Laserfiche WebLink
?rincipal City Engineer Olson replied that there is no obligation by the City to any of the <br />businesses. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that the Council has to understand that if they officially map the <br />property they have taken away the ability to build on the ProPerty. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig replied that they are not impacting the ability to build on the property, _but <br />the property owner will not receive future value after the official.mapping is completed. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman stated that before there could ever be a highway project, an EIS <br />would have to be completed at a cost of over 2 million dollars. He noted that the City has been <br />made aware of funding source Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ). <br /> <br />Ms. Garwood stated that the CMAQ funding is part of the T3 funding, but CMAQ has'been, put <br />together for transit situations. Because Highway #10 has such bad sir quality issues, i~ makes it <br />eligible for certain fuming.' <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen inquired if the Northstar Coach would have an impact on the funding. <br /> <br />Mr. Garwood replied that those issues do not compete with each Other. She stated that she was in <br />no position to commit funding for submitting the application for CMAQ funding, but a typical <br />application process typically costs from $5,000 to $10,000. She stated that they .needed to <br />continue to work on the issue and determine who would be the best applicant. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated that he spoke with Mr. Isacsson about the idea of having Highway <br />#10 being done in kegrnents and he indicated that that was a possibility. He also inquired if they <br />were to stage the project, would it require that the Anoka section be done first and Mr. Isacsson <br />replied no. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook expressed concern that if the project is staged it might create serious <br />bottlenecks. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman stated that staff would try and schedule a meeting with The <br />Tinklenberg Group as soon as possible. <br /> <br />3) Menard Accessory Building <br /> <br />1) <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik stated that Lonny Menard resides at 8900-1.81 st <br />Avenue. In 1985, he constructed a 5,000 square footbuilding on an 11-acre vacant parcel <br />he owns immediately west of his homestead. Since that time, he has been using the <br />building for commercial purposes without the benefit of a conditional use permit required <br />by the City for a commercial use on a residentially zoned parcel. In addition, City Code <br />states that no accessory structure shall be built on a lot without the presence of a principal <br />structure (dwelling) on the propertyi' This results in the existing accessory structure being <br />considered unlawful non-conforming. Mr. Menard now wants to sell the property with <br />the building on it. Because of the size and structural design of the building, and the fact <br />that there is not a home on the lot, potential commercial users are attracted to 'the <br />property. Additionally, the property has been marketed with an emphasis on the potential <br /> <br />City Council/March 18, 2003 <br /> Page 3 of 8 <br /> <br />--151- <br /> <br /> <br />