Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC December 3, 2002 ~ 1~-n-6Å CITY OF ANDOVER ]685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5]00 FAX (763) 755-8923. WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Regular City Council Meeting - Tuesday, December 3, 2002 Call to Order-7:00 p.m. Resident Forum Agenda Approval 1. Approval of Minutes (11/13 Special; 11/14 Joint CC/Park Comm.; 11-19 Executive Session (2); 11-19 Regular) Consent Items 2. Approve Payment of Claims - Finance 3. Approve Change Order #3R/98-29/Grey Oaks (Phase I) - Engineering 4. Approve 2003 Tobacco and Liquor Licenses - Clerk 5. Approve Raffle Pennit/ Anoka County Pheasants Forever - Clerk 6. Accept Bids & Authorize Sale/Fire Department Vehicle - Fire 7. Approve 2002 Tobacco Licenserrobacco Shop - Clerk Discussion Items 8. Hold Public Hearing/Consider Vacation of Drainage & Utility Easement/14393 Osage Streetffaylor Made Homes, Inc. - Planning 9. Anoka County Assessor's Office Update - Finance 10. Resident RequestlMarystone Boulevard Improvements/02-44 - Engineering 11. Consider Lot Split Request/16030 Makah Street NW (Carried from Oct. 5 & Nov. 6 CC Mtg.)- Planning 12. Call for Bond Sale/20OJ General Obligation Capital Notes (Supplemental) - Finance 13. Approve Variance for Sideyard Setback/2860 135th Avenue NW - Planning 14. Consider Amendment to Comprehensive Plan/Change Urban Residential Low Density to Limited Commercial/13 730 Crosstown Dr. NW - Planning 15. Approve Rezoning R-4 to Limited Business/13730 Crosstown. Dr. NW -Planning 16. Consider Residential Sketch Plan/Creekside Townhomes/14220 Crosstown Boulevard NW - Planning 17. Consider Residential Sketch Plan/City View Fann Townhomes/13313 Round Lake Blvd. NW - Planning Staff Items 18. Discussion of Resident's Request to Regulate Dirt Bikes - Planning 19. Schedule YMCA Community Center Survey Report Meeting-Administration 20. Consider Adoption of 2003-2007 CTP- Administration 21. Acknowledge GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation Award - Finance Mayor/Council Adjournment . T ' . ~ REGULAR ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 3, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS RESIDENT FORUM ..................................................................................................................1 AGENDA APPROV AL .............................................................................................................1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES.......................................................................................................2 CONSENT ITEMS Approve Payment of Claims .................................................................................................2 Approve 2003 Tobacco and Liquor Licenses .......................................................................2 Approve Raffle Permit/Anoka County Pheasants Forever ...................................................2 Accept Bids and Authorize Sale/Fire Department VebicIe .................................................2 Approve 2002 Tobacco Licenseffobacco Shop ...................................................................2 HOLD PUBLIC HEARING/CONSIDER V ACA TION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT/14393 OSAGE STREETrrA YLOR MADE HOMES, INC. Resolution R171-02 to Approve............................................................................................2 ANOKA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE UPDATE ............................................................3 RESIDENT REQUESTIMARYSTONE BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS/02-44 Motion to have staffreview the ten issues.............................................................................4 CONSIDER LOT SPLIT REQUEST/16030 MAKAH STREET NW (CARRIED FROM OCTOBER 5 AND NOVEMBER 6 CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS) Resolution R172-02 to deny .................................................................................................9 APPROVE VARIANCE FOR SIDEY ARD SETBACK/2860 135m AVENUE SW Resolution R173-02 to approve.............................................................................................11 CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSNE PLAN/CHANGE URBAN RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO LIMITED COMMERClAU13730 CROSSTOWN DRIVE NW Resolution R174-02 to approve.............................................................................................12 APPROVE REZONING R-4 TO LIMITED BUSINESSI13730 CROSSTOWN DRIVE NW Ordinance No. 8UUUUUU to approve ...............................................................................14 CONSIDER RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN/CREEKSIDE TOWNHOMES/14220 CROSTOWN BOULEV ARD NW........................................................................................14 CONSIDER RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN/CITY VIEW FARM TOWNHOMES/ 13313 ROUND LAKE BOULEVARD NW .........................................................................16 DISCUSSION OF RESIDENT'S REQUEST TO REGULATE DIRT BIKES Ordinance 1 09C .....................................................................................................................17 CALL FOR BOND SALEJ2003 GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL NOTES Resolution 175-02 to approve..............................................................................................20 SCHEDULE YMCA COMMUNITY CENTER SURVEY REPORT MEETING ....................20 CONSIDER ADOPTIONS OF 2003-2007 CIP .........................................................................20 ACKNOWLEDGE GFOA DISTINGUISHED BUDGET PRESENTATION AWARD ..........22 MAYOR/COUNCIL INPUT Hazardous Roadways.............................................................................................................22 Hockey Ice Time....................................................................................................................22 Railroad Crossing. ............ .......... .................... ................... ....... ................... .... ..... ............... ..23 Cell Phones ............................................................................................................................23 Performance Review ..............................................................................................................23 Pledge of Allegiance ..............................................................................................................23 ADJOURN11ENT .................................................................................................................23 - .. - - - CITY of ANDOVER REGUIAR ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 3, 2001 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Mike Gamache, December 3, 2002, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Don Jacobson, Mike Knight, Ken Orttel, Julie Trude Councilmember absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William Hawkins Fire Chief, Dan Winkel Interim City Engineer, Bill Ottensmann City Finance Director, Jim Dickinson Community Development Director, Will Neumeister > City Administrator, John Erar Others RESIDENT FORUM Sharon Carlson - 13349 Nightingale Street, stated she likes the idea of Andover Station North going in and she would like it if it was pedestrian friendly with walkways, benches and a tiny playground. She stated Andover is rated third in the Metro Area for families and they should turn it into a Town Square and keep to the cobblestone and brick fronts but she encourages it be made into a pedestrian friendly area with a crosswalk from Andover Station South to North. She stated it is an excellent opportunity for the area and would be really nice for a place that families could go and spend time together. Mayor Gamache stated it has always been the goal of the City to make the area pedestrian friendly with walkways and boardwalks. AGENDA APPROVAL Remove from the agenda Item 3, (Approve Change Order #3R/98-29/Grey Oaks (phase 1), has been tabled. Combine Items 14 (Consider Amendment to Comprehensive Plan/Change Urban Residential Low Density to Limited CommerciaV13730 Crosstown Drive NW) & 15, (Approve Rezoning R-4 to Limited Businessl13730 Crosstown Drive NW). Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Trude, to approve the Agenda as amended above. Motion carried unanimously. .. . ..- Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 13, 2002, Special Meeting: Correct as written. November 14, 2002, Joint CClPark Commission Meeting: Correct as written. November 19,2002, Executive Session Meeting: Correct as written. November 19, 2002, Regular Meeting: Correct as written. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, approval of Minutes as indicated above. Motion carried nnanimously. CONSENT ITEMS Item 2 Approval of Claims Item 4 Approve 2003 Tobacco and Liquor Licenses Item 5 Approve Raffle PermitlAnoka County Pheasants Forever Item 6 Accept Bids & Authorize Sale/Fire Department Vehicle Item 7 Approve 2002 Tobacco License/Tobacco Shop Motion by Trude, Seconded by Knight, approval of the Consent Agenda as read. Motion carried nnanimously. HOLD PUBLIC HEARING/CONSIDER VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT/U393 OSAGE STREETITAYLOR MADE HOMES, INC. Co=unity Development Director Neumeister explained that the property owner has requested that a portion of an existing drainage and utility easement bordering the southeast end of the property be vacated. A new drainage and utility easement has been proposed on the new property line, which has come into existence after a recent lot split. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed easement vacation and determined that the existing easement can be vacated without impacting drainage or utilities in the surrounding area. Motion by Trude, Seconded by Jacobson, to open the public hearing at 7:0S p.m. No one wished to address the Council. Motion by Trude, Seconded by Jacobson, to close the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, to approve Item 8 (Vacation of Drainage & Utility Easementll4393 Osage StreetfTaylor Made Homes, Inc.). Resolution No. I 7I -02 Motion carried unanimously. ~ - - Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 3 ANOKA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE UPDATE City Finance Director Dickinson introduced Ms. Mary Boyle and Mr. Jason Dagostino who presented data about the current year appraisal, some of the corrective action taken on the City of Andover properties and the status of next year's appraisal. Ms. Boyle stated for the 2003 assessment they reviewed six to seven hundred land values and made adjustments where needed. They decreased the green acre total values from $1,670 to $1,340 per acre. She stated for 2004 they have reviewed all the land in the City and they took a look at the lake lots and the river lots to improve the equalization there. They physically reviewed sections 30, 31, 32, 33 and the south half of 34 and tightened up the coefficient disbursion quite a bit. Councilmember Trude asked if this was based on actual sales. Ms. Boyle stated it was. Councilmember Jacobson stated the problem was the result of some internal controls in the office not clicking and he asked what they have done to change the internal controls so the problem would not come up again. Ms. Boyle stated they separated out the different land types and created new zones for them so they can address those specific types of property individually instead of as a whole. This would allow them to make a change for one type of property without affecting the others. They have separated the river lots from the lake lots so they can make sure they look at those individually. Mr. Dickinson stated City Hall has received a lot of positive feedback on the process over the last year and things have been favorable. Councilmember Trude stated the things she was concerned about were what will show up later on peoples' tax statements. She stated people will start looking at the evaluations more closely and what she is concerned about is that the land values on existing homes are being separated from the home and the land value has been set at $80,000 for some of the lots that if you put the house and the lot together, you could not sell it for that price. She stated that the County was going to look at this. Ms. Boyle stated that was addressed and any value should have been adjusted to bring it back into an equalized format. Ms. Boyle also indicated with the limited market value law in Minnesota, some of the market value changes did not affect the taxable value because they already had a limited market value. She stated the values were in line with what properties were selling for. Councilmember Trude stated on Crooked Lake, the Andover side was valued higher than the Coon Rapids side. Ms. Boyle stated this was based on the sales in the area and the discrepancy was not that great. She stated the houses in Andover seem to sell for more than the Coon Rapids side of Crooked Lake and will be reflected in the values. Councilmember Orttei asked what the restraints are to using highest and best use. Ms. Boyle stated what was legally allowable and the highest and best use in the area that is allowed by law. Councilmernber Trude asked that in the case of Green Acres you have to look at the current use and if it is being farmed then you have to look at tillable acres. Ms. Boyle stated that is correct and they have to apply an estimated market value to those. She stated the green acres law protects the owner who is still farming the land and keeps the taxable value at the agriculturaI value for the land. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 4 Councilmember Trude stated last year there was quite a bit of effort put into catching up and reviewing things and further asked if there would be more than one person used this year for the review. Ms. Boyle stated they have one and a half people appraising the land in Andover this year. Mr. Dickinson stated that contract is based on the number of parcels, so they have to have enough people assigned to cover the number of parcels as part of the contract and some of the affects of the changes that took place from the Board of Equalization and how that affected the market values in the city will be covered at the Truth in Taxation hearing. Mr. Dagostino stated they looked at every property on Crooked Lake and between the values of Andover and Coon Rapids, they are a lot closer than last year. Councilmember Trude asked about the lots along the Rum River. Mr. Dagostino stated he has looked at every river parcel and many have been brought down in value. Councilmember Trude stated she appreciates getting good feedback because of all the concerns the Council had six months ago. RESIDENT REQUESTIMARYSTONE BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS/Ol-44 City Engineer Ottensmann reviewed the previous meetings in regards to Marystone Boulevard with the Council and stated he has contacted the cornmunities noted and summarized their policies related to requested construction of narrow streets and possible variance from City standards. Mr. Ottensmann stated several communities have reconstructed narrow streets. The general theme of the smaller communities is they would approve narrow streets, if they cannot be constructed to City standards for environmental reasons, or to reduce maintenance. "Specimen Trees" would be an acceptable environmental reason. Of those communities with populations similar or larger than Andover, Plymouth and Minnetonka would not construct at less than a 22-foot width, Chanhassen would build as narrow as 20 feet for environmental considerations and Mahtomedi would attempt to obtain a minimum of20-22 feet width. Mr. Ottensmann stated staff's position is that if the road is to be improved it should be brought up to City standards for reasons stated in the previous memo from the City Administrator. He stated if the Council wanted to approve this they should consider the ten conditions listed in the report. He discussed the reasons to deny this project. City Attorney Hawkins stated they do not have a truly defined standard for a road that is smaller than what the current standard is and in absence of this they have the possibility of other individuals or groups coming in and asking for road improvements in the future and they will need to defend the existing standard or else they will need to come up with some standard which they would allow smaller size roads in the City. He stated that based on the application, they have not had an engineering study and this brings up the liability issues of whether or not they have done an adequate job of studying the roadway and the proposed improvement and whether or not it will present a problem from a driving and drainage standpoint. - . - - . Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 5 City Attorney Hawkins stated they have to make sure there are proper agreements in place to make sure the road is completed and that they have adequate insurance to make sure the individuals doing the work do not create situations during that time where they could have injuries and they need to make sure they have adequate security to make sure the work gets done. He stated they also need to deal with the issue of a warranty and who would be responsible for it in the future. Councilmember Orttel asked what the term minimum maintenance road means. City Attorney Hawkins stated it is a public roadway but a sign is posted at the entrance of the roadway stating the City would not be performing any maintenance on the roadway and individuals travel on the roadway at their own risk. Councilmember Orttel asked if this would be a possible way to limit the liability and would it be used in a situation like this. City Attorney Hawkins stated if they would allow someone to go in and build it and the City maintains it, the statute was designed for smaller communities where the city would not maintain the road and this would not apply in this instance. Councilmember Orttel asked if there is any other way under State Statute to control the speed on a substandard road. City Attorney Hawkins stated he was not aware of any other statute and the State controls the speed limit. He stated they could not consider this anything less than a public roadway to try to get this under a different classification. Councilmember Knight stated all the other cities on the list have made exceptions. Would the City be liable in terms of legal liability. City Attorney Hawkins stated he does not know what studies have been done and what the road standards are constructed to. Councilmember Jacobson asked if they were to blacktop the road to eighteen feet, how much more right of way would they need for adequate drainage. Mr. Ottensmann stated they would need seven to eight feet of shoulder and then the drainage would vary from five to ten feet on the edge of the road and some stub easement to provide for the drainage. He stated there should be a minimum of ten feet and look at the position of trees. Councilmember Knight stated there is only one house that could possibly have any water. Mr. Ottensmann stated there are a couple of concerns. One is to be sure they do not drown someone out and they also want to take the water off of the road and away from the road so the road does not soften and break apart. Councilmember Knight stated he believed the entire road is downhill to some degree. Mr. Ottensmann stated in that case, the necessary drainage would be minimal. Councilmember Jacobson asked if this would include snow storage. Mr. Ottensmann stated if they provided a shoulder, they would have room for snow storage. Mayor Gamache stated that is one of the reasons to have an engineering study done. Mr. Ottensmann stated they have not done a survey to see where the low spots are and where the trees are located and there is a concern of safety with location of trees and for fire vehicles to be able to maneuver through the road. -. - .- . Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 6 Councilmember Trude asked if the standard of twenty-four feet was the standard fornewroads or for reconstruction of this road. Mr. Ottensmann stated if they were to reconstruct the roadway, they would want to reconstruct it to a minimum of a twenty-four foot width. He stated they only have an eighteen-foot right of way and whether the residents would be able to dedicate their right of way, he would suggest they reconstruct it to a safe condition. Councilmember Trude stated what she is hearing from staff is the City should do nothing because they will need take out a truck load of trees to fit their equipment for snowplowing. She stated she thought it would be easier for staf[to snowplow the road if they did not need to haul trucks of gravel out there every year and a grader out tbere a couple of times a year. She stated it would seem logical that there would be something they could do. This road does not take them anywhere except to those homes and the road is unique because of the location by the river and the access to get to the properties. Mr. Ottensmann stated the only thing they could build on there would be pavement and they could not address the shoulders or safety issues without an additional right of way. He stated if they were going to get the additional right of way, they might as well go to the full width and construct a full road with an eighteen-foot right-of-way. City Administrator Erar stated there is a list often items the Council could consider if they want the project to move forward and find out which of these items the City would want to impose. They do have a means of moving the project forward. Mr. Nielsen, 4949 Marystone Boulevard NW, stated he believes the residents have made a reasonable request and they would simply request that the government be reasonable. He stated he came to the City Engineer in August and in his legal opinion, the residents have a legal right to pave the road. He stated they have been stopped since August and the only thing they are changing is the cost of the road and they do not need what the City is requesting and they have private easements that preceded the public road and the parties that own the private easements have the legal right to improve it so there should not be any legal question. He stated the City took over by maintaining it and has done so in excess of thirty years and they have spent money on it and it is a City road, but a small City road and the people on the road, wanted a private road. He stated they do not want a normal standard road and if they do, it is not a twenty-four foot road, because then the City Engineer can say they want a sixty-foot road. Mr. Nielsen stated two questions came up. One was an issue of precedence. Mr. Nielsen asked the Council to show the residents an identical road that is exactly the same. He stated the next issue was safety. If they have a safety problem, it is there now. If you do not do anything and someone actually gets hurt the City may have a liability. He stated the ten items are a block to the citizens. Mr. Nielsen asked what it would cost for a registered engineer. Mr. Ottensmann stated it would be around 10 percent of the cost to reconstruct tbe road. Mr. Nielsen stated this is an unnecessary cost. Mr. Nielsen stated there is not a need for a twenty-foot road to meet the State Fire Code. He reviewed the ten conditions with the Council. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 7 Mr. Nielsen asked Mr. Ottensmann when he inspected the road. Mr. Ottensmann stated he reviewed the roadway a couple of days after the last Council meeting he drove the roadway with another staff member and measured the roadway. Mr. Nielsen asked if there was any house that would be affected by water. Mr. Ottensmann described the area to Mr. Nielsen and stated he recalled one house that the drainage went toward the house. Mr. Nielsen stated another issue that was brought up was it was against City policy. If this is the case, he would like a written statement of the policy. He stated there is no policy. He stated he hoped reasonable people would allow them to reconstruct the roadway and in the end, it would cost the City less then it does now to maintain the road. Councilmember Trude asked how wide of a road was proposed. Mr. Nielsen stated they would shape the existing class five and add four inches of class five at nineteen feet and they will place 2.5 inches of bituminous wear course at eighteen feet and in addition they will have approximately six hundred linear feet of bituminous curb where drainage is a problem. Councilmember Trude asked if this is eighteen feet of paved road with one foot of shoulder split between both sides. Mr. Nielsen stated this was correct. Councilmember Trude asked if they could build this to twenty feet. Mr. Nielsen stated they would have to get the bid over again and the City does not have the right to go twenty feet. Councilmember Jacobson stated they have two options. One is to say no to the proposal they have made and the other option is to have staff develop a standard for this type of road and they will need something in an Ordinance form that they can use. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by ---' to deny Item 10 (Resident Request - Marystone Boulevard Improvement.) for the rebuilding of Marystone Boulevard by a private contractor and paid for by private residents and require any rebuilding to conform to City standards and procedures. There was no second to the motion so the motion failed. Leroy Grundstrom stated his house would be the only house with the possibility of water damage. He felt they should be able to add some class five and some paving to this road. The road has been sand and they would like to put some tar on it. He stated it will be more costly and a burden to the City if nothing is done. He stated they cannot build any more houses on the road and they are not setting any new precedent for this. It is nice to know they live in a City where the Council listens to and if possible, grants the requests of the constituents. Ms. Anita Thomas stated she has lived here for fourteen years and everyone has been on the street for at least ten years except for one home and everyone will contribute to the improvement. All they want is to improve the road and make it better. She read what the other cities have done with their roadways and stated that as far as setting a precedent, she did not know there would be a lot of areas where the residents would agree to pay for improvements on a public road. She stated they do not have people on the road opposing this and her request would be to have the Council look at this as a - --~ - - Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 8 glorified driveway they want to improve and that they want to make it better than what it is. Mr. Carl Sleuss stated the City has looked at this in the past and the turnaround at Marystone Boulevard was not there ten years and was added at the existing width. Councilmember Knight stated the reason they suggested looking at other cities was because these cities have roadways like this and from his perspective, it makes sense given the situation and in his opinion, would not set a precedent. He stated he has been in there twice and does not see anywhere except with one house, where there would be a water issue. CounciImember Orttel stated they have built the City with the same standard. They have to have some minimal standard and most of the cities listed say they do it but they still have some minimums. He stated they have to be careful with having some standards and the precedence will not be someone else coming in to rebuild a small road again. He stated they have to have some standard for it so everyone is allowed to use that standard. Everyone who has a city street, pays for their own street, unless it is a State Aid Highway and the issue will be if you let someone vary from the standard, others will want this too. Councilmember Jacobson stated they need to develop a new standard that they can refer to. Councilmember Knight asked what would be included in the second standard. Councilmember Orttel stated they should use the ten conditions as a checklist for future issues. The checklist would apply to everyone but every item on the checklist would not apply to each resident. He stated he wants to make sure the integrity of the street is adequate so they do not need to go in and remodel the street down the road. Councilmember Trude asked why they should go to all of this work when this is the first one she has seen since she moved here in 1997. She stated to come forward with a new standard when they may never see anything like this again may not be worth it. Councilmember Jacobson stated the point is they need to look forward and not back. Councilmember Trude stated you always look at the facts of the case and decide whether it sets precedence for a future situation. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel to ask staff to design a different standard for a smaller type of road that would be applicable to this situation talked about today and which would be applicable City wide and if the Mayor would appoint individuals at large to be on the committee to help develop the standards along with City staff. Mr. Erar stated the reason they have a City Engineer is to make these decisions and they are setting the staff up for a great deal of conflict and problems. The ten conditions were developed in collaboration with engineering, City Attorney, Fire Chief and City Administration and if they are asking for a standard less than that, he is not sure how staff will be able to respond. He stated staff has already given the Council their recommendation in terms of what the standard should be and it is up to the Council to decide which ones to enforce. ---..- Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 9 Councilmember Orttel stated his idea was not to have the neighborhood establish a standard but to say these ten items are what should be considered and have a neighborhood group meet with staff and decide what items should be included and eliminated. Councilmember Trude stated this becomes a case-by-case situation. Councilmember Trude stated the issue is the width of the road and what would be a safe width that would not take out a lot of trees and kill the project. She stated this is a much-forested area and would cost a lot to remove the trees. Councilmember Knight stated he would vote against it because he is not in favor of another standard. CounciImember Jacobson stated he would vote for it even though he does not like it. Mayor Gamache stated he would vote against it because he thinks they can make something out of what they have tonight. Motion failed I aye to 4 nays (Knight, Trude, Orttel, Gamache). Motion by Trude, Seconded by Knight, to have staff meet with a group of people as suggested by the previous motion to figure out an appropriate list of situations in which a variance from reconstruction of existing roads from street standards due to unique circumstances, those which would include the Marystone Boulevard project and perhaps other potential similar situated roads that would apply in this case and potential future cases with a goal towards working out a solution to this neighborhood. Councilmember Trude stated she would withdraw her motion based on Councilmember Orttel's request to only limit this to Marystone Boulevard. Motion by Trude, Seconded by Knight, to have staff go over the ten issues and decide which ones apply to this and which ones do not and to come back in March with a decision. Mr. Erar stated he thinks it is important that the City Attorney, City Finance, City Engineer and Community Development be involved and have the City Administrator decide who should be involved. Mayor Gamache stated he would like to see the Council pick out the items they are willing to go with from the Council standpoint. He stated they should have an engineer look at the design and specs. Motion carried 4 ayes to 1 nay (Jacobson). CONSIDER LOT SPLIT REQUEST/16030 MAKAH STREET NW (CARRIED FROM OCTOBER 5 & NOVEMBER 6 CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS) Community Development Director Neumeister reviewed the information from the previous two meetings regarding this item and concurred with the recornmendation of the Planning Commission to deny the proposed lot split citing that fmdings had not been demonstrated for the proposed variance. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 10 Councilmember Knight asked if there were four residents in opposition. Mr. Neumeister stated there were a total of four letters. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Trude, to deny Item No. 11 (Consider Lot Split/16030 Makah Street NW). Resolution 172-02. Councilmember Orttel stated when this came forward in 1997, he lead the Council to deny this based on the fact this area was a rural area with small hobby farms. A lot have been split since that time and the Ordinance is what they are required to go by. Since 1997, the Council decided that living on a curve in the road was a hardship that deserved consideration for giving a variance and they have acted on it and he finds it disturbing and did not agree with that but it is a precedent that became law at that time. Councilmember Trude thought they should look at the Lot Split Ordinance and see ifit is too harsh. Mr. Moore stated he would like to apologize to the Council for his last appearance where there was a point of order but he had a problem with his hearing and could not follow all the directions. On top of page two, the way he understands the survey should be given prior to the application. He stated the regular procedure is they provide a survey first. If this had been done, the inconsistency would have been met. He discussed a previous split on the road with the Council and he felt this set precedence. He discussed the requirements for lot splits and how they measured the lots with the Council. He showed an aerial view of his property and discussed the openness of the area. Mr. Moore stated they originally felt they moved into a light industrial area with all the traffic from the surrounding neighbors' businesses. He asked the Council to grant the split because of the precedence set by other splits in the area. Councilmember Jacobson stated the reason he is moving for denial is because he has not seen what the undue hardship is. Mr. Moore stated the reason for unreasonable use of the property is because there is a pipeline on the property and cannot be used. Councilmember Jacobson asked if the other part of the property has a pipeline easement, why would he want to split this and sell it off. Mr. Moore stated there is an area to the north that can be built on. The hardship his property has is because of the marsh behind the property on the other side that had to be avoided so the road had to be curved. Mr. Neumeister stated the City Clerk pulled up information pertaining to the discussion in 1997 and there is not anywhere in the information that it mentions lot splitting or creating the lot split ordinance regarding the ten percent. Councilmember Orttel stated if this was a plat, it would pass without a problem. Mr. Moore stated the cornment made regarding ten percent was brought up by Councilmember Jacobson. Councilmember Jacobson stated the ten percent made in the past was on plats and not on lot splits. Mr. Moore stated the comment was made that because the variance he was asking for Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 11 exceeded ten percent and that prior allowances had been made within ten percent. Councilmember Orttel stated this was used as a guideline, not as a rule. Motion carried unanimously. Councilmember Trude stated Mr. Moore made a really good case for himselfbut the Council has to adhere to the strict enforcement. Mr. Moore stated they are not presenting to him a level playing field and they are closing the door and the point is that in 1997, the owner did not fight this hard enough and the property back then was not worth much. The property today has come to such a value that it is cost effective to pursue legal action. His suggestion is they have to have a little leeway because they have approved this in the past and he thinks there should be an amendment to the Ordinance. He stated this is very unfair and will need to seek legal advice to see where he stands on this. APPROVE VARIANCE FOR SIDEYARD SETBACK/1860 135171 A VENUE NW Community Development Director Neumeister stated the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the side yard setback for a proposed addition to the existing house. The applicant intends to finish the existing garage to add additional finished square footage to the existing house. A new garage with living space above would be added to the west side of the existing garage. The addition would extend to 8.5 feet from the side property line. The side yard setback for the new garage would exceed the six-foot setbackrequirement. The living space above the garage would be 1.5 feet below the ten-foot side yard setback for houses. Mr. Neumeister stated the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the variance request. Staff recommends approval based on the case history and the findings provided by the applicant. Councilmember Orttel stated the issue is because the living area is closer to the neighboring property and the Ordinance allows the garage to be closer to the neighboring property because there is not any living space. Mr. Jon Olsen stated the property is garage to garage. Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, to approve Item No. 13 (Approve Variance for Sideyard Setback/2860 135th Avenue NW). Resolution RI73-02. Councilmember Jacobson asked what the hardship is. Councilmember Orttel stated the garage could be six feet from the property line. The living space is what is not allowed. Mr. Neumeister stated the variance is for the living space over the garage. Councilmember Jacobson stated he is not against approving this but the hardship is that they cannot move the house. Mr. Neumeister stated the hardship would be if the applicant would be required to -.. - - - Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 12 move and relocate the existing structural wall to accommodate the setback. Councilmember Orttel stated there is a typo in the resolution stating it is for the rear yard setback when it should be the side yard setback and he asked that it be corrected. Motion carried unanimously. CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/CHANGE URBAN RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO LIMITED COMMERCIAL/13730 CROSSTOWN DRIVE NW Community Development Director Neumeister stated the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the City of Andover was adopted in December of200 1. As required by State Statute, any proposed changes to the Land Use Plan shall be reviewed at a public hearing and approved by the local elected officials. The proposed change is considered a minor amendment to the Comprehensive Plan due to the size being less than 40 acres. The applicant has requested a change in land use from Urban Residential Low Density (URL) to Limited Commercial (Le). The Planning Commission unanimously recornmended to the City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request. Mr. Neumeister stated there were. two letters of opposition from Mr. Mark Daily and Ms. Sandra Taylor and there were two letters submitted last Wednesday from Ms. Shirley Klem and Mr. Curtis Sievertson who opposed the change in zoning and would be willing to allow it if there was a privacy fence installed between the building and their property. Councilmember Trude asked if they light their parking lots for security. Mr. Neumeister stated that was true. Councilmember Trude thought a privacy fence would be appropriate. Mr. Neumeister stated the parking lots would be closest to the street, not the residences. Councilmember Jacobson stated on the first Resolution this was changed to limited commercial and on the second Resolution is says limited business. Mr. Neumeister stated in land use terminology, limited commercial is the proper acronym and in zoning terminology, limited business is correct. Councilmember Jacobson stated his concern is for the neighborhoods in the City. They could see another lot or possibly two lots coming into the neighborhood in the future and he was wondering if this is what they want to do to the area. He stated it would change the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Kline stated she talked to the property owner of the three separate lots and he told her he is planning on selling his lots in a few years and would sell them as commercial. Councilmember Jacobson asked if this is what they want done to this neighborhood. Mayor Gamache asked if they could require the owner to install a privacy fence if this building were .--* Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 13 to be approved. Mr. Neumeister stated he was not sure and would need to fmd out from the City Attorney. They could put a condition like this under the cornmercial site plan review but technically it cannot be a condition of the rezoning. Councilmember Trude asked if they would need to pave over the existing first project with parking lots to provide additional parking for the proposed building. Mr. Neumeister stated if they did build this they could add the parking to the side. He stated there is a section on screening that can accommodate this. There is a section on glare and lighting restrictions in the Ordinance. Staff would support this because they see office use as a buffer between residential and commercial. Mr. Jerry Dunger, developer, stated the idea is to make this building consistent with the Molly Professional Building. Councilmember Orttei asked if the property is an acre and a half. Mr. Dunger stated he was correct. Councilmember Knight asked what the answer was in regard to the fence behind the building. Mr. Neumeister stated it would be required. Councilmember Trude asked what the times of operations would be for the new building. Mr. Dunger stated it would be consistent with what is already there. Mayor Gamache stated one concern is the entrance on Crosstown Boulevard and traffic coming off of Bunker. Mr. Neumeister stated it is close to the property across the street and they would request they match up. Ms. Kline asked if they are going to fence the holding pond. Councilmember Orttel stated he would think an owner would want to but the City does not have a rule on this. Councilmember Knight asked if the developer has considered fencing in the holding pond. Mr. Dunger stated the pond only holds a couple of feet of water and their plans were to put in large fIr trees that would come together and eventually give more than a fence. Councilmember Trude stated this is a unique situation because there are a lot of children in the residential area behind the building and it could serve the developer's purpose to fence the area. Mr. Dunger stated their commitment is to be flexible and not to make any commitment tonight. Mr. Kurt Severson, 13769 _, stated the trees are nice but a fence gives privacy sooner than trees would and he would prefer a fence. He asked how big the drainage pond would grow with the additional building. Councilmember Knight asked if there is an outlet down to the creek from the pond. Mr. Dunger stated there is. Mr. Neumeister read from the Ordinance regarding fencing. He stated they could ask for both the fence and screening. Motion by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, to approve Item 14 (Consider Comprehensive Plan Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 14 Amendment (02-04) to change the land use designation from Urban Residential Low Density (URL) to Limited Commercial (LC) for property located at 13730 Crosstown Drive NW.) Resolution No. 174-02. Councilmember Orttel stated they had a study done of the area and the study indicated high-density housing in there and he would prefer an office building. Councilmember Jacobson stated he would not vote for an expansion of property in the future. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVE REZONING R-4 TO LIMITED BUSINESS/13730 CROSSTOWN DRIVE NW Community Development Director Neumeister stated the applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned from Single Family Urban Residential (R-4) to Limited Business (LB) to allow a new professional office building adjacent to the Molly Professional building. This proposal would incorporate the two buildings into one site with integrated parking. The color, style, and stone of both buildings would be similar. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended to the City Council approval of the rewning request. Two letters of opposition to the rewning have been submitted. He also stated there were two letters submitted at the meeting and both opposed the rewning and would like a fence put up between the office site and their residences. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, to approve Item 15 (Approve Rezoning R-4 to Limited Business/13730 Crosstown Drive NW.) Ordinance No. SUUUUUU. Councilmember Jacobson stated this is contingent on the Metropolitan Council. Councilmember Trude stated there will still be a public hearing for this. Mr. Neumeister stated staffwould review the site plan and there would not be a public hearing. Councilmember Trude stated as things get planned, the residents could contact staff with questions and issues. Councilmember Trude stated her approval is contingent on what happens with the cornmercial review process. Motion carried unanimously. (Recess 9:56 pm - Reconvene 10:01 pm) CONSIDER RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN/CREEKSIDE TOWNHOMES/14210 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW Co=unity Development Director Neumeister explained the City Council is asked to review a sketch plan for a medium density residential development containing 24 townhouses on an approximately 4 acre property. The proposed development would require planned unit development review to provide alternative development standards. - . - . - --- Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3. 2002 Page 15 The Planning Commission recornmended that the property remain designated for low-density residential development, which is contrary to what the developer has requested. The Cotlllcil is asked informally to advise the applicant on the potential for the proposed project and any adjustments to conform to local ordinances and review criteria. Councilmember Jacobson asked how many units per acre were allowed. Mr. Neumeister stated it is twelve units maximum. Mayor Gamache believed it would be possible to do single-family detached homes in the area that would fit in the low density. He agreed with the residents that there would be added traffic to the area and he would recommend some kind of through street be added to get people in and out of the area. Mr. Neumeister stated if they would apply the standard sixty feet of roadway, they would be at seven single unit lots. Councilmember Jacobson stated in previous discussions with Mr. Harris, the reason he wants the higher density is the cost of the property would make it too expensive to develop with a lower density, but that is not the City's responsibility and he stated he has a problem with this density. Cotlllcilmember Knight stated he is not in favor of changing the existing zoning. Councilmember Orttel stated the petition stated four units per acre with sixteen units total and he does not have a problem with what the neighbors would agree to. Councilmember Trude stated people who are looking for this type of housing are not looking for lawn to maintain. Councilmember Jacobson stated this is a sketch plan so the developer could get feedback from the Council. Ms. Randi Erickson, Creekside Homes, stated she would like to address the issue of the petition that went around. She stated the problem is the homes around the area do not support anything with that value, so if they are looking at a single-family detached town home at $200,000, there are two houses abutting the property for sale at $179,900. She discussed the reasons behind the higher density requested. Councilmember Knight stated if the present owner is asking too much for the land, it is not the City's obligation to meet that price. Ms. Erickson stated Mr. R~<1~m~cher thinks he still has a special use permit where he could use the land as he wants. She did not think they were out of line in value, because this is what today's buyers are looking for and she thinks the neighborhood would support it being so close to the school. Traffic would be an issue even if the land were not developed. Councilmember Trude stated on the sketch plan, it shows twenty-four units and asked if they have looked at a smaller development. Ms. Erickson stated it is not feasible for them to do this. Ms. Becky Joiner, 14194 Quinn Street, stated she went around with the petition and when they have been to the meetings and asked about buffering and Mr. Harris stated he was not sure what would be used and the height of the townhomes were never discussed. She stated she fmds it hard to believe that he cannot go lower than twenty-four town homes, when he has come down Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 16 twice before. She thinks the City should stick with low density. Ms. Erickson showed the Council the prices of the homes sold in the area. Mayor Gamache stated the issue the Council has is the density. Ms. Joiner stated their main issue is the density and the traffic in the area. Mayor Gamache stated the point is they have the new business study that the City did and it indicated the property is designated for thislype of housing. Ms. Joiner stated the proposed townhomes are very tall and she is concerned with her property butting up to this and issues regarding how close he wants to be to her property line. Councilmemher Trude stated she was surprised with the roads and that they cannot get a through street in there. She understands it is hard to market the homes if every home backs up to a busy street but the best maintenance is where the units have the green space between the units and understands the point Ms. Erickson is making in trying to market the townhomes. Ms. Erickson stated most of the traffic is coming off of Quinn Street onto 141 st. The entrance to the development would be off of 142nd. Councilmember Jacobson stated the proposed density is too much for this site. Mayor Gamache stated they could get up to four units per acre and that is probably the maximum the City would want. CONSIDER RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN/CITY VIEW FARM TOWNHOMESl13313 ROUND LAKE BL JID. NW Community Development Director Neumeister stated the City Council is asked to review a sketch plan for "City View Farm", an urban residential development containing seven single- family lots on an existing 1.34-acre property. The proposed development would require planned unit development review to provide alternative development standards. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed project. Mr. Neumeister stated connecting two adjoining streets of Andover and Coon Rapids together would not be feasible and staff is asking for a turn around to accommodate emergency vehicles. Councilmember Jacobson stated this property came before the Council for a business a while ago and he prefers this. One issue would be the turnaround area and how they would protect this for turning around in only. He stated the other issue was dealing with the aesthetics of the buildings. The plan shows them all lined up in a straight line and he would prefer they vary the depth to break up the long straight line. Mayor Gamache asked Mr. Mike Bahn what the cement pavement was for between the garages. Mr. Bahn stated it is additional parking and there would be other parking between the two other -. - - - Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 17 garages. He stated the covenants would enforce the no parking, tow away zone and he could offset the front façade of the houses a foot. Councilmember Trude stated he has the decorative fence running parallel to the front door and creates the illusion of homes being lined up. Mr. Balm was not sure if there would be a fence in the front yard. The homes would all be unique and the purpose of the detached garage is to have a quiet backyard without the noise of the six-lane expressway. Staffhas asked Mr. Balm to consider setting aside an easement for a City monument identification sign and Mr. Balm stated he would agree to this as long as it was done tastefully. Mr. Bahn stated the neighborhood meeting went well. Mayor Gamache stated he thought the buffering he was putting in does a lot and looks nice. Councilmember Trude stated initially she was not sure about this and then realized it is a nice transition from the homes in the area and the homes in Andover. She appreciated his adding the measurements between the homes. She stated it seemed like this is a good use of the property. Mr. Balm stated he did not think it would be feasible to build three houses on this property. Councilmember Trude stated this will add a lot of value to the neighborhood. Jl.ldd-- ~ae1¿~-11-0~ Mr. Gary Jtitt; 13314 Sl verro ourt, stated he lives behind Mr. Balm's property. He stated he led a neighborhood opposition to any commercial business going into this property. He was at the neighborhood meeting and they look at this as a plus for the neighborhood. He stated the neighbors are in support of this development. DISCUSSION OF RESIDENT'S REQUEST TO REGULATE DIRT BIKES Community Development Neumeister stated a number of Andover residents have requested Ordinance #109 (Regulating All Terrain Vehicles and Snowmobiles) be amended to also regulate the use of dirt bikes and to increase the regulation of A TV s in the City. There have been other complaints by Andover residents about the noise, dust and fumes associated with the racing of dirt bikes, A TV s and other vehicles on and off tracks on residential lots. The City Council directed this to be discussed by the Planning Commission and requested more information in regard to the Ham Lake ordinance, the ATV Taskforce and a confirmation of the number of complaints filed with the Sheriffs office. The Planning and Zoning Commission gave staff direction to look into increased enforcement of the noise ordinance. Mr. Neumeister recapped the information from other cities regarding what they did regarding dirt bikes and the noise problems. Mr. Neumeister stated there was an additional letter ITom Ms. Hilke regarding her view on a dirt bike Ordinance. The Council discussed the issue of using a decibel meter to regulate the noise ordinance and the - .- --_...- ~. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 18 pros and cons related to using the meter. Councilmember Jacobson stated that the question is how to solve the noise problem. If they have an Ordinance they cannot enforce, the Ordinance is not any good. He thinks the manufacturers of these vehicles make the mufflers to comply with cities' Ordinances and they need to establish some sort of Ordinance stating they would need a noise-reducing muffler that would comply with the best technology. He does not know if they have the capability to do this. Councilmember Orttel stated there are a couple of problems with this. Oe is the Officer would have no legal right to go onto the property to check the muffler. He does not think there is any way they can enforce this. Further discussion ensued regarding the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance. Councilmember Jacobson stated he thought it was important for residents to understand that the City does not want to ban the machines. Councilmember Trude stated she had a phone call from someone who sold their home because of the noise made by dirt bikes. She asked how they could balance this to accommodate all the homeowners. A resident stated most of the people riding ATVs do not have vehicles that are as loud as a lawnmower. If most people who have ATVs have stock exhausts, this would not exceed the decibel reading and the Council should have staff ask residents to come and check their mufflers and if it exceeds the noise level, ask them to fix it. Use it as a positive thing not negative. He stated he is concerned with the City taking away the rights of the residents. Further discussion ensued regarding regulations and the issue of noise. Councilmember Orttel stated the problem is Andover is in a transition and things are changing and during that they run into a lot of opposition. There are other issues besides the noise. Mr. Terry Krause, 1724 I Partridge Street, stated a constant noise can be zoned out but a continuous whining noise is very annoying. He stated they could come out with a decibel meter and read it but it would be the same thing as a radar detector where if seen, the noise will stop until the enforcement is gone. Mrs. Lynne Krause stated she would like to have the Council sit out on her deck and experience the noise from both sides of their house. She hoped the Council would consider changing something for those people who moved to Andover for the peace and quiet and wildlife. Mr. Tom Dancheck, 15584 Raven Street, stated the issue is the close proximity. They do not have a problem with the noise, but the close proximity. The other issue is with small children next to the track. He talked to the MPCA and there are three primary components àssociated with noise: the noise source, the distance of the noise source to the recipient and the attenuation - . - Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 19 of the surrounding environment. He stated the easiest of these to control is the distance and the MPCA stated a fifty-foot setback would result in a thirty percent reduction in noise; a hundred foot setback would result in fifty percent noise reduction. He showed the Council a graph with noise versus distance dealing strictly with A TV s. Councilmember Trude asked if this was based on his assumptions or actual observations. Mr. Dancheck stated this is based on Colorado State Park A TV Noise Measurements and the MPCA Noise Decatur Rate. This scenario is based on one A TV traveling less than twenty-five miles an hour with a standard muffier and measurements taken at fifty feet. They tried to validate the information with readings on their own property and it was consistent with the chart. The MPCA told him if they have multiple ATVs, it significantly increases the noise level. Two ATVs running at the same time would increase the noise level by fifteen percent and even if one A TV met the local noise ordinance, if they add the multiple vehicles, it would be outside the local noise ordinance. Councilmember Knight stated the calls he has been getting are mainly dealing with dirt bikes. Councilmember Orttel asked how an officer tags vehicles for a loud muffier. Attorney Hawkins stated it is a subjective call. He stated they would need to have an officer stay on the site for an hour to get ten percent of a readout. Mr. Dan Bennington, 15638 Raven Street, stated he invited all the Councilmembers out to see his track and Mayor Gamache came out and rode the trail for forty minutes. He stated most riders would allow the City to come out and test their vehicles on their own property. This would be a great learning experience for the riders. He is for raising the fine for people who abuse the noise ordinance. He stated they should add to the Ordinance that in order to have an ATV or dirt bike in Andover, they must have them tested for noise. Mr. Dave Solarz, 2351 I 80th Avenue NW stated all his dirt bikes have OEM muffiers and his trail is more than fifty feet away from the property line. His kids have not been allowed to ride before 11 :00 am or after 8:00 pm and are not typically out there for more than fifteen minutes. He recognizes the machines make noise but he does have a right to enjoy his property to some extent and feels this is reasonable. He does not know what the solution is. Councilmember Jacobson asked Mr. Erar if staff was planning to train a few staffmembers on the use of the decibel meter. Mr. Erar stated if the Council would request it, they could but they would also like to have a few deputies trained in on the equipment also. Mr. Erar stated if a resident would volunteer to have their equipment tested, they could contact Mr. Neumeister to have this done. This would be a good positive step towards working with the City on this. Mr. Bennington stated when the City is ready to test the decibel meter, they could use his property. - ~ - ..-- ~-._- ., Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 20 CALL FOR BOND SALEI1003 GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL NOTES Finance Director Dickinson explained the Andover City Council is requested to call for the sale of approximately $400,000 General Obligation Capital Equipment Notes to provide fmancing for the equipment purchases contemplated through the 2003 City of Andover annual budget process. Councilmember Jacobson stated they are going out for a bond for $200,000 but the total equipment cost comes to $385,000. Mr. Dickinson stated the $200,000 bond is the levy amount to make the payment on it, which would be a twenty-four month note so they would have another bond next year either for $200,000 or less. The $400,000 is an approximation. Motion by Trude, Seconded by Orttel, to approve Item No. 12 (Resolution RI75-02, Call for Bond Sale/2003 General Obligation Capital Notes). Councilmember Jacobson wanted to make sure this amount was figured into the amount that goes onto the property tax and not above it. Mr. Dickinson stated this shows the intent of the bonds for next year that they will be levying for. Motion carried unanimously. SCHEDULE YMC4 COMMUNITY CENTER SURVEY REPORT MEETING City Administrator Erar stated the Andover City Council will be receiving results of a community market survey authorized by the YMCA to determine the level of community support there is in the Andover market area for a YMCA. The results of this study will determine whether the YMCA will participate as a project partner in the proposed cornmunity center project Motion by Jacobson, seconded by Knight, to schedule a special televised City Council meeting for Wednesday, December 11,2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The motion carried unanimously. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF 2003-2007 CIP City Administrator Erar stated the City Council has reviewed the proposed 2003-2007 CIP over the course of the last several weeks and has held two Council Workshops to consider proposed projects. Mr. Erar stated in order to put the capital improvement plan into effect Council is requested to adopt the proposed plan, along with the CIP project authorization schedule that specifies the - . - -----~.- -- - Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 21 approval process for each proposed project. Mr. Erar stated that at the Joint CouncillParks Commission Workshop, Council discussed, but did not provide any fmal direction regarding the construction of a new trail segment on Andover Boulevard, from Hanson Boulevard traveling east to at least Bluebird Street. This project was requested earlier this year by neighborhood residents in the form of a petition for children walking along Andover Boulevard where no trail currently exists. This project is currently identified as a 2004 CIP project item. If Council is interested in advancing this trail project to 2003, then Council should direct staff to begin the process of identifYing potential funding sources and modify the 2003-2007 CIP to move this proposed trail project to 2003. Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Trude, to approve advancing the Andover Boulevard trail segment project to 2003 and to look for funding. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Erar stated each proposed 2003 CIP project will be individually evaluated for appropriate funding sources, and will be presented at an appropriate time for specific Council approval. CounciImember Trude stated they will have identified the funding sources before they will move forward. Mr. Erar stated he believed most of the projects have identified funding sources and for those projects that do not will be brought back for approval. CounciImember Trude stated she did not know if they want to go on record of adopting this before they have the revenue. Mr. Dickinson stated certain things need to take place in order to be funded. The discussions for that will take place in either December of this year or early 2003. They will look for a source of the funding and look for Council's direction at that time. CounciImember Trude was uncomfortable with adopting a plan that was not balanced. She feels better that it has been discussed and as long as each project will be discussed and determined before they move forward. Mr. Erar stated the project has been identified in the documents and would come back for funding before approval. CounciImember Trude stated she wanted to amend an item on page 50 regarding football goals being added into the capital plan. She stated Todd Haas said he would put a ten thousand dollar tag on that. Mr. Dickinson asked if this was in addition to the total funding. Councilmember Trude stated Mr. Haas thought the funding source would be some of their discretionary funds. Mr. Dickinson stated if they included this in the annual miscellaneous project items, they would not need a modification. CounciImember Jacobson asked why they couldn't use signs instead of purchasing two message boards for roadwork. He would like to have staff look at this. He stated that between Prairie Knoll and Sunshine Park there is $577,000 and part of that they will be borrowing from them and paying $50,000 over five or six years. He stated this would limit the Park Commission's ability to fund other projects. The money from Andover Station for parks should go into the parks and not towards the Cornmunity Center as was suggested because that is what it was designated for. . - - - Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 22 Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to approve the 2003-2007 CIP as previously presented and revised by the City Council. The motion carried unanimously. ACKNOWLEDGE GFOA DISTINGUISHED BUDGET PRESENTATION AWARD Finance Director Dickinson stated the City of Andover was recently notified that the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) has recognized the City of Andover 2002 Annual Budget document as a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award winner. Councilmember Trude stated congratulations are in order for Mr. Dickinson for all the work he has done. Mr. Dickinson stated a lot of the credit goes to a former employee, Brian Swanson and to the City Staff. The Council acknowledged the budget presentation. MAYOR/COUNCIL INPUT (Hazardous Roadways) - Councilmember Trude stated a resident has contacted her and is paying a $200.00 bus fee for transportation to school and her child is forced to cross Round Lake Boulevard along with several other children in the neighborhood and she was wondering if the Council would support them in their efforts of identifÿing hazardous roadways. She asked if there was some way in helping this resident with her efforts. She stated staff met with the School District employees to discuss transportation and this was one of the most unsafe areas in the City. She stated the School District is unwilling to change the bus stop because other people would want the same thing. She wanted to know if the Council would support a letter on behalf of her efforts. The Council authorized Mr. Erar to draft a letter along with a map of the area. (Hockey Ice Time) - Councilmember Trude stated another issue was the application for hours ofice rinks. There are only three boarded rinks and people are trying to get more time for the little kids skating program with ice houses and they have not able to get through their needs very successfully. She stated they would like as much time as possible and they are outraged that the City is not allowing the minimal time allowed. Councilmember Jacobson asked if there was some reason there was a problem. Park Commissioner Blackstad stated the reason they try to give ice time to rink rats. His original motion was to give them ice time from seven to nine but the parents did not agree to that because they do not want the kids out past eight. He stated they have as many rink rats going to the rinks to play hockey as they have members of the Hockey Association and the rinks are full every night Councilrnember Trude stated they were denying this group because the neighborhood kids get to skate there. Park Commissioner Blackstad stated they are trying to do a balancing act. Councilmember Trude stated she has had so many calls about this and there were many residents upset. .- .----- Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2002 Page 23 Park Commissioner Grabowski stated these times are used for practice for the hockey association and at the mite level; kids practice two teams to a rink. Councilmember Trude asked if this is going to be a policy thing now and that the neighborhood kids get the prime time. Discussion ensued regarding the scheduling of the hockey rink. Mr. Erar asked if they could have the Park and Recreation Commission meet with the coaches at the ·Park meeting. Councilmember Trude stated she thought they would meet if they could come to a solution. '1lìt. r:;¿w.0-.-tJ.1f'í\5 did nòt:- receiK.-11re {"¡me.- ~~ '\(ì-t1ìeir Clp'p lí cai16rî (Railroa Crossing) - Councilmember Knight stated the letter they r eived from a residen IY'O'\de.q regarding the railroad crossing is something they need to try to solve. Councilmember Orttel stated (l \",;). -11-0~ the solution would be to have a fIre station on that side of the railroad tracks. Mayor Gamache stated they currently have it set up with bordering cities to handle problems on the east side of the railroad tracks until they can get a solution. . (Cell Phones) - Councilmember Jacobson asked if they could have staffpost on the doors to not have cell phones on during meetings because it is disturbing. (performance Review) - Councilmember Jacobson asked Mr. Erar when his performance review is. Mr. Erar stated it is not until April. Councilmember Jacobson stated he would like to have the Mayor set up a work session to talk about pay for performance and plan for the next year activities and goals. (Pledge of Allegiance) - Councilmember Jacobson stated after watching the news yesterday and today, and seeing the Government not requiring the pledge of allegiance in schools, he would like to start having the City Council meetings start every meeting with the pledge of allegiance. Councilmember Trude stated they did this in her previous City. Mr. Erar stated they would need to amend the Ordinance for this. Consensus was to amend the Ordinance. Motion by Trude, Seconded by Jacobson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:32 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Osbeck, Recording Secretary - ~- ..