Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-95 CCMMINUTES APPROVED: 3-21-95 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 9, 1995 Mayor John called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Lake Elmo Elementary School. PRESENT: Hunt, John, Johnston, DeLapp, and City Engineer Bohrer. ABSENT: Conlin. City Engineer Bohrer explained as a means of maintaining the city street system bituminous overlays are constructed to strengthen the street and seal off the cracks from water. He and Dan Olinger, Maintenance Foreman, determined that the following streets were ready to be overlaid. Because these reconditioned streets provide an improvement to abutting property, the cost is assessed. The council has followed the assessment method since 1993, that being each project is assessed separately, and the city pays 10% of the project cost for the overlays. The city also pays an assessment for city -owned property such as parks. For the streets that are actually ordered to be improved, there will be an assessment hearing after the work is completed, and the actual cost will be presented at that time. There are two options for paying an assessment: you can pay within 30 days after the close of that hearing or spread it over a number of years (3-5 years) collectible with the real estate taxes. Mayor John opened up the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. The public hearing notice for the street improvements was published in the February 24, 1995 and March 3, 1995 Stillwater Gazette and the March 8, 1995 Stillwater Gazette Extra. PROJECT 1 - 42nd Street - from Jamaca Avenue to Lake Jane Trail Est. Cost:$26,500 Assessable Units:22 , Est. Assessment Rate:$1,084 42nd Street is part of our Municipal State Aid (MSA) System. It qualifies for State Aid Construction or Maintenance Funds. It is in need of an overlay at this time and a 1-1/2" overlay is planned along with catch basin repair. Erik Broering, 8625 42nd St. N:, stated in 1991 when the water was installed they did considerable amount of damage to the road. Tom Jungmann, 8696 42nd St. N., stated the contractor damaged the road when water was installed and they should not be assessed a large percentage for a street that was damaged when they didn't receive any benefit because he couldn't hook up to the water. The contractor or city should be liable or the people on the water system should share in the improvement of the road. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 9, 1995 2 ( Steve Tkachuck, 8670 42nd St. N., stated you can see road tracks from the steel grader that was used. They are not responsible for picking up the damage of someone else's activities. The residents on the four cul-de-sacs cannot get to their home without using 42nd Street so the assessment should be spread among more homes. Jackie Pierre, 8780 42nd St. N., before they started to install the water this street was perfect. The contractor took hunks out of the curbing and never did patch the road up right. The people who put in the landfill should be responsible for the road improvement ---it was because of that landfill they had to put the water in. Larry Bohrer:When the water main project was completed the agreements were finally agreed upon between the city and the counties. The county made a lump sum contribution to the city in an amount of $25,000 to help offset some of the maintenance costs for a new water system. All of the guarantees have expired for this job and, this is the only contribution available. He would have to make an evaluation of the road --is the surface deteriorating, is the patch work more coarse, are there settlements from the watermains, or is there cracking due to not being able to withstand the load of the traffic. PROJECT 2 - Foxfire and Green Acres Subdivisions Est. Cost:$143,000 Assessable Units:92 Est. Assessment Rate:$1,399 Most roads within these subdivisions were built in the late 1970s and are over 15 years old. A 1-1/2" overlay is planned and catch basin repair is also included. Ron Krzmarzick, 5337 Jamaca Avenue N., lived here 9 years, and didn't see any patching and felt the road is in excellent condition. He hopes this road work isn't being done prematurely. Jim Coderre, 5020 Jamaca Avenue N., felt the road was in good condition and was wondering if this was a common policy to assess property owners versus a property tax increase or taken out of the gasoline tax. When work was done on Jamaca Avenue, the road workers worked after dark and there was a truck and pallets in the middle of the road. There are large trucks traveling out of the Shaefer Pit continuously, and he felt they should be assessed more because heavy trucks do more damage to the road. PROJECT 3 - Highlands Trail from Hilltop Avenue to DeMontreville Trail Est. Cost:$16,500 Assessable Units: 15 Est. Assessment Rate:$990 This road is over 15 years old. Hilltop Avenue was overlaid four years ago. A 1-1/2" overlay is planned. Some patching has been done on this street in the past. Catch basin repair is also included. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 9, 1995 3 Dan Coyle, 5430 Highlands Trail, when the cable company came through installing cable, I called the city to come out and look at the street because that is the reason why our road has deteriorated. Wherever they put cable boxes, they burrowed under the road and heaved the road and now at every spot it is cracked. After the city has fixed the spots that are bad, will you be coming out to inspect the road before it is overlaid. Larry Bohrer:Either the preparation would be done by the city crews or contracted. If the work is done by the city crews, that would be under the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Foreman Dan Olinger. If it is contracted out, it would be himself or one of his assistants with the contractor. When the overlays are done, they will be out there full time. Larry Feldhahn, 7898 DeMontreville Trail N., asked if the city would be buying a potential problem with the city doing the below work and the contractor doing the above work. On a large job like this, could you contract and get a good price for driveway work. Larry Bohrer: It has been my experience that the type of .contractor who gets this kind of work generally does not care to do private work. He would not have any objection to homeowners contacting the low bidder once he is known to see if they would be interested in doing that type of work. However, contractually requiring him to perform that work upon request would be ( difficult --he would not want to combine private work with public work. PROJECT 4 - Meyers Park Subdivision Est. Cost:$26,500 Assessable Units:29 Est. Assessment Rate:$822 Some work to improve drainage will be necessary on the 31st Street cul-de-sac. A 1- 1/2" overlay is planned. There is also a need to look at adding bituminous curb along some stretches of roadway where residents have placed timber curbs. The culvert in Laverne Court may need to be replaced. M/S/P Hunt/DeLapp - to accept the letter from Donald and Snowell Raleigh, 3074 Laverne Ct. N., supporting the street project to overlay Laverne Ct. N. because they feel the work is necessary and accept a letter from John and Lucille Zignego, 3081 Laverne Ct., supporting this project 100%. (Motion passed 4-0). Wes McCune, 3095 Lake Elmo Avenue N., my access is off Lake Elmo Avenue and I'm going to be assessed for what is on the backside of my lot which I cannot use as a driveway to access my home. I should not have to pay for this assessment because I don't derive any benefit. The city uses both (his and Rochelle's) of our properties for a drainage ditch. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 9, 1995 4 Rochelle McCune, 3107 Lake Elmo Avenue N., my driveway access is off Lake Elmo Avenue and the street behind me is not advantageous. There are two lots, but the one. is not a buildable lot. There is only one buildable lot which has the house on it, and we will only ever need one house on it. Larry Bohrer: This is an unique situation where you have a lot that is abutted by two sides of streets and you say there is no benefit to having a street from the other side. If this street project gets ordered, the council could look at those particular two lots to determine if there is any benefit at all. Craig Knoll, 3127 Laverne Ct. N., asked if there would be any curb work and how would we know we are getting the most for our money? There is a water entrapment problem at 31 st and Lake Elmo Avenue. I'm not questioning the need for the work to be done, the road is close to 30 years old. In my situation faced with this type of assessment over 3-5 years, I could not upgrade my driveway. Larry Bohrer:He is aware of the water problem, but there is no storm sewer in that vicinity. The corners are notorious for catching water. We can look at it and see what we can do. Jack Lee, 3084 Layton Ct., asked what would the interest charge be? Larry Bohrer:The city looks at what it would cost the city to borrow money to front end the project temporarily. There is some carrying charge on the part of the city. The city will look at the interest its paying, but believes there is an (up to) 8% interest limitation. Dave Olson, 3124 Layton Ct., asked if there are any thoughts when sewer is coming through. If sewer is eminent for the Old Village, would you delay this road Improvement. The street looks good, but there are some sections where the cul-de-sac was put in poorly. Will Christ Lutheran Church be assessed? Larry B'ohrer:I don't know of any plans at this time to make provisions for sewer. Even tax exempt property; such as, Christ Lutheran Church is subject to special assessment. PROJECT 5 - 32nd Street from Lake Elmo Avenue to Lampert Avenue Est. Cost:$6,500 Assessable Units:7.5 Est. Assessment Rate:$780 This is a narrow, rough street with considerable cracking and a 1-1/2" overlay is planned. Warren Schmidt, 3240 Lake Elmo Avenue N., I live on the corner lot and would raising the road make my yard a pond. The culvert under my driveway works fine now, but doesn't want water pushed into septic tank. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 9, 1995 Carol Crimmins, 11090 32nd St. N., between Mrs. Hosek (11120) and Huttons (11108) there use to be a culvert, but now the culvert is closed and tarred up. The culvert between Schmidt and Hosek is also closed up. This street was sealcoated in 1986 and we were assessed $40.05 so the road isn't that bad. Our driveways are done and are now smooth with the road. Would the overlay cause water to come down the street and into our driveways and yards? The ditch on the south side of 32nd St. needs to be open. The Ryder Bus Co. in Oakdale uses this street to train students to drive school buses. Why should we have to put up with this? If we have to put up with this, then Ryder Bus Co. should have to pay for the improvement of the road. Larry Bohrer:We will look into the culverts and the city will send an official letter to the Ryder Bus Co. PROJECT 6 - Proposed 38th Street between Laverne and Lake Elmo Avenue Est. Cost:$5,200 Assessable Units:2 Est. Assessment Rate:$2,600 It is proposed to upgrade the common driveways/parking lots between the Brookfield Building and the City Hall to their west property line. It is proposed that this area become a city street. Creating a road is proposed because this area already functions as a street. Maintenance and upkeep of the street would become the responsibility of the city. M/S/P Hunt/DeLapp - to accept the letter from John Zignego, Brookfield II, Lake Elmo Assoc. supporting this proposed project. (Motion passed 4-0). PROJECT 7 - Lake Jane Trail from 42nd Street to Jamaca Avenue Est. Cost:$30,000 Assessable Units:36.5 Est. Assessment Rate:$740 A 1-1/2" overlay is planned and culvert repair and./or replacement will also be done as necessary. Art Jacoby, 8680 Lake Jane Trail, pointed out Lake Jane Trail has very little traffic and loves the feel of Lake Elmo. If the road is improved, it would increase the traffic level. If the road is in better condition, it would increase the speed of traffic which we already have concerns about. It is a rural road and that is part of the charm of it. There are no potholes and the road is in good condition. We live on the lake and we pay a premium property tax as part of our contribution to the community. I would appreciate if the city would chose not to spend any money on a road improvement. He doesn't feel his lot, which is assessed one unit, is fair compared to the Hedges property which consists of 10 acres is also assessed one unit. Kathleen Gould, 8802 Lake Jane Trail, has been there 30 years and nothing has been done to the road. I am not against the project because it is good maintenance to keep the road in good shape. Paul Pallmeyer, 8989 Lake Jane Trail, if the road has lasted this long and is in good condition, why should we have to put another layer on it. Is there any possibility that we will get water along Lake Jane Trail? LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 9, 1995 6 Larry Bohrer:In the agreement between the two cities, the water ( cannot be extended unless it is approved by the City of Oakdale. It is very unlikely water would be brought to Lake.Jane Trail unless something unforeseen happens and there is water contamination. Once the potholes start to show up, it is too late because the blacktop has already cracked up and lost its strength that's there. Gary Schaubschlager, 8567 Lake Jane Trail, felt the road is in good condition and has a concern with the road being too nice there would be more cars ending in the ditch. PROJECT 8 - Jane Road from Lake Jane Trail to Jamaca Avenue Est. Cost:$27,000 Assessable Units:32 Est. Assessment Rate:$759 This road has cracking throughout its length. Spot overlays have been done in the past on this road. A 1-1/2" overlay is proposed. Jeff Leitch, 9025 Jane Road N., asked why are non -buildable lots on the lake (specifically along Jane Road N.) not being assessed something? Some of the unbuildable lots have recreational buildings on them and should share some of the burden. PROJECT 9 - Upper 33rd Street West of Lake Elmo Avenue Est. Cost:$16,500 Assessable Units:13 Est. Assessment Rate:$1,142. This street begins as bituminous near Lake Elmo Avenue and gradually becomes !, gravel near the west end. A 2" overlay is planned. A T-turnaround will be constructed on the west end of the road. M/S/P HunUDeLapp - to accept the letter from Mr. & Mrs. Eugene Markgraf, 11002 Upper 33rd St., opposing the road improvement because they do not need a race track on Upper 33rd St and would love to see a dead end street sign installed because they get big trucks turning around at the end of this street and damaging it. (Motion passed 4-0). PROJECT 10 - Alley between Layton Avenue and Laverne Avenue from 36th Street to Stillwater Boulevard Est. Cost:$8,500 Assessable Units:14 Est. Assessment Rate:$607 This is the only alley in the city which is used. The alley becomes very soft and muddy in the spring and is difficult for the staff to maintain. 2" of Class 5 gravel would be added to the existing gravel base and a 2" bituminous surface constructed. Because this would be the initial improvement to the alley, 100% assessment is proposed. LAKE ELMO CITY'COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 9, 1995 Dave Faint, 3617 Laverne Avenue N., is against proposal for several reasons. We have a water problem in our yard and have a concern of water in alley. Have no problem with the alley getting muddy. We have no drainfield in our yard. In the spring we have Pinky's come in twice to pump us out. The alley is much better since you dumped the recycled concrete rather than the Class 5. He voiced his concern of the alley becoming a speed way if improved. We are one of the three garages on the alley, and I don't see any benefit to me. Adrian Thompson, 3673 Laverne Avenue N., voiced concern the improved alley would become a speedway off of Highway 5. Have young children in the area and have a safety concern. Bill Wacker, 3603 Laverne Avenue N., lived there 23 years and has never complained on the gravel alley. The hard surface would make the water travel quicker. There are only 3 1/2 garages that actually use the alley and would benefit. If this project is done, he suggests consideration of alley become one way from S to N. and posted 10 mph. Elmer Dittmann, 3624 Layton Avenue N, was happy with the reprocessed gravel that was last used. Mayor John closed the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. M/S/P DeLapp/Hunt - to table this item until the March 21,1995 city council meeting. (Motion carried 4-0). M/S/P Johnston/Hunt - to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. (Motion passed 4-0). ------------- Respectfully submitted by Sharon Lumby, Deputy City Clerk NOTICE OF HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Lake Elmo, Minnesota, will meet at the Lake Elmo Elementary School at 7:00 p.m., on Thursday, March 9, 1995, to consider the making of an improvement on the following streets: PROJECT I - 42nd Street from Jamaca Avenue to Lake Jane Trail 2 - Foxfire and Green Acres Subdivisions 3 - Highlands Trail from Hilltop Avenue to DeMontreville Trail 4 - Meyers Park Subdivision 5 - 32nd Street from Lake Elmo Avenue to Lampert Avenue 6 - 38th Street (proposed) between Laverne and Lake Elmo Avenue 7 - Lake Jane Trail from 42nd Street to Jamaca Avenue 8 - Jane Road from Lake Jane Trail to Jamaca Avenue 9 - Upper 33rd St. West of Lake Elmo Avenue 10 - Alley between Layton Avenue and Laverne Avenue from 36th Street to Stillwater Blvd. pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed for such improvement is the property abutting on each street. The estimated cost of such improvement is $306,200. Such persons as desire to be heard with referenced to the proposed improvements will be heard at this meeting. Mary Kueffner, City Administrator Published in the February 24, 1995 and March 3, 1995 Stillwater Gazette and March 8, 1995 Stillwater Gazette Extra 3074 LAVERNE CT. NO. LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 March 8, 1995 Ms. Mary Kueffner City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue No. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Dear Mary: D UN LAKE ED--o I � IECCC��I'J MAR 8, 1995 We want you to know that we fully support the street project to overlay Laverne Ct. No. because we feel the work is necessary. Sincerely, Donald T. Raleigh Snowell Raleigh CITY OF LAKE ELMO City of Lake Elm© February 24, 1995 37482-2200 John Zignego 3081 Laverne Ct. Lake Elmo MN 55042 Dear Resident/Property Owner: 777-5510 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 The City of Lake Elmo is proposing to overlay Meyers Park Subdivision this summer. A copy of the public hearing notice relative to these proposed improvements is attached. We typically assess each buildable lot equally. Corner lots which abut two city streets are given a 1/2 assessment on each side. The estimated assessment for your street is $822.00/1-ot. If you have any questions or concerns regarding these improvements p for to the public hearing, please call City Hall at 777-5510. i G Sincerely, f Sharon Lumby Deputy City Clerk Ws %. printed on recyc!ed paper CITY OF LAKE ELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 February 24, 1995 37100-2250 For: Brookfield II Lake Elmo Assoc. 3880 Laverne Ave. N. Lake Elmo MN 55042 Dear Resident/Property Owner: The City of Lake Elmo is proposing to overlay 38th street (proposed) between Laverne and Lake Elmo Avenue this summer. A copy of the public hearing notice relative to these proposed improvements is attached. We typically assess each buildable lot equally. Corner lots which abut two city streets are given a 1/2 assessment on each side. The estimated assessment for your street is $2,600.00/Lot. If you have any questions or concerns regarding these improvements prior to the public hearing, please call City Hall at 777-5510. Sincerely, Sharon Lumby 1 Deputy City Clerk ��' ^ rl X �i l "0 2fjc Ze.. RLcn— LAA mr.�,o HE E IR nVM MAR 1 1995 MARCH 7, 1995 LAKE EL110 COUNCIL MEETING List of Claims for Approval For the period 03107/95 to 03J07f95 02/21/95 CLAIM TOTAL ACCOUNT ACCOUNT TO WHOM PAID FOR WHAT PURPOSE DATE NUMBER CLAIM NUMBER AMOUNT LEAGUE OF MN CITIES MARCH INSURANCE PREMIUM 83/07/95 3540 3,422.98 110-41500-130 2,013.11 100-42400-130 418.11 100-43100-130 991,68 ALLIED GROUP INSURANCE TRUST MARCH INSURANCE PREMIUM 83/07/96 3641 62,82 100-41509-131 34.17 100-42400-130 15.10 100-43109-130 13.55 MINN. BENEFIT ASSN. MARCH INSURANCE PREMIUM 03107195 3542 657.93 100-41509-130 72.12 1 100-43160-130 585.81 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES /3/07195 3543, 363,68 1.00-41500-200 363.68 MICHAEL SMITH MARCH ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER 03107/95 3544 450,00 100-42100-110 450.00 A T 6 T . TELEPHONE EXPENSE 13j07195 3545 15,54 100-41501-321 15.54 CITY OF NORTH ST PAUL FEBRUARY SALTISAND 03/07195 36A6 1,226.88 180-43100-229 1,226.88 TOTAL FOR MONTH 6,199,75 6,199.75 TOTAL YEAR TO DATE 14,932.56 14,932.60 P' TimeComputer Services CITY L4�tiE i:::.,J 12ccrIv19-V n� —nQ -^ .--- CITY OXE 2700 Freeway Blvd., Suite 1000 + Minneapolis, MN 55430 (612)560-2535+ Fax: (612) 560.3250 March 2, 1995 ( Lake Elmo City Council 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 Dear Council Members: At the February 27, 1995, Lake Elmo Planning Commission meeting the commission members voted to recommend to the Lake Elmo City Council that a Planning Commission member and a City Council member be appointed to act as liaisons, and work with Armstrong Farm on a possible alternative to Armstrong Farm's current status as a legal non -conforming use under its existing CUP. Since the Planning Commission voted to deny Armstrong Farm's request to reinstate the Alternative Uses portion of the Municipal Code, it was suggested that a possible solution would be the addition of a storage business classification to Lake Elmo Ordinance 301.070 D. b. (Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit). This would resolve Armstrong Farm's legal non -conforming use status and allow for future amendments to its CUP to increase its storage operation. If the City Council chooses to add a storage business classification to the "Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit" section of the Municipal Code, the City Council should carefully construct the ordinance to not only allow Lake Elmo agricultural farm owners a mechanism to preserve their agricultural lands, but in doing so, protect the interests of the adjacent property owners, and most importantly, eliminate future controversies and disputes that may arise with this additional type of Conditional Use Permit. It seems appropriate to use the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves section of the Minnesota Statutes (473H.17 Land Use) as a guide in the construction of a Storage Business Conditional Use Permit provision in our Lake Elmo Municipal Code. Subdivision 1a. (Allowed Commercial and Industrial Operations) of this Minnesota statute (Exhibit 1), which allows non-agricultural uses to preserve agricultural lands, requires "storage use of existing farm buildings that does not disrupt the integrity of the agricultural preserve". This statute implies that any storage use be inside a building and limits the number of buildings used for storage to those buildings that existed on August 1, 1987. The incorporation of these requirements into Lake Elmo Ordinance 301.070 D. b. would be very beneficial. First, it would provide Lake Elmo agricultural land owners an alternate source of revenue to preserve their agricultural lands. Second, it would assure adjacent property owners that the "commercial" storage use would not be expanded by construction of more storage buildings and the storage would be "inside" the existing buildings as to not disrupt the aesthetics of the neighborhood with "unsightly" outside storage. Third, by limiting the number of storage buildings to those that existed as of a given date and eliminating outside storage, Lake Elmo would have an ordinance that would prevent the "commercialization" of agricultural lands and preserve the rural nature of the City of Lake Elmo. Fourth, the adoption of these provisions would create a Storage Business Conditional Use Permit that would alleviate future amendments, variances, disputes and controversies that the current or future City Council must struggle with, inherent in this particular type of CUP. With these two provisions (existing buildings and inside storage only) added to the Conditional Use Permit section of the Municipal Code regarding storage businesses, everyone would be satisfied! The agricultural land owners would have an alternate source of revenue to preserve their agricultural lands, the adjacent property owners would not be affected by commercialization of their neighborhoods, the residents of the City of Lake Elmo would have the rural image of their city safeguarded, and the City Council could avoid the controversial decisions associated with a Storage Business CUP. If you adopt a Storage Business CUP without these provisions, the present or future City Council can expect controversy. For instance, if Armstrong Farm is granted an expansion of its storage business, what's to prevent other Lake Elmo property owners from arguing that the City Council allowed Armstrong Farm its expansion and thus the City Council must grant them the same entitlements. Where will it end? I sincerely hope that the City Council will incorporate the "existing buildings" and the "inside storage only" clauses into any storage business addition to the allowable Conditional Use Permits in the Municipal Code. It is interesting to note that both former Lake Elmo Mayor Morgan and former Councilman Dunn, the two assenting votes to the original Armstrong Farm CUP in 1986, stated their concerns about the appropriateness of outside storage for the City of Lake Elmo (Exhibit 2). Finally, I am concerned about the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council regarding liaisons from the Planning Commission and the City Council working with Armstrong Farm to construct a Storage Business CUP addition to the Municipal Code. I hope the outcome of their combined efforts is not a Storage Business CUP tailored to the special interests of Armstrong Farm, especially if it is designed to provide Armstrong Farm with the storage business expansion which Armstrong Farm vehemently desires. With the two provisions that I have suggested to be incorporated into the Storage Business CUP addition to the Municipal Code, Armstrong Farm's complaints about its current legal non -conforming use would be resolved and Armstrong Farm would have its existing storage business revenue to preserve its agricultural lands, including the grandfathering of its 100 vehicle outside storage limitation. As stated in my previous letter regarding Armstrong Farm's original 1986 CUP request, Mr. Thomas G. Armstrong stated that there would be no further request for expansion if Armstrong Farm was granted the storage limitations it currently has! Sincerely, John Bodey 8155 15th Street North cc: Lake Elmo Planning Commission METROPOLITAN AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES 47311.18 473H.17 LAND USE. Subdivision I. Land within an agricultural preserve shall be maintained for agri- cultural production. The average maximum density of residential structures within an agricultural preserve shall not exceed one unit per 40 acres. The location of any new structure shall conform to locally applicable zoning regulations. Commercial and industrial uses shall not be permitted except as provided in subdivision 2 after the user is issued a permit by the authority. The authority shall be responsible for enforcing this section. Subd, la. Allowed commercial and industrial operations. (a) Commercial and industrial operations are not allowed on land within an agricultural preserve except: (1) small on -farm commercial or industrial operations normally associated with and important to farming in the agricultural preserve area; (2) storage use of existing farm buildings that does not disrupt the integrity of the agricultural preserve; and (3) small commercial use of existing farm buildings for trades not disruptive to the integrity of the agricultural preserve such as a carpentry shop, small scale mechanics shop, and similar activities that a farm operator might conduct. (b) "Existing" in paragraph (a), clauses (2) and (3), means existing on August 1, 1987.) Subd. 2. Density restriction after subdivision. When a separate parcel is created for a residential structure, commercial, or industrial use permitted under subdivision 1, the parcel shall cease to be an agricultural preserve unless the eligibility requirements of section 473H.03 are met. However, the separate parcel shall remain under the maxi- mum residential density restrictions in effect for the original preserve at the time it was placed into the preserve until the agricultural preserve status for the original parcel ends. History: 1980 c 566 s 17; 1987 c 396 art 7 s 5.7 473H.18 TRANSFER FROM AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY TAX LAW TREAT- MENT. When land which has been receiving the special agricultural valuation and tax deferment provided in section 273.111 becomes an agricultural preserve pursuant to sections 473H.02 to 473H.17, the recapture of deferred tax and special assessments, as provided in section 273.111, subdivisions 9 and 11, shall not be made. Special assess- ments deferred under section 273.111, at the date of commencement of the preserve, shall continue to be deferred for the duration of the preserve. All special assessments so deferred shall be payable within 90 days of the date of expiration unless other terms are mutually agreed upon by the authority and the owner. In the event of early termina- tion of a preserve or a portion of it under section 473H.09, all special assessments accruing to the terminated portion plus interest shall be payable within 90 days of the date of termination unless otherwise deferred or abated by executive order of the gover- nor. In the event of a taking under section 473H.15 all special assessments accruing to the taken portion plus interest shall be payable within 90 days of the date the final certif- icate is filed with the court administrator of district court in accordance with section 117.205. History: 1982 c 523 art 32 s 14; ISp1986 c 3 art I s 82 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTEES DECEMBER 16, 1986 PAGE 2 proposed alternate use "shall not exceed six acres and shall be within the approximate general limits of the attached site plan" Mr. Armstrong passed out the Proposed Conditions for his Conditional Use Permit which was approved by the Planning Commission except for an addition on Item #4 "The landowner shall not construct more than two additional agricultural farm -style buildings not to exceed 15,000 square feet each ,..." (See Appendix A). Also presented were letters written by Nancy Aderman, John E. Walsh stating their approval of storage buildings on Agricultural land. A listing of Proposed Additional Findings - Armstrong CUP was handed out to the City Council. The Planning Commission recommended approval by the City Council to grant the Conditional Use Permit allowing Thomas G. Armstrong to operate an existing indoor and outdoor storage business on 6 acres of agriculturally zoned land, and to allow the future construction of one additional agricultural style bulding not to exceed 15,000 square feet, for storage ,use as specified in the CUP. The Commission heard the concept of two buildings and were not opposed to it, but they felt that giving one building and the CUP was more appropriate for now. Councilman Dunn felt, since storage is an acceptable Alternate Use in Ag zoning with a CUP,we should not try to discourage buildings, but rather to encourage the use of storage buildings. *He would rather see storage inside than outside as in the Turkey Farm on Highway 5 which is an unsitely mess. This will start a precedent for future use of Ag land for storage. Dunn suggested the possibility of looking at -mandatory inside storage for this type of use. Mayor Morgan stated he was in favor of this request because he felt the Planning Commission had worked this topic over, it keeps the rural nature we want to preserve and is a good alternate use of agricultural land as long as it isn't obtrusive or becomes a nuisance. He agreed with Councilman Dunn that outside storage is not appealing and would rather see inside storage. City Attorney Knaak suggested approval of one building to the Planning Commission because with a CUP it provides some measure of control by the City over the use of these buildings was to do it incrementally. Councilman Mazzara felt that a CUP is a proper way to control it. He does have a problem with approving two buildings at this time based on the Planning Commissions recommendation and the input heard at the Public Hearing. M/S/P Dunn/Morgan - to approve a request for a Conditional Use Permit, with modification of Item #4 to include two additional buildings not to exceed 15,000 square feet. sI'ire-2e�somar-the add#t iosa3--t��t#3�3-i-ngs--o-�re�-wi�at--tine-�lanxri-ng-£vmm4sslvn-recommended i-.based-rm-a�3- ftesrs-skoulc�-ire-sbo�-3nstde, (Motion carried 2-1-1<Mazzara; Abstain: Armstrong>). (Amended 1-6-87) CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 81- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 203.010 COUNCIL MEETINGS OF THE 1979 LAKE ELMO MUNICIPAL CODE Section 1. Amendment: The City Council ordains that Section 203.010 of the 1979 Lake Elmo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: Section 203.010 Council Subd. 1. Meetings A. Regular Meetings. Unless the meeting date is changed or canceled as herein provided, regular meetings of the Council shall be held on the first and third Tuesday of each calendar month at 7:00 p.m. Any regular meeting falling upon a holiday shall be held on the next following business day at the same time and place, unless at the discretion of the City Council the meeting is canceled. If the City Council at its discretion changes its regular meeting date or cancels the meeting date it shall post such information on the City's bulletin board and shall mail such information to each person who has filed a written request for meeting notices with the City. Notice of the rescheduled meeting shall be mailed to each person who has filed a written request for meeting notices with the City. at least three days prior to the newmeetina date. All meetings, including special, rescheduled and adjourned meetings, shall be held in the city hall unless the Council decides otherwise at a prior meeting, or meeting in the city hall is impossible. B. Special Meetings. The Mayor or any two members of the Council may call a special meeting of the Council upon at least 72 hours written notice to each member of the Council. This notice shall be delivered personally to each member or shall be left at the member's usual place of residence with some responsible person. Notice to the public shall be given in accordance with State Law. C. Council Business. No business shall be transacted at the special meetings unless the business shall have been specified, in the notice, without the consent of all of the members of the Council present. Any member present at any special meeting who fails to object and have their objections entered in the minutes of the special meeting will be conclusively presumed to have consented to the transaction of all business transacted at the special meeting and no objection may thereafter be raiseda —the by such Council member that the notice of the special meeting was defective. Section 2. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall become effective following its passage and publication according to law. Ordinance 8 1 - Amending Section 203.010 Council Meetings Wyn John, Mayor Attest: Mary Kueffner, City Administrator Motion Second Ayes Nays Published in the Stillwater Gazette Extra on the day of , 1995. 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 MARCH 7, 1995 7:00 p.m. MEETING CONVENES Pledge of Allegiance 1. AGENDA 2. MINUTES: February 21, 1995 3. CLAIMS 4. PUBLIC INFORMATIONAUINQUIRIES: A. Senator Laidig and Representative Peg Larsen B. Timeliness of Newsletter 5. OLD BUSINESS: A. Council Liaison to Heritage Preservation Commission B. Resolution establishing findings of fact relating to the denial of Lake Elmo Municipal Code Text Amendment as requested by Hammes Sand & Gravel, et al. 6. PLANNING/LAND USE & ZONING: A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning: Dean and Bruce Beutel B. Ordinance 8109 amending Section 203.010 of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code relating to Council Meetings (Over) LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FEBRUARY 21, 1995 2 C. "City Hall Road" request to turn over to City D. Armstrong application for Text. Amendment and CUP Amendment relating to Alternative AG E. Roadway Service proposal for Distribution Center F. Other 7. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT: A. Road Striping for Bike Routes B. 1995 Sealcoating Program C. Other 8. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: 9. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: A. Mayor John B. Council Member Conlin C. DeLapp ` D. Hunt E. Johnston 10. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: A. Planner Applications B. South Washington Watershed District Managers 11. ADJOURN 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION:City of Lake Elmo vs. Daniel Burgess Additions to March 7,1995 Lake Elmo City Council Agenda 4A1 Proposed Legislation regarding Property Owner Petition for Detachment/Annexation. 1 OC, Junker Landfill: Letter from Wenck 101). Oakdale's Policy on the Use of Recycled Materials and Supplies 10E. Letter from City of Mahtomedi: Recreational Facility Needs in School District 832 lOF Sensible Land Use Coalition 100 Resolution supporting passage of the "Minnesota Emerging Communications Services Act of 1995." 10H. PUD Ordinance - sA .i: vT { s'is is �e;d ' A°k��tt•d �`Li %, - CsbUNTl'.ROAD 13y �x z[ , �. YS Iry c 4k fi °ram`Q0 r ail `a k t 54' r y z0 � :t7 F IV, yo y �w KEATS P�1F' ■ C.� O Y H �7 ro � ■ � � x5■ ro �y it G7� ■�O ro z 0 z �y n 0 � 1 ■a k■ ■ rca m� -- z ao ■ xz Ono x■�''.,,. 9 .. WH