HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC February 5, 1980
[ 01 ANDOVER
~
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 5, 1980
AGENDA
1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M.
2. Resident Forum
3. Agenda Approval
4. Non-Discussion Items
a. RiteAway Auto Parts - License
b. Stenquist Lot Split - Park Fees
c. Adequacy of Petition - Chapman's Addition
d. Acceptance of Street - 157th Lane/Section 15
e. Budget Allocation - Coon Rapids Fine Arts Commission
f. Acceptance of Parkland - Anoka County
g. Allied Blacktop Retainage of Fees
h. Muni-Pa1s Meeting - February 27
i. Ordinance No. 44 - Title Card Requirements
5. Discussion Items
a. Bloomberg, Inc. - Final Payment
b. 133rd Avenue - Feasibility Report
c. A11adin Acres/Xenia Street Area - Study Report
d. Road Standards - Revised Costs
e. MSA - Projects Report
f. Hockey Association/Rink
g. Ordinance No.8 Revisions
h. Ordinance No. 10 Revisions
i. Appointment to Planning Commission
j. Financing of Private Utilities k. Landfill/Musket Ranch
6. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Departments
a. Planning & Zoning Commission
b. Park & Recreation Commission
c. Volunteer Fire Department
7. Approval of Minutes
a. January 15, 1980
8. Approval of Claims
9. Adjournment
c.j ry of ANDO VER
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
COPIES TO: ATTORNEY, ENGINEER, STAFF
FROM: CITY CLERK/A.ADM.
DATE:c: JANUARY 31, 1980
REFERENCE: AGENDA INFORMATION - FEBRUARY 5, 1980
Item No,4a - Approval of License (RiteWay Auto Parts, 1714 Bunker Lake Boulevard)
Two questions remained unanswered at the January 15 Meeting; one deals with the
requirement of having a building as a condition of a Junkyard License pursuant to
Ordinance No. 44, and the other is the conditions of the Special Use Permit issued
to operate an auto reduction yard. Attorney Hawkins is of the opinion that a
building is not required, therefore, the fact that a Final Certificate of Occupancy
has not been obtained for the structure cannot prohibit the Council from issuing
the Junkyard License. It would then be up to the Building Official to condemn
the building until such time as the Final Certificate of Occupancy is obtained.
In reviewing the Special Use Permit issued in May, 1978, it appears no special
conditions were placed on it insofar as a time limit.or review requirements.
At the time the Special Use Permit was issued, the building had been constructed
as a garage; the plumbing, heating and well permits were not issued until late
1978. The fence has been trimmed to even it.
Item No. 4b - Stenquist (Park Dedication Fees)
In checking the records it shows the Stenquists having paid $900 park dedication
fees for the subdivision, therefore, it is necessary to make a motion to rescind
the contingency dealing with park dedication fees on Resolution No. 6-80.
Item No. 4c - Adequacy of Petition (Chapman's Addition)
Attached is a copy of a petition for the improvement of bituminous streets and
sanitary sewer for Chapman's Addition. Also attached is a map indicating the
opinions of the property owners for these improvements. Of the approximately 7525
assessable feet, 2,850 (38%) are in favor, 1,200 (16% oppose) and 3,475 (46%)
show no opinion. Attached is a resolution to declare adequacy of the petition.
Petitions have been previously received requesting extension of the sewer lines
to Bunker Lake Boulevard by Good Value Homes, Lawrence B. Carlson (Woodland
Development) and George Ado1fson. With this petition, the City Council should
proceed with feasibility reports to start the installation of these truck lines.
It would not be possible to proceed with Chapmans Additions until this is completed
(or in conjunction with). The public hearings for sanitary sewer could combine
the entire area. If the Council feels this should be discussed at any length, a
Special Meeting could be set, otherwise just direction given to the engineer
to have information ready for the next Council Meeting.
Agenda Information [
February 5, 1980
Page 2
Item No. 4d - Acceptance of Street (157th Lane)
This is the ~ mile street constructed in Section 15 by Mr. Menkve1d. The location
was approved at a previous time and the roadway has been constructed. A motion is
required to accept this street for maintenance purposes, contingent on the posting
of a $1,000 Maintenance BOnd.
Item No. 4e - Budget Allocation (Coon Rapids Fine Arts Commission)
You have received correspondence from the Coon Rapids Fire Arts Commission requesting
monies to be budgeted by the City of Andover to help cover the costs in providing
the free concerts to be held this summer in Coon Rapids. A motion is needed setting
out the allocation, noting it to come from the 1980 Contingency Fund.
Item No. 4€ - Acceptance of Parkland (Anoka County)
In 1963 and early 1971, two parcels of land were donated to Anoka County as
Parkland. Attached is a map showing both. At this time, Anoka County would like
to give these to the City of Andover inasmuch as they do not have need for the
land. The Park & Recreation Commission-has reviewed this and indicates they do
not wish to accept the land as parkland due to the location and topography
(Moores park is very low and Nordeen Park is landlocked). I have asked the
City Attorney to have an opinion ready for the meeting in answer to the question:
Would the City be legally able to accept this parkland inaSfJil1ch~as-it:t1ad oeeri'-
donated to Anöka County'for'par~ purposes asindicated on the deed.
Item No. 4g - Allied Blacktop (Retainage of Contract)
Attached is correspondence from the City Engineer recommending the seal coating be
accepted and a 5% retainage held by the City until such time as the Contractor
sweeps the streets (spring, 1980) to clean up excess rock. A motion is needed
to this effect.
Item No. 4h - Muni-Pa1s Meeting (February 27)
Attached is the proposed agenda for the Muni-Pa1s Meeting to be held on February 27.
The registration fee is $18.00 per person. I would recommend that authorization be
given to allow two staff persons to attend. The program is one that I have never
attended; and also would be useful to the office personnel.
Item No. 4i - Ordinance No. 44 Amendments (Title Card requirements)
Mike Nelson of the Department of Public Safety has requested on behalf of the
Department that we amend our Ordinance No. 44, Section 4.9 to comply with State Statute.
The Department of Safety requires Bills of Sale and Title Cards on all junk vehicles
to be filed with them, as we do in our ordinance require same to be filed at the
respective yards. Attached is his recommended amendment change.
Item No. 5a - Bloomberg, Inc. (Final Payment)
The Officers of Bloomberg, Inc. have cOntacted Bill Hawkins, indicating they would
be willing to settle out-of-court for a total amount of $30,517.50. This amount
includes the balance owing on the Contract ($26,367.50) less the agreed adjustments
amount to ($2,467.50) less 50% of the liquidated damages ($4,150.00). Attached is
a copy of correspondence to Bloomberg, Inc. following the December 4 Meeting, at
which time the settlement amount was agreed upon by the Council.
[
Agenda Information
February 5, 1980
Page 3
Item No. 5b - Feasibility Report (133rd Avenue Area)
The Engineers have prepared a revised feasibility report on the construction of
bituminous streets for the 133rd Ave, 134th Avenue, 135th Avenue, G1adiola Street,
Eideswe1ss Street area. We have not yet received a copy, however, if the figures
and computations are agreeable to the City Council, a resolution is prepared to
accept it and set the date for a public hearing.
Item No. 5c - Feasibility Report (Xenia Street Area)
A revised report has been prep.ared based on variations to the adopted street standards
as discussed on January 22. If these are acceptable to the Council, a resolution is
prepared accepting same and directing the Clerk to seek public bids. Attorney Hawkins
has met with the persons from whom easements were required, however, he does not
have agreements at this time.
Item No. 5d - Road Standards (Revised costs)
The City Engineer will have a report on the cost figures using the alternatives
discussed by the City Council on January 22. A copy has not yet been received
by this office.
Item No. 5e - MSA Projects Report
You have received correspondence under the date of December 17, 1979, covering the
MSA improvements for Prairie Road and South Coon Creek Drive. The engineer will
review these with you.
Item No. 5f - Hockey Association/Rink
You have received a memo from Ray Sowada covering the maintenance on this rink.
Although the rink has been kept clean and is marked for games, no-one has used it
pursuant to the schedule for the past three days. The upkeep is time consuming
and costly, therefore, it is recommended a policy be adopted requiring the Hockey
Association to notify us no later than 12:00 noon on any day they do not intend
to use the facility.
Item No. 5g - Ordinance No. 8 Revisions
Attached is a copy of the Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation for Ordinance
revision to cover several items referred to P&Z for changes. You will note the
recommendation specifies that garages be attached, however, this is not shown
under Section 6.02, therefore, this should be noted when the proposed ordinance is
approved.
Item No. 5h- - Ordinance No. 10 Revisions
Attached is the Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation for approval along with
a proposed amendment. This amendment will remedy several adverse situations created
by the wording in the original ordinance. A motion is required for approval.
Agenda Information I
February 5, 1980
Page 4
Item No. 5i - Appointment to Planning & Zoning Commission
You have received correspondence relating to the one application received for membership
on the Planning & Zoning Commission. What does the Council wish to do?
Item No. 5j - City Financing/Private Utilities
Correspondence from John Weaver, myself and Northern Natural Gas Co. has been forwarded
to you at an earlier date. You have also received a petition from the residents
in the Russell Addition. Attached is a letter received today from Representative
John Weaver outlining the Statute governing bonding for such types of improvements.
If the Council wishes to proceed with legislation to allow municipalities to finance
such improvements, please make a motion to that effect and Representative Weaver
will be notified.
Item No. 5k - Landfill/Musket Ranch
This item is being addeded as a result of the January 29 Meeting. A number of
matters have surfaced since that meeting requiring Council decisions, etc. Mayor
Windschitl will have a complete report for you. Briefly, the County has located
funds to perform the requested water tests and various testing firms have been
contacted as to costs for such tests and for soil borings. There has also been
considerable discussion on the remarks made by the PCA Representative, Mike Kanner,
during an interview following the meeting.
Attached is correspondence from Ron Roth relating to the storage of lime sludge
at the landfill site. This item had been discussed previously, however, at that
time there was no information on the actual site; and you will recall the trucks
were using CSAH No. 18 as a haul-route. Does the Council wish to change their
motion of January 15, in which the request was denied.
Item No. 6a - Planning & Zoning Commission
In December, 1979, Mr. Meri11a who is developing the property abutting the
railroad tracks just south of Andover Boulevard appeared before the City Council
requesting direction on the filing of his preliminary plat. You will recall the
moratorium did not include this property; and at the time, there was a question
on the legality of the original rezoning from L-1 to R-1. Attorney Hawkins has
advised the rezoning was legal. The Commission has not yet made a recommendation
on the rezoning of this property.
Item No. 6b - Park & Recreation Commission
No report has been received.
Item No. 6c - Volunteer Fire Department
The Fire Department wishes to discuss 1) Heat setting at the building, 2) possibilities
of running medica1s, 3) approval to purchase an army surp1ùs ambulance out of donation
monies and 4)budget money. Also required is approval from the City Council to
connect the welder in order that it can be used. The costs for this are in excess
of $500, it is not a budget item and quotations have been received. Originally one
of the Fire Department people was going to make the necessary connections, however,
he is nOW not able to do so. You have received correspondence on Item No.1. Also
Agenda Informat. I
February 5, 1980
Page 5
Item No. 6c - Volunteer Fire Department (continued)
attached is a break-down on the fuel used to-date as requested by Counci1person Peach.
For the three month period between AU9uSt 7 and December 13, we averaged $294.00 per
month and between December 13 and January 18 (one month) the use age was approximately
$700.00 or $20.00 per day. Based On the %'s shown on the tanks today, we have used
approximately $270.00 in 13 days or $21.00 per day. The temperatures have been
kept at a consistent temperature for the pasØ two wpeks,.which would indicate that
fuel useage remains about the same for 1) 50 nights, ,650 days and 2) 650 day and nite.
It should be realized it is difficult to make an accurate-assessment for this short
of period. Item No.2 - Correspondence has not been 'received covering any cost
estimates for this type of service, i.e., staff requirements, equipment, training, etc.
Item No.3 - Again, no correspondence has been received covering a used ambulance, i:e.,
condition, estimated repairs, fuel costs, etc.
Item No. 7 - Approval of Minutes
January 15, 1980.
~-------............
.Adm.
.
I
~ 01 ANDOVER
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 5, 1980
MINUTES
The Regular Bi-Month1y Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by
Mayor Jerry Windschitl on February 5, 1980, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall,
1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota.
Councilmen present: Jacobson, Orttel, Peach
Councilman absent: Lachinski
Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineers, John
Davidson and Mark Schumacher; City Clerk, P. ~.Lindquist;
and others
Resident Forum
Rose Richman, 16620 Isanti Circle, Ham Lake - is on the building committee for the
Hockey Associatlon. Due to a misunderstanding, she was told that she stated that
they would not need the Andover hockey rink; and she wanted the record to show that
she did not say that. They do need the Andover rink.
Agenda Approval
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to approve the Agenda as printed with the
Addltion of Item 4j, CAB Interceptor. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we suspend the rules for tonight.
Motlon carried unanimously.
Hockey Association/Rink
Sandy Horsch, 515 177th Avenue NE, Cedar and Mark Leyhe represented the Association
Mayor Windschit1 stated that there has been some confusion over the scheduling of
the hockey rink at the City Hall; he understands that at the present time the ice is
in good shape; that communications need to be set up between the Association and the
City to avoid misunderstandings in the future and to determine when the ice is needed;
and that there is a problem of the manhours needed to flood the rink.
During discussion with the Council, Ms. Horsch stated that the boards on the present
rink have to be higher in order to meet the regulations of the Hockey League. They
feel it would be easier to make the rink deeper, rather than adding another board
to it. And they do have the measurements needed to make the existing rink meet the
League standards. She apologized for any misunderstandings that have occurred be-
tween the Hockey Association and the City. They would first like to update the
existing rink, which can be done this spring or summe~ at a cost she estimated to
be about $800. Secondly, they would like to have a warming house that would be suitable
for this rink plus any future rinks to be added in the area. They preferred building
the warming house to meet the needs of the existing facilities prior to constructing
any more rinks. Then, possibly construct two more rinks, one for free-skating and
one for hockey.
Mr. Leyhe stated the rink should be lowered two boards if there is enough post in the
ground to go down that far. They suggested planning a warming house so that opposing
teams can be in separate rooms, possibly consider room for storing equipment, a
concession stand, and bathrooms, or design it such to allow such expansion if desired
in the future. Mr. Leyhe stated that Ham Lake is going through this same process of
building a warming house and explained that next spring Johnson Ready Mix will precast
the concrete for the building, which is expected to cost about $15,000. This is
being done on an experimental basis; and if it works out, they are hoping the same thing
I
Regular City Council Meeting
February 5, 1980 - Minutes
Page 2
(Hockey Association/Rink, Continued)
could be done for Andover. They will also have more details and cost figures for
the City at that time as well.
It is the Hockey Association's intent to play games on the Andover rink. Mr. Leyhe is
in charge of the ice. They realized how time consuming it is to flood the rink, but
stated there is no other way of flooding it to get good ice. If the City needs help
to do this, the Association is willing to volunteer help. It was agreed that the
Association would call the City by noon, if possible, in the event they won't be
using the rink that night; that Mr. Leyhe is in charge of scheduling and can be
reached at 427-3747; that the Association will come back to the City with details
on dimensions and costs after the Ham Lake warming house is completed; and that if
there are any questions or problems, either Ms. Horsch or Mr. Leyhe should be
cOntacted.
Further discussion On the Association's proposal for building a warming house and
additional rinks was that the Association has electricians, builders, etc., who are
willing to volunteer their help; that the Association has a source for free lights
for additional skating rinks that are acceptable to the League; that they would prefer
constructing a warming house before any additional rinks are built; and that the
present warming house could then be used to store equipment, etc.
Landfill/Musket Ranch
Mayor Windschit1 reported he has talked with representatives from Twin City Testing
about doing the testing approved by the Council on January 29. Their lab is at least
equal to that of Serco. According to their proposal, depending on what the Council
wishes to have tested for on the water samples, it can cost up to $1,000. Testing
for benzene, xylene, toluene, plus a few more would be approximately $250 a sample.
To do three borings of 12-to 15-feet deep and to put in screens, casings, caps, etc.,
plus water test would cost approximately $1,500. A chemical analysis of this would
be at the rate of $12 a chemical. Bob Hutchinson of Anoka County Health has also
written to the Mayor outlining some willingness on the County's part to participate in
a community well survey, within a one-quarter to one-half mile radius of the landfi 11
and the Musket Ranch.
Bob Hutchinson, Anoka Count Health De artment - stated that the well survey would
lnc u e an ana YS1S or everythlng lnc u lng ldentifying if there are hazardous
chemicals in the water. Mr. Hutchinson explained that sampling is very expensive,
but told of a screening procedure done by Serco Labs not for a specific compound,
but for a group or family of compounds which is a purge and trap method using a flame
ion detector. He explained the procedure noting this results in a qualitative
measure of the compounds in the water. The water can be reviewed for 21 specific
organic compounds for about $70 a sample, dependent upon bringing in a minimum of 15
to 20 samples. He was advised by the State Health Department that Serco Labs had the
specific capabilities of doing this test, and the staff member at Serco doing the
test is the person who developed the technique at the State Health Department.
Mr. Hutchinson presented a handout noting the purpose, methods, and costs of doing
a community survey of individual water supplies in Andover. If the City desires
to proceed with this method of testing the wells in the City, Mr. Hutchinson would
present the proposal to the County Health Board, which meets on Thursday of next week,
for final approval. If they approve, sampling could begin the following day. Serco
would have the data back to the County within a week of receiving samples and within
another week would have the interpretations on the data. His proposal was that the
City share one-half of the cost of the organic evaluation (which would be $35 per
sample); and that someone from the City actually take the samples.
I
Regular City Council Meeting
February 5, 1980 - Minutes
Page 3
(Landfill/Musket Ranch, Continued)
There was a lengthy discussion on whether the water sampling should be done by Twin
City Testing, who has done the testing for the City for a number of years, or by
Serco as recommended by Mr. Hutchinson. It was a concern of some On the Council that
the testing be totally unbiased and also concerned that Serco is the testing lab for
the State, the County, and for the Waste Disposal Engineering landfill. It was not
known whether or not Twin City Testing did the qualitative testing proposed by Mr.
Hutchinson. Mr. Hutchinson noted that the person actually doing the testing in the
lab does not know where the water has come from and stated he would ask if Twin City
Testing can do the organic analysis.
Council also discussed the soil borings. Mayor Windschit1 stated he will be meeting
with Cecil Heidelberger and Mr. Hutchinson tomorrow morning relative to Mr.
Heidelberger's accusations of additional hazardous waste barrels disposed of in that
area other than on his site and trying to identify the specific sites. The Mayor
also stated that it has been alleged that soil borings have been taken in the area of
the Musket Ranch previously but no one has been able to produce the results of those
tests.
Mr. Hutchinson stated that in the fall of 1970 they found an area and told the party
they had to discontinue using the area as a disposing area because they didn't have a
license. That area was a shallow depression to the southeast of the pond, almost
right behind the building where Bob's Auto Parts is now. He stated that solvents of
that nature would tend to go strai9ht down fairly fast until it hit the water, after
which it would tend to move horizontally and fan out. He discouraged doing deep borings
for that reason, not going any more than five feet into the first layer of water.
And he recommended casing the borings to be able to monitor water elevations and obtain
which direction the water may be moving. It was his opinion that the ground water in
this area is moving towards the south or sou~est. He also stated there is a possibility
that the laboratory work on the samples could be done through the community survey.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the City be authorized to spend up to $1,600
for three soil borings by Twin City Testing; the places to be specified by the Mayor
and County Comprehensive Health Department in the vacinity of the Musket Ranch; and
sample the water found; and soil analysis; and to have it capped. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, the City authorize the spending of up to $1,100
for the testing of wells in and around the Waste Disposal Engineering landfill in the
City of Andover and the Musket Ranch also in the City of Andover; and that this $1,100
would be the City's share in total costs of such sampling program; the other portion be
borne by the County of Anoka; and that the laboratory of Serco Laboratories be the firm
which will run the test. Discussion: Debate was not questioning the qualifications
of Serco, but feeling of some Councilmen that less questions would be raised if two
firms were doing the testing. Twin City Testing was preferred if they are capable
of doing the testing. Mr. Hutchinson stated he would put the question to Twin City
Testing..
Councilman Jacobson CHANGED MOTION: take out the name of the firm and leave it open.
Second still stands. Further Discussion: Mr. Hutchinson explained that the City
Building Official would identify as many shallow wells as possible. The County will
put together an information sheet to be used with each sample, make arrangements for the
laboratory, get the containers to the lab, get the data back to the City with ex-
planations and interpretations of the data. This motion allows the County to select
the firm to do the testing; but before telling a lab to do the work, Mr. Hutchinson
stated he will cOntact the Mayor or City Clerk. Motion carried unanimously.
I
Regular City Council Meeting
February 5, 1980 - Minutes
Page 4
RiteWay Auto Parts - License
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, for the approval of the Junkyard License for
RlteWay Auto Parts, 1714 Bunker Lake Boulevard, such license to expire July 1, 1980.
Motion carried unanimously.
Stenquist Lot Split - Park Fees
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we rescind the contingency on Resolution
No. 6-80 having to do with the park dedication fees for the Stenquist Lot Split and
that the Resolution be amended to read that there will be no park dedication fees
required. Motion carried unanimously.
Adequacy of Petition - Chapman's Addition
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, entering a Resolution accepting a petition and
declaring adequacy of same for the improvement of bituminous streets and sanitary sewer
for all of Chapmans 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Additions and those streets in
properties in the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 32,
Range 24 and the northerly 192 feet of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter
of Section 32, Township 32, Range 24..., removing the paragraph having to do with
directing the City Engineer to prepare the feasibility report. (See Resolution R8-80)
Motion carried unanimously. The Clerk was directed to write to the developers in that
area who might want sanitary sewer service to meet at the next regularly scheduled
Council meeting.
Acceptance of Street - 157th Lane/Section 15
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that the City accept 157th Lane for maintenance
reasons upon the developer posting a $1,000 maintenance bond on the streets for the
period of one year. (See Resolution R9-80) Motion carried unanimously.
Budget Allocation - Coon Rapids Fine Arts Commission
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that the City Clerk be authorized to send a
letter to Mrs. Helen Brown, Chairperson of the Fine Arts Commission, City of Coon
Rapids, acknowledging receipt of her letter in request for money for Coon Rapids Fine
Arts Council; and in the letter decline any donation at this time. Motion carried
unanimously.
Acceptance of Parkland - Anoka County
Attorney Hawkins stated that apparently the parcels were given to the County in 1963
and 1971 and it was specifically provided in the deed that it was to be used for park-
land or park purposes. It may be within the powers of the County to transfer the
properties to the City, but he felt there would be a problem if the City didn't want it
for parks because of the restriction in the deed. Then it could revert back to the
original grantors for violation of the restriction. Councilman Jacobson stated if
the City accepts the property, it has an obligation to maintain them, mow the weeds, etc.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that the City accept these two pieces of property
along County Highway No. 18 and near Prairie Road from the County. (See Resolution R10-80)
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; ABSTAIN-Jacobson
Motion carried.
I
Regu1ar City Council Meeting
February 5, 1980 - Minutes
Page 5
Allied Blacktop Retainage of Fees
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we accept the sealcoating project as
performed by Allied Blacktop and retain five percent of the gross contract until
such time as the contractor re-sweeps the streets in the spring of 1980 to clean
up the excess rock. Motion carried unanimously.
Muni-Pals Meeting - February 27
MOTION by Peach that $36 for registration fees for two City employees be authorized
plus mileage for the one-day workshop for the Muni-Pa1s Winter Workshop. Motion
dies for lack of a second.
Ordinance No. 44B - Title Card Requirements
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we amend Ordinance No. 44, which is
effective January 16, 1979, an Ordinance known as the Junkyard Ordinance, Ordinance;
No. 44, effective January 16, 1979, is hereby amended as follows: SECTION 4 GENERAL
OPERATING REQUIREMENTS, 4.9 (a) A copy of the Bill of Sale or Title Card or Dealer's
Purchase Receipt as prescribed by Minnesota Department of Public Safety pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 168.11, Subd. 2, and/or Chapter 168.013, Subd. 6, with
motor vehicle serial number contained thereon, for each motor vehicle purchased by the
licensee within the previous thirty-six (36) months. Motion carried unanimously.
CAB Interceptor Resolution
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the City Council adopt a Resolution urging
the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to adopt Alternative 31 calling for the
construction of the C.A.B. Interceptor; as written with modifications adopting it to
the City of Andover. (See Resolution Rll-80) Motion carried unanimously.
Bloomberg, Inc. - Final Payment
Councilman Peach reported that Bloomberg is willing to settle for the adjustments agreed
to by the City, and they are willing to accept 50 days penalties, which amounts to
$2,467 for adjustments and $5,000 for penalties. We still have the one-year warranty
from the August 23 date that is specified as the penalty date. Everything is based
from that date. The Engineers have told him that any deficiencies should show up
following the first freezing season. The biggest concern is the cracks in the walls.
The Attorney was directed to draft a letter stating the specific items agreed upon to
be signed by both Bloomberg and the City in complete settlement of all the issues, to be
acted upon at the next regular Council meeting.
Recess at 8:48; reconvene at 9:02 p.m.
Landfill - Lime Sludge
Ron Roth stated they have an agreement between Park Construction Company and Waste
Disposal Engineering to use an area which is presently being used for a borrow area to
have this lime sludge placed according to the Eningeer's report (letter from Gerald M.
Sunde, Consulting Engineer, to Ron Roth, Me1ron, Inc., dated October 19, 1979), putting
the sludge in long shallow trenches and spreading it to 12 inches thick to dry, and not
anticipating the material to be stored there at anyone time for over a 9-month period.
The sludge will be stockpiled On the landfill site when it is dry. The traffic would
be using the Bunker Lake Road area, which would eliminate any traffic down Crosstown
Boulevard.
I
Regular City Council Meeting
February 5, 1980 - Minutes
Page 6
(Landfill, Continued)
Mr. Hutchinson stated they still consider lime sludge to be a very beneficial use to the
landfills for capping and for ph control. The moisture loss from the lime sludge is
through evaporation and therefore would not be contaminating the ground. One thing
the County would have to have is either a license on that parcel the sludge is going
to be stored On or tying that parcel to the landfill for the purpose of a working area,
not as a fill area, so that their enforcement regulations would apply to it as well as
to the landfill area itself. Mr. Hutchinson stated there would be a work plan with
the proposal to store this lime sludge that would state the quantity to be brought in,
and Mr. Roth will have to show that the quantities he is proposing to store is consistent
with what would be needed to cap the landfill. From a health standpoint, the sludge is
a nuisance because of the sloppy drippings on the roads; and the worst in terms of an
enviromenta1 impact would be an increase in the hardness of the water. It does not
leach readily, does not take on moisture readily, nor does it lose moisture readily.
They have found the lime sludge to be about as impervious as some of the clay ground; and
the more impervious you can make the final cap on a landfill, the better it is. He
felt that as protection against the leaching landfill materials, it would be in the
City's benefit to have this type of terminal cover.
Mr. Hutchinson went on to say that the south and west slopes have received terminal
cover and have been measured except for a small piece. Mr. Roth has also cOntracted with
a nursery to do the seeding in the spring with seeding to occur by the first of June.
By the end of June, the top of the easterly portion will need to be terminated. Mr.
Hutchinson stated if they do not get the signed addendum from the landfill operators,
which pertains to the excess fill in some areas and restricting expansion towards
Crosstown as was agreed to by the City of Andover, by the next Board meeting, they
will advise the Committee to begin license suspension proceedings.
Mr. Roth explained that they originally brought the lime sludge to the landfill via
Bunker Lake Boulevard going north of Hanson the back way, but switched to comming via
County Road 18 in the spring because of the difficulties in depositing the sludge
because of the spring breakup. Because of complaints by residents, they are again
coming in the back way, and Mr. Roth stated the cOntractor has been notified he will
not be able to come in from County Road 18. There is spillage on the roads of this
material because of the stops and starts, etc., and felt it is the contractor's problem.
This problem should be eliminated by coming in from Bunker Lake Boulevard now. He
asked for the City's permission to store the lime sludge subject to the traffic pattern
off Bunker Lake Boulevard.
During further discussion, the Council questioned if the ordinances allow for re-
classification to a waste facility, feeling that the item needs to be addressed by
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we move the matter of the temporary lime
storage site in the south half of Section 27 in the norteast quarter of the northeast
quarter of Section 34 be sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission for cOnsideration.
Motion carried unanimously.
Further in the meeting, Attorney Hawkins gave his opinion that Section 8.01 of the
ordinance does allow the exterior storage in residential areas of construction and land-
scaping materials. There is also a provision that allows the Council to require a Special
Use Permit if they feel that there is a health, safety, convenienc~ morals, or has a
depreciating effect upon the surrounding areas. The Planning Commission can look at it
under this provision, perhaps want to issue a permit on it so the City has more control
over the situation. Mayor Windschit1 stated that the P & Z may also want to review what
affect the material could have on the land after it has been removed. Council generally
agreed to have the Planning Commission review this for consideration of issuing a
Special Use Permit under this section, which then can be conditioned for traffic patterns,
etc., to regulate it.
I
Regular City Council Meeting
February 5, 1980 - Minutes
Page 7
Financing of Private Utilities
State Re~resentative John Weaver addressed the Council relative to a request made to
hlm by Mlke Gleseke asklng for the possibility of introducing legislation to permit
municipalities to fUnd costs of installation of private utilities, as they would
like a natural gas line extended to their neighborhood. After research, he has found
that because the gas company does not wish to relinquish ownership of the main if it
is extended, that this could not be assessed back to the property owners by the City;
and therefore, special legislation would be of no value. The other possibility
would be the use of industrial revenue bonds; but in this case the gas company would
,~ave to make a proposal to the City, and it was his understanding that the gas company
is not interested in doing so.
Mike Gieseke, 16604 Yakima - We're all aware that the price of fuel oil along with
everything else is skyrocketing. And natural gas is about the only feasible way of
heating now. And in years to come, he is told, it still will be. A lot of homes in
the area that are for sale aren't moving because they have fuel oil heat, propane gas,
etc. They are not asking for charity; but if anything could be done to help them
finance it, it would be appreciated. Previously the gas company wasn't interested in
extending the line at all; now they will bring it in at a cost of about $45,000 to
those residents hooking up, which is about $3.58 a foot. It is his understanding
that the only way the gas company will do it is if they maintain ownership of the
line. Also, they will not go out for bids on the project but will do the work themselves.
Maybe someone from the City could talk with the gas company representatives. They
want the money cash in advance of doing the work.
Mayor Windschit1 stated he would be happy to go over to the gas company to talk with
them to see if anything can be done.
Ed Wilson, 16831 Aar,on Street - he is for Mr. Gieseke for getting natural gas into
the area lf the peop e who want to use it want to pay for it. But he has a heat
pump, which is competitive with natural gas in terms of cost; and he felt it would be
too expensive for him to convert to natural gas now. So he would not be interested in
it for himself but is not opposed to bringing it into the area.
Street Standards - Revised Costs
and
Al1adin Acres/Xenia Street Area - Study Report
and
133rd Avenue - Feasibility Report
Mr. Schumacher reviewed the January 29, 1980, TKDA memo referencing Cost Comparison of
existing and proposed street standards for the two above named projects, including
project costs, legal and engineering costs, 10 percent contingencies, assessable
front footage, estimated assessment rates, and estimated storm drainage costs.
For the proposed street standards, the amount of storm drainage cost is very small
because of the elimination of the storm sewer items. The street section would have a
thickened edge section to protect the edge, with a two-foot shoulder where drainage
would be allowed to go off the mat itself and then go onto the existing terrain.
Mr. Davidson also pointed out that in their designs they have always included the cost of
driveway construction from the edge of the mat to the property line. By eliminating
that item from the construction, the assessable cost can be reduced further. There
were a number of problems in Stenqust Addition because some of the people had 70-foot
wide driveways, some had 9-foot wide driveways, some had more than one driveway, etc.
The cost of all the driveways were put back into the project and assessed equally.
The Council felt that this can be addressed, possibly treating everyone equally,
limiting them to one driveway.
I
Regular City Council Meeting
February 5, 1980 - Minutes
Page 8
(Street Standards, Continued)
Further discussion was On the safety factor of 24-foot streets. The Engineers felt
that the present minimum standard design is the safest but if it is to be reduced,
the 24-foot width is suggested because of the restriction of parking. The Mayor f e 1t
a 24-foot width with 4-foot shoulders provided a better safety factor for children,
vision, etc. Mr. Davidson stated that any street constructed without a gutter line
is going to generally erode along the mat and will be a maintenance factor. The
present rural standard is a 24-foot mat with 4-foot shoulders.
Larrb Koep, 16055 Vintage Street NW - is against the project and is against the 1~ inch
mat ecause of the number of trucks using the road.
Councilman Ortte1 had no problem with clear-cutting four feet from the mat on a 24-foot
road, but didn't see the need to flatten it out that far, especially in town. He fe 1t
it could be terraced in with the lawn. By flattening out a 4-foot shoulder, the same
problem would exist as does presently with the backslopes, steep driveways, etc. He
also felt on more thoroughfare-type streets that a 28-foot mat with 2-foot shoulders
would be more realistic. Councilman Peach agreed. On intersections, Mr. Schumacher
stated they could consider increasing the radius On a 24-foot wide road to allow
easier turns for school buses, etc.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the City adopt Street Standards as proposed
by TKDA of 28 feet plus two feet on either side for drainage shoulder on the main
streets and 24 feet plus two foot shoulders On the streets of 500 feet or less in
residential areas. Discussion: Mayor Windschit1 stated he would prefer to see
4-foot shoulders on 24-foot streets. Mr. Davidson stated the difference in cost would
be about $1 a foot to increase the shoulder from 2 feet to 4 feet with a 24-foot mat.
The additional shoulder also creates additional work with backs lopes and driveways,
regrading, etc. From the standpoint of excavation there would be some additional affect.
Councilmen Peach and Ortte1 had a problem with tearing up wide areas for the road.
Councilman Peach felt that 500-foot streets are going to have slower traffic and safety
should not be a problem. Councilman Ortte1 interpreted the motion to mean the
entire street length would be under 500 feet.
Councilman Peach AMENDED MOTION to state:..24 feet plus two foot shoulders On minor
streets as defined in City ordinances.. Second still stands.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Ortte1, Peach; NO-Windschitl
Motion carried.
Mayor Windschit1: I don't feel that the 2-foot shoulders are adequate on a 24-foot street.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that On projects where new roads are built,
that we allow each property owner one driveway construction with fill and blacktop,
width to be up to 16 fe~t with 3-foot radius in the street. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Ort~el, Seconded bv Peach, that we direct the Engineer to seek public bids
for the construction of the Xenia Street area project based on the new City street
standards. Motion carried unanimously. (See Resolution R12-80)
Because of the bond market today, it is sometimes difficult to acquire the money for
projects, and Mr. Davidson asked if they could include in the specifications a delay
in the award of the bid to allow the City to take bids for financing before awarding
the contract. The Council agreed to this.
Mr. Schumacher stated the need to acquire easements for piping would be eliminated
under the new road standard; the project will have to be re-eva1uated with the new
standards to see what pondin~ areas, if anb, will be needed. The Engineers will then let
the Attorney know what modiflcations will e made so he can continue with the negotiation
for the drainage easement needed.
I
Regular City Council Meeting
February 5. 1980 - Minutes
Page 9
(Street Standards, Continued)
Further discussion noted that it is the Council's intent that the people in the area
will be notified of the bid price of the project; they will have a week or two to
petition for or against the project; and they will be told of the public hearing to
either accept or reject the bids.
Discussion was on the street standards for urban permanent streets. Councilmen Ortte1
and Peach understood that the standard just adopted by the Council applied to all
residential areas; Mayor Windschitl felt further discussion needs to be made on concrete
curb and gutter and on-street parking in the urban areas feeling there are some
substantial benefits for having concrete curb and gutter in the urban area. Mr.
Davidson suggested that now the developers are going to be able to construct streets
to these same standards and he could see a real problem with storm water drainage in
a development as being proposed by Mr. Carlson with quad homes, heavy traffic loads,
etc. -- the type of maintenance problems that can occur with uncontrolled drainage.
Councilman Orttel felt that the standards always allow for special provisions for
piping or whatever when necessary to control drainage if it can't work this way; that
there could be a provision for unusual circumstances for drainage containment or
control; that the standards just passed would be for new developers as well; and that
adequate drainage must be provided by the developer. The Attorney felt that the higher
density of R-4 district could be the basis for making a differentiation in street
standards; but all things equal with the same size density, both new and existing
developments would have to be treated the same as far as the type of street construction.
Councilman Peach felt that the streets put in Red Oaks, which is an R-4 district, are
much more than are needed; but when getting into multiple unit development, he agreed
with the Mayor that where the housing is taking up 30 percent of the lot size, ·the
water will have to be accounted for. He felt for PUDs, he might go along with some
type of curb, but not for'R-4 district because, in his opinion, it isn't necessary.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Windschit1, On street standards, that we consider
for the next meeting some variation to the now existing street standards, the new one
just adopted, for areas that are of a very high density, possibly R-3 and above.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Windschit1;NO-Ortte1, Peach
Motion failed.
Mayor Windschit1: The proposed street standards, in my opinion, are not adequate for
the high density urban areas, and removal of the concrete curb and gutter should have
been investigated and discussed more thoroughly, as it has had some substantial
advantages for street maintenance and reduces the chance of the street being broken up
in your high traffic areas.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that all action relating to feasibility study
and/or public hearing for the area generally known as the G1adio1a Street Improvement
Project be held over until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Council.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Peach, Windschitl; ABSTAIN_Ortte1 as he lives in the area
affected. Motion carried.
The Mayor asked the Engineers to be in a position to answer whether it is feasible to
construct the streets in high density areas·. without some type of a birm. Mr. Davidson
stated it relates back to the maintenance factor, and felt that eventually there will
be maintenance problems. Councilman Orttel suggested we get and review standards of
other cities who do not use concrete curb and gutter in their urban areas. It was his
opinion that the whole concept of this is if you don't concentrate Or capture the water,
you don't have to control it. He'd like to see why many of the other cities are not using
curb and gutters.
I
Regular City Council Meeting
February 5, 1980 - Minutes
Page 10
MSA - Project Report
Mr. Davidson reviewed the January 22, 1980, TKDA memo on MSA Funding Update noting
the two projects being considered for 1980 are the extension of Prairie Road from the
bridge to Andover Boulevard and the surfacing of the South Coon Creek Drive bridge
and bridge approach.
Mayor Windschit1 noted that on South Coon Creek Drive, going west from the bridge,
there is a very sharp right-hand corner that is a blind spot, and requested the
Engineers to investigate the possibility of clearing the area for better visibility.
Discussion was also on what was felt to be a very high cost for the extension of
Prairie Road, feeling the funds may be put to better use elsewhere.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that the City authorize TKDA to do the improvement
of South Coon Creek Drive bridge approach up to the sharp curve to the west and that
the expenditure of MSAH funds of approximately $24,660. Motion carried unanimously.
Hanson Boulevard Update
Attorney Hawkins stated that maps of the area and letters have gone out to the land-
owners for the acquisition of right of way for the Hanson Boulevard Extension. He
felt that an appraisal should be made on one or two parcels to determine the price
on the land in question.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the Attorney to get an appraisal
on the selected piece of property in the Hanson right-of-way area. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Schumacher stated that the State has given preliminary approval to the proposed
change in mileage with the City accepting a portion of County Road 18 and the County
picking up Hanson Bou1evard·Extension, contingent upon both units of government passing
resolutions to that effect. The Mayor stated he hoped that Crosstown Boulevard could
be updated prior to the City taking it over as was agreed to at one time. The
Engineer will look at this further. It was also generally felt that the Road
Improvement Committee should look at what the next MSAH project would be.
Ordinances No.8 and No. 10 - Revisions
Council questioned the justification for reducing the 1200 square-foot requirement in
the R-2 area; questioned where the figure of 956 came from; and questioned whether
single family homes should be in the seventh line of the recommendation. Council
agreed to postpone further discussion until the next Council meeting when a represen-
tative from the Planning Commission can be present.
Councilman Ortte1 stated a resident, Mrs. Ma1eman, has a question, as apprent1y she has
a road that was dedicated to the Township but not built, and one of her family wishes to
bui 1d a home. She is wondering what the situation is on that at the present time. It
is On a metes and bounds conveyance. Attorney Hawkins stated the current ordinances
state if it fronts on a public right of way, it doesn't require the road to be in. If
the ordinance changes, it would be a matter of whether or not the individual has a
vested right to continue. But if there was no vested right, the City probably could
make the change on it.
Mrs. Maleman - wanted to know the status of the road easement. They would like to obtain
a bUl Idlng permit to construct a home this year. Attorney Hawkin's opinion was that if
it fronts on a public right of way, a building permit can be obtained. There is nothing
in the ordinance that requires the right of way to be maintained. With the language
I
Regular City Council Meeting
February 5, 1980 - Minutes
~age 11
(Ordinances No.8 and 10 - Revisions, Continued)
proposed in the ordinance revision, if it doesn't front on a road being maintained
by the City, they would not be able to get a building permit. Mayor Windschit1
explained that even if this were approved, it would not prevent Mrs. Ma1eman from
asking for a street to be put in.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that changes to Ordinance No. 8 and
Ordlnance No. 10 be moved to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Motion
carried unanimously.
Appointment to Planning Commission
Council generally agreed to interview the applicant as is normally done.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that a meeting be scheduled to interview the
applicant for Planning and Zoning Commission at 7:15 on February 19. Motion carried
unanimously.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Discussion was on the question of rezoning the property abutting the railroad tracks
just south of Andover Boulevard to industrial, as those individuals wishing to develop
the property would like to know what action the City is going to take regarding that
property. Mayor Windschit1 felt that assuming the property is not rezoned to
industrial, the developers should address whether the property should retain an R-1
zone or should give some consideration to rezoning to an R-4 and become a sewered and
watered district, especially with its proximity to the landfill and in light of
possible contaminated ground water, which is alleged to be flowing in the direction
toward this property. As Hanson is being built, the whole area north of Bunker Lake
Boulevard could be planned for the extension of sanitary sewer and could tie into
the construction of Hanson Boulevard.
James Meri1a, developer of the property in question - stated they are aware of the
P & Z's de11beration of rezoning the property and have been waiting for TKDA's report
in their view of the rezoning. They were under the impression that the Council was
going to look at that report. He asked if there is a consensus of the Council not to
rezone the property to industrial, that the Council give some direction to the Planning
Commission in that light to avoid the time-consuming debate in making the determination
of rezoning the property, especially to that area north of Coon Creek. That would allow
them to start their platting procedure.
Council discussion was on the exact location of the property and on the feasibility of
this property being rezoned to an R-4 if it is not recommended for industrial use.
Mr. Eklund stated that in the interest of working with the City, they have held back
ln flllng a preliminary plat for the land. They don't want to force the issue, but
want to work with the City on this.
Mr. Meri1a then reiterated the time table of their contac~with the City and the Council.
Their main concern now is to get this question answered. In preparing their preliminary
plat, there is some controversy with the park area and with storm water. The storm
water master plan of the City shows a retention pond in the northwest corner of the
property which is bigger than what they would need to drain their property. Council
discussion was that each developer has been providing his own drainage on site; the
developer has the option of providing a larger amount of land for the drainage or of
providing a smaller area and excavating it out. If the area is also to serve additional
lands, it would be the next developer's responsibility to do whatever excavating is
necessary to retain his drainage. Council agreed to recommended that the P & Z make their
determination on the rezoning of this area to industrial and send the Council its
recommendation as sOOn as possible.
I
Regular City Council Meeting
February 5, 1980 - Minutes
Page 12
Volunteer Fire Department
MOTION by Peach that the heat be adjusted in the Public Services Building, both public
works and fire department garage area, to maintain a temperature not in excess of
55 degrees during the normal heating season. Motion dies for lack of a second.
Fire Chief Bob Palmer stated by turning the thermostat down to 55 degrees, some areas
get down as low as 45 degrees; that the gear is cold for the firemen to get into;
that there could be freeze problems at those temperatures; and recommended that the
temperature stay around 60 degrees. Discussion was on the pros and cons of holding
the temperature in the garage areas at 55 degrees and the problem of obtaining a true
reading in the building because of the location of the thermostat and thermometers..
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that the heat in the Public Services Building
ln the garage area thermostat be set so that the temperature is 60 degrees.
Discussion: The setting of the thermostat would be for whatever it takes to maintain
60 degrees within the garage area.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Ortte1, Windschit1; NO-Peach
Motion carried.
Discussion was on the possibilities of running medica1s and on purchasing an army
surplus ambulance out of donation monies. Chief Palmer stated the County would like
to see Andover helping on medica1s. There were 45 medica1s in Andover last year.
He estimated the cost of an army surplus ambulance would be $600 to $1,000, and
rescue equipment would be taken off the trucks. They would not be transporting to
Mercy but only assisting. Councilman Ortte1 stated he would check into insurance
costs.
Discussion was on the cost to connect the welder in the public services building. The
Clerk testified monies were available either from surplus funds or from monies from
the bond.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the amount of $550 to Lehn
Electric Company to hook up the electric arc welder in the Public Services Building.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chief Palmer also presented the Council with a summary of the fire calls since April, 1979.
There was also a lengthy discussion relative to the meeting yesterday evening with
three State Legislators, Chief Thompson from Coon Rapids, PCA representatives, and
the County about the hazardous waste material at the Musket Ranch on Bunker Lake
Boulevard, hoping to have the stipulation drawn up and delivered to Mr. Heidelberger
by Thursday of this week, noting that the problem of the barrels remaining on the
property would still exist, debating over the authenticity of Mr. Heidelberger's
threat to burn the containers on Friday if an agreement isn't reached, and that the
Fire Department has met with neighboring fire departments and have planned a strategy
in the event there is a fire in that area.
Discussion was also on whether or not the City Attorney should attend the meeting
with the PCA on Thursday morning while they finalize the stipulation to be
presented to Mr. Heidelberger. The Council generally felt that there should not
be any implied or expressed consent on the part of the City within the stipulation
agreement.
I
Regular City Council Meeting
February 5, 1~80 - Minutes
Page 13
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we have the City Attorney phone the
Pollution Control Agency at approximately the time that the meeting about the
stipulation agreement with Mr. Heidelberger is being completed to inquire as to
what happened and then to transmit that information to the Mayor and the City Clerk.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Orttel, Peach; NO-Windschitl
Motion carried.
Mayor Windschit1: I feel the City Attorney should be at the meeting.
Approval of Claims
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel , to approve Checks Number 2931 through 2966 in
the amount of $33,620.50. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 12:23 a.m.
Respectfully SUb~
~~~£
Recording Secretary
I