HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.24.81 Special Council Minutes
l)r! (,
(,' . ,
MINUTES
COUNCil MEETING
SPECIAL
AUGUST 24, 1981
1. The Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
Present: Mayor Stegmaier, Councilmembers Cook, Kelly, Orr
Absent: Member Kuchera
Also Present: Administrator Ford, Attorney Gorgos
2. The first item on the agenda and the primary reason for calling this
special meeting was to discuss engineering matters regarding the Riverside
Addition. The City Council had ordered under Resolution No. R50-81 and
had added and accepted under Resolution No. R51-81 both dated August 3, 1981,
the amended preliminary engineering report on Riverside Addition, Phase I,
Step A. In previous discussions by members of the Council with the developer
and the Engineer the following questions had been raised:
1) the diameter of the pipe to be installed along Riverside Trail
from County Road #31 to and into the first cul-de-sac.
2) the timing of looping the water from this line back to County
Road #31.
3) the large line proposed through the plat should be an 8"
which would serve only the plat, or a 12'1 line which would be
oversized to connect over to Hwy. 3 eventually.
4) if the oversized line were to be a 12" diameter how would the
additional cost between a 12" line and an 8" line be paid,
this difference amounting to approximately $5,000 in Phase I,
Step A, and an additional $15,000 through the balance of the plat.
A lengthy discussion and an exchange of views then transpired centering
primarily on the Engineer's letter dealing with this matter dated August
21, 1981. Motion by Orr, second by Stegmaier that the revised preliminary
engineering report for Riverside Addition, Phase I, Step A include the
following stipulations:
1) that the water line along Riverside Trail from County Road #31
into the fi rst cul-de-sac be a 6'1 diameter.
2) that the development in Phase I, Step A be limited in the following
"
respects:
c)
100% of the lots from County Road #31 to within
850' of County Road #31.
50% of the lots on an alternating pattern east of
a point 850' east of County Road #31.
that the looping of the water be required before
additional development in Step A be permited
and that certainly be required in Step B.
Kelly, Orr. Voting against: Cook. Absent: Kuchera.
a)
b)
Voting for: Stegmaier,
Motion carried.
3. Counci 1 member Kuchera arrived and City Attorney Gorgos departed.
4. The Council th~n addressed itself to the matter of oversizing. After
thoroughly exploring the alternatives, the Council and the developer agreed
that no decision need be made at this time as to whether or not the large
line going through the plat should be an 8" or a 12" and if the latter,
how the cost of oversizing would be paid.
5. The Council reviewed a proposed service agreement between the City
and the City Planner Charles Tooker and requested the City Administrator
to provide more background information and to present the proposed
agreement at the next meeting.
6. A delegation appeared before the Council representing the group of
land owners who have been targeted for acquisition by the Metropolitan
Council for Sludge/Ash siting. There was a consensus on the part of the
Council that selection of Site #10 which lies partly in the City of
Farmington and partly in the City of lakeville would be detrimental to
the best interests of the City in at least two respects: (a) the land
wou 1 d be removed f rom the tax roles, and (b) the Sludge/Ash sit i ng 1 aw
itself appeared to intend that the Metropolitan Council be given the
authority to overrule and supercede local zoning ordinances. The Council
instructed the City Administrator and the City Attorney to prepare a
prospectus setting forth the type, degree, and ramifications of involvement
by the City, officially, in this matter, including ultimate amicus curiae
status of the City and further to prepare for the Council's review a
resolution of opposition to be adopted by the Council and distributed
to appropriate individuals and agencies.
7. In response to a question by the City Administrator, the Council
unanimously instructed the City Administrator that under no conditions
should the 1982 proposed budget exceed the tax levy limit.
8. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 7:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
~~;~
William J. For~ .
City Administrator
APPROVED:
q/fj/
WJF/sz