective
Covenants which was reviewed by the City at the time of
development. I have not investigated the validity of any private
partly claims against the developer,
I
Mary Kuef£ner
April 15, 1994
Page 3
In summary, the City has the authority to allow for the
redevelopment of Outlot A. This would be accomplished by changing
zoning regulations and approving a plat for the redevelopment of
Outlot A. In addition, if the City wishes to proceed in this
manner, it should adopt a motion amending Section 6 of Resolution
No. 87-33.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
Jer e Filla
JPF:bap
CLAPP-THOMSSEN CO., Rcaltors YELLOW-".`r..,cP,
�— --v
4th Sc Wabasha Streets cRRnN-s.u.rr.capy
103
St. Patti, Minnesota 55101 PINS-Rar.... R.1pt
(612) 222.7311
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
REALTOR') IRCVIRRn ocTonen, ,oral
St. Paul, Minn .... Mir...3.....................................19...86...
JackLai ..............................
Five ffundred and no/100-------------------- 500.00
t11cslum of........................................................................................................................ ($...............,........) DOLLARS
Check (Cash upon Acceptance) a; earnest money and in part payment for the purchase of property at
(Check &1; ar Nett --State w6td.)
Insdale Avenue Northr..Lake„Elmo situated ind,c
County of_ ..... ashington ..... State of Minnesota, and legally described as follows, to -wit:
Block 1, Lot 6, Lake Elmo Heights
Final Plat approved by Lake Elmo City Council but not recorded
Seller agreed to record final plat no later than June 10, 1986.
including all garden bulbs, plants, shrubs and trees, all storm sash, storm doors, detachable vestibules, screens, awnings, window
shades, blinds (including venetian blinds), curtain rods, traverse rods, drapery rods, lighting fixtures and bulbs, plumbing
fixtures, hot water tanks and heating plant (with any burners, tanks, stokers and other equipment used in connection there-
with), water softener and liquid gas tank and controls (if the property of seller), sump pump, television antenna, inciner-
ator, built-in dishwasher, garbage disposal, ovens, cook top stoves and central air conditioning equipment, if any, used and
located on said premises and including also the following personal property:
Vacant Land At°� fJF
J
III of which top he undersigned has this day sold to the buyer for the sum of: Ft-`�� T 1 '
11
...... DOLLAIIS,
which the buyer agrees to pay in the following manner !Zi%. 1 /M6
earnest money herein paid $.. SQ.P.t.q9...... and slr, on...3-t? .3 i... ..... ._, the date of closing.
bou4ke'Jntcrc LX------- --- -- —.+,.. ycwe,.4i.ptdeatu.N-Grr said-fn+cutsinA+.vill-bc
mode-wirl, it, ---r-..--daya kom-date l,wm, f..la-xlw uwM pnid-finaneiiyt-is-r,oH,pytxval-tHis-Twt meet-Aionay-Cxraarac4 Rl,dl-l>a.deebral-nx II
anrFT<rrtl-nrxi-tix^Ii,ernnc-2.4emcr �trrtll-be horded; Rtxl-neither prftrcitr,<Fwill hciinMc-frnlrttnmficrherctrrrcict-.
This offer is subject to acceptance by Buyer of soil tests and percolation
tests. If Buyer orders tests additional to ones now in possession of
Seller, it will be at Buyer's expense. Addendum attached and part of
this Agreement.
Special nssessments including water frontage tax, if any, for work completed on site prior to date of this offer shall be paid by S1:LLLR. All
,t''ADITE) ;1 DUM to Purchase Agreement
covering purchase/sale of lot or lots in Lake Elmo Heights, Lake Elmo:
Seller agrees to complete construction work as soon as feasible on
roads, drainage, etc., as specified by Lake Elmo City Engineer and VB
Watershed District and approved by Washington County according to work
orders on file. Seller shall pay all special assessments levied or
pending as of the date of closing.
Seller agrees to cooperate with Northern States Power Company and
Northwestern Bell to cause electricity, natural gas and telephone
service to be brought to the site and to furnish escrow funds if
required.
Proposed restrictive Covenants attached.
It is understood that this purchase concerns a lot in Phase I of Lake
Elmo Heights. Buyers agree to voice no objections to the development
of further phases in NW 4 of Section 21-T29, R 21 of a residential
—nature similar to Phase I.
his offer is subject to issuance of Title Insurance binder.
It is understood that Seller will furnish Title Insurance commitment
insuring marketable title in lieu of furnishing an Abstract of,Title.
At no extra cost.
Covers Lot #61 Block 1, Lake Elmo heights.
This sale is contingent upon Buyer achieving no later than June 30, 1986,
mortgage financing satisfactory to him.* The sale is also contingent
upon Seller completing road construction work no later than September 1,
1986 in order to permit Buyer to adhere to his home construction schedule
In the event of any of the contingencies not being achieved, all
Earnest Money paid herein shall be refunded in full to Buyer.
*Buyer is to define mortgage financing -- wb:m�. short term construction
�y................... .............. ........ ......,..........,.,.....,...,.. -- .................... G
�� Iluyer
............................................................................................. Seller 11
............................................................................,.,.....,..
Iluy er
�'
Armstrong Farm
( 828115th Street North
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042-9438
612-738-2450 or 731-3413
Established October 26th,1853
Our 140th year
April 17, 1994
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers
City of Lake Elmo
Re: Amendments to the Alternative Agricultural Use Ordinance.
Dear Rita,
Please find enclosed a copy of my letter to you of July 1, 1993. My
concerns remain the same. I would appreciate your vote to adopt the PZC
proposed amendments to the Alternative Agricultural Use Ordinance.
I enclose a chronology of events since these issues came to the
forefront. It has been 15 months since the process of changing the
ordinance was started on January 19, 1993.
I realize that council members may have additional concerns that are
not addressed by the PZC recommendation. I have two pressing issues
which need to be resolved, a less complex outdoor storage limitation and
the exact area covered by the CUP. If the Council would adopt these
changes, I would then be able to apply for an amendment to my CUP, and
thus allow the Council the opportunity to clear up these problem areas.
Additional changes in the ordinance could be made in the future,
rather than delaying these amendments as proposed by the PZC. Thank
you.
Yours truly,
Thomas G. Armstrong
Chronology of Alternative Agricultural Ordinance Proposed Amendments
June 16, 1992
January 5, 1993
Council Meeting. Question raised as to the
legality of issuing building permit for a new
house in 1991 to Tom Armstrong. Mouaz and
Mayor Johnson claim it violated CUP conditions
and that CUP area is not 6 acres but 254.6 acres.
Council Meeting. CUP compliance questioned by
Building Inspector. More than 100 objects - but
less than one per two and one half acres or 150
square feet of actually occupied space per two
and one half acres. The minutes indicate that
the Council questioned the purpose of this
complex formula.
January 19, 1993 Council Meeting: Mayor John requests
Armstrong to work with City Staff to come up
with changes to the Alternative Ag. Use
Ordinance as to definition of CUP area and the
outside storage limitations.
March 22, 1993 Armstrong submits a draft proposal for a change
to the Ordinance. It is later referred to the City
Attorney.
June 1, 1993 Council Meeting. Armstrong absent on Military
duty in Virginia. City Attorney doesn't like the
change in the word "landowner" to "applicant".
Council votes not to refer draft to PZC.
June 27, 1993 Armstrong forwards revised draft of June 27,
1993 to City Attorney.
June 29, 1993 In a telephone conference with Armstrong, City
Attorney indicates that he has no legal objection
to the revised draft with the word "landowners"
instead of "applicants."
July 1, 1993 By letter Armstrong requests council members
to consider new draft which meets approval of
City Attorney. See attached letter.
July 6, 1993 Council Meeting. Motion by Mottaz/Johnson to
send revised draft of June 27th to the PZC.
Carries 5-0.
July 12, 1993 PZC Meeting. PZC tables until next meeting to
await a copy of the revised June 27th draft and
the written comments of City Planner Black.
July 26, 1993 PZC Meeting. PZC discusses changes and refers to
City Attorney for his input.
October 25, 1993 PZC Meeting. PZC discusses changes and again
requests City Attorney to give them an opinion.
November 8, 1993 PZC Meeting. PZC discusses changes and requests
City Attorney to attend the November 22nd
meeting. Motion to set public hearing for
December 13, 1993. Carries 8-0.
November 22, 1993 PZC Meeting. City Attorney and PZC discuss
proposed changes.
( December 13, 1993 PZC Meeting. No published notice had been
given so Public Hearing reset to January 24,
1994.
January 24, 1994 PZC Meeting. Public Hearing. Action tabled to
February 28, 1994 meeting.
February 1, 1994 Council Meeting. Building Inspector states that
Armstrong not in compliance with CUP. This is
denied. Building Inspector did not count
vehicles and did not measure vehicles pursuant
to the present ordinance.
February 28, 1994 PZC Meeting. PZC recommends adoption of
proposed ordinance changes with the addition of
the letter "s" on the word "landowner."
April . 5, 1994 Council Meeting. Council tables until April 19,
1994 meeting.
Armstrong Farm
828115th Street North
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042-9438
612-738-2450 or 731-3413
Established October 26th,1853
Our 139th year
July 1,1993
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers
City of Lake Elmo
Re: Amendments to the Alternative Agricultural Use Ordinance.
Dear Wyn,
I was unable to attend the Council meeting on June 1, 1993, because
of military duty in Charlottesville, Virginia. The June 1st agenda contained
a proposal for changes in the Alternative Agricultural Use Ordinance which
was prepared as a result of discussions with staff and the Council at the
January 19, 1993, meeting.
At that meeting, I had suggested that the staff look into possible
changes because (if difficulties that had arisen in the wording of the
ordinance. Before the January 19th meeting, I had written the Council a
five page letter with numerous exhibits regarding these problem areas. It
appeared that the Council concurred that the ordinance should be
reviewed, and I volunteered to make some suggestions. I had anticipated
that the staff would review these proposals, add to or change the
proposals, and that the council would then forward these suggestions to
the PZC for further study. On March 22, 1993, these proposed changes
were sent to the City Administrator.
In reviewing the June 1st meeting video, I discovered that the City
Attorney had a problem with the use of the word "applicant" instead of
"landowner." This suggested change has been deleted and a revised draft
is attached. Mr. Filla has had a chance to review this new draft and
( indicated that he had no problems with it from a legal standpoint.
The main purpose of these suggested changes was to clear up two
potential problem areas:
1. The one vehicle or 150 square feet of occupied space per two -
and -a -half acres provision is very difficult to enforce. If a boat or vehicle
is 150 square feet or larger, then it is 'one" and counts against two -and -a -
half acres. If an object is less than 150 square feet, then it is added
together with other small objects to make up the total square footage for
the remaining acreage. How many square feet does a car occupy? Less
than 150 is correct. What about an empty boat trailer, etc.?
The suggested change would allow the Council to determine the exact
area to be
used for outside storage
with any CUP which
might be. granted..
Then 300
Volkswagens, or 75 large
RVs, might fill the
same space. This
relieves the Building Inspector of
the thankless task
of measuring and
( counting.
He merely observes the
boundaries and notes
that everything is
within the
boundary.
The historical basis for the original one object or 150 square feet per
two -and -one-half acres standard was the result of one house per ten acres
zoning. If the agricultural land was ever developed on a one house per ten
acres basis, then one house might have two cars, a boat and a camper -
four objects or 600 square feet per ten acres. With 6 per 20 zoning now a
possibility to the north of my farm, along the Oakdale border, should this
be- changed to 24 objects or 3600 square feet per 20 acres? I believe the
simplest solution is an area definition.
2. The CUP site is six acres, but there has been disagreement as to the
conditions on the remaining 248 acres. Former Mayor Johnson stated at a
1992 Council meeting that the 248 acres are subject to higher restrictions
than the Agricultural zoning of 1 per 40. Dave Johnson stated that the city
should not have issued a building permit to my son Tom to build a house
( on 40 acres of the farm, even though it clearly complied with the
conditions of the Agricultural zoning district. This was never the purpose
of the ordinance. I am asking that the wording be changed to clearly
indicate the restrictions on the remaining agricultural land.
At the July 6th meeting, I would request the Council's direction to
have the PZC look into these and any other proposals regarding the
Alternative Agricultural Use Ordinance. Any suggested changes would be
subject to public hearings and a vote by the Council at that time. This is
merely a request to have the PZC study these areas.
If changes are adopted, then I will request that the CUP which is part
my farm be changed to comply with these new requirements. That
request would then be considered by the PZC and the Council as an
amendment to the existing CUP. Without changes in the ordinance, these
potential problem areas will remain. It is in the City's interest and in my
family's interest to resolve these problems.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Thomas G. Armstrong G
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
LAKE ELMO ORDINANCE 301.070 D. b.
Draft of April 19,1994
(f) Any use involving -the outside storage off ^^'�d�«..elesar-goods shall be
limited to onev °^'^ ^ ^' ndred fif�0)-square-feet of oec+pied spaee for every
2.S of landowners-eentiguousa, r al-estat, a specific designated area, described in
the CUP site plan, not exceeding thirty-five (35%) percent of the CUP site, excluding
buildings and roadways. Any outside storage area shall be a minimum of 200 feet
from any public roadway:, with no stacking or multilevel storage of vehicles allowed.
Section 301.070 D.1.b.(6) (f): Any use involving outside storage shall be limited to
a specific designated area, described in the CUP site plan, not exceeding thirty-five
(35%) percent of the CUP site, excluding buildings and roadways. Any outside storage
area shall be a minimum of 200 feet from any public roadway, with no stacking or
multilevel storage of vehicles allowed.
Trans -City Investments CUP
Variances Granted as to:
1. CUP
Area.
5
Acres
per
40
Acres
for CUP.
Should
only be
1.5
acres
for
40
acres.
333 % Variance
2. Agricultural Style Buildings.
3. Ownership. Landowner is not the owner of the use.
4. Residence. Landowner does not reside on the
contiguous real estate.
5. Lighting. Non -conforming lighting was allowed.
6. Signs. Non -conforming signs were allowed.
7. Outside Storage. 29,000 sq. feet. Should be 2400 sq.
feet and/or 16 vehicles. 1208% Variance
Present Ordinance requires 1 vehicle per 2.5 acres or 150
square feet of "occupied space" per 2.5 acres.
Armstrong CUP is a combination of 15,000 sq. feet and/or 100
vehicles. A variance of 1208 % would result in an outdoor
storage of 181,200 sq. feet and/or 1208 vehicles.
4 per 10 Outside Storage Limitation
The 1986 Ordinance was based upon a density of one home per
10 acres.
The average motor vehicle/boat/RV/trailer/snowmobile density
was estimated at 4 units per home or 4 per 10 acres.
The idea of
1
unit
for
outside storage per
2.5
acres was the
result. The
150
sq.
foot
alternative for each
2.5
acres was added
as an option.
12 per 10
Following this same criteria, the new zoning of three homes per
10 acres would change the density to 12 units per 10 acres. The
area density would be 1800 sq. feet per 10 acres.
DRAFT
LAKE ELMO PARKS COMMISSION MINUTES
April 18, 1994
Vice Chair Tautvydas called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers at the City Hall at 7:05
p.m. Present: Tautvydas, Blackford, Leach, Knoblauch, Peterson, Kuehn, Heichel, Nietzel,
Diederichs. Absent: DeLapp, Wagner. Also present: Park Supervisor Mike Bouthilet.
1. WELCOM NEW MEMBERS:
Chairman Tautvydas welcomed new commission members Heidi Nietzel, and Steve Diederichs.
Heidi is a full voting member, and Steve is 2nd Alternate. (Full voting member Steve DeLapp and
1st Alternate Rand Wagner were unable to attend this meeting.)
2. MINUTES: March 21, 1994
M/SIP Blackford/Knoblauch - to accept the March 21, 1994 minutes as presented. (Motion
passed 6-3, abstain: Heichel, Nietzel, Diedrichs.)
3. ALTERNATE BIKING TRAIL - Sunfish Park (Continued)
At its March 21 meeting, the Parks Commission voted to reject the bike trail proposed by Mr. Walt
Bailey, and tabled discussion of an alternate bike trail to the next meeting, in order to review the
Park Trail Plan and Comp. Plan Park Plan to be prepared to make a recommendation to the City
Council.
Chairman Tautvydas explained the City Council has directed the Commission to recommend a
recreational bike trail, and also, mountain biking is a legitimate recreational activity, therefore, the
commission should find a place for it. The commission discussed that currently there is not
parkland dedicated for future development of a mountain biking trail in the City, but it should be
planned for.
The commission reviewed the Lake Elmo Trail Task Team Recommendation (Trail Plan), revised
draft dated 11-1-93, and discussed the trail coming half way half way on Jamaca Ave, which then
runs east, off of Jamaca, through Washington County property to Sunfish Park boundary, then
skirts the southeast boundary of Sunfish Park, then runs south down Sunfish Park driveway to
connect with the Lake Elmo Park Reserve. Fences or baricades were discussed to keep bikes
from entering Sunfish Park. It was discussed that the cost of constructing the trails of the Trail
Plan is going to be very high and will require grant funds, and the grants will require the trails to
connect the parks, including the Park Reserve. Connecting Sunfish Park to the Park Reserve by
trail is complicated issue, due to the difficulty and danger of crossing Hwy 5, therefore, it was
realized that the trail of discussion is a future project. Funding for fences or baricades along
Sunfish Park will be provided for in grant applications.
Lake Elmo Parks Minutes April 18, 1994 Page 2
M/S/P Knoblauch/Kuehn - to recommend to the City Council that the Parks Commission and City
Council have adopted the Park Trail Plan concept, which provides for a recreational bike trail
along the southern boundary of Sunfish Park, with the stipulation that a barrier shall be installed,
at the time of development of the trail, to prevent free access of bicycles into the woods of
Sunfish Park, and that the commission will seek, in the form of future park dedication, a site or
trail for designation, for Mountain Biking. (Motion passed 9-0.)
4. PARKS SUPERVISOR'S REPORT:
A. Sunfish Park - Damage Report. Mike Bouthilet reported that last Saturday night, a group of
teenagers broke the Sunfish Park gate, drove vehicles through the park back to the NSP
powerlines, and had a beer party. One of the vehicles got stuck and had to be towed out by a
tow truck which caused considerable damage from where the powerline trail crosses by the
monitoring well, and from there back out to the public works building. Mike asked Deputy Larry
Osterman to give the commission a status update. Deputy Osterman briefly explained that he
was not the officer on the scene, but has been told that the person having the party was ticketed,
and there will be a serious assault charge involved, due to a fight that took place at the party.
The commission asked Mike and Deputy Osterman to describe the damage, what the dollar
amount may amount to, and how the City will get restitution. Mike stated he has not brought any
contractors out to look at it yet, but it appears that wood chips and dirt fill will be used to repair
the damage, and perhaps Community Service will be ordered as part of the judgement against
those found guilty, as well as hopefully monetary restitution. Deputy Osterman stated the City
could request Community Service and/or money - you must have a written estimate - to the
Officer filing the report (Deputy Carey), so that the prosecuting Attorneys will have a
recommendation for the judge, for those people found guilty of the charges. This process could
take a couple of months to a year, and there is no guarantee of the result.
The commission discussed that they can survey the damage at the Park Walk-Thru, and
discussed making a recommendation to the City Council regarding a request for restoration and
restitution.
M/S/P Diederichs/Nietzel - to recommend the City Council request Deputy Carey include in the
arrest report: Recommendation for full restoration of the damaged trails, to original condition, in
the form of community service and monetary restitution. (Motion passed 9-0.)
C. Sunfish Park - Determine what to do with field that will no longer be planted with corn
for deer. At its March meeting, the commission voted to discontinue paying Lehart Friedrich to
plant a field in Sunfish Park with corn for the deer in the park. Mr. Friedrich has recommended
that the 19 acres should now be planted, as soon as possible, with a grass or hay cover to
discourage noxious weeds from taking over. The commission received copies of a recommended
cover from Mike Bouthilet, which included costs. Mr. Friedrich stated he will plant the seed for
free as long as he can plant oats with it and harvest the oats this fall. This would be a 'one time"
process.
Lake Elmo Parks Minutes April 18, 1994 Page 3
M/S/P Heichel/Knoblauch - to recommend the City Council approve to purchase of a pasture mix
seed to plant 19 acres in Sunfish Park, to be planted by Lehart Friedrich who will also plant and
harvest oats in the process. (Motion passed 9-0.)
RLK
ASSOCIATES LTD.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
April 18, 1994
Lake Elmo City Council
CC. Mary Kueffner
Steven Schwanke, City Planner (933-0972)
Request For Variance
John B. Nicholson/Patricia M. Ganly
8975-15th Street N.
(AA922 Mainstreet
— Hopkins, Mn.
55343
(612) 933-0972
fax:(612) 933-1153
John Nicholson and Patricia M. Ganly, 8975-15th'Street North have
submitted an application for an after -the -fact variance to the
side yard setback requirements for an existing accessory building
housing animals, specifically horses. The subject building is
located 55 feet from the property line. The City Code (Zoning
Ordinance Section 301.130 C.13 a.] requires a side yard setback
of 100 feet for accessory structures housing animals.
The parcel of land is located in the southeast quarter of section
28. A legal description and property location map is attached.
The property is owned by the applicants. The petitioners have
both signed the application form.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The subject property consists of 9.86 acres and is designated
RAD - Rural Agricultural Density on the City's Future Land Use
Map. The property is zoned R-R, Rural Residential and has an
Amoco Pipeline running through it' from northwest to southeast.
The applicants property has two accessory buildings. One
building is used as a garage and the second is used as a horse
barn. The building requiring a variance is the horse barn.
In November, 1992, Mr. Nicholson was informed by the City of Lake
Elmo that the second accessory building (hereafter referred to as
the horse barn) had not been issued a building permit. Mr.
Nicholson was also informed that the accessory building was too
close to the side yard property line because the building housed
animals. The City also informed the applicants that the side
yard setback for the accessory building would be 10 feet if
animals were not housed in the building. In March, 1993, Mr.
.Nicholson was again informed by the City of not having a building
permit for the accessory building and that the building was
located too close to the property line. The applicants were
-Civil Engineering .Transportation -Infrastructure Redevelopment
. Landscape Architecture . Construction Management
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
REQUEST TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OR PLANNING COMMISSION
If you wish to address the City Council or Planning Commission, please follow the suggestions listed
below: (Please Print)
Address ?3C
0
Ll // q /9
Agenda item or Subject you wish to address: € e-ZG(J iA/ f) LATLor 1+
Lug C—L'n"o l,1,o.raL4'
Company or Individual Representing (f applicable)
NOTES: Please complete this form so that
Agenda. You are under no obligation to sps
state your full name and address so that the
of this meeting.
i may be recognized at the appropriate time on the
if you decide against it during the meeting. Please
:ord of your comments will be complete in the minutes
Welcome to this meeting. We are pleased that you are taking this means of participating in your City
government. On agenda items, the City is sincerely interested in your viewpoints and concerns.
However, the Council or Planning Commission may not be able to take public comments on all
issues or at any given meeting. It you wish to be heard:
i. Raise your hand.
If the Mayor or Chairman can accept public comment, you will be recognized.
2. When recognized by the Mayor or Chairman, state your name and
address.
3. State your positions and reasons as concisely as possible.
If you cannot be recognized, and still have concerns, please call the City Administrator, Mary
Kueffner, at 777-5510 during regular office hours.
1992 COUNCIL MEMBERS
David Johnson, Mayor
Lee Hunt
Richard Johnson
Jess Mottaz
Todd Williams
CITY HALL ADDRESS, PHONE & HOURS:
Lake Elmo City Office
3800 Laverne Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
777-5510
Sam-4:30pm
Mon. - Friday
under the impression that a building permit had been granted for
the horse barn.
ANALYSIS
The State of Minnesota's Model Pipeline Ordinance has established
the minimum building setback from a pipeline as the pipeline
easement. In this particular location, the pipeline easement is
50 feet wide. The building setback from the pipeline then should "
be 25 feet, assuming the pipeline is located in the center of the
easement. In the past, the City of Lake Elmo has also required
"primary" structures to be setback 100 feet from an existing
pipeline in order to protect "human life". The building in
question, however, is an accessory structure and was not
constructed for purposes of housing human life.
The applicants are not under any undue hardship concerning the
side yard setback or the setback from a pipeline. Applying the
City's setback requirements, the applicant would have been able
to locate the horse barn on the subject property without
requiring a variance. Specifically, the building could have been
placed in a manner that the 100 foot side yard setback could have
been maintained. (Please refer to attached Figure 7).
The applicants may desire to locate a horse barn further from the
existing Amoco pipeline as a means of added protection for their
horses. The applicants, however, do this at their own volition.
The City has established its setback requirements for the
purposes of protecting public health, safety and welfare. The
applicants have failed to meet the side yard setback requirement
and have not provided sufficient justification to demonstrate
that an undue hardship exists. The Zoning Ordinance requirements
for granting variances is attached (Exhibit A].
It should be noted that a variance is not required if animals (in
this case horses) are not housed in the accessory building. the
side yard setback is 10 feet for accessory structures not housing
animals. The existing horse barn is currently located 55 feet
from the side yard setback.
RECOM41MATIoN
After careful review of the unique aspects of this variance
request, we are recommending denial for the reduction of the
farm -related side yard setback from 100 feet to 55 feet for the
Nicholson\Ganly property located at 8975-15th Street N. This
recommendation is based on the following findings:
E
1. The existing pipeline setback is 50 feet from the pipeline
and 25 feet from the pipeline easement. This setback allows �-
the applicants sufficient room to place on the subject
property an accessory structure housing horses and still
meet the 100 foot side yard setback.
2. The special circumstances related to this case and resulting
in the need for this variance request are the result of
actions taken by the applicants.
3. The granting of the variance may confer on the applicant a
special privilege that is denied to owners of other lands,
structures, or buildings in the same district.
3
City of Take Elmo
Section 300.16, Subdivision 3.A.2.
EXHIBIT A
Zoning Ordinance
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals has the exclusive power to hear requests for variance
from the literal provisions of this section in instances where their strict enforcement would
cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration, and to grant the variances only when it is demonstrated that:
a, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape,
topography, or other unique circumstances;
b. that literal interpretation of the provisions of this section would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this
section;
c, That the special conditions or circumstances do not result form the actions of the applicant;
d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this section to owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same
district;
e. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship;
f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this section, or to the
property in the same zone.
The board of adjustment and appeals may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted
under this section for property in the zoning district where the land is located. The board may
permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The
board may impose conditions in the granting of a variance to insure compliance and to protect
adjacent properties.
Hardship means the proposed use of the property and associated structures in question cannot
be established under the conditions allowed by this section or its amendments and no other
reasonable alternative use exists. The plight of the landowner must be due to physical
conditions unique to the land, structure, or building involved and are not applicable to other
lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district; these unique conditions of the site
cannot be caused or accepted by the landowner after the effective date of this section or its
amendments.
Economic consideration alone shall not constitute a hardship.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, Township
29 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota, subject to an easement over the
North 33 ft, thereof for 15th Street North and also subject to an AMOCO pipe line easement
per Doc. No. 558286.
W
922 M3insnK
Napkins. Mn.
SSW
(612) 9334M
f= (612) 933.1153
LEGAL_ DESCRIPTION
_3L14/94
_FIGURE 1
lake
R� 422P
Ha
ASSOCtA7'ES 11'0, f= (572) 93333.111153
LOCATION MAP
3/14/94
FIGURE 2
-RAD'• I '"�
�,it-.y I 4 ` ii:-' o I� -�� �i�'�M�I •�� 1. I. �
;_. _,� I i __ �•-'-�y •' Imo-= ---� •z., ��I�•t = � ter" I : }
- (�
I RADI
qq
P.
SRD"
i.1 I
\SRD,... I-Gp.
RAD .IR -• _;_% '.s y _
<p RAD��ku. ;
• � � I i N.i - , ,� � `��- ..�— - _ � //tomt' y. '
IMF P RAO d
a�
•, P Imo. lu I p I�'<_ 1 ._` i �% �i�3•L _k;'
'RADI
IL• I �� I - PII :.
—?5—
�I sIn RE
i • ;! RAE
i . I, to �� - I I • I ;RED $RDA; r--.
R A C
qz
_I A - - yi— ..I -I
, I D.
I I-'4f• �' 'I � _ � I :�-.t1E41i1 0
_ ts
�.
1 PNN
Ee
LEGEND
RAD RURAL AGRICULTURAL DENSITY . UOC URBAN OFFICE I COMMERCIAL _--ISO RURAL ESTATE DENSITY LB LIMITED BUSINESS
Imo9RO SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, DENSITY WELL ADVISORY AREAPRD PUBLIC OUASURBAN EPUBLIC ®,,;.j NTIAL RECOMMENDATIONSFURTHER RINTTHEB
O COMMERCIAL Y;:�C GUIDE PLAN TEXT
922 Mainweet 3/14/94
Rid MOCXIn� FUTURE LAND USE MAP
(612) 933-0972 FIGURE 3
ASSOCIATES LTD. fax: (1512) 933-I1S3
l
I KSOY
9 HapM $53343•O. i612) 933-0972
I= (612) 933.1153
tl
I 1
v 'Rv
nv..o
w to
A_
- R I -.'
1
-Culp Tf
rt
=
m
L,
IA
1 cur ie
�IGB
_
_ _
Yra is. two
A
R-1
vwkwlue
f nwv.tw
R-3 wwrl.eeeM new. ptrlt
R-R wirtwrtnu.t
-
g
— —�
,I
HB
ny,..y eeveuvv
wrMr vee evn,N
CB
9Vw,e1 Eeebne
5 Myyyw
' l ^�
LI 1..1
3/l4/94
ZONING
MAP R-R
FIGURE 4
R� "H'�°°Hopkir=Mm NEIGHBORHOOD _s/14/94
ASSOW7'ES LTC. LOCATION MAP FIGURE 5
tdS (8721937�77j3
N lwr Irf/j•,frr.Je f yj row,
� T_3f4IP-_ -_-- _- •. � _---�erove/Rood
.._....T l T`/y~Lin¢
# IRK,
h Ibrre•N IA N
V
•1
1
1M
•
•� _
JUaI� .
�•
L!e£ND
N
•`
� PripN<y Jin<
`1
y PrY<rty /!ne n<t lrrr<y<d — ��
;¢, •l - O
frrnty colt /ron Jr</bn Hanvm<nt Y
ir— pier rr!
/"rood
Z'
eriAc 4!l,Jrd Ae
Nrr£s
. W 3
v�, Ni til/t rfJ<vnA wJ Prr/Ynnrd Mr yw-<
•-_.
pp �
•M
.• .'•
ti M'MNrinrll IJ i1 Ibrnllnn MIIArr
V.
v_ Arlfe<Jy r�J•r<trd iJ Mr f~~"i.
Ln
� � f/mmlirnf rr< lb �e<t n)d d<f/into,
wm
O /IlJ! � /erriilfJ iJ tAC WIJAinffMl%Nlty
' �
'1 /r</dJ Of<fyl<fTy J/MAJIn<•
.2tx
I
L£OAL Dl3CR/PT/ON
Me IPIe A <f IAe E•vJ<a' If
• • � fi i•1in�
eJ/ r/Ihefswhro/y
LJ! TwnNiP 2f MM/y
vny<ll7dNoJhlirfNn brn<gr,
' Ninn <letd ..JJv/jr<e a of rpeMlPe
Ien'Y fJ//A M.r�r/r�r•/riA
!NeelP NSA <ndd.>r Icy/<MMwJ
AN- L4% rtj d, <y<mrntylr
P.n A4 rf es Pe,
922 Mains"etEXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Napkins• Mn.
5330.3 FIGURE 6
nssaaares pro. fax: (512) 2�53 AS SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT
3/14/94
N elNr i-ol 1rt.ls r
Ndd'90Td'F lYtlt•• JLt.id '—-dlrYr/Rood
.. \
I
' NBR771
` UI
V
t
�
• H M 1N
1lAaI�SreT
•� _ --»
—_
Lrd£NG
b
N /r/p/rey 7in<
• q
�
- �
S Ir/Perty //n/ nd 3rrveyld — --
jU 2J f C
l
colt iron fmNsn H>n✓ment o
a
• /
�
.� Iefcovney
� UM p!/!V a
�'
`
1�
� /rM PlPt /a✓nd
�' i
'� 4l; 417 fBTY• �
� �
.r
Ne N!/e rtle/nh ✓<r �rr/+rmr/ Mu yNe
..^-- Llry
»
wv_ .• •.�• awrert//ptl .e it nor �NlMefa'd,
3 i
kL
I
?
h
b //menii/nr rrr Al f tot o I srdror/i,
� -
I' tni! y JiorM¢ G Me WilAlny/Mtlnaly
rreN/nRt lyrlemJ, J/aMh.aN16, •
....:.::.::...: .
y
DWELLING TO FARM RELATED
ACCESSORY BUILDING
L£6AL PAU R/PY/BN
The rweA //Me z".-A /fM{
$
Mrehrslr f(, /ItherN .',eart
+J?`"£ SC
:,
.. •
• // re/%!/n 1 Y/rnlA/P 1-1 MrMy
.bnfo di X, Nr//linyl/n ro~f,
%i:%�: ��•`5'
• `t:••:'is:.
H/nntl/es JJrr/r(e N en oox,n ~
wvrMe MMh 4 M.rrrf//r/1?li
:::.:•. :::.
-1
/Yyree In rre rwieet.rwl
:.::::.:::•::.+.:i.;1
�{
ANBCO Pi/e /lne rrinvrnr/e!•
,;
hn A*.Crra Id.
�100
e
all
R � 922 eet
HopMkinsaros. Mn. FARM RELATED ACCESSORY 3/14/94
.
5�343
AS�a��A ��• 1=(612)9�� STRUCTURE BUILDABLE AREA FIGURE
ft
1 a 1994
Sharon Lumby March 11,1994
Deputy City Clerk
City of Lake Elmo
My family and I live on 15th street North and are neighbors
of Sue Sampson. I am sure you know of all the problems we have
witnessed over the last 2 years. That is why I am writing to you
today. There are many rules in life,
we have a responsibilty to
some of which we agree with
and some we may not, but as a society
follow the rules. If we do not, there are penalties which are put
in place to avoid similar problems. In the Sampson barn issue this
is not the case. I am very disturbed that the city has allowed the
obvious disregard of city ordinances and policy to go unpunished!
Sue Sampson has known all along what she did was not acceptable.
I sat in on all the meetings of the City Council when it was
decided she was in violation and she was given a deadline to take
down or move the barn. Each time the deadline passed without any
concern, on her part, of a penalty for her inaction. She has been
given more than her share of chances to correct her mistake and to
try and restore order to our neighborhood. Take the action that
is needed to remove the violation and restore my faith in the
City of Lake Elmo.
I am also writing on a related issue. I received a notice
that my other neighbor, John Nicholson would like a variance for
his barn. In this situation, the barn has no effect on myself
or my property. If this is also the case with the Linders
Greenhouse property, then I see no reason not to allow the
variance. But I want to emphasize only if Linders also agree to
this proposal. This is not the situation we have in the Sue
Sampson issue. If this is, in any way, seen as a tactic by Sue
Sampson to help her cause and to allow her barn to stay, then John
Nicholson's request should be delayed until Sue Sampson's barn is
either moved or torn down! Our neighborhood is being divided by
the actions of a few and inactions of many. Have Sue Sampson
abide by the rules and restore calm to our little section of
Lake Elmo.
Sincerely,
Steven Dahly
8955 15th St. N.
Lake Elmo, MN
0
`AB L
HvuPsg
., c„STMM-
G-..,C¢r
era
CLl
n^ v cif9 7
rle►�iw�sf bts ,!/i
nl
,,,t
1� 141 poa..t
r
WvrL-+-" t,
C9 pj_l_ 4�pk o&,j. dew- 95.3.-7Z.
( r I �e Gs)
no Lj
ems+ 951.31
Y5f,7(
i .,j fia,l
441�pc,�
uo
451.4 c�
45a. t tp
Q5�.r4
ti
45a.a t
g63.34
gss.34
45 a.-q I
�Is3. zi
453.3co
453.E ¢ i
sktS
g91.9ty
J y51.4 4
`l`FB.Sy
AZ
q6z'
',tt:ti53'I
.0ra
g51-0
� 1
g51.4 t
qs3•�
i
P.�yh dam. ✓w� - A� Sca /e
-+4 = g5r.3 f
APR 18 '94 15; 113 TKDH u ASSOC„ IfVC
DE A
• 11• 1 � I- • MANNERS
April 14, 1994
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Re., 1993 MSA Project
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Commission No, 10374
Dear Mayor and Council;
292-0083
The following is an update on the 1993 MSA Project,
P.2
TOLTZ. KENO, DUVALL, ANDERSON
ANn A..n ,. _ ...
1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA
444 CEDARSTREET
SAINT PAUL MINNESOTA55101.2t4o
PHON61812202.4400 FA%10121202-oon
We contacted the State Aid Division to review the requirement that replacement trees must be
planted on the right-of-way or easement to be eligible for reimbursement. We explained that
after subtracting the clear zone, only one foot remained. Also the presence o£ the lain dine
further restricted the planting area.
Because of these difficulties, State Aid will allow the planting of trees on private property within
IO feet o£ the light -of --way, On that basis, we sent out letters to each of the forty-five property
owners in the project to ask whether they would like to receive a white pine tree or a sugar maple
tree. If everyone would want a tree, this would leave about 15 trees that could be planted along
the vacant areas along the north side of Lake Jane Trail,
Paving Schedule
Tower Asphalt notified us that they will be placing the final layer of bituminous by May 15.
Conrad Privacy lFencc
We informed Mr. Conrad of the City's desire to have the privacy fence constructed under the
general contract by a professional fence contractor. Mr. Conrad wants to perform special scroll
cutting on the top of the boards and add other features that a fence contractor would not be
willing to do. Mr. Conrad insists on building the fence himself.
Sincerely,
Larry D. Bohrer, P.E.
LDB/mha
l''rflli: `'V n i::'" i i.,
lh] ?i i dtdill \Ut([l.rf fr PUCI
'with }ill stir
r < l > a ? 1 iC'i' �i3 11t11.1•it llUt' I dlZ �f tl ' li U (..t'. ]Cv l)1'I ciil i ..1 i7 i.lt C1 C1 t)1 Imo, t',' 4 j t_ ais Uale
4114 11 1
!II l.iii
I'he } turf}a rl rn)r; aG C
-t it 1 ed b'} 7'='01' Beam., was out, requpst to
g va et' eY r. ,uC1t ' 1!7 ellable l !-
]. up �a»
b e_.al 1' ar: .' elmc? t0 provide `ed'eI" ! a')9 t? to) the
4II acre e tl't}? t;} the north of i- igll`;'Jav 94 0IL {dale lead a c:Oi7 eI ?7 it''!?lg
ut? capacity when then here UnSure Whether tiler' had eno"'0 Gaparltv t )
Ilieet theil' OWn heeds. He decial'ed that What had b
tlh all'eadL'
the ]lCtl' 7l? )11taf7 I,[}UI1Cfi t{}'til;lt area t{, the taq O1 (,JH' } j 'w 5 110't all i'ssu':'
iJase i {)fl tllelf" land Use t?laid 'slwre':dafi not ellough to serve dell' C)`: n need;
-M rile esi:-zing M'SA area.
Craig Waldron added an additional concern that estensioll Of the
east cards would
cause I.a(,;e F}lno s sezL%e2'Pr�, land use To) be {lire tij>
competing it11 Oakdales redevelopment and deveit)pllletlt plans ai{)Ilg i-9<j,
GIs: nuel''i`nel felt that t}le Lake Flmo Business park Ih'dinance tic as such that
Lake E-tiilo development -:.•ould be much ::l.' er pa ed and Lllce w; is ch that
Oakdale awv concern.
Lary; B{)hI'er in:'icated that based Oiltl?e
g011' coursecourset)andales aterav a17d 1I]unlCJ}?al
}?I'OPOSalS, there. was s(}IIIe O er ca )a1--1tV. ! t o11
to Labe Elnl{) s total ;feeds. There appeared to be all exc �s ot�67.U0(lhga[lollce. t
per dav, .Cake Elmo s addiunna} .Ileed would be for 340.0oC) gallolls 1?er
Bri
their `;ae,l t Cis' 1'l,:a Err .l it at �)an it a}e UIU 12 ',.it 11a�e a i?ri;)blI-in iii i77eetilia
1 i.'A. i. Lli4 had Y13 }vyll '.. ;aelEv •hn
the'Ae t>1 T..(i }' ; l ill . 14 .?i} c ruil.t7i11ti iC)
i tO m'Ct tllc'31" CJ1I]prehells�'w'e '71'aIl T', i
Lake Eit22{), as the pipe rn r . ii-•: C{)uld nod, help?
i e :1111cwCed 1ni0 the !]latfl Stem dr}?x�Ilstream of the
WON' int,:rce-olor restriction.
Brian Bachllle.ier also indicated that ilhe i;)iriI powers luregtlleP.t. R'l1iCl1
Would base C{>al all()UaLjort' oil ultiMate i`lt}tl';', a. il()l u'v��.l?laiilr-: i.ise:l ti)11
tllZ illcurr Costs ,villii.i1 e -r
great. tlla.,';vi;a:
�.1uf+„(their
fac"_='ii ill' a ^•tall.! alone p oiect. is j' :aj �..t z�,!
contribute
th 1 mod ab,n:. ' i) - )
t 1 t 1 KnmzL Out nut il] )Ie At lfa;;
i ... ��'d.l Gill I I Floor ..aPIC r
E1111 Iti such aIt i:]. i_t.::' l�� ::: ii�i � _
EIIP,, "GI' .t , oL;;j of be CAM offe tide for Law,
w,
t,l'a1„ Tuld o i� d;cat' a �� t?'. <it Y` a .� - Mk
mg Y Stall ��i) mg lil! ways in
_ `vNC!Ianne:xalion it ~wslat,011 could the ni
gt)Fasu cess'UtltintrOduCed colier ', dland, When ctlanenged for an indlcatlOn Oil what tvp.
Cof VMS CC' A Q li,, be
C)1]s tdereti for sewerCapa{:iiL', lie lndjcaLt td all illtere±l. in perhaps
annexamon of the i?st property to the East Ci•�.
i C as _nested a rE:aclicul. i pointed Out that Lane 111130 would be Prepared i) Cnilsider 4 ng
reasonable A proposal, and would be prepared to cooperate 1,vith Oak -dale if
t11e proposal cox.'ered the contiguous property: in both cities. but anT attempt
ic) annex 3-1 property would be strongly' resisted.
A possible joint project for'he extension of Helmo AwenUe northwards to
align with Ideal Avenue at stillwater boulevard was also proposed. This
wtOuld illaitic a logical interchange at IueaU�>till�.vater Pc>ule�-arti. T,ii did not get discussed f uriher, IS;U4
Tt was agreea+ that both groups would report back to their respective
councils. and Ineet in MT to three weeks tillle to discuss these issues further.
after obtaining council response.
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.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 19, 1994
7:00 p.m. MEETING CONVENES
Pledge of Allegiance
1. AGENDA
2. MINUTES: April 5, 1994
3. CLAIMS
4. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL:
A. Public Inquiries
B. Resolution No. 94-13, Establishing Human
Rights Commission
C. Arbor Day Proclamation
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. Ordinance Rezoning Outlot A -Lake Elmo Heights
2nd Addition from RR to RE
B. Alternate AG
C. Sunfish Park (Update on Bike Trail & Damage
to Park)
D. Water Surface Use Committee's Recommendation
E. Update on Olson Lake Estate Pond
F. Other
(over)
6. PLANNING/LAND USE & ZONING:
A. PUBLIC HEARING: John Nicholson/Patricia Ganly
After -the -Fact Variance for setback of
accessory building (8975 15th St. N.)
B. Request from DNR to Lower Land Elevation at
DeMontreville Park
C. Other
7. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT:
A. 1993 MSA Update
B. Other
8. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
9. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
A. Mayor John:Update of Meeting with Oakdale
B. Council Member Conlin
C. Johnson
D. Johnston
E. " Mottaa
10. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
A. 1994 Annual Conference
B. City Unity Day Resolution and Rally
C. Change starting time of May 3rd meeting
11. Adjourn