Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC July 15, 1980 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 15, 1980 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Public Hearing - Street Improvement/Northwest Area (1980-4) 5. Discussion Items a. Special Use Permit - Grace Lutheran Church b. Variance - A. Eckardt c. Policy - Industrial Financing d. Southwest Area-Sewer/Trunk Locations e. Southwest Area-Pumphouse f. Results-Curb Survey g. Petition-South Coon Creek Drive h. i. 6. Non-Discussion Items a. Ordinance No. 25C-By Laws b. 7. Reports of Committees, Commissions, Staff a. Planning & Zoning Commission b. Park & Recreation Commission c. Personnel 1. Medical/Life Insurance 2. Public Works 8. Approval of Minutes 9. Approval of Claims 10. Adjournment .-- -. ..,.-~ - --~ ~ 01 ANDOVER í REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 15, 1980 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Month1y Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by ~Jayor Jerry Windschit1 on July 15, 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. Hawkins; TKDA Engineers, John Davidson and Mark Schumacher; City Engineer, Larry Winner; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others (Councilman Peach responded to a fire just prior to the meeting being called to order.) RESIDENT FORUM Don Cann, 13828 Round Lake Boulevard - has had a problem with Saturday night parties that run through Sunday. They are bothered with the noise, drinking, etc. He asked if the City could adopt an ordinance simi1iar to what other cities have done so that the police can do something about them. He knows that Coon Rapids in particular has an ordinance controlling such parties. Council noted that in this evening's material is a copy of the Ham Lake ordinance relative to this issue. It was agreed to add the item on the Agenda to make a referral to the Planning Commission to research the possibility of enacting a simi1iar ordinance for Andover. Stan Deden, 13836 Round Lake Boulevard - stated it is his neighbor who is having the partles. The Sheriff has been called four or five times, but he just came and sat in his car and wouldn't do anything. Mr. Deden also stated there is a problem with dirt bikes and wondered if any kind of noise ordinance is in force or can be enacted. Attorney Hawkins stated there are noise ordinances; however, the problem is in getting the noise levels measured. And Anoka County doesn't have the equipment or personnel to do this. So it becomes a difficult ordinance to enforce. Dirt bikes are not allowed on other persons' property without their permission as that would be trespassing. Stan Carlson, 680 Constance - stated he has not been able to enjoy the holiday festivities the last several Fourth of July holidays, as he has had to stay home to guard his house. Across the road was a party that day with 600 to 800 people; cars parks up and down the road for miles; people using his woods as a bathroom; etc. It got out of hand this year; as after the party broke up at about 11:30, drunks walked up and down the road screaming and ho11aring, tried to steal the neighbor's truck, and entered the house where a woman was alone with her two small children. Mr. Carlson related the incident of the woman who had called the Sheriff. He felt that the whole situation has gotten out of hand and felt that an ordinance simi1iar to that of Ham Lake's should be adopted. Joe Caskinette, 13852 Round Lake Boulevard - stated that last March 29 he had a drunk break into hlS house through a closed wlndow at 3 o'clock in the morning to make his bathroom a bed. He felt strongly a Field Party Ordinance should be enacted and asked when it will be considered. Council estimated the Planning Commission would be holding the public hearing on August 12. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve the Agenda as published with the additions of Item 5h, HUD Funding; Item 5i, Day-Care Center; Item Sj, Field Party Ordinance; Item 5k, Severe Storm Shelter considerations for Mobile Home Parks; and Item 6b, Coon Creek Watershed District Petition. Motion carried on a 4-yes, 1-absent vote. , --- Regular City Council Meeting July 15, 1980 - Minutes Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - STREET IMPROVEMENT/NORTHWEST AREA (1980-4) 7:40 p.m. Mr. Schumacher reviewed the TKDA feasibility report on 1980 Street and Drainage Improvement No.4, Commission No. 7379-80, July 8, 1980, noting the location of the roads, street standards, storm drainage, time schedule, and several different methods of assessments. On a total improvement cost, the assessment rate is estimated to be approximately $16.62 per front foot; and $3,117 if assessed on a unit basis. (Councilman Peach arrived; 7:56 p.m.) The meeting was then open for public testimony. Don Alberg, 17538 Blackfoot - understood that the improvement was not to go past the crest of the hlll on Blackfoot; however, the map shows it going to his north property line, which is considerably beyond the crest which could cost him a lot of money. He stated the crest of the hill is in about the middle of his lot where his driveway is located. (Mr. Schumacher stated that the crest was taken from the topography maps, which could be slightly different than where it actually is.) John Gebert, 3809 172nd Lane - the proposal shows Xenia from 172nd Lane to the north 11ne of Cedar Crest Estates. Xenia Street hasn't been cut through from 172nd Lane and doesn't start until 173rd Avenue. Why would that stretch be done and who bears the cost of putting that street in? What is the reason for bringing that through? (Mr. Schumacher stated that the street will be cut through to Cedar Crest 4th Addition. If no street is cut through now, it would be prior to blacktopping. The cost of putting that street through is included in the project and spread over the entire assessable front feet. It would be a benefit to the City for the continuity of the street pattern to have that street cut through.) Mr. Gebert - is definitely for the improvement on 172nd Lane but is also definitely agalnst putting that stretch of Xenia from l72nd Lane to 173rd through because of the traffic that would be created. Jim Green, 174th Avenue - felt that eliminating that portion of Xenia between 172nd and 173rd would cut down on the cost of the project because of the assessable frontage involved. He also felt that the portion of Xenia north of 174th goes nowhere, as that area north of there is unplatted. He didn't understand why Xenia would be included in this project, and he felt it would cost more to do it. Ra1¥h Kishe1, 3934 173rd Lane NW - asked who would take up the assessments on the tax tor eited lots along 174th. (Mr. Schumacher stated that the feasibility study is based on those unbui1dab1e lots along l74th as not being assessed, which was done at the direction of the City Council.) Mr. Kishe1 - who pays for the assessments on the 666 feet of park and the one vacant lot on 173rd Lane? (Mr. Schumacher explained that the City would be assessed for any park frontage. The vacant lot would be paid for by the fee owner.) Mr. Kishe1 - when cutting Xenia north of 174th, the lot to the west is a tax-forfeit unbUl Idable lot, and he presumed that cost would be a burden on the entire project. If constructing Xenia south of 173rd Lane, it would front on the City park also, which would be an added expense to the total project for unassessab1e frontage. He also stated that Lot 8, which is supposed to be the park, is tax forfeited. The owner before tax forfeiture of these lots is the developer of that entire platted area. Dale Tilton, 3808 l72nd Lane - is for the resurfacing on 172nd Lane but against putting the street through from 173rd to 172nd. At the present time, there is nothing there outside of trees and natural surroundings. He stated that about three hours after the road was graded last week, that road was back in the same condition as before grading. Regardless of what is done, the problem is not going to go away if the streets are not resurfaced. ,.,. ~, .., " . Regular City Council Meeting July 15, 1980 - Minutes Page 3 (Public Hearing - Street Improvement/Northwest Area, Continued) Gar~ Youngdahl, corner of 172nd and Aztec, Lot 7 - understood there is no special pro- vislon for a culvert under the road at that intersection. That's a real problem area as there is a very steep grade there with a lot of water problems coming down. He is in favor of the project. (Mr. Schumacher stated that there is an existing storm sewer that is now a maintenance problem but which should be corrected with blacktop in that area. If the grade is very steep, it may be that some type of birm may have to be used on the street surface. Mayor Windschitl requested that the drainage problem in this area be investigated further.) Harold Kirkeide, 180th Lane NW - understood that there are no plans to do anything with Aztec, Just 180th Lane, and asked the improvement for 180th. (Mr. Schumacher stated bituminous street on 180th, likely with bituminous birm because of the steep grade, with storm sewer outlet between one of the lots going out to Cedar Creek.) Mr. Kirkeide - there is a tremendous amount of water flowing by gravity from Aztec down 180th. The City has attempted to plow Aztec at an angle to the east. If 180th is blacktopped, isn't there still going to be a tremendous amount of sand coming down the blacktop street? (Mr. Schumacher understood that Aztec did not have a particularly steep grade, and that problem could be addressed in the design of the improvement of 180th.) Mr. Kirkeide - assumed that the problem would not be transferred from one lot to another by this proJect. There is a natural drainage through Mr. Toikka's property down to the creek. He asked if it will be an underground storm sewer. (Mr. Schumacher explained the water would be controlled in the street by a birm, would enter a catch basin, which will run underground down to the outlet at the creek. The City will have to get per- mission from the DNR to do this.) Mr. Kirkeide - the project cost of the blacktop for 180th is $18,270. Is that assessed to the other people as well or just those four or five property owners living on 180th? (Mr. Schumacher explained the project has been treated as a whole, dividng assessable footage into total projected costs; and he went on to explain how assessable front footage is arrived at for irregular shaped lots per the City's assessment policy. If those on 180th were to be done as a separate project, the assessment rate would be approximately $23.91 per assessable front foot. The Council will make the decision as to whether the project will be done or not, generally taking into consideration the feelings of the residents.) Mr. Kirkeide - is not having the drainage problem and is against the improvement; however, he does have empathy for his neighbor who is having the problem. A1 Putz, 17216 Aztec - driving on 172nd Lane and 172nd Avenue the way it is is very dlfflcult on hlS car and on his emotional state. He is in favor of a 28-foot bituminous road. He also concurs that to connect Aztec between 172nd and 173rd would be a waste of time and money. Garb White, 3921 174th Avenue - observed that the areas really involve three distinct pro lems, and he proposed they should be treated as three distinct projects -- 180th Lane area, the problem on 173rd and 174th and the drainage problem, and those lots On 172nd Lane and 172nd Avenue. (Mayor Windschit1 explained that the petitions before the Council indicates 43 yes. 32 no, and one undecided on the project as a whole. Mr. Schumacher stated that they would not separate it into three separate projects as a matter of standard procedure but only at the discretion of the City Council. Discussion between the Engineers and Mr. White was on the procedure of determining the cost of each area if it were treated as three distinct projects. Mr. Davidson noted that it is not necessarily true that the cost of doing one area will be the same as the cost of doing a different area.) ..... Regular City Council Meeting July 15, 1980 - Minutes Page 4 (Public Hearing - Street Improvement/Northwest Area, Continued) Mr. White - indicated that using the Engineer's figures, he determined for 173rd, 174th, and Blackfoot it would be $15 an assessable front foot versus the Engineer's figures of $16.65. He again stated he felt the project should be broken into three distinct projects. He didn't see any petitions taken around. Brian Johnson, 18076 Aztec - page 11 of the feasibility study shows assessable frontage for 4 lots On 180th; but there are 5 lots on the cu1 de sac. (Mr. Schumacher explained that according to the City's assessment policy, the one lot has assessable frontage On Aztec.) Mr. Johnson - has the corner lot on the south side. He doesn't use the cu1 de sac at all, doesn't have a driveway going that way. If a birm is put in, he wouldn't be able to put a driveway in. He asked what happens if he gets assessed but doesn't benefit from it. (Mr. Davidson explained that that is a policy that would be taken up at the time of the assessment hearing. In particular cases, they can come before the Council at that time to appeal the assessment On the basis that there is no benefit. Theoretically the benefit is there whether the resident chooses to use it or not.) Mr. Johnson - stated at the last meeting there was a suggestion to look into various ways to fix that area. Were other alternatives discussed? He is against blacktop in that area. (Mr. Schumacher stated it is difficult to deal with this On a temporary basis. It becomes a never-ending cycle of trying to keep the temporary solution working.) Roger Toikka, 3804 180th Lane NW - is the one having the problem, and stated he would appeal it lf he were Mr. Johnson also. If Johnson did appeal, there would be three property owners assessed on 180th. Even though he has a problem, in looking at the assessment for.405 feet in length at $25 per front foot, divided between three property owners, they'd be assessed approximately $1,000 a year for 10 years; and he felt that's a greater problem than having the erosion in his front yard. Mr. Kirkeide - if the City Council judges that a property owners does not benefit, then he assumed the assessable footage is decreased; and conceivably three could be assessed for that area. (Mr. Schumacher stated that this is all in speculation that 1BOth is separated out as a separate project. Then the three property owners would share in the $18,000 assessment.) Mr. Kirkeide - stated that has been a natural drainge to the creek for years and couldn't lmagine the City authorizing a building permit on a lot that low. He felt it was an engineering mistake and would not want to be assessed $6,000 when he doesn't have a problem. (Councilman Peach indicated that the area probably wouldn't be ordered if there was total opposition to it.) Mr. Kishe1 - presented a letter from Jim Davis who couldn't be present at the meeting. He stated that virtually no one On 173rd Lane is in favor of the project and hoped the Council would react that way to 173rd as was just indicated for 180th Lane. Mr. Alber~ - again expressed concern about where the blacktop would stop on Blackfoot, statlng t at stopping at the crest of the hill would mean he'd have half an assessment, but going to the north boundary of his lot is in the middle of the lot across the street. He doesn't want the blacktop past his property at all. He proposed that the project terminate at his south lot line, which is approximately 80 feet south of the crest of the hill. Either that, or put the project back to 175th, which is a much more logical stopping point. The crest of the hill to his lot line, approximately 80 feet, is a very gradual slope; and he felt putting it back to his lot line would not appreciably damage the drainage concern of the project. Actually, there is almost two crests to the hill as it flattens at about 175th and almost rises again before dropping down to 174th. He saw no need to go to the crest of the hill and would be interested in the Engineer's reasons why that few feet would be critical. Regular City Council Meeting July 15, 1980.- Minutes Page 5 (Public Hearing - Street Improvement/Northwest Area, Continued) . Susan Smith, 3828 172nd - is for the proposal; and asked for a copy of the feasibility study. (She was told she could obtain a copy from the City Hall in the morning.) Dave Hahn, 17400 Blackfoot Street - is in favor of the blacktop. Skip Rither, 17410 Blackfoot - was in favor of the project in May, 1978, and still is for the same reasons. Perhaps by nOW we have discovered that it is futua1 to try to put a bandaide on the drainage problem there. He hoped the Council would consider doing the project, solving the problem once and for all. Larry Scharr, 3749 172nd Lane - is in favor of the project but is opposed to cutting Xenia Street through. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that we close the public hearing. DISCUSSION: Mr. Tilton - asked if the project is ordered, are semi-trucks going to be banned on these blacktop streets? At the present time semi-trucks are going down the sand. (Mr. Davidson explained that it is designed for 7-ton axel loads. Occasional heavier loads are not going to damage it; but heavy loads On a regular basis may. The streets can be posted in the spring during the spring breakup when they could cause a problem structual1y to the road.) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that the 180th Lane and cu1 de sac be deleted from further cOnsideration for the 1980 Street and Drainage Improvement Project Number 4. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that 172nd Lane NW, 172nd Avenue NW, that small sectlon of Woodbine between those two streets, and the section of Aztec Street; and authorize the engineering firm to proceed with the final plans and specifications for that section. DISCUSSION: Councilman Jacobson stated it is not intended to treat this area as a separate project. It also did not include that portion of Xenia north of 172nd Lane that is not constructed. Motion carried unanimously. (See Resolution R86-80) Brock Abrahamson, 172nd, Lot 21 - asked if 171st has been approved yet. Last fall they called and asked for a stop sign at that intersection, and they were told they couldn't have one because the street was not yet approved. (Council indicated that the road had been approved and that the Clerk will refer the matter to the Deputy.) Council discussed the improvements on 173rd, 174th and Blackfoot; agreeing that the termination of the blacktop on Blackfoot should be an engineering decision when doing the final plans and specifications. Mr. Davidson indicated that it doesn't matter whether the exact high point in the grade is reached. Council also agreed that that 150-foot portion of Xenia Street north of 174th should be done nOW; as if it is not done now but has to be done in the future, it would have to be done at City expense since there is no assessable frontage along it. Mr. White - stated that Xenia at that point is going nowhere and there is no assurance that the area to the north will be developed within a reasonable length of time. He didn't know if it was reasonable to assume that that road would have to be built. (Council stated there has to be access provided for that property and 175th has already been eliminated, which would have provided access.) Mr. White - stated there has already beenconsiderab1eemoney spent by the City on the problem on 174th and Blackfoot. If this project does not go through, is it reasonable that the City is going to have to spend some additional money there at this point, possibly an exorbitant amount of money if the DNRwould get strict about the water going to the river at this point? Then, is it reasonable to assume that the City may be willing to participate slightly in this project? He understood that the majority of people on 173rd have petitioned against the project, and there are very few residents present from 174th at this time. . , Regular City Council Meeting July 15, 1980 - Minutes Page 6 (Public Hearing - Street Improvement/Northwest Area, Continued) George Beaving, 3734 174th Avenue - stated the ~n1~ pe~ition out on 174~h wa~ in the beginning when they understood that they were slgnlng Just to have the sltuatlon looked into, not whether or not they were in favor of the improvement. That is why most of his neighbors are not at tonight's meeting. Mr. White - felt they could make a better decision if they had more firm figures of what the project is going to cost. He felt that it has been the feeling in the past that the City has contributed to some extent to his project by allowing the three streets to come togheter. If it is reasonable that the City would be willing to participate to some extent, the residents would be better prepared to estimate their costs and decide whether or not they can or cannot afford it. Council discussion was that the City is participating with over 600 feet of assessments on the park; that the petition received for the 174th Avenue and Blackfoot area dated JUne 17, 1980, specifically stated the request for the improvement at approximately $15 a front foot; questioned setting the length of the assessment to 15 years. Mr. Davidson definitely recommended a 10-year assessment, although he felt that the roads themselves would last much longer than 10 years with reasonable maintenance. As a matter of policy, he would encourage a 10-year assessment. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that the City Council authroize the Engineer to prepare Final Plans and Specifications for the improvement of storm sewer and streets on 174th Avenue, 173rd Lane, Xenia Street from north of 173rd Lane to the north end of Cedar Crest; Aztec between 173rd and 174th, Blackfoot north to the peak of the hill approxiamte1y 500 to 700 feet north of l74th Avenue. DISCUSSION: Councilman Lachinski stated it does not seem realistic to be deleting 173rd from the project as the residents are proposing because it probably will increase the rate to the rest of the project and plus it leaves an unfinished street in a middle of a finished area. However, his yes vote on this motion would be contingent on the fact that there is a 15-year assessment and. also that the assessment rate would be based on eliminating all assessable frontages over 200 feet. Mr. Alberg - requested definition to the crest of the hill. (Council stated it is being left to the Engineers to make a determination. If it stops in the middle of a lot, that lot would have a partial assessment. Councilman Peach stated that his statement relative to 180th Avenue in that nobody wanted it was based on the fact that 180th is 1~ miles away from this area. He didn't think it was a good idea to leave a road, 173rd, in the middle of an area unfinished.) Mr. Kishe1 - argued that 173rd Lane to the east of this area is 1/2 gravel, which is a maln thoroughfare to County Road 9. He still felt that 173rd should be left out of this project, especially in light of the majority opposed to it from that street, and because it doesn't carry that much traffic. Of the 14 people living on 173rd, 12 signed the petition opposed to the project. There are 300-foot lots on that street, which amounts to a lot of money. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that the motion be amended to be contlngent on assessment rate which would eliminate all assessable frontages over 200 feet from the project and that the assessments be applied for a 15-year period. DISCUSSION: Mr. White - stated if they are even considering blacktopping 174th and not blacktopping 173rd, he would be opposed to it under those circumstances. Council discussion was On setting the maximum assessable frontage at over 200 feet; that it should be based on the economic benefit of a lot which would be determined on the market value by an appraiser and not limited to a specific number of feet at this point; that the intention is that the City would still pay for the 600-p1us feet on the park; and that the intention is that the section between 172nd and 173rd of Xenia is not to be constructed. .,. .. --. ,. . Regular City Council Meeting July 15, 1980 ~ Minutes Page 7 (Public Hearing - Street Improvement/Northwest Area, Continued) Councilmen Orttel and Lachinski WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, to amend the original motion that the project be contingent on an assessment which would be spread over 15 years on the entire project. (See Resolution R87-80) VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Carried unanimously. VOTE ON MOTION: Carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we close the Public Hearing for the 1980-4 Improvement Project. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing closed at 9:24 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m. SPECIAL USE PERMIT - GRACE LUTHERAN CHURCH John Peterson,· 161st and Vintage, representing Grace Lutheran Church - stated the church is at a point where they need the Special Use Permit because the work for which they had permits, the footings and foundation, has been completed. The Building Inspector is at the point of shutting down the job, which would be for about two weeks and which would cost approximately $1,000 a week, possibly more. He asked if there is some way to allow the contractor to proceed and still go through the procedure of obtaining the special use permit. Ralph Kishe1, representing Planning and Zoning, stated that at the time it was before the P & Z, no one appeared in opposition to the permit. The Public Hearing was not called to order because no one representing the church was present. Council deliberation was on the requirements set forth in the ordinance, with the Attorney noting the Council has the right to vary from the strict letter of the ordinance. Ed Maki, Architect/Project Manager of the ~roject - apologized for the situation. He has talked to the Buildlng Inspector, who lS at a point legally where he cannot inspect any more work. He can't issue a building permit unless the special use permit has been granted, and he can't inspect the work if a building permit hasn't been issued. Council- man Ortte1 questioned whether a Special Use Permit is even needed because the church was grand fathered in for the use and they are not changing that use. He felt that the City has never required an amended permit when those in the junkyard area expand a building; and he felt it wasn't necessary here either. It was Attorney Hawkins' interpretation that a Special Use Permit is needed in this case. After further discussion, Council generally agreed it was desirable that the request for the Special Use Permit go through the P & Z Public Hearing; but that they would be willing to set a special meeting after that hearing to act On the Commission's recommenda- tion so as not to create any more delay than necessary. The item is on the July 22 P & Z agenda. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we return this to Planning and Zoning Commission for their next regularly scheduled meeting, which is one week from tonight, and that we, at the same time, set a Special City Council Meeting at 8 o'clock the same evening to consider the Special Use Permit recommendation from the P & Z. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Lachinski, Ortte1 Motion carried. VARIANCE - A. ECKARDT Mr. Kishe1 reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to void the variance request and instead have the applicant look into the possibility of purchasing this excess piece of property from the City, thereby giving that property access. . , 0- . .. Regular City Council Meeting July 15, 1980 - Minutes Page 8 (Variance - A. Eckardt, Continued) This item was held until the Attorney and Clerk could research the Final Plat of Johnson's Oakmount Terrace to determine the status of the strip of land in question. SOUTHWEST AREA - SEWER/TRUNK LOCATIONS Mr. Davidson reviewed the TKDA letter of July 14, 1980, to the Mayor and Council relative to a proposed change in the alignment of the sanitary sewer trunk line along Round Lake Boulevard and the several alternatives. It was his recommendation to construct the trunk through the Sonsteby property which would be at virtually the same cost as originally proposed going up County Road 9. If that is done, he recommended that the crossings under County Road 9 to eventually service those properties on the east, north of Quickstrom Addition, be included under the County contract of the County Road 9 improvement. Mr. Davidson stated that going with the route initially proposed could be done; however, it would probably mean'a delay, possibly splitting the project and bidding only that area south of Quickstrom this year. Mr. Davidson also stated that the alignment through the Sonsteby property would have nO affect on the Hu1egaard property as far as serviceability. Discussion was also on running the trunk line in the area between the Good Value property and Ado1fson property, east of Quickstrom Addition. Mr. Davidson was directed to do a cost analysis on that proposal and have it ready for Tuesday's meeting. Council also directed further negotiation with Ms. Sonsbety to be sure the City has easement for the trunk line to run through her property west of Round Lake Boulevard prior to the City taking formal action on that route. It is intended that this be accomplished prior to Tuesday's meeting. VARIANCE - ECKARDT, CONTINUED Attorney Hawkins stated that the piece was dedicated as a street right of way. If the City vacated that right of way, it would probably revert back to the original grantor, not to the adjoining property owners. He recommended that Mr. Eckardt talk with the original owners, Mr. Hay, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Barnes, and their wives to obtain a quit claim deed to that parcel prior to the City vacating that easement. Then there would be no question that Mr. Eckardt would own that property if the City vacated, and he would then have frontage. Mr. Eckardt - questioned whether he could reach an agreement with those parties, as in the past they have asked a large sum of money for that piece of property. He also explained that on the north side along 147th, they dredged down for a drainage ditch between his property and the roadway. That ditch never has any water in it. If water accumulates, it stays for a day and then percu1ates into the sand. He has been told that that has been dedicated as a water holding pond. Discussion was that on the north end of Mr. Eckardt's lot, 147th is a constructed road and that the lot has frontage. 147th just has a wider right of way in that particular area. Mr. Hawkins stated if a driveway was constructed through that easement to the constructed roadway, it would be the property owner's responsibility to maintain the driveway just as anyone else maintains the driveway over the street easement. Mr. Eckardt - stated that to put a driveway north to 147th on the east end, he would have to put in a culvert through the ditch area. Council then generally agreed that a variance wouldn't be needed and that it would be an engineering decision as to putting in a driveway and culvert so that the storage or water drainageis not being interrupted. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, on the application of Alfred Eckardt for Variance that since no variance is required that the fee of $25 be returned to him. Motion carried unanimously. . ...0. Regular City Council Meeting July 15, 1980 - Minutes Page 9 SOUTHWEST AREA - RESULTS - CURB SURVEY Mr. Davidson reviewed the results of surveying the residents in Chapman's Additions concerning their preference for curb streets as noted on Page Three of their July 14 letter to the Council. He also indicated in their polling of those in Quickstrom, 19 were in favor of concrete curb, 7 in favor of bituminous curb, 2 for grass birm, 1 no response. In Auditor's Sub. 82, 32 were in favor of concrete curb, 11 in favor of bitunlinous birm, 32 grass birm, 2 no response. He asked for some direction as to which street standards they should be using in their final plans and specifications for the Southwest Area Project. Council discussion was on the results of the survey; questioning whether the standards can now be increased without holding a supplementary public hearing, as concrete curb and gutter would increase the cost of the project and the grass birm street standard was presented at the original public hearing. Discussion was delayed until after the Attorney had an opportunity to look at the Statutes relative to whether or not a supplementary public hearing would be required. NORTHWEST AREA PROJECT - STORM DRAINAGE Discussion was on the alternatives for storm drainage On the pond in the City park in that area, whether to pipe it to the south or to build up the pond with an earth birm around it. Council generally agreed that it would be most cost effective to birm the pond to increase its capacity and to hold the water on site. HUD FUNDING MOTION by Jacobson, Sèconded by Ortte1, that we make an agreement with the County to participate in the Fiscal Year 1981 Community Block Grant Development Funds for HUD Housing Rehabilitation Grant Program and authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the necessary documents to implement this. Motion carried unanimously. DAY CARE CENTER Sue Anderson and Marry Wherry were present (reference July 11, 1980, letter to Mayor and Council relative to their desire to purchase the buildings at 13325 Crooked Lake Boulevard for use as a Day Care Center). Council discussion was on the zoning of the area, as it is presently zoned Neighborhood Business which does not specifically allow day care centers. Day care centers are allowed, under ordinance, in R-1 zones with a Special Use Permit. After further discussion, Council generally agreed that rather than rezoning the property, that the ordinance be changed to allow day care centers in NB areas. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that the matter of the change in use of the NB property formerly known as Nemeth's Store on Crooked Lake Boulevard be referred to the Planning Commission, and for the Planning Commission to look into the possibility of allowing those proposed uses in the Neighborhood Business zone. Motion carried unanimously FIELD PARTY ORDINANCE MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the matter of Field Party Ordinance be referred to the Planning Commission for their review and ~ecommendation. Motion carried unanimously. SEVERE STORM SHELTER CONSIDERATION FOR MOBILE HDME PARKS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that the City Council pass onto the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration an amendment to the Mobile Home Ordinance; such amendment would require that in any mobile home park that special shelters be provided the residents for use during severe weather. Motion carried unanimously. p. Regular City Council Meeting July 15, 1980 - Minutes Page 10 SOUTHWEST AREA - PUMPHOUSE Mr. Davidson showed slides of several samples of styles of pumphouses. After further discussion, Council generally agreed that the architecture of the pumphouse in the Southwest Area project should be simi1iar to what is being used in the Rademacher Commercial centers and that TKDA is to coordinate the pumphouse style with Wayne Anderson's architects. Wayne Anderson indicated he was receptive to this proposal. RESULTS/CURB STUDY, CONTINUED AND CURB AND GUTTER - PETITION ON 133RD AVENUE NW Mr. Hawkins stated that the Council cannot increase the extent of the improvement as noted in the notice of hearing, which he interpreted to mean not only geographical considerations but also the type of improvement contemplated. By going cOncrete curb and gutters in the project, it would be increasing the extent of the project and should have another hearing. Discussion was On 133rd Avenue (reference Memo from Larry Winner to Mayor and Council dated July 11, 1980, relative to this item). Mr. Winner explained that he had proposed paying for the concrete curb by splitting it among the assessable footage among all those lots. Discussion noted that those residents would have to agree to that prior to the installation and to waive the public hearing. Forest Medin, west corner of 133rd and Eide1weiss - is not in favor of the curbing in front of his property. The only way they would support it is if the entire project was assessed for it or if the City of Andover was interested in having it for Andover for the dividing line between Andover and Coon Rapids. MOTION by Lachinski, SecQnded by Orttel, that the Engineer contact the property owners of Lot 4, Block 4, Lot 5, Block 4, and Lot 10, Block 4 of Lundgren Oakridge Addition to determine whether or not they are willing to pay the estimated cost of concrete curb and gutter; and if so, indicate in writing that they waive their right to a public hearing and that they accept the actual costs; and if all property owners are in favor of the improvement to curb and gutter, thatth~£ngineer be directed to inform the City of Coon Rapids to have it installed. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City direct the Engineering firm to prepare as an alternate in the Southwest Area Improvement Project concrete curb and gutters for Chapmans Addition, Quickstrom Addition and property known as Auditor's Subdivision 82 and the northwest corner of County Road 9 development; and be advised that the public hearing under the Minnesota Statute 429 be held at the same time as the awarding of the contract, August 26, 1980. Motion carried unanimously. POLICY - INDUSTRIAL FINANCING King Forness, Springsted, Inc., felt that the policies in the Elk River format seemed most compatible with Andover's needs with some modification. He has made some minor changes in the Elk River industrial revenue bond policy that the escrow to be made with the application be $500 and cleaned up some language relative to the applicant's ability to handle the financial obligation involved. He has also worked with the Clerk to modify the application, which was then used for the two applicants. He has just received the information necessary with the applications from Rademacher and from Lynn Boeh1and; however, he hasn't had a chance to review them as of yet. Council discussion with Mr. Forness was on several questions on the policy and some suggested changes. Councilman Jacobson had several changes in his copy that he gave for Mr. Forness' consideration. Councilman Jacobson also questioned whether these should be sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their input prior to Council action. Mr. Forness stated that this is purely a financial concern which generally is not dealt with by the P & Z. Councilman Jacobson also stated there is nO provision to return funds that have not been expended by the City. ,.,. ,,--.. . Regular City Council Meeting July 15, 1980 - Minutes Page 11 (Policy - Industrial Financing, Continued) Discussion was also on the deposit amount of 1/2 of 1 percent of the amount of the bond requested by the applicant, as in Mr. Rademacher's case, it would require escrowing substantially more money than would be necessary to process the IRB. Mr. Forness was requested to make a determination as to what would be an appropriate deposit amount, possibly limiting it to a maximum amount that would be submitted with the application. It was agreed that the Council will receive copies of Mr. Forness' draft of the policy prior to this weekend; and the Council will act on this policy at the Tuesday, July 22, meeting. Council also requested that Mr. Forness be present at the July 29 Public Hearing for the IRB applications. FIRE DEPARTMENT REPORT Fire Chief Bob Palmer stated they have ordered approximately $800 worth of construction materials for the mezzanine at the Public Services Building, as he was ~under the impression that there was monies available from the building account. He also estimated it would cost approximately $300 to put in the ståirway to the mezzanine from the Fire Department side. Discussion was on where the money would come from for this; noting that any monies from the Building Fund may have to be spent for the correction of the well; that any capital expenditure for the building are to receive prior approval by the Councilor to be incorporated in the budget when it is adopted. Chief Palmer also noted the frustration of having been before the Council several times asking for a decision for work on the mezzanine with no decision ever being made. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize payment of up to $800 for building materials to come from the Building Bond issue. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. STENQUIST ADDITION - DITCH CORRECTION (Reference July 11, 1980, memo from Larry Winner to Mayor and City Council relative to a request by Don Reisberg, 16200 Potawatomi Street, that the ditch along his property be filled to reduce the steepness of the slope from his yard to the bottom of the ditch.) Mr. Winner reviewed his memo. Mr. Davidson stated they had taken care of all requests and concerns in the project area in a timely way, but he felt to wait until a year later for a complaint seems to be somewhat irresponsible. They had filled in the north end of Mr. Reisberg's lot and were given every indication at that time that he was satisfied with the east side of the lot. Council discussion was to try to remedy the problem at the least possible costs, possibly having the City do the work itself rather than having the contractor coming back to do it. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we direct the City Engineer to look into the ditch problem on Potawatomi Street at 162nd in Stenquist Addition and provide some remedy to the ditch problem at the lowest possible cost with the funds to come from the excess in the project account, 1979 Street Improvement Project Number 1 Account. Motion carried unanimously. SOUTHWEST AREA PROJECT - POLICY ON HOOKUPS Mr. Davidson brought to the Council's attention that a policy will need to be made for connections of sanitary sewer and water to duplexes, quads, and commercial. He felt that each and êveryseparate residential unit should have a separate sewer and separate water connection except in the case of a one-owner owned apartment complex, basically because when the systems are combined, there is always the question of who is at fault in cases of failures, and the City often becomes an intermediary. As an alternate -.,. ~.. . - ., --, , Regular City Council Meeting July 15, 1980 - Minutes Page 12 (Southwest Area Project - POlicy on Hookups, Continued) to having one service connection to each unit for sanitary sewer, there could be some agreement between the City and the owner of the facilities that he would be totally responsible and/or through a homeowner's agreement as a private system. Mr. Davidson felt that each unit should have its own separate water connection. however, for the meter, in the event the City would want to shut off the water for nonpayment, etc. These are policy questions, but it does have an impact on how they design the system. Attorney Hawkins also stated that the City is going to have to have an ordinance dealing with water connections. The feeling of some on the Council was that they would have no problem with shared facilities in quads, duplexes, etc.; but however it is designed, the City should not be a part of it. ORDINANCE NO. 25C -BY LAWS AND COON CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT PETITION These items to be discussed On Tuesday, July 22, Special Meeting. PERSONNEL - PUBLIC WORKS PERSONNEL NEEDS (Rerence the July 11, 1980, memo from Larry Winner to Mayor and Council relative to this issue.) Mr. Winner reviewed his memo noting the amount of work needed to be done and recommending that Ron Keller be hired on a full-time basis as a laborer with an immediate salary increase to $4.20 per hour and Keven Starr be hired On a full-time basis as a light equipment operator with an immediate salary increase to $4.50 per hour. Mr. Winner stated that he has talked with Mr. Keller about getting a chauffeur's license, and Mr. Keller was agreeable to doing that. Council also discussed the road maintenance problem, noting that during the months of April and May, the City spent considerably less hours grading the roads than was normally done by Burton Kraabel. The Mayor suggested possibly hiring another grader operator to help with that situation. Mr. Winner stated that they have started grading at 6 a.m. during this hot weather and stopped after 8 hours of grading. He also provided the Council with copies of the hours of grading and roads graded during the last two- week period, noting there are 60.44 miles of sand and gravel roads in the City, grading averaging 2.37 miles a day for an 8-hour day. He felt that once the roads are brought up to better condition and some adjustments/~ftd~he grader, that the average miles graded daily can be increased. After further discussion, some Councilmen questioned committing to hiring these two individuals at this time for the recommended salary and how it affects next year's budget. The Clerk noted that both individuals are working full time nOW but are not able to participate in the City's benefits. Some Councilmen felt that rather than hiring another grader operator at a higher salary, that consideration be given to Mr. Winner's recommenda- tion, and that Mr. Sowada and Mr. Stone consider grading the streets from 6 a.m. to 4:30 a.m. daily, which would provide additional hours of grading to see if that will solve or alleviate the road maintenance problems. Council also agreed to refer the matter of Public Works personnel needs and employee's medical/life insurance to the Personnel Committee. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, to refer the Public Works personnel needs to the Personnel Committee. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the medical insurance questions be referred to the Personnel Committee. Motion carried unanimously. ... . ".- ..-. Regular City Council Meeting July 15, 1980 - Minutes Page 13 APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, the approval of Checks Number 368, 369, and 370 for a total of $55,315.01. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, to approve Checks Number 3260 in the amount of $677.81, No. 3274 in the amount of $476.92, No. 3275 in the amount of $268.64, No. 3276 in the amount of $2,122.68. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:35 a.m. Respectfully ~ ~~. ,~ Mar e11a A. Peach Recor "ng Secretary ---..,. '___"-0 " .,