Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC December 4, 1979 ~ o¡ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 4, 1979 AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Public Hearings a. Junkyard License Denials S. Legal and Engineering a. Variance - V. Buescher b. Variance - D. Fluth c. Street Acceptances 1) Johnson's Oakmount Terrace 2) Rum River Forest 3) Smith's Registered Land Survey d. Lot Split - Stenquist e. Energy Report f. Sewer Connection Policy g. Rum River Crossing h. Cab Interceptor 6. Ordinances and Resolutions a. Moratorium Ordinance 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications 8. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Boards 9. Unfinished Business a. Police Contract 10. New Business a. Shade Tree Agreement b. Animal Control Contract 11. Approval of Minutes 12. Approval of Claims 13. Adjournment ~ o¡ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COU!KIL I~EETING - DECH1BER 4, 1979 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Acting Mayor Kenneth Orttel on December 4, 1979, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach Councilman absent: Mayor Windschitl Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, John Davidson; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others Resident Forum Harvey Kadelac, 16970 Crocus Street NW - had a complaint on the road maintenance and care of the Clty streets. He realized it is too late to grade the frozen streets, but he had called the City office this summer and fall and was told of the problems with the contractor and about the new grader the City purchased. His main concern nOw is why the City should pay for a job that isn't done right. Acting Mayor Orttel stated that the reason the City purchased its own grader was because of the complaints on the quality of work done by the contractor. He also explained that part of the problems the contractor has is the poor condition of the streets and the difficulty maintaining the sand roads. Hopefully there will be better service with the City's own equipment. Chet Conger, 450 156th Avenue - has a problem with his neighbor's dogs. He explained that hlS house lS located 15 feet from his neighbor's property line, and there is a dog kennel located at the property line at 462 156th Avenue. There are two dogs which howl and bark at night and the kennels aren't kept clean or maintained. Mr. Conger explained the contacts he has made with the neighbor since he moved into his house in the spring of 1977, but it has reached the point of impass between them; and Mr. Conger stated that at this point he is at the end of his rope with the entire situation. His wife has recently had a baby, and ever since then the dogs have just been crazy barking and howling all hours of the night. He requested the Counc i 1 take some action. At the last meeting he had with the neighbor, the neighbor said he would move the kennel; but it hasn't been done. Mr. Conger would settle for the kennel being moved so he wouldn't hear the barking all the time. After discussion with the Council, it was noted that barking dogs are a violation of the ordinance. The Sheriff is on duty during the night who can be periodically driving by and checking. If he finds that they are barking, then the animal control people can come out and fine the owners and/or impound the dogs. The Clerk was directed to advise the Deputy of the problem and to write a letter to the owner of the dogs relative to the complaint received. If the problem persists, Mr. Conger was advised that he, too, could call the Sheriff Office or come back before the Council. Agenda Approval MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the Agenda as published with the Addition of Item Sh, CAB Interceptor; Item Si, Final Payment for Sealcoating, 8a, Public Services Building Report; and the deletion of Item Number 11. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - Junkyard License Denials Acting Mayor Orttel opened the continuation of the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. P & Z Chairman d'Arcy Bosell reviewed the Commission's recommended ordinance amendment further defining screening as it would apply to junkyards. She explained that she had inspected the junkyards with the Building Inspector to see what could be done about screening junk from junk or using topography. It was the Planning Commission's feeling that if there is sufficient screening to screen the junk from public right of Regular City Council Meeting December 4, 1979 - Minutes Page 2 (PUBLIC HEARING - Junkyard License Denials, Continued) ways, residences, etc., that would be adequate screening for visual purposes. The front still needs to be screened and down the sides a certain dimension as set out, but the remainder can be fenced by natural, as long as that natural screening doesn't change; but it must be surrounded by a security fence. If there is a change, the applicant has 30 days to provide screening as in compliance with the ordinance. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, the adoption of Ordinance No. 44A, an Ordinance amendlng Ordinance No. 44, Effective January 16, 1979, an Ordinance known as the Junkyard License... Discussion: was on whether something should be stated relative to who issues the revocation, who makes the determination that vegetation has changed. And that screening changes applies not only to natural screening but to adjoining yards as well, so revocation would apply to both reasons for granting the variance. Councilman Peach ADDED TO MOTION: that "from date of notice by the City" be added between the words "days" and "to" on the second to last line. And Delete the word "natural" in the first line of the last paragraph. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was on the applications for junkyard licenses. Attorney Hawkins advised that the Ordinance just passed by the Council does not become effective until it is published. It was Councilman Lachinski's feeling that the variances should be allowed without a charge in addition to the license fee, and to grant variances effective following publication of the Ordinance. Council discussion was on the individual applicants: Farrian - License has already been approved. Anoka Auto Wrecking (C. Jellison) - Council felt that a variance could be granted under Section b of Ordinance 44A. Bob's Auto (R. Pears) - Council felt that a variance could be granted under Section a of Ordinance 44A. K & K Salvage (D. Kline) - Mr. Almgren reported that no junk is visible from the roadway. Council generally felt that the yard complied with the ordinance. Wilber's - Council felt that a variance could be granted under Sections a and b of Ordinance 44A. Commercial Auto Parts (C. Mistelske) - Mr. Almgren reported that junk cannot be seen from the road. Council felt that a variance could be granted under Sections a and b of Ordinance 44A. Pumkin City (C. Link, Formerly Gorden Wilson) - Since no junk is visible from any streets, Council generally felt the yard was in conformance with the ordinance. Andover Auto Parts (R. Pears) - Clerk reported that approximately 50 percent of the poles are installed and the materials for the fence is on the premises. Junk is visible until it is fenced. Council agreed to continue the Hearing to the December 18 meeting. William Batson (Riteway and Rite-A-Way) - Council discussion was on the concerns of violating the ordinance relative to junk cars outside the fence. The Clerk noted that Mr. Batson leases the property to Mr. Imre (dba Rite-A-Way). Council had some question whether the license should be issued to the property owner or to the operator of the business feeling that the operator, not Mr. Batson, should be applying for the license. The Clerk was direct~d to write M~. Batson for a clarification; Council agreed to contlnue the Hearlng Regular City Council Meeting December 4, 1979 - Minutes Page 3 (PUBLIC HEARING - Junkyard License Denials, Continued) to the December 18 Regular Council meeting. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that the City Council grant a variance per Ordlnance No. 44A, such variance to become effective on the date of publication of Ordinance No. 44A, pursuant to section S.lc of Ordinance 44A for the following firms: Anoka Auto Wrecking, Bob's Auto Parts, K & K Salvage, Wilber's, Commercial Auto Parts, and Pumkin City, following compliance with the provisions in the variance, and hereby grant that the licenses for the junkyards will be re-instated. Discussion: Councilman Lachinski felt there should be some provision in the Ordinance to escalate the license fee for any period of time a yard is not in compliance with the Ordinance. Attorney Hawkins stated the Council has no authority to impose criminal penalties without going through a court procedure, but the Council does have the authority to collect administrative costs and could justify, for example, doubling the fees for periods of time of nonconformance to the Ordinance because of the additional inspections necessary and other additional administrative costs in- volved. Councilman Peach noted that this is his first time dealing with the junkyards as a Councilman, and he felt the Council has been compassionate to their problems this year. Next year it is his intent that the Ordinance will be complied with, especially relative to planting of trees and keeping them alive. He wants to see that area improved. He suggested possibly a notice be sent with the licenses saying something to that effect. Discussion was on the enforcement of the Ordinance provision of planting trees by the yards. Councilman Lachinski suggested possibly not voting yes on this particular motion, but continuing the pUblic hearing making sure all the individuals understand that if there is going to be an extension for not having trees planted, it is only going to be for this last time. He saw the necessity of getting tougher on the junkyards in general, and looking at the fence itself to see if it is a decent- looking, attractive fence. Acting Mayor Orttel requested the Clerk to send a letter with the license noting that next year the Council will be requiring the screening of trees along the front. Attorney Hawkins advised that by approving those licenses as noted in the motion, the Council is trying to deal with alot of nonconforming junkyards and trying to get them into compliance, and that this action does not put the City in a poor position as far as enforcing the Ordinance. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Orttel, Peach; NO-Lachinski Motion carried. Councilman Lachinski - I feel more work needs to be done on the ordinance, and I feel we have to be a little more tough on the junkyards at this time. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we notify the owners of Andover Auto Parts and Mr. William Batson and Rite-A-Way Auto Parts that we will continue the Hearing on their Junkyard Licenses to the second scheduled meeting of the City Council in the month of December, 1979; and have the Clerk advise them of such and communicate to them that the City Council still has problems with the screening around their junkyards and that will be the subject of the discussion at the December meeting. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski , Seconded by Orttel, that we refer the Junkyard Ordinance back to the Planning Commission to consider changes that would require the junkyards to become attractive places of business, possibly over a one- to two-year period. Discussion: They do not seem to have to meet any visual standard, plus do some work on the screening in front of the fences relative to size of trees, etc. Chairman Bosell suggested if it is the Council's wishes to institute a Visual Standards Ordinance, that the Council meet jointly with the Planning Commission for a "meeting of the minds" prior to beginning drafting the ordinance, and to possibly consider that in the year 1980. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting December 4, 1979 - Minutes Page 4 Variance - V. Buescher Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation that a building permit be allowed to be issued on the property and that a variance for this particular application is not necessary. (Memo of November 27, 1979, to Mayor and Council from P & Z, Comm. #10-79-4). Vergal Buescher, 9355 Kiowa, Chaska - drew a diagram on the blackboard indicating the 60-foot x 460-foot posltion of the 35 acres on which he wants to construct a private driveway to a house to be built north of the Osmand five-acre parcel, with the 33 feet of that land abutting 167th, a constructed roadway. Attorney Hawkins stated that the property is 300 feet in width on the right side and meets State Statute requirements, even though the sliver on the left isn't 300 feet. And it is certainly over five acres. The City's ordinance requires a parcel to abut on a public right of way, but there isn't anything that states 300 feet is needed on a right of way; it just states abut. So it was his opinion that the property meets the State and City requirements. Council discussion was that allowing Mr. Buescher to construct his private driveway without a variance, the Osmand property would not abut on a public road; but that the property presently does not abut a public road. It was also thought that road maintenance of 167th extends fart~~~nto the east than the accepted roadway, and questioned how many years it has/m ntained that way. Mr. Buescher stated he is selling the 35 acres, and has a provision in his purchase agreement contingent upon the purchaser obtaining assurance from the City of Andover that a building permit would be granted. A private driveway would be constructed for over 460 feet. Mr. Osmand has the contract for deed on the 40 acres to the south of the property in question. Council discussion was that if both Mr. Buescher and Mr. Osman would dedicate a portion of land to the east of 167th, there would be a public access to the five acre Osmand property. Mr. Buescher stated he is willing to state in the final papers that any time Andover would need that 33 x 60-foot portion of land for the logical extension of 167th, that land would be given as easement to the City. Acting Mayor Orttel also suggested that Mr. Kraabel be asked how long the road has been maintained past the right-of-way line. Discussion was on how much property must abut a public roadway to qualify. Council and Attorney felt that "access" would be required and that would be determined by the Building Official. Discussion was also on meeting City driveway standards, an item which has never been formally adopted by the City. It was felt that the driveway should be hardsurfaced, which would mean at least class 5 surfacing. Council generally felt that a variance would not be needed since, in the Attorney's opinion, the parcel met the 300-foot width requirement and does abut a public right of way. Mr. Buescher was made aware that he could construct a private driveway; however, the City would not accept or maintain the driveway. Mr. Almgren was instructed that a building permit can be issued for that property. Mr. Buescher also indicated his buyer will meet with the Building Inspector relative to the construction of the driveway. It was also noted that expenses have been incurred in processing the variance request; therefore, no refund was in order. No action was taken by the City Counci 1. Chairman Bosell asked what to do with those items that have come before the Planning Commission in the last year that have never been finished; i.e., people never coming back to complete sketch plans, rezoning requests, etc., where the P & Z has taken no action nor made a recommendation. Attorney Hawkins stated in items where State Law requires or Ordinance requires some action by the City Council, if they are not brought back to the P & Z, they should be brought up to the City Council. The Council should deny the application because applicant failed to comply, which will then Regular City Council Meeting December 4, 1979 - Minutes Page 5 close the file. Council agreed that these items should be on the Council Agenda under the Legal and Engineering section. Recess at 9:08; reconvene at 9:18 p.m. Variance - D. Fluth Because the City had not received the letter from Mr. Fluth's neighbor and because that neighbor was unable to attend tonight's Council meeting, Mr. Fluth requested continuing this item to the next regular Council meeting. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that the Mr. Fluth Variance for sideyard setback be continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel; NO-Peach Motion carried. Street Acceptance - Johnson's Oakmount Terrace MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that the City accept the streets in Johnson's Oakmount Terrace with the recognition that a maintenance bond has been posted in the amount of $2,000. Motion carried unanimously. Street Acceptance - Rum River Forest The Clerk indicated a maintenance bond for $2,500 has been received. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we accept the streets in Rum River rorest and recognize that the maintenance bond has been posted in the amount of $2,500. Motion carried unanimously. Street Acceptance - Smith's Registered Land Survey MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we accept the streets in the Registered Land Survey for Ron Smith and also recognize the maintenance security in the amount of $2,500 has been posted. Motion carried unanimously. Lot Split - Stenquist MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the Stenquist Lot Split be continued to the next regular City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Energy Report Engineer Davidson reviewed the November 14, 1979, TKDA memo to Mayor and Council on the Energy Audits and Minnesota Energy Agency Grant Program as required by Minnesota Law 116H. Mr. Davidson stated they would do the work totally within the grant dollars thereby requiring no City funds. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize TKDA to prepare the necessary Energy Reports to comply with State Statute 116H requirements. Discussion: Council generally felt if the Mini-audit as outlined in step two indicates that a Maxi-audit is not necessary, that that Maxi-audit would not be done. TKDA is to do Steps 1 and 2 and not automatically go to Step 3. Motion carried unanimously. Sewer Connection Policy Council agreed on the following two changes to the Resolution drafted by the City Clerk: First paragraph: The City of Andover may pay the costs to connect the property owner to the public sanitary sewer system and assess such costs to the property if either of the following conditions exist:. Regular City Council Meeting December 4, 1979 - Minutes Page 6 (Sewer Connection Policy, Continued) Discussion was on the requirement of the City (as indicated by this Resolution) to have property owners establish affidavi~ from the Anoka Welfare Department or other agencies to establish the inability of the property owners to obtain funding to pay the costs. DIscussion was on whether this can be required. Attorney Hawkins stated that this can be required of a property owner if that owner wants the City to fund the sanitary sewer connection. There are other alternatives to the property owners; but if they want the City to fund it, this is the procedure they have to use. If the property owner is sincere, all we're asking is that they prove the hardship. Mr. Hawkins also stated the City can set certain requirements and obtain certain in- formation prior to the City funding of the connection. This is a service, not a requirement of the City. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, entering a Resolution establishing a policy for connection to public sanitary sewer pursuant to Ordinance No. 32 for those property owners establishing inability to pay costs due to low-income classification... (with the two changes noted in these Minutes) (See Resolution R97-9) Motion carried unanimously. Rum River Crossing Consulting Engineers Diversified has asked for the City's comments on the proposed Rum River crossings. After a brief discussion, the Council agreed to forward the Council's former opinion of preferring options 3 or 3A. The Clerk was directed to research what Council had recommended previously and to send it to CED. Final Payment for Sealcoating Mr. Davidson explained that the total project cost is about a $2,000 overrun because of a miscalculation on the length of 17Sth Avenue. Discussion was on the percentage of streets sealcoated this year as it relates to the overall five-year plan. It was determined that somewhat less than 20 percent of the streets were seal coated this year, and that about 4.5 miles will need to be done next year to catch up. However, the Engineer noted that approximately 11 miles of paved streets have been added in the City this year; and they will need to make an addendum to their seal- coating plan as a result. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we pay the amount of $22,002.25 to Allled Blacktop for bituminous sealcoating the streets in the City of Andover in 1979. Motion carried unanimously. Moratorium Ordinance It was agreed that because passage of the moratorium ordinance requires a 4/5 vote and since the Mayor is absent this evening, that discussion would be limited to the basic concerns and then carried over to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Discussion was on the question of whether or not that area outside the urban service area to the east can be considered in this moratorium ordinance since a moratorium had been placed on that property for a time several years ago. The reason that area is being considered for a motatorium again iseto look at the potential of rezoning the land along the railroad spur to Industrial. Attorney Hawkins stated that the State Statute dealing with moratoriums was enacted along with the Land Planning Act to allow cities time to adequately plan for development; however, it is not clear whether the intent of the ordinance is to allow another moratorium to be placed on the land after the original one had been off for a period of time. The previous moratorium for development was on all land outside of the urban service area. The strict interpretation of the State Statute is the City already had its one plus one renewal moratorium Regular City Council Meeting December 4, 1979 - Minutes Page 7 (Moratorium Ordinance, Continued) outside of the urban service area. The other interpretation is that this moratorium is separate and for a different reason than the first one. Ms. Bosell also brought to' the Council's attention some factors when considering rezoning the land along the railroad to industrial: that being Coon Creek, which is protected, goes through the area; that the property is across the street from the County Park and the County may not like an industrial park across the street from its park, though a buffer zone could be created; and also there are current plans for 2\-acre development on a portion of this property, the north four 40s between the railroad tracks and MUSA line, south of Andover Boulevard and north of the creek. Jim Merila, Merila-Hansen, Inc., Planner for said land, addressed the Council, showlng a proposed plan for development of approximately 42 2\-acre lots, noting they submitted a sketch plan to the Planning Commission on October 9 and are working with the Park Commission at the present time. He discussed the property and some of the problems he saw relative to rezoning to industrial: 1) The County Park and Coon Creek are real amenities to residential development rather than to industrial; 2) There is a considerable amount of property along the Burlington Northern railroad through Coon Rapids, Fridley, and Minneapolis. Coon Rapids has about 85 acres out of their 100 acres, of which 60 acres abuts the railroad, which has not been developed. Those parcels sold are the ones with better roadway access. If this area was zoned industrial, it would be a long ways away before development would take place -- he guessed 15 to 20 years; 3) The problems with expanding the municipal urban service line, as it is his understanding that with that expansion it would be necessary to balance off the same acreage currently in the MUSA so that the acreage would remain the same. The potential problem would be where do we take property from the urban service area. Mr. Merila went on to say they have a proposal to develop the land as single family residential with 2\-acre lots with the potential of developing it this next year. He asked for the Council's consideration for excluding the area outside the urban service area from the proposed moratorium area. Council discussion was that the main reason for the moratorium is so we don't continue to get 2\-acre developments in the urban service area; we're looking at the possibility of getting additional sewer capacity from the CAB interceptor which would logically extend the MUSA to the east; the difficulties of installing the sanitary sewer through an area that is developed into 2\-acre lots; suggested the Planning Commission look at rezoning the urban service area down to R-4 and that there is also talk by the Metropolitan Council of lot sizes down to 8500 square feet because of the availability of land, etc.; and there may be some areas that have some natural topography along the creek, etc., where an R-3 zone may be more ,desirable. Attorney Hawkins again stated the Statute is not clear. Placing a moratorium on land is a drastic control of land us~ and he didn't feel the State allowed that provision for indiscriminate use. He didn't think we could institute another moratorium on that land in the rural area; and even questioned the urban service area as it is a gray area and didn't know if we got our chance in 1976 but didn't chose to put the MUSA in it. Page 3, end of Section 4, the copy presented the Council is in error as to the application of the restriction within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. It was also Mr. Hawkin's opinion that if Mr. Merila had come in with a plan with drawings but had done very little as far as architectural or engineering expenses, that the City could still rezone the land. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we move it to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting in December for·~consideration. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting December 4, 1979 - Minutes Page 8 Private Driveway Standard MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council adopt as a City Urlveway Standard for any driveway in excess of 300 feet in length the drawing which appears in the booklet entitled CITY OF ANDOVER STANDARDS, February, 1978, prepared by Tolz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates, Inc., Engineers and Architects, and that said driveway standard is drawing Number 50 in said book dated February, 1978. Discussion: Driveway standard calls for 12-foot hard-surface with four inches of class 5, 2\-foot ditches, 4-to-l backslope. Councilman Lachinski would like that driveway standard to be used for the Building Inspector's purposes in determining whether or not a building permit should be issued in the point-access type question on five acres or more. There must be at least that much land on the public right of way before a driveway could be constructed and a building permit issued. Counci lman Peach had a problem with the 2\-foot ditch requirement on a private driveway. Mr. Davidson stated that the requirement as drawn would require about 33 feet of clearance for the private driveway. They suggest 2\-foot ditchs for depth if culverts are required. Discussion was that the road would be inspected by the Building Inspector; and after further discussion, it was agreed to change the standard to require ditching which is reasonable and proper to maintain appropriate drainage rather than specifying 2\-foot ditches. Councilman Jacobson, CHANGED MOTION TO: change the 2\-foot minimum to read: with depth as required to provide adequate drainage, and that TKDA draw a new plate. Second st i 11 stands. Motion carried unanimously. Park/Recreation Commission Del Barber from the DNR and Mike Markell, the DNR's State Public Access Coordinator, were present. Mr. Barber presented the latest copy of the Joint Powers Agreement to the Council. Page 2, II A: Mr. Barber explained that the number of parking spaces is determined by the Metropolitan Agreement, which states that there should be an access for each 20 acres of water surface, there being 130 acres in Crooked Lake. After Discussion, Council agreed to 7 parking spaces. Page 3, D: Mr. Barber and Mr. Mand explained that the way it is written, it allows the City the flexibility of maintaining the same park hours as determined in the City's Park Ordinance. The City can pick any 18 hours out of the 20 hours noted in this section. Page 4, IV: Attorney Hawkins stated that the cancellation provision in this Agreement is a benefit to the City as the DNR has to show "cause" for cance 11 at ion, but the City may cancel this Agreement with or without cause by giving the State 90 days written notice of same. Mr. Mickell stated that even if the City cancels this Agreement, the DNR can still operate the boat landing access. Discussion was on coordinating the implementation of the Joint Powers Agreement, the DNR's purchase of the land, and the City's holding a public informational hearing. Councilman Lachinski stated he tried to test public reaction to this by contacting a few residents but wasn't sure what kind of overall response this project would received from the~. There generally doesn't seem to be any really negative feelings towards it. One individual felt that some restrictions should be placed on the use of the lake, such as for small boats. Mr. Mickell stated that if the Joint Powers Agreement was signed now but th eCity did not receive the grant funds being requested, the City has the option of canceling the Joint Powers Agreement. The intent is to work a cooperative effort between the DNR and the local units of governments. During the discussion that ensued, it was Re]ular City Council Meeting December 4, 1979 - Minutes Page 9 (Park/Recreation Commission, Continued) noted that the landowners involved already know that the DNR has plans to purchase the property; therefore, an informational hearing b y the City should not impact those negotiations. Mr. Mand stated they have the setting of that hearing on their next agenda. It was also Mr. Mand's opinion that it would cost the City $6,450 to do the work in this park assuming the grant is approved; however, he felt that most or all of it could be done with in-house service. Mr. Barber and Mr. Markell agreed to have the DNR Commissioner sign the Agreement but not finalize acquisition of the land until the public informational meeting is~eld by the City. Councilman Jacobson also felt that the Planning and Zoning Commission should be directed to establish a Surface Zoning Act on the lake to be effective when the park is completed. Round Lake might also be considered in this as well. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the Acting Mayor to sign a JOlnt Powers Agreement between the City Council and the Minnesota Commissioner Department of Natural Resources for a Joint Powers Agreement for the acquisition of property and development on the Crooked Lake Boat Landing (See Resolution R98-9) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that the Park Commission hold a public lnformational meeting on the Crooked Lake Boat Access project to be held no later than January 20. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, the adoption of the Resolution authorizing flllng of application for grant to develop open space under the provisions of the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, as presented by R. Bakke (after 2a... at a minimum amount of $6,450...) (See Resolution R99-9) Discussion: was on whether the one house could be utilized by the City. Mr. Mand stated that more than likely the buildings would be declared surplus buildings and sold at an auction. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Mand stated he didn't know how much money was left from the $900 authorized for installation of the sand points; but the pump owned by the City to pump the water is not working; and he requested any leftover money be used to purchase a new pump. He estimated a new pump would cost about $225 to $260. Council discussion was that the bill had not yet been received from the installation of the sandpoints; that repairing the old pump should be investigated and/or rent one until this is fixed; purchasing a pump from surplus property sales should also be investigated; and there may be excess money from Park Commission salries in the budget. Mr. Mand also asked for some temporary part-time help in view of Ray Sowada's illness. The Public Works Person needs help with the sandpoints at this time. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize expenditure for part-time assistance during Ray Sowada's leave of absence. Motion carried unanimously. CAB Interceptor Mr. Davidson showed overhead maps of the six alternative routes for providing sanitary sewer, noting the three alternatives 17, 23, and 31 would provide availability Qf service to portions of western Andover. Those alternatives provide capacity for a population equavalent of 3650 for Andover. The overall cost of the six alternatives would cost approxiamtely the same; however, Alternatives 26, 48, and 49 would be more costly for Andover, as it would require Andover's construction of a lift station for the Coon Rapids interceptor. Regular City Council Meeting December 4, 1979 - Minutes Page 10 (CAB Interceptor, Continued) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, introducing a Resolution establishing the posltlon of the City of Andover in regard to the northwest area study by the Metro Waste Control Commission as presented...(Supporting Alternative 17, Alternative 23, or Alternative 31) (See Resolution R100-9) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to authorize TKDA to send a representative to the 201 meeting at the Andover City Hall on the 12th of December and also to send a representative to the CAB meeting hearing in Brooklyn Center the same night. Motion carried unanimously. Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief Bob Palmer explained Mr. Sowada's illness and at this point it is not known if it is job related. He wondered if it is covered under workman's compensation. The Clerk was told the insurance carrier should be notified in any event. Chief Palmer stated that the City has received the bill fromtheAnoka Fire Department for the call they responded to that was called in by the County Sheriff. Discussion was on whether or not to pay that bill or ask the County to pay it since they were in error by not requesting the Andover Department to respond. Council generally agreed to pay the Anoka Fire Department for the call but to send a letter to the County Sheriff and Central Communications noting what happened, that this created a bill for the City, and asking that it not be repeated. Chief Palmer stated he has talked with the gentlemen from the North Suburban Regional Mutual Aid Association, and it looks favorable that Andover would be able to join, which would provide mutual aid with about 17 departments and would cost about $50 a year for dues plus $100 a year for their school. Chief Palmer also informed the Council they will be holding a CPR class at their December 12 meeting. Road Improvement Committee Councilman Lachinski reviewed the problem with the bids for the new truck, stating it is the Committee's recommendation to reject those bids submitted due to an error in the specifications and to direct the City Clerk to advertise for public bids using the redrafted specifications. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that the bids received for the City dump truck be rejected, and that we take note that the bids from Main Motors in the amount of $29,246.82 and Bloomquist International for $32,340.00, and said bids be rejected and direct the City Clerk to readvertise using new bid specifications for said truck. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Lachinski stated that there is a problem with one sanitary sewer that keeps re-ocurring. To date the City has paid for these costs. It has been verified that the line is not blocked and there is a problem somewhere between the lateral and the house. The Committee would like a policy to use on an on-going basis. It is suggested if the problem occurs between the main line and the house, it should be the homeowner's responsibility. The policy would state: Step 1: Staff be allowed to determine whether or not the block exists in the main line. Step 2: If no problem exists in the main line, it is the property owner's responsibility to clear the line. Step 3: If the property owner suspects a problem between his connection to the sewer stub and the sewer lateral, upon written consent by the owner, the City will perform the work and the property owner will assume the costs if the problem did not exist. Regular City Cou"" il Me".lng December 4, 1979 - Minutes Page 11 (Road Improvement Committee, Continued) Discussion: Mr. Almgren, Building Inspector, stated in most other cities the home- owner is responsible for the line from the house to the main. Councilman Lachinski stated that the policy suggested by the Committee relieves the homeowner of costs if that portion of the line was installed improperly. Mr. Davidson stated he would obtain some policies from other cities prior to the next Council meeting. Council wanted to review those policies prior to taking any action. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that the following policy be adopted for the replacement of damaged mailboxes: First: Each complaint will be investigated by staff member. Second: Mailboxes actually hit by a City vehicle will be replaced at City expense. If the thrust of the snow knocks the mailbox over, it will not be replaced. Third: The staff member will record all mailbox complaints and report those not qualifying for replacement to the Council. Motion carried unanimously. Public Works Building Councilman Peach reviewed his December 4, 1979, memo relative to those items not completed by Bloomberg, and the Committee's recommendations. In summary, the Committee recommends acceptance of the Building as of August 23, 1979, the date the Occupancy Permit was issued by the Building Inspector, with liquidated damages from June 1 through August 23 (83 days) totalling $8,300; recommended and agreed adjustment amounting to $2,467.50, with a recommended final payment of $26,367.50. Councilman Peach also suggested that any further contact with Bloomberg be done on a Council level. Mr. Davidson stated that on those items where no recommendation has been made, it was TKDA's opinion that the items met code requirements but did not meet the strict interpretation of their own specifications. Chief Palmer stated there are a few items that should be taken care of in the building, particularly doing something over the entry doors to prevent them from freezing shut. It was generally felt that Bloomberg should be sent a letter with this list explaining that we will be correcting some of the more serious problems, that we consider his contract complete; and that the final amount the City agrees to pay is as recommended by the Committee. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, to direct the City Clerk to send the Public Service Building Committee's meeting report with cover letter to Bloomberg stating that our final payment is as recommended by the Public Service Building Committee, and we will expect a bill for that amount. Discussion: that the letter also state that the City does not want Bloomberg to do any more work on the Building, that their contract is completed, and if they want to meet with the City, they can ask to be on a City Council Agenda and meet with the Council. Motion carried unanimously. Po 1 ice Contract Acting Mayor Orttel explained that because of conflicts, representatives from the Sheriff's Department couldn't be here this evening, but that he had talked with them over his concerns with the contract. He explained the reason for the salary in the contract is that there are 36 deputies in the County, and four of them are not at maximum salary. The sever~nce pay is actually a way of accumulating their sick leave. They have never been asked to park their vehicles in the City, but they are parked at the Courthouse, which is within a minute of the City. Apparently it is quicker for people to get to work at the Courthouse, but they are here from the start of their shift until it is over. They also rotate between the surrounding cities and help each other out cooperatively, but they are always within close proximity of the City. One of the reasons for seeing squad cars at the Ham Lake City Hall is because it is an official County Sheriff substation. Acting Mayor Orttel also explained that they don't charge the City for any overhead other than the people in the City. So, for example, car Regular City Council Meeting December 4, 1979 - Minutes Page 12 (Police Contract, Continued) mileage, 150 miles is high; however, the price we are paying is the cost it takes to provide the service. And the Department doesn't negotiate with the cities, as surrounding cities pay the same amount as Andover on a percentage basis. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Agreement and sign the necessary documents for Law Enforcement contract with the Anoka County Sheriff for the year 1980 in the amount of $99,671. Motion carried unanimously. Shade Tree Agreement MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we apply for Shade Tree Program appllcation and enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota and the Shade Tree Sanitation and Reforestation Agreement, and authorize the City Clerk and Mayor to sign it. Motion carried unanimously. Outside Employment/City Clerk Pursuant to City Resolution on outside employment, the City Clerk informed the City Council she had been requested by the City of St. Francis to instruct the Acting Clerk/Treasurer in legal and other municipal procedure. She stated she could spare one-half day next week and recommended the City not charge St. Francis for this with the thought that perhaps we may be able to use their Planner on a reciprocal basis; all time spent outside regular working hours will be billed to the City of St. Francis. Approval of Claims MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City Council approve Checks 2809 through 2847 in the amount of $7,439.24; Check No. 2842 is void. VOTE ON r10TI ON: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel; ABSTAIN-Peach, as he is a Volunteer Firefighter being paid on the point system. Motion carried. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:08 a.m. Respectfully submitted, \\"\c~ c~-'~ O~\ Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary