Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC November 16, 1977 . . CITY of ANDOVER r:O'TTDTUBD CITY COU¡¡r:n IŒETI!TG - NOV~1BW 16, 1977 I1nrUTE8 rr'he r.ontinued Regul~r Bi-~~onthly Heetin~ of the Andover Ci +..y Council was called to order by '·Iayor ,Terry 1'Iindschitl on /1ovember 16, 1977, 7:33 p,m., at the Arldover City :{all, 1685 ~rossto"m Boulevard !n'l, Anoka, !·1innesota. Council"gersons þ:t'esent: Lachinski, McClure, Orttel, VanderLaan ~oltncil~ersons absent: "'Tone .l\.lso nresent: City Attorney, ryil1iam G. qawkins (arrived at 7:50 p,m,); City Engineer, TIex Stockwell; City Clerk, p. K. ~indquist; and interested residents. J\P:'end~ A"p11r0val l,mmT()~:r by VanderL'lan, Seconded by Orttel, that the Agenda for tonight be established to include the items left from the Yovember 15, 1977, City Council !!eeting Agenda, and to tnclude Item lOc, Bud~et Meeting Date and Item lOd, Speed Limit Resolution. !·!otion crt!'rted unanirnOl1!'31y. ~.ð.~ Boundaries ~ne Glerk reviewed the letter from Metropolitan Waste Control, October 17, 1977, in which they are not acknowledging Andover's Resolution R57-7 relating to the areas in which we would collect the SAC, Discussion ~as on the exact area for which the SAC charge is collected, the 11etropolitan ryaste Control's position, and on getting another legal opinion from the City Attorney on the ler,ality of Andover's Resolution, ~'f(')"T'IOÌ'T by Vanderl.aan, Seconded by Orttel, that tbe City Council request the City Attorney to est~blish the legal validity of the Resolution R57-7 having been passed by the City Council on the 3rd of "fay, 1977, and if necessary, to contact the ¡·:etropoli tan Council to discuss the matter with thetn, Hotion carried unanimously, ~i~earms nrdin~nce vayor Windschitl explained this Ordinance deals with outlawing any type of rifies within the r:ity, It YlOllld allow rifles to be dtscharged; however, a permit must be obtained, tt must be on 10 acres of land, Rn~ the rine would in no way danger the public health and s"-fety, Hayorl'Yindschitl stated apparently there is Sotne problem vlith the definition of firearms in t11.eway the Ordinance ts written. I ~rank Schoonover, 14320 Butternut Street - noted the permit for discharge doesn't state the ttme litnitj exþi.ration date, or anything of that nature, Hayor Windschitl agreed this is somethtnr, the Crime Prevention Committee will have to look at, Dosella Sonste y, 4100 Seventh Avenue IT - was opposed to limiting anyone from discharging a firearm on their own pro~erty and questioned who has to pay the permit fee. Mayor Windschitl stated the intent of the permit wao to dea with rifles only and only to ~ndover residents, Again, he noted there is a problem with llie definition of firearms, 11r, SChoonover/felt that a landowner should be able to fire anything and anyplace within his own ~re~i$es. Discussion was on the difficulty of writing and enforcing the regulation of stayi~g within 500 feet of a dwelling other than the owner's, 1m, Sonsteby felt that even though n? one has ever been prosecuted in Anoka County for protecting his own hom~ tbere could always be a first time, , ' Pobert ~chowe. 20 Andover Boulevard ~~ - noted that requirin~ no firearm be fired within 500 feet of a buildi~g means there is very little area where they can be discharged in the City, He also felt there should be no restrictions on discharging on your own r,ontimJed t;i ty Council Heeting 1'To~ember 16, lq77 - 1!inutes P~~e 2 (T<'tre1.T'rns n'!"din~nce, Continued) r:rronerty, only rel?tive to the property of others. !'e wo!lld have no objection to out- l~wing rifles c()M~letely within the City. ~hen the 10-acre limitation for dischargin~ ~ rtfle could (1180 be eltmin!'l.ted from the 0rdi!1..!lnce. niscu~8jon w~s on the raMifications of allowing target practice on an owner's property. 11r. Sc~oonover felt t~-~et nractice should be allowed as you are dischargin~ into a back- ston. Councilnerson Orttel-sug!;ested possibly some allowance for private shooting r<1n~e c0ulrl be e8t~blis'hec'! vIi. th SOr.1G ty~e of inspections. 1~. Schoonover was also of the ontnion th~t most hunters in the City are not aware of the Ordinance and that once they 1re tol~ they present no nrobleMs. The problem is rnakine, people awar9 of the Ordinance. "f1 nslnw ~Tr)l~Gek. Il!:jQ A.ndover TIrmlevArd 1T1.Y - concurred with the rifle restriction and felt so~e discretion should be used when ~eople corne in for a permit as to whether or not the In ~cres is surrou~ded by houses or out in ~ field. Re noted that even though Barnes Second Addition is ~ þlatted area where, according to current Ordinance, fire.'\rms cannot be d.i.sch::lr!';ect, there are Many hunters the~e and anyone doing this could be arrested. The r.lerk noted th~t before the Denuty Sheriff can arrest anyone, they have to actually see the TIerson shootinr,. !,'T. Holasek a.lso stated that hunters 0::1 county or City property or I1n ~url tn.r~ton Yorthern ri~ht of Vl:J.Y must also have VITi tten perMission to hunt these areas. ~e ~18o ts tn a~reeMe~t with fœ. Schoonover th~t the signs on the City entr~nces should be worded better or differently, nl~ced More frequently, possibly m~king them larger, or pl~ced Morc co~spicuously, as people co~in~ in are honestly unaware of the City's Firearm 0r-di.n..-tnc0. "elfelt t'lis would deter a lot of hunters. Tn disc~ssin~ the enforcement of a Firear~s 0rdin~nce, Attorney Hawkins explained the n~TIllty d0es nnt hqve le~~l aut~ority to arrest someone who discharges a firearm. The '!')rocer!u'r8 is fi.:rst the citizen must M::J.ke the arrest and turn him over to the deputy; or i~ they c2n;i.dentj.fy him, to t~ke a reþort, brinr the report to him, and he will issue ~ criM~~~l co~~laint in char~in~ t~e individual with violation of the Ordin~nce. Council- n~!"S()l1 T"qchi.ns;{i ,'3~ree8 with a chan{'::e allo\'rin~ no firinf! wi thin 500 feet of a residental structure, but lit should not ~l1"Oly to the owner's residence. Ee felt rifles should be ontl::n':ed entirely tn t'!1e City unless rifle ranges are allowed to be set up under Special , . Use Pemts nnder O~dina.nce.!3. He felt the recorn~endo:tlon of signs on City entré111ces would be a most effe~tive ~ay to deal with the rest of the firear~s. Consideration might also be ~tven to ch.,nr:,ing- the 500 feet to 1,000 feet. Councilpe:-son r~cC1ure questioned whether the si~ns are going to be a deterrent to the disch~rginG of firearms; he felt TIrosecution is 'a better deterrent. Councilperson Orttel felt there should be a way of Mqki.n~ the ()rdin~!1ce More enforce,';1.ble. Councilp~son Vanderlaan stated there is a probl~ in the City. ~~e noted this proposed Ordinance hQS some things in it that were present Ll1 a nrevious 0rdinnnce th~t was rene~led. She felt w~atever decision is finally made, the , - safety of the reside~ts w'!1o are livin~ in the urban area should be the first and foremost C~!'1.sideration. I If there is a :problem in definitio!1 of tlB platting areas, that should be løn1Œd .qt, ;:3.nd nerhélns to s1)ecifi.c,~lly tir!hten controls in the urban are;:].. I - > .. ~~ynr ~tndscnitl st~ted the Crime Prevention COMMittee will review the Ordin~nce ar,3in , ~ivin~ cQnsider~t~on to all the items discussed here. I - ÆccAler~tton n~di.n~nce , "'.~.y()!' "'i_nd.'1chi tl ~t~ted nnthtnr: n;:1S been chD.np,ed to the Ordinance since it was last ~resented tD th~ Cannetl. T~e law enforce~ent officials on the Crime Prevention Committee , t~in~ this 0,~dir-~nce wnuld be a hel~ to them in situations where they don't have another ()~d<"'nce to use. ~hÜ, ()rdin,once i8 m0deled after the City of St, PC\U!, r:r')ll'1~i_l"'1eT.'Gon 1~cr.111.re \'''1.8 oD-posed tn th.'1t section of the O~din,1.nce rI.llowing the <'1rrest ~'1d n~osecntion of an individual deemed accelerating a motor vehicle with an unnecessary ~onttn1Jed. ~:ity ~ouncil ~.feeting Fovember l~, lq7?-"-~inutes l">::¡F!'e ~ (~cceler~tion nrdtn~nce, Continued) Gxntbttion of sneed while on their own "DTOperty. ~ouncilperson Orttel also would not ch3n~e ~is ~mition unless the þrivate property was chan~ed and asked if it is possible to define;) TJteee of property A.S semi-public, th~t being ~ parking lot that is open to thp. public, A.S the rnt~_in concern with this is someone going into a church parking lot and sptnntn~ circles. Public can include schools, City Hall, churcì.es, business establishments, etc. "'r. 'tfawt.::ins felt it mJs;"t be difficult to approach it in t',at fashion, He has never seen t~e àtstinctton and would have to investigate the ramifications. The value of this nrdtnance for law enforcement is on þublic streets, the drag racin~ and accelerating fro~ stan si~ns. T)i.F;cl1~ston Vl3S on the ra~iftcations of eli..mi.nA.tin~ the words 'Private ;'!().y from the Ordinance. ~r. qAw~ins st~ted there has never been an interpretation of whether a m'lnicipal parking l"t i~ co.,~idered a public way, and every jud~e in ~noka County interprets that a little (H f'f'AJ"'ently. M'r. 'tTola6ek i.nternreted tt if Private way were deleted, th~t someone could do circles in .'3. TJ~r!';:i t'lE; It1t of an offtce bllildin~, drive out onto the street nice and slowly and nothing cf)111d he done about it. Councilperson Orttel agreed nothin~ could be done under thte 0rdtnflnce, but he felt there are laws that would apply to that, such as creating a public nuts,"3.nce, tresnni"l.8sinR;, eto. Mr, H~wkin~ stated he would determine SQ1e definition of n:r1.vnte W.'1y to l.ncll1de 6chools, chllI'chs, commercial parkin~ lots, etc. He stated the TI~"blem he "~s with the Ordinance is in enforcin~ it, By putting in restrictions, limita- t ion~ , atc., i. t 1!lakes it extremely burdensome and expensive to prosecute. He also noted that the State Statute "SM the \Vords Puhlic Pight of \"ay, not Public 1.'.'ay. In draft ing t'he 0rdin.'3_nce, <~ll "-re'S' should be covered and clarifie 1. Oak Hollow - nrelimin~ry Plat/Variance ffr. ~awkins com!!!ented there is no difference between "exceptions" and "variance" to the nrdin.'1nce. Tn 'the TIla ts, it becomes a question of how to process these. He stated that All excentions to the Ordinances should be noted, which are variances. With regard to additional fees, ~~r. Hawkins stated the only reason to collect fees is to cover administra- tive cnsts. mo, collect ~27 for every exception in a plat B~eneratinr, funds far in excess of what i~ needed. If it is ~oin~ to be handled in the context of the platting procedure, re didn't think[ there \Vas any basts for collectin~ any funds over and above what is needed to nrOCeSs it. Tn this particular case, the fee for the cuI de sac Variance in the Plat t~ extra money ~s it would have been determined during the normal platting procedure, and "e felt it should be returned. qe is assumin~ the fee that was paid with the initial plat is ~~e~uqte to 60ver ~ll these items. I '~r. q~w~tns qlsc stated that whenever an exception/variance from the Ordinance is allowed, , t"ey s"ould be noted and the re~sons "nd the findings should alw"-ys be stated in the motion. I ~here W88 then 1 very lengthy discussion on the interpretation of house frontage and lot front And in how a corner lot is defined by Ordinance. CouncilpeFson VanderLaan noted th~t t"e corner Ilots in the plat are substandard as to \Vidth according to the interpreta- tion of ®rdin"nce ~ -- the front of a corner lot is the shortest side, then the width is determined, and ~n this plat, some corner lots have le~s than 330 feet in width, which é'1.re substannarà.; I ( . ~ouncil~erson 0r1ttel sþeakin~ as a private citizen) noted the platting provision in Ordinance 10 reauires corner lots to be 15 feet wider than ~nterior lots; and between the two 0rdin~nces, there is no way all provisions can be met and the lot still be 2t acres unless it is a trian~ular lot or it i~ substantially larr,er than 2+ acres, Council- nerson 'tanderL3.an reQuested the Attorney investir,ate and j.ssue an opinion on the situatim. - " r.~nttnued r.ity ~ouncil ~eetin~ November 15, 1q77 - Yinutes Da.f;e 4 (n~~ Pnllow _ rre11Mtn~ry Plat/V~riance, Gontinued) T)t8~1]S8i.r:rl1 w~s on the intent for the additional 15 feet on corner lots and whether or not tòe intent need" to be quplicable in the rurnl areas of 2~ acres or more. Councilperaon V'tchtnsld'a ontni.on W"3S there is !'10 reqson for the addition.",l 15 feet on corner lots in tT:rurql a!"e~; the Ordin~nce should be chqn~ed. LArrv ~~rls()n - felt t~~t bastcally the nrdinance is wron~, as it is an impossible situation ~nñ is not intended for 2~-Acre sites. TIe, too, felt it should be changed. The purpose of the qàditionql IS feet w~s to Drotect the corner lot in very sm~ll in-town situations -where the foot~~e was necessary, ~ot on 2t acres -- that's what he w~s told by t~City ~~~tneer at the tiMe the 0rdinance was ~Titten. Attorney "fbwktns stated in cases of 8.mbiguity, he's always tried to loo~: through the fine definttions Rnd ~o to the þurþoses and intent of the Ordinance. If there are ambiguities ì.ere, loo~ throu~h them and try to see what it is trying to accomplish. If there's a conflict creatin~ a problem, he recommended chanp,inp, the Ordinance, !,~,qyor "!indschi tl su~~ested ~~r. ~etzlaff work with the Engineer and Attorney to ~esolve the si tuaUon, ~ommts8ioner Petzlaff noted that the Commission's request to chan~e the house frontage~ desi~n~tin~ where the house has to be shouldn't be a part of this process and in his o~inion would not be applicnble any longer. tIT. Stockwell w~s satisfied with all engineer- inp: and desiJ:,n standards of the Preliminary Dlat. Hr. Orttel noted the park property , is in a~reement with the Pn~k Board and the Plannin~ GommiAsion. I that the City Council, City of Andover, approve P'''VT1T(ì-r.T hV L-'1chinski, Seconded by ""''''cClure, the I'a~ "0110\'1 "relimin'lry Plat with the followinp: acknowledments: Variance regarding l"~t¡, Avenue - cul-de-sac len~tò - under ~ection 17,01 of Ordinance 10 allowing the v0ri~nce frOM Section q.n~ G. Reasons for the Variances are there was no pUblic opposition And t~e ton0~r~~hY of the land is such that it would create a hardship to the owne~ by not ~rqnt1,n~ itl, qn(l t'here wonld be no lo~ical extension of the street as it would p;o tnto A si.n,~le lot w!1ich }-¡.qs an existin~ priv<1te residence. The Variances be recognized for Lot 3 and Lot 4 of 310ck 2 and Lot 1 of 310ck 3, lot frontaf,e, in Ordinance 8, Section ~.02, and rnder Ordinance 8, Section 3.02, þ~r~graphs ~AA and ~7 because it would nose q hardshiDias defined in Section 17,01 of Ordinance 10. Further acknowledge the contin~encies on recom~end~tion made by the Planning and Zoning ~omrnission have been met. , . ~urther, the P~rk and Pecreation Commission has reviewed and approved the park dedication. Vurther, th~t t~e Prelimin~ry Plat meets the en~ineerin~ standards of the City of Andover ~s recommended ~y TKnA following the review of the fin~l Preli~inary Plat drawing of f'ctober 21" 1971, ':0 pUblic opposition vms received for this Preliminary Plat; and the Prelimin~ry Pl~ is compatible with the Gurroundin~ area. I . niSC1 8sion: I~. DetzlRff eXTIl~ined the reason the topo~raphy of the land would create , . ~ oardshjp is because of the òei~ht and rises of the land and the number of trees that would h~ve to be re~oved because of ro?dw~y constvuction. ~he Planning Commission did , . discuss tòe nossibility of deletin~ a lot to meet the corner lot requirements but felt , th~t to do 80 w9uld, under Section 17.01, be an undue hardship to the enjoyment of sub- st~ntt~l Droperty ri~hts of the owner. The ComMission also felt that because these corner lots nre :2,* acres and have one side on a nubIie street in excess of 330 feet, they , . w01tld be ?,ccent~ble for the l-tealtl:1, sélfety, and general welfare of the City. I . COHTIctli'erson L!1.chinski !~'!:m"ST) TO I~()TTO?J: Reason for the VariRnce on Lot 3 and Lot 4 of qlo~k ? gnd Lot i of qlock 3, Section 6,02, Grdinance a, that it would be a hardship l1n~þ.r qection 17.01 of nrdin~nce 10 for reasons of lay of land and remov~l of trees. Second qtill stands. (See t¡esolution '1131,-7) ~ontinued City ~ouncil ~eetin~ 1Tov~!'!ber 16, lq77 - )·:inutes T)ap:e I) (O~k qollow - Preltmin~ry Dlat/Variance, Continued) vorrr,; fìllT HOTI()lI'T: YR~-Lachinski, 1·!cClure, 1,'.1indschi tl; P?"SS"S\"T-VanderLaan; ABSTAnT-Orttel 1I·!oti.on c;'lrried, Council"gerson 1randerL~an - r.1aintains it is not lep;ally understood nor defined in a corner lot sit11atian, ~ouncilnerson Orttel's abstention reflects his direct interest in the tJronerty, Caunctll}erson Orttel (again speaki.np,' as a citizen) - we're involved in the middle of a lawslli.t durin,,: which tir.1e we've been talking aoout the 'Procedure be1.ng lax at that time, atc. , A"1d th"tt is wn:1t caused this to ~aþþen. The sequence of events in this particular DInt were: ~~e ~lat was filed ~u~ust 26 and first went to the Plannin~ Commission on Se11te!nber 27, At toat time a Public ~earing was held and closed, It was then put on rtnotner ?'l~enda wi. th no nub 1 i.c he,~,rin~ on Dc taber 11. At that time a recon~endation was rn.""Ide. ~~e Ordinance 1"en1111"e8 that nt the time the Public Hearing is closed ~t be on ihe next f':ity Council agendél. Another Ordinance says it should be on the second next agenda, "De!;~rr11ess , it was not on either a~enda. It finally got on the Council Agenda on ~ovember 1, which w~s 70 days after the filin~ -- the Ordinance requires it be on no later to an hO days after that time, H that point, it was a~ain referred back to the Planning ~o~miGsion for further cl~rificatiòn. It's back here now, which is close to 90 days after t t V!B.S filed. ~e wanted to point out that of all the time schedules, he didn't believe toere was one toot was followed by the ~ity in the nrocessing of the Plat, '.Ir. 'betzlaff asked what are ,·.re ~oing to do to prevent sirniliar circumstances from occurring, as toey seem to happen Quite frequently, Councilperson VanderLaan suggested it might be nlaced on the ~ity ~ouncil A~enda and simply be referred back to the Planning Commission, ~en-minut~ recess at 9:31 TI.m, r.urb f':ut Ordin~nce "OTTO'! by Hc~lure, geconded by Orttel, adopting standard, establishing policy, and setting nermit fee for curb cuts in the ~ity of Andover, (See Resolution R135-7) Hotion carried unaniMously. I ~~W~ Did~e ~tn~l Dl~t I ~he enp,ineer noted everythin~ has been corn~lied with, It has been cleared by the Attorney, L~rry r,arlson nresented the Clerk with a letter of credit for ~2,000 for the guarantee of , cf1m-nletion of ro~d construction in the develo"9r.'!ent known as Hawk Ridge. All fees have been n~i.d. I r·~0"'T()"~ by Ilrtte~, .C;econded by ~-~cGlure, that the ~ity ~ouncil ap!'rove the Final Plat of ll'1v:k Did~e "8states in8.sMuch !":.s the Plat conforms to the enp,ineerinr, design standards, , s~tisf~ctory title exaMin~tion has been obtained, all fees h~ve been paid and a Letter , - , of Credit in the ~Mount of ~2,000 has been received as one-year guarantee on construction improveMents in the subdivision, (.gee Pesolution R136-7) 'VOT'S 01'T !,IOTTO"T: Y~'j- Tr'1.chinski, rfcClure, Orttel, l','indschi tl; NO-VanderLaan (reference to be m~de to the September 6, 1977, '·~inutes) Votion carried. ~unnin~h~m ~ddilion 1 "OTTO'1 by 'randefLaan, Seconded by Orttel, that the Preliminary Plat of Cunningham ~ddition be referred back to the Planning and Zoning Gomrnission for further review, Motion carried unanimously. ~ontinllerl C'i ty C:ou!1cj.l ~'eetinlš "'rovember 1h, 1977 - \~inl1 tea T'.q!še h Lot ~nlt t _ r,t nski !1~. Petzlaff renorted the PI~nnin~ Commtssion recommends a~~roval of the G.~ Lipski L0t<;nli.t '1S it c0mnltes with the provisions 0f I')rdnance 40 and 40.\, 11'1!'V T~i Mki _ fe It i. t vms More difficult to split" lot th:m was originally told to the n91')nle becAuse of t'he costs involved. The Clerk stated the attorney advised that the CiW CRn renltire ß 60-foot easement on ~ lot split, in this case alon~ 157th for future roadway const!"uctton. ~he also informed Mr. Lipski th~t on a metes and bounds conveyance, the e~Rements are included ~s part of the acreaße. Also, ~100 for each lot is to be levied for nark dedication. 1I0'!'TO'1 by Orttel, <;econded by 1!cClure, approvino: the Lot Split request on Plat 65913, P"rcel 6300 (of l1ary Lipski), (See Resolution p137-7) V0T" 0'1 ~~OTIO'T: Y~~-L~chinski, McClure, Orttel, ':findschitl; 'm-VanderLaan Motton carried. ~ouncil"Oerson V!lnderL-'lan - Ny no vote reflects my feeling tbat the requirements of 0rdin0nce l~nA b~ve not been met as one of the resultant lots is a cor~er lot by dGfinition in Ordinance 8, 3,02, definition !\.A.å and ;,r..7, and thereby does not comply with Ordin',1..!1ce ".ro. 40 1.n t'h,'1t t1.e renl1irernents of ,C)ection 1, Ite!!1 a, has not bee~ Met, that is one o~ tæ resnltqnt lots does not have ~t le~st the minimu~ width for a lot in ~n ~-l District. .C)o!l8teb:v I!ovinE1; 'Dp-rmi t }~. ~etzlaff stated tne Plannin~ and Zonin~ ~ornmission recommends approval of the house movin~ re~l\e8t and ~e~mit as they ~ave reviewed the pronerty on which it is to be moved p,nn 'f'tctl1!'es of t'1e house. They feel the reQuest cOMplies with the City Ordinances and r1.oes not de-nreciate sll!'roundin~ rro,,:,erty v.'3.lue. '·'s, Sonsteby presented photographs to the Cm,ncil of the site and of the house, l,f()!TIIfìH by fìrttel, Seconded by HcClure, that the City Council authorize the house Moving TIer~it for Þ08ell~ qonsteby for the purTIoGed location of the southeast quarter of the sf')uthenst nnA.rt:er of Section 30, Township 32, nan(;e 2l~ for the reason that it will not be detrimental Ito the surrou~din~ property ;l.nd the re~uester has met the requirements of Ordinance 8 nnd there is no nublic opposition to the permit. Discussion: tm. I 50nsteby noted. this will be the only house on that 35 acres, Inasmuch as the house will not be moved onl any City of Andover streets, it was then deterMined that a perMit would not be reqllired~ I Council~erson 0rttel chan~ed motion from. authorize the house moving ~ermit for, to: ~rant nermission to ~osella Sonsteby. Second still stands. Motion carried unanimously. I P1anntn~ and Zonin~ ~oMmtssion ne~ort 1 ~,fr. Detz1aff reþorted that the Plannin~ Commission has interviewed several planners to ltndate the Cityls Gompre~ensive Pl~n. The Co~mission t~ recommending entering into a contra.ct wit'!1 H dwest Pl('\nnin.~ for the þur!'ose of upd9.t:in~the ~omprehensive Plan. It is t~e nlannin~ Commission's intent to take a very active, very participative role in that u~1~te, which a~so reduces the City's cost substAntially. !1idwest Planning will uþdate t~9 Comnrehensive ~l~n, with the Commission's p~rticipation, and come up with a Compre- 'h9n~i. ve CO".l~'lnt ty Profile, which is a "fQrkin~ docur.1ent containin; social, physical, ~conoMicql and ~onsi.n~ profiles, nnd then a Comprehensive Policy Plan at a cost of ~5,550. ~he ~oMnrehen~i~e Policy Dlan will meet the requirements of the ?~etropo1itan Council. "r. netzl~ff will sub~it to the Council copies of the proposal, ~~. ~etzl~ff dlso renuested Council ~pproval for the Commission members to attend a conference held by the State Pl."\nninr; Ar,:ency on Bece:!1ber 15 and 16 in Hinneapolis. The cost ror the two-day seminar is ~30 per person. Continued City ~ouncil Meetin~ '}JoV!?1'1ber 16, lq77 - Hi!1utes Pa~e 7 (Planntn~ and Zonin~ Com~isßion ~eport, Continued) W)'1'T(1'T by C'rttel, ~econded by !~cr:lure, that the r:ity Council approve 5180 for the State Planning SeMinar ~nd also anprove Milea~e for two vehicles to go back and forth to the Se~in~r on December 15 and 16. ~1otion carried unani~ously. Vol'lnte~:!'!" 'r'ire Den:':1:rtment 1Tic ~v~n3, Interim ~ire ~hief, reviewed the prices for overhe~d projectors, opaque pro- jectOl"'R, and 16r'!~ nrojectors requested for the 1<'ire De~,'3.rtment. Di::;cussion was on the cost dj.fferences, where to nurch:1.se the equipment, warranties included, whether or not tf") bllY new or used enuin!'lent, and þurch~sin~ versus rentin~ a 16mm projector. !fr. Evans nntp.d durin~ t~e winter montñs he will be presentin~ the theory-type tr~ininß of fire- fi!!htin!"'. ~"'()"'T()"r by L.')chi.nski, Seconded by nrttel, to authorize the Fire Chief to spend ~l,134.45 on ~rojectors for the ~ire ner~rtment !1nd le~ve it to his discretion !1S to wh~t equipMent to buy, T)iscl1ssion: "r, "Svans noted he Is on the first month of hIs leave of alosence fY'om 1,.i8 work. V0TB on ~·~nrrTO~T: yr.:,S-Lé\chinski, ".6cGlure, Orttel, ','iindschi tl; "O-VanderLaan Votton crrrried. Hn'1'Tn'T by Orttel, .~econded by !!cGlure, to approve the expenditure of up to ~699 for miRcell!1neous tr~inin~ Gunplies for the ~ire nep~rtment. Discussion: Nr. "Svans noted the wind~hield stickers !1re for identification of the firefighters when cominß to the scene of a fire. ~!otion carried unanimously. Bécause there 1G no bud~et for t~e r.ire DepQrt~ent, discussion was on authorizing the r:lerk to expend un to ",500 for ~atters relatIng to the ~ire ~epart~ent, l.f()"'IO"lT 'by Orttel, ~econded by Lachinski, that the CIty CouncIl authorize the City Clerk to ex~end U~ to 1~nO for miscellaneous operatin~ expenses for the ~ire Department. T)tsclIssion: The Clerk noted this will be just through December 31, 1977, !-TotIon carried unA.ntmously. niBcllssi(' n w;"J~ on t~e need for workmen's camþensatian far the firefi~hters even thnugh they ~re not officially fIghtin~ fires at this tIme and on the need for lIabIlity insurance on the t\"0 fIre Ivehicles toe r:Ity owns plus the one expected fro~ the m'P, Hr, Evans felt the volunt~ers should be covered ùnder workmen's compensation during the training ne~io~. ~e felt tn~t durin~ the cold ~onths they would be doing some drIvers trainIng, , . ~e ;")180 noted he's ~skinß for dollars now, but at some noint in time there will be a re- tnrn 0n tns inv~stment.. "'ent!1.tive plans are to start pickin~ up some of the responsibility fo,,=," brnsh !1nd aqtO!!1obile fires in the sprin~. It "Till be that late because the vehicles ~re bå~~ stored [in Rn u~heQted buildin~ so we cannot fi~ht fires until the temperatures are ~bove freeztn~ so w~ter c~n be ~ut in the tanks. At this moment, none of the vehicles , have been delivered to the City of Andover. The r.oon Rapids' vehicle has not been delivered becalls'e of insurance, and the negotiations with Columbia Hei~hts ha.ve not yet been co~rleted'l HO~T{1'T by Orttel, Seconded by ~fcClure, to authorize the City Clerk to obtain workr.:en's comnensation insurance for the Volunteer Firefighters and also authorize the Clerk to obtQin liability' insur~nce on up to three fire department vehicles. V()'1'"S 0'1 '!OTIO:T: I Y":.~-L!1chinski, T'cClure, Orttel, ;7indsc hi tl; lYO-VanderLaan 'lotIon carrIed. r:ouncU-person VanderT,Qan - I feel the questIon of the ownershIp of theColu~bia Heights' veoIcle Is stIll considerably unsettled at thIs time. '~yor 1~indschItl - The oVffiershIp of the vehIcle has nothinr, to do with the motIon, Crmt::tnued City Council l!eetin~ '!IJovember 16, 1977 - !·Iinutes 'PaGe 8 (Volunteer Fire Dep~rtment, Continued) ?~1". FV.'1nG also ret?uested the H8..yor to si~n the document from the DepartMent of :-ratural FeR0urces to receive a firefi~htin~ vehicle. Hr, 'èvans estimated it would cost ~2,500 for refurbisnin~ the ve~icle for a tank, pump, and hoses, .,'rhi_ch will serve as both a t~nker and a brush vehicle. ~lch of the work will be done by the volunteers them3elves. This vehicle will be bqsically on loan; the D~m has the ri~ht to inspect it, It ßives the City the riGht to callan the n~~ for help at no charge; and the D}~ can also ask for he 1" from the Gi ty of Þ.ndover at the discretion of the Fire Chief, 'l'-V'!'rTon hy L-'lchinski, Seconded by r·rcClure, to direct the Hayor and Fire Chief to sign the dncl1ment indicatinIT accepté'l.nce of the excess property fro!'!1 the D'\TR. Discussion: COl1ncill1ersoTI Vr:l.nderLq;1n felt that instead of accepting, ::lnd in some C:1.ses purchasing, n~p-ri. eC"ui1Jme!lt to the dc{;ree that \'ie are now and taking the responsibility of upgrading l1!ld 1.nsuri.TI'; Plnd accomno.nyin¡;; eX1')enses, th~t the City should be giving serious considera- tln'1 tr) 1Jrovidin~ new o 11,'1. li ty e(1ui pment 80 that the fire rœotection to the Gi ty will not be compromised, V()'T1~ ()"'J V0TTrr".J: y:.;g-Lac'!'d.nski, ~·~cCl1Jre, Orttel, l.'tindschi tl; !'TO-VllnderT.ar3.n 'f·fotion c arri.ed. !'r1TTO'T by f\rttel, !õeconded by L~chinski. to extend the meetinf, time until completion of the ågend'J.. Vn~1<¡ ('J~'T J.fOTI0:T: y-r:S-L'J.chinski, Orttel, ',"indschi tl; HO-HcClure, VanderLaan as she felt it could be dealt with in another way, !'otion carried, ~o~mlnicRtions!GomMtttee 'T1he followinp, changes were ~ade on the Do~d IMprove~ent Co~mittee questionnaire: ~hgn~e - TrnTIrove s~ndy or draina~e spots, to - Improve troubled spots only, Add - ~emove dtseased trees. ~hAn~e - TTtg~e~t priority will be ~iven to the area with the ~reatest response, to - area with the ~reatest need. S~eci.al Yeetin~ Date 1 ~"fvrT('rf-,T by V,'lnderLf'1.~.n, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council Meet December 8, 7:30 p,m, , ~()r the DUrnQSO.'1 of Pl;;nninp,' and Zoning Interviews and ~·!inutes approval. ~·~otion c~rried l]n~nirn~usly. I Pr,~ "eettnP:' wi.th ~·~elrol1. Inc. 1 Tt w~s sl1~~ested th~t the ~~yor, the Clerk, the City ~nßineer, and ~ossibly the City , ~ttorney re"resent t"e r,ity of åndover to discuss t"e problems with the landfill, In response t() th~ questions posed by the City Clerk in a meMO to the Council d~ted ~'~QveMber 14, 1977, the Council acreed on the followin~ point~: 1) ~he City of Andover desires to nres'erve the wooded ~rea in the northwest corner of the landfill. City , Ordin~nce does reauire screeninG tbe l~ndfill, and this wooded area provides a natural 8creentn~. 2) (he City of tndover will ~~ree to the new contours if it can see the end- use pl~ns for the ,'1rea with the new contours vrithin a reason3.ble time, possibly within 60 , Ò~Y8, 3) ,~, p~th cannot excavate from the 'èveland pond without specific permission fro~ the ~elands. In order to exc~vate from City pro~erty, the City will grant limited excavation of tpe "ond of the existin~ parkland to be directed under the supervision of the ~n~ineer and that soil to be used for terminal cover on the landfill slopes, 4) The City of ~.ndove,. desires the landfill to be open ,,11 day Saturdays to allow residents to use the facility, Continued City Council Meetin~ vovember 1;;, 1977 - '!Inu tes Pqge q (pr,A ~·'eetin.q: wi. t'h "~elron, !nc., Continued) ~.A"()'T"Tn"r',r by 0rttel, ~ec(' nded by HcClure, th~t the City Council authorize the Mayor, City t;lerk, and City ~n~ineer to attend the meeting with M~, Ron~ld TIoth at the Minnesota P"ll'ltion Control A~ency office on ')ovember 17 at l() a.m, Motion carried unanimously. ~8se8Rnr'8 ~ChðOl Dtsc11sston W8.g on allowín~ !,T. Thurston's request for mileage to attend school at Arden '1ills, the rtr.1.ollnt of ti~e bein~ spent away from Andover, and the fact that the City has not ~donted n policy with re~ard to attending school and the number of days allowed by 011 of the Gt~ff, ~A"()rTITn""T by VanderLaan, ·c;econded by ~''''c~lure, that the Council authorize James Thurston to .qttend "'Tovember 17 and lR at Arden Hills to continue education for certified .qssessor. Potion carried unanj_Mously. 'P:urlr!et ~"eetinp' T)rtte tm"'rn"T by VanderI..13.an, Seconded by ....·'ct;'lure, that the City Council meet December 13 to c0ntinue discussion on the budget, 7:3() p,m,. Andover City Ball, Hation carried nn,"1.niMously. ~need Ltmit Pesolution ~11!!: by 1!ande"'Laan.~econded by "'indschitl, that the Resolution requesting the ~tate Hjnnesota ~i~hway Deþ~rtment to decrease State established speed limits on the following be adopted by the City Council , . , V('\I'TT~ 0....T J,·mTJO~~:, y~,C;-Lachj nski. 0rttel, ~.rindf;chi tl, VanderLa.an; lro-~·1cClure ":'l1t1.on cA.rrted. Discussion: J'sl Lindnuist noted that to date there is no support1n¡; data for this request, ~oun~tl~erson VanderL~an had RSS11med this information would be provided by ~r. Muscovitz ~nd the Pood ImÞrove~ent Co~mittee in that they ori~inally made this request: otherwise , the Cm.ncil should not have dealt with it, I l1'()'T'nv·.! by "rindsChitl, Seconded by VanderL!1an, that the prior motion be rescinded, J1otion . d . I 1 carTle UnanlT:'lOUS Y. I n0'1"T01<T by Vander:-Laan, Seconded by ì'findschitl, that Bob )·~uscovitz and the Poad Improvement ~ommittee provige the proper data to the City r,lerk dealing with the Pesolution requesting the state of "i~nesota for the purposes of reducinp; speeds on: 161st Avenue between CSA!! ')0, q and tulin I~treet; 'I'ulip ~treet between 157th Avenue and 16lst Avenue; 15'3th Avenue between 7th. Avenue and Ventre ~treet; 176th Avenue between Verdin ~treet and Arrowhead ~treet; l46th L;,,:ne between Prairie "oad and University 'èxt.; Pal~ Street between Andover Boulevard ""T ~nd l48th I,ane; 14'3th Lane between Prairie Poad and Sycamore Street; 146th , Lane between Prair;e "oad and Sycamore qtreet; and 147th Lane between 7th Avenue and ~lackfoot ~treetl. ~~tion carried tlnani~ously. I '·~IÎ""I0~,r by 'Ianr:ier~a,qn, qeconded by VcGlure, that t!1e City Gauneil would meet on Honday, 'f'Tove1"J.b~r ?A, to P.iSCU8S items havin~ previously been assigned to the meeting on Thursday, "ove"1b~r 17. niscussion: COl1ncilperson Lachinski felt it is goinr; to be diffic,llt with this short notice to re.Qc'ledl1le for members of the Personnel Committee who wanted to attend, Vn"T' n'T'T J,!f")TTo....r: Y~")_J.·~c~ln!'e, ':Nindsc11i tl, VanderLaan; 'TO-Lachinski, Orttel '?':"otton c~rried.. ~onttnued City Council !~eetin~ ?-Y0v!ë!mber lh, 1977 - '.finutes P,,,\~~ 10 Ant1rnv-"\l nf ~,'1.nute~ "',"'nrrTO"'T by VanderI.ro-"l.B,n, Seconded by ~·~cGlure, th"t the General Fund Claim", ':umbers 1523 t1ornu"h 1'542, totnl ,qrnollnt, ~20,039,13, and Improvement Fund ~laims 196 through 203, total ~1P,O,962,45, be approved, Hatton carried unanimously. "'....()I'T1Tn~T by Vé1nderLr.lan, Seconded by Windschitl, to adjourn. !·!otion carried unanimously. '~etin" adjourned at 11:56 p,m, Respectfully submitted, , .. ...~~ '~"'-~G:~~ !t~rcella A, Re~ch Decordtn~ Secretary / ,)1 í"' ,?¡? . , ! v/ + (;,' . .,)/ '( )/:¡\.1.' v - "