Loading...
1984 07 09 I I I RffiUIAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETIOO JULY 9, 1984 Mayor Hamil ton called the m=eting to order. The m=eting was opened wi th the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilworran Watson, Councilwaran SWenson Councilman Geving staff Present Don Ashworth, Bill l-bnk, Scott Martin Jim Castleberry APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilworran SW:nson rroved to approve the agenda as as pre- sented. l-btion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilworren Watson and SW:nson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. NJ negative votes. ~tion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton rroved to approve the consent agenda pursuant to the City Manager's recomnendation: 1. Softba.ll 'lburnarnent at Lake Ann Park and 3.2 Beer License, August 17-19, Sons of the American Legion. Motion seconded by Councilwanan Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilworren Watson and SW:nson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. NJ negative votes. l-btion carried. SUNNYSIDPE HG100WNERS ASSOCIATION: Steven Burke, President Sunnyslope Haneowners' Association, asked the Council to consider a conditional use pennit to install a seasonal dock on their beachlot, canoe racks and a fence around the lot. He, further requested variance approval for the installation of the dock since the lot size is srmller than required by ordinance and also a variance to allow for the overnight storage of four boats. Steven Burke - I understand in reading through the various correspondence that's on file that ba.ck in 1978 or 1979 when Allan Gray, this was before any hOl'L'eS were deve- loped in there, applied for a conditional use pennit which included a building and the neighborhood was very much against it and prior to submitting our variance and conditional use pennit, which costs $225, I would like to find out that if we went through the various public hearings and processes leading up to bringing it to the Council for a ruling, if it got to this point with no objection fran the ccmnuni ty , if it's sanething you would entertain or if the opposition that was ba.ck in 1978 and 1979 is so strong that it's a waste of our ti.rre to even spend the $225 to go through the process of public hearings. Mayor Hamilton - I think what I would like to do without getting into a lot of discussion seeing as how this is not a regular agenda item but merely an item that nonnally is presented in our Visitor Presentation where we allow saneone to present something and we put it on an agenda later. I might just poll the Council Members and they can give you a brief statement on how they feel about your proposal. Councilman Horn - I couldn't ccmnent on this without further discussion on the sub- ject. Apparently there wasn't any ccmnunication with the property owners on what the beach lot requirement is. council Meeting July 9, 1984 -2- Councilwcxnan SWenson - If I would offer any encouragement it would have to be tem- pered with the rrood of the residents who live wi thin 350 feet and I would have to look closer at the installation of the fence since I know there has been con- siderable controversy about putting fences on lakeshore lots. Other than that I I think you would have to go through channels and a lot would depend in my deter- mination as to whether or not it would be agreeable with the citizens in the area. Councilwoman Watson - I would like to know how the neighbors feel, too. Just off the top of my head, a dock doesn't sound like too bad an idea but the overnight storage of boats I would be opposed to. Councilman Geving - Exactly my sentiments. I was surprised to learn that the dock already exists and the overnight storage of boats is sarething that we have been watching very carefully. I would be concerned about that. I like the idea of you going ahead and being able to use the beach area but I think we need to discuss this as an agenda i tern. Mayor Hamilton - '!here are sane items on there that I don't have a problem with. I certainly would be opposed to any overnight storage. I think sane of the things you have in here are fine and others we need to discuss at length. Steven Burke - I guess what the feeling I am getting is that if I went through the process of applying for the conditional use pennit, that's rcore what you need, you need the reaction of the ccmnuni ty out there now and without going through the pro- cess the Council really can't make this judgment. I am not asking for it at this point but what I was looking for which I have gotten quickly here is that it's sanething that in order to make the judgment it would be made upon what the resi- dents out there now say and the feeling for the installation and what we are asking I for and I will proceed and file for the conditional use pennit and then that public hearing process will get the information that you need. I don't think the Council has t~ to deal with this without that information and I don't think that they should based upon information gathered four or five years ago. I would hope that you don't put it on a future agenda. I will be applying for the conditional use pennit and the variance and take it through the normal channels that way. LOTUS IAKE ESTATES HOMIDWNERS ASSOCIATION: Peter Beck - I am here tonight representing the IDtus Lake Estates Haneowners Association. The subject of the discussion involves the outlot platted as a part of IDtus Lake Estates. I am sure the Council is much rcore familiar with this one. It was platted in the late 70' s. The development contract requires that for any alterations to the outlot a pennit is required fran the City. 'lWo pennits have been sought. The first in 1980 to build a sand blanket beach area and to put a path in and in 1981 a rcore elaborate plan which involved a conversation pit and canoe racks and rcore irrportantly five 50 foot seasonal docks and I believe ten buoys for sailboats. The Council may know that portions of that request were granted. Only one dock was allowed and overnight storage was allowed for four non-rrotorized boats. That's the current situation. Those improvements that were authorized have been installed and it's the association's belief that the use of the outlot is in full compliance with the existing ordinance and conditions. At the time that the addi- tional docks and overnight storage of rcotorized boats was denied, the association, quite frankly, had run out of energy had detennined not to pursue it any further at that time. Since then it has cane to their attention the severe impact that the I restriction on overnight storage of boats is having on their use and enjoyment of the lake and on their property values. A few PeOple in the subdivision like to fish with three horsepower rrotors, for instance, have to lug them up and down what the Council may know is a fairly substantial hill to get from the subdivision down to the beach lot and of course there are other members of the association who would like I I I Council Meeting July 9, 1984 -3- to use notorized boats on the lake and it's very inconvenient for them to do so. More importantly, though, has been the impact on their property values. For instance, from the restrictions it came apparent to the County Assessor, the appraised value was decreased from $18,000 to $1,400. A very substantial impact and property values throughout the subdivision have been lowered by the assessor, I think an average of 15% and independent appraisals have indicated even a much nore severe impact. A great deal is attributable to the lack of full access on the lake. They have detennined to see what they can do about gaining sare nore use of the lake and they have asked me to help them out with it and they have also care up with a plan which, they feel, is sarething that they can live with as an association. One important fact that's different from the last time around is that this outlot now has been deeded to the association canprised of the 44 lots. Previously it was thought that the outlot would have to serve the entire 144 lots. They have gotten together as an association and agreed on a plan which would call for one additional dock and they would like to put five boats for overnight storage without a restric- tion on notorized or non-nntorized on each dock. A total of ten boats. They would also like four sailboat buoys. Certainly well aware of the history of this I am sure the Council can assume there would be opposition to this plan from other owners on Lotus Lake. That's been the history of the matter. We don't intend to present this as sarething that has approval of other owners on the lake. So for purposes of discussion tonight I guess you could assume there would be opposition to it. We are also aware of the City Ordinance which says that there should not be overnight storage on beachlots. We suggest that the ordinance should not really appropriately apply to this lot because it was enacted after the lot was platted and many of the home sites sold. We would also inquire as to whether the Council would consider sane changes in that ordinance which seems rather severe in not allowing any over- night storage of boats in the situation where there is a beachlot. Five boats are allowed to be stored at lake front lots which are individually owned. Certainly restrictions on numbers that are relivent to the area of lakeshore available and the number of hanes are appropriate but this is roughly 900 feet of frontage on the lake which is not your carm:>n beachlot situation. I am. just inquiring as to whether the Council would entertain a proposal for overnight storage of ten boats. It's clearly going to be the nost controversial aspect of it. Councilman Horn - I think we covered this pretty well last time. I would have less of a problem with the rrooring of the sailboats than I would the overnight storage of notorized craft. Councilwoman Swenson - One of the reasons there was this restriction and it didn't develop in the contract, if the haneowners were not apprised of this fact, the responsibility fell with the developer and not with the City because this was in the development contract. The main reason for this restriction was because of the sen- si ti vi ty of lakeshore. Having been down there many times unless there is sarething that I am not aware of that's true at this time I guess I would have a rather nega- tive reaction. Peter Beck - The development contract says there should be no development or al tera- tion without a pennit but it doesn't speak specifically to docks or overnight storage of boats. Councilwoman Swenson - I think if you were to go back and check what they went through before you would find that there was a lot of lengthy discussion about this and basically the question is conservation of the sensitivity of the shore. Councilwooan Watson - I am not real happy about the idea of overnight storage of boats. I would be willing to look at it again. council Meeting July 9, 1984 -4- Councilman Geving - The major concern that I had when we started this whole process back in the late 70's was the vegetation in the area that you nCM have a dock. We hadn't proposed any docks. We started from zero and we worked up to one dock and some canoe racks and I still feel very strongly about the vegetation in that area I that you are proposing the new dock. I would need to know a lot of information about what's in that area, how it looks. I have walked that area and it seemed like that's even a rrore vegetative area than even where we have the dock now. Originally we had a conservation easerrent covering that whole area and I was very much in favor of maintaining it just the way it was so I will be very tough to deal with on this particular issue but I see no problem with the rrooring of sailboats. Peter Beck - This dock is there because that's where we think it would be the best for the lake. Councilman Geving - I would have to knCM how many of the homeCMners have rrotorized craft as opposed to non-notorized. HC1N well are the canoe racks working out. HC1N many sailboats do you have in the area. Peter Beck - I can't answer that but I can tell you that in deciding on ten they determined that won't be enough and they will have to conduct 'a lottery to select the people. Councilman Geving - I want to know what the vegetation is and what a proposed dock would do to that. Mayor Hamilton - I am not opposed to an additional dock nor am I opposed to sailboat rroorings. I think what we have been trying to accorrplish right along is to preserve the shoreline and the water quality of Lotus lake and I think by having sailboats or I non-notorized boats on a lake of any kind you tend to do that. It would be nice if we had nothing but sailboats here. I certainly have no problem with rrooring them out there. Overnight storage of boats, I do have a problem with. I would have to do some more review. Go back and see what we discussed last time and the develop- ment contract is certainly a concern of mine also. Peter Beck - The ten motorized or non-notorized, just non-regulated, and whoever won the lottery could put whichever they had is clearly going to be the rrost controver- cial aSPect and we really are just here to determine whether we are tilting on wind- mills by suggesting overnight storage of rrotorized boats. That's our botton line. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING RECERTIFICATION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR TAX FORFEITED LANDS Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. No one fran the public was pre- sent. Mayor Hamilton - It has been recorrrnended by staff that the five parcel assessrrents, #2,3,5,10, and 11 be deleted as each lot is unbuildable without a variance. Councilman Geving rroved to close the public hearing. M:::>tion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: M3.yor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. M:::>tion carried. SPOCIAL ASSESSMENTS, TAX FORFEITED LANDS: I RESOLurION #84-34: Councilwanan Watson rroved the adoption of a resolution recer- tifying the following special assessrrents on tax forfeited lands: I I I Council Meeting July 9, 1984 -5- Original Proposed lvk>nies Applied New Parcel Assessment Assessm=nt For Purchase Assessm=nt 1. Lots 2804-2809 & 2758-2762 5,463.00 5,463.00 8,045.11 .00 2. Lots 2527-2529 600.00 .00 .23 .00 3. Lots 3191-3192 400.00 .00 .55 .00 4. Lots 538-543 & 517-520 5,933.00 .00 10 .23 .00 5. Lots 648-650 600.00 .00 .00 .00 6. Lots 1161-1163 .00 .00 .00 .00 7. Lots 977, 1002-1006 500.00 .00 719.23 .00 8. Lots 1085-1086 400.00 .00 395.11 .00 9. Lots 1083-1084 & 1087-1089 400.00 .00 495.11 .00 10. Lots 583-584 400.00 .00 .00 .00 11. Lots 564-568 760.00 .00 3.83 .00 12. Not Sold 13. .96 A in Lot 3 Section 5 11, 311. 05 4,724.00 4,876.95 .00 Resolution seconded by Mayor Hamil ton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Counci1wanen Swenson and Watson, Council..rren Geving and Horn. No negative votes. lvk>tion carried. PETITION FOR ZONING AND SHOREIAND MANAGEMENT RffiUIATION VARIANCES, IDT 26, BlOCK 1, RED CEDARroINT: At the request of the owner Mayor Hamilton !roved to table this - i tern to give the Parson's an opportunity to present a different plan. lvk>tion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Counci1wOIren Swenson and Watson, Council..rren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Counci1worran SVoBnson asked that applicant's be notified when their approvals have expired. (Page 3 of the June 4, 1984, Council minutes, SYNOPSIS OF PENDIJ:\K; OR UNFINISHED PU\NNING CASES.) Scott Martin stated that this is not currently being done as it is a very time consuming process. He further stated that staff does write a letter to applicants when the Council has approved a variance, plat, etc. stating that the Council has approved it and stating the period of time that the approval is valid. Counci1wonan Watson IIOVed to approve the June 4, 1984, Council minutes. lvk>tion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen Watson and Swenson, Council..rren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting July 9, 1984 -6- Mayor Hamilton roved to approve the June 25, 1984, Council minutes. t-btion seconded by Councilroan Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, CouncilwCll'ren SWenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. Councilroan Geving abstained. M:>tion carried. Councilwcxnan Watson roved to approve the June 26, 1984, Council minutes. M:>tion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, CouncilW<m:m Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. Councilman Geving abstained. Motion carried. I Councilman Geving roved to note the May 23, 1984, Planning Carrnission minutes. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamil ton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamil ton, Councilworren Watson and SWenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. UNIFORM FIRE CODE QRDINAOCE AMENDMENT: Jim Castleberry, Fire Marshal, was present. Mayor Hamilton - Item i, I can understand your concern but I am wondering if it wouldn't be safe and acceptable to allow gas burning grills. I can see your point. There may be sparks and other things flying off the charcoal but if you have a gas grill you have irnnediate shut-off that would tend to eliminate the problem. It would seem to me that by doing that we are allowing people to use their balconies for what they were perhaps originally built. Jim Castleberry - It's not sanething I had even considered. I think it would be reasonable. Mayor Hamilton - In that same section (i) it says, "no person shall construct, erect, install or use any incinerator or barbeque" I would like that stricken and have that changed to incltrle types of barbeques that could be used, "nor kindle or I maintain any open flame, charcoal or other material on any balcony" so you Irean or to store other material on any balcony or patio? Do we need to say store in there? Jim Castleberry - No. It's intended to refer to that whole barbeque process. Mayor Hamilton - "Any balcony or patio which is attached to, or within 15 feet of, any townhouse, condaninium or apartment building" so even in a townhouse if you have a balcony out in back that is really no different than a porch that you have on your own home. Jim Castleberry - The concern is when you have a condominium structure or townhane or apartrrent where you have nurrerous levels and you have a balcony and someone living below or adjacent to and having reviewed and participated in those kinds of fires that can occur that's what makes the concern. Certainly not wanting to restrict the person fran enjoying those patios or balconies. I think what we are talking about in Chanhassen at this particular point in time is strictly aparbnents. This was rrodeled sane what after Eden Prairie's. certainly it is fairly restrictive. Mayor Hamilton - I had another question on item (e). "'lb install any fire extinguishing system, fire protection system, fire detection system, fire alarm system, or any canbination thereof." Does that Irean new construction or are we grandfathering in those that are already there? Jim Castleberry - It allows me to reccmnend or require fire extinguishing system. I The whole fire protection gamit that's not covered under the Uniform Fire Code at this time. If I had an occupancy that, for whatever reason, because of the life safety hazard of the occupants itself, the number of people or for whatever reason they technically didn't need that sophisticated system as required by the code but I felt personally that it was needed, it gives Ire the teeth that I need to put that kind of system in. I I I Council Meeting July 9, 1984 -7- Mayor Hamilton - If I hear what you are saying nobody is grandfathered in. I, as a businessman could have a going business and you could carre in and tell me I have got to put in a sprinkling system and put me out of business. Jim Castleberry - I guess if we want to take it to the extreme, it's possible. As I mentioned to the City Manager in the merrorandurn regarding the whole fire code it pertains to existing construction primarily and that your fire marshal always has discretionary powers. Mayor Hamilton - I guess I don't agree with that section. Councilman Geving - Maybe we should rewrite it to only include new structures as of the date of the passage of this ordinance. Mayor Hamilton - So that it's new construction or a facility that's in such bad repair or something like that. Jim Castleberry - That's what it's intented for. Councilworran Watson - To a certain extent sane businesses will be far rrore apt to be fire hazard than others and maybe an older structure should be required to have better protection for employees than other people sharing the building. Jim Castleberry - We have sane property that the City Manager received a rronthly report on this rronth that won't require a sprinkler system but certainly I have got sane real concerns about detection equipment. It's a general wording to allow me some flexibility to operate. Don Ashworth - If we had additional wordage showing that the applicant had the right to bring the item back to the City Council. It was absolutely clear that if he disagreed with a particular order that he could care back to the Council. Where the concern is is with operations such as the dinner theatre, etc. it's really hard to foresee every instance that Jim may run into and he needs to have the power to look at the life safety of each issue. Councilman Geving - That's true. I think the citizenry have a right to carre before the Council and plead their case. Jim Castleberry - That is a provision of the Unifonn Fire Code as it would be adopted by this Council. There is an appeal procedure which is not highlighted in this. There is an appeal process by which it carres to me initially and then it would go to the City Manager and City Council. Councilman Horn - I am just curious what this section means, is that strictly businesses?- Jim Castleberry - Yes. The fire code has no authority when it cares to a private dwelling. Councilman Horn - What about public buildings? Jim Castleberry - Yes, it would. Councilman Horn - I think sane of these things get a little carried away. Jim Castleberry - It's pretty restrictive and that's why the people that enforce this have to be reasonable. council Meeting July 9, 1984 -8- Councilman Horn - I don't like to have situations where you leave it up to sanebodys discretion.--r-think it should be clearly spelled out what you can do and what you can't do. Councilwanan SWenson - Are you saying that you do not think that this is explicit enough? I Councilman Horn - I think sane of the responses to the answers that we asked for say they will now be a discretionary thing whether the office feels it's appropriate to enforce and I don't think we should have laws that it is up to sanebody's discretion to see whether it's appropriate for enforcement. That's the problem that I have with the barbeque thing also. If you want to be concerned about a multiple unit then you should say a multiple unit over five units or sorrething like that. I get very uncan- fortable when sanething is left up to the discretion of the enforcing officer. Councilwanan SWenson - I do understand, as do all of us I suppose, that the object of the ordinance is to protect the public and I have a little difficulty trying to figure out how we can do that and still not have it this stringent because I am really not sufficiently familiar with what it takes to install these various things and I don't feel I can SPeak to it with that degree of intelligence but I guess the main concern of all of us is to prevent to the best of our ability any catastrophe. I think it would be helpful if we could specify and say under multiple dwelling, how many buildings. I think there is a difference between having four families in a building and 18 or 20 families. What is controllable to the fire department? What is not controllable? These are things that I have to leave to the discretion of those who know roore about firefighting than I do. I certainly agree with the idea that everybody has got to have the option of caning to the City Council. Councilwanan Watson - Urner that barbeque thing, it does state that it's any two or I roore living units on roore than one level and it doesn't even apply if they have a private egress and ingress so it is somewhat specific. Councilman Geving - Section 2 (b) it says, "Fire Marshal and designated members of the fire department shall have the powers of a police officer" and I would like to know who these designated members are and if they are to be designated, they should be stated here in this section. First of all, I think it should be restricted to the Fire Marshal and the Fire Chief and not designated members. We have got 35 members in the fire department I would sure hate to see every one of them have police power. Mayor Hamil ton - perhaps you could spell out in here Fire Marshal or members designated by the Council. Councilman Geving - That's all I am asking is that those be designated sorce how. I would like that to be reworked. I have another question on page 2, item (f), it talks about the Fire Prevention Bureau, who are those people? Jim Castleberry - The Fire Prevention Bureau is a tem that's created by the fire code itself. Fire Prevention Bureau meaning that agency within the fire department that's assigned fire code. Councilman Geving - If you are going to say that, put it in the definitions or leave it out. I don't understand that particular statement (f). "The Fire Prevention I Bureau may require that the inspection be performed by qualified persons at the owner's expense" it seems to me we are talking about a local matter here and we are dealing strictly with the Fire Marshal. He may be the one that gets the qualified person to do this job. I think that should be reworked. I did have a question on this whole business under (i). I think that ought to be reworked. I I I Council Meeting July 9, 1984 -9- councilwoman SWenson rroved to place on first reading an ordinance amending Ordinance #62 entitled "An Ordinance Adopting the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code by Reference" wi th noted changes. fution seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, CouncilwOI1'eI1 Watson and ~nson, Counci1Inen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. fution carried. Councilman Horn - I am wondering if we should give a little rrore guideline as to what we are looking for under (i). As I read this, this would include any duplex also. Jim Castleberry - A duplex typically would have its own means of egress and ingress. ORDlNAOCE #3~, AMENDING THE '!RAFFIC ORDlNAOCE, REX:;ARDING FIRE IANES: Mayor Hamilton - I just had one ccmnent on 11.01, item (a):-0rders Establishing Fire Lanes. There again, If you are going to recarmend establishing a fire lane I think the Council ought to see that. Jim Castleberry - Typically, we want that to all be a part of the plan process and that's a situation I ran into not too long ago when we had part of the new rrotel and the prairie House Restaurant that had no fire lanes and hadn't been provided for and I didn't have initially the authority to establish fire lanes according to the old ordinance it had to be an agreement between the Police Chief and the Fire Chief. That was where this is caning fran. Mayor Hamilton - I would rather see that say that "the Fire Department is hereby authorized to recarrnend the establishment of fire lanes". Jim Castleberry - Srott received a list from me of the things that I would like to see on the initial plans. Councilman Horn - I have seen quite a few interational symb:>ls but I certainly wouldn't recognize the one they depict here for no Parking zone. Councilman Geving moved to place on first reading an ordinance amending Section 11.01 of Ordinance 3-H which regulates the use of streets and highways within the City of Chanhassen, incorporating provisions of the State Highway Traffic Regulation Act by reference, and irrposing a penalty for the violation thereof with noted changes, spe- cifically 11.01 (a) and 11.01 (b). fution seconded by Councilwanan Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, CouncilwOI1'eI1 Watson and ~nson, Counci1Inen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. fution carried. FIRE DEPAR'IMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION BENEFITS: Jerry Schlenk was present. MaYOr Hamilton - What they are looking for is an increase in benefits. The widow's benefit, as I understand, you are not asking for at this time. personalli, I don't have any problem with any of these. We allow Voto and Associates to review your reccmnendations to see that we are financially on solid ground. He is familiar with the relief association and I would like to have him review this before we make a decision. Councilman Geving - I guess I can say that I have been a supporter of the fire dePartment for many years. What we are looking for tonight though is major con- cessions on the part of the City Council. Anyone of which in fact is rrore major than we have experienced in any single year. We have never tackled rrore than one of these issues in any given year. Five potential costly items to the City of Chanhassen. I feel very strongly about the death benefit. I think that was an abo- lute slap in the face for $75.00. I knew for a long time that, that had to be raised and I believe that, that funeral benefit is appropriate now. My only thought on that is that should cane out of the Pension fund and not be supported by general obliga- Council Meeting July 9, 1984 -10- tion. I believe that this whole area of vesting we have talked about for many years. There are a lot of thoughts on that, again, it all goes back to ccmnents that we have made over the years that we must be sure that there is no unfunded liability involved in any of this and we have always asked for an actuarial to be done when we propose major changes. I have no problem with the vesting procedure. I would like to make it a logical procedure though and my reccmnendation I would change the 15 years to 75%, 16 to 80%, 17 to 85%, 19 to 95%, and 20 to 100%. At least it has serre logical basis on which it's derrived. Then, of course, we get to the increase of the rronthly benefit from $7.00 to $8.50. We recently increased that, I think within the last two years, to $7.00 and I have no problem supporting the higher increase if we can sup- port it through the actuarial and the unfunded liabilities are not there. I don't know what other cities are paying. All I am asking is that it be fair to our people. As far as the widow's benefit, I am very much in favor of that and I would like to see us move towards that. All of this should be approved or at least looked at by our attorney's and our financial analyst to make sure that the rroney does exist and that it's consistent with where we are going in the next few years as far as a department. The other thing I would like say about the department, I have been to a couple of their meetings and I have noticed they have a lot of new members and I am happy to see that. They have made a major effort to recruit sane new people and they are making sane real good progress in that respect. Mayor Hamilton - As of last week I met with a staff member of Bill Frenzel's and I asked her specifically to look into the relief association's ability to pay a lump sum. A year ago we discussed this whole thing and we went to the state Capitol and talked to our representatives at that time and asked them to investigate the possibi- lity of allowing fire departments to receive a lunp sum benefit and to be able to receive that rroney and not have to pay an exorbitant arrount of taxes on it, to be able to roll it over into an IRA or sane other type of investing. I asked Bill Frenzel's staff member to request that he review this with the IRS and get back to us. I still honestly feel that a lump sum settlerrent is in their best interest. I think it's the best possible thing that they could get. Councilman Horn - The state wouldn't allow it anyway. They don't even allow IRA's. It's going to be a long time before we see the state change. Mayor Hamilton - The state has assured me that the IRS did not go out and specifi- cally look at fire department members and if they were paid a lump sum they just turned the other way and just didn't pay any attention to it. I have since found out that the IRS has cracked down and they have taken sane people to court. - Councilman Geving rroved to table this item until a report is received from Voto. Motion seconded by Councilwanan Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. KENNEL PERMIT REQUEST, 6831 GALPIN BLVD: Deborah Costello and Maria Ronan requested the Council renew a Kennel Permit they received last year. A report was received from Tri-City Animal Control recarrnending denial of the request. I I Elizabeth Holden - Attorney, representing the applicants. Ms. Costello and Ms. Ronan applied for a renewal of the Kennel permit on May 19, 1984, with the Tri-City Animal Control Board. Notice of the application was published in the newspaper and there was no objection. Upon initial inspection on May 30, 1984, Animal Control Officer I Robert Dole met with Ms. Costello and Ms. Ronan at their herre and did not approve the application pending improved ventilation and cleanliness of the basement and garage areas. On June 22nd and June 26th the Animal Control Officer returned and found no one hane. From what he observed outside through the windows he was not impressed I I I Council Meeting July 9, 1984 -11- with the improvement. Upon returning this morning he indicated there is still a problem with ventilation. Ms. Costello and Ms. Ronan have been working hard in the past weeks to improve the conditions. '!he ventilation problem appears to be a struc- tural design problem with the house and is not evidenced of their neglect in cleanli- ness. Ms. Costello and Ms. Roman will do anything to keep this kennel. They are very attached to their animals and are willing to make necessary changes. '!hey have received a report from their Vet. Dr. Brader, which is being passed among you, who has been their vet for five years. He indicated that there has been no abuse to the animals and he will asist Debbie and Maria in their efforts to keep their animals. Ms. Costello and Ms. Ronan have setforth sorce proposals and are willing to abide by your terms and we with Dr. Brader work together in order to improve the conditions of their kennel. They will consent to regular inSPeCtions of the premises until the Animal Control authority are satisfied that the conditions are up to standards. Ms. Costello and Ms. Ronan love their animals and will do anything to keep them. Ms. Ronan related to me today how difficult it would be to part with any of her animals because they are irreplaceable. I understand because I myself am a dog owner. I ask that Ms. Ronan and Ms. Costello be given more time in order to work on improving their situation. Thank you. Mayor Hamil ton moved to deny the kennel permit. M:>tion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwaren Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. M:>tion carried. STABLE PERMIT REQUEST, 6764 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY: Greg and Janice leach, as well as several neighb::>rs were present. The Horse Carrni ttee and Animal Control Officer recorrrrended approval of the permit. A letter was received from Mr. and Mrs. Brandt objecting to the stable. Councilman Horn moved to approve the stable permit for Greg and Janice leach. M:>tion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamil ton, Councilwomen Watson and ~nson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. DRAINAGE PROBLEM, KOEHNEN CIRCLE AND CARDINAL AVENUE: Bruce Koehnen was present. Mayor Hamilton - I thought it was interesting reading Engineer funk's inforrration and then reading Mr. Koehnen's letter. I wondered where you were because they didn't exactly say the same thing. Bill, has there been any change in the situation? Is your inforrration that was contained in your letter, is that the latest? Bill M:>nk - Yes it is. In working on this item the claim was actually turned down by the insurance company. Mr. Koehnen did care in and asked what his next step might be short of suing the City. I had a short conversation with him saying that he could approach the City Manager and ask to care before the City Council and writing up the facts as he saw them would be helpful to the City Council. There is nothing new at this point. It's a very difficult situation for b::>th myself and eSPeCially the Koehnen's. Bruce Koehnen - I have got a few points that I would like to add that I didn't include in the letter. I think a couple of significant points indicating the excava- tion of installing the catch basin is causing my problems is, also the fact that new excavation, rainwater will seep into the ground faster than in existing ground and I council Meeting July 9, 1984 -12- this water volurre under a lot greater pressure than ever at any tine in its life under that system. My belief is that probably in that 4" tile line that wyes off and runs across the east side of my house got damaged and it's following a very easy accessible channel for the water to follow over to my drain tile system which, as I I have indicated, I have drain tile inside my foundation and outside my foundation and as Bill as a witness to this, he was over there, the water is flowing into my surrp basket is fran my inside drain tile system not the tile around the outside of my foundation which would indicate that it wasn't heavy saturated ground water. When they dug up that section to repair it the ground was not saturated. It was relati- vely dry which surprised me. 'Ihere is no indication that anything points to that it's a saturated ground water that's causing my problem. I have never had a problem until November 19th the week end after they installed that. On August 30, 1977, we had a 5.98 inch rain fall and I did not have water problems at that tine. As to what the insurance agent gave me as his reason for denying it, he says we had a real wet spring. I went back and got all the rain fall records prior to this June 7th inci- dent and just over a 2! week period we only had a 1.22 inches of rain which is below nomal and for the rronth of May we had a departure of .91 inches indicating that prior to the June 7th rain fall the ground was dry for lack of rain fall so it couldn't have been a build up of water in the ground as they are trying to tell me that's causing my problem. As far as that section of 8" field tile line, that is still obstructed. I think the City involved themself when they tied that catch basin into that field tile line and also a few years back a gentleman by the name of Gary Brown that lives down the westerly flow of the drainage easement, when he built he filled in a ravine that this field tile flowed into. I notified the City at that tine aoout this problem because I had seen what had happened and now as I understand it fran two different sources, the City helped finance, extending, digging up, this field tile line and now I think they have involved themself twice on this line and now they are trying to tell me that it's not their responsibility to unplug this line I and I don't understand, either, how the City can finance Mr. Brown and extending that tile when he is the one that created the problem in the first place and I am getting such a run around when I didn't cause this problem as I see it. '!he City caused the problem. I am turning to you because I haven't been able to get any results as far as I am concerned in getting the matter fixed and also as far as I see it, the City created the problem, any corrpensation on my damages. Bill M:>nk - AOOut three years ago Gary Brown was just finishing building a new resi- dence at the end of this drain tile and we went round and round aoout this drain tile was at the end of his property and he claimed he was going to plug it up and basi- cally just fill in the ditch. He said it was a part of a drainage ditch. 'Ihe agreement that we came up with was that we would split the cost of the extension of a pipe so that we could maintain drainage across that piece of property and it was basically a settlerrent to make sure that we could maintain the flow back across that property. 'Ihere was a split on the extension of that pipe and the costs to extend it so that the City would not have to go in am incur any expense with regrading the ditch in that area. Bruce Koehnen - I don't know if it's legal or proper for any person to obstruct the existing drainage and that's what had hapPened in this case. Why would the City be liable for Mr. Brown's actions? Bill M:>nk - In reviewing that I guess there was a question in my mind as to who was liable and all I could see was that the properties upstream would definitely run the risk of being damaged if it was plugged and the decision was made to work with Mr. Brown on trying to extend that pipe and maintain drainage. Councilroan Horn - Wouldn't that typically be assessed to all the upland property owners? I I I I Council Meeting July 9, 1984 -13- Bill l-bnk - That's one way of doing it but it was such a minor item, I can't remember the total cost but we were talking in total of 100' s of dollars with that pipe and it isn't worth getting involved in an assessment with that type of a project. Councilman Horn - But if it's an inadequate system, which it's proven to be, we are going to have to go through, probably, a program like that anyway. Bill l-bnk - If we did put in a separate catch basin with its own pipe outlet, yes we would:-- Councilman Horn - Are you saying that this system is adequate to handle the runoff. Bill l-bnk - It's a drain tile that runs underneath an existing drainage ditch and the drainage ditch is nrM we are working to improve. I guess what it is coming down to is whether by putting in this catch basin and tying into that drain tile whether the City damaged the system to the point where it is nCM causing a recurring problem. That's really the question that we have got because within days after that the ini- tial problem occurring, the city did cap off the catch basin, put a solid cover on the top and when I went back on the night that I did go to the pranises, there is no question in IT!Y mind no water was going down that catch basin because I couldn't even find it it was so silted over. Bruce Koehnen - When they put the catch basin in they put the grate cover on at the tine of installation. Then after that, Noveml:er 19th instance, they made a feeble attempt that night to put a little piece of wood over the top of it that wasn't pro- bably a third of the area of the grate and IT!Y wife was hane alone that night and when I got hane I seen what had hapPened and I had to track down the City again to get them to come out to do sanething a little better than that because the water still flowed in IT!Y basement. Then when they did put what he calls a solid cover on, those manhole covers for one thing they aren't sealed. It was not sealed and this does hapPen to have a 7/8 inch hole in it also which, granted is a lot smaller volurre going down than an oPen grate but there is a large volurre of water that can also flCM down that 7/8 inch hole which adds to overflowing the system but where the damage that I am contending occurred is on the 19th when it had the open grate and the terrific volurre of water that poured down this tile line and damaged it. Mayor Hamilton - You were reimbursed by the insurance ccxnpany for that instance. Bruce Koehnen - Yes I was reimbursed. The question is the reoccurring problem. Mayor Hamilton - Is the runoff still going down there? Bruce Koehnen - Before this Noveml:er 19th incident happened, all the years the system handled the ground water, I didn't have a water problem in IT!Y basement. NcM since the 7th and the 9th we have had a few 1/2 and 3/4 inch rainfalls and the water is flowing into IT!Y sunp basket. Mayor Hamilton - It would seem like maybe that drain tile wasn't handling the water prior to that tine and by putting in the catch basin that extra water oPened up that line. Instead of being plugged now it's OPen and it is handling the water rather than backing up some place else it's nCM running into your basement. Bruce Koehnen - If you look at IT!Y sketch you will see where the four inch tile line runs into the eight inch tile line in the southwest corner of the house, I have indi- cated where they found the plugged section of the line. So nCM when you pour water down into that eight inch line, it's plugged so that it can't flCM out so it's all bottled up frOll that corner backing up to the east, up the eight inch line then up towards the north to that four inch line and created what I am contending is a lot of Council Meeting July 9, 1984 -14- extra pressure at that rainfall and it found a channel to get the water over into my drain tile system around my foundation. Mayor Hamilton - Bill has corrmented that the tile is plugged with roots and other debris and you are saying that the tile has collapsed. There is a big difference. Bruce Koehnen - When I got there they had already had the section dug up and both the excavator and Jerry Schlenk told Ire the line was collapsed and then on the down flow side of the collapsed line, yes, there was a lot of roots in there also. They dug about a 30 foot section up until they so called got beyond the roots and silt build up. Then the City brought out a sewer flusher to see if they could flush water and that flusher nozzle down the line. It probably went down the line 40 or 50 feet and it was obstructed again. They tried many times and couldn't penetrate it any further. NaN they pull the sewer flusher back out and out with the nozzle they pulled about a 4!-5 inch diameter rock out which right there shows that line is still obstructed. Mayor Hamilton - The rock could have been there before. Bruce Koehnen - What I am saying is that the City has definitely involved themselves in this line in two occasions. NaN I can't get them to get the line operating. Why would then invol ve themselves twice now and now decide to back out of it. Mayor Hamilton - When you did the Brown thing was the line functioning properly? Bill f.bnk - The water was coming out. There is no question about it. There was waterCiiiling out of it even when we connected our catch basin and that's what lead us to believe that it was functioning properly. When we did find the collapsed section there was nothing that I saw or was told lead Ire to believe that it was anything rrore than either a nonnal root problem with the tile line. We did go down and fix it. The reason that we were there in the first place was my concern that the City may have indeed done sorrething to the line either to plug it or collapse it. We did fix the root problem. The next day we went and ran a hydrant into the catch basin. We did oPen it again and run it in there for two hours to see whether water would back up and water seemed to run out the end of the pipe down by the Brown property without any problem. We didn't see any water caning into the sunp basket. That doesn't necessarily answer the question of where the four inch line that supposedly runs in front of the house may have been damaged as a part of water that may have gone in but I guess my position at this point is that we have checked it out, the eight inch line seems to be flowing well. Even with that in mind we are not going to put the catch basin back in operation. We are going to keep it closed and will only use that if we put our own outlet down through that drainage ditch. At this point that eight inch line at least is functioning as well as it ever has and no further work will be done. The solid cover does have a hole in the top. All solid covers do so that if you can't get the pick into the edge to lift it off you can put the pick into the hole and lift it off. I am sure that as we first put that cover on that it did allow sore water to go down. I can't believe that it was much at all but sore did go down. I don't believe it took long at all, one good rain for the edge of the cover and the hole to silt over. When I went over there one evening I could not even find the catch basin because the whole thing had so silted over and I had to dig for about five minutes to even find it under the silt. I consider that arrount of water very small. Councilman Geving - I fail to see that you have any damages. What is the extent of your financial loss? can you place that in terms of dollars? Bruce Koehnen - I run up an estimate and $2,596 in property loss. This is where I am a little disappointed in the City's insurance claim rep. that I don't think that he I I I I I I Council Meeting July 9, 1984 -15- ever did adjust it and that's one of the reasons why he was called out. I am the one that made the estimate. I am a building contractor. Mayor Hamilton - What were you paid the first ti.rre? Bruce Koehnen - I think it was around the $700 range. Excuse Ire, the $2,596, that is not strictly property damage. That is clean up and equipnent rental ti.rre also in there. I think itwas $700 SCllre dollars because it was at a lot less volurce of water. It did not wreck things. We were able to keep up with the flow with a couple of wet vacs along with the assistance of my surrp purrp. It never got to the depth in the baserrent as it has during this June. The water got so deep it absorbed all the rroisture into the baseboard, door jams, which of course has swelled up and none of my doors operate right now and they need to be replaced as well as baseboard and sheet rock, of course, absorbed water and swelled and needs repainting. Then, of course, the carpet is completely wrecked. It has started deteriorating and, of course, when its dried out now, it shrunk so it doesn't fit the rooms no rrore and it does stink. A section of the flooring, I also had vinyl in, which appeared to have damaged the backing on the vinyl. Councilman Horn - Have you taken this to your insurance agent? Bruce Koehnen - Under a fruitless cause, which I knew better, I did go see him anyhow and, of course, I am not covered which I knew under flood insurance. I would like to point out that the insurance claim rep., I don't think he looked at this as an indi- vidual case neither. On his first rreeting when he CCllre out to look at the damage, he had expressed to me that he got water damage in his basement and, of course, he told me too that his hCllreOwners insurance won't pay for his damage and like I says, mine won't neither and I said that's not the problem here, I would like you to look at this case individually and I don't think he did that because of the wide amount of ground water problems that people did have at this period of time. Councilman Geving - HCM old is your hCllre? Bruce Koehnen - I think I built it in 1976. Councilman Geving - The field tile was put in at that ti.rre? Bruce Koehnen - This is a old field drain tile and it's been there as long as I can rerrember. My Grandpa owned this land and part of this land where this tile runs out of as well as where this tile runs through, Mr. Steller, he owned and farmed that land for a while. Councilman Geving - Isn't it conceivable that that tile just plain wore out if it's been in the ground that long. Maybe we are just looking at a natural phenCllrenon that would have happened regardless of what happened with the City. The City tried to do everything possible to take care of a drainage problem. In fact I rerrember when this case carre up and we tried to divert the water down that drainage swale. Bruce Koehnen - The drain tile from the sections that they dug up, of course, sure the section was collapsed but according as to where from water flowing through it, it didn't show any negligible wear in the tile line whatsoever. Mayor Hamil ton - When was the last ti.rre you had water? Bruce Koehnen - I haven't been hCllre tonight, so I don't know. That would have Saturday, the 9th that it flooded but I have had water two previous occasions enter my line into my surrp basket but at a small enough volurce that my purrp has handled it so it didn't overflow. Council Meeting July 9, 1984 -16- Councilman Horn - How long has the catch basin been closed? Bill M::mk - If you mean the cover being on, it was maybe three or four aays after that first rain in 1983. Since then we have actually put a ball in the outlet pipe so there is no way anything can get in. Councilman Horn - You made a statement earlier that it is coming on the inner tile, inside the founaation and not in the tile on the outside of the founaation. If it were caning from this drainage tile wouldn't it be caught in your outside tile around the outside of the foundation. I Bruce Koehnen - No, that's what I am trying to explain. In my opinion the water is probably following the sewer and water line underneath my foundation. That's a lot deeper than my founaation is. It probably goes out at least four feet further below grade where it goes out underneath the footing. Councilman Horn - It would still come up into the outside tile wouldn't it? Bruce Koehnen - I am sure it would somewhat but if that was the case from ground water and then also, how is that water getting over into my inside drain tile if it hasn't made an accessible route for the water to travel to get to my inside drain tile. Councilman Horn - I have no idea where that's caning from but it doesn't appear to be coming from this tile because it has been plugged since 1983. Bruce Koehnen - Sane is still coming. What I am trying to express here is during that time in 1983 when the City poured all the water into the tile line system that's I when they clama.ged the line and at that time it probably forced an accessibility for the water from the field tile that you put your catch basin into over into my drain tile system around my house. Councilman Horn - But if you are not pouring water into that then where is the source? Bruce Koehnen - '!he source that is getting to me now is just the natural ground water but it's made such an accessible route that it's flowing over into my drain tile system. It 'flCM the natural ground water since they put the ball in the line and that happened to be like the 12th of June when I insisted that the plug that up tight. I want that sealed up so they are not adding to the problem. Councilman Horn - But that didn't do any good, you are saying. Bruce Koehnen - I have not had any water enter into my surrp basket, I don't think, after that was plugged, I don't think we have got any rains since then. Bill lwbnk - In 1983 we covered the manhole. We put a solid cover on it but since that ti.rre to insure that no water could even be coming through the one inch hole, I put a ball into the pipe coming out of the catch basin to doubly insure that nothing could actually be coming into the catch basin. Councilman Horn - So before that they had a one inch hole. I Bill lwbnk - Right. Councilman Horn - You got flooded with a one inch hole. Council Meeting July 9, 1984 -17- Bruce Koehnen - I am sure that it added to the problem. The problem was created back in 1983 and it has not been fixed or repaired yet. Nothing was done as a matter of fact fran November 19, 1983, until June 7, 1984, to alleviate the problem or correct the drainage swale except for changing the cover on the catch basin. I Councilman Horn - When you dug into this tile did you see any evidence if there was some tyPe of water that burst out of that thing that would believe there was a path over to his house. I would think that would be obvious when you dug it up. I Bill fwbnk - No. Where we dug it up we dug further back towards the residence to see whether we could spot anything around the house and that's when they found the tree roots. We did run a snake back towards the catch basin which did seem to go through. When we ran a redder or cutter up that way it did get caught up about where Mr. Koehnen thought the wye would be which isn't unusual that it couldn't go through. That's the reason the next day I wanted to run the test and make sure that if we put a lot of water down there that it actually came out the other end and didn't look like it was plugged up anywhere else. Again, it comes down to, I think, a question of whether the City damaged the existing tile line which is quite old by having the catch basin cover on in 1983. I don't begin to understand sane of the water problems going on in this area. When I was out that night looking at Mr. Koehnen's problem and trying to help, I did notice that his next door neighbor had water just pouring up through his foundation which I must admi. t I haven't seen too many tirres before. It did not seem to be caning in through the walls but actually up through the floor and he was squeegeeing it out of his back door. That has nothing to do with the drain tile but the ditch is even lower than his house and I guess I was quite surprised to see that. I can not answer all the questions that do cane up in this. I guess I still don't believe that one rain damaged the tile to the degree that it is causing the problems. I believe the problems would have happened anyway. It seems like a little bit of a cop out to say that it was just coincidence and it would have happened anyway, but I believe that the tile was in disrepair and that this would have occurred. At this point with the insurance carpany' s position I am kind of forced to back off. I told Mr. Koehnen to come to the Council to see whether they want to 1) take care of his damages or 2) instruct me to look into this further and do rrore hunting and looking. The farther I get into this the rrore nervous I get that any problems inherent with the system, the City will definitely inherit foreverrrore so I am hesitant to continue. Mayor Hamilton - I would like to ask Don whether the City's liability is increased. Don Ashworth - Your insurance carrier has stated that we have stated that we have made a mistake. We have capPed the thing off and they have made a payment but they are saying that our liability ended there. If we are to go further and any action would be that we should do something rrore we then will take on that liability. The insurance carrier will be off the hook. It a very difficult situation for the City. The only way out would be if there would be sane fom of release and I really haven't heard that in this conversation. I really believe that the item should be left with the insurance carrier just as it is. Councilwanan SWenson - Did the insurance agent give any SPecific reason as to why he did not feel the liability rests with the City. I Bruce Koehnen - He gave a couple of reasons. One of the reasons was he said, he got water in his basement, he can't collect. He said a lot of PeOple had water problems with the heavy rain fall and he said that if this didn't happen, my flooding instance in June 9th and 7th, hadn't happened at that time he might look at it differently but as long as everybody else had a problem he is going to deny me. I asked him if I could go over this ahd if he would look at the facts together and reconsider his council Meeting July 9, 1984 -18- decision and I started to go over them and he cut me short and he says, I have already made by decision. Part of my reason here is too, I was wondering if the City Council, I don't think it was fairly looked at and I was wondering if the City Council would write your insurance carrier a letter requesting them to relook into the matter. I Mayor Hamilton - I think what may be a good way to stop this circle is to request that our insurance canpany sent out a different adjuster. Saneone who had not seen your particular problem. Review it and see what his carments are. If you weren't happy with the last one, it sounds like perhaps he was a little short with you. It would seem to me that might be a good way to see what sanebody else says. Bruce Koehnen - '!bat's a good start. Bill M:>nk - What we would do is, I would suggest we send the insurance canpany this packet asking them to review all pertinent data again and give the City Council a decision. Mayor Hamilton - I would request that they have sanebody review it who has not reviewed it previously. Bruce Koehnen - That's one thing I would like to see done and I would like to see the problem also alleviated. I don't think what the City has done yet has alleviated the problem. Councilman Geving - I think the City has to detennine whether or not it was negligible. We have to rely on our City Engineer and his assessment of the situation and I think I have heard that tonight. Bruce Koehnen - I am looking for sane guidance here to get sane results. I am new at this whole process. I Mayor Hamilton roved to refer this to the City insurance carrier for review. M=>tion seconded by councilwanan SWenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilworren Watson and SWenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. PHEASANT HILL/WALDRIP ADDITION: Councilwanan SWenson roved to schedule a public hearing for July 23, 1984, to con- sider public irrproverrents. M=>tion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilworren Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. M:>tion carried. RESOLUTION 84-34A. METES AND roUNDS SUBDIVISION REQUEST, 6841 HAZELTINE BLVD. DENNIS JACOBSON: Mr . Jacobson was present requesting approval of a metes and bounds sub:ii vision and variance to the requirerrent for public street frontage to create two parcels of land. There is an existing hane on the property. Councilman Horn roved to approve the proposed subdivision of an 8.45 acre parcel to sub:iivide off 2t acres metes and bounds subdivision #84-10 with the proposed con- di tion that a 60 foot easerrent as expressed in a letter to the Council as Exhibit A dated July 9, 1984, be granted. This sub:iivision is being granted because of the uniqueness of the property and its inaccessibility and will not be further sub- di vided unless platted. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. M:>tion carried. I I I I Council Meeting July 9, 1984 -19- METES AND roUNDS SUBDIVISION REQUEST, AUDUOON ROAD, JIM CURRY: Al Klingelhutz was present requesting a metes and bounds subdivision to create a 14 acre parcel to be consolidated with an adjacent ten acre parcel located just east of Audubon Road and north of Lyman Blvd. Mayor Hamilton rroved to approve the sul::xlivision to create a 14 acre parcel con- solidatating the 14 acre parcel with an existing ten acre parcel located along Audubon Road, Metes and Bounds Sul::xlivision #84-11. t-btion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwc:xren Watson and SWenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. t-btion carried. METES AND roUNDS SUBDIVISION REQUEST, GREAT PIAINS BLVD. JIM CURRY: Al Klingelhutz was present requesting a metes and bounds sul::xlivision to create a five acre lot along the south shore of Lake Susan. Councilwanan Watson rroved to approve the metes and bounds sul::xlivision to create a five acre parcel fran a 160 acre tract, Metes and Bounds Sul::xlivision #84-12. t-btion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving - I think we need to determine as a Council what we are going to do with our park dedication along Lake Susan. Are we going to go around that lake like we did on the north side with a trail? Scott Martin - The Canprehensi ve Plan does not call for acquiring where the existing homes are that access onto Highway 101. BIOMANIPUIATION PROGRAM, lAKE RILEY: The City Engineer will prepare a report for the July 23rd meeting. - ENLARGEMENT OF RILEY-PURGA'lORY CREEK WATERSHED DIS'IRICT: The City Engineer gave a status reporton the City's request to enlarge the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District to include the Bluff Creek Watershed area. Councilman Horn rroved to adjourn. t-btion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwc:xren Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. t-btion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager