Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC August 16, 1977 CITY of ANDOVER nEGULAR CITY COU;,CIL !!Eë:TING - AUGUST 16, 1977 IUHUTë:S The Rer,ular B-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Imyor Jerry Windschitl on August 16, 1977, 7:35 p,m" at the Andover City Hall, 1685 CrosstO\'ffi Boulevard u':r, Anoka, Einne.sota. Councilpersons present: Lachinski, !lcClure, Orttel, VanderLaan Councilpersons absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, Pex Stockwell, Plannin~ & Zoning Chairman, Don Jacobson; City Clerk, p. K. Lindquist; and interested residents, There was no statement in the Resident Forum section of the meetin~, A!;enda A trproval HOTImr by Orttel, Seconded by !lcClure, to approve the agenda as vœitten with the addition of Item 7b, l1eadow Creek Baptist Church, Special Use and Amended Special Use Permit, !·~otion carried unanimously. DUBLTC Hn~nI"G on the proposed use of Revenue Sharing Funds was called to order at 7:40 p,m" by Mayor Jerry TIindschitl, In the nast this money has been used for four of the 16 hours of police protection with- in the City, There was no comment fron the audience. Discussion was on whether or not a motion is needed as it will be handled as the budget is approved, ¡ HOTHJ'T by VanderLaan, Seconded by rlindschitl, that the City Council, City of Andover, anprove the experiditure of Revenue Sharing Funding Program for 197ß for purposes of police ~rotection. Hotion carried unanirlOusly. Stub Location Renort - Bn~ineer I Engineer Stockwell explained that he had not been able to contact the contractor concerning the request for þayment for additional time and material costs required because of the incorrect stub d~pth for the home on Jonquil Street, He did talk with 1'T, Clough, the City's Building ~nspector, who had records of when the construction was done and his inspections. In: summary, he ~ade an inspection on May 20, 1977; however, construction .., ." "'" "I ,.""",. ,., ",., ", ., ."""".. " , """'. 0."" '3. !T. Clough Made inspections, and about half the day was work~~~owin6 there was a problem -- + day of down time. Knowing there was a problem that wouldn't get resolved that day, IT, Cl ugh told the contractor to backfill rather than leaving a trench open creatin~ a safet~ hazard, On '·Jay 24, JJr, Stockwell looked at the problem and authorized the contractor t hook up the people; contractor started redoing that system that after- ''''. "" '5. T CO,O," ,," ,," 0'" """""', ,,' " CO, ,., 0; '''' ,,, CO, ... construction had been comnleted, Hay 26, ¡Jr. Clough made no inspection but assumes the contractor clean d up that day. In Hr. Clough's and Hr. Thurston's opinion, the contractor did not have the type of equiþment necessary to make the installation in a normal time neriod. J'T, Sto kwell felt that in looking at the amount of time involved, possibly the 30 hours he is Cìarging the City is realistic, I~. Stockwell also stated that the cost of cutting into Y is about ~lOO and the additional pipe costs ~l per foot more, amounting to abo~t ~lOO. The contractor listed $233 for materials on his statement, The stub depth at the street is about 9 feet deep, IT, Stockwell didn't Y~Ow how much the contractor quoted the homeo~~ers for the sewer pipe installation, ar. Stockwell also Pegular City Council Meeting AUl':ust 16, 1977 - Hinutes Pa~e 2 (Stub Location ~eport, Continued) stated that normal installation price runs~bout ~8 per linear foot; the statement amounts to aDproximately ~ll per linear foot. Mayor Winds chit I felt the City shouldn't be payin~ for down time when it was the contractor's mista~e to begin with because he didn't ex~ose both ends of the service as the Ordinance requires. Had he done so, the problem would not have arisen, He felt it would be reason- able to pay for the additional materials cost and for cutting the y, ~~, Stockwell felt that the contractor was given permission to backfill the trench and to hook up the people at a rate of ~30 an hour; and he also didn't believe the building officials are requiring exnosin~ both ends because it causes additional work for contractors. Councilperson VanderLaan questioned that should the Council decide to withhold partial tJayment, inasmuch as it is the homeowner's responsibility to have the service installed, does the homeowner become liable for the balance of the statement? In the discussion, ~T, Stockwell stated that it isn't the homeowner's fault that the grade couldn't be met; he authorized the installation at ~30 an hour; and the City Inspector directed him to backfill the trench, thus creating additional time of opening that trench again, Attorney Hawkins stated the only thing the City is responsible for is to pay the reason~ able costs of putting in the 6-inch pipe, since if the contractor had followed the Ordinance, the problem wouldn't have been created, We should pay the reasonable cost provided he provide a lien waiver on the project, as there's no reason for the homeowner to be liable for that cost, Hr, Stockwell was directed to contact the contractor to convey to him the feelings of the Council and ask him if he wants to settle the matter; and Vœ, Stockwell was also directed to provide some figure r,uideline for the Council as to the reasonable cost on this project, nrid~e 'qeTIort (continued) - En~ineer I ~T. Stockwell reviewed his letter of AUl':ust 11 comDaring a culvert-type bridge versus a nrestressed concrete brid~e on South Coon Creek Drive relative to maintenance on the brid~e itself (cost diffe~ence would be negligible), cost of future roadway widening , (widenin~ a þrestressed concrete bridge would be considerably more; however, the possibility o~ w~denin~ the bridge is not foreseen in the future), and future channel maintenance (on" culvert-tyþe' brid"e, debris accumulated upstream after severe storms would be the Cit~.S responsibility and expense; however, future channel maintenance costs would be neglir,i Ie). . . I Discussion was t~at the culvert-type bridge has no guardrails on it as the State Department doesn't require any type of è~rrier; whereas the prestressed bridge essentially does have "uardrails on the: deck itsel:, If guardrails are desired on the culvert bridge now, it would be reimbursed from the construction allotment of the City's State Aid Account, Vœ, Stockwell explain'ed that when the road is improved, puttin¡; guardrails on a culvert bridge would become partl of the construction costs, which comES from the State Aid Account, He also affirmed that the State Aid approval of the bridge has taken into full consideration the street standards that are in existence for Hunicipal State Aid Highways for either rurà1 or urban areas, Also, the appro~ch themselves for a culvert-type bridge are slightly safer because the roadway is two feet flatter than for a prestressed bridge; but the top of the culverts afe the problem because of the slope coming off the road and then off the culverts the~selvfs. The traffic portion of either structure is 44 feet. '1r. Stockwell stated that the additional ~6,Ooo from the State Aid Account for the prestressed bridge is for the additi6nal four to five linear feet in each direction to match existing grades; a ~ortion of that would be spent for the improvement of Coon Creek Drive in the future. Regular City Council Heeting Au¡;us t 16, 1977 - Hinutes Pa"e 3 (Brid¡;e Peport, Continued) Councilperson Lachinski suggested the possibility of a walkway across the bridge be provided for or a provision Made for it in the future. !!()~IO!T by l'lindschitl, Seconded by !!cClure, that the engineer be directed to submit final plans for the State for a prestressed channel bridge, VOTZ ON ~!OTIO~¡: YES-Lachinski, McClure, VanderLaan, ~indschitl; NO-Orttel !-~otion carried. gr. Stock,,'¡ell ,,·,ras also directed to look into the possibility of providing a walkway across the bridge and advise the Council, Sealcoatin~ Bids - Award of Contract IIOTIO") by HcClure, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council, City of Andover, accept the bids of Allied Blacktop Company, )10,086; SkeetG Held, Inc., ~11,266.80; and G. & L. Sealcoating, ~11,5G2; for sealcoating the streets in I1cadowood Addition, Kiowa Terrace, Jay street in ITatt's Garden Acres, and Partridge Street; and further to award the contract to Allied Blacktopping for the afore ~entioned price and direct the lIayor and City Clerk to enter into a contract, (See Resolution 1'97-7) Discussion: The Road Improve~ent Co~~ittee felt it didn't make ~uch difference whether the work was done this year or next, r·~r . Stockwell stated that streets in !!eadowood Addition definitely need sealcoating this :'lear, the others could possibly wait, It was felt best to do all re~aining blacktop streets at this time with the future project in 1979 or 1980 including Red Oaks, HorthmJods, and Green Acres~ I-ration carried unanirlOusly. 1'-2, 1'-3 Zoning - "ural Area I Attorney ~awkins reviewed his letter of July 27 concerning possible alternatives for deaUnp; with 1'-2 and 1'-3 zoned areas in the rural district, In summary, Hr. Hawkins felt the Council may Ire-enact the interin ordinan~c for a period not to exceed one year, that rezoninr; those areas to œ,alarger lot size 'would not constitute S:9ot zoninlj within the City, th~t Section 4,33 of Ordinance 8 applies only to shoreland lots, and that an interim ordinance TIay be adopted applicable to all or parts of the City for the purpose of pro- tectinG the p1artnin~ process and health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. The P-2 and P-3 Zoned afeas in the City can be rezoned to P-l if there has been no substantial creation of a vested ri~ht in those properties, Discussion was in whether or not re-enacting the interi~ ordinance would TIean going throuGh the TIotion twic if it will ulti~ately end up with a larger lot size in the rural area, Wo~1.1 it be bet1er to direct the Planning Commi8sion to rezone land without a vested right to R-l? 1':r, "a"r1dns exnlained that fro~ a procedural standpoint, if the end result is to re~ain the 2+ aire lot, the interi~ ordinance step could be avoided, Larry Retzlaff, p & Z, stated h would rather see a rezoninß than a moratoriu~. He felt that those sections of the zonin~ ordinance beinr, revised would be along far enough that they could be enactdd. ~h~ P ~ Z is workinG on zoninß for the entire City to be included in Ordinance lTo. ,\i. In either case, Hr. Ha\'¡l:ins stated a Public Hearing is required. HOTI01) by vande~Laan, Seconded by 1.'Jindschitl, that the City Council direct the Planning and Zonin~ CO~M;ssion to consider the iTIpact of pernittinß P-2 and R-3 zoning in the rural ~lanning area o~ the City and to proceed with the necessary Public Hearings for either rezoning of the area or reinact~ent of the interim ordinance, Discussion: Gouncilpercon Pe,;ular City Council !1eetin¡; Au¡;ust 16, 1977 - Hinutes Fag'e 4 (P-2, R-3 Zonin~ - TIural Area, Continued) VanderLaan ex~lained this allows the P & z to recommend to the City Council the proper way and their comment will be in the form of the orderin['; of the Public Hearin['; for either t'œocedure. ]wtion carried unanimously, Attorney Hawkins reminded the P & Z members that if they are considerin['; rezonin['; the ~-2 and ~-3 areas and there are areas currently under 5 acres, notices Dust be mailed to those ~eople. Date for Rand Sale - 1977 Imnrovements l~. Kin~ Forness, re~resentative of Sprinr,sted, Inc., reviewed the document of information on the ~ond ~ith the recom~end date of Septc~ber 6, 1977. The City policy has been to char~e the rate of interest on the unpaid assessments as close to 1 percent over the rate the bonds sold for. At thia point, it is anticipated that the bonds will sell in the nei~hborhood of 7} percent, meanin¡; assessments could be set at about 6~ percent, This rate would provide the mar¡;in of 105 percent requirement of the debt service to avoid certifying a tax levy on the project. The Hearing will need to be held by about October 15, which will be after the bond sale so assessments can be prepared based on the ~,percent over the bond interest rate. 1~. Kennedy of Babcock, Locher, has reviewed the schedule þrepared by Springsted, Inc. HOTIOH by Lachir..sl-::i, Seconded by Orttel, introducing a Resolution providin~ for the Issuance and Sale of ~780,ooo of General Obli~ation Ioprovement Bonds for 1977, (See ~esolution R98-7) !wtion carried unanimously, I University Avenue !:xtension , !~aM La1æ Hayor :Sldon TTl1ntgen and Councilman Ken I3raasted presented the Joint Powers Agree- ment between the City of Ham Lake and the City of Andover for the joint maintenance 1Jroject on University Avenue Extension. Trayor Hentges stated Hm:t L.:tke \7aS concerned a.bout the wordin~ of Andover's notion ap~roving the joint project stating that the maintenance 1Jroject stay entfrelY within the existinc; riEht of way. He felt that couldn't be acco~þlished because of the discussions on staldng the road and putting it in proper ali~nMent. Counbil~erson .LachinGl~i stated the intention of the notion was that the align- ment of the roadlwoUld be strai[';htened but wouldn't ~o outside of the City-owned property, Discussion was t,.at the roadway is not in proper alignment and that it would have to be staked to nrovidè the exact alir,n~ent and to deterMine if easements need to be acquired '1nd w1-tich ones, lIt is intended that the middle of the road would be on the Section line, Councilnerson V"nderLaan stated one of her objections to the project was that no formal en¡;ineerin~ studt was done, and this situation would have been researched had one been done. The City Clerk was directed to research what the City owns relative to the riGht of way and actual dedicdted ease~ent, to convey the information to the City of Earn Lake, and to resehedulc this 1tem for the first meetinc in September, Further discussiqn w"s on whether or not bids are needed on the project, !-1ayor HentGes explained that 11 is considered a maintenance project and they have seþarated the costs such as p,'radin,~ :::\3 one operation, !:1.aterials another, etc. In Harl 1a1>:e, .:tL the beginninß of the construct~on season, quotes are t"l:en and kept on file for hauling Class 5 and for !'1aterials, 1!ayo '!entges explained they fecI they are entirely within the law to hire Bu~ton Kraabol t do the grading andavoid the bidding procedure and the expense involved. A ttorney :::~<J.w!:ins will review the joint po\'rers aßreement; both municipalities will review the right of ~ay; TTaM LD.ke will stake the road to help in determining the aMount of work involved in aligning the road, which will have" significant impact on how much the project is goin~ to cost. :?e(iular City Council 1!ceting Augutt 16, 1977 - I!inutes 1'age 5 ~en-~inute recess at 9:10. Lot Split O~dinance Attorney JIavr'dnG waG concerned how everythin¡; ties into Ordinance 10, It was his under- standi,,,; the intent of the l' ~, Z \'ms to allow one free lot split without any hardship, nnd a variance provicion after that. ¡¡ore lots could be split provided a physical characteristic hardghip could be shown, dealt with under Section 17,01 of Ordinance 10, If that is the Corn~iGsion's intent, HI'.. Haì':l:ins reco!71r.Iended repcali~g Sections 14.01 nnd 14,()2, economic hardships. Commissioner Jacobson explained that !-æ. Eawkins was contacted in A!)ril, and at that tir1e Hr. Eawkins advised that the Ordinance as written would take ca~e of everythin~, and there \'faS no need fo1" other provisions of any l:ind. It was the D p, Z's intention to nrovide a TIechanis~ for a person to Gplit a lot without having to ~rove a hardshi~. Tir. ,raco~Gon ~ointed out that in the City Clerk's me~o of Au~u$t 10, 1977, under Section 1 - Definition, second line, should read: not more than two (2) parcels in a non-Dewered area; and into not TIore than four (4) parcels. , , Hr. Jacobson explained the Cor.~isGion unani~ously agreed that the Ordinance be for two lots; if more was wanted, a waiver or variance would be considered as ~e do now. I~yor ~indschtil questioned would a variance for morc th3n t~o lots be a~plicd to this Ordinance or under C~dinance 10? Hr. Jacobson stated Ordinance la, Section 14.02 ~ould still be valid. This lot G~lit ordinance is only to clearly outline the steps needed for a free lot split. AnythinG over the t~o lots would require a variancc. ~~yor ~ind8chitl explained that the reason the Cou~cil sUr';.sested four lots in the sewered area "JaS to allow tl1ese people to split vlithout having to ~o throUf,1 the variance ~rocedure under Ordinance 10. :':r, Jacobson cO~TIented that if four lots are cr~ated out of one, it's to the advantage of the property o~ner to GO throu@ the extr.:l step ,'111 it will ~oan r.tore money for hir.!. He envisoned Most people co~inc in unde~ this ordin~nce rather than Ordinance 10. r·~r. Retzlaff understood that when a single lot snlit ~as recommended by the Cor.t~ission, tl1at anything ~ore than that is actually a variance fror.r Ordinance 10, which is the platting ordinance. In his opinion it is a ~~<:t~ia!lce froM a platting rather th:J.n frot1 a lot Gplit.. I ;:~8.0 Lindqllist stated that a ~erson sÿlitting t\'lO lots under this Ordinance has more restrictions thanl30~eone sþlittinG r.roro lots with a variance under Ordinance 10. ~he staff has t~e nro 10M of deter~ining what inforr.ration is vanted by the P & Z of n person I re"uestin~ to s'tIlït his lot. Hr. illcobson suggested that the sar.:re information required . . , for two lots unde~ this ordinance could be brought in for ~ore than two lots. DiscusGion was onl the p~oblem a ~erson would have in the sowered area of decidin¡; the nU!1.ner of sewer subs to place on his larGe lot, thin}:ing ahead, rolative to hO\'l r.:any lots the CO~Missitn and ~ouncil will allow him to create. Councilperson Lachinsy~ su¡;~ested that ra,her than statin~ an exact nu~ber of lots, that all lot splits other than plattin~ should cyme linúcr this Ordinance, and that the definition be reworded that a lot split is any division of lot, rarcel, or tract of land into not nor~ally more than two parcels, lrr'lJacobson felt a specific numbe~ would be best so the CO~TIisGion doesn't have to Guess as 0 what the Council is looking for. dlArcy Bosell, P ( Z Co~r.:isGion, stated the intention of the P13nninc Com~iGsion definite¡y waG to have tvo l~ts because they didn't vant to allow circujvention of the platting ordinance. She a ¡GO stated the Con~i8Gion has great problc~s in detcr~inr. why an individual is a8kin~ for a vqriance, so the variance procedure needc to be r.:ore specific to hel~ 'them outline why ~hey are Gplittin¡; their lot, She felt this ordinance would help the Gommission Greatly and would like to seo the nu~ber of lots limited to two, and any variance must be very sTIecific as to why they are varying, Councilperson VanderLaan ~uostioned if the nrobleTI is beinG solved by the introduction of the Lot Split Ordinance, - TIegu1ar City Council ~-':eetinr; Au",ust 16, 1977 - F:inuteo Pa~e :; (Lot SplU OI'dinance, Continued) Does the City wa~t one free split O~ can t~e þrocedure in Ordinance 10 be redefined to recttire s~ecific infor~ation? r~G. BOGell statèr'l as far as the subcoMmittee is concerned, it is their intention to eventually incorporate this ~ith Ordinance 10 and 8 ~ith the nrovision of the one free lot. i-T~ Jacobson anJ. ;-:r. Hawl~ins agreed t:hat the forr:t provided by the City for a person apþlyin~ for a variance could be revised to add the points listed in this Lot Split Ordinance relative to infor~ation required, OI'dinance 10 ~ould not need to be revised. Discussion 'W::!.D on the changes within the Ordinance: Ibyor "indschitl felt the intent of the Ordinance waG to exclude neiGhborhood business, c01!l~ercial, etc. Hr. Jacobson stated the CO~Mission's intent ~as that this ~ould be applicable to any lot split; the lot \"¡ould have to r.1cct the zoning requiror.1ents of the area ~ Consensus was the definition would be as reco~~ended by the Planning Co~mission. Section I - Definition: exclude residential; aad f w~cn one or both divided parcels have a width of less than 300 feet and are less tha.n 5 acres in Gize~" Discussion was on ~hether 330 feet or 300 feet should be used as our Ordinances arc in conflict. Attorney "a~¡dns explained that the resultinG narcelo ~ust meet zoning requirements. TÞ~ee hundred feet ~ould be used because they are varyinr, fror¡ a p!'ovision of a platting ordinance~ Conncilperson,·Orttel questioned whether the Ordinance ap~lie8 to both ~arcelG involved or only to those lots of less than 5 acres. ~-mTr()N by T.....'1.chinski f Seconded by ~·~cClure, that the City Council, City of Andover, adopt ()rdi~ance 4(), an Ordinance regulatinG the division of lots \'lÌthin the City of Andover. Restate Definition: A tot Split is any division of a lot, parcel, or tract of land into not ~ore than t~o narcels ~hen one or both divided parcels haye a width of less than 300 , - feet and less tha~ 5 acres in size. !-Iodity the section on Penalites to r-ead: Any person, firm, or cornoration violatinG any of the provisions of this OI'dina~ce shall be GUilty of a ~isde~ea~or as defined by State La~, Discussion: Do park fees apply to both , narcels reGardless of size or just the parcel of less than 5 acres? Councilperson Lachins1~i ADD~D: I Section V, IteM D, If no park fees have been assessed nor land dedicated, the char~e of ~lOp per each lot c~eated less than 5 acres in size shall be assessed for park fees, Second still stands, I VOT:S O?T HOTIOX: fCJS-LaChinSl:i, Ire CluI'e, OI'ttel; rIO-VanderLaan, rlindschi tl };otion carried. Council~erson VanderL~an stated her no vote reflects her concern with a Lot Split Ordinance because¡thc Ordinance allo~s lot splits in the cntire City irrespective of hardshi~s; and it s her opinion that that is in conflict ~ith the intent of the Co~prehen- siye Plan, contraìY to orderly develop~ent of the City; and that it ~ill promote urban 8þrawl. The fact that this Ordinance allowG unplatted lots in cotmerical zoneD is, in her opinion, inconsistent with principles of f,ood City ~anage~cnt. \ $nectal Use rermit/A~cnded Snecial Use Per!:1it - Vcadm"¡ CreeJ: Ba"Otict. Church Chair!:1an ,Jacobson ireviewed the Planning and ZoninG COr.1~issionfG findings ~ith reGard to the Special Use per~it under Ordinance 8, Section 7,03 to allo~ a private school for ~rades 1:-10 and a9 A~~nded Special Use Per~it under Ordinance 8, Section 5.03 (a) C-7, ~hic~ wauld a110w Fn ~ddition to t~e present church facility, recoM!:1cnding approval of both nerr.1i ts. Harold r:inf'7horn, ChairMan of the Board of Truestees, explained that the nla~8 have been corpleted and the additio~ ~ill be roughly 100 by 60 feet, Hr, Jacobson also eXnlai~cd that the chuI'ch has dealt colely with School District 11, not the State of ¡"inn~~ota I ., .. ~ ,..,0 . Re.<;ulat City Council Heeting Au!,:ust 11), 1977 - I!inutes pac;e 7 (Special Use Permit/AMe,,-ded Special Use Permit - !'eadow Creek Baptist Church, Co,,-tinued) !!OTI01[ by VanderLaan, Seconded by Orttel, that tr:e Lty Council, City of Andover) approve the Special Use Pert1it for the !·!eadow Creek BaptiGt Church, reference Ordinance 8, Section 7,03, Private School, for the following reasons: 1) The School as it is now located in the T'1eadOl".' Creek T3a-ptist Church is a perr.1itted use in an F.-I district; 2) The Christian day school has been approved by District 11; 3) A Public Hearine was held by the Plannin~ and ZoninG CO~~is3ion and no o~position was noted; 4) A Christian day school "rill be co,.,patible with existinr, uses in the area; and 5) In the opinion of the City, the ~roTIosed use is not a detri~ent to the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of t')-¡e cO!:'!?!Illnity. Hotion carried unanir:ously. t!ryp:r:n"T by VanderLaan, Seconded by orttcl, that the City Council, City of Andover, approve an Amended S~ecial Use Permit, reference Ordinance S, Section 5.03, Section (a) C-7, Addttion to facility at the Hcadow Creek Bantist Church for the following reasons: 1) The constr~lction of a Christian activi ty c~nter as an addition to the Hendow Creek Baptist Church will be compatible with the existina present use; 2) A Public Rearinrr was held by the Planning and Zoning' COMmission, and there was no opposition noted; 3) A Christian activities center would be a þer~itted use in an ~-l district in conjunction with the Headow (;reel: Bantist Church day care center; 4) ~hat the facility, in the opinion of the ~ity, would not be detriMental to the health, safety, r.lorals, and gene~al welfare of the citizens of Andover; and 5) In the opinion of the Planninrr and Zoning COMmission, the Christian activities center would be a Major asset for the City of Andover. Discussion was on making the per!:1its continGent on payment of the additional connection nnit charp;es. Councilperson VanderLaan added to the motion: That the City Council will aTI~rove the Special Use Permit and the A~ended Special Use PerMit contingent on the payment of the additionai connection charges for the additional sanitary sewer service provided to the 3ch 001. Second still stands, ~urther discussion was this payment relates to the , Snecial Use Per?!lit for the Private School, not to the A,.,ended Special Use PerMit, The reference to the .connection charge should be stricl:en from the motion for the Amended Special Use Permit and then Move for reconsideration of the Special Use PerMit, Councilþerson VanderLaan withdrew the addition to the motion with reference to the connection charg~G. Second still stands, (See ?esolution R99-7) Hotion carried unanir!o11sly. ~·~(ì~J()~'r by HcClure, Seconded by Lachinski, to rescind the first motion dealing \'lith the Snecial Use Permit of the Heado\'f Creek P.aptist Church. Hotion carried unanimously. '!(Yè'IO!T by vanderL~an, Seconded by Orttel, that the City Council, City of Andover, approve the Snecial Use Pfr~it for the Headow Creek Baptist Church, reference Ordinance 8, Section 7.03, Priyate School, for the followin~ reasons: 1) The school as it is now located in the ¡':eado\'l Creek 1Ja1)tist Church is a permitted use in an R-l district; 2) The Christian day sCh~ml has been a~proved by District 11; 3) A Public Hearing was held by the Plannin~ and Zonin~ COM~ission and no opposition was noted; 4) A Christian day Gchaol will be compatiblé with existing uses in the a~ea; and 5) In the opinion of the City, the uronosed use is n~t a detriment to the health, safety, Morale, and general welfare of the co~munity, contin~ent on the payMent of the connection charge to the sanitary sewer system to the school. l Discussion was th t the contingency is on the payment of the additional required connection unit charge based Ion the nUMber of students using the facility; approximately 190 students are enrolled. The church has already raid one sanita~y sewer connectio,,- charge. - -, TIegular City Council Heetin~ Au¡;ust ItS, 1077 - i"~inutes Par;e 11 (S~ecial Use Permit/Amended Special Use Permit - Meadow Creek Baptist Church, Continued) Councilnerson VanderLaan "P'S'.'lOT.1D"S"9 the '!-Iotion: ...welfare of the co~~unity, contin[';ent on the nayment of the additional required connection unit charGes for the students uSinG the facility "Der 0rdinance Eo. 32, Section VIr (I.) , Second still stands, (,See Pesolntion T'lOO-7) Hotion carried unanimously. Varia"n~e '?eC'111est - Forrr:an Sheauen ~~ ,Tacobson exþlained t'ha t Hr. Shequen requested 81'11 tting his property, lot 3 of block 1 .'T. of Pankonin Addition because he felt he had too much land to take c"-re of and he has an o~~ortunity to sell the lot created, The ComMission is recom~ending denying the applica- tion because the Variance would not corn~ly with our Ordinance -- there is no financial hardship and there has been no extension of City services to the area to increase his 1)ayr.¡ents. Also, the Commission felt that while the Ordinance doesn't specifically cover comMerctal bustncsG, under residential in a nonsewered area, 39¡OOO square feet is required. Splitting this 'lot'would'result in only 29,564 square feet, In Attorney Eawkin's opinion, the 39,000 square feet would apply only to residential areas; however, the Variance would be denied because of the lack of a hardship. Tbyor Windschitl eXyressed concern that undæ the Lot Split Ordinance passed earlier this evening, !,~, Shequen would be able to split his lQt because the zoning requirements would be met in the ~enGral busincs$"nrea (20.000 square feet) and no hardship ic necessary. !~, Jacobson stated that that Ordinance was not i~ effect at the time the application for the Variance was acted upon, He may cO!:1e back in the future to apply for a Variance under Ordinance no, 40 which doesn't require a hardshin, but !rir,ht now he doesn't qualify for a variance, ¡1()TI()~¡ by Lachidsld, Seconded by ncClure, to table the item until the next regularly sc1öeduled meetini\. Discussion: Councilperson VanderLaan explaL~ed this was dealt with under Ordinance 110, and we Must deal with the rules as they are in existence. Council- persons JfcClure ,and Lachinski vithdrew the second and the motion. I 1!()Trrm by Vande~Laan, Seconded by l'cClure, that the City Council, City of Andover, deny the Variance r1uest of ¡¡orr:1an Shequen for a lot split for the following reasons: 1) The lot split i. not reouested on the basis of Ordinance 10, Section 14,02, and 2) The Variance RequeSJ does not cOMply with the requirements of Ordinance 10. Section 17.01. n0tion carried nanir::ously. ¡¡ayor ~indschit~ sU[,;i\ested that the Lot Split Ordinance be placed on the agenda for the next Council lre~ting and have it researched and amended out of it any references to limited busines1, neig~borhood business, cOr:1mercial, etc, Under this Ordinance, a comr:1ercial lot can split a d put a business on a smaller lot than is required for a residential lot, Discussion was ln the problem of the com~ercial lot size, the question of providing an adequate se~a~e system. Ordinances Band 10 are presently being revised, possibly it would be easier to revise theM rather than a~end tho Lot Split Ordinance. Councilperson VanderIøan re~uleGted it be placed On the S9pte~ber 6 aGenda as che felt sane citizens had not fully understood the intent of the Ordinance, !~, Dosell stated that in the ;Toighborhood Ju~ines3 area, they are reco~~ending a lot area of 1 acre under the new zoninr;. ~;o d9C~Gion !lD.S been r.l::ldo on tho General Business area to date; they ar-e not creatinr; a COI:1:",'!srcial district. !-L3. BOSGll affir;:¡ed the intent of the Lot Snlit Ordina~ce was to include dll nortions of t~e City a~d all tynes of lot8. - I . . COHncilperson V4ndeT~lan nadc ~ ~oint of order as to ~hat ite~ ~a8 beinG discussed; and if the f1rdinance id to be discussed, it should be done in the proper ardor, 1.i8. Dosell ctatod the rrdinan~e ,'.ran studied very, very carefully and felt it should be left as is. c.:onncll"1erson TJachin3~,:i noted th:'3.t at the last meetinG :n:r. Bruns who ch'afted the f"1~dinan:::e, indicated it should 11crtD.in to residential lots only. f'e~ular City Council !Teeting A1.1~11_St lG, 1077 - ~.rinutes T'é\t;P. 0 ~·~:1r:'In"'.r ny VlchinBk.i, !JGco!lded by !:fcClure, to refer the question of other than re3idential lots in the Lot 3plit Ordinance to the PlanninG and ZoninG Co~nission for their next ar;-enda, A1H\,HSt 23. Di8cussion: Cou!lcilperBon VanderLaan questioned the fact t~H).t the Ordi~ance has been raGsed, which d:Lrects the staff to :proceed with itD enacttlent, to ~'\~lish it. ;~yar ~indschitl inte~~erted the motion as requestinG additional study on a ("ucstion '.'li t1-ri!l the Ordi!lance that h<15 been enacted. Attorney Hm'¡l:ins stated the Clerk r~HGt nuòlifìt, it ::'n the !1ext issue of the lef,.::>.l newspaper. Discussion uas that Ordinance 10 ni~~t also be revieITed and dealt ITith concernin~ the proble~. Council!Jcrson Lachins~;:i AnT)~D r:;o ~T8 r:GTI()IJ: and to consider Section 9.06, Lots, Ite::! A, Sub 2, areas lackinG TIatcr and sanitary sewer, in Ordinance 10. 0econd still Dt~nds. VOTE O~T ~:OTIOn: Yr:s-L3.chi~Dl,:i, :-;cClu~e, Orttel, '.7inds c hi t 1 ; ?'O-VanderLo.an !fo tion carrj.ed. !;s. Bosell !'cquected ftDsiotance froM the Clerl;: .!1nd Attorney to deal with thiG more Sl1ecifically. n()TIn~T ~y VanderLaan, Seconded by !-:cClure, to tal:e up Iter! lOa and Iteô 12. Hotion carried unaninously. DiseaGp.d Tree Pro~~a~ - Add~tional ~unds/Staff , of July 5 and The Council referred to the t~o rle~os fro~ David ClouCh, Tree Inspector, AUg'llst 2, rec.uestin,n;' additional full-ti.t:1c he I? to pursue the pro¡:!'ar.t" C:ouncilperson VanderLaan ðueGtioned if 80~eonc could be contracted TIith a ~axi~uM amount of dollars to 11e snent \'lith ~es':Ject to the bud~et and tte r.!<1tchinr, funds available" Discussion was that 1;y ~oin~ th~our,hlthe nrocedure of advertising, intervieTIing, etc., it vould be the t:1iddle of Se~teMbe~ bef9re anyo~e would beGin wor!:, and the help if> needed i~ncdiately. Discussion was also on i·I. 9lour,h f s intent -- dOCG hc ,'¡ant SOr:1eone now or next year, :part tit'le or full ti!:'!e? Council':JerGon VanderLaan intern13.:'ted the letter in thD.t he is asking for help In seein~ the trdes-are identified ~nd ~c~~ved in the title allowed as directed by our Ordinance. 118, Lindquist a130 stated our Ordinance requires that if the resident does not ret'love the Marl-::e4 trees, the City sh~ll, and assess the costo to the property; howeve~, we have no equipMent or t'lanpower to do GO, and no one is available to contract with. Discussion ~as on advertising for te::!porary e~plo~ent of a certified forester and the tit'l8 factor involved, 'sonsone being needed aG soon ns :possible. !:OTIO!T by Windsc1itl, Seconded by Lo.chins!d, that the City Clerl, be directed to place an advertiseMent in !le:xt r.reel:'s Shopper and Union advertisinG for a part-tir,1e registered Tree InsDector f~r the City of Andover, and that the rate of pay be 55 an hour and 15 centG a ~ile and the ~oriod of e~?loy~ent ~ould be detertlined on the basis of need. Discussion: \','hether or not a Idollar amount is needed at this ti~e, Hs. Lindquist sto.ted a flat aroounb. is better than a IdOllo.r arlOunt, l:ayor \'!indschitl aGreed to elinino.te fron the notion the ~eference to the ¡dollars and nileaGe, Second still stands, ¡·!otion carried unaninously, An1"JT'oval of Gla¿.;::s The Council qucst~oned the TKDA otatetwnt charr,e of Conversations ~ith City Res.idents. gs. Lindn'!.lÌst exnlained these ':te!'e r.iGcellancouG Questions on different thinG's and that the I " "Sn¡;ineer ~;:ee'9:J ;J. p.eta~lcd lo~ sheet of his activities. She W:J.S directed to send a letter "~Ii th this clai~ aÞl~i::1E:; to breaI;: t}1is dO'.'ffi so we c.:tn deter-nine r¡hat CD.n be billed; and in tèe future, C~.llS\ not !'elatinG to a nlo.t should be referred to the City Hall, ,- Tler:'Il~r City Councj.1 ~Tcet:!.n~ Al1~ust 1(" 1977 - Hinu tes ~0.!\e In (A~proval of Clai~s, Continund) HOIJ1I'ìTT by 0rttol, Seconded by LachinG]:i, to ~I1prove Claim Humbers 13.'31 throuGh 1406 in the aMount of 't7,192..98 G-Yld Checl;: TTuMbcr 134, Principle and Interest PaJ~cnt 75-2 Account in the aMount of ~6.037,50, notion carried unaniMously.. ì:nrrIO:'T by I,'tindschitl, Soconded by LachinGI:i, to adjourn.. !~otion carried unanimously. !'::eetin~ adjourned at 11:/1-5 p..m.. Pes~ectfu11y .subMitted, , ~~~~. ~~cnfdin~ Secretary Q / ¡ 1 rfiV )ç 11 Of' VI( I I.