HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP August 8, 1979
~ o¡ ANDOVER
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 8, 1979
MINUTES
A Sp~cial Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry
Windschitl on August 8, 1979, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown
Boulevard NW, for the purpose of continuing the August 7, 1979, Agenda items.
Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach
Councilmen absent: None
Also present: City Engineer, Mark Schumacher; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist;
and others
Agenda Approval
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve the Agenda for the Special
Clty Council meeting of August 8, under 5a, CAB Interceptor; 5d, LakeRidge Addition/
Preliminary Plat; 6a, Rum River Ordinance; 6b, Zoning Map; 6c, Park Board Ordinance;
7a, Junkyard Licenses; lOa, Probationery Increases; lOb, Permanent part-time Employment;
and 161st Avenue Discussion; Approval of Claims and Minutes; and 8e, Personnel
Committee. Motion carried on a 4-0 vote.
Councilman Lachinski arrived at this time.
Preliminary Plat - LakeRidge Addition
Sylvia Britton presented copies of the revised Preliminary Plat showing the corrected
basement elevations on the plat (Reference August 7, 1979, Regular City Council Meeting
Mi nutes) .
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, to approve the Preliminary Plat of the LakeRidge
Subdivision at the Northwest ~ of the Northeast ~, and the South Y. of the Northeast ~,
and the Southeast ~ of the Northwest ~ and Government Lot 3 and Government Lot 4, except
the part thereof described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Section 20,
Township 32, Range 24; thence North 75 rods and three feet; thence at right angles West
to the shore line of Round Lake; thence Southeasterly along said shore line to the
South Line of Section 20; thence East to the point of beginning. The east Y. of the
East Y. of the Southwest ~ of the Northwest ~. All in Section 20, Township 32, Range 24,
Anoka County, Minnesota, for the following reasons: Plat has received approval from
the Anoka County Highway Department for access onto the county road; the Plat has been
reviewed by the engineering firm of TKDA, and the engineering firm recommends approval;
public hearing was held on the plat and there was no public opposition; the roads
within the plat conform to the standards of the City of Andover; Plat requires three
variances: 1) Lot 6 of Block 8 for 250-foot frontage lot; 2) lS2nd Lane between
Orchid and Tulip Streets for an excess of the normal block length required in a sub-
division; and 3) Cul-de-sac length on 153rd Lane which is over 500 feet. Also, a
letter has been received from the Department of Natural Resources with their approval
of the Preliminary Plat; and the recommendation from the Park Commission that in addition
to the 21.710 acres designated as parkland, an additional $3,355 be received to bring
the park area up to the required 10 percent. City Council finds the plat is in conformance
with the ordinances of the City and is consistent with the Comprehensive Development
Plan. Finally, that all lots within the plat shall front on interior streets.
(See Resolution R71-9) Motion carried unanimously.
CAB Interceptor - Response to Metro Council
Council reviewed the draft of a letter to the Metropolitan Council, Attention Mr. Lee
Starr referencing the Anoka-Andover Interceptor, Commission No. 6223-79. The draft
was revised to read as follows: Letter is to be sent to Charles Weaver, Chairman of
the Metropolitan Council; Copy of letter to be sent to Mr. Lee Starr; Dear Mr. Weaver:
Special City Council Meeting
August 8, 1979 - Minutes
Page 2
(CAB Interceptor, Response to Metro Council, Continued)
The City Council of the City of Andover, Minnesota, has received and reviewed your
letter of July 27, 1979. We concur with your evaluation of our position. We would,
however, like to emphasize certain points:
1. The present needs with the Andover "Urban Service District" are adequately provided
for by the Coon Rapids Interceptor system. This does not preclude the fact that certain
areas within Andover, west of County Road ~ (Round Lake Boulevard), will require
reserve capacity within the Anoka Interceptor in the future. We feel the need is
beyond 1985.
2. At the time the Anoka interceptor becomes available to serve part of the present
Andover Urban Service District, the City would request expansion of the urban service
district to the east and/or north. We expect the need is beyond 1985.
3. Because the extension cost of interceptors is borne by all communities within
the service district, we recommend extension on the basis of planned need and not only
as a reaction to existing need.
4. The City of Anoka's position that delay of construction through urbanizing areas
may increase costs should be considered. A cost/benefit analysis should be made to
determine the effect of delayed construction.
S. The City of Andover considers adjacent communities to be friendly neighbors. The
City, however, does not want to be placed in the position of mandatory negotiation for
urban services from its neighbors. Sanitary sewer service availability is under the
control of the MWCC and Metropolitan Council. Such sewer service availability should
be made available through the Planning and Coordinating agencies.
The City of Andover does support the Anoka interceptor. Copies of Resolution Rl18-8
dated October 17, 1978, and letter of April 6, 1978, are attached.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that the Council approve the letter to Mr.
Weaver in response to Mr. Weaver's letter of July 27 regarding the CAB interceptor as
amended this evening. Motion carried unanimously.
Final Acceptance - Bridges
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, a Resolution for Final Acceptance for bridges
constructed over Coon Creek, MSAH #18 and MSAH #101 by Willman Construction ...
(Final payment in the amount of $15,754.92) (See Resolution R72-9) Motion carried
unanimously.
Public Services Building
Council toured the Public Services Building at 7:58 reviewing the August 8, 1979, list
of discrepancies and work yet to be completed on the building; meeting reconvened at
8:57 p.m.
Council discussion was on the recommendation of Councilman Peach as Building Committee
Chairman for payment of $22,839.80 to Bloomberg, Inc. (See memo from Councilman Peach
to Council and City Clerk dated August 8, 1979) After viewing the building and the
work that needs to be completed yet, Mayor Windschilt didn't see any justification for
making any payment to Bloomberg at this time. Councilman Peach explained that the
Committee recommended that essential completion be recognized as the point where the
work that needs to be done does not interfere with the City's normal operations in the
building. It hasn't reached that pOint yet. The Committee also recommended that no
payment be made and a letter be sent to Bloomberg's Attorney asking him to specify,the
date when the building will be completed. But in talking with the Engineer and several
Committee members, Councilman Peach stated that in fact there is less than $59,000
Special City Council Meeting
August 8, 1979 - Minutes
Page 3
(Public Services Building, Continued)
worth of work to be done on it. The recommendation on the cracked panels was to wait
until the one-year warranty is nearly completed, because that will change with the
seasons.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we make payment to Bloomberg Companies as
recommended by the City's Engineer in the amount of $22,839.80, retain $30,000 as 200
percent of the value of labor and materials for corrective work, and withold $6,800
for liquidated damages of 68 days as of August 8, 1979, and $200 for an elevation
adjustment.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; NO-Windschitl, as he didn't
feel it serves any useful purpose to pay right now when there is so much left to be
finished. Motion carried.
Approval of Minutes
r~ay 15, 1979: Correct as Written
May 22, 1979:
Page 1, bottom, change to: ...estimated cost of the grader with v-plow and wing...
Page 2, Motion by Jacobson, change to: ...a motor grader with snow v-plow and wing
and scarifier... Ma1 30,1979; June 5, 1979; June 11, 1979; June 19, 1979: July 9, 1979, Special Meeting;
Ju y 9, Public Hearlng: Correct as Wrltten
July 11, 1979:
Page 6, 1st paragraph, change to: ...Mayor Windschitl was troubled with ending up
with a deficiency on the park dedication... (delete word "huge")
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the Minutes for the meetings on May 15,
May 22, May 30, July 9, July 9 Special, July 11, and July 17 be approved as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the Council Meetings on June 5 and June 11
be approved as amended.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-Jacobson
Motion carried.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Minutes for June 19 be approved as
amended.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-Orttel
Motion carried.
Rum River Ordinance
Planning Commission Chairperson d'Arcy Bosell reviewed the changes the Commission
recommended to the proposed Rum River Ordinance as presented to the Council previously.
In addition to those changes, the following were noted:
Page 4, (15), add: ...permanently affixing it to the site, built to meet the Uniform
Building Code.
Page 6, the definitions should be renumbered so that Single Family Dwelling is
numbered (25).
Page 7, changed lot width at building line to 300 feet.. Council discussion: There
was disagreement as to whether it should be 300 feet or 250 feet as originally proposed
by the DNR. Mayor Windschitl felt 300 feet would create a problem with the existing
Special City Council Meeting
August 8, 1979 - Minutes
Page 4
(Rum River Ordinance, Continued)
lots in Meadowood and elsewhere that are still one-acre lots that might be in the
easement. This would make them unbuildable. He didn't feel that is the intent of this
ordinance. Chairman Bosell understood the ordinance to be that if two substandard
lots are in the same ownership, they have to be combined. If they are in separate
ownerships, the lots are not affected and are grandfathered in. It was her understanding
that if we allow 2S0-foot frontage, anyone who plats in the district will only have to
meet that frontage requirement; whereas the remainder of the City requires 300 feet of
frontage. The 50 percent requirement as explained by the DNR applies only to river
frontage. The DNR is only concerned with river frontage. Several suggestions made
during Council discussion were that all lots of record as of the date of this ordinance
be exempted, or some similiar wording which would include contract for deed conveyances
as well; that in 5.03.01, second line from bottom, take out "and dimensional" to read:
...enactment of this ordinance; and all sanitary requirements of this ordinance to be
complied...; or eliminating paragraph 5.03.02. Comment was also made that five-acre
metes and bounds parcels do not come under this ordinance; therefore, river frontage
dimensions, etc., would not apply. It was finally decided to refer the ordinance
to the Building Inspector for his recommendation as to what the lot width at building
line should be to allow for clarity in interpreting the ordinance.
Page 9, 6.02.01, Section 8, (9), Single Family Residential Uses, except mobile homes.
It was noted that the definition for manufactured housing that the Planning Commission
is reviewing should be tied into this ordinance as well.
Page 10, (19), last line: ...Commissioner of Natural Resources.
Page 13, 8.03.01, should read: All utility transmission crossings of land within the
Rum River land use district... ...for crossings of 69 kilo-volts thru 199 kilo-
volts... ...control of the Environmental Quality Board pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 116c.51. However, lines of 200 kilo-volts or more which are exempt
by the EQB shall require a conditional use permit.
Page 16, top: District shall be brought into conformity or discontinued within the
time frame specified in Ordinance 37, Subsection 2, Subsection A and 3, Subsection C,
Subsection 3.
Page 16, the question on structural alteration: Mr. Hawkins has not responded to
Chairman'Bosell's request for rewording on that section. The Clerk was directed to
investigate this further.
It was noped that after receiving comments from the Building Inspector, that the
final copy along with a map could be sent to the Commissioner for approval.
Zoning Map (Ordinance 8E)
Council discussion was On the wording of such an ordinance and that it might be helpful
to see a map of those areas to be rezoned to see the impact of what is being done. The
Clerk's recommendation was to simply comply with Ordinance No.8 in rezoning everything
outside of the urban service area to 2\ acres, 300-foot frontage (R-l zoning) and take
out the 60 percent requirement. The only use that would be allowed in an R-l zone is
a dog kennel, which would mean they would be allowed on the small lots being rezoned.
Mayor Windschitl suggested if this were to be done that a statement be made that in
areas that are being down-zoned, they would still retain the restrictions they had
previously. It was also suggested that possibly something could be written in the
ordinance to prevent R-l uses on the smaller lots.
During further discussion it was suggested that all existing lots of record under 2\
acres in a platted area would be buildable but anything coming in would be required
to be 2\ acres. How this affects those plats that are buildable on every other lot
Special City Council Meeting
August 8, 1979 - Minutes
Page 5
(Zoning Map (Ordinance 8E), Continued)
needs to be addressed further. It was also noted that the 39,000 square foot requirement
for septic systems would be applicable to all existing parcels and suggested that
possibly a statement noting that lots of record at the time shall be buildable providing
they meet the other criteria of the ordinance, specifically 39,000 square feet necessary
for on-site septic systems.
It was determined this will be discussed again at a work session; the Special Meeting
of August 28 was mentioned as a possibility if there is time.
Park Board Ordinance - Ordinance No. 10D
Council suggestions for changes in the proposed ordinance:
Page 1, 9.07.91, questioned "subdivision or development of land" It was felt that
this was a catch-all for development; this has been reviewed by the City Attorney. It
was decided to leave it as written.
9.07.5, Cash Contribution in Lieu of Lands, states: "Such recommendat ion shall be
based On the market value of the undeveloped land..." And 9.07.6 states, "...market
value is determined as of the time of the final plat..." Discussion was that the market
value would be determined on the undeveloped land at the time of the final plat.
9.07.6, change to: ...for the purposes of this ordinance shall be determined as of
the time of the final plat without improvements in accordinace with the following:...
9.07.9, Fund, Accounting, Budgeting, Expenditure of Cash in Lieu of Land: There was
a very lengthy discussion on this section. Mayor Windschitl felt this section should
be eliminated completely. He stated it has been the policy of the Councils that
creating a separate fund for the Park Board would create additional work in the office,
plus there may be times when the Commission would want to do some other things with large
cash contributions. It was also noted that by listing everything the money is used
for, something could be missed, ie, city improvements are not listed in this proposed
ordinance.
Wes Mand, Chairman of the Park/Recreation Commission, argued the intent of this
provislon is to preserve the dedication fees for land purchases and development so it
doesn't end up paying for other things; to try to build up a fund with a large enough
balance so that if property became available, the City could acquire it. Councilman
Orttel's argument was according to the proposed ordinance, the Park Board would be
receiving money from dedication in addition to those monies budgeted out of general
revenue. At the present time the Park Board is budgeted out of general revenues,
but it is being offset by any dedication monies received during the year. It was noted
that councils have always consistently funded the Park Board in excess of the dedications
received. The monies received for dedication must legally be spent for park purposes.
If a surplus of dedication monies are received during the year over the budgeted amount,
it can be held and spent this year or carried over to the following years.
Further discussion was that this proposal would create separate budgeting and accounting
by the Park/Recreation Commission; that there is separate Park Board account at the
present time; that present monies are only used for park purposes but not for general
park maintenance; that this proposal reduces the Council's flexibility in using the
funds; that allocating a certain amount for parks out of general revenues would be
more of a commitment to parks; that this system could start encouraging cash contributions
from the developers; that under the proposed system, if the same amount were to be
budgeted for parks, it would mean a raising of the mill levy to get that amount because
the off-setting revenues of dedication fees would not be budgeted; questioned whether
the Park Board would then share in capital improvement funds since they would have their
own budgeting and accounting system outside of the City's budget; that the Park Board
would like to see the Council make a commitment of a dollar amount per person in the
City for capital improvement within the parks and dedication fees would be added to that;
Special City Council Meeting
August 8, 1979 - Minutes
Page 6
(Park Board Ordinance - Drdinance No. 10D, Continued)
and that under this method there would be no accounting to the Council at budget time
as to what Parks took in and spent the previous year, which could make it difficult
in making a determination as to how much to budget for Parks out of general revenues
for the next year. Mayor Windschitl felt that possibly accepting large amounts of
dedication fees rather than land is short-sighted because the demand in the future is
going to be for land area for additional parks for open spaces. Chairman Bosell argued
that it doesn't make good sense to take land for parks from some of the smaller
developments and that they have been demanding the land desired for parks to correspond
with an over-all park plan.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that in Section 9.07.9, in the first line
WhlCh reads "Andover City Council shall establish a separate fund into which, delete
the word all, cash..." In the fourth line which reads, "The Park and Recreation
Commi ss ioñSha 11 estab 1 ish separate, delete budget i ng and, account i ng.. ."
Discussion: Mayor Windschitl stated the Park/Recreation Commission has no authority
for budgeting. This is in here because they are wanting to keep track of their funds
separately from what is being done now; it is a duplicate of what is being done now.
By taking out budgeting in this ordinance, the budgeting is still being done by the
Council and the accounting done by Park/Recreation. If something is going to be done
with this, he felt the two of them should be kept together. He felt this is giving
more of an incentive to collect cash rather than land, which he felt is a mistake.
Councilman Lachinski felt that this means that the City cannot spend monies that are
for park dedication on things like sewer assessments and street assessments. Council-
man Orttel disagreed and felt that it could be spent for that. Mr. Mand stated it
gives them the option of taking the sewer assessments out of their budgeted money
rather than out of their park dedication money.
VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski NO-Orttel, Peach, Windschitl
Motion failed.
MOTION by Peach to delete paragraph 9.07.9. Discussion: A majority felt that this
paragraph should be removed from the ordinance; but because there were other questions
and corrections on the ordinance, Councilman Peach WITHDREW the motion for further
discussion on the ordinance.
9.07.11, Dedicated Land, Minimum Area: Discussion was on the Dwelling Units/Acre
(Gross Density). General consensus was to change the Dwelling Units/Acre to 0 - 3,
Requirement of 10 percent; Dwelling Units/Acre Over Three, Requirement, Add two (2)
percent to dedication requirements for each additional dwelling unit over three (3)
units per acre gross density.
Two other corrections noted by Mr. Mand were: 9.07.8 f, reference should be Section 9.07.11.
Section 9.07.7, reference should be 9.07.8
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, the adoption of Ordinance No. 10D, An Ordinance
Amendlng Ordinance No. 10 and Ordinance No. lOA, Section 9.07, Entitled Park, Playgrounds
and Open Space as presented by the Park/Recreation Commission dated August 3, 1979,
with the following Amendments: 9.07.6, Line 2, the words "without improvementS" shall
be added between the words plat and in, so it will be "final plat without improvements
in accordinance..."; Paragraph 9.07.9 is deleted; in Paragraph 9.07.8 f, the reference
to 9.07.12 is changed to 9.07.11; in 9.07.11 a, the Dwelling Units per Acre is changed
from 0 - 4 to 0 - 3; and the second part is changed from 5 and over to Over 3; last
line in the same area which said "unit is over four (4) units" should be changed
to "unit over three (3) units per acre gross density"; in Paragraph 9.07.7, 9.07.9
should reference 9.07.8. With the deleting of paragraph 9.07.9, correct the paragraph
numbering to be sequential and their references. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion noted that it is the Council's intent that preliminary plats filed in the office
as of this date would not be governed by this ordinance; those plans that are in the
sketch plan stage as of this date would have to comply with this Ordinance No. 10D.
Special City Council Meeting
August 8, 1979 - Minutes
Page 7
161st Avenue Discussion
Mayor Windschitl explained that the Council should look at constructing 161st Avenue
as a State Aid road from Round Lake to Tulip. The way it is proposed now, you are
ending up with a 1/2 mile section of road that will be able to have very little
assessed on it. If it is to be done State Aid, it would not be possible to get it
constructed this year; and next year there should be State Aid,funds available to
acquire right of way on the proposed extension of Hanson Boulevard and do 161st, if
the Council chose to do so. He asked that the Council give this further thought to
discuss it again at the next regular Council meeting.
Approval of Claims
Council desired to meet with a representative of the League of Minnesota Cities prior
to paying the dues.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the fOllowing Claims be paid: Check 2606
through 2649 excluding Check Number 2644 and 2627 for a total of $31,295.66; and
,Check Number 295 from 78-2 to Minnesota Fire for $11,562.77; Check Number 296 from SA
Bridge, Willman Construction for $15,754.92; and Check Number 297 for Bloomberg, Inc.,
for $22,839.80 from 78-2. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 11:56 p.m.
Respectfully s~mitted, L
\~~;2;;~
Recording Secretary