Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC July 20, 1978 ~ 01 ANDOVER CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL MEETING - ~O, 1978 AGENDA OJr l. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Agenda Approval 3. Valley View Estates Roads 4. Road Improvement Committee 5. City Attorney Selection 6. Animal Control Contract 7. Meeting Date/Ron Roth 8. Approval of Minutes 9. Approval of Claims Adjournment Item 3 - Valley View Estates Mr. Klenk has established additional information on items that were discus sed the meeting of July 18, i. e., 169th Avenue as proposed is of a higher elevation than the County Road, therefore, the additional filling would cause flooding on the County Road, and possibly also on the lots. His Engineer has requested a very short time On the Agenda to review this with you to establish whether the motion adopted on the 18th as it relates to filling would still be the Council's wish. " . ., . .... ... . City Council of the City of Andover also requests of the developer to have the street grade revised in order to eliminate flooding problem on 169th Lane with intentions to conform with the HUD 100_ Year Flood. . .. . . . .. ". Mr. Wetzler ha s been out of town , so a letter has not been received from him. You do have his earlier correspondence recommending approval. -.- -'-- , · , ~ 01 ANDOVER CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 20, 1978 MINUTES A Continued City Council Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on July 20, 1978, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilpersons present: Lachinski (arrived at 7:40), McClure, Orttel, VanderLaan Councilpersons absent: None Also present: City Clerk, p. K. Lindquist Agenda Approval MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by MpClure, that the Agenda be approved as written. Motion carried on .a 4-0 vote. Valley View Estates Roads Reference July 20, 1978, letter from CED regarding Valley View Estates Roads. Tim Gillette, CED Engineer representing Mr. Klenk for Valley View Estates road construction, stated you don't design for a lOa-year flood for road culverts unless it is for a freeway system used by a large number of people because of the economics of the situation. To put in a pipe for the design of a lOO-year storm would make the project uneconomical in any sense. The pipe will be equal to that which is crossing the highway presently upstream. If this road were to be brought up, even in a 10O-year storm the pipe would nt be able to handle it. Putting in a pipe to handle the lOa-year storm would be two to three times more money. This is designed to use the road for a weir. If the excess water did not travel through the pipe, it would travel over the roadway, which would eliminate the water faster than if you were to build the water up and have a running stream on the other side. Mr. Gillette said to raise the road 3t feet higher would make the slopes 10 to 15 feet out farther into the flood plane on both sides of the road, which is also an intrusion on the floodway and that much more area is taken out of the flood plane area upstream as well as downstream. He explained that in the event of a flood, most of the water will be directed down the roadway because of the way in which the road is construction with the birm to keep the water in the road. There are no side drainage ditches. Any other drainage that comes off the roadway would sheet overland as it would naturally. Once it is seeded and the seeding takes hold, there shouldn't be any erosion occurring because the only place there is a great volume of water is on the bottom of the culvert, and that is expected to be a pathway of bituminous material which would hold back the erosion. In looking at other areas of the project, they have rip rap around the outlets of all the storm sewer culverts to keep from causing any type of maintenance problems in the future. The interior systems are all designed for a 10-yearstorm, and he fslt the road will act as a aervicable way of getting rid of sxcess water in a practical manner without causing srosion. Thers was a lsngthy discussion a~á!n on the design feature of the roadway, of design practices in roadways, the economical question from Mr. Klenk's point of view, the concern of the Council to accept a road that could be a maintenance liability, and that the future property owners would be aware of the added cost of the lot if the road wsre raised now rather than facing possible assessment sometime in the future if the City needs to redesign the road. Mr. Gillette stated the materials used on the road, the way the road is to be constructed, - and the tubing will bring about the fastest drainage and there will be less damming. If it is forced to drain slower, it w1l1 put more pressurs on the road and probably would cauSe as much trouble. He felt the weir process is going to eaSe that pressure faster, --..~ .,..- Continued City Council Meeting July 20, 1978 - Minutes Page 2 (Valley View Estates Roads, Continued) more efficiently, with less erosion, and less pressure on the roadway. Also, there is the possibility that upstream areas would be affected by our restrictions. In his experience, they have to mix design with benefit cost; and in this case to raise the level of the road and give the two lots involved increased lot frontage, the property owners would not be getting the increased benefit for the increase in price. They design for what is best suited for that area. There is no standing water in the area now and he didn't know if there had been this year; but he could look at the high water marks to make that determination. Discussion was also on whether or not the remaining roads could be constructed eliminating 169th until an agreement with the Council could be reached on that road, and on whether or not this must be presented to the Council again if the decision is to eliminate 169th Lane from the plat completely. MOTION by Vanderlaan, Seconded by McClure, that the City Clerk communicate with TKDA Engineer Chuck Wetzler the events of the meeting of July 20 with regard to Valley View Estates and ask for fucther comments from him regarding the matter. Discussion: Councilpersons Lachinski and Orttel felt that Mr. Wetzler has already received the comments in the letter from CED, and we have received his recommendation. During the discussion it was also noted that the motion passed on July 18 stated the Mayor and Clerk can sign the Development Contract after conformance with the 100-year flood. Ir 169th were completely deleted, the Development Contract would have to be redrafted leaving that street out. The Attorney would need to give an opinion as to whether this could be done without further Council approval. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-McClure, Windschitl, VanderLaan; NO-Lachinski, Orttel Motion carried. Road Improvement Committee Reference Memo to Mayor and Council from the Road Committee dated July 14, 1978, regarding Agenda Item 8c and the six items recommended for Council discussion and approval. Item 1, Meadowcreek Estates Salvage Gravel Material: Councilperson Lachinski explained the alternatives to using the gravel from Meadowcreek Estates Project. TKDA has already put in an item for the contractor to bid on in the bid specs for Meadowcreek Estates. One would be to have the contractor pick up the gravel in one pass and stockpile it somewhere near the project on a lot, etc. The other option would be to have the contractor go through it normally making one pass through the road taking out about one foot of gravel and trucking it off the project to the nearest low spot. Since no costs are available until the bids come in when the Road Committee will have an opportunity to do a cost analysis and give a recommendation to the Council, no decision was made on this item. Item 2, 175th Avenue Repair Project: This would be done just as a road improvement to take care of the problem by funneling the water through a culvert and putting in some culvert spillways to catch the water. The other portion of the problem is just an open spot in the road that needs repair. The Clerk will coordinate this project with TKDA. Item 3, Blacktop Streets in New Developments: Council discuss~ was on the pros and cons of requiring blacktop streets in new developments noting that storm water problems are not as prevalent on blaCktop streets; the street standards don't require putting in a curb and without it the shoulders do wash away; supervision and/or maintenance of these shoulders must be done every· year; bituminous provides a better driving surface and does hold up better; bituminous roads doesn't allow the gravel to be washing into the ditches; it is going to be very expensive to have contractors come in to patch and repair blacktop .,..- Continued City Council Meeting July 20, 1978 - Minutes Page 3 (Road Improvement Committee, Continued) roads as at present there is no City Staff or equipment to do the maintenance; and blacktop streets last longer than Class 5 streets. Councilperson Vanderlaan noted if bituminous streets were required in new developments, residents would not be faced with future assessments for road improvement when they petition for blacktop streets; and bituminous streets are more asthetically pleasing. Councilperson Orttel also noted that in East Bethel the lot density is 16 lots per 40 acres with most homes on l-acre lots, which reduces the road frontage considerably. In Andover, each lot has an average of 495 feet of frontage minimum on a 2f-acre lot, which adds to the cost per lot. In Ham Lake, the frontage is 300 feet, which allows a developer to develop the streets in the quarter quarter sections leaving four lots and a 60-foot right of way. This cannot be done in Andover because of the 330-foot frontage requirements which leaves only three lots and messes up all the alignments throughout the City and also messes up future subdivision as well. With small concessions which will allow a more efficient use ot the land, it would be tine to require bituminous surfacing of roads as he felt developers themselves are close to putting blacktop in voluntarily. Councilperson Orttel also expressed concern about all the existing streets the City is attempting to make passable. Would a requirement of bituminous streets in all developments preclude any future maintenance on the dirt streets as we would have no standards to do it by? Councilperson Vanderlaan said you repair a gravel road, not upgrade it, to a level at which the street was originally accepted by the City. Anything further would be an assessment program. Councilpeoson Orttel then requested further cost analysis as to the cost of sealcoating program on bituminous streets and a study on trying to align quarter quarter sections in the City. Councilperson Vanderlaan felt that changing frontage requirements isn't a singular item to be looked at -- that it must be dealt with in conjunction with the new zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan because it is a planning question as to the outcome of how many lots and where they are to be placed in the City. The Clerk noted she can check as to the cost of sealcoating and also can divide maintenance costs per year by the number of miles in the City to get a cost per mile for maintenance. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Windschitl, directing the City Clerk to do a maintenance cost analysis of blacktop versus Class 5 roads within the City. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Urttel, referring the matter of density development to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Because of the high maintenance costs of roads and the difficulty in justifying blacktop in large lot development, the City Council wishes the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the idea of 16 lots per 40 acres versus 2~cre lots with the current dimension standards. Discussion: Councilperson Orttel requested investigating the 330-foot width requirement as it relates to the future alignment and geometric layout of the City even more than the density problem. Further discussion was on what is wanted of the P & Z at this time. Councilpersons Orttel and Lachinski withdrew the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to refer the matter of lot frontages of 2f- plus-acres to 300 versus 330 feet as it relates to future resubdivision, logical street extension, and overall development of the City be referred to the Planning Commission. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by VanderLaan, Seconded by McClure, that the City Council recognizes and advises that this be done in conjunctbn with the analysis of the Compehensive Plan for the City. Discussion: was on whether or not the recommendation would be delayed by involving the Comprehensive Plan. Councilpeson Orttel felt the decision needed to be made as soon as possible as it involves all plats coming in and affects the future resubdivision of the City. -.- ....- Continued City Council Meeting June 20, 1978 - Minutes Page 4 (Road Improvement Committee, Continued) VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-McClure, Windschitl, Vanderlaan; NO-Lachinski, Orttel Amendment carried. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, to request action on this matter by October 1. Discussion: The request to look at 300 foot versus 330 foot frontage is not increasing the number of lots in a development but is strictly a question if the p & Z feels the streets could be made better with the 300-foot frontage. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Lachinski, McClure, Orttel, Windschitl; NO-Vanderlaan Amendment carried. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, McClure, Orttel, Windschitl; NO-Vanderlaan Motion carried. Recess at 9:16; reconVene at 9:23 p.m. Item 4, Purchase of Truck: Councilperson Lachinski stated if the Council wants to purchase a truck, the Road Committee felt it might be worth looking at leasing a new truck if you are going to try to stay on a schedule for buying road improvement equipment. If a used truck were purchased now, a new one would probably be recommended several years from now to replace it. Council discussion was on exactly what the Road Committee is wanting to do as the recommendations have changed over the past several months, and that the Coundl is wanting to see the concrete figures of cost versus purchase versuS equipment bonds, etc. There was also a lengthy discussion on the cost justification for a truck and determining the need for one -- the inability of Mr. Kraabel to get all the wörk done; the speed of service would be increased; work that Mr. Kraabel doesn't do or can't get to right away, such as sanding shoulders, park maintenance, quick repair of maintenance problems, mowing ditches, could be done with a City truck; that there is no other contractural service available for this type of work in the area; since a new public works person is going to be interviewed, a truck is needed for him to do the work. MOTION by McClure, Seconded by Vanderlaan, recommending that the subject of purchasing a truck for public works group be referred to the Roads Department for obtaining costs justification for equipment and laying the whole thing out. Discussion ~s that some figure is wanted on what it is going to cost per hour to run this truck to be able to make a comparison to what is being done now. Motion carried unanimously. Item 5, Adopting a Resolution regarding speed limit signs: Reference Memo from Clerk dated July 18, 1978. Because speed limits are regulated by State Statute, which can be changed only by the Legislature, and on the advice of Paul Ruud, County Engineer, and on the re-evaluation by Attorney Babcock, no Council action was taken. Item 6, Resolution regarding speed limits: MOTION by McClure, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing the following Resolution: A Resolution requesting State of Minnesota study on specific City streets to determine if a decreased speed limit can be posted... (See Resolution R83-8) Motion carr.!. ed unanimously. There was a brief Council discussion on Prairie Road regarding complaints generated on the work done, the events leading to the contractor asking additional money for fill used in the project, the possible ~oney exþosures to the City, and the adequacy of work done by TKDA on this project. No ~ouncil action was taken at this time. Continued City Council Meeting June 20, 1978 _ Minutes Page 5 City Attorney Selection There was a very lengthy discussion regarding the disadvantagÅ“ and advantages of the lawfirms interviewed for City Attorney in May, 1978, relatiTe to the amount of money currently spent on lawyers fees, prosecuting experience, real estate experience, and the firm's familiarity with City of Andover business. Through the process of elimination, the choice was narrowed to two firms under consideration, Burke and Hawkins and the Babcock, Locher firm;.and after considerably more discussion, a MOTION was made by VanderLaan, Seconded by McClure, that the City Council, City of Andover, hire for the position of City Attorney, the firm of Burke and Hawkins effective August I, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Windschitl expressed concern about the lack of experience the Burke and Hawkins firm has in the field of real estate. It was suggested that inasmuch as this was his concern, that he contact the firm to discuss it with them to see if perhaps their experience did meet his criteria; and if not, that this be discussed more comprehensively at the August 1 Council meeting. Animal Control Contract MOTION by VanderLaan, Seconded by Orttel, that Blaine-Midway All Pets, Inc., be hired for animal control for the City of Andover for a period beginning July 20, 1978, until January I, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. Meetin~ Date - Ron Roth MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Council set a meeting date of August 10, 7:30 p.m., at the City Hall to meet with Ron Roth regarding the landfill. Motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes May 2, 1978: Page 1, third paragraph, third line: boardered Csp) May 4, May 8, May 9, May 11 Public Hearing, May 11 Special Meeting, May 15, May 16, May 18, May 24 Special Meeting, May 24 Stenquist Public Hearing, June I, June 5, June 6, June 14, and June 20, 1978: Correct as written. July 5, 1978: Page I, Vote on Motion by VanderLaan, Seconded by Orttel, introducing Resolution R73-8, change to: VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, McClure, Orttel, VanderLaan; NO-Windschitl Motion carried. July 6, 1978: Correct as written July 11, 1978: Page 3, last paragraph, interview of David Almgren, should read: ...unemployed from February until June, 1976. The job at Columbia Heights is under the CETA program, and he understands the CETA program is being eliminated... MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by McClure, that the following l1inutes be approved as corrected: Regular City Council Meeting, I~y 2; Special City Council Meeting, May 4; Special City Council Meeting, May 8; Special City Council Meeting, May 9; Public Hearing for Meadowcreek, May 11; Cedar Creek Estates/Cedar Hills Estates Public Hearing, May 15; Special City Council Meeting, May 11; Regular City Council Meeting, May 16; Board of Review, }~y 18; Special City Council Meeting, June 1; Regular City Council Meeting, July 5; Special City Council Meeting, July 6; and Special City Council Meeting, July 11. Motion carried unanimously. ... Continued City Council Meeting June 20, 1978 - Minutes Page 6 (Approval of Minutes, Continued) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by MCClure, to approve the ~linutes of June 20 as written. VOTE ON MOTION: YES~Lachinski, Orttel, McClure, Vanderlaan; ABSTAIN~Windschitl Motion carried. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by McClure, to approve the Minutes of May 24 Stenquist Addition Public Hearing, May 24 Special City Council Meeting, and the June 14 Continued City Council Meeting as written. VOTE ON MOTION: YES~Lachinski, McClure, Orttel, Windschitl; ABSTAIN~VanderLaan Motion carried. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Vanderlaan, that the June 5 Continued Public Hearing and June 6 Regular Council Meeting be approved as written. VOTE ON MOTION: YES~Lachinski, Orttel, Vanderlaan, Windschitl; AB5TAIN~McClure Motion carried. Approval of Claims MOTION by LachinSki, Seconded by Orttel, authorizing Claims 1904 through 1929 with the exception of 1928 be authorized from the General Fund in the amount of S37,152.21. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by McClure, Seconded by Orttel, to adjourn. All in favor said aye. Meeting adjourned at 11:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, \~~~'-~~ ~~ Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary . .