Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> -------- ... <br /> Hinutes of Regular Council Meeting <br /> Nov. 8, 1982 <br /> Page Two <br /> (Council concurred that the fees for amusement arcades license <br /> and coin-operated amusement device license be referred to the <br /> Finance Committee for recommendation to Council; Lynden to write <br /> le t te r for Finance Committees consideration and to prepare the <br /> necessary amendmen t to incorporate the changes to Ordinance 224) . <br /> Status Report - Control Data Leas~ Agr~ement <br /> Council was referred to Lynden's letter of 11-5-82, and attached <br /> final draft of Control Data Parking Lot Le as e Agreement, which <br /> he reported has been approved by CDC's attorney. <br /> Hulcahy movedt seconded by HcAllis te r, that Council approve the <br /> Lease Agreement and authorize execution thereof by the Mayor and . <br /> Cle rk Administrator. Notion carried unanimously (5-0) . <br /> Lexington/I-694 Drainage Project <br /> Lynden reported that the contractor (Lametti & Sons Inc) has in- <br /> dicated his intention to pur sue arbitration relative to $45,000 + <br /> miscellaneous claims; noted that the deadline for filing is 11- <br /> 12-82. <br /> Johnston Easement - Arden Oaks Improvement Pr:.oject <br /> Lynden repo r te d tha t he has a copy of the easement; executed ease- <br /> ment will be delivered upon Johnston's receipt of the ci ty' s check. <br /> REPORT OF VILLACE ENGINEER DONALD CHRISTOFFERSEN <br /> Case No. 82-12, Minor Subdivision - Sullivan <br /> Coun cil was referred to Chris toffe rsen 'sletter of 11-5-82 rela- <br /> tive to estimated cost for replacing the 18" culvert under Skiles <br /> Lane wi th a 2411 culvert, and feasibility of changing the culvert <br /> location so it is perpendicular to the street. <br /> Christoffersen reported that realignment of the culvert does not <br /> appear to be practical; cost estimate of $5,900 is bas e d on a 24" <br /> culvert be in g placed at the same location as the existing 18" <br /> culvert. <br /> Concerns were exp res se d relative to the advisabili ty of allowing <br /> extensiv.e filling of the property in order to create a suitable <br /> building envelope, and to the potential subsequent water problems <br /> for the proposed new and existing lot owners. Drawings were <br /> shown by Sullivan of the proposed split. Engineer Chris toffersen <br /> verified tha t app roxi ma te ly 11 acres drain into th is area. <br /> Sullivan suggested tha t the existing setback from Highway 51 <br /> ( Snelling) is extensive; noted that he has heard that this wide <br /> right-of-way is to be abandoned; sugges ted that Council reconsider <br /> the setback for this wooded lot which would, in his estimation, <br /> provide a beautiful building site. <br /> In discussion, it was of concern that a setback variance will un- <br /> doub tedly be requested for the proposed 10 t, when a house proposal <br /> is known. Sullivan said he has no intention of developing the <br /> property himself; would like to some day sell the house and 10 t. <br /> McAllister moved, seconded by Woodb ur,n, that Council app rove the . <br /> straight line lot spli t and consolidation as proposed. <br /> In further discussion, McAllister said she will not vote for the <br /> motion because she feels tha t splitting the lot will destroy it. <br /> Woodburn moved that the motion be amended to add that approval of <br /> the split is contingent upon agreement by the owner that he wi 11 <br /> pay the CDs t of culvert replacement (from 18" to 24") , and that <br /> approval of the split does not anticipate approval of future vari- <br /> ances on the 10 t, in spite 01 its configuration. <br /> Amendment was seconded by Hicks and carried. (Johnson, Hicks, <br /> Woodburn voting in favor; Nulcahy, NcAllister voting in opposi- <br /> tion) (3-2) . Johnson Dloved to further amend the motion to give <br /> the City Planner latitude to ad jus t the lot line between the two <br /> lots to enhance the building envelope and access on the newly <br /> created 10 t. Hicks seconded the amendment and amendmen t carried <br /> unanimously (5-0) . <br /> -2- <br />