Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC July 1, 1980 ] ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 1, 1980 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. Well-Public Services Building b. Set Public Hearing - Financing/Anderson & Rademacher c. Coon Creek Watershed Comprehensive Plan d. Road Standards/Urban Area e. f. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. Amendments - Ordinance No. 8 b. Smoke Detector Ordinance * c. Purchase of Pick-up d. 6. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Boards a. Planning & Zoning Commission b. Park & Recreation Commission c. Committee Reports 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment ,. . ] ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 1, 1980 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on July 1, 1980, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. HawRins;,TKDA Engineer, Mark Schumacher; City Engineer, Larry Winner; Planning and Zoning Chairperson, d'Arcy Bose11; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Chet Conger, 450 156th Avenue NW, Nordeen's Addition - presented the Council with a petltion slgned by 23 out of the 30 resldents in the Addition requesting the immediate and continued maintenance of the city streets in and about their subdivision. He also presented several pictures on the road condition. He stated that their roads have been bladed twice since the snow melted -- last Thursday plus the end of April or so when he complained to Councilman Peach and requested service. There are ruts in the road that have to be cut out, which are really rough on their automobiles. When the roads were done by the contractors, the service was more frequent; and he felt the road requires maintenance at regular intervals, which they haven't seen this year. Council discussion noted that this wi 11 be discussed in greater detail under "Street Maintenance" under Reports of Commissions, Committees, Boards, on the Agenda. - Ralph Kishe1, 3934 173rd Lane NW ~ was concerned with the possibility of having 173rd Lane blacktopped against the desires of the greater majority of the people that live on that road. He asked the Council's position if the 13 homes on that road were to vote against the improvement. It was his feeling that very little of the water drainage from 173rd contributes to the drainage problem on the corner of 174th and Blackfoot. The gravel that was put on that portion of 173rd, going into Aztec and Blackfoot, has helped the problem immensely as long as the blade is kept off of it; although he felt they didn't have the proper moisture application when the class 5 was put down. He fe lt if 174th is blacktopped, as is the wish of those residents living on it, that that road will then take the brunt of the traffic, and there will be no need to blacktop 173rd. They will bring in a petition for the July 15 pUblic hearing and hoped the Council goes along with the wishes of the majority. Council discussion was that there are two petitions before the Council; that the engineering report has shown that a portion of 173rd does contribute to the drainage problem on 174th and Blackfoot; asked, if possible, that the petition be in prior to the public hearing; that the Council will weigh the pro- ject in total; noting that the will of the people is important but there are a lot of other factors that are involved in this instance. AGENDA APPROVAL Mayor Windschit1 noted that the City has received a letter dated June 25, 1980, from Joe Miss1in, Andrew Miss1in, and Isabel Misslin requesting property to be placed within the Ag Preserve District as was provided for by the 1980 Legislature Bill 1612. Apparently their reason for wanting the Council to acknowledge their request is to protect them- selves from some condemnation of parkland by Anoka County. Because the mechanics for - the Ag Preserve Act are not yet established, no action was taken by the Council at this time. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the Agenda be approved as published with the addltion of 5d, Redevelopment, and the addition of 4e, Northwest Area. Motion carried unanimous 1y. Regular City Council Meeting July 1, 1980 - Minutes Page 2 WELL - PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING Mr. Hartley, TKDA Engineer, stated that TKDA's involvement has been since there has been sand in the water. The sand is estimated to be at 300 parts per million, which is 150 times what the specifications would allow. He didn't feel there was anyway to determine what occurred and when to result in the excessive sand in the water. Mr. Hartley noted that the specifications called for 200 feet of casing with a screen at the end of it, which would have been impossible in this situation. If it were to be screened, they would have had to start with a 10-inch diameter hole rather than the 6-inch diameter, and it would have been much more expensive. The City files do not indicate how the well was drilled, and he asked several questions of the person who drilled the well. Richard Stodola, 15306 Highway 7, Minnetonka - answered several of Mr. Hartley's questions, noting that the well hole lS 204 feet with 110 feet of casing; the first 30 feet was in sand, from there to approximately 90 feet was clay and gravel, ending up in the St. Lawrence sandstone; air was the development method and then pumped to the defined capacity, forcing air down the open hole area with a rotary machine. He explained the process of development. It was free of sand when it was tested at that time. Mr. Stodola stated there is no screen, as it is an open hole. He has the records of the hole but felt that it would be difficult to determine where the problem may be, thinking a crevice may have collapsed. He suggested that the well be cased up and deepened, finding a harder forma- tion. If it is screened at this time, the capacity would drop considerably. His experience with the St. Lawrence formation for residential wells has been no problems; but in this case, the pressure is there, but very, very fine sand is now being found in the water. Mr. Hartley stated that there is a problem, and he didn't feel he could make the judgement as to its correction without full contract documents. He felt that deepening the hole and casing it off was one option, but it would cost the city for the deepening plus additional development time. In the final analysis, no matter what is done, there is no guarantee that it will work or last any longer than what was originally done. In this case, if a screen was used, it would not be a single screen; and because the sand is so fine, the type of screen used would drastically cut the capacity. With the open rock hole, so many gallons per minute are able to be pumped per foot of drawdown. Were it screened, it would make the well less efficient with fewer gallons per foot of drawdown or with more drawdown for the same number of gallons. He also wouldn't recommending putting in a screen in a 6-inch hole. Mayor Windschit1 asked what the best solution would be. Mr. Stodola recommended casing down to 200 feet and drilling another 100 feet deep; however, a screen still would not be put in. The Johnson's Well Screen Company was not sent a sample and made no recommendation on this hole because it was an open-hole formation. Mr. Hartley stated that the specs anticipated finding unconsolidated gravel material. Johnson's Well Screen is in the business of screening out unconsolidated material which collapse all the time. In those cases, a well screen is needed. But to install a screen in a rock hole, the well must be started with at least a 10-inch diameter. Mr. Stodola explained the procedure he used to drill the well, indicating he reviewed records of the City Hall well and his records over the area. He expected the St. Lawrence formation at that depth. Councilman Peach stated that for bid purposes a 6-inch in diameter screen, 10-feet long, slotted stainless steel, and 200 feet of pipe were specified. The City does not have the screen and has only 110 feet of pipe. Mr. Stodola stated that by eliminating the screen, it also eliminated future problems, as the screens eventually clog up. By putting a screen in that 6-inch well, with the sand being so fine, it would cut the capacity, probably almost completely. Regular City Council Meeting July 1, 1980 - Minutes Page 3 (Well - Public Services Building, Continued) Mr. Herr, Chanhassen - stated that the sand is so fine it is almost like ash and will pack rather than let water go through it. Mr. Stodola stated that the pump is about 63 feet down in the casing. . Standing water level raises to within 16 feet of the surface. There is no way of knowing the water quality or capacity at a deeper depth until it is done. Deepening the well would be at the same costs as was charged on the contract, $16.50 per foot plus test pumping time. They didn't start with a 10-inch well because of the cost. Mr. Herr stated that the specs said 6-inch well; that it is a lot more expensive to drill a 10-inch well than a 6-inch well. Councilman Peach stated that the City was assured that a 200-ga110n capacity could be received from a 6-inch well. The City asked for 200 gallons of water and the engineer decided on the size of the well. Mr. Hartley stated other options besides deepening the well would be to gamble on X- number of hours of more air to see if the problem can be cleaned up in the hopes that it doesn't reoccur, and he explained that procedure to the Council. He stated that the fine sand in the water is probably breaking off ledges and rough surfaces in the well. He felt it would be practical to go down with a charge to open up the cavity, but more graphical work would need to be done on the well before that could be done. Mr. Hartley also stated another approach would be to determine where the diameters of the hole have changed greatly. And still another alternative is to actually videotape the hole with a television camera. Mr. Stodola stated that the cost of videotape is not where the costs would be, but the greatest cost would be the test-pumping costs; and there may be problems in the future again. From his past experience with this fine sand, he felt the best alternative would be to case it off, although one can never be sure that the method used is assured to work. However, Mr. Stodola stated they have never pulled off a job where they couldn't solve the problem. Chet Con~er - stated that televising the hole could be done by Midwest Underground Inspections ln Isantl at a cost of about $950 and takes about two weeks. It wOn't tell much because it doesn't see horizontally. He asked where this is in relation to the Franconian forma- tion. Mr. Stodola stated a good 300 feet away. He felt there was the Jordan after the St. Lawrence. Anoka City wells are approximately 400 feet deep. In response to Mayor Windschit1's comment that the City paid for something it didn't receive per the bids, he stated that the cost of the open-hole drilling of any well bid out is the same as it is cased. It would still have been the same, so the City was not being shorted or overcharged. Mr. Herr stated that Mr. Stodola billed him for an additional 12 hours of pumping that he paid for but did not bill the City for because of the problems with the building at the time. According to the contract, the City could have been billed for that. Mayor Windschit1 explained that the problem now is that a lot of fire equipment has been damaged due to the sand in the water. Mr. Herr stated that someone was out to the City the day of or the next day that they were notified that the City was having problems with the well. There would have to be several screens in order to filter out the fine ash within the water now. Mr. Stodola stated there is no way of knowing whether screening the well would have prevented this problem. It didn't make any difference to him whether to screen it or make an open hole; but he felt that when the job was finished, the City had a better product by not having the screen. Council then had a lengthy discussion with Mr. Stodola, Mr. Herr, and Mr. Hartley relative to what was in the bid specs, what was done, suggested corrections, and what costs the City is liable for. Council discussed with Mr. Herr the question of his': paying the $730 for repairing the damage to the fire trunk pumps damaged as a result of the sand in the water, with Mr. Herr countering that more than $700 worth of additional test pumping was done on the well initially for which the City was not billed. Mr. Conger reminded the Council that they have the option of getting a second opinion by a local well driller. -- Regular City Council Meeting July 1, 1980 - Minutes Page 4 (Well - Public Services Building, Continued) Mr. Stodola explained that he will have the cost of the additional casing down to the present depth and will charge $16.50 per foot for drilling the additional 100 feet plus test pumping and development. He indicated he may be willing to absorb the $730 worth of damage to the fire equipment. Discussion was on whether or not it is the City's responsibility to pay the additional test pumping to deepen the well. which could be as much as 18 hours at $70 an hour. Mr. Hawkins recalled that the well is included in the one-year guarantee of the Public Services Building provided by Bloomberg, Inc., which is the essence of the City's claim. Mr. Herr stated if more test pumping is needed or a need to drill deeper, it should come under the terms of the contract. The contract states that anything over 200 feet, the City should pay the same prices as if they would have had to drill deeper inital1y. Mr. Hawkins stated that is a specs question; he felt that the well was warranteed to be workable for one year. He felt that if Mr. Stodola is willing to put the casing to 200 feet and that the City will be reimbursed for the $700 in damage suffered, and because the problem is something that is unforeseeable, the City generally could not expect the contractor to pick up those types of costs that are associated with unforeseeable conditions. What Bloomberg is saying that to fix the problem, they have to go beyond what the specs called for, and they are bringing it to the Council now to get it resolved. He stated that the payment for the test pumping will depend on what the specs called for, whether the specs called for a specific number of hours of test pumping and the City paying for anything over that or whether all test pumping was included in the contract. At this point, neither the Attorney nor TKDA had copies of the bid specs On the well to make that determination. Mr. Hartley felt that within one day he could make an evaluation as to what would be the best corrective measure to be taken On the well, talking with others who have dealt with this formation. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that TKDA be authorized an expenditure of $250 for evaluation and recommend corrections for the well in the fire station. DISCUSSION: The City is depending on TKDA to see that the correction is done at the least possible cost to the City; that the Engineer and Attorney would confer relative to the contract and specs to determine the legal costs that the City should incur; whatever the best solution is, Stodola will be requested to do it; anticipating that within the next week, Stodola will be working on the corrections to the well. Councilmen Lachinski and Peach WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, recommend that $400 be expended by TKDA and the Clty Attorney to determine the proper course to take in improving the well; and that said recommendation be made to Bloomberg Associates; and that the action be taken immediately. Motion carried unanimously. SET PUBLIC HEARING - FINANCING/ANDERSON & RADEMACHER/L. BOEHLAND Councilman Jacobson questioned setting a public hearing for something the City has no criteria for, as guidelines and policies on Industrial Revenue Bonds have not yet been established by the City. Discussion noted that it is intended that criteria will be established at the July 15 Council meeting, which will be before the public hearing date. This resolution is merely to meet the advertising time requirements. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, a Resolution relating to a project under the Munlcipa1 Industrial Development Act calling for a public hearing thereon; enter the prepared Resolution that Lynn Boehland application for Industrial Development Bond; and move that we set the public hearing date for July 29 at 7:30 at the City Hall. (See Resolution R81-80) DISCUSSION - Councilman Jacobson stated the application requires receipt of information 30 days prior to a public hearing. Councilman Lachinski felt that ~ I Regular City Council Meeting July 1, 1980 - Minutes Page 5 (Set Public Hearing - Financing/Anderson & Rademacher/L. Boehland, Continued) the intent was to waive those requirements at this pOint in an attempt to work with Anderson & Rademacher to meet their August 1 deadline on the option of the land, and that the Resolution in no way obligates the City to approve the applications. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Jacobson Motion carried. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, introduce a Resolution relating to a project under the Municipal Industrial Development Act calling for a public hearing thereon for the William C. Rademacher; move that we set the public hearing for July 29 at 7:30 at the Andover City Hall. (See Resolution R82-80) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Jacobson Motion carried. COON CREEK WATERSHED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Mayor Windschit1 explained that the Mayors of Andover, Blaine, Ham Lake, and Coon Rapids have met jointly trying to get agreement for a comprehensive plan for the Coon Creek Watershed. It is hoped that the same resolution can be passed by all four cities. There may be some legislative funding required to the Watershed Board to pay for the Plan. He also informed the Council that one of the Legislative Bills passed requires that an Environmental Impact Statement be made for any improvements in the Watershed in Anoka County and also requires that 60 percent of the property owners petition. During discussion of the wording of the Res101ution, Mayor Windschitl stated that the intent is not to commit the City to any funding of the plan at this time. The intent is to give credit back to the cities for the portions of their plans that are usable to be incorporated into a Watershed Plan. They are first trying to find out how much the plan would cost to do and to work some formula for each of the cities. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, a Resolution acknowledging jurisdictional concerns regarding the Coon Creek Watershed and jointly authorizing certain actions toward resolving said jurisdictional concerns as prepared by Mr. Thistle and as. presented by the Mayor; now therefore be it resolved by the City Council, City of Andover, that plan of action as outlined above is hereby approved. The Engineer of the City of Andover, Larry Winner, is hereby directed to participate responsive to the Chairmanship of Israelson and Associates at the expense of the City of Andover; and Pat Lindquist is hereby appointed to represent the City of Andover on a management committee responsive to the Chairmanship of Robert Thistle, City Manager of Coon Rapids; and change the word under Section B, "determine" to the word "recommend". (See Resolution R83-80) Motion carried unanimously. ROAD STANDARDS/URBAN AREA MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, intended to replace the motion made previously; that the city street standards be modified to require bituminous shoe and/or variable depth ditches be used where necessary to remove standing water from the paved street surface; and that recognizing the higher use required in areas designated R-5; M-1; M-2; and all other residential areas where the average lot size is less than 13,000 square feet per dwelling unit exclusive of public right of ways, public parks, and other land dedicated to public purposes; all commercial and industrial areas, that concrete curb and gutter, 32-foot paved roadway and adequate storm drainage be provided in these areas. (Councilman Peach responded to a fire call at this time; 9:12 p.m.) DISCUSSION: Mayor Windschit1 felt there would be a problem using the "average lot size" within a development, as theoretically several large lots in the development would offset the smaller doubles that could be a110wed by Special Use Permit in an R-4 zone, thereby still averaging 13,000 square feet per lot within the plat. Because Councilman Peach was not present, it was agreed to postpone further discussion until his return. ; I Regular City Council Meeting July 1, 1980 - Minutes Page 6 STREET MAINTENANCE Discussion was on the. road grading being done by City staff, that there have been complaints as to the number of times roads have been graded as well as the quality of job being done. Mr. Winner stated that they are grading approximately 8 hours a day minus time at the Public Works Building in the morning and afternoon and minus any fire calls, of which there have been very few the last few weeks. In the last two weeks, about 72 hours of grading has been done. According to office staff, the complaints have gone down since the City started maintaining the,roads. Discussion was on the number of hours it should take to grade all gravel/sand streets in the City and On ways to increase grader service; noting that the roads that have been graveled by the City should be shaped to keep that gravel from washing away and that high-traffic streets should probably be graded more often than low-traffic streets. The Clerk stated that during the months of April and May, they were averaging 10 to 12 hours a week grading due to the numerous fires during that period. Mr. Sowada has nOW gone through the City three times completely, is on his fourth pass, and is almost getting the entire City once a week. Mr. Winner also explained there are three people who need supervision and must be given assignments first thing in the morning. Mr. Sowada has been on the grader and Mr. Stone has been directing those people. mainly because Mr. Stone is captain on the Fire Department and felt it is important to have him closer to the station. He has also been working cleaning the sanitary sewers for the last several weeks. Mr. Winner suggested that before going into overtime or shifting hours, he hoped to set up a schedule for grading the City streets, possibly going out with the grader a day or two to see what problem he has and whether he is grading the roads properly; trying one complete circle to determine how long it takes, etc. Then he could make some recommendations from that. He would like to schedule making a complete pass through the City once every two weeks. The Mayor also requested a day by day log of where the grader has been. He also suggested Mr. Kraab1e be hired to get the roads back into shape, which would require a Council motion. Mr. Conåer - felt that Mr. Kraab1e was making the rounds once every two or three weeks. The roa s would get rutted, but they were still passable. But with the present situation, there are ruts in the road that have been there since the thaw, with an especially large one at the intersection of Qumquat and 157th. His cOncern was that the ruts in the road are not being cut out or filled. Blading soft sand back into the holes will not solve the problem. After discussion on the problem, it was generally agreed to allow Mr. Winner to work on a schedule for road grading and to supervise the grader operators, including having Mr. Stone doing some of the grading. By the July 15 meeting, Mr. Winner should report on the roads done and on the quality of the work done with any recommendations he may. have to improve the road grading service. The petition brought in by Mr. Conger was given to Mr. Winner. Recess at 9:40; reconvene at 9:55 p.m. (Councilman Peach returned to the meeting at this time.) (ROAD STANDARDS, CONTINUED) Discussion continued on the motion made previously relative to the average lot size of 13,000 square feet; it is the Council's intent that the standards noted in the motion would apply to all densities greater than a single-family residential lot. - I Regular City Council Meeting July 1, 1980 - Minutes Page 7 (Road Standards, Continued) Councilman Peach ADDED TO MOTION, after "to public purpose," before "all commercial and industrial areas", add "and at the Council's discretion" other areas under Special Use Permits which would result in a higher density than normal for that particular zoning;". Second still stands. (See Resolution R84-80) Motion carried unanimously. Discussion continued that it is intended that the new standard would apply to all new developments in which preliminary plats have not yet received approval by the City Council, including the proposed Woodland Terrace preliminary plat. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that the new street standard as amended. shall apply to all new developments that have not yet received preliminary plat approval. Motion carried unanimously. NORTHWEST AREA DISCUSSION Discussion was on the question of those lots in Cedar Crest that are not buildable that would be subject to an assessment for road improvement if such a project is ordered. If those lots are not assessed but some time in the future those lots become buidab1e, they would have received a free street; but there is a question if there is an economical benefit to an unbuildab1e lot if it is assessed, especially since the bituminous street that would be installed has a 10- to 15-year life expectancy and it is not expected that those lots would be buildable within that time. Attorney Hawkins didn't feel there would be justification to increase the value of those properties if they are not buildable. There is also the question as to how a property owner would be assessed if he owned the unbui1dab1e lot adjacent to his property, as the assessment policy would call for that owner to pay the assessment. Or would every unbuidab1e lot be treated the same? The problem exists mainly along 174th Lane. Attorney Hawkins stated that the lots should be treated as all buildable or as all unassessab1e. There is also a problem where some of the lots are actually bigger on 173rd, equal to a buildable and an unbuildab1e lot on 174th. Plus there is some question as to how the lot siding On 173rd and 174th which is slightly over 1 acre would be assessed. It has 200 feet On 173rd and 174th and the long side on County Road 58; and under the assessment policy, it would be assessed for both sides; however, it would not qualify for a lot split. Mr. Schumacher stated that a unit assessment for the entire project would increase the average 100-foot lot from approximately $1,500 to approximately $2,600. Mr. Hawkins also stated that it is a common practice that drainage problems are included in the overall cost of the project, which he felt has been done in the past. After further discussion on the various methods of assessing this project, the engineer was directed to make the following determinations for .the public hearing on July 15: a unit assessment for all buildable lots within the presently defined project area; a unit assessment for 174th only for buildable lots based on the construction costs for 174th itself with the remaining area on an assessable front-footage basis; and an estimated front-foot cost if no lot is charged for more than 200 front feet. AMENDMENTS - ORDINANCE NO.8 MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that Council adopt Ordinance 8H, An Ordinance amending Ordinance 8 ~nown as the Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.30, Home Occupations, Home occupation uses may include professional offices, beauty shops, barber shops, minor repair services, photo or art studio, dressmaking, or teaching limited to three (3) students at anyone time and similar uses; however, a home occupation shall not be interpreted to include, eliminate from the printed proposal, barber shops, beauty shops... Under Section 6.04, Special Requirements, Public water is required in all new developments located in areas where public water is available. Section 7.03, Special Uses: Residential Districts, Beauty Shops, and Barber Shops. 'I Regular City Council Meeting July 1, 1980 - Minutes Page 8 (Amendments - Ordinance No.8, Continued) OISCUSSION was On the Clerk's recommendation of adding "where Special Use Permits are required under Section 7.03"after "or similiar uses" in Section 4.30, so that barber shops and beauty shops would be allowed by special use permits. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, to amend the motion so that Section 4.30, Home Occupations, on the first line, delete the words "beauty shops and barber shops"; on the fourth line after "interpreted to include," add "barber shops and beauty shops except unless allowed by Special Use Permit under Section 7.03." VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Jacobson, Orttel, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Lachinski Amendment carried. DISCUSSION was on whether beauty shops and barber shops would only be allowed in the sewered areas of the City. Chairman Bose11 stated that the Planning Commission talked about that issue at some length and had testimony from beauty shop operators. Surrounding communities are not requiring such businesses to be in sewered areas, and it is not the Planning Commission's intent that such a requirement be made in Andover. State require- ments are that home beauty shops have only one operator and requires approval from the City. The Clerk noted that Ordinance 32 regulates the sewer user charge for such businesses in the home in the sewered areas. Discussion was on the last line of Section 4.30, that the occupants shall not be permitted in any accessory building. After discussion, it was felt that home occupations should be allowed in accessory buildings. Councilman Orttel ADDED TO MOTION: last line".. .shall not be permitted." (Delete "in any accessory building.") Second still stands. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION ON SECTION 8.20 VISUAL STANDARDS Discussion was on the interpretation of the section as worded and on what is and what is not allowed to be constructed. MOTION by Peach that Section 8.20 of Ordinance No.8 be changed to the following: On any building visible from a public street, the following material shall not be permitted on exterior wall surfaces, Delete "Sheet metal either corrugated or plain" and continuing: -unfinished structural clay tile, common concrete masonary units, cOncrete brick, gal- vanized steel or other unpainted aluminum, or simi1iar materials. Such materials, how- ever, may be used in a proper arrangement, or combination with other materials of a permanent nature with good architectural design and appeal. Delete the last sentence. Motion dies for lack of a Second. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, basically the same motion as Councilman Peach made but the section "sheet metal either corrugated or plain" which he deleted, leave in. DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach stated the motion means that sheet metal would not be allowed on buildings facing the street and that it would no longer be allowed to have a pole building in the City. Mayor Windschit1 argued that those things can be used in combination with other materials of a permanent nature. Councilman Ortte1 stated that that would then be totally up to the Building Inspector's judgement. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Windschitl; NO-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Motion failed. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we return Section 8.20 back to the Plannlng and Zoning Commission for their review with assistance from the Building Official, and whomever P & Z wants to work on it. Motion carried unanimously. SMOKE DETECTOR ORDINANCE Discussion with Tom May, Assistant Fire Chief, On the Ordinance was that this applies to every rental dwelling unit. . - - -. . --t-,.· ,] Regular City Council Meeting July 1, 1980 - Minutes Page 9 (Smoke Detector Ordinance, Continued) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve an Ordinance setting forth requlrements and regulations for smoke detectors in the City of Andover; adopted this First Day of July as corrected: Section (A) "...and every rental dwelling unit..." and Section (E), first line "...pertaining to rooming houses, rental dwellings, hotel..." Motion carried unanimously. PURCHASE OF PICK-UP Discussion was on the July 1, 1980, memo and summary of quotations from Larry Winner and his recommendation for the purchase of a pick-up truc~ Mr. Winner further advised that in talking with Brookdale Ford today, they advised unless the snowplow preparation package is put on the truck, it is difficult to put the snowplow on the frame of the truck at a later date. The lowest quote was from Brookda1e Ford for a F-260 3/4-ton 4- wheel drive for $6,469; but they also quoted a 1-ton pickup with snowplow preparation package for $7,495 with 400 V-8 engine and dual gas tank and a 3/4-ton pickup with snow- plow preparation package for $7,169. Discussion was on the various options on the trucks and what would provide the most for the mOney; questioning the durability of the Ford pickup frame; questioning whether the Chevy pickup is capable of having a snowplow mounted to it; questioning the size of the engine that would be most efficient; and noting that the 1979 Jeep from Greenberg's is a used demonstrator with 9,000 miles on it. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we accept the bid from Cloverleaf Motors, Inc., Elk River, for a 1980 Chevrolet 3/4-ton, 4x4, with 350 V8 engine for a price of $6,857.20. DISCUSSION: Mr. Winner stated a snowplow can be put on the Chevrolet without a snowplow package; and that the F250 Ford from Anderson & Koch Ford for $6,847 does not have all the extras that the Chevrolet from Cloverleaf Motors has. VOTE ON MOTI ON : YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Windschit1; ABSTAIN-Peach, as two of the companies submitting quotes are his customers. Motion carried. Discussion was on alternatives if a snowplow cannot be put on this particular pickup. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, if the 1980 Chevrolet 3/4 ton, 4x4, with the 350 at Cloverleaf Motors for $6,857.20 cannot mount a snowplow, then authorize purchase of a 1980 Ford F260 3/4 ton, 4x4, with 400 V8 engine from Brookdale Ford with the snowplow package for a price of $7,169. DISCUSSION: noted that the Chevrolet from Iten Chevrolet does have some of the heavy-duty equipment needed for $6,925. Councilmen Lachinski and Jacobson WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, restate the motion to make the second choice the 1980 Chevrolet 3/4 ton, 4x4 with a 350 V8 engine from Iten Chevrolet for $6,925 if the one from Cloverleaf Motors cannot put a plow on it. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-Peach, as two of the companies submitting quotes are his customers. Motion carried. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT Chairman Bosel1 stated the Council has received a draft resolution recommending it be submitted to the Metropolitan Council with the Comprehensive Plan. She met with Mr. 1icht last Tuesday, and the City should have the revised pages to the Comprehensive Plan On Thursday. He plans to submit the Plan to the Metropolitan Council on July 18. The following changes were recommended to the Resolution: Fifth WHEREAS, add "Township of Oak Grove", and "Anoka-Isanti School District No. 15'" correct spelling "Ham Lake". . - -- ~---.... , I, Regular City Council Meeting July 1, 1980 - Minutes Page 10 (Planning and Zoning Commission Report, Continued) MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that City adopt a Resolution dealing with the Certification of Pre-Review Requirements City of Andover Comprehensive Plan (Mandatory Land Planning Act) as presented and amended this First Day of July, 1980. (See Resolution R85-80) Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Bosell was also directed to obtain quotes from various firms to help revise the City ordinances to correlate with the Comprehensive Development Plan. PARK DEPARTMENT The Clerk was directed to check the Minutes as to what the Council agreed to do relative to the park dedication fees from Harvey Kade1ac. (Reference June 25, 1980, memo from City Clerk relative to dedicated park funds - Kade1ac Addition.) RULES COMMITTEE Councilman Jacobson stated he has submitted copies of a proposed revision of rules for conducting the City Council meetings. The Clerk was also directed to research the Resolution On record relative to this item prior to having the Council act on any change. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 20 Public Hearing, April 29, May 1, Addendum for May 20, 1980: Correct as written. June 3, 1980: Page 4, Second line: ordinance (sp) JUne 9, 1980, Special Meeting; June 9, 1980, Public Hearing: Correct as written. June 17, 1980: Page 5, Motion by Lachinski on bottom of page, last line: "...of Block 1 be revised to allow..." MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve the Minutes for March 20 Public Hearing. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Windschit1; PRESENT-Peach Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve the Minutes for May 20 and June 9 as written. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Jacobson Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve the Minutes for April 29 Public Hearing, Southwest Area; May 1, Public Hearing - 138th, Xavis, Eide1weiss; June 3; and June 17 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the payment of Checks Number 3244 through 3254 in the amount of $5,076.83. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve Checks 358 through 367 in the amount of $166,382.06. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meetl::;: at~~;?~ ~la)\. Peach, Recording Secretary - -- , --.....