Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC August 7, 1979 CITY 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 7, 1979 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Public Hearings ~ Alladin Acres Street Improvement 5. Legal and Engineering a. Final Plans and Specifications -Section 17 & 18 Street Imp. b. CAB Interceptor. Response to Metro Council c. Award Contract - Prairie Road Bridge Alignment d. Preliminary Plat - LakeRidge Addition e. Rezoning _ Strawberry Commons f. Final Plat - Countryview Estates g. Extension/Filing Final Plat _ C::upningham Addition h. R. L. S. _ Ron Smith i. Final Plat - Pine Hills Mdition j. Final Acceptance - Bridges 6. Ordinances and Resolutions - a. Rum River Ordinance b. Zoning Map (Ordinance BE) c. Park Board Ordinance 7. Petitions, Re quests, Communications a. Junkyardl...ice'Lses B. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Boards a. Planning and Zoning Commis sion b. Park and Recreation Commission c. Volunteer Fire Department d. Road Committee / e. Personnel Committee 9. Old Business a. Crooked Lake Beach 10. New Business a. Probationar:ÞaIncrease - Vicki Volk b. Permanent It T¡m'~ Employment - Reitan, Starr 11. Approval of Minutes 12. Approval of Claims 13. ,Adjournment -- - -- ,~. . . CITY 01 ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN 0 U M TO: MA YOR AND COUNCIL COPIES TO: ATTORNEY. ENGINEER. STAFF FROM: CITY CLERK/A.ADM. DATEo: AUGUST 2. 1979 REFERENCE: AGENDA INFORMATION _ AUGUST 7, 1979 Item No.3 - Agenda Approval Please add Item No. 5-i (Final Acceptance _ Bridges). Correct Item No. 5g to read "Cunningham Addition"; it was printed as Countryview Estates in the paper. Add Item No. 5-j _ (Final Plat-Pine Hills Addition). Item No.4 - Public Hearing, Alladin Acres To-date, no additional petitions nave been received. A map will be presented - on Tuesday prior to the meeting indicating tne results of petitions and testimony received to-date. Item No. 5a _ Final Plans and Specifications _ Section 17 and Section IB The above area nas been included in tHe Final Plans and Specs. as an alternate. Snould the Council decide to abandon tee Alladin Acres area, the resolution will just include those streets previously ordered. Item No. 5b - CAB Interceptor Attached is a copy of a letter from Charles Weaver under the date of July 27, along with a draft copy of our response covering the proposed timing on Andover's need for the CAB Interceptor. Please review both and note . any changes you may have. Item No. 5c - Award Contract _ Prairie Road Bridge Alignment Bids will be opened on Monday, August 6. The Engineer will have a report ready for you. Bituminous surfacing ;ลก being bid as an alternate. A resolution will be prepared for your use. Item No. 5d - Preliminary Plat, LakeRidge Addition Enclosed is the P&Z recommendation, along with a copy of the Plat. The Plat Agenda Information August 7, 1979 Page 2 Item No. 5d _ Preliminary Plat, LakeRidge Addition (continued) has been reviewed by the Park Board (see recommendation atta,ched). A resolution is prepared granting approval and including the exceptions listed in the P&Z recommendation. The City Engineer will review and comment on those lots cited in the DNR Memo. Item No. 5e- Strawberry Commons Rezoning Attached is a memo covering septic system requirements for the uses and structures contained in the proposed NB rezoning. You will note the facilities proposed do not appear to comply with the intent of Ordinance No.8. I did speak to the developer about this today, however, I had not made the actual computations at that time. This has not been yet discussed with Mr. Hawkins. Item No. Sf _ Final Plat, Countryview Estates To_date, the Title Opini'">ll has not been received from the City AttorneYI the ·streets are constructed cl.nd have been inspected by the City Engineer for compliance with standards. A Maintenance Bond has been posted. A resolution is prepared for acceptance. Item No. 5g _ Extension/Filing Final Plat - Cunningham Addition The Developer, Jim Hane, was granted a six-month extension to file the final plat with the City; this time limit expired today. He was instructed to present the Abstract to the City Attorney for a Title Opinion and to work with the Attorney and Engineers in the preparation of a Development Contract to be furnished with the required security. To-date, no information has been received from Mr. Hane. A determination will have to be made on granting another extension or requiring the Developer to again present the Plat to P&Z for review again to insure compliance with existing ordinances. The Preliminary Plat was approved on March 21, 197B. Item No. 5h _ Registered Land Survey, Ron Smith Attached is Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for approval of the road location. I have checked the maps and cannot find any change in the road location from that already approved by the City Council on April 4, 197B. P&Z Acting Chairman, Retzlaff advises that the Commission was aware of the April 4, 1978 Council action, however, Mr. Smith requested a second approval and they reviewed it and approved it a second time. The Quit Claim Deed for the Cemetary was requested on April 4, 197B. Mr. Smith has constructed the road, however, I understand it has not been blacktopped (not required); the City Engineer has checked the roads to the extent of requirements and does approve them, but notes' that due to the mannei of'construction, 'they must be blacktopped. The City Attorney has prepared a Title Opinion on the roads Agenda Informd."~on August 7, 1979 Page 3 Item No. 5h _ Registerea: Land Survey _ Ron Smith (continued) the roads as requested by Mr. Smith, therefore, it might appear as though Mr. Smith wanted the roads accepted by the City-----however, this is done automatically at the time the Registered Land Survey is accepted by the Council; and for this to be accepted, the Council should have a P&Z recommendation. Mr. Smith has not returned my calls, therefore, I can only guess at his intentions at this time. Item No. 5i _ Final Plat _ Pine Hills Additions A favorable Title Opinion has been received as well as the maintenance bond posted on the roads. All parkland requirements have been met. To-date we have not received the hard shells on the plat. Item No. 5j - Final Acceptance _ Bridges You have received correspondence from the City Engineer on this item. A resolution will be prepared for Final Acceptance. Item No. 6a _ Rum River Ordinance This item is continued from previous meetings. No additional information is available. Item No. 6b _ Zoning Map (Ordinance BE) This item has been again discussed with the City Attorney and others. The ideal manner in which to write it would be as originally proposed using the 165' and 1 acre. This would eliminate property owners on lots of 299' - 3 acres from splitting it to smaller lots as would be possible in an R-3 or R-4 zoned area. To make the ordinance (map) consistent with Ordinance 10C, all areas except plats approved prior to October 17, 197B, should be zoned R-l; then Ordinance B, Section 4.04 (A) as it relates to the 600/0 requirement should be rescinded, thereby requiring anyone with a metes and bounds lot of less than 2.5 and 300 feet wanting to get a building permit would have to come before the Council for a variance with each case then being addressed individually with appropriate criteria. Item No. 6c _ Park Board Ordinance Attached is Park Board recommendation for changing the requirements from those shown in the copy presented at the previous meeting. Item No. 7a - Junkyard Licenses Attached is the up-dated information sheet on the existing junkyards in the City. A motion is required for approval of those meeting the provisions of Ordinance 44. Individual action should be taken on the others. Agenda Information August 7, 1979 Page 4 Item No. Ba - Planning & Zoning Commission Item No. 8b - Park and Recreation Commission Item No. Be - Volunteer Fire Department Attached is a copy of a resolution covering the policy for compensation for city employees belonging to AVFD. The purpose of this policy is to insure that City Employees will not be penalized in salary for serving on the Department and to insure that overtime wages will not be paid for fighting fires. After the discussion at the July 17 Meeting, this appeared to be the opinion of the Council Item No. Bd~ Road Committee The Road Committee has reported an approximate 9 month wait for the purchase of a dump truck, therefore, perhaps the Council could set a date for the opening of bids within the next six weeks to allow for delivery prior to next winter. Attached are copies of the proposed specs. The Committee will present additional information. Item No. Be - Personnel Committee Attached are notes and the recommended raises from the Personnel Committee. Chairman Orttel will present the information discussed to arrive at these figures. The Personnel Committee is also preparing a salary step schedule which may be ready for discussion. With the 19BO Budget being now prepared and salaries being a large individual item in this Budget, action by the Council at this time would aid in presenting more accurate figures. The Park and Recreation Commission is requesting additional personnel for 19BO which should also be discussed at this time. Item No. 9a - Crooked Lake Beach Several complaints had been received on the traffic situation near the beach area. No complaints have been received within the past 2 - 3 weeks, so perhaps the situation is being handled and a letter will not be necessary. Item No. 10 - Probationary Increase - V. Yolk This item is continued from the July 17 Meeting. Ms. Volk's probationary period was up on July 9. Agenda Inform".lOn August 7, 1979 Page 5 Item No. lOb - Permanent Park-time Employment (Reitan & Starr) CETA Funding will expire today for the Summer Youth Program. Both boys are very capable and have handled all assignments well. They are both able to operate motorized equipment, therefore, there is still considerable work that can and needs to be done; and with the additional skating and hockey rinks recommended to be maintained this year, it is the opinion of Mr. Sowada and myself that we should place them on City payroll at the starting rate of $3. 10 per hour On a permanent part-time basis. Tbe number of hours they would work will be very flexible based on the work schedule. Item No. 11 - Approval of Minutes May 15, 22, 30, June 5, 11, 19, July 9 Special, July 9 Regular, July 11, 17. Patricia K. Lindquist _ City Clerk · ~ o¡ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 7, 1979 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on August 7, 1979, 7:33 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, Mark Schumacher; Planning and Zoning Chairperson, d'Arcy Bosell; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and interested residents Resident Forum Dave Hahn, 174th and Blackfoot - originally bought his lot in 1967 when it was at the end of a cul de sac with no drainage problems. Then 174th was brought down to the cul de sac and the road became higher than his property, which created a lot of drainage problems with a pond and with sand washing down into his lot. Last June monies were authorized to be spent; in October the ditches were dug out; the road in front of his property was again raised; class 5 was brought in and the road banked to get water to the other.side to pipe it to the river. The water still drains to his property and he now has rocks and class 5 in his lawn. They have had four attempts at piping water from the ponding area; and each time dirt washes away. They have been working on it the last couple days, redigging and lowering the pipe, putting in 10 truckloads of fi 11. The drainage pipe just about hangs over the river now. They have put black dirt there and seeded it. He felt the basic problem still exists and felt the Council should make some decisions on trying to solve this. After discussion, the engineering firm was directed to investiage this to find a permanent solution to the problems, possibly installing a cement flume by the river or possibly lowering the pipe. This will be on the next regular Council Agenda. Agenda Approval MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, to approve the Agenda for August 7 with the addition of Si, Final Plat - Pine Hills Addition; Sj, Final Acceptance - Bridges; and the deletion of 9a, Crooked Lake Beach. Motion carried unanimously. Alladin Acres Street Improvement Public Hearing Mayor Windschitl called the Public Hearing for the Alladin Acres Street Improvement Project to order at 7:42 p.m. He also noted the Council received a petition at the last Council meeting indicating 12 out of 23 lots in Alladin Acres in favor of the project. The hearing was then opened to residents for testimony. Gerald McNeal, 16145 Valley Drive - with land on Genie Drive. Asked if the assessment policy wlll be changed or wlll it remain as it is. He doesn't know how to put his name on a petition until he knows how he will be assessed for sure. Mayor Windschitl explained the assessment policy was adopted by a prior council and used for almost four years with only one small change. It is available for anyone to review. There was some discussion at the last meeting for consideration of the large lots, but as of now the Council has taken no action on that. During further discussion, the question was raised as to whether or not the assessment policy has a minimum of 100 feet. Mr. McNeal's assessment would be either 84 feet, or 100 feet if that was the minimum. Gail Stutelberg, 16129 Genie Drive - has 264 feet of frontage and 29 feet in back. Asked how the assessable front footage would be determined. Would everyone be paying according to how many feet they have or would it be divided equally. It was determined that 168 feet would be assessable according to the formula in the assessment policy Regular City Courl.. il Meet ,..~ August 7, 1979 - Minutes Page 2 (Alladin Acres Street Improvement Public Hearing, Continued) which deals with the odd-shaped lots trying to equalize them to a rectangle. Everyone would be paying what their assessable front footage is. Charles Derim, 16109 Valley Drive - a new resident with two lots adjoining Genie Drive. How would these two lots be assessed? The Engineer went through the figures with Mr. Oerim. Ron Chamberlain, 4011 Genie Drive - asked what action the Council has taken so far and how many petitlons the Councll received. They have signed at least four petitions. Mayor Windschitl explained that at the first public hearing, Alladin Acres was removed from the project because there was no visible support for it. The rest of the project outside of Tulip was ordered with final plans to be presented this evening. It was thought the Council received two petitions but time was given for residents to express an opinion at the last public hearing. The Council is acting on the petition that indicated 12 out of 23 owners favoring the project. Helen Aanenson, 16293 Valley Drive - asked if they have the cost figured for everyone. Mayor Wlndschitl explalned the assessable front footage has been determined that can be applied to the Engineer's estimated cost of the project. Robert Taylor, 16271 Valley Drive - has 322 feet on Genie Drive but rarely uses that road. Votes no. Discusslon noted that the 322 feet is his side yard which would not be assessed in its entirety as it is a corner lot. Mr. Aanenson - was told by office staff he would be paying for 295 feet which is his side yard. Votes no. General discussion was on the question of the assessment policy as it pertains to a corner lot when the front is facing a county road. It was the Clerk's opinion that the assessable footage for these lots consisted of the short side, which is the front, plus anything over 200 feet on the side. The Engineer was directed to check the assessment policy for this situation. Dave Dutton, 4053 Genie Drive - presented the petition at the last meeting to re-enact the proJect. Felt most of the problems have been with the people who front on Valley Drive, as they don't know what they are going to be assessed for and have the longest footage. He owns two lots and is very much in favor of the streets. Mr. Derim - The second petition was not brought to him. Owns one lot that has access on Genie and one that runs along Genie Drive. Votes no on the project. Mr. Schumacher reviewed the assessment policy, which reads the assessment is for the short side plus anything 0~eí1200gfeet on the long side, which is how the assessable footage for those lots on/ a eyw FèV8etermined. Questions were raised by several Councilmen and Attorney as to the appropriateness or accuracy of this policy. The Attorney also questioned justifying the benefit of assessing that entire side of the lot which faces a county road. Mr. Hawkins was directed to review this section and make a recommendation to the Council. Pat Dutton, 4053 Genie Drive - presented a petition to the Council of those in favor of the lmprovement in Alladin Acres representing 11 out of 19 families in favor. Lois Olson, 16203 Genle Drive - has not been approached with any of the recent petitions; they are not in favor of paving. Mr. McNeal - until the question of the corner lot assessment is settled, he is opposed to the road improvement. Bonnie Roush, 4106 Genie Drive - is the decision based on lot vote or people vote? Mayor Wlndschitl explained the petition is by parcels; however, the Clerk has done all the percentages on assessable front footage. Mr. Aanenson - noted that all people in favor have short footages; those against thlS proJect have 300-400 feet. Don't they have a say on it? Regular City Cou,,~ ¡] Meet ..,8 August 7, 1979 - Minutes Page 3 (Alladin Acres Street Improvement Public Hearing, Continued) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, to close the public portion of the hearing on Alladin Acres. Motion carried unanimously. Council discussion indicated that the most recent vote shows 13 out of 23 parcels in favor of the project. The Clerk stated there is a total of 3521 assessable feet on the basis of the feasibility study; and based on petitions received, there is 1523 assessable footage in favor. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City Council, City of Andover, approve the Alladin Acres Blacktop and Storm Drainage Street Improvement Project. Discussion: was on the dilemma that basically four lots represent probably better than 1/3 of the property affected on Genie Drive. It means a large assessment for the sida:of those lots when the homes front on Valley Drive. But if the assessable footage is reduced on those four lots, the rest of the interior lots are going to pay more. Tabling the motion until a decision is made on the assessment policy would put the project into another construction season which adds a substantial cost to the residents. It was felt that the assessment policy needs to be reviewed and possibly revised for a more equitable assessment for those properties affected. Bill SchudderAttorne~, Babcock, Locher firm, 117 Northtown Drive, Blaine - retained by several resldents ln the speclal assessment dlstrlct. They filed a petition with the Council with one of the points being the inequality of using a frontage base assessment because of the corner lots and those being the same size but having different frontage. They proposed the assessment be made on a residential unit basis. Council- man Lachinski expressed a desire to review the larger lots in the entire project area and revise the assessment policy to relieve those affected from the burden of such high assessments. MOTION by Peach to table the motion. Motion dies for lack of a Second. Ulscussion continued on the difficulty of making a decision on this project without knowing exactly what the assessment policy will be, as all lots will be affected differently depending on the policy used (that being either the existing policy, some change made to the lots fronting a County road with sides along the proposed project, or equalizing all lots). Since several residents indicated they did not know the Engineer's estimate per front foot for the project, Mr. Schumacher reviewed that portion of the feasibility study presented at the July 9, 1979, Public Hearing, which also included Alladin Acres. Son~a Chamberlain, 4011 Genie Drive - felt that if the assessment was done on a unit basls so that those wlth large assessable footage were treated more fairly, that people would still be in favor of the project. Wondered if this decision could be made this evening. Mayor Windschitl noted that changing the assessment policy would take some work by the Attorney. We can try to do it as promptly as possible. If it is to be changed, it is hoped it could be done prior to awarding a bid on the project. John Peterson, 16120 Vinta~e - heard that the Stenquist Addition project came in less than $15.. (Stenquist Addltion was $14.91 per front foot.) So that would make these numbers favorable. It was noted that the Engineers try to estimate on the high side. Councilman Lachinski indicated he'd like to see the assessment policy changed that only everything beyond 200 feet on the long side would be assessed when there is a county road on the short side. In addressing the average lot depth in the overall project, he thought maybe that 200 feet mentioned in the present policy should be made variable to the average lot depth in the addition involved. VOTE ON MOTION to approve Alladin Acres Improvement Project: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we close the Public Meeting on Alladin Acres. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing closed at 8:35 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting August 7, 1979 - Minutes Page 4 Final Plans and Specifications - Section 17 and 18 Street Improvement Mr. Sthudderrepresented the 45 people in the proposed special assessment district who signed the petition filed with the City (received 8/7/79). He reported that those people are opposed basically because the assessed cost will not match the benefits to each individual property. The residents would request that the City consider a class 5 surface which would reduce the cost. If a hard-surface road is still desired by the Council, they requested consideration of those things listed in the petition to increase the assessment district and to lower the assessment to each lot. He summarized the petition filed with the City, particularly that the feeder streets of 161st Avenue and Xenia be partially paid for by the City out of ad valorem tax or'State Aid funds to bring the assessment more in line with benefit; the inclusion of Tulip Street to give a broader basis for assessment. Residents don't feel the problems and questions of ponding and drainage have been fully explored, and felt the frontage assessment method is inequitable and recommended a residential unit basis of assessment to be more equitable. Mayor Windschitl didn't know of anything that could make Tulip a State Aid road because of the problem with County Road 58; it would be excellent if we could do that. Mr. Schudde~ould check further to see what that recommendation was based on. Sandy Bower, 3720 161st Avenue - Office staff told her last year that Tulip was included as a State Aid Road but that the residents didn't want it. Also, 161st from Round Lake Boulevard to Tulip was State Aid but that there wasn't funds available at that time. Discussion was on the State Aid road system of the City; the map Councilman Orttel had indicated both Tulip and 161st were MSAH roads. The Engineer stated that State Aid possibilities have not been explored since the public hearing. Stanle Knoll, 15709 Round Lake Boulevard - owns the land between Tulip and Round Lake ou evar sout 0 6 st lne 1 s ltion). One and a half years ago, the Engineer told him he could not face lots and put driveways directly onto 161st Avenue because it was not a residential street. If he was denied access to 161st, how can the City justify an assessment? It seems that there is no way to show benefits. He was under the impression that 161st and Tulip were State Aid roads. He didn't have any real objections to blacktop but felt the Council should find some other way of getting this section paid for. He wouldn't stand for an assessment seeing that they were denied access. Discussion was on the requirement of building State Aid roads -- more ridged standards, higher costs, lSO-foot right of way with 55 mph speed limit. Mr. Knoll - felt that a certain assessment might be in line but certainly not the whole frontage. Dale Bower¡ 3720 161st - was part of hiring the lawyer to look into some of the considera- tions. He s malnly against the cost because an assessment of $10-12,000 is out of his reach. About 95 percent of the landowners on 161st were opposed to this project originally, and it seems like they were given no consideration when it came to taking a road out of the project. He felt that is the reason Tulip was taken out of the project. Elaine Greene, 16176 Vintage - lived in the community, moved out for two years, then moved back to a house dlrectly across the street. They are not thoroughly against a tarred road; however, they thought this was the wrong time. She did not believe that the Council could guarantee that sewers will not go through until the year 2050. There is no guarantee when this will come and they didn't want to pay for roads twice. Mayor Windschitl stated his reference to the year 2050 is to the Metropolitan Waste Water Commission's Master Plan that shows their extension. Since that meeting, they have talked to those from MWWC, who informed the City that the crossing of the Rum River in the vacinity of 159th has been completely eliminated from their plans. Mrs. Greene - at the night of the public hearing, there were very few in favor of the proJect north of 161st; it was debated whether it would be deleted but eventually was passed. (Mayor Windschitl noted there were 6 for and 6 against the project in that Regu 1 ar City Cound 1 Meet. "g August 7, 1979 - Minutes Page 5 (Final Plans and Specifications - Section 17 and 18 Street Improvement, Continued) area. ) She would like to have that checked. Felt many of the residents signed the original investigation petition at $9 a foot and questioned whether that signature was really in favor of the roads. They may not have been at that hearing. (Mayor Windschitl stated we have no way of knowing and can only take the information before them. It does get difficult. Andover's growth for the last four years has consistently been 100 to 150 houses a year, so there has been no large influx of development to date that would cause premature extension of sewer lines.) Mrs. Greene _ finds it hard to understand how l!¡¡ inches of blacktop is going to be sufflclent. Felt the edges of blacktop would wear by hard rains against the sand. Who maintains that? (The City with funds from taxes. In all the streets put in at l!¡¡ inches of blacktop, there has been very little difficulty with them.) Who is going to enforce the 7-ton road? How many tickets are given by the Anoka County Sheriff Department for over-weight trucks? It's her understanding that they do not have a scale. She's not willing to pay the prices they are facing for a tarred road. They moved there because they liked the country and would like to keep the country atmosphere and assumed that most of the people that moved there do to. Andy Lantos, 3616 161st Avenue - corner of Tulip and 161st. His driveways faces Tulip, WhlCh has been eliminated from the project. He would be paying for the assessment on 161st yet his primary access is to Tulip. Is against the project but felt if the project is going through, it should be done right, which means doing all the streets in the entire area. His driveway is lSO-feet with l!¡¡ inches of blacktop since '74/'75. It is cracked and deteriorating even with yearly maintenance. Personally didn't believe that that is a sufficient amount of covering for roads. If the people in the entire area had an opportunity to receive the actual cost and were repolled, he felt the majority of people would be against it. He requested the Council to do that after bids are in and analyzed, giving the people a final opportunity to have a vote. Is there is a way to reconsider adding Tulip to the project? Discussion noted if the project came in at or below the Engineer's estimate, there would be no need to do that again. Adding Tulip to the project would not decrease the overall project cost. Mr. Schumacher explained that the final plans and specs are for temporary urban design for the entire area because of the difficulties with construction over the gas mains and the underground utility lines. They are 32-foot paved streets with bituminous birm curbs, storm sewers with catch basins for drainage. Recess at 9:12 to allow residents an opportunity to review final plans and specs and to ask individual questions of the Engineer; reconvened at 9:27 p.m. Charles Greene, 3754 161st Avenue - originally was and still is against paving the road. If Councll feels this must go through, he wants more equitable consideration for assessing him. It has been established that this is a feeder road that benefits the whole area. He has 321 assessable feet. The lots are all different size and he felt if one street is going to be done, all streets should be considered. Several people who are on fixed incomes are concerned about how to pay for this project. He'd like some special consideration so if the project goes through they are not making undue hardships on people. Where is the street going as it is apparently off center? Mayor Windschitl noted the Council has the ability to defer assessments for senior citizens and has done so in the past. He was also told to leave his name and address with the Engineer, who should be able to tell exactly where the road will be located. R01er Sharon, 15931 Vintage - asked several questions about the ponding assessments -- Wl 1 they be purchased? What price? He has no standing water where a pond is being propsed on his property. Mr. Schumacher stated we will be asking for easements where we are putting storm sewer pipes. If it is permanent easements, it will be acquired. If there is some erosion, the City has an obligation to maintain it. Temporary easements for construction are normally negotiated between the affected Regular City Cou,,~ 11 Meet ..,g August 7, 1979 - Minutes Page 6 (Final Plans and Specifications - Section 17 and 18 Street Improvement, Continued) property owner and the City Attorney. This evening's action is only to authorize going out for bids. Mr. Schumacher also explained that for the most part, the grade of the road will remain essentially as it is now, as they generally do match the driveways. Mr. Sharon - asked if the road could be graded. The Clerk will see that this is done. Council discussion was on the problems of 161st Avenue between Tulip and Round Lake Boulevard in that very little of it is assessable because of the Green Acres property on the north and because the developer on the south was not allowed to face lots onto 161st and those lots would not be receiving alot of direct benefit from the improvement. Therefore, that nonassessable cost would be put into the rest of the project, increasing that cost. It was recommended that 161st east of Tulip be bid as an alternate on the project. Mr. Schumacher explained that from the field survey, 161st will not be any cheaper to construct than any of the other roads because the road is as far north on the existing right of way as possible. The other problem is the intersection of the existing 161st and CSAH #20 do not meet; in fact centering 161st on the right of way would create worse alignment with an offset of approximately 50 feet. They are not designing 161st as a MSAH road at this time. Mr. Schumacher also stated there will be more water after the street constructiongoin9 into the ponds, but not considerably more. He didn't feel there would be any drainage problems. He then showed where the proposed catch basins and drainage ponds in the project are to be located. Because of the sandy nature of the soils, some of the proposed ponds don't have water standing there now and probably won't have after the storm sewer system is installed. Mayor Windschitl stated the City has to be in a position of telling the property owner the effect of our prposal to run water into an area where no water is presently. He suggested TKDA have a hydrologist do a calculation of what can be expected and to report back to the Council (Mr. Sharon's property was the particular area of concern). Mr. Sharon - asked who owns the property of the proposed holding pond in Xenia. Was that deslgnated park eight years ago? He didn't think ponds should be put in a park. Wes Mand, Park Board Chairman, stated one of the proposed holding ponds south of Tulip and 161st is in the park now being developed in Pine Hills. Mr. Schumacher stated the proposed pond is only in a portion of the park. Discussion was also on the design of the storm sewer system with catch basins in the street, piping it to low areas with precautions taken to avoid erosion problems, and that the reason Tulip was removed from the project was because of the opposition of the majority of residents along that street. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, entering a Resolution accepting Final Plans and Specifications, directing Clerk to advertise for bids for Improvement of Bituminous Streets and Storm Water Drainage in Section 17, Township 32, Range 24 and the Alladin Acres area, Section 18, Township 32, Range 24, in the City of Andover ... (. .. Vi ntage Street in its entirety... ...with Genie Drive in Alladin Acres and 161st Avenue from Tulip Street to County State Aid Highway No.9 to be shown as add-on alternates with the bids...) (See Resolution R66-9) Motion carried unanimously. Bids to be opened Friday, August 24, 1979. It was recommended the Council act on the bids on August 28 at a Special Meeting (Motion made later in the meeting). Discussion was on explaining the purpose of the add-on alternates for 161st and Genie Drive, as some residents expressed concern of not having 161st done, which would create the traffic flow out through Xenia. The Council also needs to get accurate information}as to what can and cannot be assessed along 161st. Mr Schudder - asked about the possibility of considering the assessment policy regardlng uSlng ad valorem taxes for a portion of the project. Mayor Windschitl explained the Council needs to address the assessment policy; however, in the past there has never been any sentiment for using ad valorem for improvement projects because each of the areas have always paid for their own improvements. Regular City Cou. .1 Meet ~ August 7, 1979 - Minutes Page 7 Mr. Lantos - do the bids include es~alation clauses for parts of the project that will not be completed this construction season? How realistic is the completion date for this fall? It was explained that bids will show final price on the project and normally holds through the completion of a project. An exception might be where a contractor qualifies his bid. Completing the project this fall will depend on how soon a contractor can get started and weather conditions in the fall. Award Contract - Prairie Road Bridge Alignment Mr. Hawkins reported that he had not met with the four people involved in the acquisition of easement for the bridge alignment but was hoping to meet with them the beginning of next week to finalize it. He anticipated by the next Council meeting the easement would be either executed, or he would know whether or not we are going to have to condemn. Council expressed concern to TKDA that these easements were not acted upon earlier in the year and that legal descriptions were not written for the Attorney in the spring. Council agreed not to award contract until more definite information is known about the easement acquisition. The bids hold for 30 days. This will be on the August 21 Council Agenda. . Preliminary Plat - LakeRidge Addition Sylvia Britton represented the developer. P & Z Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval (See memo to Mayor and Council of July 18, 1979, referencing LakeRidge Preliminary Plat - Comm. #5-79-3). The three variances being recommended are: 1) Lot 6 of Block B for 250 feet of frontage as there was no way to increase that frontage size; 2) lS2nd Lane between Orchid and Tulip Streets as it exceeds the block length because of the lake; and 3) the cul de sac length on 153 Lane is in excess of 500 feet but it does provide a second access to the park, which is very desirable. Ms. Britton stated they will be blacktopping the streets. Mr. Schumacher reviewed the concerns raised by the DNR in a letter dated July 9, 1979. 1) There was no intent to put any residences in the low area and the notation for resident locations have since been moved. These will comply with the City ordinances. 2) As of now the plat does not propose any improvement within the beds of the public waters of Round Lake or the other public waters noted by the DNR on Block 7. The house would be located outside the water easement or high water mark. One of the revisions on Lot 6, Block 7, was to increase the size of the lot to have adequate room for septic systems. During further discussion, Ms. Britton indicated a surveyor has checked all lots for conformance to the 39,000 square feet needed for septic systems, and no lots need to be filled. None of this land borders the existing park on Round Lake and none of it is included in the historical areas around the area. Discussion was on TKDA's recommendation to provide additional area for ponding on Lot 1, Block 6 at lS3rd Lane and lS3rd Avenue, on Lot 3, Block 1 on lSSth, and on Orchid between lS2nd and lS3rd. The Council's concern was that water from the ponding area not abut the road. Mr. Schumacher stated the road is being filled through the particular low areas proposed at 880 feet, and the required ponding will be supplied in lots within that area. The edge of the ponding will come up to the edge of the road on one side. It would be a normal road section only at that point it would be the low point, and it would have the 2~ feet from the pond to the top of the road as a normal road ditch. It was also noted it will be sloped away from the road. There is no standing water there now. Mr. Schumacher d~dn't feel there would be any problem with the areas in question as they are designed. It was the Council's recommendation tht the proper excavation be made on these ponds so that there isn't water sitting against the road and to be sure it has a ditch section with water behind the backslope. There will be one field change on lS4th Lane; they will work out in the field and it will come in at minimum 200-foot radius. Other discussion was that the basement elevations shown on the preliminary plat do not match up with the elevation lines. Soil borings were taken. It appears as though the basement elevations are actually Regu 1 ar City Cou. .. 1 Mee', ~ August 7, 1979 - Minutes Page 8 (Preliminary Plat - LakeRidge Addition. Continued) the water elevations. It was suggested that TKDA, Ms. Britton, and Lot Surveys review those elevations prior to preliminary plat approval. MOTION by Jacobson that we move LakeRidge Preliminary Plat to TKDA for review and get it back to us by the next regular scheduled meeting. Motion dies for lack of a Second. Discussion: Ms. Britton requested approval this evening contingent on the Engineer's recommendation of the elevations. It was felt that these corrections can be made prior to the Special Council meeting to be held tomorrow. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we move LakeRidge Preliminary Plat to TKDA for review and get it back at our Special Meeting on the 8th of August. Motion carried unanimously. Rezoning - Strawberry Commons Attorney Hawkins reported he met with Mr. Skeim yesterday. The issue that has been raised is what area is required for this type of development for a sewer system. In reviewing the ordinances, there is nothing definitive that sets out any minimum square footage required for private on-site sewer systems. His feeling was there has to be some limit. He tried to determine when the ordinance was adopted what the intent was behind the 39,000 square feet. He agrees with the logic set out by the Clerk in her memo of August 2, 1979; that Ordinance 10 sets out need for footage requirements for on- site units. Ordinance 32 has a schedule assigning residential-equivalent units. He felt it was good logic if 39,000 square feet was needed for residential units, that commercial should have an equivalent amount. Whatever type of use would go in there, the City can assign residential-equivalent units set out in Ordinance 32 to that type of building. The total number of units times 39,000 square feet can be used to determine what type of unit could be put in that area if it was rezoned. Mr. Delano Skeim - stated that after the last discussion, he has agreed to delete the proposed restaurant to put the balance of the retail business in a better light as far as the on-site sewage disposal. He suggested along with the rezoning that they would submit on-site sewage system engineering details for consideration and review to be sure they comply with the ordinances. And in the development agreement they would stipulate they would not have a 24-hour sit-down type restaurant in the development. He is still asking for 10 acres, which is important as the square footage area is needed for sewage. Approximately 1.1 acres will be lost to drainage easement. Without the restaurant, the total square footage of the building coverage would be something less than 50,000 square feet. If a restaurant were not put in, there would probably be a continuation of that building assuming some type of service or professional building; however, a determination has not been made on that. Questions the Council faced were whether or not the neighborhood business should be located in that area at all and on the largeness of the proposed facility. And! Lantos, 3616 161st Avenue - asked under what basis the Council is deciding that par lcular area needs any type of neighborhood business. At the public hearing held by the Council, a majority of people present were opposed to the rezoning. He stated the residents to the west do have adequate neighborhood business to the west and south, especially with the one on County Road 9 to the south. Mayor Windschitl explained Mr. Skeim has made a request and applied for the rezoning. It has gone through the public hearing process. The City Council cannot use economic considerations in making their decision. The judgement has to be made on the ordinances on the health, safety, and welfare considerations, traffic considerations, deprec~atign or appreciation on surrounding properties, etc. Chairman Bosell noted there/ as ~w8 public hearings on this issue; the one held by the Planning Commission had only one resident in attendance who was not opposed. She also noted that development of the commercial areas of Round Lake and Bunker Lake Boulevards has been delayed for various reasons. Also, she is a resident of the northern portion of the City, and she does not have close shopping and would like to see some kind of neighborhood business in the area. Regular City Council Meeting August 7, 1979 - Minutes Page 9 (Rezoning - Strawberry Commons, Continued) Roger Sharon, Vintage Street - Ms. Bosell lives up north; we live right on 161st. At the flrst publlC hearlng, only one resident was notified of the meeting. He also felt, as some Councilmen suggested, this is supposed to be under five acres. He didn't think it would be fair to the residents in the area, and expressed concern for traffic safety and the condition of the roads. Bob Dero, 1602 Xenia Street - is opposed to the rezoning. He was not at previous public hearlngs because he did not realize the exact location involved. With the park across the street, he felt that would raise the question of safety in terms of the traffic. (The park is on the southeast corner of 161st and Tulip Street.) Sandy Bower, 3720 161st - why is that area chosen? Why not further north if that is where services are needed? Mr. Skeim stated the corner of 161st and County Road 9 is designated one of the major thoroughfare intersections in the Anoka County Roadway Plan. This the most logical place in the City of Andover to put a neighborhood business. It provides a buffer between residents and the commercial area across the way. It is in an area of development. He also has the option on the 40 north of this which will be residential at some point in time. Three people control the 1/2 mile road on 161st (Mr. Bennett, Mr. Knoll, and himself). Their suggestion is, assuming that can be designated as a State Aid road, they will donate the right of way on both sides so the City can do that road and it won't get assessed back to the individual lot owners. Mrs. perkl, 161st and Xenia - against Strawberry Commons. Questioned if it was loglcal to put it on the west side of Round Lake Boulevard whereas developer's normally try to put it on the going-home side of the road. Asked if this is approved, is there any possibility this developer could ask for rezoning the eight residential lots to multiple dwellings. (Not without City sewer available.) Mr. Sharon - reminded the Council that Bill Kemp from Anoka tried to put a store on this lntersection, and he was refused. (The reason he was refused is because the area was zoned limited industrial. It would have been a down-zoning, which is not allowed.) Mr. Dero - questioned the validity of the feasibility study, as the question was phrased to residents in such a way that it was assumed that the shopping center was approved and what types of services would they desire. Chairman Bosell noted that the PCA reviewed the City's Sanitary Sewer Ordinance and it meets or exceeds their standards with the exception of the setback from a shallow well and drop boxes. So using that criteria to determine land use is quite valid for our City. Councilman Peach objected to the rezoning as it would definitely encourage increased pressure for development in the rural area, which is opposed to what we have been trying to do for the last five or six years; it would definitely increase traffic; there has obviously been substantial objections by the residents -- all above and beyond the question of sewers. We just approved a shopping center two miles south. Do we expect to have shopping centers every two miles up that road? It's not a practical plan for the entire City. Councilman Jacobson objected to the rezoning because it would be spot zoning in an area that it should not occur. He felt the area requested is too big; as per the ordinance, a shopping center classification starts at approximately five areas. There has been public opposition. There are other areas rezoned where some of these services will be going in. Your own feas ibil ity study went out five mi 1 es and a NB calls for approximately a one-mile radius (p. 164 of the Development Plan). Based on the whole 10 acres, Mr. Skeim could put in about 33,000 square feet of building. Mr. Skeim argued he is meeting all the criteria noted in the City's Ordinances, and he did not find anything stated a NB cannot service more than a one-mile radius. Mayor Windschitl felt the biggest problem with the request is the size, as it is way beyond Regular City COUI"..ll Meet .~ August 7, 1979 - Minutes Page 10 (Rezoning - Strawberry Commons, Continued) what anyone envisioned a neighborhood business. The NB's that have been allowed have been the small ones for convenience purposes. Attorney Hawkins cuationed if the re- zoning is to be denied, the decision has to be based on the ordinances and where does it fit in the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Windschitl stated the intent of the section in the Comprehensive Plan was to provide for conveniences in the neighborhood, the small gas station, grocery-store type thing in the rural area, but never envisioned something of this scale. Councilman Orttel felt using a one-mile radius was justified in the urban area with small lot sizes; however, it could be argued that the rural area with the larger 2\-acre lots, the radius should be expanded proportionately. Mr. Skeim stated he is essentially representing five or six individuals -- a grocery store, a hardware store, professional building, retail mall, service building, and a business-type center. He felt just one of these would be approved, but because he is asking for all of them at once, he is getting opposition. In his proposal, the lots are all approximately two areas in size, so he is essentially asking for five or six two-acre NB lots. Mayor Windschitl stated on a 10-acre piece, the City looses control of what could be put in there. Mr. Skeim stated they woùld be willing to enter into a contract specifying those items they want in there, if they are agreeable to him. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the proposed rezoning of Strawberry Commons on the northwest corner of County Road 9 and 161st Avenue by Mr. Delano Skeim be re- jected for the following reasons: There have been substantial objections by the residents of the community; the rezoning would encourage increased pressure for development in our rural service area; it would increase traffic on County Road 9 which is already a dangerous road; and there is some reasonable question as to whether it is sewerable in the area provided. Discussion: Councilman Lachinski suggested if the proposal is to be rejected, the Metropolitan Council should be approached to ask for assistance. Discussion was on the validity of the reasons for rejecting the request that are noted in the motion and on the desire on the part of some Councilmen to have Metro Council support in the event of litigation. Councilmen Jacobson and Peach felt that a rejection can be defended by the City without consultation from Metro Council. Councilman Peach felt that the Comprehensive Plan specifically states we do not want large businesses in the rural service area, but to encourage them in the urban service area. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, Add: Under Andover Ordinance 32 and Ordlnance 8, the intent of the ordinance sets out an area requirement for commercial areas with private systems. That requirement is basically 39,000 square feet of land per strength unit. Based upon the applicant's testimony, he is proposing a 50,000- square-foot facility in an area that, per our ordinances, could only support a 33,000- square-foot facility. The rezoning to Neighborhood Business would result in spot zoning. And it should be noted that within two miles of the proposed rezoning there are other areas that have been rezoned for shopping center that can supply the services that are being requested. Discussion: Councilman Jacobson was not addressing the economics but the providing of the services by its duplication. Discussion was again on the validity of the reasons for denial and on suggestion of obtaining Metropolitan Council support and assistance, if necessary. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Windschitl, Seconded by Jacobson, that the size of the proposed rezonlng could jeopardize the health and welfare from a sewer standpoint because it would be creating an unnecessary usage in the area that could end up with the sanitary sewer having to be extended. Also, it is contrary to the development plan of the Metropolitan Council. VOTE ON AMENDMENT by Windschitl: YES-Jacobson, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Lachinski, Orttel Amendment carried. VOTE ON AMENDMENT by Jacobson: YES-Jacobson, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Lachinski, Orttel Amendment carried. Regu 1 ar City Coù..~ il Meet d August 7, 1979 - Minutes Page 11 (Rezoning - Strawberry Commons, Continued) MOTION by Windschitl to defer the motion and to refer the entire matter with comments tor or against to the Met Council Physical Development Staff for their review and comment. Motion dies for lack of a second. Discussion was on reasons for denial and what action Council should take; and that the Council needs to take action on the rezoning request because of the time require- ment, as the Ordinance requires Council action within 60 days following referral by the Planning Commission. MOTION by Lachinski to amend the motion to refer the proposed rezoning of Strawberry Commons to Metropolitan Council for review and comment and for financial support to reject the proposed rezoning. Motion dies for lack of a Second. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the entire matter of the Strawberry Commons rezoning as discussed this evening be referred to the Planning Commission and to direct the Planning Commission to seek comments from the Metropolitan Council and its Agencies regarding their comments and their position of the proposed rezoning; and that the motion on the table be deferred until the receipt of such comments. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; NO-Jacobson, Peach Motion carried. Councilman Jacobson stated he felt that they were here to make the decisions, not the Met Council. Final Plat - Countryview Estates MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, entering a Resolution approving the Final Plat of ëõuntryview Estates as presented by Perry Maddison... Discussion: The Attorney received a description of a cul de sac easement, which is not on the plat because it is a temporary cul de sac. Councilman Peach ADDED TO MOTION: Contingent to the execution recording of the permanent road easement for cul de sac over part of Lot 1, Block S. Second still stands. (See Resolution R67-9) Motion carried unanimously. Extension/Filing Final Plat - Cunningham Addition Mayor Windschitl read a letter from Jim Hane dated 8/7/79 stating he has purchased the property with Karian Parayil and there is a title objection covering the parcel. They are in the process of registering title by torrens title, which takes months to complete. He asked for a one-year extension for filing of the Plat. Mr. Hane explained how it was discovered there was a problem with the title and was not sure how long it would take. Attorney Hawkins estimated the torrens action could take three to four months to complete. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that an extension of six months in time be granted for the filing of the Final Plat on the plat known as Cunningham Addition because the property is going through a torrens action. (See Resolution R68-9) Motion carried unanimously. Registered Land Survey - Ron Smith Mr. Smith explained the road location has been approved, and the street is completed and blacktopped except down the middle. He is waiting for the gas company and wants to hold back on the seeding until the gas company puts in the gas lines. The Engineer recommended that since there is such a small amount of paving to be done that all the cleanup work be completed; otherwise, they are looking at a great deal of uncompleted work. The drainage problem on the corner of Mr. Smith's road and lS9th has been taken care of in the road improvement project of 159th and Stenquist Addition. Regular City Coun" ¡] Meetl,.~ August 7, 1979 - Minutes Page 12 (Registered Land Survey - Ron Smith, Continued) After discussion, it was determined that this is a Registered Land Survey that needs to be approved and signed by the City but no public hearing is needed because the lots are over five acres metes and bounds conveyance. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Council accept the road location and the Registered Land Survey, reference legal on document presented by Carlson and Carlson dated 8/7/79, contingent upon receiving a security deposit from the owner of the property for the uncompleted portions of the public improvements according to the Engineer's estimate and authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the Registered Land Survey. (See Resolution R69-9) Discussion: Mr. Hawkins explained after the RLS is recorded, they have created a separate tract for the cemetery, which they will be deeding to the City along with the easement to it. Motion carried unanimously. Final Plat - Pine Hills Addition MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, the City approve and authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the Final Plat of Pine Hills Addition. (See Resolution R70-9) Motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Report Because the Council had not received copies of the Comprehensive Development Plan until a day or so ago and did not have sufficient time to review it, it was decided to postpone the August 8 discussion with P & Z and Midwest Planning. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the Council set up a meeting date with Midwest Planning and the Planning Commission on 23rd of August to review the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we set 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 28, 1979, for a Special City Council Meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief Bob Palmer reviewed the problems they have been having with the contractor on the Public Services Building. Councilman Peach reported that the Chief and the Attorneys met with the contractor and looked over the building. The Building Committee went over the building again Monday and there are still about 80 items left for the contractor to complete. One substantial problem is that the floor in the public services portion is approximately 2~ inches high and must be lowered. To date we have not received written estimate from TKDA on the value of the items left to be done. Chief Palmer said the Committee was hoping that the Council could authorize Attorney Hawkins to write to their Attorney to see if we could get some commitment stating it is their intention to correct these items and also obtain a date when it is going to be done. Mr. Hawkins stated at that meeting it was his understanding that all except eight items were completed; and based on the list the architect told him that that was substantial completion of the building in his opinion. He suggested finding out dollar-wise how much work is left and hold that back plus the liquidated damages that have accrued. It was decided that prior to tomorrow's meeting, TKDA should be contacted to find out the dollar amount of the work left. And that at the beginning of the Special Meeting on August 8 the Council will inspect the Public Services Building. Junkyard Licenses Council reviewed the conditions of Galen Ferrian business as noted by the Building Inspector, who inspected the premises on 7/16/79. It was noted that according to the Special Use Permit for Mr. Ferrian, he has one more year in which to finish fencing the yard. When asked whether the fence is 40 feet from the road right of way, Regular City COUII~ il Meet ...~ August 7, 1979 - Minutes Page 13 (Junkyard Licenses, Continued) Mr. Ferrian stated when constructing the fence he measured 50 feet from the edge of the tar; that was prior to the turn lane being put in. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that a Junkyard License be issued to Galen L. Ferrian, 1832 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW, to run to July 1, 1980. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to take all the unfinished items on the August 7 Agenda at an Andover City Council Meeting, 7:30 p.m., on August 8, 1979, and also adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:49 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ~.,~~~ 0-~ Mar ella A. Peach Recording Secretary