Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC October 16, 1979 ~ o¡ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 16, 1979 AGENDA 1. Ca 11 to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2 . Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Public Hearings - Continuation/Junkyards Licenses 5. Legal and Engineering a. Public Services Building-Extension b. City Sewer Connections/Policy c. Fireman's Relief Association-Establishment Fees d. Rezoning - Strawberry Commons 6. Ordinances and Resolutions a. Rum River Ordinance b. Minimum Requirements-Dwellings/Ordinance 8 7 . Petitions, Requests, Communications a. Extension of Temporary Mobile Home Permit/Ostrander 8. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Boards 9 . Unfinished Business a. Adoption of 1980 Budget 10. New Business 11. Approval of Minutes 12. Approval of Claims 13. Adjournment ~ ,- . , . ~ o¡ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 16, 1979 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on October 16, 1979, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1585 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Engineer, John Davidson; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others Resident Forum Rosella Sonsteby - asked to delay approval of the Minutes of the October 2, 1979, meeting as to the voting on the vacation of the road easement. She has obtained a title opinion, in which she was told that before the City could put in a road on that easement, they must pay her for the land. She asked the Clerk about the opinion given that she could only re-apply for the vacation of this easement once a year. (The Clerk indicated that it was the City Attorney's opinion that application for vacation of the road easement could be made only once a year.) Ms. Sonsteby stated that the law book, 16408, pertains to this particular road easement, and that according to a title opinion she received, this has to go by the deed. She also stated that a Statute in that lawbook was repealed and replaced where five people would have to petition for having a cartway, and it would have to serve at least 150 acres, 100 of which would be tillable. Mayor Windschitl replied that the Attorney is not here this evening to argue the legal point, and that all the Minutes should reflect is what took place at that meeting as accurately as possible. Nothing from this meeting will in- fluence the Minutes of a prior meeting. And approval of the Minutes has nothing to do whether legally a different interpretation has since been made. Ms. Sonsteby - stated her particular objection is that this matter isn't treated correctly because the Council is going by a lawbook; and according to her deed, it has to be going by her deed and the title opinion. And according to the title opinion, the City must pay her for the land if they ever want to construct a road on the easement. She also stated that since the City of Andover doesn't abide by their own ordinances (referring to the building of Hagen's garage), don't expect her to abide by them either. She then questioned the meaning of a statement in the Minutes of October 2, 1979, Page 6, second paragraph from the bottom. Mayor Windschitl indicated the Council will look at that when Minutes are approved. And if there is any question on the Council's action, the City Attorney will review it. Gene Stroinski, 13616 Heather Street NW - presented a petition of 150 signatures re- questlng the Clty Councll to re-lnstate the summer school program into the 1980 budget. He understands that on November 6 the Council will be discussing this topic further and making a decision on the 1980 budget. He asked the Council to take into considera- tion the wishes of these residents. Mr. Stroinski read the petition to the Council, summarizing that there are some concerned residents who want to see some programs pro- vided for the children in the summer. Steve Nichols, 2634 140th Lane - stated this was the first year that the neighborhood park concept program was trled, and he felt it was very successful and that it would become even more so in future years. He suggested cutting funds from some other area to re-instate the summer school program, possibly cutting from snowplowing because of what he felt was poor service last year. Also, prior to approval of the 1980 budget, he hoped more monies could be found for maintaining the parks, as this was the first year that the parks have been decently maintained. He also felt that the Clerk's memo on Park Board funds and expenditures ~October 16, 1979) were still incorrect. The Mayor indicated this will be discusse further under Park/Recreation Commission later this evening. -- Regular City Council Meeting October 16, 1979 - Minutes Page 2 (Resident Forum, Continued) Rosella Sonsteby - felt that such a petition as presented by Mr. Stroinski should be known about by all the people. She didn't know anything about it. The Mayor stated that the petition was done strictly by a group of residents and is nothing official that the Council is doing. The Council is merely accepting what they brought in. Council discussion on the summer school program indicated a general agreement that the dollar per day per student in the program last summer amounted to approximately $5, although it was noted that because of the way the figures were presented which included duplicate numbers, that it is difficult to obtain an accurate figure. Agenda Approval MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, to approve the published Agenda with the fOllowing Additions: Item 5e, Prairie Road; Item 5f, Northwoods Tennis Court; Item 9b, Comprehensive Plan Meeting; Item 9c, Hanson Boulevard; and Item 5d, Rezoning - Strawberry Commons. Motion carried unanimeusly. Public Hearing - Continuation/Junkyard Licenses MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we continue the Public Hearing on Junkyard Llcenses to the November 6 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Public Services Building - Extension Councilman Peach explained that the previous agreement with Bloomberg for completion of the building was October 12 and that they have requested an extension of time for that completion. Councilman Peach reported that there has been a crew of workers on site ever since they have received their approvals from TKDA. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that Bloomberg, Inc., be given until November 1 to comply with the agreement regarding the completion of the Public Services Building. Motion carried unanimously. City Sewer Connections/Policy Council discussion was on the Attorney's recommendation that the City set up a policy to allow the City to perform and pay the costs for connecting qualified persons to sanitary sewer, costs then to be assessed to that property. Presently five homeowners have not connected pursuant to Ordinance 32; and financial hardship has been the reason in at least three of the situations. The Clerk testified that in the two situations where the City had performed and paid costs for connection of the sanitary sewer, then assessing it back to the property, they were done because there was a health hazard, and the monies came from General Funds with that fund being reimbursed. To date this has not been shown in the budget as either expenditure or revenues. It was the Mayor's opinion that this should be reflected in the budget. Discussion noted there are a number of organizations that could be of service to residents having financial difficulties for connecting to sanitary sewer, and it would be difficult for the City to become involved in determining "qaalified" persons. It could also cause a financial burden on the City if a number of situations arose that the City would have to install and pay for installation. Council generally agreed that the City should be performing and paying the costs for connecting sanitary sewers only in cases where a public health hazard is being caused. .Discussion was on what to do with those five homeowners who have not yet connected to the sanitary sewer. Mr. Davidson reported that in other cities he has worked in, in some cases welfare simply paid the connection charges. In other cases the procedure {~cl~dtd thoTå tRnnect~on~hin the b~od issue fOt co~necdion of SåWthS wjtRin one ~ear; e 1 y wou en lOa e e connec lons on con rac an assesse em 1 e any s wer Regular City Council Meeting October 16, 1979 - Minutes Page 3 (City Sewer Connections/Policy, Continued) project. This was done with utility-type construction programs. The Clerk was asked to interview the five homeowners and review the ordinance with them so the Council could look at each case separately. It was also recommended that policies from other cities be obtained to see what they do in these situations. This will be put on the November 6 Agenda. Firemen's Relief Association - Establishment Fees Councllman Peach indlcated he felt the $500 fee was high, as the Fire Department had already done all the work before it went to the Attorney. He indicated he wanted to see the Attorney here to defend himself. The Fire Department felt that they could have incorporated this Relief Association by themselves. It was the Council's opinion that they should contact the Attorney to have it done. Discussion was on which fund these fees should come from. It was Mayor Windschitl's understanding that the reason for Attorney involvement is to insure that you can maintain a non-profit status and be in a position to defer the small amount of money put into the Relief Association such that it doesn't come out as taxable income the year of contribution. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Attorney's fees for the establishment of the Firemen's Relief Association be delegated to the general legal fees for the City, and that we request from the Attorney an explanation for the amount of the fees before payment is made. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-Peach, as he is a fire fighter. Motion carried. Rezoning - Strawberry Commons Commissioner Larry Retzlaff, representing the Planning Commission, stated that after their review of the Metropolitan Council letter of September 24, 1979, from Charles Weaver, Chairman, to Larry Retzlaff, the P & l unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning of Strawberry Commons because the area is a rural R-l zone which allows 2~- acre lots now and which will not go any lower because of Strawberry Commons; it is going to retain the character it has now; and they do not see any premature development. 2~-acre lots do not require sanitary sewer, and putting business in that area is not going to drive the lots any smaller. A Neighborhood Business serving a "surrounding area" is a subjective definition, and it is the P & l's opinion that the proposed Strawberry Commons meets that definition. Mr. Retzlaff stated that from their under- standing, the restaurant proposal has been withdrawn. Delano Skeim, representing Scandinavian Construction - explained that the design of the center is to have two-acre lots, with the deslgn of the building to have zero-lot lines, to have approximately 200 feet of frontage the full depth, with acreage in front and behind the building. He is asking for a development in the country. The Council rebut is that the Metro Council doesn't want it. He argued that in the City of Andover, we're not even close to what the Metropolitan guidelines are, as in the rural service area they require a residential density of one dwelling per 40 acres. To appease the Council on on-site sewage, Mr. Skeim asked the Engineer if, given the type of soils and with no restaurant on the parcel, assuming 46,000 square feet total with grocery store, hardware home center, etc., they can design a functional on-site system. Mr. Davidson replied that a system can be designed to handle whatever proposal is designed; however, he couldn't elaborate on what type of system it would be. Mr. Skeim stated they will have enough acreage so that anyon-site system can be designed for the amount of square footage they are proposing, and he has designed the center within the framework of the present development in the City as outlined in the City's Regular City Council Meeting October 15, 1979 - Minutes Page 4 (Rezoning - Strawberry Commons, Continued) ordinances. Mr. Skeim stated that the tax base the completed development would bring at today's mill rate would be about $18,000 a year, with part-time and full- time employees constituting a payroll of $500,000 annually. He went on to say that the community goals derived from the Metropolitan Development Guide indicated that the development patterns in the surrounding metropolitan area should promote less alliance on automobile transportation. He felt that this location was one of the valid answers to that, providing those essential services that the residents of a developed area need, whether rural or urban. He also stated that the market analysis required by the City indicates that there is a desired need for this and that the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages considerably. Larry Koep, 16055 Vintage Street - is against the proposed rezoning. On July 9 the Councll had a special meetlng for the roads, and a show of hands at that time indicated over 90 percent against this proposal as well. With the shortness of the notice of having it on the Agenda this evening, there were very few people who could make it to the meeting. Mayor Windschitl realized the problem with the shortness of the notice of the meeting, but apparently the Planning Commission made a commitment to Mr. Skeim. Council will also have to decide whether this should be on a published agenda prior to acting on it. Commissioner Retzlaff stated he had talked with Lee Starr at the Metro Council. The reference to "shopping center" is the Metropolitan Council's choice of words in their letter. He interpreted the letter to be that they are not in favor of commercial development in the rural area; however, their interpretation of rural area and the City's interpretation is different. Mayor Windschitl explained that if the area is zQned NB this evening, then the development would be governed by the ordinance and the Building Official. Councilman Jacobson stated if a zero-lot line is desired, some variance procedure would be required as the ordinance presently does not allow that. The Mayor stated that looking at the 10 acres as being one site is different than looking at the two separate areas (that area being divided by a road), as the smaller parcel of land across the road has nothing to do with the siz.e of the building on the larger parcel. Councilman Lachinski calculated that according to ordinance, based on 39,000 square feet per dwelling unit for on-site sewage, the maximum land coverage for the building would be 33,500 square feet over the entire 10 acres. Mr. Skeim stated that the numbers arrived at originally, 53,460 square feet, fell within the guidelines of the zoning ordinance. He now agrees to decrease the maximum square footage to 46,000 square feet, to delete the restaurant, and to submit on-site sewage system plans to the Engineers for their approval prior to construction. Councilman Jacobson noted that Ordinance 8 states the maximum structure coverage permitted is 30 percent of the land area. After further discussion, it was agreed that the land coverage also included parking area. Commissioner Retzlaff stated that one of the problems the Commission did have was that once a rezoning request is approved, the site plan submitted for the request is not binding and can be changed at whim. Mr. Skeim reported that there are some things subject to change, as the plan has to be submitted to the Planning Commission in the preliminary plat stage, and changes can occur during that process. Councilman Lachinski felt that using his figures would limit the development and pro- vite adequate on-site sewage disposal; that there is a discrepancy between the Metropolitan Council's and the City's terminology for the rural portion of our City; that a considerable portion of that area of the City is already developed; and he agreed with the P & Z that bringing in that business area is not going to mean increased development faster or that it is going to attract development. Councilman Orttel stated that first of all we're dealing with the concept of whether or not retail business is wanted and where. He favored thlS area because at the present Regular City Council Meeting October 16, 1979 - Minutes Page 5 (Rezoning - Strawberry Commons, Continued) time there are no close neighbors, those being 1/2 mile away; and if we are going to develop commercial, this is the ideal time before the neighborhood is built. He went on to say that that corner already has commercial on it, and a buffer is needed. There is a need for retail sales outlets in this City, and also there is a need for employ- ment in the City which this would provide. Because of the energy situation, there is no doubt that businesses should be placed as close to the homes as possible. In this particular case there is unanimous approval from the Planning Commission. There was a short discussion between Councilman Orttel and Mr. Koep relative to the distance between this area to be rezoned and the closest residents, as Mr. Koep felt that no- body in that area wanted the development, that the residents were closer than 1/2 mile from this area, and that it would increase traffic in his area. Councilman Peach felt it was an ideal place for a commercial development but felt the proposal was just too large to put in the rural service area. He expressed concern over all the development taking place in the rural area, but little taking place in the urban service area where the sewers are available. The scope of this development approaches shopping center classification rather than a neighborhood business serving the surrounding area of 1/2- to one-mile area. He also felt that the definitions of NB and SC implies that a NB is from two to five acres in size. It was his opinion that it will increase pressure for development in the City in that area when more pressure should be had for increased development in the urban area instead, that it could cause premature extension of sewers, and that it is not in compliance with the Metropolitan Council. Further discussion between Council and Mr. Skeim was that Mr. Skeim's figure of 46,000 square feet was based on the total 10.8 net-acre area, which excludes the road easements of 75 feet on County Road 9, 60 feet on 161st, and 66 feet for the other proposed road; and that the proposal would be a mall of one building covering three lots using the zero-lot-line concept which essentially could be separate ownership. Mr. Skeim explained that hypothetically, Lot 1 could be used by the City for a Fire Station, Lots 2, 3, and 4 could be used by a grocery store, hardware, and miscellaneous store; and on the lot across the proposed road would be an approximate 60xlSO-foot building with 2S-foot bays and service door in back and small showrooms in the front that would house any number of small businesses in it. It was most desirable for him to have the entire area rezoned at once so he would have control over the development of the center. After discussion, the Council agreed to vote on this issue this evening because of the number of times this has been before the Council. A lengthy discussion relative to the number of square feet of building that could be constructed on this land ensued, that the zoning requirement would indicate an approximate 40,000-45,000 square foot building to make up the maximum lot coverage figuring one parking spot for every 150 square feet of retail space and considering 300 square feet per parking spot. On discussion of the limitations Mr. Skeim had agreed to for this center, it was Mr. Davidson's opinion that a rezoning could not be conditioned. Mr. Skeim stated that as soon as this would be rezoned, he must appear before the P & Z with his preliminary plat, and the Commission would be controlling it. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that property known as Strawberry Commons and contaln approximately 10.8 acres (legal description - See Resolution) be rezoned to Neighborhood Business with the understanding that the subsequent development contract will show that no more than 30 percent of the land may be covered by structures of any type including parking lots. Discussion: Mr. Davidson stated that based on previous legal opinions, he felt this could be overturned because a rezoning cannot be qualified. Councilman Orttel stated the intent is to restate ordinance requirement for clarification. Regular City Council Meeting October 16, 1979 - Minutes Page 6 (Rezoning - Strawberry Commons, Continued) Councilman Orttel CHANGED MOTION TO: ...subject to current City ordinances, in particular Ordinance No. 8 where it is stated that no more than 30 percent of the gross land area shall be covered by structures, structures to include parking lots. Second still stands. (See Resolution R88-9) Discussion: was on the proposal in the feasibility study submitted by Mr. Skeim on what will be placed in the NB. It was Councilman Jacobson's understanding that for all practical purposes they are not approving the rezoning based on the sketch plan and feasibility study, as that could be subject to change during the platting stage. Mr. Skeim stated that the feasibility study and sketch plan is the plan he will present to the Planning Commission for approval prior to obtaining any engineering work. Mayor Windschitl reviewed the conditions that must be met prior to a rezoning of an area under Ordinance 8, particularly Section 4.17.B: Submission of a plot plan showing structures, parking, driveways, landscaping and screening. He didn't feel that this was being adhered to in this instance, as now the sketch plan is not being considered. Section 4.17 (a): The governing body may grant or deny the request for business zoning based upon the plans submitted. The Mayor submitted that they don't have any plans. Mr. Skeim argued the Council has what the ordinance requires by the feasibility study he submitted. Councilman Jacobson replied that the plan still shows the restaurant, which was originally proposed; shows some exits which don't show up on the sketch plan; and it is still talking about 53,400 square feet of building area, which has been modified since the study was done. He felt the drawing should be revised to reflect what is now being proposed relative to what Mr. Skeim has agreed to. Mr. Skeim argued that he still has to go through the ordinances in platting the area, and although the ordinance does allow him to put in a restaurant plus other things, he asked for credibility in doing what he agreed he would do with this business center. The only sketch plan before the Council is one that virtually everyone rejected at one time or another, and the Mayor felt that that requirement of the ordinance has not been met. He was also confused as to whether he is voting on the 10.8 acres in one piece, on the two parcels that would be created with a road going through, on which size building and where. Councilman Lachinski also would like to see in the motion that the developer has agreed that no high water usage-type business would be located in that center. VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel; NO-Peach, Windschitl Motion carried; however, rezoning failed because the law requires a 4/5 vote to approve a rezoning. Mayor Windschitl - My reasons for voting no are as follows: 1) The ordinance wasn't complied with in my opinion as far as submission under Section 4.17.B; 2) The rezoning would have allowed for a restaurant in a rural area which is a heavy water usage and is inconsistent with the development in the rural area; and 3) The entire concept as far as what it was to be considered or not considered in my opinion was very confused, as we had two separate documents showing two separate plat plans which weren't in agreement; and there was considerable discussion that the plat plan should be discarded and just based on the 10-acre site. Councilman Peach - My reasons for voting no are concurrent with the Mayor's and also that residents have appeared before the City Council and have expressed objection to the proposed rezoning; that the area proposed for rezoning is located in the rural service area and the scope of the project is not in keeping with the planned rural uses; it is inconsistent with Policy 19B of the Metropolitan Council Framework; and that rezoning would increase traffic congestion on an already dangereous intersection; it could cause premature extension of City services including sewer, police, and fire; and that the proposed plan does not comply with NB zoning re~uirements in that it far exceeds surrounding neighborhood needs in accordance with Or inance 8, Page 8. Regular City Council Meeting October 16, 1979 - Minutes Page 7 Recess at 9:31; reconvene at 9:45 p.m. Park/Recreation Commission Discussion was on the 1980 budget for manpower for the Parks Department. The present proposal is monies budgeted for a half-time person for the year 1980, figured at a salary of $3.50 an hour plus four hours a week dedicated from Mr. Sowada's salary and four hours a week from Mr. Stone's salary; for a total of approximately 28 hours a week for park personnel. The Park Board would have the flexibility of hiring one person at $3.50 an hour for the year, or just hiring help when it is needed, with salary and duties depending upon the qualifications of the individual hired. Discussion was also on the October 16, 1979, memo from the City Clerk relative to the revenues and expenditures of the Park/Recreation Commission since the year 1976. The Clerk explained the actual revenues and expenditures and the differences in those years, noting that the legal requirement to spend park dedication fees for park improvements has been met. Also, quarterly reports are given each year which indicates expenditures and remaining budget balance, and the October report would show the balance remaining for that year in the budget. Discussion was also on the Chuck Lund park dedication and the way it was run through the budget. The Clerk explained that Mr. Lund paid $4,000 in park dedication fees to the City for Lund's Evergreen Estates Plat, which was recorded as a revenue in park dedication fees. He did improvement work in the park for which the City reimbursed him out of park expenditures. It was Mayor Windschitl's feeling that that was an improper way to handle it, as the work should not have been charged against the Park Board since it was a Council decision. All it is is a wash transaction. Discussion continued on the way the Park Board budget has functioned relative to revenues and expenditures and on the monies left in the 1979 budget. According to the Clerk's figures, there will be little if any money left in the Park Budget by year's end. Mr. Mand was confused as to what happened to the extra $15,000 of dedication fees the Park Board received this year over and above what was budgeted. During discussion, it was noted that the commitment to parks has been to spend as much in park improvements as dollars are coming in for land dedication, which is what is being done. Mayor Windschitl stated he will try to make up a different schedule to try to clarify this further. Mr. Mand explained that they would like to put in some sand points to be able to flood skating rinks this winter. They also feel some are necessary at the City Hall hockey rink, which would flood that rink much faster than the method used previously. To save the City some money, it was also their suggestion to do test borings prior to putting in the sand points to determine whether or not these could be used by the Fire Department in the future for water supply. They have requested a representative from the Fire Department be at their next meeting to discuss this further. He felt that to simply put in a sand point wou!~ cost about $100 a piece and that three would be needed in each of the parks to get/ ~acity they desire. They hoped to put sand points into at least three parks, for a total of nine sand points. Council felt that doing the work with the City staff might reduce the cost. Also, there is the question of where to obtain this money as it appears there is no money left in the Park budget. The Clerk had not yet done the cash flow until the end of the year, so she was not sure if there were monies left in the 1979 contingency fund. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that the Park Board be permitted to spend a maXlmum of $900 for the purchase of sand points for skating rinks, and direct the Clerk to try to locate the funds; and that the allocation of the funds would be contingent upon finding those dollars. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Orttel because of the wordinå of the motion. He didn't think it was up to the Clerk to decide which account or fun that money is going to come out of. Motion carried. Regular City Council Meeting October 16, 1979 - Minutes Page 8 (Park/Recreation Commission, Continued) Mr. Mand requested someone attend the meeting with the State Planning Agency on the grant program for the Crooked Lake park project on October 22 at the St. Paul State Office Building from 9 a.m. until approximately 2 in the afternoon. It was generally agreed that Rae Ellen Bakke, Park Board Secretary, should attend. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the Council authorize Rae Ellen Bakke to attend the grant planning seminar at the State Planning Agency on October 22, and pay mileage. Motion carried unanimously. Andover Volunteer Fire Department Tom May, Assistant Fire Chief, reviewed the October 16, 1979, memos relative to the Change orders to fire trucks under construction (for special electrical panel and accessories not to exceed $150 for both trucks and dual air horns at $292 for both trucks); Readjustment priorities for use of authorized funds from building and equipment bond budget (total for funds already spent plus the revised list of equipment plus change orders for trucks amounts to $8,982, which is $982 more than what had been authorized by the Council to date); and Report to Council on funds spent from 1978 budget surplus and revised equipment list based upon realigned priorities due to limited 1980 budget (proposing the $982 be taken out of the $lO,OUO authorized the Fire Department from surplus of the 1978 budget, which would amount to expenditures of $48 over the $10,000 a~R~orized). Mr. May asked for Council authorization to change the equipment list and/ e two change orders to the fire trucks under construction. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, acknowledging the Change orders to the fire trucks under construction dated October 16, 1979; Readjusted priorities for use of authorized funds from building and fire equipment bond dated October 16, 1979; and Report to the Council on funds spent from 1978 budget surplus and revised equipment list based upon realigned priorities due to limited 1980 budget dated October 16, 1979; all from the Fire Department Equipment Committee; and authorize the change orders to the fire trucks under construction and provide the funding as requested by the Fire Department. Motion carried unanimously. Prairie Road Mr. Davidson reviewed the TKDA letter of October 16, 1979, relative to the Prairie Road Bridge Approach Construction project, recommending final payment of $56,388.65 and noting Change Order No.1, which is a washout change order showing how the actual final quantities compared to their estimated quantities. The washout added $374.40 to the contract. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City approve Change Order No.1 to Forest Lake Contracting on the Prairie Road Bridge approach construction project for the repair of washout in the amount of $374.40. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the payment of $56,388.65 to Forest Lake Contracting Company of Forest Lake, Minnesota, for work consisting of excavating and constructing of bridge approach on either side of the bridge over Coon Creek on Prairie Road, S.A.P. 198-101-U4, as TKDA has informed the Council that the work has been completed in accordance with the contract. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was on the remaining dirt section on Prairie Road between the bridge and Andover Boulevard, as the road is in poor condition and the City has acquired the necessary right of way to complete that portion of the road. Mr. Oavidson suggested, and the Council generally agreed, that this small project and the surfacing of the South Coon Creek Bridge be done next year as one State Aid project. ,. .. Regular City Council Meeting October 15, 1979 - Minutes Page 9 Northwoods Tennis Court Refernce TKDA letter of October 16, 1979, relative to Northwoods Tennis Court Lighting Syste, Commission No. 6927B. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to authorize final payment to Lehn Electric of Anoka in the amount of $4,748.90 for the construction of the lighting system in the tennis courts in Northwoods park. Motion carried unanimously. Rum River Ordinance The Clerk reported a zoning map is being made up. It was felt that the map should receive Council approval prior to publication. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we hold over adoption of the Scenic Rum Rlver Regulations in the Department of Natural Resources letter, October 1, until our next meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Minimum Requirements - Dwelling/Ordinance 8 MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the matter of ground floor square footage on two-story homes be referred to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. Extension of Temporary Mobile Home Permit/Ostrander MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that a lS-day extension for the temporary Moblle Home Permit be granted to Mrs. Ostrander at 15464 Crosstown Boulevard NW with an additional 75 days to be approved upon inspection and approval of the sanitary facilities on the property by the Building Official. Discussion: Councilman Jacobson noted that only one extension can be granted to a mobile home permit and that in this case he felt that extension would only be the lS-day extension. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. Public Services Building MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, to acknowledge the quotes from Klosner-Goertz Const. Inc., for $2,750 and Carroll Buzzell Brick & Cement for $2,595, and move we award the contract to Carroll Buzzell Brick & Cement for a price of $2,595 for the concrete sla~ 40'x44'x6", in front of the fire station. Motion carried unanimously. Comprehensive Plan Meeting Councilman Jacobson stated he and three members of the Planning Commission came to the City Hall for the October 11 meeting only to find that it had been canceled, and stated they were peeved that they had not been informed that that meeting had been canceled. Discussion was on the events that caused the mix-up. Hanson Boulevard Mr. Davidson reported that they have met with Paul Ruud and staff at the Anoka County Highway Department, and that they are in the process of drawing up the legal descriptions for the easement acquisition, although to date TKDA has not received them because of some confusion. Those descriptions are forthcoming, however. Mr. Davidson stated the Council should consider whether or not a public hearing should be held relative to establishing this as a thoroughfare after the definite alignment is known. Mr. Ruud had also suggested that TKDA provide a PDR Worksheet for the bridge which would cross Coon Creek. Also, they talked about a joint powers agreement between the County and the City outlining what the çounty re~uirements are and what the City responsibilities are gOlng to be. The City wlll provi e the right of way, and the County will do all Regular City Council Meeting October 16, 1979 - Minutes Page 10 (Hanson Boulevard, Continued) the engineering, preparation of plans, and do construction; and in that process there probably will be an exchange of highway system, perhaps a turnback of Crosstown in favor of Hanson being designated as County State Aid road. Mr. Davidson stated if that is done, the City would have to extend the Prairie Road designation north to Constance and something would have to be done about extending County Road 16. Mr. Davidson stated that TKDA will probably do the PDR, and Mr. Ruud talked of having TKDA design the road within the City because of the workload at the County, and the County would pay for it. Council discussion suggested contact be made with the electric companies relative to the placement of Hanson Boulevard between the power lines to see what, if any, problems that would present. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we direct the engineering firm to request Anoka County to prepare a joint powers agreement with the City relative to the Hanson Boulevard extension project. Motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes August 28, 1979: Page 2, ADDITION TO MOTION by Lachinski, change to: ...depth of lots on the irregular lots as well... September 4, 1979: Correct as written September 13, 1979: Correct as written September 18, 1979: Page 3, third paragraph, last sentence, change to: ...He suggested the problem be eliminated by... Page 4, fourth paragraph, second to last line, change to: ...improve safety conditions at the present pick-up point... Page 5, third line from to; change to:... The sections applicable are... Page 10, middle of page, paragraph beginning with Councilman Jacobson, second line, delete words "per meeting" September 20, 1979: Page 2, 1st paragraph, fifth line: Engineer (sp) Page 4, top, change to: ...within the 600-foot limit, put a swale in, and put a flume at the end of it and let it carry itself off where it always has been going... Page 8, five lines from bottom; change to: ...There might be some water that will run on the road into the ditches... September 27, 1979: Date in Heading and on top of all pages to be corrected to read: September 27, 1979 October 2, 1979: Correct as written October 8, 1979: Correct as written MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to approve the Minutes as corrected of August 28, September 4, September 18, September 20, September 27, and October 8, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meetin9 October 16, 1979 - Minutes Page 11 (Approval of Minutes, continued) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the Minutes of September 13, 1979, as corrected. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-Jacobson r~ot i on carr i ed. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, to approve the Minutes of October 2 as written. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Orttel, Peach, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-Lachinski Motion carried. Comprehensive Plan Meeting with P & Z MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we set a Special Council meeting date of November 15 for reviewing the proposed Comprehensive Plan with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. Approval of Claims MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, for approval of Check Numbers 2734 through 2673 ln the amount of $33,809.62. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve Check Numbers 315 through 321 ln the amount of $185,684.80. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ::> \~~~~~ :,J £~L Mar~e la_A. Peach Recording Secretary