HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC May 15, 1979
~ o¡ ANDOVER
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MAY 15, 1979
AGENDA
1. Call to Order - 8:00 P.M.
2. Resident Forum
3. Agenda Approval
4. Continued Board of Review
5. Legal and Engineering
a. Lund's Evergreen Estates - Final Plat
b. Acceptance of Petition - Street Improvement, Section 17
c. Landfill Report _ Attorney
d. Assessment Policy - Unimproved property
e. Prairie Road Report
f.
6. Ordinances and Resolutions
a. Uniform Fire Code
b. Ordinance No. 8E-Zoning Map
c. Rum River Ordinance
7. Petitions, Re quests, Communications
a. Andover Mission Church-Extension Request
b.
B. Reports of Boards, Committees, Commissions
a. Planning and Zoning Commission
b. Park & Recreation Commission
c. Volunteer Fire Department
d. Road Improvement Committee
e. Other Committees
9. Old Business
a.
10, New Business
a. League of Minnesota Cities Meeting
11. Approval of Minutes
12. Approval of Claims
13. Adjournment
~ o¡ ANDOVER
REGULAR CITY COU~CIL MEETING - MAY 15, 1979
MINUTES
The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by
Mayor Jerry Windschitl on May 15, 1979, 8:08 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685
Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota.
Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach
Councilmen absent: None
Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, John
Davidson; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and interested residents
Resident Forum
Paul Marystone, 4930 Marystone Lane - owns approximately six acres on the Rum River.
He lS requestlng a lot Spllt and is to submit a sketch plan to the Planning Commission
of the proposed road extension and cul de sac at the end of a 25-foot road. He
wondered if it is essential to have a 66-foot wide extension of the road with a 120-
foot cul de sac. He also stated that the Planning Commission Chairman has stated
that Marystone Lane is a public road. Discussion was that there is a problem with
less than 120-foot cul de sacs with turning maintenance equipment around and that
to deviate from the street standards, he must request a variance. These actions
would need to be considered by the Planning Commission. It was also noted that
the proposed Rum River Ordinance requires 4-acre lots, and there is the question as
to whether the lot split would be allowable should that Ordinance be approved this
evening. Mr. Marystone stated he would stay for the Rum River Ordinance discussion.
Winslow Holasek, 1159 Andover Boulevard - stated that drivers are traveling at high
speeds on Prairle Road. Speeders are most prevalent just after dusk. Discussion
was that the speeding problem is more than just cars as there are mini-bikes, motor-
cycles, etc., as well. It was suggested that the Clerk contact the Sheriff's office
asking them to use their saturation patrol on that road, setting radar every night
for a period of time.
Agenda Approval
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, to approve the Agenda as presented with
the Addition of Item 9a, Metropolitan Council Letter; 9b, Mayo-Bankey Lawsuit; Sf,
Abatement - Health Problem; and Sg, Stop Signs. Motion carried unanimously.
Continued Board of Review
Charles Triggs reviewed changes to the following parcels:
Walter J. Vosika, 1414 Bunker Lake Boulevard - Plat 65935, Parcel 2400
Mr. Triggs stated after visiting the property again, he lowered the structure
value from $4,900 to $4,500.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that Plat 65935, Parcel 2400, the structure
va~e changed from $4,900 to $4,500.
VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-Peach, as he
was not present at the May 3, 1979, Board of Review. ~lotion carried.
Francis Daly, 16860 Roanoke Street NW - Plat 65980, Parcel 7200
Mr. Triggs stated he reduced the structure value from $24,800 to $20,300.
Last year the house was shown at 96 percent depreciation. He had originally
changed that depreciation value to 63 percent because of the change in State
adjustments on depreciation. However, in reviewing the structure again with the
County Assessor, it was decided to reduce the depreciation to 50 percent for
Regular City Council Meeting
May 15, 1979 - Minutes
Page 2
(Board of Revie~ Continued)
(Francis Daly, Plat 65980, Parcel 7200)
structural reasons, as the foundation is in bad condition, uneven flooring, etc.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, a reduction from the valuation of the structure
belonging to Mr. Francis Daly, 16860 Roanoke Street NW, Plat 65980, Parcel 7200,
from an amount of $24,800 to an amount of $20,300, the difference being in the
depreciation rate.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-Peach, as he
was not present at the previous Board of Review. Motion carried.
Jerry Mengelkoch, 15710 Sycamore Street NW - Plat 65914, Parcel 9025
Mr. Triggs explained that the structure value was reduced from $54,000 to $49,000
due to a $5,000 mathematical error in the records on the valuation of a finished
basement.
MOTION by jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to reduce the valuation of the structure at
the Jerry Mengelkoch property, 15710 Sycamore Street NW, Plat 65914, Parcel 9025,
from the value of $54,000 to the value of $49,000 to indicate an error in mathematical
computation.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-Peach, as he was
not present at the previous Board of Review. Motion carried.
James and Sandy Myers, 4115 147th Lane NW - Plat 67615, Parcel 0600
Mr. Triggs recommended reducing the valuation from $73,200 to $40,600. He
explained that apparently a completion sheet for the parcel was misplaced at
the time of doing the bookkeeping. The $73,200 reflects 100 percent completion.
In reviewing the property again, Mr. Triggs estimated the structure is only
approximately 51 percent complete. He has reduced the value accordingly.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that Plat 67615, Parcel 0600 be reduced in
Structure value from $73,200 to $40,600 to reflect the actual percentage of completion
of the dwelling.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschit1; ABSTAIN-Peach, as he was
not present at the previous Board of Review. Motion carried.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to close the Board of Review. Motion
carrled unanimously. Board of Review closed at 8:33 p.m.
Acceptance of Petition - Street Improvement, Section 17
Discussion was on the area that should be included in the project, as it would make
a difference whether a 3/5 or 4/5 vote would be required to approve the project. A
3/5 vote is all that is required to order a project which is requested by petition
of 35 percent of the property owners that abut the proposed improvement. The Clerk
noted that to date there has been no petition from Genie Drive, although she had re-
ceived a call this evening in which a resident stated there would be such a petition
forthcoming. Mr. Davidson stated that a preliminary cost estimate for purposes of the
petition was done in April, 1978. He also estimated it would cost not more than $4,000
to prepare the feasibility study. Discussion was on whether this should be done as
one large project, or done as two projects, ordering the feasibility study on the areas
requested by petitions received at this time and waiting to receive petition from the
Genie Drive area. The Clerk stated that at the present time the petitions received do
not reflect 35 percent of the abutting property in that entire area (if Genie Drive
is included).
Regular City Council Meeting
May 15, 1979 - Minutes
Page 3
(Acceptance of Petition - Street Improvement, Section 17, Continued)
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we move the question of the petitions for
this area to the next regular scheduled meeting. Discussion: The Clerk stated she
has validated the petitions received to date. Mr. Davidson had no problem with
the suggestion that the feasibility study be ordered for the area reflected by the
petitions received but expanding it to a larger area which could be included as other
petitions are received. That area could be studied without ordering a feasibility
study or setting a public hearing for it. He also felt the project could be completed
this year if we can move ahead within a reasonable time. The Attorney again explained
when a 3/5 or 4/5 vote is required to order a project noting that normally the 35 percent
is determined in a resolution declaring the adequacy of the petition and ordering the
feasibility study. He felt if it is not declared adequate this evening, it could be
declared adequate later if more signatures are received, as the Statute does not dictate
when this has to be done. Councilman Lachinski felt that possibly nothing would happen
in the next two weeks and that time would be lost if it were delayed at this time.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Peach, NO-Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl
Motion failed.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, a Resolution to order a feasibility study
tor the improvement of bituminous surfacing and storm water drainage for Tulip Street
from lS7th Avenue to 163rd Avenue, Vintage Street, Xenia Street, Aztec Street,
Enchanted Drive, Genie Drive, and lS8th Avenue in Section 17, Township 32, Range 24,
and in the Plat known as Alladin Acres. WHEREAS, a petition has been received from
residents owning property on Xenia Street, Vintage Street and Enchanted Drive in
Section 17, Township 32, Range 24; and WHEREAS, such petition is requesting the
improvement of bituminous streets, and WHEREAS, from time to time property owners on
other streets in the affected area have expressed a desire for bituminous streets; NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover to order a
feasibility study for the proposed improvement of bituminous surfacing and storm water
drainage of Tulip Street from lS7th Avenue to 163rd Avenue, Vintage Street, Aztec
Street, Xenia Street, Enchanted Drive, Genie Drive and lS8th Avenue in S17, T32, R24
and in the Plat known as Alladin Acres at a cost not to exceed $4,000 (See
Resolution R38-9) Motion carried unanimously.
Lund's Evergreen Estates - Final Plat
Attorney Hawkins testified there are no outstanding issues on the plat; however, there
is a problem with the Letter of Credit relative to the wording. The Letter of Credit
indicates that it would pay the City in the event there are assessments against the
property that are not paid. He would like a sentence or two changed to reflect this;
but recommended approving the final plat contingent upon this minor change. He also
felt that the private road easement on the southwest portion of the plat which is not
shown On the final plat does not affect the City but felt there was no need to have it
shown on the final plat.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, a Resolution accepting the final Plat of Lund's
tvergreen Estates in Section 24, Township 32, Range 24 ... (...WHEREAS, the developer
has dedicated parkland and has paid a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,078.88
in lieu of land dedication... ...BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Andover to hereby direct the Mayor and Clerk to sign the Final Plat subject
to the revision of the Letter of Credit by the City Attorney...) (See Resolution R39-9)
Discussion: The park dedication fee was in addition to the land that was dedicated for
the park. Mr. Lund stated his agreement with the Park Board was that the money would
be used in that park, and he asked if there is a time he can tell prospective buyers
"
----- -
Regular City Council Meeting
May 15, 1979 - Minutes
Page 4
(Lund's Evergreen Estates - Final Plat, Continued)
that the park will be improved. Mayor Windschitl hoped that that could be done
this summer, as he saw no reason to delay this. However, it is up to the Park
Board as to how they want to program this. Motion carried unanimously.
Landfill Report - Attorney
Mr. Hawkins reported that the Building Inspector had inspected the debris on Mr.
Vosika's property; and while he was out there, individuals from Waste Disposal
Engineering were cleaning the site up. He thought that the problem had been
eliminated. Ms. Lindquist stated she has received a call from the County Attorney's
office, who said they are willing to cooperate in any way if we need assistance
relative to matters with the landfill.
Mr. Mengelkoch - felt that the hours set by the landfill for use by residents (Monday
through rrlday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.) precludes, for all practical purposes, anybody from
Andover using the landfill, as that is when people work. This, in effect, makes the
dump a commercial dump. He also disputed that it is not open on Saturdays, as you
can go by there anytime and see commercial haulers going in there. He recited an
incident when he was there on Saturday and witnessed a commercial truck coming in,
but he was not allowed to dump. He didn't feel there was any point to having the
landfill if Andover residents don't get any benefit from it. Ms. Lindquist stated
there has been no proof about them being open on Saturdays; and if anyone does
see haulers there on Saturday, the license plate number should be noted and reported.
Discussion was again on the City's agreement with the landfill and the lack of City
control over the landfill.
Mr. Holasek - asked why new restrictions cannot be put on the lease when it is renewed.
He also objected to it being closed Saturday~ because then residents end up dumping
along the roadsides. Ms. Lindquist stated she will be present at the hearing held by
the County Health Department on May 29.
Bob Palmer - also stated he was at the landfill this week with the load over the top of
the truck, and he was required to pay. Attorney Hawkins explained that the contract
refers to normal household garbage at no charge to Andover residents, and apparently
they are interpreting large truck loads as beyond what normal household garbage is.
Assessment Policy - Unimproved Property
(Reference May 3, 1979, letter from John Davidson relative to City Engineering, City
Improvements) Mr. Davidson explained that as the City Engineer, TKDA should design
anything that would be considered "public installations". As such, the developer
could hire his own engineer through the preliminary stages for his subdivision, then
turn it over to the City Engineer for final design and construction. The developer
and his contractors would be responsible to us directly, not as an independent third
party. It doesn't have to be under 429 proceedings. The developer could escrow the
funds with bond or letter of credit reducing over a period of time. For that type
of development, most communities work out a three-year program, bonding or otherwise.
Three-year temporary bonds do not lower the City's bond market acceptability. The
fact that the City is bonding for special assessments does not have any effect on the
City's ability to bond; it only has effect on the marketing of the bond.
Mayor Windschitl felt it is an undesirable situation to have the City financing a
private development to the benefit of the developer. And if a developer defaults, it
is the City's money at stake. It was his preference to allow the developer to get
his own contract and use a performance bond, and not use the 429 procedure. He had
no problem with using the 429 procedure for running the trunkline.
, , ü,
Regular City Council Meeting
May 15, 1979 - Minutes
Page 5
(Assessment Policy - Unimproved Property, Continued)
Mr. Davidson stated that once the improvements are installed, they become public and
no longer belong to the developer. The lateral sewers in the streets are just as
important and are a part of the facility that the City will have to maintain forever.
And he felt to assure the best quality of work that the City Engineer should do it.
Attorney Hawkins explained that under the present City policy, the developer has
two methods to chose from to guarantee payment of the special assessments -- either
paying 35 percent of cash or posting a performance bond, letter of credit, etc., to
guarantee 125 percent of the assessment. In case of default, and if the property
is sold, special assessments are paid first in the order of priority. Usually the
contract provides for the acceleration of all assessments in the event of default,
to utilize the sale provision under delinquent taxes and the City can bring suit against
him for the dollar amount of the assessment. That is 429 with nonpayment of the
special assessments on the lots. It also provides that all assessments are paid in
full at the time of any sale of a lot. Usually the bond issue is spread out slightly
longer than what the assessments are.
Mayor Windschitl felt that if we don't allow a 429 to be used, the City doesn't have
to go through this hassle. He couldn't see why a city would want to use its excessive
bonding capacity to pay for a new development when you may need the bonding capacity
to do projects for residents already living here. ~ also felt that a 429 increases
the cost. Mr. Hawkins stated there is no legal limit on special assessment bonding,
but there is a practical limit on how many bonds you can sell. The arguments he has
heard for using 429 is that it enables people to develop and to finance the project
at a lower rate of interest. He was not aware of any communities that would not use
this method. He also explained that the present policy doesn't allow the developer to
escrow the money without going through 429 in advance. Under this policy, the City is
the only one who can install sanitary sewer and water.
Councilman Orttel noted it gets down to the philosophy of the City as to whether they
are interested in attracting development. Mayor Windschitl felt it would be acceptable
if you have the bonding capacity where if you had a default you had the capacity from
the general fund to pay the obligations. He noted that the City would have to bond
an astronomical amount to do all the proposed developments in the southwest corner of
the City. Mr. Davidson stated what you have lost in default can be reassessed and
you can then rebond for the period of reassessment. Therefore, the City hasn't really
lost anything. Attorney Hawkins explained if there is default and assessments aren't
paid, the property goes tax forfeit. In subsequent years, if the property is resold,
the City can reassess everything it did not collect in that sale.
Further discussion was on the advantage of the present policy to help developers in
hardship cas~s; on the question of whether the City Engineer designing laterals for a
developer can maintain his independence; that presently the streets and storm sewers
on all plats are designed by the developer's engineer with TKDA reviewing it and
inspecting construction; that now TKDA is saying they should be designing it as well;
that this would prohibit other engineering firms from working in the City and a
developer would have no choice but to have the City Engineer do the work. Mr. Davidson
stated that TKDA cannot be working directly for the developer but must be working for
the City as the City Engineer. The developer would purchase those engineering services
from the City, not from TKDA. In that way the City controls the construction, not the
developer. He stated they could develop a list of approved materials and practices
as a guide for other engineering firms to use, but it is not a desirable situation
because they do not have control over the developer's agents. Also, to review
another firm's plans and specifications, they have to do it to the extent as if they
had written them. And during construction, they need a person there almost full time
for inspecting someone else'swork. And if something happens to go wrong, the City will
look to tKDA as being responsible for the error. They are in a no-win position.
Regular City Council Meeting
May 15, 1979 - Minutes
Page 6
(Assessment Policy - Unimproved Property, Continued)
Discussion was then on allowing small developers to put in their own, as Jim Hane has
requested that he be allowed to put in his own sanitary sewer. The present assessment
policy would have to be amended to allow a private contractor to put in those facilities.
After discussion, Attorney Hawkins was directed to work up a change in the City policy
using the same language but at the developer's option for installation only upon
posting a performance bond or letter of credit but still require the City Engineer to
design and inspect construction.
Mr. Davidson stated his concern that in allowing a developer to choose his own
,contractor, if he is doing it specifically to save money, he may not choose a re-
~onsible contractor. He felt the City's interest should be protected in the area where
an inexperienced engineer or nonreputable contractor is working directly for the
developer. Mayor Windschitl felt if there is the tax base to pay for it, it would be
acceptable. If the City had to go out for a three- or four-million dollar bond issue
and had to put one or two year's interest on the general levy, that would be a hugh
number. He didn't think the rest of the residents of Andover should be subject to
that. And whenever a city does a project, it is at the highest cost, which also
raises the prices of the lots.
The financing issue was directed to the Finance Committee for further study, review, and
recommendation. It was also recommended that it be researched as to what policies other
cities have.
Recess at 9:48; reconvene at 10:02 p.m.
Prairie Road Report
Mr. Davidson reviewed his May 14, 1979, letter relative to deficiencies noted on
Prairie Road and who is responsible for correcting them. In addition to that list,
it was discovered that part of the spillway on the east side of the road has been
undermined, and the contractor will take care of that. It is expected that those
responsibilities of the contractor will be taken care of within the next week or two.
Mr. Davidson felt that sealcoating the cracks should be sufficient and wouldn't cause
any problems. He reported that Numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 will be taken care of
by the contractor; Item No.8 will be taken care of\by the telephone company. Item
No.2 and the first part of No.8 are the only things to be resolved by the City.
Discussion was on what should be done about the non-vegetated area as a result of
mini-bikes and hill climbers; that it could be posted but that may not be effective;
that a portion of the problem may be on private property; that it would not be worth
the expense to reshape the backs lope; that possibly a fence could be put across the
trail as a deterrent; and that the steep slope bare of vegetation could result in
erosion problems. It was generally agreed that the problem in No.2 be left alone
unless a problem is being created with erosion. The problem mentioned in No. 8 is
a steep slop~ and Mr. Davidson didn't feel it was a dangerous problem to leave as is at
this point, as he felt that it will stabilize by itself.
Mr. Holasek was still concerned about the area north of the ditch eroding into his
field. On the east side of the road north of the washout is a bank 8 to 10 feet
where all black dirt is washed out. He requested that these areas be held so erosion
doesn't plug the ditches. He also felt that No. 10 should be added which is the
rip rap washout. He also requested that no clover be used in the seed to stabilize,
the banks.
Regular City Council Meeting
May 15, 1979 - Minutes
Page 7
Abatement - Health Problem
The Mayor requested a listing of all people in the sewered area who haven't hooked
up yet. He also explained that in a similiar situation, the City did the work and
the property owner was allowed to repay it on five annual installments collected with
the tax levy. On discussion of the interest rate, it was decided to charge 8 percent
interest on the unpaid balance. They have the option to pay this before it is levied
at no interest.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, entering the following Resolution acknowledging
a health hazard at the Karen Diethart property and setting forth provisions for
abatement ... (...residence of Karen Diethart at 2044 139th Lane... ...in five (5)
annual installments due on August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 1980, together
with interest on the unpaid balance at 8 percent...) (See Resolution R40-9)
Motion carried unanimously.
Stop Signs - Crosstown Boulevard and Prairie Road
Discussion was on the traffic hazard on the corner of Crosstown Boulevard, Prairie
Road, and lS7th Avenue and the solution to that problem -- stop signs or rerouting
Crosstown to be at right angle to Prairie Road. The Clerk testified that she had
talked with the County Highway Engineer, who stated that for now and for quite some
time it would be unfeasible for them to completely reconstruct Crosstown Boulevard.
General consensus of the Council was to request stop signs on Crosstown Boulevard as
a temporary measure until such time that Crosstown Boulevard could be redesigned to
intersect with Prairie Road at right angles.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, a Resolution requesting the Anoka County
Highway Department to install stop signs on Crosstown Boulevard at the intersection
of Crosstown Boulevard/Prairie Road/157th Avenue... (...WHEREAS, the City Council
further acknowledges that a realignment of the Crosstown Boulevard/Prairie Road
intersection would better alleviate the safety hazard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of Andover to hereby request Anoka County to install
stop signs as a temporary measure on Crosstown Boulevard at the Crosstown Boulevard/
Prairie Road/157th Avenue Intersection until such realignment of the intersection
can be realized...) (See Resolution R41-9) Motion carried unanimously.
Uniform Fire Code
Attorney Hawkins informed the Council that in 45 days the Uniform Fire Code becomes
effective statewide without adoption. So at this point there is no need to adopt
it by reference and it will become effective in the City on July 1.
Rum River Ordinance
Council discussion, concerns, and suggestions on the proposed ordinance included:
* Some of the definitions of this ordinance mayor may not agree with other City
ordinances. This ordinance, in effect, stands entirely by itself with its own
definitions.
* Page 7, requires 2S0-foot lot width minimum. Other City ordinances require 300-
foot lot widths. Which ordinance would apply?
* The Attorney had received the ordinance today and had not had a chance to review it.
* It was suggested that where there is a conflict between this ordinance and other
City ordinances, that a blanket statement be made saying that the most restrictive
ordinance would apply.
* This would apply to the designated scenic river zone, which is a separate zone.
Regular City Council Meeting
May 15, 1979 - Minutes
Page 8
(Rum River Ordinance, Continued)
* Page 11, 7.91.02, statement "Prior to issuance of any such permit, the City of
Andover shall require that percolation-rate tests and soil boring tests be done on
the proposed site for an individual sewer disposition to determine whether or not
the site is capable of supporting a conforming sewage treatment system. " Other
City ordinances require this but at the discretion of the Building Official. If
it is obvious that the land would support a conforming sewage treatment system,
we should not make someone go through the expense of soil borings.
* It was noted that notification for the public hearing held by the P & Z on the
proposed Rum River ordinance was not advertised as a rezoning. Attorney Hawkins
suggested since it wouldn't serve any purpose to send it back to the Planning
Commission for another public hearing, that it be published as a consideration of
changing the zoning along the Rum River in conformance with the Rum River Ordinance
and have the Council consider this.
* Page 13, 8.04.01, suggested changing to: that road construction should also be
subject to the standards and criteria of Minnesota Rrgulations NR 79 (j) (2)
and/or Andover City standards. ~hichever would be more appropriate or more stringent)
* Page 14, 10.02.02 - questioned who is going to have the responsibility and the expense
of inspecting existing systems to make a determination as to whether the sanitary
sewer systems are in conformance. Will there be some funding help from the State?
It also appears to include the State Plumbing Code, which would include plumbing
inside the house. Questioned the validity of that.
* Page 16, 10.02.03 (1) Any structural alteration or addition to a substandard use
which will increase the substandard dimensions shall not be allowed. Questioned
why you would want to restrict additions to the house, porches, garages, etc.,
on that area which is away from the river. Felt it was unreasonable not to allow
an individual to attach a garage to the house or build one on his property. Didn't
understand that provision at all.
* Possibly the Building Inspector should research the standards proposed in this
ordinance and compare them to the City's present standards (relative to sanitary
sewers, road construction, etc.).
* General feeling was that it would be helpful to have someone from the Department of
Waters come out to answer questions.
* Page 21, 10.09.03 - Attorney Hawkins stated a resident cannot compel the City to
prosecute and questioned why it is put in this ordinance.
* Page 7, 4.02.01 (1) Minimum lot size above ordinary high water mark is 4 acres or
60 percent, which is 2.4 acres. Current City ordinances requires 2.5 acre minimum
in rural areas.
Dick Schneider - stated he was on the Rum River Advisory Board when this was drawn
up. The DNR had two public hearings in this area before the book was published, and
he recalled noone from the Planning Commission, Council, or staff attended those
meetings. Ms. Bosell stated that the DNR has offered to come out to discuss this
with the City officials as it specifically applies to Andover.
This item will be on the next regularly scheduled Council meeting, and Ms. Bosell is
to contact the DNR to ask for a representative to be present to answer questions.
The Building Inspector was also directed to review the requirements in this Ordinance
versus the City's current ordinances so that language could be built in to allow the
City's ordinances to apply.
Regular City Council Meeting
May 15, 1979 - Minutes
Page 9
Andover Mission Church - Extension Request
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Rental Agreement for the City Hall
between the City of Andover and the Family of Christ Lutheran Church (also known as
Mount Olive Lutheran Church) be extended until May 15, 1980. Motion carried unanimously.
Park/Recreation Commission - Community School Report
Nancy Hageman, Community School Coordinator, reported on the 1978 Community Education
Annual Report for Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District No. 11, on the
enrollment in the 1979 spring program, on the copies of the rough draft flyer on the
summer school program, and that the Community School recognition night will be held
May 24.
Also, John Carow reviewed the Community Park Development Project including inventory,
site analysis, and concept synthesis and design. Development will begin this summer
on the nature trails starting this Saturday by the National Guard Engineer Battalion,
and they will proceed with filling the large hole from scrapings from the playground
area. Mr. Carow encouraged the City to pursue grant funds for financing this park.
Discussion was on the need for more softball fields in the City, that monies will be
needed for the backstops on the new ballfields, and that Ms. Hageman should work with
the Park/Recreation Commission in applying for a LAWCON grant. The Council suggested
that the application be made for the entire amount at this time rather than for just
a portion of the park development.
Volunteer Fire Department
Fire Chief Bob Palmer reported there have been seven fires since the last Council
meeting, and he asked the Council to direct the Clerk to draft a letter to Anoka to
have the Anoka Fire Department cut back from fire service for everything except
structure fires unless AVFD orders them. Or, if for some reason, the AVFD does not
respond to a fire call for five minutes, that Anoka Fire Department be ordered. He
felt that the AVFD is in a position to be able to handle fire calls independently.
The minimum number of firefighters responding to a day-time fire has been four and has
been as many as six or seven. There, too, should help be needed, Anoka FD could be
called.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Clerk prepare a letter to the
Clty Administrator of Anoka notifying them that the Anoka Fire Department will not be
needed in anything except structure fires in the City of Andover unless requested by
the Andover Fire Department, including a request that Anoka Fire Dispatcher immediately
notify the County Dispatch on any fires in Andover. Discussion: was on the
problems there have been with the AVFD receiving fire calls from the Anoka Fire
Dispatcher because of residents calling the Anoka FD rather than the County Dispatcher
and how to best resolve these problems. On a question of liability in the event
the AVFD would not respond to a fire and it got out of control prior to the Anoka
Fire Department arriving, the Attorney stated that generally there is no legal
problems as long as)reasonable effort was made. The Clerk also noted that County
Dispatch has prepared the emergency number stickers for Andover residents. She felt
that these could be sent to residents with the newsletter in about two weeks, which
should eliminate many of the problems. It was also determined that the Clerk and Mayor
should meet with the Anoka City Manager to deliver this letter and to discuss these
matters. Councilman Peach ADDED TO THE MOTION: That in the event that no one from
the Andover Volunteer Fire Department responds within five minutes, that the County
Dispatcher notify the Anoka Fire Department to respond. Second still stands. Motion
carried unanimously.
, "
Regul~r City Council Meeting
May 15, 1979 - Minutes
Page 10
(Volunteer Fire Department, Continued)
Tom May, Fire Department Equipment Committee Chairman, presented quotes for a cascade
air recharge system for the new fire house and recommended approval of the lowest bid.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that the City Council authorize the Fire
Department to purchase a cascade recharge system from Northern Oxygen Service Company
for the amount of $1,022.37. Motion carried unanimously.
PS8 - Electrical Service
Councilman Peach reported that the Building Committee recommended that the City authorize
$770 for the electrical service to the building, which would include Anoka Electric's
services plus 10 percent for the contractor. The change order requested by Bloomberg
is for about $1,200. This is for a transformer on pad next to the building. He also
reported that he has not been able to meet with Mr. Heer to discuss this.
Discussion was On the best way to expedite this. It was determined that TKDA should
review the plans and specs to determine what was bid and what would be reasonable to
pay in the change order, and then authorize Councilman Peach to sign a change order.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we authorize Councilman Peach to negotiate
the change order for the Public Services Building for the electrical service entrance.
Discussion: Councilman Jacobson objected to a blanket change order with no amount
and felt that specific figures should be known by now. Councilman Lachinski ADDED TO
MOTION: at a cost not to exceed $1,222 and that the items for the electrical serVlce
to be included or excluded shall be based on a recommendation by TKDA. Second stands.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Jacobson
Motion carried.
Mayo-Bankey Lawsuit
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, WHEREAS the City Council, City of Andover,
acknowledges the judgement in the Mayo and Bankey versus City of Andover lawsuit; and
WHEREAS the City of Andover has decided to comply with the ruling in favor of Mayo and
Bankey; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED to retain the firm of Schieffer and Carson
to implement the decision of the District Court and authorize TKDA to assist Schieffer
and Carson in preparing the development contract for Cedar Crest Fourth Addition (See
Resolution R42-9) Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that we meet at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, the 22nd
Day of May to take up items carried over from the May 15 meeting and possibly the
Metropolitan Council representative meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Claims
MOTION BY Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, to approve Claims Number 2479 through 2508
out of the General Fund in the amount of $12,924.20; and void Claim Number 279; and
out of the 76-1 Improvement Fund, Check Number 280 in the amount of $1,739.61; from
the 78-2 Improvement Fund, Check Numbe~281 and 282 in the amount of $72,128.58; and
out of the MS Bridges Fund, Claim Number 283 in the amount of $28,252.74; and out of
the 75-1 Improvement Fund, Claim Number 175 for the amount of $368.10. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 12:06 a.m. G
t,,(f
Respectfully Submitted, ~ J1"'
úxY í\~
\)~~h~:n;'~·