Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC October 7, 1980 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 7, 1980 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Public Hearing - Street Assessment/Northwest Area 5. Discussion Items a. Variance/R. Reini b. Special Use Permit/Sonsteby c. Vacation of Street/139th Avenue d. Approve Final Plans - Pumphouse e. Public/Private Liquor f. g. 6. Non-Discussion Items a. Junkyard License/1856 Bunker Lake Boulevard b. Sewer Account Certifications c. Appoint Judges/General Election d. 7. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Boards, Staff 8. Approval of Minutes 9. Approval of Claims 10. Adjournment ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 7, 1980 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Month1y Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on October 7, 1980, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Orttel, Peach Councilman absent: Lachinski Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; TKDA Engineer, Mark Schumacher; City Engineer, Larry Winner; City Clerk, P. K. LIndquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Rosella Sonsteby, 4150 141st Avenue - asked for a clarification of the City Attorney's op1n1on on the road easement going through her property. Council agreed that this will be discussed under Item 5b on the Agenda, Special Use Permit/Sonsteby. Bob Palmer, 2540 140th Avenue - asked if the contractor is finished sweeping the streets from the sealcoating work. Mr. Winner stated that he is not satisfied with what has been done, and he is preparing a list of work still remaining. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we accept the Agenda for the City Council Meeting for October 7 as printed with the addition of 4a, 1979-2, 1980-1, and 1980-2; deletion of 5d; and addition of 5f, City Auditor. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we suspend the rules. Motion carried unan1mous1y. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we amend the Agenda to include Item 5g, Resolution on Industrial Revenue Bonds/Boehland. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - STREET ASSESSMENT/NORTHWEST AREA (7:34 p.m.) Attorney Hawkins explained that for any special assessment, it must be shown that the market value of the property has increased as a result of the improvement by an amount at least equal to the assessment. The concern has been on those lots along 174th that the City has declared "unbui1dab1e". The assessment roll has been prepared by eliminating those "unbui1dab1e" lots from any assessments. Mayor Windschit1 also explained that the reason the assessment hearing is being held prior to completion of the project is to save the residents the additional interest that would have to be paid if the assessment were postponed until next year, which would amount to approximately 15 percent of the project cost. He also explained some of the rules if a resident wishes to challenge their assessment, including the requirement that the City must have written notice of the dispute prior to adoption of the assessment roll this evening. Mayor Windschitl then read two letters for the record: Gaylor Minenko, Plat 66786, Parcel 750, Lot 2, Block 2, Cedar Crest Estates, contesting the amount of assessment for 300 feet of frontage; and Harold and Elizabeth Hi1tz,P1at 66786, Parcel 600-2, Lot 5, Block 3, Cedar Crest Second Addition, contesting the adjusted front foot assessment. Gary Youngdahl, 17205 Aztec - explained that there is an area along Aztec that was tarred several years ago by the City at no cost to the residents, and they are not being included in this project. Yet they have the benefit of having to drive out on the blacktop streets being constructed in this project. He lives on the corner lot, has blacktop in front from before, but he is being assessed for his side yard. He questioned why he is being assessed for the project if the others on Aztec are not. (The Attorney Regular City Council Meeting October 7, 1980 - Minutes Page 2 (Assessment Hearing/Northwest Area) advised that those residents cannot be assessed now, years after the project is done, for the blacktop in front of their lots, as any assessment has to be done at the time the project is done. If the Council feels there is some benefit for those on Aztec, some increase in their property because of this improvement, they could be assessed.) Mr. YOUn1dah1 - stated at the public hearing he brought up the drainage problem on the corner 0 172nd and Aztec and wondered what has been done in that area. (Mr. Schumacher stated there will be birm curb sections on 172nd Avenue, partially on 172nd Lane, and part of Aztec to carry the water.) Harold Hiltz, Anoka, Plat 66786, Parcel 600-2 - asked how much totally exempt property is 1n the project and how much that raises the per-foot cost for everyone else. Applying the cu1 de sac rule to his lot, another 100 feet is added, which brings it up to about $30 a foot for him. He didn't feel that was a fair situation, noting the assessment is as much as what he paid for the lot a couple years a90. (Mayor Windschit1 explained that the assessment roll has been prepared for only 400 feet of City park property out of the 600, rationalizing that 200 feet is being used for a ponding area. There is some question on the validity of that, which will be discussed later in the meeting. There is approximately 1700 feet of "unbui1dab1e" lots not being included in the assessment roll. If they were added, the front foot cost of the project would be reduced by approximately $1.50/FF to $17.41/FF. He also noted that the assessment policy used for that shaped lot has been used for quite some time and is an attempt to equalize the assessment throughout the area.) Ralph Kishe1, 3934 173rd Lane - has talked with other cities and has found that they do place assessments on tax forfeited lots, holding it and collecting it when it eventually becomes salable property. He didn't think it was fair to exempt those 100-foot lots, which he felt will become buildable in the future. (Mr. Hawkins stated that if property goes tax forfeit and there are assessments against it, the City has the alternative of reassessing the property. The point in this case is whether or not there is a market value increase. The City's position has been if the lot is unbuidab1e, can $1700 of special assessment be justified against it.) Mr. Kishe1 felt that when those lots are sold, it will increase in value. He questioned the rat10naTe behind assessing some lots $3,800, $4,800, $5,600 when there are other lots on 100 feet of frontage only being charged $1,800. He also asked why the interest rate for the bond is so high and why the additional 1 percent is added on for administra- tive costs. He didn't feel that was fair, as those paying assessments on a smaller lot would only pay $18 a year for administrative costs and those on the è1arger lots would be paying $48 to $56 a year for the same services. (Discussion noted that the 1 percent is levied by almost every community to cover the delinquencies and to cover the administrative costs of certifying the assessments every year, collecting the money, etc.) Mr. Kishe1 - stated in the proposed stages of the project they were looking at $14 to $15/FF. Now they are talking of almost $19/FF, which is a lot of money for those with 300 feet of frontage. (Mr. Schumacher explained the reason for the increase has been that the construction costs were slightly higher than what were estimated in the feasibility report, plus they have added more for restoration and sodding costs; since experience has shown that for this street desi9n, more sod is needed to curtail erosion than what was originally estimated in the feasibility report. It is very likely that the City will hold a supplemental assessment hearing next year; and if all or part of the 10 percent contingency factor figured in is not used, the assessment will be adjusted for actual costs of construction. The construction bid came in at approximately $300,000 but which included approximately $32,000 for work in the park pond on 173rd. The feasibility report estimte was $255,000. Mr. Schumacher also explained that the work in the park has been trimmed down to the base minimum to accommodate the water in the low area. Mayor Windschit1 also noted that the estimated front foot cost presented at the public hearing was $16.62 per front foot, compared to $18.95 now being assessed.) Regular City Council Meeting October 7, 1980 - Minutes Page 3 (Assessment Hearing/Northwest Area) Mr. Kishe1 - stated that a person with 300 feet of frontage has great concern over the 1ncreased front foot cost at nearly 10 percent interest. He also speculated that shortly after 15 years when the assessments are paid, that sanitary sewer will be coming through, which would mean tearing up the streets and everyone then being assessed for both sanitary sewer and streets again. (Discussion noted that owners cannot be reassessed for the streets for the life of the bond issue. Also, there is no capacity at Pigs Eye sanitary sewer plant for this area; so if there should be sewer problems in the future, the only feasible type might be that of a lagoon-type system. Discussion was also that the deterioration of the bond market has increased the interest rates for the project; that the City's bond ratings have not been hurt; and that the fiscal agent has felt that the bid received for the bond issue was a competitive one.) Mr. Kishe1 - wasn't clear if there should be something in writing objecting to the assessments and on the procedure for contesting the assessment. (Discussion was that the City must have something in writing prior to the adoption of the assessment roll, and then the resident has 30 days in which to contact their own lawyer and file an appeal on the matter.) Terr~ Hausam, 3731 172nd Lane NW - has talked with the City Engineer about the grading on t e pond to allev1ate some of the runoff that will occur from the tarring of the streets. He hasn't seen any plans and would like to know what they are. (Mr. Schumacher stated they are doing a redesign on the area, and they will meet with Mr. Hausam when the redesign is completed.) Dave Ga~p, 13431 Blackfoot Street - was under the impression from previous meetings that the maX1mum frontage assessment would be 200 feet, but he is nOW being assessed for 290 feet, which is what his lot is; but he then felt that everyone should be assessed as well to pay their fair share, which would also have the affect of reducing the front foot cost. He referenced the lot on 173rd and 174th who has 200 feet of frontage on each street but is only being charged :for 200 feet because it is not dividable. His lot is not dividable either, but he is getting charged the entire 290 feet. He didn't see the difference and didn't feel it was ri9ht for him to pay more to cover part of some- one elses lot. Up on 174th, a person was charged for only 100 feet, but owns 200 feet, the one parcel having been labeled "unbuildab1e", but there is a garage on that other 100 feet. Another neighbor also owns 200 feet, two 100-foot lots, but is only getting charged for 100 feet, but part of an addition to the house sits on the lot not being assessed. He didn't feel there was any justice in that. He felt that a unit-type assessment would be the most equitable way of doing it. What's the justice of him having to help pay for an unbuildab1e lot today which may be buildable several years from now? He is willing to pay his 290 feet if everyone would pay for their actual frontage as well. He felt those 100-foot lots in question should be declared buildable and assessed. He can't build on his lot any more, and he's paying more than some people who have twice the size he has because it is "unbui1dab1e", which he felt is totally unfair. (Discussion noted that the Council is aware of the problems Mr. Gapp has enumerated and will address them in greater detail later in the meeting.) Jim Green, 3953 174th Avenue NW - questioned if the assessable frontage used for the f1gure presented in the feas1bi1ity report was based on a maximum 200-foot front footage, as that what his interpretation of the letter they had received. (Mr. Schumacher stated that the 200-foot maximum noted in the letter to the residents was not part of the asterisked notation. The asterisk was to refer to the deletion of the seventeen lOO-foot lots. The actual rates compared were based on frontages, including those over 200 feet.) Ra Erickson, 3691 173rd Lane, Lot 5, Block 1 - has a corner lot with 180 feet on one Sl e an o on t e ot er. he ormu a use to determine his assessable footage doesn't make sense to him. (Mr. Winner reviewed the procedure for calculating assessable footage on corner lots, with the side yard credit being given for the average lot depth, in this case 180 f~~t:) Regular City Council Meeting October 7, 1980 - Minutes Page 4 (Assessment Hearing/Northwest Area) Mr. Kishe1 - has found one large discrepancy in the assessment. There is one irregu1ar- shaped combination of two lots that probably has more frontage of blacktop street than any parcel in this whole project, yet they are being assessed only over 150 feet, which he felt was totally absurd and felt that lot ought to be addressed by the Council. Three people have been requesting this project for several years because of their serious drainage problem, and he asked what the cost of that drainage improvement is in addition to the surfacing. (Mr. Schumacher stated that the storm sewer costs for the entire project amounted to approximately $40,000, which is spread out and being assessed to all property owners in the project.) Mr. Kishe1 - was also concerned that the people living on Aztec that had blacktop put 1n by the City of Andover are getting a free ride. (Discussion determined that the blacktop was installed on Aztec prior to Andover's incorporation in November, 1974.) Council discussion was over the various issues raised this evening. Attorney Hawkins stated he had been under the impression that nothing could be put on those "unbuildab1e" lots in question. From the discussions this evening he has learned that there are garages, extension of a house, drainfie1ds, etc., on some of them. If the City is allowing some building on them, then there must be some ¥RJ~~ to that parcel. He agreed that if there are structures On those lots in question, no difference between somebody owning two lots under separate legal descriptions with a structure On both of them and somebody owning a 200-foot lot. It was his opinion that there is no question that there is some increase in value to those lots being used by adjacent property owners. There would still be a question about those that are not owned by adjacent property owners, but even then there could potentially be some increase in value because the people adjacent could purchase it for some use. The question is how much of a benefit the improvement is for those lots. The test is that the value of the lot to the owner is increased by at least as much as the assessment. Council discussion was then on the question of establishing a 200-foot maximum assessment, questioning if it wouldn't be setting a precedent in the City, and discussing the equity of a unit-assessment in this project. Dave Hahn, 17400 Blackfoot Street - asked what happened to the piece of land which is supposed to be City park next to Mr. Green. Is that being assessed for parkland? (The City is being assessed for that parkland property.) Judy Gapp, 17421 Blackfoot - asked the average depth of the 100-foot lots in question. (180 feet) Thelr lot 1S 290 wide and 160 deep. Their neighbor, whose lot is exactly the same dimensions only set on the road the opposite direction, is getting an assessment much less than theirs. (Mr. Winner explained that it is a normal rectangular lot and, according to the policy, is calculated correctly. The provision for shallow lots would not apply in this case, as it is applicable to those lots of less than 130 feet deep. ) Council discussion was then on those properties abutting the portion of Aztec which was tarred previously. It was felt that that was done as a maintenance project by the Town Board; that those residents are receiving a benefit from this project since they won't have to exit via sand roads any longer and should be assessed for a portion of this project; that those parcels were included in the public hearing process thereby legally allowing them to be included for assessment purposes; but noting that because of the time limitations, the assessment roll as prepared can be adopted and any changes to include these parcels on Aztec and/or the 100-foot lots on 174th that have been referred as "unbuil dab 1e" can On 1y be assessed through a supp 1ementa 1 assessment hearing; and deliberating as to how much those properties are benefited. The cost of the maintenance project of asphalt could not be determined at this time. "0"· Regular City Council Meeting October 7, 1980 - Minutes Page 5 (Assessment Hearing/Northwest Area) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we include in any future reassessment on this area, the lots from 172nd Avenue NW, Aztec Street North, around the corner of 172nd Lane NW, roughly one lot eastward on 172nd where blacktop is currently existing, that those lots be assessed in the amount equal to the amount of the original blacktopping project, whatever that amount may have been, and figured into the front footage cost would be the normal front yard assessment, subtracting for side yards. DISCUSSION: Councilman Jacobson stated the intent is to use the figure of the original project at that time. The effect is to reduce the front foot cost of this project. Counc ilman Peach didn't feel that was right that those six lots be assessed at just a fraction of what everyone is assessed and receiving the same benefit. They shouldn't benefit from a maintenance project. He would prefer to assess at the same rate as everyone else and have the City absorb the maintenance cost of that strip of blacktop, which will be over 20 years old at the end of the bond issue for this project. VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Jacobson, Ortte1, Windschit1; NO-Peach Motion carried. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the costs for improving Cedar Crest Third, Cedar Crest Estates, Cedar Crest Second Addition, and Valley View Estates be determined separately and that the lots in those areas be assessed on a unit assessment. DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach stated the intent is to take each Addition separately, determine what it costs to build the road in that Addition and divide it by the number of assessable lots. With the large park"he would be willing to either go unit or to pay for the entire 600 feet. Discussion continued on how this would be determined, proportioning storm sewer costs, and the affect this would have on some assessments. Attorney Hawkins felt that this would be a drastic change in the assessment policy which would require starting the procedure over a9ain. Mayor Windschit1 noted that if it were delayed a year, the problem of the 15 percent capitalized interest occurs again. He also feared that some lots would end up with a huge storm sewer assessment under the unit method. He felt it would be a better approach to try to get as much assessable footage as possible put into this project to lower the front foot cost and to use the existing assessment policy. VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Peach; NO-Jacobson, Ortte1, Windschit1 Motion failed. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that any lots previously classified as "unbuidable" but which have had improvements put on them be included as assessable lots. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Windschit1, that all the lots on 174th Avenue be assessed for their front footage on an equal basis. DISCUSSION: Attorney Hawkins stated that if the City is going to allow construction of garages, accessory buildings, drainfie1ds, On those lots classified as "unbuildab1e", that rather than getting into the situation of deferring assessments, that the decision be made as to whether there is an increase in value to these lots as a result of this improvement since these types of uses can be made on those lots. If the City is then challenged and looses, the assessment can then be deferred. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that on the City park, which is located on Xen1a and 173rd Lane NW, the existing proposed assessment is for 400 feet, that we assess the entire frontage. Motion carried unanimously. It was noted that the previous motions will set the policy to be used for a supplemental assessment hearing. Council discussion was on 3621 173rd, the end lot fronting on both 174th and 173rd. Council generally agreed that a policy has been established previously of not assessing the back of a lot because it derives nO additional benefit from having a street in the back of the lot and that it is not a dividable lot. It is shown on the assessment roll as being assessed for 200 feet of frontage, which was felt to be correct. No action was taken by the Council. .., " Regular City Council Meeting October 7, 1980 - Minutes Page 6 (Assessment Hearing/Northwest Area) Richard Syke, 17317 Aztec - stated he has one house on the two parcels he owns. The house SltS on one lot and the garage sits on part of the other one. (Mr. Winner reviewed how the assessment formula was applied to the two lots. No action was taken by the Council. Discussion returned to Parcel 0600-2, Plat 66786. Mr. Winner stated that based on the revision to the assessment policy, the assessable frontage of 260 feet is correct. Mr. Hiltz - stated that brings it up to about $30 a foot, which he felt was unfair. When the assessable frontage increases 40 percent over the actual frontage, he felt some adjustment should be made. It's about $1,800 more. (Discussion noted that it appears to be the largest lot in that area. Council didn't feel any change could be made if it meets the City policy. No action was taken.) Discussion returned to Parcel 750, Plat 66786. Counci11genera11y felt that the assessment meets the City policy. No action was taken. Mr. Youngdahl - asked how his assessment would be affected nOW that ,those houses on exist1ng pavement on Aztec will be included in the project. (Discussion noted that overall the front foot cost should be reduced in the project. Because he is a corner lot, he would still be assessed for the short side. His assessment would stand as is relative to assessable feet.) Recess at 9:25; reconvene at 9:38 p.m. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that those motions referring to 1980-4 be included in the Resolution in spreading the roll in the Resolution which will follow. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION: The intent is that when the Engineer spreads the assessment roll for the 1980-4 project, the front foot cost will be reduced to reflect the increased assessable frontage moved by the Council to be included in the project. Those additional parcels will not be assessed with this roll but will be notified and assessed at such time that a supplemental assessment hearing will be held on the project. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, introducing a Resolution adopting the assessment for the Improvement of Bituminous Streets for those streets improved in the Improvement Project 1980-4, as presented by the City Clerk, for an interest rate of 10.70 percent. (See Resolution R119-80) Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Gapp - stated the improvement is costing him about $5,000. Will he be able to get $5,000 more for his property now if he sold it? He didn't think he would ever be able to recover that assessment. What legal action can he take to protest the assessment? Also, he is still not sure of the reason why the Council did not increase the assessment for the parcel facing both 173rd and 174th. (Discussion noted that the test is that the value of the property must increase as much as the amount of the assessment; that a certified appraisor would provide more accurate information than a real estate agent; that the City would need a letter from Mr. Gapp this evening and any further action should be taken through his own Attorney; that assessments attempt to equalize the costs for everyone, which is very difficult to do and the City is trying to be as fair as it can.) ASSESSMENT HEARING - STREET IMPROVEMENT/1979-2 Mr. Winner and the Council reviewed the various changes he made to the irregular-shaped lots using the assessment policy as revised by the Council on September 30. Mr. Winner noted that in the cases where the assessment became less with the new policy than what would normally be charged, the assessments were left as is. Regular City Council Meeting October 7, 1980 - Minutes Page 7 (Assessment Hearing/1979-2) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that the following changes to the Assessment Roll be made for the 1979-2 project as presented by the City Engineer: Page 1, Parcel 200, reduce from 168 feet to 154 feet, for a resulting assessment of $2,345.11; Parcel 250 reduce from 177 feet to 157 feet resulting in an assessment of $2,390.80; Page 3, Parcel 850 reduce from 145 feet to 142 feet, the resulting assessment of $2,162.38; Parcel gOO was reduced from 159 feet to 133 feet with the resulting assessment of $2,025.32; Parcel 950 was reduced from 151 feet to 125 feet with the resulting assessment of $1,903.50; Parcel 1000 was reduced from 150 feet to 143 feet with the resulting assessment of $2,177.60; Page 8, Parcel 4220 was reduced from 239 feet to 207 feet with a resulting assessment of $3,152.20; Page 9, Parcel 4230 was reduced from 207 feet to 190 feet with a resulting assessment of $2,893.32; Page 11, Parcel 4410 was reduced from 203 feet to 137 feet but the average lot depth is 165 feet which was then used to compute the assessment of $2,512.62; Parcel 4440 was reduced from 190 feet to 183 feet with the resulting assessment of $2,786.72; Page 12, Parcel 4480, nO change as 153 is the average width in the area; Page 17, Parcel 6060, no change; Parcel 6065, no change at 189 feet; Parcel 6070 was reduced from 210 feet to 194 feet with a resulting assessment of $2,954.23; Page 18, Parcel 6140 was reduced from 216 feet to 200 feet with the resulting assessment of $3,045.60; Parcel 6150 was reduced from 290 feet to 161 feet with the resulting assessment of $2,451.71. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, introducing a Resolution adopting the assessment for the Improvement of Bituminous Streets included in project 1979-2 for 10 years at an interest rate of 7.83 percent. (See Resolution R120-80) Motion carried unanimously. ASSESSMENT HEARING - STREET IMPROVEMENT/1980-1 Don Chouimard, 13524 G1adio1a - stated his assessment went from 80 feet to 100 feet. And there are about 8 to 10 lots that went from under 100 feet up to a 100-foot minimum. He asked the reason for the change. He felt that if the assessable footage increased, that the cost per foot should decrease as well. (Discussion noted that there were also some deletions from the assessable footage at the meeting last week, which resulted overall in a net decrease of 7 feet in the project. That is the reason the cost per foot has not changed.) Mr. Chouimard - asked the cost per square foot of the assessment and about the birming, and about the problem with laying sod in the project. He didn't think that was being placed only where there were erosion problems but if there were complaints as well. (Mr. Schumacher stated he did not have the tigures with him on the cost per square foot, as that would have to be calculated. The reversed birm was the design standard presented at the public hearing, and the road was constructed according to that standard. Mr. Schumacher also stated that all the sod was put in and staked by their people where it was felt there was going to be erosion problems. To his knowledge, they didn't install sod just because there were complaints.) Marge Keene, 2859 135th - was upset about the sodding done in the project. They had approx1mately two feet of their sod taken out which was replaced with a mixture of Kentucky bluegrass and rye. She felt she got mostly rye and is now growing weeds. She felt it is extremely unfair that some people got sod and others didn't. She realized there is an erosion factor down the street, but across the street where there are no houses nor erosion, sod was still put down. As soon as they heard seed was going to be put down, they called the City saying they did not want the seed; but it was put in anyway. They didn't get to have a say as to whether or not they wanted seed or sod, and she felt they should have had that option. She felt her sod should have been replaced. She also understood that the straw placed over the seed was to be removed within five days. She felt it really looks bad for a residential area and didn't feel it was done Regular City Council Meeting October 7, 1980 - Minutes Page 8 (Assessment Hearing/1980-1) right. (Discussion noted that it has been the City's policy to seed the easements on projects and that sod was only placed where there were erosion problems. The straw keeps the seed and soil from eroding until it comes up, plus protects it from the sun. Then~ was never any intention to remove the straw from the boulevards. There may have been a misunderstanding that the straw was to be removed from the street itself. It was also noted that sodding was not contemplated in the project as it is expensive to do; and experience has been that it is the resident's desire to keep the costs to a minimum. Seeding is an effort to do that.) Sandy Hegstrom, 2847 135th Avenue NW - agreed with Ms. Keene. She also felt that when anybody r1ps up your yard, that 1t should be replaced in the original state. They paid for that sod. It looked very sloppy when the project was finished. Her sod was right to the street, and it was dug up anyway a full foot in. She didn't understand that. Also, she felt they should have had a choice as to whether to have sod or grass seed in front of their homes. (Discussion was again that this is the City policy to keep the costs down, that the objections to this were brought to the Council's attention after the seed and straw were put down; and that the City is including sod in all other porjects with that street design.) Discussion with the Council and several members in the audience was on the increase from actual footage in some cases to the minimum of 100 feet. Council explained that the 100-foot minimum has been used in the past, and the City errored by originally stating that the assessment was for actual frontage on those lots of less than 100 feet in width. Council apologized for the error and for the confusion reso1tuing from it. It was also noted that the assessment for Parcel 4500 had not yet been increased to 100 feet on the assessment roll, which would then create an additional 43 feet of assessable frontage in the entire project. That would result in a minimal decrease in the front foot cost of the assessment. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, introducing a Resolution adopting the assessment for the improvement of bituminous streets improved in Project 1980-1 for an interest rate of 7.83 percent. (See Resolution R121-80) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Ortte1, as he is affected by the project. Motion carried. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that all those changes in the spread be adjusted 1n that Resolution. Motion carried unanimously. ASSESSMENT HEARING - STREET IMPROVEMENT/1980-2 MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, introducing a Resolution adopting the assess"lent for the improvement of bituminous streets for those streets improved in Project 1980-2 for an interest rate of 8.00 percent. (See Resolution R122-80) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we defer the Committee reports until 11 o'clock. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE/R. REINI Planning Commission Chairman d'Arcy Bose11 reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the variance request. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve a Variance request for Mr. Roger Re1ni at 5020 159th Avenue NW to allow him to construct a garage closer to the front lot line than in ordinances; City finds that a hardship is created because of the topography of the lot; to grant such a variance would allow reasonable use of the land; it will not adversely affect any adjacent land; and it is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City. (See Resolution R123-80) Motion carried unanimous 1y. Regular City Council Meeting October 7, 1980 - Minutes Page 9 SPECIAL USE PERMIT/SONSTEBY Chairman Bosell reviewed the September 17, 1980, memo of the Planning Commission recommendation that the Council approve the Special Use Permit. The request is a special use permit for the use of the property. Ms. Bose11 requested that the permit not be tied to the preliminary plat before the Council, as the Planning Commission is still working with Ms. Sonsteby on the issues of the parkland and the density. Mr. Hawkins stated he has no concerns about the road easement through the property as it pertains to the Special Use Permit; but he is recommending if the lots in the preliminary plat encumber the road easement, the City should vacate the easement prior to approval of the final plat or determine that the easement is needed. Rosella Sonsteby - didn't know whether the lots would be under single ownership or rental property. It is her intent to move the property as fast as possible once the assessments are put on. Mr. Hawkins stated that an agreement can be established as was done with the proposed Woodland Terrace plat, that in the event the units are sold separately, the individual holding the permit provide the City with a documentation establishing party wall agreements, etc. Discussion was on the concern of some that if/~O~tip1eswou1d become rental units proper care and maintenance may not be provided on the property. It was noted that there is nothing that would prohibit the renting of the units and that the City has visual standards that could be enforced if need be. Discussion was also on creating a buffer zone between the existing single family residences in Auditor's Sub. 82 and the proposed plat of multiples. It was suggested that the lots north of the existing City easement be used as a buffer, either as parkland or as single family residences. Bill LeFebvre - stated that the Park Board is looking at Block 2, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and poss1bly 5 for parkland dedication. They are looking at the density in the area and the need of a park in that area. They are also looking for land On the west side of the plat so the park could be expanded at such time as the land to the west is developed. Ms. Sonsteby felt that was too much land to be taken for park and also felt it would be worse to have a small park becaase of neighborhood gangs, etc. She is proposing some land on the lake. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the City Council approve the Special Use Perm1t request for Rosella Sonsteby to construct double homes on the property legally described as included in the P & Z motion with the following restriction: that any lots within 150 feet of the north line of the southeast quarter of the southwest one quarter of Section 29 not be included in this Special Use Permit; the reasons being the Special Use Permit will conform to provisions of the zoning ordinances; that it is not detrimental to the health, safety, welfare of the general public or the residents of the City of Andover; and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; that it meets the basic intent and application of the ordinances of the City of Andover; contingent upon successful completion of an agreement with the City Attorney. (See Resolution R124-80) DISCUSSION; The restriction will require approximately 3 proposed lots to remain single-family residential. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion with Ms. Sonsteby was on the city road easement going through the property. Mayor Windschit1 suggested that a through street be made for fire protection from County Road 9 to property that will eventually be developed immediately to the west of this property, such road being either alon9 the existing road easement or the proposed 142nd Lane. The Planning Commission will take up the issue when reviewing the Preliminary Plat. Regular City Council Meeting October 7, 1980 - Minutes Page 10 VACATION OF STREET/139TH AVENUE Chairman Bose11 reviewed the September 17, 1980, memo of the Planning Commission's recommendation to close 139th where it meets Round Lake Boulevard and to construct the remainder of 139th as a half street. Joe Caskinette, 13852 Round Lake Boulevard - at the time of the Planning and Zoning Comm1ssion meet1ng there was some 1nformation they were not aware of. He illustrated on the board what was agreed to at the P & Z meeting per their motion. However, since that time, they have learned that the project plans do not call for running sanitary sewer down 139th as they had thought. Given that information, he stated the residents are now in favor of vacation of 139th. In his case, the area vacated would become grass. For Mr. Nugent, it would become his private driveway. Frank Voth has also told him they are for vacation because Good Value Homes' development proposal is to back lots to that easement. Chairman Bose11 then stated that the Planning Commission's alternative was to vacate 139th. Discussion noted that to vacate 139th, the Engineer would need to determine how much area is needed for the turnaround on Underc1iftand to determine the amount of easement that would not be vacated between Round Lake Boulevard and the frontage road. Mr. Hawkins stated in his brief research he felt that if the City vacated the easement, the property would revert to the property on the south. However, he urged those involved to contact their own attorney to verify that. Mr. Nugent - is in favor of the vacation as long as the easement would not be used for san1tary sewer lines and as long as that portion with his driveway on it would revert to his ownership. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that we direct Larry Winner to determine that area on 139th Avenue which has to be retained for proper maintenance of Underc1ift and the frontage road, and that the Clerk, using this information, prepare a Resolution vacating the remainder of 139th Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT/MEADOWCREEK CHRISTIAN SCHOOL Jim Griswold, Chairman of Meadowcreek Christian School Committee, stated he and other representat1ves are here regarding a letter dated October 6 from the Fire Marshall which has an indication that they are avoiding putting in a fire alarm system. He stated it is their intent to put in a fire alarm system; they approached the City in June with that in mind; they have been dealing with ADT to put in the system who was in the process of installing it when the Fire Marshall told them to stop; that it has taken until now for them to obtain the mechanical drawings and prints which were requested by the Fire Marshall because the building was built in four different additions over the past 11 years; and they are concerned about the element of threat in the recent letter when they have been making an effort to meet State requirements. He was concerned that they have been asked to do something beyond State requirements that even the public system is not using in their schools. Richard Lindeen, Fire Marshall - reviewed the events with the school relative to their inspecting the school 1n June at which time a design system was agreed to; that he wrote after some time asking their intent and required the system to be installed and operating within 90 days; receiving a letter back from Mr. Delich noting they have since decided to go with ADT; stating that after reviewing the ADT system, he felt it did not meet code and then told them to stop the installation of the system; that Mr. Kinghorn then agreed to get him a complete set of plans on the building as soon as possible; and that the State Fire Marshall is in agreement with the type of system being required and the 90-day requirement as well. The system he is requiring is being installed in two different churches and one other building within the City. Mr. Lindeen explained that the school falls under the Life Safety Code, which sets out very specific requirements Regular City Council Meeting October 7, 1980 - Minutes Page 11 (Volunteer Fire Department/Meadowcreek Christian School, Continued) for fire alarm systems and which also gives local jurisdiction, in this case the Fire Department, to require more than those requirements if it is in the safety of life and property. The only thing they are requiring above the code is that the school put in a central alarm panel and wire it directly into Central Communications. Crooked Lake School does have an alarm system but is not yet tied into Central. Mr. Lindeen started working on Meadowcreek first because they had no alarm system at all. He will be working with Crooked Lake on tying into Central Communications. He felt he was enforcing criteria bein9 required of Meadowcreek School uniformly throughout the City; however, with the Fire Department being only two years old and this being part- time work, the task is not yet completed. (Meadowcreek representative) - has talked with School District 11, and the District has refused the C1ty of Coon Rapids for tying the school buildings into Central Communications. No schools in the District tie into Central. There is no one in the schools after hours; there is no life endangered after hours. Mr. Lindeen stated that the church has a lot of life occupancy at all hours with various activities; and there is a section in the Code that when a bu1ding is occupied and a fire could start in another portion of the building without being detected, an automatic fire detection system can be required. Jim Koomey, Andover- stated the Church was getting a bid for a fire alarm system in June, but they had never agreed to that system. John Delich, Principal, 13538 Jonquil - the school had been planning for an alarm system for qU1te some time. And he expla1ned the events that have happened since June and some of their concerns relative to putting in an automatic fire detection system; that the system by ADTwasalmost completely installed when the Fire Marshall asked that construction be stopped; the problems they have had obtaining the detailed plans and drawings required by Mr. Lindeen; that they are also concerned with the safety of people in that building; and questioned some of the things that go beyond the State Code. Mr. Kinghorn - explained the reasons why they have not been able to provide the prints prior to this time. He stated that Mr. Lindeen will have the prints by tomorrow along with a report on the movement of air within the building. Mr. Delich - stated that at such time that Crooked Lake School ties into Central Commun1cations, that would be a time they could consider installing one too. Discussion continued with those present, noting that a determination must be made whether the City Councilor the Fire Marshall has jurisdiction over enforcement of the State Fire Code; that there seems to have been a lack of communication between the Fire Department and the Church representatives relative to the whole issue; that the system installed at Meadowcreek Christian School has to be an approved system by the Fire Marshall; that the procedure is to have a company design a fire alarm system for the Church with the design plan labeling all rooms, two sets of these plans submitted to the Fire Marshall for approval or corrections; and that the Church has, in good faith, installed fire extinguishers, etc., according to what was suggested by the Fire Marshall in June. Both parties agreed to get the process going to get a fire detection system installed as soon as possible. If there is a dispute about what the State Code requires, a State Fire Marshall can be asked to come out. Gordon Gwinn, Heather Street, Andover - asked if it is a policy to take a salesman through a bU1lding with the Fire Marshall and Fire Chief to make an analysis of a building. He thought the decisions Should be that of the qualified people in the City, not a salesman. Mr. Lindeen explained that the Fire Chief or Fire Marshall do not design fire protection systems but only approve them. They did not call the salesman from Johnsons to inspect Meadowcreek School in June. The Fire Department was asked to accompany the group on that inspection. Mr. Kinghorn stated that they are anxious to work to get the alarm system in. ,,_." Regular City Council Meeting October 7, 1980 - Minutes Page 12 INDUSTRIAL BONDS RESOLUTION/BOEHLAND MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, a Resolution authorizing construction of a project under Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act and the sale and issuance of a commercial development revenue note to finance the project for Meadowcreek Associates. (See Resolution R125-80) Motion carried unanimously. SEWER ACCOUNT CERTIFICATIONS MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, a Resolution certifying to the County Auditor for collection of unpaid sewer user charges as prepared by the City Clerk pursuant to Ordinance 32. (See Resolution R126-80) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, a Resolution certifying to the County Auditor collection unpaid sewer connection charges on Lot 9, Block 2, Northwoods Addition, in the amount of $240.87. (See Resolution R127-80) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, a Resolution certifying to the County Auditor for collection of unpaid sewer connection charges on Lot 14, Block 4, Red Oaks Fourth for $412.74. (See Resolution R128-80) Motion carried unanimously. APPOINT JUDGES/GENERAL ELECTION MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, a Resolution appointing judges for the General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 4, 1980, in the City of Andover, as presented by the City Clerk. (See Resolution R129-80) Motion carried unanimously. JUNKYARD LICENSE/1856 BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the Junkyard License for William Batson on 1856 Bunker Lake Boulevard until December 31, 1981. Motion carried unanimously. VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT REPORT Mr. Winner reported that the gas pump is about half done being rebuilt and should be repaired shortly. Council discussion with Chief Palmer and Public Works Person Ray Sowada was on the issue of Workmen's Compensation denying Mr. Sowada's claim for an injury which occurred during the Fire Department sponsored First Aid course last fall. Councilman Orttel explained that Workmen's Comp's guidelines are set out specifically by the State and assured the firefighters that any injury occurring during Fire Department functions will be covered. In Mr. Sowada's case, the company apparently feels the injury was a result of an illness and that it feels they have a legal right to deny the case. Mr. Hawkins advised to protect his interest that Mr. Sowada retain an attorney to pursue the matter further, noting that most attorneys work on a contingency basis in these cases so he wouldn't be expending more money. It was also agreed that someone from the State Office of Workmen's Compensation be asked to address the Fire Department relative to the coverages of Workmen's Compensation for Fire Department activities. Council agreed to pay lost wages for those firefighters who will be testifying in court on October 21. Chief Palmer stated he has determined it would cost approximately $125 to construct the wall in the fire station for turnout gear. The work will be volunteered by several of the firefighters. He has also found some used emergency lights and bar for the Fire Chief's vehicle from Coon Rapids for $150. Discussion was on where the funds would come from, agreeing the funds will be designated at the next meeting. Regular City Council Meeting October 7, 1980 - Minutes Page 13 (Volunteer Fire Department Report, Continued) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, the approval of $275 to the Fire Department for the construction of a wall in the Fire Department and purchase of necessary emergency equipment for the Fire Chief's car. Motion carried unanimously. Chief Palmer also reviewed their visitation at Crooked Lake School for Fire Protection Week. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTIUN by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, to authorize the expenditure of $150 for the City Clerk to attend a seminar On Data Processing at Mankato. DISCUSSION: Mayor Windschit1 questioned whether the same information couldn't be obtained by having several companies demonstrate their services to the City and questioned how much time away from the City the Clerk can afford. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Orttel, Peach; NO-Windschit1 Motion carried. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, the approval of Check 3373 and Checks 3431 through 3479, excluding Check Number 3434, for a total of $13,886.38. Motion carried unanimous 1y. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:47 a.m. Respectfully submitted, \'Y\~&Q~~~ ~ ~L_ Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary