Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC March 20, 1979 ~ o¡ ~r--JDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 20, 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. Caswell Appeal-Midwest Planning Fees b. Linstad-Lot Split c. Larson/Hanson-Variance d. Pine HillS-P£,~~inary Plat 7 e. North Birch· Estates - Preliminary Plat f. 167th Lane CuI de Sac g. DeGardner_ Road Location , h. 6. Ordinances and Resolutions a. Ordinance No. BD (Junkyards /Special Use) 7. Petitions, Reque sts, C ommunciations a. Bingo License -AA/St. Patrick's Church b. Cigarette, N. I. Malt Liquor Off Sale Licenses - Tom Thumb Store 8. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Boards a. Planning and Zoning Commission b. Park and Recreation Commission c. Volunteer Fire Department d. Legislative Committees 9. Old Business a. Clerk/Typist Position 10. New Business a. 11. Approval of Minutes 12. Approval of Claims 13. Adjournment ~ o¡ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 20, 1979 MINUTES The Regular Bi-t10nthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Acting Mayor Kenneth Orttel on March 20, 1979, 7:34 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; Planning and Zoning Chairperson, d'Arcy Bosell; and interested residents Agenda Approval MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that we accept the Agenda as presented with the deletion of Item 5a; Addition of Item 7c, Stenquist Addition; and the Addition of Item 8a, Clerk/Typist Position. Motion carried unanimously. Stenquist Addition Petition Acting Mayor Orttel explained a petition has been received containing an excess of the required 35 percent of landowners for the improvement of streets in the Stenquist Addition. The feasibility report has already been completed. Mr. Davidson stated the suggestion is that the public hearing be held on April 17, as that is the soonest it can be held due to legal requirements of publication, etc. The plans and specs for the lS9th Avenue Street Improvement Project are completed and were to be approved tonight; however, it has been revised so they will be before the Council at the next meeting. Perhaps the two projects could be bid simultaneously to obtain a more favorable price on the project, if the council so desires. There is still a chance that this improvement project would be denied, and we would not want to hold up the other project. Mr. Davidson felt the assessment for both projects could be combined, but the costs for just the lS9th Avenue project were not appreciably different than what was presented at the public hearing in January. When the plans and specs of that project are brought before the Council at the next meeting, a decision can be made on whether or not to bid the two projects together, assuming the Stenquist Addition project is approved. George Kerr, 4644 161st Lane NW - wondered if Acting Mayor Orttel had contacted Ramsey or Ham Lake to find out how they assess their projects. Acting Mayor Orttel stated that Ham Lake's policy was different from this in that they had done some work on the street which wasn't figured in the assessment. Ramsey uses a different assessment policy in that they figure up what the total project is going to cost and divides it by the number of lots, so that everyone pays the same. He'll be checking further into this before the public hearing. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution declaring the adequacy of the petition for the Street Improvement for the Stenquist Addition ... (See Resolution R17-9) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, introducing a Resolution acceptin9 a feaslbility report and setting a date for the Improvement of Bituminous Streets and Storm Sewer in the Stenquist Addition ...(Public Hearing set for April 17 at 7:30 at the Andover City Hall) (See Resolution R18-9) Motion carried unanimously. Mel Eshelman, 4754 160th Lane NW - asked if the City would try to get these streets done at the same time lS9th lS done. Also asked when they would be let out and if the project would be done this year. Acting Mayor Orttel stated if possible, they would be done together. We feel we might be able to get a better bid for getting them done together. The project should be done somtime this spring. - Regular City Council Meeting March 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 2 (Stenquist Addition Petition, Continued) Mr. Eshelman - wondered if there is any way that just prior to the hearing the City could actually take a petition around to see how people feel. In talking with people who signed the last petition opposing the project, he found that they thought they were signing expecting to get the streets. They still wanted streets, but wanted to explore a cheaper avenue. Those people were not opposed to the roads but only to the higher prices, and they thought that is what they were signing with the second petition. Could the City poll the people and tell them exactly what it is and that there are no other possible alternatives? Acting Mayor Orttel stated this petition is a lot clearer than the one received last time because there were conditions on the last one. It seems like everyone was for it at the last public hearing until that evening when the Council was surprised with the petition of those opposing. He felt the only poll would be one that the Councilmen would conduct themselves individually, as petitions are always subject to interpretation. Councilman Jacobson felt the people should testify at the public hearing on April 17 to let the Council know their feelings. Mr. Eshelman - asked how the Councilmen would weigh another petition coming in prior to a hearing. He knows what happened to a lot of them last time, as they thought they were signing for the project but at less cost. How would you handle that at the time of the meeting? Acting Mayor Orttel explained that the petition validated tonight is the one that generates the public hearing. Anything that happens after this time is more or less taken as testimony and each Councilman has to decide what information they are going to look at. We try to let all people have their say and try to go with the majority. Mr. Davidson stated maybe he could spend more time explaining that we are not establishing price at the hearing and that by law we must take the lowest bid. Acting Mayor Orttel also stated that in this area there are many corner lots that really has an impact on the front-footage cost. If we could see a running foot figure broken out as a comparison, part of the problem might be resolved. Mr. Kerr - wondered if in the meantime it would be possible to get a couple loads of gravel-on lS9th to be able to get through there, as it is getting pretty bad there. Acting Mayor Orttel stated Mr. Sowada will go up there tomorrow to look at it. Mr. Eshelman - stated that yesterday the grader came through, but he didn't do much. He llves on a deadend and the grader did not grade his road. He is the only house on that portion of the street. Acting Mayor Orttel explained this pass was kind of an emergency-type thing to get the roads open. He will mention that to Mr. Sowada tomorrow. Discussion was that any further petitions received are largely informational. People should be encouraged to attend the public hearing. It appears that a large part of the confusion is informational in getting either the wrong information or none at all. The public will be mailed an informational letter prior to the public hearing. Linstad - Lot Split (Reference March 6, 1979, Council Meeting Minutes) Otto Linstad was present. Discussion was on whether a covenant could be required that the two parcels involved have to be sold as one parcel even though they are in two different cities, as the concern was over the lot being split by Mr. Linstad in that it is an unbuildable lot and could not be built on until there is road frontage. Attorney Hawkins stated that both the subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance is recorded, and any lawyer would know that it would be an unbuildable lot. We could record the resolution as long as the legal description of the lot is included, which would serve notice that it is un- buildable. Attorney Hawkins also noted that the City would be under no obligation to issue a building permit should just this parcel be sold by itself in the future. Regular City Council Meeting March 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 3 (Linstad - Lot Split, Continued) Councilman Jacobson was concerned that this is the first time we are looking at setting up a lot that there is no possible way to get to it as it is not on a public road; it can't be combined with the adjacent lot because it is in a different City; and should the owner in Ham Lake want to sell hi s home, he doesn't necessarily have to sell the second parcel, which is creating an island. He felt that that is a bad precedent to start and felt it could cause problems in the future. He would have no problem with it if it could be combined with the adjoining lot or if it did front on a public road; but he felt that just because a person wants more land, to create a landlocked parcel could really give some problems later on. Further discussion was that if this is to be treated as a lot split, according to the Ordinance, a park fee is required in this case and should be included, as this lot will eventually be buildable. Attorney Hawkins also advised that the City cannot ask for a 33-foot easement along the easterly edge of Tract B, as we are only dealing with the 2~-acre parcel (Tract A) at this time. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, adopting a Resolution approving a Lot Split of Parcel 7300, Plat 65912 for Otto Lindstad. WHEREAS, the property owner made application to subdivide the property under a variance from the provisions of Ordinance No. 10, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did review the request, and WHEREAS, after such review the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of such request, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has given reasons for such recommendation as being 1) the variance does not adversely affect the adjacent property owners and the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Development Plan, and WHEREAS, the City Council is in agreement with the reasons as cited by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and WHEREAS, upon the advise of the City Attorney, Ordinance No. 40 and Ordinance No. 40A is applicable for this subdivision, and WHEREAS, a variance from Ordinance No. 10 would not apply under Section 14.02 and Section 17.01, and WHEREAS, upon the advise of the City Attorney, the property owner would not be required to again appear before the Planning and Zoning Commission inasmuch as he originally did apply for a lot split under Ordinance 40 and 40A and was advised by the Commission to reapply under Ordinance No. 10 as a variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover to hereby approve the request of Otto Linstad to subdivide Plat 65912, Parcel 7300 as shown and described on the attached Exhibit "A" pursuant to City Ordinance No. 40 and Ordinance No. 40A legally described as follows: (Reference as shown and described on the attached Exhibit "A"). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover that it be known that this lot split is being created for the purpose of allowing the owner of Lot 3, Block 4, Pinger's Addition to add continguous property to his lot, but cannot legally combine the two parcels due to them being in separate cities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover to hereby declare the northeasterly subdivided parcel shown as Tract A on the attached Exhibit A to be unbuildable pursuant to existing City Ordinance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover to make this lot split approval contingent on the dedication of an easement for road and utility purposes across the easterly 33 feet of Tract A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover that this Resolution be recorded with the Anoka County Recorder. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council, the City of Andover, to hereby charge a park dedication fee of $100 pursuant to City Ordinance No. 40 and 40A. DISCUSSION was over the dedication of 33 feet on the eastern border. Acting Mayor Orttel stated he has had a request from the City of Ham Lake that we send a letter there acknowledging that we'll be collecting easement on everything on the City border whenever we can, as they will be doing the same thing. Attorney Hawkins noted a building permit would not be issued for this Tract until the Council had accepted a road for maintenance purposes. Discussion was also on the statement declaring Tract A Regular City Council MeeLlng March 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 4 (Linstad - Lot Split, Continued) to be unbuildable pursuant to existing City Ordinances, as should a road ever be built along the City line, that Tract would become buildable. Councilman Lachinski AGREED TO INCLUDE the word "presently" (...declaring the northeasterly subdivided parcel shown as Tract A on the attached Exhibit A to be presently unouildable'pursuant to existing City Ordinances...) Second still stands. (See Resolution RI9-9) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. Larson/Hanson-Variance MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, fora,~esolution denying the Variance request of Melnor O. Larson for the David Hanson property described as Lot 15, Block 5, Nordeen Addition ... (See Resolution R20-9). Motion carried unanimously. Pine Hills - Preliminary Plat Tom O'Malley, Land Survey, represented Stanley Knoll. Chairperson Bosell reviewed the Planning and Zoning recommendation for approval of the Pine Hills Addition Preliminary Plat (Reference Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, Memo to Mayor and Council dated March 12, 1979). She also explained that the reason they are recommending approval of the length of 160th Lane cul de sac is due to the configuration of the street around the Northern Natural Gas Pipeline going through the property. Mr. O'Malley stated the Park Board had decided to have some grading done within the park area rather than accept money, and that grading has been incorporated in the grading plan of the Preliminary Plat. Discussion noted the February 8, 1979, recommenda- tion from the Park Board that the City Council approve grading plans for the Pine Hills Preliminary Plat for the ball field in the proposed park. Further, the balance of 1.2 acres to be cash in lieu of land in the amount of $1,100; that this money be spent by the developer for the grading and/or excavation of the park. Mr. O'Malley stated the drainage plan has been corrected. Ms. Bosell stated the Park Commission decided against a walkway easement from Quay Street to the park because of the problems created by people cutting through private property, maintenance, etc. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, adopting a Resolution approving the Preliminary Plat of Pine Hills Addition in Section 17, Township 32, Range 24 ... (...noting the following variances and exceptions: 1) Exception to OrØinance No. 10, Section 9.03 (g) for the length of the cul de sac on 160th Lane. 2) All lots within the Plat shall face on interior streets; and that the City accept the parkland as shown on the Preliminary Plat and that balance of the requirements for parkland be accepted in cash, which the developer will incorporate in his grading plan for said park...) (See Resolution R21-9) Motion carried unanimously. North Birch Creek Estates - Preliminary Plat Mike Gair, Planner, was present. Commission Chairperson Bosell reviewed the P & Zls recommendation for approval of the Preliminary Plat, explaining the parkland in the southwest corner was chosen because of its high features, some trees, very useful land as a park with proper access off of Crosstown Boulevard presently and off an interior street as proposed on the plat. Mr. Davidson explained that they have worked out a site plan that every building site has 39,000 square feet of buildable area. It will require a considerable amount of fill. Their engineer had indicated that they will be moving material from within the site. Regular City Council MeetIng March 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 5 (North Birch Creek Estates - Preliminary Plat, Continued) Mr. Gair stated that one of the things that Mr. Klous saw within this parcel is the opportunity to add amenity to the lots, an opportunity to create the ponding areas within the site, and to amenitize the rear portion of the lots. consequently, he will utilize the resources from creating those ponds for creating the homesites themselves. He felt the resources for creating those lots should predomently come from within the 120-acre site. Soil borings indicate that there is sand available beneath the peat to use for fill. The organic materials will be used for yard areas. Councilman Peach didn't feel this plat was in conformance with Ordinance 10, Section 11.0410 regarding the height of the basements, as they are too close to what must be the normal water level existing in this area. He felt it wasn't in compliance with Section 8.04e considering the drainage, as he felt a great deal of the land must be peat. He looked at that property, and it is virtually all wet swamp on the eastern portion. Under Ordinance 37, Section 2.5 regarding sewer depth, he didn't feel that sewers could be constructed above the existing water table according to the Plat. He thought the Plat did not conform with the Comprehensive Plan in that the development is in an area of very high water table, which is designated as severely restricted by the Comprehensive Plan. There is serious danger of ground water pollution, and this would create a major disruption of nearby surface waters and aquafer recharge areas. It could increase water, induce soil erosion, and destabilize stream flow. He wasn't convinced fill material would provide adequate drainage or stability for residential construction and felt allowing a developer to proceed in a project which in all probability would never receive final approval for building permits, and if it did might well provide serious sewage and drainage problems, would be negligent on the part of the City. Mr. Davidson noted that perk tests indicate that ground water is within three feet of the surface, and they will have to build up house benches for many lots. From an engineering standpoint, he felt it is going to take a considerable amount of work in order to meet City codes. They will have to fill enough for the depth of the basements; most of them called for a shallow basement for split entry homes. The DNR needs to be contacted only if public water is involved, which is a very nebulous term,meaning if there was public water connotations attached to those wetlands or the development would create a discharge to a natural stream. In this case it would not, as the discharge is to a branch in the watershed district. Chairperson Bosell stated she met with the County on March 1 as it pertained to Anoka County's Development Plan. In the next few years, the County is going to set aside wetlands and protect them; however, this is not part of the land that they are considering protecting. They have reclassified wetlands with 22 designations, and this area does not fall within any of those designations of protected wetlands. The wetlands map in the Comprehensive Plan was used in setting up the plat and in conjunction with choosing the park site. There was a very lengthy discussion relative to the concerns of the water table, the amount of fill needed to develop buildable sites, the requirements of constructing sanitary sewers, and on whether determining basement level means basement floor or footings. It was noted that water is at 898 feet; the suggested overflow is at 899 feet; and the water level will be three feet below the designated flood area. It was questioned whether the proposed drawing meets the ordinances relative to determining basement level; that it has to be three feet above the highest known water level; conceivably the water level could exceed 899 feet; that Ordinance 37 states the sewer has to be 6.5 feet above water; this falls within designated wetlands; it has a 100- year flood plain but is not a protected wetland; and that Ordinance 37 restricts septic systems from being installed in low swampy areas which may be subject to flooding or subject to permanent or seasonal high water table (Reference Ordinance 37, Section 2.5). Regular City Council Meeting March 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 6 (North Birch Creek Estates - Preliminary Plat, Continued) Chairperson Bosell stated the Planning Commission did use the wetlands map very closely and felt that if the developer was willing to fill the property to make the 39,000 square feet of buildable area which is set up to hold the original septic system and allow it to be moved twice, he could do so. It's going to be very costly for the developer to meet the requirements to get building permits, but technically it is possible to do it. Mr. Gair stated Mr. Klous felt that it is feasible, that it would be a good plan, and is âware that it will be costly to develop. He is a contractor and will be doing the work himself. These will be built to meet FHA approval. Concern was expressed as to whether the developer realizes how much fill is needed and the expense involved and as to the question of whether these lots must be filled prior to final plat approval. The Attorney noted that the Council cannot deal with whether it is economically feasible for him to plat this land. If he can meet the requirements of the Ordinance, then he is entitled to plat it. Discussion continued on the question of whether the Preliminary Plat as drawn meets the Ordinance requirements relative to elevation of building sites; that it is the Building Inspector's job when basement ex- cavation is done to be sure that there is no organic material in the fill; the question of whether the water level would be changed with all the modifications being made in the area; and on whether the ordinances require there be 39,000 square feet of buildable land prior to final plat approval. It was noted that Ordinance 10, Section 11.0410, states before any residential plat may be approved and any permit issued for residents, competent proof shall first be presented that the natural ground water level at all times is not less than three feet below the level of the lowest portion of proposed structure. Mr. Gair stated that in their conversations with both the Coon Creek Watershed Board and the County conservationists, it was his understanding that this portion of the ditch was dug for the purpose of draining very shallow depths to enable the farming of crops with 6-inch root systems that was farmed in those days. It was a remedial thing to make the area usable at that time for crops. When Coon Creek reviewed this plat, it is unique in that we are asking to create larger ponds to hold the water on site. From a practical standpoint and from an agricultural standpoint, that very shallow ditch serves no purpose any more. We're trying to create some amenities out there and yet respect that whole system and tie back into it again for future downstream usage. Whoever markets these properties cannot sell a lot without it being recorded with the County, which can't be done until the Final Plat is accepted and certain improvements have been made. Mr. Gair also explained that there are no existing ponds on the area, but ponds will be created on site. The water will accummulate in the drainway and flow southeasterly. Mr. Davidson agreed that while difficult, it is technically possible to meet the re- quirements of our ordinances in this area. He didn't feel that this development would be creating any more problems than any other septic system creates, as they are going to develop the sites under the ordinances to assimilate the wastes by creating 39,000 square feet of area above the flood plain within 18 inches of surface as required. He didn't think that they are reducing the amount of wetland from the standpoint of open water area because they are creating additional water area. He also felt that the scattered housing sites on 2\-acre lots is not going to affect the general public health and welfare. When the water level exceeds 898, it will overflow into the ditch system. Should there be septic system failures, what would happen is the ponds would become lagoons and they become their own waste treatment system, but that wouldn't necessarily create a health problem. Liam McGannon - stated that Lake Leeman drains across the road and into that area underneath the road. He also expressed concern that if approval were given and the developer gives this a try based on believing he can do what he says he is going to do, Regular City Council Meeting March 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 7 (North Birch Creek Estates - Preliminary Plat, Continued) puts a half million dollars into the project, comes back and it just doesn't meet the requirements here and there and you're going to turn him down; then come the lawsuits, the change of laws, and the lowering of specifications. Who would win in this case? In discussing the basement elevations, the engineers interpeted the ordinance to be three feet below basement floor elevation, which is about 10 inches above the footings. This is also the way the developer had it interpreted on the plat. That 904 feet is basically the grade at the house, which is only 6 feet above the high water table. The Council asked the Engineer to check the Preliminary Plat to be sure it does meet the Ordinances and to calculate the amount of fill required (roughly). They want the . , developer to understand that most of these lots will require over one acre of six feet of fill on each lot, and that it actually has to be brought up to 905 feet. The developer also needs to understand that these building sites must be built prior to Final Plat approval. Attorney Hawkins felt the City could take the position that prior to Final Plat approval, the 39,000 square feet must be developed because he is developing for residential purposes. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we delay action on the North Birch Creek Estates single family Preliminary Plat to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting in the Month of April to allow the City Engineer and the developer to get together to discuss the plat and parameters, the amount of fill, and all the technical ramifications that were talked about at the Council meeting so that both the developer and the Engineer adequately know just what will be involved and the amount of money that may be involved in getting this Preliminary Plat to the final stages. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 9:30; reconvene at 9:43 p.m. 167th Lane Cul de sac Attorney Hawkins explained the Clerk will be talking with the landowners relative to this cul de sac and prepare a map showing the area. DeGardner - Road Location Jim Kurth, Surveyor, Bob DeGardner, developer, and Ben Bialke were present. Mr. Kurth explained that at the previous meeting the Council questioned some of the lots in the reserve area and that the 300 feet of frontage should be at the building set- back line. The idea of the plan is to show the lots and what they are planning to do with the land. In response to a question On applying Ordinance 8, Section 4.09 to this subdivision, Attorney Hawkins stated that it does not apply in this case. That was adopted before the City had platting regulations and as an attempt to make some reference to platting. He felt what we have control over is going to be governed by State Statute, which reads not less than five acres and not less than 300 feet wide and fronts on a public easement or road. There are no restrictions on filing and recording conveyances. Chairperson Bosell stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the road as it was laid out. The last time they looked at it was on September 26, 1978. Mr. DeGardner stated they have talked to the people to the north about acquiring more land with the idea of extending the road to meet Highway 58, but they couldn't agree on terms. He didn't feel he could subdivide this land because going to 2\-acre lots would create twice the problem with twice as many people with the same problem of having only one entrance/exit to the parcel. He felt this is laid out to the best practical use of the land. There was a jog in the road, but there is a lot of lowland that needs to be worked around. At this time there is no way to get other accesses out of this property. They have some l~and 12-acre lots because of the swamp, and they Regular City Council Meeting March 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 8 (DeGardner - Road Location, Continued) designed the road to be constructed on high land. Mr. McGannon - stated that 80 percent of that map is under water and is in the 100-year flood plain. Councilman Lachinski felt nothing has really changed because of the fact that the Council can't deal with lot sizes, etc. In previous cases, the Council has been against having a single access to a piece of property; and the longer the road is, the worse the problem gets. Secondly, the Council doesn't get to address problems, such as is there sufficient building area in the lots, until the building permit is asked for. Therefore, someone could buy a piece of property that is not buildable. Mr. Kurth noted that if land is sold as a building site and is declared unbuildable by the City, the party does have recourse in that he can return to the developer to get his money back. There was a lengthy discussion on the length of the cul de sac. It was noted that the length of the street could have a negative effect but the potential of eventually continuing the road to Highway 58 could have a positive, desirable, effect in terms of getting to that northeastern portion of the City. Other comments were that these large lots offset what is being considered in North Birch Creek Estates; the road going through would be very desirable for emergency access, etc,; if the Council accepted this road configuration, the City would enter into a contract with him that he build the roads to City standards; if the northern 40 would develop, it could be required to hook up to this road; that Lot B would not be a buildable lot until a road were constructed and it had 300 feet of frontage; that the City already holds the easement along Lot B; that the zoning is for single family housing; that possibly the same criteria for accepting roads in platted areas should be applied to this subdivision as well exclusive of the lots; that this proposal has a cul de sac of almost three times the requirement of cul de sacs in platted areas; and that it is a single access development. Mr. DeGardner stated the land to the north also has a lot of lowland and would have to be divided into larger lots. He will be constructing gravel roads. Also, by denying this proposal, the people to the north will be in the same predicament of not being allowed to develop their property because it, too, would only be a single access. Discussion was on the possibility of providing other accesses. Mr. DeGardner felt there would be no problem moving the road closer to the property in the northeast and granting an easement to provide a T-type access to that northeast corner property. He didn't feel there would be any possibility of an access to the west because of the lowland. Mr. Davidson stated they don't have soil borings relative to the water table, etc.; but they received tentative profiles and addressed the feasibility of doing that. They do require a preliminary profile, and it is up to the developer to build the street to that. Mr. Kurth stated he shows that on the plan, and that the road can take care of itself as far as the cut and the fill. They are running the road down the center, which is the highest part of the north 40; the southwestern 40 is quite low, so they will put the road on the edge so they can get the dirt to fill up about three of the lots to get the required 39,000 square feet. There is ample dirt on the site. Councilman Lachinski stated he would have trouble denying a single access plat if we are approving unplatted roads in undeveloped areas. CouDcilman Peach felt that the six-acre lots offset a lot of problems you have with platted developments. Mr. McGannon - stated that Lot A is quite nice and some of the northern lots are nice, but for the most part they are five acre lots but with only a couple hundred foot portion that a house could be built on. He wondered if that would be approved; if that is the way the rules read. Acting Mayor Orttel explained that you need 39,000 square feet that is of such elevation that will support an on-site sewer system; the rest of the reasoning is to keep the density down. Regular City Council Meeting March 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 9 (DeGardner - Road Location, Continued) Discussion was on the cost of and the possibility of ever extending the sanitary sewer trunk line to service these people; that the Comprehensive Plan states there will never be sewer in this area in the foreseeable future; and tbe whole idea of the large-lot concept is so that sanitary sewer will not be needed. Councilman Jacobson didn't like it because it exceeds the block length by three times what our ordinances call for, it exceeds the cul de sac by eight times, and he would question putting that many people On one access in terms of emergency vehicles, plowing, etc. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council, City of Andover, deny the acceptance of the Street on the DeGardner road location north one half of the northeast one quarter, Section 12, Range 32, Township 24, and the southwest one quarter of the souteast one quarter of Section 1, Township 32, Range 24, City of Andover, for the following reasons: 1) The road exceeds the block length in City Ordinances by approximately three times; 2) It exceeds the cul de sac length in the City Ordinances by approximately eight times; and the council expresses its concern over one exit for 16 lots in terms of the emergency vehicles and access for City equipment to the area. Discussion: Councilman Lachinski stated that everyone recognizes that the Ordinances don't apply, but he felt we shouldn't be approving road and road construction in unplatted areas any differently than we would in platted areas. Councilman Peach felt they are ignoring the fact that this road has the potential of being a great asset to the City in that it would cut two or three minutes off access to the northeast portion of the City. He felt that offsets the fact that 15 people will have to drive down one road for some time in the future until that northern area is developed. He also felt that this is the best possible use of the land and would much prefer to see these larger lots on the lowland rather than requiring platting to 2~ acres. He didn't feel that there would be the problems with an average 7-acre lots because of the lower density. The reason the City needs to scrutinize platting is because of the high density being squeezed in one area. Putting one house on 7 acres doesn't impact the recharge area nearly as much as it does putting one house on 4 acres. Councilman Jacobson agreed with Councilman Peach, but was concerned over the one access. If it were to be extended to Highway 58, he would be agreeable. Possibly this land isn't ready to be developed yet. Discussion was on the problems created by developing into 2~-acre lots; that there would still be only one access if platted; that if this was denied and the property to the north were to be developed, the situation would be reversed and they would be denied also. Acting Mayor Orttel felt that the cul de sac length wouldn't apply because that is for permanent cul de sacs and this is a temporary turnaround. He also expressed concern that the northeastern portion of the City cannot be reached without having to go into Ham Lake or Cedar; so this would put us within 1/4 mile of that portion of the City. Also, the existence of this road might very well precipitate the completion of the road to 58. He did feel that more accesses to the adjoining properties should be allowed, providing lateral accesses to the property lines. Mr. DeGardner felt they could provide some easement to the northeast property. Relative to Lot B, Attorney Hawkins felt the records should be examined, as he felt that that easement was given so the individual north of it had a buildable lot. Councilman Lachinski again stated if we approved this location, he felt we would have a difficult time denying a similiar road consideration in a platted area. Counci lman Peach disagreed. Platted areas follow the Ordinances, and this does not. He didn't think one would be a precident for the other. And by denying this road we are en- dangering the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens in the northeast corner of the City because emergency access would be delayed, since the road would not be built as soon if this road was denied. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Orttel, Peach; NO-Jacobson, Lachinski Motion failed. Regular City Council Meeting March 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 10 (DeGardner - Road Location, Continued) Acting Mayor Orttel stated that in the present form he couldn't approve this but would like to see at least two extensions which, if put in the proper places, would eliminate all the problems. ,That could get block lengths under 1320 feet. ~OTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the DeGardner Road be continued to the next meeting with a recommendation that at least two extensions to the parameter of the property be added. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Orttel, Peach; NO-Lachinski; PRESENT-Jacobson Motion carried. Councilman Lachinski -- My reason for voting no is that I don't really feel that the road location will be approved; and I don't believe that it is reasonable for these people to put any additional effort into the problem. Ordinance No. 8D (Junkyards/Special Use) Chairperson Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the Ordinance No. 8D to disallow the creation of any new junkyards in the community. It would remove that special use from the NB District where they are presently allowed. The only effect it would have on existing junkyards would be if they would become delinquent in their function for one year. If they default, they would not be allowed to restart. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, the adoption of Ordinance No. 8D, An Ordinance Amendlng Ordinance No.8, Ordinance No. 8A, Ordinance No. 8B, and Ordinance No. 8C, An Ordinance for the zoning of the City of Andover. The City Council of the City of Andover hereby ordains: Ordinance No.8, adopted January 1, 1971, Ordinance No. 8A, adopted on October 8, 1974, Ordinance No. 8B, adopted September 21, 1976, and Ordinance 8C, adopted October 17, 1978, are hereby amended to read: Section 7 - Subsection 7.03 - Special Uses, delete the use: Used auto parts except when conducted with an auto agency offering new and used cars and provided all outside storage is completely screened from adjacent streets and properties and in accordinance with Section 8.03; and delete the use Auto Reduction. Adopted by the City Council, City of Andover, this 20th Day of March, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. Bingo License - AA/St. Patrick's Church MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council approve the application for Bingo for the Andover AA at the old St. Patrick's Church at 3556 181st Avenue NW, with the license to be effective on April 20, 1979, through April 19, 1980; contingent on satisfactory review from the Andover Building Official, Andover Volunteer Fire Department, and Anoka County Sheriff Department. License fee being $25. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. Cigarette, N. I. Malt Liquor Off Sale License -- Tom Thumb Store Councilman Jacobson questioned how the City could issue a license if there is no Ordinance regulating cigarette sales. Attorney Hawkins was directed to investigate this. Councilman Jacobson also noted that in granting N. I. Malt Liquor Off Sale License, there are a lot of restrictions, forms to be filled out, and investigations to be made; and he hasn't seen anything on it. And he has a problem granting a license to someone who has apparently been selling liquor for 2\ months without a license to begin with. He requested no action on this until all the paperwork, etc., has been completed as per the Ordinance requirements. Regular City Council Meeting March 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 11 (Cigarette, N.I. Malt Liquor Off Sale License -- Tom Thumb Store, Continued) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we put the renewal of licenses for the Tom Thumb Store, 15825 Seventh Avenue NW for cigarettes and non-intoxicating malt liquor off-sale license to the next regular City Council meeting, and providing all of the necessary paperwork is completed as per the Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Planning and Zoning Commission Report Chairperson Bosell noted that the City Council can adopt a Resolution setting forth the standards by which roads shall be constructed in metes and bounds subdivisions, basically setting out standards in the Platting Ordinance. No public hearing is required. Acting Mayor Orttel directed Ms. Bosell to discuss this with the City Clerk to draft such a Resolution. This is to be put on the next City Council Agenda. Clerk/TtPist Position MOTION y Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City Council hire Mrs. Victoria Volk for the position of Clerk/Typist at a salary commencing at $720 per month with an increase up to $740 per month at the end of 120 days. Discussion was that this salary is still below that of the other office staff; however, they have been here for about two years already. The splitting of the positions of Recording Secretary to the P & Z and this Clerk/Typist position would still be less money than what Ms. Hanson was making. Motion carried unanimously. Approval of Claims MOTION By Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the following Claims be approved from the General Fund: Checks Number 2396 through 2414 excluding Checks 2403, which is void and 2411 which is void, for a total of $8,479.87. Move that Check No. 273 be withheld until the problem with the grill is straightened out with Lakeland Ford. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '\~~~\03_tL ~-:t__ Mar lla A. Peach ' Recording Secretary