Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Minutes ,/ . - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Date: December 1, 1997 1. CALL TO ORDER.............................................................................. 7:30 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES 4. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Consider approval of Invoices to be Paid. B. Consider Approval of Resolution 97-XX Overturning the Decision of the Planning Commission Denying a Variance Request by Brian Mattson to the Side Yard Setback for Driveway and Impervious Surface for Property Located at 16575 Inguadona Beaqch Circle, Case File #97-053. 5. PRESENTATIONS: A. Jeneann Beyl, Citizens Concerned for Scott County, Regarding Amphitheater Proposal. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. There are no Public Hearings 7. OLD BUSINESS: A. Consider Approval of Resolution 97-XX Recommending Scott County Deny a Request for Installation of a Traffic Signal at CSAH 42 and Timothy Avenue. 8. NEW BUSINESS: A. Consider approval of Resolution 97-XX Denying an Appeal of Hillcrest Homes from a Decision of the Zoning Officer Relating to Bluff and Top of Bluff. 9. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA 10. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation. 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE A. 12. ADJOURNMENT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Date: November 17, 1997 1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Present were: Mayor Andren, Councilmembers Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins, and Schenck, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Pace, City Attorney Brokl, Assistant City Manager Woodson, City Engineer Ilkka, Assistant City Engineer McDermott, Engineering Technician Evens, Planning Director Rye, Planning Coordinator Kansier, Planner Tovar, Parks and Recreation Director Hokeness, and Recording Secretary Oden. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Andren led the Pledge of Allegiance and welcomed everyone to the meeting. 3. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES: A. November 3,1997 Regular City Council Meeting MOTION BY ANDREN SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 3, 1997 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins, and Schenck, the motion carried. B. November 5, 1997 Special City Council Meeting . Counci1member Schenck said the minutes should be amended to show that Counci1member- Elect Petersen was not present at the meeting. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY MADER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 5, 1997 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Upon a vote, ayes by Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins and Schenck, abstention Andren, the motion carried. Timothy Avpnup MOTION BY MADER SECOND BY ROBBINS TO AMEND THE AGENTIA TO ALLOW THE TIMOTHY AVENUE RESIDENTS TO DISCUSS THEIR ISSUES UNDER 5A) PRESENTATIONS. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins, and Schenck, the motion carried. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. B. Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report. C. Consider Approval of Animal Warden Report for October, 1997. D. Consider Approval of Fire Call Report for October, 1997 16~OO~le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 ,I Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4215 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER H. 1. E. F. MVTA Consider Approval of Building Permit Report for October, 1997. Consider Approval of Resolution 97-102 Approving Amended Bylaws and Amended Joint Powers Agreement of the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority. Consider Approval of 1) 3.2 Temporary Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for Church 2) Temporary Consumption and Display Permit for St. Michael's Church Consider Approval of 3.2 Temporary Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for St. Michael's Church. Consider Approval of Resolution 97-103 Authorizing the Preparation of Specifications and Solicitation of Bids for One (1) Four Wheel Drive Articulating Tractor and Attachments. G. Liquor T.icp.nsp. St. Michael's . Councilmember Mader asked that item I be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion after New Business. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY ROBBINS TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A THROUGH H. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins and Schenck, the motion canied. 5. PRESENTATIONS: Burdick Building A. Timothy Avenue Residents Berm Concerns Maureen Hermann said the Burdick building is in violation of the ordinances regarding setbacks. She said by building in violation of the setback ordinances, Mr. Burdick will profit as the neighbors' property values decrease. She said they wanted to know if the City practices selective enforcement of its ordinances. They want Mr. Burdick to be denied an occupancy permit until the neighbors deal with him directly. . . Councilmember Mader asked if Ms. Hermann had met with Mr. Burdick. . Ms. Hermann said her legal advisor was meeting with the surveyor tomorrow to determine if the property was correctly surveyed. . Councilmember Mader asked if it was her intention to resolve the issue with Mr. Burdick directly. . Ms. Hermann said it was and they did not want the City to be in the middle. . Councilmember Kedrowski asked if it was the overhangs that violated the setback on the building. . Ms. Hermann said it was part of the foundation as well and a garbage enclosure 17 feet from the lot line. . Councilmember Kedrowski asked what the timeline was for resolving the issue. 111797.DOC 2 · Ms. Hermann said tomorrow their legal counsel would meet with the surveyor, and soon after that they would determine who they needed to contact. · Councilmember Kedrowski asked if it would be resolved in two weeks. · Ms. Hermann said it depended upon whether they could reach Mr. Burdick and get together with him. · Councilmember Mader asked whether the survey submitted with the building permit showed the building as non-conforming or conforming. · City Manager Boyles said he had not seen the actual sketches. · Planning Director Rye said the site plan as submitted with the building permit showed a setback of sixty feet. · Councilmember Mader asked whether it included the eve. · Planning Director Rye said some communities measure only to the building face and disregard the eves or overhangs. · Councilmember Mader said that was only part of the problem if there was an interpretation stating the foundation violates it as well. · Planning Director Rye said the foundation needs to be sixty feet, but they would measure to the building face, and if something was below grade, they would not be concerned with it. · Councilmember Kedrowski said Ms. Hermann indicated the other building (Burdick #2) was also within the sixty foot setback. Since that building has already been up several years, would they be required to come back and ask for a variance? · City Attorney Pace said the fact that a building is non-conforming could create a potentially serious problem for Burdick with financing and insurance. MOTION BY MADER SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO NOT ISSUE AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT UNTIL ISSUE IS RESOLVED. . Councilmember Kedrowski asked whether Council can do that legally. . City Attorney Pace said Council can do it, but the issue is what kind of liabilities does that expose the City to? The Council can deny the certificate of occupancy, but needs to decide what they are going to ask Burdick to do in order to qualify for a certificate of occupancy. Right now there are administrative remedies to exhaust, such as applying for a variance. If he is not given a variance, then he may have a cause of action. He is in violation of the ordinance. The question is does the City have to enforce the ordinance or can it try to come up with a solution that mitigates the problem? Yes it can do that. Burdick could go to court 1I1797.DOC 3 and seek an injunction requiring the City to issue a permit. A judge would more than likely refer the issue to mediation. . Mayor Andren asked, given the fact that the other building has been up and occupied for at least three years and also seems to be in violation and nothing was brought forward, where does that fit in? . City Attorney Pace said what actually happens in reality versus what the ordinance states in black and white may be different. . Mayor Andren asked so ifhe doesn't get a variance, he will most likely go to court, and we will spend City money to go to court with him, and a judge will most likely order it to mediation because the building is already up? . City Attorney Pace said the judge will likely order the issue to mediation, and if the mediation does not succeed, the issue will go to trial. . Mayor Andren said she did not see the harm in putting a time frame on allowing the residents to meet with Mr. Burdick. She said she would support Mader's motion provided there would be a time frame so that it did not go on for three or four months. . Mike Markston of 14321 Timothy Avenue said one thing different now than three years ago is the parking lot was put in behind the second building (Burdick #2) two weeks ago. The reason they are upset is that the cars are parking in the lot and the residents have headlights shining into their backyards. . Mayor Andren asked Maureen Hermann if she had an idea of the time frame for negotiation. . Ms. Hermann said about a month. . Mayor Andren said the City Attorney has asked whether everyone knows that he has agreed to put up a berm and an eight foot fence. . Mr. Markston said Mr. Burdick wants to put the fence at the bottom ofthe berm and it won't do much good unless it is on top of the berm or at the curb line. Mr. Markston said he puts fences on commercial properties and berms are required. He said in this case, the berm is actually on the easement. . Mayor Andren asked for a time frame. . Ms. Hermann said one month should give them time to meet with Mr. Burdick. . Councilmember Mader said he would like to restate the original motion. MOTION BY MADER SECOND BY KEDROWSKI FOR THE CITY TO WITHHOLD AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT TO ALLOW UNTIL DECEMBER 15TH TO RESOLVE ISSUE AND IF ISSUE IS NOT RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL MAY EXERCISE ITS OPTIONS. II 1797.DOC 4 ... . Councilmember Robbins asked do we have a certified survey that indicates that the building is in violation of the setback? . Planning Director Rye said the City did not. Ms. Hermann referred to a survey the neighborhood had done. The City's verification was based upon stakes in the field and it appeared the current building overhang is two feet within the setback based on what the staff observed. . Councilmember Robbins said how could you withhold an occupancy permit if there is no certified survey that shows it is in violation? . Councilmember Mader said at the last Council meeting he asked if the buildings were in violation and he understood they were. . Planning Director Rye said the buildings violated setbacks in terms of the overhang. The question is whether or not the sixty foot setback is observed for the building along the foundation. . Councilmember Kedrowski said if Ms. Hennann had it surveyed the City staff should receIve a copy. . Ms. Hermann said a surveyor came out and measured but provided nothing in writing. If it needs to go to court, he would write it out. He just made sketches. . Mayor Andren said it is the builders' responsibility to provide the City with a survey and prove that it isn't in violation. It is not the homeowners' responsibility. If he has something that shows it isn't, then the City needs to see it. . City Attorney Pace agreed. . Mayor Andren said a month is fine and they would expect them back on the 15th of December. . Ms. Hermann said from her understanding, Universal Title has moved into the building, and people are working out of there. Are they occupying it? . City Manager Boyles said he thought it was tenant finishes versus a certificate of occupancy. He said he was not aware of an occupancy permit being issued. . Planner Tovar said she knows there was a tenant finish permit issued for Universal Title but she was not aware that a temporary or permanent occupancy was permit issued. . Mayor Andren called the question. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins, and Schenck the motion carried. 1I1797.DOC 5 . Mayor Andren said staff should check to see whether anyone is occupying the building and if so cite the party for illegal occupancy. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Pub Hearing 1998 Improvement Projects A. Public Hearing to Consider Approval of Resolution 97-101 Ordering the 1998 Improvement Projects and Preparation of Plans and Specifications Therefore. . Mayor Andren introduced the item and read the Public Hearing notice. . City Engineer Ilkka reviewed the proposed 1998 improvement projects. He said the Council adopted a feasibility report at the October 20, 1997 Council meeting and scheduled a public hearing for this evening. The engineering department held public informational meetings regarding areas 1, 2 and 5 referenced in the report. Area 1 is the Pleasant Street, Colorado Street, Birch Avenue, and West Avenue reconstruction projects. Area 2 is Duluth Avenue Reconstruction. Area 5 is Pleasant Street and DuluthlMain Bituminous overlay. He said Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott would go over the details of each project and Engineer Technician Jeff Evens would present the project estimates and proposed assessment rates. . Assistant City Engineer McDermott said in area 1, they are proposing reconstruction of Pleasant, a 32 foot wide street section designed to a seven ton standard, curb and gutter, with a sidewalk along one side. The reason they are proposing to reconstruct the street is because it is no longer feasible to maintain it as is. They are also proposing to replace the old water main, sanitary sewer, and install a storm sewer. The storm sewer outlet will be an existing pond on the Eagle Creek Villas development. Some of the issues discussed at the informational meetings were which side of the street the sidewalk will go on, and the need for curb and gutter, sewer and water replacement, and access during construction. Area 2 Duluth Avenue is a state aid street. They want to reconstruct it just south of Pleasant to a 44 foot width to match the existing street to the north and tapering to a 36 foot width. It would be a 9 ton roadway. Here also they are proposing to replace utilities constructed in the early 50's. Duluth is the original TH 13 which was originally constructed in the 1940's with an overlay in the early 1970's. The street is in very poor condition with no curb and gutter and no storm sewer. There is one home along Duluth that is on septic system, and sanitary sewer would be extended to include it. Area 5, is a mill and overlay project. The top two inches of bituminous surface would be removed and replaced. Residents at the Informational Meeting said the sidewalk replacement is needed. . Engineer Technician Jeff Evens detailed the costs of the improvements. Area 1, Pleasant, Colorado, Birch, and West Avenue will cost just over $1 million. The area 1 project is approximately 5200 lineal feet. Area 2, Duluth Avenue, is estimated at $651,900 with replacement of sanitary sewer, replacement of water main, indirect costs (survey, admin, bonding). Area 5 estimated project costs, which include the Pleasant Street overlay of two inches bituminous is approximately $30,000. All of the projects will be 40% assessed against the properties and 60% by the general tax levy. He reviewed the project schedule. If the Council elects to proceed with the project tonight, the next informational meeting will be in January. Bids would be publicly advertised for in April. After the Council authorizes the amount to be assessed, assessment hearings would be held, then if the Council adopted the 111797.DOC 6 .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 111797.DOC assessment roll, the City would award contract to the lowest bidder, and construction would commence during the same month. Estimated completion is in the Fall of 1998. Mayor Andren said the public comment could begin with Area 1, Pleasant Street, Birch Avenue, W est Avenue and Pleasant Street reconstruction. Josie Schmalz of West Avenue addressed the Council. She said there was a drainage sewer by her house that went to a swamp, but it was filled in and a house was built there. She wanted to know if it was a drainage sewer. Engineering Technician Evens said there was some pipe that they know is buried. There probably was a drainage swale that might have been filled in. There is probably a lot of overland drainage. He said he did not know the location of the exact pipe or ditch she was speaking of but in that part of town, there was one pipe that drained down Albany. They want to get it all into a new system and out into some ponding. Ms. Schmalz asked ifthere will be speed limit signs? There is only one stop sign in the area. She said people race down the roads, and there were kids living on the street. City Engineer Ilkka said there will be signs, but signs do not slow people down. That is an enforcement issue. Ms. Schmalz asked will the streets be plowed and swept? She said last year the City only plowed West Avenue three times. She asked if they would receive the same services as the rest of the community. City Manager Boyles said yes, she would receive the same servIces as the rest of the community. Ms. Schmalz asked if there was industry in this town, would it cost less? Mayor Andren said no. The theory is the project benefits adjacent property owners who pay for the benefit. She said the property owners are paying 40% of the cost of the project. Ten years ago when original overlays were begun, it was 60% property owners and 40% taxes. Now it is reversed. Ms. Schmalz said that is $64.78 per linear foot, $5,040.18 because she has 80 feet. She asked how do they pay? Mayor Andren said there will be a public hearing for the special assessment. The roads are usually repaid over for ten years. Right now, they don't have fixed costs. With all of the assessment hearings, what you are looking at is does the assessment increase the value of the home? Anna May Ryan of 4296 Colorado Street asked for a clarification of the amount. She said they pay 40% and then pay more by the time they are finished because of the 60% assessed in taxes, which all property owners pay. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1I1797.DOC Lyman McPherson of 16282 West Avenue asked why it was necessary for concrete, curb and gutter, since it was not that long of a road. City Engineer Ilkka said the project itself was evaluated. It has been in the City's CIP for ten years. For what is spent in maintenance costs, it is one of the most expensive areas to maintain. Concrete curb and gutter is a standard Council has adopted in the past. Every new project the City does includes concrete curb and gutter and bituminous surface. Ms. Schmalz asked how could West Avenue could be the most expensive to maintain because it was in very poor condition. City Engineer Ilkka said it was all of the streets combined in the area 1 that were expensive to maintain. Frank Lowry of Pleasant Street addressed the Council. He said on Pleasant Street they laid down some patching and there is not much work being done on the roads. City Engineer Ilkka said once it is improved, they can use the City's resources to maintain it. When it is in such poor condition, they have to address how much resource can be put into it by patching, etc. before it is just wasting money. Amy Lowry of 4374 Pleasant addressed the Council. She asked what portion does St. Michael's School and Church pay, and where will a sidewalk go? Engineering Technician Evens said St. Michael's will pay just as everyone else does. They pay the same percentage. They will be assessed on Duluth and Pleasant. The location of the sidewalk is undetermined. Mayor Andren said so down the road when they come back with plans and specifications, that will be included. Engineering Technician Evens said it would be determined in February after another public meeting. Ms. Lowry asked is that true of retaining walls also? Engineering Technician Evens said the retaining wall is part of the project. How it is handled, he can't say. First it must be surveyed and designed. Mayor Andren asked if there would be a way to get that answered. Engineering Technician Evens said first they need to see if it will fit, it needs to be surveyed designed and more detailed information needs to be obtained. Gene Simpkins said can you say where the sidewalks will go if the storm sewer is from the middle of Colorado south to Pleasant and then to Duluth and to a pond? 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111797.DOC Assistant City Engineer McDermott showed the location on the map. He asked why is sewer being replaced when they just finished paying. Engineering Technician Evens said for sanitary sewer, some was constructed in the 1950's and it needed replacement. The sewer constructed in the 1970's will not. Mark Justin of Pleasant Street addressed the Council and wanted to know exactly what they can do to scrap the whole project. Mayor Andren said he had the right to voice his opinion, and that it would come to the Council eventually for approval. Mr. Justin said that people go too fast on the road and speed limits should be enforced. He said 90% of the traffic is from others besides the residents and it was unfair to assess the residents the entire rate. He said Birch Avenue could be vacated. He asked why they were not notified earlier about this project. City Manager Boyles said perhaps in the future Capital Improvement Projects could be in the Wavelength. Mayor Andren asked if anyone else from Area 1 wished to speak. No one came forward. She asked if anyone from Area 2, Duluth Avenue wished to speak. Mary Hennen of 16411 Duluth Avenue said where she is located the sewer lines run behind the houses. She said she agreed something needed to be done with the street. She said the sewer hook-ups are in back and wanted to know if they would be assessed for sewer. City Engineer Ilkka said if they are being served by a connection in the rear they will not move it to the front. Engineering Technician Evens said they sent the same letter to everyone. There are some properties that are served out the back that will not be assessed for sewer. He said they will be assessed for water. Everyone gets water in the front. Ms. Hennen said there is a swamp in the back, and they had asked if it would get the drainage. The City said there was a culvert but they could not find it. Engineering Technician Evens said there was a culvert. They knew the wetland had an outlet. They proposed a new line at a certain elevation so the pond would not fluctuate and would be up to date. Mayor Andren said so the drainage will be corrected. Engineering Technician Evens said that was Trunk Highway 13 before 1960 and there was no accurate drawings of where the culvert was. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111797.DOC Mark Monroe of 16499 Duluth said he was opposed because he can't afford the improvements. Wilmer Miller of 16698 Duluth Avenue asked will they widen out the road so trucks can park by Subway? Engineering Technician Evens said one of the sides will be no parking. It will be a 36 foot road and there will be parking on only one side. Mayor Andren asked Mr. Miller if trucks going to Subway parked on Duluth. Mr. Miller said yes. Engineering Technician Evens said the owner of Subway asked if they could work on something with the width of his access. Right now, if a truck got in the parking lot, it couldn't get out. Mayor Andren asked when a no parking side would be determined. Engineering Technician Evens said by resolution ofthe Council. Wilmer Miller said right in front of his place is a triangle that belongs to the state, and his neighbor has a deep ditch as well, what will it look like in the future? Engineering Technician Evens said they knew it was a low area, and it was a design issue that would be addressed. Ms. Schmalz asked if Highway 13 and Duluth will have arrows and lines marked on the blacktop. City Engineer Ilkka said yes. Ms. Schmalz asked why it wasn't done before. She said it was a dangerous intersection. Mayor Andren said she did not know. Ms. Schmalz asked if it could be changed right now. City Engineer Ilkka said the only problem with changing it right now is the season. Mayor Andren asked if anyone from Pleasant Avenue wished to speak. Mike Dink of 4570 Pleasant addressed the Council. He said sidewalks needed to be done. He said it was cheaper to put the sidewalk in himself than get sued for someone tripping on it. He said enforcement was not being done on the speeds on that street. 10 . Pat Heaney 4642 Pleasant addressed the Council. He said they do want the project to be done. He said 14 or 15 years ago, a group in the neighborhood had the curb and gutter put in and paid 100% of it. He said it would be nice to get the sidewalk in. . Mayor Andren asked for any further comments. No one approached. She asked City Engineer Ilkka if they would include sidewalks. . City Engineer Ilkka said it would be appropriate to amend. City policy is not to assess sidewalk. It is approximately $50,000 to replace on both sides of Pleasant, and they would need to add it to the City portion of the cost. . Mayor Andren said that would be an amendment to the resolution to include sidewalks. . Ms. Schmalz asked who owns the swamp on West Avenue and will they be assessed? . Engineering Technician Evens said if there is a benefit to the property, yes it will be assessed. He said there is dry land behind it. . Mayor Andren said they could do wetland mitigation, meaning they can fill it in if they place a wetland somewhere else in the County. . Anna May Ryan said she thought wetlands couldn't be filled in. . Mayor Andren said the state legislature enacted wetland mitigation. Prior to that act, wetlands could not be filled in. In this case, they can be filled if that area is replaced in another part ofthe County. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins and Schenck, the motion carried. . Councilmember Robbins said she would be interested in seeing if the sidewalk in Area 5 needed replacement. . Councilmember Mader asked if it was practical to have the sidewalk on one side. . City Engineer Ilkka said that would be an option. . Councilmember Mader asked if streetlights in area 1 were an issue. . City Engineer Ilkka said they were putting bituminous trail along Duluth and it was past practice to light trails. The issue of streetlights along Pleasant would be a question of location. . Councilmember Mader asked ifit was included in the feasibility study. 111797.DOC 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 11797.DOC City Engineer Ilkka said costs of street lights was not addressed. Normal street light policy is if they receive a petition for street lights, it is 100% paid for by the petitioners. Councilmember Mader asked if the neighbors at the neighborhood meeting were supportive or not supportive of the plans. City Engineer Ilkka said he attended the meetings for area 1 and area 5. He said in general, with area 5, the vast majority were in favor of the project and mostly concerned with the sidewalk replacement issue. With area 1, there is not a clear indication one way or the other. He said those that were opposed would speak more vociferously than those in favor. Assistant City Engineer McDermott said many of the people here tonight were at the informational meeting for area 2. She said she heard the same feedback as tonight. Councilmember Mader asked about the engineering staffs perception of the level of public support. Assistant City Engineer McDermott said it was the same as they heard tonight. City Engineer Ilkka said that residents were there to ask questions so it was difficult to tell whether or not they supported the proj ect. Councilmember Schenck asked if the same assessment for those along Birch was appropriate for those along Pleasant? City Engineer Ilkka said he did not know the specific plans. They could make the argument that the gravel portion could be assessed 100%. Assistant City Engineer McDermott said there are no homes that face Birch, only side-yards. Engineering Technician Evens said the assessment policy only provides for assessment on the short side comer. No one gains access off of the gravel road. They are being assessed on the short side. Councilmember Schenck asked is a sidewalk being proposed on Birch? City Engineer Ilkka said no. Councilmember Kedrowski said he supported the proj ect. He asked is West supposed to have a sidewalk? He would like to see it added to the resolution. City Engineer Ilkka said a sidewalk was only proposed on Pleasant. Mayor Andren said this hearing is to see whether the project should go forward. The streets are in need of reconstructing and overlays. It is expensive to do and that is a moderate economic area. She said she was pleased the Council's policy was changed to 40% residents, 60% property tax. She thinks the project should go forward. 12 MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY MADER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 97- 101 ORDERING THE 1998 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREFORE WITH THE ADDITION OF SIDEWALKS FOR AREA 5 OF PLEASANT AVENUE. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins, and Schenck, the motion carried. Variance Request-Hines Setback 7. OLD BUSINESS: A. Consider Approval of Resolution 97-104 Affirming the Decision of the Planning Commission Denying a Variance Request by Philip and Byron Hines to the Setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) for Property Located at 2719 Spring Lake Road, Case File 97-050. . City Manager Boyles introduced Planner Tovar to report on the agenda item. . Planner Tovar showed a site plan detailing the deck on the property and reviewed the Staff Report. The Planning Commission gave the applicant an opportunity to modify his request of 30 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The legal building envelope is 85' wide x 47' deep, and he could decrease or eliminate the variance request altogether. His existing house is encroaching 3 feet on the setback. The existing deck is 39 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The variance he is requesting is a 39 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark. There is a 6 x 8 feet area encroaching on the ordinary high water mark setback. The Planning Commission upon reviewing the modified proposal, stated that legal alternatives exist and a hardship does not exist. He could utilize a different design. Base upon this decision, the applicant filed an appeal on July 31 st. . Mayor Andren referred to a handout from Mr. Hines and asked if it was still staff s opinion that they should not grant the variance. . Planner Tovar said staffs opinion is that with the Ordinary High Water changes in the handout, there is still room within the legal building envelope for the applicant's proposed addition and the deck to be replaced without a variance. . Councilmember Mader mentioned a substandard lot size of 15,000 square feet. He said he thought the lot standard was 12,000. . Planner Tovar said it was a riparian lot in the Shoreland District. She said the minimum lot size was 15,000 square feet with a 90 foot lot width at the front setback. . Mayor Andren asked the applicant ifhe wished to address the Council. . Phil Hines of 2719 Spring Lake Road addressed the Council. The Planning Commission's objection was the deck and porch area which required a variance. The ordinary high water mark falls 47 feet from the front of the house. They were considering that both of those items needed a variance. They were operating under the assumption that the DNR was against it. He said he contacted the DNR because he wants to do a shore restoration project and get a statement from the DNR supporting his variance request. The DNR agreed to let 111797.DOC 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11l797.DOC him do the shore restoration without a permit. His proposal to the DNR was acceptable and would move the shoreline 3-5 feet forward from the house, moving the building envelope. As the proposal exists, the only thing that requires a variance now is a small section of the deck. To go from one deck to another he said he would have to go through the house. He asked that Council consider overturning the Planning Commission Decision. Councilmember Kedrowski asked Planner Tovar since Mr. Hines was not encroaching on the lake and just expanding the deck laterally, hasn't the City allowed that in the past? Planner Tovar said she did not know. They would be allowing him to expand a non- conforming use by approving the variance, which is contrary to the intent of the ordinance. Mayor Andren asked if the Planning Commission had seen the most recent proposal. Planner Tovar said the only thing the Planning Commission hasn't seen is the DNR letter. Mr. Hines said the shoreline restoration would move his proposal into the building envelope. Councilmember Kedrowski suggested the item could be referred back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hines said but this is the next step in the appeals process and he doubted the Planning Commission would reverse their decision. Mayor Andren said so the DNR letter has little if any bearing. Mr. Hines said it has a great deal of bearing because it reduces the amount of variance requested. Planner Tovar said a variance would still be required and hardship criteria would still have to be met. Whether his ordinary high water mark setback is 39 or 42 or 44 feet, there is still a legal building envelope in which he can build his addition. She said if he moved his three season porch to the north, he can have his connection to the deck. Mr. Hines said on the backside of the porch is the window to the kitchen, and ifhe moved it back three feet, then he would have to reduce the size and have a smaller view. He said it fits in the building envelope by restoring the shore. Mayor Andren said the Planning Commission found there to be no hardship. Councilmember Schenck asked whether moving the deck back three feet would require removal of the apple tree. Mr. Hines said the tree covers forty feet and it would damage the root structure by moving the deck back three feet. Councilmember Mader said it is difficult to say no to a request that seems reasonable. He said the Council was not comfortable making decisions that are not based upon the 14 ordinance. He said he was not comfortable granting some requests and some not based upon reasons other than the ordinance and its requirements. . Councilmember Robbins said Mr. Hines mentioned there is no other way to access the deck unless you go through house. . Mr. Hines said in order to access the front deck, he would have to go through the house. . Councilmember Kedrowski said so the whole purpose of the variance is to build steps to the deck. . Mr. Hines said the purpose ofthe variance is so he can build what he wants and fit it within current guidelines. . City Attorney Pace asked how do you get on the deck now? . Mr. Hines said the stairs now, but if he built according to the planning commission criteria, he would have to go through the house to reach the other side of the deck. . Councilmember Kedrowski said so the hardship is you won't have access to the property. . Mr. Hines said he is asking for a variance on an existing allowable non-conforming use. . Planner Tovar said he would be creating his own hardship by cutting off the stairs to build a porch, and that is not a hardship. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 97- 104 AFFIRMING DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST BY PHILIP AND BYRON HINES TO THE SETBACK. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins, and Schenck, the motion carried. Variance Request Mattson Side Yard Setback B. Consider Approval of Resolution 97-XX Affirming the Decision of the Planning Commission Denying a Variance Request by Brian Mattson to the Side Yard Setback for Driveway and Impervious Surface for Property Located at 16575 Iguadona Beach Circle, Case File 97-053. . Planner Tovar showed a site plan detailing the proposal. Mr. Mattson is proposing to build a garage and a driveway. The proposed driveway is setback 1 foot from the property line, and the requirement is five feet. His impervious surface proposal originally was 54% which would be a 24% variance. The setbacks are met for the garage. The Planning Commission gave him the opportunity to revise his impervious surface proposal. He proposed to remove 1 foot to make it seven feet wide, with a 2 foot side yard. Staff recommended approval contingent upon him obtaining an easement. The Planning Commission denied it because they felt legal alternatives exist. The driveway could be moved to the opposite side of the house, allowing 5 feet. The garage could be smaller. 1I1797.DOC 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1797.DOC Councilmember Kedrowski asked what kind of surface is the impervious surface? Planner Tovar said concrete. Councilmember Kedrowski said when coming in from the other side, is there anything that would prevent the driveway. Planner Tovar said there are steps that would have to be removed and relocated. The Planning Commission felt drainage was an important issue and the cost of relocating the steps would be worth the positive effect on the drainage. Brian Mattson of 16575 Inguandona Beach Circle addressed the Council. He said there are topographical problems with putting the driveway on the other side. He said the concrete area under the deck was 5'x 20' and the water would flow down onto the road. If the driveway was put onto the other side of the house, as far as the drainage in the neighborhood, this is a vacant lot. The setback is tightest next to the house. It is a private road. There is a lot of new construction taking place. The vice president of the homeowner's association feels there would be no change to the area. Councilmember Kedrowski asked why wouldn't the neighbor give an easement? Mr. Mattson said the neighbor is older and has been talking with his children about the property and they don't want him making any decisions regarding the property. Councilmember Kedrowski asked whether it would work without an easement. Planner Tovar said ifthere is no easement to the north side, there may be problems down the line with snow and leaves on someone else's property. The reason for the setback is to provide for drainage and snow storage and prevent future problems. Councilmember Schenck asked what is the size of the property to the north? Planner Tovar said it appears to be the same width, not the same depth, approximately 55 feet in width. Councilmember Schenck said so in other words they would be looking at a variance for that as well. . Planner Tovar said it depends upon the footprint ofthe house, but it is possible. Councilmember Schenck asked if Mr. Mattson had sought purchase of the lot. Mr. Mattson said no, because of the earlier reason. He said there were two vacant lots in a row. There will probably be two other homes in there. He said he can't rationalize how drainage would be a problem. Mayor Andren said Mr. Mattson meets three of the four variance criteria. She said the sticking point is whether it would serve the intent of the ordinance, which it would if he 16 could find someplace to store the snow. She asked if there was an alternative for snow storage outside of a five foot easement. . Mr. Mattson said he was planning to start in the center of the driveway. He said right now he has to blow it straight into the street. All the snow from the circle is put into the vacant lot. . Planner Tovar said if the Council does feel that way, perhaps a fence would relieve that problem, then he would have to keep the snow on his property and deal with that issue himself. . Mayor Andren asked if he would have any trouble putting a fence up and keeping the snow on his side. . Mr. Mattson said he would not have any trouble putting a fence up. . Mayor Andren said she would be happy with that. . Councilmember Mader said his feeling was that every effort should be made to come up with a way to allow him to have a garage, a logical requirement in Minnesota. He said he would like to suggest deferring the issue until the next meeting so the staff could investigate the alternatives. He said the issue of where to put the snow should be further investigated. MOTION BY MADER SECOND BY ROBBINS TO TABLE THE ISSUE FOR THE NEXT MEETING SO STAFF CAN WORK WITH MR. MATTSON FOR ALTERNATIVES. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Robbins, nays by Andren, Kedrowski, and Schenck, the motion failed. . Councilmember Schenck said they had not yet heard from Councilmember Robbins. . Councilmember Robbins said she had not heard anything about the drainage problems existing on the lot and would like to know more about it. . Planner Tovar said it was her understanding that there were several lots in the area with over 30% impervious surface, creating a lot of nmoff all over, with no curb and gutter. There are engineering and drainage issues that have never been dealt with. Because they are private streets, it is left up to the homeowners to deal with those issues. . Councilmember Robbins asked specifically on this lot, are there significant drainage problems? . Planner Tovar said it would be the elevations that create the rate of runoff from the back of the lot to the front of the lot without allowing any filtering on the driveway. That is one of the recommendations of the DNR, that they provide some kind of filtering to decrease the rapid rate of runoff. . Councilmember Robbins asked what does that mean? 11 1 797.DOC 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 11797.DOC Planner Tovar said it could be oil on the driveway, tar; the steeper the slope, the faster it will run off into the street. Councilmember Robbins asked how would they filter the water? Planner Tovar said grass, a drainage swale, or grass on the side. Gutters on top of the roof could be directed toward a grassy area instead of onto the driveway. Councilmember Kedrowski asked whether in moving the driveway to other side of house, the higher elevation would increase the flow of the water. Planner Tovar said she is not the filtering expert but she can give them her opinion. She said cost is not a hardship. It could be alleviated by physically moving the dirt. There is more lot width and area to deal with. They could adjust the grades to meet the intent of the ordinance. Mayor Andren said the man needs a garage. That is a reasonable request for the State of Minnesota. She said outside of what staffhas recommended, a drainage swale and easement, which the neighbor does not want to give, she likes the idea of putting up a fence. She asked if a drainage swale could be put in. Planner Tovar said she could work with the applicant and the DNR to come up with something to meet the intent of the DNR. Mayor Andren said she would be in favor of granting the variance provided that he put up a fence on his property to contain the snow. Planner Tovar asked if she could make a suggestion. She said it is the intent of the ordinance to decrease the variance requests as much as possible and if it were tabled, one recommendation that she would make is that the concrete patio under the deck be removed to decrease the impervious surface that much more on the lot. If this were tabled, that would be on staffs list of recommended changes. Councilmember Schenck asked what impact would the fence have on the neighbors? Planner Tovar said the City ordinance allows anyone to have a fence up to and on the property line, up to six feet high in the rear and side yards. In the front yard it would have to be 42 inches and 75% open. Councilmember Robbins said so in front of the house the fence would not be solid. Planner Tovar said the ordinance requires a 75% open fence in the front yard. Maybe they could make that a condition, that an opaque fence be put up on the side and rear yards. She said if the Council was going to approve it, staff has to write a resolution anyway, so they could just direct staff to write a resolution, and Council could then change it if they wanted to. 18 -::~ MOTION BY SCHENCK SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO TABLE THE ISSUE UNTIL DECEMBER 1ST AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Robbins, and Schenck, nay Mader, the motion carried. Ordinance 97-18 FLOOD PLAIN 8. NE\'" BUSINESS: A. Consider Approval of Ordinance 97-18 Amending the Flood Plain Regulations of the City Relating to the Establishment of the Official Flood Map, the Flood Protection Elevation, and Non-conforming Structures. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 97- 18 AMENDING THE FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS OF THE CITY RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICIAL MAP, THE FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION AND NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES. . Councilmember Robbins clarified if a house is at 908.5 it would have to have a foot of freeboard because it is below the ordinary high water mark, but if it is at 908.9, it won't require the extra foot because it is outside of the flood plain. . Planning Coordinator Kansier said so you are asking if we have a house in the identified flood plain where the ground elevation is below 908.9, which is the 100 year flood elevation, will it require a foot of free board? Are we talking about a new structure? That would be yes. . Councilmember Robbins said so if there is a new house above 908.9 it wouldn't require freeboard. . Planning Coordinator Kansier said correct because at that point it would not be in the flood plain. . Councilmember Robbins said so it is not one level of water height that means it needs protection for all homes, it depends upon the situation. . Planning Coordinator Kansier said the elevation is identified in the study at 908.9 and that elevation on each property is identified by the topography or existing elevations of the site. . Councilmember Robbins said so a new house could be at 909 and have to have protection. . Planning Coordinator Kansier said it is not the house it is the ground elevation, so you would be taking a vacant piece of land and measuring the elevation of the site. Obviously, it would be adjacent to the lake. If you think of it as layers of ground, where each layer is 1/10 of a foot, from lot to lot it can vary. If the elevation of the ground is above 908.9, then it is outside the flood plain and would not have to be constructed according to the flood regulation. . Councilmember Robbins said so it is different depending on where the house is. 1 11 797.DOC 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 I 797.DOC Planning Coordinator Kansier said it is different based on where the elevation falls on each lot. There could be a flood plain on a lot but if they built the house back far enough it is above flood plain. Even if the flood plain covers a portion of the lot, that doesn't mean it is all in the flood plain. Councilmember Robbins said what is confusing to her is she thinks of a body of water as a flat line, so it depends where the house is compared to the flood plain where you could be either above or below that line. Planning Coordinator Kansier said it is not the house. It is the ground elevation. She referred to a flood insurance rate map with the flood plains. She showed how the line was drawn based upon actual elevation of each property. There could be adjacent properties where one is in the flood plain and one is out. Councilmember Robbins asked if it would be true to say that any construction below the 908.9 in the future would require some sort of variance. Planning Coordinator Kansier said it would not require a variance. State law does not allow variances to lower the elevation. It would require that new construction be elevated on fill so that its lowest floor was at or above 909.9. Councilmember Robbins asked what does that mean. Planning Coordinator Kansier said it means that the lot is filled in so the lowest floor is at a certain point. Councilmember Mader said the report mentions a study was done to revise the elevation. Who did the study? Planning Coordinator Kansier said the Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources did the study, which was reviewed and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Councilmember Mader asked does the state statute allow the City to exempt properties from the freeboard as we are doing here? Planning Coordinator Kansier said they did discuss that with the DNR. They are not exempting them from flood plain regulations. What they are doing is recognizing that they do have some degree of flood protection and while it may not meet current code, it does have some degree of protection and recognizes it was built consistent with state statutes at the time. The DNR was agreeable to this language because they felt it was within the intent of the statute. Councilmember Mader said if there is an exception allowed for those who built from 1990 until now, why does the same exception not apply to someone who built before the Oliginal ordinance? There could be two houses at the same level built at different times, and by this we would exempt one and not the other. 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . 11I797.DOC Planning Coordinator Kansier said the reasoning behind it is the house built between 1990 and 1997 should have been elevated to 909.3 which was the flood elevation at that time. Any house built between 1978, when the first flood regulation was adopted, and 1990 should have been constructed with a foot of freeboard, to 910.3. Prior to 1978 when there were no flood regulations in place, most of those houses have no flood protection, are built much lower and so are subject to a much greater degree of flood damage, and so they would not be exempted. Even the houses between 1990 and today still have some degree of protection, and should not be subject to flood damage. Councilmember Mader said shouldn't houses built before 1978 be treated as conforming if they are exactly the same as a house built in 1990? Planning Coordinator Kansier said no; although they were built legally at the time they are subj ect to flooding now. Councilmember Mader said they should be granted the same exemption as those who built from 1990 until now. Planning Coordinator Kansier said she wasn't sure how they would write that. Councilmember Mader said there is a definition of the Lake level where the structure is considered conforming without freeboard and it should be the same as the other houses. Planning Coordinator Kansier said she has not discussed that with the DNR. They discussed homes that were built under regulations. Councilmember Mader, asked if that is something we can change. Planning Coordinator Kansier, said they were in the process of updating the Zoning Ordinance, so she can ask if they can enhance the language to cover it. If they wanted to do it sooner, they could come back with another amendment. Councilmember Mader said in the language where we are allowing structures to be treated as conforming but they don't meet the new ordinance as far as the one foot freeboard, can those be expanded and remodeled? Planning Coordinator Kansier said as long as they maintain a minimum level. The only way they would have to add the foot of freeboard is if they tore the structure down to redevelop the lot. Mayor Andren asked are we dealing with two different things? We are dealing with a study on flood plain which reduced the requirement from 909.3 to 908.9. That study was done since Prior Lake has an outlet. Now the legislature comes in and decides to equate Prior Lake with the Minnesota and Mississippi River. She said it defeats the purpose of the survey to lower the level because of the outlet. Since it is mandated we have to do it. She said we could write a letter to Senator Robling and Representative Kelso and say take a look at this because we are not in danger of flooding like Fargo and some of the other cities in the flood plain of the river. They could change it at the next session. She said she would move a 21 motion after this to have a letter drafted to our legislators and suggest that they talk to their associates and see if Prior Lake can be exempted from the free board requirements. · Councilmember Schenck said he agreed, and he said Councilmember Mader had a good point about the differences prior to 1978. Is there any way to resolve that tonight? · Planning Coordinator Kansier said the DNR has to approve the language in the ordinance. If they chose not to approve it, it would put us in jeopardy. In a relatively short period of time the Council will be looking at a whole Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and that gives us time to talk about that with the DNR and to tweak the language to include this situation. Hopefully, we can resolve that without jeopardizing our status in the national flood Insurance program. · Councilmember Schenck said so the appropriate thing would be to pass it and then work on the language. · Planning Coordinator Kansier said that would be her recommendation. · Councilmember Kedrowski said he would support the direction of the Council. · Mayor Andren called the question. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins and Schenck, the motion carried. MOTION BY ANDREN SECOND BY SCHENCK TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO WRITE TO THE LEGISLATURE TO EXEMPT PRIOR LAKE FROM FREEBOARD REQUIREMENTS. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins, and Schenck, the motion carried. B. Consider Approval of Ordinance 97-19 Amending Title 9, Chapter 2 of the Prior Lake City Code Regulating the Use of Public Parks. Ordinance 97-19 Parks Orrlinam'p. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 97- 19 AMENDING TITLE 9, CHAPTER 2 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE REGULATING THE USE OF PUBLIC PARKS. · Mayor Andren said under Authority, any provision of the ordinance could be waived at the discretion of the City Manager. She said no manager should have that discretion. It should be the City Council. She said someone explain what item B is under authority. The manager is ultimately responsible, not the park director. If it says the Park Director has as much authority as manager, that is not OK. · City Manager Boyles said the City Manager is responsible but may delegate to the Director. · City Attorney Pace said in her opinion there may be situations where they may want to have someone to have the authority to act quickly to close the pool or park. 111797.DOC 22 . Mayor Andren said it should not be absolute and total discretion. . City Attorney Pace said there may be issues where there is an imminent threat to the public. . Parks and Recreation Director Hokeness said typically a Parks Director has the authority to close sliding hills, hockey rinks, soccer fields, when the conditions are unsafe. It is a public safety discretionary issue. . Mayor Andren said there could be something that says if it is a public safety emergency issue, the manager has the ability to do that. It is too carte blanche to say "any provision" may be waived. . Councilmember Mader said there is a provision in there that talks about authority to close or restrict use of parks, the City Manager may declare any park closed at any time for any interval oftime related to the health and safety of the public. That authority is there. He said the Mayor is speaking about the implication ofD, which would allow anything. . City Attorney Pace said the easiest thing to do would be take the language in 9-2-4 C for organizational purposes and place it under authority, and make 9-2-4-C become 9-2-2-D. The existing 9-2-2-D will be deleted. MOTION KEDROWSKI SECOND SCHENCK TO AMENDMENT THE PARK ORDINANCE TO STRIKE 9-2-2 D AND REPLACE IT WITH 9-2-4 C. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins, and Schenck, the motion carried. . Mayor Andren called the question on the main motion. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins, and Schenck, the motion carried. 9. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: A) 41. CONSENT . Councilmember Mader asked what an articulating tractor was. . Parks and Recreation Director Hokeness said it was a front end loader that pivots in the middle. It is very maneuverable. . Councilmember Mader asked how many companies make them? . Parks and Recreation Director Hokeness said there were 2 companies. . Councilmember Mader said there is reference in the report to increased efficiency in using the equipment and the fact that it will extend the life of the other vehicles. . Parks and Recreation Director Hokeness said there was a blower that attaches to the Toro's and they go through one every two years. He said at this point they send out 2 blowers and 111797.DOC 23 .. . three pickups. Now they would be able to use one of the Toro's in the summer. They should be able to increase efficiency 25% of plowing sidewalks and trails. It can be used year around for various things. It can sweep sidewalks and grind asphalt. MOTION BY MADER SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 97- 102 AUTHORIZING PREPARATION AND SOLICITATION OF BIDS FOR ONE FOUR WHEEL DRIVE ARTICULATING TRACTOR AND ATTACHMENTS. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins, and Schenck. MOTION BY MADER SECOND BY ANDREN TO TABLE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins, and Schenck, the motion carried. 10. OTHER BUSINESS: 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE: . City Manager Boyles mentioned the Financial Forums, which will take place November 18th at 7:00 p.m. and November 25th 7:00 p.m. at the maintenance center. . Mayor Andren asked if there was anything further. . Councilmember Schenck said he remembered a joint agreement between the City and the School District about installing a crossing light between Hidden Oaks and the High School. . Mayor Andren said it came up but she did not recall any action taken. . City Manager Boyles said the School District and City representatives had the opportunity to talk about the crosswalk. The City agreed to put in appropriate markings. They had talked about flashing lights. There were a couple of problems with the flashing lights. Except for a more expensive system, you cannot see the lights during the day. Also, the estimate from engineering was approximately $15,000. The decision at the time was that if the School District wants it, they can pay for it. . Councilmember Schenck said he was worried that someone was going to get hurt trying to cross the street. MOTION BY SCHENCK SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO EXPLORE LIGHTS OR AN ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF SAFETY FOR THE KIDS AT THE CROSSWALK BETWEEN HIDDEN OAKS AND THE HIGH SCHOOL. . Councilmember Kedrowski asked whether it wasn't built to standards. . City Manager Boyles said originally there was three crosswalks. It was consolidated to one in the center. It was marked and signed, in accordance with traffic control requirements. 111797.DOC 24 . Councilmember Robbins said she had seen some schools roll out stop signs during crossing times and then roll them back. Maybe there would be less costly alternatives. . Councilmember Kedrowski said without knowing what costs would be, he would recommend looking at some alternatives. . Councilmember Schenck said he was asking for exploration, not approval. . Councilmember Mader if the option was to explore putting in lights? . Councilmember Schenck said he would amend it to say explore alternative means to make it safer for the kids. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins, and Schenck, the motion carried. 12. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY ANDREN SECOND BY ROBBINS TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins, and Schenck, the meeting ~edatl?:> ~ ~cU;) City M~ Recording Secretary 11 1797.DOC 25