HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.06.89 Council Packet AGENDA
COUNCIL MEETING
REGULAR
MARCH 6, 1989
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVE AGENDA
3. APPROVE MINUTES
a. February 21, 1989
4. CITIZENS COMMENTS
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Set Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat of Country Hills
b. 7: 15 P.M. - Public Hearing to Consider Amending Section 10-1-4 and
10-3-2(J) of Zoning Ordinance
c. Set Public Hearing to Consider Vacation of Drainage/Utility Easement
in Fair Hills 4th
6. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. Proclamation - Volunteer Recognition Week - April 9th - 15th
b. Diseased Elm Removal - 320 Maple Street
c. Proclamation - March As Youth Art Month in Minnesota
7. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
a. Amend Resolution No. R4-89 - Add Fire Report Charges
b. Adopt an Ordinance Rezoning a Portion of Section 32 from R-3 to B-1
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Fire Station Repairs
9. NEW BUSINESS
a. Southeast Area Stormwater - MPCA Loan Program
b. Proposed Industrial Park Along T.H. 50
c. Resolution Supporting MSA Funding Distribution
d. Contribution for Mountain Dew Days
e. Truck Parking on Elm Street (T.H. 50)
f. Discuss Compensation Study
10. MISCELLANEOUS
11. CONSENT AGENDA
a. School and Conference Request - Liquor
b. School and Conference Request - John Manke
c. School and Conference Request - Police
d. Approve Payment of the Bills
12. ADJOURN
THE AGENDA IS CLOSED OUT AT NOON ON THE TUESDAY PRECEDING THE MEETING.
41 ,
fr 1AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM NO. 16
Nom: Gale M. Spruce
DEPARTMENT: Council M.A.45,ALJe.- r.A31° (E-E2)
DATE:_ February 23, 1989 Cc
March 6, 4 C
MEETING DATE: 1989
CATEGORY: Petitions, Requests and Communications (71-
SUBJECT:
SUBJECT: Diseased Tref Removal
EXPLANATION: Diseased Tree Policy/Enforcement
Ordinance enforcement via Complainant
REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Background - Tom Kaldunski
REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT:
Larry Thompson Administration
Tom Kaldunski General Services
SIGNATURE
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
SUBJECT: DISEASED TREE REMOVAL
DATE: MARCH 2, 1989
Councilmember Gale Sprute has submitted a request, on behalf of his mother, to
discuss diseased tree removal as it relates to 320 Maple Street. I feel it is
necessary to present some background information.
On June 26, 1985, Acting General Services Superintendent Jerry Bauer sent official
Notices of Diseased Shade Tree Removal for trees located at 11 Oak Street and
320 Maple Street. (See attached. ) I have discussed these original notices with
Jerry and it is his contention that the notice covered all Elm trees at both
locations. (Including the two that remain standing at 320 Maple Street.)
The General Services staff had numerous discussions with Councilmember Sprute in
our effort to have the trees removed as per the original notice. In October
of 1986, Councilmember Sprute cut down the trees at 11 Oak Street and several of
the trees at 320 Maple Street and received reimbursement. (See attached.)
Councilmember Sprute insisted that the 2 diseased Elm trees he left standing at
320 Maple Street were not included in the original notice. Note that it took
16 months for the trees to be removed, rather than the 20 days specified in the
Official Notice.
As I began preparing my 1989 Department Budget, it became apparent that Dutch
Elm Disease had pretty much talgen its toll in the City. Very few Elm trees had
to be removed in 1987 and 1988, leaving unused funds in the Tree Removal line
item of the Department's Operating Budget. This prompted me to shift priorities
for 1989 from tree removal to reforestation. During October of 1988, the 1989
Budget was approved. Upon approving the change in our tree priorities,
Councilmember Sprute urged the Department to "make sure all Dutch Elm trees are
taken care of."
Since Councilmember Sprute had insisted that the 2 trees at 320 Maple had not been
given an official notice, he wanted to receive a new notice for the 2 trees in
order to receive reimbursement as per City policy. This prompted Jerry Bauer and
I to survey the City in November, 1988 to prepare removal notices. On December 1,
1988 an irate citizen complained about the diseased Elm trees at 320 Maple Street.
On December 8, 1988 a Diseased 'Shade Tree Removal Notice was sent to Katherine
Sprute at 320 Maple Street giving 20 days to remove the tree. (See attached.)
Councilmember Sprute, acting on behalf of his mother, signed the notice indicating
that he would remove the trees as per the notice.
On January 5, 1989, I sent a letter to Councilmember Sprute to remind him that he
had agreed to remove the tree at his mother's residence on a timely basis. I also
indicated that if he did not take action in this matter, the City would remove the
trees and bill his mother.
On February 20, 1989, I telephoned Councilmember Sprute to discuss the Elm trees
at 320 Maple Street. The City had H&H Tree Service scheduled to remove several
boulevard trees and trim others. I asked Councilmember Sprute if he wanted the
City to remove the trees.at 320 Maple Street and bill his mother $112.50 as
outlined in previous correspondence. Councilmember Sprute stated that he intended
to remove the trees. At that time I requested that he provide me with a specific
date, in writing, that he would have the trees removed. I stressed that these
trees were in violation of City ordinances and that they must be removed.
Councilmember Sprute refused to provide me with such a deadline date. If I
had been given a reasonable date, I would have continued to wait for Councilmember
Sprute to remove the trees.
When faced with a violation of City ordinances, I have no choice but to enforce
them. Therefore, on February 21, 1989, I reinspected the diseased Elm trees
at 320 Maple Street. The property owner had not complied with the City ordinances
and I ordered the trees removed. (See attached.)
Councilmember Sprute was upset with my action and he requested that the issue
be brought before the City Council. I agreed to delay the removal of the
trees until after the next Council meeting. My order to remove the trees is
still in effect and it will be done following the Council meeting unless the
Council directs me not to.
4eAJ
. Kaldunski P.E.
City Engineer
cc: file
Jerry Bauer
TJK
DATE
•
CITY OF FARMINGTON PUBLIC PRIVATE /
OFFICIAL NOTICE
• DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL
4
9 � SeP(1/-42'(1/-42' ;
,At1E OF PROPERTY OWNER:: /
//
MAILING ADDRESS : S 2-3 _ _
DATE : �� "�I
-d--S-
Minnesota Statutes , Chapter 18.023 requires each municipality to contriol Dutch Elmi
Disease and Oak Wilt both on public and private land. Department of Agriculture'
rules and regulations , AGR 106, 1-2-aa , provides for legal notice to property owners
of the existence of such diseased or 'dead trees on their property.
This is formal notification to you that a diseased shade tree has been identified on
your property at the above address. This tree must be removed within 20 days of the
date of this notice.
No action is required by you if you Orefer to have the tree removed by the City.
You will be billed for 75% of the total cost, which you agree to pay and failing to
do .so , you agree to have put on your tax statement for the following year. , This
includes tree and stump removal but no clean up of stump chips. The city contractor
will not be responsible for any minor damage done to your lawn. If you agree,
please sign and return to City Hall within 5_ days.
DATE . SIGNATURE
Ify ou wish to remove the tree yourself and be reimbursed 25% of the cost, you must
follow the steps below and sign and 'eturn to City Hall within 5 days.
1. Obtain a written quotation of the total cost including stump removal .
2. Cert:ct the City tree inspector at 463-7111 and produce the quotation.
3. Do not act on your own. If you do so without proper authorization, you
will not receive reimbursement. / //
DATE b (z p SIGNATURE jictip .-P, ►
+.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
I have inspected the above property for compliance on ,.• 19-- and .
found .
( ) Property owner has complied. � \
( ) Property owner has not complied and I have 'ordered., di s.posat by\ other means.
ital Cost s�.�,,�� `c- `,
Tree InspectorX \. .' -''
Total Reimbursement \ .,�
- DATE
CITY OF FARMINGTON PUBLIC PRIVATE
OFFICIAL NOTICE
. DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL _
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER: K. 5PPe 7—e Zvi& o ,
•
MAILING ADDRESS :
•
' :%
DATE 6-,_ � — r6
Minnesota Statutes , Chapter 18.023 requires each municipality to control Dutch Eltn-7"
Disease and Oak Wilt both on public and private land. Department of Agriculture
rules and regulations , AGR 106, 1-2-aa , provides for legal notice to property owners
of the existence of such diseased or dead trees on their property.
This is formal notification to you that a diseased shade tree has been identified on
your property at the above address. This tree must be removed within 20 days of the
date of this notice.
No action is required by you if .you prefer to have the tree removed by the City.
You will be billed for 75% of the total cost, which you agree to pay and failing to
do .so , you agree to have put on your tax statement for the following year. This
includes tree and stump removal but ho clean up of stump chips. The city contractor
will not be responsible for any minor damage done to your lawn. If you agree,
please sign and return to City Hall Within 5. days.
RATE SIGNATURE `
If you wish to remove the tree yourself and be reimbursed 25% of the cost, you must
follow the steps below and sign and return to City Hall within 5 days.
1. Obtain a written quotation of the total cost including stump removal .
2. Contact the City tree inspector at 463-7111 and produce the quotation.
3. Do not act on your own. If you do so without proper -auth. rization, you
will not receive reimbursement. /
'?-.1-J
DATE /—�f—ZS" SIGNATURE e-/`t-
, .
7/4 `
I `)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY / . �•
I have inspected the above property for compliance on / 1 ---',; and
found: r
( ) Property owner has complied.
( ) Property owner has not complied and I have'.orderedy!dispo.gpi •••by b4h- means.
notal Cost
Tree I nspe' 4-,Total Reimbursement $ c
u.
el4hi
ER.r'� i;yy
'
'°AgT;. A PRR 6 °i
October 22, 1986
Gale Sprute
11 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Dear Gale,
I am processing your reimbursement for the diseased shade trees that
you have removed from your property at 11 Oak Street. The estimated
cost was $125.00. This cost includes the tree as well as the stump.
You have removed the tree but not the stump. The stump can be left
if you debark it, however, you do not receive reimbursement on the
stump if left.
Therefore, your reimbursement is as follows:
Estimated Cost $125.00
Less Stump Cost - 20.00
$105.00
x 25% (City Reimbursement)
$ 26.25 Due to Property Owner
With regards to your mother's property at 4th and Maple Streets, the
reimbursement is as follows:
Estimated Cost (7 trees) $600.00
Less Stump Costs -140.00
$460.00
x 25% (City Reimbursement)
$115.00 Due to Property Owner
The reimbursement checks', will be mailed to you after approval at the next
Cillj 0-b Fan ciugbut 325 Oak Sh L • Fwu Ogth fex. Wit 55024 • (612) 463-7111
Council meeting.
Thanks for cooperating with the City's Diseased Shade Tree Removal
Program.
Sincerely,
/ / i
Tom Kaldunski
City Engineer
TK/mh
cc: file
Rosemary
DAZE December 8, 1988
CI'',TY OF FARMINGTON PUBLIC PRIVATE X
OFFICIAL NOTICE
DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER: Katherine Sprute H&H Tree Service Estimat•Me
2 trees removed - $110.00 total
AILING •ADDRESS 320.�Saplle Street (marked by paint)
DATE : December 8, 1988 Speight Stump Service - S40 total
Minnesota Statutes , Chapter 18.023 requires each municipality to control Dutch Elm
Disease and Oak Wilt both on public ' and private land. Department of Agriculture
rules and regulations , AGR 106 , 1-2+aa , provides for legal notice to property Owner
of the existence of such diseased or dead trees on their property.
This is formal notification to you that a diseased shade tree has been identified on,
your property at the above address . This tree must be removed within 20 days of the
date of this notice.
o action is required by you if you prefer to have the tree removed by the City.
You will be billed for 76% of the tOtai cost, which you agree to pay and failing to
do so , you agree to have put on your tax statement for the following year. This
includes tree and stump removal but no clean up of stump chips . The city con:rac:r
will not be responsible for any miner damage done to your lawn. If you agree ,
please sign and return to City Hall, within 5 days .
DATE SIGNATURE
If you wish to remove the tree yourself and be reimbursed 25% of the cost, you mus
follow the steps below and sign and return to City Hall within 5 days .
1. Obtain a written quotation of the total cost including stump removal .
2. Contact the City tree ',inspector at 463-7111 and produce the quotation.
3. Do not act on your own. If you do so without proper authorization , you
will not receive reimbursement.
C.)
�r
�
,Le.
DATE �, �•� � SIGNATURE -- � �.c(
„-
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
I have inspected the above propert' for compliance on �E. , P ,Y and
found :
( ) Property owner has complied.
(') Property owner has not complied and I have ordered disposal by other means .
Total Cost /y /1//e y7,)
Tree Inspector
�.. , Reimbursement S
1
7 C?:'. .:. V'-%
/ -
S Y
;� IP yJ 4 to
o:
�. ?4,57 -:A PiiOli\$,` �s�"J�t 1 January 5, 1989
Gale Sprute
11 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Re: Diseased Tree Removal at 320 Maple St.
� I
Dear Mr. Sprute,
I am sending this letter to remind you that you have agreed to remove the two
(2) diseased shade trees at your mother's residence. (See attached notice. )
The tree removal should have been completed by December 28, 1988.
If you do not take action to -1emove the trees, the City will order the removal
of the diseased trees and stumps and your mother will be billed for 75% of the
cost ($112.50) . This matter Oust be resolved as soon as possible because the
20 day time period for tree removal has elapsed.
If you remove the trees immediately, the City will reimburse you as per the original
agreement. Please contact melif you have any questions.
Sincerely,
7.---:17 ,..---//A‘a-aff-fe-1- /
Thomas J. Kaldunski
City Engineer
cc: file
Larry Thompson
1
C4 FatM-1;{gE,t 325 Oak SIAM 4 Fa I, ' ,E ,t 17{{t 55024 0 (612) 463-7111
,,� BAR--..4 '
Ty.Y:
r0
1 '..".7.14:,,.'4,
s•
yam, o
Katherine Sprute February 21, 1989
320 Maple Street
Farmington, MN 55024
RE: Diseased Shade Tree Removal Notice
Dear Mrs. Sprute,
On December 8, 1988, the city sent you an official Notice for Diseased
Shade Tree Removal (see attached) . The purpose of this notice is to have the
trees removed As Soon As Possible. The city has marked 2 Elm trees for
removal on your property with paint. On January 5 I sent a letter to your
son, directing him to remove the 2 trees as agreed upon (see attached) .
No action to remove the trees has been taken to date. You have had 75
days to remove the trees . Since you have elected to take NO Action, the
city must remove the diseased trees immediately. You will be billed for
757 of the total cost to remove the 2 trees. The city' s contractor has
estimated the total cost at $150.00. This means you will be billed $112.50 for
the tree removal. You have not complied with the City Ordinances pertaining to
Diseased Tree Removal and therefore I have ordered the trees removed by the
City' s Contractor. Removal will take place during the week of 2-27-89.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact me at City Hall,
463-7111 .
Sincerely,
/6,17-,<1 AQZ1,-.
Tom Kaldunski cc: file
City Engineer Gale Sprute
.City Attorney
Jerry
Tom
Ci-Ly 01 • auciacgttut 325 Oak Sfteef • Faut.ixgfax. li{L{ 55024 • (612) 463-7111
p
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM NO.
XIA.L4C-1
NAME: Charles Tooker
DEPARTMENT: Planning /"-‘
DATE: February 22, 1989 62
MEETING DATE: March 6, 1989
CATEGORY: Ordinances and Resolutions /
SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance Rezoning a Portion of Section 32 from R-3 Residential
to B-1 Limited Business
EXPLANATION:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission has recommended rezoning
approximately one acre of land from R-3 Residential to B-1 Limited Business
as requested by Arthur Leibfried. The parcel adjoins the northern edge of the
Budget Mart on TH 3.
REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY:
Planning Commission Agenda Report and Minutes of 2/21/89 meeting
and a site map.
REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT:
Larry Thompson Administration
Karen Finstuen Administration
Charles Tooker Planning
SIGNATURE
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
REPORT
FOR FEBRUARY 21, 1989
• hour collector street. Prior Lake requirements are the same as Farmington's
since both were developed from the same sources. In Plymouth, business signs
are limited to flat wall signs which may not exceed 96 square feet in area
or 20% of the wall area, whichever is greater. The Apple Valley Ordinance
is similar to Burnsville's. It provides for one building sign and one
freestanding sign up to a maximum of 125 square feet total in single tenant
buildings. In Bloomington, business developments are permitted one free-
standing identification sign not exceeding 100 square feet in area or 20
feet in height with a total sign allocation of up to 180 square feet. The
requirements for Rosemount indicate that pylon signs may be 100 square feet
for shopping centers and 80 square feet for individual businesses, neither of
which shall exceed 20 feet in height. In addition, wall signs are limited to
15% of the front building facade. Lakeville, on the other hand, requires
that all signage is limited to 15% of front facade up to 100 square feet
maximum and that total includes both pylon and wall signs. For example, a
50' x 100' front facade would qualify for 75 square feet of signage to be
split any way that the owner wishes.
Of the responses received, staff has requested copies of the sign ordinance
requirements from Burnsville, Lakeville and Rosemount as each appears to
have attractive elements. If the Commission believes that a larger pylon
sign at Jim Haugen Dodge has merit, it may only grant a variance onthe basis
that staff will be directed to draft a more liberal set of regulations that can
be forwarded to the City Council as a Zoning Amendment after review. It
should be pointed out, however, that such an amendment, if adopted by the
City Council, may limit the size of the wall sign available to Jim Haugen
Dodge in the future.
The information received from other communities suggests that the 20 foot
height limitation is reasonable and that no variance should be considered.
Recommendation
Deny the request for a height variance and approve the size variance with the
stipulation that permanent wall signs will not be added until the sign
ordinance is amended or in six months, whichever comes earliest.
4
5. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:20 P.M. - REZONING REQUEST FROM ARTHUR LEIBFRIED FOR
PROPERTY NORTH AND EAST OF THE SUPER STORE ON HIGHWAY 3
The attached sketch shows the two parcels (parcel 1 and 2) which are the
subject of the request to be rezoned from R-3 to B-1. The actual parcel
is an "L" shaped lot containing 2.9 acres. The Super Store was converted
by the Conditional Use process from a non-conforming use to a business use
within the past 5 to 10 years. Since that time, one request was received
asking for additional B-1 Zoning. The request was denied because the land
was not anticipated either to be platted or submitted to the PUD process.
The current idea is to build a car wash fronting on T.H. #3 with mini-storage
units behind. The Zoning Ordinance clearly specifies that only one principal
use per parcel may be developed. Therefore, the "L" shaped parcel will need
to be divided in order to create a second use. Such a division can only take
place if the new lot will be served by a platted street.
Currently, the City Engineer is developing a revised Municipal State Aid
Highway System for Farmington. Walnut Street is on this system and the
Engineer would like to see it extended east of Highway 3 to a major north/south
street that would ultimately link Highway 3 with County Road 72. The most
feasible location for the extension of Walnut Street is a 60 foot wide vacant
parcel north of the requested rezoning. The staff believes that this street
should be in place before any property without frontage on Highway 3 is
rezoned. On the other hand, a car wash would appear to relate nicely to the
existing Super Store since a car wash is sometimes included as part of a
single service station operation. An immediate example is located at the
corner of Ash and Trunk Highway 3. With this in mind, the staff would
recommend that the rezoning request be amended to include only the south 180
feet of the north 810 feet of the west 219.45 feet of the North of the SWi
of Section 32. This would accommodate that which can be built now and will
give the City an opportunity to develop a reasonable land use plan for the
Becker property. It will also put landowners on notice that an east/west
street north of the proposed car wash will be required before any further
development can occur.
Recommendation
Forward a recommendation to the City Council that only the west 219.45 feet,
or the property immediately north of the Super Store should be rezoned at the
present time. Additional business zoning at this location is considered to
be premature until an east/west street is constructed and an overall development
plan has been prepared for the remainder of the Becker property.
6. DISCUSSION - PRELIMINARY PLAT - COUNTRY HILLS - PROPOSED BY HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT
At a special meeting held on September 15, 1988, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat of Country Hills subdivision
subject to the following:
a. The ponding area north on County Road 31 shall be dedicated by the
Nelson Estate and the land value credited against the storm water manage-
ment fee for the proposed plat contemplated north of Country Hills.
b. Grading of the entire 190th Street to the west edge of the plat and
paving to the west end of Lot 1, Block 1 shall be required.
c. A storm sewer on the west edge of County 31 between the storm sewer
which serves cul-de-sac B and the proposed ponding area AP-3 shall be
installed.
d. The developer shall be required to post a bond to certify that the
storm water drainage on Block 2 will be handled exactly as designed.
e. The plat shall include a fifty foot (50') wide gas easement adjoining
the north edge of 190th Street in Lots 1,2, and Outlot A in Block 3,
and the developer shall sign an agreement with Enron assuming the cost
of relocating the 2" pipeline out of the right of way of 190th Street.
f. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City for construction of a City well
and well house with the exception of a fifty foot square parcel dedicated
to Enron Gas Pipeline Operating Company at the intersection of proposed
County Road 31 and 190th Street West on which the City will move the
existing gas metering station when County Road 31 is moved to the new
location.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 21, 1989
Member Schlawin indicated that his no vote was directed at the height of the sign
since he believes that no hardship exists.
6. The Chairman opened the hearing advertised for 7: 20 P.M. requested by
Arthur Leibfried to rezone an "L" shaped parcel north and east of the Budget Mart
on the east side of Highway 3. Planner Tooker indicated that while the request
includes approximately 3 acres, only one third of the site can be utilized based
upon City standards specifying one principal use per parcel and that every parcel
must include frontage on an improved public street. The applicant wishes to
build a car wash adjoining the frontage road along Highway 3. At some future
time, he would like to build mini-storage units behind the car wash. Tooker
indicated that the neighborhood needs an overall plan including the layout and
development of Walnut Street before any wholesale rezoning of the area is accom-
plished. The three acre proposal is premature at this time, but the staff would
recommend approval of a rezoning for the car wash on a site area measuring 180
feet wide by 210.45 feet deep or approximately nine-tenths of an acre.
Mr. Leibfried said that he would like the entire lot rezoned before other uses
are developed and welcomes the extension of Walnut Street immediately to the
north. He said further that he would have appreciated it if staff had given him
its recommendation prior to the meeting. Tooker responded that the staff
recommendation was presented to him during the initial discussion. One neighbor
living directly across the street from the Budget Mart objected to the rezoning
based upon existing noise during evening hours. She would not like to see any
additional business activity that will generate traffic and additional places
for young people to "hang out". It was agreed by members present that the
problem raised is more a police problem than a land use problem. MOTION by
Rotty, second by Schlawin to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION by Rotty, second by Dau to recommend approval of rezoning from R-3 High
Density to B-1 Limited Business for the south 180 feet of the north 810 feet
of the west 219.45 feet of the North 1 of the SWC of Section 32 to the City
Council. The area includes 180 feet of frontage along the service road immediately
north of the Budget Mart and at the same depth as the Budget Mart lot. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED. Member Rotty was excused at 8:20 P.M.
7. Planner Tooker reviewed the preliminary plat of Country Hills previously
approved in its current form on September 15, 1988. Tooker said that while most
conditions listed under the recommendation for approval have been endorsed by
the Developer, Heritage Development, there have been some changes in the staff
position as follows:
a. Grading of 190th Street west of Lot 1, Block 1, will be required only
to an elevation that will create an acceptable storm water pond on
Outlot B.
b. The storm sewer required along the west edge of County Road 31 shall be
installed by the City and credited against the storm water management for
Country Hills.
c. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City but the value determined at the
signing of a developers agreement shall be credited against the area water
fee for Country Hills.
d. The study recommended by Kaldunski regarding the appropriate location
for Euclid Path has been completed by the staff and it suggests that
Euclid Path can remain as proposed in this development and function
as needed as a north/south street in this neighborhood.
11 `- -. .-..
i: t
� r
iI\9 _
hi •' •
II
7 I ,
DS r,'
IF .
Li . a -
{ - <1. A _L.CCMMr u bED
I
n P -.CEL , -
7 :.0 F t3 21 '198c1 �-.
U
i 1 . 7 L A c._
C 1
J ;
11
n . u - ..
- .u• • E:X.,\ --.7" k \--\c•-•--- . ,
•
_-,
1
p �1 SP c. ?
':-)1,':-)1, v' ' Lt Uo �,
'
. • . ,�t '" [..1 i
•
•
i` Ili ` Ili,
, -L -
t, i
•
1
7_1`',•MS
f 1
�°°'- 0 j ! h�G� L
;
t'
( ,
0- --
A
0
J }
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM NO. 43(1"'
NAME: Ken Kuchera V Y/ :7 /
DEPARTMENT: Fire 6:),..(2-tedet0
DATE: February 27, 1989
MEETING DATE: March 6, 1989
CATEGORY: Unfinished Business
SU3JECT: Fire Station Repairs
EXPLANATION: Uncompleted areas as addressed.
REFERENCE MATERIALS/RESPONSIBILITY: See attached memos
REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT:
SIG �JRE /�
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
SUBJECT: FIRE HALL REPAIRS
DATE: MARCH 2, 1989
Attached please find various correspondence from the Fire Chief relating to
repairs on the Fire Hall. I spoke with Chief Kuchera and Dave Grannis
and apparently they have reached an agreement on the repairs. Unless something
changes before Monday night, I would request this matter be pulled from
the agenda.
7
Lj� Tho son
City Administrator
cc: Ken Kuchera
file
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
SUBJECT: FIRE HALL REPAIRS
DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 1989
As of today's date, the listed repairs in my memo dated January 17, 1989
still have not been resolved.
The Contractor has agreed to replace stained ceiling tile, adjust service door
along with the installation of deflector molding and repaint the unacceptable
window areas. However, the Contractor disagrees with replacement of window
lintel sheetrock and the painting of the other previously spackled areas.
The problems encountered have been ongoing since 1985. The areas of disagreement
are relatively minor. I strongly feel we have arrived at the point of impasse.
A decision will have to be made on the direction of travel with consideration
given to the cost of further legal involvement.
Ken Kuchera
Fire Chief
cc: Larry Thompson
Tim Berg
Tom Dunwell
MEMO TO: LARRY THOMPSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: FIRE HALL REPAIRS
DATE: JANUARY 17, 1989
On Monday, January 16, 1989 a scheduled meeting was held at the station with
Joe Martins and Sevard Brenny. I represented the City singly at this meeting.
Discussion followed on the below listed problem areas:
1. Interior Wall Painting
Numerous unacceptable and unfinished areas were pointed out to the
contractor. The contractor shared several of my concerns but was not
in agreement on several of the untouched areas. He assured me that he
would be checking with the painter of his firm and get back to me with
an answer.
2. Replacement of Lintel Area Sheetrock
The architect was in agreement with our concerns on sheetrock replacement.
Several of the punch lists submitted to the contractor since 1985
address the replacement. The contractor feels the replacement isn't
necessary and sheetrock will hold up to certain levels of moisture. I
clearly disagree with the contractor.
3. Replacement of Stained Ceiling Tile
The contractor agrees the tile should be replaced. The contractor also
feels the staining is being caused by condensation from water piping
and not roof leakage. If condensation is the problem, the areas of
piping not covered by insulation should be corrected as specified
originally.
4. Solar Panel Separation
Upon visual inspection the area of concern had been corrected on a
previous visit.
5. Southwest Service Door Leakage
The contractor was very adamant in that the architectural design was
the problem and not their responsibility to correct. They felt the
architect should be contacted.
In conclusion, the contractor was very open to listen to my concerns.
However, no firm commitments were agreed to. They assured me that my
concerns would be considered and I would receive a return response soon.
�V-
Ken Kuchera
Fire Chief
cc: David Grannis
Tim Berg
Tom Dunwell
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM NO.
NAME: Tom Kaldunski
DEPARTMENT: General Services /
DATE: February 28, 1989 irrzV
3
MEETING DATE: March 6, 1989 2/c ---Okat
/�c
CATEGORY: New Business /
SUBJECT: Truck Parking on Elm Street (TH 50)
EXPLANATION: The City has the authority to establish "No Parking" zones
on Elm Street. The Council should direct the General Services Department to
install the signs.
REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Memo - Tom Kaldunski
REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT:
Larry Thompson Administration
Wayne Henneke Finance
Tom Kaldunski General Services
Jerry Bauer General Services
1:17,44/144401
SIGNATURE
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
SUBJECT: TRUCK PARKING ON ELM STREET (T.H. 50)
DATE: MARCH 2, 1989
As directed by the Council, I have discussed the possibility of installing
"No Truck Parking" signs with MnDOT at two locations along Elm Street (T.H. 50) .
The locations are shown on the attached map. MnDOT stated that the City has the
authority to establish "No Parking" zones on Elm Street (T.H. 50) . Their only
requirements are notification of the sign installation and installation in
accordance with Uniform Traffic Control Laws.
When this issue was discussed at the Council table, trucks were specifically
mentioned due to problems that have occurred recently. The Council may want
to consider "No Parking" for any type of vehicle.
It is estimated that it will cost approximately $100 per sign. The General
Services Department can purchase the signs through its 1989 Operating Budget.
The Council should direct the General Services Department to install the proper
signage.
:7540-10 44141
Thomas . Kaldunski PE
City Engineer
cc: file
Wayne Henneke
Hardee's
Tom Thumb
TJK
I •,..,-. I ----.--:- ,
.
• . S T.
...
s•
.
....,.
•
•!.
- ..„-_, ,_..,: •-,1 C%
! •-, ._
--------
cr) co • (..,-)
•— ,...., .
.A
C, -----
__-:
---- -.-- — C7;
.,..v.., 0
CD _
.t. • .Cf) __
(Z)
,IIILN
1
c\N .., .19 .• sr.-_6b ND
C16\
..
„7......)!,m,-....... •
1 ,
'V 0 ••,
•
. ul
--- .
Lsz
, z...,
,. C
• L-1
..., (..7.!
-:.., N ..., -: • 70
. ,”. i
U) ."'
••,. ..__. _____i_____ • . , —
__.,:--.7____ t.,
:.7, 1
''' TH R1) ....: -- •-4 —
... .
LO •- .-. •
- ,I--
.,--e
(i )i + ,...
I . 1
-'''
6.,1
- '-. ."...
' 1::,
--4 ,
. • ':
, , ....O•YC t... • . .. C)
.1 ›..
•
CD . J.. v. . , •o-i.- , -
C)
(.7,
„..
airallomm ..
P C') _ -.>
_——_ _.——..,,.: .% -
s 1 ' f•., co
:-..)
..-_.1
(.4
'lir .
,'
5 N
__. :!=.____] rs)
• 1 •i
•
....1
t _ .....
FOURTH -
1
_F.3:
.... ... ...,
, . ,
' 4'1 •,-
(/) —.0 cri •
' • -.I c-1
s =
rri :Z"' '
CD = Ca
•
* ,
A
— C-) .
'
rn
— eD ...
---1 _., _
(., ..,..
2° c--) .0
I --Av ' -41
'0Ls/
"N.., . .......' —6
(N.
boob -1 . , -,"'" ' — -; •
-• N .! 7
- -44rZddi :
C::-...iiiiiti. ...
A
I _
15'
0---. '-• —
•-..-
- :. : : f
.: - 7 ...
. "7-.4 - .d al.-.•c.,
, CD -
1 (.,,
• 1•'-' ' :.1
1 '