Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC June 5, 1979 · ~ o¡ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COU NCIL MEETING - JUNE 5, 1979 AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Public Hearings - None Roger Scherer, District 12 Metro Council Representative 5. Legal and Engineering a. Kadelac Addition - Final Plat b. J. Faddler - Lot Split c. Stenquist Addition _ Final Plans d. Prairie Road & Hanson Blvd. - Progress Report e. Sealcoating - Final Specifications f. Section 17 Bituminous Streets - Feasibility Report g. Thoroughfare Plan - Engineers h. 141 st Avenue Repair 1. Street Standards /Bituminous Requirement 6. Ordinances and Resolutions a. Rum River Ordinance b. Swimming Pool Ordinance 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications a. Cigarette License - Speedy Mart b. Non-Intox. Malt Liquor License - Speedy Mart c. Lease - Warne Linton B. Report of Commissions, Committee s a. Planning and Zoning Commission b. Park and Recreation Commission c. Volunteer Fire Department d. Other Committees 9. Old Business 10. New Business a. Assessor's Contract 11. Approval of Minutes 12. Approval of Claims 13. Adjournment - . -.. ~~._-- · ~ o¡ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JUNE 5, 1979 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on June 5, 1979, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Lachinski, Orttel, Peach Councilman absent: Jacobson Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, John Davidson; Planning and Zoning Chairperson, d'Arcy Bosell; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and interested residents Agenda Approval MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve the Agenda as published with the following additions: Item 5j, Hawk Ridge Street Approval; Item 5k, Terra Firma Estates/ Mobile Home Permit. Motion carried unanimously. Kadelac Addition - Final Plat Engineer Davidson testified they have reviewed the streets, which are in conformance; and recommended a $1,000 maintenance bond for a period of one year. If the plat to the north is not completed within that one-year period, there may be a necessity to construct some temporary cul de sacs at the north line of Flora and Eidelweiss. He felt that the $1,000 would cover the maintenance and/or cul de sac construction. Attorney Hawkins explained that the last certification on the abstract was just about a year old and the abstract must be updated. He suggested the Resolution for approval be made contingent upon the updating of the abstract. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve the Final Plat of the Kadelac Addition, making this contingent on favorable title opinion; and also maintenance cash in the amount of $1,000. (See Resolution R43-9) Motion carried unanimously. J. Faddler - Lot Split Chairman Bosell explained that Mr. Faddler wishes to create one piece that would include Lot 1200, that piece of property being 300 feet of road frontage by 436.87 feet in length. That would bring the piece of property to the north 40 line. That would also create three lots -- one lot being about 3.6 acres which would front on County Road 58 with a road frontage of 246.87 feet which is below minimum road frontage of 300 feet; the other piece of property would be the remainder of this 40; plus the larger Lot 1200. The Planning Commission approved it as presented. Since then, Chairman Bosell has reviewed the Lot Split Ordinance, which specifically states you can create only two lots. She tried to redraw the configuration to make only two parcels but found it difficult to do. She recommended either approving it as recommended by the P & Z with some variances to the Lot Split Ordinance or to deny this and give them direction to plat. Jim Neilson, Attorney with the lawfirm of Babcock, Locher, Neilson and Mannella, 118 East Main Street, Anoka, represented the fee owners, Dorothy and Julius Faddler, who are presently in California. He explained that the Faddlers originally purchased the property under contract for deed in 1967, that being all the property that was originally owned by Sylvester being in two different quarter quarters. They sold the property under a contract for deed to an individual who subsequently conveyed off parcel 1200 on which a house was built by the Faddlers. The Faddlers did not create parcel 1200. That parcel is 187 feet by 142 feet and is presently taxed as a separate parcel of record. Because they feel that parcel is too small, they want to increase the size to sell the house with three acres. The Sylvester Addition was already on record at the time they bought the property, which already created the dimension of 246.87 feet along -~ - .~ - .~_.. Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1979 - Minutes Page 2 (J. Faddler - Lot Split, Continued) the west line of the section, prior to the Ordinance requiring 300 feet of width. He argued for the Faddlers that they are really creating one more parcel than they presently have. They presently have parcel 2250, which is in another quarter quarter, parcel 1300 and parcel 1200. The resulting split would have four parcels instead of three. He felt it would be more reasonable to have a larger lot on parcel 1200. The party that intends to buy parcel 1200 is buying it on a contingency, one being that he gets his house sold. There was a lengthy discussion relative to Mr. Neilson's argument that one more parcel would be created, as it was the Council's contention that three marketable pieces of property would be created (one with 3.68 acres, one with 3.01 with the dwelling on it, plus parcel 1300); on whether Faddler should plat this piece of property, especially since lot 1200 exists as an illegal conveyance; and on the events relative to the creation of lot 1200. Councilman Orttel stated that lot 1200 is contrary to ordinance and felt this is a way to make it comply with the ordinance for housing density, etc. If a person were to plat that land, the house would remain on that sized lot. He asked if that is what we want. The lot created north of Sylvester's Addition would be a problem because of width; however, he assumed if the land were platted, that lot would be allowed by variance. Mr. Neilson testified that 170th Lane was constructed with Class 5 about 2/3 of the distance of parcel 1200 but, to his knowledge, it is not an accepted street by the City. Mr. Faddler is willing to put in the extension of 170th with cul de sac according to City standards and to dedicate cash for park. Discussion was on the possible alternatives of splitting this property; that the City does not have to recognize the illegal lot of 1200; of the concerns of the Council of the substandard lot on the north that would be created by the proposal presented; on the question of whether the building permit for the house presently located on parcel 1200 was issued for parcel 1300 or for parcel 1200; and on speculations as to how the property could be divided or where building permits might be issued. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Council deny the Faddler Lot Split because it does not meet the requirements of the Lot Split Ordinance. (See Resolution R44-9) Discussion: Councilman Peach stated the specific reasons for the denial are that three lots are created and the Lot Split Ordinance specifically states that you can create only two, based on Parcel 1200 being an illegal lot; and that the proposed lot split also creates an unbuildable lot in the northwest portion. He also questioned the "hardship" question, as this could be platted. Councilman Orttel stated he didn't like to see a 3/4-acre lot exist that far north in the City. He'd rather see it as one three-acre lot and one 3.7-acre lot. Attorney Hawkins stated that making Parcel 1200 legal could be done because the landowner owns the rest of the land around it. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Orttel Motion carried. Further discussion was on combining 1200 and 1300 to make it one legal parcel. Attorney Hawkins explained that this lot was conveyed off quite some time ago with a house on it, so the action to join it now would have to be against the person who originally conveyed it off. Mr. Neilson asked, assuming the Faddlers owned only the property north of 170th Lane (they have a purchase agreement tosell all the land south of 170th), would he be permitted to plat that into three parcels. Councilman Lachinski felt that the Planning Commission would have to look at the length of the road, the logical extension of the street and the park dedication. Ms. Bosell stated it appears feasible to have 170th Lane extend easterly all the way to County Road 9, but the northerly lot would require a variance because of the width. Mr. Neilson stated if they can legally accomplish getting this sold by the way of a plat, they will attempt to do so. --, Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1979 - Minutes Page 3 Roger Scherer - District 12 Metro Council Representative Mr. Scherer stated he is meeting with all the local governments he represents and that the Governor wants to make sure that the Metropolitan Council works in conjunction with local units of government. He understood one of the problems is a development along the Rum River in Andover with 2\-acre lots. The Metropolitan Council Development Guide says that makes that area an urban area, as it is unsewered with more than 100 lots on a section. Mayor Windschitl stated that the City has had probably one of the most restrictive zoning in this area for years, and also has a lot of woodland and sandy soil. He reviewed the urban and rural section of the City; that there has been very few sewer problems on the 2\-acre lots in the City; that the perculation tests in this area are very good mostly because of the sand; and he reviewed the events that occurred relative to the lot size proposed in rural areas by the Metro Council, including the events discussed at previous meetings leading up to the disagreement with the Metro Council on lot sizes in Andover. He noted the City's two-year moratorium on building to allow for the development of the Comprehensive Plan; the City's On-Site Septic Ordinance; that no one from the Metro Council has ever been to the City to view the developments or see what is being done; and he didn't feel the allegations against the City were justified and that some statements were also in error. Mr. Scherer stated that the temper and strong bias of the Metropolitan Council, which is reflected in the rules, is against development outside the urban service area, as they don't want to get into the situation of extending sewer lines and other services which they just cannot afford to do. The reason for that bias is they feel it is better with a compact metropolitan area, and the rules say that there should be 10-acre lots in the rural area. The Mayor felt that the local government officials know what they are doing; that our master plans have been completed; and he didn't think the Metro Council realizes the urbanness of our City because Andover has not been a farm community for a long time. He talked with Mr. Weaverye~erday and he is trying to arrange a meeting to go over the City's specific questions. During further discussion, it was felt that the biggest problem with the Metro Council has been a communications problem in that no officials, other than Mr. Scherer and staff members, have been out here; and they have no idea what is going on in our City but are doing the planning for us. It was also pointed out that the City has gone to a lot greater lengths than the surrounding cities in planning for services. The City Council expressed a desire to have the Physical Development Committee view some of Andover's developments, especially Rum River Forest. Mr. Scherer explained some of the reasons for the Metro Council's thinking, especially the fear that it will cost more than we can afford for expansion of services. And if services are needed, that the cities will have to pay for them themselves. Mayor Windschitl felt that the Metro Council can take responsibility for the very small lot developments taking place outside the seven-county metropolitan area because they are making it so restrive within this area. The people are simply going to move across the seven-county area borders, causing leapfrog developing. To try to solve some of the problems the City has, Mayor Windschitl suggested sitting down with staff and officials of the Metro Council and try to see how they think we ought to develop on a reasonable basis, not just using their arbitrary number~ and to try to work something out for our Comprehensive Plan, as it does the City no good to spend money to get the Plan updated and have it rejected. He also stated that the thrust of what we have been doing in the City for years has been with the policy of restricting development within the urban services area. Our argument is on acreage size. We have argued that the acreage size should be on an engineered size depending on soil conditions, ability to handle on-site sewage systems, etc. Mr. Scherer stated he will be back at the City's call for whatever purpose, will make the arguments for the City as best he can, and will help whenever he can. Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1979 - Minutes Page 4 Stenquist Addition - Final Plans Engineer Davidson noted the final plans and specifications for bituminous streets and storm sewers, suggesting bids be opened on June 29 and considering the award On July 11 at the Special City Council meeting. After doing final plans and specs, he still felt that the costs would be the same as what the people were told at the public hearing, but by adding the Stenquist Addition, the prices should be slightly less than from the lS9th Street bid. They are dividing the project in two parts -- part one will be lS9th Avenue only; the second proposal will be the balance of the work, reserving the right to award one or both or none of the proposals. Mr. Davidson also reviewed information he gathered relative to the alternative of the paczyme method of compacting the base for the bituminous surfacing of the roads. The only research he found was from the Illinois Highway Development Council, which indicated that the paczyme method decreases the stability factor. The paczyme method is being included as an alternate in this project; but there is only one dealer in the area who is a franchise dealer of this method. Mr. Davidson said they would not want to recommend something that has been proven to be, in their opinion from all evidence given to them, less desirable than Class 5 gravel base compacted to 100 percent density. He wanted the Council to be aware of the fact that if there is a failure, they cannot stand behind this as they can behind the proven techniques of road building. Discussion was on whether or not the paczyme method should be bid and the cost difference between that and compacted gravel base. It was agreed that the alternate method should be bid. Recess at 9:15 to allow Councilmen and residents to view the final plans and specifications for the project; reconvene at 9:25 p.m. Bob Fodness, 4613 162nd Lane NW - feared the building of the road with something that has not been tried and proven, and felt for his money he'd rather go with the proven method that we know work. He felt that the paczyme method would be experimenting with a lot of money for something that mayor may not break up, as there are no guarantees. If it were a very substantial savings and an iron-glad guarantee could be given, then it is a good deal. Mr. Davidson reviewed a report done in 1975 on the costs of Class 5 and paczyme. At that time, standard street construction with four inches of Class 5 and l~ inches of bituwinous cost $2 to $2.60 per square yard. The chemically stabalized street construction consisting of four inches of chemically treated base plus l~ inches of bituminous cost$1.7Sto $2.30, looking at a difference of 25 to 30 cents a square yard. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, entering a Resolution Number 45 accepting Final Plans and Specifications and setting date for opening of bids for the improvement of bituminous streets to build those roadways located within the Stenquist Addition, Section 18, Township 32, Range 24...(See Resolution R4S-9) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; NO-Peach Motion carried. Prairie Road and Hanson Boulevard - Progress Report Mr. Davidson reviewed the status report of Hanson Boulevard Extension. Mayor Windschitl expressed a desire to get the right of way acquired this year, if possible, for Hanson Boulevard extension so another construction year is not lost. Mr. Davidson also reviewed the Prairie Road plan sheets and the right of way proposed to be acquired for the project between Bunker Lake Boulevard and Andover Boulevard. He suggested the right of way be acquired along Prairie Road, then provide construction Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1979 - Minutes Page 5 (Prairie Road and Hanson Boulevard - Progress Report, Continued) plans and specifications, and construct that portion of the roadway from Andover Boulevard to Station 28 with Class 5 gravel. Council discussion noted that the new bridge must be tied to the existing roadway this year because of the safety hazard of the old bridge, especially for school buses; on the reluctance of residents along the roadway for the entire project; that the proposed alignment of the roadway would be farther away from some homes than the existing road- way; that it will be easier to obtain right of way now before it is developed further; questioned the need for a rural section through the area at all (Mr. Davidson felt it is necessary for some distance on either side of the bridge) as rural section requires greater right of way; an urban street would substantially cut down acquisition costs; questioned whether a concrete curb is required for an urban section of street; that a relatively inexpensive storm sewer system could probably be provided for the street if it were urban street; and that the residents might find the project more tolerable if it were urban section rather than rural with ditches. The Council decided to acquire right of way and proceed with construction to tie-in the new bridge with the existing roadway and directed the engineer to look at the urban section to see if a majority of the road could be done as an urban section, which may be more acceptable to the residents affected. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the Engineer and Attorney be authorized to proceed on acquiring the right of way for the construction of bridge approaches to the new Prairie Road Bridge, including authorizing the Engineer to prepare final plans and specifications for the project. Discussion: It is the Council's intent that MSAH funds be used and that residents will not be assessed. This is only to tie in the new bridge, hopefully prior to the school season. Attorney Hawkins stated if he is dealing with someone who owns additional property that will need to be acquired for the road construction, it would be easier to take care of the entire matter at once rather than going back again in the future for more right of way. General feeling of the Council was that Prairie Road should be done with as much of an urban section as possible, but the Engineer was to review what the cost difference would be between additional urban section where the proposed rural section is. Motion carried unanimously. Sealcoating - Final Specifications Mr. Davidson explained they have taken the first five priority streets and cut it off with two alternates so we can'take bids and stay within the $20,000 limit allocated by the Council. He estimated about three miles of street could be done and proposed going with the cut-back asphalt. Councilman Lachinski presented an alternative method of s~alcoating, a cheaper product. It is a penetration of the material and interested him because with about a $4,000 piece of equipment, City staff would be able to do it. The Engineer was to review this method for his comments. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, introducing Resolution No. 46, Improvement 79-3, a Resolution accepting Final Plans and Specifications for the improvement of Sealcoating for specific streets in the City and setting the date for opening of bids...(Ward Lake Drive from County Road 18 north .06 miles; 17Sth Avenue NW from County State Aid Highway 7 east about 2.5 miles; Navaho Street; 173rd Avenue NW south to its terminus; East Brook Terrace, three streets east of Crooked Lake Boulevard; and Lakeview Terrace, two streets south of Bunker Lake Boulevard. Bids to be opened June 18, 1979) (See Resolution R46-9) Motion carried unanimously. Section 17 Bituminous Streets - Feasibility Report Engineer Davidson reviewed the feasibility report dated June 5, 1979, including location, initiation, abutting parcels, right of way, easements, drainage, proposed improvements with two alternatives (rural road construction or urban roadway construction), Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1979 - Minutes Page 6 (Section 17 Bituminous Streets - Feasibility Report, Continued) estimated cost (estimated front-foot assessment for streets and storm sewer for alternate one, rural section, $20.50 for typical lSOx300' parcel totalling $3,075; estimated front-foot assement for streets and storm sewer for alternate two, urban section, $17.62 for assessment on lSOx300' parcel of $2,643); proposed project time schedule and preliminary assessment roll. It was noted that because the additional petitions anticipated were not received, if the project is ordered, it would take a 4/5 vote. The Attorney noted that if the originally petitioned area is taken as a separate project, and the petition received was 35 percent of the property owners, then a 3/5 vote would be needed at the public hearing. Gre~ Reynolds, 15835 TUli~ Street - asked why they wanted to pave Tulip. (His neighbors petltloned it; the CounCl doesn't initiate projects. The Clerk reviewed the percentage of people on particular streets petitioning for the project, but she didn't recall what percentage On Tulip Street signed the petition.) Mr. Reynolds asked what procedure is used to stop the project. (He was told he has the right to submit a petition in opposition to it or by writing or appearing at the public hearing.) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, entering a Resolution for accepting a feasibility study and setting a date for a public hearing for the construction of bituminous streets and storm sewers in the southwest quarter and the south half of the northwest quarter of Section 17, Township 32, Range 24 and the Alladin Acres area in Section 18, Township 32, Range 24... (Setting Public Hearing for June 20, 1979, 7:30 p.m.) (See Resolution R47-9) Motion carried unanimously. Terra Firma Estates - Mobile Home Permit (Reference memo of June 4, 1979, from Dave Almgren relative to a building permit for Terra Firma Estates to be located at 2835 142nd Avenue NW) Ed Maki, Terra Firma Estates, 406 Andall Street, Lino Lakes, and Walter Axton, 4050 Humbolt, North Minneapolis, both represented Terra Firma Estates; Michael Czech, 803 Freemont Street, Anoka, buyer; and Jim Neilson with the lawfirm of Babcock, Locher, Neilson and Mannella, represented Terra Firma Estates, Inc. Mr. Neilson explained that Terra Firma Estates is a corporation that sells and erects a manufactured home on a lot. They were denied a building permit from the City Building Inspector based on a question of zoning. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance #8, EEE, someone has determined that the particular structure being erected is a mobile home. The petitioner argues that it is not a mobile home; it is a manufactured home. It does not come under the definition of the City's Mobile Home Ordinance or mobile home definition for the zoning. Mr. Neilson reviewed various State definitions for mobile homes, arguing that this manufactured home does not fall within those definitions. There are separate definitions for manufactured and prefabricated homes, which come under the State Building Code and are inspected by the State Building Inspector. A seal is placed on the house to show it meets code. There are also definitions for manufactured homes by the Federal Government through the Housing and Urban Development. The particular house involved would be erected on the land with a permanent basement, will be taxed as residential property, has never been a "mobile home", and will never be. It gets to the question of the definition. Mr. Neilson pointed out that the City has no definition of a single family dwelling, and this is a single family dwelling. He also presented a flyer for the Council to view of the type of structure involved. He explained that semi-trucks bring in one-half of the house at a time. That half of a house is not a mobile home; it is a half of a house, and put together on a basement for the single family dwelling. In addition, he felt the intention of the City's Mobile Home Ordinance adopted in 1970 was to have a place for what we previously considered a mobile home which had a permanent undercarriage, was on wheels, and was not erected on a foundation. This structure is proposed to be erected in an R-l zone. Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1979 - Minutes Page 7 (Terra Firma Estates - Mobile Home Permit, Continued) The house next door to this property is exactly the same as thi~ brought into the City most likely in 1977, and Mr. Neilson noted locations of similiar structures located in the City. Terra Firma's position is that previously the City has properly permitted the manufactured home to be erected in the City. There is apparently no other place that this particular manufacturer has ever had any problem of being interpreted as a mobile home. For this reason, they wanted the Council to instruct the Building Inspector to issue the building permit so the structure can be built. Terra Firma Estates has sold the house and land to Michael Czech, and he has a commitment from FHA for that particular structure for a mortgage on a single family residential structure. Attorney Hawkins stated that he had discussed this with the Building Official relative to Section EEE of Ordinance #8, which states "a dwelling unit capable of being transported by the provision of wheels or on a flatbed truck, which meets 200 square feet or more of living space, utility installation, wiring..." Based on that definition, it was his opinion that what was being proposed to be located in the R-l zone fell within that definition of mobile home, and the building permit was not approved based on that definition. He advised these gentlemen and Mr. Neilson in a phone conversation of his opinion of that section, and that they could come before the Council with a request to change the definition or to request a variance, which would have to initiate at the P & Z. It is definitely a dwelling unit capable of being transported by a flatbed truck and contains 200 square feet of living space with wiring. He interprets it to be a mobile home based on the City's ordinance. Howard TriSYS - cited an incident relative to the definition of mobile home as transporta e, in that most any structure could be considered a mobile home because it can be blocked up and moved. He felt the definition has to be looked into as to what the building is constructed out of. Mr. Neilson also felt the definition as stated in the Ordinance applies to every single home erected because every home can be put on blocks, picked up, and moved. The real question is whether there is a permanent chasis to it similiar to what is in a car and having no foundation other than wheels, jacks, or skirting. Discussion was on whether or not Ordinance #4 requiring a moving permit would be applicable in this case; that the intent of this ordinance was to put mobile homes existing in the City into mobile home parks, so any changes to the Ordinance must be done carefully; that the zoning R-S district is specifically for all types of manufactured housing including mobile homes and modular homes. Mr. Neilson felt that Section 5 talks to relocated structures, and this is not a relocated structure but is a new home, though the component parts have been brought in by truck. He argued that a relocated structure is one that has been erected on another property. He also argued that the purpose of the R-S zoning would pertain to a mobile home park, which is a much smaller planned unit development for modular homes which normally would not have basements. This is a single family dwelling. Discussion was also On the materials used in the construction of this unit (2x4 walls, wrapped in plywood, 16" center roof rafters, glued and nailed, insulated R13 in side walls, R30 in ceiling, built in factory rather than on site). It was still Attorney Hawkins' opinion that it falls within the definition and is not allowed in an R-l district. In order to allow it in that district, you either have to change the zonin~change the definition of mobile home, or grant a variance to allow that in under the Ordinance. All three require Planning Commission action. He had a problem as to whether this would be considered a relocated structure to be governed by Ordinance #4. This is a new structure being put in there. He indicated that perhaps with the changing times and technology, we need to look at the definition to include these types of homes. Whether or not that is an appropriate ordinance or whether or not you want to restrict these is a matter of City policy. Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1979 - Minutes Page 8 Planning Commission Chairman Bosell suggested they should say that they want to vary from the restriction of manufactured housing being placed in an R-S zone, because it is not a mobile home. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the Building Permit for Michael Czech be denied because the building is not in accordance with Ordinance 8, Section EEE and Ordinance 6, Section l-a; and that the petitioner be requested to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further action. Discussion: Mr. Hawkins advised that the first portion of the motion is not necessary; just reference it to the Planning Commission for consideration. Council also desired some justification for allowing this in; noted that a public hearing is not necessary for a variance but is necessary if the Ordinance is amended; suggested that the surrounding property owners be notified. COUNCILMAN PEACH CHANGED MOTION TO: That the petitioner be requested to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further action and to request that the P & Z review the applicable ordinance. Second still stands. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Neilson requested a certified copy of the motion. It was noted that these Minutes will not be approved before July 11. Mr. Neilson then requested a copy of the motion that he can pick up by Friday. Rum River Ordinance - Public Hearing Tom Lutgen, representing the Division of Waters with the Department of Natural Resources, reviewed the Council's concerns on the proposed Rum River Ordinance (reference Minutes of the May 15, 1979, Regular City Council Meeting). * Page 7: Chairman Bosell stated the City is at liberty to change it to 300-foot lot width to conform to the City's ordinances. * Mr. Lutgen suggested any place the City's regulations are more restrictive, these can be used if the City desires. Their main concern is where the City would want to be less restrictive than what shows up in the published rules and regulations. * As far as the land use district is concerned, Mr. Lutgen stated this is a single district. The approach would be to set up a separate district under the Ordinances and in a separate section put in the definitions to apply just to that district. * Page 8, 5.03.02: Mr. Lutgen explained the section on substandard lots talks about 60 percent of the required lot width. Their regulations do not have a requirement for minimum lot area in dealing with a substandard lot. If you go with the 300-feet, you are going to have a minimum width of 180 feet instead of 150 feet. What the DNR was looking at is at 60 percent of lot width, which is 250 feet. He understood through the adoption of the DNR management plan they looked at the existing lots that were platted, and the 60 percent would have been reasonable taking into consideration platted lots. He stated the substandard lot of record language has two separate things that it is saying. It says that if you have a single substandard lot of record without an adjoining lot owned by the same persOn, it is a buildable lot provided it complies with the septic system ordinance and practical dimensions. But when you have two side by side, then you're talking about the 60 percentage. After discussion, the Council generally felt that the Ordinance should read as originally suggested and that reference to 60 percent of lot ~ should not be included. * Commenting on the recommendation that a blanket statement saying the most restrictive ordinance would apply, Mr. Lutgen's understanding was that a standard practice of zoning has been that the most restrictive would apply. Discussion was on how it would be determined what is the most restrictive. Mr. Lutgen suggested that a11 definitions that apply to this particular land use district be in a section of the Ordinance which relates directly to the land use district and could be adopted in a separate ordinance. Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1979 - Minutes Page 9 (Rum River Ordinance - Public Hearing, Continued) He also reviewed a document prepared that the Ordinance must comply with relative to rules and regulations, policies, statements, etc. This is a cross reference so all that language doesn't need to be printed in the Ordinance. It was noted that the City did not have copies of that document, and that this clarified many of the questions the Council had on standards noted in the Ordinance. * Mr. Lutgen stated that the Scenic River Zone is a separate district. Mayor Windschitl then noted that the City must backtrack to follow the ordinance relative to the rezoning of an area in the City. * Page 11, 7.01.02, relative to whether or not a soil boring will be required prior to building permit being issued -- Mr. Lutgen's interpretation was that the WPC 40 of the PCA requirements will be followed in a Scenic River Ordinance, which does not require soil borings. When the local unit of government wants to require soil borings, then certain things should be followed. He felt it would be acceptable to change this Ordinance to state that soil borings are not mandatory in every case, and that it is at the discretion of the local unit of government. * Page 13, 8.04.01, road standards - Mr. Lutgen stated they just want to be sure that the provisions of Minnesota Regulations NR 79 (j) (2) are covered in this ordinance. These standards are cross referenced in the document he referred to earlier. He felt the conditional use permit required would not be for normal maintenance, but for modifying existing roadway, putting in a new road system, changing the alignment, widening, etc. These permits would be issued through the local unit of government. * Page 14, 10.02.02, question on responsibility for inspecting existing systems -- Mr. Lutgen stated it is the local unit of government's responsibility. The DNR has no authority to implement any portion of this ordinance, as their authority is only to the bed of water itself. And there is no funding to help the City out. He clarified that a nonconforming sanitary sewer would be to present PCA standards. Discussion was on the problems involved with this in that it is often difficult to determine what type of system they have. Do you wait until there is a problem before doing anything? The city is basically wanting some guidance as to how to do it. Mr. Lutgen stated the policy is that it will be done by the local unit of government and provides that within five years all systems be conforming. There is no guidance as to how that should be done. It would be at the discretion of the local unit of government. This refers to nonconforming, not substandard, systems. The intent is to take a system that is not treating sewage disposal out of there and get a conforming system in. It was noted that Andover already has an ordinance to handle the prOblt~!R Mr. Lutgen requested a copy of the City's Septic System Ordinance. He will discuss/w't DNR staff and again with Ms. Bosell. * Page 16, 10.02.03 (1) - Mr. Lutgen stated the only setback required in the Ordinance is the setback away from the river. It was the Mayor's feeling that the way it is worded, no structural alterations or additions could be added to the lot. Mr. Lutgen felt they could be if they were within the required setback from the river. It was agreed that the Planning Commission Chairman and Attorney would reword this section to be more in line with Mr. Lutgen's thinking. * Page 21, 10.09.03 - Mr. Hawkins explained that a resident cannot compel the City to prosecute a specific prosecution for violation of this ordinance. It is his duty as City Attorney to enforce the ordinance or prosecute any violators by State law. He'd prefer to strike that section and rely on what the common law provides. Mr. Lutgen stated that is something that doesn't have to be in the ordinance. Discussion was that the changes should be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and that the public hearing be held open until it comes before the Council again. Part of the adoption of the Ordinance is a revision of the City's official zoning map, and Mr. Lutgen requested a copy of the revised zoning map. Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1979 - Minutes Page 10 (Rum River Ordinance - Public Hearing, Continued) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the question of the Rum River Ordinance PubllC Hearing be held open until July 11; and the matter be referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. Thoroughfare Plan - Engineers Engineer Davidson reviewed the problems with the present MSAH designated roadway map and explained the advantage of having an overall city thoroughfare system planned out and prioritized. He noted that part of the Comprehensive Development Plan, which is being updated by Midwest Planning, is a thoroughfare plan of the City. He suggested if they could meet with Midwest Planning to see what plans they have available and meet with the County to obtain their long range planning, they can then come up with an evaluation of the thoroughfare system within the City. A more accurate thoroughfare map would be an aid in considering right of way acquisition as plats are proposed, and also a policy change may need to be recommended relative to the dedication of a certain size right of way and anything beyond that would have to be acquired for future overall public benefit beyond that subdivision. He asked for authorization to collect all available data, after which he could come back to the Council with a work scope defining the amount it would cost to complete updating the thoroughfare plan of the City. He couldn't estimate what that cost would be at this time, but estimated it would not be more than $1,500 as an initial expenditure to collect the available data. It was noted that Anoka County does have documents available on thoroughfare plans. Questions were raised as to whether the City wants to try to plan a grid system for city streets and on the budget limitations. Mr. Davidson was directed to check with the County to see what planning has been done and to report back with a closer cost estimate of updating the City's thoroughfare system. 141st Avenue Repair MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the firm of TKDA be authorized to solicit bids for the repair of 141st Avenue in Green Acres Addition to repair the settling of the roadway. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 11:45; reconvene at 11:50 p.m. Street Standards/Bituminous Requirement Mr. Davidson explained the comparison of maintenance between bituminous streets and gravel streets is difficult to deal with because the City presently is not maintaining under a full maintenance program (grading after every rain storm, dust control, etc.). He felt that in comparison to a full maintenance program on gravel streets,and that of a cycling sealcoating program would be the least costly as an overall program; although he didn't have any firm figures to substantiate that. Councilman Lachinski questioned if it is fair to expand and expend city funds on blacktop streets when we still haven't graveled dirt streets; where are we going to put our dollars? He felt the Council has to have a commitment regarding all the issues, that you spend at least as much money on improving dirt streets to gravel as you do on sealcoating. Discussion was on comparing costs of maintenance and upgrading dirt streets and that of sealcoating bituminous surface streets, and its impact on the city budget; that if bituminous surfacing is to be required, there must also be a commitment to spend the monies for sealcoating and other maintenance as well; that there needs to be some variance procedure to provide for some exceptions from the blacktopping requirement (ie., adding a cul de sac to the end of a gravel road); and that the mill levy might need to be increased as a result of adding more bituminous streets in the City. Regulqr City Council Meeting June 5, 1979 - Minutes Page 11 (Street Standards/Bituminous Requirement Continued) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the City Street Standards as adopted by the Clty Council on May 13, 1976, for rural street sections in the City of Andover be altered to eliminate Note Number 1, which states "Delete 24-foot bituminous surfacing except where the City Engineer requiring bituminous surfacing to eliminate drainage problems"; to be effective for all preliminary plats and all other streets proposed for acceptance and maintenance by the City not filed with the City Clerk as of June 5, 1979. (See Resolution R48-9) Motion carried unanimously. Approval of Streets - Hawk Ridge MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City accept the Streets in the Hawk Rldge Addition. Motion carried unanimously. Swimming Pool Ordinance Due to the hour and the absence of a councilmember, it was agreed to postpone action on this ordinance until the next regular Council meeting. However, because Councilman Orttel indicated he would not be present at that meeting, he presented his comments on the proposed ordinance: Section 1, definition, curious why anything owned by more than two families was eliminated, as he questioned whether this would be applicable to apartment buildings, quad housing, townhouses with more than two families, etc. Ms. Bosell noted this deals with residential pools only, not commercial. She will research this further. Section 3, b, Fencing: Councilman Orttel wondered how the latching devices applies to an indoor pool, as normally they don't have a latch or knob 4-feet off the ground at points of entry. There is also the question of points of entry for the handicapped person with the latch that high. Dave Almgren, Building Inspector, said the original intent of the ordinance was to apply it to outdoor pools. It was suggested that possibly the wording should indicate outdoor pool. This will be on the June 19 Agenda. Cigarette License/Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License - Speedy Mart MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that a Cigarette License and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License, Off-Sale only, be issued to Carl J. Schroeder, Speedy Mart Grocery, located at 13725 Crosstown Boulevard NW, to run until 12/31/79. Motion carried unanimously. Hawk Ridge Park Lease - Warne Linton MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Hawk Ridge Park be leased to Warne Llnton for the purposes of harvesting hay for the year 1979 for a fee of $125. Motion carried unanimously. Planning and Zoning Commission Report Chairman Bosell reported that they have reviewed the Comprehensive Development Plan as presented by Midwest Planning and have found about 34 items they will be asked to deal with. It should be ready to go to the Council as soon as those are taken care of. She proposed that she present the Council with the Development Plan as it now stands with an addendum of the changes they have made rather than waiting for Midwest Planning to redo it. The Council agreed to that suggestion. Mayor Windschitl also requested that Midwest work with TKDA in the zoning process because of the problems TKDA has had with the other plans as far as the flexible zoning. Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1979 - Minutes Page 12 Park/Recreation Commission - Exclusive Use Procedures After discussion, it was agreed that keys for the Andover Community Center will not be given out. That portion of the document relating to issuance of keys will be removed. Discussion was also on the fee schedule. Numbers 1, 2, and 3 are damage deposits. No.5 and 6 are fees. Discussion was on No.6, $100 Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License, as to whether it should be a damage deposit or a fee. The Clerk stated the Ordinance states it is a $100 annual fee; but the City has issued a temporary one- or two-day license for $10. Because this is dealt with specifically under Ordinance 28, it was felt that the Ordinance could just be referenced here. No.5 - Non-league youth groups over the age of 18, $50 -- questioned if that is for the summer or per event; questioned what a non-league youth group is and whether they should be charged at all; also needs a clarification on the time period (how long does the fee apply). Wes Mand, Park Board Chairman, explained that it was essentially intended for an on-going scheduled event. He is to review this further. Park/Recreation Commission - Grant Program Mr. Mand requested direction from the Council as to how much the Council is wanting to spend on the grant program next year. He explained what he had learned at the State Grant Program last month, noting some of the things that would be covered by a grant. He also stated that a hockey rink and ball fields at the Community School Park would be required to be maintained by the City. He also explained that the DNR is going to acquire the two properties needed for the proposed boat landing access on the north end of Crooked Lake, and they would like the City to apply for a grant to develop the site. Development of the site for the two-year projected span of the project would be approximately $20,000 (including ramp, parking area, clearing the site); and the City's share would be approximately $4,000 to $S,OOO,as the grant will fund 75 percent of the cost. The grant must be submitted by the end of this month. Some of the City's matching funds can be credited from in-kind services, doing some of the work with our own staff. Mr. Mand was directed to have the Park Board prioritize those items to be at the Community School park site and make a recommendation as to what they think the money should be spent on and how much. He should also apply for the necessary grant for the Boat Landing project. Mr. Mand stated that the boat landing application would not impact the application for the Community School park. Mr. Mand also noted that there is strong feeling on the Park Board that City parks should be done before the school park. He was told that that should be evaluated and reflected in their recommendation to the Council of how and where they want monies spent on park development. Mr. Mand brought to the Engineer's attention that bicycles are getting past the fence in the Northwoods Tennis Court. The Engineer will investigate this. He also noted a letter from Rosella Sonsteby, who wants to sell the City two lots on the south side of Round Lake for $15,000 apiece ($10,000 in cash and $20,000 in credit for future development in the area). He will bring this to the Park Board for a recommendation. Volunteer Fire Department - VHF Radios (Reference June 1, 1979, memo from Fire Department Equipment Committee relative to purchase recommendation for two portable battery powered VHF radios) Tom May, Equip- ment Committee Chairman, explained these are hand-held, portable radios with three channels which will be mostly used in command situations from Chief to Assistant Chief or Officer inside of a house. The VHF has a very clear communication. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to authorize the Fire Department to purchase two portable battery powered VHF radios from Motorola at a price of $2,048. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1979 - Minutes Page 13 Assessor's Contract Mayor Windschitl explained that he and the City Clerk met with the Anoka County Assessor, who has been reviewing the City's books. They are expressing a desire to have the mathematical accuracy and calculations rechecked in the quarter section that was re-evaluated by the Assessor, which would amount to a week or two of checking extensions. There has been some frequency of calculation errors. Discussion was on whether the City should hire someone temporarily to do the re- calculations or to ask Mr. Triggs, the City Assessor, to do it; and on what problems had occurred. It was suggested that each Councilman go to the County Assessor's office and review the books himself. The City Clerk estimated it would cost between $400 and $500 to hire someone to do the work. Charles Trig~s indicated that this is the first he heard of any problems by the County. He explalned the problem that was brought to the Council's attention previously, noting that the County had told him the wrong column to use. Had the County come directly to him and asked him to do these recalculations, he stated he would have made an effort to do it. After further discussion, Mr. Triggs stated that his contract as City Assessor runs to July 1; and if the job isn't done, he should do it. He stated that he would do the mathematical calculations as soon as someone from the County contacted him to pick up the books. Mayor Windschitl stated he would contact the County tomorrow informing them that Mr. Triggs will do the recalculations. Council discussion was on the Assessor's contract for the next year, as the County and Mr. Triggs had indicated a cost for doing the assessing. It was also noted that another person had indicated a desire to bid on the position. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to advertise for bids for the position of Assessor, City of Andover, from July 1, 1979, through June 30, 1980. Motion carried unanimously. Approval of Claims MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that Check Numbers 2511 through 2533 from the General Fund ln the amount of $16,598.83 be approved; and from the 78-2 Fund, Check Numbers 285 for $15.24, Check Number 284 for $693, and Check Number 176 for $120 for a total of $828.24, be approved. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Meeting adjourned 'at 1:26 a.m. ", Respectfully sUbmi~ '~~ t~L Marcel a A. Peach Recording Secretary ~, l .\' ' (\ ~,\ ~ \ I V\ '"'\ ! \, C0\ '