Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC September 16, 1980 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1980 ¡f AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Public Hearing - Curb/Gutter Construction, 1980-3 Project 5. Discussion Items a. Andover West/Final Plat b. Doc "E" Sales/Special Use Permit c. W. Koeplin/Lot Split d. R. Peach/Variance e. Party Ordinance f. Ordinance No. lOG - Cross Streets g. Ordinance No. 81 - Visual Standards h. Bids/Updating Ordinances i. Final Resolution-Tax Exempt Financing/Boehland j. Cable TV Service Area k. Comprehensive Plan Review Suspension 1. m. 6. Non-Discussion Items a. Engagement of City Auditor * b. Award Contract/Northwest Areaf1980-4) * c. Trust Fund 7. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff 8. Approval of Minutes 9. Approval of Claims 10. Adjournment "., ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1980 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Month1y Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on September 16, 1980, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hal~ 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; TKDA Engineer, Mark Schun~cher; City Engineer, Larry Winner; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Bob Palmer, 2540 140th Avenue - complained of the people racing through the streets in the ne1ghborhood at all hours of the night every day of the week. He requested that the Sheriff's Department keep a closer eye on the area. He has talked to and has given the Deputy the names of those he suspects are doing it. Mayor Windschit1 suggested that the Sheriff be asked to put a second patrol in the area as well. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve the Agenda as published with the following Additions: 51, On-Site Septic Ordinance; 5m, Easement Acquisition; and Delete Item 5i and Item 6a; and Add Item 6b, Award Contract/1980-4, Northwest Area; and Add Item 6c, Trust Fund/Administrative Costs. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we suspend the rules. Motion carried unanimous 1y. PUBLIC HEARING - CURB/GUTTER CONSTRUCTION, 1980-3 PROJECT Mayor Windschitl explained that the hearing is being held because of the interest shown by some residents for concrete curb and gutter streets. In an informal questioning of the residents, it was found that in Chapmans Additions, 29 had no objection to curb; 7 had no objection if the curb is concrete; 15 were against curb; 1 was against the curb without water; and 1 had no opinion. In Quickstroms, 2 were in favor of the grass birm; 7 in favor of bituminous birm; 19 in favor of concrete curb and gutter; and 1 no response. In Auditor's Sub. 82, 32 were in favor of grass birm; 11 were in favor of bituminous birm; 32 in favor of concrete curb and gutter; and 2 no responses. The hearing is to determine the wishes of the majority of people. Mr. Schumacher reviewed the street standards for grass birm and for concrete curb and gutters, noting that based on the low bid received, it is determined that it would cost $18 per assessable front foot for the grass birm street design and $26.40 per assessable front foot for the concrete curb and gutter street design. John Zillhardt, 3753 145th Avenue - asked why the rates are so much higher than originally estlmated. (Mr. Schumacher explained that 15 percent for capitalized interest has to be added on, which was not shown at the previous public hearings. That is the cost the City must bear on the bond interest for the next year and a half until residents begin paying for the assessment on the tax rolls. Another reason is that they have found with the grass-birm street standards, they must add a significant amount of sod to prevent erosion, which was not anticipated at the time of the previous public hearing.) Mr. Zil1hardt - expressed dismay that the actual figures are so much higher than originally est1mated. He asked if the costs were also higher on the sewer and storm sewers. (Mr. Schumacher explained that the sanitary sewer costs were very close if not slightly under the engineer's estimate. The streets were higher than estimated. The construction Regula r City Council Meeting September 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 2 (Public Hearing - Curb/Gutter Construction, SW Area, Continued) costs of the project is $2.16 million to which 5 percent contingency, 16 percent legal, engineering, and administrative costs. plus 15 percent capitalized interest must be added. ) -3737 143rd - asked if the water project has been scaled down from what was or1ginally proposed. (Mr. Schumacher explained that the City had discussions about expanding the project; however, it was decided to proceed with the water project as originally prepared in the feasibility report, that being water service for the Good Value Homes and proposed Rademacher shopping center area. None of the existing sub- divisions are being served with water. Mayor Windschit1 also explained that the proposed plat on the property south of Bunker Lake Boulevard was never filed and is not included in this project. When that plat is developed, it will be required to tie into the City central water system.) Don Cann, 13828 Round Lake Boulevard - asked if his area is being included in this hearing for concrete curb and gutters. No one in his neighborhood wants it. (Discussion determined that the 138th and Underc1ift area should not have been included in the public hearing and is not being considered for concrete curb and gutters.) Karen Jones. 2532 136th Avenue - asked if water is being proposed in Chapman's Additions. (D1Scussion was that 1t is not being proposed in any existing subdivisions. Council discussion was then on the interpretation of the results of the survey, noting that because of the wording, it is difficult to ascertain exactly how many want the concrete curb and gutters.) Bill LeFebvre, 14278 Underc1ift - stated that a lot of people in his area weren't contacted 1n the informal survey. He asked îf a more formal survey could be taken to get an accurate number of those in favor of the concrete curb and gutter. Mr. Zi11hardt - felt that to get a fair survey, options are needed. He understood that the question was either grass birm or concrete curb and gutter; but the results indicate that 32 people don't want anything, which is not an option. And it is not known which way the people voting for bituminous birm would vote since bituminous birm is not an option. -3737 143rd - attended both the preliminary meeting and public hearing and came away with the idea that they would be getting a bituminous birm in Auditors Sub. 82. He also felt a formal petition should be taken around to get an accurate feeling of the people. (Discussion noted that there may be some birming done to carry the water to the storm sewer outlets.) Dave Stanton, 3648 143rd Avenue - since the meeting was to start at 8 o'clock, he asked that what has happened the past half hour be summarized for those just arriving. John Quick, 13459 Round Lake Boulevard - has never received any notices relative to the 1mprovement projects. (The Clerk will check into this further. Mr. Schumacher then reviewed the street standards and costs for those residents just arriving.) Mr. Stanton - asked how the numbers were arrived at, noting that he and his neighbors were not aware of any petition in the area. He was under the impression that Andover would not order projects unless there is a petition from the residents. All they had was a construction worker informally ask their opinions. (Mayor Windschit1 stated that the original petition from Chapmans stated "curb" but did not state the type, and the Council has since been given some information by the engineering firm relative to the figures previously stated on concrete curb and gutters. Mr. Schumacher explained how the informal survey was done by their fie1dmen. The street project has already been ordered for the grass birm street section. If a majority want concrete curb and gutter, the prices have been guaranteed in the bid as an alternate. Mayor Windschit1 also explained that it has been the Council's policy to react to petitions with over 35 percent of the land area involved and have been looking for at least a majority of people who want the project. ) Regular City Council Meeting September 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 3 (Public Hearing - Curb/Gutter Construction, SW Area, Continued) Tim Woo1cott, 3448 142nd Avenue - the gentlemen doing the basement elevations and ask1ng about the interest in concrete curb and gutter was quoting a price of an additional $2 a foot for it, which is what the people based their responses on. Mr. Cann - asked about the size of the storm sewer being put in under Round Lake Boulevard. He felt that if that is what is being used to drain his area, that it is not sufficient in size, especially in light of the large storm sewer assessment his area is receiving. (Mr. Schumacher explained that is the County system of a number of outlets that drop into a larger pipe. The only storm water drainage from the develop- ments going to Round Lake Boulevard is from those houses facing the road itself. Those in the 138th and Underc1ift area will have drainage toward Bunker Lake Boulevard. It was agreed that Mr. Schumacher will meet with Mr. Cann at some time to discuss the storm sewer system in greater detail.) Marnell Wilber, 3510 136th Lane NW - asked why the bid is so high for concrete curb and gutters. Is the cost of cOncrete inflated in anticipation of an increase in costs next spring? (Mr. Schumacher explained that all bituminous and curb work will be done next year and the bids would be the same price whether done this fall or next spring. He felt that the bid for the concrete curb and gutter is a good bid, estimating it to be $4.40 a running foot, which is as low as it has been in years. Discussion was relating the linear foot cost to an assessable front foot cost. Councilman Lachinski questioned the estimated front foot cost on the feasibility study since it is known that some birm will be needed in Chapmans and Auditor's Sub. 82 for storm drainage, and wondered if they are looking at realistic cost differences. Mr. Schumacher felt that because of the flat grades in all the subdivisions, there would be very little birming required. They will be f1airing the bituminous around the catch basins with a little bituminous birm around èH9iRª~~'ngDiSCussion noted that to the $4.40 a running foot, the contingency, legal, ~nd administrative and capitalized interest percentages must be added plus relating that cost to the assessable frontage comes to the $8.80 additional cost for concrete curb and gutter over the grass birm street design.) Ms. Wilber - has been told that the contractor has given a 3 percent discount since he was awarded all projects. Will the homeowners see any benefit from that discount? (Mr. Schumacher explained that that has already been taken into account in the figures presented.) Dick St. Claire, 3508 141st Lane - asked why the costs for Andover are so high. He noted the costs of a St. Franc1s project for sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and streets with concrete curb and gutter for $5,800 per average lot of 85 to 120 feet, plus they had to run the trunk line a quarter mile before the development. He also asked why Andover's permit fee is $60 when most of the neighboring communities charge $25. (Discussion was that assessments vary depending on the City's assessment policy, the type of financing, the connection charges, the bidding procedure, etc. It was also noted that Andover's permit fee is also $25.) Mr. LeFebvre - questioned the validity of the figures before the Council. He reviewed the wording on the petition originally submitted from Quickstroms and Auditor's Sub. 82 on the yes/no vote for streets. When the cost increases $8.40 per front foot, he felt it should be petitioned again. (Mayor Windschitl stated that the Council would accept the petitions if the residents would take them around.) Mr. Woolcott - asked if a petition is not circulated in an area, what action will be taken. (After discussion, Council generally agreed that the street standards would remain the grass-birm design unless a petition is brought in from a subdivision re- questing consideration of the concrete curb and gutter design. It was a9reed to continue the hearing to September 24 to allow time for petitions to be circulated and submitted to the City.) Regular City Council Meeting September 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 4 (Public Hearing - Curb/Gutter Construction, SW Area, Continued) Mr. Zil1hardt - asked that since there are only two residences on his street, would the Council consider not paving it. (Discussion was that the Council generally has tried to finish an entire area; that the street project has already been ordered; that it is not in the City's best interest to leave small portions of streets unpaved in an otherwise finished area because of the problem with road maintenance; noting that if it is done for one street, it may be setting a precedent for the many other street stubs as well. If that is to be considered, it would have to be a separate agenda item.) Mr. LeFabvre - stated there are only four houses on his end of Underclift, which could also be looked at in the same manner as Mr. Zi11hardt is suggesting. Wes Mand, 3457 141st Lane - assumed the figures noted in their letter are based on the whole project. He asked if each subdivision would be paying for only its costs, whether it be greater or less than the combined cost. (Mr. Schumacher stated it might change for a particular area somewhat, but he didn't think there was much difference between the subdivisions.) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, to continue this public hearing until 7:30 on September 24 to enable additional public input. DISCUSSIUN: Councilman Lachinski stated that the annual cost based on a 15-year assessment for the grass-birm design would be $215, and the annual cost based on a 20-year assessment for the concrete curb and gutter design would be $260. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion noted that on September 24, in the absence of any petitions, no action will be taken. The Council will react to any petitions received favoring concrete curb and gutter from any subdivision at that time. EUåene Gibson, 14319 Xenia - stated he would carry a petition around for concrete curb an gutter in Aud1tor's Sub. 82. Public Hearing continued to September 24, 1980. 8:32 p.m. AWARD CONTRACT/NORTHWEST AREA (1980-4) Mr. Schumacher reviewed the bids received for the 1980 Street and Drainage Improvement Project No.4, noting that the low bid is from Forest Lake Contracting for a total of $301,533.40, which relates to a total assessment rate of $19.71 per front foot. That does not include 15 percent capitalized interest if the project is not assessed for a year and a half. Mr. Schumacher also noted that the pond excavation amounted to significantly more than contemplated and reviewed the options available to reduce that cost. After discussion, Council generally felt that it was not reasonable to have the residents in the project pay for park improvements, and that the pond should be re- designed to reduce the amount of excavation. Skip Rither - preferred that the pond excavation be reduced so that the improvement of the park 1S not paid for by this project. He is in favor of the project. Discussion was on the question of when the project will be assessed. If it is not assessed this year for payment with 1981 taxes, another 15 percent capitalized interest would have to be added to the $19.71 per front foot figure. To assess the project for this year, the hearing must be set prior to October 10, the date an which the certified assessment roll must be submitted to the County Auditor. It was suggested that the assessment roll be certified based on the bid price; and if need be, a supplemental assessment roll be preapred when the project is completed. Gary White - questioned how the $19.71/FF was arrived at from the bid price submitted. Mr. Schumacher explained that the project cost, which is the construction cost plus 10 percent contingencies and 17 percent legal, engineering, and administrative, is divided by the assessable frontage. The $19.71 figure would be reduced with the ~eduction in excavation that will be done in the park pond. Regular City Council Meeting September 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 5 (Award Contract/NW Area, Continued) Mr. White - felt that $18/FF is reasonable, but felt anything over that is borderline to not being reasonable to what the residents were told at the public hearing. Several of the residents present suggested that if it is possible to certify the assess- ment for this year to save the 15 percent capitalized interest, the City should do so. Dave Hahn - asked how the assessment will be handled for those lots designated unbuildab1e but are owned by an adjoining property owner. Mayor Windschit1 stated that each case will be a legal question; and if Mr. Hahn can provide the lot and block number of these cases, the City Attorney can render a legal opinion on it. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the Council note receipt of the bids from Forest Lake Contracting in the amount of $293,673.40 with an Alternate $7,860 for a total of $301,533.40; and N.D.H., Inc., with a base bid in the amount of $318.616.71 and Alternate of $8,890 for a total cost of $327.506.71; and the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into a contract with Forest Lake Contracting in the amount of $301,533.40 less the amount of credit for construction of the park pond improvement according to the original plans. The ~¡ty C1erk;Mªreby directed to retain the deposits made with the bids until the contract has been executed but no longer than 60 days. (See Resolution Rlll-80) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, that we set October 7 at 8 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall for the assessment hearing for Northwest Area Improvement Project, 1980-4. (See Resolution R112-80) Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Winner recommended that the bituminous surfacing stop at the south line of Mr. Alberg's lot on Blackfoot. Mr. Schumacher concurred that stopping at this point should not contribute to any erosion or drainage problem in the area. Recess at 8:58; reconvene at 9:10 p.m. DOC "E" SALES/SPECIAL USE PERMIT Norm Aaberg, representing Doc "E" Sales and Service, stated the purpose of the tower is for a radio communications system. It is a radio repeater to better the community radio systems for private parties and individuals that have business places that need radio communications. According to FAA regulations, this tower would not have to be lighted. The tower was engineered by Rohn Company, is structua11y sound, engineered for wind load, etc., and is basically the same type of structure as existing towers around. It is triangular shaped, guy-wired with 3/16 inch steel cable with tension turnbuckles. The tower cannot fall onto anyone else's property. If it were to collapse, it would fall virtually within the guy-wired area. Mr. Aaberg then made a sketch on the blackboard of the approximate location of the tower. Councilman Jacobson questioned whether that would be in the line of site of the UPA microwave tower which is pointed toward Elk River. Mr. Aaberg stated that the location could be moved somewhat to be sure that it would not be in the line of site of the microwave tower. Planning Commission Chairman d'Arcy Bose11 stated that UPA is aware of the proposal and has not raised an objection to it. Mr. Aaberg also stated that the tower is 460 Megahertz, FM, 90 watts. He stated that he picked this particular site for the tower because he is good friends with Mr. Jellison and has entered into an agreement with Mr. Jellison to use property for the location of the tower. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Drttel, introducing a Resolution approving a Special Use Perm1t at Anoka Auto Wrecking to allow the construction of a radio transmission tower by Doc "E" Sales, Inc., and the property described as Plat 65934, Parcel 1800, as presented by the City Clerk, at a power rating of 90 watts. (See Resolution Rl13-80) Regular City Council Meeting September 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 6 (Doc "E" Sales/ Special Use Permit, Continued) DISCUSSION: Mr. Aaberg stated that the guy-wire circumference is 114 feet. Counc i1 noted that the tower will have to comply with any setback requirements of the ordinances. Glen Rogers - asked if the 17-foot antenna on top of the 183-foot tower would have to be lighted. Mr. Aaberg stated it would not be required according to FAA rules. Mr. Rogers then asked if any identification can be put On top, as there are many hot air ba lloons in the area. Mr. Aaberg thought that balloons could not fly lower than 500 feet. He didn't know what he could do, as the tower could be painted, but the guy wires cou ld not be. Motion carried unanimously. ANDOVER WEST/FINAL PLAT It was noted that 10 percent of the parkland proposed in the preliminary plat is being dedicated at this time, that portion being adjacent to the LakeRidge park. Attorney Hawkins stated he has reviewed the Development Contract and everything appears to be in order. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, introducing a Resolution accepting the Final Plat of Andover WestRhas~ I as being developed by Darrell Berger for Programmed Land, Inc., as presented by the City Clerk with the following changes: fourth WHEREAS, the words "the entire" are deleted and the words "that portion of" are added; the BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED, the last line "and said street maintenance" is deleted, the dollar amount is $59,900, and add "pursuant to development cOntract prepared by the City Attorney." (See Resolution Rl14-80) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we accept temporary easements on Guarani Street in Andover West, Phase I. Motion carried unanimously. W. KOEPLIN/LOT SPLIT Chairman Bose11 reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the lot split. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, entering a Resolution approving the Lot Split pursuant to Ordinance No. 40, Plat 65923, Parcel 1810, requested by Wayne Koep1in as presented by the City Clerk; on the last BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council, City of Andover, to hereby require the payment of $100 for park dedication fees on the newly created lot only. (See Resolution Rl15-80) Motion carried unanimously. R. PEACH/VARIANCE Chairman Bose11 reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the variance request. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, entering a Resolution approving a variance to construct a storage building closer to the front property line than the principal structure on Plat 65913, Parcel 9500 as submitted by Robert Peach as presented by the City Clerk with the following revision: in the fifth WHEREAS, the words "not appear" be changed to "wi 11 appear." (See Resolution Rl16-80) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Windschit1; ABSTAIN-Peach, as he is directly affected by the variance. Motion carried. PARTY ORDINANCE Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt the Party Ordinance. Attorney Hawkins felt that the provision relating to intoxicating beverages and non-intoxicating malt liquors is appropriate as it relates to those being consumed by the participants. He also saw no problem with requiring sanitary facilities to be provided for such parties. Mr. Hawkins explained that there is a question as to the Regular City Council Meeting September 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 7 (Party Ordinance, Continued) constitutionality of such an ordinance, as there is some question at what point is a license required. He also cautioned that this is not going to be a panacea to lessen the field parties. There are existing ordinances under which charges can be brought for disorderly conduct, unlawful assembly, maintaining a public nuisance, etc. Council discussion noted that the reason the number of 50 or more people was chosen is that the most the County Sheriff has available would be eight squad cars and 5U is the number of people they could handle; that the ordinance would allow the Sheriff's Department to go in where they have not been willing to do so in the past; that with this ordinance, the Deputies can stop any party that doesn't have a license prior to any trouble occurring. Attorney Hawkins also stated that if somebody starts a party without a license, there is the alternative of prosecuting for violation of this ordinance. If the conduct of the people at the party is disorderly and in breach of the public peace, then they can be prosecuted under the State Statute. Joe Caskinette, 13852 Round Lake Boulevard - the Ueputy has told him that the only time they w1ll go to someone's property because of a party is if there are complaints. Then this ordinance will give them something to work with. They will not be cruising looking for parties to bust up. If there are nO complaints, they will not even worry about the party. They want this ordinance so that if there are complaints and no license was applied for, they then have something to work with. MOl ION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, the adoption of Ordinance No. 50, an ordinance regulating outdoor parties, prescribing pena1ities for the violation thereof and establishing licensing procedures, and authorizing the publication thereof. Add under Item V, 6), c) Adequate sanitary facilities be provided. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, to change Application for License under A, 4) add at the end "if other than the applicant"; and under V, A, 5), a), add at the end "as indicated on the application forms, not to exceed 24 hours." DISCUSSION: Councilman Ortte1 stated that at the same time, this ordinance legalizes such parties and felt that some standards should be established for the larger parties. At some point, the sponsor of a party should be providing security, etc., and at this time, the City has no cOntrols. He will research the information on Concert-type ordinances. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Carried unanimously. VOTE ON MOTION: Carried unanimously. Fire Chief Bob Palmer asked what the procedure is if residents want to block off a street to have a neighborhood party. Council generally felt that that should be done at the approval of the Sheriff's Department and of the Fire Chief. ORDINANCE NO. lOG - CROSS STREETS Chairman Bose11 stated that the Planning Commission leaned away from dedicating the cross street easements because of the problems that would be created by the easements being used for motor bikes, snowmobiles, etc. The intent is to require the purchaser of a 2~-acre piece of property to be aware of the future subdivisions so that he would not place his structures to interfere with those plans. MOTION by Ortte1, Séconded by Peach, to adopt Ordinance No. lOG, an ordinance amending Ordlnance No. 10, effective February 15, 1972, an ordinance known as the subdivision and platting ordinance of the City of Andover, Section 8.03, Design Features: Whenever a portion of a tract of land is proposed for subdividing and said tract is large enough or is intended for future subdivision, a plan for the future subdivision of the entire tract shall be submitted to the Planning Commission. Such future subdivision shall Regular City Council Meeting September 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 8 (Ordinance No. lOG - Cross Streets, Continued) (Motion by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, Continued) include: proposed lots, road easements for cross streets, utility easements, and such other data as required for future subdivisions. When an individual applies for a building permit on such a lot, he shall submit a scaled site plan showing the location of the proposed structure on the lot so that it will be located in conformance with the proposed resubdivision of said lot. The home shall be placed so that it will not be in conflict with the proposed street pattern of said resubdivision. Adopted by the City Council this 16th Day of September, 1980. DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach stated that his intent when voting for this is that it r~§~ires the resident not to build on future right of ways, but it doesn't require him/ build on any future plans of his subdivided lot. He can build on one of the future lot lines if he chooses to do so. Councilman Jacobson objected to the wording "applies for a building permit" as that would apply to any building permit, such as deck, patio, etc. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Jacobson, "when an individual applies for building permit for a home on a lot in subdivision." Second dies for lack of a second. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, so that on the second. to last line, the first three words "of said lot" be deleted and the words "street patterns" added so that it would state "located in conformance with the proposed resubdivision street patterns" . VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Carried unanimously. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, the last line so that the word "home" be deleted and the word "structure" be added. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Carried unanimously. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 81 - VISUAL STANDARDS Discussion was on the interpretation of the ordinance as proposed by the Planning Commission and on the reasons for having such an ordinance. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing an Ordinance amending Ordinance No.8 adopted October 21, 1970, known as the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Andover. Ordinance No..8 is hereby amended as follows: On any building,. the following unfinished material shall not be permitted on exterior wall surfaces: structural clay, tile, common concrete blocks, concrete brick. All structures employing metal walls including aluminium, steel, corrigated or plain, shall require a factory applied baked enamel sur- face or equivalent permanent coating. Such materials, however, may be used in a proper arrangement or combination with other materials of a permanent nature with good architectur design and appeal. DISCUSSION: Mayor Windschit1 felt the intent is to prevent someone in a residential neighborhood from building a plain pole barn. In the past, if a pole barn was built, brick or wood facing was required on it to make it look like the rest of the neighborhood. He didn't feel that just a baked enamel surface was sufficient for a residential area. Discussion was on the interpretation of the ordinance, that it does not apply to where such a building can be built, also suggesting the transposing of the last two sentences for greater clarification of the ordinance. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we table this until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council to allow the review and have the City Attorney write it. Motion carried unanimously. Attorney Hawkins stated that if it is the Council's desire to eliminate plain metal buildings in the higher density areas, the ordinance should be changed to specifically exclude that use in the R-4, R-3, and possibly R-2 districts. This ordinance just estab1ist the standards for metal buildings regardless of what district it is. Regular City Council Meeting September 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 9 PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we authorize the purchase of materials to raise or lower the hockey rink at a cost not to exceed $412.50. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve up to $700 for the square tub1ng for the construction of soccer goals. DISCUSSION: Chairman Wes Mand stated that they will be making three sets of soccer goals with the tubing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize payment of the $700 for soccer goals from the surplus from the Community Schòo1 Program. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Mand asked for direction from the Council relative to park dedication for Sonsteby's plat west of Round Lake Boulevard. Ms. Sonsteby has proposed to dedicate part of one of her lots on Round Lake, and offered to sell the balance of that lot plus an adjacent lot to the Park Commission for parkland use. Plus there are two additional lots that might be considered, making it a total of four lots. After further discussion, Council generally felt that additional land On Round Lake would serve no useful purpose given the fact that there are plans for a regional park on the northwestern portion of the Lake. Council also felt that because of the high density housing proposed on the Sonsteby plat, that parkland would be desirable in the plat itself. Although it would be the Park Board's option to accept money in lieu of' land as well. Chairman Bose11 also suggested that any parkland dedicated be to the west of the plat adjacent to that property which will be developed in the future. VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Chief Bob Palmer asked that the gas pump be repaired prior to this winter. Mr. Winner stated he is in the process of having it repaired. He was also directed to check into putting some protectivß:piping around the pump. Chief Palmer stated they need more room to hang the firemen's turnout gear at the fire station. He estimated it would cost $100 to $150 to put up a concrete wall. He knows of someone who would donate the labor if the City provides the materials. He also asked that something be done around the entrance door to keep the ice from building up around it in the winter, possibly putting an enclosure around the door. Chief Palmer was directed to obtain more accurate figures for those projects and to determine where the monies would come from. Chief Palmer also informed the Council of the problems they have been having with Meadowcreek Baptist School relative to their compliance with the Fire Detection Oridnances. Chairman Bosel1 volunteered to talk with those in charge at the School. ROAD COMMITTEE Mr. Winner reviewed his September 12, 1980, memo to the Mayor and Council relative to the recommendations for roads to be improved this fall. He also recommended putting additional Class 5 gravel on Ward Lake Drive at this time rather than oiling it now. He felt it would be better to let the gravel sit on Ward Lake Drive until next spring and oil the road at that time. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we authorize maintenance to the streets as recommended by the City Engineer in his memo dated September 12, 1980, for an amount not to exceed $23,802. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, the approval of $1,000 to haul gravel off of the pr1vate property in Hartfiel's Estate to Prairie Road. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting September 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 10 (Road Committee, Continued) Council discussion with Mr. Winner and Mr. Glenn Rogers was on the recommendation to purchase a used 2,OOO-ga110n water tanker which the City of Coon Rapids is currently trading in (as noted in the September 12, 1980, memo from Mr. Winner). Mr. Rogers stated that they use the tanker in Coon Rapids daily, told how it is used, noting that the drawback is that it is a 1962 Dodge chasis and it is sometimes difficult to get parts for repair. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that the Council approve authorization to purchase a 2,OOO-gal10n water tanker as recommended by the City Engineer for an amount of $3,500. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was on the amount of MSAH funds that will be needed for the purchase of easement acquisition on the proposed Hanson Boulevard Extension. Mr. Winner was directed to provide an estimate of what will be the balance of the City's MSAH account. BIDS/UPDATING ORDINANCES Some Councilmen felt that the ordinance updating should not begin until the Comprehensive Development Plan has been approved; and at the present time that P1aB has been suspended. Others felt that a selection of a firm can be made at this time thou9h no contract would be awarded now. Council discussion was on the various quotes received for the updating of the ordinances, the Planning Commission's recommendation to consider Wehrman,Chapman's proposaj;the qualifications of the various companies; that it is the Planning Commission's intention that the Council interview representatives of two or three of the firms submitting proposals; and that Tom Loucks' bid is $3,500 plus printing costs, which would amount to approximately $350. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we throw out of consideration the Municipal Code Corporation and Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Peach; NO-Lachinski, Ortte1, Windschit1 Motion failed. Discussion continued on the qualifications of the various firms, deciding that since the City is familiar with the quality of work from Northwest Associates and from Wehrman, Chapman Associates, that Loucks and BRW be interviewed after more is known about the status of the Comprehensive Development Plan. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Council set up a date to interview a representative from the Loucks and Associates and BRW. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Bose11 will call the representatives telling them they are still in considera- tion but due to the fact that the City's Plan has been suspended by Metropolitan Council, no further action will be taken until that issue has been resolved. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we extend the meeting for no later than 11:45. Motion carried unanimously. CABLE TV SERVICE AREA MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the Urban Service Area be designated as the 1n1t1a1 service area for the Cable TV Service for the City of Andover and future service area will include the balance of the City. Motion carried unanimously. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW SUSPENSION MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we have a meeting with the Metropolitan Council representative and representatives of the City and our Planner and Planning and Zoning Commission On October 2, 7:30 at the City Hall. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting September 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 11 ON-SITE SEPTIC ORDINANCE DISCUSSION Mayor Windschit1 stated that one of the problems people are running into is that a large amount of excavation is needed where the systems are very deep. Those people are asking if there is some variance procedure so they wouldn't have to do it. After discussion, Council generally felt that excepting some systems from inspection would be setting a precedent; that after the first time a system is inspected, a vent pipe would be installed and it wouldn't create a problem in future years; and that it was intended that specific instances not be singled out or exceptions made for compliance of the ordinance. EASEMENT ACCEPTANCE - CARLSON Mr. Hawkins stated an acceptance of the north 80 feet of Larry Carlson's property on Bunker Lake Boulevard is needed for street and utility purposes in the Southwest Area project. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, to so move. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 29, 1980; August 19, 1980: Correct as written. August 26, 1980: Page 8, Second motion, VOTE ON MOTION: Motion carried. September 2, 1980: Correct as written. September 8, 1980: Page 2, No.3: change "No further action." to "Council agreed to construct the swa1e to hold the run-off on the easement." MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we accept the Minutes of January 29, August 26, September 2, September 8, and August 19 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we extend to no later than 12 o'clock, 12 o'clock being the time to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, the approval of Checks Numbers 3376 through 3427, excluding Check Number 3409 and Check Number 3411 which is void for a total of $10,978.27; and Improvement Claims for Checks Numbered 379 through 384 for a total of $62,650.78. VOTE ON MOTI ON : YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson, as it is 12 minutes past the hour and thinks it is illegal for the Council to vote as it was voted to not go past 12 o'clock. Motion carried. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. VOTE ON MOTI ON : YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 12:13 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ~Þ'--'-'~'>-ø- l~ [<.Lc MarceUa A. Peach Recording Secretary