Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC November 5, 1980 Øt9 ð/ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 5, 1980 AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. Hazardous Waste Committee Report b. Andover Community Shopping Center/Preliminary Plat c. F. Backowski/Pre1iminary Plat d. R. Sonsteby/Vacation of Easement e. R. SOnsteby/Preliminary Plat f. Scenic River Ordinance g. Municipal Liquor h. Ordinance No.8 Amendments (Section 3.02(D), 3.02(EE) * i. Ponding Area/1980-3 * j. Canvass Ballots * k. Public Waters Designation 1. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. League of Minnesota Cities/Building b. Trust Fund c. Acceptance of Easements/1980-3 d. Quit Claim Deeds/139th Avenue NW e. 6. Reports of Boards, Commissions, Committees, Staff 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment " ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 5, 1980 MINUTES The Regular-Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on November 5, 1980, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, Larry Winner; Planning and Zoning Chairman, d'Arcy Bosel1; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Doug Steele, 643 140th Lane - complained about the garbage being dumped along the roads in the City ana wondered what can be done about it. He wondered if the Sheriff could enforce the ordinances more strictly or place "No Dumping" signs in areas. Attorney Hawkins explained the problem is that those dumping must be caught in the act before citations can be given. Discussion continued that much of the dumping is being done by those from outside the City; that those found dumping will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; and that Attorney Hawkins will talk with the Sheriff's Department to see what other measures the City can take to curb this problem. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, the approval as published with the addition of 4i, Ponding Area/1980-3; 4j, Canvass Ballots; 4k, Public Waters Designation; 41, Sealcoating; 5c, Acceptance of Easements/1980-3; 5d, Quit Claim Deeds/139th Avenue NW; and 5e, Medical Insurance. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we suspend the rules. Motion carried unanimously. HAZARDOUS WASTE COMMITTEE REPORT Members of the Hazardous Waste Committee that were present: Chairman John Ward, Mike Schollmeyer, Terri Fife, Diane Sjogren, Doug Steele, and Dan Janiga. Members of the Committee discussed their recommendations with the Council as noted in an October 29, 1980, memo to the Council from the Hazardous Waste Committee. Mr. Ward stated that because of the known hazardous locations and also because so much was dumped without anyone's knowledge, the Committee is recommending that developers be required to drill test wells to specifically test for hazardous waste contamination as part of the expense of platting. This would protect future residents as much as possible. Consideration might also be given to having the developer test any existing wells surrounding the new development. The water tested would be that which would be used for human consumption. The Committee had not discussed continued monitoring of these wells, but that could be done by the residents if there is some cOncern. Mr. Steele reviewed the recommendation of determining ways and means of removing the hazardous waste material in the pit at the Waste Disposal Landfill. He felt this should be one of the Council's priority projects. There is approximately one-half million gallons of hazardous waste buried in the landfill, but the exact contents is not known. And it is not known how much was loosely dumped on the site itself. It is also known that about 1~ inches of the 6-inch blacktop is already mushy, which could extrapolate to approximately 15 years when the remaining blacktop will be penetrated. Mr. Steele felt there was less time because it took some ~me for the barrels to leak initially. Mr. Rëgu1ar City Council Meeting November 5, 1980 - Minutes Page 2 (Hazardous Waste Committee Report, Continued) Steele felt that not only the people in Andover are affected by this, but those in other cities downstream Coon Creek are affected as well should the hazardous chemicals permeate the lining of the pit and migrate to the creek to be carried downstream or migrate to the deeper aquifers affecting wells in the vacinity. The feeling of the Committee is that because Waste Management received the necessary licenses and approvals from the County and the State to dump the hazardous wastes there, the responsibility does not lie with them but with the County and the State. It is the Committee's feeling that whatever it takes, including initiating lawsuits if necessary, that hazardous waste should be removed as soon as possible. During further discussion with the Council, Mr. Steele stated that PCA has stated and documented that the pit in the landfill was constructed to the State of the Art at that time, but they know today that that is not adequate. Councilman Lachinski stated that since the PCA has indicated that the landfill itself may be a greater problem than the hazardous waste pit, the City should ask the County not to renew the license for the landfill because of the water cOntamination to surrounding developments which in turn would require the City running water mains to service them. Mr. Steele stated that the Committee is at the point of asking the Council for authority to obtain very specialized legal assistance as to where the City stands in this area. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, to extend the discussion for 15 minutes. Mot1on carried unanimously. Mr. Schollmeyer noted the problem in the Musket Ranch area and that Anoka County is nOW working on the problem. But the Committee is also concerned that the soil in that area be cleaned up as well, as the soil itself could also leach out the hazardous waste products. It is also recommended that the Council remove licenses or deny permits for those businesses surrounding the Musket Ranch that have not been complying with removing the hazardous wastes. Attorney Hawkins stated if the businesses are in violation of the ordinances of the City, the City does have the right to revoke their licenses. Ms. Fife reviewed the Committee's recommendation that the Council force the EPA and PCA to supply the Committee with information on all testing to be done or which has been done. The consensus of the Committee has been there has been a lot of unnecessary delay. Mayor Windschit1 reported that Anoka County has hired an engineering firm, and the preliminary EPA tests have apparently come back. He has not been able to find out the results of any PCA tests, even those done several years ago. It is also his under- standing that the funds being requested for the Musket Ranch area include the ground cleanup as well. Council then discussed the recommendations of the Committee and took the following actions: MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, to refer the recommendation by the Hazardous Waste Committee relative to requiring test wells in new developments to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review and consideration. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hawkins stated that prior to considering any legal action against the County or PCA on the hazardous wastes in the landfill, the City must obtain solid data to show that the PCA's action at this point by not taking prompt action is unreasonable. But the City will need some independent engineering information regarding what is in the pit at the landfill, how long they would anticipate the pit as constructed to last, etc. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we>ask twin city testing firms to bring a proposal to the City Council on the cost that they would charge to determine the adequacy of the storage facilities of the hazardous waste at the Ron Roth Landfill in the City of Andover. DISCUSSION: not only the adequacy of the pit needs to be determined, but the stage of deterioration and rate of deterioration which will determine the urgency of the situation. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting November 5, 1980 - Minutes Page 3 (Hazardous Waste Committee Report, Continued) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, concurrently with this, authorize the working of the Council with the State Senator and State Representative from our area to both introduce legislation in the coming session to provide monetary assistance to the City and/or County if it is proved that we have to get this stuff out. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we notify the County and the PCA that the Clty Council, City of Andover, is opposed to any further re1icensing of the Waste Disposal Landfill because of the potential hazardous that will result from the existing and continued operation of the landfill. DISCUSSION: Because Waste Management Disoposa1 complied with all regulations at the time, the landfill is not the responsible party; that the landfill in general is a hazard to the City water system; that Mr. Hawkins will contact the Anoka County Health Department relative to materials he has received on the present licensing of the landfill; and that the intent is that the City does not agree with any further consideration of the use of the landfill. Councilman Lachinski CHANGED MOTION to Direct the Clerk to prepare a Resolution for approval relative to the prior discussion. Second Stands. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we direct the City Attorney to investigate possibility of revocation of licenses for businesses operating in the area known as the Musket Ranch and other properties identified by the EPA and PCA as holding hazardous materials. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was on the recommendation of forcing the EPA and PCA to provide the City with all pertinent information. Attorney Hawkins stated that these are public records. Mr. Hawkins was directed to write the PCA and EPA asking for their records relative to all known or potential hazardous wastes in the City, test results, copies of minutes of meetings where Andover is mentioned, etc. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the Hazardous Waste Committee be continued for the year 1981. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that the Committee, in addition to 1tS current charges, be authorized to investigate any and all other matters of pollution, hazardous wastes, or disposal problems in the City that the Committee feels would be appropriate. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Carried unanimously. VOTE ON MOTION: Carried unanimously. The Recording Secretary was asked to prepare a press release for the Anoka County Union relative to the meeting of the Hazardous Waste Committee and the Council and the action taken. Mr. Ward then pointed out several aspects of the State's efforts to find a hazardous waste site in the State of Minnesota and asked the Council tocansider issuing a strong statement to the State Government against any hazardous waste dumping in the State of Minnesota because of the potential problems from the ground soils, climate, ground movement, large amounts of water, etc. Council discussed the issue further with members of the Committee, noting the two questions are the inadequacy of Anoka County to hold hazardous wastes and the issue of not having any hazardous waste dumping in the entire State. Councilman Lachinski stated the Committee might consider becoming more familiar with the existing legislation on hazardous waste relative to transportation and shipment of hazardous wastes. Those members of the Hazardous Waste Committee were directed to draft a resolution for Council consideration on these items, ideally to have lt before the next legislative session begins. Councilman Jacobson expressed opposition to any resolution which may be drafted calling for no hazardous dumping in the State, as he felt that those wastes generated within the State should be taken care of within the State. He did not object to not taking wastes from other states. Regular City Council Meeting November 5, 1980 - Minutes Page 4 ANDOVER COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER/PRELIMINARY PLAT Chairman Bosel1 stated that all concerns have been corrected, and the preliminary plat is also being tied to the sketch plan prepared by the developer, especially as it relates to developing the birms to the rear of the buildings. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Andover Council approve the preliminary plat for Andover Community Shopping Center with the variances for the following reasons: that the plat has been reviewed by the City Engineer and meets with his approval; a public hearing was held and public input taken; the plat is consistent with the Comprehen- sive Plan; the park cash dedication in lieu of land in the amount of $35,837.50; and note that the plat would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city. Include the following notations on variances: that Lot 1, Block 1, is less than the required two acres for Neighborhood Business, however, should be allowed as this is part of a large project and it would be good planning as well as be consistent with the rest of the development; and note that Lot 1, Block 5 is less than the required five acres for shopping center; Lot 1, Block 5 is less than 200 feet wide and should not be allowed to front on County State Aid Hiway. (See Resolution R134-80) DISCUSSION: was on the fee ownership of the property. Ed Ames, preparer of the preliminary plat, explained that since the time the letter was written from County Road 9 Development Company, Good Value Homes has purchased their interest with Rademacher and Associates as contract purchaser; and on the remainder of the property, Rademacher and Associates is the sole fee owner. Motion carried unanimously. F. BACKOWSKI/PRELIMINARY PLAT Discussion was on the county right of way, which was originally 33 feet from the center of the road and is now being shown as 60 feet. Tract A does not include the additional 27 feet since Seventh Avenue has already been an improved roadway. The remaining Tracts are noted on the plat as being 2.5 acres exclusive of the right of way. Discussion was also on the County's request that the driveway on Lot B come out directly across from Dakota Street, which is not shown on the plat. Several questioned the reason for the request and felt it sAou1d be investigated further. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the Registered Land Survey subdivision for Florian Backowski noting that a public hearing was held and there was no public opposition; and the plat meets the ordinances of the City and is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; the plat has been reviewed by the City Engineer and meets with his approval; Park Commission has requested $1800 cash in lieu of land dedication; and note that a variance will be allowed on all three lots for fronting on county roads pursuant to Ordinance 10, Section 9.02, Subsection C due to a hardship being created having no frontage on other than county roads. DISCUSSION: was on the fee ownership of the property, as the City needs a letter in the file from all fee owners consenting to the land surfey. Florian Backowski, 16027 Nowthen Boulevard - explained that he and his son purchased the land together, each plann1ng to build on a lot, with another son planning to build on the third lot. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that the approval be contingent upon the C1ty receiving a letter from Mr. Steven A. Backowski indicating his approval of Mr. Florian Backowski platting the property. (See Resolution R135-80) VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Carried unanimously. VOTE ON MOTION: Carried unanimously. Recess at 9:05; reconvene at 9:20 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting November 5, 1980 - Minutes Page 5 R. SONSTEBY/VACATION OF EASEMENT Discussion was on the vacation of the easement, noting that extending the easement to the west of Ms. Sonsteby's plat would service the high ground behind the plat. Chairman Bosel1 stated the Planning Commission was given information that the property to the west of the plat is not to be developed for quite some time; but when it is, it is proposed to be served by Woodbine being extended. Council discussion was that the time of development is immaterial, but the question is how will the area be served; that a requirement of the platting ordinance that contiguous property be shown would have provided a better overall view of road patterns for that area but that the Planning Commission waived that provision of the ordinance for Ms. Sonsteby. Rosella sonsteb~ - stated that she is not even planning to develop that 40 to the west untl I Good a1ue Homes develops their property, and the road to service that property would go out to the south. She felt it would be too expensive to dig the peat out and put a road through westward from the existing easement to service that west 40. She stated that the land adjoining her property and Good Value's property is all high land. Discussion was that according to the soils map, there is considerable wetland between the two properties. Councilman Lachinski felt that the Planning Commission should, in the future, take into consideration proposed MSAH projects when plats are being proposed, and to state whether or not major thoroughfares are desired in the area. He felt that Ms. Sonsteby's plat could have been designed around the proposed MSAH project through that area as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, but that it is now too late to require a change to allow for that thoroughfare. Council discussed various alternatives, either vacating the entire easement, vacating only that portion within the plat itself, or vacating only the portion of the easement in the plat that lies east of Vintage in the plat, and whether a 60-foot stub street to the west of the plat should be required and constructed. Council also discussed road patterns and access to the property lying west of the plat. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that that portion of road easement on Rosella Sonsteby's property from the western edge of the Hagen property to proposed Vintage Street in Rosella's Addition in the City of Andover be deemed to not be in the best interest of the City to maintain as a road easement and to vacate that road easement. DISCUSSION: Councilman Lachinski questioned if the best location in the plat for a street to the west is where the easement is located, and he felt the plat should be returned to the P & Z asking for a stub street to the west. Councilman Ortte1 stated the location of the existing easement is only 150 feet from the highland; whereas any other place would be over 400 feet away. Bev Hagen, Morton Hagen, and Henry Anderson - noted the problems they have with the easement W1 th parked cars bei n g towed away if they are over the easement 1 i ne. They also were opposed to vacating the easement past their property as they need the easement for access to County Road 9. They were not concerned with that portion of the easement to the west of their property. Ms. Hagen asked if there is some way to post the edge of the easement so nobody parks off the easement. Discussion was to table the motion, return it to the P & Z asking for a stub street to the west of the plat and where it should be, and the Council will consider the vacation of the easement and the plat approval at one time. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that we table the motion to decide where the access road is going to be. VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Ortte1 Motion carried. Regular City Council Meeting November 5, 1980 - Minutes Page 6 R. SONSTEBY/PRELIMINARY PLAT MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that we refer the Rosella's Addition plat back to the Planning and Zoning Commission with the direction to provide a road access to the west from Vintage or 142nd Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Bosel1 stated that the item can be on next week's agenda. Discussion was on the Park Board's recommendation for parkland dedication in the plat. Park Board Chairman Wes Mand stated that their recommendation is to accept lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and part of 5, Block 2. Because of the density of development, it is their intent to accept maximum parkland acreage, though the acreage was based on the entire plat being multiples and not on the adjustment of the north 150 feet of the plat remaining single family residential. The property prposed is highland and can be added to at such time as the property to the east is developed. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the Council require full acreage on this development for park, rounded to the nearest lot. DISCUSSION: Councilman Lachinski stated he was open to some negotiation on Ms. Sonsteby's proposal On the Round Lake property as an alternative, referencing the petition from Auditor's Sub. 82 for a park in that area. He felt a more attractive proposal to the City by Ms. Sonsteby for that property might gain more attention. Ms. Sonsteby felt that her proposal was fair and stated she is willing to give cash in lieu of land for the plat, which in turn can be used for her proposal for lots on Round Lake. She felt a small park such as that proposed in her plat would be a nuisance and expressed her dismay to the objections to her proposals for the plat and the changes being requested by the Council. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, to say that we would want full acreage with1n the plat or some other proposal that Rosella may have that would be acceptable to the Park Commission and the City Council. DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach stated he has no intention of buying a park for this plat, which has been proposed. Councilman Lachinski indicated that he also is not willing to pay for any parkland within the plat either. Councilman Ortte1 stated he would accept parkland either in the plat or adjacent to it. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1; NO-Jacobson, Peach, Windschitl Amendment failed. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that the Council would accept the Park Board looking at other land which is contiguous to the plat under consideration in addition to the land within the plat. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Carried unanimously. VOTE ON MOTION: Carried unanimously. Discussion was on the petition from Auditor's Sub. 82, dated October 12, 1980, for a park on the Lake, feeling it should go directly to the Park Board. Ms. Sonsteby noted the expense with sewer and water being assessed to her property, feeling that the Park Board is asking for approximately 1/3 of her land in the plat. Councilman Lachinski felt that Ms. Sonsteby could look at the cost of dedicating the parkland and possibly reconsider if something better couldn't be done for the City relative to her proposal for 1akeshore lands. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that this petition be forwarded to the Park Baord for their recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Sonsteby stated for the record - I thought everything was approved in the Preliminary Plat and everything was all set for approval tonight, and I think it is asinine on all your parts. I am going to talk to my attorney about this. Regular City Council Meet1ng November 5, 1980 - Minutes Page 7 SCENIC RIVER ORDINANCE MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the following be reinserted into the Scenic R1ver Ordinance to come into compliance with DNR Regulations: 5.03.02 If in a group of contiguous lots under single ownership, any individual lot does not meet the lot width requirements of this ordinance, such individual lot cannot be considered as a separate parcel of land for purposes of sale or development, but must be combined with adjacent lots under the same ownership so that the combination of lots will equal one or more parcels of land each meeting the lot width requirements of this ordinance, except that such lots which meet or exceed 60 percent or more of the lot width standards of these regulations may be considered as a separate parcel of land, for the purpose of sale and development if on-site sewage disposal systems can be installed so as to comply with these regulations. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we insert into the Scenic River Ordinance under 5.02.01 the following language: Minimum Lot Size:a) Riparian Lots - 4 acres; b) Non-riparian Lots - 2~ acres. Motion carried unanimously. MUNICIPAL LIQUOR Attorney Hawkins advised that to issue private on-sale liquor licenses to restaurants -and motelsbut to maintain municipal off-sale would be split liquor and would require an election. At such time as the City's population would exceed 10,000 and the City had municipal off-sale liquor, an election would be required to determine whether the City may continue with the public liquor. An election is not necessary to issue private on-sale and private off-sale liquor licenses in the City. Council discussion was on opinions on the issue. At this point, Councilman Lachinski's position would be to allow private on-sale to restaurants, etc., and have municipal off-sale to generate revnues for the City. Councilman Peach stated the reason for municipal off-sale is for control of liquor within the City. Councilman Ortte1 stated that the information given by the Liquor Study Committee showed small margins of profit, which didn't include rent costs. In that case, it would be a loss to the City. He didn't like to see the government compete with private enterprise in any type of business, mainly because government controlled business is so inefficient. He felt it would cost the City twice what it would cost an individual properietor to run the business. Running the business at a loss would be a drain on the taxpayers rather than generating revenues. Councilman Lachinski then stated based on those reasons, he would favor private on- and off-sale liquors. Councilman Jacobson felt that best control and absolute control would be not to issue any licenses at all. MOTION by Jacobson that the City Council, City of Andover, take absolutely no action of any kind to issue licenses, either private or public, or engage in any activities relating to the sale or distribution of liquor within the City. Motion dies for lack of a Second. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we allow for private on-sale and off- sale within the City of Andover and implement the recommendatioffiof the Liquor Study Commission as it relates to private on-sale and private off-sale. DISCUSSION: an ordinance needs to be developed regulating this, outlining the procedures, selections, fees, etc. It was felt that this could be done by the Liquor Study Committee. Councilmen Ortte1 and Lachinski WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, directing the Liquor Study Commission to provide the Council with ordinances which would allow the City to provide private on-sale and off-sale within the City. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. Regular City Council Meeting November 5, 1980 - Minutes Page 8 (Municipal Liquor, Continued) Councilman Jacobson - I feel it is entirely inappropriate for the City to take the action to establish liquor within the City. Since the State Law is for the control of liquor, it would seem to me that by not issuing any licenses of any kind you provide absolute control. And I am absolutely against the establishment of liquor within the City by any means. Wayne Anderson, representing Rademacher and Associates - asked if there is an application for liquor in the City. He also stated if there is anything his organization can do to contribute to any of the City's studies, they would be glad to help in any way. Council stated that there are several requests to make application for liquor in the City. Mayor Windschit1 - The availability of an on-sale license would be a help in attracting a restaurant to the City, which I think would be a help to the City. ORDINANCE NO. 8 AMENDMENTS - Section 3.02 (d) The Clerk explained that the Planning Commission 's recommendation stated the change is to "make it less restrictive to build doubles". The language recommended by the Commission is correct and is as recommended by the Building Inspector; but the reason for the change is to make it less restrictive to build "multiples", and will have no effect on doubles. The current wording in the ordinance makes the square footage so large it is almost unfeasible to construct a multiple in the City, because it doesn't help to stack them. And the purpose of the multiple is to go up. Mayor Windschit1 was concerned that the language would also apply to doubles, and he didn't feel the City should be making it less restrictive to build doubles in residential districts. Discussion was on the interpretation of the amendment. Building Inspector, Dave Almgren, explained that the problem arose when a developer attempting to construct a double on the corner of 138th and Crosstown felt he could not meet the ground floor square footage for each unit. Mr. Hawkins stated that his interpretation was that by going higher, each unit would probably end up with more floor area than originally. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we table until the next meeting Ordinance 8, Sect10n 3.02 Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Windschit1 stated it would be helpful to have drawings showing what would be allowed in each zoning district. ORDINANCE NO.8 AMENDMENTS - Section 3.02 (EE) MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we amend Ordinance 8, Section 3.02 Definitions. The following sectionsof Ordinance 8, Ordinance 8A, and Ordinance 8B, are amended to read as follows: Definitions, 3.02 (D) Agricultural Use, Urban. An area of less than five (5) contiguous acres which is used for the purpose of growing produce including crops, fruit trees, shrubs, plants and flowers, vegetables, and the like provided such produce is intended soley for the purpose of owners on the property or sale away from the property. It shall include the raising of domestic and pleasure-recreation animals. That simply changes the word "residents" to "owners". Motion carried unanimously. PONDING AREA/1980-3 Mr. Winner stated the area involved is the Chutich property north of County Road 116 and west of Round Lake Boulevard. Mr. Chutich has requested that the City purchase the area outright rather than obtain an easement over it, and he is requesting authorization to buy fee title to that ponding area. Mr. Hawkins stated that Mr. Schumacher of TKDA has been negotiating with Mr. Chutich. Mr. Chutich, through his lawyers, has indicated he wants $3,000 an acre for the 7-acre pond, which Mr. Hawkins didn't think is reasonable. He asked for authorization to get an appraisal of the property involved and to make a counteroffer On it. Mr. Hawkins stated that an easement would in essence take almost 100 percent of the use of the land, so the cost of the easement would amount to almost the Regular City Council Meeting November 5, 1980 - Minutes Page 9 (Ponding Area/1980-3, Continued) total cost of outright purchase of the pond. Mayor Windschti1 stated it was his under- standing that the developers controlled all the lowland they were draining into. ~. Winner stated that the drainage from all of Chapman's will be going into this area plus overflow from the Good Value Development. The project was based on acquiring the drainage easement over the pond. Council discussion was also that this should have been settled prior to this time in the project. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we direct TKDA to provide a report to the Council relative to the acquisition of the Chutich property for ponding area for the Southwest Area project and also to authorize the City Attorney to obtain appraisal on the property. Motion carried unanimously. VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Chief Bob Palmer stated that the people from Grace Lutheran Church came away from last week's meeting feeling that no fire alarm system would be required except smoke detectors. Council agreed that that was a misunderstanding, and that the question of the auto-call to Central Communications was the only thing no longer being required. Chief Palmer stated that the Deputy has advised that the City have an ordinance allowing the first person on a fire scene to write up and issue citations, since many times by the time the Deputy gets there, the fire is already out. Mr. Hawkins stated that the Fire Marshall has the authority for issuing citations and he didn't believe that could be delegated. He recommended that it be done through a criminal complaint where the Fire Marshall would send the violation to Mr. Hawkins, who would issue a criminal complaint on it. Council agreed with the recommendation. Chief Palmer asked if the Council has set up another budget meeting. If the Department is authorized funds for equipping the rescue vehicle, they would like to order the equipment as soon as possible to have it installed and ready to go by the first of the year. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, to hold a special City Council meeting on November 25, 7:30 p.m, to handle the 1981 budget. Motion carried unanimously. QUIT CLAIM DEEDS/139TH AVENUE NW Mr. Hawkins explained that the property has been torrensed, which makes the City the fee owner. To release that ownership, a Quit Claim Deed must be furnished to the adjacent property owners. He also stated that if the City no longer has any use for the property, it can be given away. A statutory city does not have to put the sale or gift of any property for election or out for bids. This is essentially a street vacation. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that we authorize and direct the City Attorney to prepare and execute Quit Claim Deeds for that property that was once 139th Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. CANVASS BALLOTS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, a Resolution on canvassing the returns of a Mun1c1pa1 Election held on Tuesday, November 4, 1980, in the City of Andover, as presented by the Clerk. (See Resolution R136-80) Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC WATERS DESIGNATION Council expressed concern that the maps provided are extremely inaccurate. It was felt that the Council shouldn't act on this until after the public hearing is held. Mayor Windschitl recommended that an overlay comparsion of the Public Waters Designation maps be done with the ACS or County wetlands map so that the City would have an accurate public waters designation map. Discussion was on the concerns of the accuracy of the map plus Regular City Council Meeting November 5, 1980 - Minutes Page 10 (Public Waters Designation, Continued) the regulations that will be in force once this is approved, suggesting the possibility of holding a public hearing in the City making people more aware of the proposal. Councilman Lachinski and Ortte1 stated they would attend the public hearing being held tomorrow evening, and they will request a more accurate map on behalf of the City. SEALCOATING/RED OAKS, ET AL Mayor Windschit1 expressed disappointment about the sealcoating'work that was done, noting there are still areas not yet completed, and recommending that payment in the future not be made until the job has been satisfactorily completed. Mr. Winner stated that the contractor is working on this this week picking up the stockpiles from what was previously swept. Then they will sweep up where the piles were located, and he will then go out with the contractor to be sure all the streets are cleaned. This item is to be On the Agenda On November 18. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES/BUILDING MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that we adopt a five-year option plan for the purchasing of our portion of the League of Minnesota Cities Building Program. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Lachinski, as he didn't think the City could justify an additional $1,000 On top of what is already paid for dues. Motion carried. TRUST FUND MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we set up a trust account for the City of Andover. Motion carried unanimously. ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS/1980-3 MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we accept easements for street utility purposes from Joe Caskinette, Stan Deden, and Donald Cann, Sr., as presented at no cost to the City. Motion carried unanimously. EASEMENT/HANSON BOULEVARD Attorney Hawkins explained that since the time of the original appraisal, the City has rezoned a portion of the property to commercial. The appraisor has told him that that action probably had a significant affect on the value of that property. He had reached an agreement with Me1ron and Sorenson that the property was valued at $2,000 an acre; however, they differed as to whether or not there should be a reduction on the property subject to the UPA easement. In light of the change in the value of the property, he asked the City to reconsider its previous action and authorize the payment of $2,000 an acre for the easements. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we authorize the Attorney to purchase easements on the Sorenson and Me1ron properties not to exceed $2,000 per acre. Motion carried unanimously. MEDICAL INSURANCE The Clerk testified that the medical insurance benefits are the same going through Anoka County, but it is less expensive. (Reference memo of November 3, 1980.) MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute a J01nt powers agreement with Anoka County concerning the purchase of medical insurance providing such transfer be without loss of benefits. Motion carried unanimously. , f" Regular City Council Meeting November 5, 1980 - Minutes Page 11 APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 16, September 24, September 30, October 2, October 7, October 21, 1980: Correct as wr1tten. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, that we approve the Minutes for September 16 and 24 as written. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the Minutes of September 30, October 21, and October 2. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Jacobson Motion carried. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, that we approve the Minutes of October 7 as written. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Lachinski Motion carried. Councilman Lachinski - for the record for the October 7 Minutes - I felt I had an important issue which I wanted addressed at that meeting even though I couldn't attend. I went through the bother of putting it in written form. I guess I felt it should of at least been presented during the meeting. I had given specific instructions that I wanted that read to the people because I was the one who brought the entire concept up and indicated to the people that I would support them on it. POLICE PROTECTION CONTRACT MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that the City Council, City of Andover, approve the Police Protection Contract for 1981 with the Anoka County Sheriff's Department in the amount of $106,980 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the necessary documents. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, to approve Claims Numbered 3497 through 3536 minus 3510 and 3535 in the amount of $24,957.81. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, we approve Improvement Claims numbers 402 through 406 1n the amount of $113,831.16. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, to correct the total amount from General Funds to $24,959.81. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:14 a.m. Respectfully submitted, \Î'\L\o~,-T(~~"~L Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary