Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC November 20, 1979 ~ o¡ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 20, 1979 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Public Hearings a. Establishment of Flood Plain Area b. Junkyard License Application Denials 5. Legal and Engineering a. Variance - Baker & Sons b. Preliminary Plat - Birchwood Pond c. Variance - L. Boehland d. Variance - D. Fluth e. Final Plat - LakeRidge Addition f. Street Standards - New Development vs Existing Development g. Sewer Connection Poìicy h. County Right-of-Way i. Hanson Boulevard Extension j. 6. Ordinances and Resolutions a. Scenic River Ordinance 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications a. 8. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Boards a. Planning & Zoning b. Park & Recreation c. Volunteer Fire Department d. Other Committees 9. Unfinished Business a. Firemen's Relief Association b. Northern Natural Gas - Easement Agreement c. Police Contract 10. New Business a. 11. Approval of Minutes 12. Approval of Claims 13. Adjournment ~ o¡ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 20, 1979 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on November 20, 1979, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Lachinski, Jacobson, Orttel, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, John Davidson; Planning and Zoning Chairman, d'Arcy Bosell; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others Agenda Approval MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Council approve the Agenda as publlshed with the Addition of Item 5j, Petition for Streets on 133rd north to 135th Avenue Area; Item 5k, Speed Zone Study in Stenquist Addition; Item lOa, Land- fill; and Item lOb, City Engineer Question. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - Establishment of Flood Plain Area Larry Bailey, Flood Plain Management Specialist with the National Flood Insurance Program from the regional office in Chicago of the Federal Emergency Management Agency; Tom Lutgen, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; and George Carlson with U.S. Geologlcal Survey who was contracted to do the flood insurance study for the community, were present. Mr. Bailey gave a slide presentation explaining that the community enrolled in the emergency program in 1976 which allows residents to purchase a maximum of $35,000 of coverage as well as contents; if the City enrolls in the regular program, residents will be allowed to purchase up to $185,000 worth of coverage on a residential home plus contents; the current flood insurance map of the community dated December 17, 1976, outlines the base flood, which is a flood that has a one percent chance of occurring or being exceeded in any given year and includes the revised storm water plan for the City; the community must enroll in the regular program before residents are eligible for flood insurance coverage; residents do not have to reside in a flood plain to take advantage of the insurance program; enrollment in the regular program requires publication of flood insurance rate map; and the City is responsible for flood plain management under this program by adopting appropriate minimal regulations as outlined by the federal government, but those flood plain areas of less than one square mile in drainage and less than 200 feet in width are not addressed by the agency. Mr. Bailey explained that the maps would be published in the official City newspaper a week apart. Upon the second notification of those elevations, the Mayor would be notified that the community is entering into a 90-day appeals period to allow the community to present any contrary information they may have and to allow individual homeowners to appeal designation as being in a flood plain area. Following the 90-day appeals period, the City proceeds into a six-month time period to adopt the appropriate land-use regulations. On the last day of that six-month period, the community would convert into the regular program. Mr. Lutgen explained that the DNR is the State coordinating agency for the national flood insurance program to assist local government. They have developed a model ordinanc~ which communities can use completely or a portion thereof, controlling allowable uses of a floodway and the flood fringe area, a procedure to determine appropriate building sites, etc. He also gave a brief review of some of the pro- visions presented in the ordinance relative to flood plain management. The City may either adopt a new flood plain management ordinance or amend existing ordinances to meet the minimum criteria of the State and Federal governments. This must also be approved by the Commissioner of the DNR. Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 2 (PUBLIC HEARING - Establishment of Flood Plain Area, Continued) Mr. Carlson explained that he provided the engineering information on the Rum River and Coon Creek needed for the flood insurance study and applied the data to the maps. He explained that information on the continuous flow of the Rum River over the past 39 years was obtained from the gaging station on the river located at County Road 22. To get the estimate of the one percent chance flood on Coon Creek, they analyzed records from 27 gauges operated on small streams surrounding the twin cities area to make that determination. All this information was then used to make the City's current flood insurance map. The Engineer and the Council requested a reproducible mylar copy of the maps that could be used to make copies for the comprehensive plan, ordinances, publication, etc. Mr. Carlson agreed to provide Mr. Davidson with his copies; Mr. Bailey stated he would contact the office in Washington to see if he could get a mylar copy of the maps for the City office. PUBLIC HEARING - Junkyard License Application Denials The Clerk reviewed the Council material on the fencing question of junkyards. Chairman Bosell stated that the Planning Commission has made a recommendation to amend the ordinance to allow a variance to the fencing requirement for natural barriers if they have provided visual obstruction from the roadway or public properties. Attorney Hawkins felt that the question is how this determination can be made and suggested that it be said that the natural terrain or trees provide at least the same amount of screening as would the fence if it were installed. Because the Council had not received a copy'of the Planning Commission's proposed ordinance revision, and because the ordinance has not yet been changed and the present ordinance does not allow for natural screening of the junkyards, it was agreed to continue the public hearing until the December 4 meeting. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the matter of the junkyard license application denials and the possible revision to the Junkyard License Ordinance be continued to the first regularly scheduled meeting in the month of December. Motion carried unanimously. Special Use Permit/Variance - Baker & Sons Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the Special Use Permit as it is not allowed under Ordinance 8, Section 7.0~ because it is not a home occupation since no one is living in the structure. William J. Baker, Jr., 16611 Yttrium Street, Ramse - explained that the property is eet square. e 1 n t ee t e property wou justify any other type of business, and their only objective is to operate a real ,estate business there. They are operating out of that building now. He had called the City Hall and was told they needed no special use permit to operate a real estate office, though he had not informed staff that they would not be residing in the building. He didn't know that that was a prerequisite to operating a real estate office. Previously the building had been used as residential rental property, but they had some bad experiences with that. Since they have taken over the property, it has taken on a new look which, he felt, has been accepted more favorably by the public. C °1 dO ° th t thO t /ffensi~e ° 'th 1 ounCl lSCUSSlon was a lS was no an USlness ln e rura area; suggested the possibility of rezoning the property to Limited Industry, which is a restrictive category allowing this business but not allowing the undesirable businesses such as restaurant, etc.; that to rezone the property, a public hearing must be held by the Planning Commission; and that the property is directly adjacent Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 3 (Special Use Permit/Variance - Baker & Sons, Continued) to the existing industrial area. Since the Bakers are currently operating in the building, it was noted that the sign permit, which is required, cannot be issued until the rezoning issue is resolved. Also, it was apparently the City's recommendation that he apply for the Special Use Permit inivally. The Attorney has this matter under deliberation in his office. Councilman Jacobson expressed concern that rezoning this property would be spot zoning On something that small. Mr. Baker stated that he was agreeable to applying for a rezoning of the property to Limited Industrial. Attorney Hawkins stated if the applicant is willing to enter into an agreement as to the use with the City to coincide with the rezoning, he felt it would be proper. The City cannot condition a rezoning themselves but can enter into an agreement to a specific use of the rezoned property if the applicant is willing to do so. He also felt that spot zoning would be considered as zoning in the middle of an area that has incompatible uses; but that this could be construed as a situation where each applicant would come in for a rezoning in an area being rezoned to the ultimate planned end use of commercial or if the rezoning is in line with what we eventually want out there. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the matter of the Baker & Sons Special Use Permit/Variance be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for proper remedy. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the fees paid by Baker & Sons for the Special Use Permit/Variance they originally applied for be re-applied toward any rezoning that is requested. Discussion: The City has already expended funds for processing this request; and if Mr. Baker is entitled to a refund, it should be addressed if and when a rezoning is considered. Councilmen Lachinski and Orttel WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. Preliminary Plat - Birchwood Pond Dan Christenson, 16095 Crosstown Boulevard, developer, was present. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we accept the Preliminary Plat for Birchwood Pond subdivision. We find that a public hearing was held and there was no opposition; and that the plat such as noted meets the ordinances of the City, is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; we find that the plat has been reviewed by the City Engineer; and a letter of approval of exit onto the County road has been received from the County Highway Department; and that we accept in lieu of parkland $2,000 in cash; and that two variance be granted for the plat: One on Ordinance 10, Section 9.0Sa for the length of 170th Avenue NW, and the second variance for Lot 4, Block 1 because the frontage is less than 300 feet. (See Resolution R93-9) Motion carried unanimously. Variance - L. Boehland Paul Cavner, Real Estate Agent - read a letter dated November 16, 1979, from Mr. Chapman statlng "I have met with the City Park Board and would be willing to pay my fair share of up to the $2,000 park fee as agreed and would give you the 80-foot easement on Bunker Lake Road in exchange for a variance from your planning procedure." Wes Mand, Chairman of the Park/Recreation Commission, explained the problems they had in determining the market value of the property in question, noting that the Park Board recommended $2,000 park dedication fees be paid on the entire five-acre parcel owned by both Mr. Chapman and Dr. Boehland. (Reference November 16, 1979, memo from Park Commission relative to the Variance/Plat - L. Boehland). A lengthy discussion followed as to determining the appropriate park dedication fee for the original five-acre parcel. Councilman Peach had trouble justifying why the Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 4 (Variance - L. Boehland, Continued) City collects park dedication fees from land that will not generate people to use the parks. Mayor Windschitl stated that the Ordinance is written such that collection of park dedication fees is required when land is not donated, and the Park Ordinance requires 10 percent of the market value. Mr. Cavner stated that at the time Dr. Boehland purchased the property, he was not aware of the easement for the frontage road and thought that he would be having that property to use. His reasoning for the valuation of the property is Dr. Boehland's piece of property is not worth as much as that located directly on the corner of Bunker Lake and Round Lake Boulevards because of the difference in locations and in zoning, plus taking into account that Dr. Boehland is going to have to pay for a frontage road along with the loss of the land (approximately one-half acre) that he thought he was buying. The net usable land left would be about four acres at about $5,000 an acre. Also, had he bought the entire five acres, he could have built without paying any park dedication fees whatsoever and without having to give the City the easement for the frontage road. This agreement has Mr. Chapman's cooperation, and Mr. Cavner felt that any increased fee would be rejected by Mr. Chapman since it was difficult arriving at something he was agreeable with. Dr. Boehland stated that at the time he purchased this lot, he thought it was buildable and intended to build the clinic this fall. He felt if he could have built it this fall, he would have saved 10 percent on the value of the building plus interest rates are lower now than they will be in the spring. And if he could have built it this fall, it would have been worth $70,000 to him. Because he has run into these problems, the land is worth nothing to him. The reason this property was valuable at that time was because he was told that this was the only buildable lot available. He felt the Council should look at other viewpoints when putting a value on land. Council discussion was that value of the property should not be placed on the subdivided property but on the five-acre parcel as a whole, and that the suggestion of $20,000 for the five acres seems to be an inequity to some of the Councilmen. MOTION by Peach, that the City Council accept $2,000 in park dedication fees for the entire 4.75 acres that belong to Mr. Chapman and Mr. Boehland in lieu of parkland. Motion died for lack of a second. Larry Carlson, developer of property to the east of the property in question, stated he knew that the price of $10,000 an acre for the Rademacher property is correct, and that he paid $4,000 for the Adolfson property to be used for residential. Attorney Hawkins stated that in determining the market value, generally no considera- tion is given for land dedicated for road easements; but in this instance where the City is asking for such a large portion of the land, consideration might be given. During further discussion, it was determined that estimating a market value of $6,000 an acre would amount to $3,450 for park dedication fees. Dr. Boehland stated a developer would look at how much that road is going to cost. That road is not going to benefit him. He preferred it wasn't there, and he felt it lowers the value of the land. Mayor Windschitl explained that without the frontage road, putting the sewer extension down the center of Bunker Lake Boulevard would have a significant difference on his assessment. Mr. Cavner stated that according to the measurements and survey done for Dr. Boehland, the acreage in question totals 4.92 acres. The Clerk indicated that the 5.7 acres that has been used by the City in its computations came from the County Assessment records. Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 5 (Variance - L. Boehland, Continued) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve a variance for the Boehland and Chapman property (legal description to be inserted) under Section 14.02 of Ordinance 10 and thereby waive the platting procedure contingent upon a park dedication fee of $3,000 and easement for road and utility and drainage easement over the north 80 feet of the described property. (See Resolution R94-9) AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Peach to have the park dedication fees read $2,000. Amendment dies for lack of a second. Discussion: Councilman Lachinski stated he calculated the park dedication fees based on five acres valued at $6,000 an acre. Discussion was on what happens if Mr. Chapman is not willing to pay his share of the park dedication fee since it has been increased $1,000 more than what he already agreed to; that the Council is trying to expedite the procedure and to administer the ordinances as fairly as possible; sugge~fed that because of the expense of platting or civil court cases, as an alternative/ ght be more advantageous for Dr. Boehland to pay $2,000 of the $3,000 himself. Councilman Peach stated Dr. Boehland has come to the City with a perfectly good plan for developing a piece of property which will be an excellent buffer between the residents in Chapman and the proposed shopping center across the street. He felt that the City has given Dr. Boehland a hard time and we're fighting over $1,000 now. $2,000 is the amount to which the Park Board agreed to, he agreed to, and Mr. Chap~an agreed to, and now the Council wants to raise the amount; and one of the parties isn't even present. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; NO-Peach Motion carried. Variance - D. Fluth Council reviewed the Clerk's memo of November 8, 1979, relative to information on garage setbacks of previously approvedsimiliarvariance requests. It was noted that in most cases, a variance was given where no garage existed previously. David Fluth - had not obtained a letter of approval from his neighbor, as he was under the impression if similiar requests had been granted, his would be approved as well. It was felt by the Council that they would want to have such a letter from the neighbor in any case. Mr. Fluth agreed to get the letter. Council agreed to postpone action until a letter has been received from Mr. Fluth's neighbor; the Clerk was directed to write to the neighbor explaining the situation asking for a written reply. This item is to be put on the December 4 Council Agenda. Recess at 9:40; reconvene at 9:53 p.m. Final Plat - LakeRidge Addition The Attorney and Engineer both indicated that all items are in order. Larry Carlson, developer, stated that the roads will be blacktopped in the spring; and lt lS his understanding that, and he is willing to have, the one-year warranty begin again once the streets are blacktopped. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the LakeRidge Final Plat and accept the streets in the LakeRidge Plat for maintenance contingent upon the developer posting a $4,000 maintenance bond for one year. Motion carried unanimously. Scenic River Ordinance Discussion between the Council, Chairman Bosell and DNR representative Tom Lutgen was on the question of publishing a map showing the Scenic River zoning. Because the Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 6 (Scenic River Ordinance, Continued) Scenic River Ordinance is a free-standing ordinance, Mr. Lutgen felt it would be agreeable to publish a map of the community showing only the Rum River Scenic River designation and not show any other zoning. Ms. Bosell also noted that when the Scenic River Ordinance was adopted by the Council, some changes were made which have not been drafted in a typewritten form and have not been submitted to the Commissioner. The one point of contention was the lots of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance relative to the dimensional require- ments and contiguous property. In an attempt to clarify the intention of the DNR's requirement in the Scenic River ordinance, Mr. Lutgen stated that if you have a lot of record on the date of enactment of the ordinance, it is buildable if the use is permitted, if the lot is in separate ownership on date of enactment, and if all sanitary and dimensional requirements of the ordinance are complied with. So a single lot would be buildable. If there are two contiguous lots, the ordinance requires to combine them into single ownership for the purposes of development, but you don't have to do that if each of them meets the 60 percent requirement on lot width. He felt it was mainly intended to cover where both lots are undeveloped. Mayor Windschitl explained that very few of these exist, if any; but it was the Council's feeling that it would be unreasonable that a person owning contiguous lots, having a home built on one lot, would lose the potential of another building site because of the enactment of an ordinance. Attorney Hawkins asked if the DNR has or would be willing to make an exception to this requirement in existing developments. Mr. Lutgen stated he will review the situation of two contiguous vacant lots meeting the 60 percent requirement and of two contiguous lots with a structure on one meeting the 60 percent requirement. He will also check to see if other cities in the State have had problems with the 60 percent provision. Park/Recreation Commission Report Del Barber from the DNR was present to review the joint powers agreement. Council generally agreed that a public hearing on the Crooked Lake Beach property development proposal should be held prior to final commitment to the project. The question is when that hearing should be held. The grant application must be sub- mitted by December 7. Chairman Mand explained that a statement of agreement with other groups participating in the project must be submitted along with the grant application. Mr. Barber explained that the DNR has nothing to do with the grant application, but before they can pursue the acquisition of the property any farther, a joint powers agreement is needed with the City. He explained that this is only a rough draft of an agreement which has not been reviewed by their attorneys yet. The DNR does not have such an agreement with any other city in the State at the present time, so this is their first attempt at it. Discussion followed on suggested changes to the joint powers agreement by the Council: Item C: to be changed to read "the access site shall not be used for uses which interfere with its usè..." or something to clarify that only the boat landing access is being referred to and that picnicing, etc., would be allowable in the rest of the park. Item D: preferred to see the time of operation directly related to the City's Park Ordinance. Mr. Barber explained the idea is to keep it open as long as possible, particularly catering to the fishermen. They would like it to be open at least 18 hours a day, but they are agreeable to consistency from one park to the other within the City. Another suggestion was to word it so that it would be open according to the City's ordinance except for boat launching for fishing. Mr. Barber stated there is a task force working on surface use zoning; but if the City is more restrictive, Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 7 (Park/Recreation Commission Report, Continued) that holds precedence. The DNR's main concern is the use of the access for fisher- men; and once the access is done, they can restock the lake with better game fish. Item E: felt it should be reworded to say that the boat size and horsepower shall be governed by surface use zoning regulations. Cancellation: Mr. Barber stated the State will own the land. The agreement is that the City holds the State harmless for something that the City controls and maintains. Attorney Hawkins had a problem with the wording, in that both the State and the City should have the provision for cancelling. Council discussion was then on the Resolution prepared by the Park Board Secretary to be submitted with the grant application; on the problem of proceeding any farther without benefit of public input at a hearing; and on the dilemma of not wanting to hold a public hearing prior to DNR negotiations with landowners involved but the desirability of having the hearing now before the grant application is submitted. Discussion was on the map submitted to the Council showing properties to be acquired along Crooked Lake. It was felt that the park size should be specifically defined for a public hearing and that the future acquisition of the Art Sloth should not be shown. Changes suggested in the Resolution were: Item 1: put period after the 50 percent and eliminate the rest of the line. Item No.2: put a period after 25 percent and eliminate the rest. Add Item 2a or Item 3: The City of Andover will pay the balance of the costs from other funds available to it. The Attorney will review and revise the Resolution and the joint powers agreement and present it for Council approval at the December 4 meeting. It was recommended that Mr. Hawkins and the DNR Attorney discuss and agree on the joint powers agreement prior to the December 4 meeting to expedite its approval. Councilman Lachinski stated if possible, he would like copies of the Resolution and joint powers agreement to discuss with residents in that area prior to the next meeting. Street Standards - New Development vs Existing Development Because of the problems of designing a bituminous road through an existing development (most recently the problems encountered in Stenquist Addition Street Improvement Project), it was suggested a resolution be prepared that would allow the engineering firm, at its discretion, to modify or amend the City's existing standards to best suit an existing neighborhood which would be the least disruptive to existing topography and vegetation. It was also mentioned that the Council should consider whether or not concrete curb and gutter in the urban area should remain the City standard; and possibly these items can be discussed at a work session. The Council directed the Clerk to prepare a Resolution authorizing the Engineer to deviate from the standards when it would be in the best interest to retain the integrity of the neighborhood. Sewer Connection Policy Mr. Hawkins explained that the ordinance requires that when sewer is made available, it must be hooked up within one year of its availability. There are five people left in the City who have had sewer available since the 75-1 or 76-1 projects and have not yet connected to the sewer. A few of these people have indicated the costs for connection is beyond what they can afford. His dilemma is if he prosecutes them for noncompliance with the ordinance, nothing really is accomplished. The question is how to handle these particular instances. Mr. Hawkins stated he had no problem prosecuting those who are financially able to hook up but deliberately do not. Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 8 (Sewer Connection Policy, Continued) Mayor Windschitl stated one suggestion is to have the City hook them up and assess the costs back to the property owner over a longer period of time, but some criteria must be established to determine whether or not the City can hook them up. Or, during the next sewer project, the Council could accept requests of anyone who feels they won't have the funds to hook up, and simply build these funds into the project and hook them up right away. Discussion was that it puts a financial strain on the City to begin hooking sewers up for residents, plus having to establish the criteria; that the only installations the City has done to date has been where a health hazard existed; that, some cities have a provision in their ordinance that the permit fee is increased as much as what the sewer bill would be for the time period between when sewer became available and its connection; questioned whether there are State or Federal agencies that would pro- vide funding for sewer installation to low-incomed residents; and the suggestion that the Council should consider making sewer connections on an individual basis when there is a health hazard and a financial hardship. For those financially able, the Attorney is to proceed with whatever means necessary to get them hooked up. If there is some economic question, they are to be treated on a case by case basis, and the Clerk is to work with and direct residents to the welfare agencies to make a determination of where they stand. The City would only make the sewer connection in the event of a health hazard and where a hardship can be demonstrated. County Right of Way To allow for the reconstruction of CSAH No.9, Anoka County is extending their easement. There is a portion of roadway, dedicated to Grow Township in the 1960's and never maintained, for which the County requires. They are offering payment of $150 consisting of 60' x 66' area. Discussion was on the legality of simply giving the property to the County realizing the benefit to the citizens. Attorney Hawkins stated that normally a dollar is used as the amount in these instances. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the property needed for the reconstruction of County State Aid Highway 9 (legal to be inserted - approximately 60 x 66 feet in size) be sold to the County of Anoka for $1.00 to be used for road purposes. (See Resolution R9S-9) Motion carried unanimously. Hanson Boulevard Extension Engineer Davidson reviewed the TKDA memo of November 14, 1979,relative to the meeting held with the District 5 State Engineer, Chuck Weichselbaum, relative to the procedure that must be followed in the Hanson Boulevard extension project, recommending that the City not actually purchase any right of way until the designations have been completed. Council directed Mr. Davidson to proceed with the necessary steps. Mr. Davidson also reported that the County has indicated there may be some considerations to upgrading Crosstown Boulevard before it is turned over to the City. Petition for Streets on 133rd North to 13Sth Avenue Area Councilman Orttel stated that the person bringing around the petition stated that they were just looking for information and costs; though that is not what the petition says. It was also noted that there have been studies done for this area previously that should be able to be updated by the Engineer. Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 9 (Petition for Streets on 133rd North to 13Sth Avenue Area, Continued) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, entering a Resolution accepting petition and declaring adequacy of same for the improvement of bituminous streets and storm sewer for 133r.d Avenue, 134th Avenue, 135th Avenue, Eidelweiss Street and Gladiola Street in the east one half of the southwest quarter of Section 33, Township 32, Range 24... (See Resolution R96-9) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschitl; PRESENT-Orttel as he is directed affected by the project. Motion carried. Speed Zone Study - Stenquist Addition Engineer Davidson reviewed the Minnesota Department of Transportation letter of November 13, 1979, to John Davidson in which they recommended authorization of a 40mph speed limit for 159th Avenue between Roanke Street and CSAH 7, and a 35 'mph speed limit for Potawatomi Street between lS9th and 162nd. The other streets in Stenquist Addition were found to be too short to make speed zoning necessary or effective. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the City accept the recommendations from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the speed zones in the Stenquist Addition area. Motion carried unanimously. Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief Bob Palmer asked the Attorney if the Fire Department can request applicants to take a physical; and if so, does the City have to pay for that. In most cases they would be looking for medical history and a doctor's opinion as to the physical ability of that person to fight fires. Attorney Hawkins stated the ordinance gives the Department the authority to request a physical; in fact, it seems to indicate that a physical exam is mandatory; but it doesn't say who pays for it. It would be a question to the City as to whether or not it wants to pay for physicals. It was felt that it is wise to obtain medical background for the protection of the City and the firefighter so should an injury occur, it could be more easily determined that the injury was actually caused by fighting a fire. Mayor Windschitl suggested the issue should be addressed on a case by case basis. A brief medical history should be obtained from every prospective volunteer; and if there is some question, at that point it can be decided whether or not an exam should be required and the Council could decide who would pay for that exam. Chief Palmer stated a week ago Monday there was a car fire, but the Andover Fire Department never got called on it because the County squad requested the Anoka Fire Department to respond. He felt that when the City gets the bill from Anoka, it should be turned over to the County to pay it. Chief Palmer noted that he had not received a copy of the letter sent to the Anoka City Manager and Central Communications stating that Anoka Fire Department was to be called only upon request of an Andover Fire Department officer. Chief Palmer asked if a policy of reimbursement to firefighters in the event they would have to take off work to fight a fire has been established. It was determined that the Personnel Committee will review the matter and make a recommendation to the Council. Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 10 (Volunteer Fire Department, Continued) Since the Andover Fire Department has begun operating full time for all fires, it was Chief Palmer's suggestion that some advertising be done notifying residents of the correct fire number to call. He suggested the possibility of putting an ad in the Shopper. Another suggestion was that this should be mentioned again in a newsletter to the residents. Mayor Windschitl felt it would be possible to get an ad in the Shopper or the Anoka Union. Firemen's Relief Association Mayor Windschitl explained that the City of Anoka does not contribute to their Firemen's Relief Association. He also stated that apparently we are going to have to do a street by street delineation between the City of Anoka and Andover for the State because of the confusion that exists with Andover having the Anoka address. If it is not done properly, the City of Anoka will be receiving Andover's insurance rebate funds. He suggested the Chief and the Clerk work with the State to get this straighted out. The Council then agreed that the insurance refund to the City will be put in the Firemen's Relief Association. Attorney Hawkins stated a new law passed in 1979 made a number of changes in the Relief Association and the method of funding the pensions, disability payments, and funeral benefits. It is a simplified formula which he used in the bylaws he drafted for Andover's Relief Association. It basically consists of setting up the special funds for the pension, and disability and funeral benefits if those are going to be provided (the firefighters need to decide whether or not they want the disability and funeral benefits), and the fire insurance premium rebate is put into that fund plus whatever else the city wants to contribute. At the end of every year, the firefighters are allocated their percentage of the fund; and it goes into their individual account which can be with- drawn after a certain period of time. There is no accrued liability. The City can attribute whatever it feels is appropriate to attract people to come into the volunteer fire department. The Council discussed whether or not the City will contribute any funds towards the Relief Association. It was suggested that the surrounding cities be researched to see what dollar amount per fireman is going into their Associations. The Clerk was directed to do this research and to report what other cities are doing. Northern Natural Gas - Easement Agreement Councilman Jacobson stated if the Council doesn't act on the Agreement, Northern Natural Gas will be contacting the City. He stated the City is encroaching on their easement and felt some counteroffer should be sent to them. Mayor Windschitl felt that the agreement was unreasonable. Attorney Hawkins stated there really is no advantage to the City of having or not having the agreement signed if they damage our street prior to entering into this agreement; as either way, it would be the City's responsibility to repair the street. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we have the Attorney contact the Attorney for Northern Natural Gas by telephone and discuss it and say it is unacceptable and we'd like to have something that is a little more reasonable. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski; NO-Orttel, Peach, Windschitl Motion failed. Police Contract Because there were some questions on some of the charges in the Police Contract, the Clerk was directed to contact Mr. Samson and ask him to attend the next regularly scheduled meeting to answer Council questions on the contract. Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 11 Landf ill Council discussed the November 9, 1979, letter from Terry Reuther, 14041 Crosstown Boulevard NW, on his concerns with the landfill operation relative to noise levels On Crosstown, speeding and safety on Crosstown, and alleged groundwater pollution resulting from the landfill operation. Council concerns were how residents find out some of this information prior to the City receiving it; over the toxic waste pit located in the landfill; over the frustrations of not being able to stop operations that might endanger the residents of the community, especially as it relates to possible contamination of nearby residential wells; on what can be done about the hours of operation by the landfill and the noise levels on Crosstown by the Waste Disposal trucks. The Clerk was directed to check with Anoka County to see what can be done about the noise level problem on Crosstown. She is also to ask County Commissioner Ed fields and Anoka County Health Department representative Bob Hutchinson to meet with the Council on this matter. City Engineer Discussion was on setting a special meeting date to begin discussions on hiring a City Engineer. It was agreed that this meeting could be held in conjunction with the meeting with Commissioner fields and Mr. Hutchinson. This meeting was tentatively planned for Monday, December 10, 1979. Final Payment - Stenquist Addition Street Improvement Project Engineer Davidson recommended final payment to Lino Contruction, Inc., for the Stenquist Addition Street Improvement Project in the amount of $37,114.04, which brings the total final cost of the project to $213,043.56. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we approve Final Payment to Lino Construction for the Stenquist Improvement Project as per the amount specified by the Engineer. Discussion: Mr. Davidson stated that Lino Contracting has posted a one-year bond for maintenance purposes. Motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes October 16, 1979, and November 6, 1979: Correct as written. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the Minutes of the October 16 and November 6 meetings be approved as written. Motion carried unanimously. Approval of Claims MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that checks number 2779 and checks 2795 through 2808 for a total of $12,817.57; and Check number 334 for $172; 335 for $2,595; 336 for $353.04; 337 for $200.47; 338 for $81,132; 339 for $37114.04 be approved. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~c~~ Recording Secretary