Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP November 6, 1978 (fry of ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 6, 1978 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Agenda Approval 3. Approve Final Plans and Specifications - Public Services Building 4. Planner -Conroy Rezoning Request 5. Approval of Claims 6. 7. 8. Adjournment ~ 01 ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - 6 November 1978 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl at 7:37 PM, November 6, 1978, at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW. Councilpersons present: Lachinski, Orttel, McClure, Vanderlaan Also present: City Clerk, Pat Lindquist; Dick Heer, Bloomberg, Inc.; Wes Hendrickson, TKDA; Bob Dillon, Steve Nook, Bob Rylander, Vie Evans, Bob Peach, Glen Rogers, Building Committee members Agenda Approval MOTION by McClure, seconded by Orttel, to adopt the agenda as printed. Motion carried unanimously. Approve Final Plans and Specifications - Public Services Building Mayor Windschitl turned the meeting over to Bob McClure, Councilperson and Chairperson of the Building Committee. Bloomberg has brought in updated drawings per the Building Committee's request. At that time TKDA was with us, we went through them, marked them up, gave the marked copy back to Bloomberg and they have made all of the changes with a few exceptions. There were some areas that were a bit redundant. Those areas have not been changed. Dick Heer, Bloomberg, Inc.: OSHA specs out a code for railings like at Southdale rather than a storage area. Rather than spend more money, you can spec it in on an addendum, but you are pressing your budget so figured that the changes that you had made, that it was better the leave the railing the way it was. Anybody that bids on the contract has to state how much more they are charging for any additional construction or any reduction in the amount of construction. OSHA will inspect it for a storage area as opposed to the shopping center. Additional stairways, etc. - those comments were put down but not considered in light of the budget unless you wanted to throwaway a thousand dollars. Mr. McClure: The Building Committee has not reviewed the drawings after the changes have been made. We do not have a marked copy and TKDA has not reviewed the plans and specifications and we are going to have to look at them quick or put the whole matter off. I don't know whether we can look through them and see if the changes have been made. Glen Rogers: Perhaps the Building Committee could look at the plans and specs and report back to the Council later in the evening. Wes Hendrickson apd the Building Committee will review the drawings and report back to the Council later in the evening. Planner-Conroy Rezoning Request Mayor Windschitl: Maybe I could take a few minutes and explain what took place. We had the item come before the council at our last regular meeting. The item requires a 4/5th vote. A question came up as to the road safety thing and we had some discussion here on it that took place. r had talked to Paul Rudd myself and r think Special City Council Meeting 6 November 1978 Minutes - Page Two there's a letter that you had received in your folder that I had gotten. The one objection or continuing problem I have with it is the west side of Crosstown. That item Mr. Conroy was going to take back to the County and get a statement from them because when I talked to Paul Rudd, I was not able to get a definitiva statement as to what they would do on the west side, and in what period of time. Conroy seems to feel the County would do that side of the road and get the question of the kids walking down there, the bicycles on the road and the Northwoods people from a safety standpoint. Then we got down to principally a discussion by Councilperson McClure and he has really two objections to it. Mr. McClure's objections: One of them is the question in the plan as to the within one mile two neighborhood business centers, and the other was was the traffic question. After a lot of discussion, it got down to two or three motions as to the hiring of a planner to look at it. First was a motion that the majority felt didn't include enough items and that motion was defeated. Ted Lachinski then reintroduced verbatim his previous motion from the previous council meeting. At that point in time, Pat was instructed to obtain what it would cost to do the type of study that was in the motion. She went to Midwest and she got the quote that is in your folder this evening and she also has a quote, and we can get Wes Hendrickson to clarify it. As you can see the $950.00 is considerably above what anyone thought would be the task cost that was at hand. City Clerk Lindquist: I believe the motion read to secure the services of a planner. Several had mentioned one or two hours with a $200.00 figure and when the quote came in at $950.00 I didn't reel that the bid was what the council had in mind. In the meantime, I talked to Wes Hendrickson and he said there were actually two ways they could go about it. One was a full in-depth study (3 days) at about $800.00. Other- wise, research it for one to two hours prior to a meeting and simply appear at the meeting, $2-300.00. It is up to the council whichever way they want to go. Since this time, both Pat and Mayor Windschitl have been contacted by Mr. Conroy. In neither discussion did he object to paying the $950.00 cost though he thinks it's high. The Clerk was directed to check with him further ahead of time to see if this is the sort of thing he would be willing the place funds in escrow for - not willing but to have to place funds in escrow. That being the information we have, the first question: If there is 2/5ths of the council opposed to the idea in total, then we shouldn't spend any money and simply put it on Thursday night's meeting. If the council feels that the planner would answer some of the questions and provide some additional information into it, then we should decide how we want to proceed and make it ready for the following two weeks' meeting. Council person Vanderlaan: Question, at the previous meeting directing the clerk to proceed with getting quotes from a planner, was that motion unanimous? The Mayor replied yes, he thought it was; the council agreed. That probably answers the question about whether or not anyone was prepared to reject the idea because obviously the reason for securing the services of a planner is to iron out the kinks or have that planner expose if there are any problems. The other aspect is whether or not we can proceed with a verbal quote of around $800.00, if our procedure would be to consider this and a verbal quote from him (Wes Hendrickson). Comparing those two aspects, those two different kinds of review and then dealing with his other kind Special City Coun~.l MeetL_6 6 November 1978 Minutes - Page Three of review, simply that participation at a meeting, I think those are the points the council has to consider at this time. Do we need a written quote from him? The Clerk thought not since we were spending no money, and the Mayor pointed out it is for professional services, which does not require a written quote. Councilperson Lachinski: In trying to recall the discussion, I am looking at the five tasks Midwest was setting out to achieve and I don't see there anything about the one which was giving Bob the most amount of problem, is it reasonable that you should only have a business every mile in any direction within the city? We know it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the question was is it a reason- able thing? And should we change the plan? Councilperson Vanderlaan: If the council is asking whether what the Comprehensive Plan says is allowed, this shouldn't be the developer's expense but the city's. To determine whether or not what this city has previously said in an adopted Comprehensive Plan and whether it be right or wrong or half-right or half-wrong is not to be Mr. Conroy's expense. If you are saying, is it reasonable that the city has adopted a policy that within one squsre mile only one area shall be zoned in this fashion and that a planner should answer that, that's not Mr. Conroy's expense. Then the city should be asking that. Councilperson Lachinski agreed, but that was what the issue was as I recall. I guess we all agree there is another area zoned for neighborhood business less than a mile away and that was what was giving some people some problem. How could we rezone some property to neighborhood business when there was some property less than a mile away when we know that was/in compliance with our ordinances and the comprehensive plan. not Councilperson McClure: I ask the question, as to whether the this being a hang up, ask the council if they would consider that portion of the comprehensive plan. Either we're following the comprehensive plan or not. The other problems I had are pretty much answered here under Item #4. Councilperson Lachinski: Was Item #3 part of the original motion? Pat, no it was not. These things would be done by the building official. These are requirements to meet in getting a building permit and are all defined by ordinance. This is part of the building fee income, this type of review. Councilperson Orttel: If we were all in agreement to eliminate that Item, we're down to $700.00 and apparently we may have another bid on that too, and I think we're getting down there to what the individual had anticipated and what. Mayor Windschitl: Item #1, Item #2 and Item #4 are clear. Item #3 I don't really think this is their job. That's set out by ordinance. Councilperson Lachinski: Was Wes read the motion or was he given these five things? Pat, he was given the motion and then he talked to John Davidson who had been sitting through all the meetings so he filled him in on the details and where the problems were. Do you feel that that other question is addressed? I recognize what Mary said, that we shouldn't be making Mr. Conroy pay for that sort of a question but how are we going to get that one resolved? Either the council agree to strike that portion of the comprehensive plan or never use it as a guideline, suggested Council- person McClure. The Mayor pointed out that to change the comprehensive plan would require a public hearing and also Metro-Council review. To change the plan is no small undertaking. Ik..-al'l!" looking at a commitment to that. ON.- w.v Special City Councd Meet1...g 6 November 1978 Minutes - Page Four When Wes addresses that question, he has one concept of a neighborhood business that may relieve some of the ideas that exist. Councilperson Orttel: I don't think we had figured to change the plan. We were asking about the reasonableness of that part of the plan. It is a guideline and is not cast in stone as we have been told in the past. If there is something that was considered by the Planning Commission to be unreasonable, I would hope it would be included in any future plan work that's done. Mayor Windschitl: I think what Midwest is trying to get at here is to review for consistency and the consistency would be addressing the issue you are trying to address. So the only question it seems to me that should be discussed here would be the issue if the council felt that Mr. Conroy shouldn't pay for this part of it. Councilperson VanderLaan: Mr. Conroy should pay for Item #1 because review proposal, his proposal, for consistency with our comprehensive plan and our zoning laws and ordinances is something that should be included. The other is something the council deals with at another time, another place. Mayor Windschitl pointed out that both he and Ted Lachinski had misunderstood something said before. I thought you were alluding that Mr. Conroy shouldn't pay for this. What I am saying (VanderLaan) is that the question Ted raised should not be paid for by Mr. Conroy. The question in itself, the value of the statement in the comprehensive plan as viewed from the standpoint of the city's involvement and future developments and any developments in the Conroy area should not be addressed by Mr. Conroy's monies. It should be addressed by city monies, but #1 should be included as stated. Once Wes finishes, we can get his statement. Approval of Claims MOTION: by VanderLaan, seconded by McClure, that the council approve checks 2097 through 2105, and 2107 through 2154 from the general fund for a total of $65,870.79, and also that the council approve check 235 from the 1978-1 Improvement Account in the amount of $125,480.94. Motion carried unanimously. Recess; meeting reconvened at 9:36 PM. Approve Final Plans. etcetra - continued. Councilperson McClure: The Building Committee has noted there are some required corrections on the plans as presented which, we understand, may be handled by way of an addendum. Running through those items: Sheet Al - there's a concrete apron missing at the south side of the building from the building to the road. Sheet PI - the note regarding the septic tank and drain field to be supplied by owner, there's a need to delete "by owner." Sheet PI - we need to move the clean-out on the sanitary line to the angle point. Sheet PI - we require the note "unrestricted flow on 3 inch water line or the 3 inch water line from the well through the building to be designed for minimum pressure drop. It is our understanding that these items can be handled by way of an addendum. Also, Wes Hendrickson from TKDA has some comments I think that should be addressed. Spacial City Counc1l Meet1ug 6 November 1978 Minutes - Page Five Wes Hendrickson: Looking at the drawings and specifications with the addendum that you have mentioned, it appears that it would be ready to go out for bidding. We can get back with any other changes or corrections as soon as possible. Any changes or corrections would be a second addendum. One of the things discussed with the Conunittae has to do with the "or equal" situation and how would that be handled if someone had a comparable roof system or wall system. There is the need for them to be handled in the respect that other systems can be considered, however, there is a need for the Building Committee and the City Council to respond to those "or equals" in writing to either accept or reject them so that the bidder can submit his bid on time. There is a deadline of seven days before the bid opening date. We have to respond to that or equal and I would suggest a 2l-day period for your bidding period and we would immediately begin reviewing the drawings and specifications and get back very quickly with another addendum if needed. Mayor Windschitl asked: for the sake of time, couldn't we authorize you to approve or disapprove the or equal thing because none of us are professional at it anyway. Wes - I would prefer that we do not, to have the city maintain a judgment On that. I think we can tell you what the proposed system will do. Someone could come in with a different roof system and it may in effect do all the same things but may look different. You have to accept that or reject that but performance-wise it may be equal. We could tell you if it is structurally sound, has the same comparable insulation values, the longevity as far as the roofing is comparable. If there is a major system change, you may have some of that. If you get any other bidders at all, that is where they may have to come from, different systems. There are other people that can bid this particular roof system. Dick Heer: We do not have an exclusive on this system, but have used it in Fairmont. Mayor Windschitl: Since the Building Committee hasn't passed a formal motion, are you all in a position of being willing to recommend this? If there is an objection, I would like to have it noted now. Councilperson McClure pointed out that the collective notes that I read into this and what Wes pointed out were essentially discussed with the Committee as a whole and that's where they came from. MOTION by Lachinski, seconded by Orttel, to introduce a resolution accepting final plans and specifications for a public service building (see Resolution ) Motion carried unanimously. Glen Rogers: I ask that the council pass a resolution and authorize Wes and the Building Committee to authorize and approve "or equal" and addendums to facilitate and keep the thing moving so that the council doesn't have to call special meetings. Mayor Windschitl: I gathered that Wes wanted the council to do that. Councilperson McClure: There are going to be some things that the council may want to look at as far as changes. From a functional standpoint something may be an equal but from an asthetic standpoint it may not be equal. Councilperson Orttel suggested a joint meeting. MOTION by McClure, without a second, to propose the following addendum for the previous Resolution concerning the fire barn. On Sheet Al - the addition in drawing and plans and specifications of a 40' x 40' by 6" thick concrete apron on the south side of the building. On Sheet PI - in the note regarding the septic tank and drain field to be supplied by owner, delete reference "by owner" Special City Counc1.1 Meet1...¡; 6 November 1978 Minutes - Page Six The maker of the motion withdraws his motion. MOTION by McClure, Seconded by Lachinski, that TKDA be directed to draft properly an addendum covering the following items: Sheet Al - addition of a 40' x 44' x 6" concrete apron on the south side of the building Sheet PI - the note regarding the septic tank and drain field to be supplied by owner, delete the reference "by owner" Sheet PI - moving the clean-out on sanitary line to the angle point Sheet PI - the requirement to add the note "unrestricted flow on the 3 inch water line or 3" water line from the well through building to be designed for minimum pressure drop." Motion carried unanimously. Wes Hendrickson: Responsibility for any redesign is the Bloomberg Company's. TKDA does not want to take any responsibility with the design. We can assist with the administrative things. We can point out the items that we think should be addressed in an addendum but it has to be issued by the firm responsible for the plans and specifications. Dick Heer: We would have no objection to that. Wes added further that TKDA would review the addendum before it goes out to the bidder and advise us as to its acceptability. MOTION by Orttel, seconded by McClure, in the matter of the motion on the addendum to the Resolution authorizing bids, that the name Bloomberg, Inc. be exchanged for the name TKDA, and that TKDA be directed to review the addendum as written by the Bloomberg company. Motion carried unanimously. Councilpcrson McClure: Bloomberg is going to write the addendum and TKDA is going to review it. In the meantime, TKDA is going to be reviewing the plans and specifications. Is there a need to include a mechanism for getting additional addendums written? Wes: We would put together the proposed changes if need be and give that information to Bloomberg and if there is a need to change it, they would have that, you would have that, and at that point that would simply take a motion. At that point basically it would be approved by us and hopefully it would be approved by them. Mayor Windschitl: Let's set the date or time period. Is everyone in agreement on 21 days? This is an acceptable period of time and the "or equal" is to be in within 14 days. They have up until the 7 days prior to the opening of the bids, and 21 days from the notice and publication. Bids will be opened on December 1, 1978 and possibly awarded on December 5th. MOTION by Lachinski, seconded by Orttel, that we set December 1, 1978, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon for the opening of the bids for the Public Service Building. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Windschitl: We thank the Building Committee for their time and effort you have put in here. Your efforts are very much appreciated. Planner-Conroy Rezoning Request - continued Wes, what we are really asking for is the following: (1) review the proposal and a report in writing; (2) prepare a traffic generation study to outline access problems in the area; (3) identify impact on adjacent properties, both as an NB and a SC land use; (4) proceed with a summary report and provide a public presentation. Tha t is what we would be looking for. Row much would you need to do that? Wes Hendrickson: With approximately one week's work, in the neighborhood of $1,000.00 for a summary report. A planning study can take a whole range of sublties and we don't need that full range here. We would make some assumptions: how much added traffic and some - , Special City Council MeeUug 6 November 1978 Minutes - Page Seven judgment as to what type of impact based on the neighborhood business, a 24 hour operation, size of the parking lot, etc. Then the impact versus the NB versus a SC and I believe those are the classifications that you are looking at. I would assume the impact has to do with the adjacent properties and the impact on the neighborhood and I would guess part of this might be property value. The impact would not change with that. If you were to build some very exclusive houses across the street versus commercial, then the values would go up. A shopping installation would not change the values. Traffic would be based on the size of the facility and the traffic it would generate. There are a great number of assumptions used. Mayor Windschitl: Is there anything else, otherwise Pat could contact Jim Conroy and tell him the price and if he wants to spend the $700.00, then he has to escrow the money. MOTION to adjourn made by McClure. seconded by Lachinski. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 10 PM. Re~tfullY submitted, dt' ç ~~J¿i¿ d I ArcY¡1 sel, Acting Council Recorder I ~0~tcf {i 1-' (,1:\'t.. ' i/ , ' V' .¡;v 11 C· ~ .d" if /,\F() ð(j , .- r