HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC November 6, 1979
~ o¡ ANDOVER
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 6, 1979
AGENDA
1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M.
2. Resident Forum
a) John Weaver
b) Community Summer School-Interested residents
c) Others
3. Agenda Approval
4. Public Hearings
a) Continuation of Junkyard License Application Denials
5. Legal and Engineering
a) Ed Lutz Proposed Road
b) Birchwood Pond Preliminary Plat
c) Stenquist Lot Split
d) Boehland Variance
e) Fluth Variance
f) Good Value Homes Storm Sewer Proposal
g) Street Standards - New Development vs Existing Development
h) Sewer Connection/City Policy
*i) Hazardous Waste/PCA Resolution
j)
6. Ordinances and Resolutions
a) Ordinance No. 17 Amendment - Floor Elevations
b) Ordinance No. 29 Amendment - Firewood
c) Scenic River (Rum River) Ordinance
7. Petitions, Requests Communications
a) D. Skeim - Strawberry Commons Denial
b) G. Prior - Kennel License
8. Reports of Boards, Commissions, Committees
9. Unfinished Business
a) 1980 Budget
b) Firemen's Relief Association
c) Northern Natural Gas Company - Easement Agreement
* d) Police Contract
* e) Insurance Award
10. New Business
a) Tax Forfeited Properties
11. Approval of Minutes
12. Approval of Claims
13. Adjournment
CITY of ANDOVER
M E M 0 RAN 0 U M
TO: MA VOR ANn rOIINr.T I
COPIES TO: ATTORNEY. ENGINEER. STAFF
FROM: CITY CLERK/A. ADM.
DATE:: OCTOBER 31. 1979
REFERENCE: AGENDA INFORMATION - NOVEMBER 6, 1979
Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval
Please add Agenda Item No. 5i- Resolution/PCA, and Item No. 6c - Rum River
(Scenic River) Ordinance.; also Item 9d Police Contract and ge-Insurance Awards
Item No.4 - Public Hearing Junkyard License Applications (continued)
It will again be necessary to continue this item inasmuch as the P&Z has not
reviewed the natural screening and made a recommendation.
Item No. Sa - Ed Lutz Proposed Road
Attached is P&Z recommendation for approval. You will note the P&Z is requesting
Mr. Lutz provide an easement only from the proposed road to serve the Torbenson
property. Please refer to P&Z minutes of October 24 for further information.
Item No. 5b - Btrchwood Pond Preliminary Plat
Attached is P&Z recommendation for approval. All requirements have been met. The
Park Commission is requesting $2,000 cash in lieu of land dedication.this to be
paid prior to approval of Final Plat. No variances are required.
Item No. Sc - Stenquist Lot Split
P&Z recommendation for denial attached. Mr. Stenquist is requesting to split off
two one-acre lots from the original six-acre parcel, thereby creating three separate
parcels. The area proposed for the lot split is zoned R-2, however, Ordinance 10C
does not allow for any type subdivision of less than 2.5 acres per parcel. Based
on the aerial maps, Mr. Stenquist could create two parcels approximately 320' in
width and containing approximately 1.7 acres each; a variance would then be required
also from Ordinance 40 for allowing three parcels instead of two. A similar request
approximately six months ago was denied on the basis of three parcels instead of
two. The only possible reason to allow a variance on the # of lots and the 1.7
acres instead of 2.5 would be the reason of value of 5 acres that could not be
divided by present ordinance vs cost of assessment. The attorney is being requested
to give an opinion on the legality of such reasoning.
~-
Agenda Information
November 6, 1979
Page 2
Item No. 5d - Boehland Variance
Dr. Boehland contacted me several weeks ago relative to securing a building permit
on the 2.5 acres he had purchased from Mr. Chapman. He was advised at that time
that a building permit could not be issued inasmuch as the property was conveyed
in violation of City Ordinance. Ordinance 40 does not allow for a lot split of
non-residential property, so we was told to proceed under the variance provision
of Ordinance No.8, inasmuch as the transaction had already ,:been completed and
the parcel recorded. P&Z is recommending denial of the variance, suggesting he
plat the property. For a building such as Dr. Boehland is proposing to construct,
he could get a permit without platting or the variance if he were to purchase the
entire five acres. Platting at this time would still only give him two lots.
Item No. 5e - Fluth Variance
See P&Z recommendation for denial. Mr. Fluth is requesting a variance to allow
him to construct a 12' addition to his present garage which would result in the
garage being 6' from the property line instead of the 10' as required by Ordinance.
His reason given for extending to the side rather than the front or rear is due
to roof line, noting a side extension would look more like a part of the house,
whereas, front or rear would look like an "add-on". Should the City Council feel
the aesthetic question is valid, a variance could be granted.
Item No. Sf - Good Value Homes/Storm Sewer Proposal
Good Value Homes are requesting the City of Andover to, under the present
Impovement Financing Policy" to finance the construction of a storm sewer outlet
to be installed during Anoka County's Round Lake Blvd. construction; and to
finance the costs under the assessment policy outlined in the Policy.
Item No. Sg - Street Standards - New Development vs Existing Development
During construction of bituminous streets in existing developments, several
problems have been encountered when attempting to adhere strictly to the standards.
Yards have been damaged, landscaping altered, fences located such that maintenance
of the newly created ditches is impossible, and other aesthetically poor situations.
The recent construction in the Stenquist Addition indicated a definite need to
provide variance in the existing standards. Perhaps just direction to the City
Engineer to consider existing conditions when designing these streets would be
sufficient.
Item No. Sh - Sewer Connection/City Policy
Five city property owners have not yet connected to the sanitary sewer pursuant to
Ordinance No. 32. After several letters frnm this office they were referred to
the City Attorney for action. He has repoftèd financial burden as the reason for
non-connection of at least two of the property owners; and has recommended the
City enter into an Agreement with the people whereby the City would pay the costs
and assess them over a time-period to the property owner. Two property owners
would not cause a burden to the City Treasury, however, if such a pOlicy were
adopted there would be a definite need to set aside working capital for such purposes.
Attorney Hawkins will report the policies ofdher cities in handling of non-connections.
Agenda Information
November 6, 1979
Page 3
Item No. 5i - DFL Resolution to PCA
We have spoken at length to Mr. John Weaver relative to this problem. It is something
which has existed in this City, and been a problem for several years. The PCA began
an investigation approximately five years ago. however, based on a conversation I
had with them in 1978, no determinations had been made. Mr. Weaver has pursued
this and has asked for a few minutes to report his findings to the City Council.
As further reenforcement, a motion could be adopted endo~ng the resolution adopted
by the DFL. Mr. Weaver has another meeting scheduled for November 6; however, he
is going to attempt to re-work his schedule in order to allow for a few minutes
at the beginning of our meeting.
Item No. 6a - Ordinance No. 17 Amendment - Floor Elevations
Attached is a proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 17. The State Building Code does
not provide for basement elevations. There has not been any question up until now
inasmuch as the individual septic system requirements controlled the basement
elevations. Several homes are being anticipated in questionable areas, therefore,
it is recommended this amendment be adopted to alleviate any future problems.
Item No. 6b - Ordinance No. 29 Amendment - Diseased Trees/Firewood
Attached is a proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 29, providing for the storage and
use of diseased trees as firewood. The problem is not now, but rather in April when
such firewood cannot be stored in yards. Inasmuch as this ordinance and No. 17
above do not involve zoning, it is not necessary to send them to P&Z.
Item No. 6c - Scenic River Ordinance (Rum River Ordinance)
Attached are the maps requested at the October 16 Meeting. There is one problem
with the publication of this map as shown, that being it will supercede Ordinance No.10C
which provides for the development of no subdivision of less than 2.5 acres in the
Rural Service Area. If the City Attorney agrees with this interpretation, the map
should be published showing only the Rum River designation, with a map showing all
zoning not to be published until that map is changed to reflect the provisions of
Ordinance No. 10C.
Item No. 7a - D. Skeim - Strawberry Commons
Mr. Skeim has requested time on the agenda to ask the City Council to reconsider
their decision on the denial of the rezoning request for Strawberry Commons. The
City Attorney has been asked to review the decision and present his opinion to the
City Council.
Item No.7b - G. Prior - Kennel License
Mr. & Mrs. Prior are requesting renewal of their Kennel License. No complaints
have been received by this office on the operation. All individual dogs are licensed.
A motion is needed to approve the license for one year ending November 1, 1980.
Agenda Information
November 6, 1979
Page 4
Item No. 8a - Planning and Zoning Commission ~-
No report has been received to-date.
Item No. 8b - Park & Recreation Commission
The City Council has to decide if they wish to proceed with the Final Application
for the Crooked Lake Access Grant. Chairman Mand will present additional details.
Item No. 8c - Volunteer Fire Department
November 6 is the deadline date for completion of the PSB by Bloomberg, Inc.
The Building Committee met on Monday, October 29, to review and will have a
recommendation.
Item No. 8d - Other Committees
The Personnel Committee has met, however, a report has not yet been received.
Item No. 9a - 1980 Budget
Based on the low bid for the insurance, approximately $10,200 could be subtracted
from the expenditures of $598,202.00, and as a result showing total expenditures
of $588,002 with a resultant surplus of $6,938.00. It is this amount with which
the Council has to work to re-instate any proposed expenditures previously deleted,
or to simply increase year end surplus.
Item No. 9b - Firemen's Relief Association
In conjunction with the 1980 Budget approval, the questions has arisen as to a
clearer understanding of the City's participation in the Relief Association.
The 1980 Budget provides for $3,000 to be placed into this Fund. Some of the
Councilmen believe this amount will eventually be replaced by the insurance
rebate received by the State,; others think it is a matching funds situation.
The City Attorney has prepared the Orders of Incorporation for the Association
and is now working on the By-Laws. Clarification should be made before final
adoption.
Item No. 9c - Northern Natural Gas /Easement Agreement
Attached is a copy of the Agreement prepared by Attorney Hawkins. If the Council
is in agreement with the provisions set forth, no further action is required--a
motion was made at a previous meeting directing the Mayor and Clerk to sign.
Item No. 9d - Police Contract
A motion is needed directing the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Contract in the
amount of $99,761.00 providing for 16 hour protection for the 1980 calendar year.
Item No. ge - Insurance Award
Quotations have been received and reviewed by Councilman Orttel. His recommendation
for award has been forwarded to the Council. A motion is needed authorizing Wellman
& Assoaiates, Inc. to write the insurance for the City of Andover pursuant to
quotation received.
Agenda Informat'vn
November 6, 1979
Page 5
Item No. lOa - New Business
We have received notice from Anoka County of several properties being available for
City acquisition at a cost of approximately $13.00 each. Attached is a map showing
their locations. All are vacant lots. The Park Commission has checked the map; the
only lots they felt to be possibly of interest were the three together in Hartfiel's,
and then only if the OUtlot became available. The piece of Tulip Street might be
valuable to the City at some time to be used for drainage area; or if Tulip Street
were re-aligned at this location.
Item No. 11 - Approval of Minutes
October 16, 1979.
,
"
- _._-~ ._..
~ o¡ ANDOVER
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 6, 1979
MINUTES
The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by
Mayor Jerry Windschitl on November 6, 1979, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall,
1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota.
Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach
Councilmen absent: None
Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, John
Davidson; Planning and Zoning Chairman, d'Arcy Bosell;
City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others
Resident Forum
Representative John Weaver - has been doing some work as a member of several legislative
committees in the area of the disposal of wastes. The DFL Resolution received has made
him aware of the attention given this past year on the matter of the Heidelberger
property (Musket Ranch) in Andover. He presented the Council with a letter from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency dated November 2, 1979, and a chronology of events
that have occurred since 1973 relative to PCA's correspondence with Mr. Heidelberg
concerning his storage of solvents and other materials in Andover. It documents
events related to the County, PCA, EPA, and municipality involvement. Representative
Weaver also reviewed a 1977 aerial map showing the site and noted that on October 29, 1979,
the PCA made a complete aerial phtograph reconnaissance of the entire area. He emphasized
there has been substantial contact with PCA and the owner, and there has been a great
deal of activity relating to this problem in 1979. Representative Weaver also stated
that it has been brought to his attention that the Environmental Protection Agency,
with headquarters in Chicago, had identified four specific sites within the State of
Minnesota that h~ve problems of the severe nature that this one does; and the
Heidelberger property is one of those four sites. But because of the limitation of
monies, the one site that EPA directed be dealt with in 1979 was a Duluth site.
Kirk Rosenberger, Administrative Assistant for Anoka County, involved with the
Heldelberger site - has contacted PCA and EPA and felt that the speed with which the
PCA has handled the situation has been quite extraordinary. The PCA will be coming
to the Heidelberger property this week to take samples of ground water, the barrels,
and the wells. It is their intent to serve Mr. Heidelberger with a notice sometime
next week, which then must follow due process of the law. He has scheduled a meeting
with an EPA official who will be coming here the week of November 12; however, because
of the limitation of money, Mr. Rosenberger felt the soonest EPA can become involved
would be March or April of next year. Mr. Rosenberger emphasized that not only does
everyone want the problem cleaned u~ but that it should be done correctly, and assured
that Representative Weaver and Anoka County are working to get this done. It was his
understanding that it is not known how hazardous these chemicals are, if at all.
There has been ground water contamination, and it is suspected that the contamination
is coming from the Musket Ranch. At this point the barrels are stored above ground,
but there are rumors there may be some stored underground as well. He didn't know
for sure whether PCA had tested the chemicals in the barrels previously.
Agenda Approval
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the Agenda as printed with
the addition of Si, Hazardous Waste/PCA Resolution; Sj, 141st Street Settlement; Sk,
Bus Turnaround Memo; 9d, Police Contract; ge, Insurance Award; and move Item 9a up
to the first Agenda item. Motion carried unanimously.
Regular City Council Meeting
November 6, 1979 - Minutes
Page 2
1980 Budget
Nancy Hageman, Community School Coordinator, pointed out that there is interest and
concern by residents of the community that the summer school recreation program be
continued.
Jerr~ Ryding, 2032 159th Lane - really felt that this is an important part of this
Clty s program. H1S chlldren participated in the program last summer which they
thought was excellent. He felt the Council could look at it as an investment, because
a lot of kids will be active doing something during the summer; and if they are not
doing something constructive, they might end up doing some things costing the City
money otherwise. He felt it was an important program and hoped it would be continued.
John Carow, Heather Street, President of the Advisory Council - in his type of work
he sees the vandalism in other communities, especially during those summer mOnths
when there is no summer school or activity programs for the children. He felt it
was directly attributable to the fact that the kids are bored. Also, the facilities
are available in the community, they made good use of them last summer, and it seems
to be somewhat of a waste not to make the best use of those facilities that the tax-
payers are paying for.
Lou Bushaw, Heather Street - has two children and stated he likes the activities in
the program and wants the City to fund them.
Council discussion was that given the savings on the insurance bids, there would be
money to fund the program. Deliberation was on how much of the program should be
funded and on what alternative programs could be provided if the entire $6,190
originally asked for by the Community School was not funded. Some Councilmen felt
that charging fees for all programs would not be equitable and that there should be
some effort to increase attendance to decrease the per-student cost of the program.
Ms. Hageman reviewed the estimated per-student costs of last summer's recreational
program (morning playground, 204 students, $8 per person; afternoon playground, 208
students, $14 per person; cubs and tuffies baseball, grades K-2, 86 participants, $20
per student; peewees and ponies baseball, grades 3-6, 33 participants, $35 per student),
and she suggested the possibility of hiring only one specialist rather than two for
the baseball programs and possibly charging a nominal fee to help defray costs in
this program since the per-student cost was so high. Residents in the audience
generally agreed that charging a fee for the baseball program would be agreeable --
whatever it takes to keep the program. Ms. Hageman stated that they could also look
at the locations the programs are offered in an attempt to obtain the highest attendance
and possibily eliminate those areas where there has been low attendance in the past.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Windschitl, to reinstitute the amount of $6,190 for
the Andover summer school program for the 1980 calendar year, and at the same time
encourage the individuals who are in charge of the program to maximize to all possible
extent the attendance at these functions and keep accurate track of the individuals and
numbers so that we can accurately determine next year the actual use of these programs.
Discussion: Councilman Peach felt that the students should pay a small fee for the
program, as this is a city-funded program and many residents are already paying high
school taxes to pay for this who do not have children participating. He felt the
students would get more value out of the program if they paid a fee, and he preferred
Alternate No. 1 presented by Ms. Hageman. Funding $5,000 would allow the program
to remain structurally intact and would allow Ms. Hageman to do what she feels is right
in the program. Discussion continued on various alternatives for reducing costs of
those programs where there is lower attendance, especially in the peewees and ponies
baseball program.
Regular City Council Meeting
November 6, 1979 - Minutes
Page 3
(1980 Budget, Continued)
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, to limit the amount to $5,000
rather than $6,190. Discussion: Councilman Orttel stated we were told that the
entire $6,190 would not be used for the program. Because everything in the budget
has been cut for next year, reducing the amount to $5,000 would still be funding 80
percent of the program; and with the talk of cutting some of the really expensive
programs, that amount should be very adequate. Mayor Windschitl stated he'd like to
see them make an attempt at expanding the enrollment rather than the City cutting
their funding. If they don't need the entire amount budgeted, he didn't feel that
they would spend it. Discussion was on the ways to increase enrollment in these
programs.
d'Arcy Bosell, 181st Avenue - by the time community school comes out, Soderville
Athletic AssoClation has already registered, which pulls many, many boys into organized
baseball and softball programs. And that may be the case with Coon Rapids and Anoka
Associations as well. She also stated that those in the St. Francis District don't
always receive the notices if they are just put through the schools or in the Ads
boxes. Ms. Bosell also suggested in the K-2 program that softball rather than baseball
be considered because baseball is very threatening for the little children and soft-
ball is much more fun for them.
Jim Stewart - st~ted that about 35 to 40 of third through sixth graders from Andover
are bussed into the summer school program playing baseball that is paid for by the
City of Coon Rapids.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Orttel, Peach; NO-Jacobson, Lachinski, Windschitl
Amendment failed.
VOTE ON MOTION: Carried unanimously.
Mayor Windschitl stated that there is still an unallocated surplus of monies in the
proposed 1980 budget as a result of the lower bids received for insurance, and he
suggested adding that amount to the contingency fund"
Councilman Peach suggested listing the Public Services Building as "Government
Building No.2" rather than allocating a percentage of building expenses between
Public Works and the Fire Department (Page 15, 16, and 17). It doesn't change any
figures in the budget, but he felt dividing it up does not relate to what actually
happens. He felt the percentages used by the Clerk isn't close to the way it is
and that there isn't any way of determining which department is spending the heat,
electricity, or telephone costs. Diãª~ssion was on the merits of dividing it between
Public Works and the Fire Department/ e difficulties of dividing some of the items.
It was also suggested that the Departments be directed to turn the heat down to
between 50 and 55 degrees in the buildings.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we combine the costs for heat, telephone,
lnsurance, and electricity in the Fire Department Building, combine those items into
one and keep the remainder of the budget separate as in the budget. Discussion:
Councilman Peach stated this would create a third account for that building, which
was not his intention. His intention was to eliminate some of the confusion and have
one account under "Government Building", just as the office building is maintained.
Mayor Windschitl stated there will be endless arguments when making capital improvements
as to whether it is for Fire Department or Public Works. To figure out costs of a City
Public Works Department versus contracting it out, accurate accounting should be used.
Councilman Jacobson CLARIFIED MOTION: his original intent was to take those four items,
lump them together and divide them in half so each Department pays equally. Second
still stands.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; NO-Peach
Motion carried.
Regular City Council Meeting
November 6, 1979 - Minutes
Page 4
(1980 Budge~ Continued)
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City's 1980 budget be approved in
the amount of $594,940 for revenues and the same figure for expenditures with the
changes being in the $6,190 to be allocated for the Community School Summer
Recreation Program and the balance of $748 to the City's Contingency Fund, noting that
the savings on expenditures came about as a result of a $10,200 reduction in insurance
premiums for the City. (See Resolution R89-9) Motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing - Continuation of Junkyard License Application Denials
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, to continue the Junkyard License Hearings to
the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Ed Lutz Proposed Road
p & Z Chairman Bosell reviewed the recommendation of approval for the Ed Lutz proposed
road location as noted by their motion in an October 24, 1979, memo (Comm. #9-79-1).
When the Special Use Permit for the church was granted, she was under the impression
that an agreement had been reached between Mr. Lutz, the Church, and Ms. Torbenson
for vacation of the easement through the property. Apparently that was not the case
because she is demanding access to her property. The reason it is not recommended
putting the road through any further is because Mr. Lutz wants to plat that land,
but presently wants access to the church, to approximately five acres east of the
church property to house a parsonage, and to provide Ms. Torbenson with an access.
Ed Lutz - stated he has a contract with Pat Torbenson that says he would provide her
wlth permanent easement by November 1, at which time she would sign over the deed he
needs to release her easement. The intention is to provide her with this permanent
easement. Except for the 500 feet of this City road, Ms. Torbenson's easement would
remain the same from the end of this proposed road to her dwelling.
Ms. Bosell stated the intention is that the road would be constructed this fall to
City standards except for bituminous surfacing, which cannot be done because of the
weather; but in the spring a bituminous surface would be put on it. Mr. Lutz also
reviewed his long-range plans for the extension of that road.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the road location for Ed Lutz as
shown on the survey dated September 27, 1979, Registration #12251 in Section 15,
Township 32, Range 24, with the understanding that the road will be built to all
applicable city standards, for the reasons that this placement of the road in this
location is the logical extension of lS9th Lane NW and the road location would not
be detrimental to the health, safety, general welfare of the community. (See
Resolution R90-9) Discussion: The road will not be accepted by the City until it
is blacktopped. It was explained if the developer wants the City to accept the road
this fall, he must post a bond for the work that is not finished. No building permit
can be issued nor will the road be plowed this winter if the road is not accepted this
fall. The developer has the choice of posting the bond for uncompleted work or
waiting until spring to complete the road. Motion carried unanimously.
Birchwood Pond Preliminary Plat
Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of
the Birchwood Pond Preliminary Plat (Comm. #5-79-5, Reference Memo of October 24, 1979,
to Mayor and Council). The variance from Ordinance 10, Section 9.0S-A for the length
of 170th Avenue NW is so the street will go through to the City line and align with
, 170th in Pinger's Addition in Ham Lake to provide a through street.
Regular City Council Meeting
November 6, 1979 - Minutes
Page 5
(Birchwood Pond Preliminary Plat, Continued)
Council discussion was that the minimum basement elevations should be shown for each
lot on the plat, that those areas that need fill to meet the 39,000 square feet 6\
feet above the water table of buildable area required by ordinance should be shaded;
and that the engineer review the plat to determine whether each lot meets that
square-foot requirement. Council felt there were some questionable elevations on
Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2.
Dan Christensen, developer, stated that he is not disturbing or changing the land for
storm water drainage. Lot 4, Block 1, is already built on and is his present home.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we move action on the Birchwood Pond
Prellminary Plat to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting to allow time for the
Engineer and developer to update the preliminary plat blueprints to reflect the changes
discussed about elevations and filling. Motion carried unanimously.
Recess at 9:07; reCOnvene at 9:18 p.m.
Stenquist Lot Split
Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the
lot split applied for by Arthur Stenquist (Reference October 24, 1979, memo to Mayor
and Council, Comm. #9-79-2). Ms. Bosell stated she has spoken with Mr. Stenquist
this evening to clarify a conversation at the Planning Commission meeting. The
Planning Commission made a recommendation that he increase the size of the lots to
the north of his present homesite to approximately 330 feet on the road on each side
of the lot, thus creating two lots of approximately 1.76 acres each. Three lots
would still be created, which would require a variance; but this would relieve Mr.
Stenquist of a financial burden placed by the assessment on the property.
Council discussion was on the Planning Commission's recommendation to make two 1.7-acre
lots and that the graphic presented does not show the correct dimensions, as it had
been estimated that 330-foot lots would leave Mr. Stenquist with approximately 30
feet north of his barn.
Art Stenquist - was agreeable to enlarging the proposed lots but felt that it would
be better to have at least a 50-foot setback north of his barn. Council noted that a
survey would need to be taken to determine the exact dimensions and to draw up the
legal descriptions. Attorney Hawkins felt that because of the huge assessment against
the property, the City may have a difficult time justifying that the value of the land
has increased that amount; and therefore, it may be necessary to allow some split in
order to uphold the assessment on the property. In view of installing the blacktop
streets, he felt that was reason for granting a variance at this point in time. He
felt that Section 4 of Ordinance 40 gives the Council power to vary or modify in cases
of hardships and could vary the 2\-acre size requirement for the lots. He noted that
a variance must be granted from Ordinance 40 since three parcels would be created
rather than two, and also from Ordinance 10C, Minimum Lot Requirements, as two of the
lots will be less than 2\ acres.
Council generally agreed that because of the financial hardship due to the street
assessment, they would approve a lot split resulting in three lots, with the rear lot
line of the Stenquist homestead to be 50 feet north of the barn; and that Mr.
Stenquist should have the property surveyed and proper legal descriptions written for
the three lots.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Council direct the Clerk to prepare a
Resolution on the matter of the lot split for Art Stenquist, and that she contact Mr.
Stenquist for the proper legal descrigtion with the understandin~ that the resultant lots
will terminate approximatel{ 50 feet e~ond the northern-most bUllding on the Stenquist
ß~operty ,See Rjsolution R9 -~) VOTE.O MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach,
lnäschlt ; NO- acobson. Motlon carrle .
Regular City Council Meeting
November 6, 1979 - Minutes
Page 6
Boehland Variance
Chairman Bosell stated that Dr. Boehland had inquired about the City's requirements for
developing commercial property. He then purchased 2~ acres from Mr. Chapman, which
is located on Bunker Lake Boulevard west of the proposed Woodland Terrace, and he
inquired about a building permit at City Hall. He was told that he could not get one
because there is no provision for a lot split in an NB zoning, so the parcel was
illegally conveyed. Dr. Boehland already owns the piece of property. The Planning
Commission felt that the entire five-acre parcel involved should be platted. The
question is does Dr. Boehland have to plat that 2~-acre piece of property he owns, or
does he and Mr. Chapman have to plat the entire five-acre piece of property together
before Dr. Boehland can get a building permit for his property. The question is also
where is the service road that is proposed to continue along Bunker Lake Boulevard
going to terminate and how is it going to terminate.
Dr. Lynn Boehland, 17211 Geranium Street, and Paul Cavner, 1210 Sunny Lane, Anoka,
real estate agent who sold the property, were present.
Attorney Hawkins stated that this conveyance by metes and bounds violates Ordinance 10.
Since this is zoned NB, Ordinance 40, the Lot Split Ordinance, would not apply. As
it stands, it is an illegal conveyance and the City cannot issue a building permit.
He felt the property could be platted, or there is the provision under Section 14 that
provides for a waiver of those requirements of the five acres and 300 feet in width
assuming some hardship can be shown as defined in 14.02.
Councilman Lachinski felt that some provision must be made for the service road along
Bunker Lake Boulevard and that the easement be provided along the entire five-acre
piece in question. He indicated he would be willing to vary from the platting
procedure but felt that the easement for the service road through Mr. Chapman's 2~
acres should be dedicated as well.
Dr. Boehland showed a survey map of the property in which they felt the question of
the service road and the storm drainage were provided for. He would provide an 80-
foot setback for the service road, and all drainage would remain on his property through
ponding to the back of the parcel. The map also showed the location of the medical
building, parking lots, etc.
Mr. Davidson explained that the service road would probably not extend all the way to
the corner of Round Lake and Bunker Lake; however, it was his opinion that a service
road would be needed primarily for interconnection of subdivisions for maintenance and
emergency services, etc., and for continuity of the street system. Mayor Windschitl
also stated that the sewer line will be coming down the frontage road and that it
probably would not be feasible to blacktop a service road at this time.
Council discussion was on the question of the service road and the desirability of
having that easement along the property still owned by Mr. Chapman as well, and on the
best procedure for Dr. Boehland to follow so that he can obtain a building permit.
It was noted that Mr. Chapman has an illegal lot right now, which is subject to a
maximum $300 fine. There was a question of whether or not one parcel can be platted
or whether both Dr. Boehland and Mr. Chapman would have to plat the two 2~-acre
parcels. Since Mr. Chapman has asked for a variance from the platting procedure in
conjunction with D~. Boehland (Reference September 24, 1979, letter to City of Andover
from Bob Chapman), it was suggested that the variance could be granted contingent
upon Mr. Chapman dedicating the 80-foot easement for the service road.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we grant the variance under Section 14.02
of Ordinance 10 to Mr. Chapman and Mr. Boehland on the property identified in the
application which is approximately five acres in size, and that the variance be
contingent upon Mr. Chapman and Mr. Boehland providing an easement for road purposes
over the north 80 feet of the property.
Regular City Council Meeting
November 6, 1979 - Minutes
Page 7
(Boehland Variance, Continued)
Discussion: Councilman Jacobson felt that the reasons for a variance are because of
financial hardship or topography of the land, which he felt neither applied in this
case, and he felt it should be platted. Councilman Lachinski felt that it would be
a financial hardship to plat something that is going to turn out the same way. If
there is nothing to gain from platting, why put him through the expense? Mr.
Cavner explained that the land is part of an estate between three other people besides
Mr. Chapman, which would cause some difficulty in platting. The conveyance was done
because of the information given by various people representing the City, and they
felt they were doing the right thing. Dr. Boehland stated that it would probably
be a hardship for Mr. Chapman to plat, as he would have to have the property surveyed,
etc. He would like to have the plans ready to begin construction this spring, but
Mr. Chapman doesn't have a time limit.
Discussion continued that by granting the variance, there would be no park dedication
fees collected, performance bond, etc. Attorney Hawkins stated that in waiving the
platting requirements, the Council can require anything that would be required in
the platting process. If Dr. Boehland wants to plat just his lot, it is then a legally
created lot; however, the other 2~-acre lot is still an illegal parcel and is un-
buildable. It was his opinion that the entire five acres needs to be looked at and
solved now.
Councilmen Orttel and Lachinski WITHDREW the Second and the Motion.
Discussion: The Mayor felt that platting the five acres would be quite simple, that
the park dedication would then be resolved, the engineers would review it, and it
would also make the other lot legal,which at this time it is not.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that the request for variance by Dr. Lynn
Boehland at (legal description identified in application) be tabled by the City
Council and that Dr. Boehland be requested to return to the Planning and Zoning
Commission to plat his property and bring the plat as recommended by the Planning
and Zoning Commission back to the City Council for action. Discussion: Mr.
Hawkins reiterated that Dr. Boehland can plat his 2~-acre lot to make it a legal
parcel and the remaining 2~-acre lot is still an illegal parcel. Motion carried
unanimously.
Discussion was on directing the Clerk to write Mr. Chapman advising that he has created
an improper parcel that is not buildable and that he might consider joining in with
Dr. Boehland who was requested to plat his lot.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the Clerk be directed to notify Mr. Robert
Chapman of the improper transfer of property on the Bunker Lake Road property, and
that he be advised that he has created an unbuildable parcel that will have to be remedied.
Motion carried unanimously.
Fluth Variance
Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the
variance request for Mr. Fluth for a side-yard setback to add on to his garage to
within four feet of the lot line because it is in violation of Ordinance 8, Section
6.02; it does not create a hardship on the property owner; and that alternatives are
available to the property owner.
David Fluth - stated he still would like to add on to the side of the garage and extend
the roofline not only for asthetic value but also as a practical use as well. He
didn't feel adding to the back and having a garage two cars deep was very practical.
He also stated his neighbor to the north doesn't mind, and there is still access to
the back yard from the other side of the house. The present garage is 2Sx22 feet, and
Regular City Council Meeting
November 6, 1979 - Minutes
Page 8
(Fluth Variance, Continued)
he wants to add another 12 feet plus a two-foot hip roof overhang. His garage
would be extending north to the neighbor's living quarters.
Some Councilmen felt that it would be appropriate to have a letter from the affected
neighbor stating he has no objections to the variance request; others felt that such
a variance from the ordinance had not been done before and would be settin9 a
precedence.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve the variance for David Fluth
on the sideyard setback which would allow him to build the garage to within six feet
of the property line (excluding the two-foot overhang) contingent upon receipt of
agreement by the neighbor to the north.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel; NO-Jacobson, Peach, Windschitl
Motion failed.
Discussion: Councilman Jacobson agreed with the P & Z in that no hardship is created
and other alternatives are available for storage. Mayor Windschitl didn't think a
variance of this nature has ever been granted by the City. The Clerk disagreed.
Councilman Peach felt that placing a building that close to the property line can
infringe upon the rights of the neighboring property owner. Discussion was on the
reason for requiring a 10-foot setback from the property line. The Mayor requested
that the Clerk investigate which, if any, variances of this nature have been granted
by the City.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, to reconsider this two weeks from tonight.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Jacobson
Motion carried.
Good Value Homes Storm Sewer Proposal
Frank Voth, representing Good Value Homes, explained that due to the present market
conditions, the proposed development in Andover has been delayed, but there is work
being done on a proposal for the 10 acres along Bunker Lake Boulevard which should
be presented shortly. Mr. Voth reviewed the storm drainage study of their property
(Reference September 27, 1979, letter to Mayor from Mr. Voth along with attachments
of Consulting Engineers Diversified report on the drainage). It was his suggestion
to proceed with Alternative #2 with drainage to the north, and he requested that the
Council assess the portion that would be applicable to the developer under Statute
429 proceedings.
Discussion between Council and Mr. Voth was that Mr. Voth had not discussed the storm
drainage possibilities with any of the landowners or developers in the area. The
pipe sizing recommended by Consulting Engineers Diversified is to take care of the
Good Value property only. Mr. Davidson noted that if any additional property would be
drained as well, the size of the pipe may have to be increased or elevations changed.
He agreed that the proposal presented was feasible in light of the changes in storm
water drainage requirements made by the Coon Creek Watershed, and that it is desirable
because it doesn't drain directly into Round Lake but water filters through a series
of Wetlands first. He brought to the Council's attention that there are some storm
drainage problems in the area (the Carlson property, Chapman's, etc.) and suggested
these be looked at on an area-wide basis.
After further discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Davidson, Mr. Voth, and the property
owners of the surrounding possible contributory areas will arrange a meeting to discuss
this item and the extension of sanitary sewers and will report back to the Council.
Regular City Council Meeting
November 6, 1979 - Minutes
Page 9
Hazardous Waste/PCA Resolution
Discussion was on the wording relative to "hazardous" waste materials and whether this
has been determined. The Clerk reviewed an April 21, 1976, letter from PCA relative
to their findings that the waste materials were contaminating neighboring wells.
Councilman Jacobson stated he had reservations about the wording "a determination was
made by the MPCA in 1976 of hazardous waste materials being kept on the Musket Ranch",
as he was not certain that it has been determined the materials are hazardous.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, introducing a Resolution demanding action by the
Mlnnesota Pollution Control Agency and the County of Anoka for immediate abatement of
an alleged health hazard now existing in the City of Andover, as written, adopted
by the City Council of the City of Andover this 6th day of November, 1979. (See
Resolution R92-9) Motion carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 17 Amendment - Floor Elevations
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, the City adopt Ordinance No. 17A, an Ordinance
amendlng Ordinance No. 17, Effective September 11, 1973, entitled an ordinance
establishing minimum elevations and standards for building and driveway construction...
(Reference Amendment as presented on 11-6-79) Motion carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 29 Amendment - Firewood
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, entering a Resolution amending Ordinance
No. 29, effective June 6, 1975, entitled an ordinance relating to the control and
prevention of dutch elm and oak wilt disease within the City of Andover ... (Reference
Amendment as presented on 11-6-79) Discussion: Councilman Jacobson questioned
why we would allow stockpiling of elmwood between September 15 and April 1 of any
given year; because once it is stockpiled, you are not going to get rid of it as of
April 1 if any is left over from the heating season. The Clerk stated that this was
allowed before; however, it had to be debarked. Now they don't have to debark the elmwood
in the winter. She stated this amendment came from the State, and the City was told
to adopt it.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Jacobson
Motion carried.
Delano Skeim - Strawberry Commons Denial
Attorney Hawkins reported that he has reviewed the applicable ordinances and the
Minutes of the meeting where the rezoning request for Strawberry Commons was denied,
as Mr. Skeim had called him and expressed concern regarding the Council's action.
It was his opinion that the reasons set forth by those members who did not vote for
the project are within the discretion of the Council, and at this point is not of the
opinion that such action is beyond the authority of the City.
Delano Skeim - stated his attorney had recommended asking the Council to reconsider
the denlal of the rezoning request. He stated that the economics issue to the City
had not been looked at by the Council. It was his opinion that the reasons set forth
for the denial were not completely valid, as he felt there was confusion regarding
the interpretation of the ordinance on the minimum requirements in an NB zoning and
the percentage of maximum coverage of structures, with structures including the
parking lot. It was his feeling that if the Council interpretation carried over to
an SC zoning, that it is not logical to have 70 percent open land, even in the sewered
area; and he felt this was a gross misinterpretation of the zoning ordinance. Mr.
Skeim also didn't feel that determining the size of the on-site sewage disposal using
the SAC charge was fair, as he felt that this should be determined by proper engineering
data using the topography of the land, soil types, and types of businesses involved.
He also felt that the question of on-site disposal should not become a question at
this point.
Regular City Council Meeting
November 6, 1979 - Minutes
Page 10
(Delano Skeim - Strawberry Commons Denial, Continued)
P & Z Chairman Bosell stated that when they considered the rezoning, they did not
realize that the rezoning was tied to that specific drawing as presented in the
feasibility study. They were under the assumption that they were acting on the
concept; and once it was rezoned, the developer would come back to them with a sketch
plan that would meet the criteria set out by the City Council. In that respect, she
felt that Mr. Skeim had been misdirected by the Planning Commission. It was her
interpretation that this rezoning would be compatible with the City's Comprehensive
Development Plan and consistent with development in the rural area, relying on Page 152,
paragraph 7 in making their decision at the Planning Commission meeting. Mayor
Windschitl didn't feel that that was a correct interpretation of the Plan and
suggested a review of the Minutes of the meeting and of that tape would show that the
intent was that only the small "lOa and pa-type" businesses would be compatible in the
rural area, and not this type of development.
It was Ms. Bosell's opinion that if the Council chose to reconsider the rezoning
denial, that the Planning Commission would look at a new sketch plan drawn by Mr.
Skeim realizing they would be tied to that sketch plan. She felt that because
Mr. Skeim had been misdirected by the Planning Commission in this respect, that the
request should be reconsidered.
In response to the Council's question as to whether or not the developer could be
tied to a specific sketch plan, Attorney Hawkins felt that the City could enter into
a contractural relationship with the developer to limit the type of business if the
developer is willing. He would have a question if the City could rezone the area and
limit the developer without agreement with him. Council discussion continued on the
request for reconsideration.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we reconsider the rezoning for Mr.
Skeim, Scandinavian Construction Company, for the development known as Strawberry
Commons. Discussion: Attorney Hawkins felt that it was proper for the Council to
reconsider their previous action.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Orttel; NO-Lachinski, Peach; PRESENT-Windschitl
Motion failed.
Further discussion: Councilman Lachinski felt that since a 4/5 vote is needed for a
rezoning, and since it appears by the voting on this motion that that vote is not
here, that it would be time wasted to consider the matter again. Mayor Windschitl
stated that he has no idea what is coming back from the Planning Commission, and with
nothing in hand, he didn't know how to vote on it. He was under the impression at
one time that if the entire proposal was scaled down that it would receive a more
favorable respons~Atbut at this point he didn't know what was coming back from the P & Z
and would not bel the position of designing the development for him.
Discussion was also on some recommendations by the Council that the P & Z investigate
clarifying the maximum size of a Neighborhood Business, the possibility of having some
criteria for determining the size of on-site sewage in commercial areas (although
the Engineer did suggested this be left open as it depends a great deal on the type
of business conducted), and determining what type of commercial business should be
allowed in the City's rural area based on sewer consideration, then amending
Ordinance 8 possibly to show NB-Rural and NB-Urban zonings.
Mr. Skeim asked if he submits his charges accumulated to the City for the extended
length of time for this due process, and stated that courtsey would indicate that
he should have been directed by the Council to return with a revised sketch plan rather
than having the rezoning request denied. It was then noted that the Council had agreed
to vote on the request that evening because of the length of time that had passed
" -, ,. , 'I " ..
Regular City Council Meeting
November 6, 1979 - Minutes
Page 11
(Delano Skeim - Strawberry Commons Denial, Continued)
relative to this subject. Discussion continued on some Council suggestions as to
possible ordinance changes that would be more acceptable for NB areas in the City's
rural area. No further Council action on the matter was taken.
Planning and Zoning Commission Report
Chairman Bosell advised the Council that at their December 11 meeting a representative
from the Metropolitan Council will be speaking on Solar Access Protection, which will
be the first item on the agenda. She extended an invitation for the Council to attend.
G. Prior - Kennel License
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Kennel License for Gerald Prior be
approved for the year ending November 1, 1980. Motion carried unanimously.
Park/Recreation Commission Report
Chairman Wes Mand stated that the final grant application for the boat landing must be
submitted by December 6. The City's share of the grant would be 25 percent of $22,000,
which would amount to approximately $5,000 to $6,000. The DNR is presently negotiating
with the three property owners involved, and he stated that the agreement presented
by the DNR for the use of the lake which the Council has received is open to
negotiation. He reported that the DNR has no problems with the picnic area planned
for the site.
Councilman Orttel expressed concern that a public hearing on this project has not
been held and the people in the area have never been asked about this. Discussion was
on when this hearing should be held.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we sign and approve the grant application
so we can get the thing going, but at the same time authorize the Park Board to hold
public meeting on the subject to get input from the people who live in the area.
Discussion: It was suggested everyone in the area be notified of the pUblic hearing.
Mr. Mand asked that the hearing be held after the DNR has made the initial offer to
the property owners. Council felt that the hearing should be held prior to having to
make a final decision on the project. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion continued that the benefits versus the costs of this boat landing project
should be weighed and that a nice park is desired, not just an increased size of the
boat landing. Mr. Mand requested the Council to review the proposed joint agreement
with the DNR and present comments or suggestions on the agreement to him. Mr.
Mand stated that the proposal includes site preparation, including the raising of the
buildings, etc., which is the City's responsibility, building the boat ramp, and
graveling some parking area.
Mr. Mand requested that the park dedication fees received from now until the end of
the year be carried over to the 1980 park fund budget. It is estimated that $3,500
will be received this year.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that any park fund dedication fees received
after November 1 be saved and put in the 1980 park budget for use in the year 1980.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Mand also reported that students have done park plans for Fox Meadows and Rum
River Forest, and the Engineers have a grading plan for Lakeridge park. The Council
requested copies of these plans for their review.
, . , , - , , - ,. "...
Regular City Council Meeting
November 6, 1979 - Minutes
Page 12
141st Street Settlement
Mr. Davidson reviewed the TKOA memo of November 2, 1979, relative to the 141st
Street Settlement and stated that the work will be completed this year.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that funds be allocated out of the 76-1 project
account for correction of the settlement problem on 141st Street NW in Green acres
in the amount of $3,526. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we award contract to Forest Lake
Contracting for correcting the settlement on 141st Street in the amount of $4,526.
Motion carried unanimously.
Bus Turnaround Memo
Mr. Davidson reviewed the TKDA memo of November 2 relative to the establishment of
speed limits in Stenquist Addition and the bus turnaround in Stenquist Addition.
Mr. Davidson stated that the law is you drive according to the conditions, and
their position is one shouldn't drive more than 30 mph on those streets. If a study
is done, the recommendation will be for whatever speed 80 percent of the traffic
travels at, which may be more than 30 mph.
Mayor Windschitl stated that he was going to attempt to get on a School Board agenda
to discuss the problem with the bus pickup on Potawatomi. It was also suggested
that a stop sign at the top of the hill might help the situation.
Insurance Award
Councilman Orttel reviewed his October 29, 1979, memo to the Mayor and Council on
Insurance Coverage. After reviewing all bids, Councilman Orttel recommended awarding
contract to Wellman and Associates; but because of changes in specific items such as
p"""', "hic1, "d P"P"" "'!'" ,'c" h, "c,,",,d,d $18,000 ",ld b, , ""
accurate figure for insurance in he 1980 budget.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by each, that we acknowledge bids from Insurance
Service Center for $14,623, Phakl des, Nelson, Schoenbeck & Associates for $13,609,
Ronald C. Peterson Agency for $14,048, and Wellman and Associates, Inc., for $12,796,
and award the contract for insurance for the City of Andover to Wellman & Associate~ Inc.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschitl; PRESENT-Orttel
Motion carried.
Volunteer Fire Department
Councilman Peach reported that the/ßå~per is here and the firefighers are being
trained on it.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the City Clerk be directed to send a letter
to the City Manager of Anoka and the County Central Dispatch directing them to notify
the Anoka Fire Department not to respond to fires in Andover unless specifically
requested by an officer in the Andover Fire Department. Motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Claims
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that we approve Claims from the General Fund
Check Numbers 2766 through 2794, eliminating No. 2779, in the amount of $15,061.99;
and
Check No. 322 in the amount of $4,305.00
Check No. 323 in the amount of $4,443.97
Check No. 324 in the amount of $45,631.00
Check No. 325 in the amount of $208.56
Check No. 326 in the amount of $2,524.50
, . , , .., ..
Regular City Council Meeting
November 6, 1979 - Minutes
Page 13
(Approval of Claims, Continued)
(MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, continued)
Check No. 327 in the amount of $243.24
Check No. 328 in the amount of $136.08
Check No. 329 in the amount of $808.62
Check No. 330 in the amount of $169.60
Check No. 331 in the amount of $630.70
Check No. 332 in the amount of $19,466.20
Check No. 333 in the amount of $51,748.19
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to authorize the Mayor to sign the
Check for Mr. George Lobb, Andover Planning and Zoning Commission, which includes
an extra $10 for the meeting which was canceled but Mr. Lobb was not notified of
and he appeared. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 1:15 a.m.
Respectfully submitted, _~
l\\~~fLL
Marcella A. Peach
Recording Secretary
, , ... ., -