Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-23-88 Council MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL LITTLE CANADA, MIN~IESOTFl March 23, 1988 Agenda Item ~lo. 1 Agenda Item No. 2 Minutes Agenda Item No. 3 Pur•suant to due call and notice ther~eof a r•egular~ meeting of the Council of the City of Little Canada, r4innesota was held on the 23rd day of Mar~ch, 1988 in the Council Chamber•s of the City Center• located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. Mayor• Michael Fahey chai r~ed the meeti ng and cal l ed i t to or~der~ at 7:30 P.M. and the following members of the Council were present at roll call: P1EP~BERS PRESENT: Mayor~ P1r•. Michael Fahey Councilman Mr. Bill Blesener Councilman Mr~. Rick Collova Councilwoman Mrs. Qeverly Scalze MEMQERS ABSENT Co~mcilman Mr~. Jim LaValle ALSO PRESENT City Clerk City Attorney City Engineer• City Planner• Recor•ding Secr•etar•y Mr•. Joseph Chlebeck Mr. Thomas Sweeney P1r. Donald Carley Mr. Steve Grittman Mrs. Kathleen Glanzer Scalze indicated that on page 2, 3r~d par•agr•aph, last line of the Mar~ch 9, 19BII Regular~ Council P1eeting minutes, the wor•d "Febr•uar•y" should be chanqed to "Plarch". P1r~. Blesener~ intr~oduced the following r~esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTIODI N0. 88-3-98 - APPROVING THF MINUTES OF THE P9ARCH 9, 19£38 REGULAR COUNCIL P1EETI~IG AS CORRECTED The foregoinq r~esolution was duly seconded by Mr•s. Scalze. Ayes (4) Blesener•, Scalze, Collova, Fahey. Pdays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This r•esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 103. Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-99 - APPROVI~IG THE MI~IUTES OF THE JOI~IT IdORKSHOP MFETING BETI+IEE~I THE CITY COt!"iCIL AND PLANDIING COMMISSION OF MARCH 10, 1988 The for•egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by P4r~. Fahey. Ayes (4) Blesener, Fahey, Scalze, Collova. Nays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r•esolution appear~s in Resolution Book Mo. 19, Page 104. Page -1- MINUTES City Council March 23, 1988 P9inutes P1r•s. Scalze intr~oduced the following r•eso1ution and moved its adoption: (Cont.) RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-100 - APPROVING THE MIPIUTES OF THE MARCH 9, 1988 COUPJCIL WORKSHOP MEETING The for•egoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr•. Blesener~. Ayes (4) Scalze, Blesener, Collova, Fahey. Nays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r•esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 104. Announce- Fahey r•epor•ted that pr~ior• to tonight's meeting a Council wor•kshop vaas ments held to discuss the Little Canada Elementar~y School and possible City par•ticipation in an addition onto that School, as well as the Capitol Agenda View pr•oper•ty and City inter•est in r~etaining use of the r•ecr~eational Item No. 4 facilities at that pr•oper~ty. Capitol Fahey r~epor~ted that the City's Recr•eation Committee submitted a r~epor•t View & suggesting that City par~ticipation in the addition onto Little Canada Little Canada School should not be pr•ovided since ther•e ar•e alr~eady adequate gymnasium Canada facilities and adult shower• facilities available within the City. Elementar~y However•, the Council discussed par•ticipation to the extent of pr~oviding School an access door• on the west end of the addition as well as par•ticipation in the cost of a par•king lot at that end. The Recr•eation Committee has suggested that the r~ecr~eational facilities to the east of the Capitol View building be retained, as well as the inside r~ecr•eational facilities on a shar~ed basis. Fahey r~epor~ted that he wi 11 wr~i te a 1 etter~ to the School Di str•i ct i nfor•mi ng them of these r•ecommendations and also infor~m them that the City is comfor•table with the Public zoning of the Capitol View pr•oper•ty and is willing to wor•k with them to obtain a tenant for• that building that will fit within the Public zoning. Par~k Fahey r~epor•ted that a Council wor•kshop meeting will be held at 6:30 P.M. Sur•vey on Apr•il 13, 1988 to r•eview r•esults of the City's par•k sur•vey. Wor•kshop 1996 Fahey r•epor•ted that the City has been r~equested to pass a resolution Summer• suppor•ting effor~ts of the Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul to host Olympics the 1996 Summer~ Olympics. Mr•s. Scalze intr~oducetl the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-101 - SUPPORTING THE CO!CEPT OF MIINEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL HOSTING THE 1996 SUMMER OLYMPICS Page -2- MINUTES City Council ~larch 23, 1988 1996 The for~egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr•. 6lesener~. Olympics Ayes (4) Scalze, alesener•, Fahey, Collova. (Cont.) Mays (0). Resolution dec1ar~ed adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book Mo. 19, Page 105. Public Fahey opened the Public Hearing to consider the r~ezoning of City property Hear•ing fr~om Gr~eenbr•ier~ to Payne Avenue from R-1 to Public for~ par~k pur•poses. Thunder• Bay Par~k Fahey r•epor~ted that the Planning Commission discussed the r~ezoning at Rezoning length and r~ecommended appr•oval pr•ovided that the City make pr~ovision for• the long-ter•m funding of development of the par~k ar•ea as well as Agenda maintenance costs. Fahey pointed out that the pr•oper~ty must be r•ezoned Item Mo. 5 befor~e it can be developed and long-ter~m planning for• the par~k will take sever~al months. Scalze r•epor•ted that she will be meeting with the Public Wor•ks Super•intendent to put together some estimates of future maintenance costs. Fahey pointed out that the public hear•ing is being held to consider• putting the pr•oper~ty into Public zoning, not to consider~ development of the pr~oper~ty. Before the park is improved, the City will have some idea of future development and maintenance costs. Scal ze al so r~epor~ted that the Par•k Commi ssi on i s cur•r~ently negoti ati ng wi th NSP for~ gr~ant monies to be used in development of the par•k. P1oney has been budgeted by the City for grading and trail improvement within the park for 1988. Fahey asked if there was anyone from the general public present wishing to speak on this matter•. Dave Kir~cher•, 3078 Thunder• Bay Road, r~epor•ted that his pr•oper~ty abutts the par•k pr•oper~ty and asked the City's intentions for~ development of the par•k. Scalze r•epor~ted that the Par•k Commission is cur•r•ently developing plans for~ the par•k and will be having neighbor•hood meetings to pr•esent the plan and gather• i nput fr•om the nei ghbor•s. At thi s time ther~e are pl ans for• an infor~mal ballfield ar~ea, open space, a tr•ail, and childr•en's play equipment. Kir•cher• asked if the City has consider•ed fencing along the par•k boundar~ies. Scalze suggested that Kir~cher~ addr•ess his suggestions for• the par•k to the Par~k Commission. Scalze also explained that the par•k land was acquired by the City through park dedications that were made by developers i n the ar•ea. Ki r•cher~ asked the type of tr~ai 1 s that wer~e pl anned. Page -3- MINUTES City Council Mar•ch 23, 1988 Thunder• Bay Scalze r•eplied Par•k Ar•ea pedestr•i an and Rezoning (Cont.) Fahey reported pr•operty under~ system with a that the tr•ails would be 6-foot asphalt tr~ails for~ bicycle tr•affic with no motor~ized vehicles allowed. that the City's long-term plan is to acquire all the the NSP power~line easement for• development as a par~k tr•ail that connects the major~ par~ks in the City. Scalze reported that the Park Commission meets the third Thursdays of each month and ur•ged Kir~cher• to attend a meeting and give his input on development of Thunder• Bay Par~k. Ther•e was no one else pr•esent wishing to comment on this matter•. Mr~. Blesener~ intr~oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-102 - CLOSING TNE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED RE7_ONI~IG OF THE THUNDER QAY PARK AREA FROM GREENaRIER TO PAY~IE AVENUE FROM R-1 TO PUBLIC The for~egoing r~esolution was duly seconded by Mr•. Collova. Ayes (4) Blesener•, Collova, Scalze, Fahey. Nays (0). Resolution declar~ed adopted. This r•esolution appear~s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 106. Mr•s. Scalze intr•oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-103 - APPROVING THE REZONING OF THE THUNDER BAY PARK ARE11 FROM GREEPJBRIER TO PAYNE AVFNUE FROM R-1 TO PUBLIC, SPECIFICALLY THE PARCELS AS LISTED BELOW: 05-29-22-12-0079 Thunder• Bay Estates Lot 10, Block 3 05-29-22-12-0069 Thunder Bay Estates Subj. to Easement; Lot 8, Block 1 05-29-22-11-0073 Sofie Peter•sen Addition Par~k 05-29-22-11-0031 Relland Addition Lot 6, Block 1 Page -4- MINUTES City Council March 23, 1988 Thunder• The for•egoing r~esolution was duly seconded by P1r•. i~lesener~. Bay Park Ayes (4) Scalze, Blesener, Collova, Fahey. Area Nays (0). Rezoning Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r•esolution appear•s in Resolution f3ook No. 19, Page 107. Gar~dner• Fahey opened the Public Hear~ing to consider the application of Gar•dner~ Bros. Bros. for~ preliminary plat and cancept PUD for their proper~ty located Pr~eliminar~y on County Road D. Plat & PUD Fahey noted that the Planning Commission has r~ecommended appr•oval subject Agenda to compliance with the conditions as outlined in the Planner~'s repor~t Item No. 6 dated Mar~ch 7, 1988. The City Planner• infor•med the Council that a PUD is being sought on this proper•ty because the NSP power•line easement thr~ough the pr~oper~ty r•estr•icts the buildable ar~ea of the pr•oper•ty. Also, the souther•n por•tion of the pr•oper~ty abutts DeSoto, however~, the City is r~estr•icting commer•cial and industr~ial tr~affic fr•om that str•eet. Ther•efor~e, the PUD allows the Gar~dner~ Br•os. the utilization of the souther•n por~tion of i;heir• pr~oper~ty with dr•iveway access thr~ough the par•king ar•ea pr~oposed on the site. Fahey pointed out that the two buildinqs proposed along County Road D have dir•ect r•oad fr•ontage. The Planner~ r~eplied that this was cor•r~ect. The only building without dir•ect r~oad fr•ontage is the mini-office/war~ehouse building on the souther•n por•tion of the pr•oper•ty. Dave Hel l er•, r•epr~esenti ng Gar•dner• Bros. , appear•ed befor~e the Counci 1 and pr~esented the site plan for• the development of the pr•oper•ty. Heller• descr•ibed the site plan which calls for~ two office buildings along County Road D and mini-office/war•ehouse building on the souther•n por•tion of the site. Gar~dner• Br~os. plans to constr•uct the office building on the northwest cor•ner• of the site fir•st, with the office/ war•ehouse building to be constr•ucted immediately after•. The Planner• pointed out that the pr•oposal is to cr•eate separ•ate lots for• each of the buildings. Collova asked the pur~pose of this. The Planner~ r~eplied that this would be beneficial for~ mor~tgage r•easons. Ther~e is also the potential for• Tax Incr•ement Financing on the site, and thi s woul d r~equi r•e separ~ate 1 ots for• each bui 1 di ng si nce the enti r~e deve1opment will not be constr•ucted at one time. Heller• r~epor•ted that Gar•dner• Br•os. would be locating their~ home office in the nor•thwest office building, and ther~e would be additional space within the building that would be leased. Page -5- MINUTES City Council Mar~ch 23, 19II8 Gardner Bros. (Cont Blesener~ asked if the par~king as pr•oposed was adequate. The Planner• r•eplied that it was slightly in excess of the City's par~kinq requirements. Fahey agr~eed that the PUD was appr•opr•iate in this instance since the City has r~estr~icted access by industr~ial and commer~cial sites to DeSoto. Without that restriction, the southern portion of the site would have had r~oad access. The Planner• noted that to avoid the PUD a public str•eet would have had to be put thr•ough the site to access the souther•n portion of the site. The r~oad would have used up land needed to meet par•king r•equir•ements, and in all likelihood, the souther•n por•tion of the site would not have been developed. Scalze noted that without the PUD, the site would have had mor~e gr•een space and less par•king ar•ea. The Planner~ agr~eed, but this would have been because the mini-office/ war~ehouse buildings could not have been constr•ucted. Fahey pointed out that a par•k char•ge is r•equir•ed for• the PUD as has been done with pr~evious PUDsappr~oved by the City. Fahey asked if ther•e was anyone fr~om the public pr•esent wishing to addr~ess this issue. Ther•e was not. Mr~. Collova intr~oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-104 - CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE GARDNER BP.OS. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUD The for~egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr. Blesener~. Ayes (4) Collova, Blesener•, Fahey, Scalze. Nays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r•esolution appear~s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 108. Collova asked the Council's feeling for~ putting a maximum amount of time that the existing house on the pr~oper•ty could be left up. Council discussed the matter• and felt the house fit in well with the ar•ea and ther•e would be no need to r•emove the house until the second office building on County Road D is constr•ucted. Fahey suggested, however•, that a pr•ovision be included in the PUD Agr•eement giving the City the power~ to give r~easonable notice to the developer to require the removal of the house. Page -6- MINUTES City Council March 23, 198II Gar•dner• Fahey asked if the PUD Agr•eement would lapse if constr•uction is not begun Br~os. (Cont.) on all the pr•oposed buildings within a per•iod of one year~. The Ci ty Pl anner• r•epor~ted that Gar~dner• Br•os. wi 11 have to submi t a phasing plan which will become par•t of the PUD Agr~eement. Once all phases ar•e completed, the PUD will become continual. Scalze pointed out that a par•k char•ge will need to be paid for• this development. The Planner noted that Gardner Bros. will still have to come in for final plat and PUD appr~oval. Mr. Blesener• intr~oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-105 - APPROVI~lG THE GARDNER BROS. PRFLIMINARY PLAT SUftJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOP9MENDATIONS AS CONTAINED IM THE CITY PLANNER'S REPORT DATED MARCH 7, 1988 The for•egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr~. Fahey. Ayes (4) Blesener•, Fahey, Collova, Scalze. Nays (01. Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r•esolution appear~s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 109. Mr•. Blesener• intr•oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-106 - APPROVING THE CONCEPT OF THE GARDNER BROS. PUD AS OUTLINED I~1 THE PLANNER'S REPORT DATED b1ARCH 7, 1988 The for•egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr•s. Scalze. Ayes (4) Blesener, Scalze, Collova, Fahey. Nays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r~esolution appear•s in Resolution Qook No. 19, Page 110. Scalze r~epor~ted that the Par•k Commission has r•ecommended a cash par•k dedication and that the amount of the par•k char~ge be based on either~ a cur•r•ent appr•aisal of the pr•oper~ty, which Gar~dner• ar~os. would have to pay for, or the purchase price paid by Larry Lee for the pr•operty recently pur•chased fr•om Gar•dner~ Br~os. Scal ze al so noted that Lar•r~y Lee woul d have to pay a par~k char•ge for~ the pr~operty he pur•chased at the time he pulls a building per•mit for~ that pr~oper~ty. Page -7- MINUTES City Council Mar~ch 23, 1988 Gar•dner• it was noted that Gar•dner• Br~os. was r~equired to dedicate 33 feet of Br~os. (Cont.) r•oad r•ight-of-way for~ DeSoto. Scalze r~eplied that this is r•equir•ed as part of the PUD Agr•eement and does not impact on the par•k char•ge that Gar•dner f3r•os. will be r~equir•ed to pay. Fahey pointed out that developer~s have, in the past, wanted to dedicate ponding ar•eas as par•t of their~ par•k charge, but this does not pr•ovide the City with usable par•k land, or• the cash to pur~chase such par~k land. Scalze r~epor•ted that the City's intent is to develop a nice par~k in the ar•ea whi ch wi 11 be an ameni ty to the Gar•dner• Br•os. devel opment. Theis Fahey reported that P~r. Tom Theis, owner of 644 East County Road D, has Pr~oper•ty r•equested the di vi si on of hi s pr•oper•ty i nto two 1 ots. The P1 anni ng Division Commission and City Planner• r~ecommend appr~oval of the division as it meets all City Code r•equir•ements. h1r•. Fahey intr~oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-107 - APPROVING THF THEIS PROPERTY DIVISION AS PRESENTED DIVIDING THE PROPERTY AT 644 COUNTY ROAD D INTO TWO LOTS AS THE PROPERTY DIVISI0~1 P9EETS ALL CITY CODE REQUIREME~ITS The for~egoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr•s. Scalze. Ayes (4) Fahey, Scalze, Collova, Blesener. Nays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r~esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 111. Gor•dy Scalze r~epor~ted that fr~om infor~mation in Council agendas it appear•s that Howe the easement located to the nor•th of Lot 1, Block 1, Lakeview Estates Dr•iveway can be used for~ r•oad pur~poses. Request Mr•. Gor•dy Howe appear~ed befor~e the Counci 1 and repor•ted that he woul d Agenda like to br•ing the dr•iveway for~ Lot 1, Block 1, Lakeview Estates out Item No. 8 the nor~th side of the lot and utilize the r•oad easement as well as the Schletty dr~iveway easement. Howe repor•ted that he is cur~r•ently negoti ati ng wi th Mr•. Schl etty for• the use of the dr•i veaiay. Collova asked the feeling of the Council for requiring Mr. Howe to enter~ into an agreement with the City stating that he would not be opposed to the impr•ovement of a r•oad on the nor•th side of this lot. P1r. Howe replied that he was willing to enter into such an agreement. Page -8- MINUTES City Council March 23, 1988 Gor~dy Fahey pointed out that if it wer•e deemed that the proper~ty would be Howe benefited by the r•oad, the pr~oper•ty would be assessed for• the impr•ovement. Dr~i veway Request Howe agr~eed that the proper~ty would be benefited by a r~oad impr~ovement. (cont.) The City Attor•ney stated that the City could enter• into an agr•eement with Mr~. Howe that he would not object to any impr•ovement of the r•oad on the nor•th side of the lot, but did not think the City could r~equir•e an agr~eement stating that he would not object to any assessments for• that r~oad. The City Attor•ney suggested that any agr•eement that is dr•awn up be filed against the pr~oper•ty. Fahey suggested that simply as a condition of appr•oval of the driveway, Mr~. Howe agr~ee that he woul d be deemed i n favor~ of a r~oad impr•ovement should one go in. This would then be available to subsequent councils at the time a r•oad impr•ovement would be assessed. Mr•. Fahey intr•oduced the following r~esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-108 - APPROVINf, THE GORDY HOWE REQUEST FOR DRIVE4IAY ACCESS TO THE CITY'S ROADWAY EASEPIENT FOR THE PROPOSED RESIDE~ITIAL DWELLI~IG TO f3E CONSTRUCTED ON LOT 1, 6LOCK 1, LAI<EVIEW ESTATES SUBJECT TO SUBMISSION OF A LETTER TO THE CITY CLERK ACK~IOt~ll_EDGIPlG THAT MR. HOt~JE DOES NOT OBJECT TO Fl CITY STP,CET BEIPIG IMPROVED ON THAT EASED9FNT APID THAT MR. HO~~!E WILL ADVISE ANY SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THF PROPERTY OF THIS AGREEP'IENT The for~egoing r•esolution was duly seconcled by Mr~. filesener~. Ayes (4) Fahey, Blesener~, Scalze, Collova. Nays (0). P,esolution declared adopted. This r~esolution appear~s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 112. Neamy Mr. 6ene Schultz appeared before the Council requesting that previous Pr~oper•ty Council r~equir~ement for• r~emoval of 4.5 feet fr•om the Neamy gar•age be Division r•escinded and that a building per•mit be allowed on Lot A. Agenda Fahey explained that when the City pr•eviously acted on the pr~oper~ty Item No. 9 division of the Neamy pr~oper•ty it was with the r•equir~ement that when a building permit is issued for Lot A, that 4.5 feet of the ~leamy gar•age be r~emoved so that the setback of the Neamy gar~age would meet Code requirements. Scalze explained that this was done as City Code does not allow a pr•operty division that would r~esult in the need for a variance. The City is not allowed to cr~eate a non-confor~ming lot. Paqe -9- MINUTES City Council Mar~ch 23, 1988 Neamy Scalze stated, however•, that she was not opposed to amending the City Property Code to address homes that were built prior to the change in the Code Division that incr~eased the size of sideyar~d setbacks. However•, Scalze did not (Cont.) feel that a var~iance could be gr~anted as this would give the Pleamy pr•oper•ty an advantage over• another• pr•oper~ty wher~e the pr~oper~ty owner• might not r~equest a var•iance. Fahey agr~eed. Fahey stated that the City cannot put itself in the position of gr•anting a lot split that will r•equir•e a var~iance. Var•iances ar~e only war•r•anted when a har~dship or~ unusual cir~cumstance is pr•esent. Fahey suggested that the City look at the change to the Code that was made in 1980 that incr~eased the size of sideyar•d setbacks. Fahey felt that if a home wer•e existing pr~ior• to 1980, it should be allowed to expand to within 5 feet of the side lot line. The City Planner~ commented that the City has addr~essed the situation wher•e a home existing pr•ior~ to 1980 can expand to within 5 feet of the side lot line and has allowed this. However•, in the case of the Neamy pr•oper~ty division, a new lot line is being cr•eated that would be less than 10 feet fr•om the Pleamy gar•age. This new lot was not a lot of r~ecor•d pr~i or• to 1980. Schultz suggested that he could r•equest a var•iance for~ a 75 foot wide corner lot. Fahey noted that a var•i ance r~equi r~es four~ affi r~mati ve votes of the Counci 1, and Mr•. Schultz does not have that. Blesener• suggested that when the Neamy home was fir~st built it was set with the intentions of splitting lots fr•om either• end, but tha pr•oper•ty was kept combined for tax purposes. B1esener felt that by not allowing a 5 foot setback on the sidelot line, Meamy was being depr~ived fr•om the reasonable use of her• pr•oper~ty. The Codes were changed in 1980 which incr~eased the sideyar•d setback, and Dlesener• felt the situation did r•esul t i n a har•dshi p. Schultz r•epor~ted that he wou1d be placing the new home so that ther•e is mor•e than a 20 foot building separ•ation. Fahey agr~eed that peopl e evi th 1 ar•ge par•cel s may have pl aced thei r~ homes in anticipation of dividing the pr•oper•ty at a futur•e date. In the meantime Codes wer~e changed which eliminatecl the possibility of ineeting setback r•equir•ements. Fahey noted that this was the situation in a pr•oposal for• spl i tti ng the {3ecker• pr•oper~ty as wel 1. Scalze felt the Council was in agr•eement that the 5 foot sideyar•d setback along the Neamy gar~age should be allowed, however~, the Council must deter~mine the best way to do this without a var•iance. Schultz agr~eed that when the Neamy home was built it was with the intention of splitting the pr•oper~ty in the futur•e. Page -10- P~INUTES City Council Mar~ch 23, 1988 Neamy Fahey felt that the Code should be amended to pr~ovide that a pr~oper•ty Pr•oper•ty can be spl i t r~esul ti ng i n a si deyar•d setback up to 5 feet fr~om the Division existing structure, if that structure ~vas constructed prior to 1980, (Cont.) and if the new lot meets current Code requirements. The City Planner~ stated that the concer~n he would have is that ever~y Code change over• the past 30 year~s will be challenged by people who will say that they built pr~ior~ to when a par~ticular~ Code was put into effect, and should not be subject to it. The Planner~ felt this would become an administr~ative nightmar~e. Scalze noted that the only time this has come up is with r•egar•d to sideyar•d setbacks. Blesener agreed noting that many people have wide lots and set their homes off to one side, anticipating the ability to divide their• pr•operty some time in the futur•e. Mr•. Blesener~ intr•oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ~10. 88-3-109 - INSTRUCTING THE CITY PLANNER TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCG APIEND~IENT 41HICH PROVIDES THAT HOPIES CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE CHAPdGE IN CITY CODE OPl JUME 25, 1980 ~lOULD BE PERMITTED A FIVE FOOT SGTBl1CK FRO"^. SIDE YARD LOT LINES FOR LOT SPLITS h!HEP! THE NEl~! LOT BEI~1G CREATED P9EETS ALL CURRENT CODE REQUIREf9ENTS The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Scalze. Ayes (4) Blesener~, Scalze, Fahey, Collova. Nays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r~esolution appear•s in Resolution Book Mo. 19, Page 113. Fahey requested the City Clerk to inform Mr. and Mrs. Becker of this action by the Council. Scalze noted that ther•e has been a vequest to place a gar~age within less than 10 feet fr•om the pr~oper•ty line. The Pl anner• expl ai ned that a pr•oper•ty o~~uner• woul d 1 i ke to r•epl ace an existing gar•age that is located r~ight on a pr~oper•ty line with a new, lar~ger• str~uctur~e. The Planner~ r~epor•ted that he infor~med the pr•oper•ty owner~ that the City Code will r•equir•e a 10 foot setback be maintained on the new str•uctur~e. Scalze noted that a r•equest for• var~iance for• a gar~age was denied on Lakeshor•e Avenue. This was a var•iance for~ setback. Fahey suggested that the Building Inspector~ handle the matter•, noting that ther•e has been no for•mal var•iance r•equest pr•esented to the Council for• action. Page -11- P9INUTES City Council Mar~ch 23, 1988 Mastell The P~ayor• reported that the Council has received a report from the Sewer• City's insur~ance company denying the Mastell claim for• damages caused Dack-Up by sewer• backing up into his basement. The Council also has a r~epor•t submitted by the Public Idor~ks Superintendent on the claim, i~!hich the Agenda Council reviewed. Item No. 10 Mr. Dave Mastell appeared before the Council and reported that two years ago he had a seuier• back-up, which the City's insur•ance car~r•ier• cover•ed 70% of the damage to his basement. At that time $4,500 in damages were caused. After~ the sewer~ back-up, the City c leaned the sewer• line as there was debris in the line. At first the insurance company denied the claim, but after~ the City contacted the insur•ance company 70% of the claim was paid. Mastell r•epor~ted that with r•egar~d to the cur~r~ent claim, the sewer• backed up in July after• a r•ainfall of only 3/4ths to 1 inch. It was two weeks after• the backup occur•r•ed that the Ci ty r~ecei ved a 5 1/2 i nch r~ai nfal 1. Mastell r•epor•ted that these facts ar~e incor~r~ect in the Public l~lor•ks Super•intendent's r~epor•t. Mastell further reported that after the back-up, the City again cleaned the sewer~ 1 i ne, and when the 5 1/2 i nch r•ai n came, ther•e wer•e no pr•obl ems. Due to this Mastell stated that it was his belief that r•oots or• something in the sewer~ caused the back-up and the back-up was not caused by r•oof dr~ains that are connected into the City's sewer• system as indicated by the Public 41or•ks Super•intendent. Mastell r~epor~ted that his basement was flooded on July 5 and the 5 1/2 inch r•ainfall did not occur~ until July 23. Scalze suggested that sticks and debr•is may be washing into the sewer• fr~om the r~oof dr~ains that ar~e connected to the sewer• line. Fahey noted that the Public 41or~ks Super•intendent states that when cleaning the sewer sticks and solid matter was found. Mastell stated that unless the pr~oblem is found, his basement will flood again. P~astell also r•epor~ted that the minimum he expects is that the City's insur~ance company will pay 70% of his claim as was done in the past. Collova asked if any other~ homes in the ar~ea have had these same problems. Mastell r•eplied that 4 other•s have had back-ups, but his basement is the only one that is finished. ftlesener~ suggested that the City Engineer•, Public Wor~ks Superintendent and Mr. Mastell sit down and discuss the pr~oblem. Blesener• also suggested that the City discuss the claim with its insur•ance company. Fahey suggested that the matter• be placed on the Council agenda for~ its next meeting. Page -12- MINUTES City Council ~9arch 23, 1988 Unsitely Fahey r•epor•ted that the City has r•eceived complaints about unsitely yar•ds Yar•ds in the Sylvan Str~eet ar•ea. The Building Inspector• has discussed the matter• with the proper•ty owner~s, who have indicated that they will clean up their~ Agenda yar•ds. Addition Sue Kaiser, Kaiser-Schorn Homes, appeared before the Council and reported that nothing has been done in cleaning up the yar•ds. Kaiser• asked if a time limit has been placed on the pr~oper•ty owners to r•esolve the problem. Fahey replied that given the time of the year, the City felt that the pr•oper•ty owner~s should be given until sometime in Spr~ing to clean up. However~, a specific date by which clean-up is to be finished was not set. Kai ser~ r•epor•ted that they fi r•st br•ought the matter~ to the Ci ty i n October• or• November~ of 1987. Kaiser• r•epor~ted that their• fir•m has been impr•oving the ar•ea and building homes in the $110,000 to $150,000 pr•ice r~ange. However•, they ar~e having difficultv selling homes due to the condition of some yards. Kaiser~ outlined the condition of the yar•ds and asked that a specific date be set for• completing clean-up. Fahey pointed out that some of the pr•oper•ty owner~s involved have lived many, many year~s on their~ pr•oper•ties. However~, the City understands the pr~oblem and will do whatever• it can to get the yar•ds cleaned up. Fahey pointed out that the issue was br~ought befor•e the Council in Januar•y of 1988, and the Council was not going to ask anyone to clean up a yar~d at that time of the year•. The Council instr•ucted the 6uilding Inspector~ to wor~k with the pr•operty owner~s to the extent that he can. Fahey suggested that the City Council establish a R^.ay 1, 1988 deadline for• this cleanup. Fahey pointed out that the specific pr•oper~ty the Ci ty i s awar~e of i s the !'hi te proper•ty, and suggested that Kai ser~ pr•ovi de the City with the addr•esses of other~ pr~oper•ties that she has been r•efer~r~ing to. This can be taken up with the Building Inspector•. Mr•. Dlesener• intr•oduced the following r~esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-110 - INSTRUCTING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO 410RK I~IITH THE l~niITE'S TO CLEAN UP THEIR PROPERTY I+IITHIN THE REQUI.P,EMEMTS OF THE CITY ORDINANCE BY MAY 1, 1988 The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Collova. Ayes (4) Blesener~, Collova, Fahey, Scalze. Mays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Bool< No. 19, Page 114. Belland- The City Planner reported that the owners of the Belland-Denery property Dener•y on 3075 LaBor•e Road ar•e consi der•i ng pl atti ng thi s pr•oper•ty i nto si ngl e Property family lots. The Planner reported that since there is interest on the par•t of the City to acquir•e a por•tion of this pr~oper~ty for• Par•k pur•poses, Page -13- P9INUTES City Council P9arch 23, 1988 Belland- he suggested that the pr~oper•ty owner~s appear• at the next Par•k Commission Dener~y meeting. Pr•oper•ty (Cont.) Blesener~ pointed out the complaint r~eceived by the City r~egar~ding needed clean-up of the pr•oper~ty. The Planner• r•eplied that he didn't addr~ess this issue since a clean-up woul d pr•obably occur~ i f the pr•oper•ty i s pl atted and sol d as si ngl e family lots. However~, the Building Inspector• is pr~oceeding to enfor~ce the Fire Codes. Scalze agr~eed that all the issues may be r•esolved in the platting of this pr•oper•ty. Quality Fahey asked the viewing audience to call in and comment on the quality Of of the broadcast since the City has a new producer this evening. Br•oadcast Sever•al calls wer~e r~eceived and all indicated impr•oved quality in the Agenda br•oadcast. Addition Savage Mr•. Alex Chester~, 303 Savaqe Lane, anpear~ed befor~e the Council asking Lake for~ infor•mation on City plans to r~aise the level of Savage Lake. Chester• Level r•epor•ted that he has been discussing this matter• with the DNR who has indicated that the City is consider•ing this. Agenda Addition The City Engineer~ repor•ted that the DPIR has infor~med him that ther~e is inter~est in r~aising the level of Savage Lake. Chester~ r~epor•ted that he has lived on his pr•oper•ty for~ many year~s, pr~ior• to constr•uction of the fr~eeway, and the level is too low. Chester• r~epor•ted that the matter~ of the 1 ake 1 evel was fi r•st br~ought to the Council when a per~son on the nor•th shor•e of the lake indicated that the water• level was too high. The City Engineer~ r~epor~ted that he plans to do a study of the lake level and its effect on the west side of the fr~eeway and into the ponding ar~ea at Jackson and Demont. Ther•e may be need to extend some stor•m sewer• i n that ar~ea as ther•e i s an exi sti ng cul ver•t i n need of r•epl acement. The City Engineer~ r•epor~ted that as a r•esult of the Demont pr~oject, ther•e wi 11 be mor•e water• i n the 1 ake. However•, the Ci ty must be car~eful not to r•aise the lake level too high. Chester commented that the City cannot change the water flowaqe into the lake without DNR appr•oval. Chester~ claims that this has been done by the City in the past. Page -14- MINUTES City Council f1arch 23, 1988 Savage The City Engineer• r~eplied that at the time the City put the dr•ain in, Lake (Cont.) the DNR was not in existence. The Engineer reported that the City is aware that DNR approvals are required at this time. The Engineer• stated that he would have some plans and estimates r•eady for~ Council r•eview at its next meeting. A topogr~aphical sur•vey is necessar•y as ther•e ar~e some low buildings that could be effected. Chester~ r~epor~ted that the pr•oper•ty owner•s on Savage Lake ar•e not opposed to having the lake r•aised. Fahey stated that the City will act within the law if it changes the level of the lake. Blesener~ commented that the DNR may specify the lake level. The City Engineer• agr~eed. The Ci ty Engi neer~ stated that he wi 11 r~epor•t on thi s matter• fur~ther~ at the next meeting. Str•eet Mar•y Reiland appear•ed befor~e the Council and r•epor•ted that she is Light building a home on Sylvan S~reet. Ther•e ar•e no str•eet linhts on the Request str~eet, and Reiland r•equested that one be installed. Agenda alesener• r•epor~ted that the City has a str•eet lighting policy which Addition will be reviewed by the Public Works Superintendent, and appropriate str•eet 1 i ghti ng wi 11 be or•der•ed for• Syl van. Reiland asked the timing for• getting the str•eet light installed. Council infor~med Reiland that NSP will be r•equested to install the str•eet light, however•, NSP is usually quite busy in the Spr•ing and it could take a few months before they get to the request. Blesener~ suggested that the r~equest be made to NSP as soon as possible. Recess At this point in the meeting, 9:05 P.M „ Council took a shor~t r~ecess. The meeting was r~econvened at 9:13 P.M. Payne Ave. The City Engineer• r•eported that Payne Avenue is in ver•y poor~ condition. His office will be putting together~ some cost estimates for~ the Agenda impr~ovement of the str~eet and suggested ways to finance an impr•ovement. Item No. 16 These should be available for~ the next meeting. Page -15- PIINUTES City Council Mar•ch 23, 1988 Akwright The City Engineer reported that there is a drainaqe problem on Akwright Dr~ainage that needs to be r~esolved. The Engineer• stated that he would study the Pr~oblem pr•oblem and br•ing in a r•ecommendation and cost estimates at the next meeting. Agenda Addition LJatermain The City Engineer repor~ted that he has received some calls from people inter•ested in City water• on Keller~ Parkway. The Engineer• suggested that Agenda due to the few ar~eas not water•ed in the City and the high costs of some Addition of these impr•ovements, that any futur•e water~main impr~ovements should include the whole City. Fahey pointed out that a few year•s ago the City notified r•esidents without water~main to get petitions for• water~main impr~ovements in just because of the r•easons outlined by the Engineer•. Nowever~, ther~e was little inter•est. Fahey stated that he was not in favor~ of or•der•ing water~main wher~e people do not want it. Blesener• pointed out that ther•e ar•e a couple of ways to bring water•main to Kel l er~ Par~kway wi thout r•unni ng a water~mai n down the str~eet. al esener~ pointed out that the Enqineer• pr•eviously pr~epar•ed a r~epor•t outlining these possibilities and suggested that the Engineer~ submit this r~epor~t to the Council once again. Thunder• The City Engineer• submitted to the Council a contour~ map which he pr•epar•ed Bay Par•k for• the Thunder• Bay Par•k ar~ea. Area Scalze r•equested that this map be submitted to Qill Sander~s of the Par•k Commission. Trails Scalze pointed out that there is a section of tr•ail to Payne Avenue that should be r•ezoned to Public. The City has the easement, however~, the Agenda tr•ail is not pr~oper~ly zoned. Addition Council discussed the necessity for~ r~ezoning tr~ails within the City, and it was suggested that the City's Zoning Or•dinance be amended to allow tr~ai 1 s as a per~mi tted use i n al l Zoni ng Di str~i cts. Mr•. Blesener~ intr•oduced the followin9 r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-111 - INSTRUCTING THE CITY PLANNER TO PREPARE A ZODIING ORDINANCE AMENDP1EMT WHICH blILL ALLOW TRAILS IN ALL ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE CITY The for•egoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr•s. Scalze. Ayes (4) Rlesener•, Scalze, Collova, Fahey. ~lays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This r•esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 115. Page -16- MINUTES City Council Mar~ch 23, 1988 Electr•ical Fahey r~epor•ted that the Electr•ical Inspector~ is r•equesting the City Permit increase its electrical inspection fees as outlined in Coun cil agendas. Fees These r•ates have not been incr•eased for~ the past six year•s. The Cities of Shor•eview, Ar~den Hills and North St. Paul have r~ecently increased Agenda their• electr~ical per•mit fees. Item ~lo. 17 Mr•. Fahey intr•oduced the following r~esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-112 - APPROVING THE ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEE INCREASES AS PROPOSE~ BY TNE CITY'S ELECTRICAL I~lSPECTOR The for~egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr•. Collova. Ayes (4) Fahey, Collova, Scalze, Blesener~. Nays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r•esolution appear~s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 116. VJake The City Cler•k outlined the need for~ the County as well as the City of Ordinance Maplewood to adopt a wake or•dinance in or•der• for• the I~lake Or•dinance adopted by the City to be effective. Agenda Addition Blesener commented that he thought the City had submitted its Wake Ordinance to the DNR for their review. The City Cler•k asked if the Council felt the or•dinance should be r~eviewed by the r~esi dents on Lake Ger~vai s. Fahey suggested that the City Attor•ney and City Cler~k r•eview the pr~ocedur•e necessar•y so that the City can have a Wake Or•dinance in effect for• Lake Ger•vais, and, if necessar•y, a public hear•ing should be scheduled for• review of the or~dinance and notices sent to the pr~oper~ty owner~s on the lake. Blesener• suggested the r•esidents also be sent a copy of the Or•dinance along with the hearing notice. Dave The City Attorney reported that he has discussed with Dave Frattalone Fr~attalone the option agr•eement the City has submitted to him for• the pur•chase Property of his property. There are two issues yet to be resolved before Mr. Purchase Frattalone will sign the agreement. The first is that if there is damage to the buildings on the pr•oper•ty between the time the option Agenda agr•eement is signed and the pr•oper•ty closed on, any damages would be Item No. 12 pai d to Mlr~. Fr•attal one. The Ci ty Attor~ney r~epor~ted that he i nfor•med Mr•. Fr~attalone that he had no problem with this as it would be Mr~. Fr•attalone's r~esponsibility to keep insur•ance on the pr~oper•ty. The next i tem to be r~esol ved i s the ter•ms of the contr•act-for~-deed for pur•chase of the pr•operty. Two options ar•e being consider~ed. The Page -17- PnINUTES City Council March 23, 1988 Fr~attalone fir•st would be payment to P~r~. Fr•attalone of $125,000 at the time of Pr~oper•ty closing and the balance of the pur•chase pr~ice at the end of one year~. (Cont.) The second option would be payment of ~100,000 at closing, another• $100,000 at the end of one year• and the balance at the end of the second year~. Council felt that option two was pr~efer•able as the City is cur•r•ently negotiating for~ the pur~chase of Spooner• Par~k, and this would leave the City with available funds for• Spooner• Par~k. Mr•. Fahey intr~oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PJO. 88-3-113 - AUTHORIZI~IG TNE CITY ATTORNEY TO OFFFR DFlVE FRATTALONE TERPIS OF PURCHASE AS OUTLINED BY THE CITY ATTORNGY IN OPTIOPJ TldO The for•egoing r~esolution was duly seconded by Mr~s. Scalze. Ayes (4) Fahey, Scalze, Collova, Qlesener. Mays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution L~ook ~!o. 19, Page 117. The Ci ty Attor•ney r•epor~ted that other• opti on agr•eements wi 11 be negoti ated once the Fr•attalone option is signed. Fahey infor•med the Attor~ney that Mr~. Fr•attalone has enter~ed into an opti on agreement wi th P1r•. Butl er• to pur•chase a por~ti on of hi s pr~oper•ty. Mr•. Butler• is also willing to negotiate with the City for~ the sale of a por•tion of his pr~oper•ty. Johnson Scalze r~epor~ted that Mr•. and Mr•s. Johnson have indicated that they want Easement to be compensated for~ their~ easement. The City Attor•ney will have to deal with the Johnson's. Agenda Addition The City Attor•ne,y r•epor~ted that the Ganzel easement is in condemnation. The Attor•ney also indicated that ther•e is the need for• easements on the two par~cel s south of the Ganzel pr~oper~ty as wel l. Mr~. Fahey intr•oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RFSOLUTIOPI N0. 88-3-114 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORMEY TO ~IEGOTIATE FOR EASEMENTS FOR THE JOHNSOPd PROPERTY AS I^IELL AS THF T~~JO PROPERTIES SOUTH OF THE GANZEL PROPERTY The for•egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr•s. Scalze. Ayes (4) Fahey, Scalze, Collova, Blesener. Nays (0). Resolution declar~ed adopted. This r~esolution appears in Resolution Rook No. 19, Page 118. Page -18- r~r~uTEs City Council March 23, 1988 Senior• The City Cler~k r•epor~ted that he has discussed the possibility of an Citizen addition onto the Garden Terrace se nior citizen apartment building Housing with the Ar~chdiocese and they have indicated that Feder•al 204 funds could no t be used for an addition. However, the Archdiocese would Agenda like to discuss the possibility of an addition and funding alter~natives Item No. 13 with the City. Fahey r~epor•ted that the City's Econoinic Development Committee has discussed this issue and has commissioned Business Development Ser~vices to wor•k with the City Cler•k on locating block gr~ants. The concensus of the Committee was that the City was better• developing a senior~ citizen housing project with block qrants as the City would retain mor•e contr•ol over• the pr•oject. The City could establish a housing boar•d which would manage the building and the City could give occupancy pr~efer•ence to Little Canada r•esidents. The building could be r•un at cost. Qusiness Development Ser~vices will r•epor~t on this matter• next week. The Ci ty Cl er•k r•epor•ted that the Ar•chdi ocese i s concer~ned about a competitor• management association building a senior• building next to Gar~den Ter•r~ace and competing with the Ar~chdiocese. Blesener• stated that he would be in favor• of wor•king with the Ar•chdiocese as long as the City could r•etain contr•ol and give pr~efer~ence to Little Canada residents. The City Clerk replied that Garden Terrace was financed with Federal funds and this precluded giving Little Canada residents preference. Fahey pointed out that the City has been infor•med that ther~e is no mar~ket for• seni or~ ci ti zen mar~ket r~ate housi ng. Scalze felt ther•e was a gap that needed to be filled between mar•ket rate housing and subsidized housing. Fahey suggested that if the City constr•ucts the senior• building, it woul d pr~obably have to oper•ate at mar~ket r~ate for• the fi rst coupl e of year•s. The Planner• agr•eed unless some funding could be gener~ated thr~ough Tax Increment Financing or a grant. Blesener• siaggested that the City wor•k with the Ar•chdiocese on the management of a new building as well as shar•ed amenities. The City Cler•k stated that he would like to pur•sue the issue with the Archdiocese further. Scalze stated that if the housing is subsidized, she would like to know what r•estr•ictions or• r~egulations would be placed on the housing. Mr•s. Scalze intr•oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: Page -lg- r1INUTES City Council D1ar~ch 23, 1988 Senior~ RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-115 - AUTHORI7ING THE Citizen CITY CLERK TO WORK WITH THE CITY PLANNER AP1D fiousing BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO PURSUE (Cont.) ADDITIONAL SE~lIOR CITIZEN HOUSING WITHIN THE CITY The for~egoing r~esolution was duly seconded by Mr. ftlesener~. Ayes (4) Scalze, Blesener~, Collova, Fahey. Nays (0). Resolution declared adoptetl. This r•esolution appear~s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 119. Gar~dner~ The City Planner~ r~epor•ted that Gar•dner~ Br~os. has appr•oached him r•egar~ding Br~os. the possibility of Tax Incr~ement Financing assistance with their• develo- TIF ment. The Planner• stated that he would like to r•un some pr~eliminar•y figures to determine how much money can be generated. Agenda Addition Scalze pointed out that Business Development Ser~vices will be r•unning some pr~eliminar•y TIF figur•es for• the Lar~r•y Lee development. Fahey suggested that the Council may have mistakenly author~ized BDS to run the Larry Lee TIF figures when it was defined previously that ~DS would wor•k with developer~s on iinancing ar~r~angements, and the Planner•'s office would be wor~king up the actual number~s for~ the City. The Planner• agr•eed that it was decided that BDS would wor~k for• the developer~, while the City Planner~ would r~epr•esent the City's inter~ests. Fahey suggested that this matter• should be wor•ked out between the Planner• and BDS. Blesener• suggested that BDS be allowed to continue to handle the Larry Lee development, and future TIF projects by handled by the Ci ty P1 anner•. Scalze suggested that Gardner Bros. attend the next Economic Development Committee meeting on Mar•ch 29th at 7:30 A.M. to discuss their• pr~oposal. Cable TV Fahey r~epor•ted that since Mr•. LaValle is out-of-town, he has not had an oppor•tuni ty to di scuss the matter• pendi ng wi th r•egar•d to the Ci ty' s Agenda Cable TV Commissioner~ and Qr•oadcaster•. Fahey suggested that he and Item No. 19 LaValle would have a r•ecommendation ready for• the next Council meeting. Blesener• suggested that with r•egar•d to the City's decision to pay the Mr. Tarnowski for~ comparable time worked by the interim broadcaster; Blesener• r~ecommended that the City aver•age Tar•nowski's time for• the last two or• thr•ee months, and pay Mr~. Tar•nowski in this manner~. alesener reported that his reasoning is that the intewim broadcaster has spent a gr~eat deal of time str•aightening out the City's video equipment. Page -20- ~9INUTES City Council Plarch 23, 1988 Cable TV P-1rs. Scalze introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: (Cont.l RESOLUTI0~1 N0. 88-3-116 - DECLARIPIG THAT DON TARNOWSKI SHOULD QE REIMEiURSED AT HIS AVERAGE RATE OF COMPENSATIOPJ BASED ON THE LAST THREE OR FOUR MONTHS OF HIS SALARY The for•egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr•. Collova. Ayes (4) Scalze, Collova, Fahey, Blesener~. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This r~esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 120. f3lesener reported that there are some major issues to be decided by the Cable TV Commission in the next few months and requested that he continue to serve as the City's Cable TV Commissioner for two or thr~ee months. Council was agreeable. Payne Blesener• commented on the poor condition of Payne Avenue and the fact Avenue that the str•eet is beginning to deter~ior~ate fur•ther~ south. 3lesener~ suggested that action needs to be taken with the str•eet now befor~e the Agenda r~epair•s become even mor•e expensive. Item No. 16 B1esener reported that when the City Engineer makes his report on r~epair•ing the r•oad and financing alter•natives, the Council should notr~ule out some type of per•centage assessment to pr~oper~ty owner~s. Stor•m Pipe Blesener~ pointed out that the City Engineer~ will be studying the Demont & possible need for a larger storm pipe in the area Lake and Lakeshore Jackson noting that the.existing culvert is 36 inches in size. A larger pipe is being installed as part of the Demont proiect that will direct Agenda water• at a faster~ r•ate to the 36-inch culver•t. Addition The Ci ty Cl er•k r•epor~ted that i f a 1 ar•ger• pi pe i s needed, thi s can be handled with a change-or•der• to the Demont pr•oj ect. Sealcoating Mr•. alesener• intr~oduced the following r~esolution and moved its adoption: Bids RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-117 - AUTHORIZING THE Agenda CALLING FOR C3IDS FOR SEALCOATING FOR 198H Addition The for~egoi ng r~esol uti on was duly seconded by P~r•. Col l ova. Ayes (4) Blesener~, Collova, Scalze, Fahey. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This r~esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 121. ~ane -?1- r~rNUrEs City Council Mar~ch 23, 1988 Photogr•aphs Scalze r•epor•ted that the Par•k Commission would like to have photogr•aphs taken of the Center~ville Road ar•ea as it exists today to be placed in Agenda City archives. Scalze asked the Council's feelings on this matter and Acidition suggested that Jim Gustafson could be asked to do the photogr•aphy. The Council was agreeable. Park Sur•vey Scal ze r•epor•ted that that Ci ty' s par•k sur~vey wi 11 be compl eted shor~tly and the City will receive a preliminary report on April 13. Agenda Addi ti on Scal ze fur•ther• r•epor•ted that as par•t of the contr~act amount, the Ci ty will r•eceive 7 copies of the for•mal sur•vey r~epor~t and 10 to 20 copies of the executive summar~y. Scalze suggested that the Council or~der~ mor~e copies of the formal survey report so that these can be disbributed to Council, Planning and Par•k Commission member~s and City staff. Estimate for each additional copy if ordered through Decision Resources is $11 to $15. Scal ze r•epor•ted that the Ci ty of Shor•evi ew or~der•ed addi ti onal copi es fr•om an outside pr•inter• and the cost was about $1Q per~ copy. The Council discussed this suggestion and it was felt that City staff could r•un copies of the sur•vey for• the Council and Commission member•s. The for•mal sur•vey r~epor•ts coul d be kept on fi 1 e i n the Ci ty Center•. It was also suggested that staff make extr•a copies for~ member~s of the pr~ess or~ publ ic who ar~e i nter~ested. Arbor Day Fahey reviewed the Senior Citizen Coordinator's report regarding Arbor Day festivities to be held on April 27, 1988. Agenda Item No. 1£3 Fahey suggested that a class fr•om each gr•ade school within the City be r•eq,uested to pr•epar•e somethinq to be included in the time capsule that will be buried. The class could be invited to the City Center for~ the Ar•bor• Days cer~emony. Fahey suggested that the Senior• Citizen Coordinator consider this suggestion. Council discussed Fahey's suggestion and it was felt that the 4th gr•ade classes fr•om each school should be invited to par~ticipate. Slumberland The City Attorney presented to the Council for approval appraisals for Easements the per•manent and tempor~ar•y easements necessar•y for Impr•ovement No. 87-8. Agenda Mr•s. Scalze intr~oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: Addition RESOLUTI0~1 N0. 88-3-118 - APPROVING APPRAISALS OF VALUF. OF PERP4ANENT AND TEMPORARY EASEMENTS TO BE ACQUIRED RELATIVE TO IITTLE CANADA IMPROVE- MENT PROJECT 87-8 Pa4e -22- MINUTES City Council Mar•ch 23, 1988 Sl umber~l and The for•egoi ng r~esol uti on was duly seconded by Mr•. Fahey. Easements Ayes (4) Scalze, Fahey, Collova, Blesener•. (Cont.) ~lays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r•esolution appear~s in Resolution Book Plo. 19, Pages 122 and 123. P1r. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION P.10. £38-3-119 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO PREPARE A CHECK TO THE APPRO- PRIATE PAYEES AS DETERMI~IED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR PAYMFI~IT FOR TEMpORARY AND PERP4ANE~1T EASF~9ENTS TO BE ACQUIRED P.ELATIVE TO IMPROVEMEPJT PROJFCT N0. 87-8 The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Scalze. Ayes (4) Blesener, Scalze, Collova, Fahe,y. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This r•esolution appears in Resolution Book ~lo. 19, Page 124. Closed The City Attor~ney r~equested a closed session followinq the meeting to Session discuss current and pending litigation. Agenda Mr~. Fahey intr•oduced the following r~esolution and moved its adoption: Addition RESOLUTION N0. 8R-3-120 - AUTHORIZING A CLOSED SESSION FOLLOWING TO~IIGHT'S COUNCIL MEETI~IG TO DISCUSS CURRENT AND PENDING LITIGATIOPd AS PER THE RECOMMEMDATION OF TNE CITY FlTTORNEY The for•egoin~ r~esolution was duly seconded by Mr•. Collova. Ayes (4) Fahey, Collova, Scalze, 131esener•. Nays (~). Resolution declar~ed adopted. This r~esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 125. Approving Mr~. Blesener~ intr~oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: Vouchers RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-121 - APPROVIMG THE Agenda VOUCHERS. Addition The for~egoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr•. Fahey. Ayes (4) Blesener•, Fahey, Collova, Scalze. ~lays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r•esolution appear~s in Resolution Book Plo. 19, Page 126. Page -23- r~zNUTFs City Council March 23, 1988 Adjour•n l~genda Item ~lo. 20 Mr•. Blesener• intr•oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ~10. 88-3-122 - ADJOURNI~IG The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by P4r. Collova. Ayes (4) alesener, Collova, Scalze, Fahey. Plays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r~esolution appear~s in Resolution Book No. 19, Paqe 126. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.P4. Respectfully submitted, r i , ~~r (f ~ ._v~~ ~ `_ `~~ Kathy flan~er Recording Secretary Page -24-