Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-28-86 Council Minutesh1IhiU7ES OF TN~ RF6ULFtR hiEETITlG CITY COIJP~CII f_ITTLF C11~l11D11, f~iINMESOTA P~1a,y 28, 1~86 1lgenda Item Plo. 1 tlgenda Item No. ?_ Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Little Canada, "linnesota vdas held on the ?.£;th day of P1a.y, 193o in the Council Charobers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Roatl in said City. P~ayor Plichael Fahey chaired Che meeting and called it to orcler at 7:30 P.P~i. and the fotlo~~ring members were present at roll ca11: ~s1EMSERS PRESF~IT: ALSO PRESEPIT Mayor Councilman Councilman Councilsvoman Counci lwoiiian City Cl~rk Consulting Fnaineer Cit.y ~ttorn~.y City Planner Stecorci ng Secretar~/ Pir. '~lichael Fah~y h1r. 41i i l iar,i !31 esener P~r. Rick Collova Ms. hlugs ~lardini P1rs. P>everl,y ~calze P~1r. Joseph Chlebeck ~Qr. Donald Carley P9r. 7homas St~~aeen~y h?r, Steve Grittman P4rs. I<athleen Glanzer PE'inut^s P~r. Blesener indicated that on page 19 and 20 of the ~~tay 14, 198E> nrinutes the nhrase "under the railroad right-of-~~aay" snould be Agenda channe~i to°within the railroad right-of-~raay". Itern Pio. 3 Mrs. Scalze pointed out that t~e !~ord °stackecC' in the last paragraph on page ?0 shoi.ild be changed. to "stak~d". i~ir. Blesener introducec( the follot~rinn resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTIOPI ~10. f3f-5-?_05 - APPR~VING THE ?1I~IUTES QF TFIE May 14, 19f36 ft~GULAR COUPICIL [,1~ETING kIITN 7Nr OUTLIP~IED COP,RECTTOPIS The forrgoing resolution ti~as duly seconded ~y ~1s. tJardini. qyes (5) (3lesener, ~lard.ini, Col1ova, Sca1zQ, Fahey. riays to). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution book ~lo. 15, Page 7_03. Mr. P,lesener report~d that the City G~as not elic~ible fnrthe Federal sign program as cliscussec! in the P1ay 14, 1936 minutes, as the Ci'ty previously participated in the program. Paae -1- r~~TPIUTES City Council May 2f3, 1986 (1inutes f^,r. f3lesener introduced the fo7lotiving resolution and moved its adoption: (Cont.) RESOLUTIO~! P,10. £3fi-5-20E - APPROVIi~IG 71IF f4Ii•IUTES 0~ TIiF '~iFlY 13, 19£36 SPECIFlL COUtICIL P~I~E7I ~IG 7he foregoing reso1ution l~ras dul,y secondecf by ils. Plardini. ,4,yes (5) ~lardini, [31^sener, Coilova, Scalze, Fahey. NaYs (O). Reso1ution declared adoptec(. Th9s resolution apoears in Resolution Sook No. 15, Page 204, i1r, Fahey indir.ated that on page 2, fourth paragraph of the !~1ay ?0 Special Council P~leeting, the o~lord "told" should be changec! to "towed". ~3lesener indicated that any refierence to the Little Canada i_ions should be corrected to read "~lorth Suburhan 500 Lions". Ms. ~~lardini introduced the following resolution and rnoved its adoption: RcSOlUTIOM D10. 8fa-5-207 - 11PPROVSPdG THF MTPJUTES OF THF. P1nY ?.0, 19£36 SPECIAL COU~dCIL P1[ETIrl6 SU~3JECT TO 7fIE OUTLIIdFD CORRECTIOPJS The foregqing r2solution ~<ras duly seconded by t~1r. Fahey. Ayes (5) Nardini, Pahey, ~calze, Collova, f3lesener. D1a.Ys ( 0 ~ . Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution ~3oo'~c No. 15, Page 20~x. Earl Mr. Ear1 Flaz~r~f has requesteci the division of his pronerty on Flazard Arcade Street i nY.o ty~~o 1 ots. Property Division Fahey nointed out that the Planning Commission recomrnendarl approval of th2 di~iision subject to the Plann~r's report. Agenda Item F1o. ~ i~ir. liazard reported that he 4•iould comply 4~~ith thc Planner's recornniendati ons. Fahey pointed out tnat the division meets Code requirements. Scalze asked if urainage/utility easements v+oulcl be required on lot lines. Fahey pointed out that City policy has been to require these easements if deemed necessary by the City [ngineer. Page -2- P~l I ~IUTt: S City Council t9ay 2£3, 1956 Hazard ~ir. t3lesener introduced 'the follobainn resoluti~n and moved its adontion: Property Division RF.SOLUTIOM P10. t3S-5-20t3 - A~PROVTN6 TFIF (Cont.) ~'ARI_ NA7_FlRD PROPE4TY DIVISIQN A$ SUf3~1ITTFD SUBJEf,T TO COi~1Pl_IANC[: !;ITFI Th1~ R.F.COMt+IENDATIONS OF TME CITY PLAh1~lER AS COPITAINF..f~ IN HIS APRIL 30, 1956 PE~ORT 11PID SUBJ~'CT TO I~NY UTILITY/ f)`tAI~1FIGE ~AS£PqE~lTS ,45 DLTFRP1IMFD bi[CESS,4}~tY I3Y 7NE CITY cPl6INEGR The foreyoing resolution was dul.y seconc.ted by r~rs. Scalze. /~yes (5) 312sener, Scalze, Collova, idardini, Fahe.y. Nays (0). Resolution dFClared adoptecl. This resolution appears in Reso1ution E3ook ".lo. 15, Page ?_05. Twin Lake Fahey opened the nublic hearing on 1;he oreliminary plat of the Twin Shores 2.nd La~ce Shorrs 2nd Acidition. llddition Mr. Blaine Edmundson, representing i9ar~aret flitcheil and C'narles Agenda P1itchell, appeareci before the Council requesting a~>proval of the Iten hfo. 4 preliminary plat. Gdmundson also stated that the ~litchell's ;~ere not in agreement v~ith the Ptanner's recomm2nc:ation of dadication of adclitional road easement on the north side of their property. Edmundson reported that P1rs. P1i'tcY~ell dedicated adclitionil easement in this area previously so tha't "1r. Klidzejs, the propertyo~,dner to the north, coulci access the back of his propert.y. 1=dmundson report2d that P1rs. "~titchell does not 4~aant or neecl a road in this area and tias adeqi.aate frontage on Twin ~ake Road to subdivide Lot 1 in the future if she so desired. Ediiiunc~son also reported tYiat Niitchell was not in favor of bein9 assessecl for any road improvernent on the north. t.irs. Scalze felt that th~ City had to p1an for the fiature development of the Mitchell property t>y providing the road easer;ient at this time. ~,lardini pointetl out that the i~1itche1l property cons9sts of 35,000 snuare feet and it would be poor planning not to require the road easement at this time. P1r. Fahey 4>ointed out t~~at the ;9itchell propert.y viould not be assessed anything, if the road a~~ere never imr~roved. hir. ~lesener incficated that the <<lidzejs property is developed to ttie extent that it can. The Planner indicated that i<lidzejs has access tn one lot from Twin La!<e Road and ts=~o others from tnis road easement. Page -3- h1TNUTES City Council i•lay 23, 1935 Twin Lake It ~•ias pointed out that the Klidzejs prop2rty division ti~ias held Shores 2nd up on the issue of this road easement. Sc~lze ~ointed out that /;ddition without the easement I<lidzajs did not have a buildab1e lot. (Cont.) f%1r. Fdmundson s~iggested that the City require the easement at the time that Lot 1 e~aould be divided. C1r. ~=ahey felt that to be consistant a!ith what was done in the Klidzejs property division, the additionai road easement be requirecl from the ~'itchell's to the back of I<lidzejs' Tract B. 1=ahey felt that any assessment for the road should be borne by i~ir. I<lidzejs until such time as th~ (4itchell's property vras further subdivided. Fahey felt that thr. only affect on the P^itchell's at this point u,as granting additional road easement. ~ahey felt that the Engineer and ~ttorney sf~ould obtain the additional easement so that there is a total of 50 Feet of ro~d right-of-~rray. f-1r. Edmundson indicated that the P4itchell's a~iere ~ai1ling to accent these ternis. There ~das no one else from the audience wishing to spea!<. Mr. Blesener introduced the follos~~ing resolution and moved its adoption: R~S01_U7TOP! PlO. ~0-5-2.09 - CLOSIP!G TflE PUI~LIC FIEARTtdG OfJ TFIF T6dlhd LflKE SHORES SECO~ID A~DI7ION The foregoing resolui:ion s~~as duly seconded by ~~~r. Collova. A,ycs (5) [?lesener, Collova, Scalze, Fah~y, I+lardini. ~4ays (0). Resolution declared adoptec.l. This resolution appears in Resolution ,loo'r, ~lo. 15, Page 20f. h!r. Fahey introduced the follovaing resolution and i7oved its adoption: RESOLUTIOPI M0. 3E>-5-210 - f\PPR0I~IPIG THE PRf_LI~'1I1~1~iftY PLAT ~F 71~IE Tb1IN LA'~E SHORCS 2~ID A~DITION SUP.,JEC7 TO a~iRS. t~1ARGARET P~1ITCf~IELL AGRF..EIIJG TO PROVID~ A~DITTOPIFlL. lZOAD ~FlSF~4rpJT Oid THE ~~dORTN EN~ OF HER PRO°ER7Y COVFRIP!G TRFlCTS 11 APID 3, ~P,ID TO TFif SACI< OF TRI;CT (3, OF 7NE i<I_IDZEJS PROf~ERTY ~,~ITN FOOTAGG TO RE D[T~RP1IPlED [3Y Tiir CITY ~ PlGIN~FR Ah!D SI!i3JECT TO THF. RECOi~~P~iE:P1DATI0PdS OF 71iE CI1'Y PLARNE't The foregoinc; resolution ~~aas duly seconded by !1rs. Scalze. Ayes (5) Fahey, Scalze, Collova, Plardini, '3lesen~r. Nays (0). Resolution declared. adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution ~iook !~lo. 15, Page 207. Page -~- ~'iTt~!UTFS Ci'ty Councit P~ay 2~1, 19~5 Tmincier hlayor rahey open~d the pi.iblic hearinn on the concept of Thunder "ay 'Lnct f~ay ?nd ~ddition. This proposed plat is located eas t of Payne ~ddition Flvenue and aeest of T'nuncier ftay ftoad. !\g~nda Don Valento app^ared t~efore the Council and re~orted that tYiere it~m p{o , are several c~roperty owners involved in this ola~. The property ' , involved is o~~neci b.y tYie Pde~dman's, Carnpbell's, Sack' s, s, Jespersen ~rank Frattalone and Don Valento. Valento pointec! out that the [~roposed street ends in a cul-tle-sac on the north end as there are homes 1ocated a1ong Count,y Road D which prevent the street from runninci through. The street is proposed to run throug4~ to LaBore !?aod on the south. cran!c Frattalon^ indicated that in previous discussions ~;~ith the Counr.il in con;junction ~r'itli the Sophie/°eterson plat, tfie Council indicated that th~~~ ~aoulci li!<e the strFet in tne 7hunder 8ay 2nd Adclition to go througii to La6ore Road on the sfluth. Frattalone also pointed out that the City v~i11 have to cletermine ~r~here it 4~ould like the pond located that is proposed for this area. i1rs. Scalze stated that this proposed pl~t awill have to be sent to the Park Comraission. The Planner indicatec! that the applicants are seekino concept approval at this point as there is not adequate information for preliminary plat approval. Mr. Lavmence !Alright, 657 l.a!3ore Road, indicated that he is opposed to the street going througt~ to laSore RoacJ as it ~~iill be very close to his iiome. Ylright oointed out th<at a feea years ago the indication was that the street ~~aould be cul-d2-saced on the so~.ith. Pris. ~!ardini s~ateci that the Council dec~id~cl it did not s~iant a cul-de-sac and wanted the street to go through t~ La!~ore Road. ~3lesener agreed that the Council indicat~d that tlie,y vaanted the traffic to go south onto LaRore !?oad to keep acidit9onal traffic ofP Pavne dlvenue anc~ Greenbrier. ~"r. Valento read from the Council minutes of October ?£3, 19E31 v~hich inclicated. that ifi nossik~le Y.he Council ~~aanted the road. to go through to LaElore Road. Valento and Frattalone inclicated. that they }•~2re ac;reeable to eith~r the road a,oing through on the south or a cul-de-sac on the soutti. HoMrever, Va1ento pointed out that t'nere are people opposed to the cul-de-sac as ti~~ell as peop1e opposed to the street going through to La3ore. Page -5- r;zrIUTES City Council ?4ay 2~3, 193fi 7{iund^r 3ay ?_nd ~ddition (Cont.) The Engineer reported that the street would have a?0 foot mat. Valento ~,~as proposin~ to narro~~ the rirY~t-of-tivay do~dn to n0 feet ~for the area of road betsaeen his hori~ and ~.1r. btriglit's. Va1ento poi nted out that the l~lri ght home i s onl y~i feet from tlie r~ronerty line and, thus, the road~a~ay ~iould be about 14 feet from the home antl ttie ri giit-of-way o-toul d be about 4 feet from the home. Val ento stated that he woulc! have bet,~reen 14 ancl 1~3 feet bet~rre2n his home ancf the road right-of-~iay. ~4r. Wri~ht statecl that he was totally ac!ainst the proposal as is, and would prefer to see a cul-de-sac on the southern enc(. llriqht also stated that hF has soma prop~rty involved in the ~lat and~n~ s~~as not consul ted G~ti2n the pl at vaas put together. Ilri ght stated th~t he did not aiant to develop his property. I'ahey suggested. that a road could be put through to Payne Avenue in the vicinity of I_ot 16. Pdr. Jespersen indicated tY~at most of the lots on Payne Avenue have bren develo~ed anc! ther2 is no roorn for a roac!. r4r. Valento felt that if the property to the north has a poncl located on it, he did not feel that these properties should be assessed for any storm sewer improvements. P1r. Frattalone stated that the proposed porid is part of the City's cirai nage pl an and he fel t that the Ci ty shoial d buy tiie property far the nond. Scalze pointed out that the pond will benefit this developrient. Tha Engineer statac! that the poncl can go in various locations ancl the exact site 'nas not been determined. Scal ze fel t that other property o~oners i n tiie Ci ty coul d make tiie same argunient that "~r. Val ento i s i~~aki ng r~ii th regard to storro seeaer improvements. Hoa~~ever, ttie City as a 4ahole has to sriare in these costs. f4r. R2ne '~iatancon, 6~5 La(~ore "oad, ind.icated that he t•~as not in favor of developing his property nor in favor of sellinn the property to the City f~>r par!< land. ~ahey nointed out to P'ir.r~,~lancon that this proposed plat could landlock the back of his propert,y. Ho~dever,i~alancon still v~antect not to be involved in the pla1:. Scalze asked if h-1r. Stcynske s•ias in favor of selling his property to the Cit,y for a park. Page -6- hIIh1UTES City Council P1ay 2.II, 19~36 Thiander f3a.y f1r. Don Stcynske, representin~ his fathcr, Joseph Stcynsi<e, replied 7_nd .~ddi ti an that thi s~,voiil d be consi dereci. SY.cynslce al so fel t tiiat access (Cont.) to his property should be provided from either the Sophie/°eterson plat or this plat. Fahey si,~ggested that ~~~ir. Stcynsk~ get together sdith the property o+~mers on thi s m~tter. Scalze poirrted oi.it that in ordF~r for the City to be interestecl in t,ie Stcyns'r,e property, tr~ere has to be access to it. Paul ancl P~1ary Lau i:osted<i , 65& ~a[3ore Road, appeared before the Coi.mcil opnosing the road yoing throuyh to La!3ore Road on the south. P~ary Lou I<ostec!<i reacl from a prerared statement out1ining their reasons for opposing the road access to I_a~;ore. The ;Costecki horne is directly across the strect from ~~a'nere the proposed road vrould access LaBore P,oad. Some of their main c.oncerns ~rrere: noise, light distraction, safety, air p~llution, property devaluation. ICosCecl<i also pointed out the inrreased traffic on La~ore Road and fel t that the road was presen tly unsafe and shoul ci 6e v~i drnecl y~~i tti sicie.aal::s and shoulders added. ':ostec'r.i stateci that she was amazed thai: the Ci ty wioul c! ^ven consi cler a road th~t ~•~oul d be four feet froni sorn~one's home. Fahey Pointed ot.i~ that ~rrheth~r the road went throuyh to LaBore Road or ended in a cul-c;e-sac on the south, the traffiic +vould still end up on La[;orc 2oad. Scalze pointed out that ~ai,ore Road is a Gounty road. Scalze reported that in the nast the City has requested stop s9gns on LaSore, birt the County has denied these req~iests. Fahey stated that the County has La[3ore Road included as part of the main thoroughfare plan for the area. Richarc± flanly, 670 I_al~ore Road, r~ported that he agreed, o~itn the i<ostecki comments and point~d out that the road~~iay 4vi11 be directly across from his bedroom. Elanley pointerl out the additional cars tnis cievelopn5ent y~~ill generate anc! Laas concerned G~~i'th the safety of childrennn the area. ~1r. 41ri gr~t poi ntec! out that hi s bedroon waul d be next to the prooosed road as well. Yi,ary Peterson, Payne Avenue reported that t111en Avenu~ is directly across t'ne street from her home anci if the proposed road does not go to i_aSore, then she s~iill get additional traffic caning her ~,vay. Peterson stat~~ that th~re are about n0 cYiildren in the Payne Avenue area and s-!as concerned aoout the safety of these children anc!~the increasc~d traffic that ~rould be generated on~o Payna Flvenue should the road not go through Y,o La3ore. Page -7- i~?ThlUTf'S City Council h~lay 2S, 1986 Thunder „ay tlr. 1=ah2p suggested that if the road does go throuch to Lat3ore, ?nd Ad~tition that the road be cen~t~red betti•eeen the Wrigh~ anci Valento hornes. (Cont.) i~ir. Peterson, Payne .Avenue, complained about the nois~ in th~ ar2a from construction ec;uipment ancl the hours of operation of this eqi~ipment. ?~ir. Prank Frattalone anologized and. aqreed that tn~re ~,iere a feva instances ~~ahen equiprnent ~raas being operated early in the morning or late at nir~ht. Frattalone stated tha~ he ~~ould see this does not happen again. ?-1rs. Sac!< reportad that the soil conditions in their area are poor ancl that there is standinq ~dater all the tirne. Sack hroug'nt this up in relation to the location of the pond. Fahey repl i ed that the Ci t,y Engi neer Vii 11 revi e~~i the matter and <letermine the best location of the pond. !3lesener also pointed out that the pond could be locatec( on the ~!S~ easement property. ~'ran!< Frattalone reported that Thunder Bay Acidition gave property on the ai2st side of the street. Frattalone felt that this vrould be a rood locationfor the pond. There ~;ias no one else from the audience wishinc; to comment on Thunder 6ay 2nd Acidition, i1r. Collova introudced the follo~~iinn resolution and moved its ac~option: RGSOLUTIOU id0. 56-5-211 - CI.OSIDIG TH~ PU!3LIC HE11RI:"dG OE~1 T!~I~ THUMUFR i311Y 7_PID ADDITIO~i The forero i ny resol uti on saas <luly seconc!ed by fts. ?~!ardi ni . I~yes ( 5) Col l o+ia, tdardi ni ,~a'n^y, Scal ze, ~31 esener. hiays (0). Resolution declared adopted. Thi s rf~sol uti on apnears i n ~esol uti on Bool: Tlo. 1 Ei, f'ac;e ?OS. Scalze questioned if there s~iould on t'n i s pl at. Fahey repli~d that there d~~ould be preliminary p1at is considered. P9r. 3lesener stated tPiat he feels ~aF3ore Road nn the south in order >~ any more public hearings held another public hearing idhen the t'nere needs to b~ acc2ss to to I<~ep a<".di ti onai tra Pfi c ?ar,e -3- P°zr~ur~s City Council "4aY '8, 1~335 Thunder ~ay off of ~~i,yne Flvenue and Greenbrier. "lesener stated that he ?nd Addition 4vould li;;e to see the road centered brtv~een the !lright and Valento (Cont.) homes and agreed that ti~ere is no alternative to the cul-de-sac on th^ north due to th~ location of hoeaes on County l2oad 0. ~larrfini stat°C{ ~i1dt sne agreed ~•~itYi ~lesencr's comm~nts. Collova stated that lie :~lould li!:e to see the road movcd closer to the Valento nome than the 4lriqht's. Collova suggested that the road be moved to one side of the easement. Fahey stated t'nat h~ symnathiz^c vaith tf~e resid~nts on La3ore Road, but felt it would be poor planning to hav~ ~ cul-cfe-sac on the southern e~~d of the road. I'ahey statecl that it was not a good idea to have taro cul-de-sacs due to sa.fety reasons and rnaintenanc~ problems. Sca1ze fielt that the road s,~oulci be located to minimize the effeci: on the ':osteci<i and flanly pro~erties. Sca1ze nointed out that the City has set a~~rer.edent that roads in ttiis area either have to qo througti to Coianty Road D or to la~3ore, and there is no ~rray this road can go throiigh to Coim ty Road D. iQr. Blesen~r introduced the follovring resolution and moved its ac.foption: RESOLUTSOP~ V0. f;6-5-212 - GRAPITI~1~~ CONCEPT t1PPR0~lAL TO TH~ TFlUt,1DER fiAY 2i~D FIDDITIOPd F1S PRESEPITE~J !~dITFi A CUL-D.F.-Sf1C OP! THE ~IORTi~f 61ND ACCESS TO L~[30RE ROf1D Oh! TNF SOUTN AAID !=ITTt~I TH~ ROAD [ASE°~IEMT PUSfiFD CLOS~R TO TF1~ VAlER~1T0 fIOUSf-. FiND 4dITH TIIF STIPULATION ?FIAT ~RAPIK FRATTflLO~IE Flh~ID ~0~1 Vf~IEPiTO i90R's< ~,IITH ~1ESSRS. STCYIuSKF AP1D Ii,~t~iS~N TO TRY 70 ACC~'SS TIIEIR PROPTRT`f !1(!D '.~ITIi Tlif SUG~ESTIOi~I Ti!AT Mf_SSRS. STCY~JaI« ANf) NA~ISEtiI 6~)OR: 64JITFi Ni~SSRS SOf~HIE Ai~1D PETERSOAI IP) TIIIS S~1f~~1V= RFG~RD The foregoina resolution 1~~as duly seconc'ed by i4s. Plardini. Ayes (5) f3lesener, 'la.rdini, Collova, Fahey, Scalze. Nays (~l. Stesolution declared adopted. T'nis resolution appears in Reso1ution 8001< No. 15, Pages ?0~ and ?10. Fiighv~ay f~ir. Valento renorted t1~at there is som2 excess State liighway Dept. Department propert,y located at the southeast corner of Rice Property Stre~t and !iighuiay 36 the City should try to get bac;< on the tax rolls. Agen~ta Add.ition E~ahey suggestecl that h~ir. Valento give this in~Formation to the City Engineer. Pac4e -9- r~z~.iuTi.s City Council i~tay 2F3, 19~36 Recess Paul ~orn Proparty ~livision A~enda Itero Alo. 7 At this ~oint in the meetinp, 9:03 P,f1., Council too!< a short recess. The !neeting l~as reconvened at 9:11 P.r-i. Fah~y opened the public hearing on the Paul ~;ora pronosal to divide his property locatpd on Cot.mty Road F3-?_ anci Jacl<son Street into t~do lots. Fahey pointed out that the Planning C,ommission passetl this proposal on ~vithout a recommendation c!ue to the~ fact that the ordinance ren,uires tha~: the shortest sida of th~ lot is r.onsidered the front y1rc1, and is proposed, the existing Piome on the property would not have an ac(equate rear yard setbac!< and ~iould require a variance. The Planner has indicated that thers~ aaas no hardsnip that sdould vrari°a.nt a variance being nranted. °aul f~org, ,'_370 Jackson, presented a diagram of the proposed property division. [3org informed the Council that t'n2re ~das only 15 feet from tPiF existing garage to 'the properi:y 1ine and the ordinitice requires a 30 foot rear yard s~tback. E3org cfescribec! the location oF the property ~~nc! ihe faci, that tliere is no other siarrounding property other than the railroad rinht-of-~,aav. Fahey as'r,ed i9r. i3ore~ if i,here a>>as otiier criteria he a~ranted the City to consid^r as there t-~as no hardship involveci to v~arrant the variance. ~•9r. Qorg pointeci out that by adiusting the lot line so that the lot l~iitn the existing hor;ie nas no frontage ori Co~mty Road f~-2, the ordinance renuirem^nts can be met. fiow^ver, the confin~.matiori of the lot is not a good one. 3org felt tciat the proposal before the C,ounci 1~,~ias a c~ood comnron!i s^. itrs. Scalze pointed ~ut thaC the Council rec2ntly informeQ Thoi7ias Judd thai: they ~r~oul d not approve hi s 1 ot sp1 i t i f~t'nere ~;~as any variance involvecl. Scalze felt ~I~at the ~ity must be consistent. ~ ahey fel t that tne f;i t,y shoul d cori~ ly vai th the ordi nance anc! 'ne ~;ia.s notin favor of the variance ~~ecause of lac!< of hardshin. ~ati^y asked i f ttie Counc,i 1~roul d be +,ai thi n i ts ri c~hf:s to deny the proposal s•~hereby the 1 ot ~~ri th the exi sti ng home sioul d'nav~ no frontaqe on County Road [3-?_. The Ci ty Attornry r~pl i ec1 that thi s i~roul d he ~•ri thi n ttie Ci ty' s ri nhts as the resu1ting lot would ha~ie a strange configuration and the proposal ~aas a a~ay of evading t'ne ordinance. ilr. r3orn statecl that t~ie reason for the change i n t'ne 1 ot 1 i ne wo~il d be to compl,y ~,~ii th ti~c ordi nance, not eva<le i t. Scalze agreed. P"r. f3org stateci that ~vhen he made application for the property ciivision fi~ rlas not aware of tVie change i n front and bacl: yards i.~nder the orclinance. °or~ stated thaC he felt thare viould be no problem Pane -10- ;riti~urr-_s City Councii May ?_3, 19~6 Paul Eiorg with the division as he thought it comnlied ~;!ith tn~ ordinance. Pronerty Division hirs. Scalze pointed out that the 3org property has been assessed (Cont.l f~r s~ratermain and street on the Jackson Street sid.e. The Enqineer statcd that the City alviays assessed the shortest side~ of a c.orner lot. ~ir. f3lesener asked ~~P the existing garage tia~as attached, 6orct replied f:hat it ~vas. The Planner commented that ~~,~hen an accessory building is ai:tached, it is considered part of the principle building. "(here was no one else from the audienc~ wishing to speak on this matter. Ms. PJardini introduced the folloviing resolut~on an<1 moved its acloption: RFSOLUTIO~I N0. 3~i-5-?.13 - CIOSIN~ 7IiF PU3LIC i!4~ARI?~!~ ON Ti1f ~'AUL BORG PROPES2TY DIVISIOPI The foregoing resoliation s•ras du1Y seconded by hir. f,ollova< ~yes ;51 `lar~lini, Sollova, Scalze, Fahey> 3lesener. i~a.ys (0). Resolution d~clared adopted. This resolution apoears in Resolution I~oo!< ~lo. 15, Page 211. Council discussed how the property had been assessed in thc past. Scalze asked ~F there ~;ias 30 feet bett;~een the existing house and the proposecl lot line. ~1r. i3org re~lied that there ~~~as not 30 feet as oroposed, but the~ lot line could be acijusted to provid^ 30 feet. Pnr. Fa;,e,y ~ointed out that Mr. 13org could comply ~;iith the orciinanc~, but the resulting lot ~•rou1d be strangly shaped. The division as proposed, howevcr, provides standard-shaped lots. Sca1ze fe1t that if the division were approvecl as proposetl, Jackson Street aiould he considered the front oF the horn^ and there should he 30 feet provided in the rear yard, ~1r. 6org stated ~that this could be done by anglinr the lot linE some4vhat. Page -11- i~~IIhIUT; S City Council I~lay 2€3, 1 S'H6 Pau1 3org Property Division (Cont.) 7ima Property Division Ar,enda Item No. 9 !9rs. Scalze introduced t~ie following resolution an<i moved its adoption: RcSOLUTIO~! ~f0. ~u-5-214 - APPROVING TIiF °nUl_ E30RG PROS~C_RTY OIVSSION SURJFCT TO 5UBh1ISSI0N OF F~ SURVGY TO 7H~ CITY FPI!?~INEE~i ~PipICATING TN~ LIPIF RU~IP.IINCa PIQRTFI AN~ SOUTIi /~Dl~ PARALLEL TO T4E EXISTSNG f10~'lc". TS 30 Fc~T FROP~'1 TfiF. 410~~?E :4~dD DUF 70 TFIF.. P/1CT TH~T TNG CI7Y U1~TERN(INF~ IP1. SOP~IF FASHION TNAT JACKSOh! STREET !n!AS TFIF FRON7 0!- TNG EXISTIPIE FI0~9E ON TRAC7 11 Diays (6). Reso7ution dnc1ared adopted. This resolution appears in Reso1ution Boo'~c Pdo. 15, Pages 212 and '1.13. 7he forenoinci resolution ~~ras duly second~d ~y "~Ir. Collova. ~1/es (`~) Scalze, Col1ova, Plardini, Rlesener, Fafiey, ~4r. Lou~is Tima has rer,uested the r,livision of his property on Sounty Road C into tsdo lots. n1r. Fahny poi nted out 1;hat Che P1 anni nct Commi ssi on rer.omm~nded ap~roval of ~the division provided'i1r. 7ima and r.~9r. Thornas Judd dedica'te 7 addition feet of road easement to the City aiong Jackson Street. The Planner reconnnended approval providec,' that there is dedication of road easement. t;o provide for a 50 foot riUht-of-svay for Jac'r.son Street. t^,r, John Daubney, reoresenting Nir. Tima, appeared t~efore the Counci l. Daubney reported that i f P~ir. Tima s~~ere r~ cjui reci to c!ed9cate 17 feet of road easement to meet the ~0 foot requirement, this would hrinc~ Jac!tson Street almost into his home. P4r. Da~.ibney reported t;hat h1r. Tirna could 1ive w~ith dedicating an adcfitional 7 feet oP easement. (~ir. Judc~l is atso ~aillin~ to do this. P?r. Daubney reportec! that currently the City is using the Tima properi;y Evhen tiiey nlo~ri Jac'~son S~:reet. Daubn~y felt that if Jackson Stre~t vrere ii~ipro~»ci, tl~is Nrould solve this situation. Daubri^y also reported that "1r. 7ima is not in favor of a c.ul-<le-sac at the ^nd of Australian as suqnested I>y the C,ity Planner. Daubney also dicf not fe~l that the neighboring prooerty oamers 9JOU~C{ I)P. in favvor or the cul-de-sac< Daubn~y also poirrted out tnat Flustralian Yias onl~/ a~}0 foot rinht-of- way, and felt that Jad<son Street onl.y needed 40 feet as vre11. Pag^ -12- ~~IRIUTFS C,ity Council i~iay 2H, 19~3f> Tima Mr. Fahey pointed out that Codr:. requires 50 feet of right-of-~.vay Property for a street. Fahey as'~ed P1r. [)aubney's rationa1 for departinn Division froiri this requirement. (cont.) h1r. f3l esener poi nted out that the Tima property ti~roul c' be ~he only nroperty assessed for Jackson 5treet as it would be the only oroperty benefited. i1r. Dai.ihn~y indicated that the City aiould be the one benefiting from the improvement of Jackson Stre^t bets•~een Australian and Rluvfood as the ~ity ne4ds this stretch of str2nt for traffic ;novement, stree't r~ai ntenance and snoa~~ removal . Daubne.y poi nted out t'nat the City is currently trespessing on the Tima property> h9rs. Scalze felt that the City could Curn around the sno~r~plows urithout trespessiny on the Tima property. Scalze felt iSiere vras no benefif: to the Cif,y from th? improvement of Jac!<son Street. r ahey stated that he a~as eai 17 i ng to go ~rri th the ~40 foot ri ght-of- ~,~ay as proposed because it is a unique situation, hol~dever, I'ir. Tirna would have to brar the cost of tiie asse,sments. Fahey di8 not feel that the !;it,y benefit~c! from the iriprnvernent of Jac!<son. "~1r. Daubney poin~tec oi.~t Chat the cost to iinprov~ Jacl<son f~~~ig'nt be in the neiqhl~orhooc; ofi $20,~00. Daul>ney felt that if Jackson Street ~-~~ere not improved L-ai th the C, i ty picki ng i.ip the cost, the f,ity woiald be deprivinq ~1r. Tima from a property right and tne reasonable us~ oP his property. Dauhne~/ pointe~ out that f1r. ~fima has 3/4 of an acre that eaoulcf be nut bac!< on the tax rolls. ~?r. FahFy cSi d not feel i t tiaas the responsi bi 1 i ty of the Ci ty to improve Jac~cson StreeC so that ~~ir. Tima co~.i1d split a lot. F~hey stat,ed that the roacf would benefit no one else except P1r. Ti;na. ~lubne,y as!<ed if the Cit,y were willing to grant a variance so that Tima could access the property from Flustralian. Daubney pointed out that there is 3/4 of an acr~ involved and. only on~ additiona1 home +,~oul ci be accessed by Austral i an. Fahey sugoestecl tha't the cul-de-sac nption at the end of Flustralian be considered. Fahey suggesteci that if the cul-cle-sac were approved, then Jac!<son Street bet~;~een Austral i an and 31 u~rrood s'noul d be vacated. r•'a'ney also nointed out that tne propert,y o~mers on Australian anc! ~3luaaooc( aaill not ~~ant Jackson Street to be improved as thFy no1•i have ~uiet dead-end streets. T'ne P1anner pointeci out that he has prooosed a 110 foot cul-de-sac and C~de reqiaires 120 feet. Pag~ -13- ;~zn~urFs City Counr,il 41a,y ?fl, 19f3& Tima Fahey suggested thaf. P~lr. 7ima come bacl: to the Council with a nroperty proposal for a cul-de-sac that G~ould meet City Cod~ insofar as Divis9on setbac!<s ~re concerned. FaYiey stated that he was ~villing ~o (cont.) cmant some variance on the size of the cul-de-sac as it s~~oulcl serve only t~.-io 1ots. h1r. Daubney req~,iested that 1:he matter be referred to the Planner and the Enc~ineer. ~4r. Fahe,y introduceci the fo1lo~r~ing resolution and moved ~ts acfoptiori: RESOLUTIOr1 N0. f36-5-?_15 - DIR~CTING THE CITY F..h~1liIMFFR A~1D PI.nPINcR TO bIOR'(. ~~II7N ~~ft. TI41fl TO D~:VELOP l4t~d ACCEPTF\[31P: CUI-DE-~~1C PROPOSFlI TFIA7 4JOULD F~9F,E7 ORDINAPICE RFQUIRGh1ENTS ~~ID CITY NEE~S FOR A TUR~i AROUMD, E3UT PdOT P?CCESSARSLY flpNERI~!G TO ORDINANC~ REQUIR~r;lrtdTS ON SZZC ~U~ TQ TIiE UPIJQU~idc.SS OF TNE Pf20PERTY AFlD TFIAT ODILY OPIF IJEW HOMC 4lOULD f3E d1Ff~~CTED f3Y TIiF CUI-GG-SAC The foreryoing resolution was duly seconded by ~7s. Nardini. Flyes (>) Pahey, Plardini, Collova, 131esener, Scalze. Mays (D). Resol u~tion declared aclopted. 7Yiis resolu~ion appears in Resolution 1300'. P!o. 15, ~anes 2 14 and 215. Storm Sewer Fahey pointed out that at the '9ay 13, 19£36 meeting Council tabled District actio n on the Storm Sei>>er District nroposa1 until the i-1ay 2~3 meeting. Imp. ~?4-13 Pirs. Scalze introduced the follo~ving resolution and inovec! i1:s adoption: ;1c;enda Item Pio. 13 RLSOL.UTION iil0. f35-5-?_16 - I3RIPIGING TO TADLI= TF{E CITY !:NGINF,ER'S Pf:OPOSED STORM SFb1E,R DTS7RIC,T I"~9PROV~!~ENT T10. 8n-13 Tha foregoing rasolutinn rvas duly seconcied by P9s. P!artlini. Ayes (5) Scalze, Nardini, Pahe~, (3lesener, Collova. Plays (~). Resolution declared adoptect. This resolu~4on appears in R~so1ution ~ool< Plo. 15, Pa~e 21~i. f•1r. Fahey reported that aft~r the Council acts on the proposed storrn se+~~er iinprovemeni;s, he 4voi.ilc! 1ike to have a l~or!<sho~ on the various improvements to discuss the best vaay to finance the proj2cts and the ~rioritins oP tha various projacts. !'a~e -14- +iS~;U7rS City Council P~?ay 2~, 1 ~8& Storm Se;aer [>lesener stated that he qu~stioned a counl^ of the pro;iects. I!o1~+2ver, District he ~+aas a~filling to ac.cept the whole p1an a~ this point with the (Cont.) unders~andinq that not all of the pro,iec~ts vaill be done, but this Gvoulc~ leave the Cit.y the ability to pui; in the pro7°rts in tne future if necessary. Fahey arreQd and nointe<1 out i:hat thir<f and fourth priority projects are questionable to him. ~3lesener pointec! out that 'these nro,iects include waterr~iain improv2ments. Fah~y also nointed ouY, thai; the propos~zl inclucies the purchas2 of cert~ain nortions of parl< prooerty for ponding purposes. 7he City Cler!< pointed out that there is a large r.ost differenti~~l bet~~ieen street restoration and cornplete reconstruct,ion. The Cit;y ovi11 also h~ve to c!etermina~ its assessment polic.y ~for straet reconstrt.icti on. Fahey sungested that the City ar.t on its stre2t assessment poliry after it meets ~rrith tt~e accountants on the financing ofi the storm seai~r pro,iects. ~'ahey pointec! out that tlier~ are not a lot of other cities tha.t have adooted a street assassrnent polic~/. ~lesener indicated tha.t in discussing this at a recent l.eague meetin~, he found i:hac most cities have a 75-25 assessinent policy svith 25°k going on c~enera1 taxation. The City C.ler!< suggestec! that the City's policy might havr to provicle for part of the cos~: being assessed, part on general t~xation and par~ froni the General Fund. Mrs. Scalze felt that at the recent public 'nearing there evas son~e confusion as to whether these storm se4aer projects sa~oulcl increase property taxes, Council discussed effect ttiese nroiects ~~iould 'nave on the City's eiill rate. i~1rs. Scalze stated that she ~~ioulcl like to know exactly hot~~ the projects will effect the mill rate and if there y+!ill be any increase in taxes to propertY ovrn^rs. Fahe~/ sl:ated t~at he vras comfor'table in approving the projects becausa hc I<noG~~s they ~rii'11 not al1 be nut; i n. Pahey fel t that the Cit,y ~r~ill have to get sorne priority on record for these projAc~s, anc( then ~~~ill have to address Che stre~t assessment policy. Page -15- r~iz~~urFs City Counci1 P4ay 2f3, 19i~6 Storm S~wer "•1r. Blesener infiroduced the following resoluY.ion anci moved its ac~option: I)istrict (Cont.1 RESOLUTIOP! M110. ~6-5-217 - {1DOPTiNG TIIl~ CITY FNGI7~!:FR S G'I~ZOPOSED STORf~~t SE4fER DISTRICT PLAN The foregoing resolution ~vas duly s~cond~d I~y P~1s. P~arclini. l~,yes (~) [31esener, nlardini, Collova, Fahey. idays (1) Scalze. 12esolution declared adoptec!. This resolution a~pears in Resoli.ition Book ~!o. 15, ?aqe 217. ~lr. ~tlesener introduced t'ne folloaainq resolution and moved its adoption: [2ESOLUTIOCJ I~Q. H6-5-21~ - C,4LI_IN6 FOR A 1dORKSHOP MEETING QRI TUFSDAY, JUi~1F 3, 1~86 ~T 7 P.r~i. TO R[VIL'~~ TIiE CI7Y'S ,AUDIT I1S UIELL AS FUTUf~E IP4PROVFI~~FPITS .~N~) TNE CITY'S ROI~D IR1°ROV~i~IFnIT A$SF.SSMEPIT POLTCY 7n~ foregoing resolution e•~as duly seconded l~y i1re Collova. Flyes (5) f3lesener, Collova, Scalze, :=ahey, P!ardini. Nays (D). Resolution dttclar~d adopted. This resolution aop~ars in Resolution f3ooi< h!o, 1!i, Pa9e 'L13. Barbara ProeYil as'«d if there ~«ould be notices sent ou~ vrhen the City orcaers the uarious se~~rer imF~rovements. The City Clerk replied that there ~rrill be notices to the prop^rty oti~ners in the area of the various improvements, as v.~ell as no~ices in thc newso~per. D2velopm^nt i~':r. Fahey pointed out that tiie Planning Comi~iission recently ta!~lecl District lction on the 7ax Increment Financinci Ueveloprnent [)istrict Plan Plan ~~ ~J~ve them additional time to consicler the nlan. Agenda zT `nias sug9ested that the Council nold the public 'nearing on the Item nio. u p7 ~n an<! t~~en tabl e acti on unt~i 1 the I'1 anni ng Conr~rii ssi on has mac;e tfiei r recarnmendati on. There was no one present from the audienr.e svishing to spea!< on this proposal. ~dqe -lf- i~iII~UTES Ci~y Council i~tay 'L3, 1986 Development i~9r, !3lesener introduced. the follo~~~ing resolution and eioved its ad.option: Distrir,t Plan (Cont.) R(:SOLUTIO:"d !J0. 3Fi-5-219 - CI.OSING TFIE, PU(3LIC HERRIi~lG ON Tf~i~ TA;( TpICREP~tEMT DFVELOPMEPI7 OISTRTCT PLIIDI The foregoinn, resolution a,~as duly seconded by t~1s. ~Jardini. ,4yes (5) ;~lesener, ilardini, Fah~y, Scalze, Collova. t,lays (0). I2esolution declareei adouted. This reso1ution a~pears in Reso1ution ~took Plo. 15, Page 219. Mr. ~lesener introduced the fo11oaaing r~soli.ition anc! mov~d its adop~ion: RFSOi IITIOtJ ?~IO. 56-5-220 - TA3LIPIG ACTTOfd Oh~ Tl~i(: TAX INCRE~IEPIT DFV~LOPP1"i~IT DISTRICT PLA~I ~i1D R[FrRRIiIG TFI~ PLAN 3ACK TO THli PI.A~IPIING CO~~tE~~ISSI0r~1 FOR TH~If2 R~C9P~1P~I~~IDFI7ION The foregoing resolution was duly s2condnd by P~1s. Plardini, Ayes (5) t~les~ner, Narc(ini, Fahey, Scalz~, Collova. ~~lays (0). ~2esolution c!eclared adopted. This resolution anpears in Resolution [;oo~ Plo. 15, ~'age 220. 'ob Tuerk 3ob Tuerk, 2.4 Sunrise Drive, apneared t>efare the Council and Drainage expressed concern about the Count.y ditch runninn along Edgerton Concern Street ad,jacent to his property. P.ir. Tuerl< felt t9iat the ditch should be piped a~d suqges~ed th~t the City do the o~ork Ac~~nda and charqe ti~e County for it. Addition The City Cler'F poirrCed out that Gorcly ~loG;~e is planning to develop five additional lots along Fdqertan. i~rs. Scalze suagested that the County be notified of tnis and perhaps the,y have a p1an for ~.~pgradinc the ditch in this ama. fi;r. 1=ahey suggested that ifr. 7uerl.~ approach the County a~lith hi s concerns, anc( statec+. that i f thi s a~orl< i s c(one, the County shou1d do it at th~ir expense. Rice Str. Thr Minnesota Department of Transportation t~as to have someon~ !~!at~r Line at the meetinn to discuss the relocation of saatermain on Rice Relncation Street in conjunction with tiie bricfgP upgrading projer.ts. !lo~~~ever, there was no one in attandance. Page -17- r~~zr~uT~s City Council t~1ay 23, 1936 Rice Str. The City ~n nineer stat~<i that he did not believr. that the City should I~latcrmain have to pay any relocation costs and pointed o~rt that the State plans Relocation to m ove the line to an entirely ne~~ locatian. (Cont.) ~tr. Fahey a dvi sed the ~n~7i n~er to a~iri te a 1 etter to t4~~ State outl i ni ng the City's position. ,4spen iirs. Scalze reported that the ~~r!< C or~i!nission is recommending that Grove the pedestri an ;aal ks•ra.y easemen~ over tii~ storm se+v~r i n the lispen Acidi ti on Grov e Adc!i ti on be improved rai th a 5 ~oot bi ~;umi nous mat and chai n- lin!< fencing a1ong the easement. n~~„d~ Item D t•trs. Scal ze i ntrotl.uced the fol l osvi nq resol uti on and rnovecl i ts adopti on: RESOLUTTO?4 id0. °h-5-221 - IP~!STRUCTIP!G THF CITY CLERi< TO P!OTI~Y PP,T GOFF 0;' Thlr P,nR4< C0~+1I;9ISSIOt~1' S f2EOUcST FOR PFI~IIDIG TIIE PF,~[S7RIAN EIISEP~9~~JT IPl TI!E ASPEhI GStOVE ~'1DDITIOh1 ~,?ITi~ P, ~T.VE POOT ~~AT AP1D RI_SO 7HAT THIS ~,4SEMf~~IT !3L ~!-r~r,~:i~ The foregoin~ resolution ;•~as tlu1y seconded hy i4r. Collova. i4yes (5) Scalz2, Col1ova, ~lardini, Pahey, 3lesener. Dl,ays ~~). 12esolution declared adopted. 7his resolu~tion appears in Resolution Bool< iVo. 15, nacie 221. C,anabury C?r. Fahe.y reportrd that renresentatives of the Canabur~/ Pond conclominiu;ns ponci have reqt.iested the City's assis~~nce ~n reso1vina their drainage problen~ Drainage in a sirni1ar fashion to the Sleep,y Holloai draina,rye matter. Probleri P~rs. Scalze asked ti•~ho would pay for the ~nginr~er's tirne. Agenda Item ~lo. 11 I"ahey indicated Lhat t4ie r,ost of the Engineer ~iould be naid as part of the total project. f3lesen~r pointed out that t,~e project may never be ordered. Fahey felt, that if the nroject does not get ordFred, the City should he abl e to c!~terrni ne i f thi s vai 11 happen very qui c'~1 y and then there a~oulc; not he +nuch cost involved. If the project does not aet orderecf, i:he Fngineer's time would be paid for from the General Fund. ESlesener felt that i:he drainage problem ~•~as an internal one, anc~ he ~,~as not sure it ~:~as Che City's responsibility. Paoe -18- "~lIiIUTES Ci~ty Council P1a.y 28, 1~86 Canabury Pond Drainage (Cont.) 7he Engineer reportec! triat the saater from this area enc~s up in the Sleepy Flollow pond< Th~ F.ngi neer reported that i t s~ioul d tal<e qui te soin~ 'time to draw i.io agreements for particination in the project, but if the ~roject tvas not going to go, this ~~oiild be dFtermined very quic'~ly. The Engineer estimated his r,ost at uncier $500 to determina if the pronerty a~iriers tidill agree to a drainage project. Mr. Fahey introduced the fol1owinn resolution and moved its adoption: RES01_UTIOPI td0, ?3K~-5-?22 - AUTFIORI7I~IG TFIE C,ITY ~NGI~dErR TO ~~lOR'< YII7H Tlir PROPE}27Y 0!~~IPIERS IN 7NF AR[~1 OF CFlDIAf3URY POPID IP~ Fl SIP4ILA? FASHION AS TO 4~~l~IAT b1AS ~O~Jfi TM TNF SLEEPY NOLL01=! DRATf1,4G~ P~ATTER The foregoing resolution y~~as duly second.ed by P1rs. Sc,a1ze. Fiyes (5) Fahey, Scalze, !dardini, Collova, 4lesener. Plays (~). Resolution declared ado~ted. This resolution appears in Reso1ution f3ook Plo. 15, ?age 222. Country The City Engin2er recommended the acceptance of 1:'ne improvemen~ Drive of f,ountry Drive from Spruce Straet to Itice Street and final Improvement payment to the contractor, Shafer Contracting. Agenda ''r. Collova introducecf t'ne follo~~inc~ resol~.ition anc( moved its aclaption: I~t~m ~lo. 1'L RESOLUTION PIO. '6-5-223 - b\PPRQVIt~lG TliF ~IPd,4L PAYP-9EIdT TO SHl1F~R COtdTRACTIPlG FOR TI~IF COU6ITRY DRTVE IMPROV[P1r!d7 F20fr~ SPRUCE STRF~T TO RICE STRE~T (lPl~ {1CC~PTT~1G T`I~ tMPROVF"~FP!T ON C?F..H{1LF OF TH~ CITY The foregoing resolution ~~ias dul~~ seconded by "1r. !tlesener. Ayes (5) Co1lova, 131esener, Scalze, r~hey, ~!ardini. Idays (0). Resolution declared adonted. This rQSOlution a~pears in Resolution 8oolc f~lo. 1~, Pac!e 223. h!o i'ar!<ing The State has requested that a nortion of Countr~ Drive frorn Little Country Dr. C,anada Roacl north be declared no parking in con;junr_tion 4iith the tiaidenina of the Li~ttle Canad~ R~ad brid~e. Ag~nda Itern i~lo. 14 P^:r. 3lesener renorte<S that Public !.!or<s has suggested that the east sicle of Country Driv~ be posted no oarking. Page -1~- P'!IP•!t1TES City Council ;•^,ay ?_3, 19f3& ~lo Par':ing t~1r. Fahey introduced th~ follovrino resolu~9on and moved its adoption: Country Dr. (rpnt,) RFSOLUTIO i! PIO. 35-5-2?_n - ES?ll!3LIS!IIP!G h!0 P~R!<I~ G QP~1 TI~IE Ef,ST SIDG OF COUDITRY DRIVE FOS2 ~?00 ~'EFT PJORTN 0(= LIT'fLF. C,~Idf~DA ~ono The foregoing resolution ~vas dul,y seconded by i~1rs. Scalze. nyes (5) Fahey, Scalz:~, ~lardini, Blesener, Collova. Na,ys (O). Resol iati on clecl ared aclop t^ci. This resolution aon~ars in Resolution Sook ~lo. 15, ?age 224. tQosted The City F~ttorney report~~d that he has contacted P~irs. ;~iosted Property and the listinn agreement on her property exoirer! ilay 1~. 71ie Attorney reported that ne is putting together soma_ figures ,qciend~ and 4vi11 have inore information to re4~ort later. Itern ~Jo. 15 Roacl P1rs. Scal z_e as!:ed ~,~hat the Ci t.y' s pol icy i s t~t'nen State ,~i d funds Improvenients nic!: ~rp the cost of road improvements. 6lgenda The Fngineer reported tnat Statr ~id usuaily s~rill cover 100% of itern ~!o. 1Lb street construction cosi:s and k>etsreen 30 and 50~ of storm see•~er costs. f312sener stated that if the Ci~y sets a road restoration oo1ic_y and hom2oe~mers are to be assessed a certain percentag~ of these costs, this nercent~~q~ shoiald be the same to the hoirieo~~mers ~rihether Sta'te Aid is involved. or not. Ti~e Ci~~~ Cler'~ statecl that State fiicl usually pic'cs iap the differenc~ in cost bets~~een a 4-ton residential street and a~3-ton coi~imercial street. Sealcoating Bles^ner reparted that Public !~or!<s ~;aould lii<e to call for sealcoacing 3ids b~ids for 14uG. T'n~re is ~15,000 bud.ge~Ced for this work, but Pub1i.r. ~;(orl<s aaoul<.I like to do an aclcfitional $3,000 to '~5,000 in sealcoating Agend~ and pay for it: from t'ne roaci fund. Itern Plo. lfid Counci 1 4ias of the feel i ng to cal l i'or the hi d as reqi.iested, and deter!nin~ the extent of sealcoating to be c;one wtien the birJs are received. P~lr, ~3lesener introcluc~d the fo11o~,vinq resolution and moved its adoption: Paye -20- ^'iINUT~S City Cotmcil P9a,y 2R, 198fi Seaicoatinq I3ids (Cont.) Si1 e Of John D~ere Trar,tor Agenda I't~m PJo. lFd rracl- Filler flgenda Item No. 13d RFSOLUTIOtJ i~10. f3Fi-5-225 - ~ALLIMG F0~?. ;3IE)S `'OR SE~lCOATI~dG FpR 1`~86 The foregoinc,r resolu2ion ~ras duly seconded t~y ~":r. Pahey. Flyes (5) ;21esFnc~r, Fahey, Scalze, Collova, h~arc!ini. Plays (O). Reso1ucion declared adopted. This resoluZion appears ~n Res~lut.ion Bool< ~lo. 15, °a.ge 225. Public ~rlori<s has received three bicis ~Por the purchase ot its John Deere Tractor. E3lesener r~ported that the high bic.fsias rec~i~ied from Clarence ~loom of 2977 Vanc!~rbi~. i1r. 131esener introduced the follo~ving resolution and movecl its adoption: RFSOLUTIOfI D10. °6-5-22f - Al~lAi2t~I~~a Tf~IE SID 0~' CLAREAIC~ 3LOOP~ Ii~l TFIF ~P90U,IT QF $41?_.00 F~R IFIG S~,L£ OF TNr CITY'S 19&0 JOhibi DE~R~ TR,4CTOR The foregoing resolution 4das duly seconcfed 5y P~ir. Fahey. ~yes (5? !31^sener, ~'ahey, Collova, Scalze, ~la.rdini. i•lays (0). Reso1ut~on d~clar^d atlopteci. This reso1ution apr~ears in Resolut.ion ~ook Dlo. 15, Pac!e ??.5, f31esener r~ported Chat t~~e Publ~C kiorl<s Denlrtment a~~rould lik^ to renC a crac'r,-filler for Pilling craci<s before sealcoating. RatY~er than ta!<ing hids on this, they ~~rould li!<e t..o renY, tne equinment and buy t4ie inaterials based on tivhat is availabl~ at the time the;~ need it. It a~as the concensi.is of the Counci1 to autPiorizc Public blor'~cs to ren~t a crac!<-fiil~r on the basis tlescriheci by b9r. Blesener. 7rai1 4fork Th~ City Clerk repor9:ed that '„i11 S~ndars has applietl for a permit fror? the blat.^_rsh:r.<i for trailv.ror!<. The application has ~lg2nda b2en submitted to the !~latershecl, but tf~~ permit has nof, been r~~eived Item ~10. 19 yet. 1'age -?~- h1I~IUTES City Council P1a,y 'Lf;, 19~35 Gambl i ng T`~e P~orth Enc! !lusi ness C1 ub has requestec' a namb1 i ny p2rmi t i n ?arrait order to hold a raffle at th° Uenetian Inn on ~7i.ine 22, 19Ro. Raffle ~~lorth Gnd f~.r. 31 esen°r reported. th<~zt ~4~i s t.ype o~ ganibl ~i no 1 i censF ~ s Busin2ss °xempt. Cl ub '~-1rs. Scalze staterl ~hat the policy she subm~tted wi11 have to ~~~n~{~ bE reGVOrded ~o cover exeiript yaMbl i ng per~a~i ts. I'Cern P!o. ?_1 a ?+!r. Fahey introc!uced ~'ne following resolution an~~ moved its ac;o~tion: RESOLUTIOM ~10. 8~-5-27..7 - ~1PPROVIPIe THE EX[iv1PT G~1F1SLT~IG °ERP9IT FOP. TFIE PiORTH EPID BUSIidE:SS CLUt3 FOR A RAFFL[ TO EiE HELD {1T TFIF.. Vt~ETIAIJ Ih!?~I 0~I JUP1c ?.2, 1986 7he foregoing resoluti'on saas duly secondeci by f?s. Idarc+ini. ~yes (5) '=ahey, h!arc!ini, Scalre, `~lessner, Collova. t~lays (0). Resolution declared a<lo~ted. This resolution apnears in R~solution C~oo!< ~do. l~i, !'ag° 27.7. First Banl< The City Cler!: reportetl tha~ the ~~rs~~ ~ank of St. Paul nas St, Paul submitted to thr Cifiy for approval a naying agency anreement !'a;ying for tr~e Ronus of 19~3 and 197b. Agency Agreei,ient f1s. h!arciini introduced the fol1oy~iing resolution anci moved if.s adoption: A~~jenda RGSOLUTIOPI PdO. ~6-5-228 - APPROVIPdG Item ido. 21b TNE PAYIPlG ,AGFidC'( ~~~~~~~'`I~~1T FlS SUB~IITTFU 3Y TNF ~IRST RAt~I: OF ST. P~UL F"02 TIiE BO~1DS OF 19~33 ,~iJD 1978 TYie foregoin9 resolution ~das duly seconded by i1r. ~lesener. Ayes ((i) Plardini, ~3lesener, C.ollova, tahey, >r,alze, p~ays (0). itesolu~ion dEClared adopteci. This resolution appears in ftesolui:ion EDool< ~lo. 15, Pane 72~. Cab1e TU hir. 17on Tarnoyvski recommendeci that the f,ity purchase Cable TV t:~uipm~nt enuipment in the amount of $5?_1.00. Detail of the eqi.iipment is Purchase conta~ne~i on pa9e fi~ of Council aclendas. {~uenda P~-;rs. Scalze reported that it may be ~ossible for the City to Item ~lo. ?_lc, pet high school stucients to tape Council rneetinns. Tarno~~ski renort~d Yhat this is being discussecl ~i~c9 a policy a~iill be set for t~ir~at type of crec~it the st~idents !~!ill get for ctoing ~this. Page -?2- r,;zfaures c~ty coun~;7 P~lay ?8, 1986 Cable TV Enuipmen't lCont.) Voucners o,yenda It~rn Plo. 27_ P~r. !3lesener introduced tPie folloviinc~ resolu~ion and moved its adoption: RESOLUTIOP! i~!0. Fi6-5-229 - t1PPR0VIi~lG THr PURCHFI5E OF C~13LF_" TV E~UIPMEM7 I(~J THE Ai'~?OU~JT OF °;5?_1.00 ~S OUT~_T."!`:D OP; PAGE ;n 0~' T4~ CQUNCIL aG"P~1DAS The fnregoing reso1ution ~~as duly seconded by ."1s. ^lardini. ~yes ( 51 B1 e>ener, P~larcli n~i , Sr.al r~, 1='al~iey, Col 1 ova < hlays (01. f":esol u~Ci on d.ncl arecl adopted. This resolut;ion appears in ~tesolution [~ooi< No, 15, PagP ?_29. h4r. Blesener introduced the follosvin~ resolution and rnoved. its acloption: RESOLIJTION N0. ~a-5-7_30 - f~P~ROVIPI~, TFIF V4UCNERS The foreqoinq reso1i.ition s~ras cluly secondeci !>y ?~?s. Nard~ini. n/es ('.~1 Bles^ner, Iiardini, Pahey, Scalze, Collova. ~lays (()). Resol uti on dec1 ared. acio,>ted. This reso1i~tian appears in Resolution ~300!: ~Jo. 15, Paqe 73Q. I;ora "irs. Scalz~ i~ointed out that th~ lot created b.y the property Property division req~~estetl. by Pau1 ~org has on1y enouc~h foo~tage for Division a sinnle-farni1,y hoine. Scalze po intect out that th~ property !Cont.) is zoned R-1_. The ~lanner anreed and reported ttiat the ordinance requir=~s 1C1,D(?0 square fer~ for a single fariily lot anr! 15,000 for a two-family lot. Piardi n~ askecl ;vhy tne Ci ty creat ~d a non-confori;~~ nq 1 o~t i n an R-?_ area. 7he Planner ~ep1izd that sinnle-farni1y is a permitted use in an R-?. area. Ad,~ourn htr. Pah~y iritroduced ~:he follov~ing resolution and moved its adoption: tlaenda P,ESOLUTIOi~d N0. g5-5-2'1 - ;~.~JOURNIAIG Ii:ern i~o. ?3 Pare -?3- ~~zNUTi_s City Co~mc~1 ;lay 'Ls3, 19„~~ ,Ad,jo~irn 7he foregoing r~solution ~,~ras du1y seconded by P~~'r. nlesener. (Cont.) Ay°s (>) f~ahey, ~3lesener, Collova, (lardini, Sca1ze, ~lays (0). R<salution declared adonted. This resolution appears in Resolution `:3ooi< No. 15, Page 230. There being no furt~ier business, the mee~ting wias ~djourned at 11:16 P.P9. Respec~:fu11y subm~tted, 4r ~ /,~, ~J//~ ~~ [ ~i~~~ GCi~/LJ (~~,! X ~-~~~'C -..,~%L., ICathl~en 61~nzer ~T Recording Ser.retary Paqe -2n-