Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC July 11, 1979 CITY of ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 11, 1979 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Public Hearings - None 5. Legal and Engineering a. Award Contract - Sealcoating b. Award Contract - Bituminous Streets/159th & Stenquist Addition c. DeGardner Road Location d. Pine Hills Addition Final Plat Approval e. Woodland Terrace Special Use Permit f. Woodland Terrace Preliminary Plat g. Lot Split - Andrew Knoll h. Stanley Skog Variance i. P. Levenhagen Variance j. Acceptance of Street/Fields 6. Ordinances and Resolutions a. Temporary Mobile Home Permit-L. Ostrander 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications B. Reports of Boards, Committees, Commissions a. Planning and Zoning Commission b. Park and Recreation Commission c. Liquor Study Committee 9. Old Business 10. New Business a. City Asses sor Applicatior,s 11. Approval of Minutes 12. Approval of Claims 13. Adjournment , . ~ o¡ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 11, 1979 r1I NUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on July 11, 1979, 7:30 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, John Davidson; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and interested residents Resident Forum Jim Elling, 13829 Northwood Drive - asked the Council to consider pedestrian crossing or slgnals at 138th and Crosstown. Because of the new dairy store, there are a lot of children crossing at that intersection, and there has already been a girl hit by a car. The Engineer was asked to check with the County for the intersection of Crosstown and Bunker Lake Boulevards and to look at the intersection of 138th and Crosstown. Agenda Approval MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, to delete Item Sd and add Item lOa to the published Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Award Contract - Sealcoating Mr. Davidson reported that all contractors who bid were contacted and informed that Alternates 1 and 2 would be eliminated; and in their place the streets in Green Acres would be added to bring the total project cost to $19,880. All three contractors agreed to retain their bid prices for that purpose, so there is no need to resubmit bids for that area. (Reference TKDA report on Contract Award, 1979 Bituminous Sealcoating, July 11, 1979) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, introducing a Resolution accepting bids and awardlng contract for sealcoating on specific streets within the City of Andover... (entering into contract with Allied Blacktopping, Inc., for $10,976) (See Resolution RS3-9) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution awarding sealcoating of Green Acres in Section 28 ... (...And WHEREAS the results of such quotation from Allied Bl acktoppi ng, G & L Asphalt Company, and Northern Asphalt Company at the same prices in their original bid...) (awarding contract to Allied Blacktopping, Inc., in the amount of $8,904.48) (See Resolution RS4-9) Motion carried unanimously. Award Contract - Bituminous Streets/159th & Stenquist Addition Engineer Davidson reviewed the July 11, 1979, TKDA report on the contract award for lS9th Avenue and Stenquist Addition Street and Drainage Improvements, indicating that the low bid was from Lino Contracting, Inc., a reputable firm, for a total project price of $218,546.72, amounting to an average assessment for the entire area for streets, drainage, and one-year sealcoating, plus 17 percent legal and engineering costs at $15.78 per front foot, typical 220-foot lot assessment of $3,471.60 and average annual payment over 10 years at 8 percent interest of $517.37. Mr. Davidson reported that 91 cents per front foot has been included for the first-year sealcoating of the roads, and that it can be eliminated. Mayor Windschitl didn't feel it was reasonable to expect these residents to pay for the sealcoating when the City pays for sealcoating on all the rest of the streets. Regular City Council Meeting July 11, 1979 - Minutes Page 2 (Award Contract - Bituminous Streets/159th & Stenquist Addition, Continued) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that this item be postponed until the next regular meeting on the 17th (of July). Discussion: Councilman Peach indicated that not all residents have had a chance to evaluate the costs as they were bid. He would also like time to contact these people personally to see how they feel about it. There is also a great deal of confusion about the petitions received. David Lange, 16015 Quapaw - would like to get an exact figure tonight to discuss. (Mayor Wlndschltl lndlcated the only change is the 91 cents on the sealcoating. The Engineer will compute the exact figure less the sealcoating. Councilman Lachinski suggested the Council consider financing the streets over 15 years.) Pat Cochrane, 4643 162nd Lane NW - agreed to wanting an exact cost ,per year, and asked to have it figured out what the difference would be over 10 years versus 15 years. He also thought all the people have been contacted, in some cases more than once. He felt one of the reasons it is costing so much money is because it has been delayed so much and thought it should be acted upon i~nediately. John DeRoches, 16014 Potowatomi - presented a letter to Mayor Windschitl from residents who could not be present. Mayor Windschitl read letters into the record from the following: Helen and Bill Hemp, opposed to the project; Robert and Mary Ann Fodness, in favor of the project; Wayne and Kathleen Steinke, 4725 161st Lane NW, in favor of the project; and Mike and Janet Rudlong, opposed to the project. Ms. Lindquist stated she just spoke to Mr. Rudlong just 10 minutes ago who wanted his vote changed back to a yes. Mayor Windschitl indicated according to his count, for anything north of lS9th the vote is 28 yes, 29 no; including lS9th, the vote is 35 yes and 29 no. Ron Smith Owner of ro ert east of Sten uist Addition - indicated he has never been as e whether or not he wants It. He lS waltlng or the Council to make a decision so he can finish the road through his property and just asked that the Council make a decision one way or the other. (Mayor Windschitl indicated that lS9th was bid this spring and the bids came in too high, which explained the reason for some of the delay. It was rebid with the bids coming in substantially better.) Mel Eshelman, 4754 160th Lane NW - stated that Lot 5460 has been sold to a Craig Relchert and that ln talklng to him, Mr. Reichert has reaffirmed that he is in favor of the improvements. Mr. Eshelman also felt contacting the residents by Councilmen is really good, but he felt the Council should decide tonight one way or the other. It is time consuming to get these petitions, and he noted the problems with obtaining signatures one way or the other. And it adds a little wood to the fire every time the project is delayed and new petitions are brought around. He also cited an instance where the owner does not live on a lot and doesn't care whether the improvement goes in or not (Parcel 5470 by Raymond Doud). Mr. Smith - suggested at least voting to put 159th in. Dr. Yeaäer, Marystone Lane - is in favor of 159th. Unless the entire project is approve, will nothing be done? He felt lS9th sorely needed to be done, as it is in deplorable shape all the time. (Mayor Windschitl stated the amount of either front footage or people along lS9th is in favor of the project and he felt that lS9th probably will be approved. Mr. Davidson noted if lS9th were approved by itself, it would be under the new bid price. No Councilmen expressed opposition to doing 159th.) It was Mr. Davidson's opinion that we cannot enter into two separate contracts with one contractor, but the City does have the privilege of holding the bids 30 days. If there is a 30-day delay, it would push the completion date beyond the November 15 date. Discussion was that some of the data was confusing and on making a determination of those people voting for and against the project. 'Regular City Council Meeting July 11, 1979 - Minutes Page 3 (Award Contract - BituminoUs Streets/159th & Stenquist Addition, Continued) Gary Zavadil, 4530 lS9th Avenue NW - stated the letter sent to the residents implied that the residents more or less determine whether or not the project is awarded and that the Council would meet next Tuesday to act on it. (Councilman Peach stated he would have no problem making a decision next week so it wouldn't be delayed any further.) Mr. Zavadil - felt that people signing the latest petition were making their decision based on the bid price related to them in the letter. He also commented that he felt Andover should consider restrictions on housing developments if they are going to be causing so many problems, etc., to have roads improved. (Mayor Windschitl explained that any of the new developments coming in are required to have blacktop roads and drainage.) Bill Hemp, 161st Lane - stated he went around with a petition last night and that people haven't been told the truth or all the facts about the project. He felt we should have a secret ballot, because people are signing petitions because they don't want their neighbor to see what they are doing. The entire situation is causing hard feelings among the neighbors in the area. Mr. Eshelman - noted that in a book put out by Grow Township it stated that one of their speclfic goals was to get as many blacktop roads as possible as fast as they can to keep street maintenance down. (Mayor Windschitl was unaware of where that policy came from and stated on all the Councils he has served on they have taken a petition policy, that people come in asking for what they want.) Discussion was that probably the major factor for people opposing the project is the cost, and that it might be helpful to spread the costs over a lS-year period rather than a 10-year period assessment. Mr. Davidson felt that a 15-year assessment for these roads would be reasonable, but he wouldn't go beyond 15 years. In his professional opinion, the streets, with normal maintenance, will outlast a lS-year assessment period. Bob Crose, 4764 159th - noted in looking at the petitions, people go back and forth on their vote, saying that the cost is a factor bothering them. He felt this is a fair figure, that everyone would be able to afford it spread over 15 or 20 years. If Councilman Peach wants to talk to the people again, it is just going to delay the project. If the count shows a majority, just vote for the project and get it over with. If it gets voted down, people will be coming back in again, but the prices will be higher. Councilman Jacobson wished to withdraw his Second on the Motion. Councilman Peach objected to the Second being withdrawn. Mayor Windschitl read the Clerk's tally of assessable front footage for the combined project as 7725 in favor, 6996 against. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Peach; NO-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl Motion failed. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution accepting bids and awarding contract for improvements of bituminous streets on lS9th Avenue between Makah Street and Roanoke Street and the Stenquist Addition in Section 18, Township 32, Range 24... (entering into a contract with Lino Contract, Inc., in the amount of $219,716.72) (...This project is to be financed over a lS-year period...) Councilman Orttel changed motion to: All reference to the low bid of Lino Contracting, Inc., of $219,716.72 should be reduced to read $207,497.80 to reflect the deletion of the sealcoating. The remaining two bidders shall be adjusted for the amount of the removal of the sealcoating also. Second still stands. (See Resolution RSS-9) AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Peach to allow for two votes -- one for 159th Avenue and one for Stenquist. Motion dies for lack of a second. Regular City Council Meeting July 11, 1979 - Minutes Page 4 (Award Contract - Bituminous Streets/1S9th & Stenquist Addition, Continued) Mrs. Hemp - asked for the final count for Stenquist Addition. Councilman Orttel lndicated his counts indicate 27 yes and 24 no, but eliminating those who had said yes and no or undecided and no, adding on nos that were undecided but switched to a no, it came to 27 in favor, 26 opposed for everything north of lS9th, including the north side of lS9th. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; NO-Peach Motion carried. Discussion was on the concern of residents of the speed limit in the area, especially if roads are tarred. The Clerk was directed to check with the Department of Transportation to check if they have begun procedures to reduce the speed limit in that area. The Mayor also noted correspondence with the School District indicating that because of their policy of not driving within 1/2 mile, they didn't feel the street was long enough to go back into. DeGardner Road Location Bob De Gardner indicated he has a purchase agreement with the Wilson's for the land to the north of the property he had asked for road location approval previously. He is proposing extending the road through the middle of the 40 acres to exit to the north on County Road 58. The land to the east is fairly low, and there is only one buildable lot there. There was some discussion relative to the City's requirement of blacktopping all new roads, which was passed by Resolution a short time ago. Mr. De Gardner hoped that because a portion of this road was presented sometime ago, that this would be grand- fathered in so he would not have to blacktop the entire roadway. If he is required to blacktop the entire road, he stated it would be very expensive for him and would create a hardship for him. Mr. DeGardner was also told it would probably be possible to plat the western portion of the Wilson property into 2\ acre lots. It was assumed that Mr. DeGardner would have to blacktop the road; however, the specific wording of the Resolution needed to be researched. M~ DeGardner had not received approval from the Anoka County Highway Engineer; however, it was felt that City approval for the road location could be contingent upon such approval. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the road location for DeGardner- Blalke located in the northwest quarter ot the southeast quarter of Section 1, Township 32, Range 24, and the part of the north half of the northeast quarter, Section 12, Township 32, Range 24, and in the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter, Section 1, Township 32, Range 24, in the City of Andover as it runs between Crosstown Boulevard and County Road 58 and as shown on plans presented by Mr. DeGardner dated 7/10/79, and other plan drawn 8/1/78 and as revised 2/21/79. Motion carried unanimously. Ten-minute recess; reconvene at 9:13 p.m. Woodland Terrace Special Use Permit and Rezoning Larry Retzlaff, Planning and Zoning Commissioner, reviewed the Commission's recommendation for approval of a Special Use Permit for Woodland Terrace for the purpose of providing for planned unit development on the property. The Commission felt the proposal was in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the urban service district. Questions which came up at the P & Z discussion were that it should be subject to having sanitary sewer to the site; and, secondly, the question of water and the clarifying of the City's ordinances. From the Planning Commission's point of view, there is a question that has to be posed to the City -- are we going to have water in the urban service district, which is something the City has to address Regular City Council Meeting July 11, 1979 - Minutes Page 5 (Woodland Terrace Special Use Permit and Rezoning, Continued) and establish a policy on. This is a major development; and if water is not required, he felt it sets the direction for the City to be without water. Mayor Windschitl stated he has talked with the City of Anoka on the water question. He thought the City of Anoka would be willing to consider supplying water to us as far as using it to balance out our system for a period of time, but not on a permanent basis. Because they realize we can't afford a tower at this point with just one development like this, supplying pressure by Anoka might be feasible and would be especially helpful. Mr. Davidson explained that at the public hearing discussion was on the proposed development across the street from this one and on the possibility of a joint private system between the two being designed, which should fit into some kind of overall city water system plan, so that at some point in time when the City does get into the water production business, it can take that over as a City facility. The alternate suggested by the Mayor is a viable alternate. They did have a meeting in Mr. Carlson's office with all the immediate landowers in the area to address the surface water problem in the entire area of County Road 9 and 16 and suggested that perhaps this too can be looked at as a city facility system. Also, the interceptor sewer system could be looked at the same way so that people could, without imposing a hardship on persons outside their platted areas, extend that at their cost. Larry Carlson, developer, stated that it is his intent to formally ask for the extenslOn of sanitary sewer this year, depending on the timing of how this progresses. He has met with the City Attorney in an effort to determine what procedure sho~ld be followed, that is to obtain the special use permit and the rezoning at the same time, present the plat in public hearing and seek conceptual approval of the plat itself, which would then proceed with the engineering of the preliminary plat. Then they would be going ahead with the request for extension of sewer, etc. He is not looking at putting in a pressured water system at this time that would eventually be turned over to the City, but is looking at individual private wells. He didn't know if Good Value feels it has made that commitment (central water) for their development in that area. He has met with Good Value several times, and their plans have been laid aside for at least a year or perhaps longer. Mr. Carlson asked that his development be considered in isolation from the proposed developments north of Bunker Lake Boulevard, as he felt that those developments would not be proceeding as quickly as was originally proposed, and didn't think anyone around them except within the City of Anoka is doing anything at this time. On a preliminary basis, Mr. Carlson stated he has checked into a central water system but did not have firm figures. However, the costs are very high, and it is estimated it would take at least one year just to install the main well and building. That in itself is a cost that affects him. He would jump at the chance of hooking on with the City of Anoka, but has never checked on that. Mr. Carlson stated he has no hesitation in approaching them. A central system simply outweighs the private wells, but its feasibility in terms of time and cost is what is being considered at the present time. Mr. Carlson then discussed and explained the two- and four-units with the zero lot- line concept and separate ownership. This concept reduces the land cost and the cost of the construction. There is approximately 1,300 or 1,400 square feet per unit on one floor. It is not his intent to do the construction, but they will protect the area through proper covenants. Builders will have to supply Carlson with plans and specifications before allowing them to do anything. One of the reasons for the planned unit development is because they can come out better financially, but there is nothing like this in the City. It is intended to improve the area, and they should be able to make this available to more of the medium-income famlies because that area will cost substantially less than the single-family lots proposed on the southern portion of the plat. Families will pay dues to an association which will agree to plow driveways, maintain outside lawns, etc. The entire area will belong to a single association. 'Regular City Council Meeting July 11, 1979 - Minutes Page 6 (Woodland Terrace Special Use Permit and Rezoning, Continued) Mr. Carlson also explained his proposal for the park area, noting that it would not be an adult park but one for children of the area. They have agreed with the Park Board to developing the park. Also, there probably won't be a lot of children in that type of development (referring to the twin and quad housing), as it is more for professional- type people without children. Mayor Windschitl was troubled with ending up with a ~ deficiency on the park dedication for land area inasmuch as the density per unit per parkland available has gone up considerably. Mr. Carlson argued that they have had a professional planner draw up a proposal for the park development, which also includes the park in Chapman's Addition that presently is not being used. The planner felt that the park is large enough to accommodate the entire area. They have agreed to a walkway easement between Lots 22 and 23. During further discussion on the concerns of the park deficiency, it was noted that the Park Board is in agreement with this plan; that they would rather have a smaller developed park than a large undeveloped one; and that Mr. Carlson has agreed to develop the two parks as one (his proposed area plus that of Chapman's Addition). Mayor Windschitl suggested the park density question be looked at by the City's Planner, Midwest Planning. Discussion was on the merits of the proposal as it stands; the suggestion of checking with Brooklyn Center or Maple Grove, who have high density of quad homes to get figures of the population; and on enlarging the park or reducing the number of quads by placing them on larger lots. Councilman Jacobson didn't feel, according to the definition of the ordinances, that there was any very unusual or unique topographical situations that he would consider, something that would make single family homes impractical to be built. Mr. Carlson stated that we know that with the building industry as it is, som~thing has to be done or more and more families are out of the market. The area itself is next to Bunker Lake Boulevard and everything will then go directly onto the County road, there are churches on either side of the area and park to the south so the whole area has been protected from single family dwellings. It was placed in that area in an effort to keep everything flowing to the north. In answer to Councilman Jacobson's question, Attorney Hawkins indicated he felt that 4.20 of the Ordinance dealing with density did not apply to this type of development because that deals with single family homes which would be separate structures. Discussion was on the ordinance requirements for the size of the lot required per unit. Mayor Windschitl felt that the question of the area for park should be addressed further. Mr. Carlson stated that no matter where the park is put, if it isn't tucked in behind houses as proposed, the lots to the east would have to be removed and the park would front on a street, which is objectionable to some people; and he was told and would argue that the City would pick up its portion of an assessment. Discussion was on the rezoning and on the exceptions that must be listed in the Special Use Permit. The Attorney noted that since the concept involves a Home Owner's Association and restrictive convents, zero lot line concept, etc., they should be incorporated into the Special Use Permit. He felt he could refer to Mr. Carlson's documents showing placement of the quads and duplexes. Mr. Hawkins will draft a Resolution for approval of the Special Use Permit to be acted upon at the July 17 Council Meeting. It was also noted that the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to address the rezoning of the entire area. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council approve the rezoning by Lawrence B. Carlson for the property described as the northeast \ of the southeast \ of said lot except the east 495 feet thereof as measured along the north and south lines of said northeast \ of the southeast \, all in Section 32, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, subject to an easement for the road purposes over the north 33 feet thereof. Also, that part of the southeast \ of the southeast \ of Section 32, Regular City Council Meeting July 11, 1979 - Minutes Page 7 (Woodland Terrace Special Use Permit and Rezoning, Continued) Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, embraced within Lot 34, Block 1, Woodland Terrace (proposed) from an R-l zone to an R-4 zone. Discussion: Procedurally, Attorney Hawkins stated it would be acceptable to rezone the entire area to an R-4, although his original suggestion was to rezone the single-family section of the proposed plat to an R-4 and vary the Special Use Permit in the R-l section for the PUDs. (See letter from Attorney to P. Lindquist dated March,14; 1979) After discussion, it was the Council's desire to rezone all property affected by the proposed plat. Councilman Peach CHANGED MOTION TO: Legal description in motion to be changed to be that which is included on the proposed Preliminary Plat as revised July 2, 1979. Second still stands (See Resolution RS6-9) Motion carried unanimously. Woodland Terrace Preliminary Plat Mr. Carlson explained that consideration was given to connecting the plat with Lily Street on the east. The proposal was that he would contribute the land and have the City construct the road. As a practical matter, there are two people off Lily Street, he would lose one lot, it is a heavily wooded area, and it would be very expensive to construct; so it was then felt it just isn't necessary to meet Lily Street. The outlot shown on the proposed plat is the proposed ponding area for drainage. They do not intend to use the park as a drainage area. After the public hearing, Mr. Carlson stated he asked the reason for the service road, to which no one had an answer. This has been referred to the City Engineer for a recommendation. Mr. Davidson stated they met with the County Engineer, and their traffic engineer is working on the internal and external traffic patterns and are working on an answer. He agreed that if there is to be a service road, it should be justified. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that Woodland Terrace Preliminary Plat be referred to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Motion carried unanimously. Lot Split - Andrew Knoll Andrew Knoll explained the only variance requested is 10 feet. He is requestingspl itting 16 acres and selling it to his brother, Stan, who is going to add it onto his 20 acres. Mr. Knoll will retain 2.9 acres with 290 feet of frontage. Mr. Knolla~ßg~g~àe~ t~~t he owns no other road frontage; however, the Clerk indicated that there/ Po age farther to the south. Council discussion was on whether a lot split would be required, as the property is in existence with 290 feet. By splitting off 16 acres, it will be two parcels, one of which has 290 feet of frontage. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council approve the Lot Split for Andrew Knoll described as detêrmined by the City Attorney, for the following reasons: All the necessary provisions of the Lot Split Ordinance have been complied with. The lot split is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Development Plan. It does not interfere with orderly planning and is not contrary to public interest. And lot split does not nullify the intent of the ordinance of the City of Andover. The City would grant that a variance on the frontage because it does not meet the 300-foot frontage requirement. Also, the applicant does not own the adjoining property to allow him to increase the frontage to meet the ordinances. Discussion: on whether the resultant larger lot should be combined with the neighborhing lot, otßerwise an unbuidable lot is created. Councilman Orttel's intent was to leave out the $100 park fee. Councilman Orttel ADDED TO MOTION: Lot split is contingent also on the combination of the larger parcel with the abutting parcel to the south. Second still stands. (See Resolution RS7-9) Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting July 11, 1979 - Minutes Page 8 (Lot Split - Andrew Knoll, Continued) Mr. Knoll then left the meeting. The question of collecting the park fees was then brought up. It was pointed out that the ordinance requires that park fees be collected on the smaller parcel if no park fees have been assessed. The argument by Councilman Orttel was that an additional lot was not created. We started out with one lot, and by requiring the larger lot to be joined with the property to the south, the result is one lot left. Further discussion was that the Lot Split Ordinance needs to be revised to take care of the questions that often arise during lot splits. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the Lot Split Ordinances 40 and 40A be referred back to the Planning and Zoning. Motion carried unanimously. Attorney Hawkins interpreted the Ordinance that there is no mention about the number of lots, but that there is a charge for every lot created that is less than five acres. We have created one lot that is 2~ acres; and according to the way the ordinance reads, he interpreted it that $100 must be assessed for park fees. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council impose a park fee of $100 for the lot split granted to Mr. Andrew Knoll (legal as in Resolution RS7-9) for the resultant property 2.8 acres. (See Resolution R58-9) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Windschitl; NO-Orttel, Peach Motion carried. Stanley Skog Variance Commissioner Retzlaff stated that the Planning Commission did not recommend acceptance or denial on the variance, as they didn't believe that the P & Z can recommend a variance from the State Building Code as they don't have authority to do that. Mr. Skog explained that the garage is 6\ feet wider than the 1,000 square feet required by the State Building Code. The original plan was for a three-car garage with single doors. The Building Inspector has told him that according to the State Building Code, a garage cannot be more than 1,000 square feet for residential, and the wall would bring it into conformance. The proposed wall would make it 900 square feet; without the wall it is 1200 feet. He doesn't want to put the wall in, as all of his things won't fit with the wall and his entryway would be eliminated. That small area would be more or less wasted space. There is a fire wall between the house and the garage. Discussion was on what, if anything, the Council has control over in this case. Mr. Davidson believed that the law has changed and that the Council could take action and make an appeal to the State Building Code Division, and they would take the Council's action into consideration. The Attorney and Clerk were directed to investigate as to what Council action is necessary in this instance and to report back at the July 17 Council meeting. Mr. Skog stated the only thing not finished in the house is that wall in the garage and asked if there is any way that the Building Inspector can issue a temporary Certificate of Occupancy until this is decided one way or the other so he can live in the house. Mr. Skog was told that the Building Inspector has control over that situation; the Clerk will check with the Building Official to give Mr. Skog an answer. P. Levenhagen Variance It was noted that the land involved was part of a Registered Land Survey of Jim Stack, and the stakes were moved 10 feet closer to Mr. Levenhagen's property. Mr. Hawkins stated there was an error in the original surveys; and when they registered the property, they also registered the boundary lines and had a judicial determination of the lines. Mr. Levenhagen stated he has lived there since 1968 and has had a lot of dirt hauled in there over the past 12 years in anticipation of building his garage. Now he can't Regular City Council Meeting July 11, 1979 - Minutes Page 9 (P. Levenhagen Variance, Continued) do it because of the lot line. The closest thing to the proposed garage is the Tom Thumb, which is about ~ mile away. At first Mr. Levenhagen thought he'd construct a 22x26-foot garage, but if the overhang is also considered, the garage would have to be 20x26 feet. The Building Inspector has told him that by putting up a fire wall, the garage can be constructed as close to the house as he wants. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, to grant Palmer Levenhagen a Variance on the cOnstruction of a garage to be placed two feet from the lot line for the following reasons: As a result of a survey that was in error and now has been corrected, initial plans for the construction of the garage would have placed it within the normal setback; but due to the correction in the survey, he now cannot go through with that unless he is granted this variance; and it creates a hardship on him financially. It does not appear to have adverse affect on the property to the south, to the value, safety, welfare of the property of that owner. No one is contesting it. The topography of the land is such that to place the garage behind the house and to the east would create an undue hardship on Mr. Levenhagen so that the only place feasibile for him to construct a garage is next to the house. (See Resolution RS9-9) Motion carried unanimously. Acceptance of Streets/Fields (Reference TKDA letter of July 10, 1979, Acceptance of Street, Swallow Street Extension into Ed Fields' property) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the City accept for maintenance purposes Swallow Street as it extends into the Ed Fields' property known as Commission 6223-79, subject to the receipt of a $500 maintenance bond; subject to a favorable title opinion by our City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously. Temporary Mobile Home Permit - L. Ostrander MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we grant a gO-day temporary mobile home to Lois Ostrander at 16464 Crosstown Boulevard to allow her to repair the home that was damaged by fire, subject to the mobile home being hooked up to approved sewer and water facilities. Motion carried unanimously. Planning and Zoning Commission Report MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we appoint Mr. Walter Dick to the Planning and Zoning Commission to fulfill the position of Jeannine Pyron whose term expires on December 31, 1980. Motion carried unanimously. City Assessor Applications After discussion, it was generally agreed to interview two of the applicants for City Assessor at the July 17 City Council meeting prior to making a decision for appointment. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City Council request the City Clerk contact the applicants for City Assessor, Steven Kuha and Karen Meuleners, and request that they be at the next City Council meeting at 7:30 for interviews. Motion carried unanimously. Approval of Claims MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve Checks Numbered 2534 through 2599 in the amount of $62,750.97. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve Check Number 286 out of the MSAH Fund in the amount of $58,308.97. Motion carried unanimously. I MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, . to adjourn:-. MotimT,:arried unanimOUSly.~,.lI~ ¡Iii Meeting adjourned at 12:07 a.-m.. ".' ~,/~~~.... ,/ ~ ,-;Jt't;, Marcella A. Peach ¡ ~)..i''¿. \0' ... ,\ ~ \ < ' (;,\,t