HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-94 CCMMINUTES APPROVED: 10-4-94
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 6, 1994
MAYOR JOHN...We are all guilty of taking police support for granted and often
don't recognize the daily stress and dedication that is a part of their work until a
tragedy like the death of Tim Jones brings it home.
We owe all those who risk their lives on behalf of the community a debt of
gratitude and asked for all to join him In a minute of silence in memory of
Officer Jones.
A benefit Is being organized for the family of Tim Jones and will be held on
October 2, at Tartan Park. If you are interested in serving as a volunteer, please
call Joanne Chavez 777-6858 or Kelly Harstad 777-2550.
Mayor John called the city council meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. in the city council
chambers. PRESENT: Mottaz, Conlin, John, Johnston, Johnson, City Engineer
Bohrer, Attorney Filla and Administrator Kueffner.
1. AGENDA
ADD: 4A. Olson Lake Estates Pond, 4B. Washington County workshop, 4C. Tree
Planting Grant, 11 C. Request of the PZ for use of the city planner on a project.
Delete: 7H. Leonard Hanson has asked that his agenda item be removed from this
agenda,
M/S/P Johnston/Johnson - to approve the September 6, 1994 city council agenda as
amended. (Motion passed 5-0.)
2. MINUTES: August 9, 1994
M/S/P Johnson/John - to approve the August 9, 1994 city council minutes as amended.
(Motion passed 4-0-1:Abstain:Conlin)
MINUTES: August 15, 1994
M/S/P Conlin/Mottaz - to approve the August 15, 1994 city council minutes as
presented. (Motion passed 5-0).
MINUTES: August 16, 1994
Attorney Filla stated that it was his recollection during the course of the meeting Mr.
Niles indicated that Mr. Colon wanted the city to consider both options: First, to review
the proposal in connection with the 1979 version of the plan, Second, the other to
review it in connection with the 1990 version of the plan. Filla asked for an accurate
statement of what the property owner's request is in more detail added to that section
of the minutes.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1994
M/S/P Mottaz/Johnson - to table the August 16, 1994 minutes until the September 20,
1994 council meeting for clarification of Don Niles' request. (Motion passed 5-0).
MINUTES: August 23,1994
M/S/P Conlin/Johnson - to approve the August 23, 1994 city council minutes. (Motion
passed 5-0).
3. CLAIMS
Council member Conlin thanked Mr. Rondeau for taking care of the water problem with
his house and felt there was a lack of follow through from our Public Works Dept. and
hoped the same kind of occurrence will not happen again. Conlin added that the water
we receive from Oakdale is very costly and can't afford it leaking into the ground.
M/S/P Johnson/Conlin - to approve the September 6, 1994 claims #2966 through
#3010 as presented. (Motion passed 5-0).
4. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL
A. Olson Lake Estates Pond
Mayor John explained that at the last VBWD meeting he presented the council's letter
requesting they plug the outlet form Olson Lake Estates pond and had supporting
evidence with photos and transparencies from the photographs showing the colored
water in Lake Olson. Karen Chandler, Barr Eng., denied the fact that she had ever
indicated that the two water bodies could be accepted as one. John requested authority
to approach the VBWD at the next meeting to request installation of the plug.
Attorney Filla gave suggestions on how to proceed:
1. contact Attorney Dayton and make him aware of this discharge.
2. what is the long term impact and get data available.
3. have sufficient information to pursue injunctive relief.
4. further alternatives assessed for discharge of Olson Lake Pond in some other
fashion
M/S/P Mottaz/Conlin - that staff be instructed to contact Chuck Dayton and ask for his
opinion on this and ask if he has any information regarding long term effect and report
back to the council at next meeting and to authorize expenditure of additional funding
up to $5,000. (Motion passed 5-0).
B. WASHINGTON COUNTY'S FUTURE WORKSHOP
Council member Conlin pointed out there will be a workshop concerning the
Washington County Comp. Plan on Saturday, September 24, 9 a.m.-12 p.m., Stillwater
High School Auditorium to discuss recommendations of citizen committees on concepts
proposed and she encouraged people to attend.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1994
C. TREE PLANTING GRANT
The Council congratulated and gave special thanks to Dick Johnson for receiving a tree
planting grant for $2,134.25.
5. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Metro East Partnership
Council member Johnson voiced his major concern is if we put in $500 in this
organization we should get $500 worth of information out of it..
M/S/P Mottaz/John - to take the motion off the table. (Motion passed 5-0).
M/S/P Mottaz/John to direct the city adminlstrator to sign the pledge to enter the Metro
East Development Partnership at a cost of $500/year. (Motion passed 5-0).
B. Martin Colon: Appeal to Board of Adjustment and Appeals (Continuation)
The Council received Attorney Filla's letter, dated September 2, 1994, on the Federal
Land Development Proposal.
Mr. Niles, representing Mr. Colon, stated it is their position that they have done
everything possible to comply with the city's ordinance in terms of submitting the
information that is required to process the application. We believe that the delay with
respect to the processing of this really goes to the merits of the application and how it
should be considered, not whether we satisfy the ordinance that determines whether it
should be processed.
Today, he received a copy of a September 2, 1994 letter from Attorney Filla to
Ms. Kueffner and there are a couple of points he disagrees with: "On the bottom of 1st
:page, there is a statement regarding the July 9, 1991 order by Judge Doyscher where
Mr. Filla gives his opinion that the order limits Martin Colon to only submitting the
application that has been submitted earlier --the 1979 application. Significantly, after
the February 2, 1991 findings of fact by the District Court, there was a motion for
amended findings in which Martin Colon clearly submitted the position requesting
before that any application that we submitted must be approved by the city. That was
the position that we took. Obviously that's not what the order says. The judge
exercised some discretion in putting the language that you have now seen in the order
requiring their application be considered under the 1979 plan. So the statement that
Mr. Colon never requested the ability to submit some other approval is not accurate."
Niles added, "Second page, the statement as to scope and intensity of this
application relative to the 1980 application. We did not know if there ever was a
determination of the intensity of the prior application. We are saying that language
allows us to submit a modified proposal not identical to the 1980 proposal. It doesn't
say we must submit the 1980 application."
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1994
Niles referred to 2nd paragraph, second page, where Mr. Filla talks about the
action that has been taken by the city since the District Court's order and talks about
amendment of the 1979 comp plan to create the 1990 amendment to the comp plan.
Niles stated, "If you look at the 1990 amendments to the comp plan, you will see on the
first page the dates of adoption and action of the plan believed by the time Judge
Doyscher issued its order of July, 1991. All of the steps necessary to adopt have been
taken by the city with the exception of final Met Co. approval which took place in early
1992. My understanding is that those proceedings and what the city was doing were
known to Judge Doyscher at the time he issued the order and that by virtue of that,
courts usually don't issue orders that are gong to be moot before they put their 'John
Hancock' on the signature line. Our position is that Mr. Filla is incorrect there and the
court was apprised of the changes that were going on with the comp plan at the time he
issued the order. We understand Judge Doyscher may be the one that has to clarify
that eventually."
Mayor John felt that Judge Doyscher's order clearly states that Federal Land may
submit their application under the 1979 plan. That the current proposal is very different
from that proposed by Federal Land in 1980. Therefore, the city does not consider the
current proposal, which did not exist at the time of Judge Doyscher's order, has to be
considered under the 1979 comp plan. The application should then be considered
under the 1990 comp plan.
Councilman Mottaz was inclined to go along with Federal Land on with what the judge
said. We are going to have to go back to the judge and ask him what he meant. He
did not say that they must submit their original plan, but he said they are allowed to
submit an application. The judge has to realize after 12 years a lot of things have
changed. Mottaz is inclined to think that the judge meant that they could resubmit an
application based on the rules in our comp plan of 1979.
Attorney Filla explained that at the last meeting the applicant clearly asked the city to
consider this on a dual track and that is why I was asked to make some comments.
One way to get this to the court is to make a decision regarding the application to the
1979 version of comp plan. If that decision is to review it in that manner, you proceed
along that track. If your decision is not to review it in that manner, then you've made a
decision. The second request is to review the application consistent with the 1990
version which would require a public hearing before the PZ. If the city were to approve
an amendment to the plan and then the application and a rezoning, we will never find
out what the court would say because there will not be an appeal because the property
owner would be satisfied with the city's decision. If the decision is to deny the request
in light of the 1990 comp plan, at that point the property owner has two decisions of the
council relating to the same issue. There was a request to try to handle this in a
manner if necessary to get us to court one time review all the issues instead of two
separate lawsuits, one 1979 plan and one 1990 plan.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 5
Attorney Niles added he was also satisfied with the draft minutes of the Lake Elmo City
Council of August 16,1994 recollecting his statements and request.
Attorney Filla pointed out if the property owner's request is a dual track, we should try
and break this down and make a decision on track one. One of the things you don't
want to do is to send it to the Planning Commission asking them to review the
application once under the 1979 comp plan and then once under the 1990 plan. That's
going to become very confusing. We want to end up with a clear record so that if
someone who is asked to review this ultimate decision understands what the council
did and its reasons for acting.
Council member Conlin referred to the Summons document, Article XVII, Item 3. where
Federal Land is asking for a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant from
interfering with plaintiffs' use of their land as proposed in their application of October
17,1980. She understands that to be Federal Land asking the court to have the city not
interfere with their use of the land as proposed in their application of October 17,1980.
It very clearly shows their intention was for that application and not some future
application. Conlin concurred with the Mayor and supported the City Administrator's
decision to reject this application because it was vague and confusing. Conlin made
the following motion:
M/S/P Conlin/Johnson - to not proceed to review this matter under the 1979 comp plan
because it is the findings of this council that the 1994 application is substantially
different in scope than the 1980 application, and that further, it is the city's opinion that
the District Court limited the Federal Land Co. option to a resubmittal of the 1980
application. It is the city's opinion that the court order did not prevent the city from
adopting a 1990 comp plan which is now the basis for application review. So if the
applicant wishes to proceed, the city will accept the application and review it pursuant
to the standards of the 1990 comp plan. (Motion passed 4-1:Mottaz:we are reading
things into the judge's one sentence statement and there are several sentences now
saying what the judge said. I don't think the 1990 version of the comp plan was
adopted until December 1992.).
Attorney Filla commented, "His letter simply indicates that since the District Court order,
the city has taken relevant action in adopting a new plan or revision to that old plan. He
didn't specify when that occurred and could have occurred after the District Court order.
Part of it did, in fact, occur after the District Court order. What I meant in that
paragraph is it doesn't make any difference when it occurred. It occurred before the
submittal of the 1993 or 1994 application. Since there has been some indication that
we may be heading for another review of this decision, I suggest that it would be a
good idea to verbatim express in the minutes the comments that were made by the
council. The city council should make some statement on whether you are directing the
staff to process the application pursuant to the 1990 version of the comp plan and
direct that this matter go to the Planning Commission for that purpose."
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1994
Attorney Niles voiced his concern that the application be processed "as is" on the
merits without Mr. Colon being forced to waive any of his rights. Niles stated, "What I
heard was a motion to deny processing the application or consideration under the 197C
comp plan. Our request is for the application to be processed "as is" on the merits and
we are leaving it up to you to make your decision as the board of adjustments how that
would take place and we will take appropriate next action depending on what the
council actions are."
At the last meeting Attorney Filla thought it was clear that there was a request of the
city to process the application under the 1979 plan and under the 1990 plan. That is
what he responded to in his letter and what Mr. Niles had agreed to. Filla stated, "All
the city has done is indicate to the property owner that for reasons stated they chose
not to process this application under the 1979 comp plan, but if the property owner
wishes we will process it under the 1990 plan. We need to be very clear on what we
are doing here rather than proceeding to process this 'application' which contains
different language in it according to its merits. We are trying to identify the issues here
and deal with them and not leave this to some vague form so that some body that
reviews this in the future understands what we are doing and the reasons for doing
this."
Attorney Niles believed Mr. Filla raised issues that are not there. Niles stated, "He
thought Mr. Filla's description earlier about what the city's options were adequate: you
could decide to review the application under the 1979 plan and decide not to do that,
you could decide to review it under the 1990 version." Filla said, "if the application is
processed under the 1990 comp plan amendment plan and it is approved we will never
know the answer to what Judge Doyscher meant by his order because it will be moot."
Niles believed that was accurate if the application is ultimately denied. Then maybe we
will have the opportunity to do that. It is our hope that we will only have to go back to
Judge Doyscher once or not at all. In our view the appropriate action would be to the
council to cast a second resolution directing the PZ to consider the application under
the 1990 comp plan.
Councilman Johnson commented the City ordinance states if we accept the submission
of the application and the council has denied acceptance of the application based on
the 1979 comp plan the only other options to accept it is on the basis of the 1990 comp
plan. According to the motion, Johnson explained, "the application will go to the PZ
unless they withdraw their application. They have withdrawn their application before
when it was based on the 1990 comp plan. We are exactly in the same position we
were a half a year ago. If they are consistent with their previous actions, they will
withdraw it again. So there is some indecision as to whether we should direct the PZ to
hold a Public Hearing. We are required by ordinance now to hold a public hearing
based on this motion and your application and the hearing would be held on the
application based on the 1990 comp plan."
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 7
By this action, Filla indicated the city is not requesting the property owner to waive any
of its rights nor is the city's further review of this matter contingent upon the property
owner waiving any rights which Mr. Colon feels he might have under the 1979 plan.
What was needed was a decision from the council on that issue. The decision has been
made. Mr. Colon is free to challenge that right now or he can wait until after this
process concludes and maybe he will challenge it or maybe he won't.
Attorney Niles pointed out there is one significant difference and that's Mr. Filla's
comment in terms of the record reflecting that Mr. Colon has not waived his legal
position and that is a significant thing for Mr. Colon.
C. Valley Branch Watershed Vacancy
The city has not received any applications for the VBWD vacancy. Mayor John will
contact the Tri-Lakes Assoc. and appeal to the public for interested applicants.
D. Resolution No. 94-24 Increasing Impound Fees
M/S/P John/Mottaz - to adopt Resolution No. 94-24, A Resolution setting fee for the
Kenneling of Unclaimed Animals, Relinquishing Fee for Unclaimed Animals, and
Administration Fee for Unclaimed Animals. (Motion passed 5-0).
6. STAFF REPORTS
A. Resolution No. 94-25- Approving the proposed 1994 Tax Levy and setting date
of public hearing for proposed budget.
M/S/P John/Conlin - to adopt Resolution No. 94-25, A Resolution Approving the
Proposed 1994 Tax Levy $985,925, Collectible in 1995 and Setting Date for Public
Hearing for Proposed Budget on Tuesday, November 29, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. (Motion
passed 5-0).
When asked by Councilman Johnson where the $500 for Metro East Dev. would come
out of, Finance Director Banister answered it would from Dues & Memberships.
7. PLANNING/LAND USE & ZONING:
A. Recommendation from Parks Commission on Playground Equipment at
DeMontreville Park
Mike Bouthilet, Parks Supervisor, provided pictures and layouts of all four playground
proposals and explained the basis of the Parks Commission subcommittee's
recommendation.
M/S/P Mottaz/Johnson - to accept the quote submitted by Minnesota Playground, Inc.
for the "Game Time" equipment for DeMontreville Park in an amount of $17,700 per
recommendation of the Parks Commission. This price does not include freight and tax.
(Motion passed 5-0).
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1994
B. Appeal Hearing to Administrative Decision: Thomas G. Armstrong,
Thomas P. Armstrong, Jodi Armstrong (Low Cost Storage)
Administrator Kueffner pointed out there was an error in the Request for Council Action
cover sheet. The ordinance was repealed by the City Council on June 21, 1994 and
was published and became effective on June 23, 1994.
Attorney Filla explained it is appropriate to consider the appeal of the property owner.
The application was to do two things: amend the text of the zoning code and to amend
the CUP. Once the city repealed the Alternate Ag regulations, which were standards
that were applicable to that type of use, there was nothing to judge the application by.
For that reason, it didn't make any sense to go forward with the application.
Thomas G. Armstrong asked the council to consider and to issue findings in writing as
to what action was taken by Administrator Kueffner. Armstrong added, "I am here to
merely exhaust our administrative remedies before taking further action. The PZ
already has made a recommendation to those exact changes to the ordinance and that
recommendation was made on February 28, 1994, and this council has never acted on
that recommendation."
Attorney Filla pointed out there are options available to the city: take action based upon
current code and the application of the property owner and to view the application as a
request to amend the text, first. Second, to amend the permit consistent with the text
that would be adopted OR recite, reasons if deciding not to go forward with the
application. Filla's recommendation, depending on the council's view of this, was to
prepare some written findings after some discussion of the council and bring them back
for their review OR let this matter wind its way to the PZ. The application is to expand
what is now a legal non conforming use which cannot be accomplished by a variance
because you cannot allow by variance a use that would not otherwise be permitted.
Alternate Ag is no longer an allowed special use in the Ag zone.
Councilman Johnson defended the request made because he felt this application was
submitted prior to the council's repealing the Alternate Ag and in denying Mr. Armstrong
the ability to go through the request that he has made we are being heavy handed, and
we should process the application according to what was in existence at the time the
application was made.
Council member Conlin pointed out that consideration of repealing the ordinance was
before the council prior to the application being submitted. They were considering
amending the Alternate Ag when the application was submitted. The council could not
prevent the Armstrong's from submitting the application.
Mayor John indicated during the time the city discussed amending the Alternate Ag
ordinance, the Armstrong CUP was declared outside the conditions of the CUP. Mr.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1994
Armstrong denied it and said they would need to change the conditions of the CUP.
That's when the merry-go-round started for this amount of time.
John Bodey stated he sent a letter supporting the Council's decisions. As adjacent
property owners, they are concerned about the effects of the additional changes the
Armstrongs would like to add to the CUP which could have negative affect on property
values. They would definitely be opposed to any further changes or amendment
allowing a large structure to his CUP, and they support the 100 vehicle limitation
Annette Pierre stated she is getting more water onto her property and into her
basement and believes it is the water runoff off of the existing pole buildings. Armstrong
responded the water problem does not have anything to do with the buildings, but with
the drainage ditch which has not been cleaned up for many years.
Mr. Meehan thought those buildings should be built down by Ideal Avenue where he
has property along the railroad. All the property values are going to fall.
Attorney Filla suggested he provide the council with a memo giving the council the part
of the minutes that are relevant to this topic during that period of time.
Mayor John suggested the city engineer visit the Pierre property in relation to the
construction of 15th Street and the ditches and the Pierre's water problem
Mr. Armstrong requested that whatever the city attorney furnishes for the city council
that he would be furnished a copy so they could respond. If the city engineer visits the
property, Armstr ong requests the engineer let him know so he or his son can
accompany him and point out the problem with the drainage ditch.
M/S/P John/Mottaz - to table for two weeks, to enable the city attorney to review the
record and present a chronology summary to the City Council before they make a
decision as to what has transpired over time and what decisions were made. (Motion
passed 5-0).
C. PUBLIC HEARING: Site and Plan Review Lampert Yards, 9220 Hudson Blvd.
Mayor John opened up the public hearing at 9:18 p.m. to consider a request form
Lampert Yards, 9220 Hudson Blvd. for a variance to the impervious surface regulations
in the General Business zoning district. The public hearing was published in the
Stillwater Gazette and affected property owners have been notified.
There was no one to speak against the variance request
Mayor John closed the public hearing at 9:20 p.m.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 10
Administrator Kueffner pointed out there was a certain amount of uncertainty as to
whether or not a variance is even required because of present impervious surface at
this site is 30%. Those buildings exist and Lamperts are going to do some removal of
buildings, but the end result of impervious surface for Phase 1 is not going to exceed
30% impervious surface. Even though there was some question as to whether or not a
variance is needed, the city proceeded to call a public hearing for a variance request
City Engineer Bohrer reported that some of the old buildings are going to be
demolished and the area paved over. New buildings will be constructed on some of the
areas of paving.. From a runoff standpoint, there will be no change in impervious
surface. There is no increase in the non -conformity of the site.
Attorney Filla stated that everything indicates that this should be dealt with as if it were
a variance and that is his recommendation.
M/S/P John/Mottaz to grant the impervious surface coverage variance in a General
Business zone to Lampert Yards, 9220 Hudson Blvd., on the grounds that the existing
impervious surface is 30% and that the proposal is to readjust the impervious surface
and still not exceed the 30% ratio that exists now. (Motion passed 5-0).
The council received a copy of a letter from Charlie Melcher, Project Engineer, to Dan
Krell, Lampert Yards regarding drainage issues.
Larry Bohrer reported he has reviewed the contours and part of Phase 1 is to correct
what should have been done in 1993 because the pond was not constructed like a true
square like it should have been. The pond will be adequate for Phase I, but at this point
there is not sufficient information to rule on Phase 2 whether it will have any effect on
the drainage or change in impervious surface.
M/S/P Mottaz/John - to approve the site and plan as shown in the drawing presented
for Phase 1 for the expansion of Lampert Yards; subject to the applicant complying with
the recommendations of the city planner and city engineer; conditioned on the
improvements being made in accordance as outlined in the September 1, 1994 letter
from Charlie Melcher. (Motion passed 5-0).
D. Site and Plan Review: River Valley Christian Church
The Planning Commission considered this at its August 30, 1994 meeting and
unanimously recommended approval, contingent upon the applicant complying with the
conditions set forth in the City Planner's report and the City Engineer's report.
Pastor Denison explained they have revised the parking spaces on the plan, received a
permit from Washington County for the access drive, supplied proof of permission from
NSP for construction in the NSP easement, and the sign, as drawn, met the
requirements of the sign ordinance.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 11
Attorney Filla suggested the council consider a two-step process for a site and plan
review for commercial permits.
M/S/P Conlin/John - to approve the site and plan for River Valley Christian Church
based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission and contingent upon
applicant complying with the conditions 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 set forth by the City Planner
in his memo dated August 26, 1994 and City Engineer prior to the issuance of the
building permit. (Motion passed 5-0).
E. Front Yard Definition in Shoreland District
A concern was raised at our last meeting about the storage of vehicles, trailers, boats,
etc. between the house on the lake and the road. The resident stated it would cause
undue hardship and requested reconsideration of the definition of front yard in the
shoreland district.
Several council members felt these regulations will cause some problems for a lot of
people; lake lot or otherwise. The Council suggested a survey of other communities on
how their ordinances dealt with this, review restrictive covenants that are in some of the
developments, and obtain input from the code enforcement officer because he will have
to enforce the regulations.
MS/P Mottaz/John - to table until one of the next two meetings to discuss possible
provisions to allow storage. (Motion passed 5-0).
F. Ordinance 810 : Park land dedication in wetlands or floodplain
Council member Conlin asked for definition of criteria for "best interest of the general
public". Such items to consider: cost of maintaining wetland in terms of removal of
weeds and algae, educational value, esthetics, preserving unique habitat, and city
liability.
M/S/P Mottaz/John - to table for two meetings (October 4, 1994) until the council can
come up with a list of criteria defining "best interest of the general public" supplied by
each council member to the staff on what type of wetlands or floodplain areas would
not be acceptable. (Motion passed 5-0).
G. Ordinance 8104: Composition of Planning Commission
M/S/P Conlin/Johnson - to adopt Ordinance 8104, as amended (Section 204), reducing
the size of the Planning Commission from 9 full voting members and two alternates to 7
full voting members and two alternates. (Motion passed 5-0).
H. Leonard Hanson (continuation) The applicant requested this item be deleted
from this agenda.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 12
8. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT:
A. Bid for water tower painting
Larry Bohrer clarified in February when Maguire Iron submitted a quote to repair the
damage to the tank, they also submitted an unsolicited bid for painting of that repair
damage. At the time the bid was $6,860. Recently bids were received for painting
ranging from $16,000 to $21,000. The differences are: 1. the type of material that
Maguire proposed to paint the exterior tank the first time using latex on the outside.
This is not a coating that is recommended --recommend enamel on outside. The cost of
the material is not substantially different. There is a substantial difference for labor to
apply because it takes more time and care. Any overspray of the enamel or spatters
have to be cleaned off of cars or buildings., 2. There was no time of the year specified
in this proposal by Maguire Iron, 3. South Dakota Workers Compensation and other
benefits have taken a big rise over the summer.
M/S/P Mottaz/Johnston - to award the contract to Maguire Iron, Inc. accepting the
alternate low bid price of $11,775 for the work to be completed prior to June 15, 1995.
(Motion passed 5-0).
B. 509 Plan Amendment
VBWD has revised its Water Management Plan and distributed copies of the Final Draft
dated June, 1994 for review. The draft was referred to the City Engineer for review and
comment. The VBWD Board of Managers will accept comments until their meeting of
September 8, 1994. Larry Bohrer's review of the VBWD 509 Plan Revision is in his
memo dated September 2, 1994.
The council objected to the interpretation of how VBWD calculated flow rate across
community boundaries. Although the city feels the watershed district violated its own
rules by allowing the post -development discharge rate to reach the pre -development
discharge rate, the city agreed to accept the discharge from Olson Lake Estates Pond
as long as there would be no degradation of Olson Lake water quality. Of the four
discharge options listed for Olson Lake Estates Pond, the council felt the only
acceptable option was (b) Outlet to Lake Olson after treatment. The word "treatment" is
very general, and we would like a definition included. Lake Elmo expects remedial
measures will be done to correct the damage that has already been done to Olson
Lake. The only acceptable funding for improvements is a tax or assessment over the
area causing the problem. The council asked the Board to give serious consideration to
surface water contamination of ground water being addressed in the plan.
9. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: - None
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 13
10. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
Mayor John reported that the meeting on the TH 36 plan held on August 24, 1994 at
the Stillwater Senior H.S. was well attended with people from Lake Elmo and Grant
Township. There was lot of input from people from Grant Township in relation to Lake
Elmo Avenue and Hwy 36 mainly because of the off ramps and on ramps to the north
which would go to the businesses or which alternatively could go through the back
yards of various homes. Some people felt it desirable to close off the interchange
completely as far as access north is concerned. It was concluded that the public would
need another meeting so these issues can be resolved. No date has been established.
11. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
A. Resolution No. 94-26 Temporary Liquor License for Fall Festival:Guardian
Angels Church
N/S/P Johnston/John - to adopt Resolution No. 94-26, approving the application from
the Church of Guardian Angels for the issuance of a Temporary On -sale Intoxicating
Liquor License for the Fall Festival on September 17 & 18, 1994. (Motion passed 5-0).
B. Resignation of Louise Friedrich from Heritage Preservation
M/S/P Mottaz/Johnston - to accept the resignation of Louise Friedrich from the Heritage
Preservation Commission and direct the staff to advertise the vacancy and to send the
council's thanks to Ms. Friedrich for her service to the commission. (Motion passed 5-
0).
C. Use of City Planner to draft PUD Ordinance using models from Eden Prairie,
Woodbury, Chanhassen and Lake Elmo for the Planning Commission
Administrator Kueffner will write a memo with reasons why the City Council repealed
the PUD ordinance and sent it on to the PZ.
M/S/P Johnston/Johnson - to table this request until we have sufficient background
information and cost estimate from the Planner (Motion passed 5-0).
•M/S/P Mottaz/Conlin - to adjourn the council meeting at 12:20 p.m. (Motion passed 5-
0).
--------------------------
Resolution No. 94-25 approving the proposed 1994 tax levy $985,925 collectible in
1995 and setting date Tuesday, November 29,1 994, 7 p.m., for public hearing
Resolution No. 94-26 approving temporary liquor license for Fall Festival:Guardian
Angels Church
Ordinance 8104 reducing size of Planning Commission to 7 full voting members and 2
alternates
Warren E, Peterson PE-T `RSQ T
Jerome P. Witt
Trlla .___.._.______ ___ ... A_-_�___.-__.._
Daniel Witt Tram 7—����1, � � --7---�-----^•-7��- ,,ii 7�
Glenn A.Bergman
FR 11V1.'�,.-a;• BERGMAN
LA �T
John Michael Miller l LLJJi� \,.1.t V 1L it V
Timothy 1. Hassett'
Michael T. oberle
Kenneth A. Amdahl
September 2, 1994
Mary Kueffner
City Administrator
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: Federal Land Development Proposal
Our File No.: 11150/930006
Mary:
Suite 300
50 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-1197
(612) 291-8955
(612) 228-1753 facsimile
Melvin J. Silver, of Counsel
By correspondence dated April 7, 1987, the Federal Land
Company submitted a Development Proposal for the northwest quadrant
of Interstate 94 and County Road 19. Federal Land Company simply
attached a copy of the 1980 Development Proposal to a 1987
Application Form.
On September 1, 1987, the Lake Elmo City Council adopted
Resolution No. 87-46 denying the Federal Land Company's request for
approval for a Planned Unit Development because the City found that
the proposal was inconsistent with the City's development policies
as contained in its 1979 and 1986 Comprehensive Plans.
On February 23, 1988, the City was sued by the Federal Land
Company. Attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B was a copy of the
1980 Development Proposal. The Complaint states that in 1987, the
Federal Land Company requested the City to reconsider the 1980
application and requested the Court to require the City to allow
Federal Land Company to use their land as proposed in their 1980
Application.
In its Amended Order dated July 9, 1991, the District Court
states that the Federal Land Company is entitled to resubmit their
application to the City for consideration under the 1979
Compre ensive Plan. Based upon the content of the 1987
Application, the content of the pleadings contained in the Federal
Land Company's Complaint and on the content of the District Court's
Order of February 2, 1991, it is my opinion that the District Court
clearly limited the Federal Land Company's option to a resubmittal
of the 1980 Development Application. Any other interpretation is
only possible if you assume that the Court intended to grant more
relief than was requested by the Federal Land Company.
•REAL PROPERLY LAW SPECIALIST. CERTIFIED BY 1'HE REAL PROPERTY LAW SECTION OF'THE MINNESOTASTATE BAR ASSOCIA116N.
Mary Kueffner
September 2, 1994
Page 2
A reasonable comparison of the 1980 and 1994 Development
Proposals indicates that the 1994 Proposal is substantially
different in scope and intensity from the 1980 Application. For
this reason, it has been my advice to the City that the District
Court Order does not require the City to judge the 1994 Application
by the standards contained in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan.
In my judgment, an additional relevant action has been taken
since the District Court's Order. The City has, in fact, completely amended the 1979 version of its Comprehensive Plan. The District Court did not prevent the City from taking further
legislative action which could affect the development rights of
Lake Elmo property owners.
The Federal Land Company has now requested tAat the City
review its 1994 Application based upon the standards contained in
the 1979 Comprehensive Plan; and has further requested that its
1994 Application be reviewed by the standards contained in the 1990
version of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The former action seems
unnecessary in light of the District Court decision. However, the
applicant is entitled to a decision from the City Council on that
issue.
It seems to me that the City can decide whether to process the
application in that manner pursuant to the 1979 Comprehensive Plan.
If it chooses to proceed, the 1979 standards would apply. If it
chooses not to proceed, it could simply state its reasons and
proceed to review the application pursuant to the standards
contained in the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. In this way, I believe
the applicant could obtain a decision from the City Council which
could be reviewed in one action before the District Court if the
applicant so chooses.
JPF:bap
Very truly yours,
Jerome P. Filla
Smce the City Council does not have time to discuss every point presented, It may appear that decisions are
preconceived. However, staff provides background information to the City Connell on each agenda Item in
Advance, and decisions are based on this information and experiences. In addition, some items may have
been discussed at previous council meetings.
If you are aware of information that has not been discussed, please rill out a "Request to Appear Before the
City Council" form; or, if you came late, raise your hand to be recognized. Comments that are pertinent are
appreciated. Items may be continued to a future meeting if additional time is needed before a decision can
be made.
AGENDA
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 9,1994
7:00 p.m. Meeting Convenes
Pledge of Allegiance
1. Agenda
2. Minutes: August 9,1994
August 15,1994
August 16,1994
August23,1994
3. Claims
4. Public Inquiries! Public informational
A. Public Inquiries
B. Other
5.Old Business
A. Metro East Partnership
B. Martin Colon: Appeal to Board of Adjustment and
Appeals (continuation)
C. Valley Branch Watershed Vacancy
D. Resolution 94 lncreaseing Impound fees.
E.Other
G. Staff Reports
A. Resolution 94_ approving the proposed 1994 Tax
Levy, and setting date ofr public heating for proposed
budget. (Finance Director)
B. Other
OVER
7. Planning, Land Use & Zoning
A. Recommendation from Parks Commission on
Playground Equipment at DeMontreville Park
B. Appeal, Hearing to Administrative Decision
Thomas G. Armstrong, Thomas P. Armstrong, Jodi
Armstrong (Low -Cost Storage)
C. Public Hearing: Site and Plan Review Lampert Yards
9220 Hudson Blvd.
D. Site and Plan Review. River valley Christian Church
E. Front yard definition in Shoreland District
F. Ordinance 81. : Park land dedication in wetlands
or fioodplain
G. Ordinance 81-_: Composition of Planning
Commission
R Leonard Hanson (continuation)
L Other
8. City Engineer's Report
A. Bid for water tower painting
B. 509 Plan Amendment
C. Other
9. City Attorney's Report
10. City Council Reports
A. Mayor John
B. Council member Conlin
C. Council member Johnson
D. Council member Johnston
E. Council member Mottaz
11. Clty Administrator's Report
A. Resolution 94-_ Temporary Liquor License for Fail
Festival: Guardian Angels Church
B. Resignation of Louise Friedrich from Heritage Preservation
C. Other
12. Adjourn
SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 LADE ELMO COUNCIL MEETING
List of Claims for Approval
for the period 09102/94 to 09/02/94 09/02/94
CLAIM
TOTAL
ACCOUHr
ACCOUNT
TO WHOM PAID
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DATE NUMBER
CLAIM
RUN BER
AMOUNT
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
ANNUAL DUES
09/02/94 2966
3,379.00
100-41300-433
3,379.00
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES
SEPTEMBER INSURANCE PREMIUM
09/02/94 2967
3,166.72
100-41500-130
1,756.93
100-42400-130
418.11
160-43100-130
991.68
MINN. BENEFIT ASSN.
SEPTEMBER INSURANCE PREMIUM
09/02/94 2968
582.30
100-11500-130
72.12
100-43100-00
510.18
ALLIED GROUP INSURANCE TRUST
SEPTEMBER INSURANCE PREMIUM
09/02/94 2969
62.82
100-41500-130
34.17
100-42400-130
15.10
100-43100-130
13.55
BINDER PRINTING CO.
BUSINESS CARDS & ENVELDPES
09/02/94 2970
218.33
100-41500-200
170.40
FOUR SEASONS SERVICES
OFFICE EXPENSE
09/02194 2971
38,24
100-41300-216
100-11500-400
47.93
38.24
D.C. HEY CO.
COPY MACHINE MAINTENANCE CHARGE
09/02/94 2972
244.58
100-41510-200
244.58
GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
09/02/91 2973
223.64
100-41500-200
223.64
A T & T
OFFICE TELEPHONE EXPENSE
09/02/94 2974
95.22
100-41500-320
95.22
STILLWATER GAZETTE
LEGAL PUBLICATIONS
69/02/94 2975
331.00
100-41500-351
331.00
AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY
OFFICE BLDG MAINT
09/02194 2976
56.00
100-41500-400
56.08
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
AUGUST UTILITIES
09/12/94 2977
1,895.06
101-41540-380
263.34
104-42200-380
113,41
108-43100-380
113.52
100-43160-380
765.58
100-45208-380
123.86
601-49440-380
501,66
A T & T
602-49450-380
23.70
FIRE & MAINT TELEPHONE EXPENSE
09/02/94 2978
48.63
100-42200-320
19.55
U. S. WEST
A06UST TELEPHONE EXPENSE
09/02/94 2979
463.21
100-43100-320
100-41500-320
29.08
234.03
100-42200-320
105.01
108-43100-320
61.10
BUSINESS RECORDS CORP.
ELECTION SUPPLIES
09/02194 2980
37.41
100-45204-320
100-41110-203
63.07
37.41
MICHAEL SMITH
AUGUST ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER
09/02/94 2981
800.00
100-42700-110
800.00
CITY OF NORTH ST PAUL
ANIMAL CONTROL VEHICLE USAGE
09/62/94 2982
165.Of
100-42700-415
165.00
F.X.L., INC.
ASSESSOR MONTHLY SALARY
09/02/94 2983
1,300.80
109-41554-300
1,300.00
DISPATCH COMMUNICATIONS OF ON
BLDG INSP RADIO IN VEHICLE
09/02/94 2984
44.25
100-42466-331
44.25
STILLWATER FORD
BLDG INSP VEHICLE OIL CHANGE
09/02/94 2986
18.54
100-42400-331
13,54
ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT CO.
FIRE DEPT TRUCK REPAIR
09/02/94 2986
21.18
100-42290-220
21.18
NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL TRUCK
FIRE DEPT TRUCK EXPENSE
09/02/94 2967
20.83
100-42200-220
20.83
NORTHERN DOOR CO„ INC.
FIRE DEPT STATION 1 DOOR REPAIR
09/02/94 2988
107.45
100-42200-401
107.45
CELLULAR ONE
FIRE DEPT TELEPHONE EXPENSE
09/02/94 2989
11.06
100-42200-320
11.06
JAMES SACHS
FIRE DEPT MAY & JUNE RUN REPORTS
09/02/94 2990
174.25
100-42200-200
174.25
FIRE CHIEFS CONFERENCE
DICK & JIM SACHS-ROCHESTER CONFER.
09/02/94 2991
210.00
100-42209-207
210.00
TRUCK UTILITIES
MAINT DEPT TRUCK EXPENSE
09/02/94 2992
8.25
100-43100-221
8.25
T.R. SCHIFSKY & SONS
BLACKTOP PATCHING
09/02/94 2993
85.29
106-43100-407
85.29
BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS
STREET GRAVEL & PARKS AG -LIME
09/02194 2994
422.63
100-43100-228
313.72
COPY CAT PRINTING-STILLWATER
MAINT ID TAGS
09/02/94 2995
27.68
100-45200-219
100-43100-223
103.91
1Y AUTO PARTS
MAINT DEPT TRUCK REPAIR
09/02194 2996
14.66
100-43100-221
27.68
14.66
MLrNESOTA BOLT & NUT CO.
MAINT DEPT TRUCK REPAIR
09/02/94 2997
24.22
108-43100-223
24.22
TNT INC -
MAINT DEPT 90 TRK DOT INSP
09/02/94 2998
46.44
100-43100-211
46.44
THE AMERICAN STORES
MAINT DEPT EQUIPMENT REPAIR
09/02/91 2999
31.33
100-43100-221
34.38
GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD
MAINT DEPT SUPPLIES
09102194 3009
25.70
100-43100-223
25.70 -
MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT, INC.
MAINT DEPT TRUCK REPAIRS
09/02/94 3091
21.96
100-43100-221
21.96
SEPTEMBER 6th - Page 2
List of Claims for Approval
For the period 09/02/94 to 09/02/94 09/02/94
CLAIM
TOTAL
ACCOUNT
ACCOUNT
TO WHOM PAID
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DATE
NUMBER
CLAIM
NUMBER
AMOUNT
GLOBE AMERICAN TOOL SUPPLY
MAINT DEPT - DRILL
09/02J94
TOO
207.36
100-43100-223
207.36
CARLSON EQUIPMENT CO.
PARKS DEPT SUPPLIES
09/02/94
3003
20.82
100-45200-219
20.82
MENAROS
PARKS DEPT SUPPLIES -BENCHES
09/02/94
3004
281.54.
100-43100-223
-92.56
ROAD RESCUE INC
PARKS & FIRE SUPPLIES
09/02194
3005
137.96
100-45200-219
100-45200-221
374.11
135.61
100-42200-217
2.35
EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC.
MAINT-SIGNS & PARKS DRINKING FOUNT.
09/02/94
3006
1,567.56
100-43100-226
177.86
803-45200-219
1,389.70
"JIMMY'S JOHNNY'S"
6 PORTABLE TOILETS
09102/94
3007
336.44
100-45200-386
336.44
MENAROS-KELLER LAKE
COPPER TUBING -WATER DEPT
09/02/94
3008
82.87
601-49400-400
82.87
JEFFREY J. RONDEAU
REIMB,FOR WATER REPAIR-8879 36 St
09/02194
3009
397,14
601-49400-400
397.14
ARMSTRONG FARMS
REFUND ESCROW & CUP AMEND COSTS
09/02194
3010
600.00
100-41500-200
100.00
803-41500-200
500.00
TOTAL FOR MONTH
TOTAL YEAR TO DATE
18,057.62 18,057.62
18,067.62 18,057.62
-o t
From: Jeffrey J Rondeau Aug 27, 1994
8819 36 St N
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
To: City of Lake Elmo
Re: History of water leak at 8879 36 St N and request for reimbursment of repair cost.
About the beginning of July I began to hear the sound of water running when in the basement. The water meter
wheel was not turning and when the water was turned off at the meter the sound of running water continued.
I called Lake Ehno Public Works, they promptly sent out a man to investigate. He too heard the sound of running
water in the basement even though the meter wheel was not turning. He then turned off the water at the street and
the sound stopped. This caused us to suspect a leak between the street and the meter. Since there was no evidence
of water on the ground outside he suggested waiting until then to dig and repair the leak.
A couple of weeks passed and still there was no sign of water on the surface outside but the sound of running
water was getting louder.
On August 3rd I arrived home from work to find a note on my door from Dan Olinger of LE Public Works
stating that he would dig the following morning at the valve by the street to repair the leak. That evening I decided
to do some troubleshooting of my own to see if the leak was indeed at the valve. I dug with a posthole digger at
the valve and by the house where the water enters at the foundation. I dug to a depth of 5 feet at both locations.
At the valve the dirt was damp from about 6 inches all the way down to 5 feet (there'd been no rain in about two
weeks). At the house the dirt was dry down to about 4 feet then it got very wet down to about 5 feet.
Knowing that Dan was coming to dig at the valve the following morning I left him a note on the ground near the
valve stating that I suspected the leak to be near the house.
On arriving home from work on the August 4th I saw that no digging had taken place so I called Dan to find out
why. He said that he could not dig near the house with his backhoe because it was too big to work between the
the evergreens that are near the house. The evergreens were tied back just as. they were when the water was
originally installed using a large backhoe on the back of a tractor.
So, not wanting to have the water leaking nest to the foundation any longer, I decided to rent a backhoe and dig
it myself. On Saturday, August 6th, I rented a small backhoe from Action Rental of Stillwater and dug near the
house to reveal the water pipe. Right next to the house was a fitting that was leaking alot and about 4 feet from
the house was another fitting which was leaking a little. I took apart the fitting near the house to find that the flare
had been eroded away by the water on one side (flare is included with this letter). This fitting was also not very
tight. With this fitting taken apart I was able to grip the pipe with my hand and turn it as the fitting that was 4 feet
from the house was loose. I attempted a fix but was not successful so I called a plumber.
Copies of all receipts are attached. Not included in the total is about 12 hours of my own time spent on digging,
repairing, and filling in the hole.
Bachhoe $117.15
Parts $29.99
Plumber $250.00
Total $397.14
Name & Address of Lessee Address Where Equip.
/' IS)
1, will be used
Lease I 0, 2
R-530-390-44
J6FFREY J 0 S
9879 36TLi ST
LAKE ELgO 14N
ACTION RENTAL
Stillwater, Minn.
PH R I. 0 O H A I 9 5 H 439.6592
0"IJEAU
fr
5042
i 3 - ;9 GRP1 5-11 1170
Phone 0
Phone M
Date Out ' �� _ / `i Time Out
Date Due �' (r% '�7 Time Due I �" `� /�/�/Cust. Int.-
Data In � � �-�- Time In / � , ✓/�;'h ��.r"� /
DESCRIPTION OF GOODS
RATE
HOUR
MIN.
HOURS
4HR.
RATE
DAY
RATE
WEEK
MONTH
weposn &„err
Rent •�� ,'r1 r'ir �%�� �,i�l.._ , '41 j ci --V
Del. Charge
Sale Item r
Cleaning Charge
SUBTOTAL —
Sales Tax i
Total Charges ) �),. ;/ �� Customer Returns Full of Fuel
Balance Due or Refund Customer Responsible for Flat Tires Int.
THERE WILL BEAN EXTRA CHARGE FOR ITEMS RETURNED DIRTY
TERMS & CONDITIONS OF LEASE
The signatory(s) (hereinafter "Lessee") hereto hereby certify that as of the date and hour above written we have received from Action
Rentals (hereinafter "Lessor") the goods described In this Lease under the following terms and conditions:
1. THAT THE DESCRIBED GOODS WILL BE USED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE GOODS WERE MANUFACTURED
ANDINTENDED.
2. Thai time Is the essence of this lease and the lease period and rent shall not cease until the goods are returned In the same condition as
received, ordinary wear and depreciation excepted, at the place of business of Action Rentals, and shall start at the acceptance of the goods
by Lessee. -
3. THAT LESSEE HAS EXAMINED THE GOODS AND THAT THE SAME ARE IN GOOD CONDITION AND REPAIR, AND LESSEE
ACKNOWLEDGES ADEQUATE INSTRUCTIONS IN OPERATION OF THE GOODS.
4. That the Lessee will Immediately discontinue the use of said goods and notify the Lessor upon discovery of an unsafe condition and permit
Lessor to substitute safe goods In good repair.
5. That Lessee agrees to pay all charges In advance as well as any additional charges on the "due date" and further agrees that all equipment
lost or damaged beyond repair will be paid for by Lessee at replacement cost. Repairable goods will be repaired by Lessor and Lessee will
pay the cost thereof, plus twenty percent (20%) for overhead., on demand to Lessor. In the event that Lessor must resort to his legal
remedies to enforce any term or condition of this lease, Lessee agrees to pay Lessor's reasonable collection fees including court costs and
attorneys fees. -
6. That this lease can not be extended without written permission of Lessor.
7. That Lessee agrees to ASSUME ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE REASONABLE VALUE OF THE GOODS FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE
DUE TO THEFT, FIRE, ACCIDENT OR NEGLECT and will pay the "cleaning charge" If the equipment is returned In a dirty condition.
FURTHER, LESSEE WILL HOLD LESSOR HARMLESS FROM ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM THE USE OF
THE GOODS and that the goods will be used only by the persons designated herein and Lessee will allow no other person to use the
goods without written permission of Lessor. LESSEE EXPRESSLY PROMISES LESSOR THAT THE GOODS WILL NOT BE OPERATED
BY LESSEE OR ANY PERMITTED PERSON WHILE SAID OPERATOR IS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR ILLEGAL
SUBSTANCE.
8. That Lessor may report the goods as stolen at any time that conditons may reasonably indicate theft.
9. That the goods will not be removed from the premises of Lessee without written permission of Lessor.
10. That Lessee convenants and promises that the goods will not be used in any competitive circumstances and specifically, IF THE GOODS
ARE SELF-PROPELLED OR USED IN ANY WAY WITH SELF-PROPELLED GOODS, THEY WILL NOT BE RACED.
Lessee hereby agrees to all of the above Terms and Conditions and acknowledges receipt of a copy of this agreement and
disclosure of Its terms.
Signature of Lessee(s) (?"A./t Date '--�
Ta
Address L L7 9
City
Termer ^�
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ULTEIG ENGINEERS, iNc.
5201 EAST RIVER ROAD, SUITE WS MINNEAPOLIS, MN 65421
September 1, 1994
Mr. Dan Krell
Lampert Yards, Inc.
9220 Hudson Blvd.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Re. Lampert Yards, Lake Elmo, MN - Drainage Issues
Dear Mr. Krell:
I
PHONE 612-6 Jt-2600 1,
FAX612-6J1.11B8 ', I
3Ep 6 1494
As we discussed with Mr. Jack Dolan of Dolan's Marine
yesterday, several independent steps to affect drainage on
the Lampert Yards' property have been suggested. These
steps, as outlined below, would serve to 1) further direct
runoff from the north storage area into the existing pond,
2) reduce the velocity of the runoff near the existing catch
basin just south of the pond, thereby reducing the erosion of
gravel and silt which has reportedly caused the area near the
catch basin to overflow on occasion, 3) limit any runoff from
Lampert Yards' property from going beyond their west property
line.
Item number 1 above would be achieved through establishment
of a Swale along the drainage path which would lead to the
pond. Portions of the north storage area, which now bypasses
the pond would be routed through the pond. This would
greatly reduce runoff volumes leading to the first catch
basin south of the pond. In addition, establishment of more
vegetation along the slopes of the drive leading to the north
storage area would decrease any erosion of those slopes.
Item number 2 above could be achieved by reducing the slope
of the gravel immediately adjacent to the catch basin in
question. This slope reduction would limit runoff velocities
below scour velocities which now appear to carry gravel, sand
and silt to the catch basin and plug it up on occasion. When
the catch basin were to plug up, the area would pond and
ultimately overflow to the west, toward Dolan's Marine. As
Mr. Dolan stated in our meeting yesterday, he observed the
area of this catch basin during a recent heavy storm, and the
catch basin functioned normally, without the presence of
aggregate blocking it up. He felt there was no problem with
overflow until a blockage took place.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Lampert Yards, Inc. Drainage Issues UEI Project No. 94829
September 1, 1994
Item number 3 above, limiting runoff from going west of the
west property line, toward Dolan's, would be accomplished
using a bituminous shoe curb along those areas which could
affect the Dolan's property, namely, where the existing
contour permits Lampert Yards' runoff to progress to the
Dolan's Marine building.
A second condition of this was discussed with Mr. Dolan,
where the drainage along that property line could be directed
in an extension to the Swale which appears to exist beyond
the property line. The area the swale is most needed is just
south of the northeast corner of the marine storage building,
continuing south about 150 feet. From there, an existing
swale appears to carry runoff down to Hudson Blvd. Mr. Dolan
agreed that the existing trees along this property line are
of no special interest, and could be removed if adequate
erosion control measures were implemented. We discussed
placement of a wood fiber blanket with seeding and mulching
to accomplish proper erosion control in the area of the
proposed swale.
The work on item 1 will take place as soon as Lampert's
contractor can schedule it, perhaps as soon as September 3,
1994. Item 2 will be performed similarly, work being done by
a different contractor. Item 3 would be performed as part of
the construction of the Phase I building, with the scope yet
to be decided. Final comment from Mr. Dolan and the City of
Lake Elmo are forthcoming.
If in reviewing the above, you wish to make any additional
comments or have questions, please contact me.
sincerely,
Charlie F. Melcher, P.E.
Project Engineer
CFM
cc. Mr. Jack Dolan, Dolan's Marine
Mr. Jerry Pelletier, Sierra Construction Co.
Ms. Mary Kueffner, City of Lake Elmo
Mr. Bob Ungerman, Lampert Yards, Inc.
Page 2
RLK
ASSOCIATES LTD.
•r
MEMORANAUM
DATE: August 26, 1994
TO: Lake .Elmo Planning Commission
cc: Mary Kuefner, City Administrator
FROM: Jeff Smyser
SUBJECT: Revisions for Site and Building Plan Review of
River Valley Christian Church
922 Mainstreet
Hop!<ins, Mn.
55343
(612) 933-o972
fdv MI t n. - .
Information regarding the River Valley Christian Church project was received after the
August 16 report to the Planning Commission was distributed. This memo explains three
revisions to the report: a clarification, a correction, and an additional condition for
approval based upon the City Engineer's report A revised project review memo is
attached, dated August 26.
1 ri 1 11' The fixture building addition is not part of the'project Site and Building Plan
Review. No information beyond a building footprint was submitted for review.
Therefore, no information regarding the future addition is included in the project review,
rr- i : The correct floor area total for the church building is 13,560 square feet.
Additional,Condition: The City Engineer's report indicates that the drainage and
storrnwater plan requires revision. Condition #10 has been added to the project revito
ensure that a revised drainage plan is submitted for review and must be approved prior to ew
project permits being issued.
• Civil Enginegring . Transportation
Architecture .
• Infrastructure Redevelopment
River Valley Church
August 26, 1994
page 3
It is noteworthy that the site plan and the grading plan show the parking lot in different
locations. On the grading plan, the parking lot is displaced approximately 20 feet south
from its location on the site plan.
The City code requires that parking stalls be not less than 10, x 20'. Th25 tahe
are 9' x 18'. Planting islands are required for lots designed for more than e Stalls
plan
cars.11s on the
least 10% of the parking area must be devoted to these planting islands. The parking lot
Plan must be redesigned to meet these requirements.
The access drive to CSAH 17 will require the appropriate permits from Washington
County. It is suggested to the applicant that the access drive be ,moved to connect with
the northern part of the parking lot rather than the southern entpart. This would improve
circulation for vehicles dropping off passengers at the front
Parking. This becomes especially iry the church before
T important for special events such as weddings, for
elderly churchgoers, and in cold weather. Moving the access drive may Of the holding pond slightly, affect the design
The design of the passenger drop-off point should also facilitate easy vehicle circulation to
and from the building entry. As currently shown, a vehicle would have
abarely 20 feet of
pavement to make a 90 degree turn after dropping off passengers at the building entrance.
The landscaping plan does not provide adequate line of sight down CS 17: the shrubs
are too close to the end of the drive and would interfere with the view of the road. This
must be corrected, From a point 50 feet from the CSAH right-of-way, a line drawn at a
45-degree angle back to the road clef
placed. nes the area in which no obstruction should be
SIR: A sign is indicated on the site plan at the comer of Tq 36 information regarding type or size of the sign is offered. and CSAH I7. No This sign location meets the
requirement that it must not impede vision within 100 feet of the intersection on a corner
lot. All signs must meet the requirements of the sign ordinance and the appropriate
Permits must be obtained.
Solis: Soils on the site are classified by the Washington County Soil Survey as silty loam,
which has good potential as a building site but poor quality for on site septic systems. In
addition, special precautions may be necessary to protect paving from frost damage. Plans
for the project indicate sites for percolation tests and soil borings. The results of th
tests should be submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer. ese
Aiahwav lnterchanFe R11 ; highway ramp alternatives in the TH. 36Access Plan
show a partial -access interchange at Hwy. 36 and Lake Elmo Ave, The applicant has
contacted MnDOT about possible effects on the project site (see attached memo from
MnDOT file).
. LandsCape ArCnrlecw. _ - - -
River Valley Church
August 26, 1994
page 4
The City Planner followed up with a phone call to WDOT on August 8. IV1nDOT staff
explained that the TH. 36 Access Plan is a long-range, conceptual plan to provide
guidance for the time when congestion on TH 36 must be addressed. MnDOT has not
programmed any construction of interchange ramps at the subject intersection. The
intention of the plan is that the affected communities would address the highway access
needs in their comprehensive plans. To date, the issue of the preferred interchange design
is not resolved in the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. A meeting is scheduled in late
August at the Lake Elmo City Hail to discuss the TH 36 plan.
Thus, at this time, there are no current access ramp plans that would impede the River
Valley Church project.
Landscaninp: Site and building plan review requirements include a landscaping plan with
specified components. The landscaping plan submitted is minimal. The submittal should
include at least a cost estimate of the landscaping before final construction permits are
granted. The value of the landscaping must meet the minimum percentage of the total
project value.
The site currently is wooded along the property border formed by the TH 36 right-of-way.
A number of trees will be lost to the project. It is suggested that the minimum number of
trees should be affected.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Site and Building Plan Review be approved contingent upon the
following items being corrected or submitted and approved:
1. The easement issues must be clarified. This should include:
a) Applicant must submit a certificate of survey from a registered land surveyor. This
can be required before a building permit is granted and is an appropriate means of
resolving the easement issue for site plan approval.
b) Applicant must verify if any other easement exists on the property besides the NSP
easement. This should be included in the certificate of survey.
c) Applicant must supply proof of permission from NSP for construction in the NSP
easement.
2. The location of the parking lot on the property must be verified and consistent on all
plans.
3. _Parking stalls must be 10' x 20' according to the parking code.
4. Planting islands that cover 10% of the parking area must be included.
4. Access permits, if necessary, from Washington County must be obtained for the access
drive.
4
River Valley Church
August 26, 1994 '
page 5
6. Shrubs on the access drive must not impede vision from or of a point 50' from the
right-of-way.
7. Signs must meet the requirements of the sign ordinance.
8. Percolation and soil boring tests must be approved by the City Engineer.
9. Landscape values must meet the minimum percentage of the total project value
requirements of the City code.
10. A revised drainage and stormwater plan must be reviewed for approval by the City
Engineer prior to issuance ofa building permit.
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 25
F
I
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED 1994 TAX LEVY,
COLLECTIBLE IN 1995. AND SETTING DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
FOR PROPOSED BUDGET.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo,
County of Washington, Minnesota, that the following sums of
money be proposed to be levied for the current year,
collectible in 1995, upon the taxable property in the, City
of Lake Elmo, for the following purposes:
General Fund $ 985,925
Levy $ 985,925
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing for the
Proposed Property Taxes for 1995 be held on Tuesday,
November 29, 1994, at 7:00 p.m.
The city clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified
copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Washington
County, Minnesota.
ADOPTM by the City Council on September 6, 1994.
ATTEST:
Mary Xuef"fnex(; City Administrator
WASHINGTON COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR -TREASURER
PAYABLE 1995 TRUTH IN TAXATION
HEARING DATE CERTIFICATION
17 ] Ti5I.1
Taxing District Name: CITY OF LAKE ELMO
Public Hearing Date:
Time of meeting:
Place of meeting:
Continuation Date:
Tuesdav, November 29 1994
7:00 P.M.
Lake Elmo Council Chambers
3800 Laverne Avenue No. -Lake Elmo
December 6 1994
The "Notice of Proposed Property Tax" sent to each taxpayerno longer contains information about where
to send comments and/or review a copy of yourproposed budget. Please provide us with a contact
name and phone number to whom we may refer specific taxpayer questions:
Name or Title: Marilyn Banister
Address: 3800 Laverne Ave, No.
Lake Elmo, T_7TI 55042
Phone number: 777, 551 0
Signature of person
completing this form:
Title: Finance' Director
Phone number: 777-5510
Date: September 7, 1994 .
WASHINGTON COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR —TREASURER
CITY OF LADE ELMO
TAXING DISTRICT NAME
PAYABLE 1995 TRUTH IN TAXATION
PROPOSED LEVY CERTIFICATION
FORM 6
Expenditure.:
Category
General Revenue
Budget
Requirement
A
s 1,175, 40G
Pro a Tax Aids
Other
Resources.
IR
s
_.Certified Levy .
(E=A—B—C—D)
fi )
LGA
fa)
s 4,487
HACA
(�"
s 184,988
s 985,925 -
Debt Service Total "
Road and Bridge
Other (identify)
Total Is
1,175, 400
a 4,487
s 184,988
s
s 985,925
--.......-•=•.o.,..a..,_. " w, avawvnw sneer
Market Value Based Referendum Lev
A-Sudget Requirement ......................................... Amount needed to fund services. -
8-LGA (Local Government Aid) ... „............................ These aids as certified to the taxing district by the Department of Revenue. They can be used
C-HACA (Homestead & Ag Credit Aid) ........... ....... ..... to reduce any budget item levy requirement combination of items or be deducted proportionally
from all levy requirements.
0-Other Resources .................. ......... ..:............ ....... ... All other resources that will be used to finance your taxing districts budget Including but not limited
to other aids, Interest income, prior year reserves, grants; etc.
E-Certified Levy...,._......„..............„......_......„.............Levy certified to the county auditor. ROUND TO THE NEAREST WHOLE DOLLAR. DO NOT CERTIFY
PENNIES. The Auditor -Treasurer's office will deduct Fiscal Disparities from all certified levies.
Before signing, please verify the following:
• MAKE SURE THAT ALL LINES ADD ACROSS AND ALL COLUMNS ADD UP TO THE.TOTAL LINE
• BREAKDOWN OF DEBT SERVICE LEVY BY INDIVIDUAL BOND HAS BEEN PROVIDED
• AMOUNTS REPORTED MATCH ANY OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION INCLUDED
(i.e., Certified Levy on this form matches amount on your taxing district's resolution, etc.)
Signature oerson completing form
Date 7
Tills
Finance Director
777-5510
Phone
Since the City Council does not have time to discuss every point presented, it may appear that decisions are
preconceived. However, staff provides background information to the City Council on each agenda item in
advance; and decisions are based on this information and experiences. In addition, some Items may have
been discussed at previous council meetings.
If you are aware of information that has not been discussed, please fill out a "Request to Appear Before the
City Council' form; or, if you came Into, raise your hand to be recognized. Comments that are pertinent are
appreciated. Items may be continued to a future meeting If additional time is needed before a decision can
be made.
AGENDA
LA U3 ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 6,1994
7.00 p.m. Meeting Convenes
Pledge of Allegiance
1. Agenda
2. Minutes: August 9,1994
August 15,1994
August 16,1994
August23,1994
3. Claims
4. Public Inquiries/ Public Informational
A, Public Inquiries
B. Other
5.Old Business
A. Metro East Partnership
B. Martin Colon: Appeal to Board of Adjustment and
Appeals (continuation)
C. Valley Branch Watershed Vacancy
D. Resolution 94• increaseing impound fees.
E. Other
6. Staff Reports
A. Resolution 94• approving the proposed 1994 Tax
Levy, and setting date ofr public hearing for proposed
budget. (Finance Director)
B. Other
OVER
7. Planning, Land Use A Zoning
A. Recommendation from Parks Commission on
Playground Equipment at DeMontreville Park F
q
B. Appeal Hearing to Administrative Decision
Thomas G. Armstrong, Thomas P. Armstrong, Jodi
Armstrong (Low•Cost Storage)
C. Public Hearing: Site and Plan Review Lampert Yards
9220 Hudson Blvd.
D. Site and Plan Review: River Valley Christian Church
E. Front yard definition in Shoreland District
F. Ordinance 81• : Park land dedication in wetlands
orfloodplain
G. Ordinance 81.�: Composition of Planning
Commission
H Leonard Hanson (continuation)
I. Other
& City Engineer's Report
A. Bid for water tower painting
B. 509 Plan Amendment
C. Other
9. City Attorney's Report
10. City Council Reports
A. Mayor John
B. Council member Conlin
C. Council member Johnson
D. Council member Johnston
E. Council member Mottaz
11. City Administrator's Report
A. Resolution 94_ Temporary Liquor License for Fail
Festival: Guardian Angels Church
B. Resignation of Louise Friedrich from Heritage Preservation
C. Other
12. Adjourn