Loading...
08-15-1983 CC MIN REGULA WEEKLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL HELD A THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY AUGUST 15, 1983 Members Present: Mayor Hinkle, Councilmembers Engstrom, Duitsman, Schuldt and Gunkel. Members Absent: None 1. The meeting was called to order at 7: 30 p.m. by Mayor Hinkle. 2. Agenda COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 15, 1983, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN SECO DED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 3. Minutes of Jul Council Meetin COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 18, 1983, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. COUNCILME BER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 4. Minutes of July 25, 1983, Joint Cit Council/Planning Commission Meetin COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE. MINUTES OF THE JULY 25, 1983, JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 5. Minutes of August 1, 1983 City Council Meeting COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVE COUNCIL MEETING. COUNCILME 6. Open Mike No one appeared for this item. 7. Holt/School Street Sto TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 1, 1983, CITY ER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. The City Administrator submitted a letter with comments from the Chief of Police regarding the Holt and Scho 1 Street stop sign. The City Administrator further indicated that he has recei ed several favorable calls regarding the City's action relating to the stop sign at School Street and Holt Avenue. Mr~ Carr of Parker quested that the City Council consider putting cross walks at the intersection of Gates Avenue and School Stree~ and Irving Avenue and School Street to consid r placing a stop sign at Gates Avenue rather than at Holt Avenue. Mr. Elliot, a resident of be better at Gates Avenue e area, indicated that he felt the stop sign would School Street. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED 0 AUTHORIZE THE PLACEMENT OF CROSSWALKS AT THE INTER- SECTIONS OF GATES AVENUE AN SCHOOL STREET, AND IRVING AVENUE AND SCHOOL STREET. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN SECO DED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. Council Minutes August 15, 1983 Page Two Councilmember Duitsman ind'cated that the consideration of a stop sign at either Gates Avenue or Holt Avenu and School Street would be considered at a Council Meeting in three months. ouncilmember Duitsman further indicated that the thought behind the cons ide ation of the stop sign in three months was to allow school to start and see wh t happens with the traffic along School Street. Mr. Carr indicated that a school zone sign on School Street just west of #169 has been removed. The City Administrator indicated that he would have the Street Department replace the School Street school zone sign if it was missing. Councilmember Engstrom indicated that the use of radar along School Street may slow the traffic and the speeders along School Street. It was the consensus of the City Council to consider the stop s~gn on School Street in approximately three months. 8. Barrington Place Conditional Use Permit Modification/Public Hearing The City Administrator indicated that Mr. Gary Santwire has requested a modi- fication of the Barrington Place PUD conditional use permit and site plan in order to increase the density within the residential area. The City Administrator indicated that there were three changes that Mr. Santwire was requesting. 1. An easement vacation. 2. An administrative subdivision with property owned by Faith Fellowship Church. 3. Increased density in the conditional use permit and site plan for Barrington Place. The City Administrator further indicated that the increased density would be con- sidered at this public hearing, and the other two requests would be dealt with at a later date. The City Administrator indicated that the density changes are requested for Block 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The City Administrator indicated that in reviewing Mr. Santwire's request for increased density, the Staff finds that 10 dwelling units per acre is an acceptable density for the type of development in the Barrington Place PUD. The City Administrator further indicated that the City Planner also agrees that 10 density units per acre is acceptable for this type of development. The City Administrator further indicated that the City Staff has concerns with increasing the density in Block 1 from single family dwellings to double family dwellings, as Block 1 is essentially a part of the Elk Hills Subdivision. The City Administrator indicated that the Staff feels this land use should remain single family. The City Administrator indicated that the City Council may want to consider additional buffering along the northerly end of the plat because of the increase of density in the PUD. The City Administrator indicated that it is recommended that the City Council approve Mr. Santwire's request for increased density at the rate of 10 dwelling units per acre with the exception of Block 1 which should remain single family dwelling. Council Minutes August 15, 1983 Page Three Mr. Jack Holmes indicated his concern of the density with the traffic that may be generated in and out of the PUD. Mr. Jack Holmes indicated that the density at the original time of the conditional use and site plan was cut from what was originally requested because of the traffic problem that may be generated. Mr. Gary Santwire indicated that he was asking for what was allowed in the land use plan. Mr. Santwire reviewed his increased density request for each lot in the PUD. Mr. Santwire further indicated that the balance of lot 3 cannot be in- creased unless the Homeowners Association would approve the change in lot 3. Mr. Santwire indicated that he was asking for the maximum density for the PUD and further indicated that he may not use the maximum density. Mr. Santwire further indicated that he objected to the Staff's recommendation for Block 1 of the PUD. Mr. Santwire indicated that the land use plan allows for 5 dwellings per acre and under this plan, Block 1 which consists of 3 acres, could hold 15 dwelling units according to the land use plan. Mr. Santwire indicated that his request to have double bungalows on Block 1 is an economic way to be able to continue the develop- ment of the PUD. Mr. Santwire indicated that he had a request to sell a lot in Block 1 of which it was indicated that the purchaser would build a 760 sq. foot building. Mr. Santwire indicated that he believed double bungalows would be more attractive to the area than 760 sq. foot homes. Mr. Van Sering questioned the intent of Mr. Santwire to build apartment buildings or condominiums for lot 4. Mr. Santwire indicated that it was his intent to build G.ondominiums and sell as individual dwelling units. Discussion was carried on regarding the size of a family ~n a 24 unit apartment building. Mr. Santwire indicated that as the developer, it is not legal to require a certain number of persons to occupy a unit. Mr. Santwire further in- dicated that a developer will try to regulate the number of persons by the number of bedrooms in a unit. Mr. Walter Nielson questioned the possibility of an environmental impact study. The City Administrator indicated that an environmental impact study is not recom- mended or necessary as it is a very long, time consuming, and expensive study. Mr. George Deschene expressed his concern of traffic in the area should the density be increased. Discussion was carried on regarding the building code requirements and the City Ordinance regarding size of dwelling units. Mr. Jack Holmes indicated that density was an issue at the time of approval of the Barrington Place PUD and fur- ther indicated that he felt the density approved was acceptable and should remain unchanged. The City Administrator indicated that the City Council and Planning Commission worked together to accept a proposal for the PUD that made sense, and at the time of approval of the Barrington Place PUD, the concept submitted was acceptable. The City Administrator further indicated that the City's Ordinance allows for modi- fications or change and that is why a public hearing is held to consider those modifications or changes and determine if they make sense with the total concept. Mr. John Pearce, representative for the Planning Commission, indicated that the Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve the density changes requested by Mr. Santwire, including the request for duplexes or double bungalows for Block 1. Council Minutes August 15, 1983 Page Four Mr. Gary Santwire in reviewing the requested density changes, indicated that in no way would the increased density go outside of the present boundaries on the approved site plan. Mr. Santwire indicated that the increased density changes would not cut into the original green space as accepted on the original plat. Discussion was carried on regarding the size of the units. Mr. Santwire indicated that the size of the dwelling units would range from approximately 650 sq. feet to 1,800 sq. feet depending on what the market requires. Discussion was also carried on regarding parking. Mr. Santwire indicated that the City requires that each dwelling unit have one garage and one parking space. Discussion was carried on regarding the proposed changes in Block 1. Mr. Santwire indicated that he proposed to have a zero sideyard setback for double bungalows in Block 1. Mr. Larry Toth indicated that his property may be affected the most by the increased density, and therefore, expressed his concern of the approval of the increased density. Mr; Van Sering indicated that he was in Oppos1t1on of the increased density re- quest, and further indicated that he wanted it to remain as approved three years ago. Mr. Walter Nielson indicated his Oppos1t1on to the change requested based on in- creased traffic volume in the area. The City Administrator indicated that the City Council must consider land use patterns in the consideration of the increased density request. Counci1member Duitsman indicated that he approved the the increased density re- quest for Blocks 2, 3, and 4, and further indicated that he supported the City Administrator's recommendation that Block 1 remain the same. Counci1member Duitsman further indicated that it was his recommendation that the density in ParcelS be 30 units, and that that increase in density be on the southern portion of Block 5. Counci1member Gunkel questioned the possibility of access to the single family lots in Block 1 from the PUD. Mr. Gary Santwire indicated that the only way to serve the lots would be from Elk Hills Drive, and therefore access could not be through the PUD. Discussion was carried on regarding storm sewer drainage with the increased density. Counci1member Gunkel indicated that she has problems and concerns with the process of approving changes in the conditional use permit and site plan. Counci1member Gunkel indicated that the proposed changes are concept changes and that final approval will have to be made through the Planning Commission and City Council. Counci1member Gunkel questioned the public hearing held at the time of modifi- cations in the concept. The City Administrator indicated that it is not unreasonable to request changes in a PUD concept when the development may take a period of 5 to 10 years. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he was in agreement with the Staff's recommendation of Block 1 as the traffic could cause a problem with the Elk Hills Development. Mayor Hinkle indicated that Mr. Santwire has proposed a desirable PUD and further indicated that Council Minutes August 15, 1983 Page Five he believed developers have rights to develop a project whereby they may corne out on the project. Mayor Hinkle further indicated that he felt Block 5 should have a buffering from Elk Hills Drive. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE DENSITY INCREASE OF THE BARRINGTON PLACE PUD AS FOLLOWS: BLOCK 1 TO REMAIN THE SAME AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN; BLOCK 2 INCREASE DENSITY FROM 20 TO 40 UNITS: PHASE II PORTION OF BLOCK 3 - 13 TO 25; BLOCK 4 - 54 TO 72; AND BLOCK 5 - 19 TO 30; AND TO REQUIRE A SCREENING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BLOCK 5 AND BLOCK 2 OF THE PUD. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. Counci1member Schuldt indicated that he was in agreement with Counci1member Duitsman's motion except that he felt Block 2 should be increased to 30 units rather than 40 units. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO AN INCREASED DENSITY FOR BLOCK 2 FROM 20 TO 30 UNITS. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION. THE AMENDED MOTION PASSED 4-0. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE HIGHEST DENSITY OF BLOCK 5 BE DEVELOPED TO THE SOUTH OF BLOCK 5. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION. THE AMENDED MOTION PASSED 4-0. THE ORIGINAL MOTION WITH AMENDMENTS PASSED 4-0. 9. Kreuser Administrative Subdivision Request/Public Hearing The City Administrator indicated that Mr. Gene Kreuser has requested an adminis- trative subdivision for property in Palmers First Addition to allow three existing lots of record to be consolidated into two lots. The City Administrator indicated that City Staff finds that there are no particular problems associated with the subdivision requested by Mr. Kreuser, and therefore, it is recommended that the City Council grant approval to the Administrative Subdivision request of Mr. Gene Kreuser for lots 1, 2, and 3 of Palmers First Addition. Mayor Hinkle opened the public hearing. No one appeared for or 1n opposition of the administrative subdivision request. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM MOVED TO APPROVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION REQUEST OF MR. GENE KREUSER FOR LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 IN THE PALMERS FIRST ADDITION. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 10. 211th Avenue Road Improvement Project/Public Hearing Mr. Terry Maurer of Consulting Engineers Diversified reviewed the feasibility report for the 211th Avenue Road Improvement Project. Mr. Maurer indicated that the cost of the road improvement for each parcel would be very high because of the fact that there are only 4 or 5 parcels. Mr. Maurer indicated that if the City would approve a 24 foot road width rather than a 30 foot road width, the cost could be reduced. Mr. Maurer indicated that the approximate cost for the private portion would be $6,100 per unit. Discussion was carried on regarding the cost of the project and how those costs would be paid. Mr. Ron Beck questioned when the public portion of the road would I I ! ! I I be improved. Mr. Phil Hals, StreetJsuperintendent indicated that the Street Department is getting ready to do t e grading work on the public portion. I Ada Jedneck asked why Kampas would f!ot be assessed for a portion of the road as they own property along the opposit side of the private road. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he felt the City Council should discuss and make a decision regarding the acceptance of a 24 foot road width rather than the 30 foot width. Discussion was also cartried on regarding other roads comparable to 211 th located within the City. I Discussion was carried on regardingtthe possibility of lot splits in the area, and increased residents and traffic on the 24 foot proposed roads. The City Administrator indicated that the Ci y Council has the power and authority to determine what density is allowable Ifor a specific road. I . Mr. Jedneck questioned the possibil~ty of the City paying the Kampa portion of the road and then when the property Iwassold or lot splits made, the assessment would be paid and the City would geJ their money back. Further discussion was carried on regarding the acceptance of a 24 foot road width versus a 30 foot road width. Discussion was also ca ried on regarding the possibility of cutting the cost of the improvement by havi g the Street Department do the work. Mr. Jedneck indicated that he would donJte a truck and driver for the road improvement . I construct10n. I Councilm ember Gunke.l indicated tha.t~She was not in favor of a 24 foot road width. Councilmember Duitsman questioned w 0 would pay for the improvement if the road was upgraded at a later date. The ity Administrator indicated that the City Council may want to refuse subdivis.ons in the area unless the residents wanted to upgrade the road at their cost. , Discussion was carried on regardingJthe assessment of the Kampa property. Mrs. Kampa indicated that they did not w nt to pay an assessment for the improvement of the private road and further ind~cated that they woul& not give an easement if they were assessed for the impro'fement cost. The City Administrator indicated that the City Staff would have to review the cost of building the road and submit an estimate or proposal to the City Icouncil for consideration. Councilmember Duitsman indicated th1t the retaining of the funds until the lots are split and then assessed would ber a viable option for the road improvement costs. ! I Council Minutes August 15, 1983 Page Six COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO CON INUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE 2UTH AVENUE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT UNTIL SOME FURTHER INFORMATION COULD BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY STAFF. COUNCILMEMBER GUNK LSECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. I 11. Majkrzak Variance Request/Public He~ring I The City Administrator indicated thdt Mr. Michael Majkrzak of 13131 Mississippi Road has requested a rear yard and J sideyard setback variance so that he may keep Council Minutes August *5, 1983 Page Seven his swimming pool at its present location. The City Administrator further indicated that the variance request is to allow Mr. Majkrzak to encroach into the required sideyard setback by 10 feet and into the required rear yard by 5 feet. The City Administrator indicated that the Planning Commission considered Mr. Majkrzak's request for a variance at their July 26, 1983 meeting and after careful review of the 5 variance standards required before a variance can be granted, the Planning Commission recommended denial. The City Administrator indicated that the hardship standards cannot be met as the problem has been created by Mr. Majkrzak himself. Mr. Rick Breezee indicated that on June 27th, he issued a formal stop order for the work done on the swim- ming pool, as Mr. Majkrzak did not have a building permit for the construction. Mr. Breezee indicated that Mr. Majkrzak completely ignored the Building and Zoning Administrator's stop order and the requirements placed upon him and virtually completed his swimming pool. Mr. Rick Breezee indicated that Mr. Majkrzak had indicated that prior to construction of the swimming pool he had called the City of Anoka for their building requirements. Mr. Breezee indicated that at no time had Mr. Majkrzak made contact with the City's Building and Zoning Department prior to construction. Mr. Breezee indicated that Mr. Majkrzak had called and asked for permission to place the liner in the pool to avoid errosion until he could appear before the Planning Commission on the variance request. Mr. Breezee indicated that he stressed to Mr. Majkrzak not to fill the pool with water or install the filter. Mr. Breezee indicated that Mr. Majkrzak has backfilled against the pool, placed water in the pool, the filter system and has begun to build decking around the pool. Mr. John Pearce, Planning Commission Member, indicated that the Planning Commission denied Mr. Majkrzak's request for a variance based on the five standards necessary for a variance. Mr. Pearce indicated that the Planning Commission felt that two of those standards could not be met. Mr. Majkrzak indicated that his pool was an above ground pool, and further in- dicated that he was told that he did not need a permit for a swimming pool. Mr. Majkrzak indicated that it took two days to install the pool which he did over a weekend, and on Monday he received the stop order. Mr. Breezee indicated that according to the building code, a pool is a structure and requires a building permit. Mr. Breezee further indicated that the pool is in the ground, that backfilling has been done as well as bracing. Mr. Moldenhauer indicated that he is the owner of the adjoining lot to the Majkrzak.property and further indicated that he felt he, as well as the City, should be compensated for Mr. Majkrzak's encroachment onto the setback require- ments. General discussion was carried on regarding the Robert Morton swimming pool on Main Street in comparison to Mr. Majkrzak's request for a variance. The City Administrator indicated that in Mr. Morton's case Mr. Morton had two front- yard setback requirements and with no other practical location for the swimming pool, he requested a variance from one of the front yard setbacks. The City Admin- istrator indicated that Mr. Morton complied with the City's requirements and was very cooperative in obtaining a variance. council1Minutes August 5, 1983 Page Eight Councilmember Gunkel indicated that she felt the hardship standard could not be met for a swimming pool. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY MR. MAJKRZAK FOR A REAR YARD AND A SIDEYARD SETBACK. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 12. Marshall Variance Request/Public Hearing The City Administrator indicated that Mr. Lyman Marshall, owner of the apartment building located at 379 Baldwin Avenue, has requested a sideyard setback variance. The City Administrator further indicated that Mr. Marshall's request for a side- yard setback variance would allow him to extend the existing detached garage building approximately 12 feet which would encroach on the required sideyard setback by 4 feet. The City Administrator further indicated that the sideyard setback in the R-4 zone is 5 feet. The City Administrator indicated that the Planning Commission reviewed Mr. Marshall's request and found that the request does not meet the necessary variance standards, and therefore voted unanimously to deny the varianc. The City Administrator indicated that in the Staff review of Mr. Marshall's request, Staff found that Mr. Marshall did not meet the necessary tests in granting a var1ance as there are other options available for the expansion of his garage. Mr. Lyman Marshall indicated that he needed the expansion for storage of ladders, snowblowers, lawnmowers, sprinklers and so forth, and that end of the garage was the practical end for building that extension, as the other end of the garage is needed for the garbage dumpsters, and additional parking spaces for the apart- ment building. Councilmember Schuldt questioned the possibility of the use of a portable building for storage. Discussion was carried on regarding an alternative solution to Mr. Marshall's problem of storage space. Mr. John Pearce, Planning Commission Member, indicated that he felt the variance standards were too strong, and further indicated that even if Mr. Marshall was present at the Planning Commission meeting, he would still have to vote no as the request does not meet the standards. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY MR. LYMAN MARSHALL FOR THE APARTMENT BUILDING LOCATED AT 379 BALDWIN AVENUE. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 13. Concept of Highway Commercial Zoning on Easterly Highway 10 The City Administrator indicated that recently both the Planning Commission and the City Council considered a request for a Zone Change from 1-1 light industrial to C-3 Highway commercial for property owned by Mr. George Cowles. The City Administrator further indicated that both the Planning Commission and the City Council voted to deny the zone change request. The City Administrator further indicated that the Planning Commission then considered the question of re- zoning a larger area of property on easterly Highway 10, and based upon Mr. Zack Johnson's comments, and several concerns of the Planning Commission. The Council Minutes August ts, 1983 Page Nine Planning Commission unanimously agreed that no changes in the zoning on the east portion of Highway 10 should be considered. Councilmember Duitsman indicated that he was in favor of helping Mr. George Cowles and in favor of the dry bar, and further indicated that he did not see a problem with allowing that type of use in an industrial zone. General discussion was carried on regarding the language necessary for the ordinance change. Councilmember Gunkel indicated that she was in agreement regarding the denial of a zone change. Councilmember Gunkel indicated that the City Council should consider the impact of a dry bar at the entrance of the town. The City Administrator indicated that the City Council should consider the land use and not the type of use proposed for the area. Councilmember Schuldt indicated that he felt a dry bar was not adesireable use in an industrial zone. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he had concern with changing the ordinance to help a particular client. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO REFER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEIR RECOM- MENDATION THE CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE CHANGE TO ALLOW A DRY BAR AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-1. COUNCILMEMBER SHCULDT OPPOSED. 14. Deerfield First Addition Preliminary Plat The City Administrator indicated that Mr. Gerald Smith of Brooklyn Park has sub- mitted a preliminary plat for Deerfield First Addition. The City Administrator indicated that the Planning Commission reviewed the Deerfield First Addition pre- liminary plat and conducted a public hearing. The City Administrator further indicated that in the Planning Commission's review of the Plat, a number of con- cerns and observations were discussed. The City Administrator further indicated that the Planning Commission approved the Plat with several stipulations, specifi- cally that there be an assurance from the developer that there be no unbuildable lots in the plat, that necessary road easements be granted at 20lst and 202nd Avenue, that a drainage plan be provided and approved, and that the 2~ acre min- imum lot area be allowed to include some wet or swampy area. The City Administrator indicated that the concerns of the Planning Commission and Mr. Terry Maurer of Consulting Engineers Diversified could be addressed without problems. The City Administrator indicated that one of the main concerns expressed by the Planning Commission was the calculation of marshy land drainage areas. The City Administrator indicated that if this marshy wet land must not be considered in the calculation of a plat, a number of the lots would have to be redesigned as they currently show 2.S acres, including some drainage easement area. The City Administrator indicated that he felt the City Council should recognize some of this wet land in the calculation of the lot sizes. The City Administrator indicated that at this point, the City Staff has been unable to define an exact standard to determine how exactly a calculation that would include portions of wet land would apply to the Deerfield Plat. The City Administrator indicated that it is recommended that the City Council give approval to the plat with the stipulation that this land area question be resolved prior to the final plat. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM MOVED TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TITLED DEERFIELD FIRST ADDITION CONTINGENT UPON THE STIPULATION AND CONCERNS EXPRESSED IN THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S MEMO TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATED AUGUST 11, 1983, AND THE CITY ENGINEER'S MEMO TO MR. RICK BREEZEE. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. Council Minutes August ts, 1983 Page Ten 15. Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval for Hillside Estates The City Administrator indicated that Mr. Ted Lundgren of Hillside Estates has requested a 3 month extension of the preliminary plat. The City Administrator indicated that Mr. Lundgren has requested this extension based on the difficulty he has had in obtaining clear titles to the property. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO GRANT AN EXTENSION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HILLSIDE ESTATES TO MR. TED LUNDGREN FOR A 3 MONTH PERIOD. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 16. Resolution on Continuing Cable Franchise Process and Cable Lobbyist Policy The City Administrator indicated that Resolution 83-12 was a resolution deter- mining the advisability of continuing the Franchise process, and further indicated that the resolution is a formality and a requirement of the State Cable Com- mission Board. The City Administrator further indicated that the Sherburne/Wright County Cable Communications Commission has adopted a Lobbyist Policy in preparation for anticipated contacts which will be made by Lobbyists during the Franchising process. The City Administrator indicated that the policy required that any Lobbyist who wishes to contact a member of the Cable Commission do so in a regular commission meeting, and share whatever information with the entire commission. The City Administrator further indicated that an item referred to in the Resolution is a needs assessment for cable television. It was the consensus of the City Council that the City of Elk River complete the needs assessment survey, and to accomplish that survey by volunteers. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 83-12, A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE ADVISABILITY OF CONTINUING THE FRANCHISE PROCESS. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO ADOPT A LOBBYIST POLICY. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-1. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN OPPOSED. 17. Consider Non-Controversial Items A. Hagen's Mechanical Amusement Device License B. Dino's 3.2 On-Sale Beer License C: Fire Department's 3.2 on-Sale beer license September 10th, Barn Dance. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM MOVED TO APPROVE THE MECHANICAL AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSE FOR HAGEN'S GROCERY STORE, THE 3.2 ON-SALE BEER LICENSE FOR DINO'S PIZZA AND THE 3.2 ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THE ELK RIVER FIRE DEPARTMENT. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 18. Administrator's Update A. Landfill Meeting. The City Administrator indicated that on Friday, August 5th, the City Attorney, the Building and Zoning Administrator, the City Engineer, and the City Admin- istrator met with County Representatives, Landfill Representatives, and the PCA Representatives regarding the PCA permit for the Elk River Landfill. Council Minutes August 15, 1983 Page Eleven The City Administrator indicated that the meeting went very well and V1r- tually all of the City's concerns expressed in the letter to the PCA were incorporated into the PCA permit. The City Administrator indicated that as a majority of the City's concerns have been addressed by the PCA, the PCA has requested that the City withdraw the request for a public hearing. The City Administrator indicated that the City Attorney feels the with~ drawal of the request would be appropriate. The City Administrator further indicated that Sherburne County has indicated that they will be drafting a revised landifll ordinance, and that the City will work very closely with the County to be sure that all of the City's concerns are addressed in the ordinance. B. Tentative Flag Dedication Ceremony The City Administrator indicated that Mr. Tony Jarmoluk has indicated that the flag dedication ceremony will be held either September 10th, or September 17th. C. Capital Improvement Program Meeting, August 22, 1983 The City Administrator indicated that the Capital Improvement Program Meeting has been scheduled for August 22nd, at the Library. The City Administrator indicated that he anticipates about a 2 hour work session with the Economic Development Commission, the City Department Heads, the City Council, and the City Planning Commission. D. Gates Avenue Improvement Project The City Administrator indicated that the Contractors are jacking under Highway 10, and will be putting wells up on Gates Avenue within the next week. The City Administrator further indicated that dewatering will not start until the outlet to the river has been completed. The City Admin- istrator further indicated that the easements for the PUD Improvement Pro- ject have been obtained and are at Mr. MacGibbon's office for final review. E. Computer Progress The City Administrator indicated that the request for proposal has been completed and that the City will receive bids September 6th, at 10:00 a.m. with scheduled oral interviews at the September 12th City Council meeting. F. 101 Bridge Replacement The City Administrator indicated that the State and the Engineers are confident that the City will receive funding this fall for the 101 bridge replacement project. G. Boat Regulations on Lake Orono The City Administrator indicated that the president of the Lake Homeowner's Association has requested the City to adopt regulations regarding boating activities on Lake Orono. The City Administrator further indicated that in reviewing the Lake owners concerns with the Sheriff, Boat and Water Patrol, and the DNR, he has found that it will be necessary to conduct a public Council Minutes August ts, 1983 Page Twelve hearing regarding the adoption of the proposed regulations, and that the regulations must conform with the Department of Natural Resource guide- lines. The City Administrator indicated that the DNR is sending information regarding the process they require and has volunteered their help in drafting the necessary guidelines for Lake Orono. 19. Check Register COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 15, 1983, CHECK REGISTER. COUNCIL- MEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 20. Tentative Agenda The Bond sale and the Capital Improvement Program project are scheduled for the August 22, 1983, City Council Meeting. 21. Adjournment THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. Respectfully Submitted, ~13~ Phyllis Boedigheimer Deputy City Clerk/Treasurer PB:st